HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2010
CITY OF AUBURN
CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
October 18, 2010
WASHINGTON MINUTES
L: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Rich Wagner called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m: in Conference Room #2, located
on the second floor of Auburn City Hall, One East Main Street, Auburn, V1lashington. Committee
members present were: Chairman_ Ricfi Wagner, Vice-Chair Bill Peloza, and Councilmember John
Pactridge. Member Haugen was excused from the meeting. Also present during the meeting were:
` Mayor Peter B. Lewis, Public Works Director Dennis. Dowdy, City Engineer/Assistant Director
Dennis,Selle, Assistant City Engineer Ingrid Gaub, Utilities Engineer Dan Repp; Sform Drainage
Engineer Tim Carlaw, Water Utility Engineer Cynthia Lamofhe, Project Engineer Leah Dunsdon;
Project Engineer Jacob Sweeting, Project Engineer Ryan Vondrak, Traffic Engineer Pablo':Para;
Street Systems Engineer Seth Wicksfrom, Planning Director Kevin Snyder, Planning Manager
Eliza6eth Chamberlain, Environmental Planner Jennifer Shih, Citizens Wayne Osborne and Nick
Perius, and Department Secretary Jennifer Rigsby:
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Vice-Chair Peloza, seconded by Councilmember Partridge, that the Committee
approve the Public Works Committee minutes for date, October 4, 2010.
Motion carried 3-0. B. PERMISSION TO AMEND CONSULTANT AGREEMENT NO. AGC-362 WITH BROWN AND
CALDWELL, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SEWER AND STORMWATER MODELING SUPPORT
Chairman Wagner asked what the original contract amount was. Storm Drainage Engineer
Carlaw answered the annual contract amount was $50,000.00. Chairman Wagner asked abouf
the budget impact. Carlaw explained that the budget was increased by Budget Amendment No.
6.
Sform Drainage Engineer Carlaw answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner regarding
management of the five proposed tasks. Carlaw stated that the Utilities Section will be
managing the contract and individual tasks and will coordinate with Project Engineers as
needed for specific project impacCs. Storm Drainage- Engineer Carlaw verified that there will be
sufficient oversight of the computer modeling and coordination between the consultant and staff
for each task, in response to questions asked by Chairman Wagner.
Chairman Wagner asked if any;tasks for the Downtown area were included in the contract.
Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw answered thafi the Downtown area is part of a separate
contract.
Vice-Chair Peloza asked for additional information regarding the cost breakdown for each task.
Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw distributed the cost estimate spreadsheet for the amendment
to Confract No. AG-C-362.. Vice-Chair Peloza requested that the spreadsheet 6e included in
the agenda packet for future contract amendments. The Committee and staff reviewed the
spreadsheet.
Page 1
Public Works Committee Minutes October 18, 2010
MINUTES -
Chairman Wagner asked if the hydraulic model calibration is reviewed by staff: Storm Drainage .
Engineer Carlaw stated that it is.
Vice-Chair Peloza asked if staff performs price comparisons befinreen consulting agencies in.
order to verify that the City is receiving a fair rate. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle -
answered the City works with a lof of consultant contracfs and staff is aware of all of the
' different multipliers which determine rates and that these rates are reasonable for the work
' 'being contracted.
Councilmember Partridge asked if the City is being required to perform the tasks included in the
amendment. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw answered that the tasks have not been imposed
' on the City. Chairman Wagner included that the City is doing more in the area of stormwater
management due to NPDES requirements and the tasks will be needed for compliance.
Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle responded to questions asked by Vice-Chair Peloza
regarding the selection process for tasks.
It was moved by Vice-Chair Peloza, seconded by Councilmember Partridge, that the Committee
recommend Council approve the amendment to Consultant Agreement Na AG-C-362.
Motion carried 3-0.
C. AUTHORIZATION TO CANCEL PREVIOUS AWARD OF GONTRACT NO. 10-11 FOR
PROJECT NO. C410A, 277T" WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING (ANNUAL)
Project Engineer Dunsdon reported that the City is currently'in year 7 for monitoring for the
mitigation site created for the S 277~h Street Project and has been working with the Watershed
_ Company to evaluate the perFormance of the wetlands and to prepare construction and permit
documents to address the deficiencies at the site.
