SUMMARY OF MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 18, 2003

A.

Sal stated that the CAC function is basically explained by its title, the Community Advisory Committee. They act in a Advisory capacity to the PCDOT, providing valuable input from those neighboring the project and as stake holders that obviously that have significant interests in the project and how it affects peoples lives, businesses, and day to day activities. The goal and the mission of the CAC also includes a review of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR). This report requires Board of Supervisor (BOS) approval before the project can progress beyond this point. The EAMR basically has two parts: a) the Environmental Assessment, where assessments are made on all the environmental issues on the project including biological (plants and wildlife), visual impact issues, landscaping, and noise studies. Basically all the parts of the environment that are affected by this project are studied in this report and impact assessments are made. The project team then uses County guidelines to determine if mitigation efforts are required. The committee (CAC) reviews this report and can offer comments, suggestions, or provide other input on it. The project team listens to the concerns of the committee and works to incorporate these ideas wherever possible. The final EAMR is prepared during this process for submittal to the BOS for their review and approval. The committee is then responsible for the preparation of a letter to the Board stating that they have completed the review process and their position on the final report. At this time the committee has the opportunity to raise any concerns or objectives they have with the final report to the BOS.

B.

The committee's other major function is to review and provide input on the project artwork. A project artist has been selected for this project and will be getting involved after the first of the year.

A.

Sal explained to the committee what had happened to cause a five-month delay in the project design, the last meeting being June 17. Issues involved in the delay included consultant contract amendments for additional services and rethinking the necessary project scope versus the available budget.

1.

Regarding contract amendments Sal noted that because there was a significant increase in the contract amount, several County departments carefully reviewed the request including engineering, procurement, administration, and the attorney's office. The Board's summer schedule and new fiscal year budget priorities also impacted the time frame.

2.

Sal then reminded the Committee that the last time we met the project construction cost, not including the addition of the Craycroft intersection, was then approximately $17million. (The Craycroft intersection approximately adds another $3 million; however, the funding of this intersection construction is from another bond project.) This $17 million in construction for a bond project that only had $12 million assigned to it when the bond election was held and the $12 million was to include administration, planning, design, right-of-way, utilities, and public art. This overrun is not solely a Craycroft problem. It is happening on other County bond projects as well. The County, therefore, has had to take a hard look at all their projects and is looking for ways to bring them in budget. On Craycroft we are performing an alternatives analysis study. This study goes all the way back to reviewing what we have today, how is currently functioning, and how much does that need to be improved. The project design team, (County staff and our consultants) have had several meetings where we identified different options for review and study. The study has been set up to explore a two-lane, three-lane, and four-lane option. The study is currently in progress and we are seeking CAC input. This study will be essentially complete by the end of the year.

3.

In conjunction with this, Pima County is also having a network study of four northeast roadway corridors performed by Catalina Engineering. The four roadways being studied are Craycroft (this project area), Sunrise, Kolb, and River Road. The network study will look at these four corridors as a network verses individual projects. The Craycroft, Sunrise, and Kolb corridors have approximately $30 million of bond money (total) assigned to them to improve traffic conditions for the next 20 years. The goal of the study will be to identify alternatives that would allow all the necessary improvements in this area to be done with the total available money, $30M.

B.

A bond money recap for the project was discussed by Sal. A sheet was passed out that showed both the total project budget & funding schedule. The total project budget is currently $13.3M with $9.6M allocated for construction. Sal also gave a brief recap of the 1997 Bond Program. Attachment #1, "Bond Recap and Project Schedule", was passed out for this part of the meeting and contains additional detailed information that was discussed. This sheet also illustrates how the budget (expenditures) and funding schedules balance, requiring no additional monies (such as County HURF) to complete the project.

C.

An updated project schedule was presented which now shows project construction has slipping approximately 6 months from the schedule presented in January 2003. Construction is now planned to start in late 2005, completing in early 2007. During this time a brief question and answer exchange regarding how pygmy owl surveys affect the project schedule also occurred.

D.

Exchange with various CAC members.

1.

Chuck Frietas expressed his disappointment in they way the project has failed to progress. He noted that he believes the County could have been more aggressive in working to get this project fully funded sooner and that the delays experienced add to the project's final cost. He also quoted schedule information from previous fact sheets the CAC had received early in the project (probably prepared in 2000 and/or early 2001).

2.

Charles Geoffrion asked if it was possible Kolb, River, and Sunrise would get the full four-lane treatment over time and Craycroft would be sort of a weak link with only a three-lane and therefore having less traffic on Craycroft as a result. Sal responded that the NE Corridor Network Study is being performed to better establish what the total future needs of this area are and will have to wait for its completion to answer that question.

