Public Works Committee Meeting (11/10/2015)

Excerpts from the Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2015 (emphasis added) –

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

The Public Works Committee of the City of Raleigh met in regular session on Tuesday, November 10, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina with the following present:

Committee
Councilor Eugene Weeks, Chairman
Councilor John Odom
Councilor Wayne Maiorano

Staff
Assistant City Manager Tansy Hayward
Acting Public Works Director Richard Kelly
Deputy City Attorney Ira Botvinick
Engineering Plans Review Manager Kenneth Ritchie
Senior Transportation Engineer Jed Niffenegger

These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated.

.  .  .  .  .  .

 

Item #13-17 – Neighborhood Traffic Management Program – Policy Issues. This item was previously discussed at the Public Works Committee’s October 27, 2015 meeting and held over for further discussion.

Chairman Weeks indicated the Committee received correspondence from 2 Laurel Hills residents and stated and clarified that intent of today’s meeting was to consider changes to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to be implemented citywide.

Senior Transportation Engineer Jed Niffenegger summarized the following staff report included in the agenda Committee’s agenda packet:

Background:

For the past several months, we have been internally reviewing the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). This review consisted of three main components. First, there was an internal review based on lessons learned and problems encountered. Second, a peer review was conducted of the largest US Cities and ones specifically in North Carolina. Lastly, an online survey was done to get feedback from Raleigh residents who are the true “customers” of the program.

The reviews focused on areas staff felt the program could be improved or were previously contentious. It is important to note that since the creation of the NTMP in 2009, 34 streets have participated in the process and have/will receive treatments. Of these, only four streets ran into issues that got elevated to Council.

There is no perfect way to obtain pe1manent speed compliance, therefore measures like speed humps and tables will continue to be an option. The same reason that makes these measures effective can also cause them to be viewed as an inconvenience. This disparity can result in the potential for disagreement on future traffic calming projects. The changes proposed in this repm1 should help improve the policy and minimize these occurrences.

 

Policy Changes:

Staff is proposing changing some key aspects of the program. These changes will improve the program and bring it more in line with other jurisdictions. Some of the changes are more complex and require feedback from the Council. This report is organized into four main categories. Each category contains components where there is a need for revisions. The four categories are;

 

  • Street evaluation process
  • The project lists
  • Project approval process
  • General policy changes

 

Street Evaluations:

 

Streets are evaluated for traffic calming based on an evaluation matrix. The resulting score determines a street’s ranking. The highest ranked streets are eligible for treatment first. Therefore the scoring criterion is a fundamental pa1t of the program. Residents that want treatment often disagree if their street’s score is not high enough. Opponents of traffic calming have challenged staffs’ evaluation in an attempt to lower the overall score and prevent treatments.

 

In order to ensure higher accuracy and equity, the scoring process needs to be adjusted. Options that we have considered are detailed in the following five scoring criteria:

 

  1. Speed Limit – Currently, the program measures the difference between the highest eighty-fifth percentile speed and 35 mph. This may not be a fair comparison for streets that have a speed limit lower than 35 mph. Many peer cities compare the average speed data collected from the street with the posted speed limit. This allows a true comparison between streets with various speed limits. We are proposing to use the posted speed limit on the street and averaging several speeds studies as the basis for assigning points. The current program uses the highest speed study which opponents claim fails to reflect true vehicular speeds. We believe by conducting multiple studies and averaging them, a more accurate depiction of true speed will be portrayed. In addition, staff proposes assigning more points for higher speeds. A Street with an eighty-fifth percentile speed of 45 mph presents a significantly larger problem than a street with one of35 mph.

 

  1. Volume – The current policy uses the highest volume along a street to determine points. We propose averaging several volume studies on the street rather than using the highest. Averaging the counts will ensure higher accuracy and better reflect actual conditions.

 

Based on the peer review, we also believe the volume thresholds for project eligibility needs revising. In the peer review, we had the highest maximum cap by far. Our current cap of 10,000 vehicles a day is a street that functions as a thoroughfare regardless what it is classified as and traffic calming is not reasonable. Most cities use a lower minimum threshold such as 500 vehicles per day and a max of around 6,000 vehicles per day.

 

  1. Pedestrian Traffic – On several projects, opponents have disagreed with the interpretation of what a pedestrian generator is. More firm criteria would be helpful such as any school within ¼ mile of the subject street, all pedestrian oriented facilities & bike infrastructure (bike routes, bike lanes) within 1,000 feet of the subject street, any bus stop, and any street on the “Safe Route to School” system. A Street lacking sidewalk should also be considered.

