4.   Operations Committee, October 4, 2006 (any committee consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the committee discussion portion of the agenda, which is item G on this agenda) (Mrs. Robinson)

a.   Utilization of Dynamic Message Signs (AD07‑002)
Committee unanimously recommended that Dynamic Message Signs carry only relevant safety and travel information and that a DMS “user's guide" be created for the Town's Web site.

STAFF REPORT

Operations Committee, October 4, 2006

Utilization of Dynamic Message Signs (AD07-002)
Consideration of recommendations for topics and messages to be placed on the Town’s dynamic message signs
Speaker:  Susan Moran

 

From:  Susan Moran, Public Information Officer
Prepared by:  Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, Tim Bailey, Engineering Director, and Scott Cunningham, Police Chief
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Cary’s new dynamic message signs may be used to inform citizens about lane closures, road closures, evacuations, unexpected conditions, expected travel times, and special event traffic as well as specific cases involving public health and safety.  The Town’s signs allow for two pages of messages with three lines of text each with a maximum of twelve characters per line.

At its August 10, 2006 regular meeting, Council directed staff to provide additional information on appropriate and pertinent messages for Cary citizens via the Town’s dynamic message signs by having Council’s Information Services Advisory Board (ISAB) and the Police Department’s Citizens Assisting Police (CAP) Team provide a citizen perspective on the issue.

The ISAB made several recommendations regarding sign messages:

1.       The group unanimously adopted a motion in support of the signs and their considerable potential.

2.       A majority of the group recommended that the signs not be left blank so that citizens can be sure that the signs are functioning.

3.       The group unanimously recommended that “value-added,” timely messages be placed on all operational signs as soon as possible and that all resources the Town of Cary can afford to spare be directed toward this effort.

4.       The group suggested testing potential messages and abbreviations on a focus group of citizens to determine whether each messages is understandable.

5.       The group suggested placing a compilation of messages and abbreviations on the Town’s Web site to which citizens may refer.

In addition to these recommendations, the ISAB made the following message suggestions:

1.       Information on peak travel times, rush hours in Cary

2.       Traffic metering – cars per minute or per hour across a specific section of road

3.       Speed metering – identifying the specific speed of a car

4.       Ozone alerts

5.       Carbon monoxide levels in the air

6.       Actions that can be taken by drivers to reduce adding to air quality problems such as Park & Ride / C-Tran availability and carpool tomorrow, especially if ozone information is available the night before

7.       Escaped felon in the area (similar to AMBER Alert)

8.       Boil water

Finally, the ISAB intends to keep the topic of dynamic message signs on the rest of its upcoming agendas in order to generate additional specific message suggestions.

The CAP Team made the following suggestions (an * precedes those suggestions that staff believes are outside the scope of allowable/appropriate messages for this medium):

1.       AMBER Alerts

2.       Weather Alerts (hurricane, tornado, or severe thunderstorms)

3.       Major incidents.  (Boil water)

4.       *Important Community Announcements – National Night Out, Lazy Daze, Spring Daze, Cary Band Day, etc.

5.       Change in National threat condition to very high (red)

6.       *CPD Officer of the month (if we have a program. If not, we should.)

7.       Town wide water restrictions (drought, major leaks)

8.       Stopped police or emergency vehicle with flashing lights - Move over- Slow down, it’s the law.

9.       *Help keep our emergency workers safe.  Your family may need them next.

10.   Water on the road – Stop – Your car doesn’t know how to swim.

11.   Monthly Seat Belt Survey results

12.   Seat belts save lives (Yearly statistics)

13.   Buckle Up!  Driver and All Passengers. Front and Rear Seats!  It’s the law! Your children are great! Protect them - Use seat Belts.

