HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2015-06-22 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETTukwila City Council Agenda
in °° ❖ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ❖
Jim Haggerton, Mayor Counci /members: • :" Joe Duffie • :" Dennis Robertson
David Cline, City Administrator •:" Allan Ekberg • :" Verna Seal
Kate Kruller, Council President •:" Kathy Hougardy • :" De'Sean Quinn
Monday, June 22, 2015, 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITIZEN COMMENT
At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda
(please limit your comments to five minutes per citizen). To comment
on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is
presented for discussion.
3. SPECIAL ISSUES
a. A bid award for the 2015 Overlay Program.
Pg.i
b. A contract for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan.
Pg.15
c. A contract for the update to the Transit Plan as part of the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Pg.39
d. An update and discussion on the Facilities Plan, Phase 4.
Pg.63
4. REPORTS
a. Mayor
b. City Council
c. Staff
d. City Attorney
e. Intergovernmental
5. MISCELLANEOUS
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
7. ADJOURN TO SPECIAL MEETING
❖ SPECIAL MEETING ❖
•:" Ord #2477 •:" Res #1861
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of Minutes: 6/8/15 (Special Mtg.)
b. Approval of Vouchers.
c. Award a bid to Miles Resources, LLC, for the 2015 Overlay Program in
Pg.i
the amount of $1,344,811.00, and authorize the Mayor to sign the
contract.
d. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Transpo Group USA, Inc.,
Pg.15
for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan in the
amount of $104,200.00.
e. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Nelson /Nygaard for the
Pg.39
Transit Plan update in the amount of $75,303.00.
3. NEW BUSINESS
4. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the
City Clerk's Office (206- 433 -1800 or TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov). This notice is available at
IL www.tukwilawa.aov, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio /video taped.
HOW TO TESTIFY
If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for
the record. Please observe the basic riles of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five
minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on
comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business.
COUNCIL MEETINGS
No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given.
Regular Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council
Meetings held on the 1 st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. Official Council action in the
form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular
Council meetings.
Committee of the Whole Meetings - Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council
President is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a
one -year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m.
Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action.
GENERAL INFORMATION
At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not
included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes.
Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed are the same as
those used in Regular Council meetings.
Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, or personnel
matters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public interest
such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. Section 2.04.150 of the
Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings:
The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation.
2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.
4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may speak a second
time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken.
5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the
question, but may not engage in further debate at this time.
6. After the Public Hearing is closed and during the Council meeting, the Council may choose to discuss
the issue among themselves, or defer the discussion to a future Council meeting, without further public
testimony. Council action may only be taken during Regular or Special Meetings.
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
---------------------------- - - - - -- Initial,
Meeting Date Prepared b Ma or's review Council review
06/22/15 BG
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEMNO.
Spec 2.C.
CAS NUMBER: 77FAFF
SPONSOR: BOB GIBERSON
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 06/22115
AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2015 Annual Overlay & Repair Program
Bid Award to Miles Resources, LLC
CATEGORY ❑ Discussion
Mtg Date
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date 06122115
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&'R ❑ Police ❑ PIV
SPONSOR'S The 2015 Annual Overlay & Repair Program was advertised for bids on May 20 and 27,
SUMMARY 2015. Four bids were opened June 3, 2015 with the low bid of $1,344,811.00 from Miles
Resources, LLC. Seven locations are scheduled for asphalt overlay throughout the City,
including a portion of the Fort Dent parking lot. Council is being asked to award the bid to
Miles Resources, LLC in the amount of $1,344,811.00.
REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ® Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 06/15/15 COMMITTEE CHAIR: JOE DUFFIE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Public Works
COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to C.O.W & Special Consent Agenda
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURI: REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$1,344,811.00 $1,430,000.00 $0.00
Fund Source: 104 ARTERIAL STREETS &301 PARKS (PAGES 10, 18 &33,2015 CIP)
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
06/22/15
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/22/15
Informational Memorandum dated 06/12/15
Vicinity Map
Page 10, 18, & 33, 2015 CIP
Consultant Recommendation Letter
Bid Tabulation
Minutes from the Transportation Committee meeting of 06/15/15
TO:
FROM
BY:
DATE:
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
David Sorensen, Project Manager
June 12, 2015
SUBJECT: 2015 Overlay and Repair Program
Project No. 91510401
Bid Award
ISSUE
Award the bid for construction for the 2015 Overlay and Repair Program.
BACKGROUND
The Annual Overlay and Repair Program was created to preserve and maintain the street
structure in a safe and useable condition. The 2015 Project construction will include pavement
repairs and an asphalt overlay for seven locations citywide, including a portion of the Fort Dent
parking lot. Work will also include new pavement markings and ADA curb ramps.
ANALYSIS
A call for bids was advertised for the 2015 Overlay and Repair Program on May 20 and 27,
2015 and four bids were opened on June 3, 2015. The lowest apparent bidder was Miles
Resources, LLC, with a bid of $1,087,164.50 for the base bid (Schedule A & B) and a total of
$1,344,811.00 (with Schedule C). The total of Schedule A & B determines the bid award and
Schedule C is an additive and is not included in the bid decision. The engineer's estimate was
$1,472,432.00 for all schedules. No errors were found in the bid tabulations, but the bid from
Icon Construction was rejected due to missing bid documents. Project design consultant KPG
Inc. concurred with the award to apparent low bidder Miles Resources, LLC.
BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY (All amounts include sales tax)
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 at the
June 22, 2014 Committee of the Whole Meeting and then on the Consent Agenda at the Special
Meeting that same night.
Attachments: Vicinity Map
2015 CIP Pages 10, 18 & 33
Consultant Recommendation
Bid Tabulation
W:IPW EngTROJECTSIA- RW & RS ProjectstAnnual Overlay & Repair ProgramsQ015 Overlay & Repair PrograrnTesigMAd and AwarNwardlWorking Docs\Docs to TC Bid AwarckWorking Docs
3
Bid Results
Estimate
2015 Budget
Bid Schedule A
$1,015,369.50
$1,134,277.00
$1,250,000.00
Bid Sch. B Fort Dent
71,795.00
86,350.00
100,000.00
Bid Sch. "C" SC Pkwy.
257,646.50
251,805.00
Subtotal of Bid
$1,344,811.00
Contingency (5 %)
67,240.55
Funds from Bridge Program
80,000.00
Total
$1,412,051,55
$1,472,432.00
$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 at the
June 22, 2014 Committee of the Whole Meeting and then on the Consent Agenda at the Special
Meeting that same night.
Attachments: Vicinity Map
2015 CIP Pages 10, 18 & 33
Consultant Recommendation
Bid Tabulation
W:IPW EngTROJECTSIA- RW & RS ProjectstAnnual Overlay & Repair ProgramsQ015 Overlay & Repair PrograrnTesigMAd and AwarNwardlWorking Docs\Docs to TC Bid AwarckWorking Docs
3
-
r
f
, r ,
S. BOEING ACCESS RD.
• , in
■
r " •4 • S. 124TH ST.
' GATEWAY DR.
sr �
R FORT DENT PARK
PL
1
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
'•"
■
•
or
• P"LA PARKWAY
Mor
ANDOVER PARK W.
j Z •
j • R
•
•
2015 Overlay Program
Vicinity Map
5
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 1- 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
6 2015 - 2020 Capital Improvement Program 10
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
fin tnnn,gi 2n13 2n14 2n15 2n16 2n17 2n1R 2n19 2n2n RFYONn Tf7TA1
EXPENSES
Design
48
100
125
125
150
150
175
175
175
1,223
Land (RNV)
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 7
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
STATUS: 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.
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
ENGINEERS j
ARCHITECTS (g C"I"
�r+�
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 4
SURVEYORS SFATTLF - TACOMA
June 5, 2015
Mr. David Sorensen, PE
Public Works
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: 2015 Overlay Program
Dear Dave,
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,
/NathnZnrZoe, P.E.
KPG, Inc.
cc: Nelson Davis, PE
Enclosures: Miles Resources, LLC bid package including Contractor Verification
Bid Tabulation
7539 TH Avenue North • Seattle, WA 981og • Phone (2o6) 286 -1640 • Fax (2o6) 286 -1639
2502 Jefferson Avenue • Tacoma, WA 98402 • Phone (2S3) 627 -072o • Fax (253) 627-4144
www.kpg.com
.A
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
2015 Overlay Program
Project No. 91510401
Bid Tabulation
KPG
51A1) 1. -1A1, ."MA
Bid Document
June 3 2015
I
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Mlles Resources
Lakeside Industries
TUCCI 8 Sons, Inc
Icon Materials - rejected per SP 1
02.13 (missing unit price)
No. Spec Item
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
R< ADWAYtS` NERU3,. A} .- :
Tata1SCheduttA
s.
_ gr,...
-.
r
1
1 -04
Minor Change
t
FA
$ 6,000.00
$ 6,000.00
600000
$ 5000 00
6000.00
S 6,00000
6,000.00
$ 6,000.00
6000.00
5 6,000.00
2
1 -07
Resolution of Utility Conflicts
1
FA
0 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
50000
$ 500.00
1000.00
$ 1000.00
250.00
$ 250.00
1600.00
$ 1 600.00
4
169
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 85,200.00
$ 85,200.00
8800000
$ 88,000 00
135000.00
$ 135,000.00
56,000.00
$ 56,000.00
100000.00
$ 100000 00
5
1 -10
Project Temporary Traffic Control
1
LS
0115000.00
$ 115000.00
130000.00
$ 130.000.00
12500000
9 12500000
100000.00
$ 100,000.00
180815.00
$ 180815.00
6
2 -02
Asphalt Pavement Removal Ind. Haul
230
SY
$ 25.00
$ 5,750.00
10.00
$ 2,300.00
15.00
5 3,450.00
39.00
$ 8970.00
30.60
$ 7 038.00
7
2 -02
Cement Conc. Sidewalk Removal Inc! . Haul
190
SY
$ 30 00
$ 5,700.00
45.00
$ 8550.00
43.00
$ 8,170.00
46.00
$ 8740.00
109.50
$ 20,805.00
8
2 -02
Cement Conc. Curb Removal Incl. Haul
890
LF
$ 1000
$ 8,900.00
8.90
$ 7,921.00
20.00
$ 17,800.00
500
$ 7,120.00
1165
$ 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
0 2000.00
3,500.00
$ 3500.00
550.00
$ 550.00
10
2 -03
Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul
130
CY
$ 50.00
$ 6,500.00
20.00
$ 260000
2500
0 3,250.00
40.00
$ 5,200.00
26.00
$ 3380.00
11
2 -03
Gravel Borrow Inc! Haul
250
TON
9 25.00
$ 6,250.00
20.00
$ 5000 00
1000
S 2,500.00
18.00
$ 4,500.00
17.50
$ 4375.00
12
4 -04
Crushed Surfacing Top Course
210
TON
$ 30.00
$ 6,300.00
20.00
$ 4280 00
2000
S 4,200.00
50.00
$ 10,500.00
46.50
$ 9765.00
13
5 -04
Pavement Repair Excavation Incl. Haul
620
CY
$ 60.00
$ 37200.00
87.00
$ 53,940.00
6000
$ 37,200.00
121.00
$ 75,020.00
88.00
$ 54,560.00
14
5 -04
HMA Cl . 1/2 "P12 64 -22
3901
TON
$ 82.00
5 319882.00
77.00
$ 300,377.00
7000
$ 273,070.00
82.50
$ 321,832 50
78.00
$ 304,278.00
15
5 -04
HMA for Pavement Repair CI. 12' PG64 -22
1320
TON
$ 9000
$ 118,800.00
90.00
$ 118,80000
8000
$ 105,600.00
102.00
$ 134,640.00
103.00
$ 135960.00
16
5 -04
Thickened Edge
140
LF
$ 200
$ 280.00
1.00
$ 140.00
2.00
S 280.00
5.00
$ 70000
6.50
9 910.00
17
5 -04
Planing Bituminous Pavement
17890
5Y
$ 500
$ 89450.00
3.75
$ 67,087.50
3.50
$ 62,615.00
3.20
$ 5724800
4.40
$ 78,716.00
i6
7 -12
Adjust Water Valve
47
EA
$ 400.00
$ 18,800.00
42500
$ 19975.00
30000
$ 14,100.00
600.00
$ 29200 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
S 300.00
500.00
$ 50000
320.00
$ 320.00
20
861
ErosionNJater Pollution Control
1
FA
$ 3500.00
$ 3500.00
3500.00
$ 3500.00
350000
$ 3,500.00
3500.00
$ 3500.00
3500.00
$ 3,500.00
21
901
Inlet Protection
41
EA
9 7500
$ 3075.00
70.00
$ 2,870.00
75.00
0 3075.00
90.00
$ 3690.00
46.50
$ 1906.50
22
8 -04
Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and Gutter
910
LF
$ 30.00
$ 27,300.00
2000
0 18200.00
20.00
$ 18200.00
36 00
$ 32760.00
20.50
$ 18 655.00
23
8 -04
Extruded Curb
690
LF
$ 10.00
0 6,900.00
7.00
$ 4,830.00
6.90
$ 4,761.00
7.00
$ 4,830.00
7.50
$ 5175.00
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
$ 672000
24
8 -06
Cement Conc. Driveway Entrance
110
SY
$ 80.00
0 8,800.00
50.00
$ 5500.00
93.00
$ 10,230.00
70.00
$ 7700.00
51.50
$ 566500
25
8-13
Add t Monument Case and Cover
8
EA
9 500 00_0
A000 00
350 00
$ 2 800 00
300 00
$ 2 400 00
600 00
$ 4 800 00
305 00
$ 2 440 00
g ntA. sts tt �rui A .,.
t.