 

  1. Crashes – Crashes are the worst outcome of poor speed compliance. More points should be given to areas that have a demonstrated safety issue.

 

  1. Other Factors – The existing policy does not adequately define what this category may include. Staff proposes changing the criteria to “Roadway Geometry”.

 

Although the steepness of roadway sections which may encourage speeding is currently looked at, the nebulous title creates confusion.

 

Project Lists:

 

The existing project list contains all the streets evaluated that met the minimum scoring threshold. The streets are ranks by their scores in numerical order. Both Neighborhood Streetscape (NS) and Traffic Calming (TC) project lists have a large number of streets on them. There are currently 121 streets on the NS list and 95 streets on the TC list. Some of the streets have been on a list since 2003 (12 years). This is problematic because some of the residents that requested the evaluation no longer live there. ln the peer review, staff found most entities capped the amount of time a project remains on the active consideration lists. The minimum scores should also be increased so that the project lists more reasonably reflect streets with a chance of receiving a project within the 5 year cap. Any changes need to be thoughtful in regards to how existing streets under consideration might be treated retroactively.

 


Project Approval:

 

The petition process, particularly as it pertains to traffic calming projects, has been a controversial aspect of the program. Residents have challenged the accuracy of petitions and the validity of signatures. The program was set up to be citizen driven and the petition process was intended to demonstrate overwhelming support. The review was used in an attempt to find ways to improve this process. Unfortunately there was no clear consensus. One consideration is to remove the door-to-door petition and replace it with a mail ballot system.

 

  1. Ballots – Several Cities use a ballot system such as a “neighborhood ballot” (traffic calming) or “street ballot” (speed limit reduction). A ballot is much more informal and could minimize some of the concerns related to the petition. A “neighborhood ballot” would be mailed by City staff to all residents on and surrounding a proposed project street (only for traffic calming). A “street ballot” would be the same thing except it would only be for people residing on the street and just used for speed limit reductions.

 

  1. Neighborhood Area – The area that gets to participate in the trigger to start the design process or the design itself has often been a point of criticism. The current policy allows staff to determine what streets should be included in the neighborhood area. To minimize the subjectivity of this setup, some Cities use a set of parameters. The parameters might include a prescribed radius, number of blocks, etc. Past experience has shown every street is unique and too many exceptions would be needed. The peer review did not indicate a best practice for how to define this. Currently this is being determined by staff on a case-by-case basis.

 

Vacant land, HOA common areas, open areas, cemeteries, office buildings and apartment buildings have given staff challenges on whether to include and if so, how (e.g. one signature for an apartment unit). A simplistic way to handle this process may be to send a ballot to only residential properties and count one ballot for each unit.

 

  1. Consistency – Currently the trigger to start the design process is a petition of support from just the people residing on the street. At the subsequent design meetings, people residing in the surrounding area are invited to participate. On occasion, this created a divide between people that reside on the street and neighbors who use the street for commuting. We are considering including the same people on all potential traffic calming projects, starting with the ballot system. As previously noted this would be for residents in the area defined as the neighborhood. While this may lessen the voice/concern of those living on the street in question, it should reduce the chances of dividing neighborhoods.

 

  1. Percentages – The percentage of total ballots returned and the percentage of ballots returned in support is one of the most difficult items to determine. Based on our review, staff was unable to find a consensus or clear direction. The current petition process was used to show overwhelming support.   This may be difficult with the use of ballots/mailings. For all the positives associated with the use of mail ballots, the downside is the potential for poor participation. Many Cities require a set percentage of ballots to be returned with another percentage for ballots that are in support. If either percentage is too high, residents living on a street may not get treatments due to apathy, a larger surrounding neighborhood, or an unreasonably high threshold. If the percentage is too low, it does not demonstrate overwhelming support. The City of Sacramento uses a ballot approach and has been installing traffic calming since 1980. Sacramento uses a minimum threshold of 25% for returned ballots with at least 2/3’s of the returned ballots in support of a project.

 

  1. Removal – Based on citizen input and the peer review, staff proposes implementing a policy to allow removal of treatments. Most Cities that include this option require a similar or more robust burden for treatment removal. Requirements such as a minimum time period to gauge effectiveness, similar voting areas, proof of proper speed compliance, a higher percentage of support, or even cost sharing are all requirements used for the removal process. If approved, staff recommends setting a minimum time period before consideration for removal is allowed (possibly 2-5 years) and at least a similar percentage used for the design trigger.

