Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TIC 2017-11-14 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
City of Tukwila Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ❖ Kate Kruller, Chair ❖ Joe Duffie ❖ De'Sean Quinn AGENDA Distribution: K. Kruller J. Duffie D. Quinn D. Robertson Mayor Ekberg D. Cline L. Humphrey R. Tischmak G. Labanara P. Brodin R. Turpin A. Youn Clerk File Copy 2 Extra Place pkt pdf on Z:\Trans & Infra Agendas e-mail cover to: A. Le, C. O'Flaherty, A. Youn, K. Kruller, D. Robertson, D. Almberg, B. Saxton, S. Norris, & L. Humphrey TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2017 — 5:30 PM FOSTER CONFERENCE ROOM — 6300 BUILDING Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a) NPDES — Department of Ecology's 2017-2019 Biennial a) Forward to 11/20/17 Regular Pg. 1 Stormwater Capacity Grant Acceptance Consent Agenda b) NPDES — 2017 Surface Water Management Program b) Information Only Pg. 21 2017 Survey and Assessment Results c) Martin Luther King Jr Way S Water Main c) Forward to 11/20/17 Regular Pg. 71 Design Consultant Selection and Agreement Consent Agenda d) Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal Project d) Forward to 11/20/17 Regular Pg. 87 Design Contract Amendment No. 1 Consent Agenda e) WSDOT Grant Acceptance for Non -Transportation e) Forward to 11/20/17 Regular Pg. 101 Commute Trip Reduction Pilot Program 2017-2019 Consent Agenda f) Tukwila International Boulevard Retrofit f) Forward to the 1/22/18 C.O.W. Pg. 103 Implementation Recommendations for Discussion g) Interurban Ave S g) Forward to the 11/27/17 C.O.W. Pg. 153 Final Construction Settlement Change Order No. 9 and the 12/4/17 Regular 3. SCATBd 4. MISCELLANEOUS • Valley View Sewer District Tentative Open House 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Agendas: Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 IS. The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Please contact the Public Works Department at 206-433-0179 for assistance. City of Tukwila Public Works Department -- Robin Tischmak, Acting Director Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Robin Tischmak, Acting Public Works Director BY: Greg Villanueva, NPDES Coordinator CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg DATE: November 9, 2017 SUBJECT: NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Project No. 99341210 Department of Ecology's 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grant ISSUE Authorize the Mayor to sign and accept Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Water Quality Stormwater Capacity Grant for the 2017-2019 Biennial. BACKGROUND The 2017 State Legislature provided State funding for local jurisdictions to assist in the implementation of NPDES Phase I and Phase II permit requirements. The City applied for $50,000 of the 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grant. ANALYSIS The City has been awarded $50,000 for the 2017- 2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grant and the agreement is now ready for signature. FISCAL IMPACT This State Capacity Grant is non-competitive, and no matching funds are required. RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to approve Washington's State Department of Ecology's 2017-2019 Water Quality Stormwater Capacity Grant Agreement for $50,000 and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the November 20, 2017 Regular Meeting. Attachment: Water Quality Stormwater Capacity Grant Agreement No. WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwila-00050 \\PWStorelPW Common$1PW Eng \PROJECTS \A- DR Projects\NPDES Program (99341210)0017 2019 Capacity Grant\InfoMemoCapacityGrantAgreementSignature.docx 1 State of Washington Agreement No. WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 WATER QUALITY STORMWATER CAPACITY 1719 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND CITY OF TUKWILA This is a binding Agreement entered into by and between the state of Washington, Department of Ecology, hereinafter referred to as "ECOLOGY," and City of Tukwila, hereinafter referred to as the "RECIPIENT," to carry out with the provided funds activities described herein. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Total Cost: Total Eligible Cost: Ecology Share: Recipient Share: The Effective Date of this Agreement is: The Expiration Date of this Agreement is no later than: Project Type: $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 07/01/2017 03/31/2019 Capacity Grant Project Short Description: This project will assist Phase I and II Permittees in implementation or management of municipal stormwater programs. Project Long Description: N/A Overall Goal: This project will improve water quality in the State of Washington by reducing stormwater pollutants discharged to state water bodies. 2 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila RECIPIENT INFORMATION Organization Name: City of Tukwila Federal Tax ID: 91-6001519 DUNS Number: 010207504 Mailing Address: 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Physical Address: 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Organization Email: ryan.larson@tukwilawa.gov Organization Fax: Contacts (206) 433-0179 Page 2 of 19 Project Manager Greg Villanueva NPDES Cordinator 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, Washington 98188 Email: greg.villanueva@tukwilawa.gov Phone: (206) 431-2442 Billing Contact Gail Labanara Public Works Analyst 6300 Southcenter Blvd STE 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Email: gail.labanara@tukwilawa.gov Phone: (206) 431-3660 Authorized Allan Ekberg Signatory Mayor 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, Washington 98188 Email: allan.ekberggtukwilawa.gov Phone: (206) 433-1850 Version 10/30/2015 3 State of Washington Agreement No: Project Title: Recipient Name: Department of Ecology W Q S W CAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants City of Tukwila ECOLOGY INFORMATION Mailing Address: Physical Address: Contacts Department of Ecology Water Quality PO BOX 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Water Quality 300 Desmond Drive SE Lacey, WA 98503 Page 3 of 19 Version 10/30/2015 4 Kyle Graunke Project Manager PO Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 Email: kygr461@ecy.wa.gov Phone: (360) 407-6452 Kyle Graunke Financial Manager PO Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 Email: kygr461@ecy.wa.gov Phone: (360) 407-6452 Version 10/30/2015 4 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES RECIPIENT agrees to furnish the necessary personnel, equipment, materials, services, and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work as set forth in this Agreement. RECIPIENT acknowledges that they had the opportunity to review the entire Agreement, including all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Scope of Work, attachments, and incorporated or referenced documents, as well as all applicable laws, statutes, rules, regulations, and guidelines mentioned in this Agreement. Furthermore, the RECIPIENT has read, understood, and accepts all requirements contained within this Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties, and there are no other understandings or representations other than as set forth, or incorporated by reference, herein. No subsequent modifications or amendments to this agreement will be of any force or effect unless in writing, signed by authorized representatives of the RECIPIENT and ECOLOGY and made a part of this agreement. ECOLOGY and RECIPIENT may change their respective staff contacts without the concurrence of either party. This Agreement shall be subject to the written approval of Ecology's authorized representative and shall not be binding until so approved. The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement and bind their respective organizations to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: the parties hereto, having read this Agreement in its entirety, including all attachments, do agree in each and every particular and have thus set their hands hereunto. Washington State Department of Ecology City of Tukwila By: By: Heather R. Bartlett Water Quality Program Manager Template Approved to Form by Attorney General's Office Date Page 4 of 19 Allan Ekberg Mayor Date Version 10/30/2015 5 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila SCOPE OF WORK Task Number: 1 Task Cost: $5,000.00 Task Title: Project Administration/Management Task Description: A. The RECIPIENT shall carry out all work necessary to meet ECOLOGY grant or loan administration requirements. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to: maintenance of project records; submittal of requests for reimbursement and corresponding backup documentation; progress reports; an EAGL (Ecology Administration of Grants and Loans) recipient closeout report; and a two-page final outcome summary report (including photos, if applicable). In the event that the RECIPIENT elects to use a contractor to complete project elements, the RECIPIENT shall retain responsibility for the oversight and management of this funding agreement. B. The RECIPIENT shall keep documentation that demonstrates the project is in compliance with applicable procurement, contracting, and interlocal agreement requirements; permitting requirements, including application for, receipt of, and compliance with all required permits, licenses, easements, or property rights necessary for the project; and submittal of required performance items. This documentation shall be made available to ECOLOGY upon request.. C. The RECIPIENT shall maintain effective communication with ECOLOGY and maintain up -to- date staff contact information in the EAGL RECIPIENT contact form. The RECIPIENT shall carry out this project in accordance with any completion dates outlined in this agreement. Task Goal Statement: Properly managed and fully documented project that meets ECOLOGY's grant and loan administrative requirements. Task Expected Outcome: * Timely and complete submittal of requests for reimbursement, quarterly progress reports, RECIPIENT closeout report, and two-page outcome summary report. * Properly maintained project documentation Recipient Task Coordinator: Greg Villanueva Project Administration/Management Deliverables Page 5 of 19 Number Description Due Date 1.1 Progress Reports that include descriptions of work accomplished, project challenges, or changes in the project schedule. Submitted at least quarterly. 1.2 Recipient Closeout Report (EAGL Form) 1.3 Two-page Outcome Summary Report Version 10/30/2015 6 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila SCOPE OF WORK Task Number: 2 Task Cost: $45,000.00 Task Title: Permit Implementation Task Description: Conduct work related to implementation of municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. If the RECIPIENT is out of compliance with the municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the RECIPIENT will ensure funds are used to attain compliance where applicable. RECIPIENT may conduct work related to implementation of additional activities required by the municipal stormwater NPDES permits. The following is a list of elements RECIPIENT's project may include. 1) Public education and outreach activities, including stewardship activities. 2) Public involvement and participation activities. 3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) program activities, including: a) Mapping or geographic information systems of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). b) Staff training. c) Activities to identify and remove illicit stormwater discharges. d) Field screening procedures. e) Complaint hotline database or tracking system improvements. 4) Activities to support programs to control runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites, including: a) Development of an ordinance and associated technical manual or update of applicable codes. b) Inspections before, during, and upon completion of construction, or for post -construction long-term maintenance. c) Training for plan review and/or inspection staff. d) Participation in applicable watershed planning effort. 5) Pollution prevention, good housekeeping, and operation and maintenance program activities, such as: a) Inspecting and/or maintaining the MS4 infrastructure. b) Developing and/or implementing policies, procedures, or stormwater pollution prevention plans at municipal properties or facilities. 6) Annual reporting activities. 7) Establishing and refining stormwater utilities, including stable rate structures. 8) Water quality monitoring to implement permit requirements for a Water Cleanup Plan (TMDL). Note that any monitoring funded by this program requires submittal of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that the DEPARMENT approves prior to awarding funding for monitoring. Monitoring, including: a) Development of applicable QAPPs. b) Monitoring activities, in accordance with a DEPARTMENT- approved QAPP, to meet Phase I/II permit requirements. 9) Structural stormwater controls program activities (Phase I permit requirement) 10) Source control for existing development (Phase I permit requirement), including: a) Inventory and inspection program. b) Technical assistance and enforcement. c) Staff training. Version 10/30/2015 Page 6 of 19 7 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila 11) Equipment purchases that result directly in improved compliance with permit requirements. Allowed costs for equipment purchases must be specific to implementing a permit requirement (such as a vactor truck) rather than general use (such as a general use pick-up truck). Qualified equipment purchases include but are not limited to: a) Illicit discharge testing equipment and materials. b) Vactor truck or sweeper truck or MS4 maintenance activities. c) Electronic devices dedicated to mapping of MS4 facilities and attributes. d) Software dedicated to tracking permit implementation activities. As a deliverable, documentation of all tasks completed is required. Documentation includes but is not limited to: maps, field reports, dates and number of inspections conducted, dates of trainings held and participant lists, number of illicit discharges investigated and removed, summaries of planning, stormwater utility or procedural updates, annual reports, copies of approved QAPPs, summaries of structural or source control activities, summaries of how equipment purchases have increased or improved permit compliance. Task Goal Statement: This task will improve water quality in the State of Washington by reducing the pollutants delivered by stormwater to lakes, streams, and the Puget Sound by implementing measures required by Phase I and II NPDES permits. Task Expected Outcome: RECIPIENTS will implement measures required by Phase I and II NPDES permits. Recipient Task Coordinator: Greg Villanueva Permit Implementation Deliverables Page 7 of 19 Number Description Due Date 2.1 Documentation of tasks completed Version 10/30/2015 8 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila BUDGET Funding Distribution EG180121 NOTE: The above funding distribution number is used to identify this specific agreement and budget on payment remittances and may be referenced on other communications from ECOLOGY. Your agreement may have multiple funding distribution numbers to idents each budget. Funding Title: FY1719 Capacity Grants Funding Type: Grant Funding Effective Date: 07/01/2017 Funding Expiration Date: 03/31/2019 Funding Source: Title: Stormwater Capacity Type: Funding Source %: Description: State 100% Approved Indirect Costs Rate: Approved State Indirect Rate: 25% Recipient Match %: 0% InKind Interlocal Allowed: No InKind Other Allowed: No Is this Funding Distribution used to match a federal grant? No FY1719 Capacity Grants Task Total Grant and Loan Administration $ 5,000.00 Permit Implementation $ 45,000.00 Total: $ 50,000.00 Version 10/30/2015 Page 8 of 19 9 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila Funding Distribution Summary Recipient / Ecology Share Page 9 of 19 Funding Distribution Name Recipient Match % Recipient Share Ecology Share Total FY1719 Capacity Grants 0.00 % $ 0.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Total $ 0.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 AGREEMENT SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS N/A SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS GENERAL FEDERAL CONDITIONS If a portion or all of the funds for this agreement are provided through federal funding sources or this agreement is used to match a federal grant award, the following terms and conditions apply to you. A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SUSPENSION, DEBARMENT, INELIGIBILITY OR VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION: 1. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR, by signing this agreement, certifies that it is not suspended, debarred, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or otherwise excluded from contracting with the federal government, or from receiving contracts paid for with federal funds. If the RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR is unable to certify to the statements contained in the certification, they must provide an explanation as to why they cannot. 2. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR shall provide immediate written notice to ECOLOGY if at any time the RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or had become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 3. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact ECOLOGY for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 4. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR agrees it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under the applicable Code of Federal Regulations, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction. 5. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR further agrees by signing this agreement, that it will include this clause titled "CERTIFICATION REGARDING SUSPENSION, DEBARMENT, INELIGIBILITY OR VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION" without modification in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 6. Pursuant to 2CFR180.330, the RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR is responsible for ensuring that any lower tier covered transaction complies with certification of suspension and debarment requirements. 7. RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR acknowledges that failing to disclose the information required in the Code of Federal Regulations may result in the delay or negation of this funding agreement, or pursuance of legal Version 10/30/2015 10 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila Page 10 of 19 remedies, including suspension and debarment. 8. RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR agrees to keep proof in its agreement file, that it, and all lower tier recipients or contractors, are not suspended or debarred, and will make this proof available to ECOLOGY before requests for reimbursements will be approved for payment. RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR must run a search in <http://www.sam.gov> and print a copy of completed searches to document proof of compliance. B. FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT (FFATA) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: CONTRACTOR/RECIPIENT must complete the FFATA Data Collection Form (ECY 070-395) and return it with the signed agreement to ECOLOGY. Any CONTRACTOR/RECIPIENT that meets each of the criteria below must report compensation for its five top executives using the FFATA Data Collection Form. • Receives more than $25,000 in federal funds under this award. • Receives more than 80 percent of its annual gross revenues from federal funds. • Receives more than $25,000,000 in annual federal funds. Ecology will not pay any invoices until it has received a completed and signed FFATA Data Collection Form. Ecology is required to report the FFATA information for federally funded agreements, including the required DUNS number, at www.fsrs.gov <http://www.fsrs.gov/> within 30 days of agreement signature. The FFATA information will be available to the public at www.usaspending.gov <http://www.usaspending.gov/>. For more details on FFATA requirements, see www.fsrs.gov <http://www.fsrs.gov/>. Version 10/30/2015 11 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Pertaining to Grant and Loan Agreements With the state of Washington, Department of Ecology 1. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS a) RECIPIENT shall follow the "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans — EAGL Edition." https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1401002.html b) RECIPIENT shall complete all activities funded by this Agreement and be fully responsible for the proper management of all funds and resources made available under this Agreement. c) RECIPIENT agrees to take complete responsibility for all actions taken under this Agreement, including ensuring all subgrantees and contractors comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. ECOLOGY reserves the right to request proof of compliance by subgrantees and contractors. d) RECIPIENT's activities under this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval by ECOLOGY for the extent and character of all work and services. Page 11 of 19 2. AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS This Agreement may be altered, amended, or waived only by a written amendment executed by both parties. No subsequent modification(s) or amendment(s) of this Agreement will be of any force or effect unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties. ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT may change their respective staff contacts and administrative information without the concurrence of either party. 3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES RECIPIENT shall take reasonable action to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to archeological and historic resources. The RECIPIENT must agree to hold harmless the State of Washington in relation to any claim related to historical or cultural artifacts discovered, disturbed, or damaged due to the RECIPIENT's project funded under this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall: a) Contact the ECOLOGY Program issuing the grant or loan to discuss any Cultural Resources requirements for their project: • For capital construction projects or land acquisitions for capital construction projects, if required, comply with Governor Executive Order 05-05, Archaeology and Cultural Resources. • For projects with any federal involvement, if required, comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. • Any cultural resources federal or state requirements must be completed prior to the start of any work on the project site. b) If required by the ECOLOGY Program, submit an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) to ECOLOGY prior to implementing any project that involves ground disturbing activities. ECOLOGY will provide the IDP form. RECIPIENT shall: • Keep the IDP at the project site. • Make the IDP readily available to anyone working at the project site. • Discuss the IDP with staff and contractors working at the project site. • Implement the IDP when cultural resources or human remains are found at the project site. c) If any archeological or historic resources are found while conducting work under this Agreement: • Immediately stop work and notify the ECOLOGY Program, the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at (360) 586-3064, any affected Tribe, and the local government. d) If any human remains are found while conducting work under this Agreement: • Immediately stop work and notify the local Law Enforcement Agency or Medical Examiner/Coroner's Office, and then the ECOLOGY Program. Version 10/30/2015 12 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila e) Comply with RCW 27.53, RCW 27.44.055, and RCW 68.50.645, and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws protecting cultural resources and human remains. 4. ASSIGNMENT No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this Agreement shall be transferred or assigned by the RECIPIENT. 5. COMMUNICATION RECIPIENT shall make every effort to maintain effective communications with the RECIPIENT's designees, ECOLOGY, all affected local, state, or federal jurisdictions, and any interested individuals or groups. Page 12 of 19 6. COMPENSATION a) Any work performed prior to effective date of this Agreement will be at the sole expense and risk of the RECIPIENT. ECOLOGY must sign the Agreement before any payment requests can be submitted. b) Payments will be made on a reimbursable basis for approved and completed work as specified in this Agreement. c) RECIPIENT is responsible to determine if costs are eligible. Any questions regarding eligibility should be clarified with ECOLOGY prior to incurring costs. Costs that are conditionally eligible require approval by ECOLOGY prior to expenditure. d) RECIPIENT shall not invoice more than once per month unless agreed on by ECOLOGY. e) ECOLOGY will not process payment requests without the proper reimbursement forms, Progress Report and supporting documentation. ECOLOGY will provide instructions for submitting payment requests. 0 ECOLOGY will pay the RECIPIENT thirty (30) days after receipt of a properly completed request for payment. g) RECIPIENT will receive payment through Washington State Department of Enterprise Services' Statewide Payee Desk. RECIPIENT must register as a payee by submitting a Statewide Payee Registration form and an IRS W-9 form at the website, http://www.des.wa.gov/services/ContractingPurchasing/Business/VendorPay/Pages/default.aspx. For any questions about the vendor registration process contact the Statewide Payee Help Desk at (360) 407-8180 or email payeehelpdesk@watech.wa. gov. h) ECOLOGY may, at its sole discretion, withhold payments claimed by the RECIPIENT if the RECIPIENT fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Agreement. i) Monies withheld by ECOLOGY may be paid to the RECIPIENT when the work described herein, or a portion thereof, has been completed if, at ECOLOGY's sole discretion, such payment is reasonable and approved according to this Agreement, as appropriate, or upon completion of an audit as specified herein. j) RECIPIENT should submit final requests for compensation within thirty (30) days after the expiration date of this Agreement. Failure to comply may result in delayed reimbursement. 7. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS RECIPIENT agrees to comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws, orders, regulations, and permits related to this Agreement, including but not limited to: a) RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the United States and the State of Washington which affect wages and job safety. b) RECIPIENT agrees to be bound by all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination. c) RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial insurance requirements. d) RECIPIENT agrees to secure and provide assurance to ECOLOGY that all the necessary approvals and permits required by authorities having jurisdiction over the project are obtained. RECIPIENT must include time in their project timeline for the permit and approval processes. ECOLOGY shall have the right to immediately terminate for cause this Agreement as provided herein if the RECIPIENT fails to comply with above requirements. Version 10/30/2015 13 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila If any provision of this Agreement violates any statute or rule of law of the state of Washington, it is considered modified to conform to that statute or rule of law. Page 13 of 19 8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST RECIPIENT and ECOLOGY agree that any officer, member, agent, or employee, who exercises any function or responsibility in the review, approval, or carrying out of this Agreement, shall not have any personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, nor affect the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he/she is a part, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. 9. CONTRACTING FOR GOODS AND SERVICES RECIPIENT may contract to buy goods or services related to its performance under this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall award all contracts for construction, purchase of goods, equipment, services, and professional architectural and engineering services through a competitive process, if required by State law. RECIPIENT is required to follow procurement procedures that ensure legal, fair, and open competition. RECIPIENT must have a standard procurement process or follow current state procurement procedures. RECIPIENT may be required to provide written certification that they have followed their standard procurement procedures and applicable state law in awarding contracts under this Agreement. ECOLOGY reserves the right to inspect and request copies of all procurement documentation, and review procurement practices related to this Agreement. Any costs incurred as a result of procurement practices not in compliance with state procurement law or the RECIPIENT's normal procedures may be disallowed at ECOLOGY's sole discretion. 10. DISPUTES When there is a dispute with regard to the extent and character of the work, or any other matter related to this Agreement the determination of ECOLOGY will govern, although the RECIPIENT shall have the right to appeal decisions as provided for below: a) RECIPIENT notifies the funding program of an appeal request. b) Appeal request must be in writing and state the disputed issue(s). c) RECIPIENT has the opportunity to be heard and offer evidence in support of its appeal. d) ECOLOGY reviews the RECIPIENT's appeal. e) ECOLOGY sends a written answer within ten (10) business days, unless more time is needed, after concluding the review. The decision of ECOLOGY from an appeal will be final and conclusive, unless within thirty (30) days from the date of such decision, the RECIPIENT furnishes to the Director of ECOLOGY a written appeal. The decision of the Director or duly authorized representative will be final and conclusive. The parties agree that this dispute process will precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Appeals of the Director's decision will be brought in the Superior Court of Thurston County. Review of the Director's decision will not be taken to Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office. Pending final decision of a dispute, the RECIPIENT agrees to proceed diligently with the performance of this Agreement and in accordance with the decision rendered. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit the parties' choice of another mutually acceptable method, in addition to the dispute resolution procedure outlined above. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STANDARDS a) RECIPIENT shall prepare a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for each project that collects or uses environmental measurement data. RECIPIENTS unsure about whether a QAPP is required for their project shall contact the ECOLOGY Program issuing the grant or loan. If a QAPP is required the RECIPIENT shall: • Use ECOLOGY's QAPP Template provided by the ECOLOGY Program. Version 10/30/2015 14 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila Page 14 of 19 • Follow ECOLOGY's Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies, July 2004 (Ecology Publication No. 04-03-030). • Submit the QAPP to ECOLOGY for review and approval before the start of the work. b) RECIPIENT shall submit environmental data that was collected on a project to ECOLOGY using the Environmental Information Management system (EIM), unless the ECOLOGY Program instructs otherwise. The data must be successfully loaded into EIM, find instructions at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim. c) RECIPIENT shall follow ECOLOGY's data standards when Geographic Information System (GIS) data is collected and processed. Guidelines for Creating and Accessing GIS Data are available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/standards/standards.htm. RECIPIENT, when requested by ECOLOGY, shall provide copies to ECOLOGY of all final GIS data layers, imagery, related tables, raw data collection files, map products, and all metadata and project documentation. 12. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and the venue of any action brought hereunder will be in the Superior Court of Thurston County. 13. INDEMNIFICATION ECOLOGY will in no way be held responsible for payment of salaries, consultant's fees, and other costs related to the project described herein, except as provided in the Scope of Work. To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit, each party will indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any liability for any or all injuries to persons or property arising from the negligent act or omission of that party or that party's agents or employees arising out of this Agreement. 14. INDEPENDENT STATUS The employees, volunteers, or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement will continue to be employees, volunteers, or agents of that party and will not for any purpose be employees, volunteers, or agents of the other party. 15. KICKBACKS RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise involved in this Agreement to give up any part of the compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled to or receive any fee, commission, or gift in return for award of a subcontract hereunder. 16. MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (MWBE) RECIPIENT is encouraged to solicit and recruit, to the extent possible, certified minority-owned (MBE) and women -owned (WBE) businesses in purchases and contracts initiated under this Agreement. Contract awards or rejections cannot be made based on MWBE participation; however, the RECIPIENT is encouraged to take the following actions, when possible, in any procurement under this Agreement: a) Include qualified minority and women's businesses on solicitation lists whenever they are potential sources of goods or services. b) Divide the total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities, to permit maximum participation by qualified minority and women's businesses. c) Establish delivery schedules, where work requirements permit, which will encourage participation of qualified minority and women's businesses. d) Use the services and assistance of the Washington State Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises (OMWBE) (866-208-1064) and the Office of Minority Business Enterprises of the U.S. Department of Commerce, as appropriate. Version 10/30/2015 15 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila 17. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE In the event of inconsistency in this Agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a) applicable federal and state statutes and regulations; (b) The Agreement; (c) Scope of Work; (d) Special Terms and Conditions; (e) Any provisions or terms incorporated herein by reference, including the "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans"; and (f) the General Terms and Conditions. 