Ana səhifə

Blood brothers opens at City Theater


Yüklə 390.5 Kb.
səhifə2/3
tarix24.06.2016
ölçüsü390.5 Kb.
1   2   3

September 6, 2005


Motion by Councilor McCurry, seconded by Councilor Farley to grant the order.

Vote: Unanimous.



Attest by:____________________________________________________

Clairma Matherne, City Clerk

*************************************************************************

TRI Town Managers Move to study Sea Level Issues :

John Bubier, City Manager, City of Biddeford

Steve Gunty, Town Manager, Town of Old Orchard Beach

Richard Michaud, City Manager, City of Saco

Thomas Hall, Town Manager, Town of Scarborough



From: Jonathan T. Lockman AICP, Planning Director, SMRPC

Date: 7 July 2009

RE: Potential SPO Regional Challenge Grant :

Creation of a Saco Bay Sea Level Adaptation Working Group (SLAWG)



I understand that the Town and City Managers of Saco, Scarborough, Old Orchard Beach, and Biddeford, have discussed the idea of the creation of a Saco Bay Sea Level Adaptation Working Group (SLAWG) for the purpose of developing and implement regional climate change adaptation strategies, to respond to rising sea levels and to become more resilient to coastal storms. A Regional Challenge Grant from the Maine State Planning Office is desired, so that a steering committee, with two members appointed from each community, can develop a detailed plan leading to the creation of the SLAWG. The steering committee would develop the parameters of such a working group, developing its structure, bylaws, charge and work plan, with the assistance of SMRPC and participation of GPCOG. Duties of the SLAWG could include:



  • Commenting on federal or state beach nourishment/erosion control efforts that affect more than one community, including management or deposition of dredged materials.

  • Identifying infrastructure vulnerable to storms and sea level rise such as culverts, storm drains, bridges or tide gates; using regional approaches to plan for improvements; and obtaining grants or appropriations for construction projects on a regional basis, or supporting individual municipal grant or appropriation requests for such projects.

  • Recommending the standardizing of floodplain management standards and building code interpretations across jurisdictions to improve resiliency of individual private structures.

  • Recommending standardizing of ordinance review standards affecting the shorelands adjacent to Saco Bay, as well as standardizing review and controls for water activities across jurisdictions, for structures and activities affected by sea level rise or coastal storms. Such water activities may or may not include land-based development, and could include aquaculture, marina, or green energy production projects.

  • Providing non-binding comments on various applications for development review affecting Saco Bay that may be vulnerable to sea level rise or coastal storms, to those individual review authorities having jurisdiction.

Before a Regional Challenge Grant is applied for, it will be necessary to obtain input, letters of support, and pledges to match the state grant, from the Councils of each community. Participation of three communities, one of which has an adopted/consisted comprehensive plan, is required. Regional Challenge Grants are available for projects with a total cost of up to $50,000, with the Maine State Planning Office providing a grant of $25,000. Participating communities would be required to match the $25,000 from the State with an additional $25,000 local match. Up to half of the local match may be contributed “in-kind.” If all four Saco Bay communities participated, each would need to provide $3,125 in a cash match, and $3,125 in an “In kind” match.

The Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission staff is very conversant with national best practices on inter-municipal cooperation and planning, and would be available to assist with the preparation of a grant application for this purpose, and serve as the grantee. The Greater Portland Council of Governments has agreed to become a partner in the project, should it move forward, given that the Town of Scarborough is located in Cumberland County and is within the GPCOG service area. GPCOG staff will be provided with copies of all correspondence and work products, and so it can fully participate. Should a grant be awarded, SMRPC has the capacity to provide the SLAWG with staffing and planning assistance to complete the initial creation of the group and creation of its workplan. SMRPC has participated for many years in planning for Saco Bay, and we look forward to the opportunity to assist in this effort.



Please let me know as soon as possible once support is obtained from your councils, and I will apply to the State Planning Office for funding.

CENTRAL YORK COUNTY CONNECTIONS STUDY [CYCCS]

All Town Preliminary Kick-off Meeting

Tuesday June 30, 2009

Wells Town Hall

Attendees: Jane Duncan, Wells; Michael Huston, Wells; Edgar Moore, Wells; Richard Clark, Wells; Tom Ursia, Waterboro; Mark Green, Sanford; Brad Littlefield, Sanford; Julia Dawson, SMRPC; Dwayne Morin, North Berwick; Patrick Fox, Saco; Andrea Blanchette, Saco; Aaron Shields, Arundel; John Schempf, South Berwick; John Bubier, Biddeford.

