HomeMy WebLinkAbout08252016 Economic Development Committee packetCouncil Economic Development
Committee
CED Conference Room
City Hall
August 25, 2016
1:30 p.m.
Members: Staff: Others:
Councilmember Coffey Cliff Moore, City Manager
Councilmember A. Gutiérrez Sean Hawkins, Economic Development
Manager
Councilmember Cousens
Rob Peterson, Airport Manager
Joan Davenport, Director of Community
Development
Colleda Monick, Economic Development
Assistant
Agenda
Action Items:
1. Grant Award for Yakima Trolley Barn – Heritage Capitol Projects Fund – Sean Hawkins
2. Excel Fruit Council Initiated Right of Way Vacation Request – Trevor Martin
3. CERB Planning Grant Request – Sean Hawkins
4. Proposed Ordinance allowing for the establishment of Reimbursement Agreements for
Utility Improvements – Brett Sheffield
Update Items:
1. Plaza next steps – rental costs, maintenance, Main Street exit plan
2. Millsite Update – Joan Davenport
3. Economic Development Plan – Sean Hawkins
4. Downtown landscaping project – Sean Hawkins
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Economic Development and Strategic Projects
129 North Second Street, Yakima, Washington 98901
www.yakimawa.gov
Economic Development (509) 575-6274 ∙ Strategic Projects (509) 576-6417
August 16, 2016
Janet Rogerson
Heritage Capital Projects Manager
Washington State Historical Society
1911 Pacific Avenue | Tacoma, WA 98402
Dear Janet:
Thank you and the Heritage Capitol Projects Fund for awarding matching funds to the City of
Yakima to aid in our efforts to maintain our trolley barn and power station in great shape for
future generations to enjoy.
In consultation with Sean Hawkins and Brett Sheffield, I understand that there is a grant
provision that would require the grantee to maintain parcel 181324-44465 for the express
purposes of this grant. While our current Operating Agreement with the Yakima Valley Trolleys
only extends to 2019, I am writing this letter to provide you our assurance that the City of
Yakima certainly does intend to maintain public access to the trolley facilities and to continue to
engage the public to enjoy this community historical asset. A major portion of the City’s local
match for this grant project included a major public access upgrade to the trolley barn by
upgrading parking and handicapped access to the facility. We believe that this type of
commitment is representative of our resolve to maintain this site as a valued public amenity for
years to come.
Thank you again for your support of our Trolley System.
Cliff Moore, City Manager
Page 1 of 3
Memorandum
To: Yakima City Council
Jeff Cutter, Interim City Manager
From: Sean Hawkins, Economic Development Manager
Date: March 1, 2016
Subject: Public Market / Business Incubator Funding Options and Next Steps
Bringing the Concept to Life
The Washington State Department of Commerce’s CERB program could award the City of
Yakima a planning grant of $50,000 to refine the concept for this project including the selection
of a location, the layout and conceptual drawings. The City would have to supply at least a 25%
cash match ($12,500) which would create a $62,500 budget for planning services. The CERB
board meets bi-monthly and considers planning grant requests at their meeting.
Field Trips
A public market / business incubator is by no means a new concept to Washington or Oregon.
We have numerous models within a few hours drive with staff that are willing to give us tours
and recommendations as we begin investigating an operating method for Yakima. I recommend
the City sponsoring two field trips for interested Council members and citizens:
1) Trip to Dayton, Washington’s Blue Mountain Station and Pasco’s Specialty Kitchen
2) Trip to Portland, Oregon to visit the Portland Mercado and PDX Makers Space
Funding Sources
1) Economic Development Administration (EDA) – Economic Development Assistance
Program. This program makes awards of up to $3,000,000 for project that can assist in
business and community development in rural communities. The City of Yakima would
be an eligible applicant for funds. This program looks to reuse non performing
community assets (think vacant buildings) for economic purposes and the building must
be publicly owned. This program has a history of funding hard costs for project including
equipment and would an excellent source to fund the commercial kitchen portion of the
project.
Funding program example – EDA funded the Portland Mercado in NW Portland
(www.portlandmercado.org). The Portland Mercado uses an incubator model to provide
affordable retail space for businesses to launch and grow, and is a hub for Latino culture
in Portland. 15-20 new businesses have opened in an area of Portland seeking healthy
and delicious food options.
