Loading...
2015, 08-17 Special Meeting re Rail etc MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington 99206 August 17,2015 8:30 a.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk ABSENT: Ed Pace, Councilmember OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: John Culton, Eastern Washington Director for US Senator Patty Murray Evan Schatz, Staff Director at Senate Committee on Health, Education,Labor and Pensions Johan Hellman, Executive Director of State Government Affairs, Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad (BNSF) Company, Pacific NW Richard Wagner, Manager Public Projects,NW Division,BNSF Railway Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. (Note that Mr. Culton reported that Mr. Johan Hellman's GPS was a little off but that he was en-route; hence the reason for the meeting's late start.) ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Pace. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Pace from the meeting. Mayor Grafos welcomed and thanked everyone for coming. After self-introductions, the meeting's focus turned to rail issues. Part I: In response to Mr. Hellman's request for a briefing on the rail issue, City Manager Jackson explained that this meeting is to discuss the City's commitment, and re-commitment, to Bridging the Valley and to pursue grade separation projects wherever possible; that the City has prioritized four projects as we continue to pursue rail consolidation; and that all current grade separation projects deal with the BNSF, and there is no plan yet for the UP (Union Pacific) rail. Councilmember Wick added that there have been past discussions, and we wanted to see where the railroad's priorities are concerning investment in the infrastructure, that we are looking to expand and grow and can help each other through this process; said there was an agreement about 2007 which had been led by SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) at the time, with the main emphasis of bridging the valley; said there were discussions with UP and others to align corridors together; they had discussed rail investments and the pursuing of a federal grant, with SRTC as the primary sponsor at that time; that the design had been completed up to 30%, and the package passed at a federal level but the funding never came to fruition; said discussion prior to incorporation included doing the Argonne bridge project with the County doing the grade separation; the idea was embraced and an analysis was conducted for the corridors, but then the regional council came about and took a different direction and the previous coalition fell apart, and Special Council Meeting: August 17,2015 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: August 25,2015 therefore without federal funding, there are inadequate resources to accomplish this and at that time, since we had not yet incorporated, we were not at the table to help move it forward. Mr. Jackson mentioned that Senior Engineer Worley was on the original steering committee to develop the plans. Mr. Worley said that there was a stakeholder committee when we incorporated, with the goal to get all the grade crossings for Washington and Idaho up to 30% designed, and combine both railroads into the same corridor; they discussed how the tracks would be laid out and how many. Mr. Worley said that the regional SRTC would not have been able to get to the 30% level if there had not been an agreement between UP and BNSF, prior to our City's 2003 incorporation; said the 30% design was completed in 2004 and this has been languishing ever since. Mr. Worley said we had asked early on, what changed, and how was it that there was a concept of bringing the two into the same corridor, and now there is not; he said we have some historical letters from Glenn Miles of SRTC and the railroad; that there used to be coordination but it disappeared and we are wondering what changed; he said some railroad folks were going to look into it but we never heard back about why the change for a no-go and that the sense was there was no way the two would ever be combined. [Councilmember Hafner asked for, and copies were distributed of a two-page handout from SRTC's website (http://www.srtc.org/btv.html) concerning Bridging the Valley.] Mr. Worley said that the tenor of the letters between the railroad and SRTC were focused on where the federal funds would go; that BNSF didn't think the bridging project would get enough federal funding to move it forward, so they backed off of the project. Mr. Hellman said that it sounds like there was forward movement on the crossing projects but not the consolidation, and Mr. Worley said that the issue was that the two railroads were not in agreement, that we still wanted to move forward to try to get those grade projects done as it represented a huge safety issue,that the railroads were growing which meant increased traffic leading to increased safety concerns, that we were pushing to continue the move forward on the project but even the consolidation was an issue needing to be addressed. Mr. Hellman referenced a BNSF May 12,2008 letter from Jeffrey B. Wright, which he said was probably the last correspondence the railroad did, and said that this letter fits in the timeframe we are discussing; he distributed copies of the