Minutes of February 4, 2015 MVMPO Meeting

Minutes of February 4, 2015 MVMPO Meeting

Page 1 of 14

MEETING MINUTES

MerrimackValleyMetropolitan Planning Organization(MVMPO)

Merrimack ValleyPlanning Commission(MVPC),Haverhill, MA 01830

Wednesday, February 4, 2015 – 12:30p.m.

Attending:

VotingMembers:

David Mohler, MassDOT, representing MassDOTSecretary Pollack

DennisDiZoglio,MerrimackValley PlanningCommission(MVPC) Executive Director

Mayor Daniel Rivera, City of Lawrence

Mayor James Fiorentini, City of Haverhill

NeilHarrington, Town of Salisbury Town Manager -MVMPO Subregion #1

OthersPresent:

Sreelatha Allam, MassDOT-OTP
Mary KayBeninati, MVPC
Trish Domigan, VHB
ToddFontanella, MVPC
BetsyGoodrich, MVPC
Ken Gray – Mayor, City of Amesbury
Jerry Klima, Town of Salisbury / Anthony Komornick, MVPC
Theresa Park, City of Lawrence
Connie Raphael, MassDOT District 4
Bill Scott, City of Amesbury
Geordie Vining, City of Newburyport
Kevin Wright, FHWA

Agenda ItemNo.1: Call toOrder

Mr. Mohlercalled the meeting toorderand asked those present to introduce themselves.

Agenda ItemNo.2: AdoptionofMinutes of the January 7, 2015 MVMPO Meeting

There was amotiontoapprove theJanuary 7, 2015MVMPOmeeting minutes. The motion was seconded and approved.

Agenda ItemNo.3 OpportunityforPublicComment

Mr. Mohlerasked if there wereanymembersofthe publicpresentwho wished tospeak tothe MVMPO. No one came forward to do so.

Agenda ItemNo.4 MVMPO TransportationImprovement Program(TIP)

a. Status ofFFYs2013 & 2014 TIP Roadway and Bridge Projects

Ms.Raphaelupdatedthe MVMPOonthestatusofthefollowing FFYs2013 2014TIP Projects:

FFY 2013

• Merrimac – Merrimac Square Reconstruction Project: Construction began in June and the project is approximately 34% complete. Project completion is anticipated in November 2015;
• Methuen - I-93/MA-110/MA-113 Rotary Reconstruction Project: Construction work began in Juneand the project is on schedule and approximately 13% complete. A Summer 2018 project completion is expected, and
• I-495 Sign Replacement Project: Work began in June 2014 and the project is approximately 4% complete. Project completion is expected in May 2016.

FFY 2014

• Amesbury – MA-150 Reconstruction Project: The construction contract was awarded in October 2014 and a preconstruction conference was held on December 9, 2014. Construction is expected to start in Spring 2015 and be completed in May 2016.
• Haverhill – Bradford Rail Trail Phase I Project: Project was advertised on September 20, 2014 and construction bids are due on February 12,2015.
• Lawrence – Union Crossing Transportation and Community Systems Preservation (TCSP) Project: The project was advertised on September 20, 2014 and bids are due on May 5, 2015.
• Haverhill –MA-125 Bridge Painting Project: This bridge carries MA-125 over Ferry Road and the MBTA railroad tracks. The project was advertised on September 20, 2014 and construction bids are due on February 18, 2015.

b. Status ofTransitProjects

Mr. Komornick advised that there was no new information on transit projects, as Mr. Costanzo was unable to attend.

c. Discussion of FFY 2015 MVMPO Target Projects

Mr. Komornick said that the staff came up with three options to reprogramming projects in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP and referred attendees to a handout on this – as requested at the January 7, 2015 meeting. Options are:

1) Delete Powow Riverwalk (“Riverwalk”) funding programmed in FFY 2015, and reassign the funds to the Lawrence/Park Streets Intersection Reconstruction Project (“Lawrence/Park Project”) in Lawrence. This latter project is at 25% PS&E and its estimated construction cost is $1,625,000 (note that MassDOT is showing the project cost at $1,265,000);

2) Program a reduced amount of funds for a repackaged, smaller Riverwalk project in FFY 2015 and program the funds no longer needed for it to the Lawrence/Park Project, or

3) Move funding from FFY 2016 to FFY 2015 for the Groveland MA-97 Reconstruction Project (“MA-97 Project”). This creates TIP space in 2016 for either the Lawrence/Park and/or Riverwalk projects, and give MassDOT and the communities more time to complete their individual project design/permitting processes.

