Mayor David Faber opened the Port Townsend City Council’s August 1 meeting by moving public comments to the top of the agenda in consideration of the many members of the public present intending to comment. Nearly an hour of comments concerned YMCA management of Mountain View Pool, the subject of past and future Free Press reports, so here’s what happened during the rest of the meeting.

In non-YMCA comments, disabled musician Mark Daniel Hoskins described the city harassment he’s experienced while performing and in his own trailer.  State law allows 71 decibels in mixed residential areas like downtown, so he asks why he is harassed for playing near the ambient loudness in a town that is promoted as being artist-friendly. He is not breaking laws and just wants to be left alone to perform his music.

Jaisri Lingappa remotely attended the July 18 council workplan retreat, but found the audio was incomprehensible leaving no detailed public record of an important all-day planning meeting that covered affordable housing.  She noted that currently touted developments on Madrona Ridge and Cook Avenue are almost certain to be unaffordable. She requests a redo discussion at an upcoming council meeting with proper audio, and that councilors make their stands and plans available to the public.

Stephen Schumacher asked how many PT police officers have resigned or retired in the past two years, whether exit interviews were conducted with the departing officers, whether summaries of such interviews are available to the public, and how many city officers have left for Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and Kitsap County positions.

In response to public comments, City Manager John Mauro apologized for the audio at the retreat, but members of public could and did attend in person, materials and minutes have been posted, and the public is invited to participate in the city/county/port/PUD conversation about housing on August 18.  Regarding police staffing, he intends to bring a status report to council from the police chief later this summer, having made some good progress there.

Taking Care of Business

Following an executive session to discuss an employee’s performance, the council discussed and unanimously approved several items of new business:

• Contracting with GeoEngineers to perform a seismic stability study (required by the State Dam Safety Office) costing up to $134,000 (all but $47,000 paid by a FEMA grant) on Lords Lake’s poor-condition East Dam.
• Disposing of $31,638 unused COVID-19 Financial Assistance Utility Bill Relief Grant funds ($25,000 from the Utility Fund, $8,138 from community donations, only $1,455 ever used to help people). Staff proposed clearing the books by offering debt relief grants to about 15 utility accounts averaging $1,900 in arrears due to lockdown impacts (2/3 residential, 1/3 landlords or small business), with remaining funds sent to OlyCap. Normally such gifts of public funds would be prohibited, but the State Attorney General allowed public funds to be spent for “promoting public health which may have an incidental benefit on private citizens.” Councilor Libby Wennstrom would like council to learn from this experience, where it set up a large amount of money that couldn’t be optimally used. Deputy Mayor Amy Howard clarified the original program limited grant amounts so the most number of recipients could benefit, but it should have been reviewed after 1 not 2 years.
• Extending deadline from August to October 1, 2022 for proposing to levy up to $900,000 in additional 2023 property taxes out of the “banked capacity” that would have been paid annually to East Jefferson Fire Rescue prior to its 2019 annexation agreement (note $600,000 was levied in 2022).
• Contracting up to $100,000 from the Stormwater Utility Fund to repair extraordinary June 5 storm damage to Walnut Street (between T and V Streets) and to the Logan Street storm pond outfall.
• Relinquishing an unnecessary utility easement to clear title for 346 Logan Street (which should have been done 60 years ago when 4th Street was vacated).

Transportation Improvement Board Grant

Public Works Director Steve King asked council for authorization and guidance applying for this year’s big state transportation grant. From staff’s summary statement:

Staff described their list of projects that might score well, including 7 to repair pavement:

1. W Street — Cherry to Walnut
2. San Juan/49th — Admirality to Fairgrounds
3. Washington Street — Van Buren to Sims
4. 12th Street — Landes to Sheridan
5. Tyler Street — Jefferson to Lawrence
6. Lawrence Street — 19th to F
7. San Juan — 19th to F

… and one to enhance crossings and calm traffic:

1. 19th/Blaine Street — Sheridan to Walker

Since staff had concerns about delivering a quality application on the first four (which are much larger Urban Arterial pavement projects), it recommends applying for either the Tyler or 19th Street projects. Grants have a 15% match requirement paid from Real Estate Excise Tax funds.

King emphasized that it’s always helpful to make TIB applications, since they garner helpful feedback even if not successful, but staff feels stressed to get this one in before the August 19 deadline. Ideally the city would receive a big grant like for Discovery Road every 3 years, and a smaller one every year between.

Councilor Owen Rowe asked about possible traffic calming measures on 19th Street, and King answered they “could be islands, raised crossings, bulb-outs, tables … could do safety islands in the middle.”

Rowe also asked about the concurrent Safety Grant for 19th Street, which King explained was for a planning study, saying “If we don’t get the Safety Grant money, then we would need to fund that study to make sure we get it right in the public process, but at least this [TIB] grant would give us implementation dollars.”