#
_
;* _
_ .
26
8-20
Traffic Signal Modifications (Gateway Drive and Interurban Ave 5) Complete
1
LS
$ 38500.00
$ 38 500.00
21000.00
$ 21,000 00
20500.00
$ 20,500.00
25000.00
$� 25,000.00
29000.00
$ 29000.00
27
8 -20
Traffic Signal Modifications (Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park W), Complete
1
LS
9 57000.00
0 57,000.00
30000.00
$ 30000.00
28500.00
$ 28500.00
34,000.00
$ 34,000.00
40200 00
$ 40,200.00
28
8 -20
TraKo Si. nal Modification (Tukwila Park we and Andover Park E) Com• ete
1
LS
$ 37,500.00
9 37,500.00
28000.00
$ 28000.00
27500.00
$ 27,500.00
31,000 00
$ 31000.00
3640000
$ 36400.00
$ 11,97000
29
514
Cement Conc. Sidewalk
190
SY
$ 5500
$ 10,450.00
60.00
$ 11,400.00
60.00
$ 11,400.00
60.00
$ 11,400 00
63.00
30
8-14
Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Parallel A
9
EA
$ 1,500.00
$ 13,500.00
950.00
$ 8550.00
1880.00
9 16,920.00
2600.00
$ 23,40000
1000.00
$ 800000
31
814
Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Parallel 8
1
EA
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,500.00
950.00
$ 95000
188000
$ 1,880.00
2600.00
$ 2,600.00
1000.00
$ 1000.00
32
8 -14
Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Single Direction A Modified
2
EA
$ 1,50000
$ 3000.00
1300.00
$ 2,600 00
2318 00
$ 4,636.00
2600.00
$ 5,200.00
1400.00
$ 2,800.00
33
8 -14
Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Combination
1
EA
$ 1,500.00
9 1,500 00
1100.00
$ 1,100.00
2115.00
$ 2115.00
2600.00
$ 260000
1200.00
$ 1,200.00
34
8 -15
Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Perpendicular A
3
EA
$ 1,500.00
$ 4,500.00
80600
$ 2,40000
1365.00
$ 4,095.00
2600.00
$ 780000
850.00
$ 2550.00
i(?�2
k ) klk'E 3t 4 Et)t1 ll% , '_.. .
k ,
.,. ,,
a ;.,
_ -
_._-
35
765
Adjust Catch Basin
41
EA
$ 450.00
$ 18,450.00
10600
$ 4,10000
40000 $ 16400.00
700.00
$ 28,700.00
410.00
$ 10810.00
36
7 -05
Rectangular Vaned Grate
4
EA
$ 600.00
$ 2400.00
25600
$ 1,00000
150.00 9 600.00
500.00
9 2000.00
375.00
$ 1,500.00
37
7
Storm Manhole Frame and Cover
1
EA
$ 700.00
$ 700.00
70600
$ 700.00
350.00 9 350.00
500.00
$ 500.00
375.00
$ 375.00
38
7 -05
Storm Drain Marker
41
EA
$ 50 00
9 2050.00
15.00
$ 615.00
15.00 $ 615.00
15.00
0 615.00
16.00
$ 656.00
S WIMAIIketAl4IXWZI ER( , L A ' -
..
, . ,.
_ _ .-
x
mat4 -
..
m _. ,
.
_ -
,-
$ 4,100.00'
39
7 -05
Adjust Manhole
10
EA
$ 500.00
$ 5000.00
550.00
$ 550000
40000 $ 4,000.00
700.00
$ 7000.00
410.00
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
$ 37500
TR7k Fii?Gt}`IYfRQ .iTEi/tCESSGHEDll1E,A1,, n
v,, -
.: _,_e
V.._,
0_ i.
,.,
A.., -, -' , _
ataiSSamattia
_,
- 1 ..
41
8 -09
Raised Pavement Marker Type 1
45
HUND
$ 160 00
$ 7200.00
165.00
$ 7425.00
163.00 $ 7,335.00
163.00
$ 7,3300
5
173.50
$ 780750
42
8 -09
Raised Pavement Marker Type 2
14
HUND
$ 400.00
$ 5600.00
350.00
$ 4,900.00
340.00 $ 4,760.00
340.00
$ 4,760.00
362.50
$ 507500
43
8 -22
Plastic Traffic Arrow
14
EA
$ 100.00
$ 1,400.00
60.00
$ 840.00
57.00 $ 798.00
57.00
9 79800
6100
$ 854.00
44
8 -22
Plastic Stop Line
170
LF
$ 10.00
$ 1700 00
700
$ 81190 .00
6.65 $ 1,130.50
7.00
$ 1,190.00
765
$ 1,198 50
45
8 -22
Plastic Crosswalk Line
1700
SF
$ 5.00
9 8500.00
3.50
$ 5,950 00
3.47 $ 5,899.00
3.50
$ 595000
3.70
$ 6290.00
46
8 -22
Plastic Line, 4 Inch
1740
LF
$ 2.00
$ 3480.00
1.00
$ 1740.00
0.95 $ 1653.00
1.00
$ 174000
1.00
$ 1,74000
47
8 -22
Plastic Rumble Strip
390
LF
$ 3.00
$ 1,170.00
4.50
$ 1755 00
4.44 $ 173160
4.50
$ 1755.00
4.70
$ 1,833 00
48
8-23
Temporary P tLne
7220
LF
$ 100
$ 722000
020
$ 144400
017 $ 122740
020
$ 144400
020
$ 144400
RGADSt1?E EVE.tiY?4tE S .��nEDUL A) �.0
5�
x
1 of3
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
2015 Overlay Program
Project No. 91510401
Bid Tabulation
K■G
013113/-- 1AC0A13
Bid Document
June 3 2015
pp
1 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
®®
Miles Resources
Laken do Industries TUCCI 8 Sons, Inc
Icon Materials - rejected per SP 1
02.13 (missing unit price)
No. Spec Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
49
8 -02
Property Restoration
1
FA
$ 3900.00
$ 3000.00
3000.00
$ 3000.00
3000.00
$ 3000.00 3000.00
$ 300000
3000.00
$ 3,000.00
50
8 -02
Edge Restoration
2460
LF
$ 2.00
$ 492000
200
$ 4,92000
300
$ 7,380.00 6.00
$ 14,760.00
missing
F,I �FAIC #73%„4kT4 1111 ITEMS #SGld4.11N A? .,_ _ __ , .
4 , ...
x
n �. .'- -,
-
K
51 1 8 -19 ( Adjust Gas Valve
1 I EA L$ 500 00 �, $ 500 00
500 00
$ 500 00
550 00
$ 550 00 600 CO
$ 600 00
missing
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (SCHEDULE A) $ 1,134,277.00
$ 1,015,369.50
$ 1,028,346.50
$ 1,125,087.50
$ 1,174,240.00
RQ ,- 1,A fWC iUtE B) - , , , _ > , `, 7,..
7otar,schedul R
52
1 -04
Minor Change
1
FA
$ 2,000.00
$ 2000.00
2000.00
$ 2000.00
200000
$ 2000.00 2000.00
$ 2000.00
2000.00
$ 2,000.00
53
1 -07
SPCC Plan
1
LS
$ 250.00
$ 250.00
500.00
$ 50000
1000.00
$ 1,000.00 25000
$ 250.00
1600.00
$ 1,600.00
54
1 -09
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 6,400.00
$ 6,400.00
11300.00
$ 11300.00
5000.00
$ 5000 00 500000
$ 5,000.00
5100.00
$ 5,100.00
55
1 -10
Project Temporary Traffic Control
1
LS
$ 1900000
$ 10,000.00
30D0.00
$ 3000.00
5000.00
$ 5,000.00! 600000
$ 8,000.00
4500.00
$ 4,500.00
56
2 -03
Unsuitade Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul
170
CY
$ 50.00
$ 8,500.00
2D.00
$ 3,400.00
2500
$ 4,250.00 40.00
$ 6,800.00
26.00
$ 4,42900
57
2 -03
Gravel Borrow Incl. Haul
320
TON
$ 25.00
0 8,000.00
2D.00
$ 6400.00
10.00
$ 3200.00
18.00
$ 5,760.00
18.00
$ 5,760.00
58
494
Crushed Surfacing Top Course
250
TON
5 30.00
$ 7,500.00
3500
0 6750.00
30.00
$ 7,500.00
33.00
$ 8,250.00
31.50
$ 7975.00
59
5 04
Pavement Repair Excavation Incl. Haul
270
CY
$ 60.00
$ 16,200.00
42.50
$ 19475
38.50
$ 19395.00
60.00
$ 16,200.00
51.10
$ 13,797.00
60
594
HMA for Pavement Repair CI. 12" PG 64 -22
280
TON
$ 90.00
$ 25,200.00
84 00
$ 23,520.00
80.00
$ 22,40000
88.00
$ 24,640.00
88.00
5 24,640 00
61
8 -01
Erosion/Water Pollution Control
1
FA
5 800.00
$ 800.00
800.00
$ 800.00
80900
$ 800.00
80000
$ 800.00
800.00
$ 800.00
8 -01
Inlet Protection
4
EA
$ 75.00
$ 300.00
70.00
$ 280.00
75.00
$ 300.00
9000
$ 360.00
46.00
$ 184.00
�e62
?t 1k
i
i, ,Y'M �!, . �{3,,- +� `g, 8) .. l= �.. - . _
1
's-_.. -'` -� , ,..
_ ._ .. ---,
,.
.-_
.. . k.T-
-. -
_~'',14,14:05,k,
1 -.
. a t
63
8 -22
Plastic Traffic Arrow
2
EA
$ 100 -00
$ 200.00
60.00
$ 12000
57.00
$ 114.00
57.00
$ 114.00
6075
5 121.50
64
8 -22
Paint Line, 4 inch
500
LF
$ 2.00
$ 1,000 00
0.50
$ 250.00
0.50
$ 250.00
0.50
$ 250.00
0.50
$ 250.00
TOTAL. CONSTRUCTION COST (SCHEDULE 13) $ 86,350.00
$ 71,795.00
$ 62,209.00
$ 78,424.00
$ 71,047.50
R`QALPIiA IP8ADtTIYE CHEDULE C) x,: .. .a :..i _ ...
=Tot$ ddINveScherluie ,--A-% _
._ .,.
t.. eag
,-
,ter _
,,, a .
