Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Trans 2015-06-15 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
City of Tukwila Transportation Committee • Joe Duffie, Chair • Allan Ekberg • Kathy Hougardy Distribution: J. Duffie A. Ekberg K. Hougardy K. Kruller D. Robertson Mayor Haggerton D. Cline L. Humphrey B. Giberson F. I riarte R. Tischmak G. Labanara P. Brodin R. Turpin M. Hart Clerk File Copy 2 Extra Place pkt pdf on Z: \TC -UC Agendas e -mail cover to: A. Le, C. O'Flaherty, J. Duffie, D. Alm berg, B. Saxton, S. Norris, M. Hart, L. Humphrey AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2015 — 5:15 PM FOSTER CONFERENCE Room — 6300 BUILDING (formerly known as Conference Room #1) ll, PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a) 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barriers Project Status Update b) 2015 Overlay and Repair Program Award Construction Bid c) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Consultant Selection and Agreement d) Transit Network Plan Update Consultant Selection and Agreement 3. SCATBd f) • SCATBd 5/19/15 Meeting Summary • SCATBd 6/16/15 Meeting Agenda 4. MISCELLANEOUS 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS /Pt, fifif,r/ riff a) For Information only. b) Forward to 6/22/15 C.O.W. & Special Consent Agenda c) Forward to 6/22/15 C.O.W. & Special Consent Agenda d) Forward to 6/22/15 C.O.W. & Special Consent Agenda f) Information Only Future Agendas: • • kat 15' Pg. 1 Pg. 7 Pg. 17 Pg. 33 Pg. 49 Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, July 6, 2015 The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Please contact the Public Works Department at 206 - 433 -0179 for assistance. Transportation Committee - 2015 Work Plan Description Qtr Dept Action or Briefing Status BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Design contract (to COW only) 1 PW A Complete 42 Avenue South Phase 111 Design Contract Supplement — design undergrounding 2 PW A Seattle City Light underground agreement 4 PW A Follow -up on potential for coordination with SeaTac 2 PW B ADA Improvements Design contract and bid award 2 PW A Annual Overlay and Repair Program Bid Award 2 PW A 53rd Avenue S (S 137th — S 144th St) Funding and Design contract 2 PW A 53rd Ave S Water Main Replacement, Sewer Rehab (from Utilities) A Cascade View Safe Routes to School Closeout 3 PW A Andover Park West/ TUC Transit Center Closeout 3 PW A Thorndyke Safe Routes to School Closeout 3 PW A Boeing Access Road over BNRR Bridge Rehab Bid Award 3 PW A Residential Street Improvements Design contract 2 PW A Safety -based priority list 4 PW B Annual Bridge Inspections and Repairs Program update 4 PW B TUC Ped /Bike Bridge Right -of -way and easement acquisition 1 PW A Complete Bid Award 4 PW A Interurban Avenue S (S 143`d — Fort Dent Way) Status update 4 PW B S 144th St Phase I I, (42nd Ave S — TIB) Bid award 4 PW A Crosswalk Petition — TIB /S 139th Vicinity Present engineering analysis 3 PW B OTHER TIB pedestrian bulb replacement (test locations) 2 PW B Allentown Roadside Barriers — outreach and design alternatives 2 PW B Complete Duwamish/ S 119th Ped Bridge — present condition and repairs 1 PW B Complete (briefing) Transit plan update contract 4 PW A TIP Resolution 2 PW A Complete Standard Reports /Briefings Frequency Dept. Facility Tours As needed PW SCATBD Semimonthly PW City of Tukwila Updated 6/8/15 TO: City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Transportation Committee FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director BY: Dave Sorensen, Project Manager DATE: June 12, 2015 SUBJECT: 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barrier Project No. 91310301 Project Update ISSUE Present an update for the 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barrier Project. BACKGROUND The 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barrier Project is funded as part of the Small Roadway & Safety Improvements in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and was preceded by a study to determine guardrail and /or barrier warrants along the Duwamish River adjacent to 42nd Ave S and S 115th St in Allentown. The goal is to prevent accidents, in accordance with engineering design standards, in which vehicles could possibly enter the river. Several areas of the river bank are being recommended for additional guardrails and /or barriers. At the April 6, 2015 Transportation Committee meeting, it was agreed that during the Allentown Community meeting on May 7, 2015, staff would solicit residents' ideas on the Roadside Barrier Project. While most of the discussion focused on traffic safety and traffic enforcement concerns, feedback on the barrier project included support for the proposed installation locations and support for the timber guardrail alternative. ANALYSIS Alternative Barrier Options: At the November 25, 2014 Transportation Committee meeting alternatives to using steel guardrail and concrete barriers were suggested with the idea of softening the visual impacts along the river environment. A revised plan has been prepared that proposes the use of timber guardrail as an alternative at all new barrier locations (see attached plan sheet). Also for consideration is the option to install timber guardrail where currentconcrete barrier and steel guardrail exist. The existing steel guardrail could be removed (leaving the posts) and the new timber railing could be installed on the remaining posts at their current locations. However, the conversion of all barriers to the timber guardrail will increase the total project costs. Costs would include relocating a communication line and water main and are summarized below. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated construction cost for the originally recommended steel W -beam guardrail and concrete barrier installations was $299,970 based on the calculations of the current 30 %design. This includes a 10 %contingency and construction management at 15 %. Steel W -Beam (includes 10% Contingency) $299,970.00 Construction Management 15% 44,995.50 Estimated Total of Steel W -Beam $344.965.50 W: \PW Eng \ PROJECTS \A- RW & RS Projects\42nd Ave S Allentown Roadside Barrier (91310301) \ Design \TC Project Update \May TC Update \May 2015 Info Memo 42nd Ave S Barger gl -rrt Final.docx 1 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Added Costs to Use Timber Guardrail The cost increase to use timber guardrail is estimated to be an additional $170,000 over the current 30% design estimate. While there is currently no standard design for crashworthy end treatment available, the project specific end treatment will be included in the design. Additional costs include: • Timber Guardrail $75k to replace existing steel and concrete barrier • Waterline relocation $45k • Telecom relocation (possibly no cost to City based on franchise agreement) • Embankment stabilization $25 -$50k The 2015 construction budget is set at $60,000 with an additional $10,000 for construction management. The current estimate shows that Phase 1 (as shown on the attached plan sheet) can be constructed within the 2015 budget with the Timber Guardrail. Breaking the project into multiple construction phases will likely increase the overall project costs due to additional contract management, bidding, and implementation costs. The additional costs will be better quantified after actual bids are received for the initial phase. Total for Timber Guardrail including the additional costs listed above. Timber Guardrail (includes 10% Contingency) Construction Management 15% Estimated Total of Timber Guardrail $470,000.00 70,500.00 $540,500.00 Additional City funds would be needed for the Small Roadway & Safety Improvements Program if any options listed above are requested by Council. Construction costs could be spread over the next 6 years to minimize the impact to the Residential Street Fund (103 Fund). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends moving forward with this project and installing Timber Guardrail using the current funding level programmed in the CIP of $70,000. Future Council approval will be needed for any additional funding to the 42nd Ave S /Allentown Roadside Barrier Project. The alternative recommendation would be to install standard steel W -Beam guardrail and concrete barrier if additional funding will not be approved in the future. Attachments: Page 5, 2015 CIP for Small Roadway & Safety Improvements Aerial Layout with Phase I identified W: \PW Eng \ PROJECTS \A- RW & RS Projects\42nd Ave S Allentown Roadside Barrier (91310301) \ Design \TC Project Update \May TC Update \May 2015 Info Memo 42nd Ave S Barger gl -rrt Final.docx 2 PROJECT: JUSTIFICATION: STATUS: MAINT. IMPACT: COMMENT: CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUM ARY 2015 to 2020 Small Roadway and Safety Improvements 91310301 Project No. . Vanes Programmatc approach to addressing sma roadway and safety concerns through a variety of methods. Addresses needs not included in general maintenance, traffic calming, or other approaches. Increasing public demand on staff time. Local access streets in residential neighborhoods may need minor roadway or safety improvements that can not be addressed with any other City program. 42nd Ave S/Altentown Roadside Barrier is proposed in phases, Project No. 91310301. Full design in 2014 and critical areas constructed in 2015. Additional construction in 2016 is grant dependent. Minimal Federal constructio grant is propose for $350,000 frorn the Cty Safety with no iocal match required. Full program is only feasible if Public Works adds a Traffic Engineer to staff (same position as Traffic Calming). FINANCIAL In $000's EXPENSES Design Land(R/N0 Const. Mgmt. Construction TOTAL EXPENSES FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant Proposed Grant Mitigation Actual Mitigation Expected City Oper. Revenue TOTAL SOURCES Through Estimated 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20113 2019 2020 BEYOND TOTAL 8 30 30 78 10 60 148 50 300 350 0 0 116 0 60 360 536 8 8 30 30 148 148 350 0 350 0 0 0 O 0 U 0 0 0 Q 0 350 0 0 186 3 2O15-2O2D Capital Improvement Program 4 REPLACE EXISTING STEEL GUARDRAIL & CONCRETE BARRIER WITH TIMBER GUARDRAIL- ASE- 1 TIMBER GUARDRAIL ADDED COST UP TO S75,000 COMPARED TO STEEL GUARDRAIL & CONCRETE BARRIER - 77 LEGEND I PROPOSED EMBANKMENT SGBNL1TIGN I PROPOSED GUARDRAIL EaS1 NG CONCRETE BARRIER TO REMAIN I EXIS11N° CONCRETE BARRIER TO BE REMOVED EASING GUARDRNL TO BE REMOVED '.-ATER LINE LOCATED UNDER THE RECOMMENDED BARRIER (STA 26 +75 TO STA 28 +00) ESTIMATED COST TO RELOCATE WATER MAIN IS UP TO $45,000. 