05-26-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 11, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 22 and has good direction and goals in mind for the benefit of Orono and its residents. There is a good plan and momentum going, and he wants to keep the good trajectory going. Walsh stated he agreed with Printup. Crosby noted change for the sake of change is not always good, but the City always wants to be going towards positive change. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to authorize Paychex to conduct a Retirement & Survivor Benefits (RSB) process for employee health insurance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 5 (Printup, Johnson, Seals, Crosby, Walsh), Nays 0. 7. WOODHILL AVENUE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Edwards said for a number of years the Public Works Department has installed a set of 2 seasonal speed humps on the road. Over the last couple of years, they have gotten complaints about them and a request for them to be removed. He stated there were speed humps in place as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in 1999. After the road was rebuilt in 2012, those speed humps were removed and the City put in seasonal ones every summer. The number of residents at the end of the road has changed since then. Also, the City’s understanding of speed humps and their effectiveness has grown: they are one of the least effective traffic management tools the City has. They don’t slow people down except at the speed hump, and there are studies that show people speed up beyond the speed limit immediately after speed humps. He said particularly in a situation like the Woodhill area, where there is a low-density, straight, long road, they are not a very effective method of controlling speed. The installation/removal of the speed humps costs about $900 in labor and replacement parts annually. He checked with the City Attorney to make sure removing them did not violate the CUP, and the advice was that the CUP requirements were met in 1999 when the applicant of that CUP installed speed humps. He stated he received an email from a resident at the end of the road along with input from a couple other residents over the weekend, all of which are in the packet Council members received. He is asking for permission or concurrence from the Council that speed humps no longer need to be installed in that location. Walsh noted the conditions of the CUP were met in 1999 and asked Mattick if that meant the speed humps could be put in one year and taken out and then they were done with it, or if there was something that said they were required for a number of years. Mattick indicated the CUP said the speed hump had to be installed but there is no language saying it had to remain forever. It was basically a public improvement. The terms of the CUP were met and it is up to the City to manage it going forward. Printup said this reminds him of an issue on Crystal Bay Road years ago where residents requested speed bumps/humps and there was a long conversation about it. The City installed them, things were okay, but there was a private place on the other end of the street and neighbors were concerned about it being a shortcut. He does not know what went on in the 90s, but it is a City street that comes to a dead end and it looks like it was punched through for use of the private place at the end. He does not know if this is an area where the City would want to see if a cul-de-sac can go through and close it off. He is guessing that was talked about and then some agreements/deals were made. It seems to him that putting in a speed bump for a year and calling it satisfied seems like a loophole. He is in favor of speed bumps when neighborhoods ask for them. He knows it can be an emotional issue for everybody that has to drive over