Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 22 201310 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 20 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee 3M 4M October 22, 2013 5P] 6M CALL TO ORDER 7P] 8M Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. in the 90 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 10r?] 11M ROLL CALL 120 131N (1 :34:07 PM) 14P] 151a Present: Barbara Brenner, Pete Kremen and Ken Mann. 161N Absent: None. 17M Also Present: None. 18P] 19i] 20M COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 21Pl 221N 1. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM 230 COUNTY 2014 ANNUAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM — DISCUSSION TO 241a INCLUDE A PRESENTATION ON THE BIRCH BAY DRIVE AND PEDESTRIAN 251N FACILITY (AB2013 -344) 260 271a Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated Council packet 28M pages 141 and 142 are the actual annual construction program he submits to the County 29M Road Administration Board (CRAB). It's identical to the first year of the six -year road 30M program, except the County received only $1.2 million of the $2.5 million in surface 31M transportation program (STP) funds requested for the Birch Bay berm project. That change 321N is shown on the annual program. 33F?1 341N He referenced the column of the program table that is titled "County forces." They 350 identify how much money in these capital projects for which the County might use its own 36M forces. Money is allocated to that column, but it doesn't mean they will actually use that 371a money. Per the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), they are allowed to use only 380 $1.798 million in County forces. He is only proposing to budget $775,000, and he 390 anticipates actually using only one -third of that amount. 40PI 41M County forces are capital projects done with the County's own forces, in- house, 420 instead of putting it out to bid. For example, if the County has to install one curb ramp, it's 431a cheaper for the County to do that small project than put together and bid a contract. He 44M likes to contract work as much as possible, but there are times that using County forces is 45M more efficient. 46F?1 47M Brenner asked what happened to the Council receiving information on the Slater 481a Road connector and Yew Street Road. Rutan stated he attended a meeting with all parties 49M yesterday. He told them the County goal in 2014 is to develop a route and alternative 500 analysis study to develop proposed routes. It is a traffic study similar to a basin study of 511a that area. The Slater Road is not on the annual construction program. It was included in 52M the six -year program with a $5,000 placeholder for years 2016 and 2017, so it won't show 530 up on the 2014 annual construction plan. However, they will do the alternative analysis 54M route study so the Council can make decisions on Slater Road connectors, Horton Road 55M connectors, Northwest Road and Slater Road intersection, the Pacific Highway and Slater Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/22/2013, Page 1 11] Road intersection. The Northwest and Slater Road project includes $50,000 on the annual 20 program for an alternative analysis. He hopes to stretch the funding to analyze the entire 3M basin. They can't analyze the intersection without looking at some of those others. 41] 5M Brenner stated a local engineering firm did much of the connector study. She has 611 that information, which sounds extremely less costly. Other parties are interested in 7M helping to fund it. The County's responsibility would be much less costly than previous 80 estimates. She's heard $2.5 million is the amount. Rutan stated the connector area is all 90 wetlands. He wants to bring more detailed information to the Council. They will have to 10M gather all the different traffic studies that have been done by different agencies. The Council 110 of Governments (COG) will create a website to gather all the traffic reports from different 12M agencies in one place. 13F?] 14M Brenner asked about Yew Street. Rutan stated the Council included a placeholder 151M with $5,000 for 2017. 16(] 170 Brenner stated the Council wants to get information on those roads as soon as 18M possible, not just put in a placeholder. Rutan stated this was the direction he received. The 19M money for the Northwest Road and Slater Road intersection study should include the Slater 200 Road connector. 21P] 221] Brenner asked if they should include it in the annual construction program. Rutan 230 stated they can. He wants direction on exactly what the Council wants. Staff is concerned 241N about getting all this work done in the next year. Adding a large project would require the 25M Council to reprioritize. He expects to give the Council the information it needs for the Slater 261a Road connector in 2014. He will commit to do that analysis. 27(] 28M Brenner stated include that wording in the resolution for project five, "...Northwest 291a Drive Intersection Improvements /Slater Road connector." Rutan stated changing the title 301N will make it a different program from the six -year program. 