HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrans 2016-11-21 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Transportation Committee
❖ Dennis Robertson, Chair
❖ Verna Seal
❖ De'Sean Quinn
AGENDA
Distribution:
R. Turpin
D. Robertson
Deputy City Clerk
V. Seal
Clerk File Copy
D. Quinn
2 Extra
J. Duffie
Mayor Ekberg
Place pkt pdf on Z: \TC -UC
D. Cline
Agendas
L. Humphrey
e-mail cover to: A. Le,
B. Giberson
C. O'Flaherty, D. Robertson,
R. Tischmak
D. Almberg, B. Saxton,
G. Labanara
S. Norris, L. Humphrey
P. Brodin
Forward to 12/5/16 Regular
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2016 — 5:30 PM
FOSTER CONFERENCE ROOM — 6300 BUILDING
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, December 5, 2016
SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Please contact the Public Works Department at 206 - 433 -0179 for assistance.
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1.
PRESENTATION(S)
2.
BUSINESS AGENDA
a) ADA Transition Plan Update
a)
Information only
Pg. 1
b) ADA Transition Plan — Design Services
b)
Forward to 12/5/16 Regular
Pg. 47
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Transpo Group
Consent Agenda
c) Baker Blvd Non - Motorized Improvements
c)
Forward to 12/5/16 Regular
Pg. 51
Interagency Agreement with King County
Consent Agenda
d) 2016 Overlay and Repair Program
d)
Forward to 12/5/16 Regular
Pg. 77
Project Completion and Acceptance
Consent Agenda
e) King County Metro Alternative Services Pilot Participation
e)
Committee Approval
Pg. 79
Application
3.
SCATBd
f) SCATBd November 15, 2016 Meeting Agenda
f)
Information only
Pg. 95
4.
MISCELLANEOUS
g) S 1401h St Traffic Issues
g)
Discussion Only
5.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Future Agendas:
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, December 5, 2016
SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Please contact the Public Works Department at 206 - 433 -0179 for assistance.
TO:
FROM:
BY:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public Works Department - Bob Giberson, Director
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Transportation Committee
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
Scott Bates, Traffic Engineering Coordinator
Mayor Ekberg
November 18, 2016
ADA Transition Plan Update
City Project No. 91510405
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
ISSUE
Update on the federal ADA Transition Plan and present the draft document for the public comment period.
BACKGROUND
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 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.
Cities and other government agencies are required to have an ADA self- assessment and an ADA Transition Plan when
they grow beyond a threshold of 50 full -time equivalent employees. This ADA Transition Plan focuses solely on accessibility
within the public right -of -way and not on the City's programs or facilities. Lack of an ADA Transition Plan can prompt legal
action from the Department of Justice, which oversees federal ADA compliance or can result in loss of Federal Highway
Administration grants for transportation projects.
In June 2015, the Transpo Group was contracted to perform the right -of -way self- assessment and develop an ADA
Transition Plan for Tukwila, which has now been submitted in draft form.
DISCUSSION
The ADA Transition Plan is now required to undergo a public comment period of at least 30 days. A citywide press release
will announce that the ADA Transition Plan documents will be posted on Tukwila's website; hard copies will be made
available for viewing in the City Clerk's office, Permitting Center, and the Tukwila Community Center; and alternate
accessible formats will be made available upon request, including braille, large font, or audible versions. During the
comment period, the public, City Council, and staff will all have an opportunity to review the documents and submit
comments.
At the end of the review period, needed revisions to the draft ADA Transition Plan will be made and a final version will be
presented to Council for consideration. Transition Plans are designed as living documents and are intended to be updated.
The final adoption of the ADA Transition Plan will be done via Resolution.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The ADA Transition Plan identifies a funding need of over $8M in 2016 dollars. The 2017 -2022 CIP includes $200,000 per
year for the ADA Program. In addition, ADA barrier removal could be accomplished by developer improvements, street and
utility projects, and waiver documentation (maximum extent feasible).
RECOMMENDATION
Information and discussion only.
Attachments: Page 19, Proposed 2017 CIP
Draft ADA Transition Plan (Appendices A — H are not included in this packet, but will be made available at the Committee meeting.)
w 1pw englprojects\a- rw 8 rs projectsrada transilion plan f91510405junfo memo ada public review 111816 gl bg.docx
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2017 to 2022
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. Began the ADA Transition Plan in 2016 with
adoption in 2017. The goal is to resolve ADA compliance issues within a reasonable time period.
MAINT.IMPACT:
Negligible.
COMMENT:
Project will be ongoing until City facilities and infrastructure meet ADA requirements. This will also
47
include ADA compliance by utilities and private development.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2015 2016 2017 2n1A 2n14 2n2n 2n9i gn99 RFvntin TnTAi
EXPENSES
Design
116
6
47
25
25
25
25
25
25
319
Land (RMI)
0
Const. Mgmt.
25
8
25
25
25
25
25
25
550
733
Construction
87
50
150
150
150
150
150
150
4,000
5,037
TOTAL EXPENSES
228
64
1 222
200
200
200
200
200
4,575
6,089
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
0
Proposed Grant
0
Mitigation Actual
0
Traffic Impact Fees
0
City Oper. Revenue
228
64
222
200
200
200
200
200
4,575
6,089
TOTAL SOURCES
228
64
222
200
200
200
200
200
4,575
6,089
2
2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program 19
�,��, ,�.
�,, .., ,d�� , �� .
y
r
,i „r
dY,
y�
� C�'w��,� „�� t� ���Itl�
' "�1 aJY��s�JllraUt ' j�����������uYW��l�l� %�'
«�IS���S��ItVI�'��`� � �
�,
��,
U,
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
TukwilaWA.gov
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
David Cline, City Administrator
Bob Giberson, P.E., Director of Public Works
Robin Tischmak, P.E., City Engineer
Additional copies of this document are available online at
Tukwi1aWA.gov1ADATransitionP1an
For questions about Tukwila's ADA Transition Plan, please contact
City of Tukwila - Department of Public Works
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Phone: 206-433-0179
Email: 201SADAPLAN@TukwilaWA.gov
Prepared by:
Trans po Group
11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600
Kirkland, WA 98034
try nspoe/ J, '(Vf
VVI �AT CAN BE
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables.......................................................................... ..............................v
Figures......................................................................... ..............................v
Executive Summary ..................................................... ..............................1
1 Introduction ........................................................... ..............................2
1.1 Plan Requirements ........................................ ..............................2
1.2 Plan Structure ................................................ ..............................3
2 Self- Assessment ................................................... ..............................5
2.1 Policy Assessment ........................................ ..............................5
2.2 Practices and Design Standards ................... ..............................6
2.3 Physical Barrier Assessment ......................... ..............................6
3 Stakeholder Engagement .................................... .............................20
3.1 Engagement Methods .................................. .............................20
3.2 Meeting ADA Standards ............................... .............................21
4 Barrier Removal ................................................... .............................23
4.1 Barrier Removal Methods ............................. .............................23
4.2 Barrier Removal Recommendations ............. .............................24
5 Implementation .................................................... .............................29
5.1 Approach ...................................................... .............................29
5.2 Prioritization .................................................. .............................29
5.3 Transition Plan Cost and Schedule .............. .............................37
6 Current Practices ................................................. .............................40
6.1 Official Responsible ...................................... .............................40
6.2 Current Grievance Process .......................... .............................40
6.3 Maximum Extent Feasible Database and Process ....................40
6.4 APS Policy .................................................... .............................40
6.5 Accessibility of ADA Transition Plan Information .......................40
6.6 Barrier Removal Performance Monitoring .... .............................40
IV
5
TABLES
Table 5 -1 — Accessibility Index Score Value ............... .............................30
Table 5 -2 — Location Index Score Value ..................... .............................32
Table 5 -3 ADA Deficiencies by Type and Priority ....... .............................34
Table 5 -4 ADA Barrier Removal Cost Estimates ........ .............................37
Table 5 -5 Barrier Removal Duration by Priority Level ............................39
FIGURES
Figure 2 -1 [Preliminary] Locations with substandard ramp landings, ramp
widths, or ramp slopes ................................................. ..............................8
Figure 2 -2 Missing Curb Ramps .................................. ..............................9
Figure 2 -3 Figure Curb Ramp Landings ..................... .............................10
Figure 2 -4 Figure Curb Ramp Landings ..................... .............................10
Figure 2 -5 Figure 2 -2 4 Curb Ramp Slope ................. .............................11
Figure 2 -6 Locations Missing Truncated Domes ........ .............................12
Figure 2 -7 Locations with substandard cross slope, vertical discontinuity,
fixed objects, or sidewalk width .................................. .............................13
Figure 2 -8 Sidewalk Width .......................................... .............................14
Figure 2 -9 Sidewalk Fixed Obstacles ......................... .............................15
Figure 2 -10 Non - Compliant Driveways ....................... .............................16
Figure 2 -11 Vertical Discontinuity ............................... .............................17
Figure 2 -12 [Preliminary] Locations with Non -APS push buttons ............18
Figure 2 -13 APS Non -APS Push Buttons ................... .............................19
Figure 5 -1 Accessibility Index Score ........................... .............................31
Figure 5 -2 Location Index Score ................................. .............................33
Figure 5 -3 Accessibility (AIS) & Location (LIS) Combined Score ............35
Figure 5 -4 Accessibility & Location Combined Score (Signal Push Button)
.................................................................................. ...............................
36
Figure 5 -5 Planning Level Cost Estimate by Priority Level and Facility
Type.......................................................................... ...............................
39
v
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document presents the City of Tukwila's public right -of -way
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self- Assessment and Transition
Plan. These two items are required elements of the federally mandated
ADA Title II, which requires that government agencies provide equal
access to programs and services they offer. While the ADA applies to all
aspects of government services, this document focuses exclusively on
the public right -of -way which includes sidewalks, curb ramps and
pedestrian push buttons.
This document summarizes the Self- Assessment, which includes a
comprehensive assessment of the accessibility of pedestrian facilities as
well as practices and procedures which relate to them such as curb ramp
design standards. It also contains a Transition Plan, which identifies a
schedule for the removal of barriers. The document also identifies how
the City will address requests for accommodations in a consistent
manner.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PLAN REQUIREMENTS
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted on July 26, 1990,
and 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.
Cities and other government agencies are required to have an ADA self -
assessment and transition plan when they grow beyond a threshold of 50
full -time equivalent employees, which includes the City of Tukwila. There
are a number of different transition plans a city must conduct, with this
one focused solely on accessibility within the public right -of -way. Lack of
an ADA transition plan can prompt legal action from the Department of
Justice, which oversees federal ADA compliance or can result in loss of
Federal Highway Administration grants for transportation projects.
There are five titles or parts to the ADA of which Title II is most pertinent
to travel within the public right -of -way. Title II of the ADA requires Public
Entities to make their existing "programs" accessible "except where to do
so would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program or
an undue financial and administrative burden." Public rights -of -way are
part of the City's program.
This effort was initiated by the City of Tukwila to satisfy the requirements
of ADA Title II Part 35, Subpart D – Program Accessibility § 35.150 (d)(3)
which states:
The plan shall, at a minimum-
(i) Identify physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit
the accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with
disabilities;
(ii) Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the
facilities accessible;
(iii) Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve
compliance with this section and, if the time period of the transition
plan is longer than one year, identify steps that will be taken
during each year (iv) Indicate the official responsible for
implementation of the plan.
Accessibility standards used in this project, which pertains to sidewalks
curb ramps and pedestrian signals along City owned streets and roads,
were developed by the United States Access Board. The US Access
2
Board is an independent federal agency created in 1973 to ensure access
to federal funded facilities.
The standard, which is called the Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilities in the Public Right -of -Way, or PROWAG, was published for
comment in 2011 but has not been adopted. Despite this delay, many
cities currently use the 2011 proposed guidelines as their standards.
When PROWAG is eventually adopted by United States Department of
Justice (USDOJ), it will become an amended section to the 2010 ADA
Standards, which is the document in which all federal ADA standards are
collectively documented within.
Other City facilities such as buildings, playground and pools are also
subject to Title II program accessibility requirements but are governed
under other ADA standards, not the PROWAG.
1.2 PLAN STRUCTURE
The structure of this plan was organized to closely follow federal ADA
transition plan requirements. This includes:
Chapter 2 - Documents self - assessment findings including
physical barriers as well as practices or design standards that
result in accessibility barriers.
Chapter 3 - Documents public engagement efforts.
Chapter 4 - Describes both programs and mechanisms the City
will use to remove accessibility barriers and identifies a number of
detailed recommendations the City should implement to remove
accessibility barriers moving forward. One of these
recommendations includes appointment of an official responsible
for implementation of this transition plan.
Chapter 5 - Outlines a schedule for the transition plan, including
prioritization of projects, planning level cost estimates and
potential funding sources.
Chapter 6 - Provides the City with a location to store important
and evolving plan information such as where how this plan should
be accessible, annual performance tracking, document of the
official responsible and other items that will change over time.
Best practices were identified and incorporated throughout the planning
process beginning with the Scope of Work. In addition, key best practices
are highlighted throughout the document as call -out boxes.
A number of appendix items are included separately:
• Appendix A — Open House Materials
• Appendix B — Self- Assessment Barrier Map
• Appendix C — Self- Assessment Asset "Mapbook"
• Appendix D — Barrier Audit
3
• Appendix E — Cost Estimate Backup
• Appendix F — Maximum Extent Feasible Documentation
Template
• Appendix G — Grievance Process
• Appendix H — APS Policy
4
10
2 SELF - ASSESSMENT
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that
jurisdictions evaluate services, programs, policies, and practices to
determine whether they are in compliance with the nondiscrimination
requirements of the ADA.
This section describes the data collection process and resulting inventory
of sidewalk and curb ramp facilities within the City of Tukwila public
rights -of -way. To inventory the existing sidewalk and curb ramp facilities
in both a cost - effective and accurate way, Transpo Group and City staff
worked in coordination throughout the inventory and self- assessment
process. The inventory and self- assessment is described in these
sections.