Town entities Absent: Alfred; Kennebunk; Lyman; Ogunquit.

Lead Agencies

Maine DOT Staff: Peggy Duval; Mimi Cerveny; Judy Lindsey; Sam McKeeman.

Maine Turnpike Staff: Sara Devlin; Conrad Welzel.

  1. Call to Order, Welcome & Introductions At 10:15 am Peggy Duval called the assembly to order. Peggy and Conrad Welzel welcomed the assembly, provided a brief history of the study initiation and introduced the presenters and facilitators. A brief round table self introduction amongst the attendees took place.

  2. Individual Town Meetings Mimi noted the meetings with individual towns within the proposed study area vicinity were conducted through the first part of this year and complete. The towns visited include: Sanford, Alfred, Waterboro, Lyman, Arundel, Biddeford, Saco, Kennebunk, Wells, Ogunquit, and South & North Berwick. A compilation document of comments and concerns and other useful information gathered was provided to the town managers via e-mail during the week prior.

  3. Study Purpose & Intent Mimi presented and reviewed the specifics from the 123rd Legislative Resolve (Chapter 95) whereby directing the Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) and Maine Turnpike (MTA), relating to York County, to conduct a study of existing infrastructure and future capacity needs west of Route 1 in York County including the greater Sanford area to develop recommendations to enhance, expand and preserve highway connections between Route 1 and the Maine Turnpike and communities in western York County. Also explained was the intended elemenats and conduct of the study is to be compatible with Maine’s Sensible Transportation Policy Act [STPA] and the federal National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. Web link to the aforementioned Resolve is as follows: http://janus.state.me.us/legis/ros/lom/LOM123rd/RESOLVE95.asp

  4. Feasibility Study Phase Mimi described the steps of the Phase I Planning/Feasibility study at hand will include: the formulation of the Feasibility Purpose and Need and Scoping in the spirit of NEPA & SAFETEA-LU which involves a high degree of public participation efforts; data collection for the subsequent production of base modeling of the existing conditions relating to transportation, land use, economic and environmental conditions whereby enabling further development of the Purpose and Need into refined and quantifiable terms; collaboration with the Army Corp of Engineers (USACOE) to obtain the USACOE ‘Basic Project Purpose’ which is essential for any future strategy to move forward and be ‘permittable;’ development of a range of reasonable strategies that appear to meet the purpose and need as well as methodologies of study; the production of a comprehensive document that includes recommendations and validation for said recommendations and suggested direction subsequent for Phase II study efforts including ‘no-action’ forecast measurements and documentation that will allow all work performed within this Phase I study to be complete and usable and appropriate for any subsequent NEPA, STPA, federally funded project efforts.

  5. Study Area The Study Area was displayed and shared whereby depicting two slight changes from the initial preliminary study area map developed during early 2007 with input from the communities. The Study Area was integral to the MaineDOT and MTA’s joint Response to LD 1720 to the 123rd Legislature. From the dialogues with the individual town meetings two very slight expansions were incorporated and displayed. The expansion of the primary study area included as shown and described as: a) adding the intersection of Waterboro Rd & Route 202/4, in Waterboro, in order to determine measurable impacts from the northerly communities feeding into the study area, predominantly onto Route 111 and Waterboro Rd.; and, b) adding the intersection of Routes 9 and 4, In North Berwick, in order to determine measurable impacts from the southerly communities feeding into the study area, along with land use considerations for both areas. Map attached as Attachment A.

Brad expressed Sanford’s desire to expand the study area to include connections from Sanford to New Hampshire’s Spaulding Turnpike, consider action of upcoming Spaulding Turnpike widening project from Exit 11 to Exit 16 and suggested outreach to New Hampshire.

John Bubier expressed notion to examine construction of a spur from Biddeford to a Circumferential around Sanford and spur then from Circumferential to Spaulding Turnpike and beyond.



Responses:

      1. A good idea to reach out to NH MPO for recent traffic related information sharing that could aid with future forecasting from the Route 202 corridor within Lebanon feeding into the study area. Julia Dawson offered to contact the Strafford MPO to determine availability of useful traffic forecasting related information and discern any interest on their part to participate within the study as possibly within the Advisory Committee – her offer was accepted.

      2. The purpose and intent of the study as identified within the Legislative Directive is to examine means of connectivity between the Sanford/Springvale and surrounding regions eastward to the Maine Turnpike/I-95 and central York County Route 1 communities’ westerly to Maine Turnpike/I-95.

