Kellen Spillman (via telephone)

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes City of Fairbanks, Council Chambers, 800 Cushman Street Fairbanks, Alaska 1. Call to Order Alicia Giamichael, sitting in for Donna Gardino called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. 2. Introduction of Members and Attendees The following were present: * FMATS Policy Committee members ** FMATS Staff members ***FMATS Technical Committee members Name Representing *** Alicia Giamichael for Donna Gardino FMATS Coordinator *** Tim Zinza for Bob Pristash City of Fairbanks *** Jackson Fox City of Fairbanks *** Bill Butler City of North Pole *** Lee Borden ADEC, Air Quality Division *** Brian Lindamood (absent) AK Railroad Corporation *** Margaret Carpenter for Judy Chapman DOT&PF Planning Chief *** Jerry McBeath FNSB Planning Commission *** Christine Nelson FNSB Community Planning Director *** Glenn Miller (absent) FNSB Transportation *** Dave Sanches (absent) Fort Wainwright Planning *** Melanie Herbert (absent) Tanana Chiefs Conference *** Mary Pagel UAF *** Alan Hoza (absent) Alaska West Express ** Deborah Todd FMATS Administrative Assistant ** Linda Mahlen DOT&PF Planning John Lohrey FHWA Carl Heim DOT&PF Ethan Graetz DOT&PF Russ Johnson DOT&PF Jon Hutchison DOT&PF Bill Ha o Bettisworth North Kellen Spillman (via telephone) FNSB Planning Andrew Heist (via telephone) DOT&PF Planning HQ-Juneau Mike Fussell NewsCenter Public Comment Period (3 minute limit) No public comment. 4. Approval of the Agenda Motion: To approve the Technical Committee Agenda. (McBeath/Fox). Discussion: No further discussion.

2 Vote on Motion: None opposed. Approved Approval of the November 4, 2015 Meeting Minutes Discussion: Ms. Giamichael stated that the November 4, 2015 meeting minutes would be included with the meeting minutes in the January 6, 2016 meeting packet for approval since they had not been available for review prior to the meeting. 6. Subcommittee Reports a. Coordinator s Office Reorganization Subcommittee Ms. Giamichael explained that FMATS had been talking with the City of Fairbanks about health care options and the City had sent employee information to an Underwriter. Ms. Giamichael stated that union members had voted to move $5.22 from their wages into the employer health care contribution and pension, but there was some disagreement among the employees about leave accrual rates and values, so some of the employees were requesting another vote. Ms. Giamichael explained that they were awaiting the outcome of that vote. Mr. Borden inquired if the Coordinator s Office reorganization was put on hold until the results of the vote were received. Ms. Giamichael explained that the FMATS reorganization was dependent upon the outcome of the health care information received by the City from the Underwriter. b. FMATS Improvement Program Subcommittee Meeting Ms. Giamichael stated that an on Page 2 of the meeting packet was sent out to the members of the FMATS Improvement Subcommittee that showed all the projects that were discussed at that meeting. Ms. Carpenter stated that she was not at the meeting but some of the nominations looked like they could be included in the Sidewalk Improvement Program. Ms. Nelson inquired who the members of the subcommittee were. Mr. Fox gave Ms. Nelson the names of the subcommittee members. Ms. Pagel inquired about the notes she was supposed to provide and asked if she could have until the close of business on 12/3/15 to complete and submit them. Ms. Carpenter stated that the DOT would also be late turning submissions in. 7. Old Business a. STIP, TIP, and Conformity Status Update Ms. Giamichael explained that the STIP had been approved and the FMATS TIP was incorporated into it. Ms. Giamichael stated that a letter was received approving the Air Quality Conformity status. Ms. Giamichael stated that the next step was for her to go through the STIP and make sure their numbers match FMATS numbers. 8. New Business a. Sidewalk Improvement Program Nominations Ms. Giamichael stated that several of the projects discussed at the FMATS Improvement Subcommittee meeting were identified as eligible for consideration under the FMATS Sidewalk Improvement Program. Ms. Giamichael stated that in order to make things more efficient, FMATS was trying to combine similar types of projects and if there were any additional project nominations, they should fill out the nomination forms as completely as possible. Ms. Giamichael stated that she could

