Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 09/11/1995 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE September 11, 1995 PRESENT: Jim Bennett Gary Gill Tim Clark Paul Scott Don Wickstrom Tom Graham Tom Brubaker Mr. &Mrs. Rust ABSENT: Paul Mann SEWER RATE INCREASE Wickstrom explained that METRO is increasing their rates by a $1.15 and the City is proposing the utility tax be passed onto the property owners. He said that the utility tax is now on the Utility and not billed separately to the individual customer, therefore, that is why we include in the rate change the utility tax portion. Wickstrom commented that we would pay for it anyway, one way or another. He went on to say that the City's utility tax on the sewer fund doesn't show up on utility bills. It is paid by the Utility and, as such, it's an overhead cost, so anytime the rate changes, if there are no corresponding added percentage related to the utility tax, it comes out of our existing operating costs. Councilman Clark questioned what the explanation was from METRO. Wickstrom explained that METRO was still in the process of meeting the Federal water quality edict pertaining to requiring secondary treatment at all their sewage treatment facilities. He said that once that's complete METRO next edict is to clean up their CSO's (combined sewer overflow) problems. As such, there will always be a yearly METRO increase Committee unanimously recommended authorization to the adopt the proposed sewer increase. PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - S. 240th STREET Wickstrom stated that this was strictly for information at this time since we chid not have a formal agreement and they were in the process of developing it. He said as part of the Meridian Annexation, we had thought we were clear of all County concerns, then the petition forced a Boundary Review Board hearing which gave a second life to King Co. Public Works people who used this as leverage to force the City to participate. Wickstrom stated that the City would have participated anyway in the road project with regard to that portion fronting on the annexation. He said that the County brought it to the City's attention that they were going to testify before the BRB had we not worked out an arrangement with them. Wickstrom said that the County had several roads that they were proposing to build in the Meridian Annexation, but actually only two that they were building and the rest they had no plan of building within the Six-Year Plan. One was S.E. 256th which would be ours to build anyway and S.E. 240th -2- was the only one of contention because they had anticipated budgeting for that in 1996. He said the County Council had this new improviso that they would not build any capacity improvements within the urban areas unless the surrounding annexing city would reimburse them for that cost upon annexation. Wickstrom said this was a budget proviso that the County was trying to apply toward all cities. Wickstrom said that the Boundary Review Board would not be able to ignore the County testifying at the hearing that they were dropping all road improvement projects within the area. Such testimony could negatively affect the BRB's decision on the annexation. Wickstrom stated that the City chose to execute a memorandum of understanding when we agreed to pay for only future costs on 240th, not the 2 million they already spent. Wickstrom also said that the County had threatened to attach strings to the money on the 196th Corridor Project which their share was 4.6 million. Wickstrom noted that the City needs the 196th Corridor Project for concurrency under GMA . He said that under the agreement, the County will now eliminate all the strings on said money. Clark asked if there was anything on the S.E. 277th Corridor. Wickstrom said that subsequently, because of this budget proviso and the fact that we would not pay for the County's 277th southeast corridor out to Highway 18, even though the best route may fall within the City, the County decided to drop the extension from their plan. Wickstrom said by doing so, the City may save costs on our 277th Corridor Project because the County had a 50 MPH design speed and we have a 45 or 35 MPH design speed which means different vertical curve requirements in the road and on the hillside that represents a significant change in the required cutting and filling. Wickstrom said originally he thought it would be 3 million, but that is more than the entire estimate of the cut and fill work. Anyway, we'll save some money. Wickstrom said that our initial cost is 1 7 million in '96. He also pointed out the County's financing program on 240th anticipated an ISTEA grant, which they never got Wickstrom said with our participation, the County will definitely build it and will reallocate monies from other projects if they have to. Wickstrom said as far as the money is concerned, we are proposing to pay for it through a Councilmatic bond issue. The annexation area would generate enough new money via the Street Utility and the vehicle registration fee to pay for debt service. S.212th STREET HOV LANES - WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY to SR 167 Wickstrom explained this was an agreement with Burlington Northern Railroad to widen the railroad crossing in conjunction with the HOV project. The total cost is $356,000 for which the money is included in the project budget. Brubaker, however, recommended that one change be made to the contract to strike through the line that the railroad receives no benefit from the improvements made by the City. Brubaker suggested this change be initialed by the Mayor and approved by the railroad