      3. The existing study area, as depicted, will provide the primary focus area to accomplish the purpose and intent of the study and is relatively very large in area as is. Adding area as suggested will greatly change the purpose and intent of the project.

      4. It is conceivable that a finding of the study could include within recommendations justification to perform future study effort to the west to include consideration for New Hampshire connection investigations, but at this stage of preliminary kickoff that cannot be discerned with measurable certainty.

John Schempf suggested the study area should induce the network that residents from within the Sanford Springvale region utilize for employment commute.

Response: MaineDOT currently has ‘journey to work’ data compiled reflecting likely routes from within the Sanford area in-state and out-of-state.

  1. Compilation of concerns relating to east-west travel within the study area Information gathered from the individual town meetings was consolidated and presented in a concise list relating to perceived issues/concerns/consideration regarding Routes 109, 111, 1, as well as other regional transportation corridors within and feeding into the study area. Many common perceptions regarding safety, capacity, mobility and land use exist amongst the communities; the full compilation of comments and concerns document had been sent out the week prior to the town managers.

  2. Steering Committee and other partnerships The desired assignment of the Steering Committee members is 1 primary member from each of the participating towns; and, if desired an alternate member for situations the primary member cannot represent. The roles and expectations of the Steering Committee were outlined within the presentation along with a higher level outline provided within the meeting package which included Preliminary Roles and Responsibilities for Cities and Towns; Regional Planning Agencies; the Department; the Maine Turnpike Authority; and the Steering Committee.

The primary activities shown include the following: review all data and findings; provide study direction; validate study area findings; endorse study purpose & need, cooperative effort to identify strategies; endorse strategies; provide recommendations; listen, respond, build consensus with advisory committee; meet monthly.

Judy described and discussed the opportunity for 1 or 2 members of the Steering Committee, if so desired, to participate within the consultant screening, scoring and selection process along with MaineDOT and Maine Turnpike staff.



Dialogue included description of the sequence of activities and time associated with the overall process including: review of the individual submissions, the scoring thereof, the resultant short list, the interview process and scoring thereof to reach selection and subsequent cost proposal examination and negotiations. The time necessary to effectively participate within the process was stated as between a total of 40 to 80 hours depending on the volume of actual submissions by consulting teams and would be distributed over a period of approximately 2 months.

Sam solicited any opposition to the roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee as presented, there were none offered.

  1. Scope/Agreement/Next Steps Mimi explained the first point of consensus and agreement is for the study area to be deemed appropriate for the purpose of the study. Once then a shared agreement and understanding of the purpose and related study area is established, the ‘Study Scope’ can be crafted into final form.

Once the Department and the Turnpike Authority (the lead and co-lead being 80% - 20% respectively funding partners) agree on the scope of the study, the communities will also be required to agree to participate in the Study as a supporting role, agree the Study be conducted according to the Scope of Work established whereby entered into a Cooperative Agreement in support of the study and agreement to provide a committed Steering Committee member with qualities and abilities conducive to productive workings as well as readiness to share information and data to support the study efforts in general terms.

The activities deemed appropriate for outsourcing including work which may be performed via negotiations by SMRPC (namely land use and zoning mapping as SMRPC has much information from past efforts) and those to be advertised to the consultant community will then be determined. The efforts sought from the consultant community will be assembled into a ‘Scope of Services’ to be advertised via a Request for Proposal & Qualifications (RFPQ) process leading to the screening, scoring and selection process noted within Section 7 above.



Aaron commented the utilization of SMRPC for land use data is an efficient approach.

Sam solicited concurrence on the study area: A show of hands for agreement on the appropriateness of the study area for the study purpose yielded six (6) hands. A show of no (0) hands for those who felt the study area as shown is not acceptable. Dialogue suggested a few individuals would desire the study area to encompass examination of connection to Spaulding Turnpike but given the purpose at hand and limited resources the study area as shown is acceptable.

Noted was the Advisory Committee composition will be a collaborative effort of determining appropriate and necessary representation with the Steering Committee. Suggestion was made to begin considering potential Advisory Committee entities. It was noted that other sub-committees will be formed within the study process aside from the Advisory Committee one namely being a dedicated Land Use working group.



  1. Other Items

Concern from John Bubier in that 20 year forecast window for transportation improvement associated with Land Use is inappropriate as Comp Plans are generally compiled reflecting a 5 – 8 year window.