42nd Ave S Roadside Barrier Analysis TIMBER GUARDRAIL OPTION 11992 kek xw.gas attelsokre TO: City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Transportation Committee FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director BY: David Sorensen, Project Manager DATE: June 12, 2015 SUBJECT: 2015 Overlay and Repair Program Project No. 91510401 Bid Award ISSUE Award the bid for construction of the 2015 Overlay and Repair Program. BACKGROUND This project preserves and maintains the street structure in a safe, useable, and sustainable condition. Project construction will include pavement repairs, asphalt overlay, and new pavement markings at seven locations citywide. ANALYSIS A call for bids was advertised for the 2015 Overlay and Repair Program on May 20 and 27, 2015 and five bids were opened on June 3, 2015. . The bidding schedule included a "Base Bid" that consists of Schedules A and B and an "Additive Alternate" that is Schedule C. The "Base Bid" was designated as the bid amount that would determine who submitted the lowest bid. The lowest bidder was Miles Resources, LLC. No errors were found in the bid tabulations. Project design consultant KPG Inc. recommends award to the low bidder Miles Resources, LLC. Since favorable bids were received for the "Base Bid ", analysis of the "Additive Altemate" bid indicates that the award should include all work in Schedules A, B, and C. BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY (All amounts include sales tax) Bid Results Estimate 2015 Budget Bid Schedule "A" Amount $ 1,015,369.50 1,134,277.00 $1,250,000.00 Contingency (5%) 50,768.48 Bid Schedule "B" Fort Dent 71,795.00 86,350.00 100,000.00 Contingency (5%) 3,589.75 Bid Schedule "C" Southcenter Pkwy. 257,646.50 251,805.00 Contingency (5 %©) 12,882.33 Funds from Bridge Program Total $1,424,933.89 $80,000.00 11,4724432.Od $1,430.000.00 RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to award the construction contract for the 2015 Overlay and Repair Program to Miles Resources, LLC in the amount of $1,344,811.00 and consider this item on the June 22, 2015 Committee of the Whole Meeting and on the Consent Agenda at the subsequent Special Meeting that same evening. Attachments: Vicinity Map 2014CIP Page 15d38 Sid Tabulation Consultant Recommendation W: PW Eng1P'ROJECTSW RW 8 RS Projects+AnnuaP Overlays. Repair Prograns12015 Overlay E Repair Pro am+meslpn+Ad and AwardulwardlWorIcirp Docs Doca to TC B d AwrdtW©rkinp DacsS201$ Overlay 7 Into P1enra Bld Award Mles.dae UMW .* S. BOEING ACCESS RD. .f S. 124TH ST. GATEWAY DR. ry so eeeee., �� LEES 11C���_ IMPENEWPW MINNYPRE Wiw A 1 1 Fq * FORT DENT PARK SOUTHCENTER BLVD TUKWILA PARKWAY ANDOVER PARK W. 2015 Overlay Program Vicinity Map CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2015 to 2020 PROJECT: Annual Bridge Inspections and Repairs Project No. Varies DESCRIPTION: Ongoing program of bi- annual inspections, repairs, painting and rehabilitation of the 22 City bridges. Federally required program identifies safety or repair needs in the early stages to minimize hazards and JUSTIFICATION: costs. The number of bridge inspections necessary each year can vary between 3 and 8 bridges. Inspection frequencies vary from bridge to bridge and WSDOT provides some inspection services. STATUS: Construction projects will be determined from inspection reports and noted deficiencies /problems. MAINT. IMPACT: Reduces maintenance costs. COMMENT: Ongoing project, only one year actuals are shown in the first column. 42nd Ave S Truss Bridge had repairs completed in 2014 along with matching funds for the I -5 /Klickitat Dr - Unstable Slope /Elevated Walkway. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 65 40 40 40 40 45 45 45 45 405 Land (R /W) 0 Const. Mgmt. 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 280 Construction 27 200 200 200 200 250 250 250 250 1,827 TOTAL EXPENSES 92 270 270 270 270 335 335 335 335 2,512 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 236 236 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected 0 City Oper. Revenue 92 34 270 270 270 335 335 335 335 2,276 TOTAL SOURCES 92 270 270 270 270 335 335 335 335 2,512 Project Locrti ©n: Entire System 2015 - 2020 Capital Improvement Program 10 9 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2015 to 2020 PROJECT: Annual Overlay and Repair Program Project No. 91310401 DESCRIPTION: Select, design and construct asphalt and concrete pavement overlays of arterial and residential streets. JUSTIFICATION: Preserve and maintain the street structure in a safe and useable state by resurfacing before failure which also minimizes costs. Some individual sites may be coordinated with water, sewer, and surface water projects. STATUS: Each year various sections of roadway throughout the City are designed and constructed for asphalt overlay. MAINT. IMPACT: Reduces annual maintenance. COMMENT: Ongoing project. Only one year actuals shown in first column. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 48 100 125 125 150 150 175 175 175 1,223 Land (R /W) 0 Const. Mgmt. 175 175 175 200 200 225 225 230 1,605 Construction 1,125 1,250 1,260 1,300 1,320 1,325 1,330 1,340 10,250 TOTAL EXPENSES 48 1,400 1,550 1,560 1,650 1,670 1,725 1,730 1,745 13,078 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected 0 City Oper. Revenue 48 1,400 1,550 1,560 1,650 1,670 1,725 1,730 1,745 13,078 TOTAL SOURCES 48 1,400 1,550 1,560 1,650 1,670 1,725 1,730 1,745 13,078 2015 - 2020 Capital Improvement Program 18 10 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2015 to 2020 PROJECT: Fort Dent Park Project Nos. 90330107 DESCRIPTION: Regional park of 52 acres requires ongoing capital and maintenance improvements. JUSTIFICATION: The City has assumed major park repairs and maintenance for the picnic area, parking lot, one soccer field, trail, pond and all major infrastructure. Funding listed in 2015 through 2020 is for a phased approach to the remaining parking lot repairs in conjunction with the Annual Overlay & Repair Program. A portion of the parking lot overlay was completed with parking tax dollars in 2011 and another portion in 2014. For 2015, $500k is designated for a potential BNSF Railroad sewer relocation. Replacement of the small play structure is listed for $250k in Beyond. STATUS: MAINT. IMPACT: Ongoing effort from all departments involved; Parks, Streets, Water, Sewer, and Surface Water. COMMENT: King County transferred Fort Dent Park to the City of Tukwila in 2003. Concessionaire agreement with Starfire Sports Complex. A new playground was installed in 2008 and restrooms were remodeled in 2010. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 275 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 355 Land (R /W) 0 Const. Mgmt. 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 120 Construction 1,292 200 600 100 100 100 100 100 250 2,842 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,567 250 625 125 125 125 125 125 250 3,317 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 694 694 Parking Taxes 50 50 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected 0 City Oper. Revenue 823 250 625 125 125 125 125 125 250 2,573 TOTAL SOURCES 1,567 250 625 125 125 125 125 125 250 3,317 2015 - 2020 Capital Improvement Program 33 11 ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS June 5, 2015 Mr. David Sorensen, PE Public Works City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: 2015 Overlay Program Dear Dave, KPG SEATTLE • TACOMA As requested, KPG has tabulated the bids and reviewed the bid packages submitted for the City of Tukwila 2015 Overlay Program. The lowest bidder in the amount of $1,087,164.50 is Miles Resources, LLC. As part of our review, we checked the status of Miles Resources, LLC on the Washington State Labor and Industries web page to confirm they are currently insured, bonded, and licensed. We also checked their state and federal debarment status, both of which indicated no issues. Finally, we ran a rudimentary analysis of their bid against all other bids and industry pricing, which indicated no substantial imbalances or significant front loading. It is KPG's recommendation that the 2015 Overlay Program be awarded to Miles Resources, LLC. We have enclosed the original bid package along with the contractor verification and bid tabulation for your review. Sincerely, Nathan Monroe, P.E. KPG, Inc. cc: Nelson Davis, PE Enclosures: Miles Resources, LLC bid package including Contractor Verification Bid Tabulation 753 9TH Avenue North • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone (206) 286 -1640 • Fax (206) 286 -1639 2502 Jefferson Avenue • Tacoma, WA 98402 • Phone (253) 627 -0720 • Fax (253) 627 -4144 www.kpg.com 12 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IC 2015 Overlay Program = Project No. 91510401 Bid Tabulation Bid Document 1 1 June 3 2015 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Miles Resources Lakeside Industries I TUCCI & Sons, Inc Ilcon Materials rejected per SP 1 02.13 (missing unit price) No. Spec Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Price I Total Cost Unit Price I Total Cost I Unit Price I Total Cost I Unit Price I Total Cost : 8 $;4.C. ti a :5' etl ri.�ti.�3Z` H L. A ..'� � �h 111 *:%:::::::::::::g;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;':' ....:. :...... ... ................ ......... ......... .........ii 1 1 -04 Minor Change 1 FA $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 6000.00 $ 6,000.00 6000.00 $ 6,000.00 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 6000.00 $ 6,000.00 2 1 -07 Resolution of Utility Conflicts 1 FA $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 4000.00 $ 4,000.00 4000.00 $ 4,000.00 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 4000.00 $ 4,000.00 3 1 -07 SPCC Plan 1 LS $ 450.00 $ 450.00 500.00 $ 500.00 1000.00 $ 1,000.00 250.00 $ 250.00 1600.00 $ 1,600.00 4 1 -09 Mobilization 1 LS $ 85,200.00 $ 85,200.00 88000.00 $ 88,000.00 135000.00 $ 135,000.00 56,000.00 $ 56,000.00 100000.00 $ 100,000.00 5 1 -10 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS $115,000.00 $ 115,000.00 130000.00 $ 130,000.00 125000.00 $ 125,000.00 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 180815.00 $ 180,815.00 6 2 -02 Asphalt Pavement Removal Incl. Haul 230 SY $ 25.00 $ 5,750.00 10.00 $ 2,300.00 15.00 $ 3,450.00 39.00 $ 8,970.00 30.60 $ 7,038.00 7 2 -02 Cement Conc. Sidewalk Removal Incl. Haul 190 SY $ 30.00 $ 5,700.00 45.00 $ 8,550.00 43.00 $ 8,170.00 46.00 $ 8,740.00 109.50 $ 20,805.00 8 2 -02 Cement Conc. Curb Removal Incl. Haul 890 LF $ 10.00 $ 8,900.00 8.90 $ 7,921.00 20.00 $ 17,800.00 8.00 $ 7,120.00 11.65 $ 10,368.50 9 2 -02 Removal of Structure and Obstruction 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 100.00 $ 100.00 2000.00 $ 2,000.00 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 550.00 $ 550.00 10 2 -03 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul 130 CY $ 50.00 $ 6,500.00 20.00 $ 2,600.00 25.00 $ 3,250.00 40.00 $ 5,200.00 26.00 $ 3,380.00 11 2 -03 Gravel Borrow Incl. Haul 250 TON $ 25.00 $ 6,250.00 20.00 $ 5,000.00 10.00 $ 2,500.00 18.00 $ 4,500.00 17.50 $ 4,375.00 12 4 -04 Crushed Surfacing Top Course 210 TON $ 30.00 $ 6,300.00 20.00 $ 4,200.00 20.00 $ 4,200.00 50.00 $ 10,500.00 46.50 $ 9,765.00 13 5 -04 Pavement Repair Excavation Incl. Haul 620 CY $ 60.00 $ 37,200.00 87.00 $ 53,940.00 60.00 $ 37,200.00 121.00 $ 75,020.00 88.00 $ 54,560.00 14 5 -04 HMA CI. 1/2" PG 64 -22 3901 TON $ 82.00 $ 319,882.00 77.00 $ 300,377.00 70.00 $ 273,070.00 82.50 $ 321,832.50 78.00 $ 304,278.00 15 5 -04 HMA for