3.

Wanda Shattuck asked about sidewalk requirements and any federal monies associated with them. Sal responded that at this time we have no federal monies in the project, but we will still be designing a project that meets federal ADA accessibility requirements.

A.

David Hook, Project Manager for EEC lead the discussion for the Alternates Analysis study.

B.

It was explained that the study had been broken into 2 phases - a Qualitative Analysis and a Quantitative Analysis.

1.

The Qualitative Analysis was intended to be a big picture overview and initial screening of the possible alternates so that fatal flaws would be identified and the obviously less attractive alternates eliminated. Thus, only the leading alternates would be advanced to the detailed evaluation of the second phase - the Qualitative Analysis.

2.

Although not a full design analysis, the Quantitative Analysis was intended to identify costs and other key statistics to assist in the decision making leading up to a recommendation of the preferred alternative.

C.

The recently completed Qualitative Analysis process was described as having included 2 brainstorming sessions attended by key members of PCDOT staff and the EEC design team. Through a consensus building process, this large group came to agreement on several key issues.

1.

At the first brainstorming session, it was determined that there would be 8 evaluation categories (cost, right of way, access, utility, traffic, environmental, drainage and safety). There was also agreement that there would be 8 alternatives to evaluate in the Qualitative Analysis (2-lane, 3-lane, 4-lane and 5-lane pavement cross sections, each with an overlay and reconstruction option). Additionally, there was agreement that there would be certain assumptions common to all alternatives (no curbs, no storm drains, Calle Bosque would be realigned at Territory Drive, both the Territory Drive and River Road intersections would be widened and signalized, left turn lane improvements would be done at all other side street intersections, and there would be a pedestrian path on 1 side of Craycroft).

2.

After the first brainstorming session, each individual in the group was given a blank matrix to use in their personal evaluation so that they could bring a completed draft matrix to the second brainstorming session for discussion.

3.

At the second brainstorming session, the group reviewed each evaluation category for each alternative and agreed on the appropriate impact for each cell in the Qualitative Analysis matrix (see attached). During the group evaluation, it was agreed to split the environmental category into 2 categories (one for wildlife and vegetation and another for visual resources) to facilitate the understanding of these impacts. From a visual standpoint, it was explained to the CAC that the symbology had meaning - the more solid symbols in each row/alternative, the larger the expected impacts and the less desirable the alternative. Conversely, the more open the symbols in each row/alternative, the smaller the expected impacts and the more desirable the alternative. The outcome of the Qualitative Analysis was: 4 options were determined worthy of advancing to the Quantitative Analysis phase (2-lane/overlay, 3-lane/overlay, 4-lane/recostruction and 4-lane/overlay).

D.

It was explained that the Quantitative Analysis was currently underway and that much effort was being spent on determining quantities of key pay items for use in determining construction costs for each of the 4 remaining alternatives. The 4 alternatives were described, with reference to display boards (see copies attached). It was explained that other issues were being researched and quantified as much as possible to bring forward relevant data for consideration in the decision making process. Some preliminary observations were shared, using an long aerial photo exhibit of the project area posted on the wall (substantial improvements to the River Road intersection, the existing 5-lane section south of River Road would remain largely as-is for all alternatives, the 2-lane alternative would effectively have 3 lanes in 2 areas due to the merger of the back to back left turn lanes when several intersection were close to each other, and reconstruction of a section of roadway near Calle Barril would be required to improve the sight distance safety characteristics of the intersection, realignment and resignalization of the Calle Bosque intersection). The final report is expected to be complete by the end of the year.

The CAC had questions on some issues, resulting in a discussion that included:

1.

Alternatives and evaluation categories - a brief summary of each was provided for clarification.

2.

The 'overlay' terminology - it really means that there would be some widening as necessary to obtain the full cross section of each alternative, but that the existing pavement would remain in place and receive an 'overlay' of asphaltic concrete to provide the 20 year service life needed.

3.

Guardrail - use of guardrail would be avoided if possible. Determination of specific locations where it might be needed will be a function of the forthcoming detailed design process.

4.

Maintenance costs - maintenance issues were and will be considered through the input of PCDOT maintenance staff in the analysis process.

5.

Erosion from storms - lack of curbs and storm drains will create the need for roadside swales. Properly designed, these swales should be stable and not subject to erosion, thus not introducing new maintenance costs.

6.

Cross drainage culverts - it has not yet been determined if the new culverts will pass the 100-year storm event or if, as other recent PCDOT projects have done, the culvert will be sized for a lesser storm (which will create the occasional possibility of flood flows overtopping the roadway).

A.