14.   NO PARKING in Cary Fire Lanes!

15.   Stop at the STOPPED SCHOOL BUS – Kids are too precious to waste.

16.   Always watch for kids. They are not watching you.

17.   Children at schools – please drive carefully

18.   Trucks need more space – stay well back

19.   Drink = don’t drive!  Drive = don’t drink!

20.   *Less than 21 years old – No alcohol!  It’s the law

21.   21 and over Blood Alcohol 0.08 % or more = DWI

22.   Buckle up for safety

23.   Focus on driving – avoid cell phone use

24.   Road closures and delays due to accidents

25.   Traffic congestion delays

26.   Power and/or signal light outages.

27.   Stolen license plate numbers

28.   Report potholes or other damage to Public Works at 469-4090

29.   Report Abandoned Vehicles on Cary streets – 469-4012

30.   Report Aggressive Driving to Road Watch Hotline 319-4521

31.   Report Downed Power Lines 460-4012 – Don’t go over them.

32.   Report roads covered by water.  Public Works 469-4090

33.   *You can save lives by calling 911 when you believe there is an EMERGENCY:

34.   *Stop a crime

35.   *Report a fire

36.   *Save a life

37.   *Fight Crime the most effective way: Before it happens.

38.   *Obtain Handicap placards at South Hills Mall 469-1444

39.   *Protect your/our most valuable resources:

40.   *Protect your/our children

41.   *Protect your/our country

42.   *Protect your/our family

43.    *Protect yourself and me

44.   Use your car signals for turns.

45.   Tailgating = collision your front end – their rear end - Your Insurance points.

46.   Wipers on – Lights on – It is the law; Raining – lights on – It’s the law

47.   *Law Enforcement + Community Minded Citizens = Safety without Walls

48.   *The future of your town, county, and country depends on you!

49.   *Make a CARY habit Road Courtesy!

50.   *Pet waste is a health hazard.  Clean up after your pet.

51.   Stay Safe & Save Fuel – Observe the speed limit

52.   Keep Cary Clean!  Don’t litter; Litter and contribute $500 to the town.

53.   Walking - don’t blend in – wear visible clothes

54.   Defense Wins! Drive that way.

55.   Be courteous – give the right of way

56.   *Use the turn lanes

57.   *Cary’s population 114,000 (a 4% incr. from previous year)

58.   *Change in trash pick-up days.

59.   *Biking is more fun when YOU follow the rules

60.   *Bikers use bike lanes

61.   *Biking – wear GLOW-IN-DARK garments at night and bright reflective vest in daylight

62.   Share the road – Watch for bicycles

63.   *Crime Stoppers tip line number, reward $, and Web site – (www.carycrimstoppers.net)

64.   *DUI checkpoints and where traffic enforcement will be.

In addition, members of the Cary Mayor’s Task Force on Disability had the following suggestion:  Don't abuse disabled parking; Illegal parking hurts!

Staff feels that the following items are also appropriate message topics:

1.       Alternate route information

2.       Incident information such as a broken water main that impacts traffic flow

Fiscal Impact:  Work to keep the signs continuously programmed with timely, relevant messages can be accomplished with existing resources.

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends that Council direct staff to:

1.       Always carry messages on all signs; do not leave signs blank;

2.       Utilize the non-* suggestions from CAP and ISAB as well as others from the public to develop messages that fit within the signs’ physical and technical parameters (number of pages/lines of text/characters per line) and support the intent of NCDOT DMS guidelines;

3.       Include real-time travel information messages on the signs such as average corridor speeds and travel times; and,

4.       Create a DMS “user’s guide” on the Town’s Web site that includes messages and abbreviations to which citizens may refer.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the consent agenda; Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

b.   FY06 Developer Agreement Update and Annual Reimbursements (EN07-028)
Committee unanimously recommended reimbursements by the Town in accordance with the Transportation Development Fee Ordinance and current developer agreements.

STAFF REPORT

Operations Committee, October 4, 2006

FY06 Developer Agreement Update and Annual Reimbursements (EN07-028)
Consideration of reimbursements by the Town in accordance with the Transportation Development Fee Ordinance and current developer agreements
Speaker:  Tim Bailey

From:  Tim Bailey, P.E., Director of Engineering

Prepared by:  Belinda Adams, Administrative Specialist

Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager

Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

The Transportation Development Fee Ordinance includes a provision whereby developers may enter into an agreement with the Town for right of way dedicated or roadway improvements along thoroughfares.  Fee credits and/or cash reimbursements are allowed with the agreements; however this staff report only deals with the cash reimbursements.  Developer agreements only provide for reimbursements for right of way dedication and improvements which exceed the Town’s collector street standards.  The Town makes cash reimbursements on an annual basis prorating the reimbursement amount among all outstanding developer agreements.

