Loading...
2018, 03-02 Special Mtg MINUTES City of Spokane Valley Special Council Meeting 3:00 p.m. Friday,March 2,2018 City of Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Ave., Spokane Valley,Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Staff' Mayor Higgins Mark Calhoun, City Manager Deputy Mayor Haley John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Councilmember Peetz Cary Driskell, City Attorney Councilmember Thompson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Councilmember Wick Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager Councilmember Wood Mike Basinger, Economic Dev. Mgr. Councilmember Woodard Rob Lochmiller, Senior Engineer Mike Stone, Parks&Rec. Director Ray Wright, Senior Engineer Colin Quinn-Hurst, Sr. Trans. Engineer Carolbelle Branch, Public Info. Officer Elisha Heath, Executive Assistant Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Mayor Higgins explained that"the purpose of today's meeting is to clarify points of misunderstanding on the Barker Road Grade Separation project.This meeting was originally scheduled on very short notice last evening, events overtook us, and with the legislative session moving quickly coming to a close, the transportation budget was being considered with literally no notice necessitating our moving rapidly to respond appropriately,hence, our having to reschedule for this afternoon. I apologize for the short notice. The original meeting was scheduled to allow for Council action if necessary. After discussion with our legislators and action by the budget committees, Council action is no longer necessary. Today's meeting then will be for information only as a first in a series of meetings to involve and inform our citizens on what the Barker Road project entails,what entities are involved,and how the project benefits the City of Spokane Valley. With that in mind,Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Hohman will continue from here." City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. 1. Barker Grade Separation Project—Mark Calhoun,John Hohman City Manager Calhoun said today's presentation will begin with him doing his best to describe why we are here, and John will discuss the history of the Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Project and how we arrived at the point we currently are. "Discussion on the Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Project has been a topic of local conversation for many years with formal discussions at a municipal/SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) level taking place in 2004 that resulted in the development of the Bridging the Valley concept. Ideas behind the concept revolved around eliminating "at-grade" crossings, that is, perpendicular conflict points where trains and cars share the same space and unfortunately,occasionally at the same time. The idea was to create either over or under passes to completely avoid the conflict between trains and passenger vehicle and trucking traffic.Benefits of grade separation projects include: safety of the traveling public;it saves time assuming 56 trains a day passing through the Valley with a wait time of three- minutes per train, that's 168 minutes of wasted time at each of these crossings each day; also with the number of oil trains passing through the Valley,this is arguably a form of aquifer protection in the event of Special Council Meeting,Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 03/27/2018 an oil train mishap. Another benefit specific to this particular project is economic development in this northeast industrial area, and that the current at-grade crossing has in part retarded economic growth. So, based upon the fact the City has focused on this to the extent we have these past few years,we've reached a realistic resolution at an estimated cost that is realistically attainable. By coupling this design with a Planned Action Ordinance, we have been successful in making this area more attractive to the business sector and in fact we now have serious interest including Katerra which will soon construct a 250,000 square foot facility employing 150 people, and a second still unnamed business which will reportedly also construct a new facility employing yet an additional 150 people. The City's preferred alternative for this project was until recently a diamond interchange that in 2016 was estimated to cost$36 million.This has proven to be been an insurmountable sum of money to secure even though we've attempted to apply for grants through the variations of the TIGER,FASTLANE and INFRA programs over the past five years, all of which have been unsuccessful.You'll recall that through this past year 2017, Council and Staff began discussing six alternatives to the diamond interchange with the intent of finding a more fiscally responsible and realistic alternative,with the most recent discussion taking place on January 30, when Council gave a head nod to Alternative 5 which includes a bridge over the railroad tracks and a roundabout on Trent Road. Since that time we've been working with the design team of DEA/HDR to develop a contract to complete the final design and plan to bring this forward to Council in the very near future where we will be seeking Council authorization to proceed with that design. Through the Legislative session each year,the City's lobbyist in Olympia,which is Gordon/Thomas/Honeywell with Briahna and Chelsea, provides periodic legislative updates, and on Monday, February 19,just eleven days ago,we received an e-mail that the House Transportation Budget had been released, and it added language regarding the $1.5 million that had been awarded last year, that stated that the amendment was 'no State moneys could be expended to plan for or construct a roundabout as a part of this project' and it did go on to say `provided that this restriction didn't increase the overall cost.' I forwarded this e-mail to Council on February 19 and in that correspondence noted that City staff would be participating in a phone conference to discuss this topic and this prohibition, and included in that phone conference would be several city staff including John and I, our fourth district legislators, representatives from the Washington Department of Transportation, and our lobbyists from Gordon/Thomas/Honeywell. In that February 21 phone conference, City staff provided a brief history of the project including how we arrived at Alternative 5. Our Legislators expressed a number of concerns about that alternative, especially the fact that it included a roundabout on Trent. Representative Shea sketched an alternative concept that they felt would better serve the traveling public in terms of safety, convenience and cost, and noted that