HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/1995 Adjourned Joint Meeting 25,E
CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
JUNE 27, 199'5
ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING
, CITY OF YAKIMA, UNION GAP AND YAKIMA COUNTY
1/ The City Council met on this date at 7:30 a.m., in the ESD #105
Administration Building Conference Center, 33 South 2nd Avenue,
Yakima, Washington, for a Joint Meeting with the Yakima County
Commissioners and the City of Union Gap. Council Members present
were Assistant Mayor Clarence Barnett, Ernie Berger, Bernard Sims
and Lynn Buchanan. Mayor Pat Berndt, Council Members Bill Brado
and Henry Beauchamp were absent and excused. City staff members
present were City Manager Zais, Assistant City Manager Rice, Jerry
Copeland, Director of Public Works; Marketa Oliver, Administrative
Assistant to the City Manager; Fred French, City Engineer; and
Melynn Skovald, Deputy City Clerk. Yakima County Commissioners
present were Bettie Ingham, Bill Flower and Jim Lewis. Yakima
County staff members present were Dick Anderwald, Planning
Department, Dan Hesse, Public Works and Dema Harris, Director of
Administrative Services. Union Gap Council Member Betty Boyd and
Kathleen Holscher, City Clerk /Treasurer, were also present.
Washington State Legislators present from the 14th District were
Senator Alex Deccio, Representative Mary Skinner and Representative
James Clements. Charlene Upton from U.S. Congressman Doc Hastings'
Office was also in attendance. Representing the Washington State
Military Department were John Lindstrom, Deputy Director, and Emory
Lehman II, Project Manager. Representing the Washington Army
National Guard were Brigadier General Don Hagglund; Lieutenant
Colonel Stanley Carlson, Colonel Rick Read; Colonel Bill Moore;
Sergeant Dan Henson; Sergeant Kelly Courser; Staff Sergeant Dennis
Catt; Sergeant First Class Keven Bannister, Sergeant First Class
Ron Boutwell; Sergeant PC Daril Record and Staff Sergeant John
Green Jr. Representatives present from the Yakima Air Terminal
were Dennis Byam, Helga Braman, Bob Clem, Skip Semon_ and Rae
Sunderland. Rick Gifford, Washington State Department of
Transportation, was also present. Representatives from the
Recycling Industry, members of the media as well as a number of
concerned citizens also attended this meeting.
Commissioner Ingham welcomed the group and reviewed the agenda.
She suggested some time parameters to follow .for. topics of
1/ discussion. Council Member Buchanan requested the Curbside
Recycling Project be discussed first to accommodate those citizens
who need to start work at 8:00 a.m.
UPDATE ON CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROJECT
Dan Hesse, Yakima County Public Works Director, presented a.brief
overview of the Request For Proposals for Curbside Recycling in the
Yakima Urban Area. Up to now, the focus has been primarily
commercial and yard waste recycling with the City of Yakima
implementing a yard waste recycling program and Yakima County
256
Adjourned Joint Meeting -- June 27, 1995
cutting disposal fees to encourage yard waste and wood -free
recycling at the landfill. The basis of curbside recycling program
development is to reduce the amount of waste of reusable material,
to preserve landfill space and to meet statutory regulations.
Implementation of a curbside recycling program is the preferred
approach in the Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted by the
jurisdictions and approved by the Department of Ecology. A
Curbside Recycling Program will educate the community to the
advantages of curbside and other recycling programs. It has been
developed to help meet the waste reduction goal of 35% as set forth
in the Solid Waste Management Plan. The City of Selah and the City
of Union Gap have already implemented curbside recycling programs
in their communities so they will not be included in this program.
