Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 15, 1999 MINUTESBriefing 15 June 1999 Environmental Impact Statement - Norfolk/Va. Beach Light Rail 4:00 PM City Council Others City Staff All except Gene Allen, Consultant, Parsons/Brinckerhoff City Manager Mayor @ U S Conf Of Mayors Ray Ellis, Consultant, KPMG City Attorney Harrison in @4 15 City Clerk Branch Robert Matthias McClanan in @4.18 Vice Mayor called to order, said there were several things on the agenda but we will be out by 6 00 PM Said Mayor Oberndorf was out of the city Welcomed Michael Townes, interim Executive Director of TRT for the briefing on the Environmental Impact Statement - Norfolk/Virginia Beach Light Rail Michael Townes - Thank you Vice Mayor and Honorable Members of Council The Virginia Beach to Norfolk light rail transit system proposal has reached a major milestone in completing the federally required draft Environmental Impact Statement The public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement opened on Monday, June 7, 1999 with two public hearings, one in the afternoon and one in the evening, at Holiday Inn on Newtown Road They gave out handouts (summary and news articles) One major aspect of the draft Environment Impact Statement that is required of us in the federal process is the statement of our vision of how this project will be funded We are required to identify funding options We are aware of the prioritization process that is under way and being managed by the UPO7 We are aware that our funding vision will not supersede this regional process, however, we do have an requirement to report to the federal government in a time frame which does not fit well within the prioritization process Mr Townes introduced Jayne Whitney, Chief Development Officer for TRT and is the project manager for the light rail transit project Gene Allen, Project Manager and Principal in charge with the Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Craven Douglas company Ray Ellis, Project Manager in charge of the financial aspects of this project for KPMG Scott Trommer, Associate of KPMG Jayne Whitney passed out the presentation prospective on what would be viewed She explained that Gene Allen would review some physical characteristics ofthe project presented at the Public Hearing and give some information on the environmental impact of the system itself. The second and one that will be most important is the financial aspects of the project The financial plan is part of the draft I Environmental Impact Statement and is a requirement of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to make sure that any agency that is pursuing a project of this nature looks at all the costs, not only the new project, but of the project they are currently operating, rather it is a bus system or a rail system FTA wants to make sure that we are accurately documenting all the costs of the new project as well as accurately documenting the current system to make sure that the agency can provide the financial resources to move both projects along Gene Allen went over the presentation that was made to the public on June 7 The line is a double tract line, it is 18 miles long running primarily on the Norfolk Southern right-of-way east and west from the Pavilion at the Oceanfront, downtown to the Central Business District of Norfolk There are thirteen (13) stations, 8 having park and ride lots several of which are in Virginia Beach This system is not only a light rail system it is also an enhanced bus system, including new north/south feeder bus routes The system is to be operated on 10 -minute headways during rush hour, stretching out to 15- minutes during the rest of day and then at night to 30 -minutes Plan to put in a yard and shop, a place to park the trains and maintain them Looked at two sites near Oceana One on the old sand pit created to build Route 44 that has been refilled with dredge material and the other part of the Navy's land at Oceana It appears the old sand pit site would be the best location Norfolk Southern still operates freight on the line It is planned to co -exist with that operation by allowing them to operate in the middle of the night from 1 00 AM to 5 00 AM TRT is in negotiations with the railroad now to start developing the cost of the sale of the railroad and an operating agreement for that co -existence Station sites - all stations have several major components but not all the same All have pedestian links to local neighborhoods, many of them have bus drop offlocations, some have stop and go (drop passengers and leave) and parking components Cars - will have low floors cars, meaning the floor of the car is only 14" above the top of the rail They are about 100' long - they can go around fairly sharp curves in urban environments - they travel as much as 65 -miles an hour The whole system will be accessible to all people including those with disabilities