Following the award of Contract No. 10-11, it was determined that there was a lot more water at
the site than had been anticipated.; Staff is doing more monitoring to try and determine why
there is so much water. Project ;Engineer Dunsdon discussed the possible causes for the
increase in water. Contributing factors may include two beaver dams located on Mill Creek
downstream of the site, the wetter than normal summer, and the work recently done on the
Peasley Canyon Culvert. Due to the current water levels and inability,to plant the majority of
the site, staff is recommending that the previous award of contract be canceled. Project
Engineer Dunsdon answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner regarding the affect the
widening of the Peasley Canyon Culvert may have had on the mitigation site.
The Committee and staff discussed the changes in hydrology at the Goedecke North site.
Project Engineer Dunsdon reviewed possible options for addressing the site's deficiencies.
Vice-Chair Peloza asked if there were any consequences for not meeting the goals of the 10
year monitoring period. Dunsdon stated that it is realistic to expect that the 10 year monitoring
period will be extended in order to meet the monitoring period goals.
Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle responded to questions asked by Chairman Wagner
regarding the calculation used to determine cost of monitoring wetland sites. Project Engineer
Dunsdon stated that the importanf part of maintaining a mitigation site would be to do it
consistently each year.
Page 2
Public Works Committee Minutes October 18, 2010
MINUTES
Project Engineer Dunsdon answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner regarding the
Mohawk mitigation site.
Project Engineer Dunsdon responded to questions asked by Councilmember Partridge
regarding the budget for the contract and the budget status sheet.
Chairman Wagner spoke about the responsibility of on-going costs for large projects, such as
construction of the 277th double overpass.
It was moved by Vice-Chair Peloza,, seconded by Councilmember Partridge, that the Committee
recommend Council authorize the cancellation of the previous award of Contract No. 10-11 for
Project No. C410a, 277"' Wetland Mitigation Monitoring (Annual).
Motion carried 3-0.
' III. ISSUES
A. RESOLUTION NO. 4648 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
AN EMERGENCY WATER SYSTEM INTERTIE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
AUBURN AND THE CITY OF TACOMA
, Utilities Engineer Repp disfributed a Water Rate Service Comparison to the Committee, as
requested by Chairman Wagner. `Repp pointed out an error on the spreadsheet, under Aubum,
there should be no difference between winter and summer rates. Repp explained that a rate
' comparison between agencies can be difficult because each agency has different rate
structures, for example, Lakehaven and the City of Tacoma base their rates on service meter
size and the City of Auburn does not do that but rather has a fixed base rate. The Committee
and staff reviewed the seasonal rate comparison.
Chairman Wagner asked how the City of Tacoma will determine how much to charge the City of
Auburn since they can not determine whether water is being used for single-family or
commercial. Repp answered tfiat the City of Auburn will be charged one rate, under the City of
Tacoma's commercial industrial large service customer rate for the wholesale provider in
addition to the City of Tacoma's base rate.
Utilities Engineer Repp discussed the terms of the agreement with the City of Tacoma and how
water rates are negotiated:
Chairman Wagner asked if the there are terms in the agreement which state how quickly the
City ofAubum would need to correct an emergency, for example, how quickly would the City
need to repair a well if it were to fail. Utilities Engineer Repp stated there were no such
conditions in the agreement. Repp explained that the agreement provides the City ofiAuburn
the ability to activate the intertie that is currently under construction.
The Committee and staff discussed the cost of obtaining water through the Cascade Water
Alliance compared to the cost of pumping water from the Cify's wells.
Utilities Engineer Repp answered questions asked by Councilmember Partridge regarding the
specific terms and conditions of the emergency interties using the City's agreement with the
City of Bonney Lake as an example of an agreement with more specific conditions.
Page 3
• Public_Works Committee Minutes October 18. 2010 .
MINUTES
Repp answered questions asked by Councilmember Partridge regarding the permitting and
construction fees associated with #he intertie.