3 provide a list of the information they would need and assist anyone who needed her help locating that information. Ms. Giamichael stated that FMATS would like to receive the project nomination forms by December 31, Mr. Butler asked whether the projects had to be maintenance-type projects. Mr. Fox stated that the City had a couple projects they wanted to nominate. Ms. Giamichael stated that she would send nomination forms to him. b. FFY TIP Administrative Modification #1 (Action Item) Ms. Giamichael explained that Page 9 of the meeting packet contained a summary of the modifications that were made to the TIP, with project type, funding sources, and associated dollar amounts. Motion: To recommend to the Policy Committee to approve FFY TIP Administrative Modification 1. (Fox/Carpenter). Discussion: Mr. McBeath inquired if it was mainly a pushing back of non-shovel ready projects. Ms. Giamichael stated that Mr. McBeath was correct and it enabled the funding to be used for the Noble Street project. Mr. McBeath inquired about the status of the Noble Street project. Mr. Fox stated that he had heard the day before the meeting that DOT would be doing some of the utility work the summer of 2016 with the bulk of the construction done in Mr. Fox continued that the City Council had received an update on the Noble Street project from Russ Johnson of DOT a couple weeks ago that construction would not start until 2017, but then DOT had updated the City that they would do some of the utility work in summer Ms. Nelson inquired if the summer of 2016 utility work on the project was part of the two year timeline or in addition to it. Mr. Fox stated that he did not know but it was presented to the City Council that DOT would use to do construction but he had not heard if the project completion deadline would be met by Mr. McBeath inquired if there was still some uncertainty as to the nature of the utility work and what they were going to find. Mr. Fox stated that Mr. McBeath was correct and DOT was still trying to get commitments from Golden Heart Utilities to pay for all the utility work. Ms. Carpenter stated that Mr. Johnson would be attending the meeting to give them an update on the Third Street project and could provide answers to any questions they had. Mr. Johnson of DOT&PF Design Section provided an update on the Noble Street project. Mr. Johnson stated that DOT was scheduled to have the final design completed in late winter. Mr. Johnson stated that DOT was currently in the right-ofway acquisition process and the timeline for that process varied, but the goal was to have all the right-of-way acquired by April Mr. Johnson stated that if they could get all the right-of-way acquisition and utility easements; they would like to advertise the project and get some of the advance utility relocations done in the summer of 2016; Mr. Johnson stated that they would like to advertise the project 3

4 and do some advanced underground utility work completed from 5 th to Gaffney and there was a deep storm drain manhole by the Courthouse at First Avenue. Mr. Johnson stated that it would be good if they got in there late winter/early spring before the water table rose on the Chena River where they knew there was contaminated petroleum in the corridor (they did do some drilling). There also were no identified solvents in the deep excavations. Mr. Johnson stated that there was discussion of going from 5 th to Gaffney water, sewer, storm drain during summer 2016 and coming back in spring 2017 and having construction completed at the end of the summer of 2017, best case scenario. Mr. Johnson stated that they had a meeting with the City of Fairbanks to discuss possible project completion in Mr. Johnson stated that the plan was to complete the project in three phases. Ms. Nelson inquired about at what point access was discussed with the business owners along the corridor. Mr. Johnson stated that they would try to minimize the impacts to the businesses as much as possible. Ms. Nelson stated that she would like to see a more coordinated effort to notify businesses and property owners along the project corridor and minimize impacts during construction. Vote on Motion: None opposed. Approved. c. Yankovich-Miller Hill Road and Path Project Nominations Discussion Ms. Giamichael explained that Page 35 of the meeting packet contained the three nomination forms for the various Yankovich-Miller Hill Road projects were included in the meeting packet for review. Ms. Carpenter stated that Carl Heim, DOT Design, was in the audience to explain the first phase of the project. Mr. McBeath inquired if they were going to receive an update on the project. Mr. McBeath stated that the last time they had discussed the project when Mr. Heim was with them had been when the Planning Commission forwarded it to the Borough Assembly meeting and there had not been a meeting of the affected property owners and that was where it had been left. Ms. Giamichael stated that she thought that they had not had the meeting because they had the money to do the right-of-way, but not the original project and Mr. Heim of DOT was present to explain. Mr. Heim, of DOT&PF Design, stated that the original project had the money to construct just the side path and the right-of-way acquisition, but currently the project no longer had enough funding to build the path. Mr. Heim continued that they had enough left to do the right-of-way acquisition for the existing side path as they brought before the Assembly, but that was not enough to do both the right-of-way acquisition and construct the path. Mr. Heim stated that FMATS had asked them to create estimates to consider starting the project as a Federal project including Miller Hill. Mr. Heim explained that there had been $1.5 million in State funds and DOT had been designing the project but a Change Order on Cushman had exhausted the remainder of the State funding and they were no longer able to continue the design. 4