The cars carry about 75 passengers seated and can carry another 50 passengers standing comfortably Expect to buy 19 rail vehicles as part of the initial fleet Have projected 12,000 riders per day Most focused around the Central Business District of Virginia Beach at Pembroke About 1/3 of the riders will never leave Virginia Beach every day and only 1/2 in their destination points in Virginia Beach somewhere else The Brinckenhoff, Craven Douglas Company has gone through systems planning, a series of studies that examined the opportunities for development of new transit within the corridor That lead to a major investment study completed in 1996 In that study it was decided to go with a light rail system as a chosen technology Now they are finishing up the draft Environmental Impact Statement When all the comments are in, we will respond to all of those comments The draft Environmental Impact Statement and responses to those comments they will create a final Environmental Impact Statement that will be circulated and lead to a decision by the Feds, which will then lead to a financial letter of intent, allowing us to go into final design and a full -funding grant agreement which will create access to the federal money and then the actual construction of the system How the system impacts on the community Development is consistent with the development in Hampton Roads The system will encourage development around the stations and particularly Pembroke, Lynnhaven Parkway, Oceana area, Greenwich and Newtown and Witchduck, particularly commercial development With light rail in place, we would expect to see another 13 -million square feet of development within the region, two-thirds being commercial What will that bring us? New direct permanent jobs - over 4,000 of them Additional gross business receipts, increased property values, increased property taxes, additional convention expenditures, meaning more tax monies for the cities There are some displacements - a few houses, 3 residential units and 50 trailers in the Colony Trailer Park near Lake Holly These relocations will be paid for under the guidelines by the federal government Grate crossings - closing some, improving others by adding gates and grade separation at Princess Anne, Independence and Rosemont No change in parking Visually, replacing a single track railroad with a double track railroad Visually - only at the grate crossings where there will be new bridges over the roads Air quality improves Noise and vibration - there are twenty-two (22) along the line where the noise level will go up slightly but nowhere where the noise level will be severe Noise level of a light rail is more or less the sound level of a idling bus going by Six areas may feel some vibration such areas are to be given special consideration so there will really won't be a vibration problem anywhere Fourteen (14) to thirty (30) acres of woodlands will be impacted because of the site of Navy's land at Oceana is 15 acres of woodlands The northern site is much less The rest of the woodlands are basically associated with the park and ride lots No endangered species will be impacted Water resources - about 4 areas of the Wetlands along the entire 18 miles of right-of-way will be impacted '/2 mile of the project in ten different locations is very near or at the flood line of the area There are no historic resources to be impacted and no parklands Four properties may have some contamination, i e , x -gas stations, etc These are to be researched Ray Ellis explained that the presentation focused specifically on the East/West line The Federation Transit Administration for this specific project requires demonstration that the financial feasibility of the program is sound in respect to the entire agency - they are looking at TRT as a whole Capital Costs of the project Reported in the year of expenditure dollars Actual checks written at the time project built Accelerated - costs will be lower - pushed back - costs higher Based on the engineering work performed to date for the project This project, relative to other projects, has relatively fewer cost risks for the given scope One cost risk is that we do not have a negotiated agreement with the Norfolk/Southern Railroad Hazardous materials or sites are also cost risks Operating costs Partial operation in 2005 - full operation in 2006 and the total cost of operating the line is in the range of $15 -Million Basically looking at increases largely driven by inflation Vice Mayor Sessoms - I hate to interrupt but I do need clarification Our total cost was $524 6 - Million but where does the cost of acquisition of right-of-way to the Naval Base and to the airport I come in I realize that this is East/West but where are those issues being addressed Ray Ellis In the federal process, they require that you identify a specific project and deal with each project as a separate piece In