�..__
$ 200900
65
1 -04
Minor Change
1
FA
$ 2000.00
$ 200000
203000
$ 2000.00
2000.00
$ 2,000.00]
2000. D0
$ 200000
2000.0D
66
1 -07
Resolution of Utility Conflicts
1
FA
$ 2000.00
$ 2000.00
2000.00
$ 2000.00
2000.00
$ 2000.00
2000. D0
$ 2000 00
2000.00
$ 2,000.00
67
1 -07
SPCC Plan
1
LS
$ 150.00
$ 150.00
500.00
$ 500.00
1000.00
$ 1,000.00
250.00
$ 25000
1600.00
$ 1900 00
68
1 -09
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 18,620.00
$ 18,620.00
3100000
$ 31900 00
25000.00
$ 25,000.00'
10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
18150.00
$ 18150.00
69
1 -10
Project Temporary Traffic Control
1
LS
$ 35000.00
$ 35,00000
45000.00
$ 45,000.00
3000000
$ 30,000.00
29,000.00
$ 29,000.00
29800.00
$ 29,800.00
70
2 -02
Asphalt Pavement Removal Ind. He
30
SY
$ 25.00
$ 75000
4000
$ 1,200 00
20.00
5 600.00
50.00
$ 1,500 00
48.00
$ 1440.00
71
2 -02
Cement Conc. Sidewalk Removal Ind. Haul
20
SY
$ 3000
$ 60000
75.00
$ 1,500.00
43.00
$ 860.00
50.00
$ 1,000.00
193.00
$ 3,860.00
72
2 -02
Cement Conc. Curb Removal Incl. Haul
90
LF
$ 1000
$ 90000
20.00
$ 1,80000
20.00
$ 0.800.00
20.00
$ 1.800.00
18.00
$ 1,620.00
73
2 -02
Removal of Structure and Obstruction
1
LS
$ 500.00
$ 50000
100.00
$ 100.00
100000
$ 1,000.00
1,500.00
$ 1,500.00
550.00
$ 550.00
74
4 -04
Crushed Surfacing Top Course
30
TON
$ 30.00
$ 90000
20.00
$ 600.00
30.00
$ 90090
50.00
$ 1,500.00
75.00
$ 2,250.00
75
5 -04
HMA Cl. 12" PG 64 -22
800
TON
$ 82.00
$ 65,60000
88.00
$ 76400.00
69.30
$ 5544900
80.00
$ 64,000.00
84.50
$ 67.600.00
76
5 -04
Flaning Bituminous Pavement
6630
SY
$ 5.00
$ 33,150 00
4.75
$ 31,492 50
3.30
$ 21,879 00
3.30
$ 21,879.00
3.60
$ 23.868.00
77
7 -12
Adjust Water Valve
1
EA
$ 400 00
$ 400.00
500.00
$ 50000
300.00
$ 30090
600.00
$ 600.00
305.00
$ 30500
78
8 -01
ErosionNVater Pollution Control
1
FA
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
1000.00
$ 1.000.00
1000.00
$ 1,000.00
1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
1000 OD
$ 1,000.00
79
8 -01
Inlet Protection
7
EA
$ 75.00
$ 525.00
70.00
$ 490.00
75.00
$ 525.00
90.00
$ 630.00
46 00
$ 322.00
80
8 -04
Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and Gutter
100
LF
$ 30.00
$ 3000.00
2000
5 2,000.00
20.00
$ 2,000.00
43.00
$ 4,300.00
21.00
$ 2100.00
81
8-06
Cement Conc. Driveway Entrance
40
5Y
$ 80.00
$ 3200.00
5000
$ 2.000.00
93.00
$ 3720,00
110.00
$ 4400.00
51.50
$ 206000
TRkPJ°
I C
'p
0.
4
X ,
x i
w
82
8 -20
Traffic Signal Modifications (Southcenter Blvd and 66th Ave 5), Complete
1�
LS
$ 4200000
42000.00
22000.00
$ 22000.00
22500.00 22500.00
28,000.00
28,000.00
33000.00
$ 33900 00
83
8-20
Traffic Si nal Mad 6ca6on (S uthcenter Blvd end Interurban Ave 5 (SR 18111 Complet
1
1S
$ 1500000
$ 15,000 00
24000 00
$ 24.00900 00
24000 00 $ 2400000
1600000
$ 1600000
18700.00
$ 1070000
SI1?
fAlK,tiii 72 #V GNETiU1 It'', '''',
a _ _ k 041-
-� ~T
X
+. _.._ ,
.,
. .. _ 4
, . :.
84
8-14
Cement Conc Sidewalk
30
SY
$ 55 00
$ 1,650 00
60 00
$ 1,800 00
60 00'I $ 1,800 00
60 00
$ 1,800 00
6300 $ 1,890 00-
85
8 -14
Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type Parallel A
2
EA
$ 150000
$ 3000.00
95090
$ 1900.00
188D.00 $ 3760.00
2,60000
$ 5,200.00
1000.00 $ 2000.00
ErO'R
_
86
7 -05
Adjust Catch Basin
11
EA
$ 450.00
$ 4950 00
250.00
$ 2,75000
40000
$ 4400.00
700.00)
$ 7,700 -00
410.00
$ 4,51000
87
7 -05
Storm Drain Marker
7
EA
$ 50 00
$ 350.00
15.00
$ 105.00
15.00
$ 105.00
15.00
$ 105.00
16.00
$ 11200
sA#
A tir
-71.011100V TTI' ED ,$t mac} , _ . ..rli
t .x
t _ - -?-
? _, * ,
iA w
1
v _
88
795 Adjust Manhole
i ( EA
$ 500 00 1 $ 500 00
700 00
$ 700 00
40900 1 $ 400 00
700 00
$ 700 00
410 00 I $ 410 00
TifiA A, ,1Dfl CR R 1 {C #fCitDJ F fir S N ET?t11 C
9, _ . >_. °4=.�
m_ _ «4 l _„
r..
.., . .,
_-
. __,.
wU >
89 8-09
Raised Pavement Marker Type i
12
HUND
$ 160.00
$ 1,920 00
155.00
$ 1,980 00
163G00µ
g 195500
163.00
$ 1,956 00
174.00
$ 2,088.00
90 8 -09
Raised Pavement Marker Type 2
2
HUND
$ 400.00
$ 800.00
35000
$ 700.00
340.00
$ 680.00
340.00
$ 68000
362.00
$ 724.00
2 of
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
2015 Overlay Program
Project No. 91510401
Bid Tabulation
KPG
61:22 It t_ • TA ONIA
Bid Document
June 3 2015 1
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Miles Resources
Lakesitle Industries
TUCCI & Sons, Inc
Icon Materials - rejected per SP 1
02.13 (mrssinp unit price)
No. Spec Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
91
8 -22
Plastic Traffic Arrow
10
EA
$ 10000
$ 1,000.00
6000
$ 600.00
57.00
$ 57000
57.00
$ 570.00
6160
$ 610.00
92
8 -22
Plastic Stop Line
200
LF
$ 10.00
$ 2,000 00
700
$ 1,40000
665
$ 1,33000
7.00
$ 1,400.00
7.00
$ 1,400 00
93
8 -22
Plastic Crosswalk Line
270
SF
$ 5.00
$ 1,350.00
350
$ 94520
3.47
$ 936.90
3.50
$ 94560
3.50
$ 945.00
94
8 -22
Plastic Line, 81nch
120
LF
$ 4.00
$ 48060
3.50
$ 420.00
3.50
$ 420.00
3.50
$ 420.00
3.70
0 444.00
95
8 -22
Plastic Line, 4 Inch
1270
LF
$ 2.00
$ 2,54000
1.00
$ 1,27000
0.87
$ 1,104.90
090
$ 1,143 00
0.95
$ 1,206 50
96
8 -23
Temporary Paint Line
3970
LF
$ 1.00
$ 3,97000
0.20
$ 79460
0.17
$ 674.90
0.20
$ 794.00
0.20
$ 794.00
84,71 AAA
i ) D V E L O PNt N�T. A 1?:D J T 17£;; H
. 7, Mt .,... ___
-
,7- .:.« . � , .
_ x, _
,_,'
.� - --
97
8-02 lP pert, Restoration
1 1 FA 10 1 000 00 $ 1 000 00
1000 00 $ 1 000 00
1000 00 ($ 1,000 00
1,000 00
$ 1,000 00
1000.00
$ 1,000 00
98
8-19
Adjust Gas Valve
1
EA
$ 500 00
$ 500 00
500 00
$ 500 00
550 00 15 550 00
600 00
$ 600 00
305.00
$ 305 00
99
8 -19
Adjust Franchise Utility Manhole
1
EA
$ 500.00
$ 500 00
1200.00
$ 1 200.00
600.00 I $ 600.00
1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
650.00
$ 650.00
TOTAL ADDITIVE CONSTRUCTION COST (Schedule C) $ 251,805.00
$ 257,646.50
$ 216,811.70 $ 217,372.00
$ 231,313.50
TOTAL BASE BID (Schedule A • B) $ 1,220,627.00 $;11
$ 1,090,555.50. $ 1,203,511.50
$ 1,245,287.50
TOTAL BASE BID PLUS ADDITIVE (Schedule A + Schedule B + Schedule C) $ 1,472,432.00 F $ 1,344,811.00
$ 1,307,367.20
$ 1,420,883.50
$ 1,476,601.00
3013
City Of Tukwila
• Transportation Committee
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2015 — 5:15 p.m. — Foster Conference Room, 6300 Building
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Joe Duffie, Chair; Allan Ekberg, Kathy Hougardy
Staff: David Cline, Bob Giberson, Frank Iriarte, Robin Tischmak, Sorensen, Laurel
Humphrey
Guests: Brooke Alford, Lisa Krober
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Duffie called the meeting to or 5 :p.
I. PRESENTATIONS
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. 42nd Avenue South /Allentown Roadside Barrier Pro
Staff provided an update on 42nd Avenue South /Allen " °' adside Barrier Project, which
was last before the Committee on April 015. This prod Ps initiated to study guardrail
�o er scent d Avenue South and South
and /or barrier warrants along the Du w ad �� A
115th Street, in order to prevent accid ' e al dum
p � ® g o nd provide security for
large fire apparatus. Several areas of th erbang rec ended for guardrails or
barriers. Originally these barriers were to �' steel a but based upon community
feedback on the aesthetics of these option j ev• �� lan I en prepared that proposes
the use of timber guard r I new barn -ns. In ad tion, replacement of existing
concrete or steel barr er guardr /�� be considered. Use of timber guardrails
will increase the to tst of the - ect. The e ated construction cost for the original plan
based upon 30°' ���'sign was � 99,970.00, �� with timber guardrail the estimated
construction cost bd $470 The revs ' plan also includes increased costs due
to waterline and com ti �� � ,
jl` estimated total project cost is $540,500.00.
The fundin vel for 20 D des $60 r construction and $10,000 for construction
���,
mans , �� as id �� and intends to proceed with Phase 1 of this project which
ca om ple ll t i /1 in thi et. Additional funding will need to be identified and
MR
f�i,,
� � - �
ed by Counc� ''- a add -�� � 'phases can be constructed using the timber guardrail.
RMATION ONL'i
B. 2015 v a v and Re air, pram
Staff is sue'''° g Council roval to award a construction contract to Miles Resources, LLC in
the amoun
� 344, �0 for the 2015 Overlay and Repair Program. Miles Resources was
� -
r,
the low bidd /v eived. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 22, 2015
COMMITTEE % WHOLE AND SPECIAL CONSENT AGENDA.
C. Consultant Aareement: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan
Staff is seeking Council approval of an engineering services contract with the Transpo Group
USA, Inc. in the amount of $104,200.00 for the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan.
The Plan is necessary to address known deficiencies that will bring Tukwila into compliance
with ADA standards within a reasonable time frame. The Transpo Group was selected from
three finalists who were interviewed in person. The budget for this project is $105,000.00.
UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 22, 2015 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AND SPECIAL CONSENT AGENDA.
13
14
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date Pre ared by M ayor review Council review
06/22/15 BG C
111= 1 IT, IIZIV7C7JiI_ %IK LI
ITEMNO.
Spec 2.D.
15
STAFF SPONSOR: BOB GIBERSON
ORIGINAL, AGENDA DATE: 06/22/15
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan
Consultant Agreement with The Transpo Group USA, Inc.
CATEGORY ❑ Discussion
Mtg Date
® Motion
Mtg Date 06122115
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
[:]Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R ❑ Police ® PW
SPONSOR'S This contract is to prepare Tukwila's ADA Transition Plan. Compliance with current federal
SUMMARY ADA design features is required on all city, state, and federal facilities and infrastructure.
Three consulting firms were interviewed and The Transpo Group was considered the most
qualified. The contract will provide an assessment of the City's infrastructure, including
known ADA deficiencies and begin development of an ADA Transition Plan. Council is being
asked to approve the contract with Transpo in the amount of $104,200.00.
REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ® Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 06/15/15 COMMIT"T"EE CHAIR: JOE DUFFIE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Public Works Department
COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to C.O.W. & Special Consent Agenda
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$104,200.00 $105,000.00 $0.00
Fund Source: 104 ARTERIAL STREETS (PAGE 20, 2015 CIP)
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
06/22/15
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/22/15
Informational Memorandum dated 06/12/15
Page 20, 2015 CIP
Consultant Agreement, Scope of Work, and Fee
Minutes from the Transportation Committee meeting of 06/15/15
15
16
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY: Dave Sorensen, Project Manager
DATE: June 12, 2015
SUBJECT: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan
Project No. 91510405
Consultant Selection and Agreement
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 over
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 3rd 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
W APW Eng \PROJECTS\A- RW & RS Projects\ADA Transition Plan (91510405) \Consultant Selection \TC Docs \Final Docs to TC \Info Memo Consult Select & AG Transpo 06- 12- 15.docx 17
W-1
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 19
20
City of Tukwila Contract Number:
• 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188
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.
21
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:
CA revised : 1 -2013
22
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.
Page 2
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
NKI
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
24
Page 4
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 day of
CITY OF TUKWILA
Mayor, Jim Haggerton
Attest /Authenticated:
City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty
CA revised : 1 -2013
, 2014
CONSULTANT
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Page 5
25
26
EXH I BIT "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 § 3SAS0 (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 1— Project Management 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
27
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 (—S 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.
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.
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.
29
• 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.
.-1to
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
30
Task 5 — 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.
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
31
meet the requirements ofADA Title 11. 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. PerADA Title 11 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 ofADA 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.
32
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.
33.
34
Transpo Group USA, Inc.