they thought it would be less expensive than the Alternative 5 we've been discussing;that it wouldn't slow 50 mile-per-hour traffic on Trent as would a roundabout;that it would be more navigable for trucks moving to and from the industrial area, and would better accommodate future growth. Because the project is so expensive we recognize that it's beyond the City's ability to solely come up with our own internal resources to finance the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction, and in light of the fact that the House Transportation Budget now included prohibitive language, and because we need the support of our legislators to pursue financing for this and other projects going into the future including $6 million from the National Highway Freight Program that the legislators still need to approve and I think that happens next year;based on all of that,we felt it was necessary to back up a bit in our process and seriously consider the concept advanced by Representative Shea. To that end, we asked the design team of DEA/HDR that had developed the six initial alternatives,to explore an additional concept including the estimated cost. By early this week we heard back from the design team and their analysis showed that the concept advanced by Representative Shea would not work, and would actually preclude the construction of the solution to that intersection quandary. This led us back ultimately to the 2004 diamond interchange that I discussed earlier and that DEA/HDR currently estimates that would cost now$41 million; so we had been using$36 million with all the gyrations that happened and as a result of that we are really back to the original design Special Council Meeting,Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 03/27/2018 concept at $41 million which is clearly substantially greater than the $19 million cost estimate we are currently working with on Alternative 5. So we felt this price difference would allow WSDOT- the Washington State Department of Transportation - to conclude that Alternative 5 would be the most cost effective option.However,we then learned that WSDOTs interpretation of the bill language was that State moneys couldn't be used on any project at this intersection that included a roundabout. So at that point we were facing a very real conundrum because the $41 million price tag for a project of this magnitude is simply so far beyond our ability to afford, even if we continue to pursue grants into the future as we have in the past. So we had a Finance Committee meeting this week as a consequence of this proposed legislation and we discussed how the City should proceed. Our options included: (1)asking our lobbyists in Olympia to work to remove the roundabout prohibitive language from the bill; (2) look towards attempting to self-finance the project,which there is just no way the City is going to be able to come up with $41 million, and then also related to that, (3) we would continue to pursue grant financing recognizing that based upon past experience this is not likely realistic. Now, as Mayor Higgins noted at the beginning of the meeting, the language prohibiting a roundabout is in the process of being removed from the bill. However, with that said, community discussion on this topic should perhaps continue, and I think following John's presentation,that may be a topic of discussion with Council,looking towards how do we as a City staff and the Council, and the community, move forward in a very timely and orderly manner. With that said, I'm going to turn this over to John who is going to have the more interesting part of this discussion I think,and that is providing the history of the project and how we ultimately arrived at alternative 5, and really what this project means to the economic development in that northeast industrial area." In going through the PowerPoint presentation, Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that the Barker Road/BNSF grade separation replaces an at-grade intersection at Trent and an at-grade intersection with the BNSF tracks;said this has been a problem intersection for a long time and has been at a failing level of service for several years;that anyone trying to make a left turn from Barker onto westbound Trent knows this,and that anyone who gets stuck due to train traffic, ends up waiting for about three to four minutes for the train to pass. Mr.Hohman noted that the project is located in the northeast part of the city.He mentioned that it is a challenging area with Trent coming in a T-intersection with Barker, there are parts of Trent eastbound that continue straight, and westbound circles around the Wellesley fly-over,which is the bridge that bends to the north then back around to the south;there is also a steep hillside and a lot of rock in the way; there is a neighborhood to the north that has been there for some time and has a lot of development potential; and there are the railroad tracks and other associated roads to the south. Mr. Hohman noted the area also includes a lot of undeveloped property. On the aerial map,Mr.Hohman pointed out the northeast industrial area and the vacant properties that staff has been looking at advancing as part of the economic development process; he said there have been several initiatives throughout the last few years in this area; there are about 840 acres in this area, and 575 are vacant, although some of that is now being filled. Mr. Hohman explained that some of the local and regional benefits associated with this project include improved safety,eliminated at-grade railroad crossing,improved failing level of service,improved emergency access and reduced train noise, and that it predominately allows for industrial growth of the area, and he noted some of the data included in the table in the PowerPoint slide, and said that staff is hopeful the project would raise the 'F' existing level of service,to an 'A' level of service. Concerning an economic development impact for this project, Mr. Hohman stated that in 2015 we commissioned a study from ECONorthwest, and as a result, economic benefits would include about $2 billion in economic output for the state, 9,800 new jobs supported in the state, $12.3 million in new City general fund taxes, $50.8 million in new state general fund taxes, and would improve freight movements. Mr. Hohman explained that this project is the backbone of this industrial area and the issues in the area must be fixed. He stated that when we began the City's Economic Development Program in 2012, one of the things we noticed as we studied our economy was we had to diversify;he said the City is very dependent Special Council Meeting,Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 03/27/2018 on sales tax revenue