Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Sylvester Overpass topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pasco seeks consultant for Sylvester Street overpass design; staff says project fully funded

2866256 · March 31, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff requested council approval of a professional services agreement with Consort North America, Inc. for preliminary engineering of a Sylvester Street pedestrian and bicycle overpass; staff said funding comes from two state grants and a local contribution.

Director Sarah presented a resolution to enter a professional services agreement with Consort North America, Inc. for preliminary design of a pedestrian and bicycle overpass on Sylvester Street, which would fill an ADA‑compliance gap in the corridor over U.S. 395.

Director Sarah said the overall project budget is just under $4 million, funded primarily by two state grants with a small local contribution of $80,000. The agreement proposed to the council covers preliminary engineering to 30 percent for roughly $365,000; staff estimated full design costs at about $540,000.

“Currently, there is a narrow bridge that does not accommodate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and of course it's non‑ADA compliant,” Director Sarah said. She described the contract scope as including alternatives analysis, coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation, site investigations, surveys and geotechnical work.

Council members supported the project on public‑safety grounds. Council member Graham described daily use by pedestrians and students and thanked staff for securing grants and minimizing the local contribution. Council member Harpster asked whether Consort had worked on the prior Sylvester corridor improvements; staff said the prior corridor designer was not selected for this bridge contract because the selection committee prioritized bridge and bridge‑design experience.

The resolution was presented at the workshop for council consideration; the transcript does not record a subsequent roll‑call vote during the workshop.