Exhibit B - Cost Estimate Worksheet
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:
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
initials
job title
cost rate
ct
Quality
42
Project
GIS/
Project
ger
Control
GIS Admin
Engineer
Graphics
Admin
R
$12,600
$23,490
$1,380
44
$5,700
L3
Prin L7
An I L4
En L4
En L1
PA L4
.00
$195.00
$115.00
$140.00
$90.00
$115.00
f
Task 1 - Project Management and Coordination
Total Hours 240
42
40
7740
261
12
0 ,-
4�$tx
ME,
Project Management
36
8
$4,600
$12,600
$23,490
$1,380
44
$5,700
Billing
12
2
2
Business Meals
3
8
22
$2,690
5
Models /Renderings /Photos
6
Parking
7
Records Filing
8
Registrations
9
Task 2 - Self- Assessment
10
Shipping /Courier
11
Specialty Software
12
Supplies
13
Traffic Accident Data
IDAX Tasks
Traffic Count Vendors
15
Travel. Hotel. Taxi. & Air Fare
See Below
Training and QC
16
12
12
10
50
$5,800
Documentation and Coordination
16
4
16
20
4
60
$6,720
Task 3 - Stakeholder Engagement
Open house (Materials, staffing, survey, etc.)
24
8
60
92
$9,720
Documentation and Coordination
12
2
20
34
$3,570
Task 4 - Barrier Removal
Design audit
24
34
8
66
$8,240
Barrier removal methods
20
6
12
12
50
$6,230
Documentation and Coordination
12
4
12
12
40
$4,920
Task 5 - Implementation Schedule
Barrier Prioritization
16
2
12
40
70
$7,210
Planning Level cost estimates
12
2
24
38
$3,930
Schedule development
16
2
12
30
$3,310
Documentation and Coordination
20
2
24
46
$4,850
Task 6 - Draft and Final Plan
Draft Plan and (2 rounds of edits)
1 ! ,
r
u -„ /, °� io2
Gf', rr %/
. , r �1�! .. %a0
„ l s
s JJh /r
}!` f'
i i i
✓ %,' %,
"; f!
i�
„'�,
Deferred
Final Plan
Consultation on city elements
Deferred
Deferred
Task 7 - Pedestrian Crossing Study
4
20
19
43
$4,970
Other
Multiple Tasks (Endelman and Associates)
See Below
Sub Total $225
Cost Estimate Prepared on: 6/9/2015
35
Total Hours 240
42
40
7740
261
12
685
err- i,'(N A,�,x,
$27,600
$8,190
$4,600
$12,600
$23,490
$1,380
%r 3'/!,
Reimbursable
1
Expenses:
Application
f Subconsultants
1 IDAX $21,000
2 Endelman and Associates $5,000
$225 3
4
5
Sub Total $26,000
Z OIIN E s rA s -Ma
2
Business Meals
3
Mileage
4
Miscellaneous
5
Models /Renderings /Photos
6
Parking
7
Records Filing
8
Registrations
9
Reproductions
10
Shipping /Courier
11
Specialty Software
12
Supplies
13
Traffic Accident Data
14
Traffic Count Vendors
15
Travel. Hotel. Taxi. & Air Fare
Sub Total $225
Cost Estimate Prepared on: 6/9/2015
35
36
City Of Tukwila
• Transportation Committee
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2015 — 5:15 p.m. — Foster Conference Room, 6300 Building
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Joe Duffie, Chair; Allan Ekberg, Kathy Hougardy
Staff: David Cline, Bob Giberson, Frank Iriarte, Robin Tischmak, Sorensen, Laurel
Humphrey
Guests: Brooke Alford, Lisa Krober
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Duffie called the meeting to or 5 :p.
I. PRESENTATIONS
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. 42nd Avenue South /Allentown Roadside Barrier Pro
Staff provided an update on 42nd Avenue South /Allen " °' adside Barrier Project, which
was last before the Committee on April 015. This prod Ps initiated to study guardrail
�o er scent d Avenue South and South
and /or barrier warrants along the Du w ad �� A
115th Street, in order to prevent accid ' e al dum
p � ® g o nd provide security for
large fire apparatus. Several areas of th erbang rec ended for guardrails or
barriers. Originally these barriers were to �' steel a but based upon community
feedback on the aesthetics of these option 's ev• �� lan ���I en prepared that proposes
the use of timber guard r I new barri -ns. In ad tion, replacement of existing
concrete or steel barr er guardr /�� be considered. Use of timber guardrails
will increase the to tst of the - ect. Thee i ated construction cost for the original plan
based upon 30°' ���'sign was � 99,970.00, with timber guardrail the estimated
construction cost bd $470 The revs ' plan also includes increased costs due
to waterline and com ti �� � ,
jl` estimated total project cost is $540,500.00.
The fundin vel for 20 D des $60 r construction and $10,000 for construction
���,
mans , �� as id �� and intends to proceed with Phase 1 of this project which
ca om ple ll t i /1 in thi et. Additional funding will need to be identified and
MR
f�i,,
� � - �
ed by Counc� ''- a add -�� � 'phases can be constructed using the timber guardrail.
RMATION ONL'i
Staff is §� g Council �roval to award a construction contract to Miles Resources, LLC in
the amoun� ��` r ,344, i 0 for the 2015 Overlay and Repair Program. Miles Resources was
the low biddev eived. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 22, 2015
COMMITTEE / WHOLE AND SPECIAL CONSENT AGENDA.
C. Consultant Agreement: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan
Staff is seeking Council approval of an engineering services contract with the Transpo Group
USA, Inc. in the amount of $104,200.00 for the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan.
The Plan is necessary to address known deficiencies that will bring Tukwila into compliance
with ADA standards within a reasonable time frame. The Transpo Group was selected from
three finalists who were interviewed in person. The budget for this project is $105,000.00.
UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 22, 2015 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AND SPECIAL CONSENT AGENDA.
rGYA
W.*
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
--- ---- --------------------- - - - - -- Initials
Meeting Date
Pre ared b y
Ma or's review
Council review
06/22/15
BG
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R ❑ Police ® PIW
SPONSOR'S This contract is to prepare Tukwila's Transit Network Plan Update. The most recent update
SUMMARY in 2012 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan did not include an
update to the Transit Network Plan. Puget Sound Regional Council strongly suggested the
City update the Transit Network Plan to serve as a guiding document for policy direction
when working with the transit agencies. Council is being asked to approve the contract
with Nelson/Nygaard in the amount of $75,303.00.
REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ® Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 06 /15/15 COMMITTEE CHAIR: JOE DUFFIE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Public Works Department
COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to C.O.W. & Special Consent Agenda
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$75,303.00 $100,000.00 $0.00
Fund Source: 104 ARTERIAL STREETS (PAGE 23, 2015 CIP)
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
06/22/15
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEMNO.
3.C. &
Spec 2.E.
W
STAFF SPONSOR: BOB GIBERSON
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 06/22115
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Transit Network Plan Update
Consultant Agreement with Nelson /Nygaard
CATEGORY ❑ Discussion
Mtg Date
® Motion
Mtg Date 06122115
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R ❑ Police ® PIW
SPONSOR'S This contract is to prepare Tukwila's Transit Network Plan Update. The most recent update
SUMMARY in 2012 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan did not include an
update to the Transit Network Plan. Puget Sound Regional Council strongly suggested the
City update the Transit Network Plan to serve as a guiding document for policy direction
when working with the transit agencies. Council is being asked to approve the contract
with Nelson/Nygaard in the amount of $75,303.00.
REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ® Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 06 /15/15 COMMITTEE CHAIR: JOE DUFFIE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Public Works Department
COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to C.O.W. & Special Consent Agenda
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$75,303.00 $100,000.00 $0.00
Fund Source: 104 ARTERIAL STREETS (PAGE 23, 2015 CIP)
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
06/22/15
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/22/15
Informational Memorandum dated 06/12/15
Page 23, 2015 CIP
Consultant Agreement, Scope of Work, and Fee
Minutes from the Transportation Committee meeting of 06/15/15
W
FIE
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
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 Agreement
ISSUE
Approve consultant selection and agreement for the Transit Network Plan Update.
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
W: \PW Eng \PROJECTS\A- RW & RS Projects \Transit Network Plan Update (91510409) \INFO MEMO - Consultant Selection and Award 06 -12 -15 gl.docx 41
42
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 S000'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 1
0
1 0
1 0
0
600
1 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 43
City of Tukwila Contract Number:
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188
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.
45
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:
CA revised : 1 -2013
M.
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.
Page 2
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
L"A
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
Ml
Page 4
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 day of , 20
CITY OF TUKWILA CONSULTANT
Mayor, Jim Haggerton
Attest /Authenticated:
City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty
CA revised: 1 -2013
Printed Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Page 5
i
50
Exhibit A
City of Tukwila
Tukwila Transit Plan Scope of Work
Submitted by
1.1 Kickoff Meeting
Nelson \Nygaa
1402 Third Ave
206 - 357 -7521
NELSON
rd Consulting Associates
rar � nue, Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98101
f r
N Y G A A R D CONTACT:
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.
51
Tho mas Wittmann TITLE: Principal
EMAIL: twittma nn @nelsonnygaard.com
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.
51
Exhibit A
DELIVERABLES: Phone Meeting Minutes
Monthly Invoices
Monthly Progress Reports
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 Workshoos or POD-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
52
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
53
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.
54
Exhibit A
DELIVERABLES: Market Analysis Memo
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.
55
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 io 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 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
56
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.
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
57
w
Exhibit B
NelsoniNygaard Labor Costs
Thomas Creative
Wittmann Victor Stover Briana Lovell Associate 1 GIS Services Services
Creatve
Principal 3 Associate 4 Associate 3 Associate 1 GIS Services Services
Base Rate 64.46 42.98 36.36 26.45 49.59 42,98
Overhead 175.00% 11251 75.21 6164 46.28 86.78 7521
Profit 10% 17.73 11,82 10.00 7.27 1164 11.82
Total Billing Rate $195.00 $130.00 0110.00 080.00 5150.00 5130.00
NN Labor
Hours Cost
Total Travel
Expenses
Total Misc.
Expenses
Total
Direct Expenses
Total
Costs
1 Project Administration
1 Kickoff Meeting
1.2 Ongoing Administration
4
8
16
8
Task Total
20
16 0
2 Market Analysis & Outreach
2.1 Stakeholder and Community Outreach
24
30
2.2 Online Survey / Build Your Own System
8
8
12 51,660
24 54,000
36
54 57.980
22 52.830
52.550
$3,960
05,030
$2 350
56.870
51,850
510.080
58.480
51,820
529,100
57,120
8 51,560
28 53.740
$1,660
$4,000
58,760
2.3 Review existing Plans, Data, Materials
2
16
26
2.4 Demographic Demand Analysis
2
5
4
16
35
2.5 Travel Demand Analysis
2
16
32
50
Task Total
32
25
50
87
3 Existing Service Analysis
11 Route Evaluations
2
8
32
24
66
32 Service Availability Analysis
2
2
8
4
16
3.3 Service Recommendations
16
24
24
8
72
3.4 Transit Usability Recommendations
16
6
24
8
64
3.5 Funding Strategies
8
12
Task Total
40
6
82
12
230
4 Draft and Final Plan
4.1 Draft Plan
16
8
16
42 Presentations
4.3 Final Plan
8
TAI, HOURS ,
TA
OR LOST
ERAL $rADMINISTRATIVE ON UBCONTRADTOR COSTS
T
T
4
S
8
8
16
48
2,
)0
$7.980
52,830
52,550
53,960
55,030
27,4
00
$6,870
51,850
510.080
08.480
$1,820
529,200
07,120
$1,560
740
0
120
•1
Transportation Committee Minutes June 15, 2015 - Pape 2
D. Consultant Agreement: Transit Network Plan Update
Staff is seeking Council approval of a consultant contract with Nelson /Nygaard in the amount
of $75,303.00 for the Transit Network Plan Update. The existing Transit Network Plan was
adopted in 2005 as part of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element update, and
served as a guiding document in implementing projects like the Transit Center as well as
provided policy direction for the City to work with transit agencies. The Puget Sound Regional
Council strongly recommended that the City update the Transit Network PI and this update
was funded in the 2015 -2016 Budget. Thomas Wittman of Nelson /Nyga % as the primary
author of the original plan and is uniquely qualified to update this w i rich will factor in
changes such as population growth, regional transit planning docu / route changes and
more. Future updates to the Transit Network Plan will coincide w mprehensive Plan
update. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 2 5� ITTEE OF THE
WHOLE AND SPECIAL CONSENT AGENDA.
III. SCATBd
No report.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
Councilmember Ekberg requested info ti )r status updat he following:
Speed Bump Request Process
�/' ���Ilc Works staff
This requires a petition and consensus from � a In � d area. %/
0 �
maintains a list of requests and responses, an� -� II be a �� -�� ation about traffic calming
i � % "M
requests and implementation on the City's new , jf sit r ie � e year.
rd /�/
53 Avenue South Pro ec��� /
The consultant selectlo ract wllj resented�G ommlttee very soon. Construction of
curbs, gutters and sid s are exped to have p e traffic calming impacts.