letter, which was addressed to Todd Mielke, Chairman Board of Directors of the SRTC. Mr. Hellman read some of the letter(a copy of which is attached to these minutes) into the record, which reiterates the BNSF position and of the outstanding issues yet to be resolved, such as financing, joint operation, and which explain that BNSF doesn't support moving UP onto their line in the corridor as it is not best for their customers, franchise, or owners to adversely impact the competitive balance between the carriers. Mr. Hellman also noted, as pointed out in the letter, that our situation is similar to a Chicago area experience, with about 1,200 trains per day in one of the most populated regions of the nation; and with all the points outlined in the letter, the letter stated that BNSF agrees that grade separating vehicle and train traffic at key intersections will have local safety and mobility benefits, and that they fully support key separation projects in the bridging the valley program as those specific projects are pursued. Mr. Hellman said from a railroad perspective, there are a number of factors that played into why the consolidation didn't follow logic, including a lack of potential funding, challenges between the two railroads and the inability to move things through, but said they still recognize that important issues like safety need to be addressed; said since this letter was written in 2008, and even going back to 2005,those operating issues have become even more significant as well as the finance issues;said looking historically at the record for rail consolidation, that probably becomes less feasible over time; said the issues haven't changed in the past decade and may be even less feasible in terms of consolidation; said the idea of crossings are important here as in every community, and said if we could strategize to find ways to create public/private partnerships with state, local, and federal government, that this area would probably compete well for those funds; and Mr. Wagner agreed that has been the case with every at-grade crossing in Washington for the last six years that he has worked on. Mr. Hellman said the issue is about creating Special Council Meeting: August 17,2015 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: August 25,2015 access; in the 1980's and 1990's there was recognition that crossings were holding up freight mobility, there were safety issues and community issues and the idea was to get a group of projects together and move them forward as a package and maybe they'd get some traction; and that is what they did; a group was created of a dozen or two projects with the idea of creating partnerships with private industry, local, state and federal government contributing some dollars; said if you look at this regionally, look at it as a network with a regional concern and move some of those key projects forward, then we can have some success. He said they moved a couple projects ahead that way: grade separation and a freight mobility component to it and for them, it was helpful as they could resolve safety issues at the same time as resolving economic development issues; said it is similar to the way other big serious issues such as environmental cleanups are approached: there is a recognition of the projects and of the benefits and several communities get together and move them forward; and he said that could be done with grade separations as well. Mr. Hellman said he is aware since he does a lot of travelling around the nation, that these issues are a part of just about every community; said he would talk about rail safety to groups, which would lead to questions about safety and crossing, and then there would be work to build toward that model; said there have been some general successes in Spokane Valley as we are getting some money for some grade separation. Mr. Jackson replied that the only grade separation was pre-incorporation and that we have been trying to raise money and haven't been successful; and said we have applied for the TIGER funds for the Barker overpass. Mr. Wagner said that with all the grade separations, all the railroads are going to gladly participate in separations as per the federal regulations, which is 5% of the infrastructure at the crossing; said that Barker has a lot going on, and not necessarily associated with the actual crossing over the railroad tracks; said the current plans do not meet the standard requirements for grade separations as the clearances are incorrect, from the top of the rail to the lowest point of structure, as well as the horizontal distances; said it generally requires a clear span of the right-of-way, that they work with agencies and planners to make the project work and for example, if columns are needed on the property they could do easements; but said they generally like to have a clean span right-of-way; and again said that the plans do not meet the requirements for grade separation projects, adding that the project will require a fresh look or massaging what we have to bring the project up to their needs. Mr. Worley said that he and Mr. Wagner have had e- mail correspondence and discussed the need to get together; said we have not been in a position to move it forward and didn't think it would be worth it until the project was funded; and said they