The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0316 CC REG ITEM 11C I 14, (001 '30K ITEM11 • C • - ^"'<. Cl : J-;I Moo,,, /iI� 1991.T f,C �; TIO .L / 72/ lL1a.� 4A ✓/ � '. .f / AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK ' '1( a ' - 626%L.4277-1 TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Mary R. Lindley, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: March 10, 1994 (CC Meeting 3/16) SUBJECT: Consider Amending the 1993/94 City Budget and Appropriating Funds for the Construction of a Block Wall at the Metrolink Station Background The January 17 earthquake damaged the block wall along the south Metrolink parking lot. The wall is on private property, belonging to the homeowners on Dorothy Avenue, and sits just south of the property line between the Metrolink parking lot and the private residences. The wall is six feet high and was constructed without reinforcement and with very shallow footings. While the wall was in poor condition before the earthquake, its condition has been exacerbated as a result of the earthquake. The wall was inspected after the earthquake by the City's building inspector after which it received a red tag. As a result of the earthquake, the wall has separated in one section and has a greater number of large cracks (see exhibit A) . Many blocks are lose and the wall leans towards the Metrolink parking lot in several places. In its current condition, the wall presents a threat to public property and possibly to life for anyone in the area of the wall. Staff proposes demolishing the wall and installing a temporary chain link fence until a new wall is constructed. Such action taken to eliminate a threat to life and public property, as a result of a disaster, is reimbursable from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) at up to 90% ( please note that there is no guarantee that FEMA will reimburse the City) . The cost to demolish the wall (460 . . Construction of Block Wall March 10, 1994 Page 2 feet) is $4, 800, the City's share of the cost is $480. The City will have to bear the full cost of the temporary fence ($1, 000) . These costs are an eligible use for the City's Transportation Development Act funds (TDA) . In addition, staff requests $1, 000 from TDA to replace any landscaping and irrigation damaged during the demolition of the block wall. The construction of a new wall, since it is on private property, is the property owner's responsibility. FEMA will not reimburse work of this nature for private property, although it will make available low-interest loans. On February 16, Council found that block walls 6 feet or less in height do not present a threat to public safety and that the garden walls damaged during the earthquake, which received yellow tags, would not require demolition. In addition, Council took action , with the adoption of Ordinance No. 189, to delete a section of Emergency Ordinance No. 188 which required a permit to construct walls 6 feet in hight or less. With this in mind, staff attempted to gain voluntary consent from the property owners for the demolition work. There are six property owners involved, four of them agreed to sign the City's Consent to Enter and Waiver of Liability form. The two property owners who did not agree to sign the waiver indicated that they did not have the financial resources to replace the wall and wanted a commitment by the City to pay for the construction at no cost to them. In fact, each of the property owners staff spoke to indicated that they were not in a financial position to pay for the construction of a new wall. If the responsibility for the construction of a new wall is left to the property owners, there is a good chance that the work will never take place. The block wall along the Metrolink south parking lot serves an important purpose. The wall provides: 1) security for the residents who would otherwise have their backyards exposed to a public facility (Metrolink Station) , and 2) provides security for Metrolink riders. In an effort to maintain (approximately 200 per day) and increase ridership from the Station ridership figures, the City needs to continue providing a safe and attractive facility. In addition, a well constructed wall will also serve to enhance the attractive appearance of the City's Metrolink Station. The Station serves both Metrolink and Amtrak riders (many of whom live outside Moorpark) and may in the future be a site used for special events such as a Farmers Market. It's important that individuals Construction of Block Wall March 10, 1994 Page 3 who use the Station take home a positive image of Moorpark so that they come back to shop. The enhancement of the Metrolink Station compliments the City's efforts to revitalize the downtown area. There are several funding options staff has identified that the Council may wish to consider, other than relying on the property owners to bear the cost. First, staff is attempting to secure additional Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG) made available to assist with emergency recovery. The County administers these funds and has not yet established priorities or criteria for the use of the funds. The County recently stated that it proposes to use the funds to address housing needs generated by the earthquake. If CDBG funds are not made available for the construction of the wall, Council may wish to consider the use of redevelopment funds (MRA) or Transportation Development Funds (TDA) or a combination of the two. If TDA funds are used, they will be drawn from the street maintenance budget. The Council may also wish to consider requiring the property owners to contribute a share of the construction cost based on an ability to pay formula (income) . In order to receive reimbursement from FEMA and State OES, the City needs to act quickly. Staff proposes that Council commit the City to assisting the property owners by funding the construction of a new block wall. The estimated cost to construct the wall is $17,480 with a 10% contingency for a total of $19, 228. With this action, all the property owners should consent to the demolition work. It is also recommended that Council direct staff to pursue emergency CDBG funds for the full construction costs of the wall. At the same time, staff is requesting that Council approve the use of MRA funds to pay the full cost of constructing the wall, with no financial assistance from the property owners (if the aforementioned CDBG funds are not available) . MRA funds appear to be the most appropriate City source, and staff believes that requiring financial participation on the part of the property owners will require significant staff time to administer and two owners have indicated that they will not. participate. This action is similar to the action taken by the Council regarding the Sherman Wall project. With Council approval, staff will present this item to the MRA on April 6 for formal action on the funding source. Construction of Block Wall March 10, 1994 Page 4 Recommendation (Roll Call Vote) Staff recommends the Council: 1) Approve the demolition of the block wall, upon the consent of the private property owners, and direct the City Manager to sign an agreement for the demolition work at a cost not to exceed $4,800 (FEMA/OES reimbursable) ; 2) Direct staff to pursue emergency Community Development Block Grant funds for the construction of a new wall; 3) In the event the City is not awarded emergency CDBG Funds, direct staff to present an agenda item for the use of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (MRA) funds for the construction of a block wall between the private property on Dorothy Avenue and the Metrolink Station public parking lot to the Agency; and 4) Amend the 1993/94 Budget and appropriate a total of $6, 800 from TDA for the project - $4,800 for demolition (with all but $480 expected to be reimbused by FEMA/OES) , $1, 000 for a temporary fence, and $1, 000 for landscaping and irrigation. C: \WP51\WPDOCS\BLKWALL.AGD i < 4- • rmg ..r Uri ' •••_ . . • „;',Iii.$-, -•- Nit , ( ..,„ • "tAIIIINC:: -•4:..„ .. . ' ', ..... Y. . ... •1 . .•- . , ... . ..'llt'a . • - .--, • .. 0.1.1 •-d • r•. .*.-.,„..,:: ' - I M. IMIN i ' . , . • I-- • ....„,,, .......- ,•-...._._ •:. .'. • .• - : , . f---I- - / 1 . , : . • _ .. •-, ' •I - ...,..J i. .I•••• 4, ' f i ,. .11 . .' .,,, I ..r1. .... ,....,.,!..,„,„....,,, ,,,.) ,'.. -.. . .f. ' „..$ :1 $ . .. . ,.. •