The City is pursuln eminent "d Faccess ridliMlfii order to complete necessary environmental
RRION
testing and
Interu ark & Rldei,i
The ,'s engaged in ong discuss - s with the property owner and broker as well as with King
County o. Staff is seekio identify interested property owners with whom Metro may wish to
lease as .. . ernative.
1
Meeting adjou
Next meeting: Mond W "July 6, 2015
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by LH, Reviewed by GL
61
62
CO uNcm AGENDA SYNOPSIS
nitials
Meelin M I -
,g Date Prepared ayor s review Council review
06/22/15 BG
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM NO.
3.D.
CAS NUMBER:
STAFF SPONSOR: BOB GIBERSON
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 04/14/14
AGENDA ITEM Tn'LE Facilities Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study - Phase 4 Funding and Phasing
Overview
CATEGORY ORY E Discussion
Mig Dale 06122115
❑ Motion
Mt ,g Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
F-1 Bid Award
Mt g Date
F-1 Public Hearing
Mtg Date
[:] Other
Mt
,g Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R ❑ Polite ❑ PW1'
SPONSOR'S This Phase 4 presentation will focus on the funding and phasing options for alternative
SUMMARY facility capital projects.
Ri?VIE'WED BY ❑ cow Mtg. ❑ CA&P Cmte ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
F-1 Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. F-1 Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Public Works
COMMITTEE N/A
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
ExPENDI'rUxE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0 $0
Fund Source:
Comments.-
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
06/22/15
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/22/15
Informational Memorandum dated 06/19/15, plus attachments
63
•A
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
City Council
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
DATE: June 19, 2015
SUBJECT: Facilities Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study
Phase 4 — Funding and Phasing Overview
ISSUE
Discussion of Phase 4 funding and phasing options.
BACKGROUND
In January 2014, the team presented their facility needs findings from Phase 1. At the
April 2014 Phase 2 work session, a summary of council interviews and a summary of
current facility conditions was presented.
At the December 2014 work session, City Council agreed on the Phase 3 preferred
alternative, including a new Public Safety Building, followed by a new consolidated
Public Works campus and retaining the current City Hall building. The existing
substandard 6300 building could be disposed of after using it as an interim City Hall
during renovation of the current City Hall building.
DISCUSSION
This presentation will focus on the funding and phasing options,how the City's facility
needs fit within known capital needs, and to identify potential options for funding
facility projects. The team will review and consider: timeline alternatives for
implementing recommended capital projects (i.e., slower versus faster); review
preliminary project budgets for each capital project; review funding and financing
options; and discuss financial implications, risks and impacts to City priorities.
The goal of Phase 4 is to develop a preferred funding and phasing strategy that
balances public safety, customer service, timing, and impacts on capital resources,
among other considerations.
RECOMMENDATION
For discussion only.
Attachments: Facilities Financing and Funding Options
M.
TUKWILA FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FACILITIES FINANCING AND FUNDING
OPTIONS
JUNE 16, 2015
The City of Tukwila is conducting a Facility Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study to plan for
the long -term sustainability of the City's facilities, optimize organizational efficiencies, and
improve public safety. One of the goals of the Facilities Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study
is to develop a shared understanding of how the City's facility needs fit within broader capital
needs over the next 20 years and to identify potential options for funding facility projects in a
timely manner. To support the City's facility planning, this document describes the City of
Tukwila's fiscal position concerning capital investment, and more specifically, the additional
capital investment required to fully fund the two major facility plan options. This document is
organized as follows:
0 Section 1: Consideration of Planned Capital Improvements
This section provides background information and context on the City's planned capital
improvements. Any project within the Facilities Plan will need to be considered within the
context of the City's currently identified needs. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
provides context to support a conversation about the relative priority of facility investments
compared to other capital needs.
0 Section 2: Consideration of Potential Financing Options and Funding Sources
This section reviews the City's options for funding and financing. Funding strategies will consider how
the City will pay for facility investments and financing strategies provide the City options for when it
will pay for facility investments.
This document is an addendum to the Operating and Capital Funding Situation Assessment
(August 19, 2013), hereafter referred to as "Situation Assessment ", which provides additional
context on the City's fiscal position.
Subsequent analysis will evaluate the full life cycle costs associated with potential or preferred
financing options determined by the City. The analysis will factor in differences in financing costs
(including interest rates, bond issuance fees, and management fees) of the finance options and
how the options change the impact to the City's annual budget (the effective annual cost to the
general fund).
:l
M.:
iITY OF WKWILA FA iIIJITY IMEEDS A E IVIE il. AND F EA ilRIIJITY S it UDY
FACIIJITIES a Uoraa1a1M OP"11"10IM
S CMID "'J, 1 CO0 °Jm MEIA� °,,A 0a "'J, O CM,,,�,r"rAL,
The Situation Assessment describes the City's current operating and capital funding situation as
well as projected changes. The following provides an update to the capital funding priorities
established in the 2013 -2018 Six -Year CIP with the 2015 -2020 Six -year CIP.
2015 -2020 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program Funding
Exhibit 1 summarizes the City of Tukwila's current six -year CIP, as well as capital needs identified
beyond the six -year planning period. The City has identified approximately $41.2 million in
capital projects (outside of the facilities improvements) for completion over the next six years
and approximately $217.2 million in total identified capital project needs.
Exhibit 1
Summary of Six -Year Capital Expenditures and Revenues, 2015 -2020
(Not including enterprise funds. In millions)
Residential Streets
Bridges & Arterial Streets
Parks & Recreation
Facilities
General Improvements
Fire Improvements
Total Expenditures
Funding Sources
City Operating Revenue
Grants
Impact Fees
Loans /Bonds
Mitigation
MVFT
Other
Parking Tax
REET
Total Funding
6 -Year Beyond 6
2015 -2020 €Total Identified Percent of
6 -Year Total Percent of i Beyond 6 Years Years Percent: Cost Total
Total of Total
$4.19
rcii,
$5.20
3'r
$9.39
4%
$3250
i % /ir„ % / / //l lllljJJlllllllll,
$97.04
////////// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /// `:
$129.54
6D% II
$140
$22.77
10
$25.17
12
$2.25
% / / / / /O //
$34.50
1
$36.75
17
$1.20
$0.20
0%
$1.40
1%
-$1.40
-,.
$16.34
0%
$14.94
7%
$41.15
100%
$176.04
100%
$217.19
100%
$10.32
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ///
$103.27
l///////// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / //l
$113,59
2%
$15.30
%% /////////// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / //'
$12.25
r
$27.54
x
$0.88
$14.81
10
$15.70
7
$7.85
% / / / / /O //
$44,77
1
$52.62
24%
$a.28%
$0,00
0%
$0.28
0%
$0.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
0%
$6.53
/ / / ///
$0.94
1%
$7.47
3%
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
of
$41,15
100%
$176.04
100%
$217,19
100%
Source: City of Tukwila, 2015; and BERK, 2015.
Summary of Capital Expenditures
• Transportation projects, including those for residential streets and bridges and arterial streets,
comprise the largest portion of total capital needs making up approximately 64% of total identified
costs.
• Facilities is the next largest portion, comprising about 17% of total identified costs followed by parks
and recreation at 12% of total identified costs.
General Improvements and Fire Improvements make up a smaller portion of overall capital costs. All
major improvements to fire facilities are currently planned to occur beyond the six -year CIP.
June 16, 2015
2
•e
70
CITY OF T K II..A I ACIIIJITy IMEEDS ASSESSI IIEN11" AND I EAS0II..IITy S'11 "UDY
I ACII..ITIES I ON11IN OP11"I0IMS
Summary of Funding Sources
• The majority of funds planned for all projects in the CIP (52 %) come from city operating revenues,
which primarily support transportation and parks and recreation projects. Over the long term, city
operating revenue allocations for capital improvements may decline as Tukwila is projected to move
from having a surplus of operating revenues to a shortfall, as discussed in the Situation Assessment.
• Grant revenues are programmed to pay for approximately 13% of capital projects in the long term.
• The City plans to use financing, including loans and bonds, for about 24% of project costs long term.
0 "Other" funding sources include donations and contributions, developer contributions, and sale of
existing property.
Future Facilities Funding Implications
The analysis of the CIP shows that the City has identified many capital needs beyond what it is
able to pay for within the next six years. These additional projects total approximately $176.0
million, and while funding sources are identified in the CIP, the mix in funding sources between
the six -year programmed projects and the longer -term projects shows the uncertainty in the
long -term funding picture.
About 59% of projects beyond six years are estimated to be funded by city operating revenues,
compared to 25% for near -term projects. Allocating this much discretionary funding to capital
investments will be challenged by an operating shortfall that is projected to start in 2016. With
operating costs increasing faster than operating revenues, the general fund budget will be pressed to
support general operations.
The City has reduced reliance on grants (37% for the 2015 -2020 CIP, compared to 54% in the 2013 -18
CIP). Grants are applied for and awarded on a project -by- project basis, and are most commonly used
in transportation and parks and recreation projects. Garnering additional grants to support
transportation needs would free up general capital and operating revenues for use on other capital
projects.
The City has previously issued bonds to finance certain capital projects. This limits remaining bond
capacity to meet facilities plan needs. Additionally, it means some CIP funding is already supporting
debt service. Additional debt service will constrict the City's ability to make new capital investments
going forward.
Facility Plan Costs
Initial facilities funding estimates were developed by Rice Fergus Miller and programmed into
two phasing options:
0 Option A: a more aggressive and less costly phasing plan, with a total cost of $98.18 million, not
including potential debt service, between 2015 and 2040.
0 Option B: a less aggressive but more costly phasing plan, with a cost of $139.34 million, not including
potential debt service, between 2015 and 2040.
These options are shown in Exhibit 2, following.