Project Discussions

Ms. Raphael stated that the Riverwalk project has been in development for many years. MassDOT and its predecessor agencies have reviewed 25% designs at least twice, and design/constructability concerns have prevented its advancement. Ms. Domiganof VHB (Amesbury consultant) referred attendees to the revised Riverwalk project plan on the TV screen and explained that VHB expects to soon submit the revised 25% plan and go through the public hearing process. VHB is hopeful that its design will advance through the remainder of the MassDOT process more rapidly, as it involves the same land area as in prior iterations, excepting removal of the bridge element.

Ms. Raphael referred attendees to VHB’s new project schedule (distributed today) and said that the Riverwalk will need to follow the same steps as other projects. On that basis, the project’s readiness for FFY 2015 construction advertising is unlikely. She also questioned why the City and VHB did not submit the latest 25% design to MassDOT’s District 4 Project Manager after the January 7, 2015 meeting so thathe could advise the MVMPO whether to reprogram the entire amount of funding devoted to the Riverwalk or just the amount not needed for the smaller scale project. The timing of this decision is even more critical, as reassigning the FFY 2015 project funds ($1.2 million CMAQ, $305,423 TAP, and $414,519 STP) is complicated given fund restrictions. Ms. Domigan acknowledged Ms. Raphael’s comments.

Mr. Vining commented that from his viewpoint and interest in advancing Phase II of the Clipper City Rail TrailPhase II (CCRT), he is listening to the Riverwalk conversation and trying to understand the variables in play. Newburyport, like Amesbury, has been working on the CCRT for many years and does not want to risk falling out of the TIP. Is there anything that Newburyport can provide MassDOT and the MVMPO to secure additional funding to close the CCRT project funding gap, such as applying for additional Statewide TAP funding? The CCRTis at 75%, and its cost estimate is $200,000 above the $3.12 million already programmed. It is unclear whether $3.12 million (or $3.32 million) is the total project cost including all contingencies. In addition, 18% seems to be standard contingency applied to projects including utility relocations – is there a rule of thumb to apply to every project?

Mr. DiZoglio observed that there are three moving pieces: 1) keeping the Riverwalk on track with FFY 2015 TIP funds; 2) programming funds for the Lawrence/Park Project, and 3) ensuring that the CCRT is adequately funded. Notably, the CCRT is already funded outside the regional target through the Statewide Transportation AlternativesProgram (TAP) for which the MVMPO is very grateful. The question is whether MassDOT can/will close the funding gap. Can the MVMPO make a decision today simply by assuming or suggesting that this will happen? Mr. Mohler replied that the City of Newburyport can request additional funding through the MVMPO; however, the City and the MVMPO cannot assumetoday that it will be provided. First, MassDOT and the project teamneed a firm funding gap estimate. Second, MassDOT must then weigh the request against funding requests from other MPO regions – if MassDOT allocates more TAP funding in the MVMPO region, there may be less TAP funds to spend in other regions. Mr. DiZoglio asked when the MVMPO would have firm cost estimates on the projects. Ms. Raphael said that the CCRT is close to getting to 75%; Stantec (the project designer) expects to transmit written responses to MassDOT review questions in the next week. At that point, the MassDOT D4 project manager and the designer will firm up the project cost estimate. Mr. Vining questioned whether the CCRT budget contained the required contingency, and was assured by Mr. Mohler that MassDOT staff would be using a ‘fully-loaded’ cost estimate (one that includes all contingencies).

