MINUTES
February 28,
2005 Highway 2 Safety Coalition Meeting
Community Center Room
Meeting
called to order at 7:07 PM
Attendees:
Introductions
OLD BUSINESS
Kamuron Gurol
has attended a couple of working group meetings and had several discussions
since the H2SC Jan. 31st meeting, and there seems to exist a
two-part thrust for future action: (1) getting
started with the Route Development Planning process led by WSDOT, and (2) obtaining
other potential funding sources that could be pursued by the H2SC or others,
and many of his discussions have taken place in the context of those two
fronts. Hiller West (City of Monroe
Community Development Manager) has communicated that he was against filing for the
PSRC grant funds, either by the City of Monroe or H2SC, but Gurol believes that
should be discussed in further detail tonight. Sees both pluses and minuses in not filing for
that particular funding. Kamuron wishes
to explore that in more detail, insofar as explaining what is to be contained
within the RDP as well as some additional funding sources which could be
complimentary to the RDP process. The
$500,000 federal grant should be able to complete the Plan, although it’s too
early in the process for him to determine for certain whether that is
true. Two of his current RDP projects,
each of which contain some similarities to the SR 2 corridor, one of which has
run a bit higher that that, with the other being considerably higher. So uncertainty still exists as to whether the
$500,000 will be sufficient. He is therefore in favor of, and recommends, a
strategy to pursue additional funding wherever it may exist. He said WSDOT’s Northwest office has already
submitted paperwork for additional federal appropriations, a second $500,000
request, but he won’t know what the timing might be, as it’s dependent upon Congressional
action. It would hopefully be within the
next few months.
Mayor Walser asked if this
was the federal revenue request, and Loreena
Eng indicated it was funding as
outlined by Larsen’s aide Evan Shatz during his
recent visit related to TEA-21 funds. Chairman Walser asked Ms. Eng whether
another $500,000 request through Senator Murray’s office would be a waste of time,
or if it was compatible with the TEA-21 effort, and she responded that she
should review it again and determine whether the Coalition’s and WSDOT’s
request for TEA-21 funds could be combined.
She will check on that and report.
Kamuron Gurol
indicated that the $500,000 request had made it past the first hurdle, but he
was not sure about the Coalition’s request.
Brief discussion ensued on
tactical strategies to follow
relative to the funding requests. Mayor Walser indicated that Rep. Rick Larsen’s office had contacted the
Coalition to offer their help in supporting
Loren Sand of Perteet, Inc. indicated that the important aspect is that any
requests clearly indicate the purpose of the funding so they don’t become
confused about the various projects. Loreena Eng needs to discuss with her
federal liaison person that if both WSDOT and the Coalition is asking for
funding for essentially the same project, is it better for the Coalition to ask
for it and have WSDOT support that effort.
Kamuron Gurol
commented that it would be ideal if the second $500,000 is awarded, any overage
could be allocated to some complimentary projects along the corridor, or
towards some of the initial design work for particular projects. He thinks RDP’s generally cost between
$500,000 and $700,000, depending upon their scope. A good part of his job is to ensure that
recommendations they produce make really good technical sense, that they’re
supported by a consensus of jurisdictions along the corridor and that they find
their way into the relevant regional planning documents; in this case the
PSRC’s transportation plan, as well as into the State Highway Systems Plan. Once the RDP is included within those
documents, competition for funding becomes both more efficient and likely. He said another concern is the legislative
session timing and process. Insofar as
future funding for the U.S. 2 corridor and the RDP plan, it will probably not
be completed in time for formal submitting into the next-session budgeting
process. And because of the biennial
twist, the RDP process integration with state budgeting will probably not occur
until the 2007 legislative session. Gurol
brought maps depicting weekend traffic counts and will leave them with the
Coalition.
Gurol stated
that the next step in going forward with the RDP process is looking to select a
consultant to assist, and he’s discussed this briefly with Hiller West
regarding that process. Gurol’s goal is
to try to get that process completed in March.