June 16, 2015
71
72
Ch OF TWO N11 F CUs V NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FE B_J V STUDY
FACILITIES FON D_NIG ONS
Exhibit 2
Phasing Options A and B
(In millions)
2015 2016 2017 2018
2019 2020
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Project
Total
Option A
Public Safety Facilities
Public Works
City Hall
Community Supporting Facilities
Total
$ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 10.08 $ 10.38
$ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 10.50 $ 10.82
$ - $ - $ 0.64 $ 0.66
$ - $ - $ $
$ 6.30 $ 6.49 $ 21.22 $ 21.85
0.06
0.06
9.40
0.56
10.07
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 9.68
$ 0.58
$ 10.38
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ - $ - $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ - $ - $
$ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ $ $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ $ $
0.80 $
0.80
1.60
0.83 $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ - $ - $ - $
- $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
0.83 $ - $ - $ 0.90 $ 0.93 $ - $ - $ 1.02 $
1.65 $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ 3.79 $ 3.91 $ $ $ 1.02 $
$ 34.47
$ 33.70
$ 20.61
1.05 $ 9.40
1.05 $ 98.18
Option B
Public Safety Facilities
Public Works
City Hall
Community Supporting Facilities
Total
$ - $ - $ 4.08 $ 4.21
$ - $ - $ 3.34 $ 3.44
$ - $ - $ - $ -
$ $ $ - $ -
$ $ $ 7.43 $ 7.65
9.96
0.84
0.56
11.37
10.26
0.87
0.58
11.71
- $ - $ -
10.99 $ 11.31 $ -
0.84 $ 0.86 $ 0.32
$ - $
11.82 $ 12.18 $
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ 0.33 $ 4.64 $ 4.78 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 3.86 $ 3.97 $
0.63 $ 0.65 $ - $ - $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ - $ - $
0.95 $ 0.98 $ 4.64 $ 4.78 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 3.86 $ 3.97 $
1.60
0.83
0.83
1.65
$ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ - $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 17.99 $
$ - $ - $ 0.90 $ 0.93 $ - $ - $ 1.02 $
$ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ 3.79 $ 3.91 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 19.01 $
18.53
1.05
19.58
$ 36.02
$ 36.66
$ 57.26
$ 9.40
$ 139.34
Source: City of Tukwila, 2015; Rice Fergus Miller, 2015; and BERK, 2015
Remedying the deficiencies of the City's current facilities for municipal services will take significant commitment on
the part of the City and its residents. Some of the public works facilities (an assumed 50% for the purposes of this
analysis) can be paid for with enterprise funds. That portion of the public works facility has been netted out of the
subsequent analysis. Even still, both phasing options are likely to require financing a portion of the facility
improvements. The impact to the overall budget in a given year includes direct costs of facility projects, financing
costs, or a combination of both. Exhibit 3 presents both phasing options with bonds timed to significant capital
needs
June 16, 2015
4
v
Ch OF ELK IL F UI V NEE S ASSESSMENT AND F SB_J VSTUDY
FACILITIES FUN NG _ NS
Exhibit 3
Phasing Options Total Impact to CIP
(Not including enterprise funds. In millions)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Total
(2015 -2040) (Beyond 2040)
Option A
Public Safety Facilities $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 10.08 $ 10.38 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ 0.80 $ 0.83 $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 34.47 $ $ 34.47
Public Works $ 1.58 $ 1.62 $ 5.25 $ 5.41 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 1.44 $ 1.49 $ $ $ - $ $ 16.85 $ $ 16.85
City Hall $ - $ - $ 0.64 $ 0.66 $ 9.40 $ 9.68 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 20.61 $ $ 20.61
Community Supporting Facilities $ - $ - $ $ $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ - $ - $ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ $ $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ $ $ 0.80 $ 0.83 $ - $ - $ 0.90 $ 0.93 $ $ $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 9.40 $ $ 9.40
OptionATotal $ 4.73 $ 4.87 $ 15.97 $ 16.45 $ 10.05 $ 10.35 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ $ $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ $ $ 1.60 $ 1.65 $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ 2.35 $ 2.42 $ $ $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 81.33 $ $ 81.33
Facilities Bonds $ 4.73 $ 4.87 $ 15.97 $ 16.45 $ 10.05 $ 10.35
Total Debt Service $ 0.35 $ 0.71 $ 1.88 $ 3.09 $ 3.83 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 4.24 $ 3.89 $ 2.71 $ 1.50 $ 0.76 $ $ 91.82 $ $ 91.82
Additional Capital Needs $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ $ $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ $ $ 1.60 $ 1.65 $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ 2.35 $ 2.42 $ $ $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 18.94 $ $ 18.94
TotallmpacttoClP $ 0.35 $ 0.71 $ 1.88 $ 3.09 $ 3.83 $ 4.59 $ 4.71 $ 4.71 $ 5.22 $ 5.24 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 5.30 $ 5.33 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 6.20 $ 6.24 $ 7.49 $ 7.57 $ 6.59 $ 6.30 $ 2.71 $ 1.50 $ 1.78 $ 1.05 $ 110.76 $ $ 110.76
Offsetting Revenues $ - $ $
Fiscal Impact of Option A $ 0.35 $ 0.71 $ 1.88 $ 3.09 $ 3.83 $ 4.59 $ 4.71 $ 4.71 $ 5.22 $ 5.24 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 5.30 $ 5.33 $ 4.59 $ 4.59 $ 6.20 $ 6.24 $ 7.49 $ 7.57 $ 6.59 $ 6.30 $ 2.71 $ 1.50 $ 1.78 $ 1.05 $ 110.76 $ $ 110.76
Option B
Public Safety Facilities $ $ $ 4.08 $ 4.21 $ 9.96 $ 10.26 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.80 $ 0.83 $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 36.02 $ $ 36.02
Public Works $ $ $ 1.67 $ 1.72 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 5.49 $ 5.66 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1.44 $ 1.49 $ - $ - $ - $ $ 18.33 $ $ 18.33
City Hall $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.84 $ 0.86 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 4.64 $ 4.78 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 3.86 $ 3.97 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 17.99 $ 18.53 $ 57.26 $ $ 57.26
Community Supporting Facilities $ $ $ $ - $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ - $ - $ 0.63 $ 0.65 $ - $ - $ 0.71 $ 0.73 $ - $ $ 0.80 $ 0.83 $ - $ - $ 0.90 $ 0.93 $ - $ - $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 9.40 $ $ 9.40
OptionBTotal $ $ $ 7.43 $ 7.65 $ 11.37 $ 11.71 $ 11.82 $ 12.18 $ 0.95 $ 0.98 $ 4.64 $ 4.78 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 3.86 $ 3.97 $ 1.60 $ 1.65 $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ 3.79 $ 3.91 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 19.01 $ 19.58 $ 139.34 $ $ 139.34
Facilities Bonds $ 7.43 $ 7.65 $ 11.37 $ 11.71 $ 11.82 $ 12.18 $ 19.01 $ 19.58 $
Total Debt Service $ $ $ 0.42 $ 0.86 $ 1.67 $ 2.49 $ 2.96 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.44 $ 3.02 $ 2.58 $ 3.17 $ 3.78 $ 72.56 $ 53.02 $ 125.58
Additional Capital Needs $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.95 $ 0.98 $ 4.64 $ 4.78 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 3.86 $ 3.97 $ 1.60 $ 1.65 $ 2.89 $ 2.98 $ 2.35 $ 2.42 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ - $ - $ 35.68 $ $ 35.68
Total Impact to CIP $ $ $ 0.42 $ 0.86 $ 1.67 $ 2.49 $ 2.96 $ 3.44 $ 4.39 $ 4.42 $ 8.08 $ 8.22 $ 4.44 $ 4.47 $ 7.30 $ 7.41 $ 5.04 $ 5.09 $ 6.33 $ 6.42 $ 5.79 $ 5.86 $ 3.30 $ 2.88 $ 3.17 $ 3.78 $ 108.24 $ 53.02 $ 161.26
Offsetting Revenues
Fiscal Impact of Option B
$ - $ - $ 0.42 $ 0.86 $ 1.67 $ 2.49 $ 2.96 $ 3.44 $ 4.39 $ 4.42 $ 8.08 $ 8.22 $ 4.44 $ 4.47 $ 7.30 $ 7.41 $ 5.04 $ 5.09 $ 6.33 $ 6.42 $ 5.79 $ 5.86 $ 3.30 $ 2.88 $ 3.17 $ 3.78 $ 108.24 $ 53.02 $ 161.26
Source: City of Tukwila, 2015; Rice Fergus Miller, 2015; and BERK, 2015.
Notes:
These phasing options include only 50% of the full costs of the public works facility, as it is expected that enterprise funds will cover 50% of this project, as discussed above.
Offsetting revenues are revenues or cost savings from organizational and other efficiencies generated through facility improvements.
June 16, 2015
5
76
CiHY OF WKWILA FACiIIJITy IMEEDS A E MEN ii. AND F EA iiRIIJITy S.ii. DY
FACIIJITIES a UNEYIN OP"11.0IM
To provide a sense of scale, we compared these phasing options to the City of Tukwila's CIP
allocation over the next 25 years if each annual allocation matched one half of the 2013 -2014
biennium as a high estimate, and one half of the 2015 -2016 biennium as a low- medium
estimate. It is notable that the 2013 -2014 CIP allocation is considered a high estimate because
of the large number of grants. The availability of grants in general, and the share of revenues
they represent to Tukwila, is expected to decline over the next several years. This is explored in
more detail in the Situation Assessment.
The result of this analysis shows that Option B ($186.9 million) is significantly more expensive
than Option A ($134.2 million) in the long -term. Additionally, Option B requires significant debt
service ($51.1 million) after 2040.
June 16, 2015
III
ff.*]
CITY OF TOE; II..A FACIII..IITy IMEED5 A55F551 IIEff11" AND FFA51IRII..IITy S'11 "OILY
FACII..IITIIES FONI1IIMG OIL "11"10IMS
Exhibit 4
Review of Facilities Phasing Option A Fiscal Impacts and Debt Service Compared to Previous
Capital Expenditures Budgets, 2015 -2040
(Not including enterprise funds. In millions)
M
Ja Cash
50 !uul New (Facilities Debt Service
ON Existing Debt Service
+1
1
1
Source: City of Tukwila, 2015; Rice Fergus Miller, 2015; and BERK, 2015.
Option A, the more expedient, but less expensive facilities option would require a 20 -year
commitment of 11% of the City of Tukwila's CIP based on the high CIP allocation or 19% based on the
low- medium allocation.
This facilities phasing option would have a significant fiscal impact on the CIP. Between the 2015 and
2036, as much as 27% (in 2023 based on the high CIP allocation) or 39% (in 2019 based on the low -
medium CIP allocation) of the City of Tukwila's CIP would be dedicated to this facilities plan. After the
2036, the fiscal impact would be significantly smaller: less than 10% of either allocation annually.
Given the magnitude of some of the individual facility investments, both phasing options would likely
require significant use of debt financing. Total debt service (existing debt service and debt service
from these facilities projects) over the 20 -year plan would be between 13% of the City of Tukwila's
CIP based on the high CIP allocation or 22% based on the low- medium allocation.
June 16, 2015
7
rN,
:1
CITY OF TUIK; ILA FACILITY IMEEDS A55F551 IIEff11" AND FFA51IRIl..IITy S'11 "UDY
FACILITIES FUNDIIIMG Ole °II"IIOIMS
Exhibit 5
Review of Facilities Phasing Option B Fiscal Impacts and Debt Service Compared to Previous
Capital Expenditures Budgets, 2015 -2040
(Not including enterprise funds. In millions)
11111111111 Cash
1111111111 INew Facilities Debt Service
11111111111 Existing Debt Service
1
High CIP Allocation
Low - Medium CIP Allocation
Source: City of Tukwila, 2015; Rice Fergus Miller, 2015; and BERK, 2015.
• Option B, the more slowly paced, but more costly facilities option would require a 20 -year
commitment of on average 11% of the City of Tukwila's CIP based on the high CIP allocation or 23%
based on the low- medium allocation. It would also require a commitment of additional commitment
of CIP dollars past the period of this phasing plan, until 2059.
• Like Option A, this facilities phasing option would have a significant fiscal impact on the CIP. Between
the 2015 -16 and 2035 -36 biennia, as much as 24% (in 2026 based on the high CIP allocation) or 39%
(in 2025 based on the low- medium CIP allocation) of the City of Tukwila's CIP would be dedicated to
this facilities plan.
Both options require significant financing. Total debt service (existing debt service and debt service
from these facilities projects) over the 20 -year plan would be between 11% of the City of Tukwila's
CIP based on the high CIP allocation or 19% based on the low- medium allocation.
Unlike Option A, the bond commitments enabling this facilities plan would continue for 19 years after
2040. An additional $53.0 million would be spent on this facilities plan across those years.
June 16, 2015 8
i
M.
CiHY OF IUKWILA FACII ITy IMEEDS ASSESSIVIEff"11" ND FEA&U11JITY S.ii. DY
S A C �w, 0 D"'J, Z C O 0 ",,,JS 0DE 0 h,, /' r 0 o 0 "',JI OF F U P',J D 0 0 ",J G
Given the current deficiencies in the City's municipal service facilities, the City may opt to secure
funds using debt to invest in facilities improvements, which will be paid back over time. This
debt option would allow the City to improve its facilities at a rate that could not be supported by
operating surpluses alone, and allow the City to make facilities investments without delaying
investment in the other capital needs identified in its CIP. There are a number of debt options
available to the City; this section describes three of the most common for municipal facility
investments in Washington State.
Beyond the financing and funding of these projects, the City always has the option to reprioritize
its CIP to eliminate projects and free up CIP funding capacity for these facilities projects. The
City's CIP is already strategically prioritized, as there are millions of dollars more of
infrastructure projects identified than can be feasibly funded over the next six years.
P',J A P'''J CE 0 - Yi �w, �, o r ° ,n
Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Bonds — (Non- voted)
Limited tax general obligation bonds (LTGO), also
referred to in Washington State as "council manic"
bonds, do not require voter approval and are payable
from the issuer's general fund and other legally
available revenue sources. LTGO bonds can be used for
any purpose, but funding for debt service must be
made available from existing revenue sources. Tukwila
has debt policies that govern the use of this debt, and
there are constitutional and statutory limits on a
municipality's authority to incur non -voted debt.
Tukwila's debt policies are documented in "City of
Tukwila Debt Policy," which was passed via
councilmanic resolution (Resolution No. 1840) in
September 2014. The state constitution limits non -
voted municipal indebtedness to an amount not to
exceed 1.5% of the actual assessed valuation within the City.
Tukwila currently has $32.4 million in non -voter approved debt outstanding and has a significant
debt issuance capacity for LTGO debt. The remaining debt capacity as of May 2015 for LTGO
Bond Debt was $41.1 million.
June 16, 2015 9
MW
ez
Ci17Y OF WKWILA F CiIIJ1Ty IMEEDS ASSESSIVIEN"11" ND FEASI RIIJ1Ty S.ii.ODY
FACIIJITIES FUor1111M OP"11"10IM
Exhibit 6
Review of Existing Debt and Facilities Phasing Option A LTGO Debt Demand Compared to Total
LTGO Debt Capacity, 2015 -2040
(Not including enterprise funds. In millions)
$7.30.00
$1..60.00
57.40.00
$7.20.00
$7.00.00
$30.00
$60.00
$40.00
;20.00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2010 2020 2021 . 2022 7073 2024. 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2037. 7032 2033 2034 2035 2036 7037 2038 2039 2040
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Existing Debt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Facilities Debt — — L:rGC7 Debt Capacity
Source: City of Tukwila, 2015; Rice Fergus Miller, 2015; and BERK, 2015.