31P] 32F?1 Mann stated they can include it on the project narrative. Rutan stated these are 33M capital design projects. Once they get into designing Slater Road, it will be on the annual 340 program. Now staff will do just a route study to give information about the options. They 35M won't be designing anything. This annual program list is about what they're designing and 36M building. The Slater Road work isn't even in preliminary engineering. Slater Road and 370 Northwest Drive project five is to send out a survey crew and survey it and do a wetland 38M delineation, which is real preliminary engineering. 39F?] 400 Brenner asked if they want to do that now on the Slater Road connector. Rutan 411N stated they wouldn't, because they don't know what alignment to survey, whether it's a 42M good project to do. There are two and possibly three alignments for the Slater Road 430 connector. They must do a route study first to find out which alignment to survey. 440 45M Brenner stated she wants to get done what they're going to do in 2014. Designing a 460 roundabout for three roads is different from a roundabout for four roads. It seems 47M ridiculous to not have that as part of what they're doing, if they're going to do it. Rutan 48M stated these are projects scheduled for construction in 2014. In 2014, he would like to do a 49M route study analysis. The Council will need to make very big decisions about whether it's 500 even a roundabout. 51F?1 521a Brenner stated don't go ahead and do something at Slater Road and Northwest Road 53M if they don't know if it's going to be a connector. Rutan stated they don't have long range 54M planning projects on this annual list. Do a route analysis, and it will present options and 551a costs. The Council may decide to do a roundabout or do something different. He wants to Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/22/2013, Page 2 11] bring forward an alternative analysis. Also, the sequence of steps is important. Part of the 20 analysis will include the intersection of Smith Road and Northwest Road. 3M 41] Brenner asked why they would do something at the Slater Road and Northwest Road 5M intersection without knowing if it's going to go through. Rutan stated he would like to give 6M the Council the information to make a decision on what it wants on the six -year program. 7 P 80 Kremen stated that before they do a piecemeal improvement, have a long -term 90 strategy for providing transportation improvements for the general public. Before putting 10M these individual small items on the annual construction program for 2014, they have to 110 decide what they are going to do ultimately. Rutan stated he proposed the Slater Road and 121M Northwest Road intersection with $50,000 for an alternative analysis on the six -year 13M program. One of the things that he was to look at was making sure it accounted for a 140 fourth leg. When the Council discussed the six -year program, he was asked to put the 151M Slater Road and Yew Street projects on as placeholders with $5,000 in year 2017 or 2018. 161] He did that. He agrees that they should have a basin route study plan done before they do 170 these projects. That's why he doesn't want to put that on the six -year program. 18F?] 191] He suggests they change the work program for project five, "Intersection 200 Improvements and Route Analysis Study." Put what they want in the descriptor, not the 211N title. 22(] 230 Brenner stated don't say they are going to do improvements until they do the study. 241] The study comes before the improvements. 25P] 26M Kremen stated the Slater Road connector is a high priority of the Council. That is 271] what should be on the program. They can do it all in unison. Rutan stated he will not 28M design Northwest Road and Slater Road intersection improvements. He will do exactly what 291] they said with the $50,000. 30(] 31M Kremen stated that they must change the wording to reflect what Mr. Rutan is going 32M to do. The wording should say 'Slater Road connector analysis." Rutan stated that if they 33M are going to add the Slater Road connector analysis, make it a separate item and designate 340 money with it. 35(] 361N Mann asked how big is the route analysis. Rutan stated the analysis would go up to 370 Axton Road or Grandview Road. He would go as far east as Rural Road to get to the other 38M side of the freeway. Make sure they hook up with Rural Road and Kope Road. It may go as 391N far south as Bakerview Road; as far east as the Guide Meridian, or farther if they have to 400 look at Kline Road or Kelley Road; as far west as Rural Road and Country Road to include 41M the Airport, and; as far north as Grandview Road. 42F?] 430 Mann stated that basin area should be prioritized. Rutan stated he is working with 440 the Council of Governments over the past two year to develop the modeling. The County 45M supported the development of the model if it included modeling all those intersection. Now 460 that data collection is done, they must hire someone who has a traffic model, who can start 470 doing the analysis. They will also build on the State Department of Transportation (DOT) 48M information on the intersection. 49F?1 500 Brenner asked if staff would consider potential funding from other jurisdictions. 51M Rutan stated he would. 52P] 530 Kremen stated take in funding from the private sector, also. Rutan stated he will. 541M He doesn't want the county road intersection to drive a Slater Road interchange rebuild. 