can meet and find out the new requirements and that we would make adjustments. Mr. Wagner said he recommends not waiting until the project is funded but rather to start working now; said the key element with all grant opportunities they want to see is substantial headway on the plans, at perhaps 60 to 90% completed is what puts the project in the running for those offerings; said if it was just development, occasionally the TIGER grant has funding opportunities for preliminary and engineering development of the project, but that's a very heavy cost for any community; said the further along in the design the better off for funding opportunities. Mr. Hellman agreed and said they want to have the project as complete as it can be so it is competitive; and that he doesn't want to create a situation where there is any doubt about the project should one piece not fall into place; again said this is a very competitive process and the winner tends to be the one who is most complete. Mayor Grafos remarked that we could spend millions on design but if the situation on the ground changed, what would prevent them from having to change a design again ten years from now. Mr. Wagner replied that when a project languishes as long as Barker has, that is the problem; said Barker seems pretty in-depth and is trying to do a lot which means a lot of design work which would take a couple of years to complete; said they have a specification book for grade separations that he shared with Mr. Worley (Mr. Worley was shaking his head no), and he also has the document digital, that explains how to meet those requirements which would mean smooth sailing by BNSF; said if the City needs accommodations, to just ask; said some requirements change over time but they can only run trains so high and so wide; and if a crash wall needs to be added, someone has to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Special Council Meeting:August 17,2015 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: August 25,2015 that project to see whether it is worth construction. Mr. Hellman said the clearances are the most critical. Mr. Wagner said in particular for future expansion, all grade separations require enough room for an additional track, an access road, ditches or some way to handle the runoff as the track beds aren't designed to hold water; at one point they were 23.4 and now they are 23.6 inches; said if we approved or had no comments at 30%, he doesn't know who evaluated the existing plans; said the first time he looked at them he knew they were bad clearance-wise; said he doesn't believe they changed that much and that there are some changes that do differentiate them from UP. Councilmember Wick asked if they only looked at Barker or did they see Pines as well and asked would all the plans need to be re-visited. Mr. Wagner said they would probably have to look at them all since ten year-old plans is a long time; said the plan reviews are only good for one year so we would have to keep it moving, and 30% is only good for a year after; he said if we were building an underpass,they would want to see those plans; spoke of corridor plans for our region and said that changes about two or three times a month and it is under constant review; said there are other areas of focus, such as Flora where about two months there were future plans for an additional track, said he can't think of anything else in Spokane Valley at this point, and that the Flora project was important then but think it was moved off the long-range plan. Mr. Hellman mentioned that long-range plans are very dynamic. Councilmember Wick asked if they could give a sense of what direction they are looking at and where we can help. Mr. Wagner said they would probably have to get back to Council on that and give us a list of questions dealing with long-range projects. Councilmember Wick said if they are going toward a fast corridor, were there some rail improvements or something to add another track line for UP? Mr. Wagner shook his head no; and the leadership has already stated what the plan is moving forward about shared corridors. Councilmember Wick replied that since the long-term is so dynamic, we can talk about it but Mr. Hellman said the bet approach is for us to focus on a specific project and try to move those forward; said even if they get into the fast corridor model it will be based on the most feasible, most tangible and most well-prepared project; and that he feels the best approach is to focus on a handful or small number of projects. Mr. Wagner said just to be clear, there are only so many trains that they can run and the speed of the trains is determined by track conditions as set by the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration); that we don't speed up trains; we do track improvements but don't just arbitrarily change the speed but that they want to run the trains at the speed the track is designed for; said constructing new sidings cost a lot. Mr. Hellman agreed the train speed is important and is mandated by federal law according to track quality; said they hear about volumes and moving certain commodities and it is all very dynamic; that over the last few years they have invested about $15 billion in new tracks, new sidings, to increase capacity and velocity and keep the safety