which can and has fluctuated greatly over the last ten years;that we are currently in a comfortable position concerning sales tax,but you never know when the next economic decline will occur. Mr. Hohman said that we have developed very strong partnerships with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.), and Spokane County;that GSI is our Associate Development Organization that is tasked from the Department of Commerce to bring in recruits to this area, and to develop business in the region and they have been a great partner working on this particular area; that Spokane County provides sewer for the area and as we reconstruct roads,they install sewer at their cost to provide the sewer service needed by these industries; and he again stressed that future development of this area is contingent upon intersection improvements. Mr. Hohman spoke of the original concept from 2004,which is referred to as a diamond interchange;said there wasn't a lot of work done for several years and there was some federal earmarked funding that became available in 2010;he said we have revisited that over the year and the design has recently updated the cost, with today's projected cost at$41 million as compared to the previously cost of$36 million.Mr. Hohman noted that Barker comes up to the north and intersects Trent in an overpass, so the bridge would come up over the pass and stay over Trent,and there would be long ramps on each side,and that they would be long because of the grades necessary due to the elevation of Trent and the bridge being raised over Trent; also with this design is the northwest ramps cuts off existing access to the neighborhood so the connection shown in the project, going up to the north would have to be built. Mr. Hohman said this was one of the issues discussed over the years that if we did an interchange project, could that piece be cut off, and the design team just recently re-examined that and said that would not be possible as the ramp would come out and cut off the access, that would be an emergency access only, so more of a right-in, right-out and left turns would not be able to be made; so that north connection to the neighborhood would have to be built as part of this project.Mr.Hohman noted in the slide depiction,there is also quite a bit of infrastructure being removed which is a lot of work,and Wellesley Avenue would be re-routed to the south to get it away from the intersection.Mr.Hohman also noted there was not a lot of activity from about 2004 to 2016 concerning the design, but as more mature proposals are bring brought on the economic development program, staff knew this was a hindrance to that,necessitating looking at advancing the project. Mr. Hohman stated that there have been many discussions on the diamond interchange concept and the Bridging the Valley and whether there was 30% design completion; some environmental work had also been done at that time, so the hope was we could hire a consultant engineer to take that 30%design to full design completion, and we could rely on the environmental documentation, and get this project moving. However, he said, as staff looked into this further,they found that there really wasn't a 30% completion of the design, and what we had lacked detail. In order to initiate the project, Mr. Hohman explained, we would have had to had surveying done and then GEO technical work to make sure that whatever was built,would be have a solid foundation; but none of that work had been done. Mr. Hohman said that staff came to the realization that we were starting from scratch; that we had set aside$1.27 million for design and this was not the full cost to get a complete design, it was just what we could afford at the time; he said there were many unknowns about what that money would buy us,the numbers fluctuated,Council was not comfortable with the project, and in January 2017, Council ultimately rejected the motion to allow the City Manager to contract with the design firm. In February 2017 staff brought this back to Council, noting that staff had, in the meantime become aware of several concepts that were initiated several years prior by HDR Engineering; and ultimately Council directed that an alternative design be pursued. Mr. Hohman noted that members from WSDOT, including an individual expert in the design and construction of roundabouts, gave Council a presentation on roundabouts; that thereafter staff developed several potential concepts, and a phase one contract was awarded to the design team of HDR and DEA to examine those concepts in detail and develop potential costs.Mr.Hohman explained that in October 2017,and January of 2018,staff brought this to Council again and there was Council consensus to select Alternative#5. Mr. Hohman said HDR had some proposals for the project, and that was the basis for the start; he said that staff did not have any preconceived idea about Special Council Meeting,Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 03/27/2018 which proposal would be best,but rather examined and analyzed the facts to come up with the alternatives; and he then n went over the various alternatives including pros and cons,design and approximate cost. Mr.Hohman said there were several public outreach meetings as shown on the various slides;that staff met with the Secretary of Transportation, which meeting was sponsored by Senator Padden, and attended by Senator Padden, Representative Shea, and WSDOT Secretary of Transportation Roger Millar; said the meeting included a bus tour and coincidentally during the bus tour, they got stuck for about four minutes waiting for a train to pass;he said the following week staff received a letter of support from Mr.Millar.Mr. Hohman stated that in addition to the other listed public meetings, staff spent time talking to individual business and property owners as well as the police and fire departments, Spokane Industrial Park, and Centennial Properties to describe the alternatives and gain feedback.Mr.Hohman also mentioned the public meeting/open house held October 18, 2017 with 123 people attending; he said most people were in favor of the project, with alternatives 1 and 5 as the top alternatives, and most did not like alternative 4 which would have shifted the traffic to the east; since the proposal mentions closing Flora to the south, Mr. Hohman said many businesses were concerned about that closing. Since roundabouts are fairly new to this region, Mr. Hohman said there were some public concerns, and some people were also concerned about what happens with the connection to the north. Mr. Hohman said that neighborhood has been looking for a second access, and it could be accommodated in the design process of alternative 5; and he said our consultants