Pavement Repair CI. 112" PG 64 -22 1320 TON $ 90.00 $ 118,800.00 90.00 $ 118,800.00 80.00 $ 105,600.00 102.00 $ 134,640.00 103.00 $ 135,960.00 16 5-04 Thickened Edge 140 LF $ 2.00 $ 280.00 1.00 $ 140.00 2.00 $ 280.00 5.00 $ 700.00 6.50 $ 910.00 17 5-04 Planing Bituminous Pavement 17890 SY $ 5.00 $ 89,450.00 3.75 $ 67,087.50 3.50 $ 62,615.00 3.20 $ 57,248.00 4.40 $ 78,716.00 18 7 -12 Adjust Water Valve 47 EA $ 400.00 $ 18,800.00 425.00 $ 19,975.00 300.00 $ 14,100.00 600.00 $ 28,200.00 305.00 $ 14,335.00 19 7 -12 Adjust Water Meter Box 1 EA $ 500.00 $ 500.00 300.00 $ 300.00 300.00 $ 300.00 500.00 $ 500.00 320.00 $ 320.00 20 8-01 ErosionlWater Pollution Control 1 FA $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 3500.00 $ 3,500.00 3500.00 $ 3,500.00 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 3500.00 $ 3,500.00 21 8-01 Inlet Protection 41 EA $ 75.00 $ 3,075.00 70.00 $ 2,870.00 75.00 $ 3,075.00 90.00 $ 3,690.00 46.50 $ 1,906.50 22 8-04 Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and Gutter 910 LF $ 30.00 $ 27,300.00 20.00 $ 18,200.00 20.00 $ 18,200.00 36.00 $ 32,760.00 20.50 $ 18,655.00 23 8-04 Extruded Curb 690 LF $ 10.00 $ 6,900.00 7.00 $ 4,830.00 6.90 $ 4,761.00 7.00 $ 4,830.00 7.50 $ 5,175.00 23A 8-04 Remove and Replace Precast Dual Faced Sloped Mountable Curb 280 LF $ 10.00 $ 2,800.00 20.00 $ 5,600.00 19.00 $ 5,320.00 33.00 $ 9,240.00 24.00 $ 6,720.00 24 8-06 Cement Conc. Driveway Entrance 110 SY $ 80.00 $ 8,800.00 50.00 $ 5,500.00 93.00 $ 10,230.00 70.00 $ 7,700.00 51.50 $ 5,665.00 25 8-13 Adjust Monument Case and Cover 8 EA $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 350.00 $ 2,800.00 300.00 $ 2,400.00 600.00 $ 4,800.00 305.00 $ 2,440.00 g.AEE c sit: LS(SCItEOULE<J 26 8-20 Traffic Signal M difications (Gateway Drive and Interurban A S) Compl t 1 LS $ 38,500.00 $ 38,500.00 21000.00 $ 21,000.00 20500.00 $ 20,500.00 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 29000.00 $ 29,000.00 27 8-20 Traffic Signal Modifications (Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park W), Complete 1 LS $ 57,000.00 $ 57,000.00 30000.00 $ 30,000.00 28500.00 $ 28,500.00 34,000.00 $ 34,000.00 40200.00 $ 40,200.00 28 8-20 Traffic Signal Modifications (Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park E), Complete 1 LS $ 37,500.00 $ 37,500.00 28000.00 $ 28,000.00 27500.00 $ 27,500.00 31,000.00 $ 31,000.00 36400.00 $ 36,400.00 1D ALKt E*ED11LEA 29 8-14 Cement Conc. Sidewalk 190 SY $ 55.00 $ 10,450.00 60.00 $ 11,400.00 60.00 $ 11,400.00 60.00 $ 11,400.00 63.00 $ 11,970.00 30 8-14 Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Parallel A 9 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 13,500.00 950.00 $ 8,550.00 1880.00 $ 16,920.00 2,600.00 $ 23,400.00 1000.00 $ 9,000.00 31 8-14 Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Parallel B 1 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 950.00 $ 950.00 1880.00 $ 1,880.00 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 1000.00 $ 1,000.00 32 8-14 Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Single Direction A Modified 2 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 1300.00 $ 2,600.00 2318.00 $ 4,636.00 2,600.00 $ 5,200.00 1400.00 $ 2,800.00 33 8-14 Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Combination 1 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 1100.00 $ 1,100.00 2115.00 $ 2,115.00 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 1200.00 $ 1,200.00 34 8-15 Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type PerpendicularA 3 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 4,500.00 800.00 $ 2,400.00 1365.00 $ 4,095.00 2,600.00 $ 7,800.00 850.00 $ 2,550.00 STO M D,EAI5 GE,(SC IEQULE. ? 35 7 -05 Adjust Catch Basin 41 EA $ 450.00 $ 18,450.00 100.00 $ 4,100.00 400.00 $ 16,400.00 700.00 $ 28,700.00 410.00 $ 16,810.00 36 7 -05 Rectangular Vaned Grate 4 EA $ 600.00 $ 2,400.00 250.00 $ 1,000.00 150.00 $ 600.00 500.00 $ 2,000.00 375.00 $ 1,500.00 37 7 -05 Storm Manhole Frame and Cover 1 EA $ 700.00 $ 700.00 700.00 $ 700.00 350.00 $ 350.00 500.00 $ 500.00 375.00 $ 375.00 38 7 -05 Storm Drain Marker 41 EA $ 50.00 $ 2,050.00 15.00 $ 615.00 15.00 $ 615.00 15.00 $ 615.00 16.00 $ 656.00 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 39 7 -05 Adjust Manhole 10 EA $ 500.00 $ 5,000.00 550.00 $ 5,500.00 400.00 $ 4,000.00 700.00 $ 7,000.00 410.00 $ 4,100.00 40 7 -05 Sewer Manhole Frame and Cover 1 EA $ 700.00 $ 700.00 700.00 $ 700.00 350.00 $ 350.00 500.00 $ 500.00 375.00 $ 375.00 ;,,_..,_..,.,..,.,.?I 0..99,,...,,_. 9 .T?i Elf: g,...:u:,..,g..,..E,,.;,A,. ... �A T £ D. L A ,::.::: FF � t 41 8-09 Rased Pavement Marker Type 1 45 HUND $ 160.00 $ 7,200.00 165.00 $ 7,425.00 163.00 $ 7,335.00 163.00 $ 7,335.00 173.50 $ 7,807.50 42 8-09 Raised Pavement Marker Type 2 14 HUND $ 400.00 $ 5,600.00 350.00 $ 4,900.00 340.00 $ 4,760.00 340.00 $ 4,760.00 362.50 $ 5,075.00 43 8-22 Plastic Traffic Arrow 14 EA $ 100.00 $ 1,400.00 60.00 $ 840.00 57.00 $ 798.00 57.00 $ 798.00 61.00 $ 854.00 44 8-22 Plastic Stop Line 170 LF $ 10.00 $ 1,700.00 7.00 $ 1,190.00 6.65 $ 1,130.50 7.00 $ 1,190.00 7.05 $ 1,198.50 45 8-22 Plastic Crosswalk Line 1700 SF $ 5.00 $ 8,500.00 3.50 $ 5,950.00 3.47 $ 5,899.00 3.50 $ 5,950.00 3.70 $ 6,290.00 46 8-22 Plastic Line, 4 Inch 1740 LF $ 2.00 $ 3,480.00 1.00 $ 1,740.00 0.95 $ 1,653.00 1.00 $ 1,740.00 1.00 $ 1,740.00 47 8-22 Plastic Rumble Strip 390 LF $ 3.00 $ 1,170.00 4.50 $ 1,755.00 4.44 $ 1,731.60 4.50 $ 1,755.00 4.70 $ 1,833.00 48 8 -23 Temporary Paint Line 7220 LF $ 1.00 $ 7,220.00 0.20 $ 1,444.00 0.17 $ 1,227.40 0.20 $ 1,444.00 0.20 $ 1,444.00 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... =gYi .PiP:0.'WT�.' . EOU £iA ,::.iii:. Q.AD51�0£ 0. 0 E co U 0 0 U 0 z 0 S S 8. 8. 8. co d E U 8. 0 Gl d CA 8. 8. 0 8. E 8. 8. ) ro s. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 0 8. 8. cgo s. s. s. $ 1,015,369.50 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (SCHEDULE A) $ 1,134,277.00 ! ! 5-04 IHMA for TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (SCHEDULE B) $ co 0 Sidewalk Removal Incl. Haul Curb Removal Incl. Haul Removal of Structure an : 5 -04 IHMA CI. 1/2" PG 64 -22 8-04 (Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and « ira ban Ave S (SR 181)), Complet Conc. Curb Ramp Type Parallel A $ ! + o U 8. o o 8. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 0 E 8. d d d d d ob U O U Z O Q LO TO: City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Transportation Committee FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Directo BY: Dave Sorensen, Project. Manager DATE: June 12, 2015 SUBJECT: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Project No. 91510405 Consultant Selection and Agreement Haggerton, Mayor ISSUE Execute a contract with The Transpo Group USA Inc. to prepare Tukwila's ADA Transition Plan. BACKGROUND Compliance with current federal ADA design features is required on all city, state, and federal facilities and infrastructure, The design requirements are periodically updated and have changed significantly over the years. A considerable number of infrastructure improvements have been constructed aver the past 20+ years that do not meet the current ADA standards. An ADA Transition Plan is necessary to address known deficiencies and to implement an ADA Program that will bring the City into compliance with ADA standards within a reasonable time frame. DISCUSSION Three (3) consulting firms prevailed as finalists from the original MRSC Consultant Roster of 27 firms. The finalists were interviewed in person for the desired engineering services. The final ranking results were made at the conclusion of the interviews: The Transpo Group USA Inc, 1st Choice Fehr and Peers 2nd Choice HDJ Design Group 3'd Choice The Transpo Group USA Inc. has prepared the attached contract, scope of work, and fee estimate to provide engineering services to provide a self- assessment of the City's infrastructure, including known ADA deficiencies and to begin development of an ADA Transition Plan with policies to reasonably correct unknown deficiencies. FINANCIAL_ IMPACT Contract Budget Transition Plan. Contract $104,200.00 $ 105,000.00 RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to approve the contract with the Transpo Group USA Inc. in the amount of $104,200.00 for the ADA Transition Plan and consider this item at the June 22, 2015 Committee of the Whole Meeting and then on to the Consent. Agenda at the Special Meeting that same night. attachments: Page 20, 2015 CIP Contract, Scope of Work, and Fee 17 W:1PW EngtPROJECTS'A- RW & RS Projectstidl ©A Transition Plan (91510405)'aC nsul'tant SelectlonlTC ©oca\Finat Does to TC'lnfo Memo Consult Salad & AG Transpo 0 f w1 5.docx CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2015 to 2020 PROJECT: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvements Project No. 91210405 DESCRIPTION: Construct ADA compliant upgrades to City infrastructure in conjunction with a City developed plan. JUSTIFICATION: The enforcement of ADA laws and standards was delayed pending legal challenges and studies. Recent court rulings now mandate ADA compliance. The City must provide upgrades with most construction projects. STATUS: Provide annual funding to construct improvements as necessary. For 2015, develop a citywide plan. MAINT. IMPACT: Negligible. COMMENT: Project will be ongoing until City facilities and infrastructure meet ADA requirements. Only one year actuals shown in first column. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 31 6 105 5 5 5 5 5 5 172 Land (R /W) 0 Const. Mgmt. 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 66 Construction 93 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 443 TOTAL EXPENSES 31 109 163 63 63 63 63 63 63 681 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigation Actual 0 Traffic Impact Fees 0 City Oper. Revenue 31 109 163 63 63 63 63 63 63 681 TOTAL SOURCES 31 109 163 63 63 63 63 63 63 681 2015 - 2020 Capital Improvement Program 20 18 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, hereinafter referred to as "the City ", and The Transpo Group, hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant ", in consideration of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified. 1. Project Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform design services in connection with the project titled ADA Transition Plan. 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies. 3. Duration of Agreement; Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing upon execution and ending April 1, 2016, unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. Work under this Agreement shall commence upon written notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement no later than April 1, 2016 unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City. 4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services rendered under this Agreement as follows: A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not exceed $104,200.00 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the City. B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made to the Consultant in the amount approved. C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City. D. Payment as provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed, services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City and the state of Washington for a period of three (3) years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon request. 