Loading...
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