MINUTES
January 31, 2005 Highway 2 Safety Coalition Meeting
Community Center Room
Meeting called to order at 7:06 PM
Attendees:
Chairman Fred Walser announced the $500,000 Federal Omnibus funding which was received, to be applied toward the
Rural Route Corridor Study for Hwy. 2.
Workgroup members (representatives from Hwy. 2 corridor cities) met and
reviewed priorities on how to utilize this funding, as well as identifying additional
priorities to match this initial $500,000.
Mayor Donnetta Walser briefly summarized the initial strategy that was
developed. Kamuron Gurol has been
instrumental assisting with that. Hiller
West,
Mayor Walser explained a key component is to present the plan to Snohomish County Tomorrow
(STC) no later than March to obtain their support in this effort. She explained that at least part of that
process is to first obtain the City of
Chairman Fred Walser read the following email he
received from Hiller West: “I
received a return phone call from John Dewhurst (
Jerry Schutz (
Fred Walser explained that during their recent
meeting, which was attended by
Kamuron, John Light, Connie Dunn, Mayor Walser, John Dewhurst and Chairman
Walser, that issue was discussed and decided it was logical and beneficial to
partner with the Greenway, just as it is logical to partner with King County;
the more parties join the overall effort, the better their chances of success. So the goal is to work in tandem with other groups’ efforts. In
response to Mr. Schutz inquiry about their contact at King County, Tina Rogers
said they’ve been working with [sounds
like either, “John” or “Don” Ding], who also participated in a recent 203
project. So several people will be
working together from the technical fields, although they will probably not be
attending the H2SC meetings. Jerry mentioned that his
Kamuron
Gurol arrived. He was driving in
from
Tina Rogers offered that the PRSC application is Due
April 1st at 1:00 PM, with
the decision made in June. The potential
exists that in May, applicants may need to make a short presentation to the ICC
steering committee of their programs.
She sites on that committee.
Potentially there are as many as three projects under
consideration. She does not know how
much competition exists at the ICC level.
Jerry Schutz (in response to a question from Gurol),
indicated that the Greenway will
cooperate with H2SC on those portions impacting them, and modify their proposal
accordingly. Looking at train service in
the corridor probably fits outside of the RDP process, as well as a few other
things, such as private bus service, so they will probably move forward
individually on those types of things.
But regarding safety issues, they will offer statistics taken over the
last few years relative to previous safety problems in the hope of ensuring
that such statistics do not occur in the future. Mr. Schutz reinforced his belief that the
Coalition’s efforts compliment, rather than conflict, with the Greenway’s
interests, overall.
Gurol reinforced and encouraged continued of the work
group concept, but indicated that he
did not have a good understanding of the individual cities’ efforts taken
within their city limits related to U.S. 2.
Even a subarea plan or access management plan ought to be coordinated
within the overall Route Development Plan, if possible. He indicated that this rural corridor
includes many contradictory agendas, such as strong Economic development
interests vs. conservative environmental concerns, etc., so there will be many
different opinions/plans put forth.
Gurol indicated realism related to the amount of funding
the Coalition may receive, urging a
pragmatic view of what funds may be available and/or received. There’s a lot of competition for funding
across the region, despite the U.S. 2 corridor’s “worthiness,” and it’s best to
be both realistic and honest with stakeholders throughout the process.
Mayor Walser shared what occurred during her and
Fred’s visit with
Tina Rogers enumerated some of the key decision points,
which included a definition of the dollar amount requested from PSRC; how
much to apply for, as specified on application; be realistic. (Mayor Walser suggested
that the Coalition should request as much as possible, $3 million minimum to
get started; Chairman Walser clarified they had originally asked the Delegation
for $8 million.)
Gurol and Fred Walser suggested next best step is to form small workgroup to
address specifics of application.
Tina Rogers
indicated that for the purpose of presenting to the PSRC, it could be as simple
as “
Chairman Walser indicated timeline is tight: ICC meeting
is 2/11.
General Discussion ensued related to PSRC funding being federal dollars; letters of
support, other general details in moving ahead with application.
Gurol urged
clarity and specificity insofar as approval for the RDP as related to
individual cities’ municipal process; i.e., product needs to be “consensus-based”
which incorporates much public process, and, therefore, buy-off from each
city’s officials. May wish to develop a
“Policy Group” comprised of elected officials, along with several layers of
decision-making/authority. Ultimately,
“high level” approval is required from jurisdictions.
Meeting adjourned 8:38 PM
[Minutes Authored and submitted by H2SC Temporary
Secretary L. Storm]
TRANSCRIPTION: KAMURON
GUROL’S SUMMARY/EXPLANATION OF THE ROUTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS
I work in the Urban Planning
Office in
What I’m handing out is a generic description of what
Route Development Plans, and a
simplified timeline for the major steps involved in producing a plan. And if, indeed, we got down this road of
putting together a Route Development Plan, we would be working – WSDOT would
kind of be the lead agency for this --
we’d be working with partner agencies along the corridor route. So the cities
and the counties, as well as the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), in terms
of the government entities [unintelligible]
along the route. Then there’s a whole
variety of interest groups and stakeholders that would be part of the process,
as well. Now you’re looking at your
scope of work and trying to see where things fit.