It was moved by Vice-Ghair Peloza, seconded by Councilmember Partridge, that the Committee
recommend.Council introduce and adopt Resolution No: 4648.
Motion carried 3-0.
B. RESOLUTION NO: 4649 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
• AN EMERGENCYWATER SYSTEM INTERTIEAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
AUBURN AND THE LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT
Chairman Wagner asked if, the City of Aubum wiU be, taking equal amounts of water from
Lakehaven and the City of Tacoma. Utilities Engineer Repp stated that the Lakehaven intertie
woald only be used in the case of a frue emergency, such as a well failure. The Tacoma
ihtertie would be activated to providepermanent supply.
Chairman Wagner asked if the Lakehaven water is mixed with the City of Auburn water prior to
being delivered to customers. Water Utility Engineer Lamothe stated that the water is mixed.
Lamothe also pointed out the difference in capacity between the Lakehaven and Tacoma
interties.
Utilities Engineer Repp responded to questions asked by Councilmember Partridge regarding
the cost of the Lakehaven intertie.
It was moved by Vice-Chair Peloza; seconded by Councilmember Partridge, that the Committee
recommend Council introduce and adopt Resolution No. 4649.
Motion carried 3-0.
IV. DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION
A. FLEET PURCHASES - STATE VS LOCAL CONTRACTS
Director powdy reported to the Committee that for next year's budget; staff anticipates that
. there will be approximately 10 vehicles that will need to'be purchased. The City will probably be
purchasing these vehicles through local _vendors that can meet the requirements of the.City's
State confract. Director powdy stated that the goal is to purchase as many vehicles as possible
locally. All 10 vehicles needed are street licensed and there should be no difficultly locating
- local vendors.
Chairman Wagner asked if.the City asks local vendors to match the State contract amount.
Director powdy answered that the City can always refer fo the State contracf if fair quotes are
not received. Director powdy stated that the City Attorney evaluated the contractual requirements and the
City does have the ability to proceed with purchasing from local vendors.
This was an informational discussion.
B. M STREET GRADE SEFARATION PROJECT - VISUAL ENHANCEMENT OPTIONS
Page 4.
Pubiic Works Committee Minutes October 18, 2010
. MINUTES
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Project Engineer Sweeting provided a brief update on the
design of the project and presented `some of the visual freafinent options.
Project Engineer Sweeting pointed out the location of the project and explained that the project
will lower M Street:SE and the connected side streets in orderto grade separate the road from
the BNSF fracks.' Chairman Wagner asked why the project area extends so far to the west.
Sweeting answered that the existing sform and sewer lines are being rerouted to follow 6"'
% Street and cross under SR18 and the railroad tracks via L Street. Engineer Sweeting clarified
that the majority of property acquisition is immediately adjacent to M Street SE. Chairman
Wagner asked why the project area extended along so far east and west on the railroad tracks.
Sweeting stated that will be the area of the tracks that are raised. Sweeting explained that staff
worked with the Buclington Northem and Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) to design the tracks, raising
them four feet, reducing the impact on homes in the area by not having to lower the road as
much.
Sweeting presented conceptual drawings of what the grade separation will look like when
complefe from both the northem and southem directions: M Street will be lowered with tiered
walls on both sides. At the tallest point, the walls will be.23 feet tall total. Chairman Wagner
asked if the green grass depicted in the drawings will be usable space: Sweeting answered
that on the east side, the grass area will be a portion of the City's stormwater pond facilities and
on the west side the grass area is a portion of an existing property owner's backyartl. Sweeting
pointed out tfiat there will be 25 feet on both sides of the tracks which will continue to be BNSF
Right-of-Way. Chairman Wagner asked if the Right-of-Way will be fenced. Sweeting
responded that there will be a fence.along the top of the walls and along the BNSF righf-of-way
to prevent access to the bridge.