factors in mind; said they have some of the newest and most modern tracks of any in North America; said over the last two to three decades safety has increased most dramatically; and last year more than $1 billion was spent in the northern corridor; said it is a much safer railroad then it was a couple of years ago; and as a railroad they tend to make capital decisions over many decades which is why they look so far in the future;they have to adapt for 20-30-40-50 years out. Mr. Wagner asked if Barker or Pines is the focus on the short-term projects. Mr. Jackson responded that they are both of equal stature; that Barker is the primary focus because of the opportunity to expand the industrial lands, and that Pines has more vehicle traffic; but that we can't put in for two projects at once due to limited resources; said we continue to focus on Barker and have funded the City's matching share with over$2 million;that we also have a future reconstruction project on Sullivan, as well as a Park Road overpass. FMSIB (Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board) funds were mentioned and Councilmember Wick asked about the possibility of funneling any toward engineering. Mr. Worley replied that FMSIB can only fund construction and not design and that there is a timeline on that funding. In reference to the 30% design, Mr. Jackson said that on one hand he understands Mr. Wagner's comments about the specification changes, but as a community, we are investing a great deal and trying to paint a picture to request funds and therefore don't want to insinuate in any way that our TIGER grant is not under consideration; said that he hasn't heard that comment, but some communities get funded with Special Council Meeting: August 17,2015 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: August 25,2015 less design work than what we have done; he said we don't want to do anything to impact the quality of our application as we are hopeful we will be funded with TIGER grant funds; said it would require a heavy investment of outside engineering to bring us to 100% drawings. Mr. Hellman said he understands and respects Mr. Jackson's statement, but his own message is to make the application as complete as possible as that will only improve the ability to get some of these very competitive TIGER grant funds. Mayor Grafos asked about what the chances are of getting TIGER funding even with 80% drawings, or would we just be spending a lot of money. Mr. Hellman said he could not speak to that, but did reply that putting a specific number on completeness is challenging, and reiterated that the more complete the project, the better chance of getting funds; said that within the region are areas of concern that people have about crossing projects, and that some specific areas are recognized for the challenge more than other areas, and that when you talk with people in freight mobility, the general recognition is that Spokane Valley is a challenging area. Mayor Grafos said that so what he is hearing is we should lose the concept of Bridging the Valley and just concentrate on one project to make it as complete as we can to apply for federal funds, and to forget the consolidation of lines. Mr. Hellman replied that he would need to see the record but that the consistent message is, that the consolidation is not workable and not feasible and he doesn't think that message has changed; said he can't tell the City what to do or not to do but thinks the logic of it points to one path forward, and to focus on that and try to get those drawings as complete as they can be and move that forward; said we have been having this conversation for a long time and consolidation never registered, but Barker Road has been recognized as important. There was some discussion about the "envelope" for tracks in the access road, and about the rail company's ability to build clearances based on topographical issues or existing structures; and Deputy Mayor Woodard commented that he would want to make sure we aren't planning one thing and end up with something different. Mr. Wagner said he would advise any agency building something to ask for grade separation standards, said most design firms already have them, and they like the agencies to have them so there are no miscommunications as they need to look at the conceptual plans at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Jackson said that generally speaking, even the grade separation projects sound like the primary benefit at the local level, while the railroad would contribute 5% toward construction cost, the railroad doesn't pursue these grade separation projects;that there must be an incentive for the railroad and the onus is on the community to put in those separations; that the railroad doesn't try to champion the crossings; said it doesn't feel like a partnership to get the crossings in, as it seems like all the responsibility is on the local community. Mr. Hellman noted, also generally speaking,that no one likes at- grade crossings as they affect traffic and safety; the railroad doesn't like them because of safety as that is the most likely place to see conflict between train and traffic or pedestrians; said the challenge is there are thousands of these and that there tends to be more road projects then rail projects; said