18. PRESENTATION AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS ECOLOGY reserves the right to approve RECIPIENT's communication documents and materials related to the fulfillment of this Agreement: a) If requested, RECIPIENT shall provide a draft copy to ECOLOGY for review and approval ten (10) business days prior to production and distribution. b) RECIPIENT shall include time for ECOLOGY's review and approval process in their project timeline. c) If requested, RECIPIENT shall provide ECOLOGY two (2) final copies and an electronic copy of any tangible products developed. Copies include any printed materials, and all tangible products developed such as brochures, manuals, pamphlets, videos, audio tapes, CDs, curriculum, posters, media announcements, or gadgets with a message, such as a refrigerator magnet, and any online communications, such as web pages, blogs, and twitter campaigns. If it is not practical to provide a copy, then the RECIPIENT shall provide a description (photographs, drawings, printouts, etc.) that best represents the item. Any communications intended for public distribution that uses ECOLOGY's logo shall comply with ECOLOGY's graphic requirements and any additional requirements specified in this Agreement. Before the use of ECOLOGY's logo contact ECOLOGY for guidelines. RECIPIENT shall acknowledge in the communications that funding was provided by ECOLOGY. Page 15 of 19 19. PROGRESS REPORTING a) RECIPIENT must satisfactorily demonstrate the timely use of funds by submitting payment requests and progress reports to ECOLOGY. ECOLOGY reserves the right to amend or terminate this Agreement if the RECIPIENT does not document timely use of funds. b) RECIPIENT must submit a progress report with each payment request. Payment requests will not be processed without a progress report. ECOLOGY will define the elements and frequency of progress reports. c) RECIPIENT shall use ECOLOGY's provided progress report format. d) Quarterly progress reports will cover the periods from January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1 through September 30, and October 1 through December 31. Reports shall be submitted within thirty (30) days after the end of the quarter being reported. e) RECIPIENT shall submit the Closeout Report within thirty (30) days of the expiration date of the project, unless an extension has been approved by ECOLOGY. RECIPIENT shall use the ECOLOGY provided closeout report format. 20. PROPERTY RIGHTS a) Copyrights and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents any patentable property under this Agreement, the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but ECOLOGY retains a royalty free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, recover, or otherwise use the material(s) or property, and to authorize others to use the same for federal, state, or local government purposes. b) Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish ECOLOGY information; present papers, lectures, or seminars involving information supplied by ECOLOGY; or use logos, reports, maps, or other data in printed reports, signs, brochures, pamphlets, etc., appropriate credit shall be given to ECOLOGY. Version 10/30/2015 16 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila Page 16 of 19 c) Presentation and Promotional Materials. ECOLOGY shall have the right to use or reproduce any printed or graphic materials produced in fulfillment of this Agreement, in any manner ECOLOGY deems appropriate. ECOLOGY shall acknowledge the RECIPIENT as the sole copyright owner in every use or reproduction of the materials. d) Tangible Property Rights. ECOLOGY's current edition of "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans," shall control the use and disposition of all real and personal property purchased wholly or in part with funds furnished by ECOLOGY in the absence of state and federal statutes, regulations, or policies to the contrary, or upon specific instructions with respect thereto in this Agreement. e) Personal Property Furnished by ECOLOGY. When ECOLOGY provides personal property directly to the RECIPIENT for use in performance of the project, it shall be returned to ECOLOGY prior to final payment by ECOLOGY. If said property is lost, stolen, or damaged while in the RECIPIENT's possession, then ECOLOGY shall be reimbursed in cash or by setoff by the RECIPIENT for the fair market value of such property. 0 Acquisition Projects. The following provisions shall apply if the project covered by this Agreement includes funds for the acquisition of land or facilities: 1. RECIPIENT shall establish that the cost is fair value and reasonable prior to disbursement of funds provided for in this Agreement. 2. RECIPIENT shall provide satisfactory evidence of title or ability to acquire title for each parcel prior to disbursement of funds provided by this Agreement. Such evidence may include title insurance policies, Torrens certificates, or abstracts, and attorney's opinions establishing that the land is free from any impediment, lien, or claim which would impair the uses intended by this Agreement. g) Conversions. Regardless of the Agreement expiration date, the RECIPIENT shall not at any time convert any equipment, property, or facility acquired or developed under this Agreement to uses other than those for which assistance was originally approved without prior written approval of ECOLOGY. Such approval may be conditioned upon payment to ECOLOGY of that portion of the proceeds of the sale, lease, or other conversion or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this Agreement bear to the total acquisition, purchase, or construction costs of such property. 21. RECORDS, AUDITS, AND INSPECTIONS RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this Agreement, including any engineering documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished. All records shall: a) Be kept in a manner which provides an audit trail for all expenditures. b) Be kept in a common file to facilitate audits and inspections. c) Clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures related to this Agreement. d) Be open for audit or inspection by ECOLOGY, or by any duly authorized audit representative of the State of Washington, for a period of at least three (3) years after the final grant payment or loan repayment, or any dispute resolution hereunder. RECIPIENT shall provide clarification and make necessary adjustments if any audits or inspections identify discrepancies in the records. ECOLOGY reserves the right to audit, or have a designated third party audit, applicable records to ensure that the state has been properly invoiced. Any remedies and penalties allowed by law to recover monies determined owed will be enforced. Repetitive instances of incorrect invoicing or inadequate records may be considered cause for termination. All work performed under this Agreement and any property and equipment purchased shall be made available to ECOLOGY and to any authorized state, federal or local representative for inspection at any time during the course of this Agreement and for at least three (3) years following grant or loan termination or dispute resolution hereunder. RECIPIENT shall provide right of access to ECOLOGY, or any other authorized representative, at all reasonable times, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and any other conditions under this Agreement. Version 10/30/2015 17 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila Page 17 of 19 22. RECOVERY OF FUNDS The right of the RECIPIENT to retain monies received as reimbursement payments is contingent upon satisfactory performance of this Agreement and completion of the work described in the Scope of Work. All payments to the RECIPIENT are subject to approval and audit by ECOLOGY, and any unauthorized expenditure(s) or unallowable cost charged to this Agreement shall be refunded to ECOLOGY by the RECIPIENT. RECIPIENT shall refund to ECOLOGY the full amount of any erroneous payment or overpayment under this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall refund by check payable to ECOLOGY the amount of any such reduction of payments or repayments within thirty (30) days of a written notice. Interest will accrue at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per year from the time ECOLOGY demands repayment of funds. Any property acquired under this Agreement, at the option of ECOLOGY, may become ECOLOGY's property and the RECIPIENT's liability to repay monies will be reduced by an amount reflecting the fair value of such property. 23. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. 24. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) RECIPIENT must demonstrate to ECOLOGY's satisfaction that compliance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC) have been or will be met. Any reimbursements are subject to this provision. 25. SUSPENSION When in the best interest of ECOLOGY, ECOLOGY may at any time, and without cause, suspend this Agreement or any portion thereof for a temporary period by written notice from ECOLOGY to the RECIPIENT. RECIPIENT shall resume performance on the next business day following the suspension period unless another day is specified by ECOLOGY. 26. SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES In order to sustain Washington's natural resources and ecosystems, the RECIPIENT is fully encouraged to implement sustainable practices and to purchase environmentally preferable products under this Agreement. a) Sustainable practices may include such activities as: use of clean energy, use of double -sided printing, hosting low impact meetings, and setting up recycling and composting programs. b) Purchasing may include such items as: sustainably produced products and services, EPEAT registered computers and imaging equipment, independently certified green cleaning products, remanufactured toner cartridges, products with reduced packaging, office products that are refillable, rechargeable, and recyclable, and 100% post -consumer recycled paper. For more suggestions visit ECOLOGY's web page: Green Purchasing, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/epp. 27. TERMINATION a) For Cause ECOLOGY may terminate for cause this Agreement with a seven (7) calendar days prior written notification to the RECIPIENT, at the sole discretion of ECOLOGY, for failing to perform an Agreement requirement or for a material breach of any term or condition. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. Failure to Commence Work. ECOLOGY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement if RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project funded within four (4) months after the effective date of this Agreement, or by any date Version 10/30/2015 18 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila mutually agreed upon in writing for commencement of work, or the time period defined within the Scope of Work. Page 18 of 19 Non -Performance. The obligation of ECOLOGY to the RECIPIENT is contingent upon satisfactory performance by the RECIPIENT of all of its obligations under this Agreement. In the event the RECIPIENT unjustifiably fails, in the opinion of ECOLOGY, to perform any obligation required of it by this Agreement, ECOLOGY may refuse to pay any further funds, terminate in whole or in part this Agreement, and exercise any other rights under this Agreement. Despite the above, the RECIPIENT shall not be relieved of any liability to ECOLOGY for damages sustained by ECOLOGY and the State of Washington because of any breach of this Agreement by the RECIPIENT. ECOLOGY may withhold payments for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due ECOLOGY from the RECIPIENT is determined. b) For Convenience ECOLOGY may terminate for convenience this Agreement, in whole or in part, for any reason when it is the best interest of ECOLOGY, with a thirty (30) calendar days prior written notification to the RECIPIENT, except as noted below. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. Non -Allocation of Funds. ECOLOGY's ability to make payments is contingent on availability of funding. In the event funding from state, federal or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date and prior to the completion or expiration date of this Agreement, ECOLOGY, at its sole discretion, may elect to terminate the Agreement, in whole or part, or renegotiate the Agreement, subject to new funding limitations or conditions. ECOLOGY may also elect to suspend performance of the Agreement until ECOLOGY determines the funding insufficiency is resolved. ECOLOGY may exercise any of these options with no notification or restrictions, although ECOLOGY will make a reasonable attempt to provide notice. In the event of termination or suspension, ECOLOGY will reimburse eligible costs incurred by the recipient/contractor through the effective date of termination or suspension. Reimbursed costs must be agreed to by ECOLOGY and the recipient/contractor. In no event shall ECOLOGY's reimbursement exceed ECOLOGY's total responsibility under the agreement and any amendments. If payments have been discontinued by ECOLOGY due to unavailable funds, the RECIPIENT shall not be obligated to repay monies which had been paid to the RECIPIENT prior to such termination. RECIPIENT's obligation to continue or complete the work described in this Agreement shall be contingent upon availability of funds by the RECIPIENT's governing body. c) By Mutual Agreement ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, by mutual written agreement. d) In Event of Termination All finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other materials prepared by the RECIPIENT under this Agreement, at the option of ECOLOGY, will become property of ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials. Nothing contained herein shall preclude ECOLOGY from demanding repayment of all funds paid to the RECIPIENT in accordance with Recovery of Funds, identified herein. 28. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY Version 10/30/2015 19 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1719-Tukwil-00050 Project Title: 2017-2019 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants Recipient Name: City of Tukwila RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuant to this Agreement, the state of Washington is named as an express third party beneficiary of such subcontracts with full rights as such. 29. WAIVER Waiver of a default or breach of any provision of this Agreement is not a waiver of any subsequent default or breach, and will not be construed as a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated as such in writing by the authorized representative of ECOLOGY. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS LAST UPDATED 05/11/2017 Version 10/30/2015 Page 19 of 19 20 City of Tukwila Public Works Department - Robin Tischmak, Acting Director Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Robin Tischmak, Acting Public Works Director BY: Greg Villanueva, NPDES Coordinator CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg DATE: November 9, 2017 SUBJECT: NPDES Program (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Project No. 99341210 2017 Surface Water Management Program Survey and Assessment ISSUE Review results of the 2017 Surface Water Management Program Survey and Assessment. BACKGROUND The City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II general permit requires that the City measure its citizen's stormwater knowledge and behavior. The City's Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) has been meeting this requirement by conducting a series of stormwater survey and assessments. The outcome of the survey and assessment is used to guide the City's education and outreach program. ANALYSIS The City hired HR2 Research/Analytics (formerly Hebert Research) to conduct our 2017 phone survey and assessment. The total number surveyed in 2017 was 50 businesses and 250 residential in which the results were compared with previous years, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. The main differences for 2017 results were: • Priority 1 issues include topics such as Low Impact Development, pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides. Correct answers were less than 50%. • Priority 2 issues include washing cars at home, disposal of latex paint, definition of an illicit discharge. Between 50 to 80% gave correct answers. • Priority 3 issues include topics such as having your oil changed by an auto shop rather than at home and the price of protecting our water ways from pollutants versus the cost of cleaning contaminated water. Over 80% gave correct answers. Nest step is education and outreach on Priority 1 issues. FISCAL IMPACT The cost to provide the stormwater survey and assessment was $10,886.25. RECOMMENDATION Information only. Attachment: 2017 Stormwater Research Findings \\PWStore\PW Common$\PW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\NPDES Program (99341210)\SWMPEdOutreach\Survey 2017\InfoMemo2017StormwaterSurveyResults.docx 21 City of Tukwila Community Storm Water Research November 6, 2017 Prepared by HR2 Research/Analytics Research Team Members Jim Hebert, Senior Research Director Komal Kamra, Research Analyst HR2 Research/Analytics 13629 NE Bel -Red Road Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 301-7447 j hebert@hebertres earch. corn ©2017, HR2 Research/Analytics 22 Table of Contents Research Goals and Objectives 5 Research Methodology 7 Quantitative Research 7 Analysis and Reporting 11 Statistical Analysis 11 Longitudinal Method 11 Univariate Analysis 11 Multivariate Analysis 11 Residential Results 13 Respondent Profile 14 Residential 14 Respondents by Gender: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017 14 Familiar with Storm Water 15 Years Lived in Tukwila 16 Number of Years in Tukwila 16 Proportion water quality ratings of respondents by number of years lived in Tukwila 17 House Ownership: Rent or Own 18 Proportion of Owner Vs Rent 18 Analysis of water quality rating by house ownership 18 Research Findings 19 Respondent Rating of Surface Water Quality by Year 19 Difference in water Quality by Year 20 Overall Trend of Water Quality Rating 21 Opportunities for Expansion and Focus of Education Programs 22 Priority 1 Issues: Less than 50% correct answers 22 Priority 2 Issues: From 50 to 80% correct answers 22 Priority 3 Issues: Over 80% correct answers 22 Priority 1 Issues 23 Related Multivariate Analysis Findings 23 23 Statistically Significant Differences 23 Priority 2 Issues 25 Priority 3 Issues 26 Multivariate Analysis Findings 27 Downspouts helps to absorb water by number of years in Tukwila 27 Familiar with the term: Storm water runoff by gender 27 Yard care by house ownership 28 Heard of Low Impact Development by house ownership 28 Installing brick, pavers, or pervious pavement is a low impact development technique by Gender 29 Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to sewage system by House ownership 29 Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to sewage system by House ownership 29 Oil change by gender 30 Runoff from washing a vehicle with biodegradable soap is safe in storm water by gender 30 Carwash by house ownership 30 Carwash by years in Tukwila 31 Report storm water violation By House ownership 31 Report storm water violation By Gender 31 Infiltration trenches, drywells and other helps to soak storm water by house ownership 32 Lawn and Moss Care 33 Get lawn professionally fertilized 33 Lawn not fertilized professionally 33 Reporting Storm water Violations 34 Reporting Storm water violation by Year 34 Major Causes of pollution in and around Tukwila 35 Business Results 36 Respondent's profile 37 Business Category 37 Water Quality Rating 38 Rating of water quality in 2017 38 Rating of water quality in 2017 by business category 38 Research Findings 39 Residential questionnaire 41- 24 1 24 Business Storm water Research 45 25 Research Goals and Objectives Research Goal According to the NPDES Phase II permit, section S5.C.1, the goal of Tukwila's Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) is to increase citizen and business support with the best management practices (BMPs) that improve water quality in Tukwila, Washington. Specifically, the city's Storm Water Management Program was developed to mitigate polluted storm water in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). Each permittee (City of Tukwila) is required to build the general awareness of target behaviors to its citizens and businesses and to affect behavior change through education and outreach efforts. Through this research, HR2 Research/Analytics conducted longitudinal research analyzing trend from previous reports (2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015). This research will assist the City of Tukwila in measuring current citizen and business compliance with Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs and other good wastewater management practices. This research also predicts how effective Tukwila's new storm water program is in reducing non -point water contamination. This year's research plan reflects the 2015 modifications to the NPDES permit requirements. Further changes to this research include a near three- fold increase in sample size to minimize margin of error and a longitudinal analysis comparing previous respondents' 2017 answers with their 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015 ones. The purpose of the longitudinal research is to measure absolute behavior in Tukwila citizens, an analysis which requires no margin of error calculation and increases the study's precision. Objectives: Content areas for research include measuring: • General knowledge of storm water and where it goes • General knowledge of illicit storm water flow into surface waters o What it is and its impact o How to prevent it o How to report it • Current citizen compliance with environmental standards and regulations o Groups of interest: the general public and businesses (land developers, landscapers, and property managers or owners) o Environmental stewardship actions to protect storm water quality • Pet waste clean-up • Automotive care • Maintenance, including the disposal of old motor oil • Cleaning, including the use of hazardous supplies and soaps (biodegradable and non) • Storage of vehicle parts and automotive fluids • Lawn care and pollution in the yard • Fertilizer and pesticide use and storage • Grass clippings and leaves • Natural yard care • Home maintenance • Chemical use, storage, and disposal (including wastewater) • Awareness of source control storm water BMPs and LID Principles 26 o Home building practices, including installing green roofs o Landscaping to redirect storm water away from drains such as rain gardens and bio - retention ponds o Use of porous surfaces vs those impervious surfaces such as concrete and asphalt used in drive ways, block ways o Downspout and roof drainage placement o Waste management, including dumpster and trash compactor maintenance (for businesses) 27 Research Methodology Quantitative Research In order to validate the findings and inferences of this project, HR2 Research/Analytics used interactive voice/web surveys and in-person intercept surveys. This supported the empirical findings with the hard data necessary to reach the goals of this project. The proposed survey research design involved a random total statistical sample. All persons who do not meet the survey criteria were screened out of the survey. Sampling Frame The sampling frame involved a stratified probability sample of respondents living within the zip code of City of Tukwila. The sampling frame for the intercept surveys included 250 residents and 50 businesses or home owner's association (HOA) directors for a total of 300 samples, an increase in the totals from previous years' research. The following table represents the sample sizes for the previous research project years of 2011 through 2013, 2015 and 2017. 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 100 100 103 105 50 - Business 250- Residential 2017 Sam s lin ' Frame Interactive Voice and Web Survey Residential 250 Residential respondents living within zip code of Tukwila 28 Interactive Voice Business 50 Business respondents using stratified sampling using a list of businesses identified by the City of Tukwila as having the highest impact on improving storm water quality Questionnaire Research questions was developed by HR2 Research/Analytics with input from the City of Tukwila storm water management leaders, Greg Villanueva and Ryan Larson. The survey consists of up to 30 variables relating directly to knowledge about storm water issues and practices respondents had adopted which protect the quality of storm water. Additional questions address an overall assessment of surface water quality and where illicit discharges should be reported. In the questionnaire development process for 2017 it was determined that stewardship activities which Tukwila residents have heard of or participated in within last year would be removed from the 2017 research. New content for the 2017 survey includes an assessment of citizens' understanding of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. Statistical Weighting Statistical weighting is a technique that is critical in longitudinal research. During the process of data collection, demographic data from the U.S. Census is obtained to provide a base for weighting each year. It is important to know that this was done for the purpose of conducting longitudinal research and not to derive a favorable result. Sample demographics—specifically, gender—are compared with distributions in the population within the city. Using the same weighting methodology utilized for the survey of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015, the collected data was ran through a statistical procedure to determine that there is no significant difference between weighted and un -weighted data. Research Controls HR2 Research/Analytics applied a variety of controls to help ensure that the research and analysis reach the highest quality that can be provided. The primary research controls employed in this study include the following: Research Assistant Training All interviewers participated in a special training session for this study. During this training session, the questionnaire is read and a discussion is held regarding the 29 objectives of the study, screening questions, skip patterns and techniques for handling potential complications. Interviewers raised questions and provide their professional feedback regarding potential interviewing challenges. Pre-test the Survey After the questionnaire is programmed in our interviewing software system, it was rigorously tested to assure all questions are asked and that data is accurately recorded to deem the validity of the survey. Conduct Data Collection Following a successful pretest of the questionnaire, voice -interactive interviews were conducted using the Ci3 CATI software, a recognized leader in computer-aided interviewing. Potential respondents were contacted on weekdays at various times throughout the afternoon and evening. An appointment procedure is used when necessary to minimize refusals and allow respondents to complete the survey at a convenient time. Monitoring Interviews were monitored by the data collection supervisor to ensure they are properly conducted and meet the agreed-upon standards. Internal Peer Review HR2 Research/Analytics used an internal review process called "CERA" (create, edit, review, approve) which is similar to academic peer review to ensure that each study meets or exceeds rigorous quality control standards. Through this process, several analysts review the statistical findings and offer critical feedback designed to increase the utility of the research and produce a clear and insightful report. Incidence and Response Rates The incidence rate represents the percent of individuals spoken