Chairman Wagner asked how the residents that live in The Park Apartments will access their
parking lot in the new, design. Project Engineer Sweeting said the new design callsfor a new
_ driveway'to be placed` south along the proposed bypass road in the vicinity of 6th Street. Using
the aerial map, Sweeting pointed out the Right-of-Way being acquired by the City for the
project, in response to questions asked by Chairman Wagner. Sweeting showed the
Committee where the bypass, road and new driveway for the apartments will be constructed. .
The Committee and staff discussed the turn movements in and out of the future driveway.
Mayor Lewis asked that Council be updated on any turning restrictions as soon as staff is
- aware of what they may be.
Project Engineer Sweeting reviewed the simple visual freatment options that staff has been
reviewing with the design for the walls and fencing along M Street at the grade separation.
Chairman Waner asked if one of the wall treatments was the same as the treatment that was
done on the 3r Street (Booth) Bndge. Assistant City Engineer Gaub stated that one of the
treatments was the same and the treatment for the 3`d Street Bridge was selected by the
Downtown Task Force. Maybr Lewis pointed outthaf:some conformity befween the wall
treatments may be beneficial. The Committee agreed that the treatment should be the same as
that used on the Booth Bridge.
Projeet Engineec Sweeting confinued, explaining that the standard fence used along the
sidewalks would be black chain-link but there are other options available: Sweeting showed the
Committee some of the fencing available. Sweeting stated that an upgrade in the fencing
would be more expensive fhan the black chain-link, :an approximate increase of about
$30,000.00 -$40,000.00. Assistant City Engineer Gaub stated that the standard black chain-
link fencing was used on A Street SE, under the railroad tracks, where the new sidewalk was
constructed to remove the stairs. The Committee discussed the fencing options. Sweeting
pointed out that there would be additional maintenance costs associated with the upgraded
fencing, but it may be less subject to damage than chain-link fencing. Mayor Lewis asked that
the Committee look at the fencing on A Street SE before making a definite decision on the
Page 5
Public Works Commiftee Minutes October 18, 2090
MINUTES
fencing. Subject to the Committee viewing the A Street SE fencing, they chose the enhanced
fencing option.
, Project Engineer Sweeting reviewed the enhanced option for the tops of the walls, either a color
change along.the top of the wall or the use of a three-dimensional wall cap. Sweeting stated
that the three-dimensional wall cap would ihcrease the cost by $35,000.00. Sweeting answered
questions asked by Vice-Chair Peloza regarding the tinting of the concrete wall cap. Vice-Chai"r
Peloza stated that he was not in favor of white concrete. Councilmember Partridge stated that
his preference would be to choose the upgraded fencing over the three-dimensional cap,
considering they are roughly the same cost. Project Engineer Sweeting will provide
photographs of examples of both the regular wall cap and three-dimensional cap for the
Commiftee to review.
~Councilmember Partridge asked about custom wall enhancements. Sweeting statedthat the
enhancement options presented to the Commiftee are standard however custom
enhancements like those along I-5 near the Tacoma Dome would increase the cost a. .
substantial amount, an estimated $400,000.00. Pcoject Engineer Sweeting spoke about the East Au6um Station and the platform that
previously was near the railroad L Street crossing location. Sweeting pointed out the open
space at the corner of 4t' Street and M Street and said that the design team has been
bcainstorming on howto most effectively use the space, remaining in the project budget and
maybe 'paying tribute to the history of the area. Sweeting presented the proposed design for
the open space: The design is a pedestrian rest area with benches and bicycle racks. The
same architectural element of the center canopy of the old station platform would be
' incorporated into a canopy over the benches on the comer as well as the same lighting design.
The Commiftee and staff discussed alternatives to the design and the cost of the proposed
design versus the alternatives.
Councilmember Partridge asked if there is a lot of pedestrian traffic in the project vicinity.
Project Engineer Sweeting answered that there is a lot`of foot and bicycle traffic and that is
what is in part driving the need for the new sidewalks at the crossing and bicycle lanes,
The Commiftee and Mayor Lewis discussed moving the canopy further back into the space:
Chairman Wagner asked if the Arts Commission had tieen consulted regarding the project.