sometimes the railroad might have a specific interest because of freight mobility or specific safety issues and can put more resources to the area, but generally this tends to be more of a community solution than a railroad solution. Mr. Wagner brought up the idea of putting together a draft construction maintenance agreement which he said is helpful when you submit an application for funding through whomever, they'll ask about adjoining property owners and who else might be impacted and whether you have agreements, and said if you can say yes we have an agreement and are talking with the railroad, or working on an agreement,that matters, particularly in the near future as you don't want to wait ten years but rather stay on top of it right away; he urged Spokane Valley to do that and said there will be folks to help with grants when we have agreements. Mr. Hellman agreed it is best to put oneself in the best position possible; and Mr. Wagner added that those agreements could take a year from start to finish as property issues are expensive and demanding. Councilmember Wick asked if we could use that before the 30% design, and Mr. Wagner said that you would generally start before that, said a lot of times people want to build the next year and want to know how fast they can do this, and the answer is, not very fast. Special Council Meeting: August 17,2015 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: August 25,2015 Mayor Grafos asked how much does the equation change as far as receiving funds if there are thousands of these projects and limited funds; and how much does it change the chance of receiving funds if the city has some of its own dollars in it; does it make a difference in how the project is looked at or whether the design is ready to go. Mr. Schatz said there are billions of funds requested and you would want to make sure the dollars are there to complete the project; so as much city funds that can go toward the projects, that obviously helps; he said TIGER funds would be for helping the last part of the project, and full design helps. In response to a question from Mr. Hellman about the general themes seen within the TIGER program and what kinds of projects tend to get funds, Mr. Schatz said for a lot of these projects, the TIGER funds are the last dollars in the project; so broad support from state, county and other federal dollars behind the project helps as well as having a multitude of transportation modes, pedestrian, train, etc., and Mr. Hellman agreed that the ones that tend to move on have the support from all sectors: local, state, local legislative delegation writing letters of support; a very complete package from people from all areas supporting that this is something to move forward, adding once again that it is a very competitive program. Councilmember Hafner asked if there is anything else we could do to help with how our project is considered. Mr. Schatz said he would agree with the idea of having broad political support as when there are two to three competing projects within one region, it is a struggle; other advice would be if the City fails to get a TIGER grant, would be to ask the Department of Transportation (DOT) to go over the grant application to explain why the grant is not competitive, said they want to be helpful and know some cities can afford grant writers and some can't. Mr. Jackson responded that we have taken advantage of that suggestion, with Mr. Worley adding that we did so twice on the Barker Road, and we were encouraged to re-submit, we were told we hit a lot of the elements they were looking for and we were on the recommended funding list by the scoring committee; said there wasn't anything else the DOT suggested as something that we might be missing; said we put in a second TIGER grant and clarified a few things like the number of trains at crossings; and said he appreciated the debriefings. Councilmember Wick asked how we could get more support from Senator Murray's office as we are doing everything we can to convince you that this is the project to select. Mr. Schatz said he has a good understanding of the applications received and that the City has done a great job over the years in addressing the issue and making the Senator aware, and that he thinks the City is doing a good job of socializing the project. Mr. Hellman said that this is a tremendously challenging problem as there are billions of dollars' worth of projects out there with thousands across their network, and even a small scale project can cost tens of millions; said these projects are very expensive and sometimes it just a matter of continuing to advocate the issue and over time it ripens; he suggested the City continue to be aggressive and not lose hope as these are challenging projects and will take a while to solve these issues, but there are great people working on it at all levels; and Mr. Culton mentioned the recent funding of the North/South Freeway as a good example of pushing for funding year after year; that he thinks we are doing a good job of selling this, and the state needs to know what needs to happen next and why. Mr. Hellman agreed that the recent transportation revenue package is a good example of what can happen with an incredible amount of diligence, hard work and thought. Mr. Culton said he