 

General Policy Changes:

 

The following revisions to the policy have no specific theme but were determined as a means to improve the program.

 

  • Fire Department – The current program does include Raleigh’s Fire Department at all the design meetings. However, the program does not allow them the option to rule out a street based on the proximity to a fire station. Most entities reviewed allow this option for the responding fire department. Traffic calming treatments slow all vehicles including first responders. Therefore it would be unfair to the collective whole to allow treatments on a primary response street/route.

 

  • Trial installation – During the PWC meetings, the concept to install temporary measures at problematic or controversial locations came up. Staff believes this could be used in some situations however; it should not be used as a substitute for a permanent project. How this is implemented, the cost, time delays, and ongoing maintenance have yet to be determined. The peer review did not indicate a best practice for this. Staff would not recommend including this option in the policy revisions at this time.

 

  • Private Participation -The topic of allowing a Developer to pay for all or some traffic calming devices has come up in the past and will likely in the future. If a Street is on either project list, it seems imprudent to tum away private participation. Doing so complicates matters and raises an equity concern. Since a design and estimated cost for a traffic calming project is done after the petition of supp01t or ballot, it would be difficult to dete1mine what amount the developer is responsible for. If this option is to be pursued, staff strongly recommends it follow the same protocols. If ballots are returned in support, a design can be created. At that point, an estimated cost based on previous installations can be determined. To keep things simple, staff recommends the developer pay for the entire project. Partial payments would require the City to use limited funding out of turn causing an equity issue.

 

Recommendation:

 

The policy changes outlined in this document were based on a comprehensive review of Raleigh’s and other jurisdictions traffic calming programs. Where possible, staff has provided guidance on policy revisions in an attempt to improve the program and minimize points of contention. Some areas such as how to define a neighborhood, what percentage should be required for the ballots, how to handle multi-family dwellings and whether to allow private development participation have no correct answer. Staff encourages Committee members to provide feedback on these topics so the policy can be revised and brought back to the Council.

 

Assistant City Manager Tansy Haywood indicated there have been conversations with the City Attorney and suggested adding additional language to the policy indicating the ballot process would be considered in an “advisory” capacity. She noted several of the proposed changes were the based on citizen feedback; however, staff requests additional input from the Committee.   Mr. Maiorano questioned the purpose of today’s presentation with Ms. Haywood responding staff would like some direction to make sure the changes were consistent with policy direction. He stated further discussion could be held on more difficult issues with the policy and Senior Transportation Engineer Niffenegger adding staff would like feedback regarding a more equitable policy implementation. Ms. Haywood stated after staff receives feedback from the Committee, staff will bring a report and final recommendation to the full council. Discussion took place regarding what type of feedback the Committee should give to staff with Senior Transportation Engineer Niffenegger clarifying once staff receives the feedback, they will bring a full report and recommendation to the full Council.

 

Discussion took place regarding how to report the item out to Council with Mr. Maiorano expressing his belief changes should be made and suggested going over each step to clarify which changes to make.

 

Project List. Senior Transportation Engineer Niffenegger stated streets on the Traffic Calming list can request a re-evaluation after the 5-year period expires noting streets on the list less than 5 years will be automatically re-evaluated under the updated policy changes. Mr. Maiorano questioned whether all streets on the list be re-notified regarding the re-evaluation with Mr. Niffenegger responding staff assumes the streets already on the list have met the policy criteria. In response to questions, Mr. Niffenegger stated those streets on the list for more than 5 years will be removed. Discussion took place regarding how the 5 year cap was determined with Mr. Odom making a motion to go ahead with the 5-year gap. His motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano and put to a vote that resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. Chairman Weeks ruled the motion adopted on a 3-0 vote.

 

Volume. Discussion took place regarding the 6,000 cap with Mr. Odom pointing out citizens can petition the City Council at any time; therefore, he is okay with leaving the application up to staff’s discretion. Mr. Maiorano expressed his concern leaving the policy application up to staff’s discretion would amount to arbitrary enforcement.

 

Without objection, it was agreed to keep the 6,000 cap.

 

Speed Limit. There were no questions from the Committee nor discussion.

 

Pedestrian Traffic. There were no questions from the Committee nor discussion.

 

Crashes. Discussion took place regarding whether factor in speeding and moving violation citations in the criteria with Mr. Odom indicating he was okay with leaving the crash factor as it is. Without objection, there were no changes made to this category.

