HomeMy WebLinkAbout111615_cabs01Department of Public Works
O C.A.B: 1:30 PM
Page 1 of 1
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Agenda Request
To: Board of Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
From: Monte Reinders, Public Works Director/County Engineer
Agenda Date: November 16, 2015
Subject: Briefing for the 2016-2021 Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program
Statement of Issue:
Discuss hearing testimony concerning the 2016-2021 Jefferson County Six -Year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Analysis / Strategic Goals / Pros Ft Cons:
RCW 36.81.121 requires the annual adoption of a six-year transportation improvement
program after holding a public hearing. The purpose of the law is to "assure that each
county shall perpetually have available advanced plans looking to the future for not
less than six years as a guide in carrying out a coordinated transportation program"
(-R£W 36.81.121(1)).
Fiscal Impact / Cost -Benefit Analysis:
The TIP relies heavily on the availability of outside grant and program funding from
the State and federal government. Fiscal impact is evaluated through the annual
budgeting process including adoption of an Annual Road Construction Program.
Recommendation:
Potentially schedule TIP for adoption at future date.
Department Contact: Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP, Transportation Planner 385-9162
Reviewed By:
ilip M r Co strator
M//L�ol.—
Date
Public Works Staff Response to Public Comments -
2016 20216 -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Hearing
Prior to and during the public hearing on November 2, 2015 on the 2016 - 2021 Six -
Year Transportation Improvement Program the Board received many public
comments in support of adding a feasibility study for the segment of the Olympic
Discovery Trail (ODT) from the Transit Center at Four Corners Road to South
Discovery Bay.
As the Board is well aware, there are many competing demands on the local county
road fund and general fund. When making a recommendation to the Board, staff
considers where these limited funds can best be used to address priority needs
including preservation of existing infrastructure, safety, mobility among and
between communities and facilities, fish passage, etc. Public benefit (particularly to
the taxpayers of unincorporated Jefferson County where the road levy is collected)
versus cost is a priority consideration. The ability to leverage outside funding is also
strongly considered.
Jefferson County has already invested, and continues to invest, substantial resources
in the ODT, including completion of the 7.3 -mile Larry Scott Trail and ongoing work
to complete the route around the base of Discovery Bay. In addition, the TIP
includes a project to connect the Larry Scott Trail to the Transit center at 4 Corners.
The County has long recognized that a completed ODT would be an attractive asset
for residents and visitors alike and continues to support completion of this route, in
some form, as a long-term goal and a link in the Pacific Northwest Trail. The County
also believes that other options exist, based on models used in other areas of the
state and country, to complete a backcountry version of the Trail using the
significant energy and resources of volunteer organizations available in Jefferson
County. The County would be willing to explore these options with such a group
and partner in an arrangement like this. Examples to explore include the Methow
Valley Trails Association (MVTA) and the work currently being done in Kitsap
County in the Port Gamble area on Olympic Resources Management (ORM or Pope)
land. The County is already relying on significant volunteer efforts to develop and
maintain its Parks system including most of its trails at Gibbs Lake, Indian Island,
and Irondale Beach.
This section of the ODT is referenced in the 2010 Non -Motorized Transportation
Plan and the 2015 update of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. The
Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) identified the
ODT in the Regional Transportation Plan 2035. Typically, being identified in these
official planning documents should be sufficient for pursuing funding unless the
project is meant to compete for funding provided to the County for its core
transportation mission.
The TIP is the work plan for the Public Works Road Department over the next 6 year
time period. The only reasons to place a project on the TIP are:
Public Works Staff Response to Public Comments Page 1 of 6
• Public Works Roads Department can reasonably be expected to work on the
project within the next 6 years
• To compete for core transportation funding available to the County
The TIP is updated and adopted annually to reflect changing circumstances. If
funding circumstances change and significant funding for the trail is found, to enable
the county to add this to its work plan, the TIP can be amended at any time in the
future after a public hearing.
The following summarizes topics brought up by citizens during the public comment
period:
Transportation or Recreation? - This section of the 0 D would be primarily used
for recreation. None of the comments in the public hearing identified a priority
transportation need by any county user to get from A to B for school, employment,
or between population centers. Comments were directed towards creating a
tourism link or a facility for recreation. It is possible that a few hardy riders could
use this section to commute to Blyn or Sequim, but this is anticipated to be a very
small group given the distances involved and recognizing that riding speeds need to
remain relatively low on multi -use trails so as not to create conflicts with other
users. There are alternate, safer routes available for bicycle travel other than SR -20.
Jefferson Transit also provides a regular bus link to Clallam County.
The County should make completion of this Trail a high priority - The County has
prioritized work on the ODT as shown by the disproportionately large amount of
resources already diverted to current ODT projects as well as the completed Larry
Scott Trail. There are many other priorities for transportation, non -motorized
transportation within communities, and recreation. Shifting additional resources to
the DDT at this time would be at the expense of higher priorities.