551M The Slater Interchange must take into account the County road, not the other way around. Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/22/2013, Page 3 1P1 20 Kremen stated the County must let the City of Bellingham know about their strong 3M feelings about impacts to the County as a result of their attempt to allow Costco to move to 41a a bad location. Let the City know of the ramifications to the County's transportation system 5M and infrastructure, how much it will cost, and how much the County will ask for as a result 6M of their effort to keep Costco in Bellingham, despite the traffic congestion. Bellingham has 7M to be put on notice that the County expects to be compensated if the City continues forward 80 with locating Costco at the Bakerview location. Rutan stated that during meetings with 90 Costco, he challenged them about the traffic studies they did. The County has been very 10M clear about that and getting that information across to all jurisdictions. 110 120 He suggested putting the Slater Road connector project on the annual program, and 13M assign another $50,000 dollars. 14P] 151M Mann stated include the words "basin analysis" on the program. 16F?] 170 Brenner asked if there was any kind of basin study when the County worked on 181N Smith Road. Rutan stated there were studies. There were transportation studies and route 191N analyses. These have been done through the years, but things change. 200 211N Brenner asked how they ended up on Smith Road with the highway to nowhere. 221N Rutan stated that was the selected east -west connector. It was constructed at an all - 230 weather full truck route standard. Many issues in that area would change if there were an 241N interchange at Smith Road and Interstate 5. It comes down to money. It will be interesting 25M to see the information on what a connector will provide and how much it costs. 26F?1 271N Kremen referenced having an interchange at Smith Road and asked if the DOT or 28M federal government is willing to deviate from the formula for interchanges being so close to 291a each other. Rutan stated they talked about that at the meeting yesterday. One of the 301N problems is that the federal government will see the area as a rural area and determine 31M there are no problems. They don't see the issues. The issue of the one -mile minimum 32M could be handled with frontage roads. The answer is no for now, not forever. The route 33M analysis should flush out the issues and costs of an interchange. One issue is whether the 340 bridge would have to be widened to prevent problems similar to those at Bakerview Road. 35M The full solution at the Bakerview interchange is a $50 million single point urban 36M interchange (SPUI). 370 38M Kremen stated it will take at least 20 to 25 years before that happens at Bakerview 39M Road. It's not that old to begin with. If he thought it was likely the Bakerview overpass 400 would be expanded, he wouldn't be so adamant about it. However, that won't happen. The 41M situation will be untenable, no matter what measures they use. It's not honest about the 42M reality of the congestion that will be created. It will far exceed any known traffic congestion 430 this county has ever witnessed. 440 45M Brenner asked if anyone asked if the City will let Costco stay where it is, and expand. 460 Rutan stated Costco wants to be closer to the freeway. 47F?] 48M Kremen stated they can be closer to the freeway at Slater Road. Costco has a 49M commitment and general policy to remain in the city where they are already located. He 50M doesn't know what difference it makes to Costco which city it's in. 51M 52F?] Rutan stated he will make the change to the draft resolution. 53M Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/22/2013, Page 4 11] Greg Brown stated that using the term "basin" should specifically say traffic basin. 20 Rutan stated they should understand that he made up the term traffic basin at this meeting, 3(] and no one else will know what it means. 41] 5M Kremen stated it still clarifies what the study is. Rutan stated he was just going to 611 title it the Slate Road connector with $50,000. He will change the summary sheet to show 7M what the money is for. 81] 91] The Committee concurred. 101] 110 Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, gave a presentation on the Birch Bay 120 Drive and Pedestrian Facilities project (on file). The project is 1.58 miles along Birch Bay 13M Drive from Lora Lane near the tide gate to Cedar Avenue in Cottonwood. They've done 140 preliminary survey work and looked at the outfalls. He's met with everyone who lives on 151M Birch Bay Drive to get their design input and concerns. He's incorporated that information. 161N They lost some funding opportunities and the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District also lost 170 funding opportunities. They've modified the plan and know what they can do now and what 18M must be delayed. 19r?] 200 This is a community project and the County's response to their needs. In addition to 211N being an infrastructure improvement, the project includes shoreline restoration to improve 221N habitat and flood protection. They will remove the seawalls and install soft shore beach, 230 which will protect the road. They will also construct the pedestrian walkway on top of the 241N berm. It will be part of the Coast Millennium Trail. They will preserve trees wherever 25M possible. In some locations, they will shift the road over so they don't touch any of the 26ra trees, which was very important to residents. 