Page 2 of 3
EDA also funding the Pasco Specialty Kitchen (www.downtownpasco.com/psk/) in
Downtown Pasco, Washington. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen (PSK) is a state-of-the-art
certified commercial kitchen for local entrepreneurs that is open 24/7 365 days a year.
Entrepreneurs pay an hourly rate to use the kitchen. Many of the kitchen users also sells
their products at the nearby Pasco Farmers Market which is housed in a market hall
nearby.
2) Washington State Department of Commerce – CERB (Community Economic
Revitalization Board) Prospective Development Construction Program – CERB likes
fund projects with evidence from an economic feasibility study that the project will lead to
the creation of a significant number of permanent jobs. CERB will not fund retail related
projects so the market portion of the project would not be eligible. However, they do fund
land or building acquisition and construction of public buildings. The CERB grant can be
up to $2,000,000 with a local cash match equal to the grant.
Funding program example – CERB funded the construction of Dayton, Washington’s
Blue Mountain Station Artisan Food Center. The Artisan Food Center is the first building
in a new food processing park called Blue Mountain Station located in the historic town
of Dayton, Washington. The Artisan Food Center is a 6,912 square foot building that
houses 5 food processing spaces, a commercial kitchen, a small retail area, and a public
restroom under one roof.
3) Yakima County / New Vision – SIED Program (Supporting Investments in Economic
Diversification). Yakima County’s SIED Program is an excellent local resource to assist
in leveraging the two grant programs listed above. Principal four of the SIED Program’s
Investment Policy looks very favorable on using their funds as leverage for federal and
state dollars.
4) Section 108 Loan from HUD – The City has a $1.1 million loan guarantee that could be
used for construction of this project. While this is a loan that must be repaid, a number of
projects in Washington State are being repaid from the City’s annual Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds over the course of a 20 year period. Interest
rates are around 3% for Section 108 pay back. The City currently receives $800,000 per
year in CDBG funds.
5) New Market Tax Credits - The New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) were designed in 2000
to increase the flow of capital to businesses and low income communities by providing a
modest tax incentive to private investors. The NMTC program attracts capital to low
income communities by providing private investors with a federal tax credit for
investments made in businesses or economic development projects located in some of
the most distressed communities in the nation – census tracts where the individual
poverty rate is at least 20 percent or where median family income does not exceed 80
percent of the area median. The National Development Council, who has worked with
the City in the past, estimates that 20-25% of the total project cost could come from the
NMTC program.
Page 3 of 3
6) “Sales Tax & B&O Tax TIF” District – Tax Increment Financing is not allowed by
Washington cities as defined by Washington State’s constitution. However using the
“stadium” funding model where taxes generated by are used to retire debt on a project is
a model that we could consider for this project. However, I would not recommend tying
the sales or B&O taxes to paying off any debt on this project. I would recommend using
them to support operating of the facility or perhaps creating an emergency account for
repairs and updates to the building. With retail sales estimated at $4-6 million a year, this
a rainy day fund could be replenished with $35-50 thousand a year from this method on
sales tax alone.
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-
AN ORDINANCE adopting a requirement for reimbursements for utility
improvements and adding Section 7.67: Reimbursement
Agreements for Utility Improvements to the Yakima Municipal
Code.
WHEREAS, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of utilities, such as water, storm
water, and sewer services, improves public health; and
WHEREAS, property owners who install utility improvements should be able to recover a
portion of the costs of those improvements from other property owners who later develop
property in the vicinity and use and benefit from the utility improvements previously constructed;
and
WHEREAS, financing arrangements could be a valuable tool for developers to develop
utility infrastructure intended to service future development in areas that are not currently
connected to public utility services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to enact legislation authorizing developers to collect
reimbursement from subsequent connectors to the system for their pro rata contribution to
water, storm water, and sewer infrastructure when they develop facilities intended to serve
additional properties in the future; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that adopting this ordinance is in the
best interests of the residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general health, safety
and welfare; now, therefore
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
Section 1: Chapter 7.67: Reimbursement Agreements for Utility Improvements, shall be added
to the Yakima Municipal Code as follows:
Chapter 7.67 (City of Yakima)
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Sections:
7.67.010 Purpose.
7.67.020 Definitions.
7.67.030 Minimum project size.
7.67.040 Application.
7.67.050 Length of reimbursement provision.
7.67.060 Engineer’s determination – Review by City Manager
7.67.070 Determination of reimbursement area boundary and reimbursement fee.
7.67.090 Reimbursement agreement must be recorded.
7.67.100 Written agreement – Payment of city costs in excess of application fee.
7.67.110 Construction and acceptance of improvements – Recording of final fees.
7.67.120 Collection of reimbursement fees – No liability for failure to collect.
7.67.125 Segregation of reimbursement fees.
7.67.130 Notice of contract information.
7.67.140 Severability.
7.67.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to prescribe rules and regulations for exercise of
authority to enter into a Utility Reimbursement Agreement granted to the City by RCW
Chapter 35.91 (also commonly referred to as Latecomers Agreements). The rules and
regulations included in this chapter are based on Yakima’s interpretation that Chapter
35.91 contemplates that reimbursement agreements will be executed prior to
commencement of construction.
7.67.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the terms listed below shall be defined as follows:
A. “Cost of Construction” means those costs incurred for design, acquisition for
right-of-way and/or easements, construction , materials and installation required
in order to create an improvement which complies with city standards. Until such
time as RCW Chapter 35.91 is amended to expressly authorize of interest
charges or other financing costs, such expenses shall not be included in the
calculation of construction costs. In the event of a disagreement between the
city and the applicant concerning the cost of the improvement, the city engineer’s
determination shall be final.
B. “Engineer” means the City Engineer or his/her designated representative.
C. “Reimbursement agreement” means a written contract between the city and one
or more property owners providing for construction of water or sewer facilities
and for partial reimbursement to the party causing such improvements to be
made of a portion of the costs of such improvements by owners of property
benefitted by the improvements, as more specifically described in RCW Chapter
35.91.
D. “Water or sewer facilities” shall have the meaning specified in RCW 35.91.015
as it now reads, or as hereafter amended.
7.67.030 Minimum project size.
In order to be eligible for a reimbursement agreement, the estimated cost of the
proposed improvement must not be less than five thousand dollars. The estimated cost
of the improvement shall be determined by the Engineer, based upon a construction
contract for the project, bids, engineering or architectural estimates or other information
deemed by the Engineer to be a reliable basis for estimating costs. The determination
of the Engineer shall be final.
7.67.040 Application.
An application for reimbursement agreement shall be made on a form provided by the
city. The application fee shall be set by council resolution and shall be submitted to the
city with the written application and shall be accompanied by:
A. Preliminary utility design drawings;
B. Itemized estimate of construction costs prepared and signed by a licensed civil
engineer or in the form of a bid submitted by a qualified contractor (if more than
on bid has been obtained, all bids must be submitted to the city);
C. A scaled vicinity drawing on eight and one -half inch by eleven inch paper;
stamped and sealed by a licensed civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
depicting the improvements and their location and the proposed benefitted area,
including dimensions and county assessor’s numbers for each tax parcel, s ize of
parcels, and evaluations where necessary for determining benefits;
D. A separate legal description for each tax parcel within the benefitted area; and ,
E. Such other information as the Engineer determines is necessary to properly
review the application.
7.67.050 Length of reimbursement provision.
The reimbursement agreement shall be in effect for 20 years from the effective date of
the agreement.
7.67.060 Engineer’s determination – Review by City Manager
A. The Engineer shall review all applications and shall approve the application if the
following requirements are met:
1. The project satisfies the minimum size requirement ;
2. The proposed improvements fall within the description of water or sewe r
facilities as those described in RCW Chapter 35.91: and
3. The proposed improvements are not constructed or currently under
construction.
B. In the event all of the above criteria are not satisfied, the Engineer may condition
approval as necessary in order for the application to conform to such criteria, or
shall deny the application. The final determination of the Engineer shall be in
writing. The applicant may obtain a review of the final determination by filing a
request by filing a request there for with the City Clerk no later than ten (10) days
after the city has mailed a copy of the final determination to the applicant at the
address listed on the application.