19 5. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this Agreement shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any use of the said documents, drawings, specifications or other materials by the City on any project other than the project specified in this Agreement. 6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services rendered under this Agreement. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Consultant's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 8. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. Consultant's maintenance of insurance as required by the agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A. Minimum Amounts and Scope of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types and with the limits described below: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. Automobile Liability insurance shall cover all owned, non - owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. 20 2. Commercial General Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an insured under the Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City. 3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 4. Professional Liability with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. Professional Liability insurance shall be appropriate to the Consultant's profession. B. Other Insurance Provision. The Consultant's Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any Insurance, self - insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be contributed or combined with it. C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. D. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work. Certificates of coverage and endorsements as required by this section shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. E. Notice of Cancellation. The Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such notice. F. Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five business days notice to the Consultant to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Consultant from the City. 9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Consultant, or any employee of the Consultant. 21 10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, age, veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political affiliation or the presence of any disability in the selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies. 12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. 13. Non - Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 14. Termination. A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant. B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses. 15. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be subject to, and the Consultant shall at all times comply with, all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and rules, including the provisions of the City of Tukwila Municipal Code and ordinances of the City of Tukwila. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit. Venue for any action arising from or related to this Agreement shall be exclusively in King County Superior Court. 16. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions of this Agreement, which by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the completion, expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement. 22 17. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address: City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address: 18. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by the parties. DATED this CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor, Jim Haggerton day of , 2014 CONSULTANT By: Printed Name: Title: Attest /Authenticated: Approved as to Form: City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty Office of the City Attorney 23 EXHIBIT "A" City of Tukwila ADA Self- Assessment and Transit Plan Scope of Work The Americans with Disabilities (ADA) act of 1990 provides comprehensive civil rights protections to persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local government services, and access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. There are five titles (or parts) to the ADA, of which Title II is most pertinent to travel in the public right -of -way. This title specifies equal access to all services, programs and activities that are provided or made available by public entities. This ADA Self - Assessment and Transit Plan will comprehensively address the requirements of ADA Title II, Part 35, Subpart D - Program Accessibility § 35.150 (d) (3) which states: The plan shall, at a minimum - (i) Identify physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit the accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities; (ii) Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible; (iii) Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve compliance with this section and, if the time period of the transition plan is longer than one year, identify steps that will be taken during each year of the transition period; and (iv) Indicate the official responsible for implementation of the plan. The scope of work contained below meets all of the requirements identified above. The City has decided to focus on the core plan components and has thus deferred completion of the draft and final plan until 2016 when funds are available for that work. Task 6 is therefore not funded and has been identified as deferred task below. The description of Task 6 has however been kept to show what will be contained within a completed ADA Transition Plan and expedite approval of the task when funds are available. The consultant team will work closely with both the City and FHWA to refine this scope of work and the resulting ADA Transition Plan into a model document. To help deliver a high - quality and timely deliverable, Transpo Group has brought IDAX and Endelman & Associates onto the project team. They will provide data collection staffing and expertise as well as guidance on plan defensibility and best practices. Task r j c t and Coordination Because of the collaborative nature of this project, communication is an important element. Close coordination with the City of Tukwila and the project team will be the project manager's top priority. At the onset, our project manager will schedule checkpoints 24 throughout the project. These checkpoints, which might coincide with major deliverables, will be used to ensure the work program is progressing as scoped. • The consultant team project manager will coordinate with the City's project manager on a regular basis (weekly or bi- weekly) throughout the duration of the project. The coordination will address project scope /status, technical and policy direction, budget, schedule, and meetings. Coordination will be via telephone calls, email, and meetings, as appropriate. • The consultant team members will email City staff or other stakeholders, as appropriate, to inform them of status, upcoming meetings, and data needs. The emails may include draft materials for their review. • Prepare monthly progress reports and invoices. Agency Support • The City's project manager will regularly keep in contact with consultant team and communicate internally to rest of City staff on progress and schedule. • The City will facilitate engagement from partners like FHWA and WSDOT. Consultant Deliverables • Creation of an ADA Transition Plan outline based on this SOW and used to inform project completion and task related deliverables. • A project schedule including the key project tasks timeline and deliverable deadlines • Notes, emails, or other summaries of communication. • Monthly progress reports. Task 2 — Self Assessment Data Collection Data collection is the foundation of this project, providing a clear understanding of what accessibility barriers exist and what needs to be done to remove them. The consultant team will begin by updating and confirming that the data dictionary attributes meet the needs of the city and conform to the latest ADA regulations. Barrier data will be collected using tablets and stored on a real -time cloud database for immediate review. The data dictionary structure, which will include sidewalk (15 -20 attributes), curb ramps (10 -20 attributes), driveways ( -5 attributes) and pushbuttons ( -5), will be updated in coordination with FWHA and WSDOT. Where possible, existing data like sidewalk shapefiles will be built upon to increase the speed of data collection. Once collected, data will be reviewed for quality by both IDAX and Transpo Group. Barrier data will be mapped and summarized to easily show where and how many barriers exist within the public rights of way. If desired, the consultant team will work with City staff to develop procedures to maintain up -to -date data. 25 Agency Support • Provide existing shapefile data and any database requirements. • Facilitate coordination with FHWA and WSDOT on data dictionary. Consultant Deliverables • Collect and QC barrier database in GIS shapefile format. • Develop tables and maps summarizing existing ADA barriers. • Review of data dictionary by Endelman & Associates to ensure data collection completeness. Task 3 — Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder engagement, especially with people who have disabilities, is a required element of ADA Transition Plans. Stakeholder engagement will be conducted through a coordinated effort of both the consultant team and City staff. This format will utilize transferable consultant tools and experience while also leveraging the relationships and local knowledge brought by City staff. Engagement will begin early and target stakeholder groups that are representative of people who have disabilities. Engagement to groups like Mobility Coalition, Medicaid transportation brokers, Lighthouse for the Blind, King County 211, Meals on Wheels, , senior centers, Metro DART, and ORCA Lift are all examples of groups that serve people who have disabilities. As the project begins, public notice and how individuals or groups can get involved will be shared by City staff. Once the self - assessment database of accessibility barriers has been finalized, it will be shared with stakeholders at a public open house. This event will be scheduled in coordination with an existing meeting or event where people who have disabilities are already present. This approach of taking the meeting to the stakeholders, rather than asking them to come to you, is an effective tool to improve public feedback. In addition to this meeting the consultant team will present the draft plan to the Transportation Committee as well as the City Council. Agency Support • Schedule and provide venue for open house. • Provide support staff as necessary (e.g. providing sign language interpreter, translator, etc.) • Reach out to individuals with limited mobility or vision, as well as groups that work with those individuals. Consultant Deliverables • Develop materials for open house. 