Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works September 13 20051 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Safety Committee September 13, 2005 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: L. Ward Nelson None Sam Crawford Also Present: Seth Fleetwood COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS RAISED BY THE BIRCH BAY VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD REGARDING ROAD CONDITIONS IN THEIR AREA (AB2005 -340) Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated the sewer construction going on will impact the roads. The letter from Mr. Listebarger in the Council packet states the County is upgrading the roads, however the County is not upgrading the road. The County is requiring that the road be restored to their original condition. Because of the existing conditions of the road, the excavation will require a chip seal mat overlay. The roads are narrow. The roads are not in ideal condition. He would like them to be better. However, they are not rated low enough for staff to repair them at this time. In the future, the County could widen them. This is in line with other developments that have impacted roads. He will work with the residents and not do more than they need to. During this project, a full width thin patch overlay is the way to restore the road. Brenner asked if the roads in the list submitted by Earl Listebarger (on file) are all County roads. Rutan stated he would have to check. Nelson asked whether the residents of the Birch Bay View Homeowner's Association have talked to the Public Works Department. Rutan stated staff has talked to the residents a number of times. He is making sure the roads are restored fairly. Construction will start in a few weeks. He's concerned about the time of year this project will happen. Crawford asked if the concern is with the existing conditions of the road. There seems to be disagreement about the County's requirement for that thin overlay. They want to do something less than the overlay cost. Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner stated she understood that the residents spoke to the Public Works Department but were not totally comfortable with the response. Earl Listebarger, 8472 Cedar Way, Blaine, stated the residents' concern is that they don't want to add cost to the project because of the low- income residents. The culverts are pulling apart. Because of heavy equipment, the roads are deteriorating. According to the County's road division, it was impossible to keep the heavy equipment off their roads. The main reason for the discussion today is because the residents would like the County to share some of the expense because the roads aren't in that great of shape. The cost of the overlay would be about $100,000. Because the roads aren't in great shape now, either help with that cost or move the schedule for the regular road repair ahead of the seven -year schedule. Brenner asked if those concerns would be addressed when the project is done. Rutan stated the roads aren't in perfect condition. Staff rates all County roads and repairs them based on that ranking. These roads aren't being upgraded. The contractors are simply to restore the pavement they're trenching out. This area of roads is not scheduled to be repaired on the County schedule any time soon. The roads may be a little better with a new overlay. He is concerned about making sure the integrity of the pavement surface and sub -grade is maintained. If the County schedule was such that staff would be out there to do it's repairs, then the County would do this work. However, it's not on the County's schedule any time soon. Nelson asked the residents' concern. Listebarger stated the citizens refrained from calling the County about the road conditions out there because they knew the sewer was going in. Because they've refrained from calling the County, and because of the road conditions that exist now, the problem should be addressed now. They are all County roads. Rutan stated that if it weren't for the sewer work, the County wouldn't be out there at all. He is simply asking for a restoration, not an upgrade. Listebarger asked if it is possible to move the schedule for the road repair up on the schedule to immediately follow sewer construction. Rutan stated the County works on specific areas of the county at one time to conserve costs. There are many engineering issues the County will have to address when it repairs the road. Because of the workload on the six -year plan, he won't have people available to do that kind of work. Brenner stated staff brings the Council its recommendations for repair priority. It sounds like this is not as big a priority as other projects already on the list. Rutan stated that's correct. Crawford stated he empathizes with the situation. He wonders if there are groundwater problems that are exacerbating the degradation of the roads in the Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. area. Listebarger stated the heavy trucks have added to the road stress. Trillium has been working intensively for the last six months. The County roads can't do anything about that use. Brenner asked what happens when a large project creates more impact from big trucks. She asked if the project developers have to fix it. Rutan stated that in some cases, the County would require security before hauling. The County staff will do assessment before and after the project. If the County can show who damaged a road, the County will certainly go after