Exhibit 6
Review of Existing Debt and Facilities Phasing Option B LTGO Debt Demand Compared to Total
LTGO Debt Capacity, 2015 -2040
(Not including enterprise funds. In millions)
$1.80.00
$1.60.00
$1.40.00
$1.2.0.00
$1.00.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$ 2.0.00
!
u.C7 C0 r" CO p7 0 s-i N rn) "I Ln C0 r", 00 CJl 0 s—i fN rn) a' Ln �0 fr 00 (Jl 0
c -1
4 e ° "'1 w--1 c -1 rid r`J N rid r`J N rid N r`J N rn) fY'7 "n 'V) N7 C10 CV) N7 ") en w:J'
Cwt 0 0 0 Cwt 0 0 Cwt 0 0 Cwt 0 0 0 Cwt 0 0 Cwt 0 0 Cwt 0 0 0 Cwt 0
N N r`J CN N N r`J N N r`J N N N r`J N N r`J N N r`J N N r`J r`J N N
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiu Exi s li ng Deb L uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 1111 Fay; i t es o e b L — — L. TGO o e b L Ca pa ; ty
Source: City of Tukwila, 2015; Rice Fergus Miller, 2015; and BERK, 2015.
Based on the overall CIP needs, a conceptual bond financing plan was developed for both
phasing options which found that both options could be completed within existing LTGO debt
capacity. However, as LTGO bonds are merely one financing option, it is still prudent of the City
to consider additional financing options as part of its facilities phasing plan.
June 16, 2015
10
C. ,
W.
CITY OF WK II..A FACII..IITy IMEEDS ASSESSI IIEN11" AND FEASIIRII..IITy S'11 "UDY
FACII..IITIIESFUNEYIN OP11"10IMS
Considerations:
0 One of the benefits of LTGO bonds is that they can be passed by councilmanic ordinance.
LTGO bond capacity is substantial, but limited. Currently, the City of Tukwila has $41.4 million in LTGO
bond capacity. This may be enough to fully support either facilities option, however, given the flexible
nature of LTGO debt is an important tool for the City's ability to react to unexpected expenses.
Deploying too much of the City'
0 Since bonds are debt, the added costs of interest will increase project costs long term.
63 -20 Financing
63 -20 is a method of obtaining tax - exempt financing that allows public bonds to be used to
construct public facilities if they are secured by a lease agreement. A nonprofit corporation
issues tax - exempt debt on behalf of a political subdivision for the purpose of financing facilities.
Generally, these bonds require a credit - worthy private developer that is willing to enter into a
lease to support the bond offering. The nonprofit corporation also manages and operates the
building over the lease term. The facility is transferred to the government entity once the debt is
retired. The tenant is required to be either a governmental entity or a charitable organization. A
minimum 90% of the space must be occupied by the governmental entity, as specified by
"private use" requirements.
63 -20 financed bonds have a higher interest rate and issuance fees due to the perceived higher
level of risk compared to the general obligation bond, which has the full backing of the
governmental jurisdiction. 63 -20 financed bonds also have a small asset management fee
associated with them.
Benefits of 63 -20 financing include the ability to realize construction cost savings through using
a general contractor /construction manager (GC /CM) project delivery process compared to the
design- bid -build model typically used for government facilities construction. Under this project
delivery method, the general contractor guarantees a fixed price for the work and takes on the
additional construction risk of subcontracting the project work. In addition, the contractor
provides specialized project management, scheduling, budgeting, and other advice early on and
throughout the project design process, which can result in a more efficient construction process
and less costly project. This project delivery process is especially advantageous for unique or
complex projects where governmental agencies may not have experience. The cost savings are
not guaranteed, and they vary by project depending on the situation. Lastly, 63 -20 bonds do not
count towards a jurisdiction's debt limit, which is advantageous for jurisdictions with limited or
no debt capacity.
Considerations:
63 -20 bonds may make sense when private sector involvement in developing a governmental
facility is likely to provide significant benefits compared to a traditional public approach. These
benefits may be most apparent for facilities that:
0 Are time - sensitive, requiring for example an expedited schedule.
June 16, 2015
11
RYA
r-I on
CITY OF TUKWILA I ACIIIJITy IMEEDS ASSESSI IIEN11" AND I EASIIRII..IITy S'11 "UDY
I ACII..ITIES I UN11IN OP11"I0IMS
Are cost - sensitive or require price certainty for annual budgeting or other purposes (that is, requiring
a shift of all or a portion of the risk of project cost overruns from the governmental entity to the
nonprofit issuer and its private development team).
0 Otherwise require specialized development skills, knowledge or approaches.
The obligation to pay rent is not a debt of the agency for the purposes of constitutional and statutory
limitations on state debt. 63 -20 bonds offer an option when the agency already carries the debt
allowed by statutory regulation.
F UP °'JD �Py'J,G °,n0U C E °,n
Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bonds — (Voted)
UTGO bonds are both a financing and funding source as their issuance includes the levy of an
additional tax to repay them. These bonds require 60% voter approval and may only be used for
capital purposes. When residents of a city vote for a bond issue, they are being asked to
approve: (a) the issuance of a fixed amount of general obligation bonds and (b) the levy of an
additional tax to repay the bonds, unlimited as to rate or amount. Once voter approval is
obtained, a municipal corporation is still restricted by constitutional and statutory debt limits
with these bonds. The statutory debt limits on this type of debt is 2.5% of the assessed value of
property inclusive of any LTGO (non- voted) debt.
The City currently has $32.4 million (2015$) in non -voter approved debt outstanding applicable
to its UTGO debt. Debt Capacity as of May 2015 for UTGO Bond Debt is $90.1 million (2015$).
This is not directly additive to LTGO debt capacity. Only $49 million (2015$) in UTGO bond
capacity would be available if LTGO debt capacity was reached.
Considerations:
To approve UTGO bonds, an election must be held and the measure must be approved by at least
60 %. Thus, these bonds would be most effective for discrete projects, for instance the public safety
facility.
The City has bond capacity and can choose to use it for facilities. Given the magnitude of the facility
needs, it may be both practical and necessary to use UTGO capacity for some or all of the early
project needs, which would also allow the City to keep CIP funds available for other later projects.
0 Since bonds are debt, the added costs of interest will increase project costs long term.
Enterprise Funds
A portion of the Public Works Building included in this facilities plan supports enterprise
programs (water, sewer, and surface water maintenance). These utility services are operated
like a private business where fees are set at a level that allows the City to meet both its
operating and capital needs through user charges. Enterprise programs may raise their rates
(user charges) to increase funding for capital needs. If the City were to consider this option, a
portion of the Public Works Building could be funded from utility revenues, reducing the impact
on the non - utility CIP.
June 16, 2015
12
i e
•i
CITY OF TUKWILA FACILITY IMEEDS ASSESSI IIEff11" AND FEASIIMI..IITy S'11 "UDY
FACILITIES i UNi 111 OP11.I0IMS
Considerations:
0 The City will need to determine how much of the Public Works Building and Shop is related to the
City's utility operations.
0 The potential impact on utility rates would need to be evaluated if this alternative is pursued.
Surplus Property
While a review of current property and market value was not conducted as part of this study,
the City of Tukwila may have property that would be suitable to surplus and sell to help fund
facility investments.
New and Additional Taxes
Transportation Benefit District Levied Taxes
As per Chapter 36.73 RCW, cities can create a transportation benefit district (TBD) through their
legislative authority. A TBD is an independent taxing district that can impose fees to fund
transportation improvements. These taxes are not restricted to capital construction projects and
can be used for maintenance and preservation on road and non - motorized projects. TBDs can
include other counties, cities, port districts, or transit districts through inter -local agreements.
TBDs do not have to include the entire jurisdiction of the establishing entity. The two taxation
options TBDs are authorized to levy include:
Up to a $100 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) levied via a TBD. One tax that can be imposed by a
TBD is an up to a $100 MVET (36.73.075 RCW). A $20 MVET can be imposed without a vote of the
people. The City of Tukwila could consider exploring the policy option of levying this $20 MVET on its
entire jurisdiction via a TBD. However, a small population base means that this is unlikely to generate
significant revenues. In 2014, this option would have generated $0.2 million in additional revenues.
Up to a 0.02% Sales and Use Tax (SUT) levied via a TBD. Another tax that can be imposed by a TBD is
an up to a 0.02% SUT (36.73.075 RCW). Due to the City of Tukwila's robust taxable retail sales base,
an additional SUT levied via a TBD could be a useful tool to generate additional sales tax revenues. In
2014 alone, this option would have generated $3.9 million in additional SUT revenues.
Considerations:
Revenues generated by a TBD can only be used for transportation purposes, however, as 64% of the
costs identified in the CIP are for transportation projects, it is expected that these funds could replace
existing general funds supported transportation projects.
Development of a TBD requires two stages of councilmanic action: (1) development of the authorizing
ordinance, and (2) an ordinance to levy the tax desired. This means that this strategy is unlikely to
provide funding in the first two years of this facilities plan.
0 Long term, a TBD could generate significant revenues to support this facilities plan.
Levy Lid Lift
As per RCW 84.55.050, the only way for Washington cities without banked capacity to increase
its property taxes by more than one percent is to do a levy lid lift. This occurs when taxing
jurisdictions with a tax rate less than their statutory maximum rate ask voters to increase their
June 16, 2015
13
91
92
CITY OF WKWILA F CIIIJITy IMEEDS ASSESSIVIEN"11" ND FEA&IRIIJITY S'11 "UDY
FACIIJITIES FONEYIN OP"11"I0IM
tax rate to an amount equal to or less than the statutory maximum rate, effectively lifting the lid
on the levy rate.
Considerations:
Levy lid lifts are authorized through public vote, which requires a simple majority to pass. It is
unknown whether there is political will to pass such a vote for facilities projects in Tukwila.
Offsetting Cost Savings
It is possible that these new facilities would create both organizational and physical (energy,
water, and maintenance) efficiencies. However, these facilities will also allow for increased use
and be significantly larger than previous facilities, which may negate any efficiency gains. For
that reason, and for the sake of providing conservative estimates, offsetting revenues to support
these projects were not identified.
Considerations:
Offsetting revenues due to organizational and physical efficiencies allowed by these new facilities are
possible, but not necessarily probable, as the new buildings will be larger and their systems will be
more sophisticated. For that reason, potential offsets were considered net neutral to Tukwila's
budget overall.
O"'14I Ell ' u m „Yr m
Several options for financing and funding facilities have been presented in the preceding pages.
It is clear that there is the necessary debt and funding capacity to make these projects feasible.
One next step may include modeling a few financing and funding packages from the options
presented to represent potential discrete funding packages for each option. To do this, a clear
picture of which financing and funding options, under what constraints, are palatable to the City
of Tukwila needs to be established.
June 16, 2015
14
93
M,
City of Tukwila Capital Facities Planning
Implementation Plan
April 22, 2015
Police Department, Courts, (112) Information Technology, City Emergency
Operations Center
Square Footage Req' (2015)
Square Footage Req' (2040)
Land Area Required
Public Safety Building
Adopt Capital Improvement Plan
Public Engagement and Community Outreach
Property Search & Acquisition
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Construction (45,500 sf)
Move -in!
Police Precinct
Evaluate Needs for South Central Precinct
Public Engagement and Community Outreach
Property Search & Acquisition
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Construction (8,000 sf)
Move -in!
Anticipated Outlay (in $Million): *
45,471 sf
53,339 sf
5 to 8 Acres
City shops, repair, and maintenance facilities (replacement and
consolidation of both George Long and Minkler Shops)
Square Footage Req' (2015): 62,919 sf
Square Footage Req' (2040): 71,698 sf
Land Area Required: 15 to 20 Acres
City Shops Facility
Adopt Capital Improvement Plan
Public Engagement and Community Outreach
Property Search & Acquisition
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Construction (63,000 sf)
Move -in!
Surplus George Long and Minkler Shops
Facility Addition
Public Engagement and Community Outreach
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Construction (10,000 sf)
Move -in!
Anticipated Outlay (in $Million): *
DCD, Finance, Human Resources, (112) Information Technology, Mayor's
Office, Council, Public Works (Admin), Parks and Recreation (Admin)
Square Footage Req' (2015): 41,206
Square Footage Req' (2040): 44,915
Existing City Hall Campus
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Police and Courts relocate to new Public Safety Bldg
City Services vacated from both City Hall and 6300 Bldg
Renovation and Addition to existing City Hall Bldg (45,000 sf)
6300 Building demolished and parking built in its place
Move -in!
Anticipated Outlay (in $Million): *
Cultural and Community Centers, Park Restrooms and Shelters, Golf Course
Associated Structures, Houses, Former Water District Facilities
Square Footage Req' (2015): 88,248
Square Footage Req' (2040): 88,248
Adopt Capital Improvement Plan
Design and permitting for improvements and upgrades
Capital Improvements
Anticipated Outlay (in $Million):
* All estimates reflect a 2015 Cost Basis.