Mayor Gray asked if it was possible for the MVMPO to act today upon one of the options presented. Mr. Mohler recommended that, based on the information provided so far,it seems that the MVMPO should wait until individual project budgets and one or more work scopes are more complete. Further, the number of actions needed involve more than just one TIP year. For example, if the MVMPO acted today to remove the Riverwalk from FFY 2015, Amesbury would have to begin competing for a slot in FFY 2016 – and, it may not need to do that with a smaller project. There is noopportunity cost for not making a decision today. Mr. Scott expressed concern for making any TIP changes that would compromise the Riverwalk project.

Mr. DiZoglio said that the MVMPO should be considering options for re-programming its funds, as today’s discussion so far suggests that the Riverwalk won’t be ready for construction advertising in FFY 2015.

Mayor Riveraspoke in support of programming funds for the Lawrence/Park project, adding that the City is committing $95,000 to complete its design. Ms. Park added that the City of Lawrence understands and supports the MVMPO’s project programming progress. Accordingly, the City and its consultant have worked hard to develop a construction schedule and are committed to funding the remainder of the design work to meet the September 2015 construction-advertising deadline. The City of Lawrence would like the MVMPO to approve amending its TIP today to accommodate the Lawrence/Park project.

Ms. Raphael advised that the project development process timeline depends on what actions the MVMPO takes today. Under the current menu of TIP projects, MassDOT District 4 (D4)could commit to a shorter (60-day) review period, but MassDOT departments at Ten Park Plaza (Environmental, Right-of-Way and others) still require 120 days for their review. If the MVMPO is able to agree on a TIP amendment today, projects moved into TIP Year 1 can be reviewed in thirty days – a reason for deciding today. Mr. Mohler added (with Mayor Gray’s agreement) that it is clear that the Riverwalk project, as originally conceived, cannot advance; however, the reduced scope project without a bridge may be able to advance to construction in FFY 2015. Ms. Raphael countered that the reduced scope project might have been able to advance on time if the City and its consultant had submitted it to D4 after the last MVMPO meeting. Instead, the revised plans were submitted only to MVPC. The MVMPO could decide to keep the Project programmed in FFY 2015, but the likelihood that it will notbe ready for advertising on time would require the MVMPO to amend the TIP again later.

Ms. Domigan commented that in preparing the new project schedule – having read the notes from the last MVMPO meeting, she did not realize that MassDOT D4 could review TIP Year 1 projects in thirty days. The new project schedule thus has a bit of flexibility. She was unsure if that flexibility would compensate for 25% design resubmittal in schedule.

Mr. Viningasked if the specific funding categories (and their requirements) influence this discussion. Mr. Komornick advised yes, as the CMAQ and TAP fundsare designed to easily fit projects like the Riverwalk, and not as easy to fit to projects like theLawrence St./Park St. project. The good news is that the MVMPO staff over-programmed CMAQ funds and under-programmed STP funds during development of the initial FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. This provides some flexibility now - $415,000 could be swapped between the funding categories to bring the TIP to the original CMAQ and STP minimum allocation targets, freeing up TAP funds for the Lawrence/Park project - $750,000 of $1,265,000. The tasks are to determine what elements of the Lawrence/Park project are CMAQ eligible; identify other gap funds (there’s not $500,000 in CMAQ to fully fund the gap), and shepherd the project through MassDOT CMAQ consultation.

Ms. Raphael restated MassDOT’s project review process. MassDOT’s policy is to review TIP Year 1 projects within thirty days. Upon questioning from Mayor Gray, she explained that MassDOT’s requirement for six weeks’ time includes the thirty-day D4 review, and scheduling a 25% design Public Hearing (30-day review, 14-day advertisement, and holding the hearing). As the project advances, MassDOT requires additional time to process projects through various departments at Ten Park Plaza, i.e. Environmental, Right-of-Way, etc. Turning to the City’s project design, schedule and budget, Ms. Raphael recounted that the City was asked at the January 2015 MVMPO meeting to present the plans, schedule and budget to the MassDOT D4 Project Manager so that any issues could be worked out before today’s MVMPO meeting. This did not happen. As a result, the project schedule(distributed today)does not budget sufficient time for project review, holding the Public Hearing, and addressing comments.