The Transportation Development Fee (TDF) Ordinance stipulates that up to 25 percent of TDF’s collected during a fiscal year be designated for Developer Agreement reimbursements.  Transportation Development Fees in the amount of $2,338,948.03 were collected between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006.  Twenty-five percent, or $584,737.00 may be designated for reimbursements.  Each developer agreement expires ten years after its execution, and the Town is not obligated to reimburse the remaining balance at that time.  Reimbursements for FY 2006 would be in accordance with the following schedule:

Fiscal Impact:  Funding has been reserved for this purpose in a liability account from which these reimbursements will be paid.  Appropriating $584,737 in reimbursements from this account as proposed will bring net FY 2006 TDF revenue to $1,754,211.

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends that the reimbursement amounts be approved and distributed from the liability account (070-0000-203.0000).

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the consent agenda; Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

c.   Sanitary Sewer Easement Acquisition Assistance for Highcroft Village Sewer Extension (EN07‑029)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of a request for sanitary sewer easement acquisition assistance for the Highcroft Village Sewer Extension.

STAFF REPORT

Operations Committee, October 4, 2006

Sanitary Sewer Easement Acquisition Assistance for Highcroft Village Sewer Extension (EN07-029)
Consideration of a request for sanitary sewer easement acquisition assistance for the Highcroft Village Sewer Extension
Speaker:  Tim Bailey

From:  Tim Bailey, P.E. Director of Engineering

Prepared by:  Stephen J. Brown, P.E., Associate Director of Engineering

Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager

Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

The Town has received a request from Impact Properties Group, LLC, the developer of Highcroft Village, for assistance in obtaining a sanitary sewer easement across downstream adjacent property in order to extend sewer service to this development.  See their attached request letter dated August 27, 2006 and associated map showing the approximate location of this easement herein.  As described in the letter, they have tried for some time to obtain this easement through private negotiations.

If the easements cannot be obtained for a gravity sewer line, a pump station would have to be constructed.  From the Town’s perspective, a pump station is far less desirable than a gravity sewer line, especially when the proximity is close to the existing sewer.  Pump stations have higher costs associated with electricity, chemicals for odor control, and manpower to maintain.  A gravity line extension serves more properties at a lower cost.  Additionally, this proposed gravity sewer line would serve other properties upstream of Highcroft Village and allow the eventual removal of one small existing pump station.

Staff recommends that Council approve the requested easement acquisition assistance.  If approved, an agreement will be required with the provision that Highcroft Village cover all costs associated with this easement acquisition.  If staff is unable to successfully negotiate this easement acquisition, Council may be asked to approve a condemnation resolution in a separate future staff report. 

Fiscal Impact:  There will be no fiscal impact to the Town for this since all costs other than staff time are being covered by the developer agreement.  Should the easement not be obtained, the developer would be responsible for constructing the necessary pump station.  Upon completion, the Town would accept the pump station and become responsible for related annual operating costs.  Additional staff would not be necessary to serve the pump station.  Operating costs would total several thousand dollars per year for electricity and chemicals.

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends approval of easement acquisition assistance by the Town.

August 27, 2006

Steve Brown, PE

Associate Director of Engineering

Town of Cary

316 North Academy Street

Cary, NC  27511

RE:  Sanitary Sewer Easement

Dear Mr. Brown,

            As owners and developers for both Highcroft Village and Highcroft Commons, we are currently finalizing development plans with the Town of Cary for this area.  We have been unsuccessful to date in our attempts over the past eight months to negotiate survey permission or easement rights to connect sanitary sewer across the property of Alma M. Stitt to the existing Town of Cary system and are requesting assistance for both of these matters.  The extension of sanitary sewer easement would only not allow development of the subject parcels but also facilitate the Town of Cary’s abandonment of an existing aged pumping station service a mini-storage facility and an apartment complex.

            Our attempts to negotiate with the Stitts have not been productive to date.  In December, 2005 we first contacted the Stitts to discuss this easement.  On January 26, 2006 , after numerous phone calls, we met with the Stitt family and requested survey permission.  They indicated they would need to meet with their attorney.  After several weeks of no response, we contacted the Stitt family again and were given the name of their attorney and a PO Box for his address.  We requested the phone number of their attorney and eventually were provided his phone number but told he may not handle the matter.  After several attempts he retuned a call and requested a letter requesting permission to survey and a hold harmless agreement.  Our attorneys provided a draft of those documents on or about March 6^th.  Our attorneys followed up again the week of the 13^th of March but have not received a reply at this writing.  After several additional attempts to contact the Stitts, a package was mailed on June 29^th, return receipt requested, which contained an offer for the easement and a plat for their review.   The week of August 7^th, Chip Stitt requested a vertical design of the sewer easement and we provided that via email on the 8^th which he acknowledges receiving. 