The Commiftee discussed the 1% for Art" ordinance and decided that for projects such as
these large infrastructure projects visual enhancements similar to what is being proposed .
should more that satisfy the art requirement. Chairman Wagner stated that it would probably
be in the best interest to move forward with a design such as the one proposed by Project
Engineer Sweeting rather than fiaving to make a decision based on the 1% for Art ordinance.
Mayor Lewis agreed.
Project Engineer Sweeting answered questions asked by Councilmember Partridge regarding
the gutter system for the canopy.
The Committee and staff reviewed the overall map of the project. Project Engineer Sweeting
answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner regarding the storm pond area. Mayor Lewis
and staff discussed whether or not there would be some useable.area surrounding the storm
pond facility for other uses. Project Engineer Sweeting stated that he would bring the
landscape plan for the pond area for the Commiftee to review.
The Committee and staff reviewed design for the access to The Parks Apartments and Eagles
facility.
Page 6
Public Works Committee Minutes October 18, 2010
MINUTES.
Councilmember Partridge asked if M Street would be four lanes. Project Engineer Sweeting
responded that a center turn lane will be included, making M Street five lanes in width befinreen
6th and e Streets. The Committee and staff discussed the possibility of re-channelizing M
Street all the way to Main Street as part of this project. Mayor tewis asked staff to pursue the
idea. The Committee discussed how re-channelizing the street all the way to Main Street would
affect on street parking.
C. SOUTH DIVISION STREET PROMENADE -
_ Using a map, Project Engineer Vondrak outlined the preliminary plan for the utilities included in
the scope of the Promenade Project. Vondrak pointed out the outline for the proposed ;design
for the reservoir course for the: permeable pavement. Vondrak stated that pervious pavement
will be throughout the corcitlor from Main Street to 2nd Street. Staff is still looking at the
feasibility of extending the pervious pavement to 3`d Street and within the intersection areas
along the corridor.
Vondrak explaineci the pattem_ design of the pavement. Vice-Chair Peloza asked why the
design altemates between pervious and impervious pavement. Vondrak answered it is for the
visual look of fhe corridor.. Chairman Wagner stated that an alternating design would also be
easier fo repair when needed. Project Engineer Vondrak stated thaf sfaff is also considering
the possibility of coloring the pavement.
Project Engineer Vondrak stafed that in addition to the pervious pavement, staff is considering
' storage tanks or oversized storm pipes for stormwater management within 15t Street SE/SW.
. Chairman:Wagner asked if there are any cost estimates yet. Project Engineer Vondrak said
the cost estimate has not been cornpleted yet.
Project Engineer Vondrak and Planning ManagerChamberlain answered questions asked by
Chairman Wagner regarding the cost of the projects aesthetics versus the cost of utilities and
the project funding.
Project Engineer Vondrak reported that staff believes that the pervious pavement will provide
adequate stormwater detenfion for the entire project and staff is still researching the storage
tanks to provide detention aboye and beyond the project requirements. Vondrak noted that this
is still a preliminary plan. Vondrak answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner regarding
the need for more stormwater sforage than what is included in the preliminary plan.
Vice-Chair Peloza asked what the ratio, of pervious versus impervious surface will be. Assistant
Director/City Engineer Selle stated that approximately 25 - 35% percent will be pervious.
Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner
regarding the structural differential between the pervious and impervious surfaces.
The Committee and staff discussed the.transition between the new roadway and the existing
pavement.
Planning Manager Chamberlain discussed the limits of the promenade project and the future
redevelopment of the surrounding blocks.
The Committee and staff reviewed the preliminary design for the promenade.
Planning Manager Chamberlain announced that there will be an Open House held regarding
the project on October 28, 2010 ftom 6:00 pm until 8:00 pm, at One East Main Street in the
front lobby:
Page 7
Public Works Committee Minutes October 18 2010
MINUTES
, D. 1ST STREET NE, AUBURN AVENUE TO AUBURN WAY N ROAD CLOSURE
Street Systems Engineer Wickstcom reported that construction on 1 St Street had started and the
work is going to be completed in two phases. The firsf phase is replacing 10 panels on the
north side of the street with minimal impact to traffic. There will be more of an impact on traffic
~ during the second phase.. Atthat time, the street will be closed to eastbound traffic and
westbound traffic will still be maintained but will be limited:at Auburn Avenue. The second
phase will probably. begin October 28, 2010 and will take about two weeks to complete.