this portion of the federal process we are dealing with the East/West line as you see it The Naval Base portion we are working very hard to bring up to the same level of planning that the East/West line has gotten that is to the point where we have a draft Environmental Impact Statement level We anticipate being able to do that sometime in the first of the next calendar year and that is the time we will have solid figures on the cost of Capital acquisition on building that portion of the line And if you recall our discussion in the Steering Committee - the reason we went ahead with the contracting for the Naval Base line the way that we did was so that we could get sufficient data for the voters by September but not complete enough data for the FTA to accept So if your concern is, "Will the voter be able to make an informed decision on both East/West and Naval Base, we are working darn hard to make that happen Virginia Beach wants to be comfortable or satisfied that information is going to be readily available when it is to be presented to the public Do not want to present this to the public piecemeal The cost per mile for the 18 -mile East/West line would be about $30 -Million a mile The average for all light rail projects in the country is about $40 -Million a mile This is a somewhat less complex project than the average It is less expensive per mile than the average The $524 -Million includes the cost of the purchase of the Norfolk/Southern railroad Proposed plan for financing the Capital Costs of the project is 55% of the project be funded through the so called "new starts program" of the Federal Transit Administration 55% was selected as a reasonable number for this project based on two considerations (1) the weighted average of federal participation in all Capital projects in the current year is 53%, including some very mature projects and some new start projects comparable to this one (2) the FTA has agreed that our firm's client who also has a comparable new start light rail project in Orlando, Florida - they have agreed that 55% is a reasonable number to work with for the purposes of their financial plan We felt that if it was appropriate for Orlando, it certainly was appropriate for Norfolk and Virginia Beach There is another approximately 5 1/2% which will be coming from flexed transportation funds 221/2% of state funding has been assigned - this is a precedent which appears to be evolving within the state of Virginia 15 1/2% will be requested from local sources Each dollar of local money in the project serves as a catalyst and unlocks about somewhere between $5 and $6 of state and federal money Economic benefits -tax returns to the local jurisdictions generally exceed the actual financial participation in the project Local Share - 15 1/2% - Long term bonds Bonds paid over the life of the project Nationally - about 1/3 of the total funding for transit is the general fund appropriation from local jurisdictions about 2/3 of the funding for local participation is from a dedicated source of funds Sales tax has been used, gasoline taxes are used In some cases, designation portion of property taxes have been used payroll tax, income taxes Gasoline taxes on the South side would raise about $26 -Million Financial analysis demonstrate that this source would be sufficient to provide for the local share of the capital funding of the East/West line and of the Naval Base extension It is felt that 5% increase would be sufficient to handle the Naval Base and Airport costs and to make a contribution to the local share of the ongoing operating costs of the TRT bus operation which will be an offset from a General Fund contribution TRT could be a issuer of the debt - the initial indication from the state is that they would prefer not to be the issuer of the debt and what we had contemplated is that there are a number of provisions in federal legislation for security enhancements either using the State Intrastructure Bank or Tifia Our contemplation is that the local governing bodies Our first choice would be the state At this moment, we did not get a favorable indication yet on that State Intrastructure Bank or Tifia are forms of insurance Revenue Bonds issued against the dedicated revenue source. Would not be double barreled Funding of Operating Costs Total Operating Cost of the Light Rail System alone Projecting fares and other operating revenues would be approaching 30% funding of the program based on the ridership and revenue numbers Estimate may be low Light Rail balance of funding would be shared on a 50-50 basis between the local jurisdiction and the state Other capital needs for TRT that they will have over the next 20 years The FTA asks that we assure them that we demonstrate to them that the agency has sufficient financial capacity to undertake its other obligations in addition to the Light Rail program Estimated service requirement