Mr. Hesse distributed a two -page handout defining the purpose and
the issues of the recycling program. He reported a consultant will
be working on figures to determine how much recyclable material is
being taken out of the waste stream. A summer employee will be
working on the commercial aspects of recycling and also encouraging
businesses in the Urban Area to have an active and aggressive
recycling program. Developed by the steering committee, the RFP is
for a five -year contract and requests prices for User Pay, which is
a subscription service, or for an All Pay approach, which would be
all residents receiving garbage collection in the identified Urban
Area. A price is also requested for collection on a weekly, bi-
weekly, or a monthly basis. 27,000 households in the Urban Area
will be served beginning with Tier One Recyclables, with motor oil
recycling being optional. Mr. Hesse requested official direction
on whether or not to proceed with the issuance of the bid document.
Discussion ensued concerning the current level of interest in the
voluntary program offered by Yakima Waste Systems that has
approximately 600 -700 participants. Other ways to reach the waste
stream reduction goal, besides curbside recycling, were discussed.
The program would concentrate on commercial and yard waste
recycling. Any changes to the Solid Waste Management Plan would
have to be resubmitted to the Department of Ecology for acceptance
and approval.
Council Member Barnett pointed out the RFP refers to can service
under Definitions. He raised the question to determined whether or
not the definition should be modified to include black container
service. Nancy Gaudette explained the multi - services being offered
for unit complexes, and Dan Hesse suggested perhaps the definition
should be modified.
Council Member Barnett also had a question on the contract
concerning Billings & Methods of Payment. He understood it to mean
that the contractor would be paid the full amount by the City and
I/
the County, but the two entities would have to assume the debt for
nonpayments. Dan Hesse indicated that issue should be clarified.
Council Member Buchanan pointed out the tremendous growth
experienced by the recycling industry, especially over the past two
or three years. Local government needs to determine the exact
amount of recyclable material being diverted from the landfill.
2
257
Adjourned Joint Meeting -- June 27, 1995
Large quantities of recyclables are.coming across the various
scales throughout the city'.'`'' Recycling companies and non- profit
groups derive a lot of their income from recycling. There was a
round of applause in support of Council Member Buchanan when he
spoke against contracting out recycling services because it would
eliminate that source of income.
I/ Council Member Buchanan also pointed out that implementation of a
curbside recycling program could increase refuse rates by about
20 %. He suggested the amount of refuse going through the landfill
each month should be determined and then added to the amount of
recyclables moving across the 12 scales. This would reflect the
quantities currently being removed from the waste stream. He also
suggested someone attend the landfill and keep track of the
quantities for a while. Even though Commissioner Ingham expressed
appreciation for those comments, she emphasized the importance of
the landfill management responsibility and the waste reduction
goals that must be reached. She called attention to the all user
pay and the volunteer pay options included in the RFP. That
information is needed to evaluate both approaches and to determine
costs associated with them. Council Member Buchanan reiterated the
need to calculate the total tonnage of the landfill and the
material being recycled in case the 35% reduction goal has already
been reached.
Mr. Hesse explained they have the entire tonnage figures for the
Terrace Heights and the Shane Landfills, but they do not have the
precise number as to the percentage that is being diverted from
going into that landfill through recycling and waste reduction. A
more definitive answer is needed.
Council Member Berger suggested only voluntary recycling be
included in the RFP, not mandatory recycling, since it would burden
the bidder by having them bid on a program that is not needed. He
agreed with Council Member Buchanan's comments that the goal may
have already been reached since there is a lot of recycling going
on in the valley. Mr. Hesse explained the direction to staff was
to make the RFP as flexible as possible so the legislative bodies
would have both figures, either the voluntary or the subscription
approach. At the request of Council Member Barnett, Mr. Hesse
clarified his earlier statement concerning the importance of
encouraging and increasing commercial recycling and emphasizing the
educational component as well as an analysis of the current
recycling effort.
1/ There was a consensus among the elected officials of the City of
Yakima, Yakima County and Union Gap to reschedule a meeting after
the RFPs have been received to discuss the issue in further. detail.