 

Other Factors. Discussion took place regarding how to clarify such factors as topography, street grade, population density, zoning, etc. with Mr. Maiorano expressing his belief these items may be viable factors to consider. The discussion also included on-street parking, vertical road shoulders, etc.

 

Project List. Without objection, it was agreed to keep the 5 year cap.

 

Ballots. Mr. Maiorano stated it seems the ballot process is reasonable and questioned how ballots can be used for project removal. He noted it takes a petition of 75% of residents to request installing a traffic calming project and suggested there should be a similar percentage of residents to opt out or remove a project.

 

Discussion took place regarding the possibility of using the ballots for the 5 year re-evaluation as well as using the ballots to gauge the effectiveness of traffic calming projects already in place after a 5 year period with Mr. Maiorano stating there needs to be a removal policy in place with the other Committee members agreeing. The discussion also included how to leave a traffic calming project in place before evaluation for removal with Mr. Odom expressing his opinion the City could use the 75% of the street residents for the petition and then use the ballots to poll the greater neighborhood. Additional discussion took place regarding the possibility of leaving traffic calming devices in place for 3 years before a re-evaluation could take place.

 

How citizens initiate traffic calming projects was discussed with concerns expressed regarding how neighbors communicate with each other about a proposed project. The discussion also included the merits of the ballot process with Mr. Odom suggesting the citizens could initiate the process with a petition and the City could follow up with mailing out ballots. Mr. Maiorano questioned whether Mr. Odom was suggesting a 2-step process to initiate a traffic calming project with Mr. Odom responding in the affirmative.

 

Assistant City Manager Haywood noted there is neighborhood meeting held to initiate the design process and expressed concern that some neighbors were not informed of the meeting. She reiterated ballots would be used as an advisory, and stated the ballots would be more easily scalable to a neighborhood or project area. She noted 75% is a high bar to reach and could be more challenging when larger neighborhoods are involved with Mr. Maiorano expressing his belief the 75% rule should apply to streetscape projects only.

 

Discussion took place at length regarding the ballot process’ merits with Mr. Maiorano expressing his support for Mr. Odom’s suggestion of having a 2-step process (petition + ballots).

 

Mr. Odom pointed out no matter which process the City uses, there will be citizens expressing opposition. He noted most streets on the Traffic Calming list are older streets, so there is little chance of expansion in those areas.

 

Discussion took place at length regarding the 75% threshold with Mr. Odom suggesting having 75% of the residents express interest before holding any neighborhood meetings. The discussion also included the scope of notification after the 75% petition is received and ballots mailed with Assistant City Hayward suggesting the citizens submit a 75% petition, hold neighborhood meetings on the design, mail out ballots on the completed design, then refer the matter to Council for final approval and Mr. Maiorano indicating there is a need to ensure early participation in the process from the broadest area. Mr. Odom indicated he would want to have ballots mailed out to determine whether a traffic calming project is even wanted.

 

After further discussion, Assistant City Manager clarified that the City accepts a 75% petition from residents in the immediate are of the proposed project and mail out ballots to the greater neighborhood area before the design process begins with both Mr. Odom and Mr. Maiorano indicating that is correct.

 

Discussion took place regarding concerns over the possibility of expending city funds to design a project after the petition and ballot process is completed only to have the neighbors reject the project once the design is completed.

 

Discussion took place regarding the City of Sacramento, California’s traffic calming program; after which, it was agreed to go with staff’s recommendation regarding the use of ballots.

 

Neighborhood Area. Discussion took place regarding how feeder streets into the traffic calming area figure into determining the “neighborhood area” with the Committee recommending using a 2-block radius plus any cul-de-sac that feeds into the traffic calming area.

 

Trial Installation. Mr. Maiorano indicated he was ok with having the tools available to perform trial installations; however, he did not want to make it part of the policy.

 

Private Participation. Discussion took place regarding how infill and redevelopment may affect implementing the policy with Mr. Maiorano recommending accepting private funds; however, those funds should be documented and be made project-specific.

 

Discussion took place regarding what percentage of the cost the City should request from developers and how such private funding may affect streets already on the project list with Deputy City Attorney Ira Botvinick pointing out traffic calming is not part of the City’s current street design. He questioned whether the City should require traffic calming devices for certain new street connections with Mr. Odom responding that issue could be addressed at a later time before the full Council. Assistant City Manager Haywood indicated the City could accept private contributions within certain guidelines.