2.1 POLICY ASSESSMENT
The City of Tukwila primarily addresses planned pedestrian facilities in
the Walk and Roll Non - Motorized Plan (2009), Transportation Element
(2015), and in the City's Municipal Code. To determine what ADA
programs, policies, and practices are currently being implemented, the
previously mentioned sources as well as Transportation 2040 (PSRC,
2010) and Countywide Planning Policies (King County, 2012) were
reviewed.
2.1.1 Method
The documents mentioned above were reviewed for content involving
existing ADA programs, policies, and practices including any PSRC or
county requirements that may be in place. ADA - related content was then
compiled to see how they compare to one - another. ADA practices and
designs are discussed in section 2.2.
2.1.2 Findings
The Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) contains two codes pertaining to ADA
compliance and design. TMC 11.12.140 states that all street
improvements and non - motorized facilities shall be designed and
constructed to meet the intent of the ADA. The code also states that all
curb ramps shall be in compliance with State laws and Federal
guidelines. These codes are the primary source that details ADA
requirements in the City. Policies found in other documents are more
general in nature, such as policy 13.2.11 of the Transportation Element
which says that intersections and sidewalks should promote pedestrian
safety and foster walking as a viable mode of transportation. The
Transportation Element also refers to the City's Walk and Roll Plan,
though ADA programs, policies, and practices are not directly discussed
in the Walk and Roll Plan.
5
11
2.2 PRACTICES AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Practices and design standards that meet accessibility standards are
essential to ensure new or upgraded pedestrian facilities are accessible
and that these upgrades contribute to the removal of accessibility barriers
throughout the City. This section summarizes a review of City practices
and design standards for barriers and includes major findings of this work
Complete documentation of this work can be found in Appendix D. The
audit was conducted in November of 2015.
2.2.1 Method
The City of Tukwila maintains adopted design standards for pedestrian
facilities. These standards are used for City funded projects as well as
privately designed and constructed projects within the public right -of -way
Street design standards included in the Fourth Edition of the
Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards (City of Tukwila, April
2010) were audited for compliance with ADA guidelines found in Public
Rights -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (US Access Board, 2011),
WSDOT Design Manual ( WSDOT, 2013), and WSDOT Field Guide for
Accessible Public Right -of -Way ( WSDOT, 2012).
2.2.2 Findings
As a result of the ADA barrier audit, a number of changes to the current
City standards are recommended to comply with ADA requirements.
These recommendations are grouped into four categories: Sidewalks,
Crosswalks, Curb Ramps, Signals, and Other Pedestrian Areas and can
be found in Appendix D.
2.3 PHYSICAL BARRIER ASSESSMENT
2.3.1 Data Collection
The self- assessment included a robust data collection effort that included
24 different attributes for sidewalks, 20 attributes for curb ramps, 13
attributes for signal push buttons, and 5 attributes for locations where
curb ramp appear to be missing. Attributes were collected in the field with
a team of six staff that covered ADA facilities in the City of Tukwila over a
six -week period. The following sections describe the methodology for
collecting data for the self- assessment.
Appendix B includes the data collection inventory maps. Note that all
maps are as of September 2015, and the City will work to actively
maintain this database in the future.
6
12
2.3.1.1 Field Training
Transpo Group trained IDAX staff to conduct data inventory using iPad
units with GIS geodatabase information. Attributes for the City's
sidewalks, curb ramps, and signal push- buttons were collected in October
2015.
The orientation training included work sessions that
fully defined the study purpose and specific sidewalk,
curb ramp, and signal push- button characteristics to
be inventoried. The training also included
demonstration of the use of the iPad units and
Collector for ArcGIS application to measure and
record specific sidewalk, curb ramp, and signal push-
buttons characteristics.
IDAX staff then conducted field and data collection
under supervision to ensure consistent and accurate
measurement of sidewalk and curb ramp
measurements as well as correct recording of
information using the Data Dictionary.
2.3.1.2 Process
Data collection staff were provided iPad units with
the Collector for ArcGIS application installed, tape
measure (to measure sidewalk and curb ramp
dimensions), and a smart level to efficiently and
Data collection in the field accurately measure sidewalk and curb ramp slopes. For
sidewalks, the predominant sidewalk characteristic was
recorded for the length of the block from one intersection to the next.
Each existing curb ramp or street corner with missing curb ramps were
recorded individually. When duplicate measures of the same attribute,
such as flare slope (each ramp has two flares), were recorded, the worst
measure for accessibility was recorded. The physical inventory included;
• over 70 miles of existing sidewalks
• approximately 440 signal push- buttons
• approximately 1,000 curb ramps
2.3.1.3 Quality Control
Pre - planning for the physical inventory effort included the identification of
regular quality control and evaluation of the raw data. Initial review of the
raw data was provided by Transpo Group. City Staff also reviewed data.
Data discrepancies or errors, including missing data, were identified and
coordinated with staff to re- inventory problem areas. As with all manual
data collection, a few small inconsistencies occurred during data
collection, mainly regarding default values when inputting inventory.
F
13
Secondary data collection efforts to replace questionable or missing data
were conducted and addressed the most significant issues.
2.3.2 Findings
The following sections detail the primary barriers inventoried and
analyzed for ADA compliance. State and Federal regulations dictate that
curb ramps and sidewalks be ADA compliant. The findings conclude that
a majority of the pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk facilities are in need
of improvement to meet requirements.
2.3.2.1 Curb Ramps
The majority of the existing curb ramps are non - compliant based on
current ADA requirements. Non - compliance is often primarily attributable
to:
• The top landing is either missing
or of inadequate width;
• The ramp width is too narrow; or
• The ramp running slope is too
steep.
The construction of many of the non-
compliant ramps preceded
implementation of ADA requirements.
Leeway is given in the PROWAG to
road grades and existing roadway
geometric design, recognizing that in
some circumstances the curb ramp
should be built to PROWAG
requirements to the maximum extent
feasible.
)rr...CorcropH ant
Curbs
w CornpH ant Curbs
Figure 2 -1 [Preliminary] Locations with substandard ramp
landings, ramp widths, or ramp slopes
8
14
King
A
Legend
Curb Ramp Missing
City Limits Prot-
Potential Annex Area
Link Light Rail
Pa rks
Water Bodies
............... . . ................ . .....
QCurb Ramp Missing
Tukwila ADA Transition Plan
X 4.
N
P',O)n
Huflidpal
Airport
.... . . ......
------------- �Ivl
DRAFT FIGURE
2-2
W%
IN
Locations without curb
ramps, but include an
adjacent pedestrian
route (e.g. sidewalk)
a
0 5 vlilew
------------- �Ivl
DRAFT FIGURE
2-2
W%
IN
K K
j rig Cw- n
L-
I IV
NC
Rontan
rAupicipt
AirFnrt
Landings are at the top or bottom of a
curb ramp and measured as a square
or rectangle- The minimum standard
area for a landing is 4ft x 4ft.
DRAFT FIGURE
iv-- 2-3
10
16
7:
Legend
Substandard Landing
Tarc
no
mwon
City Limits kport
I
Potential Annex Area 99
Link Light Rail
Parks
Water Bodies
0)
r-r-r-r-ri
D 6.5 M i les
Curb Ramps: Substandard Landings
Tukwila ADA Transition Plan
I IV
NC
Rontan
rAupicipt
AirFnrt
Landings are at the top or bottom of a
curb ramp and measured as a square
or rectangle- The minimum standard
area for a landing is 4ft x 4ft.
DRAFT FIGURE
iv-- 2-3
10
16
Legend
Curb Ramp Slope
Ih
>10%
—8.3%
City Limits
Intel fa ion;
kpoFl
Potential Annex Area
9
Link Light Rail
Parks
Water Bodies
Curb Ramp Slope
Tukwila ADA Transition
Plan
1,
P
IC
pont.0"
f-I'l n id pal
Alpid
I
Curb ramp slopes less than 8.3%
is the acceptable standard.
J,
11/1 .................
..................
DRAFT FIGURE
2-4
11
IVA
I
4
',� Kintu Cn�un
��intern�'.ibl7
$4rportt
e hl
A
I +�
� 4 IG]
44
Legend
I: ,E
M No Truncated Domes
F,eaCt e�Tac� a
�-� 1 Intarnaianal t _
J City Limits � iai
„f
Potential Annex Area
A
f
Link Light Rail
— sr........
Parks Ramps without tactile warning surfaces where r
Water Bodies the curb ramp ends and meets the roadway
i% �...�.- .�...L.- r....i , olio � i ar „mac, � v,�✓
Curb Ramps: o Truncated
_ FIGURE
Tukwila ADA Transition Alan trar"ispogo
2-5
12
18
mio CorcropH ant
Figure 2 -7 Locations with substandard crass slope,
vertical discontinuity, fixed objects, or sidewalk width
2.3.2.2 Sidewalks
Several miles of sidewalks in the City of Tukwila are
non - compliant based on ADA requirements. Non-
compliance is often primarily attributable to:
• The sidewalk width is too narrow;
• The sidewalk has a fixed object that impedes on
required usable pedestrian space
• Non - compliant driveways intersect the sidewalk
• The cross slope of the sidewalk is too steep; or
• The sidewalk has locations of cracking and heaving
that create vertical discontinuities.
While the construction of narrow sidewalks may have
preceded implementation of ADA requirements, many
of the non - compliant sections of existing sidewalks
may be attributable to deferred maintenance.
13
1F]
M
X 41�
N
P,Qntm
fbirmcipal
A!,F i
14
20
Sidewalk Width
167
Meets ADA Standards
Doesn't Meet ADA Standards
.ra R
City Limits
Potentia I Annex Area 99 9
'A
Link Light Rail
Width is measured as the minimum
usable width for a sidewalk segment,
Parks
generally 5ft. There are approximately
2.4 miles of Substandard Sidewalks
Water Bodies
within City Lim its.Roadways without
0 D.5 Miles
data displayed do riot have sidewalks.
I ------
Sidewalk Width
DRAFT FIGURE
Tukwila ADA Transition Plan
r anspo,, r - i � p, 2-7
L T,
14
20
�y
Fixed
Sidewalk xr # Obstacles & Barriers DRAFT Illr
Tukwila 4 Transition Plan -8
15
041
Sidewalk With Nan-Compliant Driveways
DRAFT" FIGURE
Tukwila A D A Transition PIan
2-9
16
22
111111111111110M, I
Legend
Vertical Discontinuity
Extreme >314"
Significant <314"
Moderate <1/2"
............. Minor <1/4"
--- None
L
City Limits
a ional
A ,r,, ipaq
Potential Annex Area
99
Link Light Rail
ry Pa rks
Vertical discontinuities including cracks
or bumps that result in abrupt edges,
Water Bodies
Segments are measured against worst
r7-T-T-T-1
location on block segments
.111,
0 5 Miles
Sidewalk Vertical Discontinuity
DRAFT FIGURE
Tukwila ADA Transition Plan
2 -10
17
23
2.3.2.3 Signal Push Buttons
Accessible Pedestrian Signals and
Push Buttons is an integrated system
that communicates to pedestrians in a
visual, audible, and vibrotactile
manner when to cross a street at a
signalized intersection. Non-
compliance is often primarily
attributable to:
• Use of Style H -1 Push buttons
• Other non -APS style push
buttons
m APS im Non ...APS
While crossings with push buttons
provide dedicated crossing time to the
pedestrian, the use of APS push Figure 2 -12 [Preliminary] Locations with Non -APS push buttons
buttons are required to meet ADA
standards. Non -APS locations in the
City may be attributed to the crossing having not been upgraded since the
requirement was put into place. All push buttons must be upgraded to
APS when adjustments to the pedestrian push button crossing system
are made at the location.
18
24
Legend
* AP
* No
City
Pot
Lin
Pal
wa
Signal Push Buttons: APS and Non-APS DRA FT FIGURE
... ... .. . .... .. ....
Tukwila A DA Transition Plan
',,"Ir 2-12
19
25
3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Public and stakeholder input is an essential element in the transition plan
development and self - evaluation processes. ADA implementing
regulations require public entities to provide an opportunity to interested
persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations
representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the self -
evaluation process and development of the transition plan by submitting
comments (28 CFR 35.105(b) and 28 CFR 35.150(d)(1)). There were
three primary goals for the public outreach activities prior to adopting the
plan:
• Meet Title II requirements for public comment opportunity.
• Inform the public about the City's plan and processes regarding
removal of barriers to accessibility within the right -of -way. Provide
information to assist interested parties to understand the issues
faced by the City, alternatives considered and planned actions.
• Obtain public comment to identify any errors or gaps in the
proposed accessibility transition plan for the public rights of way,
specifically on prioritization and grievance processes.
3.1 ENGAGEMENT
METHODS
3.1.1 Open House
An open house event was held
on January 13th, 2016 at the
Valley View Sewer District
offices. The objective of this
event was to engage the
community on the federal
requirements for ADA planning
and educate participants on the
City's ADA Transition Plan
development. Activities
included a combination of
presentations and interactive
displays to obtain community
input on issues and priorities.
11 11 a.1..:,
P MORI'V E IMP'ROVEMENTS
u
r u,
r�
,N
Open house board for capturing public priorities
An interactive exercise was conducted as part of the open house
activities. It provided an opportunity for attendees to provide input on the
Plan's priority strategies. The exercise assisted in identifying key themes
to move forward in development of the Plan. Participants were asked to
select their highest priorities related to physical obstacles and key
20
26
destinations. This exercise provided valuable input on the perspectives of
the users and facilitated discussion regarding the Plan priorities.
Announcements for the open house noted that materials in alternative
languages and formats were available upon request.
3.1.2 Project Website and E -mail address
The City of Tukwila developed a ,p.Egi2� .� M2!b i.te..(www.tukwilawa.gov/
departments/ mayors- office / key- city - plans- and - projects /ada- transition-
plan /) for easy on -line access to project information and ways to provide
feedback. The Draft and Final ADA Transition Plan documents were also
available on the website. A project e -mail address
2015ADAPLANa-Tu kwilaWA. Gov was also sent up, allowing people to
submit comments directly via e-mail.
3.2 MEETING ADA STANDARDS
Per 28 CFR 35.150(d)(1), public involvement is required as follows: A
public entity shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including
individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with
disabilities, to participate in the development of the transition plan by
submitting comments. A copy of the transition plan shall be made
available for public inspection.