are analyzing that to see how much traffic could come from the north before it starts causing a problem; he explained that if we move forward to a phase 2 or a design process, we would have that connection analyzed so it would not be precluded in the future;he said our staff met with staff from Spokane County,and had a meeting with the owner of the property to the north and that is something we will continue working on; and said although we are showing a three-legged intersection, the possibility is that it could easily accommodate a fourth leg; and all this input, Mr. Hohman explained, led staff to recommend to Council back on January 30,that alternative 5 would be the preferred project to build. Concerning intersection safety, Mr. Hohman explained that putting in a signal on a state highway where previously there was none, causes problems; for example, he said the accident rate out at Flint Road on Highway 2 in Airway Heights has increased at that intersection since the installation of that signal; he mentioned that roundabouts outperform signalized intersections with fewer car and pedestrian collisions, about 75% fewer injury collisions because the speed is slower and there is no T-bone broadside conflict; and with a roundabout,there are about 90% fewer fatalities. Mr. Hohman mentioned the Project Specific Safety Analysis conducted by Fehr&Peers,that the existing intersection averages about 3.4 crashes a year and .8 fatal and injury crashes a year;that they did some projections out to the year 2040, and found that a signalized intersection would have a likely and potential increase of about 3.7 crashes a year and 1.3 fatal and injury crashes a year;but a roundabout would have about 2.3 crashes a year and only .3 fatal and injury crashes a year. Mr.Hohman said he realizes there are misconceptions about conflict points in a roundabout, and some estimates of conflicts points in the 200+range,but City staff and DOT's expert in Olympia looked at this and determined there are seven merging conflict points, and three diverging conflict points;that we are proposing a dual-lane roundabout similar to the one near the casino in Airway Heights;comparing these ten conflict points to a similar intersection, DOT tells us there is a minimum of 32 conflict points in a signalized intersection in this same configuration. In further comparisons of roundabouts and signals, Mr. Hohman noted roundabouts have a better level of service, have reduced annual maintenance, reduced congestion,noise,and air pollution due to less idling;and he mentioned signals also cost for electricity and maintenance, and that about once a year,someone runs into the signal light and destroys the box,which he said is very expensive to repair. Mr. Hohman said we do not have someone in-house to maintain those traffic signals and since incorporation, we have contracted with Spokane County for that service; he said we also contract with DOT to do the signal work on that state highway, SR 27 and Pines. Mr.Hohman said for this particular location, we estimate we would be able to reduce maintenance between $5,000 and $10,000. Mr.Hohman acknowledged that there is an educational component of roundabouts;that according to DOT there is generally opposition before they are installed,but afterwards that shifts more positively;he Special Council Meeting,Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 03/27/2018 said that DOT is planning on more roundabouts,including one on Highway 2,the Newport Highway at the new Costco facility under construction; and that a developer will be putting another on Highway 2 in Airway Heights as part of a development project. Concerning funding,Mr.Hohman explained that as the alternatives are examined,this is becoming a mature project,which means it has been analyzed,necessary engineering work has been done, and we are getting the necessary finances together for this estimated $19 million project; that if we were looking at a $41 million project, we would be very far from that, but in examining the figures noted on the slide, we are getting closer to the $19 million. Mr. Hohman noted state traffic concurrency is also an important part of this discussion;that concurrency is a state law which must be followed;that concurrency means that at the time of development, infrastructure needs to be in place or a plan needs to be in place to accommodate that development;that"concurrent with development"means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development,or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. Mr.Hohman explained that the risk of not doing something here means that our ability to continue to permit projects is at risk.As noted on the PowerPoint slide,the local traffic concurrency(SVMC 22.20.020B) mirrors the state's concurrency. Mr. Hohman said that we have our consultant closely examining this issue;and whether that means if the project is not constructed within the six year time period, are there any other strategies we could put in place to continue to permit projects; he said this is a scary subject for us especially for those managing our economic development program;said we have had amazing success in 2017 to have two large manufacturers purchase property in this area; he said that over the past few days he has learned there is more interest, and staff met with GSI last Tuesday who indicated more people are interested and want to be located in this area. In summary,Mr. Hohman said we believe we have identified a fiscally responsible and attainable project; we need to fmish the phase 1 analysis, which is the alternative analysis and part of that includes working with DOT to approve what's called the `basis of designs"so means all the different technical aspects of the project they are looking at,and we anticipated that to be approved for alternative 5;he said this is something we have coordinated with them all through this last year; our staff and DOT's engineers have discussed this and DOT's engineers have been a great help. Mr. Hohman said we realize additional public outreach is needed on this project, and we are planning accordingly; we believe we need to move forward into the design (phase 2) soon as we would like to initiate construction in 2020 or 2021; he said that some of the funds allocated to this project have an expiration date so we need to get moving; and that he hopes he has shown that we have done a lot of work and came up with a project that ensures that there is adequate infrastructure for not only today's time, but for full build-out as well; and that this allows us to continue with the very aggressive economic development efforts that we and GSI have done over the last few years. Councilmember Woodard asked concerning the development