Loading...
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