Transportation Grant – Public Comment

In public comment, Schumacher asked how patchwork pavement repairs, newfangled projects like Edge Lane Roads (ELRs) preserving not repairing pavement, and big-ticket TIB grants fit together. He’s unclear whether the city has the money to do basic bread-and-butter repairs without depending on grants. There’s general discontent about roads not being fixed; looking at ELRs and the traffic-calming islands put on Washington Street that just make you go a little slower, they look pretty, but don’t seem cost-effective compared to just fixing the roads. So he wonders about the actual realities on the street and how these big grants relate to the city’s regular repair program.

Debbie Yanke commented, “The intersection of 19th Street and Landes is the only place we’ve had a bicycle/car fatality in our city. I’ve sat at that intersection, having cars going both directions on 19th, both directions on Landes, with pedestrians involved, and bicycles, in both directions.  And yet on Landes at 14th we have 3 crosswalks within 50 yards on Kai Thai. So I’d really like to see crosswalks for safety purposes at Landes and 19th, and wherever else on 19th it can occur.”

King responded that grant applications are periodic, not part of normal maintenance, but it’s great when a grant can take a big pavement repair job off our list. Rebuilding Lawrence Street will cost an arm and a leg, but if some pavement had been preserved, it would only cost an arm. Safety improvements can be achieved by striping at no additional cost. So the city is trying to get the best outcome it can by marrying grants within its comprehensive maintenance program.

Faber clarified that traffic calming on Washington Street was paid predominantly by neighborhood donations.

Counselor Libby Wennstrom provided an educational response:

I get this question a lot, so it tells me that people don’t understand this. Prior to 2003, municipalities got a great deal of street funding from the state, and with the rollback on car tab fees, that funding disappeared.  And that’s the point at which municipalities – and it’s not just Port Townsend, but everywhere in Washington – stopped being able to repair our streets. People say, we haven’t fixed these in 20 years – that’s why.

Port Townsend has a unique challenge, most cities of our size and tax base have far fewer miles of built road.  I believe we have 88 miles of paved roads here, and a city of 10,000 people would normally have half that or less. … We don’t begin to have the budget to fix these.

Do we pay $900,000 to pave one mile, or do we use that for grant match money so we get 20 times our amount? So that’s part of our tap dance that’s happening here.

This is how we’re going to be able to fix the streets. And if you’ve got real problems with street funding, you need to take it to the state legislature, because that’s where that’s going to get fixed.

Transporation Grant – Discussion and Decision

As the meeting was running long, Faber asked each councilor which project they’d support on the grant application.

Wennstrom deferred to staff’s expertise, but when pressed went for 19th Street as “the area of greatest pain.”

Rowe said, “These are all fantastic projects, it was when I got to 19th Street – that’s the one we’ve got to do. As Ms. Yanke pointed out, we have actually had a bicycle fatality there, and it’s been recognized as a problem area for a long time. So if we can have any chance of getting funding to address that, that’s the one to go for.”

Amy Howard expressed that, “19th Steet is bizarre, it is built like a race track. I catch myself going down it and going, ‘Oh no!’ and having to brake. And I try to follow the speed limit. … That is a place where we have a known issue.”

Councilor Monica MickHager agreed with 19th Street, since “it hits the most bullet points the way I read them.”

Councilor Aislinn Diamanti also agreed with 19th Street, but would love for the next big project to be on Washington Street.

Councilor Ben Thomas explained, “I pretty much fall with everyone here on 19th. I’m concerned about developing a piecemeal approach to traffic calming. This Washington Street thing has come up a few times, I think rightly so – it’s one of those gifts we’ve given to the public to unite everybody, unfortunately, against us. [general laughter]  I don’t know how these choices were made before my time. Do we have a sense of an ongoing strategy for traffic calming? That [19th Street] seems to be the #1 street in town that’s way out of balance with the speed limit and the desired speed there.  So it seems really important, but I want to make sure we’re ready to do something that will look good 20 years from now.”

King replied that “The comprehensive street program is going to have a chapter dedicated to traffic calming. There is no one size-fits all on traffic calming, you need to really figure out the psychology of the street and why people are speeding. We want a cohesive effort on 19th Street.  And that’s why we applied for the study money to develop a cohesive plan before we implement. We’ll need to do that regardless if we get the study money or not, need to budget accordingly with the TIB grant.”

Thomas asked King “for clarification what we as a city have contributed to the Washington Street roundabouts. The question keeps coming up, and I keep telling people we didn’t really pay for them, but have of course have maintenance to deal with. Am I wrong to say we did not pay for them?”

King answered that “the traffic calming islands on Washington Street were funded by the neighborhood; the city provided staff time, part of that for testing it out. It’s basically modeled after the Seattle traffic-calming circles that they have in their neighborhoods. I try to use the term ‘traffic calming island’ because they are really not a roundabout. They’re really designed to obstruct the line of view, so you don’t have that open runway look on the street. … yes, the maintenance is ours.”

Faber agreed that 19th Street is essential, but wondered what is the cost difference between the Tyler and 19th Street projects. King answered that 19th Street would be a little more expensive.

Faber figured it would have been the other way around, so concluded, “If 19th Street is more expensive, then that settles it.  I was going to suggest, if it would be more cost effective to take the same money for Tyler Street, and then just ask that maybe 19th Street could be considered in some of the annexation dollar project so we could do both – but great … do the expensive one.”