Mr. Scott asked the MVMPO to consider Amesbury’s position on its Riverwalk project. Clearly, the project is significantly changed and delayed. The EPA has been working with the City for some time to remediate property that this phase of the Riverwalk will use. More recently, EPA revised its plans and schedulesto address some site issues involving design and construction work to create a new bulkhead – a delay that the City was recently made aware of. EPA (and Commonwealth) involvement in the project is a critical factor and an opportunity to complete the project. Amesbury’s goal is to preserve the integrity of the Riverwalk project and ensure that the project stays on schedule and in the MVMPO TIP. He asked the MVMPO to consider the significance of advancing the Riverwalk project as a means of leveraging the EPA’s investment in remediation. The City has worked to reduce the complexity of the project by removing the bridge element - it is now a section of trail atop a bulkhead. Further, EPA will be constructing two-thirds of the required bulkhead. Finally, EOEEA, through its public access program, is funding construction of the adjacent kayak launch. The City wishes to avoid a ribbon cutting for the EPA-funded work without a Riverwalk – with a chain link fence around the site. In deference to the conversation in the preceding paragraph, Mr. Scott’s understanding was that the MVMPO’s role was to decide upon the use of the funds.

Mr. DiZoglio suggested that the MVMPO could restructure the TIP to keep ready-to-go projects moving as follows: 1) program Groveland MA-97project funds over FFYs 2015 and 2016 as needed because it is an Advance Construction project; 2) reassign $756,000 of Riverwalk FFY 2015 funds; 3) move Riverwalk to FFY 2016; 4) move $756,000 into FFY 2015 for Groveland MA-97, and 5) program $1.2 million differential for Lawrence/Parkin FFY 2015. Once the MVMPO has better data on the extra funds needed for the CCRT, it can then work with MassDOT to obtain them. The additional development time would give Amesbury and Lawrence the opportunity to slot their projects into the TIP in FFY 2016.

Mr. Harrington suggested that the MVMPO consider the opposite approach: 1), find out what the funding gap is for the CCRT Phase II project; 2) determine if MassDOT can provide additional funds, or 3) determine whether it needs to reallocate existing TIP funds to keep the project on schedule. As things are now, the CCRT Phase II project’s 75% status is close to, but not at, the ‘finish line’ - leaving it in an insecure position. On one hand, with respect due to the City of Lawrence, their project is at 25%. On the other hand, it is not his interest in supporting an MVMPO action by which a community would lose its project. Mr. Rivera acknowledged Mr. Harrington’s comment, and added that he was well aware that Amesbury’s project has been in development for a long time but reemphasized the time sensitivity of the Lawrence/Park Sts. Intersection Reconstruction Project given traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety concerns.

Mr. Komornick commented that $1,900,000 in CMAQ and TAP funds are currently programmed for the Riverwalk project. What other funds are available to the MVMPO? MVRTA’s $450,000 in CMAQ for purchase of hybrid buses, which the MVRTA is not expected to use, could conceivably be programmed for the CCRT Phase II. Mr. Mohler questioned whether the MVRTA was going to need this funding later – say in FFY 2016 and asked why these funds were requested by the MVRTA if the buses are not needed. Mr. Komornick agreed to find out if the bus order was not placed knowing that it could not be delivered on time and budget.

Mr. Scott said that programming a reduced-scope Riverwalk project in FFY 2016 would permit the EPA to proceed and give the City time to adapt its design to the EPA’s work. Amesbury will complete the Riverwalk design in FFY 2015 with City funds. Mr. Vining added that the Groveland MA-97 project swap for FFY 2015 seems to make sense, part of the rub here is competition among projects – both Amesbury and Newburyport have been working on their respective trail projects for years. To date, Newburyport has invested $600,000 or more on CCRT right-of-way acquisitions and permitting. It was not possible to know what the exact drainage work costs would be at the project’s start, and at this stage he doesn’t want to see the project halted. Newburyport’s preference is for the MVMPO to move existing TIP projects forward – those projects whose plans will be ready at the end of FFY 2015 - and then figure out how to accommodate the Lawrence/Park project into FFYs 2016 or 2017. MassDOT District 4 pointed out that programming the Lawrence/Park project in FFY 2016would allow additional project review time.