HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/2006 Adjourned Meeting 191,
ADJOURNED MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 - 8:00 A.M. - 9:30 A.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - YAKIMA CITY HALL
BUSINESS MEETING
1. Roll CaII
Present'
Council: Mayor Edler, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender, Micah
Cawley, Norm Johnson, Bill Lover, and Neil McClure
Staff: City Manager Zais, Assistant City Attorney Cutter and City Clerk
Moore
Absent: Susan Whitman (excused)
2. Consideration of Resolution setting date of public hearing for October 17,
2006 for intent to create a sewer Local Improvement District (LID) for
North 85 Avenue and Kail Drive
Jeff Cutter, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this resolution came before
Council on September 5 was considered and approved at that time. Following
that approval, it was determined there was an error made in the time setting. This
resolution is now being presented to correct the format. McCLURE MOVED AND
CAWLEY SECONDED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. The motion carried by
unanimous roll call; Whitman absent.
STUDY SESSION
1. Report on Railroad Grade Separation Project Update
Michael Morales, Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development,
introduced the subject. The Railroad Grade Separation project has been in
development over a long period of time and has had a variety of different funding
sources created over the years. We are now on the verge of moving forward with
the final design for two grade crossings and are ready to begin negotiations of any
needed right of way. Per the current schedule, the first phase will begin late spring
of 2007. The first phase consists of relocation of utilities and improvements to
Front Street to prepare for the construction of the shoe fly and separation of the
crossing. Although there are still a number of questions needing to be answered,
we won't know those answers until we complete the project design. Therefore, we
won't have a hard cost number until finalization of the design and opening of the
bids.
Ken Harper, legal counsel for the City, spoke about the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes. The
NEPA process involves close collaboration between agencies. SEPA is the
culmination of the environmental review for the whole project. We have to
demonstrate that we comply with requirements of SEPA while we try to avoid
duplicating processes. The WACs allow NEPA to be adopted as SEPA
environmental statements as long as there is a finding by the City's responsible
1,92
ADJOURNED MEETING — RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
official that the statement is adequate. We provided a comment round on the
adequacy issue. At a public hearing held on September 14, 2006, we received
four comments. The NEPA may be adopted as the SEPA; if that occurs, the SEPA
process will be completed. We are going to give notice of this SEPA adoption
process so the public is aware of the specific timeframe in which to file a lawsuit.
The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for NEPA and the hearing process
comment phase for the adoption of the NEPA document are done. Mr. Harper
explained the SEPA appeal process would be to Superior Court. Michael Morales
explained that, at the October 3rd Council meeting, Council members will be asked
for authorization to complete the design of the project and enter into negotiations
for any necessary right of way. When we get ready to go out for bid, we will advise
Council and ask for their consideration to award the bid.
Bob Desgrosellier assured the Council that he had hand delivered these packets to
parties of interest and advised them of the study session and of consideration of
this item on October 3 There will also be the standard notification.
Council Members Johnson and Lover expressed concern about the funding and
that the project was moving too fast to comprehend all the details and impacts.
Council Member Lover suggested cutting Phase 1 in half by building just one grade
separation now and returning both Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and Lincoln
Avenue to two -way streets.
Ross Widner, Widener and Associates, said he had worked on the NEPA
document and reviewed the FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) document.
He detailed the action they took and the extensive analysis and coordination with
the Department of Transportation.
Chris Walcott, BERGER/ABAM Engineers, Inc., spoke about the permitting
process. He pointed out that this project has very little natural impact to the
environment and probably a clearing /grading permit and a pollution elimination
permit will be needed. He explained that Council approval on October 3 has the
procedural implication that the period of the SEPA lawsuit can start. We are in the
process of preparing the right of way plans and the construction documents. We
are looking for the Phase 1 project, the relocation of all utilities, to go to bid in late
spring 2007. He believes construction of the underpasses will occur early 2008
and late 2009. With regard to Council Member Lover's comment about building
only one underpass, Mr. Wolcott said there is merit to building only one; but rather,
building one at a time. They are thinking of designing both as a couplet with two
three -lane underpasses. They would put both out to bid and make the Lincoln
Avenue underpass the base project. The Martin Luther King Boulevard underpass
would then be an additive bid and listed as being at the discretion of the Council.
The City would then have the option to build one and possibly a second without
having to out for bid twice. Mr. Wolcott emphasized that funding agencies have a
tendency to come up with more money when plans are defined. Right now, it is
still just an estimate.