 

Fire Department Participation. Mr. Maiorano indicated he was okay with staff’s suggestions. Without objection, staff’s recommendation was upheld.

 

The Committee’s discussion paused for a moment with it being acknowledged that today, November 10, marks the anniversary of the establishment of the United States Marine Corps and Mr. Maiorano acknowledged for his service in the Corps.

 

Chairman Weeks indicated the Committee received correspondence from 2 residents from Laurel Hills and expressed his belief the concerns cited in the correspondence were discussed at today’s meeting.

 

William Cromer, 4024 Balsam Drive, indicated his critique of staff’s report was included in the correspondence cited by Chairman Weeks. He summarized his concerns, which reads as follows:

 

Critique of the Transportation Operations Staff Report

 

Introduction:

 

This document was prepared by William R. Cromer, 4024 Balsam Drive, Raleigh, NC 27612. It provides commentary on the staff report prepared by Jed Niffenegger titled Proposed NTMP Policy Changes, dated November 10, 2015. The recommendations in this document are directed to the City Council Public Works Committee and the Transportation Operations staff.

 

Our neighborhood, Laurel Hills, has first-hand experience with the existing policy, and has the insight to recommend additional improvements. The recommendations are arranged below in the same sequence as the related topics appear in the staff report.

 

Street Evaluation:

 

This is a critical element, because flawed policy can lead to projects that are not warranted. The scoring process attempts to derive a numerical rating based on multiple factors. Suggestions for scoring criteria follow:

 

  • Speed Limit: Greater significance should be given to speeding outside of commuter hours.

 

  • Pedestrian Traffic: As we stated in previous feedback, the methodology based on so called “pedestrian generators” is seriously flawed. It is a highly inaccurate method for estimating actual pedestrian activity. The gold standard would be to actually count pedestrians as part of the traffic volume study. A minor improvement would be to apply some human judgement to each of the identified pedestrian generator objects. For example, a bus stop – how many families using the target street actually use public transportation? Or a school – how many of the students in the subject school live within walking distance in the area of the target street? (Let’s recognize that many schools in the Wake County system have most of the students bused in.) Or a church – how many of the church members live in the neighborhood of the target street?

 

Let’s face reality here, consider a neighborhood with the following profile: single family residences on large lots with hilly terrain and no sidewalks, middle class and upper middle class demographic, all residences having car ownership, most residences at least three quarters of a mile from “pedestrian generators”. This neighborhood is not going to have significant numbers of pedestrians walking to the bank, to a bus stop, to the grocery store, or a church that may be as far as a mile away.

 

  • Crashes: Clearly, a history of speed related crashes demonstrates that drivers are traveling too fast for conditions. But an absence of crashes on a street where speeding is observed might indicate that the posted arbitrary speed limit might be overly cautious. The fact that drivers are speeding above the posted limit and accidents are not occurring could indicate that the limit is arbitrarily too low. For scoring purposes, crash history should carry more weight than speed limit compliance.

 

Project Lists:

 

For projects more than one year old, a citizen living in the influence area should be able to request a re-evaluation. This is consistent with the rule that a citizen can request a re-evaluation for a project that fails to meet traffic calming criteria. If the re-evaluation determines a different result from the initial evaluation, the project shall be re-prioritized.

 

Project Approval:

 

City streets are “public” streets, and are part of a city wide transportation system. Limiting approval of traffic calming impediments to properties that abut a target street is not in the broader public interest. This is the current policy.

 

Public Works staff have referred to the current policy as “people who live on the street”. This is not true. In the case of the Laurel Hills Road projects, the petition signers included seven empty lots, many properties within the Olde Raleigh gated community, and other properties that abut Laurel Hills Road but have different street addresses. If you asked these petition signers where they lived, it would not be Laurel Hills Road.

 

The suggestion of a mail ballot is promising, depending on how it is implemented. We have previously requested that approval of traffic calming require the signature of property owners, not other occupants. And in the case of multiple owners, a signature from each owner must be required.

 

There has been a problem with forged signatures. A process for signature verification is needed. A point-by-point comment on the sub-items in the staff report follows:

 

  1. Ballots: the document mentions the term “surrounding” a proposed project street. This term needs further definition. One kind of surrounding could be a grid network of parallel and perpendicular streets where drivers would have many alternative routes other than the project street. Another situation would be cul-de-sacs, loop streets, and networks of streets where there are no alternatives for access other than the project street. Clearly, residents who have no alternatives beyond the project street must have higher priority than those who have alternate routes available.