Our office right now has about four of these projects
in active process. In
It takes awhile to do this. As I said, it
might be somewhere within a year, but it depends on how the process goes. We’ve got to get going on it soon. I think we have to work with the partner
agencies, exactly what the scope of work looks like. Typically, a consultant is
hired to help review the mountains of information collected, evaluate the
various proposed projects, and then issue the product: The Route Development Plan. The State officially adopts the Plan, which
means the state will attempt to follow it, in part by using it in the state
budgeting/funding process. We’ve also employed valuable mechanisms to help
local agencies also adopt it such that there’s a consistency in implementation
of the Plan over the course of time. So
ideally, all these different cities will somehow participate in the process,
agree with the proposed solutions to the problems, and then adopt the Plan in
their own jurisdiction and the part that is their responsibility to implement.
The cost of funding is enormous. And there’s
not that much money out there available.
So you have to do the best job you possibly can. The Route Development Planning process allows
you that opportunity. I want to thank
whoever put together, had the good sense of getting the first Feds funds
earmarked. I think it’s a wonderful
thing. It’s a real bonus to me. It’s about the same level of money that the
State has contributed for two other RDPs that we’re looking at in
So what we’ve done so far is
to start collecting a bunch of data, a couple of maps, if anybody’s
interested. We’ve got some statistics
for the number of trips, how many cars come along the roadway, where you find
the high-accident locations, and we’ll certainly collect information that’s
coming out of the State’s system plan for projects that have been identified by
previous versions of me [unintelligible;
someone coughs] put in to the state’s plan, and just kind of pull together
all the background information. So then we can develop the first, second and
third steps for you for getting this project underway.
This is my third meeting on
this project. I attended a meeting of
elected officials, the small group I met last week, staff and elected officials
that were, I think two things: trying to
look at the different funding sources for this RDP process, and then also
talking about what are the elements and components that are put in these
things. Because I think there’s some
latitude. That is, we have some
flexibility to address issues that are specific to this corridor. So we want to tailor the components and
analyses specific to
Re funding issues, etc.: So as I know
right now, we’ve got the first $500,000 earmarked. We’ve got an opportunity to apply for, and to
actually secure some funding from the Puget Sound Regional Council under their
Rural Corridors Program. We’re going to
talk about that. I believe Hiller, who’s
in effect the regional planning director for
So that’s one source of
funding. I don’t know how much, if any,
has occurred there. There’s a $2 million
pot over two years that can be allocated to both planning studies as well as
capital projects. And they’re trying to,
within the four counties of PRSC, see that it’s distributed in a roughly
equitable basis. It won’t all come to
this project. I think we’ll be fortunate
to get some portion [unintelligible;
drops his voice]. Staff can keep an
eye on that and kind of report back as that process moves forward. We’re told by the PSRC staff that
applications are going to be due somewhere in April and I think they’re going
to decide in [unintelligible].
[Gurol’s presentation was interrupted by input from
Tina Rogers and Jerry Schutz, then he continues.]
So just so you’re familiar
with this, the Route Development Plan is kind of what I’ve already described
there. This flow chart I “stole” from
another RDP in the region, so the specifics included in the base here, I would
not pay attention to, but it basically shows the overall process. It is a public process that we
undertake. We do outreach, we do open
houses, we’ve got to coordinate with city council meetings, other types of
events or locations where it would maximize our chance to interact with people
who use the route, because they provide us with the best information about what
we need in that Route Development Plan. So there’s, I would think for a route
like this we would have at least two rounds of open houses, possibly even
three, depending on the length of the study.
We’d be out soliciting ideas and getting feedback on the different
alternatives that we’ll create. That’s
what we’re doing down on the other two RDPs that I mentioned to you. We’re going to open houses in early
March. As I said, there is typically a
consultant hired. We do rely on some
city staff, particularly participation in meetings, providing information. WSDOT is kind of the lead on the project,
coordinator; the county, PSRC, all the kind of relative jurisdictions would
participate. We also would have the
opportunity to identify stakeholder groups and we can tailor the process for
the needs of the corridor. What I would
want to do is create a process to give us the best information and the most
efficient possible. I’m not interested
in creating loads of committees that meet all the time and [unintelligible], nor on the other end of the spectrum, which is
WSDOT does this and tells you what happened later and you say, “Well, [unintelligible] have to do with
me?” So it’s somewhere in the middle,
where we find the right people to get involved and we get the best information
efficiently.
So if I had to guess, from start to finish, it
could be anywhere from 12 to 18 months until you get one of these things done. It’s good to also keep note of the state
legislative cycle as you go through one of these things. So even if we’re not done by the time the 2006
legislature meets, you’ll want to identify some things that we already know,
and if there’s an opportunity there to [unintelligible]
funds and things, and you feel confident
enough that these are good projects and [unintelligible]. My guess is that some of the cities or the
county may have already identified some projects and proposals for funding in
this legislative cycle. And if they get
funded and vote, why then, that’d be great and we’ll incorporate that into our
plan. So you’ll need to keep you eye on
that ball. The legislative cycle is one
cycle, the federal funding cycle is another cycle. You know, all these things just sort of come
up from time-to-time and [you] try to tailor the process so that you’ll have
some good information to feed into whatever cycle you’re in. (end of
transcription)