26 • Develop paper survey to capture stakeholder feedback. • Develop map where stakeholders can mark high - priority areas for barrier removal. • Summarize public engagement efforts, comments received, people reached, and general findings. All comments will be recorded in a plan appendix. • Task Barrier ova This task identifies how barriers in the public right of way will be removed. This includes design elements that will ensure new or reconstructed facilities are accessible, as well as mechanisms to construct and fund barrier removal. The two major elements to this task are a design standards audit, and barrier removal methodology. In coordination with city engineering staff and public works inspectors, the consultant team will identify which United State Access Board design standards are most appropriate for the City. The US Access Board is the federal agency that sets design standards for accessible design in the built environment. The consultant team will then review City design standards to ensure current standards meet Access Board's design guidance. Detailed changes to existing design standards will be recommended based on this audit. The consultant team will also identify methods in which barriers within the public right -of- way will be removed. This will identify ways in which the City has already been working to remove barriers. It will also identify ways in which private development, pavement overlay projects, roadway widening, roadway reconstruction, maintenance, signal upgrades or other physical changes to the right -of -way will be required to address barriers. Suggestions for coordinating these improvements with other non - motorized improvements and funded will also be outlined. Agency Support • Provide existing city design standards and guidance. • Provide documentation of existing barrier removal procedures and funding stream. • Provide current CIP and Transportation Element. Consultant Deliverables • Work with the City to establish procedure for documentation of facilities not built to ADA standards. This is called "maximum extent feasible" documentation and is particularly useful in areas where topography can create design challenges for pedestrian facilities. • Provide audit findings and recommendations to City. • Develop barrier removal methods and how they can be coordinated and focused to maximize benefits. • Endelman & Associates will review barrier removal methods for defensibility 27 Task — Implementation Schedule Developing a transition schedule is a key requirement of all ADA transition plans requiring more than a year to implement. Effective plans prioritize removal of high impact barriers in a systematic manner through prioritization of barrier removal, a multiyear schedule, identification of funding streams, planning level cost estimates, and establishment of a monitoring system. Prioritization of barriers will include input from stakeholders, multi - criteria analysis of the severity of each individual barrier, and multi - criteria GIS spatial analysis of the location of each barrier. Data collected in the self - assessment task will be used to prioritize each barrier. The proximity to public buildings, parks, schools, bus stops, health service and other commercial or retail destinations will also be used to prioritize barrier removal. In the end, this process will help the City proactively identify the barriers that should be removed first and outline a transparent process that is being followed. The City will also identify a multi -year schedule for removal of barriers. This schedule will be informed by planning level cost estimates and dedicated funding resources, as well as leveraging related funding resources. ADA barriers are often removed by street overlay programs or redevelopment, and cities should highlight this progress. Agency Support • Identification of city priorities around barrier removal. • GIS data such as parks, schools, bus stops, functional class, public facilities, etc. • Unit cost assumptions for planning level cost estimates. • Facilitate FHWA review of barrier removal schedule. • Provide current CIP and Transportation Element and information about other funding streams such as Transportation Benefit Districts. Consultant Deliverables • Schedule for barrier removal, including a list of the highest priority projects. • Map showing the location of high priority projects. • Planning level cost estimates for barrier removal. (DEFERRED) Task 6 — Draft and Final Plan The italic text below has been deferred and is not included in this scope of work. It has been kept to provide a starting point for future work order when city funding is available. This task includes development of a targeted, accessible and easy -to- understand document. Deliverables from other tasks including memos, maps, and tables will be adapted and consolidated into a single coherent document. The document will be clearly structured to 28 meet the requirements of ADA Title II. Best practices will be integrated and highlighted throughout the plan and suggestions from partner agencies will be included. In addition to the self - assessment and implementation schedule, there are various changes to City procedures, communication protocols and staffing that are required as part of an ADA transition plan. Although these changes will be completed internally by the City, they have been added to ensure all required elements of the transition plan are reflected within the scope of work. Per ADA Title II Part 35, Subpart D - Program Accessibility § 35.150 (d)(3) ADA Transition Plans must include: • Identification of an "ADA Coordinator" • Development of protocols to ensure information is accessible • Development of a grievance procedure The consultant team will provide guidance on best practices. This could include providing guidance on who should be the ADA Coordinator or how to provide barrier information in an accessible manner. Agency Support • Provide direction on draft plan including two rounds of comments /edits of draft plan. • The City will identify an ADA coordinator, improve information accessibility, and develop a grievance procedure. • The City will work with FHWA on capturing comments and suggestions for how to improve the transition plan. Consultant Deliverables • Develop draft transition plan and incorporate two rounds of edits. • Develop final transition plan. • Advise on best practices in ADA transition planning with regards to city tasks. • Endelman & Associates will review draft plan and provide suggestions for improving the defensibility of policies or procedures. They can also provide guidance on development of ADA plans for buildings and parks. Task 7 — Pedestrian Crossing Study This task includes a traffic engineering analysis of pedestrian trip generation in the vicinity of Tukwila International Boulevard at S. 141st ST to determine if a pedestrian crossing on Tukwila International Boulevard is warranted at this location and what type of crossing would be justified, if any. 29 Consultant Deliverables • Provide a traffic engineering report with findings as to whether a pedestrian crossing is warranted and what type of crossing should be constructed if warranted. 30 Transpo Group USA, Inc. Exhibit B - Cost Estimate Worksheet City of Tukwila ADA Transition Plan Pay rates are effective from June 28, 2014 through June 26, 2015, within the ranges shown in the attachment. Only key staff are shown and other staff may work on and charge to the project as needed by the project manager. Labor: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Re 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 initials job title cost rate Task 1 - Project Management and Coordination Project Management Billing Project Manager Quality Control GIS Admin Project Engineer GIS/ Graphics Project Admin MEABRI111111111, Plnr L3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 011iiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Prin L7 An 1 L4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii �rrrrrr�IIIIIIoiiiiiiiiiiiiii En. L4 siiiiiiiiiiiiiiAM MEI= rrrrrr�111m PA L4 $115.00 $195.00 $115.00 $140.00 $90.00 $115.00 36 8 44 $5,700 12 2 8 22 $2,690 Task 2 - Self- Assessment IDAX Tasks Training and QC Documentation and Coordination See Below 16 12 12 10 50 $5,800 16 4 16 20 4 60 $6,720 Task 3 - Stakeholder Engagement Open house (Materials, staffing, survey, etc.) Documentation and Coordination 24 8 60 92 $9,720 12 2 20 34 $3,570 Task 4 - Barrier Removal Design audit Barrier removal methods Documentation and Coordination 24 34 8 66 $8,240 20 6 12 12 50 $6,230 12 4 12 12 40 $4,920 Task 5 - Implementation Schedule Barrier Prioritization Planning Level cost estimates Schedule development Documentation and Coordination 16 2 12 40 70 $7,210 12 2 24 38 $3,930 16 2 12 30 $3,310 20 2 24 46 $4,850 Task 6 - Draft and Final Plan Draft Plan and (2 rounds of edits) Final Plan Consultation on city elements Deferred Deferred Deferred Task 7 - Pedestrian Crossing Study 4 20 19 43 $4,970 Other Multiple Tasks (Endelman and Associates) See Below Total Hours 240 42 40 90 261 12 685 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LLL $27,600 Application VIII I Business Meals $5,000 Mileage $225 Miscellaneous Models /Renderings /Photos Parking Records Filing Registrations Reproductions Shipping /Courier Specialty Software Supplies Traffic Accident Data Traffic Count Vendors Travel, Hotel, Taxi, & Air Fare Sub Total 225 lifililieltdentl $8,190 $4,600 $12,600 $23,490 Subconsultants: 1 2 3 4 5 $1,380 IIIIIIIIIIII000 0 uiiiii,,,,, IDAX $21,000 Endelman and Associates $5,000 Sub Total 00000000000000 64'1' $26,000 11111111111111MEZ211 Cost Estimate Prepared on: 6/9/2015 31 32 City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Committee Mayor Haggerton FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director BY: Cyndy Knighton, Senior Program Manager DATE: June 12, 2015 SUBJECT: Transit Network Plan Update Project No. 91510409 Consultant Selection and Design Agreei nt ISSUE Approve consultant selection and agreement for the Transit. Network Plan Update. rm Haggerton, Mayor BACKGROUND In 2005, the City adopted its first Transit Network Plan as part of the larger update to the Transportation Element Update, The Transit Network Plan has served as a guiding document for Tukwila in implementing projects such as the Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center on Andover Park West, as well as providing background material and policy direction when working with the transit agencies. The most recent update to the Transportation Element in 2012 did not include an update to the Transit Network Plan. Tukwila was not required by state law to update the Transit. Network Plan but Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) staff reviewing the Transportation Element strongly suggested that the City consider