On the proposed TIP there is an average of $224,951 of local funds available for
capital projects per year. In 2016 non -motorized transportation accounts for
$254,800 of local fund expenditure. The section of the ODT at south Discovery Bay
scheduled for construction next year represents 91% or $205,000 of the average
annual local funds available for capital projects. The figures demonstrate the County
has made the ODT a priority, potentially at the expense of other priority projects or
County needs
Economic Development and Tourism Revenue - The ODT would likely generate
some tourism revenue, a high percentage of which would be focused in the City of
Port Townsend. There has been no study to substantiate the economic benefit and
how much it would actually benefit the unincorporated County or where this ranks
as part of the County's economic development strategy (which should and does
include much more than tourism). The addition of new tourist visits as a direct
Public Works Staff Response to Public Comments Page 2 of 6
result of this new section of Trail or a completed connection to Clallam County is
likely to be a small percentage of the overall trail user group. In other words, most
of the trail users would be residents or visitors who would have come here already
for existing area attractions. Tax revenue generated by visits attributed solely to the
Trail (i.e. new tax revenue) is not likely to cover the maintenance costs associated
with this section of trail which can be as high as $5,000/mile/year based on
experience with the Larry Scott Trail for activities including mowing, brush cutting,
sign repair/replacement, vandalism, litter control, grading of trails/parking lots,
danger tree removal, storm cleanup, and fence repair. It should be recognized that
some trail use will come at the expense of existing use in Clallam County as well.
Economic development will occur as businesses spring up along the route - This
is not likely. The area of the proposed trail is mostly zoned commercial forest (some
rural residential) and is not served by roads or utilities.
The Larry Scott Trail receives a lot of use. - The average daily summertime trip
count is 388 at the trailhead at the Port of Port Townsend (a single user going in and
out is 2 trips). This portion of the trail begins in a significantly more populated area,
which accounts for a lot of its use by regular and repeat users. Even so, the majority
of use is recreational. Usage on the Larry Scott Trail should not be used as a gauge
to predict usage on the ODT Eaglemount section, which does not pass through a
populated area.
Safety - Comments were received regarding the dangerous nature of using the
shoulder of SR -20 to ride a bike. Public Works does not recommend riding a bike on
this section of State Route 20. Bicyclists should consider using alternate routes,
which are more appropriate. This is not an essential non -motorized transportation
corridor. Most people riding SR -20 are making a recreational bike touring choice.
Also, as a state highway, the safety of the traveling public on SR -20 is the
responsibility of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
WSDOT signage at Discovery Bay and Four Corners should be considered to inform
riders of alternative choices.
Alternate Routes (Center Rd, etc) identified by Public Works are not appropriate
for most users - Public Works has not suggested that hikers, horseback riders,
parents with strollers, or children on bikes use alternate routes such as Center Rd.
This route may be a choice available for experienced touring and road riding cyclists
but not others. Other user groups are recreational in nature and should use some of
the many other existing trail, hiking, horseback, beach -walking, etc. opportunities
that exist in the County which account for the reason many people locate and visit
here. The County has suggested that if a recreational trail route in the Eaglemount
area is deemed a high priority by trails advocates, then the volunteer organizations
such as the Peninsula Trails Coalition (PTC) should develop such a recreational trail
using volunteer labor via landowner agreements as has been done in many areas
around the country and Washington State.
Public Works Staff Response to Public Comments Page 3 of 6
Trail builds community - Trails and paths have been shown to build community,
particularly in more densely populated areas. If community building is a primary
objective, working toward completion of the Rick Tollefson Memorial Trail (RTMT)
in the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA would rank higher than this portion of the ODT.
The plan for RTMT creates a pedestrian/bike facility connecting schools, ballfields,
library, and population center. The Eaglemount section of the ODT passes through
rural areas with low population density.
RCW and WAC require this section of trail be added to the TIP - Jefferson County
is under no obligation to add this section of the ODT to the TIP. The regulations
pointed out during public comment are RCW 36.70A.070(6) and RCW 36.81.121.
RCW 36.70A.070(6) outlines the requirements of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, not the requirements of the TIP. RCW 36.81.121 identifies the
requirements of the TIP.
RCW 36.81.121 states the TIP shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan,
which it is, and requires the TIP to show how it will spend the money required in
47.30 RCW for non -motorized transportation, which it does. Under 47.30 RCW the
County is required to spend a minimum amount on non -motorized transportation.
Specifically, 0.42 % of the total amount of funds received from the motor vehicle
fund in one fiscal year. For Jefferson County this minimum amount is approximately
$6,000.
The Comprehensive Plan refers to the 2002 Non -motorized Transportation and
Recreational Trails Plan (which was updated in 2010) and identifies "a list of
potential projects", not a list of required projects.