The Draft City of Tukwila Transition Plan was made available for public
review and comment for a 30 -day period beginning December 8th, 2016
and ending January 20th, 2016. A link to the draft plan was provided on
the City's project website.
The City also distributed copies of the draft plan to viewing locations
around the City including the office of the City Clerk, The Public Works
permit center and the Tukwila Community Center. Alternate accessible
formats of the document were made available upon request, including
Braille, large font, or audible versions. The City issued a citywide press
release announcing the availability of the document.
A letter was sent to the disability groups within the City announcing the
availability of the draft plan and directing interested stakeholders to the
City's website and viewing locations.
Title VI Nondiscrimination Law
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a Federal statute and provides
that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
21
27
assistance. This includes matters related to language access or limited
English proficient (LEP) persons.
The City of Tukwila ADA Transition Plan public participation process
included translation service upon request for open house materials, draft
plan and open house. Additionally, the open house was specifically held
at the Valley View Sewer district because the build has better accessibility
than City Hall and is in close proximity to cultural destinations of LEP
communities.
22
28
.
TZ r=TF1S7Nre17TT1
Removal of accessibility barriers within the public right -of -way is the
primary purpose of ADA transition plans. The following section
documents the primary methods of barrier removal and contains
recommended changes to city policies, practices and design standards to
comply with state and federal requirements related to ADA accessibility in
the public right -of -way.
4.1 BARRIER REMOVAL METHODS
The City can utilize a number of methods to remove accessibility barriers
in the public right -of -way. These methods range from stand -alone
projects, removal of barriers as part of other City roadway projects, utility
projects, removal of barriers by development and MEF (Maximum Extent
Feasible). In order for these methods to be effective, City practice and
design standards must comply with federal ADA guidance. If they are not,
new or reconstructed pedestrian facilities may not be constructed to
accessibility standards, requiring costly revision and increasing the
duration it will take the City to remove accessibility barriers.
4.1.1 Stand -Alone ADA Projects
As identified the in transition schedule, the City of Tukwila has committed
to dedicated funding for ADA barrier removal projects targeted for
removal of high - priority barriers as identified in the self - evaluation. The
City already funds ADA improvements as a part of other projects, but by
creating a dedicated funding stream for ADA barrier removal, investments
can be targeted to those locations where improvements are most needed,
rather than where other projects are funded.
4.1.2 New or Widened Roads
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) defines and shows funding for
the City's capital projects including street improvements ranging from
minor street widening to street extension projects and utility projects
which impact sidewalks. A variety of short and long -range plans, studies
and individual requests help identify projects which are then included and
prioritized. The City of Tukwila updates its CIP bi- annually and
coordinates with other jurisdictions, WSDOT, and the community at -large
with regards to timing and project priorities.
Pedestrian improvements (new or replacement) are generally included as
part of these street improvements and using this plan, accessibility
barriers are now easier to identify and include in CIP projects.
23 29
4.1.3 Street Overlays
To maintain the City's street system in good condition, the City completes
street overlay projects which includes reconstruction of part of the
roadbed. These projects are required to reconstruct non - compliant curb
ramps. Street overlays have been one of the primary methods that
accessibility barriers, especially related to curb ramps, have been
removed within the City.
4.1.4 Traffic Signal Upgrades
The City upgrades existing traffic signals for a variety of reasons, often
with the goal of reducing vehicle congestion. When these upgrade occur,
the City has the opportunity to ensure that push buttons and pedestrian
signals meet current accessibility standards including: button location and
position; non - visual format of indicating "WALK" and "DON'T WALK"
using audible tones; and vibrotactile surfaces.
4.1.5 Utility Upgrades or Repairs
Utility upgrades or repairs to water, sewer, communication or electrical
systems can impact the pedestrian network. The City should work
internally and with utility partners to ensure that pedestrian facilities are
rebuilt to be ADA compliant if altered by projects.
4.1.6 Private Development
Even with a variety of City funded accessibility improvements, it will take
many years to remove accessibility barriers or remove sidewalk gaps.
Redevelopment of properties such as construction of new housing or
commercial buildings or major remodels can provide a valuable boost to
barrier removal efforts. For example, non - accessible driveways represent
a major barrier within the City, representing roughly 20% of the overall
transition plan cost.
4.2 BARRIER REMOVAL RECOMMENDATIONS
An assessment of City policies, practices and design standards, as
documented in Chapter 2, was conducted to understand the process that
results in barriers to accessibility in the public right -of -way. This
assessment was informed through a review of adopted City plans, field
observations, discussions with City staff and a detailed design audit (see
Appendix D).
The recommendations included below were developed in response to this
assessment and have been written in such a way that recommended
actions are clearly identified and progress on each specific
recommendation can be easily tracked and updated.
24 30
Recommendation 1: Updated City design to match the PROWAG
guidance
Status: Underway
A detailed audit of City design standards using the Proposed Accessible
Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right -of -Way
( PROWAG), WSDOT Design Manual (July 2013) and WSDOT Field
Guide (2012) was conducted to inform Chapter 2. This audit, which is
included in Appendix D, recommends a number of specific changes to the
City's Infrastructure Design and Standards (Infrastructure Manual)
including additional construction tolerances or more details defining
maximums around slope. Recommendations for the design of sidewalks,
crosswalks, curb ramps, signals and other areas such a work zones are
also identified. The City should update the Infrastructure Manual or adopt
design standards from another agency that meet PROWAG standards.
Recommendation 2: Identify an official responsible for Transition
Plan implementation within the Public Works Department
Status: Completed (October 2016)
The Director of Public Works, Bob Giberson, has been identified as the
official responsible (see Section 6.1 Official Responsible for more
information). This position, often referred to as the "ADA coordinator ", is
one of the four major federal requirements for every ADA transition plan.
The ADA coordinator is responsible for facilitating city transition planning
such as responding to grievance requests.
Recommendation 3: Adopt a Citywide APS policy
Status: Completed (October 2016)
Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) policies serve as a means for cities
to be consistent with ADA requirements at traffic signals. The APS policy
covers the location and means of communication for APS devices that
"communicate information about pedestrian timing in nonvisual formats
such as audible tones, verbal messages, and /or vibrating surfaces"
(MUTCD). The City has an adopted APS policy (see Section 6.4)
Recommendation 4: Educate City staff, consultants and contractors
on PROWAG standards
Status: Pending
Transition plans are often a learning experience for City staff, consultants
and contractors alike since they change existing practices and
expectations. The City should use updates to the City's design standards
as an opportunity to teach and learn about accessibility and the barriers
25
31
that those with limited mobility or sight experience when traveling in the
City's public right -of -way. Education can take many forms from review of
updated design standards with key individuals such as field inspectors
and contractors, development and review of City specific design
standards or checklists with City engineers, or training from groups that
serve those with disabilities.
Recommendation 5: Clarify and enforce requirements around
accessibility through construction zones
Status: Underway
Work zones should provide the same level of accessibility as permanent
pedestrian facilities covered by ADA requirements. Pedestrian
accessibility needs to be maintained in areas of street construction and
maintenance. Tukwila should review standards and policies to ensure that
alternative walking routes are secured within designated work zones.
Recommendations 6: Develop a standard grievance process for
barriers in the public right -of -way
Status: Underway
Public entities subject to Title II of the ADA are required to adopt and
publish a grievance procedure as part of their transition plan. A grievance
process allows community members to formally report denial of access to
a City facility, program, or activity on the basis of disability. It is
recommended that the City of Tukwila adopt a grievance process that is
easy to initiate, transparent and responsive.
A process like this could include a two -step approach to comply with the
requirement for grievance procedures. The first step of the process would
be to file a "Request for Service" and the second step to file for a
"Grievance ".
A Request for Service allows the public to request accommodations or
barrier removal. A request should be possible in- person, by telephone, by
mail, or via e-mail and should be recorded in the Public Work'
Maintenance Management System (MMS). Information on how to file this
should be easily accessible. The recording of the request is critical for
recordkeeping and to evaluate the Department's response to ADA - related
requests.
The second step, a Grievance, is used to report denial of access to a City
facility, activity, or program. A Request for Service should be required
prior to submitting a grievance. The City should then acknowledge, review
the filing, and respond within a set number of days upon receipt. A clear
26
32
process for appeal of a Grievance decisions should be communicated if a
denial is issues.
Recommendation 7: Develop a consistent and centralized MEF
documentation database
Status: Underway
Maximum extent feasible (MEF) is policy that dictates that alterations to
the public right -of -way that could affect the usability of a facility must be
made in an accessible manner to the maximum extent feasible. ADA
Standards for Accessible Design (2010) dictates that:
Each facility or part of a facility altered by, on behalf of, or
for the use of a public entity in a manner that affects or
could affect the usability of the facility or part of the facility
shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be altered in such
manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if
the alteration was commenced after January 26, 1992.
The City of Tukwila should adopt a MEF documentation process and
standard template for the documentation of maximum extent feasible
when addressing new or altered construction. This documentation should
be stored in a centralized location and be linked to the City's GIS ADA
self - assessment database to ensure consistency of data.
Consolidation of past MEF records into this data is also recommended to
allow the City to identify if pedestrian facilities in the GIS self- assessment
were subject to an MEF, and should therefore be removed from the City's
list of barriers. A template example has been provided in Appendix F.
Recommendation 8: Develop performance measures and processes
to track removal of barriers
Status: Underway
The primary purpose of an ADA transition plan is to develop a plan for
removal of accessibility barriers. In order to show progress towards this
requirement, the City should develop a process of tracking barrier
removal on a year by year basis. It is recommended that the City actively
updated the GIS ADA self- assessment database developed for this plan,
tracking how and when ADA barriers are removed. This data can be used
to provide annual updates on progress and demonstrate to the public as
well as federal regulators that the City is making progress to meet Title II
requirements.
27
33
Recommendation 9: Begin to work on other Title II required
elements such as public buildings and parks
Status: Pending
Title II, "protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination
on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by
State and local government entities." and extends beyond accessibility
within the public right -of -way. The City should develop a plan for meeting
other Title II requirements such as removal of barriers in public buildings,
programs and parks.
28
34
5 IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 APPROACH
Development of an implementation plan and transition schedule included
three steps once the Citywide barrier assessment was complete. First, all
pedestrian facilities with an identified barrier were prioritized based on two
factors, the severity of the barrier and the proximity that facility to public
destinations. Next, a planning level cost estimate was developed to
provide an estimate of the financial resources needed to removal all
barriers. Finally, a schedule was developed based on the annual financial
resources the City Council has allocated to barrier removal. The follow
chapter describes these steps in more detail.
5.2 PRIORITIZATION
To focus City efforts toward facilities that pose the largest barrier within
the public right -of -way, an analysis of the accessibility of each pedestrian
facility and its proximity to public destinations such as schools, libraries,
parks, transit and city buildings was completed. The result of this analysis
is a prioritized list of projects, with the highest benefit projects identified
for removal first.
To complete this assessment, a multi - criteria analysis was conducted to
determine which facilities do not meet existing sidewalks and curb ramp
standards and how. Each attribute collected in the field was compared
against PROWAG requirements as outlined in Chapter 2.
If the facility does not meet PROWAG criteria or is located near public
destinations, points were assigned, with the number of points dependent
on the relative importance or proximity. Sidewalks or curb ramps with
poor PROWAG compliance and a number of proximate destinations
received a high score and are prioritized for removal while PROWAG
compliant ramps far from public destinations have a score of zero.
Missing sidewalks or curb ramps were assigned the greatest number of
points.
5.2.1 Accessibility Index Score
A number of criteria were used to establish the extent to which each
pedestrian facility did or did not present a barrier to accessible mobility.
Table 5 -1 shows these criteria, the threshold used to identify them as a
barrier, and the score used to indicate the severity of each barrier relative
to each other.
29
35
Table 5 -1— Accessibility Index Score Value
Accessibility Index
Score Criteria Threshold Score
Sidewalks
Curb Ramps
Missing Curb Ramps
Signal Push Buttons
Width
< 48 inches
3
Cross Slope
> 2%
2
Condition
< Average
3
Vertical Discontinuity
> Minor
4
Fixed Obstacles
Present
6
Moveable Obstacles
Present
2
Protruding Obstacles
Present
3
Non - Compliant Driveways
Present
2
Maximum Sidewalk (AIS)
25
Score
Landing
Not Present
5
Landing Width
< 48 inches
3
Ramp Width
< 48 inches
3
Ramp Running Slope
> 8.3%
4
Ramp Running Cross Slope
> 2%
2
Truncated Domes
Not Present
3
Flare Slope
> 10%
2
Gutter Slope
> 2%
1
Lip
> 1/4 Inch
2
Landing Clear Space
< 4ft x 4ft
2
Landing Cross Slope
> 4%
2
Maximum Curb Ramp
29
(AIS) Score
All Curb Ramp Criteria
29
(Maximum)
H -Style Non -APS Push 5
Button
Other Non - Standard Push 10
Button
Facilities with a higher Accessibility Index Score (AIS) presented a large
accessibility barrier and are shown in Figure 5 -1 as red dots or lines.
Facilities with fewer or no barriers are shown in Figure 5 -1 as green. As
shown on Figure 5 -1, sidewalks and curb ramps in the residential area
bounded by 1 -5, 1 -405 and the Green River have a high concentration of
barriers, where facilities along Tukwila International Boulevard or other
newer roads have fairly few barriers.
30
36
INC
putm
Municipal
AI(F,qrt
�" "t, , ,II
...........
[515
rr' III imernmon 1 11
City Limits
Potential Annex Area 99
Link Light Rail
ADA Accessibility of each Curb Ramp and
Pa rks Sidewalk feature. Higher score reprents IN
a larger number of barriers such aess
Water Bodies non compliant slopes, landing widths,
sidewalk widths, obstacles, etc.
0 5 Miles
Accessibility Index Score (AIS) Composite DRAFT FIGURE
Tukwila RDA Transition Plan tfanspo,3'� 5-1
31
37
5.2.2 Location Index Score
Similarly, a number of destinations were used to identify high priority
pedestrian facilities within the City. This was done by identifying public
destinations such as public buildings, transit and parks and identifying
pedestrian facilities within close proximity of one or more of these
destinations.