and, if they won't agree to the change, the City would reconsider entering into this agreement for two reasons: 1) It's not a statement of the truth because the railroad improvements to our roads increases -3- the railroad business due to better traffic infrastructure that serves their customers and 2) The City will be going to the WUTC per our 196th Corridor Project and asking for them to determine a proportionate share of contributions of the railroad for that bridge and that share will be based, in part, on the benefit to the railroad from the construction of the bridge and-we do not want to set a precedence in other areas where we have stated that our improvements to City roads is not a benefit to the railroads and their operations in the Green River Valley. Committee unanimously recommended to accept the agreement with Burlington Northern Railroad for the S. 212th HOV Lanes, West Valley Highway to SR 167. ADDED ITEM: SIDEWALKS ON S. 218th STREET Mr. Rust stated that they were not protesting the road, but were protesting the design of this project and inquired whether there was any avenue to bring it back to Council for redesign. Wickstrom explained that the sidewalk issue was hassled out at the Council level including the whole matter of sidewalks on both sides. Wickstrom stated that dropping the sidewalks on the south side was a result in about $18,000 in savings, however, the south side properties would only realize $6,000 worth of savings as the bulk of the area involved in the assessments is on the north side of the road. Said $18,000 amounted to 1.54% of the total project cost. The alternate plan that the City came up with, and the Council adopted and passed an ordinance on, was for the property owners to pay to widen the road to two lanes (24 feet pavement width), install gravel shoulders, install the drainage system, beef up the road structure so it could handle the truck traffic and take out the safety problems. Wickstrom said that came to $167,000 less than it would to widen the road out to 36 feet, and install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Wickstrom said the City was essentially paying for those improvements by contributing the $167,000 to develop the project. Tom Graham voiced the opinion that when the City pays for a project, it's not the City really, it's the people who pay for it Wickstrom responded that the general public pays for it but that the City argued that this was really a local road and there should not be any general public funds supporting the abutting property owners. Wickstrom said that what we ended up is that there are some general tax payers' fiends (drainage money) that is paying for the road widening. Graham said that he felt that two sidewalks is "one sidewalk" overkill, because there isn't the pedestrian traffic. Wickstrom said that this was covered in the last hearing before the full Council on the formation of the LID. Wickstrom commented that everyone received their formal notice because that was the same date the LTD was formed, they were given 2 weeks prior notice which advised them of their assessment and the fact that the City was holding a hearing on a certain date, creating the LID. Mr. Rust said he understood that they could not protest the road because it had already been passed, but was just trying to eliminate a little bit of money because we pay for it. Wickstrom noted that the hearing was on the 18th before the full Council, the ordinance creating the LID was passed, Council closed the public hearing and deliberated on it, and then authorized the City to include funding this project. -4- Graham said that even though it would be a little more money because he didn't sell as much land to the City, it would be worth it just not to have another sidewalk because of the economic impact. He wanted to know if there was any opportunity for the design to be re-evaluated since it was a design question and not a problem of the LID. Wickstrom said the LID was formed describing certain improvements which included sidewalks on both sides. He said you can delete improvements but you cannot add them to an LID. Wickstrom said we have settled for right-of-way acquisitions on all other parcels other than these two. Graham said that it was a matter of principle not to overdesign a project and that they were not trying to kill the project, but felt it was more than they needed. Wickstrom commented that it does meet our standards that were adopted by Council and that sidewalks are a big issue to this City. Wickstrom said the City spent approximately $600,000 last year on sidewalks throughout the City, which was a combination of a 2-year program. Graham asked who paid for these sidewalks when they wanted them. Wickstrom responded that typically they are an LID unless they are school related. Graham questioned if those who didn't want them, didn't have to pay for them. Wickstrom stated that the City has pockets all over the City and we have to provide consistent walkways throughout the area. Mrs. Rust remarked that as part of standards and/or rules putting sidewalks on both sides, it is not carved in stone, that it was not a law or rule that has to be adhered to. Wickstrom said that this project had gone through Council and there is a big battle over sidewalks and that Council voted to put sidewalks on both sides as part of the project. He said that he was not in the position to say that he was going to delete them off of one side unless Council tells him to. Wickstrom continued that they would have to go back to Council and get a majority vote. Clark remarked that if the Council did that, favoritism would enter into it. Meeting adjourned: 5:30 PM PWRIIN