However King clarified that banked capacity can’t be used on federal aid routes like 19th Street, whereas TIB grants can’t be used on anything but federal aid routes.

MickHager began moving to support a TIB grant application for 19th Street project with up to $75,000 match from Real Estate Excise Tax funds, when King interjected that the match needed to be increased to $150,000 to correct an error in the staff report. With 15% match, 19th Street could be a million dollar project.

Incorporating this amendment, MickHager moved, Wennstrom seconded, and council approved unanimously.

 

Request for Reconsideration

As the meeting wound down, I felt uneasy about the decision to focus this year’s big street improvement grant on slowing down 19th Street instead of repairing roads in bad condition, so I wrote council on August 4 requesting reconsideration of their choice:

	Dear City Council, Thanks for your thoughtful consideration on August 1 about Public Works’ application for a matching Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grant.  The council chose to pursue a $150,000 project for “Sheridan to Walker enhanced crossings at Discovery, Landes, and San Juan [that] could include traffic calming measures on 19th Street.” However, I’m concerned this choice would prove a costly waste of resources, which council could avoid by choosing any other project on Public Works’ list. What’s wrong with the 19th Street project?  Every other listed project focuses on our city’s critical need to fix streets and rebuild pavement, but the 19th Street project just aims to interrupt traffic flow and slow speeds on this arterial. The poster child for the 19th Street project was a cyclist fatality near the 19th and Landes intersection.  But that was a freak accident where a driver didn’t notice an adjoining cyclist and turned in front of him.  Since the cyclist ran into the car and not vice-versa, reducing vehicle speeds or enhancing crossings would not have affected this accident.  So the project does not in fact address “a safety problem or a substandard street” that scores higher on key grant criteria. As a cyclist myself, I feel very comfortable biking on 19th Street, since it has great visibility with generous shoulders and bike lanes.  Its pavement is in good condition, and its crossing lines only need paint touch-ups, not $150K of artisanal enhancements.  Our city has many other roads in much worse shape that are crying for attention. The councilor who moved this project wishes “to lower the speed limit to 20 miles an hour … on all our streets.”  Is that really what our city wants or needs?  Even if a lower speed might be good in some backwaters, why start with an expensive project to calm speeds on one of our best-designed and safest arterials? As Public Works said in its submission, these grants are highly competitive and cost staff up to $10,000 to prepare, so the city needs to take its best shot.  But the 19th Street project fails most of the key grant criteria that “the street condition must be poor” or “it addresses a safety problem.”  If the 19th Street proposal goes forward, I (and likely others) would write to TIB explaining the project’s flaws, further reducing its chance of winning the grant. Under the circumstances, I urge council to switch its TIB grant application to the Tyler Street Pavement Preservation Project (which was staff’s other top choice) or any other project on the list that actually repairs pavement on our decaying city streets.

Speeding problem or speed limit problem?

Years ago I attended a traffic planning meeting where expert consultants advised raising the speed limit on 19th Street to the 85th percentile of traffic speeds per transportation engineering best practices:

Research shows that the speed limit has little effect on how fast people drive. … While many drivers ignore speed limits altogether, others do try to follow them out of a sense of safety or obedience. This difference in speeds is actually more dangerous than if everyone were driving at a faster speed. We’ve all felt the frustration of being behind slow drivers and annoyance at aggressive drivers weaving through traffic. Both of these situations are dangerous and make traffic worse.

Raising the speed limit also has other benefits. It improves credibility of the speed limit sign if it consistently marks a reasonable speed for most drivers, not the speed at which politicians wish they would drive. It also improves relations with law enforcement. Rather than having to reflexively brake when seeing a police car, or worrying about selective enforcement of speed laws when everybody is traveling over the speed limit, rational speed limits mean that average drivers can simply go about their business. No one should have to worry about being pulled over for driving in a safe manner.

I wonder about the rationale now for reducing speeds on this arterial whose speed limit is arguably already too low. Does 19th Street really have a bad safety history over the decades?

Reading old Leader articles about the 2018 tragedy where a bicyclist flew over his handlebars into a car that turned in front of him, an accident that could have happened on any street in town and where car speed was not involved, it seems perverse to use this singular tragedy to prioritize up to a million dollars worth of irrelevant “safety islands”, “raised crossings”, “bulb-outs”, and “traffic calming” on a safe arterial in preference to repairing pavement or widening shoulders on roads that really need fixing.

Much of this is based on the backwards notion that if the majority of drivers have a hard time staying inside the speed limit on 19th Street, that proves there’s a dangerous safety crisis on this arterial — whereas the 85th percentile engineering approach takes this to indicate its speed limit has been set too low.

I drive or bicycle along 19th Street nearly every other day, and I don’t think I’ve ever noticed it having any problems or “speeders” going more that 5 mph over the limit. It’s been probably my favorite stretch of road in town for forty years, and is practically perfect as it is, not Port Townsend’s #1 problem to solve. There is no need to mess with 19th Street and make it worse, at great taxpayer expense.

Give 19th Street some love and some paint and occasional maintenance, and it’ll be okay.