C. In reviewing a final determination, the City Manager shall apply the criteria set
forth above, and shall uphold the decision of the Engineer unless evid ence
presented by the applicant clearly demonstrates that the criteria have been
satisfied.
7.67.070 Determination of reimbursement area boundary and reimbursement fee.
In the case of all application which are approved, the City Engineer shall define the
reimbursement area based upon a determination of which parcels did not contribute to
the original cost of the water or sewer facility for which the reimbursement agreement
applies and which may subsequently tap into or use the same, including not only tho se
which may connect directly thereto, but also those who may connect to laterals or
branches connecting thereto. An estimated amount of the reimbursement fee shall be
established so that each property will pay a share of the costs of the improvements,
which is proportional to the benefits which accrue to the property.
7.67.090 Reimbursement agreement must be recorded.
In order to become effective, a reimbursement agreement must be recorded with the
office of the Yakima County department of records and el ections. It shall be the sole
responsibility of the beneficiary of the reimbursement agreement to verify the
agreement has been recorded. Once recorded, the reimbursement agreement shall be
binding on all real property within the assessment area, even thos e properties and
owners who are not parties to the agreement.
7.67.100 Written agreement – Payment of city costs in excess of application fee.
A. Upon approval of the application, determination of the estimated costs of
construction, the reimbursement area and estimated fees by the Engineer, the
applicant shall sign a reimbursement agreement in the form supplied by the city,
and in accordance with RCW 35.91. T he signed agreement, the application and
supporting documents, together with the Engineer ’s estimate of cost of
construction, and determination of reimbursement area and estimated fees shall
be presented to the City Manager. The City Manager is hereby granted the
authority to sign reimbursement agreements on behalf of the city.
B. In the event that costs incurred by the city for engineering or other professional
consultant services required in processing the application exceed the amount of
the application fee, the Engineer shall so advice the City Manager and City
Manager’s approval shall be conditioned upon receipt of payment by the
applicant of an additional amount sufficient to compensate the city for its costs in
excess of the application fee.
7.67.110 Construction and acceptance of improvements – Recording of final fees.
A. After the reimbursement agreem ent has been has been signed by both parties,
and all necessary permits and approvals have been obtained, the applicant shall
construct the improvements, and upon completion, request final inspection and
acceptance of the improvements by the city, subject to any required obligation to
repair defects. An appropriate bill of sale, easement and any other document
needed to convey the improvements to the city and to insure right of access for
maintenance and replacement shall be provided by the applicant, along with
documentation of the actual costs of the improvements and a certification by the
applicant that all of such costs have been paid.
B. In the event that actual costs are less than the Engineer’s estimate used in
calculating the estimated fees by ten percent or more, the Engineer shall
recalculate the fees, reducing them accordingly and shall cause a revised list of
fees to be recorded with the county auditor.
7.67.120 Collection of reimbursement fees – No liability for failure to collect.
A. Subsequent to the recording of a reimbursement agreement, the city shall not
permit connection of any property within the reimbursement area to any sewer or
water facility constructed pursuant to the reimbursement agreement, unless the
share of the costs of such facilities required by the recorded agreement is first
paid to the city.
B. Upon receipt of any reimbursement fees, the city shall deduct a six percent
administrative fee and remit the balance of the reimbursement fees to the party
entitled to the fees pursuant to the agreement. In the event that through error,
the city fails to collect a required reimbursement fee prior to approval of
connection to a sewer or water facility, the city shall make diligent efforts to
collect such fee, but shall under no circumstances be obligated to make payment
to the party entitled to reimbursement, or in any other way be liable to such party,
unless such reimbursement fee has actually been paid to the city.
7.67.125 Segregation of reimbursement fees.
The reimbursement agreement shall provide that the City is authorized to make
segregation or adjustments to reimbursement fees because of subdivision or boundary
line adjustment of the benefitted properties. The segregation or adjustment shall
generally be made in accordance with the method used to establish the original
reimbursement fees. Segregation or adjustment shall not increase or decrease the
total reimbursement fees to be paid.
7.67.130 Notice of contract information.
The reimbursement agreement shall include a provision t hat requires that any party
entitled to reimbursement under the agreement provide the City current contact
information including name, address and telephone number. This contact information
shall be provided every two years from the date of the agreement. If a party entitled to
be reimbursed fails to notify the City of current contact information within 60 days of the
due date for notification that party will no longer be entitled to reimbursement and the
City will collect such fees owing and deposit those fees in the appropriate utility
construction fund.