Option 'A'
Xn lD I I, oo I 61 O I ri N 1 M zt I Ln to I I, oo I m O I rI N I M t I .n
M O M W O I rO n Zt
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N n
O N ri ri r 1 r 1 ri N N N N N N M M M M M M M O
$ 6.3 1 $ 19.0 1 $
NNN
BMW
$ 6.3 1 $ 19.8 1 $ 0.1
:
:
:
■. min ■f
$ 1.2 1 $ 16.7 1 $ 0.2
$ 1.0
$ 1.0 1 $ 3.4
$ - I$ 3.21$ -
$ 1.01 I$ 1.01 I$ 1.01 I$ 1.01 I$ 1.0
$ 12.6 $ 40.0 $ 17.91 $ 0.2 $ 1.0 $ - 1 $ 1.0 $ - 1 $ 2.0 $ 3.4 $ 1.0 $ 3.2 $ 1.0
95
m
City of Tukwila Capital Facities Planning
Implementation Plan
April 22, 2015
Police Department, Courts, (112) Information Technology, City Emergency
Operations Center
Square Footage Req' (2015):
45,471 sf
Square Footage Req' (2040):
53,339 sf
Land Area Required:
5 to 8 Acres
Public Safety Building
Adopt Capital Improvement Plan
Public Engagement and Community Outreach
Property Search & Acquisition
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Construction (46,000 sf)
Move -in!
Police Precinct
Evaluate Needs for South Central Precinct
Public Engagement and Community Outreach
Property Search & Acquisition
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Construction (8,000 sf)
Move -in!
Anticipated Outlay (in $Million): *
City shops, repair, and maintenance facilities (replacement and
consolidation of both George Long and Minkler Shops)
Square Footage Req' (2015):
62,919 sf
Square Footage Req' (2040):
71,698 sf
Land Area Required:
15 to 20 Acres
City Shops Facility
Adopt Capital Improvement Plan
Public Engagement and Community Outreach
Property Search & Acquisition
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Construction (62,000 sf)
Move -in!
Surplus George Long and Minkler Shops
Facility Addition
Public Engagement and Community Outreach
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
Construction (10,000 sf)
Move -in!
Anticipated Outlay (in $Million): *
DCD, Finance, Human Resources, (112) Information Technology, Mayor's
Office, Council, Public Works (Admin), Parks and Recreation (Admin)
Square Footage Req' (2015): 41,206
Square Footage Req' (2040): 44,915
Existing City Hall Building
Police and Courts relocate to new Public Safety Bldg
Reconfigure Lower Floor vacated by Police
Existing 6300 Building
Police relocate to new Public Safety Bldg
Minor renovation /reconfiguration to accommodate City Services
Interim Improvements to 6300 Building
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
City Services vacated from 6300 Building
Construction (Seismic Upgrades only; 25,000 sf)
Move -in!
City Hall Seismic Upgrade
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
City Services vacated from City Hall
Construction (Seismic Upgrades only; 25,000 sf)
Move -in!
City Hall Renovation & Expansion
Design and Preparation of Construction Plans
City Services vacated from City Hall and 6300 Building
Construction (25,000 sf renovation; 20,000 sf addition)
6300 Building demolished and parking built in its place
Move -in!
Anticipated Outlay (in $Million): *
Cultural and Community Centers, Park Restrooms and Shelters, Golf
Course Associated Structures, Houses, Former Water District Facilities
Square Footage Req' (2015): 88,248
Square Footage Req' (2040): 88,248
Adopt Capital Improvement Plan
Design and permitting for improvements and upgrades
Capital Improvements
Anticipated Outlay (in $Million):
* All estimates reflect a 2015 Cost Basis.
O O I O O I O O I O O I O N
VIII .....%
:
$ - $ 7.7 $ 17.7
$ - �$ 6.31$ 1.51$ 18.41$ -
t.f) l0 I I� (ONO Ol O
O O O O O O
$ - $ 1.4 1 $ 0.51 $ 6.9 1 $ 0.41 $ 5.1
$ 1.0 1 1 $ 1.01 1 $ 1.0
e-I N I M :I- I Ln W
O O O O O O
$ 1.01 $ 3.4 1 $ -
Option V
rn rn
O O O O
$ - $ 3.2 1 $ -
$ 0.3 1 $ 17.7
$ 1.01 1 $ 1.01 1 $ 1.0
$- 1 $ 14.0 1 $ 20.2 1 $ 19.8 1 $ 1.5 $ 6.9 $ 1.4 $ 5.1 $ 2.0 $ 3.4 $ 4.2 $ 0.3 $ 18.7
97
City of Tukwila Capital Facities Planning
Implementation Plan
April 22, 2015
New Construction Square Feet:
New Construction (Civic, Public):
New Construction (Shop, Utilitarian):
Renovation /Remodel Square Footage:
Major Renovation:
Minor Renovation:
Minor Reconfiguration:
Building Construction
Washington State Sales Tax
Architect & Engineering
Other Professional Services
Permits, Fees, Other Expenses
Relocating to Interim Facilities
Contingencies
Land Acquisition
Public Safety
Facility Police Precinct
45,500
8,000
City Shops
City Shops
Addition
63,000
10,000
City Hall
Renovation &
Addition (Option
A)
20,000
Reconfigure City
Hall & 6300 Bldg
(Option B)
Interim
Improvements
to 6300 Bldg to
extend life of
the building
(Option B)
City Hall Seismic
& Safety
Improvements
(Option B)
City Hall
Renovation &
Addition (Option
B)
20,000
$300 /sf
$225 /sf
25,000 20,200 33,600 25,000 25,000
$250 /sf
$150 /sf
$50 /sf
$ 13,650,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 14,175,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 12,250,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 5,040,000 $ 3,750,000 $ 12,250,000
@ 9.5% $ 1,296,750 $ 228,000 $ 1,346,625 $ 213,750 $ 1,163,750 $ 95,950 $ 478,800 $ 356,250 $ 1,163,750
@ 10.0% $ 1,365,000 $ 240,000 $ 1,417,500 $ 225,000 $ 1,225,000 $ 101,000 $ 504,000 $ 375,000 $ 1,225,000
@ 5.0% $ 682,500 $ 120,000 $ 708,750 $ 112,500 $ 612,500 $ 50,500 $ 252,000 $ 187,500 $ 612,500
@ 3.0% $ 409,500 $ 72,000 $ 425,250 $ 67,500 $ 367,500 $ 30,300 $ 151,200 $ 112,500 $ 367,500
@ 5.0% $ $ $ $ $ 612,500 $ $ 252,000 $ 187,500 $ 612,500
@ 15.0% $ 2,047,500 $ 360,000 $ 2,126,250 $ 337,500 $ 1,837,500 $ 151,500 $ 756,000 $ 562,500 $ 1,837,500
$ 6,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ -
Totals $ 25,451,250 $ 4,420,000 $ 26,199,375 $ 3,206,250 $ 18,068,750 $ 1,439,250 $ 7,434,000 $ 5,531,250 $ 18,068,750
100
Upcoming Meetings & Events
June /July 2015
22nd (Monday)
23rd (Tuesday)
24th (Wednesday)
25th (Thursday)
26th (Friday)
27th (Saturday)
➢ Community
➢ Utilities Cmte,
➢ Planning
Community Kitchen
Tukwila Int'l.
Affairs &
5:30 PM
Commission,
Event
Blvd. Action
Parks Cmte,
(Foster
Public Hearing
5:30 - 8:30 PM
Crate's
5:30 PM
Conference
on Housing
(Community Center)
Trash Pickup Day
(Hazelnut
Room)
and
Join Project Feast
9:00 - 10:00 AM
Conference
Residential
and Tukwila Parks
Room)
Neighborhoods
and Recreation for
Elements of
an evening of
the Comp.
interactive cooking.
For location
➢ City Council
Plan
Free. Pre-
information contact
Committee of
6:30 PM
registration is
Sharon Mann
the Whole
(Council
required,
206- 200 -3616
Mtg.,
Chambers)
call 206-768-2822.
7:00 PM
(Council
Chambers)
C.O. W. to be
immediately
followed by a
Special Mtg.
29th (Monday)
30th (Tuesday)
1st (Wednesday)
2nd (Thursday)
3rd (Friday)
4th (Saturday)
Summer
➢ €quity &
Independence Day
Family 4th at Fort
Playground
Diversity
Observed
Dent Park
Program begins at
Commissio
City offices closed
4:00 to 10:00 PM
Cascade View
Community Park
Cancelled
x #
/
/l //
(Fireworks start at
10 PM SHARP)
(14211 3 r"
�
Activities,
Avenue South)
entertainment, food
This Free
vendors and fun!
supervised drop -in
For more
program is back
information call
and ready for
206 -768 -2822.
another exciting
This event is FREE
summer of games,
but toy donations to
activities and craft
support Tukwila's
projects.
Spirit of Giving
June 29 - August
Program and non-
20, Monday
perishable canned
through
food donations for
Thursday.
the Tukwila Pantry
11:00 am - 2:00 pm
will be collected.
Ages 5 to 12 yr.
For additional
information
a
contact the
Community
Center at
206 - 768 - 2822.
➢ Arts Commission: 1st Tues., 5:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Stephanie Gardner at 206- 767 -2342.
➢ Civil Service Commission: 1st Mon., 5:00 PM, Hazelnut Conf, Room. Contact Kim Gilman at 206 - 431 -2187.
➢ Community Affairs & Parks Committee: 2nd & 4th Mon., 5:30 PM, Hazelnut Conf. (A) A contract for structural plan review. (B) A
discussion regarding illegal marijuana grow operations.
➢ Equity & Diversity Commission: 1 st Thurs., 5:15 PM, Hazelnut Conf. Room. Contact Joyce Trantina at 206 -433 -1868.
➢ Finance & Safety Committee: 1 st & 3rd Tues., 5:30 PM, Hazelnut Conf Room.
➢ Library Advisory Board: 1st Tues., 7:00 PM, Community Center. Contact Tracy Gallaway at 206- 767 -2305.
➢ Park Commission: 3rd Wed., 5:30 PM, Community Center. Contact Dave Johnson at 206 - 767 -2308.
➢ Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review: 4h Thurs., 6:30 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall. Contact Wynetta
Bivens at 206 - 431 -3670
➢Transportation Committee: 1st & 3rd Mon., 5:15 PM, Foster Conf Room
➢Tukwila Historical Society: 3rd Thurs., 7:00 PM, Tukwila Heritage & Cultural Center, 14475 59a Avenue S.
Contact Louise Jones -Brown at 206 - 244 -4478.
➢Tukwila Int'l. Blvd. Action Cmte: 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM, Valley View Sewer District. Contact Chief Villa at 206- 433 -1815.
➢ Utilities Committee: 2nd & 4th Tues., 5:30 PM, Foster Conf Room (A) Duwamish Gardens Construction management Consultant
Selection and Agreement. (B) Interlocal Agreement for Green River and Central Puget Sound Watersheds of Water Resource
Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9).
101
Tentative Agenda Schedule
MCiN TH
MEETING 1=
1VIEEI ING 2 -:
MEETING 3 -
MEETING
REGULAR
C.�D;T -'
REGULAR
�..
� C.t7. .
June
1
8
15
22
See agenda packet
cover sheet for this
week's agenda
(June 22 2015
Committee of the Whole
Meeting).
July
6
13
20
27
Special Presentations:
Appointments/
Special Issues:
'-
-Earth Day
Proclamations:
Review and update
Celebration update
A proclamation for
of two of Tukwila's
and presentation of
National Night Out.
Comprehensive
$5,000 check to the
Plan Elements:
Tukwila Pantry.
Tukwila
-A briefing on the
International
"Best Start for Kids"
Boulevard, and
Initiative.
Housing and
Residential
Neighborhoods.
Appointments /
The Plan
Proclamations:
Introduction,
A proclamation for
Vision, Glossary
Parks and Recreation
and Land Use Map
Montl-L
legend.
- Discussion and
consensus on Sound
Cities Association
Public Issues
Committee (SCA
PIC) Items.
August
3
10
17
24
Special Presentations:
Public Hearing:
Special Issues:
�-Review
National Night Out
Review and update
and update
Against Crime poster
two of Tukwila's
of two of Tukwila's
contest winners.
Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive
Elements: Tukwila
Plan Elements:
International
Tukwila
Boulevard, and
International
Housing and
Boulevard, and
Residential
Housing and
Neighborhoods. The
Residential
Plan Introduction,
Neighborhoods.
Vision, Glossary and
The Plan
Land Use Map legend.
Introduction,
Vision, Glossary
and Land Use Map
Special Issues:
legend.
Review and update
- Discussion and
two of Tukwila's
consensus on Sound
Comprehensive Plan
Cities Association
Elements: Tukwila
Public Issues
International
Committee (SCA
Boulevard, and
PIC) Items.
Housing and
Residential
Neighborhoods. The
Committee of the
Plan Introduction,
Whole meeting to be
Vision, Glossary and
followed by Special
Land Use Map legend.
Meeting.
102