to the north, who has to ask who for access to that highway? Mr. Hohman replied that staff has discussed with Mike Gribner from the DOT and with Spokane County Engineer Chad Coles,and the County and the developer need to talk about what potential project they have, and then bring that to DOT through their development review process, which is the guidance Mr. Gribner gave the County; and that at the same time we have been involved to make sure we are being included in the coordination of these efforts. Mr. Hohman explained that we want to make sure that if we come forward with a three-legged project,that a fourth leg can be easily accommodated;however, he mentioned that the north part of this project is outside our jurisdiction so we will be working on an interlocal agreement with Spokane County to allow us to be in the position of acquiring that right-of-way, adding that we are also looking for different options for right-of-way agents since we don't have staff for that; and to make this happen, he said the City would have to buy some property, but we would accommodate any future connection in our design. Councilmember Wood asked if staff talked to trucking associations about the ability to maneuver that roundabout. Mr. Hohman said absolutely staff has talked to several companies, including Mr. Matt Ewers Special Council Meeting,Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 03/27/2018 of Inland Empire Distributions in the Spokane Industrial Park, who is also on the board of FMSIB; and although staff hasn't spoken with him recently, he and staff did communicate throughout the gestation of this project and said Mr.Ewers is in favor of a roundabout in this location and also in other locations, and said we are currently studying the intersection of Sullivan and Wellesley, which is a high profile intersection, especially with the County working on the Bigelow Gulch project, which when fully constructed will divert traffic,including truck traffic to our City through that route;if one of the alternatives ends up being a roundabout, the question is how would that impact trucking; and he said that Mr. Ewers thinks that is a good solution in that area, as does the School District. Mr. Hohman said staff also spoke with property owners and truck companies who understand the situation; he said if money were no object we would all likely prefer the larger project, even though for himself as an engineer, said he would have a hard time going that route because it is difficult to justify it as part of the engineering ethics, you need justification for such a large project. Mr. Hohman stated we have reached out and will continue to reach out to the community. Councilmember Wood asked if we would be bringing some of those companies forward to hear their comments. Mr. Hohman said we can do that; said he received an e-mail today from Doug Yost at Centennial Properties, noting that they are comfortable with the roundabout design and imploring us to move forward because they have a potential new project coming. Councilmember Wood asked if this design would impact the Del Rey entrance and Mr. Hohman said that alternative 5 will not, nor will it impact the Wellesley infrastructure. Concerning the bridge over Wellesley, Councilmember Wood commented that if we were to do that design that crosses over so much industrial land,which isn't very practical; that he would assume that bridge would need a lot of work since it has been in place for a long time. Mr.Hohman said the bridge is in very good condition and wouldn't need much;that some work is needed on the deck, but the width and elevations work, and it is a viable alternative in theory if it didn't shift all the traffic to the west. Councilmember Thompson said that BNSF has been talking about double tracking;and she asked how that would affect this project.Mr.Hohman explained this will accommodate it quite well;that the Bridging the Valley concept actually had width for six tracks, and a reason for that was that an important process in Bridging the Valley was that the idea was the Union Pacific tracks would be co-located in the same right- of-way as the BNSF thereby eliminating all those crossings along I-90,but in the subsequent years,the two railroads have parted ways on that project and we have confirmed that neither is interested in co-locating in the right-of-way;he said staff will bring more information back later about the double track process;that it had been rumored for several years but we learned about this in our meeting with BNSF only a few weeks ago; and they have initiated the process with an environmental checklist that staff has reviewed; he said staff learned that the double tracks in this area will be fairly close together, with an offset centerline to centerline about 16.5', so that means that for any of these alternatives,the bridges don't need to be as long, and said we have designed it with that thought in mind so these costs are accurate for that; and we found that the tracks won't be so wide that it impacts our design and forces us to a more expensive alternative. Mr.Hohman added that as staff brings this forward,there will be significant impacts to Sullivan and that is one of the things we learned, and the railroad stated that they would like to close Sullivan for a four to six month period; he said staff told the railroad that would be a significant issue for us and would cripple our economy in our industrial area; so those items need more discussion with BNSF, and staff will bring that to Council later with more details. Councilmember Wick asked for a quick summary to explain where we are now.Mr.Calhoun said staff has been working at this,and up until the last eleven days have been solely focused on advancing alternative 5 and working with the design team of DEA/HDR to develop that contract and bring it forward for Council approval;this has been a bit of a monkey wrench but perhaps a necessary monkey wrench as it gives another opportunity to vet through the community; he said that in Mayor Higgins' discussion with our legislative delegation last night prior to them actually agreeing to remove this language, said he thinks they were looking for some additional public meetings; and we are certainly willing to do that and will do so quickly as we don't want to put this project any further behind than we have to;ideally the big picture is we have a Special Council Meeting,Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 03/27/2018 final design contract, we have that contracted design finished by the end of 2018 or early 2019; we go through the right-of-way acquisition in 2019, we are conceivably breaking ground as early as the end of '19,and certainly in 2020,so we don't want to slow this down at