Pedestrian facilities within the identified proximity were assigned points
based on each destination they were close to (See Table 5 -2). This
measure was called the Location Index Score.
Table 5 -2— Location index Score Value
Transit Bus Stops
Traffic Signal /Roundabout
Public Buildings
Downtown / Urban / Commercial
Business Centers
Community Defined Destinations
WE
Within '/8 -mile of transit stop 5
Within '/8 -mile of signal or roundabout 5
Within' /8 -mile of location 5
Within'/ -mile radius of Downtown, 5
Urban and Commercial Business
Center Zoning -
Within' /8 -mile of location 5
Total Location Index Score (LIS) 40
Figure 5 -2 below is a graphic representation of this scoring process.
Darker locations indicate areas with a high concentration of pedestrian
destinations while lighter areas represent areas with a low concentration
of these destinations.
32
38
Possible
Score
Location Criteria
Rating Criteria
Schools
-
Proximity to Schools
Within '/8 -mile radius of school
5
Walk -To- School Route
Within safe routes to school zone
5
Parks
Within' /8 -mile radius of park
5
Transit
-
High- Capacity Transit Stops
Within' /8 -mile of high- capacity transit
5
Transit Bus Stops
Traffic Signal /Roundabout
Public Buildings
Downtown / Urban / Commercial
Business Centers
Community Defined Destinations
WE
Within '/8 -mile of transit stop 5
Within '/8 -mile of signal or roundabout 5
Within' /8 -mile of location 5
Within'/ -mile radius of Downtown, 5
Urban and Commercial Business
Center Zoning -
Within' /8 -mile of location 5
Total Location Index Score (LIS) 40
Figure 5 -2 below is a graphic representation of this scoring process.
Darker locations indicate areas with a high concentration of pedestrian
destinations while lighter areas represent areas with a low concentration
of these destinations.
32
38
la bdnioi9ir W.,
111 ter I Ia. I
rp v,,r
Curb Ramp (LIS)
• 31 - 40 (Many Nearby)
® 21 -30
6 11 -20
fl/ 0 - 10 (Fewer Nearby)
Sidewalk (LIS)
- 31 - 40 (Many Nearby)
- 21 -30
MUM/
�N
X411111�
Jv
Porten
Municipal
Airport
jf
Curb Ramp and Sidewalk
IaI features in proximity to
destinations and amenities.
Index Score based on Urban
Zones, High Capacity Transit,
Bus Stops, Parks, Schools,
Community Destinations,
Public Buildings. Higher
score represents a greater
need for accessibility..
DRAFT FIGURE
11 1
Ill 11, �K'117117
trali"Ispo(`�' 5-2
33
39
11 - 20
0 - 10 (Fewer Nearby)
c
,
City Limits
Potential Annex Area 11 99
Link Light Rail
Parks
0
Water Bodies
"/ ..................
0 13 mile, F,
Location Index Score (LIS)
Composite
Tukwfla ADA Transition Plan
X411111�
Jv
Porten
Municipal
Airport
jf
Curb Ramp and Sidewalk
IaI features in proximity to
destinations and amenities.
Index Score based on Urban
Zones, High Capacity Transit,
Bus Stops, Parks, Schools,
Community Destinations,
Public Buildings. Higher
score represents a greater
need for accessibility..
DRAFT FIGURE
11 1
Ill 11, �K'117117
trali"Ispo(`�' 5-2
33
39
5.2.3 Barrier Removal Priorities
By combining the Accessibility Index Score and Location Index Score
together, a Composite Index Score was developed. Together, these
measures prioritize barrier removal at locations where pedestrian facilities
present a barrier and where pedestrians would be expected.
Facilities with the highest score should be address first (36+ points) and
represent facilities that present a clear physical barrier and are in high -
demand areas. Facilities with lower scores should be address last (0 to
15 points), have minor barriers, and are in locations where pedestrian
demand would be expected to be lower. These scores are relative,
comparing one facility to the other. The ranges for medium and high
priority were defined based on review of the identified barriers and
assessment of the relative barrier they present. It should be noted that
while some barriers are lower, they still need to be removed.
Figure 5 -3 shows the sidewalk and curb ramp priority by locations in with
dark red indicating the highest priority and the lowest priority barriers in
green. Figure 5 -4 shows pedestrian push buttons at signalized
intersection and uses the same color range.
A tabular representation of this data has also been shown in Table 5 -3
below, using the same ranges.
Table 5 -3 ADA Deficiencies by Type and Priority
ADA Deficiency
Unit
Lower
Medium
High
Highest
Sidewalks
Non - Compliant Sidewalk Width
LF
605
209
184
61
Non - compliant sidewalk slope
LF
5,529
22,040
15,608
1,882
Non - compliant driveways
EA
102
505
300
26
Non - compliant vertical discontinuity
LF
1,028
7,120
5,773
618
Sidewalk fixed obstacles (Trees)
EA
9
69
66
1
Sidewalk fixed obstacles (Utility Poles)
EA
-
2
14
3
Sidewalk fixed obstacles (Fire Hydrants)
EA
5
1
-
Sidewalk fixed obstacles (Mailboxes)
EA
12
11
-
Curb Ramps
Curb ramps without truncated domes
EA
21
63
34
2
Crossings with missing curb ramps
EA
-
-
21
44
Substandard ramp landings
EA
16
128
193
57
Non - compliant ramp width or slope
EA
28
171
248
57
Push Buttons
Locations without APS push buttons
EA
77
225
59
1
34
40
w"A
M
I
hi"
4,
v"
, 14
90
Curb Ramp (AIS+LIS)
• "o
36+ (Higher Priority) "
26-35 �Y,
16-25
0 - 15 (Lower Priority) 1 -7 4-,40 i-
Sidewalk (AIS+LIS)
7
36+ (Higher Priority)
167
26-35
16-25
. . .......................... 0 - 15 (Lower Priority)
City Urnits &
Potential Annex 99 Area I �q
Link Light Rail
Parks
Water Bodies
0 0 5 Mrkm
Accessibility (AIS) & Location (LIS) Combined Score FIGURE
Trjkwila ADA Transition Plan DRAFT 5-3
M/0
35
41
Accessibility & Location Combined Score (Sig�nial Push Button) FIGUR-2
A DA Tra nsiti on Plan DRAFT
36
42
5.3 TRANSITION PLAN COST AND SCHEDULE
A key requirement of an ADA Transition Plan is development of a
schedule which show how long it will take the City to remove accessibility
barriers. Understanding the financial resources needed to remove
accessibility barriers is essential for developing such a schedule.
5.3.1 Process
Unit costs were developed to address ADA barriers described in Chapter
2. The barriers include various levels of expense and are separated into
cost estimates for sidewalks, curb ramps and pedestrian push button
improvements.
A final cost estimate was determined using information from the data
inventory and calculated using current year construction costs, as shown
in Appendix E. The cost estimates are meant to assist in determining a
schedule for the completion of the barrier removal process as a tool to
help the City plan funding for the full removal of barriers over a number of
years. By funding the program substantially in the near -term (1 -3 years) it
allows the City to address a number of barriers at the onset while
lowering the total number of years needed to fully fund the program.
5.3.2 Cost Estimate Assumptions
Planning level cost estimates were determined using data gathered
during the inventory process and unit costs from the City and WSDOT.
Sidewalk and curb ramp ADA deficiencies were totaled using their
respective unit — linear feet for sidewalks, and number of facilities for curb
ramps.
To avoid overestimation of non - compliant facilities assumptions were
made when necessary to address the reasonableness of the unit cost.
Other factors such as contingency, design, mobilization and traffic control
were added to the sidewalk and curb ramp barrier removal cost subtotal.
Right -of -way and any other ROW associated costs were not captured in
the cost estimation. The cost estimation worksheet should be updated as
the City completes barrier removal projects, additional facilities are
determined to be non - compliant, or the assumed project costs change.
5.3.3 Planning Level Cost Estimate
The planning level cost estimate to remove all identified barriers is
$8,057,000 (in 2016) including construction, design, mobilization,
contingency and other construction related contingencies. Table 5 -4
below shows a detailed accounting of each type of barrier, how each
barrier would be resolved and the associated cost. Non - compliant
sidewalks represent the largest overall cost, followed by non - compliant
driveways and curb ramps at roughly the same overall total cost.
Table 5 -4 ADA Barrier Removal Cast Estimates
37
43
ADA Deficiency
Improvement Type
Total
Price
Sidewalks
Non - Compliant Sidewalk Width
Sidewalk improvements (upgrade /reconstruct
$37,039
existing 6' wide sidewalk)
Non - compliant sidewalk slope
Sidewalk improvements (upgrade /reconstruct
$1,982,581
existing 6' wide sidewalk)
Non - compliant driveways
New driveway with sidewalk
$1,118,400
Non - compliant vertical discontinuity
Sidewalk improvements (sidewalk grinding)
$363,453
Sidewalk fixed obstacles (Trees)
Sidewalk improvements (Tree removals)
$147,900
Sidewalk fixed obstacles (Utility
Sidewalk improvements (Relocate Utility Poles)
$17,100
Poles)
Sidewalk fixed obstacles (Fire
Sidewalk improvements (Relocate Fire Hydrant)
$15,000
Hydrants)
Sidewalk fixed obstacles
Sidewalk improvements (Mailbox, Remove &
$4,600
(Mailboxes)
Relocate)
Subtotal
$3,687,000
Curb Ramps
Curb ramps without truncated
New perpendicular curb ramp
$48,000
domes
Crossings with missing curb ramps
New curb ramps
$104,000
Substandard ramp landings
Curb ramp improvement (upgrade /install top
$78,800
landing)
Non - compliant ramp width or slope
Curb ramp improvement (reconstruct existing)
$887,040
Subtotal
$1,118,000
Push Buttons
Locations without APS push
Upgrade existing traffic signal to APS
$749,340
buttons
Subtotal
$750,000
Total
$5,555,000
Contingency@ 10%
$556,000
Design @ 12%
$667,000
Mobilization @8%
$445,000
TESC + Traffic Control @ 15%
$834,000
Total 2016 Dollars
$8,057,000
Figure 5 -5 below separates the total barrier removal cost by category with
very high and high priority projects representing a total cost of $469,000
and $2,799,000 respectively. Curb ramps represent the largest cost item
for very high priority barriers.
38
44
$4,°:x00,000
Lower
$4,000,000
High
Highest
Push buttons
ur; $:.,°:x00,000
$3,870,000
$2,799,000
$469,000
$3,000,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
0
5 years/
19 years/
14 years/
2 years/
Curb ra r)PS
$2,°:x00,000
35 years
16 years
2 years
UO
r -1
$2,000,000
ujP, Driveways
A $:b., ":x00,000
0
U $ :b.,000,000
1111111111 Sidewalks
° :x00 000
`
1
,
=
$..
IN Construction associated
Louver 1VlediUM High Highest
costs & contingencies
Priority I...ev6
Figure 5 -5 Planning Level Cast Estimate* by Priority Level and Facility Type
5.3.4 Schedule
Based on the planning level cost estimates and an annual investment of
$200,000 dollar put toward barrier removal, it will take the City
approximately 40 years to remove all identified barriers. As shown in
Table 5 -5 below, very high and high priority barriers would be removed in
about 2 and 14 years respectively, or 16 years combined. This schedule
can be accelerated if the City budgets more for barrier removal or other
projects or funding sources can be leverage to remove barriers faster.
Table 5 -5 Barrier Removal Duration by Priority Level
Barrier Priority
39
45
Lower
Medium
High
Highest
Cost Estimate
$935,000
$3,870,000
$2,799,000
$469,000
Annual Investment
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
Transition Duration
5 years/
19 years/
14 years/
2 years/
(individual/ cumulative)
40 years
35 years
16 years
2 years
39
45
6 CURRENT PRACTICES
This chapter documents key pieces of information which are critical for
ongoing plan implementation which are likely to change over the lifetime
of the plan such as the official responsible for plan oversight or progress
report on barrier removal. This section is meant to act as a "living
document" which should be updated to represent current practices or
information, and will thus change over time.
This section is updated as of: Nov 2016
6.1 OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE
• Official Responsible - Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
• Mailing Address - 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188
• Phone Number - (206) 433 -0179
• Email - Bob.Giberson(c-D TukwilaWA.�ov
6.2 CURRENT GRIEVANCE PROCESS
• See Appendix G
6.3 MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE DATABASE AND PROCESS
• See Appendix F
6.4 APS POLICY
• See Appendix H
6.5 ACCESSIBILITY OF ADA TRANSITION PLAN INFORMATION
To be finalized upon finalization of plan.
6.6 BARRIER REMOVAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING
The plan is currently less than a year old so it represents the most recent
available data.
40
46
TO:
FROM:
BY:
CC:
DATE:
Public Works Department - Bob Giberson, Director
Transportation Committee 10
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director '
Scott Bates, Traffic Engineering Coordinator
Mayor Ekberg
November 18, 2016
SUBJECT: ADA Transition Plan — Design Services
City Project No. 91510405, Contract No. 16-053
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Transpo, Group USA, Inc.
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
ISSUE
Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Transpo Group USA, Inc. (Transpo) for the ADA
Transition Plan design contract.
BACKGROUND
In June 2015, the City entered Contract No. 15-120 with Transpo Group for $104,200 to prepare
Tukwila's ADA Transition Plan. In April of 2016, the City entered contract 16-053 to complete the
deferred Task 6 of the original scope and fee for $27,800. Transpo is nearing completion of the draft
ADA Transition Plan, but additional fees and time is needed to support the project through the public
comment period and final editing of the documents and maps.