5 Mr. McBeath inquired if that meant that they initially had enough money to do both the upgrade and the path and then they lost a $1.5 million to do the upgrade. Mr. Heim stated that the original $1.5 million was just enough to build the path on the north side and do the right-of-way acquisition from the Musk Ox Farm to Ballaine and then that went away, so they did not have the open house meeting they were instructed to have by the Assembly with the existing property owners because they did not have enough money to proceed. Mr. Heim stated that they were asked to start looking at it as a whole project and did not yet know what the alternatives would be because it would have to be developed as a new project. Mr. McBeath inquired about what would happen with any new developments on the other side of the road that might influence this, such as Magoffin Estates. Mr. Heim stated that Magoffin Estates had always been in play, and they knew that there were property owners that they could have acquired property from, but they were always concerned this might happen depending on the length of time it took to acquire right-of-way. Mr. Heim stated that there were developments but setbacks and easements had been provided in the original subdivision plat. Mr. Heim stated that he did not know what the alternatives would be and what would result from the NEPA process if it actually became a project and there were several options that could result from it. Mr. McBeath stated that he recalled that there was some uncertainty about using Federal funding to upgrade Yankovich or when that would go with some type of temporary ad hoc kind of fix and then there was a long-term fix for Yankovich which was a problematic road. Mr. Heim stated that the road was not up to current design standards and had not been for years and they were putting the path far enough away so that in the future, when the road was brought up to current design standards, that path would not have to be relocated. Mr. McBeath inquired if the upgrade would not bring the road up to current design standards. Mr. Heim stated that Miller-Hill and Yankovich would both be brought up to current design standards. Mr. McBeath inquired if that included the right of way acquisition that would be necessary. Mr. Heim stated that Mr. McBeath was correct. Mr. McBeath inquired what side property owners would be affected on. Mr. Heim stated that if they just did the roadway, it would mainly affect property owners on the south side because they would have to remove the utility poles. Mr. Heim stated that if they did the roadway depending on where the path went, it could affect property owners on either the north or south sides depending on the alternative selected during the environmental document process. Mr. McBeath inquired if there had been any meetings with property owners in the affected areas along Yankovich alerting them to the fact the project was going to be redesigned. 5