for the fleets - expansion - feeder bus extension and a portion to enhance a level of service throughout the TRT service area The cost projected increase from the1998 level is about $24 -Million Twenty years of 3% inflation Capital funding - ongoing operations will essentially be coming from federal and state sources Virtually no local contribution Operating funding is based on a combination of the fare box revenues, the operating revenues of the system, some continuing federal support -official statement is that the federal government does not provide operating support it does however provide for preventive maintenance East/West LRT Capital Costs 1 Construction $345 9 Vehicles 68 7 Systems 110 0 Total $524 6 East/West LRT Operating Costs FY 2004 $ 2 9 FY 2005 13 3 FY 2006 15 2 FY 2010 17 1 FY 2018 21 7 FTA New Starts - Percent Share 55 0% $288 5 CMAQ/STP Fed Share 5 6% 29 4 State New Starts Match 22 5% 118 0 CMAQ/STP State Share 1 4% 7 3 Local (Dedicated Source) 15 5% 81 3 Total 100 0% $524 6 Weighted average 53% - Think about in context of "leverage" Norfolk, Portsmouth, Va Beach, Suffolk and Chesapeake - 5 major cities 5% tax on gasoline fund Capital cost of the East/West Line, cost of the Naval Base Route, the local share of the operating costs of the East/West, local share of the operating costs of the Naval Base route and also going to fund the additional cost of the bus system that will come about as a result of the new additional feeder operation 40% - Va Beach share of the 5% gasoline tax 20% - Norfolk Average citizen spends approximately $ 75 cents a week on gasoline ($36 00/year per automobile) May is the projected time to have the same information for the Naval Expansion and the Airport as the East/West line Have to identify main dedicated funding source 5% gasoline tax the strongest option for this dedicated funding source I N East-West Operating Financing Plan Milestone Year FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2010 FY 2018 Operating Cost $2.9 $13.3 $15.2 $17.1 $21.7 Fares & Oth. Revs. $0.7 $3.5 $3.6 $4.3 $5.8 Local $1.1 $4.9 $5.8 $6.4 $8.0 State $1.1 $4.9 $5.8 $6.4 $7.9 Milestone Year FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2010 FY 2018 Share of Operating Cost Fares & Oth. Revs. 24.1% 26.3% 23.7% 25.1% 26.7% Local 37.9% 36.8% 38.2% 37.4% 36.9% State 37.9% 36.8% 38.2% 37.4% 36.4% 16 i TRT Bus and Other Modal Needs vv‘ • Capital Needs - New and replacement buses to: • Accommodate LRT feeder services and expansion of the baseline bus network - Current peak fleet: 136 - 2005 peak fleet: 162 - 2012/2018 peak fleet: 233 • Maintain the system in a state of good repair - A new operating base by 2010 to service the expanded fleet - Maintenance and replacement of other modal capital assets 17 TRT Bus and Other Modal Needs • Operating Costs Milestone Year FY 1998 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2010 FY 2018 Millions of Year - of -Exp. $ 11111111111I1 $24.3 $34.8 $36.7 $38.8 $51.6 $71.1 TRT Bus and Other Modal Needs • Feeder buses to support light rail represent 25 percent of expanded system costs • Improved service levels and coverage for the baseline system are 11 percent of costs 19 vf/4 TRT Bus and Other Modal Needs • Capital Funding - Local dedicated funding - FTA formula and discretionary funds - State matching grants • Operating Funding - Fares and other operating revenues - Local dedicated funding - FTA preventive maintenance - State assistance --growing at the annual rate of operating cost 20 TRT Bus and Other Modal Needs FTF- Prev. Maint. Milestone Year FY 1998 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2010 FY 2018 Op.Cost Cost $24.3 $34.8 $36.7 $38.8 $51.6 $71.1 Fares & Oth. Revs. Fares & Oth. Revs. $8.5 $11.1 $11.8 $12.1 $14.4 $19.2 Local $5.9 $12.7 $13.1 $14.2 $21.1 $302 State $5.9 $9.8 $10.4 $11.0 $14.6 $20.1 $4.0 $1.2 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 Milestone Year FY 1998 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2010 FY 2018 Share of Operating Cost Fares & Oth. Revs. 35.0% 31.9% 32.2% 31.2% 27.9% 27.0% Local 24.3% 36.5% 35.7% 36.6% 40.9% 42.5% State 24.3% 28.2% 28.3% 28.4% 28.3% 28.3% FTA Prev. Maint. 