Hiller will be phasing out as coordinator of the working group, while
Kamuron phases in to take over in that function. He indicated that each jurisdiction along the
corridor needs to assign a staff person as a representative to the “Corridor
Working Group.” Normally, these staff
members have been a public works director or planning director or senior
planner, someone who can participate on a regular and ongoing basis, who can
act in a relatively-reliably way in representing the city and its
officials. The group will meet more
often than the Coalition to massage and work out the details as the RDP
proceeds, with the representatives reporting back to the individual city
councils.
Gurol then briefly
explained the RDP process of SR169, using the sample flowchart he distributed.
He said a key component in this process is to determine what, precisely, are
the real transportation problems along the corridor and to define them
well. For instance, is it a safety
problem, a congestion problem or some other problem that had been previously
missed? It’s critical that the Plan
reflects the true existing problems as they currently exist and may in the
future. The alternatives listed in the
flowchart are simply a compilation of projects that could be done along the
Corridor. The final step is the adoption
process. It is during this process where
mechanisms are found through which local jurisdictions will accept, adopt and
implement the recommendations contained within the RDP. In other words, all jurisdictions need to be
in sync and working as a team for effective implementation to occur. We’re projecting about 15 months or so for
the SR 169 process, while U.S. 2’s is a longer corridor with more
jurisdictions, combined with more environmental//rural considerations.
Gurol indicated that finding the time to work on this project will be challenge for him,
personally, as he tries to get it
launched while he determines who will be the day-to-day project manager for
WSDOT, as it will take some time to fill that position. He’ll do the best he can to keep up, but the
train may be a little slower getting out of the station than some might
like. A consultant can assist with this,
and one should be secured fairly soon. Chairman
Walser indicated that it is now
apparently known that the Coalition will be working on a Route Development
Plan, as the City of
Gurol said the effort will become a WSDOT process,
at least to start. The next meeting on
3/17 will still be contained within the Coalition, under Hiller’s organization,
during which a determination will have been made, hopefully, of the source for
more federal funding, more discussion of the details of the PSRC grant, and
organizational issues that will help the group get started on the RDP. That meeting should be the transition point
at which Hiller’s role will decrease, for which both he and Mayor Walser will
be grateful, due to his other workload.
Gurol stressed that the public works folks are vital.
C. H. Rowe asked whether
Chair Walser indicated
that
Gurol
mentioned that he has not yet seen the City of Snohomish participate in the RDP
effort, and suggested outreach to the elected official level would be
appropriate at this juncture. Rick Mitchell said that Snohomish is
currently going through a process within their community that involves U.S. 2
from Bickford to the main downtown exit, along with some SR 9 and
Chairman Walser
indicated that during the 2/17 working group meeting, the group seemed to think
that the tight timelines in submitting the PSRC application would preclude them
from filing, as well as the question of being able to meet the grant match
requirements. Loren Sand said he might
help with the application, but the group decided that they would probably not
pursue the grant. But now it looks as
if we should revisit this issue. Walser
requested feedback on whether or not they should pursue the grant, and if so,
how will the group meet the obligations?
John Light from Gold Bar said they could only participate in the match in
terms of staff time and expertise, and Chairman
Walser concurred that Sultan has the same situation. Gurol believes
(although he’d have to check with PSRC’s King Cushman) that if all affected
jurisdictions (six cities, two counties) participate in the RDP process, then
staff in-kind match should not be any
problem when one considers the scope and 15-month (or more) timeframe when one
considers the meetings, the “homework,” local engineering/planner expertise.
He recommended that someone take on the responsibility of performing
that rough calculation. He also stated
that the application containers a considerable amount of “filler” pages and it
is not “brain surgery,” so it may not be as daunting a task as it initially appears
from its bulk. His opinion is that those considerations should not deter the
group from filing, and he knows of a consulting firm who has already
volunteered to assist, but conflict of interest guidelines need to be strictly
followed. Tina Rogers said it was her understanding that the staff at one of
the meetings did do a calculation and their preliminary number was $8,000. She thinks the real question is how much did
they wish to supplement the $500,000 with? $100,000? $200,000?