all.Mr. Calhoun said that as Mr.Hohman mentioned,some of this money,that$1.5 million that was awarded to us by the 2017 legislature,will have to be spent by June 30,2019; and for the$6 million,we have to be committed for that by October 2020; so we are very aware of those deadlines. Mr. Calhoun said if Council is interested, we can schedule more public meetings in the near future; he mentioned this topic is scheduled for discussion at our March 13 meeting,and we plan to carry that forward again with a presentation very similar to tonight's,but we really want to be sure that the Council and the community understand how we arrived where we are, and that it was not presupposed that this would be a roundabout or presupposed that there was any particular design; we really entered this with an open mind after we abandoned the initial diamond interchange concept. In addition to the March 13 council meeting, Mr. Calhoun said we will have additional meetings where we will seek comment and that we hope to be back before Council March 20 or 27 at the latest, seeking a Council motion as to which direction we should proceed.It was also clarified that for the upcoming March 13 meeting, it will be a formal meeting so the public will have opportunity to comment. Councilmember Wick said to summarize,there were some proposed language changes at the state level that would have impeded some dollars, but now that language has changed provided we get some public comment,they will allow us to move forward with those dollars and allow us to get those dollars back for the project. He asked if this is correct, and Mr. Calhoun replied it is; that it is his understanding of Mayor Higgins' conversations with the delegation. Councilmember Wick said he knows we had some short notice for today's meeting and noted we have quite an audience; and he asked Mayor Higgins if it would be appropriate to allow some comment today to help our legislators get an early indication of what the public feels. Mayor Higgins said he feels that there are still some aspects in play and that might be a little premature, as the legislation session has closed and this has actually gone from the legislation. Councilmember Woodard commented that he has not been privy to any phone calls from any of the legislators or to any inside information; that he knows we have worked cooperatively with our fourth legislation delegation for years;we have helped them and they have helped us;they continue to be friends of our City and as they all live here they have personal interests in what goes on;he voiced his appreciation over the continued dialogue over the last few days and the continued openness to find paths to make sure they get the assurances they need as well as making sure we knew where we were going; and that he looks forward to the ongoing cooperation and partnership,and that he hopes this project will break ground in '19. Councilmember Wood said he spoke with Senator Padden last night who assured him that amendment has been removed from the bill; said that Senator Padden isn't "real fancy" about roundabouts, but nor is Senator Padden fancy about $41 million. Councilmember Wood said that if we had unlimited funds, the diamond interchange would be the better solution,but we don't have$41 million and will need a little time to get $19 million; and he said that Senator Padden's final conclusion was that a roundabout works just fine. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. r 4)1 - A L.R. Higgins, 4, ristine :ainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting,Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: 03/27/2018 John Hohman From: Doug Yost <dyost@centennialrei.com> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 12:01 PM To: John Hohman Subject: Barker Road John, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me to discuss the current status of the improvements on Barker Road. Based on our conversation I am very concerned about this issue and to be honest surprised. Centennial Properties has invested a considerable amount of time and financial resources in developing our property off of Barker Road. The time and resources were based on assurances from the City that there was an approved funded plan to address the traffic concerns along Barker. Centennial is comfortable with the current preferred alternative,which includes a roundabout at Trent. At this time we will start railroad construction to service the site in the third week of March, Katerra is currently constructing their facility, and Progress rail is currently in the design stages for their building. In addition, Centennial is in the process of working on another potential user that would start construction as soon as possible, providing the improvements to Barker Road occur in accordance to our discussions over the past two years. All told we expect to provide northward of 700 jobs over the next 18 months as a result of our development in the area. This will be a great benefit for the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane in general. In the past we have worked well with the City of Valley and I implore you to move forward and perform the improvements that were assured to Centennial when we approached the City about developing our property. Centennial Properties expects further investment in the area and needs to know your resolution to this issue. Please let me know what the solution is by March 15. If you have any additional questions or need to discuss further please contact me. Respectively, Doug Yost Doug Yost Vice President of Centennial Real Estate Investments Specializing in Building Construction, Land Development,Acquisitions,and Investments 509 227-5802 dyost@centennialrei.com Centennial Alit d TAT ( 3 f4 V I II Te H t S 1 GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT BARKER ROAD/BNSF AT STATE ROUTE 290 (TRENT AVE.) 4;R 41111111 C7ASPOKANE March 2, 2018 VALLEY -F<OHOMC OEVEEOVMEMT- Project Description The Barker Road/BNSFgrade � s separation project replaces an t �': r existing at-grade crossing with _-- -= �1 an overpass of the railroad i tracks and improves the intersection of Barker Road and - State Route 290 (Trent Ave). , . VSPOKANE VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1 3 -a -4) Project Location BARKER ROAD/BNSFAT p TRENT AVENUE(SR 290) State Lan Otis Pasadena Park Orchards-East I\ 1 Eatms r �� _ k S oane P — \\ Liberty lake ® .y Valley caEErunEa Tj.r1. / 'Spdk `ane O p VERWALE © v )erty Lake aE • Req bna1 Park j Glenfose I I I _ SPOKANE VALLEY E�a�aM�E eE�ELnPNEn, Northeast Industrial Area i k PIC,.,. 1m1 . ....., _ f . ...q.,4111111hpi .---', - -.