feels our conversation today has been helpful and perhaps it would be helpful to have the west side of the state made aware of the argument for our project. Councilmember Wick said we get complaints from citizens on a monthly basis about various train issues, that the public doesn't see the issues between the UP and BNSF,that there are forty-six more crossings on this corridor. Mayor Grafos as well as Mr. Culton thanked Mr. Hellman and Wagner for coming today, and Mr. Hellman extended his thanks for the conversation as well; said they take these issues seriously even though he won't always have the answers the City wants to hear; and he thanked Council and everyone for the time today and for patience in waiting for him to arrive at today's meeting. Mr. Hellman and Mr. Wagner left the meeting at 10:08 a.m., and Mayor Grafos called for a short recess. The meeting was reconvened at 10:16 a.m. by Deputy Mayor Woodard. Special Council Meeting:August 17,2015 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: August 25,2015 Part II: City Manager Jackson said that over the past few years our City has been more active at the federal level specifically concerning the railroad, and generally concerning infrastructure, like sewer and road projects to enhance our industrial area, and also has a primary focus on law enforcement; so we have Mr. Schatz to talk a little about the federal agenda over the past few years or other things they'd like to tell us;then Council can ask questions. Mr. Schatz explained that there have been ongoing conversations concerning infrastructure and investment, and the Senator supports the bill which sets up six years of mostly inflation rate increases in transportation spending, which received positive response on a lot of fronts; said they have moved a little on freight issues, set up some new programs that ensures WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) has an understanding of the long-term level of funding; said the difficulty in Washington, D.C. is this package doesn't really move the ball on any dramatic increased infrastructure spending as the feds did not increase the gas tax; said it moves some money around to pay for slight increases, but this is mostly to continue where we are; said the Senator was focused on a more robust package but it wasn't going to come with this Congress. He explained that we could see this fall, both the house and the senate working on both sides of a transportation package with a little more about intermodal issues and rail, and establishes for the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) and WSDOT what the funding will be; said on top of what little they could do, this would allow WSDOT to think about long-term project prioritization and like the North/South Corridor, we can see how this can reach through the next few phases. He explained that other federal funding and some long term state funding is further down the road; said the TIGER grant is run almost completely separate, and mentioned that the TIGER VII is up for obligation soon, with announcements to be made in the fall; adding that their office and WSDOT are trying to make some decisions so far as this round of applications; said there are a lot of other things going on in Washington, D.C., like health care and job training; and he welcomes questions from Council; and as Council thinks about the various projects and issues, about how we can be better partners at the federal level; said the Senator's office is very concerned about federal priorities, and the more communication we have about the core issues, the better; and he mentioned the quality of schools/education for example. Mr. Jackson asked about the status of the At-Grade Crossing Enhancement Act. Mr. Schatz said that Congressman Rick Larsen sits on the House Transportation Committee and it was he who introduced that bill to be part of a larger conversation with the House's long-term transportation package; said there should be more on that in September or October and that there are a lot of members who represent areas like ours who are trying to move that as part of the larger package. Mr. Culton also mentioned the Every Child Achieves Act, which is now the Nation's main education bill since the No Child Left Behind is apparently broken; said with the new Act the idea is to make clean goals and targets. Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned an article about the Spokane County Sewer District dumping six million gallons into the river and he asked what will happen from an EPA standpoint, and will they force the County to put that into basic reclamation; he also mentioned a concern with possibly adding that to the Saltese Flats within the next three to four years. Mr. Schatz said he would have to speak with the EPA as he is not familiar with that issue. Deputy Mayor Woodard also mentioned his concern about gray water and Mr. Culton said he would have to look into that as well. Mr. Jackson mentioned the Affordable Care Act; said it appears that in 2018 the City with the basic program from AWC (Association of Washington Cities) would have to pay a 40% excise tax on health care; said we currently have a fairly average health care program and the talk is the proposed ceiling can only be raised by the cost of living, which is one to