Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board

Resolution
2015-106

Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Brierley Associates for Engineering Services Related to the Feasibility and Prudence of Kenilworth Channel Crossing Alternatives in the Amount of $248,275 for a New Contract Total of $493,775

Information

Department:Planning ServicesSponsors:
Category:PSA Amendment

Attachments

  1. Printout
  2. Brierley Phase 2 Proposal

Item Discussion

Whereas, The Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board (MPRB) is the steward of Minneapolis parks;

 

Whereas, The MPRB’s fundamental role and responsibility is to protect and preserve parkland within the Minneapolis park system for current and future generations;

 

Whereas, The MPRB is authorized to contract with public and private entities in the performance of its functions;

 

Whereas, Since 2012, the MPRB has consistently and regularly communicated, through public Board actions, its concerns and position regarding the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) options;

 

Whereas, The MPRB’s General Counsel, Rice, Michels & Walther and Special Counsel Stinson Leonard Street have both opined that MPRB land affected by the proposed  SWLRT alignment meets the definition of “public park,” “recreation area,” and “historic site” under Section 4(f) and those park, recreation area and historic sites will be directly and adversely affected by the proposed SWLRT alignment;

 

Whereas, Both General and Special Counsels have advised that the proposed SWLRT alignment has failed to properly consider a tunnel under the Kenilworth Channel to determine if it is a  prudent and feasible alternative and further that the proposed SWLRT alignment has not included all possible planning to minimize the harm to the park, recreation areas, and historic sites;

 

Whereas, Both General and Special Counsel have advised that that the proposed SWLRT alignment will not meet the de minimis requirements of Section 4(f) and as such they have both advised the MPRB to not provide any concurrence with such SWLRT alignment to the United States Secretary of Transportation and that such concurrence would be necessary for the SWLRT project to proceed;

 

Whereas, Both General and Special Counsels have advised the MPRB that in absence of the Metropolitan Council undertaking its obligation under federal law and in order to protect MPRB park, recreation areas, and historic properties under the ownership and trusteeship of the MPRB and in fulfillment of its legal obligations as stewards of those resources it is now necessary for the MPRB to determine on its own and place into the record in this matter whether prudent and feasible alternatives exist for the proposed alignment of SWLRT and whether the project can have de minimis impact on those resources;

 

Whereas, MPRB finds that important technical questions need further analysis before Federal Transportation Act Section 4(f) findings can be reasonably made and the MPRB can make prudent recommendations that fulfill its responsibilities;

 

Whereas, Board authorized the Superintendent to hire engineering services for a fee up to $500,000 from the reserves balance to determine the prudence and feasibility of a tunnel under the Kenilworth Channel for the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project;

 

Whereas, MPRB has solicited letters of interest from qualified engineering firms, reviewed a response from Brierley Associates, confirmed a scope of work focused on the investigation of tunnel alternatives under the Kenilworth Channel, and entered into a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $245,500 with Brierley Associates to frame the feasibility of such alternatives;

 

Whereas, An assessment of the prudence of feasible tunnel alternatives was framed by the MPRB as a necessary second phase of Brierley Associates work;

 

Whereas, Brierley Associates, using sound engineering judgment, has determined that feasible alternatives exist and has demonstrated methods of crossing that may result in diminished impacts to park, recreation areas, and historic sites;

 

Whereas, MPRB requires assistance from Brierley Associates in the performance of an assessment of prudence that allows the definition of findings according to the requirements of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 4(f) for the SWLRT’s crossing of the Kenilworth Channel; and

 

Whereas, This resolution is supported by the MPRB 2007-2020 Comprehensive Plan, which envisions “Dynamic parks that shape city character and meet diverse community needs;”

 

RESOLVED, That the Board of Commissioners authorize an amendment to  the professional services agreement with Brierley Associates for engineering services related to the feasibility and prudence of Kenilworth Channel crossing alternatives in the amount up to $248,275; and

 

RESOLVED, That the President of the Board and Secretary to the Board are authorized to take all necessary administrative actions to implement this resolution.