---:-- 01-;,-,,,,- .,_,•.i_____H , , _ _ _____. ITN! JI' i rL: i' '. -' • • I 1 CYC 'P 7 1, . l.eaend 1VacantProperty • SPOKANE �• 0 1117A4 _ gar VALLEY o ` ECONOMIC OEVELOPMENE 2 IILocal & Regional Benefits r• I m p r o v e Safety Traffic and Crash Data • Eliminates At-Grade Railroad Crossing Existing Trains per Day 56 Vehicle ADT at Crossing 5,500 • Improves Failing Level of Service Existing Level of Service F • Improves Emergency Access Proposed Level of Service A Daily Train Whistles 112 • Reduces Train Noise Acres of Undeveloped Land 575 •Adds Non-Motorized Facilities Total Vehicle Accidents Since 2012 17 Injury Accidents Since 2012 4 • Promotes Economic Development Initiatives Property Damage Accidents Since 2012 13 ■Allows Industrial Growth of Area nSPOKANE VALLEY Eco.NorIc ocvcto Pw EN. Economic Benefits Direct impact of project improvements: • $2 B in economic output for the state ti — '�- y ■ 9,800 new jobs supported in the state y,� _ • $12.3 M in new City general fund taxes - • $50.8 M in new State general fund taxes ,' �7F ; Yi. =�.. • Improves freight movements s �_ � (— _-St Eudni A -..� ,c"v . , , , ._ i. _. .. , c7, SPOKAVALLENEY ECONOMIC OEVELOPMEVi 3 Economic Development Efforts Began City Economic Development Lr, _ r7 -• , s 1. 7- program in 2012 _ • Diversify economy - focus on manufacturing Jill • Developed partnerships with GSI and Spokane : 1 County ' - I .t All •This area has been a major emphasis of our al ,,.,, -:,�a,� -� program -�` ` ■ Future development is contingent on the intersection improvements „ SPOKANE VALLEY _ _ • . . _ „ ECONOMIC OEVEIOPMFMT- Ir . Diamond Interchange Evaluation • Original concept from SRTC's r,;wa;N,.;�sN._.. -�.4 k.14,.N.WMl1; x" •fig` Bridging the Valley(2004) , a; ,----- ,` x x x X ._ � E r x x a Y .4. .w,.4.F....nr xx•H Y xx ' It '.Cy.��� p cit.- V 1,v x f ■ Revisited as part of City's 2017 F4"/LE-1» y''. _ K F x"= ` _ Y.• 14 alternative evaluation 4' A .0.'''' * _ x4, 1 . I ■ Not the most cost-effective optiontrrli:,..�1,-, ` IP ■ Traffic analysis does not warrant 1,.•,m"E"' 'i; I. ; ^� diamond interchange - I lYlllllJEl11 AVE rHr.L.r.LLL.i 111 • Opinion of Probable cost is Frena* approximately$41 million ' er T",ii 1 ""I`�"F CrCrr:=rAL LEGEND j - _ \l/ i iutnp modnry IP u W., • Futon raGlinpull 61,7A SPOKANE VALLEY 8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4 rCity Council Actions _ •April 2016 - Diamond Interchange Concept • Council approval to obligate $720,000 federal earmark to initiate project design. ■July and August 2016 - Diamond Interchange Concept • Request for Qualifications and selection of design consultant for engineering phase. • November and December 2016 - Diamond Interchange Concept • Staff updates Council: • Understanding of 30% Design from Bridging the Valley was invalid. SPOKANE VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 10, City Council Actions • January 2017 - Diamond Interchange Concept • Council rejects motion to allocate$1.27 M for design • Concerns with too many unknowns of the project • February 2017 - Staff directed to pursue alternative designs • May 2017 - WSDOT presentation to Council on roundabouts • • August 2017 - Phase 1 contract awarded for consultant alternative analysis • October 2017 - Council discussion on alternatives • January 2018 - Council consensus to select Alternative#5 SPOANE U VALKLEY 0 ECONOMIC OFVFLOPN F.YT '- ` _- - - -_. _ -_ _ _-- _ _ _ 5 2017 Evaluation Of Alternatives • Phase 1 Alternative Analysis - Identify and Compare Several Scenarios • All scenarios considered the possible impacts of vehicle and pedestrian safety, right-of-way needs,traffic modeling, and total project costs • Roadway Alignment Evaluate different roadway alignments effecting Barker Road,SR 290, and Wellesley Avenue • Overpass vs. Underpass Evaluate grade separation alternatives for Barker Road and BNSF railroad tracks i • Signal vs. Roundabout Intersection control and traffic safety analysis k ASPOKANE VALLEY -ECONOMIC OEVEL0PNFNI- 2017 Evaluation Of_ Alternatives Alternative 2 . r Alternative 1 $19 8M t f .i --a•. - t, Alternative 3 $27.3M r.r", -'' -n,;,,,:,, ''y: � -`' $24.2M 11111 2:.; fi.tiy T:: n j' \% t I - --,-,7-- t om- ) _ r --_ ' `. - `6 -_ _,L r" Alternative 6 f k• $22.0M Is �Er t Z� Alternative 4 �•' , v r i ':i- , l•: r _ _- $11.4M , ` --_:,..1:1.1, — 7F-•--- „ '- 1 r 'op 5' 15 - a P & `t �' Alternative 5 SPOKANE - `. . $19.0M VALLEY 4, ., I SZ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 6 lk Barker Road - Alternative I. • New Barker overpass connects to , , • - , j Trent to the west '°'-- f 1 ■ Raises Trent–21 feet : - ,--' \ - ■ New Barker 40 feet above ;f•®d i,s y T--.-•:-(--..,.-. ..;, i ` , existing grade k; ., .,, It; - ' ., ." • Trent/Wellesley to east are • unchanged • Opinion of Probable cost is - .. approximately$27.1 million i • , \'.✓�, r� (Assumes 2020 CN) " , '� ' • ' ` ' o == C7A I ..s BARKER RD/BNSF GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ,L SPOKANE1 . _.,, m.� ALTERNATIVE 1 PRELIMINARY ..=;,;;; F32 VALLEY - ,: -ECONOMIC°EVE..ENT- Barker Road - Alternative 2 ■ New Barker overpass-shifted to .7" the east i f'` i , ; ■ R::; rtT3 ::bove Tren18 � % "afl -= 1T�. 7 I -■ N :-; � -" "Q- existing grade ■ Wellesley realigned south to t I`; i P connect to Barker ( . ., - i1___ • • Opinion of Probable cost is � , _ approximately$19.6 million hr� /I 11 (Assumes 2020 CN) Y . mil,e.',,/' ---_ IlL./�. BARKER RDI BNSF ORADE SEPARATION PROJECT s 171 SPOKANE .Teti - -.p... — ALTERNATIVE 2 PRELIMINARY : „. FEZ VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ` 7 Barker Road - Alternative 3 ■ New Barker underpass - shifted •I--1--: �-= 4 T L�y to the east t , _ - •.• • Lowers Trent— 18 feet t,DP�p. , w - • New Barker-- 20 feet below `• I = = =., I existing grade a `�, r- r ■ Wellesley realigned south to ,/,./ ,•••' iit connect to Barker - (r �'`; ■ Opinion of Probable cost is .t° ' \, I approx. $23.9 M (Assumes I 2020 CN ' I _ r= - - nI . _ -- �! 'BARKER RD/BNSF GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT SIYA POKANE '� q II�'- •..�,+ ALTERNATIVE] ,-u „ L II ., PRELIMINARY ^���•�f�� VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- 15 illir Barker Road - Alternative 4 • New Barker connects to �,• . I .EWellesley which maintains --------_-• , existing connection to Trent z. i �y rPDj4 ■ Raises Trent— 6 feet i - - . 35. -. . _-. - ■ Opinion of Probable cost is 7, - r, a:, / J� u ery M FI approximately$11.2 million (Assumes 2020 CN) s_ ' --- _ MOM IIII 1,{moi Nen _ ' - BARKER RD/ I I ....�-., ._� BNSFGADAEVP4ARATIREMCITNARY °, fL�POKANE UA VALLEY _ __ 16. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8 f• Barker Road - Alternative 5 ■ New Barker overpass - slightly I . E —r--r. :�- _ — realigned to the east ! ,.. t--- - ,•',-:;---'''",..