There were several people representing the recycling industry who
spoke in favor of private recycling. The importance of the
educational aspect of recycling was emphasized and that it needs to
be improved. A few speakers expressed concern about the amount of
money nonprofit organizations would lose if recycling was made
mandatory. They would much rather see a._voluntary recycling
3
258
Adjourned Joint Meeting -- June 27,
program. It was suggested that copies of the articles on recycling
in the July Readers Digest and the January 19th Wall Street Journal
be provided to officials.
Dan Hesse requested all recycling producers contact his office and
provide numbers, both in terms of customers and tonnage, so the
information can be included in the study. This will help quantify
the current status to obtain a more realistic statistic for waste
reduction goals. Council Member Berger suggested those who take
their recyclables to the Coast also be included. Anyone interested
in attending a recycling meeting was encouraged to sign up and they
will be sent notification as to the time and place of the meeting.
PROPOSED SITING OF A NEW NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
Glenn Rice directed attention to the proposed siting of a new
Yakima National Guard Armory. Senator Alex Deccio, a major sponsor
of the proposal, introduced Brigadier General Don Hagglund,
Assistant Adjutant General, Washington Army National Guard; John
Lindstrom, Deputy Director of the Military Department and Emory
Lehman II, Project Manager for the Military Department.
Senator Deccio briefly described how the abandoned Yakima Armory
site made way for the new Police Station /Legal Center currently
under construction.
•
City Manager Zais provided background information about the land
exchange between the City of Yakima and Yakima County, who own the
airport, and the Military Department. He described some of the
basic elements of the negotiations which lead to formalized
agreements enabling the City to complete the packaging of land
acquisition for the Police Station /Legal Center. The City will
exercise its option contained in that lease to deed a suitable
piece of property to the Military Affairs Department of the State
of Washington for construction of a new armory. City Manager Zais
reported that while he was in Washington DC, support was expressed
in Doc Hastings' office for the Congressional Appropriation for the
Armory site, wherever that might be.
General Hagglund described the National Guard's position concerning
the facilities and their desire to be in the community, since the
soldiers are from the community. Currently the Yakima Unit is in
rented temporary facilities at 313 North 5th Avenue. He expressed
the National Guard's interest in the property near the Airport and
also the property located at 16th Avenue. The property near the
Airport is not as developed which would require additional
I/
expenses. He expressed appreciation for the support from the State
Legislature and will probably return when a final location is
chosen. Senator Deccio told the General that they would be very
supportive for the new Armory as far as the Legislature is
concerned provided the facilities are built at the Airport site.
Emory Lehman,II provided technical information about what the new
armory will look like and what the function of the building will
4
Adjourned Joint Meeting -- June 27, 1995
•
be. His job is to find the ground, the ,funding, and do the design
work for the facility. A' total of 'eight sites were originally
considered which were narrowed down to two sites. One site is the
old drive -in movie location 'on Fruitvale Boulevard and the other
one is the Airport site located at the junction of Ahtanum Road and
1/ 16th Avenue. The Fruitvale Boulevard location has the capability
of becoming a one -stop government center; however the National
Guard was asked to leave the project by the other agencies because
of its military presence. The Airport site is certainly acceptable
from the Military Department's and the National Guard's points of
view. It is large enough and meets the needs of the new facility
with the exception of utilities; it would require an extensive run
of utilities. The City of Yakima and Yakima County want to develop
the airport area as an industrial park and the National Guard would
be a keystone for this. Although the problem is not
insurmountable, it is something that must be seriously considered.
It needs stormwater and sanitary sewer systems. Stormwater runoff
from the parking lot will have to collected and treated before it
is put into the receiving waters, or into a stormwater system. The
other issue on this site is the floodplain as designated by the
Corps of Engineers. Federal Law prohibits building within the 50-
year floodplain. It makes sense since this community center is
going to provide emergency housing during a time of disaster.