            While we are continuing our efforts to resolve this issue with the Stitt family, it does not appear there will be a timely resolution to our request and the easement is causing a delay to the completion of our projects.

In our previous letter of March 17, we attached an Exhibit from Withers and Ravenel detailing the estimated location for the easement. across the property of Alma M. Stitt.  I am also attaching to this email the PDF of the vertical design from Withers and Ravenel.

As our five months of continuing negotiations with the Stitts has brought us no closer to an agreement, we respectfully request the Town of Cary’s assistance and expedient review.  We appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Glen Futrell and Colin Davidson

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the consent agenda; Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

d.   Force Main Alternative Evaluation Results and Recommendation for the Terrington Wastewater Pump Station Project (EN07-032)
Committee unanimously recommended Alternate 2 for the Terrington Wastewater Pump Station Project.

STAFF REPORT

Operations Committee, October 4, 2006

Force Main Alternative Evaluation Results and Recommendation for the Terrington Wastewater Pump Station Project (EN07-032)
Consideration of two alternative force main locations for the Terrington Pump Station Project
Speaker:  Tim Bailey

From:  Tim Bailey, PE, Engineering Director
Prepared by:  Ken Schuster, PE, Engineer
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

The Town has contracted with The Wooten Company to provide engineering design and construction administration services for the Terrington Wastewater Pump Station Project.  As a part of the contract the Engineer has prepared a Force Main Routing Alternative Evaluation report.  The contents of that report are included herein.

The major advantages and disadvantages for each of the alternates are listed below.

Alternate 1- Advantages

• Total number of affected property owners is six, which is three less than Alternate 2.
• The Campbell Road interceptor is in the design stage. Approximately 1900 linear feet of this interceptor project would be co-located and in a common easement with the Alternate 1 force main, resulting in a reduced easement width for this portion of line.

Alternate 1-Disadvantages

• Total estimated project cost of $472,000 is approximately $156,000 greater than Alternate No. 2. This cost includes easement acquisition and downstream sewer upgrades.
• The Wooten Company, engineering consultants for this project, assessed the downstream sewer capacity down to the connection with the Speight Branch interceptor. Their review predicts significant surcharging that affects over 1900 linear feet of pipe. Alternate 1 requires the upgrade of this 1900 feet of pipe at an estimated $151,000. 
• Approximately 1.1 acres of additional (over that required for Alternate 2) easement acquisition is required.
• The length of Alternate 1 is 1700 linear feet longer than Alternate 2.

Alternate 2-Advantages

• The estimated project cost of $316,000 is 33% lower than Alternate 1 cost.
• Downstream sewer capacity is “better”. The Wooten Company’s assessment for downstream sewer showed a minor predicted surcharge of  0.73 feet above the pipe in one manhole.
• Includes a portion that is gravity sewer and could serve additional potential customers.

Alternate 2-Disadvantages

• The force main would be located closer to several more homes in Alternate 2 than Alternate 1.
• Alignment extends in close proximity to existing individual water supply wells (although still in compliance with State regulations).
• This Alternate uses easement along Holly Springs Road that may also be needed for a future potential 20 inch water main. Thus, 20’ of additional easement width along Holly Springs Road may be needed in the future.
• Total number of affected property owners is nine including those associated with the water main and gravity sewer easements.

Alternate 1, for the most part, would cross along properties that are much larger than those in Alternate 2. Alternate 2 would cross through the Campbell Woods West Subdivision parallel to the stream buffer. The homes along the Alternate 1 route are typically further from the force main than those in Alternate 2.  Alternate 1 has two homes that are at approximately 100 feet or less of the proposed forcemain with the closest being about 50 feet.  Alternate 2 has five, potentially six homes that are at 80 feet or less from the proposed force main with the closest being approximately 65 feet. Once the force main is installed it will have minimal aesthetic impacts.