Chairman Wagner asked if the project includes asphalt ,treatment. Street Systems Engineer
Wickstrom answered that the project` replaces concrete panels on the sfreet with concrete.
Mayor Lewis comrriented on the,work completed on D Street NE where damaged concrete
panels were removed and replaced' with new ones.
Vice-Chair Peloza complimented the map provided by Sfreet Systems Engineer Wickstrom.
E. STREET MAINTENANCE UTILITY = POUCY FEEDBACK Director powdy stated there was a meeting of the Valley Cities Directors, and others, on
October 15th regarding the SMU and the preliminary formula. Ashley Probart, from the
Associated Washington Cities, will be replacing the referendum ianguage with the ballot
language to allow cities that want to adopt the SMU can place it on their local ballots:. Director
Dowdy stated thaf Mr. Probart also provided clarification on the identity of the voters as defined
in the legislative measure. The voters would be the popular voters and not just property
owners. -
Chairman Wagner asked ifthere are any large cities represented at the SMU meetings.
Director powdy stated that the Cities of Federal Way, Kent, and Renton are currently the
largest. Mayor Lewis stated that the*plan is to gainthe cooperation of the Valley Cities first and
then involve larger cities, such as the Cities of Spokane and Vancouver, and finally the Cities of
Tacoma and Seattle. The Committee discussed the current strategy for moving the SMU
legislation forward.
The Committee and Director powdy reviewed the policy questions from the Street Maintenance
Utility (SMU) white paper that was distributed at the last Public Works Committee Meeting:
Director powdy said the working group agreed that on the first key policy point each city should
decided what existing revenues, that are used to support street preservation, they would be
willing to sunset if the SMU is approved and a city implements it because every city has a
different structure for funding streets. The Committee agreed. The Committee and staff
discussed what the sunset options and/or incentives would be.for the City of Aubum.
Chairman Wagner suggesfed, for the next policy question, cities consider commercial. and
industrial industries be able to ease info the full rate over a period of time. Mayor Lewis asked
that the amount in the reduction, of property tax, after sunsetting the Save Our Streets Program
(SOS) tax, be compared to the rates for the SMU prior tb allowing businesses to ease into the
rate. Directorpowdy stated that the.current language in the bill will allow cities to phase in on a
reasonable schedule. The Committee and staff discussed how the City of Aubum could phase
in the SMU.
Director powdy spoke about the requirement to appoint an advisory committee which is
currently included in the SMU bill: The advisory committee would be a seven person committee
comprised of typical rate payers. Director powdy stated that the advisory committee would
Page 8
Public Works Committee Minutes October 18. 2010
MINUTES
more than likely be how the businesses, freight industries, and ports would provide feedback on
the SMU to the Council, addressing key policy point three. Mayor Lewis asked Director powdy
to consult with Mr. Probart on why an advisory committee would be appointed for a utility: Mayor Lewis suggested incorporating a committee with a 3-5 year sunset date to assist in '
establishing a new utilify: Chairman Wagner agreed.
Chairman Wagner stated that, as in the forth key point, setting a higher Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) Rating for freight.routes over residential was favorable but not as fhe highest
priority.
The Committee agreed that the Washington State Truckers Association should be included in .
the formation of the adVisory committee:
Director powdy discussed the possibility of entering a condition into the bill that would allow
cities to use an optional process of, formulating an SMU, equivalent to the process currently
being developed by the Directors. Chairman Wagner commented that the SMU did not make it
through the legislature.last year because there was no standardized formula for determining
rates and allowing for equivalent processes would undermine the work the Directors are doing
to creafe the standardized formula that the legislature is asking for. Mayor Lewis asked how
woulci allowing for equivalent processes address whafi fhe legislature said they wanted which
was to provide a formula. Chairman Wagner stated that, may not be a policy to support. The Gommittee; Director powdy, and Traffic Engineer Para continued discussion about why this
policy would be a good idea.
