1. Sidewalk Prioritization Method a. Staff presented an updated draft of the Sidewalk Prioritization Method. The draft was last reviewed by the Commission July, 2006.
b. Ms. Sanders presented a brief history of the project as well as updates to the draft since July 2006.
c. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that the word “paved” may be misleading with respect to materials used. He requested that “paved” be reworded to “constructed”.
d. Ms. Sanders asked the Commission’s opinion on next steps for public outreach. i. Commissioner Resnick expressed that, if the goal of this project is to prioritize sidewalk implementation for CIPs, it is primarily an internal City staff document and therefore outreach is not necessary until the sidewalks to be implemented are determined.
ii. Chair Oberg expressed concern that some of the rating factors may not capture obstacles or concerns of residents living on the streets with missing sidewalks. He asked about residents or groups that might want to collaborate to pay for a percent or portion of a sidewalk project – would this be captured in the rating system and make it a higher priority?
iii. Commissioner Klein suggested that the sidewalk prioritization method could be placed on the website for a public comment period. Commissioners agreed that the Commission’s understanding of the outreach process may include posting on the website for public comment.
iv. Commissioner Resnick reiterated that the document being reviewed is for internal rating purposes. If groups petition or prove that they can fund a portion of a sidewalk project, those factors would be taken into consideration and thus may elevate the priority of that project.
v. Chair Oberg expressed concern about the scenario that many sidewalks are rated equally (i.e., several sidewalks get rated “top” priority). There was discussion among Commissioners and staff that a tier system would be used, where there may be “top priority part 1” and “top priority part 2”, etc..
vi. Commissioners unanimously agreed that 1) the Sidewalk Prioritization Method should be used for internal purposes by City staff to determine which missing sidewalk links should be funded through CIPs, and 2) public outreach should be conducted for potentially affected parties once the top priority list is created and as part of the overall sidewalk project once it is listed in a CIP.
vii. Commissioner Resnick expressed that the Commission should have the opportunity to review the list of prioritized sidewalks each year prior to Mayor and Council budget discussions.
viii. Commissioners will vote to approve or disapprove the Sidewalk Prioritization Method at the February 2007 meeting.
2. Review Draft Memo re: Pedestrian Safety a. At the December 2006 Commission meeting, Commissioner Crane agreed to draft a memo regarding Pedestrian Safety initiatives. She was ill and unable to attend this meeting. The item will be included in the February 2007 agenda for discussion.
3. Staff Report and Updates (Weekly) a. Commissioner Thomas stated concern about delay of construction for the traffic signal at Veirs Mill and Broadwood. Staff relayed that they have talked with SHA and that SHA indicated that construction would begin February 2007.
b. Chair Oberg informed the Commission that City determined that the COPT development would be subject to a full review by the Planning Commission.
c. Commissioner Thomas stated that he did not agree with the approval of staff’s recommendation to implement Bikeway Master Plan facilities in front of the Rockville Volunteer Fire Department site, citing safety concerns.
d. There was discussion about the Commission’s role with regard to development review. Chair Oberg clarified that the standard procedure for the Commission to address concerns about development review and other issues such as safety concerns is to 1) present the issue before the full Commission, 2) if the Commission agrees, a memo is drafted and reviewed by the full Commission, and 3) the memo is submitted to the City Manager and/or Mayor and Council.
e. There was discussion about the Commission’s role as primarily an advisory group, with guidance on policies developed by City staff.
f. Ms. Kelly provided an update on the Transportation Demand Management program. She stated that staff plans to hire a consultant to assist with outreach to major employers to determine which TDM programs and projects may be most useful for the City. Chair Oberg requested that the Chair be part of the selection committee for the contractor, and Ms. Kelly agreed that this would be helpful.
4. Review and Approve December 2006 Meeting Minutes a. December 2006 meeting minutes were reviewed and minor changes made. The minutes were not officially adopted due to lack of a quorum and will be brought to the February 2007 meeting for adoption.
5. Additional Items for Discussion a. Mr. Telesco shared a report he wrote that includes statistics about accident rates at intersections in Rockville. Commissioners were very interested and asked Mr. Telesco to provide further information before or at next month’s meeting.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M
| 