updating it. DISCUSSION From the suggestions made by PSRC during the certification review of the Transportation Element, as well as an ongoing need to have current data, vision, and policy direction on public transit within the City limits, an update to the Transit Network Plan was included in the 2015 - 2015 Budget. Thomas Wittman, currently a Principal at. Nelson /Nygaard, was the primary author of the original 2005 Transit Network Plan during his tenure at Perteet Engineering. Mr. Wittmann is uniquely qualified to continue his original work as his expertise blends transit planning, transit operations, and transportation engineering. FISCAL IMPACT There is $100,000 budgeted in 2015 for the Transit Network Plan under the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (page 23, 2015 CIP). The $75 „030 fee from Nelson /Nygaard is considered reasonable for the scope of work included. RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to approve the contract with Nelson /Nygaard in the amount of $75,303.00 for the Transit. Network Plan Update and consider this item at the June 22, 2015 . Committee of the Whole Meeting and then on the Consent Agenda at the subsequent. Special Meeting that same night. Attachments: Page 23, 2015 CIP Consultant Agreement 33 W:1PW EngIPROJECTSIA RW & RS Pr ©feclslTransll Network Pharr Update (9151040 INFO MEMO - Consultant Selection and Award 06.12.15 gl.docx CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2015 to 2020 PROJECT: Transportation Element of Comprehensive Plan Project No. Varies DESCRIPTION: Update Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include updated traffic model and street network plan. JUSTIFICATION: Growth Management Act transportation concurrency and traffic impact mitigations need updated traffic and capital planning. Adoption by 2012 required by Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED). STATUS: Update every 8 years. Transportation Element will be coordinated with updates to Comprehensive Plan by the Department of Community Development. Next update is scheduled for 2021. MAINT. IMPACT: None. COMMENT: An update to the Transit Plan as a portion of the Transportation Element of the Comp Plan is scheduled for 2015 and Tukwila South traffic impact mitigation is scheduled for 2016. FINANCIAL Through Estimated in $000's 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 425 100 50 600 1,175 Land (R /W) 0 Const. Mgmt. 0 Construction 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 425 0 100 50 0 0 0 0 600 1,175 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 70 70 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigation 0 Impact Fees 0 City Oper. Revenue 355 0 100 50 0 0 0 0 600 1,105 TOTAL SOURCES 425 0 100 50 0 0 0 0 600 1,175 2015 - 2020 Capital Improvement Program 23 34 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Contract Number: CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT PLANNING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, hereinafter referred to as "the City ", and Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant ", in consideration of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified. 1. Project Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform transit planning services in connection with the project titled Transit Network Plan Update. 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies. 3. Duration of Agreement; Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing upon execution and ending March 31, 2016, unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. Work under this Agreement shall commence upon written notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement no later than March 31, 2016 unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City. 4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services rendered under this Agreement as follows: A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not exceed $75,030.00 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the City. B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made to the Consultant in the amount approved. C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City. D. Payment as provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed, services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City and the state of Washington for a period of three (3) years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon request. 35 5. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this Agreement shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any use of the said documents, drawings, specifications or other materials by the City on any project other than the project specified in this Agreement. 6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services rendered under this Agreement. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Consultant's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 8. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. Consultant's maintenance of insurance as required by the agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A. Minimum Amounts and Scope of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types and with the limits described below: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. Automobile Liability insurance shall cover all owned, non - owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. CA revised : 1 -2013 Page 2 36 2. Commercial General Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an insured under the Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City. 3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 4. Professional Liability with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. Professional Liability insurance shall be appropriate to the Consultant's profession. B. Other Insurance Provision. The Consultant's Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any Insurance, self - insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be contributed or combined with it. C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. D. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work. Certificates of coverage and endorsements as required by this section shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. E. Notice of Cancellation. The Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such notice. F. Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five business days notice to the Consultant to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Consultant from the City. 9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Consultant, or any employee of the Consultant. CA revised : 1 -2013 Page 3 37 10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, age, veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political affiliation or the presence of any disability in the selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies. 12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. 13. Non - Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 14. Termination. A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant. B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses. 15. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be subject to, and the Consultant shall at all times comply with, all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and rules, including the provisions of the City of Tukwila Municipal Code and ordinances of the City of Tukwila. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit. Venue for any action arising from or related to this Agreement shall be exclusively in King County Superior Court. 16. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions of this Agreement, which by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the completion, expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement. CA revised : 1 -2013 Page 4 38 17. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address: City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address: 18. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by the parties. DATED this CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor, Jim Haggerton day of , 20 CONSULTANT By: Printed Name: Title: Attest/Authenticated: Approved as to Form: City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty Office of the City Attorney CA revised : 1 -2013 Page 5 39 Exhibit A City of Tukwila Tukwila Transit Plan Scope of Work NELSON Submitted by Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98101 206 - 357 -7521 CONTACT: Thomas Wittmann TITLE: Principal EMAIL: twittmann @nelsonnygaard.com TASK i ....,,,,PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1.1 Kickoff Meeting The project will be initiated with a meeting including appropriate Nelson \Nygaard and City staff. The purposes of this kickoff meeting are to: • Discuss the scope of work and schedule to identify expectations • Identify and discuss desired outcomes of the project • Identify and discuss all major issues that should be addressed • Discuss the outreach process • Discuss documents to be reviewed • Discuss data availability and data collection approach • Clarify roles, responsibilities, and procedures A draft agenda will be submitted to City staff for review and revision prior to the meeting and meeting notes will be recorded. We will also provide a meeting summary. DELIVERABLES: Draft Agenda Meeting Summary 1.2 Ongoing Administration At Nelson \Nygaard we believe in proactive project management. In line with this, we will organize regular calls to discuss project status, critical -path issues, next steps, and timelines. Nelson \Nygaard will also provide monthly progress reports including a summary of all work completed during the month, in- progress and upcoming tasks /next steps, invoices, and remaining budget. All deliverables will be reviewed by Project Manager Thomas Wittmann and by Nelson \Nygaard copy editors prior to submittal. Nelson \Nygaard will, using its quality assurance /quality control standards, ensure that all deliverables are factually accurate, carefully detailed, well - written and illustrated, and responsive to the needs of the City. 40 Exhibit A DELIVERABLES: Phone Meeting Minutes Monthly Invoices Monthly Progress Reports TASK 2 A KET ANA YS S& OUTREACH 2.1 Stakeholder and Community Outreach There are multiple reasons to conduct stakeholder outreach: to better understand community perceptions, priorities, and needs and to build interest in and support for the planning process. Stakeholder interviews can increase the sense of "ownership" or "buy -in" for final recommendations. As part of this task, interviews will be conducted with key stakeholders, possibly including members of local organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, public agency staff at the Mayor's Office, City of Tukwila, King County, Sound Transit, and other agencies as appropriate. Because of the need to understand both Sound Transit and King County Metro's long -range processes, multiple meetings with both transit agencies are anticipated. Additional community outreach will be designed to