DISCUSSION
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 is for Transpo to prepare the draft ADA Transition Plan for the public
comment period, complete edits to the GIS mapping, incorporate the public comments, and produce
the final documents. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 includes an additional fee of $15,700 as identified
in Exhibit B and a time extension until April 1, 2017. With the original amount of $27,800, the contract
amount will now be $43,500.00 and will require Council approval.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Contract(s) 2015 & 2016 Budget
2015 ADA Contract No. 15-120 $ 104,200.00 $ 105,000.00
2016 ADA 16-053 27,800.00 63,000.00
2016 ADA 16-053 Supp No. 1 15,700.00
$ 147,700.-0-0 $ 168,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Contract No. 16-053 with Transpo
Group USA, Inc. for the revised total contract amount of $43,500.00 for the ADA Transition Plan and
consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the December 5, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Attachments: Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Exhibit B
WAPW Eng\PROJECTS\A• RW & RS Projects\ADA Transition Plan (91510405)\Info Memo Transpo Supp #1 16-053 111816 gl.docx
EHFA
���tm, �r AgreomentNumbec1S-O53
��x�� ^vx xwxx^�nxxpo
G20OSouthconbar Boulevard, Tukwila VVAAO188
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
Amendment #1
Between the City of Tukwila and Transpo USA Inc.
That pOdjOD Of CODt[@[t Kj0. 16-053 b8tNKeHO the City of Tukwila and T[@DSpO USA Inc. is
amended as follows:
I This Agreement shall bein full force and
effect for 8 period commencing upon 8X8CU[iOn and ending April 1, 2017. UDi8SS SOODGr
t8rDiR8[Bd under the provisions hereinafter specified. VVO[k under this AoF88DleOt Sh8||
commence upon written notice by the City t0 the Consultant iOproceed. The Consultant shall
perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement no later
than April 1, 2017, unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City.
4. Paymen . The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services
rendered under this Agreement as fO||OvvS:
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 $43,500 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by
the City.
All other provisions of the contract shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated this
CITY OF TUKWILA
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
day of November, 2016.
ATTEST/AUTH E NTI CATE[]
CONTRACTOR
Printed Name:
U
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk City Attorney
�1
/
'," _
Page lo[l
Tmnopo Group USA, Inc.
Exhibit B:Cost Estimate Worksheet
Pay rates are effective from June 25.2010 through June 23.2017.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.
initialE
ymmlE
post,atE
Project
Manager
Quality
Control
Project
Engineer
CAD/
Graphics
Project
Admin
Plnr L4
Dir L7
Anyl L4
Eng L2
PA L4
1
2
3
4
5
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total Hours 12 15 18
1 12 0 57
Reimbursable
1 Application
2 Business Meals
3
4 Miscellaneous
5
O Parking
7 Records Filing
8 Registrations
9 Reproductions
10
11 Special y Soft ware
12 Supplies
15 Traffic Accident Data
14 Traffic Count Vendors
�
15| Travel, Hotel, Taxi, a Air Fare |
Sub Total so
1
2
3
4
5|auucvnu uame
Sub Total $0
Previous budget $ 27,80/0
Current UnbiUed(10/19U0)$ 9.69375
Transpo Write-off $ (2,000.00)
Cost Estimate Prepared on: 1O/25/2018 49
Update Cost/Estimates
6
6
$570
Update Document Maps
10
10
$1,250
Response to public comment
12
6
18
$2,9701
Total Hours 12 15 18
1 12 0 57
Reimbursable
1 Application
2 Business Meals
3
4 Miscellaneous
5
O Parking
7 Records Filing
8 Registrations
9 Reproductions
10
11 Special y Soft ware
12 Supplies
15 Traffic Accident Data
14 Traffic Count Vendors
�
15| Travel, Hotel, Taxi, a Air Fare |
Sub Total so
1
2
3
4
5|auucvnu uame
Sub Total $0
Previous budget $ 27,80/0
Current UnbiUed(10/19U0)$ 9.69375
Transpo Write-off $ (2,000.00)
Cost Estimate Prepared on: 1O/25/2018 49
6717
Cit y of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
TO: Transportation Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY: Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: November 18, 2016
SUBJECT: Baker Blvd Non-Motorized Improvements
CIP Project No. 91610409
Interagency Agreement with King County
ISSUE
Approve an Interagency Agreement between King County and the City where the County grants up to $1 million for
the City to complete the project segments of the TUC/TOD Pedestrian Improvements.
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2016, staff briefed Transportation Committee on the various funding proposals that are being pursued
to complete this pedestrian and bicycle corridor between Tukwila Station and the Southcenter Connection. The
TUC/TOD Pedestrian Improvements are being completed via several individual projects and segments (see
Attachment B). King County has proposed to financially partner with Tukwila to complete the Baker Boulevard and
Christensen segments. This will not only provide a non-motorized trail, but also breaks-up one of the "super blocks"
in Southcenter, which has been a long term City goal. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
has a vision of connecting its regional trail system with the region's designated urban centers.
DISCUSSION
Attachment C is a draft Interagency Agreement for $1 million of King County Parks Levy funds to the City to
construct the Baker Blvd improvements. The project consists of buffered bike lanes in each direction along Baker
Boulevard, reduction of the number of vehicular travel lanes from four to three (one in each direction and a center
turn lane) and a minimum 12-foot-wide side path along Christensen Road (see Exhibit F within Attachment C).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This grant for $1 million from King County requires no City match.
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to approve the Interagency Agreement between King County and Tukwila for the Baker Blvd
Improvements in the amount of $1 million and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the December 5, 2016
Regular Meeting.
Attachments: Attachment A: Page 15, 2017 Proposed CIP
Attachment B: TUC/TOD Pedestrian Improvement segments
Attachment C Draft King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Interagency Agreement
ZADGD & PW\Walk and RoINSouthcemer to Station Trafinfo Memo Baker Blvd KC Parks Levy 111816 gl sb.doex 51
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF TUKWUL& CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2017 to 2022
PROJECT:
Baker Blvd Non-Motorized Improvements Project Nu 91610409
Design and construct non-motorized improvements on Baker Blvd from Andover Park West to Christensen Rd,
DESCRIPTION:
including bike lanes with a proposed road diet. Project will also construct previously designed non-motorized
improvement on Christensen Rd from Baker Blvd to the Green River trail.
JUSTIFICATION:
Improve non-motorized connections between the Tukwila Transit Center and Tukwila Station.
STATUS:
New project for the 2O17'2O22C|P.
R8A]Nl[|K8PACT
Minimal impact, project includes new sidewalk trail and pavement markings.
100
Project iaacomponent of the TUC/TT}D Pedestrian |mpm �
Improvements. Grant funding by the King County Dept
COMMENT:
n/ Natural Resources and Parks.
FINANCIAL
Through Estimated
(in$0U0'e)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 gEYomm TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
100
100
Const. Mgmt.
120
120
Construction
780
780
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
0
King County
1,000
1,000
Mitigation Actual
0
Traffic Impact Fees
0
52
2o/7'2u22 Capital Improvement Program 15
ATTACHMENT B
TUC/TOD Pedestre n Im provements
The Trail is made up of six segments and they are ordered from west to east and are labeled by the street and or trail name.
Baker Boulevard Non - Motorized Improvements Road diet to create dedicated bike lanes and upgrade curb ramps to meet
current A ID A Stan • ar• s (• es gne •) King County DNR partnership for construction - using levy funds.
Christensen Road s Buffered shared use trail (designed) King County DNR partnership for construction - using levy funds.
Page 1 of 2 July 3, 2016
Green River Trail 1 Regional trail widened from 8 to 10 feet with 2 foot shoulders and improved with illumination and
pedestrian amenities (engineered and permitted). Delayed in order to avoid project area overlap with TUC Pedestrian Bridge
construction /contractor (need $69oK for construction).
Twin -tied arch bridge (16 feet) connecting Green River Trail to West Valley Hwy sidewalk.
(Construction awarded, completion in 2017).
West Valley Highway Non - Motorized Improvements Segment 1 West edge: Proposed buffered 12 -foot shared use path
(Partially designed, additional design and construction funding has been recommended through PSRC countywide process).
Segment 2: Proposed buffered 8 -12 foot shared use path (design funds have been recommended through
the PSRC countywide process; need construction funding).
ATTACHMENT C
Interagency Agreement
Between
King County Parks and Recreation Division
and
City of Tukwila
forthe
Development of Mobility Connections Facilities on
Baker Boulevard and Christensen Road
This Interagency Agreement is made between King County, a political subdivision of the State of
Washington ( "the County ") and the City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington,
( "City ") regarding design, construction of improvements, operation, and maintenance of two portions of
the City's right -of -way known as Baker Boulevard and Christensen Road. The County and the City are
collectively referred to as "the Parties."
RECITALS
A. The Green River Trail ( "Trail ") is owned and operated by the City. The Trail is a longstanding and
popular facility for multiuse recreation and active transportation in south King County and is part of the
Regional Trails System in King County. The Trail traverses Tukwila north to south generally along the
west bank of the Green River. To the north the Trail connects with other similar facilities and bicycle
and pedestrian routes to the City of Seattle. To the south, the Trail connects to the cities of Kent and
Auburn. In conjunction with other intersecting regional trails and bicycle and pedestrian routes, the Trail
offers access to locations throughout the Green River Valley and the cities of Renton and SeaTac.
Tukwila Station, a regional transit center, is located east of the Trail offering access to high- capacity
transit, including Sound Transit's Sounder Commuter Rail service, Amtrak, and King County Metro's
RapidRide bus service. The designated Tukwila Regional Growth Center at Southcenter encompasses the
Tukwila Central Business District and includes the limits of this project as well as Tukwila Station and the
Tukwila Urban Transit Center, which are more directly connected by this project.
B. The Regional Trail System is a network of facilities for nonmotorized recreation and transportation,
providing a valuable transportation asset for the region. Establishing purposeful connections between
regional trails and regionally significant destinations throughout King County is an important goal for the
County. In 2014, the County completed the Regional Trails System Mobility Connections study that
recommended connections between the Regional Trail System and several civic centers, transit centers,
and Puget Sound Regional Council- designated Regional Growth Centers within King County. The intent
W.
of this study was to identify improvements that would increase bicycle and pedestrian access between
the trails network and these destinations by using streets or other public rights -of -way to create priority
connections.
C. The County launched the Regional Trails Mobility Connections strategy in conjunction with the 2014-
2019 King County Parks, Trails, and Open Space Replacement to ensure safe and direct connections for
bicyclists and pedestrians from the Regional Trails System to urban communities. This strategy seeks to
extend the benefits of the regional trails in urban areas, increase mobility and travel options while
decreasing the need for automobile parking and other costly infrastructure. It encourages alternatives to
driving, reduces traffic congestion, and improves air quality. It promotes physical activity and
encourages economic development and sustainability.
D. In 2016, the County completed a Tukwila Mobility Connections concept plan, which recommended
connections to promote bicycling and walking between the Trail, the Tukwila Sounder Station, the
Tukwila Regional Growth Center ( Southcenter), and the Tukwila Urban Transit Center. The City has also
identified the connections as important nonmotorized routes and part of the City's proposed Station to
Southcenter Trail. The location of these connections between the Green River Trail and Southcenter is
shown in Exhibit A. The conceptual improvements identified in the Tukwila Mobility Connections
concept plan and associated designs for this area are identified in Exhibits B through F. These
improvements are collectively referred to as "the Mobility Project ".
The Parties are working cooperatively to implement the Mobility Project. The Parties intend by this
Agreement to establish their respective rights, roles and responsibilities related to the Mobility Project.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, the Parties mutually
agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Scope. The scope of this interagency agreement is limited to design, construction of
improvements, maintenance, and operation of the Mobility Project.
a. Design and Permitting.
(i) The County has performed a preliminary assessment of the condition of Baker
Boulevard and has recommended improvements to increase safety, convenience and
connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians on these streets. The County's
recommendations for improvements to Baker Boulevard are described in Exhibit B and
reference the City's current street plans, shown in Exhibit C. The County's
recommendations are shown in Exhibit D as preliminary concept designs.
6711
(ii) The City has designed a shared use path adjacent to Christensen Road extending
between the Trail and Baker Boulevard. A description of the City's proposed
improvements is shown in Exhibit E. Design plans for these improvements are shown in
Exhibit F. The County has reviewed the City's proposed design and finds that it
implements the Mobility Project.
(iii) The City is solely responsible for final design of the Mobility Project including obtaining
any necessary input and approval from WSDOT, and constructing the improvements
according to the approved design.
(iv) The City shall be solely responsible for compliance with all regulatory requirements
including the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City shall apply or require its
contractor to apply for all necessary permits. The City shall be responsible for the
monitoring, reporting and any corrective actions required for this project. The City shall
be the named permittee for any required permits and is solely responsible for
compliance with permit conditions.
b. Construction.
(i) The City shall be solely responsible for construction of the Mobility Project, including
contract procurement, and shall provide the necessary engineering, administrative,
inspection, clerical and other services necessary for construction of the Mobility
Project. The City shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
(ii) The City shall require its contractors to name King County, its officers, officials,
employees, and agents as additional insureds on all liability insurance policies
maintained by the City's contractors conducting work pertaining to the Mobility
Project. The City shall also require that all of the City's contractors conducting work
pertaining to the Mobility Project include King County, its officers, officials,
employees and agents as contractually indemnified parties entitled to the same
indemnification protection as the City.
(iii) The City shall update the County on its progress in construction the Mobility Project.
Funding. The County shall provide funding of up to $1,000,000 for implementation of the
Mobility Project. The City shall provide an estimate of costs prior to installation of these
improvements, and the County will approve costs prior to installation of improvements. The
City shall invoice the County for actual accrued costs and the County will reimburse the City
for costs of improvements as approved by the City and County up to $1,000,000. The County
may require the City to provide additional information prior to providing payment. The City
6W
shall acknowledge King County's funding support from the 2014 -2019 King County Parks,
Trails, and Open Space Replacement Levy on public information related to the project.
d. Maintenance. The City shall operate and maintain Baker Boulevard and Christensen Road
rights -of -way, including the improvements as installed over the term of this Agreement.
Future alterations to installed improvements may be undertaken to ensure the safety and
convenience of the public by approval of both the City and the County.
2. Property. The City hereby represents and warrants to the County that it holds the necessary
property rights, including right -of -way and /or easement rights to the property in Baker Boulevard and
Christensen Road and that it has legal authority to construct the improvements. The City further
represents and warrants that there are no easements, covenants, restrictions, encumbrances, or defects
on or to the property in Baker Boulevard and Christensen Road that will in any way impair the City's
ability to design and construct the Mobility Project and perform its obligations under this Agreement.