two percent; said health care cost usually increases five to six percent annually; so this is a big concern. Mr. Schatz referenced what Mr. Jackson was referring to as the "Cadillac tax" and said there have been many conversations about not having it implemented as a key piece of the Affordable Care Act; said there are ongoing conversations and a bill is coming in September to eliminate the tax; said he thinks we will Special Council Meeting: August 17,2015 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: August 25,2015 see more information before implementation and about it not coming to full fruition, and said the Senator is very involved. Councilmember Wick asked about issues moving this year and since it is an election year, that perhaps there is a lot of talk but no action. Mr. Schatz said there should be some interesting movement in the fall as the Democrats and Republications do not agree on appropriation spending levels, and perhaps we are headed to another shut down; said there are some "major cliff' items coming up in October or November, and Senator Murray is working closely with the feds to get us through these tough situations; said we will have to wait and see how it all plays out, but that 2016 should be a year where probably as much won't be accomplished as was in past years; that overall it will be a very complicated year with this fall being a critical time to see what can get accomplished. Mr. Culton mentioned some kind of an industrial base agreement concerning a push for EXIM Bank reauthorization and where Kaiser Aluminum might stand on that issue. Councilmembers indicated they were not aware of that issue. There was no further discussion and Mayor Grafos thanked everyone for attending today's meeting. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:38 a.m. APTEST. Dean Grafos, / / t.,y)11 A, / is.�,, Christine e Bainbridg ,'City Clerk Special Council Meeting: August 17,2015 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: August 25,2015 Jeffrey B.Wright BNSF Railway Company Regional Vice President P.O.Box 961034 North Operations Fort Worth,Texas 76161-0034 2600 Lou Menk Drive RAJ e� ,As�i�p V Fort Worth,Texas 76161-2830 T' i"' Jeffrey.wrightico bnsf.com 817-352-0132 May 12,2008 Todd Mielke, Chairman Board of Directors Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane,WA 99201-3613 Dear Chairman Mielke, In response to inquiries by state and federal legislators regarding BNSF Railway's participation in the Bridging the Valley(BTV)program, 1 would like to take this opportunity to reiterate BNSF's position on this issue. As noted in Steve Goodall's March 942001 letter to Glenn Miles,there are several outstanding issues yet to be resolved regarding this project. hese issues include financing for the project,joint operating issues, and issues concerning the competitive balance of railroads in the region. The letter goes on to stress that,while these issues are central to our acceptance of the entire BTV program, BNSF has and will continue to support the grade separation projects. We believe these grade separations are the most important community safety and mobility benefits of the BTV program. Our railroad's position on"Bridging the Valley"has not changed or altered from this letter, which Mr. Miles received three years ago. And, at virtually every relevant opportunity, we have sought to clearly and respectfully communicate this with local, state,and federal partners. At this time, BNSF does not support the BTV concept of moving Union Pacific Railroad operations onto our line within this corridor. We do not believe it to be in the best interests of our customers, franchise,or owners to adversely impact the competitive balance that now exists between the two carriers. Additionally, it continues to seem unlikely that the availability of state or federal funding will be of a sufficient magnitude to make substantial progress in the delivery of the BTV program. Our basis for this view is bolstered by the experience of a similar program in the Chicago area, called"CREATE." This project would(in part)provide 31 highway and rail grade separations, in a region that manages 1,200 freight and passenger trains per day. Despite the dramatic volume of train traffic, this $1.5 billion Chicago area program was authorized just $100 million in the most recent six-year federal surface transportation bill. Given the Chicago area experience—with 1,200 trains per day in one of the most populated regions of the nation—it is difficult for us to see how the BTV program's reliance on such significant public funding will be realized within a reasonable time period. These points notwithstanding, we agree that grade separating vehicle and train traffic at key intersections in the Spokane area will indeed have local safety and mobility benefits. Again,this is why we have fully support key grade separation projects in the BTV program, as these projects are pursued—and funded—in a more predictable project-by-project fashion. We look forward to continued participation in Spokane region grade separation projects, and other endeavors that provide mutual benefit to the community and to BNSF Railway. Respectfully, vire �— /4.1 ' 4 /right Attachment cc: Glenn Miles Doug Jones Dan MacDonald Walt Smith Terry Finn Barbara Ranf Andrew Johnsen