She suggested that they might wish to attempt for another $100,000 grant,
using local staff matching; if they came up short, they could “pass the hat,”
with larger jurisdictions assisting by trying to find some additional
funds. One question is whether
mitigation funds are eligible to use for a local match. But she thinks it’s safe to say that if the
grant application was in the $100,000 ballpark, local staff in-kind would
probably be sufficient. The other main objection she heard to
applying for the grant was that it was just “one more thing” the staff
needed to do. It made sense to her to
say “we’re producing only one product”: an RDP.
And the money will just supplement the federal $500,000. This would allow them to do more in the RDP,
because if the group finds out it doesn’t have enough money to complete the
process, you can carve things out of the scope and some of the things that
would be carved out are some things that might be of interest to smaller communities
such as Gold Bar and Index, and that’s exactly what the PSRC program is for; to
ensure that each individual community along the corridor has their means met
and included in the process. Additionally,
this grant would allow the Coalition to “get its foot in the door” for future
grant applications.
C. H. Rowe
suggested “passing the hat” around in the private sector and asked if that
would make any impression on PSRC’s consideration of the grant? He said he knew there would be half a dozen
different business that would kick in $1,000 apiece and if they could get 100
businesses, that’s $100,000. He
indicated that as far as he and his trucking business goes, if they could
streamline
Mayor Walser
raised Hiller West’s concern that the goals of the H2SC have been primarily the
large, broad-picture issues of safety and capacity, whereas the SR 203 corridor
was concerned mostly with gateways in each individual community, so she wonders
whether their concerns would be compatible with the grant’s purpose.
Loren Sand
was involved in the 203 corridor and said that it was a demonstration (i.e.,
“pilot”) project, essentially and was therefore more of a planning and
conceptual approach. But the PSRC
program is open to a variety of goals and functions, from planning through to
actual construction.
Tina Rogers
also responded by stating that the PSRC’s additional funding could help address
some of Mayor Walser’s concern above and beyond the safe movement of as many vehicles
as possible through the corridor. For
instance, the process may start with that problem statement, but it may, and
probably will, change through the open house public process when specific
issues are identified, such as, “I can’t cross the street and the elementary
school is on the other side of the highway. So we need to slow people
down.” She believes the 203 corridor is very different than
Chairman Walser
said he would entertain a motion on
whether they should apply to the PSRC grant, as it represents a commitment for
a 13.5% match. C. H. Rowe motioned (seconded by John Seehuus) restated by
Chairman Walser) that the Highway 2 Safety Coalition apply for a PSRC grant of
$100,000. Asked for discussion,
there was none. All ayes, no opposition
was voiced.
Chairman Walser
stated that Perteet, Inc. has offered to do the application for the grant,
confirmed that their offer was still on the table (per Loren Sand, it is), then
asked if there was a motion to have
Perteet, Inc. do the PSRC grant.
Loren Sand of Perteet, Inc. explained that this was not an unusual activity for
their company to participate in, especially with smaller communities. It is not something they are offering up just
because they wish to have the business.
It’s both a good investment and good PR.
Chairman Walser then stated
that Mr. Booth had explained that and volunteered to do this (during their
coordinated meeting)< with no strings attached. Mayor
Walser asked whether Perteet’s time could be included in the matching
funds, and
John Seehuus motioned (seconded by C. H.
Rowe) that the H2SC accept
Perteet’s offer to complete the application for the PSRC grant. No
discussion; verbal vote all ayes.
Tina Rogers
stated there should be a representative at the March 11th I.C.C.
meeting to present the application. She
does not know whether a member of the H2SC can “legally” sign the application,
so a city official should sign it. Mayor Walser asked if it was
appropriate for all cities to sign the application, and
Chairman Walser asked if C. H. Rowe was going to work on the fundraiser and report at
the March 28th meeting. Rowe
agreed.
NO NEW BUSINESS.
Meeting adjourned at 8:13 PM
[Minutes authored and submitted by H2SC Temporary
Secretary L. Storm.]