27P] 28M Brenner asked if a goal is to keep problems with private property owners at a 29ra minimum. Middleton stated it is. They will work with business owners on the construction 301N schedule so they don't work during the peak time during the year. 31M 32M Construction costs about $11.4 million, including construction, permitting, public 33M involvement, and some design work. Work on the tide gate is a separate project. He 34M described the project design in each segment. The community did not want any work done 35M or trees planted on the upland side of the road, so they will not do any improvements on 36M that side of the road. All the improvements will be on the ocean side of the road. The 370 improvement will include a drainage swale similar to a rain garden along the road. The 38M beach will be on the other side of the swale. 39P] 400 Brenner asked the width of the berm. Middleton stated the entire top of the berm 41M will be 20 to 25 feet and will taper down toward the water. 42F?] 430 Mann asked the width of the walkway. Middleton stated it is approximately five feet. 44M They want it to be wide enough for a pedestrian to go past. It's not intended for bicycles. 45M Bicycles will still be on both sides of the enhanced road shoulders. The shoreline code and 460 federal regulations conflict, so they must dovetail the two regulations and get both agencies 47M to agree on what the County will build. 48P] 490 Brenner asked who determined the width is wide enough to protect against storm 500 surges. Middleton stated the standard goes back to Wolf Bauer and work done on all the 51M beaches of this type throughout the Puget Sound. This area is even adequate for beaches 52M with much higher energy. The beach will provide a tremendous amount of recreation. It is 530 a nice area for a log landing. The path will wind along the top of the berm. 54F?1 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/22/2013, Page 5 117 Brenner asked if the design is better protection against the stronger storm surges. 20 Middleton stated it is. 3M 41a There will be two parking areas by Cottonwood and another parking area by 5M Harborview Road. They will not destroy any of the private landscaping. They will add the 6M berm on the side of the seawall. The pedestrian pathway will go in front of the parking lot, 7M not behind the parking lot along the road. 80 91N As soon as the Council approves the expenditures for 2014, they will start 101N negotiating the project with the firm they've been working with over the last year. They will 110 start working on the scope of work. He wants the contract negotiation to be done by 120 January, when he has the spending authority. He hopes to bring forward the design 131N contract in January. 140 150 Brenner stated she has not heard any concerns or complaints recently, so Mr. 161N Middleton must be doing good outreach. Middleton stated he's met with every person who 170 has called him or asked him. He's met with them also on evenings and weekends. Property 181N owners have flown in from back east. A lot of properties are owned by multiple owners. 191N That's why the project is designed the way it is. 200 211N Mann stated he's heard a lot of good feedback from the community about how 221N accessible Mr. Middleton has been and how much the community appreciates his active role 230 and response to their concerns. He asked about burying utilities. Middleton stated Birch 241N Bay Water and Sewer District and Whatcom County intended to do the entire project, which 25M would be underground utilities. Both the District and County lost the funding from the 26M Public Works Trust Fund. The water and sewer lines need to be upgraded and replaced. 271N That project will now be driven by either a large developer in the area, which means they 28M will have to rip up and replace the road, or when the lines start to fail. They are expected 291a to begin failing in the next ten to 20 years. At that time, when they tear up the road, they 301N will have to put the utilities in the ground. That will also give them time to look at other 31M funding opportunities. New underground utilities is still a goal of this plan and in the 32M Comprehensive Plan. Staff will continue to coordinate with the District and look at trying to 33M get a five -year notice of when things start to fail. When it happens, they will rip up and 340 raise the road. 35F?I 361N Mann asked if the berm project does not include ripping up the road. Middleton 370 stated that's correct. 38P] 391N Brenner asked if there was a reason the County and District lost funding. 400 41F?] Melanie Mankamyer, Wilson Engineering, stated no one received any Public Works 421N Trust Fund money this year. The money was zeroed out of the federal budget. 430 440 Middleton stated the fund had $752 million. Both the Birch Bay Water and Sewer 45M District and this project were approved and good to go. The legislature decided to use the 460 money for something else. 470 48M Kremen stated he's heard many compliments from the community about Mr. 490 Middleton's efforts on this project. Mr. Middleton is a valuable asset to the County, much 500 appreciated, and held in high regard. 