Body

BACKGROUND

 

Brierley Associates (Brierley) was engaged by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) in November 2014 to provide engineering and other services that result in an assessment of the feasibility and prudence of a tunnel under the Kenilworth Channel for the purposes of conveying Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT). Brierley’s work was divided into two broad phases, recognizing the need to manage the potential costs of engineering services and to better scope work related to the assessment of prudence. The Board action in November 2014 authorized Phase 1 work – an assessment of the feasibility of a tunnel under the Kenilworth Channel.  In general, the phases of Brierley’s work can be described as follows:

 

1)      Phase 1: Determine the feasibility of a tunnel alternative to bridging light rail over the Kenilworth Channel within the Kenilworth Corridor and perform an initial comparison of the effects of a tunnel alternative on the park, recreation areas, and historic sites to the SWLRT proposed alignment. As a part of this deliverable, the consultant shall identify additional work, investigations, or study that would be required to more fully frame the feasibility of the tunnel alternative and to more fully understand Section 4(f) impacts.

 

2)      Phase 2: With approval of the MPRB and based upon a determination of the feasibility of a tunnel alternative resulting from Phase 1, Brierley will conduct additional investigations, develop additional design and engineering, and perform additional studies that confirm or expand upon key issues, feasibility and prudence factors, or points of comparison resulting from the initial findings.

 

As part of their Phase 1 work, Brierley developed two alternatives for a tunnel crossing of the Kenilworth Channel, prepared cost estimates for each alternative, and framed timelines and sequencing of construction activities. In defining alternatives, Brierley maintained to the greatest degree practicable the horizontal alignment of the guideway and adhered to the design criteria, both as established by the Southwest Project Office (SPO) for SWLRT.

 

The alternatives included:

 

Option A:              A tunnel alternative similar to that proposed by the Southwest Project Office (SPO) for the long tunnel using “cut and cover” methods. The construction involves excavation of a trench along the alignment of the LRT guideway, the construction of a floor and walls along the excavated trench, the construction of a roof over the floor and walls, and then backfilling against the walls and over the roof. This method requires the channel to be bypassed during construction activities.

Option B:              A tunnel alternative that would be pushed or pulled through the ground below the Kenilworth Channel without the need for bypassing the channel. This construction method, commonly referred to as “jacked box” tunnel construction, requires excavation of a pit at one end of the guideway alignment under the channel of sufficient size and depth to allow the construction of a concrete box tunnel, performing ground stabilization in areas surrounding the ultimate tunnel location, and pushing or pulling the concrete box into position under the channel. For this option, two concrete boxes would be used and a slight adjustment to the horizontal alignment of the guideway would be required.

 

Both options would use an open trench at either end of the tunnel under the channel and both would meet grade on the north end of the tunnel with minor or no impacts to the Burnham Road Bridge.

 

With the encouragement of the Metropolitan Council, a workshop was organized with representatives of SPO, the Brierley Associates team and MPRB staff to review the options even in their preliminary form. The workshop addressed or reviewed:

 

×          The general intention of the MPRB’s exploration of alternative crossings at the Kenilworth Channel;

×          A review of information provided by SPO and the need for additional information supporting the analysis of feasibility of alternatives, with specific discussion of additional cost and construction scheduling/sequencing information;

×          The cut and cover tunnel and the jacked box tunnel alternatives;

×          Solicitation of comments from SPO representatives on the cut and cover tunnel and jacked box alternatives; and

×          A discussion of information related to environmental documentation performed by SPO.

 

It was determined that a second workshop would be scheduled for 5 January 2015 to review refinements to the cut and cover tunnel and jacked box tunnel alternatives. The details of the costs of the tunnel alternatives will be a part of the second workshop as well, with a goal of ensuring alignment in the methodologies of cost estimating and details that separate the costs of a tunnel option from the “built-up” costs recognized in the SPO cost estimates.

 

In addition to developing two tunnel alternatives to a point where feasibility can be assessed, Brierley Associates developed criteria that allow a comparative analysis of the SPO-defined surface crossing of the channel with a tunnel alternative. Using a baseline of information provided by SPO, Brierley also prepared estimates of probable construction cost and framed a sequence of construction activities, both in an effort to more directly compare a feasible tunnel alternative to the SPO-defined surface crossing of the channel.

 

As a part of Brierley’s existing agreement, a scope of work for Phase 2 has been prepared. This work focuses on an assessment of the prudence related to a feasible tunnel alternative. That work would be performed should the Board approve the requested amendment. In general, Phase 2 of Brierley’s work (that which is addressed by the proposed amendment to their PSA) would address the following:

 

Task 1              Assessment of prudence based on tunnel engineering for the two Brierley identified crossing alternatives

Task 2              Assessment of prudence focused on impacts related to visual quality, water resources, noise and vibration and cultural resources; this task would also summarize Section 4(f) impacts on park resources

Task 3              Analysis of areas of feasibility raised during Phase 1 feasibility analysis (but not included in Brierley’s Phase 1 scope of services), including analysis of light rail operations based on an alignment using a tunnel under the Kenilworth Channel

Task 4              Analysis of other factors that may become necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of a tunnel alternative or assessment of prudence of a tunnel alternative in comparison to the SWLRT current alignment using a bridge crossing at the Kenilworth Channel, with specific tasks subject to approval by MPRB staff

 

Brierley has submitted a proposal outlining fees for each task as follows:

 

Task 1              hourly and not to exceed $18,609

Task 2              hourly and not to exceed $151,124

Task 2              hourly and not to exceed $23,543

Task 4              hourly and not to exceed $55,00 and requiring:

×          a written scope of services and fee;

×          documentation of need for analysis or assessment;

×          statement of deliverables and schedule for deliverables; and

×          written approval of MPRB staff prior to beginning work

 

The resulting total for this amendment to the Brierley PSA includes work performed on an hourly basis and not exceeding $248,275, inclusive of all labor and expenses.

 

MPRB staff and Brierley Associates will make a presentation to the Board of Commissioners at the January 7, 2015 Board of Commissioners meeting that will include a report on the engineering analysis completed to date by Brierley Associates, a report on the December 2014 and January 2015 Workshops with SPO, MPRB, and Brierley Associates teams, and an update on the timing and scheduling issues related to the SWLRT project.

 

 

 

FUNDING/COST SUMMARY

Sources

 

$500,000

Reserve Balance

$500,000

 

Uses

 

$493,775

PSA – Brierley Associates (approved under MPRB Resolution 2014-347 on November 19, 2014)

$245,500

 

PSA Amendment #1 – Brierley Associates

$248,275

(pending Board approval)

Balance

 

$6,225

 

 

RELATED BOARD ACTIONS

 

November 19, 2014              Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Brierley Associates for Engineering Services Related to the Feasibility and Prudence of Kenilworth Channel Crossing Alternatives in the Amount Up to $245,500

 

October 1, 2014              Resolution 2014- 311 Authorizing the Superintendent to hire engineering services for a fee up to $500,000 from the reserve balance to determine the prudence and feasibility of a tunnel under the Kenilworth Channel for the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project

 

September 17, 2014              Resolution 2014-293 Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Stinson Leonard Street, LLP for Legal Services Related to the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project in the amount of $22,000

 

May 21, 2014              Resolution 2014-209 Stating the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board determination that, based on Southwest Light Rail Transitway Project Office preliminary finding of feasibility, tunneling LRT under the Kenilworth Channel may be the only Section 4(F) feasible and prudent alternative within the shallow tunnel option regarding Minneapolis parkland impacted by the project, however that determination requires greater analysis

 

February 5, 2014              Resolution 2014-114 Urging the Southwest Light Rail Transitway Project Office to conduct a detailed engineering feasibility study and cost comparison of tunneling under the Kenilworth Channel as part of the shallow tunnel option

 

August 21, 2013              Resolution 2013-282 Stating the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board’s position on project design alternatives recently developed in the preliminary engineering phase of Southwest Light Rail Transitway planning

 

December 5, 2012              Resolution 2012-321 Approving a comment letter to Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority for the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Staff recommends authorizing an amendment to a professional services agreement with Brierley Associates for engineering services related to the feasibility and prudence of Kenilworth Channel crossing alternatives in the amount up to $248,275.

 

This action is supported by the following vision and goal statements in the MPRB 2007-2020 Comprehensive Plan.

 

Vision Theme 3:              Dynamic parks that shape city character and meet diverse community needs.

 

Goal:                                          Parks shape and evolving city.

Meeting History

Jan 7, 2015 5:00 PM  Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Regular Meeting

President Wielinski called upon Michael Schroeder, Interim Assistant Superintendent Planning to present a Brierley Associates to Kenilworth Crossing Alternative, also presenting were Todd Christopherson and Gregg Sherry from Brierley Associates. Mark Fuhrman, Program Director for Light Rail projects from the Metropolitan Council also responded to questions from Commissioners.

Approved on a roll call vote.

RESULT:ADOPTED [5 TO 2]
MOVER:Jon Olson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER:Scott Vreeland, Vice President, Commissioner District 3
AYES:Liz Wielinski, Scott Vreeland, John Erwin, Meg Forney, Jon Olson
NAYS:Brad Bourn, Steffanie Musich
ABSENT:Anita Tabb, Annie Young