3. Liability. Each Party shall protect defend, indemnify, and save harmless the other Party, its officers,
officials, employees and agents which acting within the scope of their employment as such, from any
and all suits, costs, claims, actions, losses, penalties, judgments, and /or damages of whatsoever kind
( "Claims ") arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the exercise of any right or obligation under
this Agreement, to the extent caused by or resulting from each Party's own acts or omissions. Each
Party agrees that it is fully responsible for the acts and omissions of its own contractors, their
employees, and agents, acting within the scope of their employment as such, as it is for the acts and
omissions of its own employees and agents. Each Party agrees that its obligations under this Paragraph
extend to any Claim brought by or on behalf of the other Party or any of its employees or agents. The
foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's
immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, RCW Title 51, as respects the other Party only,
and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with full and complete indemnity of
Claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were
specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.
4. Insurance. For the duration of its liability exposures under this Agreement, the City of Tukwila shall
maintain insurance, as described below, against claims for injuries or damage to property which may
arise from or in connection with performance of the work hereunder by the City, its agents,
representatives, employees, contractors, or subcontractors.
(a) General Liability. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form
number CG 00 01 covering COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY, $1,000,000 combined single
limit per occurrence, and for those policies with aggregate limits, a $2,000,000 aggregate
limit. King County, its officers, officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as
58
additional insureds as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf
of the City of Tukwila in connection with this Agreement.
(b) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services form number CA 00 01 (current edition). The Limit
of Liability shall be no less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence.
(c) Statutory Workers' Compensation coverage and Stop Gap Liability for a limit no less than
ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence.
(d) Professional Liability: For professional services, such as engineering or architecture
conducted by the City of Tukwila or any contractor. Professional Liability coverage shall be
no less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate. The City of
Tukwila shall submit proof of Insurance as part of the required submittals or provide
evidence of compliance from its contractor that these insurance requirements have been
met 30 days prior to beginning of the work designated to be performed by a professional.
(e) Deductibles and Self- Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be
declared to, and approved by, the County. The deductible and /or self- insured retention of
the policies shall not apply to the City's liability to the County and shall be the sole
responsibility of the City.
(f) Verification of Coverage. The City of Tukwila shall furnish the County with certificates of
insurance and endorsements required by this Agreement. Such certificates and
endorsements, and renewals thereof, shall be attached as exhibits to the Agreement. The
certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and
endorsements for each insurance policy are to be on forms approved by the County prior to
the commencement of activities associated with the Agreement. The County reserves the
right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time.
(g) Subcontractors. The City of Tukwila shall include all of its contractors as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates of insurance and policy endorsements from
each contractor. Insurance coverages provided by contractors as evidence of compliance
with the insurance requirements of this Agreement shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
(h) The County acknowledges, agrees, and understands that through its participation in the
Washington Cities Insurance Authority ( "WCIA "), the City of Tukwila is self- funded for all its
liability exposures. The City of Tukwila agrees, at its own expense, to maintain, through
WCIA, coverage for all of its liability exposures for this Agreement, and it agrees to provide
the County with at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of any material change in its
insurance program and provide the County with a letter of self- insurance as adequate proof
of coverage. The County further acknowledges, agrees, and understands that the City of
Tukwila does not purchase commercial liability insurance, and therefore does not have the
ability to name the County as an additional insured.
6VI
5. Points of Contact.
King County Parks Agreement
Robert Foxworthy, AICP
Regional Trails Coordinator
201 S. Jackson Street, KSC 0700
Seattle, WA 98104
206 - 477 -4566
King County Parks Capital Projects
Tri Ong, PE
Engineer /Capital Project Manager
201 S. Jackson Street, KSC 0700
Seattle, WA 98104
206 - 477 -3591
City of Tukwila
Robin Tischmak
City Engineer
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 98188
206 - 431 -2455
6. Effective Date /Duration. This Agreement shall be effective upon signature by both Parties and shall
continue until December 31, 2027. The terms, covenants, representations, and warranties contained
herein shall continue in force unless both Parties mutually consent in writing to termination of this
Agreement. The City agrees to retain these improvements for the duration of this Agreement unless
alterations are approved in writing by both parties.
7. Survivability. The provisions of Section 3 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
8. Extension. The City and County may agree to extend the duration of this Agreement for successive
10 year terms. In order for any such extension to occur, either the City or County may make a written
request to the other party not less than sixty (60) days prior to the otherwise applicable expiration date.
Any agreement by the City and County to the proposed extension shall be made in writing. If the parties
have not agreed to the extension in writing by the otherwise applicable expiration date, the Agreement
shall expire.
60
9. Metropolitan King County Council Appropriation Contingency. The County's performance under
this Agreement is contingent on the appropriation by the Metropolitan King County Council of sufficient
funds to carry out the performance contemplated herein.
10. Amendments. This Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral
representation or understanding not incorporated herein is excluded. Any modifications to this
Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
11. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and
benefit of the parties hereto. No other persons or entity shall have any right of action or interest in this
Agreement based upon any provision set forth herein.
12. Force Majeure. If either Party cannot perform any of its obligations due to events beyond its
reasonable control, the time provided for performing such obligations shall be extended by a period of
time equal to the duration of such events. Events beyond a Party's reasonable control include, but are
not limited to, acts of God, civil commotion, labor disputes, strikes, fire, flood or other casualty,
shortages of labor or materials, government regulations or restrictions, lawsuits filed challenging one or
more Permits or other agreements necessary for implementation of the Project and weather conditions.
13. Waiver. Waiver of any breach of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. No term or condition shall be waived, modified, or deleted
except by an instrument, in writing, signed by the Parties hereto.
14. Relationship of the Parties. The Parties execute and implement this Agreement as separate
entities. No partnership, joint venture, or joint undertaking shall be construed from this Agreement.
15. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Washington.
16. Authority. Each Party executing this Agreement represents that the Party has the authority to
execute this Agreement and to comply with all the terms of this Agreement.
17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and any
representations or understandings, whether oral or written, not incorporated herein are excluded.
18. Exhibits. All Exhibits referenced in this Agreement are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.
19. Joint Drafting Effort. This contract shall be considered for all purposes as prepared by the joint
efforts of the Parties and shall not be construed against one Party or the other as a result of the
preparation, substitution, submission or other event of negotiation, drafting or execution thereof.
61
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement effective as of the date last
written below.
King County Parks and Recreation Division
By
Kevin Brown, Division Director
Signed this day of
City of Tukwila
By
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Signed this day of
62
m
m
O
c oc
o =
V 41
C =
C av+
Q t
_ � C
O M
W 13
M
O >
C v
O 3
cep m
V y,
J Q1
Y
m
m
63
Exhibit B
Mobility Connections Improvements on Baker Boulevard
The Baker Boulevard project site is approximately 1,300 feet in length and the street is designated as a
Collector Arterial in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. All Baker Boulevard street right -of -way is within
and owned by the City of Tukwila. The City's proposed rechannelization plan for Baker Boulevard
between Andover Park W. and Christensen Road is shown in Exhibit C. The alternative
bicycle /pedestrian improvements proposed by the County on Baker Boulevard are shown in Exhibit D
and are consistent with the Tukwila Mobility Connections concept (March 2016), King County DNRP,
Baker Boulevard — King County Proposal Option 1 Buffered Bike Lanes (Option 1). These improvements
modify the City's proposed rechannelization plan. Proposed modifications include:
• Reduce the width of the parking lane between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. to 8.0 feet;
• Change the proposed 6.0 -foot conventional bike lanes between Andover Park W. and Andover
Park E. to 6.5 -foot buffered bike lanes. 6.5 -foot buffered bike lanes to include 5.0 -foot bike lane
with 1.5 foot, half chevron painted buffer area;
• Maintain the full width of the 6.5 -foot buffered bike lanes at both the westbound approach to
Andover Park W and the eastbound approach to Andover Park E by reducing vehicle travel lanes
widths to those outlined in Exhibit D or other dimensions based on best engineering judgement;
• Ensure the eastbound buffered bike lane is striped along its entire length between Andover Park
W. and Andover Park E.;
• Reduce the width of vehicle travel lanes between Andover Park E. and Christensen Road to 12.0
feet;
• Change the proposed 6.0 -foot conventional bike lanes between Andover Park E. and Christensen
Road to 7.5 -foot buffered bike lanes. 7.5 -foot buffered bike lanes to include 5.5 -foot bike lane
with 2.0 foot, half chevron painted buffer area;
• Install green - colored markings in buffered bike lane at the westbound mixing zone at approach
to Andover Park W.;
• Install bike boxes with green - colored markings at eastbound and westbound approaches to
Andover Park E; and
• Green - colored markings may be paint, MMA /Epoxy or Thermoplastic based on the City's
engineering and maintenance preferences.
The City will use these proposed modifications to produce a final rechannelization plan for Baker
Boulevard for review and approval by the County prior to implementation.
64
U
4,
X
LU
a
z
cr
17,
z
sri
t
I.
I
Z
02
Im u
LU
z
0.
w
65
. . . . . . . . . .
ul
m
J
I
ux
z
m Nvd d3ADU
t
I.
I
Z
02
Im u
LU
z
0.
w
65
4�
a
0
x
LU
.............. .
wilmill
'00,Zf
MUA 3135 4,
.........
.77
i-L --------------------------------------
HD 0*0 13S %IZ4 vis 3"rWXYR
II
ISOtltl )IS IU VIS lN(lWl"
F,
all
Z
0
71
LU w _j
ce z vi
LU z
z
co U
W
66
6 1�
J
'00,Zf
MUA 3135 4,
.........
.77
i-L --------------------------------------
HD 0*0 13S %IZ4 vis 3"rWXYR
II
ISOtltl )IS IU VIS lN(lWl"
F,
all
Z
0
71
LU w _j
ce z vi
LU z
z
co U
W
66
t
X
W
c
'm
m
Fu `,
O 3 tu
DL T
O
CL 'o
f6 m
4-J J '-
C CIJ 2
E)
O m
V -0
t io v
L
T
I
m
L I
O
O p
m is
L Q
_IsG
m
m
m
a
u i
u �
u
u i
,Yi: Y7: ,fix
�i
'9
W
YC LL RI
Z♦
67
CQ
0
CL
0
0
u
lye
0
co
co
co
-0
Q)
co
I
0
4-J
CL
Lol
Xv
WA,
0,
E cu
m
uj 91:
6- 1
-e
Jr ,k4 1 6. Ad
? i x
11 XT
40
G
A
68
Exhibit E
Mobility Connections (Shared Use Path) Improvements on Christensen Road,
Tukwila Urban Center Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge, Christensen Road Segment
The Christensen Road project site is approximately 520 feet in length and the street is designated as a
Local Street in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. All Christensen Road right -of -way is within and owned
by the City of Tukwila. Improvements are based on and consistent with plans and engineering designs
for the Tukwila Urban Center Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge, Christensen Road Segment, as shown in Exhibit
E. Improvements to include:
• Reconfiguration of Christensen Road to construct a 12- foot -wide paved shared use path
separated from street vehicle traffic along the eastern edge of road right -of -way;
• The shared use path to include a soft - surface buffer between the path and the roadway which
varies in width based on site conditions;
• The shared use path extends between the Green River Trail and Baker Boulevard, including
bicycle and pedestrian access to both the Green River Trail and Baker Boulevard at the
intersection of the Baker Boulevard and Christensen Road; and
• Related trail landscaping and ADA accessible features.
69
LL
4,
X
LU
-6
m
0
0
E
0
L-
CL
E
:F
4a
m
OJ
LM
D
13
m
.2
-W
V
OJ
0
OE:
41
E
V)
m
0
MA
ff—Im mv�� I I'm 10 MIF P-WIT
C)
= TM
"., .", 1"" w. " ul 11, �Ihl
w w
Z CC
uj
wi
Uj
z Q
z
wi
No]
�lx.gy
""L% ,.rte
2 A.VJ z -ld
m g r
o"
Pi
14
Ai I
i'�
A'.7,
"Ilk
. ........ . ....
ohg
ul
. .....
. . . ...... . ..... .
C)
= TM
"., .", 1"" w. " ul 11, �Ihl
w w
Z CC
uj
wi
Uj
z Q
z
wi
No]
0
LL
X
LU
- -- -------
ti
nil
Cl
m
51,
dd
vt
rAl
0
LL
x
LU
a
t, --i- � .... ..... . ............
gi,
ru
r.
Ell
P
<
.... ..
. . .....
. ..............
................
lip
Al
mvrroP
--
dMr-----------
.. .
........
tau
. . . ....................
Ma.
a
t, --i- � .... ..... . ............
. ................... '\' ..............
C14, 1 F[�6
. . .............. —
IM,
te LU
uj a
1-2
Z X
UJI m
Z(j
m
Z-
LU
FJ
gi,
ru
r.
P
<
--
dMr-----------
.. .
........
. ................... '\' ..............
C14, 1 F[�6
. . .............. —
IM,
te LU
uj a
1-2
Z X
UJI m
Z(j
m
Z-
LU
FJ
r.
P
<
..............
o' VI :" A,P, ;,( iA 'rA Au, Mn 1101 I'll N II III d I— I lum" , 'w",
C
0
1
LL
fa
X
uu
11 M
MN
Evil
A Iro,
F1 i.J
ri
LL
Iv
F
8
Tiz
4F u
.. . ........ . . . . ............................
q �Q 1,311 fl,
�11,1._o ", ., _W 0" ................. .. ............
U00i
IA 11,11"
LLM
K
73
jV1401im .
--1
........... ....
Ran
Idyl.. x
x. u
11 M
MN
Evil
A Iro,
F1 i.J
ri
LL
Iv
F
8
Tiz
4F u
.. . ........ . . . . ............................
q �Q 1,311 fl,
�11,1._o ", ., _W 0" ................. .. ............
U00i
IA 11,11"
LLM
K
73
4,
r_
0
LL
X
LU
SIMIUM& ims IA&M
64� mss
p CL
fy
I A
a A
LOU
vwp,
3 Q w �,4 o ui C,
rn(,
wa
4�
11�4
2j,
IN 0
wi
cc I
A w
un
uj
ul
vo a
oc�z* VIS 'WOMIYA
044 MW tis
... . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...................... I . . ..........