 

The ballot document should clearly state the consequences of a successful petition, such as the impacts on first responder travel time, the ability of citizens to influence the design, and the difficulty of removal of installed traffic calming impediments.

 

  1. Neighborhood Area: We have proposed earlier a simple rule, namely, that all properties where the project street is the only route for first responders must be included in the initial ballot/petition. This is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of life and death.

 

Please consider excluding residences within gated communities where a property may abut the project street. These residents live on their own private streets, have walls or tall fences isolating them from the public street, and are not impacted by traffic on the project street.

 

  1. Consistency: We have earlier proposed that the petition process should include owners of properties on the street and other streets where the residents must use the target street for access to the public road system. This would be the minimum requirement.

 

  1. Percentages: The current process requires signatures from 75% of the properties. If the process is amended to utilize returned ballots, 75% of returned ballots in support would seem to be a reasonable threshold. This would actually require a smaller number of affirmatives than the current standard, assuming a less than 100% ballot return rate.

 

  1. Removal: The need for a removal process could be diminished if the following two measures are implemented: 1.) expand the petition process to include all impacted properties, as described above; 2.) provide a process for citizen approval of treatments before construction can commence. Nonetheless, a defined removal process is required.

 

Project Design:

 

Traffic calming treatments shall be designed consistent with the posted speed limit of the street. A treatment shall not require traffic to operate at a speed lower than the posted speed limit.

 

There needs to be process where citizen approval of a design is required before construction can begin.

 

Conclusion:

 

Overall, the staff report represents a positive direction for changes to the NTMP policy. Many of the above review comments have been submitted earlier to council and staff, but no response has been received. We believe that our suggestions have merit, and would result in improving the NTMP.

 

Mr. Cromer expressed concern the citizens provided feedback; however staff did not respond to some of them and requested that staff respond to the concerns written in his document. He also asserted that staff’s criteria for scoring projects is flawed.

 

Mr. Maiorano expressed assurance to Mr. Cromer his concerns were received and advised the NTMP policy would undergo continual evaluation.

 

Mr. Cromer expressed his belief that only property owners of record and not “residents” be allowed to sign the petition, and stated if a property has more than one owner of record, all owns must be in accord. Mr. Weeks indicated this matter has been discussed at length and expressed his assurance to Mr. Cromer that his concerns were taken into consideration. Mr. Weeks went on to reiterate the policy will be under continual evaluation.

 

Mr. Odom also indicated the Committee has discussed the petition issue at length with Mr. Maiorano expressing his opinion that validating signatures on a petition was not practical and pointed out final project approval rests with the City Council. Mr. Maiorano went on to talk about how the this item has been a very public process.

 

Al Love, 4004 Balsam Drive, expressed his belief a lot of the work undertaken by the Committee and the City Council could be saved if there were a citizen oversight committee in place. He pointed out Laurel Hills residence have studied this issue at length and their knowledge could be helpful with the process with Mr. Maiorano noting the Committee received much input from citizens via social media, e-mail, etc.

 

Neil Harrington, 4830 North Hills Drive, pointed out there already is a citizens committee in place: the CAC. He stated the CAC’s should be used to provide more input in the same manner they are used for rezoning, subdivision plans, site plans, etc.

 

Bill Dix, 3900 Sunset Maple, indicated his residence is in the Laurel Hills Townhouses and expressed concern with the possible increase of cut-through traffic in his community if traffic calming devices were installed on Laurel Hills Drive. He went on to express his support to broaden the notification radius beyond the 2 block cap with Mr. Maiorano noting Mr. Dix made a reasonable point.

 

Following further discussion, Chairman Weeks moved to report the item out with the understanding staff will take the Committee’s directions and bring a report to the full Council for consideration. His motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano and put to a vote that resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. Chairman Weeks ruled the motion adopted on a 3-0 vote.

 

Chairman Weeks indicated this was the final meeting of the Public Works Committee for the new City Council begins its term in December. He indicated all 3 members of the Committee will be moving off the City Council, thanked Mr. Maiorano and Mr. Odom for their service on the Committee and on the Council. He also thanked staff for all their hard work, and indicated the Committee tried its best.

 

Mr. Odom stated it has been a pleasure to serve on the Public Works Committee with Mr. Weeks and Mr. Maiorano, and also expressed his appreciation to City staff.

 

Mr. Maiorano stated he respected and appreciated Mr. Weeks’ leadership on the Public Works Committee, and expressed his thanks to Mr. Odom as well.