both circulate information about the project through local media outlets such as the Hazelnut Newsletter and TukTV and to gather feedback from stakeholders. In additional to online outreach efforts (Task 2.2) the community outreach task assumes one public meeting as well as 1-3 "pop -up" workshops as described below. Storefront Workshops or Pop -Up Open Houses Because "traditional" community meetings are not always well attended, we will explore the possibility of hosting pop -up "open houses" or storefront workshops. This approach allows us to take the project to the streets, setting up an open house along a heavily- traveled transit route or near a major transit destination, for example Tukwila Station. Various groups and individuals would have the opportunity to come by throughout our stay to examine progress, comment on the existing conditions maps or recommendations, and provide other forms of input. This open approach helps to galvanize support and raise awareness of the planning process. Comment cards or a short in- person survey can be used to document feedback. Traditional Public Workshop Although this type of workshop does not work for everyone, we could schedule an evening session that includes a formal presentation and small -group activities. We would facilitate the workshop in a manner that is both informative and interactive, taking a big - picture approach that asks for feedback about general locations and routes as opposed to detailed design. DELIVERABLES: Stakeholder Interview Scripts, Public Outreach Materials 41 Exhibit A 2.2 Build Your Own System Web Survey Nelson \Nygaard developed an interactive "Build -A- System" tool that incorporates technical data into a web -based planning model that allows users to "design their own transit system" given a set level of resources (usually a financial limitation). As participants develop their system, they can see real benefits in terms of ridership, travel time, or environmental benefits in real -time. This tool brings value because it allows users to understand the tradeoffs associated with transit service planning and benefits associated with transit resource allocation. Nelson /Nygaard has used this tool to help users understand transit planning tradeoffs. The results have allowed for a prioritization of service, capital investments, as well as complementary non -auto transportation improvements. We will supplement the Build Your Own System website with additional web -based survey questions. The survey will consist of up to 20 questions requiring simple "yes /no" and multiple choices when possible, plus a selected number of open -ended responses that enable respondents to provide the full picture of their opinions, interests, travel patterns, and preferences. The purpose of the survey is to allow both current and non - transit users to provide input about the types of changes that would be needed to make them more likely to ride in the future. After draft recommendations have been developed, a summary of the process, the recommendations, and a feedback mechanism will be developed. DELIVERABLES: Survey Summary Memorandum Data files from all surveys, summarizing priorities, votes, and open -ended comments 42 Exhibit A 2.3 Review Existing Plans, Data, and Materials Nelson \Nygaard will review all relevant prior planning documents and produce a summary that emphasizes key findings and recommendations from previous studies and notes which recommendations have been implemented. Plans to be reviewed include but are not limited to the following: • Tukwila 2005 Transit Network Plan • Sound Transit Long Range Plan • Sound Transit III Planning Documents • King County Metro Strategic Plan 2007 -2016 and 2011 -2021 • King County Metro Planning Documents • City of Tukwila Planned Development Data • City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan • Planning documents for adjacent cities 2.4 Demographic Demand Analysis Using data from the US Census, we will examine the City area to determine the potential and propensity for transit ridership. Demographic information will be portrayed in GIS -based maps depicting the spatial distribution of populations having similar demographic characteristics. Nelson \Nygaard will overlay existing routes over these maps to compare how transit currently provides service with respect to transit demand. From these comparisons, we will assess where transit market opportunities exist but are unserved or underserved. Demographic Characteristics: Certain populations— seniors, young teenagers, persons from low- income households, and certain minority groups —tend to use transit to a greater extent than other groups. We will determine the size of these populations within each Census block group in the service area. A transit propensity map using demographic factors will be created. Population and Employment Densities: Population and employment densities are some of the biggest predicators of transit demand. Using the Tukwila travel demand model data and /or Census data, we will map existing and future population and employment densities and create a composite transit demand map. Employment: In addition to basic employment densities, we will map the locations of CTR employers and assess transit access and needs. We will also utilize Longitudinal Employer - Household Data (LEHD) data to evaluate work locations of Tukwila residents, work locations of those commuting from neighboring areas, and inflow /outflow. 2.5 Travel Demand Model Analysis Trip tables from the Tukwila travel demand model will be evaluated. These trip tables will be invaluable for establishing base and future year travel concentrations from one community to another and identifying how many of those trips are to transit - friendly destinations. To do this, the Nelson \Nygaard team will conduct an analysis of trip patterns between analysis zones and determine where there could be greater demand for transit than is currently being served. 43 Exhibit A DELIVERABLES: Market Analysis Memo TASK 3 EXISTING RVIC `% ANALYSIS 3.1 Conduct Route Evaluations The success of this project requires that both the Nelson \Nygaard project team and City staff have a thorough understanding of the existing system and existing travel patterns. By working from a bottom -up approach, we will be able to identify opportunities that build on the strong corridors of in Tukwila and look for maximizing new opportunities without negatively affecting existing ridership patterns. We will, on a route -by -route basis, examine each service from an overall perspective of how well it serves its intended markets, how well it works within the overall system and what changes could be made to improve route performance and responsiveness to community needs. This assessment will include King County Metro and Sound Transit service. The route -level analysis will also present operating characteristics of each route and segment, and compare performance among routes. The analyses will be based on a number of factors, including service characteristics, ridership volumes and patterns, productivity, and service issues. For each route, we will produce a route evaluation document that will present: • A description of the route, the service type, and major markets and destinations served such as colleges /universities or secondary schools • A description of the route's alignment, service patterns, and interactions with other routes • A description of other routes that also serve the same areas • Service characteristics • Ridership characteristics • Productivity and performance characteristics • An overall assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the route These route evaluations will be written in a manner that all stakeholders can clearly understand. As a result, in addition to providing the fundamental understanding necessary to plan future service, the route evaluations will also provide transparent information that supports the final recommendations. 3.2 Service Availability Analysis The span of service as well as the frequency of service influence customer perceptions of the overall quality of service. As part of this task, frequency by corridor will be shown visually for weekday peaks, midday, and evenings, as well as for Saturdays and Sundays. Likewise, a geographic representation of the times when where service is available on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays will be made. The purpose of this is to show potential gaps in the existing network and highlight unmet needs. 44 Exhibit A 3.3 Service Recommendations The new Transit Network Plan will set a clear direction for transit through 2025, and for short - term actions to be most effective, they should work toward achieving the long -term plan. For this reason, we propose to first develop the long -term plan, and then subsequently develop the short - term plan as actions that can be made over the next one to two and three to five years toward the long -term plan (of 10 years). The long -term plan will provide guidance for development of a Primary Transit Network, serving as the backbone for service in the future. Once the long -term plan has been developed, we will work backwards to determine where to start and how much can be accomplished during the first five years with limited increases in cost. This plan also will be based on the results of the service evaluation process and stakeholder input and will be developed using a similar process as the long -range plan. The short -term plan will provide an overview of the proposed changes and detailed descriptions of all individual changes. For each proposed change, the service plans will include: • A description of proposed changes • The rationale for the change • Maps of proposed changes • Planning level operating cost increases for either King County Metro or Sound Transit services, recognizing that these are not City of Tukwila costs • Capital cost planning -level estimates • Other relevant information We will also develop a high -level implementation plan that will identify the phasing of service changes and lay out the major implementation steps necessary to make the recommended changes over the terms of these two plans, including the initiation of additional planning efforts. 