6 Mr. Heim stated that he had quite a few telephone conversations, had done some outreach, and were actually in the process of notifying all the affected property owners in that area. Mr. Heim stated that they were sending out mailers and Facebook notifications to let everyone know that the current project no longer had funding and they were considering starting a new project through FMATS. Mr. McBeath inquired if the property owners would be involved in that new project. Mr. Heim stated that Mr. McBeath was correct. Mr. Heim stated that they would be going back to what they called alternative development and redesigning the project depending on what the community wanted out there. Mr. McBeath inquired if there was enough money to build the project as it was currently designed. Mr. Heim stated that the original project was funded with State money and State money was hard to come by these days, which was the reason why they were considering this. Mr. McBeath stated that it seemed to him that would be a community that would be relatively easy to mobilize. Mr. Heim stated that not all the community was in agreement out there and time was lost through right-of-way acquisition because some of the property owners did not feel that a path in that area was in the best interest of the community. Ms. Giamichael asked if Friday, December 11 worked as a deadline for the Technical Committee members. Ms. Nelson stated that every time they scored the projects they discussed scoring the Other Considerations category and asked for clarification as to how they were supposed to score that for the new members that were present in the group. Ms. Giamichael stated that she would find out and let them know. Ms. Giamichael stated that right-of-way acquisition might be one of the scoring factors. Mr. McBeath stated that recreational biking and public use was really broadening with the increase in connectivity and other things. Ms. Giamichael stated that she would send the forms out after the meeting and if they had any suggestions for changes they should send them to her. 9. Public Comment Period No public comment. 10. Other Issues No other issues. 11. Informational Items a. Third Street Widening Project Update Ms. Giamichael introduced Russ Johnson, DOT Highway Design Project Manager, to give them an update on the Third Street Widening Project. Mr. Johnson provided a presentation with handouts about the current status of the project. Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed project would reconstruct Third Street between the Old Steese Highway and Hamilton Avenue; and improve the Steese Highway between the Chena River and College Road. Mr. Johnson stated that DOT 6

7 owned and maintained the corridor. Mr. Johnson stated that the purpose of the project was to improve traffic flow and safety for motorized and non-motorized users of the Steese Highway and Third Street intersections, and along the corridor. Mr. Johnson provided an overview of the project and explained that the southern limit of the project was the Chena River Bridge, the northern limit was College Road; the western limit tied in at Old Steese Highway and Minnie Street and ran east along Third Avenue; and tied in at the Hamilton Avenue intersection. Mr. Johnson stated that in the summer of 2015, the City of Fairbanks recommended an improvement at the Eagle Avenue intersection. Mr. Johnson stated that during peak hours traveling westbound, the traffic backed up in that area and was perceived as a bad level of service. Mr. Johnson stated that various alternatives were looked at: improving the back roads and getting more traffic off Eagle Avenue by having a roundabout. Mr. Johnson stated that the current proposed Eagle Avenue roundabout was designed by Kittelson and putting in that roundabout put the road from Level of Service D to Level of Service A. Mr. Johnson stated that a Traffic Capacity Analysis had been done in 2004 and consultants Kittelson & Associates and Dowl had reviewed the traffic projections and they found out that the 2007 Traffic Capacity Analysis projections were never realized. Mr. Johnson stated that they had them go through and look at lane configurations and level of service at intersections with elimination of dual left turn lanes which during peak hours got backed up and trapped left turning vehicles both north and southbound in the queue. Mr. Johnson stated that they looked at extending the left turn lane pocket so cars trapped in the queue could get into the left turn lane. Mr. Johnson stated that they looked at the the dual eastbound lanes on Third Street and wondered if the traffic would get backed up by the roundabout going to the Steese Highway. Mr. Johnson stated when looking at the traffic projections, most of the traffic coming from the Hamilton area down Third Street were trying to get to the Steese so there were very few vehicles going around the roundabout and continuing on to Eagle so there was really no conflict with cars that were going east. Mr. Johnson stated that they were able to reduce the two eastbound Third Street lanes to one lane tying into the roundabout. Mr. Johnson stated that they had the new footprint and had not finalized their right-of-way acquisition, but the footprint of the project had shrunk from what was proposed in Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed improvements included: additional traffic through and turn lanes along Third Street; a proposed roundabout at Eagle Avenue, sidewalk widening and ADA improvements throughout the corridor; traffic signal upgrades at Steese, Old Steese, and Hamilton intersections; new water, sewer, storm drain, communication and power utilities replacement along the corridor; removal and relocation of power poles along the corridor to eliminate clutter that was currently in the corridor. Mr. Johnson stated that power would be either be backfed or placed underground. Mr. Johnson stated that an example of that was the fire hydrant in the sidewalk on the corner near JoAnne Fabric that should not be there and would be moved. Mr. Johnson stated that the drawings that he passed out showed the concept level of the design showing the lane configuration and striping to merge traffic into two lanes. Mr. McBeath inquired about the increase of traffic in that area and what 7

