Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2473 Resolution t i RESOLUTION NO. 2473 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE LEWIS STREET CORRIDOR STUDY. WHEREAS, the Lewis Street Underpass is more than 60 years old and is showing substantial signs of disrepair; and WHEREAS, the city has contracted with a consulting firm to conduct a study of the corridor options which the city should consider in determining how and where the Lewis Street Underpass should be replaced; and WHEREAS, the use of an advisory committee, composed of individuals with certain interests in the outcome of the study, is appropriate and necessary to assure the quality of the recommendations which will result from the study; and WHEREAS, a seven member committee has been identified to function as the advisory committee for the Lewis Street Corridor study; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following individuals shall comprise the Lewis Street Corridor Study Advisory Committee: 1. Mike Hall (Ice Harbor Brewery; downtown business) 2. Greg Banks (Husk; downtown business) 3. June Smurthwaite (East Pasco Neighborhood and Planning Commission) 4. Gary McCollum (Planning Commission) 5. Bill Dress (East side business) 6. Julie Killian (Chamber of Commerce) 7. Walt Gobel (Pasco School District) Section 2. The Committee shall select its own chairman from its membership and shall meet as needed to assist the conduct of the Lewis Street Corridor Study, as spelled out in the consultant contract scope of work attached hereto as Exhibit "A". t Section 3. The committee shall be provided staff support by the director of public works or his designee. The committee shall be an ad hoc committee, and the appointments thereto shall expire on the completion of the Lewis Street Corridor study. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting dated this lath day of September, 1999. Charles D. Kilbury, m6yor ATTEST: Catherine D. Seaman, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM cj, Le nd B. , City At rney Resolution: Lewis Street Corridor Study Page 2 Exhibit A — PHASE 1 Lewis Street UndercrossinglCorridor Study Scope of Work Introduction The purpose of this study is to identify separated grade crossing alternatives between A Street and Court Street. The study would also evaluate the existing Lewis Street Undercrossing as to current design standards and structural integrity based on WSDOT inspections. Alternatives will be presented in both plan and elevation. The study involves elements of land use planning, community involvement, civil and structural engineering. In response to these needs a series of technical meetings along with speck technical analysis is proposed for the study. Accordingly, this approach is intended to identify and evaluate the alternatives in terms of the criteria that are important to the stakeholders by examining a range of alternatives on a policy and "order of magnitude" technical level with specific focused technical analyses on key stakeholder issues. After identifying alternatives, the Consultant will meet with a city committee to identify the pros and cons of each alternative and identify any alternatives not presented. Based on committee input, the alternatives will be more formalized, complete with the schematic drawings and cost estimates. A second meeting will then be held with the committee to discuss the alternatives and recommendations of the Consultant. The Consultant will then present the findings to the City Council at a meeting. Based on Council input, the study will be put in draft form and a Public Hearing held before the City Planning Commission. The final report will then be prepared and presented to the City Council for approval. Project Work Tasks The work tasks are primarily sequential in nature and include a series of meetings with a final report. The Consultant will develop each meeting agenda and the meetings will be organized and managed b;• the Consultant. Meetings will be conducted in Pasco. Task 0—Project Management The first task of this project will be coordination meeting with the City. This meeting will allow the City to provide initial input into project direction. Specifically, the City may have particular interests what types of process and final products are desirable. Progress reports will be submitted to ensure that all parties understand the project status. These progress reports will be submitted monthly and will include the percent complete, percent of budget spent. Task 1 —Data AssemblylProject Tools/Analysis Assumptions The project will rely on use of data generated as part of work conducted in the area over the past four to five years. It is in this task that with the assistance of the City staff, an advisory group will be assembled. The success of the project relies on the willing participation of the Exhibit A Lewis Street Undercros sing/Corridor Study Scope of Work Page 2 key advisory committee members. These advisors should represent the principal stakeholders and could include the key technical professionals. Thus, the project team will assemble and interview individually the key stakeholder representatives that will make up the advisory group. Task 2 —Ident�u Project IssueslObjectiveslAlternatives The Consultant will outline a clear statement of project objectives, study process, evaluation criteria and the format of the final report. Alternatives to the existing Lewis crossing will be prepared during this task. This preliminary work is critical since it will help ensure those stakeholder questions, issues and policies are addressed by the final report. Alternatives will be generated and technical analysis of those alternatives will be conducted to a formal meeting with the stakeholders. Information on up to three proposed transportation/land use initiatives in the downtown area that could affect Lewis Street Undercrossing operations will be assembled and summarized as part of this task. Task 3 - Confirm Priorities/Alternative Presentation Team (advisory