Representative Skinner asked if there was enough parking planned to
meet regulatory issues. Mr. Lehman further explained that the
'Armory will be built in accordance with federal . guidelines. and
parking is determined by the number of individuals assigned to the
unit, by current codes, by the size of construction and by
community center design criteria. In a new era of innovation, the
Military Department will build a facility which will be available
for use by the community. Even though the Military Department will
have priority use of this facility, there will also be used for
various community functions. He described specific details of the
pre- design concept which included graphics and charts and
illustrations included in the handout. He also referred to a site
plan of the functional areas of the building. He pointed to areas
that will be jointly used, restricted to public use and to military
use, including large classrooms, locker rooms and a full capacity
kitchen. The size will be approximately 54,000 square feet and
will cost about $105 a gross square foot. The funding will be
approximately 60% Federal and 40% non - federal dollars
John Lindstrom referred to the community public safety training
center for police and fire being designed in the Spokane area which
1/ might or might not be something to consider for the Yakima area.
He described its innovative design, function and funding which
includes community college classroom space as well as space for the
emergency operations center.
At this point in the presentation, various questions were
entertained concerning the five to ten acre requirement for the
project and the lease term renewal rate. The two part process to
obtain federal and state funding for the project was also
explained. Representative James Clements suggested perhaps: some
utility costs could be recaptured and some type of consideration be
5
260
Adjourned Joint Meeting -- June 27, 1995
given for capital outlay if that area was developed. Glenn Rice
stated that a large water and sewer development would more than
likely pay for itself in user fees.
Although the facility to be built is the next generation larger
facility, there are armories in other communities such as
Grandview, Buckley and Moses Lake which have been built on a much
smaller scale and are available to be seen. The legislators were
invited to view these armories along with the facilities at the
I/
Kent and Grandview locations.
Discussion continued concerning future site development and
accessibility to the interstate during a time of disaster.
Commissioner Flower requested Yakima County also be included as the
lessor in the formal lease agreement. He noticed that on the rough
draft of the lease, only the City of Yakima was named as lessor.
Discussion continued underscoring the importance of the community
type center concept and past experiences proving success. Senator
Deccio stated he thought building the new Yakima Armory at the
Airport site would be a great opportunity for the City of Yakima
and Yakima County. He shared his philosophy as it relates to
community development of the area which has been talked about for
years. Even if it takes 20 years, the community will derive long-
term benefits from the new armory built at the airport site.
Discussion of the new Yakima Armory issue concluded with Glenn Rice
emphasizing how important it is for all parties to meet and discuss
guidelines and hear the ground rules about the site. This meeting
provided an opportunity for everyone to respond and to clarify some
of those issues, which is an important factor to avoid any
misunderstandings.
I -82 Update
Dennis Covell, Gateway Project Coordinator, handed out copies of
the Project Status Report for the Yakima /I -82 Interchange
Improvement Area. He also introduced Brad Stein, CH2M Hill Project
Coordinator, along with Rick Gifford, WSDOT, who were present to
answer any questions concerning the construction site. Mr. Stein
referred to graphics contained in the report and presented some
slides of the project including the Lincoln /B Street Couplet
modification recently adopted by Council as shown on the chart in
Figure 5. That revision will allow for continued construction
- I/
while negotiations continue concerning needed right -of -way for the
permanent couplet. He also explained the purpose of the I -82
Project is to improve capacity, improve access to the SunDome and
the Fair Grounds and also to promote economic development. He then
reviewed the Project Objectives that were established and
prioritized by the Steering Committee and approved by the City
Council in 1993.
Mr. Stein reported the current cost of the project is $19.2
million, up from $17.9 million in 1994. He indicated the WSDOT
6 -
-- 2 61
Adjourned Joint Meeting June 27, 199 5
VIA
participation was increased,in 1993 and,TIB funds were obtained in
1994. Yakima County, Yakima Transit and Trail Wagons participation
percentages have not increased since 1993. An additional $500,000
was put into the project from water and sewer budgets from the City
of Yakima. The increase is primarily a result of Stage 1A Bids,
which came in 5% over estimate. Another factor is the unit price
1/ increase through Stage 1B along with water and sewer utility
increases.