A discussion regarding cross drainage followed:

•

Charles Geoffrion noted concerns that tremendous amounts of flowing water have occurred in certain areas in the past. This has caused traffic to come to a complete stop when flooding gets up to the hubcaps or higher.

­

Sal Caccavale stated that we are not looking to delete needed drainage improvements, but the County is reviewing to what degree improvements should be made. For example ADOT designs pass the 50-year flood under their roads and some cities streets use the 25-flood for their minimum criteria. Pima County has been using the 100-year flood, which can add significant costs to the drainage structures.

•

Roger Baumann noted that that clogging of the cross drainage culverts might have caused problems in the past.

•

Don Baker questioned how reducing our drainage design minimums would affect maintenance costs and whether or not it would be cost effective to do so. There was also some general group discussion at this point regarding what the size of the last large storm in 1996 was and what the associated maintenance costs were afterwards.

­

Sal noted that he would speak to both County maintenance and flood control to get an answer on this. He will also ask them to attend the next meeting.

•

Craig Allison offered information regarding the relative difference in storm sizes. He also stated that ADOT's records indicate that maintenance costs due do problems related with large storms are relatively inexpensive. He said that majority of a roadway's maintenance costs are associated with the pavement structure.

Sal again noted that we are going to come up with our best recommendations based on the budget available and appropriate guidelines in terms of what we go to the Board.

B.

A discussion regarding project funding followed:

•

on Baker and other members of the audience raised questions and concerns regarding the reduction in project scope and funding. The statement was made that the funding of budget overruns, such as those that occurred on the Sunrise Drive and the Skyline Drive projects, are taking away from the Craycroft Road project. A concern was also voiced that this project will virtually have no improvements left in it.

­

al responded that this is not the case. The Craycroft job is still getting the money that had been budgeted to it in the bond election, approximately $10-$12 million. The project improvements still include increasing roadway capacity to transport 2025 traffic volumes, 6-foot paved shoulders (which double as bicycle lanes), safety improvements, drainage improvements where possible, and a rubberized asphalt surface. This rubberized surface will provide reduced noise levels to all who live adjacent to or near the roadway. The major changes will be the deletion of the roadway drainage system (and curbs) and possibly a reduction in total lanes. The intent of the originally bonded project will still be met. Any changes from the originally prescribed project scope will be presented to the Board for their approval.

A.

Sal stated that the CAC function is basically explained by its title, the Community Advisory Committee. They act in a Advisory capacity to the PCDOT, providing valuable input from those neighboring the project and as stake holders that obviously that have significant interests in the project and how it affects peoples lives, businesses, and day to day activities. The goal and the mission of the CAC also includes a review of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report (EAMR). This report requires Board of Supervisor (BOS) approval before the project can progress beyond this point. The EAMR basically has two parts: a) the Environmental Assessment, where assessments are made on all the environmental issues on the project including biological (plants and wildlife), visual impact issues, landscaping, and noise studies. Basically all the parts of the environment that are affected by this project are studied in this report and impact assessments are made. The project team then uses County guidelines to determine if mitigation efforts are required. The committee (CAC) reviews this report and can offer comments, suggestions, or provide other input on it. The project team listens to the concerns of the committee and works to incorporate these ideas wherever possible. The final EAMR is prepared during this process for submittal to the BOS for their review and approval. The committee is then responsible for the preparation of a letter to the Board stating that they have completed the review process and their position on the final report. At this time the committee has the opportunity to raise any concerns or objectives they have with the final report to the BOS.

B.

The committee's other major function is to review and provide input on the project artwork. A project artist has been selected for this project and will be getting involved after the first of the year.

C.

The displays discussed tonight will be put on the web site for the use of the Committee. It was also noted that the web site does have an e-mail link where questions can be submitted. Sal noted that he can also be contacted directly by e-mail.

D.

Charles Geoffrion asked about what the CAC's expected schedule is now. Sal indicated that the current thought process estimated that we try to have the final EAMR and the CAC's letter to the Board in April sometime. This means the CAC letter would have to be completed about 30 days prior because the team needs time to prepare any necessary responses to the Board the committee's letter may require. The EAMR also has to be made available for the public to review so we'd be looking to try to be complete, say, mid-March. We have a lot of the data already gathered in terms of some of the first sections of the report, which are the biological part and a lot the environmental data gathering is all done already. We now need to focus on what the recommended final configuration will be. This is an ambitious schedule right now and we may have to slide that EAMR date to the board a month. In terms of what the construction schedule is we can meet the construction scheduled with what we have to do. The final CAC schedule will also depend how often the committee elects to meet once the draft information is ready for their review.

E.

Charles Geoffrion asked if there could be handouts for the CAC to take with them summarizing the information presented at the December meeting. Sal acknowledged that these would be provided.