group) members will review the initial draft of goals, process, evaluation criteria, and output format and identify any pertinent issues, and confirm priorities and objectives. The first meeting will refine and finalize these aspects of the study with particular attention to the issues that are part of the alternatives generated. As a result of reviewing goals and priorities, the meeting can focus on broad scale alternative discussion. Technical analysis that summarizes existing conditions, the preliminary alternatives, and stakeholder issues will be prepared and presented prior to and at the meeting. The discussion during this meeting will be recorded and summarized in the form of a memo that will help comprise the final report. This memo will be distributed to all team members. Task 4 —Refine AlternativeslDetailed Technical Analysis Once the Alternatives have been evaluated and summarized, project priorities identified and ranked, the Consultant will refine the analysis to include a detailed review of the Lewis Street undercrossing alternatives. This review will include confirmation of the status of the existing structure relative to current design standards, and review of the inspection reports by WSDOT. It is assumed that a total of no more than four refined alternatives will be developed in detail. Task S —EvaluatelPrioritize Alternatives The initial technical analysis on the four alternatives will be shared and reviewed with the city committee. This analysis will be used to further refine and rate the alternatives. An initial ranking of alternatives will be developed prior to the meeting. As each alternative is examined, Exhibit A Lewis Street Undercrossing/Corridor Study Scope of Work Page 3 the strengths and weaknesses of each will be documented. To the extent these comparisons can not be quantified, a qualitative assessment will be developed. If need for additional technical evaluation required, specific analysis will assigned to be performed by individual team members. The evaluation refinement and technical analysis will be incorporated in the alternative evaluation structure (developed in meeting #1) so the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative are objectively presented. Prior to meeting #2, the Consultant will send to each advisory group member a summary of the relevant technical and evaluation information for each alternative. To the degree that team members look at an issue or rate some aspect of an alternative differently, those differences will be documented. Cost estimates will represent an order of magnitude level of effort sufficient for budgetary use. Supplemental technical analysis will be integrated into the evaluation of alternatives. This meeting will attempt to finalize the evaluation, findings and recommendations that will form the basis for the study report. Task 6— Review with City Council It is anticipated that one "Preferred Alternative"will be identified through the technical analyses and meetings. The final evaluation will focus on elements of the "Preferred Alternative" that relate to funding issues, environmental processes, design characteristics, and detailed operational elements. This portion of the work program will focus on the key portions of the final report and meetings with City Council. Task 7— PubIic Hearing with Planning Commission The purpose of this task is to present the final "Preferred Alternative" to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. This work session will focus on developing the next steps towards implementation of the project. Specifically, issues that relate to funding, environmental processes, design characteristics, and detailed operational elements will be presented and discussed. Task 8—Report and Final Presentation to City Council This project and process will be considered a success only if the meetings with the city committee are effective and the final"Preferred Alternative" represents consensus among the key stakeholders. The key element to the success of the study is the final report and its ability to communicate the results of the analysis in a clear succinct manner. The final report must outline the analysis but also set the stage for the future stages of the project to make implementation a reality. The final report will include a summary of the meetings and will clearly define and graphically represent the "Preferred Alternative" such that the layperson can clearly understand the project. Up to 40 copies of the report will be provided to the City. This task also includes a final presentation to the City Council, which reviews the process and findings. Exhibit A Lewis Street Undercros sing/Corridor Study Scope of Work Page 4 The Team This process is only possible if the meetings are comprised of a resource team that understands the pertinent issues of the corridor. This group should be no larger than six to eight persons. A larger group would result in dilution of the effectiveness of these working sessions. It will be the responsibility of the technical resource team members to report to the organizations they represent and to convey their stakeholder perspectives back to the rest of the resource team. Bruce Haldors (The TRANSPO Group, Inc.), Jim Kolva, and Paul Treman (Anderson & Perry Associates, Inc.) will attend each meeting. Each meeting is estimated to last a maximum of 4 hours. Time Schedule Based on the above outlined scope of services, a detailed Consultant Price Estimate is provided as Attachment A to this proposal. The following time schedule is proposed: Estimated Task Schedule Weeks from 1VTP Data Assembly 3 Identify Project Issues/Objectives/Alternatives 5 Alternative Presentation 5 Alternatives Refinement and Technical Confirmation 7 Evaluate/Prioritize Alternatives 10 Review with City Council 13 Public Hearing with Planning Commission 15 Final Report- Present to City Council 17 It has been assumed those representatives from public agencies and stakeholders would provide their staff at no extra direct cost to the project.