8 Mr. Johnson thought was the reason for that increase. Mr. Johnson stated that the box stores and traffic trying to get home or to Chena Hot Springs might be the reason for the increase and the majority of the increase was from the box stores in that area. Mr. Johnson stated that the Steese Highway was one of the main thoroughfares in that area of town which generated a lot of traffic. Mr. Johnson stated that the current lane configuration on Third Street heading west would be the same with the exception of removal of the dysfunctional merge lane in the northernmost lane near the mall causing conflicts. Mr. Johnson stated that the difference heading east through the intersection would be that there would be two through lanes all the way to the Steese instead of one, with raised medians-and a break at 40 Mile Avenue near the river. Mr. Johnson stated that at the Steese intersection, the one southernmost lane of the two through lanes would be a right turn only lane and the one on the north end would become a through lane with a left hand turn pocket. Mr. Johnson stated that when looking at the traffic movement in that area, over half the traffic wanted to go through the intersection and the other half wanted to turn right, so eliminating the through lane did not hurt the capacity of the eastbound movement and it also tied into the single lane going into the Eagle Street roundabout. Mr. Johnson stated that as you headed west there was currently one lane and there would be two lanes. Mr. Johnson stated that heading west on Third Street they were going to add an additional left turn lane pocket and a roundabout was proposed at Eagle Avenue. Ms. Pagel stated that it sounded like what spurred all of this was the perceived level of service at Eagle Avenue. Mr. Johnson stated that when proofing the design, the design was big, and he wanted to make sure that was the design they were going to carry forward combined with the concern about the Eagle Avenue intersection. Ms. Pagel inquired if there were concerns with the level of service at all of the intersections. Mr. Johnson stated that there was too much traffic on the Steese Highway intersection to get to the Level of Service A or B, but interchanges were being looked at in a long-term corridor thoroughfare plan to put interchanges at Airport Way, Third Street, College Road, and the Johansen that tied into the the other interchanges on Badger Road and Chena Hot Springs Road. Ms. Pagel stated that she wondered why if the travelers at the Eagle intersection could take the back roads east why that idea was dismissed. Mr. Johnson stated that the purpose and need of the project was to improve the capacity at the hub of the intersection along the Third Street and Steese Highway. Mr. Johnson stated that they looked at improving the back roads to improve the intersection but the purpose was not to improve Eagle Avenue, but the Steese/Third Street intersection to improve traffic flow and capacity. Mr. Johnson stated that the farther you got away from the Steese/Third Street intersection, the less attachment there was so they could pass the red face test by saying that they could improve the Third and Steese intersection. Mr. Fox inquired if an Environmental Assessment would have to be completed for the project if it was federally funded. 8