Placing a Feasibility Study on the TIP does not commit the County to building a
trail -
1) Placing a feasibility study on the TIP and conducting the study creates an
expectation that the County will follow through with acquiring funding to
design and build the facility, which is not within the capacity of the County's
available resources within the 6 -Year TIP time frame and would be at the
expense of other priorities.
2) Staff does not recommend that the County undertake a feasibility study if the
County is not willing to consider setting other priorities aside to build, own,
and operate this facility in the near future.
3) There is no clear definition provided by proponents about what is meant by a
feasibility study. Staff does not assume that this is intended to determine
whether it is possible to build a trail (it is). Rather what is meant is a routing
study to determine the best route for a trail for which the county would then
be expected to pursue funding. Feasibility studies can be used to identify
costs. Planning level estimates have been prepared by Public Works using
bid tabulations from similar recent projects and suggest a low range of $3 to
$4 million without paving and not including special highway crossing
Public Works Staff Response to Public Comments Page 4 of 6
structures. A study might refine, but not substantially change (or reduce),
the order of magnitude of this cost.
Adding the Eaglemount stretch of the ODT to the TIP is a necessaryfirst step
before the PTC and others can pursue funding -
To date, the County has not received a proposal from any volunteer trail group such
as PTC to develop this section of the ODT. Staff is not aware of any situation by
which placing this project on the TIP would enable other groups to acquire funding.
If PTC or others were to come forward with a proposal which showed how this
would occur, the County could revisit this issue.
A completed Feasibility Study would position the Countyfor requesting or
competing for funding -
1) Staff assumes that those present understand that current county funds are
insufficient to maintain the county's existing transportation and recreation
infrastructure. Road fund projections are shown in Attachment A which
already includes a pullback from recommended maintenance levels. The loss
of nearly 25% of operating revenue as a result of the curtailment of federal
timber harvest and/or its replacement subsidy (the "Secure Rural Schools"
act) has had a profound impact on the County.
2) The county recently invested considerable resources in a 2 -year process to
determine whether there would be a willingness on the part of Jefferson
County taxpayers to pay more taxes for recreational facilities (the ERPRC and
MPD process). During this process, advisory committees explored a 20 -year
proposed capital plan that included over $10 million worth of projects
geographically distributed throughout the County (including the ODT). See
Attachment B. The conclusion was that there was not a willingness to fund
more recreational facilities or pay more for the ones already owned. This has
recently been repeated in Clallam County with the current situation with the
pool (SARC) which has just closed due to lack of tax funded support.
3) The County can use State and Federal sources to pay for it:
a. These sources can also be used for existing priority needs serving our
communities or existing facilities
b. STP -many higher priority transportation needs such as Transit,
intersection improvements, preservation of existing facilities
c. RCO - 50% match requirement (county does not have), other facilities
compete
d. TAP - very small funding source, federal process drives up costs
e. Fed and State appropriations ("earmarks") - would compete with
other county priorities
f. Pedestrian Safety program - Competes with other community needs.
Typically smaller grant amounts not sufficient to fund a project of this
size without substantial match.
Public Works Staff Response to Public Comments Page 5 of 6
Conclusion - Existing funds and resources are not adequate to commit to
developing and maintaining a new multi-million dollar recreational facility at this
time. The limited transportation and recreation funds and resources the County
currently has available need to be focused on higher priority projects preserving
and improving what the County already has. Non -motorized improvements should
be directed towards transportation needs within and around communities. Unless
there is a conscious shift in both the County's transportation and recreation
priorities, as well as a significant change in the revenue picture, staff does not
recommend proceeding with route planning on this segment of the ODT at this time.
Jefferson County has already invested, and continues to invest, substantial resources
in the ODT, including completion of the 7.3 -mile Larry Scott Trail and ongoing work
to complete the route around the base of Discovery Bay. In addition, the TIP
includes a project to connect the Larry Scott Trail to the Transit center at 4 Corners.
The County has long recognized that a completed ODT would be an attractive asset
for residents and visitors alike and continues to support completion of this route, in
some form, as a long-term goal and a link in the Pacific Northwest Trail. The County
also believes that other options exist, based on models used in other areas of the
state and country, to complete a backcountry version of the Trail using the
significant energy and resources of volunteer organizations available in Jefferson
County. The County would be willing to explore these options with such a group
and partner in an arrangement like this. Examples to explore include the Methow
Valley Trails Association (MVTA) and the work currently being done in Kitsap
County in the Port Gamble area on Olympic Resources Management (ORM or Pope)
land. The County is already relying on significant volunteer efforts to develop and
maintain its Parks system including most of its trails at Gibbs Lake, Indian Island,
and Irondale Beach.
Public Works Staff Response to Public Comments Page 6 of 6
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
N
W
O
N
r
0
N
m
0
N
O
N
C
O
N
O
N
N
O
N
r
O
N
O
O
N
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
cin chM 64
m