7.67.140 Severability.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter should be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitution ality
shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this chapter.
Section 2: If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held
to be unconstitutional, unlawful or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 6th day of
September, 2016.
Kathy Coffey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sonya Claar-Tee, City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date:
Memorandum
To: Yakima City Council and City Manager
From: Sean Hawkins, Economic Development Manager
Date: March 8, 2016
Subject: Estimated Plaza Fountain Operating and Maintenance Costs
Annual Operating Cost Summary
Expense
Daily Fountain Operation $16,950
Daily Maintenance Contract $65,940
Revenue
Rental and Usage Revenue $36,500
Plaza Operating Cost
$46,390
Fountain Operation Costs Estimate
The fountains in the Yakima Central Plaza will operate yearly from April 15 through October 15,
for 12 hours a day. The fountains are designed to recirculate and recycle water through the system
after the initial fill. The following is the estimated water usage costs and utility costs for the
Yakima Central Plaza fountain system. These numbers were prepared with assistance from CMS
Collaborative (a Gustafson Guthrie Nichol sub consultant who is designing the fountains) and
James Dean, the Utility Services Manager for the City of Yakima.
Estimated water usage (per fountain designer CMS Collaborative):
1/2 April 42,700 gallons
May 94,500 gallons
June 112,700 gallons
July 121,800 gallons
August 121,800 gallons
September 94,500 gallons
1/2 October 42,700 gallons
Total 630,700 gallons per six month operating season
As a point of perspective, the swimming pool at Franklin Park takes 280,000 gallons for its initial
fill in May. It requires an additional 700,000 gallons throughout the summer season for loss from
evaporation and usage. As a visual representation, 650,000 gallons is the amount of water it would
take to fill an Olympic size swimming pool one time. In the case of a drought year, we can easily
shorten the daily or yearly operating season of the plaza fountains to conserve water.
The power, water and chemical costs to operate the fountains are as follows:
Power ($.08/KWH commercial rate) $9,365.00
Water ($1.46 per 100 cu. ft. rate using 843 UOC) $1,231.00
Water Ready to Serve Charge ($.2883 per day) $52.00
Wastewater Ready to Serve Charge ($.6873 per day) $123.71
Wastewater Service (based on only 10% of water UOC being discharged to wastewater system)
$253.74
Water Treatment Chemicals $5,925.00
Total Operating Costs - $16,950.45 ($94 per operating day at 180
day season)
Notes – daily maintenance labor and coverage is proposed to be covered through Block by Block’s
annual contract with the City.
Facility Rental Costs
The Yakima Central Plaza will be a fee based facility for usage by private entities. Events
sponsored or hosted by the City of Yakima can have the fee waived. As a point of reference, Caras
Park in Missoula typically charges $975 to use the facility on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and
$700 the rest of the week. This includes restroom services, assistance setting up, usage of chairs
and tables, access to power and trash service. There are add on fees for events that generate a
large volume of trash and that require staff overtime. Like any special event in the City, a
certificate of liability insurance naming the City of Yakima as an additional insured will be
required to use the plaza for a public or private event. Below is an estimated cost for private usage
of the plaza the first year. Please note that we expect that most of these activities will be open to
the public. Initially, marketing of facility rentals will take place on the City of Yakima’s website.
Annual Event Days Costs Per Day Revenue
Market Hall Only Rentals 35 $350 $12,250
Full Facility Rentals 15 $850 $12,750
Half Facility Rentals (No Market
Hall) 15 $500 $7,500
Small Event Rentals 10 $250 $2,500
Stage Rentals 15 $100 $1,500
Event Rental
Revenue $36,500
Maintenance Staffing Costs
City staff proposes to amend the City’s contract with downtown maintenance provider Block by
Block to perform daily maintenance at the Yakima Central Plaza. A proposed year one budget of
$65,940 will provide daily service plus an amortized equipment schedule to purchase the
necessary capital equipment needed to maintain the plaza in appearance. Please note, the City’s
Public Works Department and Water Department will assist with maintenance issues as they
arise.