Responses:

      1. Investment of transportation dollars utilizes at least a 20 year window for major study efforts in the best interest of time and resource investment into the study as well as to ensure every opportunity for extending the life of a transportation investment is taken.

      2. The transportation and land use strategies are to compliment local comprehensive planning and economic development efforts.

      3. FHWA participating dollars requires a specific investment life to be designed for specific federal dollar classifications and any new construction will require at least a 20 year design life forecast associated with the project.

Should the Cooperative Agreement with the towns include the agreement to adopt the recommended land use and transportation strategies from the study as adjacent land use across borders are often of varying intent?

Responses:

  1. The study approach of integrating land use and transportation is in the early stages of practice in Maine. The Department cannot force a municipality to adopt specific land use strategies. Agency staff and officials in local municipalities should develop a shared understanding and vision for integrating land use and transportation planning while identifying major substantive and political barriers to successful action.

  2. A current example within Maine is the “Gateway One” project nearing completion whereby the municipalities are soon to be in a position to agree or not to adopt the recommended land use strategies that will compliment the recommended transportation strategies.

Mike Huston commented the 18 months time frame for the study seems excessively long and effort to shorten the time should be made to half that to 9 months. Many others within the assembly agreed. Response stated the cost may increase by attempting to shrink the time period from time associated with this study scope and breadth as compared to other similar efforts. Aaron suggested requesting within the RFP 2 separate scope and cost proposals for differing schedule approaches. Suggestion was made to include a sought schedule within the RFPQ.

Tom Ursia inquired what the study approach will include to prepare for upcoming changes in NEPA.



Response was the upcoming change would be with the updating of SAFETEA-LU which is foreseen to be primarily the added focus on global warming and associated transportation impacts. Federal Highway practitioners feel other changes will be very minimal. Inquiry was made as to what SAFETEA-LU is - therefore the following is provided from FHWA website: “ SAFETEA-LU [Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users] is the transportation funding act that was signed on August 10, 2005. SAFETEA-LU authorizes the federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009. It covers a variety of transportation related issues including financing, congestion relief, improved safety, improved efficiency (such as coordinated planning and environmental streamlining), environmental stewardship, and transportation related research and studies. SAFETEA-LU includes a number of changes aimed at streamlining the environmental review process.”

More information regarding this topic can be found at the following web link: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/legis.htm.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 pm.

Advisory Committee Suggestions made during the meeting:

Town of Lebanon

Trucking Community

NH Strafford MPO

NH Rockingham MPO

Additional educational material for those interested was suggested by Mimi to be the AASHTO Practitioner’s Handbook series from the Center for Environmental Excellence namely 05- Utilizing Community Advisory Committees for NEPA Studies; 07- Defining the Purpose and Need and Determining the Range of Alternatives for Transportation Projects; 10-Using the Transportation Planning Process to Support the NEPA Process. These publications as well as a host of other information can be found at the following web link: http://environment.transportation.org and follow links to ‘Practitioner’s Handbooks.’

EVENTS AFTER THE MEETING OF RELEVANCE:


  1. Towns absent:

Towns and entities absent were contacted via telephone after the meeting: Mimi spoke with Kennebunk, Ogunquit, and Alfred after the meeting whom each expressed apologies for inability to attend the meeting but they expressed strong desire to be a part of the effort and be included in the all-town Cooperative Agreement and Steering Committee. Contact with Lyman has not produced a response at this time.

  1. Towns not participating within the Agreement &/or Steering Committee:

Saco will not participate but is interested in Advisory Committee participation.

South Berwick will not participate nor is interested in Advisory Committee participations.



  1. Study Area and Study purpose in question:

MaineDOT executive office was contacted by John C. Bott, Director of Policy

Senate Republican Office inquiring the logistics to extend the study area to include connecting to New Hampshire Spaulding Turnpike as requested by one of the attendees of the meeting described herein. A meeting is scheduled to formally dialogue this inquiry the week of July 13th internally.



Note: No further study project development can effectively occur until the purpose and suitable study area is agreed upon between the Department, the Maine Turnpike Authority and the participating Towns.

  1. Traffic data updates:

MaineDOT will be conducting routine updating of all traffic volume data including vehicle classification during 2010 commencing in April of 2010 within the Study area. This is good opportunity to converge with the study to conserve duplication of efforts and make best use of man and funding resources.

ATTACHMENT A



--___________________________________________

Following are the highlights from he Public Works Departments activities for the reporting period.


1   2   3


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət