Lancaster County
Board of Commissioners
Board of Commissioners
lancaster.ne.gov
AGENDA
Lancaster County Board Of Commissioners
Commissioners Chambers, Room 112
First Floor, County-City Building
Tuesday, December 15, 1998
8 a.m.
1) NEW BUSINESS:
Identification of a corridor for further study to determine
its feasibility for designation as a single preferred
corridor for the East and South beltways.
2) ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES
Joint Meeting
Lincoln City Council And
Lancaster County Board Of Commissioners
County-City Building
City Council/county Commissioners Hearing Room
Tuesday, December 15, 1998
8 a.m.
County Commissioners Present: Linda Steinman, Chair
Kathy Campbell
Larry Hudkins
Bernie Heier (NOTE: Present but not
participating because of a declared
conflict of interest)
County Commissioners Absent: Steve Svoboda
City Council Members Present: Curt Donaldson, Chair
Linda Wilson
Jeff Fortenberry
Cindy Johnson
Coleen Seng
Jerry Shoecraft
Ross Hecht
Curt Donaldson, City Council Chair, convened the meeting of the
City Council.
Linda Steinman, County Board Chair, convened the meeting of the
County Board.
AGENDA ITEM
1 IDENTIFICATION OF A CORRIDOR FOR FURTHER STUDY TO
DETERMINE ITS FEASIBILITY FOR DESIGNATION AS A SINGLE
PREFERRED CORRIDOR FOR THE EAST AND SOUTH BELTWAYS
Jim Linderholm, HWS Consulting Group Inc., appeared and indicated that an
updated version of Table 10-1, Remaining Finalist Alternatives, Measured
Values, December 7, 1998 (Exhibit A) and copies of a letter from the
State Historic Preservation Office, agreeing to the addition of significant
archeological properties in the decision matrix, had been provided to
members of the City Council and County Board prior to the meeting
(Exhibit B).
NOTE: A memo from Eleanor Francke, citizen, was also provided to
members of the two bodies prior to the meeting (Exhibit C).
Linderholm indicated that additional testing of several sites will be
required if either the EM-1 (East Middle-1) or EF-1 (East Far-1) corridors
are selected. He estimated this cost at less than $5,000. Linderholm
noted that the testing will create significant ground disturbance and
access agreements with property owners will be necessary.
Linderholm also indicated that a comprehensive agreement with the State
Historic Preservation Office will be necessary for any of the corridors
selected to determine archeological impacts and associative costs for
mitigating those impacts. Tasks 4 and 5, if approved, will involve
working with the various landowners, renters and interested parties in
eliminating and mitigating impact to property in the corridor. He noted
that a progress report on these efforts will be provided to the City
Council and County Board in June of 1999.
Cindy Johnson, City Council, inquired about what would transpire should
the City Council and County Board object to the findings in that report.
Linderholm indicated that the Beltway Studies Team would then examine
whether sufficient alternatives within the selected route had been
presented to the City Council and County Board. Those bodies could then
elect to request study of additional alternatives along that particular
corridor, or if fatal flaws are apparent, another potential corridor
could be looked at.
Kathy Campbell, County Board, noted that the members of the City Council
and County Board had received correspondence that morning from the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, opposing selection of the EF-1 (East
Far-1) beltway alignment (Exhibit D). She asked Linderholm whether the
Beltway Studies Team will recommend that a second corridor preference be
looked at, if impacts can not be mitigated within a selected corridor.
Linderholm indicated that the Beltway Studies Team will be pro-active in
seeking engineering solutions that preserve resources. He noted that
impact, rather than taking of properties, is the key issue.
Campbell requested that the elected bodies be apprised immediately of any
fatal flaws discovered in the beltway alignment.
Linderholm agreed, noting that updates will also be provided on
cost estimates and detailed maps of the area.
Linda Steinman, County Board Chair, asked whether identified
growth areas, rather than the build-out scenario, can be used in
determining what traffic counts may be on the beltway alignments.
Linderholm stated that current information will be reviewed,
noting that future patterns of growth and development have been
an unknown factor in the study, particularly in the Stevens Creek
area.
Larry Hudkins, County Board, asked whether a quarter mile route
could be located within the EM-1 (East Middle-1) corridor that
would not impact historical designations.
Linderholm indicated this should be achievable if the route is
moved slightly outside the corridor. One significant
archeological site is located along this corridor and another
site has been identified for further testing. If this site also
proves to be archeologically significant, the route may need to
be moved east of the power line.
In response to a question from Hudkins, Linderholm stated that
the greatest impact posed by the alternate curvature route in the
EF-1 (East Far-1) alignment would be the dissection of
agricultural operations. Measures would also be taken to insure
that Waverly's water system would not be impacted.
Linderholm noted that the agreement between the City of Lincoln
and the State Historic Preservation Office will require that
construction cease, if archeological materials are discovered.
In response to a question from Ross Hecht, City Council,
Linderholm stated that every attempt will be made to stay within
the quarter mile corridor. If the route were to be moved outside
that corridor, additional field archeological surveys would be
necessary. He reiterated that if problems of this sort were
encountered, a report would be made to the two elected bodies.
Jerry Shoecraft, City Council, inquired whether federal funding
of the project could be jeopardized if a corridor with historic
designation is selected.
Ed Kosola, Federal Highway Administration, appeared and explained
that the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Section 4-F of the
Department of Transportation Act, require the Federal Highway
Administration to consider historic properties when selecting
highway alignments. He indicated that the ability to receive
federal funds would not be impeded by selection of a route that
has historic designations, although reasonable and prudent
alternatives would need to be explored before taking a historic
property.
In response to a question from Shoecraft, Kosola stated that
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires
that consideration be given to the impact on historic properties,
although it would not specifically prohibit the location of a
corridor through a historic property. He indicated that, if a
historic property was impacted, the Federal Highway
Administration would consult with the State Historic Preservation
Office and the Federal Advisory Council to seek ways to avoid,
minimize or mitigate the effects on the historic resource.
Shoecraft remarked that a decision on a preferred corridor should
be based not just on the best route, but on the existence of
other feasible and prudent alternatives.
Kosola agreed.
In response to a question from Linda Steinman, County Board,
Linderholm stated that all of the corridors have significant
cultural resources. He noted there is an important difference
between the taking of property and impacting property.
Linderholm stated that it does not appear necessary to take any
properties and that every effort will be made to work with
various interest groups to minimize impact. The only unknown
variable would be if a potential impact is located during the
construction phase.
Linderholm indicated that federal, state, and local agencies will
be allowed input with regards to the Record of Decision, which
will be filed by the Federal Highway Administration sometime in
the future. The Federal Highway Administration will need to be
satisfied that all efforts were made to comply Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as well as other applicable
federal regulations.
Shoecraft asked whether one of the three proposed corridors had
been determined to be more destructive than the others in terms
of cultural and historical aspects.
Linderholm indicated that a determination of that type could not
be made at this time, as both numbers and quality issues need to
be factored. Although in terms of numbers, more potential
historical resources exist along the EF-1 (East Far-1) route, how
those resources are addressed could minimize impact. He stated
that, theoretically, there could be greater historic impact on a
route that has fewer identified cultural facilities. Linderholm
noted that the State Historic Preservation Office will play a key
role in making decisions with regard to protection of those
properties and will need to sign-off on the final alignment.
In response to a question from Jeff Fortenberry, City Council,
Linderholm stated that the Natural Resources District (NRD) has
participated in the Technical Advisory Committee and will serve
as a primary review agency for impact to natural resources. He
noted that NRD interests include the following:
* Wetlands
* Well-head protection
* How and where trails, in which the NRD has an investment, are crossed
* Flood control structures
* Drainage facilities developed as part of the alignment
* Water systems
Fortenberry asked whether the NRD had conducted a thorough
analysis to see how the various alignments would impact their
efforts at preservation and flood control.
Linderholm indicated that discussions of that type have not been
held with the NRD. He noted that there is potential for dove-tailing
of flood control structures with the final alignment.
Larry Hudkins, County Board, inquired about Highway 2 access with
regards to the EF-1 (East Far-1) corridor.
Linderholm displayed an overhead map of the beltway corridors,
pointing out connection options. He noted there could be
potential impact to houses on the south side of Highway 2,
between 120th and 141st Street, if the EF-1
(East Far-1) corridor is selected. He indicated that the issue
of where an interchange would be located on the east side still
needs to be resolved, through continued discussions with the
Nebraska Department of Roads.
Hudkins noted concern that diagonal routes will increase footage
and costs.
MOTION: Seng moved and Wilson seconded to direct the Beltway Studies Team
to proceed with south and east beltway studies on SM-4 (South
Middle-4) and EF-1 (East Far-1), plus Route 17 to connect them,
and to move forward into Task 4 and 5, with a report back to the
City Council and County Board by mid June, 1999. On call Wilson,
Donaldson, Fortenberry, Johnson and Seng voted aye. Hecht and
Shoecraft dissented. Motion carried five to two.
MOTION: Campbell moved and Steinman seconded to concur with the City
Council motion.
Campbell noted for the record that Bernie Heier, County
Commissioner, was in attendance, but had declared a conflict of
interest and would refrain from participating in discussions or
action in this matter.
ON CALL: Campbell and Steinman voted aye. Hudkins dissented.
Motion carried two to one.
2 ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Hudkins moved and Campbell seconded to adjourn the meeting of
the County Board. On call Hudkins, Campbell and Steinman voted
aye. Motion carried.
MOTION: Wilson moved and Seng seconded to adjourn the meeting of
the City Council. On call Wilson, Donaldson, Fortenberry, Hecht,
Johnson, Seng and Shoecraft voted aye. Motion carried.
______________________
Kandra Hahn
Lancaster County Clerk