51F?I 5217 530 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 54PI Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/22/2013, Page 6 10 2. RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER VACATING A PORTION OF GLENDALE DRIVE PER 20 RCW 58.17 & 36.87 AND WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 12.20 (AB2013 -343) 3M 41a Brenner asked why the County would vacate this. 5P] 611 Andrew Hester, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated this has 7M been around for a while. The applicant sent in a petition, but hadn't gotten all the 80 signatures necessary. It's a dead -end road. There are two neighbors who would like to 90 vacate the road and incorporate the area into their property. This resolution is just to 10M consider the vacation. Public Works Department hasn't done an engineer's report or any 110 study. 120 13F?1 Mann asked the fee. Hester stated it was recently raised to $790. 14P] 151M Brenner stated she doesn't mind getting information. She would like to change the 161N County policy so the County can retain an easement for stormwater facilities. Hester stated 170 the resolution indicates the County would retain an easement for drainage and utilities. 181N That language has been in the resolutions like this for the last five to seven years. 19P] 200 Mann stated the petition describes the lot as a mess, as if it's a neglected, derelict 211N lot. He asked if the County does any maintenance. 22P] 230 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated maintenance of unimproved rights -of- 241N way is the responsibility of the underlying property owners, not the County. It's their 25M responsibility to maintain it. It's not County property. The County has a right -of -way. The 26M County doesn't own the land. The applicant is asking the County to vacate its right -of -way. 27M The County would retain rights for easements and drainage. He's not sure if that would 28M allow a stormwater facility. That easement may encumber the property more than the 291a applicant would want. 30F?] 31M Brenner stated she won't support any more vacations without access for stormwater 32M facilities. 33F?1 340 Mann asked who owns the land now. Rutan stated that the County does not own 35M property. The County owns a legal right to build public transportation facilities across their 36M property. The underlying property owners petitioned the County. 370 38P] Mann stated the owners made it sound that a vacation would create a better 39M opportunity of ownership. Rutan stated a lot of people don't understand that they have the 40M use of the property and the responsibility to maintain it. When the land is vacated, the 41M property tax goes up. The property owner begins to pay tax on it and can build permanent 42M structures on it. It's a right -of -way vacation. 430 44P] Mann asked if he owns the sidewalk in front of his house. He has a survey that says 45M the property line ends before the sidewalk. Rutan stated he does. The right -of -way for the 460 street was carved out of the property. 470 48M Brenner stated the City can pay off someone and actually own the road and 49M sidewalks. They have that choice. Rutan stated most rights -of -way within the County and 500 cities are just that. The State Department of Transportation (DOT) is different. Their right - 511a of -way means they buy full title of the property. 52F?1 530 Kremen asked if the City of Bellingham is responsible for the maintenance and 54M upkeep of the sidewalk infrastructure. Rutan stated it is not. It is the responsibility of the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/22/2013, Page 7 1(] 2M 3(] 41a 51] 6(] 7M 8(] 90 10(] 11m 12 P] 13M 14M 15M 161] 170 181N 19F?l 20M 21P] 221J 230 241N 25F?] 260 271N 28F?1 290 30r?] 31F?1 321] 33F?1 34M 35(] 360 37M 38(] 39(] 40F?1 41(] 42(] 43(] 441] 45(] 46F?1 47(] 48F?] 491a 501a abutting property owners, per code. However, they don't often enforce it. The property owners are also responsible to clear the sidewalks of snow. Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Mann stated the owners can already do whatever they want. He asked why they would vacate the right -of -way. Hester stated the roadway isn't included in the total square footage of the lot for planning purposes. Often, an owner will want to include that square footage simply to add square footage to the house, for example. It's not necessarily that they want to build in the area. There is still a utility or drainage easement, so any building may have to come down even with the vacation. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner and Kremen (2) Nays: Mann (1) 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COLUMBIA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S 2013 WATER SYSTEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (AB2013 -114) Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council. The motion offered carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Mann and Kremen (3) Nays: None (0) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:44 p.m. ATTEST: , Council Clerk -, Minutes Transcription WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/22/2013, Page 8