..... ...........
I
I
Z
uj
Z u
Y
W�
M z
tPS
iii
ryry
IWM
74
TO:
FROM
BY:
CC:
DATE:
Public Works Department - Bob Giberson, Director
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Transportation Committee
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director,40
David Sorensen, Project Manager
Mayor Ekberg
November 18, 2016
SUBJECT: 2016 Overlay and Repair Program
Project No. 91610401, Contract No. 16-070
Project Completion and Acceptance
ISSUE
Accept contract as complete and authorize release of retainage.
BACKGROUND
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
The Notice to Proceed for Contract No. 16-070 with Lakeside Industries, Inc. of Kent, Washington was
issued on June 14, 2016 for the 2016 Overlay and Repair Project. This overlay project provided hot mix
asphalt (HMA) paving at nine locations throughout the City and a portion of the parking lot at Fort Dent
Park. The street improvements included; paving, removing and replacing concrete curbs, gutters,
sidewalks and ADA ramps, installing traffic loops and junction boxes, adjusting surface utilities to
grade, and installing roadway channelization.
ANALYSIS
Construction was physically completed on August 12, 2016. No change orders were executed. Asphalt
quantities and pavement repairs were less than expected, allowing Minkler Boulevard to receive a
complete overlay in lieu of the planned pavement repairs. Retainage of $54,903.12 is being withheld.
The budget for the 2016 Overlay & Repair construction was $1,360,000.00 and included a 5%
contingency, which was not utilized.
Construction Contract Amount $1,277,956.80
Under-runs (179,894.56)
Total Amount Paid a1-09-8-062.24
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to formally accept and authorize the release of the retainage, subject to
standard claim and lien release procedures, for the 2016 Overlay and Repair Project with Lakeside
Industries, Inc. in the final amount of $1,098,062.24 and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at
the December 5, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Attachment: Notice of Completion Contract No. 16-070
rV
W:\PW EngkPROJECTSW RW & RS Projecls\Annual Overlay & Repair Programs\2016 Overlay & Repair Program\Construction\Contractor\Close Out to TC\Docs to TC\Info Memo 2016 Overlay Closeout 111816 gi.docx
$TA
Original
a
❑ Revised #
3ft taa
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
Date: August 5, 2016 Contractor's UBI Number: 601 - 106 -847
Name & Mailing Address of Public Agency Department Use Only
City of Tukwila Assigned to:
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188 Date Assigned:
UBI Number: 91- 6001519
Notice is herebv given relative to the completion of contract or project described below
Project Name
Contract Number
Job Order Contracting
City of Tukwila 2016 Overlay Program #91610401 T16-070
Amount Retained $
El Yes l � I No
Description of Work Done /Include Jobsite Address(es)
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Overlay at the following locations: S 130th Street, 48th Ave S, Interurban Ave S, 52nd Ave S, Fort Dent Way, Minkler Boulevard, Andover Park E, Fort Dent Park, and S 144th Street.
Federally funded transportation project? ❑ Yes ❑✓ No (if yes, provide Contract Bond Statement below)
Contractor's Name
E -mail Address
Affidavit IDS
Lakeside Industries, Inc.
Craig .Nickel @Lakesidelndustries.com
674247
Contractor Address
Telephone #
PO Box 7016 Issaquah, WA 98027
(425) 313 -2600
If Retainage is not withheld, please select one of the following and List Surety's Name & Bond Number.
❑ Retainage Bond ❑ Contract/Payment bond (valid for federally funded transportation projects)
Name:
Bond Number:
Date Contract Awarded
Date Work Commenced
Date Work Completed
Date Work Accepted
5/16/2016
6/15/2016
8/18/2016
Were Subcontracters used on this project? If so, please complete Addendum A. Yes ❑ No
Affidavit ID* - No L &I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed.
Contract Amount
Additions ( + )
Reductions (- )
Sub -Total
Sales Tax Rate 0 %
(If various rates apply, please send a breakdown)
Sales Tax Amount
TOTAL
$ 1,277, 956.80
$ 0.00
$ 179,894.56
$ 1,098,062.24
Liquidated Damages $
0.00
Amount Disbursed $
1,043,159.12
Amount Retained $
54,903.12
1VUZL: These two totals must beequal
Comments:
TOTAL $ 1,098,062.24
Note: The Disbursing Officer must submit this,clompleted notice immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract.
NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUNDS until receipt of all release certificates.
Submitting Form: Please submit the completed form by email to all three agencies below.
Contact Name: Diane Jaber
Email Address: Diane.Jaber @TukwilaWA.gov
Department of Revenue
Washington state Department of
Public Works Section
Labor & Industries
(360) 704 -5650
Contract Release
PWC @dor.wa.gov
(855) 545 -8163, option # 4
ContractRelease @LN I. WA. GO V
REV 31 0020e (10/26/15) F215 -038 -000 10 -2014
Title: Fiscal Specialist
Phone Number: (206) 433 -1871
Employment Security
Department
Registration, Inquiry,
Standards & Coordination
Unit
(360) 902 -9450 76
publicworks@esd.wa.gov
Addendum A: Please List all Subcontractors and Sub-tiers Below
This addendum can be submitted in other formats.
Provide known affidavits at this time. No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed.
Subcontractor's Name:
U131 Number: (Required)
Affidavit ID*
A & R SAWING & DRILLING CO
601514268
657710
BEST PARKING LOT CLEANING INC
601901928
660899
BROTHER'S TRUCKING L.L.C.
602506532
661327
C & E TRANSPORT CORP
602408510
663713
CASCADE UTILITY ADJUSTING LLC
603407046
672708
CORLISS RESOURCES INC
602237779
675398
GROUND UP ROAD CONST INC
602790246
674709
LAKERIDGE PAVING CO L L C
601592135
660160
MOBY'S 24-HR ST SWPNG SVCS INC
603358194
661278
NORTHWEST SWEEPING
602609350
669278
PIONEER CABLE CONTRACTORS INC
600464320
67015
SILVERSTREAK INC
600432781
657693
STRIPE RITE INC
601048084
665610
TIGER MOUNTAIN RENTAL, LLC
601720071
660161
WILSON CONCRETE CONST INC
602168956
678707
For tax assistance or to request this document in an alternate format, please call 1-800-647-7706. Teletype (TTY) users may use the
Washington Relay Service by calling 711. 77
IREV 31 0020e Addendum (10/26/15) F215-038-000 10-2014
78
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
Jack Pace, Community Development Director
BY: Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: November 18, 2016
SUBJECT: Metro Alternative Services Pilot Participation Application
ISSUE
King County Metro has a call for projects for its Alternative Services Demonstration Program.
BACKGROUND
King County Metro has an Alternative Services Demonstration Program they have been using to develop and test
innovative solutions to local transportation needs in areas where infrastructure, density, or land use does not support
traditional fixed -route bus service. Some alternatives considered through the Alternative Services Demonstration
Program include real -time ridesharing, and community vans and shuttles. Metro is also exploring subsidizing first and
last mile connections for customers using services such as Lyft or Uber. Metro has collaborated with 15 communities so
far to conduct community outreach and develop mobility options to fill gaps in these communities' transit networks.
Applications are due to Metro on November 30, 2016 for up to eight new Alternative Services projects that will begin in
2017.
DISCUSSION
The Alternative Services Demonstration Program's application requires a description of the community to be served by
an alternative service and not a solution. Based on the community identified in the application, Metro will work with the
City to conduct community outreach to determine which alternative services best fit the community needs.
Link Light Rail, Sounder Commuter Rail, the F Line, and Route 150 are transit routes heavily used by Tukwila residents.
However, lack of parking availability at park and rides and transit stations, and barriers including hills, freeways, and lack
of sidewalk connections, make it difficult for Tukwila residents to access frequent transit routes and /or transit stations.
Staff is proposing the community served by the Alternative Service application include those who live in the area north of
1- 405 /SR 518, east of SR 509, and west of the railroad tracks on Tukwila's eastern border. A portion of this area is within
the City of SeaTac, and staff has contacted SeaTac to begin this discussion.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No financial impact. A partnership will be required between Tukwila and King County Metro, which can include, but is not
limited to financial contributions, community engagement and outreach support, promotional support, equipment,
staffing, or other forms of partnership.
RECOMMENDATION
Committee approval of the submittal of a King County Metro Alternative Services Pilot Participation Application.
Attachments: Alternative Services Pilot Participation Description
2017 Alternative Services Pilot Participation Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Z: \Public Works \Info Memo KC Metro Alternative Services 111816 gl.docx
N*1
Purpose
Metro's Alternative Services Demonstration Program was established to develop and test innovative solutions to local
transportation needs in areas of King County where infrastructure, density, or land use does not support traditional fixed -
route bus service.
The purpose of the Alternative Services Pilot Participation application process is to identify up to eight pilot communities for
Alternative Services projects that will be initiated in 2017. Since Alternative Services pilot projects start with a thorough
assessment of transportation needs within a community, Alternative Services Pilot Participation applications will be
evaluated on the basis of transportation needs, not solution ideas.
What is an "alternative service "?
The kinds of transportation services that the Alternative Services Demonstration program is developing and testing through
its pilot projects are alternatives to conventional 40- and 60 -foot buses running fixed routes on fixed schedules. More
information on current Alternatives Services Demonstration pilot projects can be accessed through the application FAQs that
were distributed with the application invitation.
When will projects start?
This is the first call for Alternative Services Pilot Participation applications. Projects emerging from this round of applications
are anticipated to enter a two -year pilot phase during calendar year 2017. Initiation of projects will be staggered throughout
the year. A second call for applications will likely take place in the fourth quarter of 2017 for projects that will start in 2018.
How long is a pilot?
Once an alternative service is deployed in a community, the pilot period for testing and evaluation typically lasts two years.
180
Eligibility to Apply
The following King County municipal jurisdictions, tribal governments, and Community Service Area
councils /organizations are eligible to submit an application. Each of these entities may only submit one
application.
Since communities with transportation needs may cross jurisdictional or political boundaries, we encourage
collaboration between neighboring municipal jurisdictions, tribal governments, and CSA
councils /organizations on an application that describes transportation needs in such a community. An
entity may be part of one or more collaborative applications, but may only be the "lead applicant" for a
single application — whether the application is for a community within its boundaries or for a community that
crosses boundaries.
Municipal Jurisdictions
Algona Des Moines Maple Valley Sammamish
Auburn Duvall Medina SeaTac
Beaux Arts Village Enumclaw Mercer Island Seattle
Bellevue Federal Way Milton Shoreline
Black Diamond Hunts Point Newcastle Skykomish
Bothell Issaquah Normandy Park Snoqualmie
Burien Kenmore North Bend Tukwila
Carnation Kent Pacific Woodinville
Clyde Hill Kirkland Redmond Yarrow Point
Covington Lake Forest Park Renton
Tribal Governments
Muckleshoot Tribe
Snoqualmie Tribe
261
Community Service Areas
Bear Creek /Sammamish: Upper Bear Creek Community Council
Snoqualmie Valley /NE King County: Fall City Community Association
Four Creeks /Tiger Mountain: Four Creeks UAC
Greater Maple Valley /Cedar River: Greater Maple Valley Area Council
Southeast King County: Green Valley /Lake Holm Association
West King County: North Highline UAC, West Hill Business Association, White Center Community
Development Association, West Hill Community Association, Skyway Solutions
3$2
Application Guidelines
Applicants should focus on describing the nature and the extent of the transportation needs in their candidate pilot
community as well as the community assets they would be willing to offer as part of the partnership (such as volunteers,
meeting space, staff support, funds, etc.). Inclusion of specific solution ideas or options is discouraged. Applications will be
scored on the basis of written responses to the questions in the online application; no supplemental materials such as plans,
maps, reports or letters of support will be considered. Finally, each question response has a character limit noted at the end
of each question.
Metro encourages applicants to use the pdf version of the application as a reference for composing question responses
offline that are within the stated character limits and then paste those responses into the online application; only online
applications will be accepted.
Application Scoring
The four questions in the application carry equal weight in the evaluation process. Each question response will be scored
individually using a scale of 1 to 5 where a score of 1 indicates the response is out of scope and a score of 5 indicates that
the response is very strong. The criteria that will be used as the basis for scoring each question are as follows:
• Question #1 Potential Market: clarity in the description of the candidate pilot community including its geographic
boundaries and the market potential for alternative services within that community taking into account
proximity /access to existing activity /employment centers and the regional transit network. (2,000 characters or less)
• Question #2 Needs and Gaps: specificity in identified day -of -week, time -of -day or geographic gaps in the fixed -route
transit network. (3,000 characters or less)
• Question #3 Equity and Social Justice: specificity in the description of the potential rider demographic, the
population to be served and how an alternative services solution would support historically disadvantaged populations
(3,000 characters or less)
• Question #4 Partnership: demonstrated partner interest supported with specific, proposed partnering concepts or
opportunities. (2,000 characters or less)
Individual question scores will be totaled then averaged for an application score that falls on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1
indicates the application is out of scope and a score of 5 indicates the application is very strong.
Applications will then be rank - ordered according to the application score. The top- scoring applications will be selected for
projects to start in 2017. In the event that there are more than eight top- scoring applications because multiple applications
receive identical scores, Metro will rank order applications with identical scores based on the proportion of low- income or
minority populations within the community defined in Question #1. If additional prioritization is required, Metro will consider
the geographic distribution of candidate pilot communities throughout the County.
Application Deadline: 11:59 p.irn. on Wednesday, November 30, 2016.
^3
b4
* Question #11: Potential Market (2,000 characters or less)
Identify the geographic boundaries of the community and the potential market for an alternatives services
solution to that community's mobility needs. Potential markets could be based on access to:
• existing local activity nr employment centers,
• the regional transit network,
• ma]nrinotituUnno(o.g,oduoaUnna[modioa[roginna|000ia|oorviooagonoy)'
• rural communities, or
• emerging markets.
* Question #2: Needs and Gaps (3.000 characters or less)
Describe the mobility need(s) in your community including any gaps in fixed-route transit service
(geographic or time-of-day).