16.5% 3.4% 3.8% 3.9% 2.9% 2.3% 21 Briefing VisualNideo Projection System June 15, 1999 5:14 pm City Council City Staff All except Mayor City Manager Councilman Branch City Attorney City Clerk Charles Hassen City Manager - Council has been concerned about the quality of the sound system in the Chamber for some time and had asked that it be looked into New equipment has been ordered Video capabilities have been lacking and earlier efforts at putting a package together had been very expensive Charlie Hassen and his group have come up with something much more compatible in cost and will be showing it to you today Charlie Hassen - The audience present at Council Meetings and the people at home watching on TV had a hard time seeing presentations made under the present system We have looked at different solutions and a lot of them were prohibitive because of the cost Recently, costs have come down and it has made it available to us This presentation has not begun to touch the capabilities that this system is capable of and which you will not be seeing today Graphics are in this program as you see the City Seal Present pictures are taken from a CD Information can be taken from all kinds of sources A big difference was in the sound also from the old to the one being presented Improved quality is not only for you on Council but also for the audience It reduces the time to create the 35mm slides as seen because you use a digital camera and you don't have to wait for them to be developed or take a chance that the film will get lost There is no destroyed film and there is less heat and noise The camera can be down loaded right into the computer This particular model - you can't feel any heat whatsoever - will be mounted on the wall and will be shinning down, out of harms way - will be a permanent fixture It also has multi -media possibilities Can hook up two videos, two laptops and you can go back and forth Can use map slides, text charts, renderings, site plans, you name it - it can be runned through It is a LCD projector and it can change colors - Cost $35,000 in comparison to $300,000 We can take the direct feed from this projector right straight back into Video Services, thereby giving a better picture to be presented to the TV audience This projector will allow the Chamber and Conference Room to be used for so many other things This in some cases will replace flip charts and overhead presentations We need two projectors, one in the Council Chamber and one in the Conference Room We need a special lense - these lenses are expensive and cost $1000 because of the distance involved, two scan converters which are just a box - sends a signal back to Video Services - one for each room, two new wall screens Looking at putting in a permanent and solid screen Will get something that matches the wood and make sure it looks nice Better sound in the back and each Council Member can hear each other better The cost for both rooms will be $35,750 including new insulation and brackets In Conference Room - on the wall Council to determine if others to use the system Audio equipment on order and will be installed when comes in Microphones on dias except one to be replaced If the desire is to go ahead this can be done on a contingency reserve basis after July 1 Eventually you will have to approve that when you approve the use of the contingency funds Any objections to that? All right, Schedule City Council Retreat June 15, 1999 5:40 PM City Council All except. Mayor Councilman Branch Cit Staff City Manager City Attorney City Clerk August 27th and1/2 day of Sat. August Council Retreat - Some alternative dates to conside' Friday,� h is a Workshop date); Monday, ..��, A„meet 1 and Tuesday. August 17th(w typical.. , T . 1 Schedule City Council Retreat June 15, 1999 5:40 PM City Council City Staff All except Mayor City Manager Councilman Branch City Attorney City Clerk Council Retreat - Some alternative dates to consider. Friday, August 27th and U2 day of Sat. August 28th, Monday, August 16 and Tuesday, August 17th (which is a typical Workshop date), Monday, August 2 and Tuesday, August 3 (that is a regular Council Meeting date - we could go to the Retreat in the morning and the Council Meeting will be in the afternoon), other than that we will have to go into September Vice Mayor cannot take Monday off Lyle is going to be doing the School Board Retreat on July 30 and 318` He will already be in Virginia Beach then if you want to do that on the 2"d and 3rd I can put this in a memo to you and you can all check your calendars and we can talk about it next week We have three sets of dates to work with - the 13th and 14th are not available and Meyera could not make the 6th and 7th After discussion, some dates in September were to be looked at ADD ONS - 5:43 Ferrell Parkway - All letters, CIP items, consultant reports, etc - packages handed out to all Council Members Louis and Bill wanted to bring up the 318` Street project They wanted to set up schedule to review the overall project with the Council and show all the changes that have come about Hopefully, will have the site plan by June 22 An overview on the 22"d - and have a special Executive Session on the 29th to discuss all the aspects of the contract and agreements On July 6 would like to have Council discussion with any questions or public comments at that time then on July 13 would like to put the item before Council for a vote Need to consider three hours for this discussion Even four hours All in agreement to have a special meeting on the 29th at 2 00 p m Send flowers to Lee Cahill because her husband passed away Adjourned at 5 50 p m r