- , _. -„04.0- A 1 m N 7 ■ Raises Trent- 10 feet " ■ New Barker 32 feet above �� �` existing grade '`� ` `• �o- �i ,sol.4. '' ■ Opinion of Probable cost is ,Iv-" a (•� approximately$18.75 million -• �0 !, (Assumes 2020 CN) t , � I �rivalc Rd 1 ,n 4r ill RIM I /� BARKER RD/BNSF GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT L SPOKANE I ALTERNATIVE 3 PRELIMINARY i'.;—4111— r., VALLEY illr Barker Road - Alternative 6 • Combination of Alts 2 &5 1 ' 7, ■ Maintains Barker alignment I 1 _ `_ La 0,' ■ Raises Trent 10 feet �:�� ''Y ` :; y ■ New Barker v32 feet above ?. �� •� existing grade - > ' r .;_ ' • Wellesley realigned south to - •° i ( , connect to Barker tI �� -1-----`'L.,::,------ • Opinion of Probable cost is ..R '''. approximately$22 million i ' ;,. , 'nl •. :.� ... :=. • ,P F;wI n (Assumes 2020 CN) Iji ,...V.,;,`,..., ••',.V. e+ L7A SPOKANE J yN BARKER&TRENT ALTERNATIVE 'T,,o•lolga 7 I..n VALLEY ECONONIC OEVEIOPNENT 9 Barker Road - Public Outreach • October 4, 2017 - Meeting and bus tour with the Secretary of Transportation,Sponsored by Senator Padden Il • October 18, 2017 - Public meeting • November 15,2017 - Meeting and bus tour with the Washington State Transportation Commission - - • November 16, 2017 - Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce • January 22,2017 - SRTC Transportation Advisory Committee • February 28,2018 - SRTC Transportation Technical Committee • Ongoing outreach meetings with local businesses and agencies • Police&Fire Departments,Spokane Industrial Park,Centennial Properties,local property owners , ,OL,,,, , Econo Mlc oEVEIOPMEnT- p Barker Road - Public Meeting • October 18, 2017 Meeting Date • A large percentage of the people • Meeting attendees= 123 people attending were from the Highland • Most people were in favor of the Estates neighborhood in Spokane project County • Most prefer alternatives 1 and 5 0 • Most people did not like alternative 4 • Have concerns with impacts to Del = Rey Drive • Want a second access to their • Most other common concerns: neighborhood • • Closing of Flora ■ Hope this project will solve their • Impact of roundabout to traffic flow problems with access on to Trent • Longer trips for Wellesley traffic with alternatives 2 and 3 „V SPOKANE VALLEY 20 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 10 -19 Preferred Alternative • January 2018 ' :2 Alternative #5: A2.1:...,:fis' ' �. . ,..4„. . ,.., ..‹,,, .„______, . 0 ..-: . , -yq�,■3-leg roundabout � ` •■ Does not preclude , a� " _ . �connection to the north � 'L— Ire ■ Estimated Total ;` � `� Cost: $19 M --,,,r7,.,..:,_,,, ,. LEL010 II ric"r -it7A 1- — /ti =BARKER RD I BNSF GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT •®G o • IAS A', fi 'Ifr j� a N,�,R�v�„ R_„ PRELIMINARY ,,,,.,,,_ —n TiATA . ._ - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- Intersection Safety Roundabouts outperform signals: • 37% fewer collisions I I ---_\ • 40% fewer pedestrian collisions ' ' = Project-Specific Safety Analysis • Existing Intersection (2012-2016) TR@ BA KAVE.S STA.19.Y2 BARKER RD,STA.19+98.55 � f - - � • 3.4 crashes/year 4. ., ,. , _t � ' I •� � ` , �■ 0.8 fatal and injury crashes/year • .:-" • Signalized Intersection (2040) ; • 3.7 crashes/year '� ,r • ► y • 1.3 fatal and injury crashes ear ' 0' ■ Roundabout(2040) 14�; '� 3� �' • 2.3 crashes/year Y i 4 t 4 • 0.3 fatal and injury crashes/year "` - I Merging Conflict • Diverging Conflict nVALSP OKLEYA N E (7 Total) (3 Total) I -FCOMOYIC D(VEIOPMENT- Roundabout v. Signal Additional Roundabout Benefits TRENT RAICR RTDA.SL.MT8.95 ' -. _ � '�� :` E cur `E� � /. '->-.' // f -_ • Roundabout LOS -A/B .E,: ; . s __1 �'_` ///% ■ Signal LOS - C '{ �' • i 'ter: ,-.49) !i ( • • Reduced annual maintenance ' 'r • • $5,000-$10,000 less /y ` a - ■ Reduced congestion, noise, and ' = i y , - mss.. air (less ollution -j p idling) S P O K A N E a1 Merging Conflict • Diverging Conflic C7A VALLEY (7 Total) (3 Total) 24 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 12 Roundabout Perception ii. Shifting public opinion Public Attitude Towards Roundabouts1 (Before and After Construction) ■ Prior to construction, 65% 45% _ ■Before . 40°i0 Y After (- have a negative opinion 35%% _ toward roundabouts. 35°i° 2s°i° � 20% iii ■After construction, nearly all 1s% - opinions are neutral or 15;0 ' positive towards roundabout. 0% Very Negative Neutral Positive Very Negative Positive Source:NCHRPSynthesis 264 ©a,,,,,,a421 11"1".''''''''1"'''" „[,4,y,�wrMa. . RoundaFouU Sour[e�NCHRP Synthesis 264 SPOKANE VALLEY -[<OYONtC O[VELOYNEME- Project Funding 2018 Estimated Total Project Cost ...i, $19,000,000 Secured Funds: Federal Earmark $ 720,000 1 WA State FMSIB(20%) * 3,800,000 WA State Legislative Appropriation (Must spend by 06/2019) 1,500,000 City Funds 3,630,000 National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) (Obligate by 09/2020) 6,000,000 BNSF Contribution (Estimated) 300,000 Total Secured Funds $16,000,000 Total Unsecured Funds $3,000,000 *NOTE:FMSIB award is for 20%of total project cost,with a$10 S P 0 K A N E million limit,and must be applied towards the construction phase. VALLEY ECOh ONIC OEV[LODNEWT 13 State Traffic Concurrency WAC 365-196-840 (6)(a): In the case of transportation, an ordinance must prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element o the comprehensive plan unless improvements orstrategies to accommodate th impacts of development are made concurrent with the development... V SPOKANE VALLEY ECONOMICDEVEEOPMENT State Traffic Concurrency WAC 365-196-840 (6)(a)(ii): "Concurrent with development"means that improvements orstrategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. SPOKANE VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 14 Local Traffic Concurrency E SVMC 22.20.020 B A finding of concurrency requires that adequate facilities are available when the service demands of development occur, or in the case of transportation "concurrent with development"shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. The cumulative impact of development should be considered when making this determination. UAA SPOKANE VALLEY 29 -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- Next Steps - •The City has identified a fiscally responsible and attainable project solution • Finalize Phase 1 analysis •Conduct additional public outreach • Move forward into Design (Phase 2) • Initiate construction in 2020-2021 • Ensures adequate infrastructure for all anticipated growth , I SPOKANE VALLEY _3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 15 ,IFQUESTIONS? 1g 1E Z.,' -- �__— • • •err•..Y1` - F GtdSf . \ .,,,...,4111_,_.4i,..-,,,_.t.,!---,..._; 1.--_. Ig �t h1s J n ' 1 Euclid Ave !f hcRFt '0° 90Jt'' —•L3 1\p\l ?S �a 111, A__11..% 1 � � r EM,E I c. VSPOKANE VALLEY -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- 16