* Question #3: Equity and Social Justice (3,000 characters or less)
Describe the potential rider demographic and population to be served. Describe how an alternative
services solution would support historically disadvantaged populations such as: low-income people,
hnmo|000 populations, students, youth, ooninro' minorities, people with low English proficiency, people of
color, people with disabilities, or other populations who depend on public transportation.
* Question #4: Partnership (2,000 characters or less)
Identify how the apo|kmntka will support and participate ina Community Generated Project, including, but
not limited to, financial contributions, community engagement and outreach support, promotional support,
equipment, staffing, or other forms of partnership.
G_
_5
Thank you for your application. If you have any questions regarding the King County Metro Alternative
Services Demonstration program or about the Alternative Services Pilot Participation application process,
please contact Cathy Snow at 206 - 477 -5760 or cathleen.snow @kingcounty.gov.
786
2017 Alternative Services Pilot Participation
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Alternative Services Background
What is the AlternativeServices Program?
Metro's Alternative Services Demonstration Program was established to develop and test innovative
solutions to local transportation needs in areas of King County where infrastructure, density, or land use
does not support traditional fixed -route bus service. To learn more about current Alternative Services
Demonstration pilot projects, please visit the Alternative Services website.
What is an "afternative service
The kinds of transportation services that the Alternative Services Demonstration program is developing
and testing through its pilot projects are alternatives to conventional 40- and 60 -foot buses running
fixed routes on fixed schedules. To learn more about current Alternative Services Demonstration pilot
projects, please visit the Alternative Services website.
What does it mean to "partner" er" n an Alternative Services project'?
Partnership is the foundation on which all successful Alternative Services projects are built. None of
these projects can succeed without strong local commitment, which can be either a direct financial
partnership for or an in -kind partnership in which our partner provides promotional, staff, or other non-
financial support. Some examples of non - financial partnership support include: volunteer time, meeting
space, access to communication channels, advertising space, parking space, support finding volunteers,
data analysis, and other staff support.
III III
201 7 Pilot Participation
What is the purpose of the 2017 application process?
The purpose of the 2017 Alternative Services Pilot Participation application process is to identify up to
eight pilot communities for Alternative Services projects that will be initiated in 2017.
87
Who is eligible to ppl C
The following King County municipal jurisdictions, tribal governments, and Community Service Area
(CSA) councils /organizations are eligible to submit an application. Each of these entities may only
submit one application.
Municipal Jurisdictions
•
Algona
•
Federal Way
•
North Bend
•
Auburn
•
Hunts Point
•
Pacific
•
Beaux Arts Village
•
Issaquah
•
Redmond
•
Bellevue
•
Kenmore
•
Renton
•
Black Diamond
•
Kent
•
Sammamish
•
Bothell
•
Kirkland
•
SeaTac
•
Burien
•
Lake Forest Park
•
Seattle
•
Carnation
•
Maple Valley
•
Shoreline
•
Clyde Hill
•
Medina
•
Skykomish
•
Covington
•
Mercer Island
•
Snoqualmie
•
Des Moines
•
Milton
•
Tukwila
•
Duvall
•
Newcastle
•
Woodinville
•
Enumclaw
•
Normandy Park
•
Yarrow Point
Tribal Governments
• Muckleshoot Tribe
• Snoqualmie Tribe
Community Service Areas
• Bear Creek /Sammamish: Upper Bear Creek Community Council
• Snoqualmie Valley /NE King County: Fall City Community Association
• Four Creeks /Tiger Mountain: Four Creeks UAC
• Greater Maple Valley /Cedar River: Greater Maple Valley Area Council
• Southeast King County: Green Valley /Lake Holm Association
• West King County: North Highline UAC, West Hill Business Association, White Center Community
Development Association, West Hill Community Association, Skyway Solutions
jurisdiction?
No. Each eligible entity may only submit one application describing the geographic boundaries and
market potential of a community; the transportation needs and gaps in that community; and, the
potential rider demographic and population to be served in that community.
88
Can I submit a single application representing the needs of multiple
communities in my J 11 urisdiction?
No. Each application should describe the geographic boundaries and market potential of a single
community; the transportation needs and gaps in that community; and, the potential rider demographic
and population to be served in that community.
Can multiple jurisdictions submit a combined application?
Yes. Since communities with transportation needs may cross jurisdictional or political boundaries, we
encourage collaboration between neighboring municipal jurisdictions, tribal governments, and CSA
councils /organizations on an application that describes transportation needs in such a community. An
entity may be part of one or more collaborative applications, but may only be the "lead applicant" for a
single application — whether the application is for a community within its boundaries or for a community
that crosses boundaries, i.e., each eligible entity may only submit one application.
Can enlilies currenfly participaling in an Allernalive Services i l l:
project submit an application?
As of October 2016, there are fifteen Alternative Services pilot projects already underway. These
projects are either in planning or have entered two -year testing and evaluation periods. Municipal
jurisdictions and tribes that are currently participating in one of these projects ARE ELIGIBLE to submit
an application PROVIDED the candidate community for a 2017 pilot project has different geographic
boundaries, market potential, or mobility needs than current pilot communities.
How much money are you offering?
This is NOT a grant process. There are no funds to be awarded nor is a specific dollar amount per
project being offered. Pending approval of the County's 2017/2018 budget, Metro will have the funding
and resources available for initiating and planning new pilot projects in 2017.
Our jurisdiclion has already approved Elie budget: for 1his fiscal year, can we
till apply?
Yes. Partnerships do not need to be financial.
Our jurisdiction does not have dedicated transportation staff", an we sill .
apply?
Yes. The application process is about describing the market potential, transportation needs and gaps,
the potential rider demographic and the population to be served within a community. It is not about
proposing or justifying transportation solutions. We believe that the application process is therefore
accessible to staff who are not transportation experts.
During the course of alternative services pilot projects, Metro staff provide transportation and planning
expertise. Project partners demonstrate commitment to project success in a variety of ways that do not
require transportation expertise. Partner contributions could be any form of community asset such as
89
volunteer time, meeting space, parking space, access to communication channels, advertising space,
funds, community outreach or communications staff support, etc.
When will pilol : projecis sliirl?
Projects emerging from this round of applications are anticipated to enter a two -year pilot phase during
calendar year 2017 with initiation of projects staggered throughout the year. Each project will start with
community outreach and planning with solutions development and deployment to follow. Once
deployed, an alternative services solution will enter a two -year testing and evaluation period.
A second call for applications will likely take place in the fourth quarter of 2017. The projects emerging
from a second call for application would start in 2018.
How does leis process affecl curreni : llern l Services pr j l:
As of October 2016, there are fifteen Alternative Services pilot projects already underway. These
projects are either in planning or have entered two -year testing and evaluation periods. The Alternative
Services Pilot Participation application process has no impact on these fifteen pilot projects. More
specifically, the 2017 Alternative Service Pilot Participation application process will not augment or
otherwise change the alternative services planned or deployed as part of a current Alternative Services
pilot.
Will fired ,rou I e changes part of 2017 ller al Services i l l:
No. Solutions developed as part of the 2017 Alternative Services pilot projects will complement fixed -
route service. Solutions will not include adding, removing, or altering fixed -route bus service.
Completing III III
7 Pilot arts i ate .
Application
What does the ppli tion mail
The application consists of four questions each of which has a limit of no more than 3,000 characters
(approximately 500 words). Applications will be scored on the basis of written responses to these
questions in the online application; no supplemental materials such as plans, maps, reports, or letters of
support will be considered.
Whal is a "Iransportalion need or gap"?
A transportation need is a circumstance where transportation is necessary or required. For example, a
transportation need might be, "residents at the mobile home community need affordable
transportation to access the library," or, "seniors need accessible transportation to participate in social
and recreational opportunities," or, "shift workers in the industrial district need flexible transportation
options that adapt to their dynamic schedules."
411
A transportation gap is a circumstance where there is a lack of connectivity within an existing public
transportation network. A transportation gap can be in space or in time. An example of a time -of -day
gap would be: "There is no bus service in the mid - day." An example of a geographic transportation gap
would be: "The bus system does not serve the new business park."
We have a great idea for a Iran portal: n l lion! Can we describe l in Ilse
ppl lion?
In answering the four questions, applicants should focus on describing the nature and the extent of the
transportation needs in their candidate pilot community as well as the community assets they would be
willing to offer as part of a partnership (such as volunteers, meeting space, staff support, funds, etc.).
Inclusion of specific solutions ideas or options is discouraged.
Can I submil supplemenial documenis wilh my applicalion such as maps,
lelters of support, or pholographs?
Applications will be scored on the basis of written responses to the four questions in the online
application; no supplemental materials such as plans, maps, reports, or letters of support will be
considered.
Due I o an extenua Iing J rC t n rgan,
aware made C I his process in I t C ..,, can we have an exlension on I lie
deadline?
Unfortunately, we are unable to accept late applications. We have taken great care to inform all 39 cities
and towns in King County, the Snoqualmie and Muckleshoot tribes and Community Service Area
councils /organizations about the opportunity to participate in the application process. If you did not
receive information about the process for 2017 and would like to participate in future application
processes, please contact Cathy Snow at cathleen.snow @kingcounty.gov.
Application
How are applical ions scored?
Each question response will be scored individually using a scale of 1 to 5 where a score of 1 indicates the
response is out of scope and a score of 5 indicates that the response is very strong. The criteria that will
be used as the basis for scoring each question are as follows:
Question #1 Potential Market: clarity in the description of candidate pilot community
including its geographic boundaries and the market potential for alternative services
within that community taking into account proximity /access to existing
activity /employment centers and the regional transit network. (2,000 characters or less)
41
Question #2 Needs and Gaps: specificity in identified day -of -week, time -of -day or
geographic gaps in the fixed -route transit network. (3,000 characters or less)
Question #3 Equity and Social Justice: specificity in the description of the potential rider
demographic, the population to be served and how an alternative services solution
would support historically disadvantaged populations (3,000 characters or less)
Question #4 Partnership: demonstrated partner interest supported with specific,
proposed partnering concepts or opportunities. (2,000 characters or less)
Individual question scores will be totaled then averaged for an application score that falls on a scale of 1
to 5 where 1 indicates the application is out of scope and a score of 5 indicates the application is very
strong.
Applications will then be rank - ordered according to the application score. The top- scoring applications
will be selected for projects to start in 2017. In the event that there are more than eight top- scoring
applications because multiple applications receive identical scores, Metro will rank order applications
with identical scores based on the proportion of low- income or minority populations within the
community defined in Question #1. If additional prioritization is required, Metro will consider the
geographic distribution of candidate pilot communities throughout the County.
Are all four queslions in 1he applicalion equally ighl
Yes. The four questions in the application carry equal weight in the evaluation process.
Will I here be an appeals pr
No. Decisions will be final. However, this is not the only time Metro will be calling for Alternative
Services pilot participation. In October 2017, we are aiming to have another application process for
participation in pilot projects that would be implemented throughout 2018.
Metro will notify successful applicants in December 2016. At that time Metro will invite the applicant to
meet with Metro staff to discuss project scoping and timeline. After the initial project scoping meeting,
successful applicants will have 30 days to commit to moving forward with a project to begin in 2017. If
an applicant decides after the initial scoping meeting that they are not prepared to move forward with a
project in 2017, their spot will be offered to another applicant. The initiation of project implementation
will be staggered throughout the year.
Are 1here resources 1hal can help me idenlify and describe Iransportal 1"011
needs/gaps?
King County produces many free resources that can support applicants.
M,
• Use the System Map to identify geographic transportation gaps:
http: / /kingcounty.gov /depts/ transportation/ metro /schedules- maps.aspx #tab - system -maps
• Use route timetables or Find a Route to identify time -of -day gaps:
http: / /kingcounty.gov /depts/ transportation/ metro /schedules- maps.aspx #tab - routes
• Use Park - and -Ride information to identify barriers to accessing the transit network:
http://metro.kingcountV.gov/tops/parknride/
• Use the Service Guidelines Report to find Transit Activity Centers and other information to
support your description of a potential market:
http: / /metro.ki ngcounty.gov /planni ng /pdf/ 2011 -21/ 2015 / service - guidelines - full - report. pdf
• Use King County GIS Data Hub to find any additional geographic information you may require:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/GISData.aspx.
• Use King County's Regional Planning pages to find information about demographics in King
County. http : / /www.kingcounty.gov /depts/ executive / performance - strategy - budget /regional-
planning /overview.aspx
Wherecan I gel helpga I heringlISCensusda I I: ' r ' i . i .i . i iiiy?
American Fact Finder is a US Census tool that allows anyone to easily access jurisdiction -level census
information. To get information about your community, go to factfinder.census.gov and enter the name
of your jurisdiction into the search bar. The information in the "Community Facts" toolbar will allow
individuals to identify various types of demographic information for your geographic area.
Who can support my lechnical queslions?
You shouldn't need technical support to complete this application. This application has been designed so
that a non - expert can respond to the questions. Simply describe the transportation needs in your
community. If you want to use statistical demographic information to describe your community's
transportation need, you may use King County's online resources listed above.
Who n I conlacl wilh furl he r l: n C
Please contact Cathy Snow at Cathleen.snow @kingcounty.gov or (206) 477 -5760. Please do not contact
other Metro staff.
M
till
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd)
MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
9:00 — 11:00 a.m.
SeaTac City Hall
4800 South 188th Street
SeaTac
1.
Open Meeting
(Breakfast provided by City of Enumclaw)
Introductions
Action
9:00 a.m.
• Approve October 18, 2016 SCATBd Meeting
Summary
2.
Reports and Communications
• Chair or Vice Chair
Report and
9:10 a.m.
• Participant Updates from RTC and Other Regional
Discussion
Committees
3.
Road Usage Charge Assessment - Pilot Project;
Paul Parker, WA Transportation Connnission
Report and
9 :15 a.m.
Discussion
4.
King County Transit Advisory Commission
Report and
Discussion
9 :45 p.m.
5.
SCATBd Administration
Report and
• Legislative
Discussion
10:15 a.m.
Work Planning
6.
• Public Comment
• For the Good of the Order
10:45 a.m.
• Next SCATBd Meeting: December 20, 2016
(Next Meeting Breakfast City of Federal Way)
491