3.4 Transit Usability Recommendations In conjunction with the long -term and short -term plans, we will identify key improvements beyond service changes that will ensure service changes and improvements are supported by the infrastructure necessary to make for a positive transit experience from the start of the trip to the end. The usability recommendations will include an assessment of facility improvements to improve transit access, such as bus stops, pedestrian and bicycle access to stops and stations, bicycle parking, commuter parking. Stakeholder and public input will be important to informing the analysis of where there are existing deficiencies and which types of improvements are seen as most important. Transit "access" also extends beyond physical infrastructure to customer information systems that allow passengers to know where and when service will be operating. This task will include programmatic recommendations for improving access to information about transit services. Additionally, to make the most of future investments in transit service, it is critical to make the necessary steps in managing public Right -Of -Way to ensure transit service is fast and reliable. Not only do these improvements provide a higher level of service for passengers, but they also save valuable service hours, which can be reinvested into the system. Using the analysis of route performance and any recommended service changes, we will identify key projects to keep transit running smoothly such as new bus zones, layover locations, pavement improvements, changes to 45 Exhibit A signalization, and other ROW improvements that could benefit transit operations. This task will balance the competing needs of various modes throughout Tukwila, and ensure that infrastructure recommendations improve transit access and operations as well as complement other City mobility goals. 3.5 Funding Strategies With limited transit dollars, many cities are working to figure out how to best partner with transit agencies to improve transit service and /or infrastructure. In this task we will provide an overview of key opportunities for partnerships between the City and King County Metro, Sound Transit, and neighboring jurisdictions. TASK 4 DRAFT f D FINAL PLAN;; 4.1 Develop Draft and Final Report The Draft and Final Report will compile work and findings developed in previous tasks. Topics to be provided will include: • Background information and data assessment • Public outreach and input summary • Clearly established and defined updated service standards and policies • Proposed service changes • Development of transit service alternatives, including long -term and short -term service plans • Transit usability recommendations Our project manager will hold a final meeting with City and other key staff to present the draft final report. The Draft and Final Report will be based on completed work and findings from all tasks completed as part of this effort. City staff shall provide one set of non - conflicting comments to the Draft Report. Nelson \Nygaard will prepare a Final Report incorporating all staff comments. Deliverables: Draft Report, including a formal written summary of public comments and how comments comment were incorporated into the final alternative(s) Final Transit Plan and executive summary 46 - a - U Z Z 2 GIS Services GIS Services cNi co o co m Q E co o Lri rg E Ea- Ea- FH. 2 Market Analysis & Outreach Ea- Ea- Ea- Ea- Ea- Ea- Ea- Ea- Ea- Ea- Stakeholder and Community Outreach 2.2 Online Survey / Build Your Own System 2.3 Review existing Plans, Data, Materials 2.4 Demographic Demand Analysis 2.5 Travel Demand Analysis Ea- Ea- Ea- Ea- Route Evaluations 3.2 Service Availability Analysis 3.3 Service Recommendations 3.4 Transit Usability Recommendations 3.5 Funding Strategies 0 Ea- Ea- 4.1 Draft Plan tl" 47 48 SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd) May 19, 2015 MEETING SUMMARY Members Councilmember Bill Peloza (Chair) Councilmember Dana Ralph (Vice - Chair) Mayor Carol Benson Mayor Dave Kaplan Councilmember Linda Johnson Mayor Dave Hill Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge Councilmember Debi Wagner Robin Mayhew Elizabeth Leavitt Chris Arkills Charles Prestrud Lance Newkirk Councilmember Barry Ladenburg Chelsea Levy Councilmember Kathy Hougardy City of Auburn City of Kent City of Black Diamond City of Des Moines City of Maple Valley City of Algona City of Federal Way City of Burien PSRC (Alternate) Port of Seattle King County (Alternate) WSDOT (Alternate) City of Pacific City of SeaTac Sound Transit (Alternate) City of Tukwila I. Reports, Communications and Citizen Requests to Comment Vice -Chair Ralph reported on the last meeting of the Project Selection Task Force and said they reduced the preservation set -a -side from 25% to 20 %. Councilmember Ladenburg reported that the City of SeaTac supported the I -5 light rail alignment to Federal Way. The Board adopted the meeting summary for their April 21, 2015 meeting. Mr. Woosley, Eastside Transportation Association, commented on the PSRC's Stuck in Traffic report and suggested that a new direction is needed than what is recommended in Transportation 2040. He also commented on the transit and light rail mode split ridership during the PM peak and how the region's transportation dollars will be spent. II. Stuck In Traffic — Gary Simonson, PSRC Gary Simonson, PSRC, briefed the Board on PSRC's "Stuck in Traffic, 2015 Report ". As part of PSRC's long -range performance -based planning process, the PSRC is track a variety of regional demographic trends and congestion trends along the region's major highway corridors on a regular basis and will be producing a report twice a year. Key points of Mr. Simonson's presentation included: • The region has experienced a significant increase in both population and employment over the last five years, with employment growth outpacing population growth. This growth has cause increasing delay on the region's freeway and HOV system. • Transit ridership in the region is at an all -time high and continues to grow. • Despite flat vehicle travel volumes across the region, congestion (i.e., hours of delay) along the region's major highway corridors has increased significantly over the last five years, particularly between 2013 and 2014. This is due primarily to employment growth in the region, especially in region's largest employment centers. 49 • Delay along HOV lanes, particularly during the peak periods, has increased substantially in recent years. This has negatively impacted transit reliability, causing on -time performance and travel times to get significantly worse for routes that travel along freeway corridors. • In future reports PSRC will be including traffic data on arterials. IV. Southeast King County Alternative Service Delivery, Carol Cooper, Metro Transit Carol Cooper and Daniel Rowe, King County Metro Transit, brief the Board on Metro's Alternative Service Delivery Project. Ms. Cooper said this project will work towards the goal of tailoring alternative transportation services to community mobility needs. Alternative services make transportation more efficient and effective at getting people where they want to go, and offers a range of service options to the traditional fixed route transit service. Alternative services may include VanShare, VanPools, community shuttles (a route with flexible service areas), community hub (focal point for transportation in community), and flexible ridesharing (utilizes technology to find services). Mr. Rowe said the project area included Renton, Enumclaw, Auburn, Covington, Maple Valley, and Black Diamond, with a focus on the SR 164 and 169 corridors. A Stakeholder Working Group was created to offer guidance to Metro on the project. The group held their first and second meetings on March 31' and April 14th at the Covington City Hall. Mr. Rowe said they are looking for a recommendation from the working group by July. Phase 1 of the project included public outreach to engage existing and future riders. There was general satisfaction with existing service, but also heard there was a lack of evening and weekend service, service reliability could be improved, the lack of parking is barrier for commuters, interest in connections to Buckley, very little transit use between Enumclaw and Black Diamond. Based on these public comments, the following ideas were developed: add a trip in the evening to the 186, leaving Auburn Station at 7 pm; revise DART route 907; provide guaranteed or emergency ride home service for bus riders; provide incentives to form new Metro Vanpool, VanShare, and Trippool; and provide local connections between Covington, Maple Valley, and Black Diamond. These ideas will be brought back to the community for their review in Phase 2 of the project. The Board felt that greater access to park & rides lots will help increase transit ridership, and asked for a SCATBd letter support for more park and ride locations be drafted and reviewed at the next SCATBd meeting. Board members also noted that leased church parking lots were good locations for leased park & rides, and that Metro should also work with cities to identify opportunities for new or leased park & rides. Other Attendees: Gary Simonson, PSRC Jason Brown, KC Councilmember Regan Dunn Andrew Merges, Des Moines Brittany Jarnot Monica Whitman, Kent CM Tamie Deady, Black Diamond Andy Williamson, Black Diamond Paul Takamine, KC DOT Todd R. Woosley, ETA Charla Neuman, SCCLC Kendra Breiland, Fehr & Peers Rick Perez, Federal Way Pablo Para, Auburn Tom Gut, SeaTac Carol Cooper, KC Metro Daniel Rowe, KC Metro 50 DRAFT June , 2015 Dear The members of the South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd) would like to submit this letter urging King County Metro to recognize the importance of Park and Ride facilities in their planning efforts such as the Long Range Transit Plan and the Access to Transit Study. As representatives of South King County cities, we want to share our growing concern regarding south King County park and ride facilities. Many of our existing lots are at capacity, leading potential bus riders to bypass transit altogether, or to look to residential streets to find parking that is unpredictable and inconvenient for riders and residents alike. Additional parking spaces are needed in existing lots; and now is also a good time to consider new Parks and Ride facilities in rural areas due to favorable economic conditions. Creative locations for leasing church parking lots should be considered as well. We believe that park and ride lots are an integral part of transit planning efforts and contribute to the goal of efficiently connecting users with transit. Transit demand in south King County will continue to grow and park and ride make it easier for routes to service certain areas. We respectfully request that you make park and ride lots a priority as you continue to develop the Capital Investment section of the Long Range Transit Plan. Sincerely, Bill Peloza Auburn Councilmember SCATBd Chair Dana Ralph Kent Councilmember SCATBd Vice -Chair South County Area Transportation Board 51 SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd) MEETING Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:00 — 11:00 a.m. SeaTac City Hall 4800 South 188th Street SeaTac Agenda 1. Open Meeting • Introductions • Approve summary of February 17, 2015 SCATBd Meeting Summary Action 9:00 a.m. 2. Reports, Communications and Citizen Requests to Comment • Chair or Vice Chair • Participant Updates from RTC and Other Regional Committees • Legislative Updates • Public Comment Reports and Discussion 9:05 a.m. 3. I -405 Express Toll Lane Briefing - Craig Stone and Kim Henry, WSDOT Report and Discussion 9:20 a.m. 4. SCATBd Action on Park and Ride Support Letter Review, Discussion & Action 10:00 a.m. 5. ST 2 & ST 3 Briefing — Karen Kitsis and Chelsea Levy, Sound Transit Report and Discussion 10:15 a.m. 52