Council Member McClure asked if we started on the project and ran short of money
would we have to pay back the federal funds already spent? Mr. Walcott explained
that if we chose to phase in the project and continued to support it by looking for
funds to complete it, we would not have to pay back any money. But, if we only did
2
193
ADJOURNED MEETING — RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
one phase; Front Street for example, and decided not to go forward with the rest of
the project, then we may have to pay back some funds. Council Member McClure
referenced the money and expertise that has been spent to date and asked, if we
decide to not do the project, is that money at risk? The answer was, yes, there is a
strong risk if we pulled out of the project. It is important to continue to show
progress. City Manager Zais added that phasing helps us keep the funding intact
and build progressively. He also noted that there are nine grade crossings in
Yakima and at one point, federal and state governments were suggesting we
consider changing three or four of them at one time. That was scaled back. He
suggested that we not lose sight of the intent of the project, instead of focusing
solely on the money. We are building a project for the next 100 years.
Jim Guarre, P.E., Principal Engineer for BERGER/ABAM Engineers, Inc.,
addressed the subject of increasing project and construction costs. He
explained how they created the project estimate using the State Department of
Transportation's escalation model, but there have been dramatic escalations in
2004 -2006. Also included in project costs are savings from a value
engineering study done by a team of experts.
Council Member Bonlender suggested escalation clauses be put into the contracts
so the contractor doesn't have to predict and pad his bid with speculation.
Mr. Guarre suggested that one of the advantages of using the phasing method is that
the bid would not be that far in front of the actual work, thereby reducing risk.
Council Member McClure stated that he is comfortable with phasing this project,
paying for what we can at the front end, and looking for funding for the remainder.
Council Member Lover said he had concerns that if we start one underpass, we
would be obligated to build two. Mayor Edler said he gets concerned when we
start living in the moment and begin tearing away at projects that we have been
working on for years. Looking at some of the suggested cost savings, he thinks
taking away the softening of the appearance would be the wrong place to try to
save money since we will be viewing this for generations. He believes we need to
do it well and do it right. As we start these projects and continue to pursue funding,
there will be more available. With regard to the Arco on Lincoln Avenue, he
wanted to go on record that we would best serve our community by completing the
project.
Michael Morales distributed and reviewed material updating funding formulas (copy
attached).
Council Member Johnson commented that there is a feeling in the community that
this project is staff driven. He said the new Council members need to understand
the project in its entirety.
Ken Harper, legal counsel, corrected an earlier statement regarding the chronology
of the NEPA and SEPA documents: On August 30 Mr. Cook adopted NEPA as
SEPA. The public hearing followed the adoption. The action that is still pending is
his reconsideration of that adoption. There is a possibility of compensation to land
owners escalating over time; however, compensation is a part of the environmental
assessment and we have done the best we can with appraisers and impositions to
access. It is not our view that lost profits are an appropriate element of acquisition
costs, so it is not found in the economic assessment part of the document. There
3
194
ADJOURNED MEETING - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
is case law that indicates the cost of inconvenience in a public works construction
project, if it leads to claims of lost profits, is not recoverable. However, when you
are talking about damaging the value of realty, if it is interconnected to the
business, those are recoverable costs.
City Attorney Paolella described the status of the authorization process. It is a very
complicated project that has been ongoing for a number years and the legal
authorization process follows that same complexity. There is not one single over-
arching decision point by vote of City Council for the entire project. There has
been a series of individual decision points that constitute the authorization of the
project. He gave examples and history of the project relating to authorizations.
Over the last six years, the City Council has authorized a number of professional
service contracts, engineering services, design, and environmental services. It has
also authorized the federal legislative priorities document for the annual
Congressional budget appropriation process. Seven years ago, there was a
process with the U.S. Surface Transportation Board and the settlement process
with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to reach agreement involving grade
separation that was overseen by a federal judge. At the upcoming October 3rd
Council meeting the Council could authorize to proceed with the right -of -way
acquisition efforts and other decision points. He believes the City Council always
has the right to review the budget, as well as the priorities. If there were a point
where the City Council terminated the project or made major changes to it, it is
possible the City would be required to refund the money.
2. Audience comments
No one came forward to speak.
3. Adjournment
McCLURE MOVED AND JOHNSON SECONDED TO ADJOURN.
The meeting adjourned at 9:43:00 AM
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY
4-,
C: NCIL MEMBER DATE
\llikktRIVOlvv-Sly (9(7 - 1.14)
COUNCIL MEMBER DATE
ATTEST:
mss`-' / _ ��
CITY CLERK / «�� i EDLER,
An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office
4