them. However, that's a hard thing to prove. In some cases in the past, requiring security has had to do with gravel mining or very large construction projects. Brenner stated that if someone is going to do repeated big truck traffic on small roads, it seems they should pay for the impact. Rutan stated the issue is the level at which the County draw the line on who has to pay for the impacts. Brenner stated the threshold would be if the trucks are running on roads that are not all weather roads. They would contribute a certain percentage. Rutan stated the trucks that do the most damage are the garbage trucks. Their front axle are overloaded. Nelson stated they also drive off the edge of the road. Rutan stated that determining what vehicles do the most damage is a hard thing to judge. Listebarger asked why Trillium doesn't have an access to their property from another road. Rutan stated he'd have to look into it. Brenner stated that would be an issue for the Planning Department. Dr. Frank Oldrich, Birch Bay View Homeowner's Association Vice - President, stated they got a $850,000 grant. The County required an additional $100,000 onto the bid, which increased the cost to each owner. They are asking for relief from the $100,000. When the contract is over, they are only two years from the County's repair schedule. It wouldn't bust the County budget. Brenner stated they are not only two years from the schedule when done. She asked why $100,000 was added. Rutan stated that amount is the overlay cost. There is also a cost to restore the pavement if they did trench repaving. The County would also require a bond for those roads beyond that point in case there is any damage. It is more expensive than another fix, but there would be a cost for the other method. The other method leaves them with a road that will have a trench that will expose the sub -grade potential water infiltration, will be unsightly, and will be a poor ride. The sewer district asked to put a sewer down the County road. The County said that is okay, as long as the road is restored to its original condition when the project is done, without a trench. The County is requiring the Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. sewer district to restore the road. The sewer district's contractor has given the sewer district a bid of $100,000 to do that restoration. The bid of $100,000 for the overlay is a little more than doing a trench, but the district would have to do restoration of some sort. Oldrich stated the requirement raised the price of the bid by $100,000. Most of the trenching is off the County road and can be done by blacktopping the trench area. They don't have to restore the road. The roads are in such bad condition now that they are going to have to be done eventually. Brenner stated that regular road maintenance won't happen any time soon after the project is done. After those pipes are put in, someone will have to restore the area that has been disturbed. Rutan stated the County won't require restoration of areas that aren't on the road. They aren't requiring an upgrade. Oldrich asked how they assess that. Rutan stated people have to obtain a right -of -way use permit to do work in the right -of -way. The County inspects the work. The County made it clear up front that any damage done to the pavement due to construction work would be repaired with a full width overlay. The project will have to have an excavator on that thin oil mat. That will do damage, even if they don't dig in the road. The County is not trying to get something for free. The County is trying to make sure that the citizens in general don't get stuck. Brenner stated the residents need to keep track of what the County says must be done. If it costs more, they need to keep an eye on the contractor. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the contractor has no motivation to protect the pavement because they are going to get paid to do an overlay. He recommends that the contractor perform the work to minimize or eliminate the damage so the road doesn't have to be restored. The methodology of construction is the real issue. Brenner stated the citizens must look at the contract to see how well the residents are protected. Oldrich stated the contract is between the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and the contractor. Brenner stated the County is not involved in the contract. Oldrich stated the County has a requirement to overlay the road. Brenner stated the County requirement is to restore the road to its original condition. Oldrich stated that wasn't what the sewer district presented to the Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. residents in that light. The district told the residents that the requirement was a complete overlay of the road, not a restoration. They've been told that $100,000 of the grant money would go to the County to fix roads that the County will eventually fix anyway. Brenner stated that money is going to the contractor, not the County. Oldrich stated it is $100,000 worth of work that the County would eventually have to pay for. Brenner stated the residents must discuss the concerns with the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. SPECIAL PRESENTATION 1. PRESENTATION REGARDING FERRY SYSTEM COSTS AND RATE SETTING POLICY (AB2005 -357) Jeff Monsen, Public Work Department Director, stated staff is starting the process to do a fair fare increase. There are four steps in the process of developing a fare increase. The County is planning to make