The additional funding that is needed is $915,000. A three -step
plan has been developed to address the shortage. An application
for additional TIB funding has been submitted. Dennis Covell
explained that the $966,000 TIB funds will be matched by existing
approved funds in the project that, until this point in time, have
not been utilized to leverage TIB money. There is no increase in .
cost to the County, the City, the Developer or to WSDOT. Currently
in the project, there is about $870,000 approved for the project
that has not had to be utilized to leverage TIB monies before.
That money can be utilized to leverage more TIB money. Mr. Stein
reported the application will be addressed at the next TIB meeting
to be held in Yakima on July 28, 1995.
Mr. Stein further reported that the I -82 Water Undercrossing, a
water and sewer improvement project, has been eliminated from the
project, which will save $167,000; the remaining $164,000 could be
put into the City utility fiscal 1996 budget if so desired.
The last step in the three -step plan, which has been ongoing since
April 1994, has to do with the prioritization of project elements.
In 1994 there was an increase in the project cost of $2.3 million
which was due to Value Engineering recommendations and growth
enhancement. At that time the funding partners met and prioritized
the remaining Stage 1 project elements in the event that the Stage
1A bids came in higher, which they did. So in April of this year,
the partners reconvened and reprioritized the remaining Stage 1
work elements. In early July, the list will be finalized in the
event we don't obtain the Step 1 and Step 2. So as a last resort
some of the work, that portion that we wouldn't have funding for,
will'have to bp deferred in Stage 1. If we get the TIB funds and
we get the water and sewer, the project will be totally funded with
exception of the I -82 Water Undercrossing.
After a brief discussion concerning Lincoln /B Couplet modification
costs, there was a considerable amount of discussion concerning the
1/ I -82 Water Undercrossing issue. Mr. Covell described the waterline
undercrossing that would go under Interstate 82 and then loop the
water main eventually down to a stub in the vicinity of Marti's
Restaurant. The crossing of the interstate will cost about
$162,000. Mr. Covell reported the Water Division Manager agreed to
cut this cost since it was the lowest priority of all the water
costs involved in the project; however, it was cut with the
understanding that it would be put back in if money became
available. There was a considerable amount of discussion
concerning the cost of the undercrossing as well _as other utility
costs which were identified in a utility study in conjunction with
7
2.62
Adjourned Joint Meeting -- June 27, 1995
this project. There was continued discussion concerning the costs
for water and sewer utility needs for future development in the
area.
Council Member Barnett requested staff show him .where in the Water
Comp Plan it includes the I -82 Water Undercrossing. He also wants
a report on how this will impact utility rates.
I/
There was additional discussion and comments concerning leveraging
TIB funding to cover water and sewer utility costs in the I -82
project.
Other points generally reviewed by Denny Covell include right -of-
way acquisition, which is staying pretty close to the budget at
this point in time; Construction, Contract 1A has slipped about two
weeks, but Rick Gifford reported that time will hopefully be made
up in about one month's time.
Commissioner Ingham asked about the stoplight at 10th Street and
Pacific that was originally included in the project. Mr. Covell
explained it was eliminated by the City and the County in 1994
during the first priority cuts of the Gateway Project. It was put
into the Fair Avenue Project. Mr. Stein described the three -lane
widening and signal component. It is being designed separately by
Huibregtse, Louman & Associates and will be under construction the
same time as the current Contract 1B.
Bev Luby Bartz asked if any reconsideration has been given to the
stoplight request for 8th and B Streets. Mr. Stein explained the
traffic study addressed signalization and there are no plans to
change any of those recommendations.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE B i��. / . ., At .
CO I MEMBER DATE
45-
COUNCIL M DATE
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK MAYOR Pe 'fib r t
Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio tape of this Council
meeting is available in the City Clerk's office.
8