9 Mr. Johnson stated that the environmental document had been completed without the roundabout, so they would have to reevaluate the environmental document. Mr. Fox inquired if having multiple alternatives would require going back to the alternatives analysis process since there had not been much public input on all of those alternatives. Mr. Johnson stated that they might have to go back and revisit the environmental analysis which was a huge, cumbersome process and even though what they were doing made sense, they had to follow the process. Mr. Fox inquired if the all the right-of-way acquisition was completed for west of the Steese Highway and not east of the Steese Highway. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Fox was correct and the green lines on the drawing depicted all the DOT-owned right-of-way acquisitions and the Holiday Station was predicted to be a total right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Johnson stated that the remaining demolitions and acquisitions were based on previous right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Johnson stated that they were able to eliminate a left turn lane north and southbound on the Steese, which meant that they had not had acquisitions in the Steese/Eagle Avenue area yet. Mr. Johnson stated that the previous project design had taken the Helmbrecht Dental Office building lot, but since they redesigned the project, they would not have to acquire the dental office building and would only need a small amount of right-of-way acquisition on the front of that property. Mr. Johnson stated that the project would tie into the College Road intersection and develop turn pockets as they headed north to Chena River. Mr. Johnson explained the typical sections would be a raised median in the middle with varying width going down the corridor with 11 ft. through lanes, 12 ft. right turn lanes, 4 ft. shoulders with 2-ft. curb and gutter for snow storage, and 6-ft. sidewalks and no bike path. Mr. Johnson stated that they were currently working on defining the right-of-way acquisition requirements from the east side of the project from the Steese Highway to Eagle Avenue/Hamilton segment. Mr. Johnson stated that there would be utility easement keys behind the sidewalk to provide power. Mr. Johnson stated that the major milestones would be: reevaluation of the environmental document, update of the Design Study Report, beginning the right-of-way acquisition process consisting of: researching title reports to verify ownership, preparation of an appraisal, development of parcel plats, making an offer, negotiations, and eventually acquisition or condemnation. Mr. Johnson stated that the condemnation process was a lengthy process and DOT had to prove necessity and need. Mr. Johnson stated that summer of 2017 was slated to have final design and right of way acquisition completed with construction scheduled to begin in the Spring of Mr. Johnson stated that the environmental document and right-ofway process were the two sticking points that might cause a delay in the projected schedule. Mr. McBeath inquired what a left turn pocket was. Mr. Johnson stated that it was a left turn lane. Mr. Fox requested an update for the schedule of the Noble Street project.*(see Noble Street discussion for that information). Ms. Pagel inquired about the estimated total project cost. 9

10 Mr. Johnson stated that the estimated project cost was $12.5 million. b. Functional Classification Change Process Andrew Heist, DOT Planning, Juneau Headquarters, joined the meeting via telephone and provided information and instructions for navigating the State of Alaska DOT&PF GIS Functional Classification Website: Mr. McBeath inquired if there were parameters for changing the functional classification of a roadway. Mr. Heist stated that there was a functional classification change process and there were a variety of factors that went into that change but it was not an exact science, there are overlaps. Mr. Heist explained that major and minor collectors were a pretty nuanced distinction and not as easy to discern. Mr. Heist stated that a change request could start anywhere and be from a member of an MPO, Borough, or the area of the functional class. Mr. Heist stated that it should start with DOT Planning Department and the planner would look at that request to see if the criteria was not in line with that classification, then draft a request to the FHWA with maps requesting a formal review, and submit it. Mr. Heist stated that the request could come from anywhere to a Regional DOT Planner who would initiate the process and make sure it was a justified request, moving it up the chain until it got to FHWA for approval. Mr. Heist stated that roads changed character with population change, development, etc. Ms. Nelson inquired if there was an appeal process if someone s request were denied and how that worked. Mr. Heist stated that Mr. Lohrey might be better suited to answer that question. Mr. Lohrey, of FHWA who was present in the audience, stated that he was not sure that any request for a functional classification change had ever been denied. Mr. McBeath stated that he had heard from people on the Planning Commission about zoning and suspected that people just did not know about the functional classification and that was the reason people did not make appeals. Mr. Heist stated that you could not request a functional class change because it changed access to funding sources. Ms. Carpenter inquired if the public would look to the Borough or DOT to determine the functional classification. Ms. Nelson stated that when an official Transportation Planner was hired at the Borough one of the first things they would be doing would be looking at the road maps to determine functional classifications because they were different and it was difficult to manage two different transportation classification systems. Mr. Heist stated that as part of their functional classification process, it was recommended that a statewide review be done every ten years in conjunction with the US Census Reports and the last one was completed in and was a long process, so they would be initiating another statewide review within the next four to six years when the new census data was available. Mr. Spillman, spoke via telephone, and inquired if projected ADTs and future development along a road corridor played a role in the classification of a road. 10

11