significant improvements to the ferry system. The first step is to make it clear where the ferry system costs are. The second step is the relationship with the State and three other counties in terms of operating ferry systems. Whatcom County shares revenues in covering costs. The more they're consistent, the more successful they are in getting financial support from the outside funding source. Third, after they deal with the bigger issues, they will decide the share of the system the users will pay for. The fourth step in the process is the most difficult, which is deciding which users will pay a share. Today, they will only talk about how big the system will be and how to improve the County's position to get State financial support. He hopes to continue this discussion on fare structure at the next committee meeting. On September 28, he will make a presentation to the State Transportation Commission about what financial support to put in the State Transportation Plan. Ken Richardson, Accounting Supervisor, stated there are several issues that have bearing on financial and capital acquisition for the ferry system. First, they want to define the ferry system based on the State ferry system definition. There are seven parts to the system. The first part is the parking lot on Gooseberry Point, a leased facility. Second is the staging area at Gooseberry Point, which is waiting in the ferry line with a car. Third is the Gooseberry Point dock. Fourth is the boat. Fifth is the second dock on Lummi Island. Sixth is the second staging area on Lummi Island. Seventh is the parking lot at Lummi Island. When talking about the system cost, talk about all of it. Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Monsen stated they have to look at the system this way. Later, they will talk about fare recovery. Richardson stated there are types of costs associated with the system. Operating costs includes things like salary, benefits, fuel, rentals, and other things necessary to operate the system. Maintenance costs is a separate category. The third category is administrative costs. The fourth category is capital costs, which are those things they spend money on to preserve and improve the life and capacity. Separate the capital cost category from the other categories when talking about operating costs. The total cost to run the system is operations, maintenance, administration, and capital. In fare box recovery, they don't include the capital category. Contained in the operating costs are things like interest and depreciation. For this system the County has now, depreciation is almost nothing. The system is nearly fully depreciated. The State does not recognize depreciation costs in any of its calculations. There are four things the administration needs to be clear on. First, decide what the total system costs are, which are operating expenses, and for which purposes they serve. Information is necessary for ferry deficit report because it determines how much of the biennial allotment from the State goes to each of the three ferry counties. That amount is about $1 million spread out over two years. Whatcom County receives about $130,000 annually from that amount. The calculation on the deficit report does not include depreciation, interest, or capital acquisition costs. Brenner asked that staff provide a chart showing all this information. Monsen stated these terms have been misused over the years. The term "operating cost" has three or four different connotations, depending on who they're talking to. When they talk about the status of fare collections annually, they refer to the word "deficit." That term is based solely in State law as it relates to the money from the State Department of Transportation (DOT), from which the County receives about $130,000 per year. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Monsen continued to state that the State term for deficit occurs solely a question from the State Transportation Commission is whether that is a fare share of DOT monies for county ferries. Because that relationship is based on the State ferry system operates, it ignores anything that to do with capital expense, depreciation, and interest. When the State ferry system wants a new boat, they go to the legislature and ask for a special appropriation. County's don't have that ability. The deficit report costs include everything else in the seven - component system. Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Under current law, the only money available for a new boat is from County Road Administration Board (CRAB). They must ask the CRAB to take money from the fuel tax benefit from every other one of the four counties. That won't happen. The four counties shouldn't have to fight amongst themselves to deal with those unusual expenses. The counties should have direct access to the legislature to deal with capital elements, so they're all playing on an even field. That's the purpose of the meeting he's going to with the State. Nelson asked if the State differentiates its State ferry system from the State road system the way Whatcom County does. Monsen stated they are very similar. Brenner asked if the State compares its road costs against its ferry costs. A citizen felt that regular roads are just as expensive as the ferry system. Monsen stated bridges have unusually high costs. In Whatcom County's road system, the average cost is $25,000 per mile per year in County road construction and maintenance. The average cost per mile per year for the ferry costs is $2 million. There are no good road comparisons to a ferry. Brenner asked if most road construction and maintenance per year is $25,000 per mile per year. She asked why bids are in the millions. Monsen stated that cost is averaged out over the life of the road. Also, the annual cost of the ferry does not include a new boat. Nelson asked if a bridge would be more economical. Monsen stated it would be over a period of time, if they could build a bridge. Today, he doesn't think they can build a bridge at any price. Nelson stated those State regulatory practices prohibit the building of a bridge, which is a cheaper option. Therefore, the State should help fund the more expensive operation. Monsen stated that is the crux of the debate across the state. It's generally understood and expected that bridges cost money. However, once bridges are constructed, they're there for a very long time with limited activity. However, ferry operating costs seem to have no relationship with a bridge, so it's very difficult to compare a bridge with a ferry. Nelson asked what the staff wants today. Richardson stated he's looking for support to use a common method for calculating what the users should pay, what the State deficit report, and whether they should be consistent in costs with the State of Washington method of calculation. Brenner stated it sounds like this is a big change in direction. She asked what they are talking about in terms of individual fares. Monsen stated he is not setting the Council up for a large fare increase. Having the same common denominator will help the County have a better relationship with the State Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. legislature and other ferry systems. They are not deciding to have the same recovery rate. That is a different decision. Brenner stated that using the same calculation is a good idea when the County talks about costs with the citizens. Richardson stated that when projecting forward, the costs of the system are going up a lot. When looking backwards, the target rate of recovery has been 55 percent. It has been as low as 42 percent. Part of this is effort to build the concept around putting this together as an enterprise. Create a ferry operations fund to derive revenues from different sources, including the road fund. That could be established as a set of boundaries in which people could operate. Brenner asked what happens if not enough is left over from the road fund. Richardson stated it is easier to look at if operated as an enterprise. It would be easier for people to understand why the County needs more money from users and /or the taxpayers via the road fund. Crawford asked about fuel costs. Richardson stated there was a big increase with the fuel contract a few weeks ago. For the ferry, the cost of fuel is included in the rental rate from the equipment revolve and rental (ER &R) fund. They upped that rental rate a year or so ago. Now, they're not drawing equity out of the fund, based on what they're paying for fuel. The ferry, for the miles it runs, is pretty fuel efficient. Brenner asked for a graph that shows the cost of the ferry per year, broken down to individual costs, versus the cost of a bridge and very expensive roads. People should be able to see the big cost differences. Monsen stated there is a reason why ferries operate in the state. He can pull out how much they spend on higher end bridges in the county. The reason for the ferries in the state is because the bridge doesn't resemble any other cost. He can't compare a bridge versus a boat in one location. He can compare a ferry in one location versus a bridge that exists in another area. Richardson stated there would be a question of whether they should calculate the recovery rate first, if it will be different than the 55 percent it is today. Another reason for this common denominator is that it will help when asking the State for money for capital needs. Monsen stated he will come back to the committee with the changed common denominator and the recovery rates that will result in a fare change. They are not going to make a fare adjustment to cover 100 percent of the cost. It will be balanced by a reasonable increase in fares and the recovery rate to which that will calculate. Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. They have to reinforce the message to the citizens that, whether or not they increase the capacity of the system, a big shift in the system capacity will result in a big shift in cost. Some people will say that they never would have supported a new boat if they knew the cost. In reality, the cost will increase no matter how the County decides to increase capacity. Also, the true increased cost is not the boat, but keeping the backup boat. The next big piece is whether a new parking lot is something the County pays for independently or becomes part of the system to maintain and restore the system. Those shore -side issues are not cheap. OTHER BUSINESS Crawford asked if the Marshall Hill Road, which is down to one lane, is too expensive to repair. The whole mountain is eroding. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated the issue is of timing and defining how big the project is. On two other occasions, there were major repairs to this road. Much like Park Road, repairs can be bandaids or real repairs. Crawford asked if the road gets little use limited use. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Monsen stated the road gets WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 9