The Committee d_iscussed requiring a minimal frequency of updating pavement system ratings
of the PCI for accountability.and to inform rates changes. Director powdy stated thaf this would
probably be'a function of the advisory committee to provide accountabilify. Mayor Lewis stated
. that accountability should be the role of City Council and not a responsibility to be charter to an
advisory committee. Chairman Wagner agreed.
Director powdy stated that there was a consensus among the directors that a requirement for a
common process and formula to set SMU rates statewide should be available to all cities with
#he options to use an equivalent'process. The Committee and staff discussed that policy
becoming a problem in the legislative process.
` The Committee and staff discussed the strategy of bringing larger cities on board.
Chairman Wagner and Mayor Lewis commended the work that the directors and staff were doing on the SMU.
Page 9
. Public Works Gommittee Minutes October 18, 2010
. MINUTES
F. CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Item 7- CP1012 - 2010 Arterial/Collector Pavement Preservation Froiect: Assistant City
Engineer Gaub provided clarification on the project locations following questions asked by.Vice-
Chair Peloza.
Item 9- CP0819 - Mill Creek/Peaslev Canvon Road Culvert Replacement: Vice-Chair Peloza
asked when the stripping would be completed. Assistant City Engineer Gaub answered that #he
stripping is scheduled for this week, depending on the weather conditions, and the barrier and
the guardrail still need to be completed.
Item 11 - CP0701 - 8th and R Street Traffic Siqnal: Chairman Wagner asked if there is a,
neighborhood meeting scheduled to discuss property access with the citizens. Assistant City
Engineer Gaab said that there is not a meeting scheduled but staff will consult with the Mayor : .
regarding possibly scheduling a meeting.
Vice-Chair Peloza asked that staff look at the stripping on 8t~' Street NE because the arrows do
not appear to direct turn mo`vements correctly. Assistant City Engineer Gau6 pointed qut that
the stripping that has been completed was for the revision to the travel,lanes and that the signal .
channelization has not yet been completed. Vice-Chair Peloza commented on the restriction of
left turns from the apartment complexes on 8th Street NE: Chairman Wagner responded, that
the project's design, although no# ideal, was the best solution at this time. Chairman Wagner
spoke about how a neighborhood meeting may help to facilitate a better solution. - Item 23 - CP1005 - South Division Promenade Proiect: Vice-Chair Peloza asked if the funding
' is considered stimulus money. Assistant City Engineer Gaub answered tliat it is not stimulus funds. Vice-Chair Peloza asked if there were funds from the General Fund being used for. the
project. Assistant City Engineer Gaub answered there are no funds coming from the General
Fund. Assistant City Engineer Gaub explained the Gity match requirements for 4he State Local
Revifalization Financing Bonds. Vice-Chair Peloza asked if the project is included on the Grant
Status Update spreadsheet. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle answered that it is not .
included because all of the #unding is already secured.
Item F- MS1003 - Airport Storm Water Inventorv/Survev: Vice-Chair Peloza asked if the
insurance company had been consulted about the vandalism to the bird netting at#he storm
ponds. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle stated that the netting has been repaired by the
airport and was not vandalized but that some of the contract airport employees thought that
birds had been getting trapped in the netting and had cuf small holes for the birds to escape.
The netting is now repaired and the City is satisfied with the repairs.
Additiona/ Discussion
Prior to the Capital Project Status Update, Vice-Chair Pe/oza asked if water utility rates wou/d
be discussed at the meeting. Mayor Lewis answered that the topic should be on the Municipal
Services Committee Meeting agenda and would consult with Finance Director Coleman about
the topic.
Page 10
Pu61ic Works Committee Minufes October 18.2010
- ' MINUTES
V. ADJOURNMENT
1
.There being no further business to come before the Public Works Committee, the meeting was
- adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
Approved this 1 St day of November, 2010.
, Rich Wagner nni er igs
' Chairman Public V1/ork e ent Secretary
Page,11