The proposed maintenance budget would provide daily, 8 hour a day service, through the regular
fountain season (mid-April to mid-October) and Monday through Friday service through the
remainder of the year. This dedicated staff will address litter and trash issues, provide landscaping
and mowing services, assist with event set up, open, close and clean restrooms, power washing,
graffiti removal and perform the daily maintenance checklist for the fountains. Additionally, a
daily presence in the plaza will act as an additional set of eyes and ears to assist the Yakima Police
Department with safety issues and quality of life infractions.
The overall maintenance costs could be reduced by contracting maintenance services directly with
the Downtown Association of Yakima rather than Block by Block. The cost savings would include
the overhead association with an outside contractor performing the work.
City of Yakima, Washington
Update on the Yakima Cascade Mill Redevelopment Project –
August 2016
Successful redevelopment of the 225-acre Cascade Mill Area project is a significant economic
development opportunity. The project area is estimated to create 4,000 new jobs in the valley
and replace a current eyesore with new development. The strong partnerships that support this
project have reduced the timeline for project completion. Once thought to be a 30 year project,
with the funding now secured from the Washington State Legislature, the I-82 Interchange
reconstruction and related street, bridge and ramp modifications will begin in 5 years. Much
work still needs to be accomplished, but funding this vital portion of the project is n o longer an
obstacle to development.
1. I-82 & Yakima Avenue Interchange Modification:
Preliminary design and environmental review of
the interchange project is proceeding into final
stages of approval by the Washington State
Department of Transportation and Federal
Highway Administration. NEPA review underway.
Funding of Task: Included in Lochner
Contract
Critical Timeline: Late 2016
2. City Streets in Mill District: City will start SEPA process in 2016 for internal public
streets, intersections and rail crossing in the Mill
District area. The construction plans are
approximately 30% complete. Bravo Company
Boulevard will be a 4-lane divided parkway with
landscaping and controlled access.
Funding of task: Engineered, designed
and built with LIFT funds
Critical Timeline: Construct in 2018 -
2019
3. Street Right of Way Dedication: In order to construct the internal public streets,
property owners will be required to dedicate the public street right of way. State,
Federal and City funds will be used to construct the streets, main infrastructure and
conduct site clean-up.
Funding of Task: ROW dedication will leverage public funds
Critical Timeline: Late 2016
4. Railroad crossing: The “East-West Corridor” will cross the existing Moxee Rail Spur Line,
operated by Central Washington Railroad. Both the BNSF and Central Washington Rail
must approve the crossing plans, which can be a lengthy process. The crossing will be
protected by a traffic signal.
Funding of Task: Included in the engineering and construction using LIFT
Critical Timing: Approval to cross the rail must be complete in 2017
5. Pedestrian and Greenway Access: All public streets will have sidewalk and/or separate
path to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Enhancement of pedestrian and
cycling opportunities, as well as public connection to the Greenway and river
environment is a clear goal of the improved public access.
Funding of Task: Integral to the design and construction plans
Critical Timeline: to be constructed with all streets
6. Environmental Cleanup and Remediation of Landfill: located south of the rail line
within a former log pond is a 28-acre site where municipal garbage was landfilled in the
late 1960’s. The City is responsible for a share of the remediation. Department of
Ecology has been a financial partner in the investigation of the contamination and has a
goal of funding much of the clean- up using Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) funds
Funding of Task: yet to be determined. Estimated at $7 to $12 Million
Critical Timeline: Road corridor 2018, remainder in 2019
7. Street & Interchange Funding: Funds provided by the State Transportation program
include the construction of the I-82 Interchanges modifications, ramps and bridges. The
State Funding package for this project is approximately $110 Million. The list below
represents our current projection of the phasing and cost estimates of the street development.
Development Task Year Estimate
Fair Ave Roundabout (complete, LIFT) 2016 $2,702,500
Bravo Co Blvd & East-West Corridor in Mill District (LIFT) 2018 $5,400,000
East-West Corridor, Bridges, ramps 2021 $50,044,000
I-82 Interchange improvement 2021 $64,413,000
H St Reconstruction (TIP) 2019 $6,500,000
Landfill Clean up and Remediation (DOE, LIFT) 2018 $10,500,000
Total Major Construction Projects within City $139,559,500