to who are qualified to take the survey, meaning they spoke English and reported living within the city. The response rate represents the percent of qualified individuals we spoke to who agreed to participate and who completed an interview. Response rates above 50.0% are higher compared to other community -wide surveys and serve to increase confidence in the survey's validity and reliability. The incidence rate of the previous Tukwila storm water surveys conducted by HR2 Research/Analytics was 57.22%; previous response rates were at 55.83 %. Use of Findings HR2 Research/Analytics has made every effort to produce the highest quality research product within the agreed specifications, budget and schedule. The City of 30 Tukwila understands that HR2 Research/Analytics uses those statistical techniques, which, in its opinion, are the most accurate possible. However, inherent in any statistical process is a possibility of error, which must be taken into account in evaluating the results. Statistical research can reveal information regarding community perceptions only as of the time of the sampling, within the parameters of the project, and within the margin of error inherent in the techniques used. Evaluations and interpretations of statistical research findings and decisions based on them are solely the responsibility of the City of Tukwila and not HR2 Research/Analytics. The conclusions, summaries and interpretations provided by HR2 Research/Analytics are based strictly on the analysis of the data gathered, and are not to be construed as recommendations; therefore, HR2 Research/Analytics neither warrants their viability nor assumes responsibility for the success or failure of any customer actions subsequently taken. 31 Analysis and Reporting Statistical Analysis We performed statistical univariate and multivariate analyses and identified significant differences among respondents. This analysis was beneficial in identifying trends and levels of support among respondents. HR2 analyzed the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable, demand Longitudinal Method For Longitudinal analysis, hypothesis derived from last two studies was tested to analyze trends. Techniques such as repeated measures ANOVA, regression, and linear discriminant analysis were used. These tests conducted with 2011,2012,2013, 2015 data and 2017 data, and multivariate analysis will be used to determine whether observed changes between 2011,2012,2013,2015 data and 2017 the studies are statistically significant. Univariate Analysis Univariate analysis consists of describing and analyzing the responses by each variable and for each group or area. The responses are shown graphically in most cases or in table format in cases where a large number of different responses are listed. Univariates such as means, the observed variability, point estimates, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness, and shape of the distribution are explained in a clear, understandable manner to aid in understanding the data and relating the findings to the research goals. Multivariate Analysis Multivariate analysis, including multiple correlation, multiple regression, Chi -squared and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were utilized for this project. Multiple correlation analysis is concerned with the associations that exist among several variables. Multiple regression analysis is concerned with the nature of the relationship between those variables. Regressions show how a dependent variable changes with respect to a change in independent variables. Regression models can be developed that predict the values of a single dependent variable, such as purchase intent, based on a set of predicting or independent variables. Models such as this can help clarify the relative importance of a range of influencing factors on the purchase decision. Chi -squared is concerned with measures of association between category -level variables. These types of analyses will be performed to identify differences and relationships between subgroups. The multivariate analysis will include: 32 • Test of Significance • Correlations analysis • Chi Square • Partial correlations and matrixes • Cross tabulation • ANOVA • Regression (if needed) 33 Residential Results 34 Respondent Profile Residential Multivariate analysis of of respondents gender by year depicted no significant difference (p value = .405) Res . ondents b Gender Gender Male Female Chi S • uare Test 2017 48.10% 51.90% 2015 42.0% 58.0% 2013 49.5% 50.5% 2012 2011 53.8% 46.2% 50.07% 49.93% P value = 0.713, Pearson x2 = 2.215, Cramer's V = .059 Respondents by Gender: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 2017 2015 2013 Male Female 2012 2011 35 Familiar with Storm Water Respondents were asked if they were familiar with the term storm water and 93% respondents were found to be familiar with storm water, only 7% of respondents were not aware. Familiar with Storm water N Yes No 36 Years Lived in Tukwila Analysis of water quality rating by number of years lived in Tukwila depicted highest mean of water quality rating of 7.33 by respondents who lived between 21 -30 years, followed by 31 -40 years in Tukwila. Years Lived in Tukwila Proportion Mean Rating <= 10 34.7% 6.27 11- 20 31.3% 5.59 21— 30 14.4% 7.24 31- 40 6.2% 7.39 >= 41 13.4% 6.18 Number of Years in Tukwila 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% .2 20.00% 2 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% <= 10 11-20 21-30 Years 31-40 >= 41 37 Proportion water quality ratings of respondents by number of years lived in Tukwila Rating water Quality 0-3 3-6 7-10 =10 11-20 21 -30 31-40 10.2% 36.7% 53.1% 18.8% 33.3% 47.9% 38.1% 61.9% 30% 70% 5.3% 26.3% 68.4% 38 House Ownership: Rent or Own Proportion of Owner Vs Rent House ownership Rent Own Proportion 26.8% 73.2% Mean 6.71 6.08 Analysis of water quality rating by house ownership Rating water Quality 0 — 3 Rent Own 13.5% 9.2% 3-6 21.6% 39.4% 7- 10 64.9% 51.4% Test of Significance P value = .311, Cramer's V = .127 39 Research Findings Respondents rated the quality of water in Tukwila's rivers, wetlands, and lakes on a 0-10 numeric scale where 0 meant "extremely polluted" and 10 meant "extremely clean." Surface water Quality • Rating 0-3 4-6 7-10 10.6% 34.3% 55.1% 3.3% 37.8% 58.9% 2013 2012 2011 13% 39.8% 47.2% 8.7% 49.0% 42.4% 10.8% 51.5% 37.7% Respondent Rating of Surface Water Quality by Year Surface water Quality ; Mean Rating 2017 6.24 2015 6.62 2013 5.94 2012 5.97 2011 5.82 Standard deviation 2.162 1.687 2.026 1.878 1.87 Kurtosis .003 .299 -.011 .564 .775 Skewness -.549 -.691 -.549 -.335 -.398 Test of Significance Water Quality Rating B Year P value: 0.038, f = 2.55, eta2 = .018 Hypotheses were tested using the 0.05 level of significance as the criterion value for the chi-square analysis. When differences between groups reached this value, the finding is reported along with its level of significance which is stated as a p -value (e.g., p = 0.04). Chi-square test results that reach the 0.05 level of significance indicate there is at least a 19 -out -of -20 likelihood that the finding is true. This is a generally accepted level of reliability for public surveys. Findings of no significance are also reported to provide the basis for conclusions regarding the uniformity of opinion across the sample. Cramer's V is a statistical test that measures the degree of association between two categorical variables. For statistical tests that reach significance using chi-square, Cramer's V values are provided to describe the strength of the association between the variables. This measurement ranges between 0.0 and 1.0. The higher the level of association, the greater is the probability that the independent variable is causing an effect on the dependent variable. A measurement of 0 indicates there is no association between the two, meaning it is likely the independent variable has no systematic effect on the 40 dependent variable. A measurement of 1.0 indicates that variations in the independent variable completely match variations in the dependent variable. Surface water Quality Rating By Gender By house ownership (Rent or owner) By number of Years lived in Tukwila Teof Sgnificance Waterst Quiality Rating F = 2.084, p value = .151, eta2 = .016 F = 1.258, p value = .287, eta2 = .017 F = 3.305, p value = .019, eta2 = .079 Difference in water Quality by Year Surface water Quality Difference 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2017 2015 2013 2012 2011 .470 .749 .759 .605 .047 .096 .130 .605 .994 1.000 .130 .759 .976 1.000 .096 .749 .976 .994 .047 .470 To analyze significant difference in water quality rating by year post -hoc multivariate tests of water quality by year depict significant difference in water quality. It was further analyzed that there was significant difference in water quality in year 2015 as compared to year 2011 (p value 0.047). 41 Overall Trend of Water Quality Rating 70.00% 60.00% 0 50.00% 0. 40.00% 0 ato 30.00% ca 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 111111111111,111, 2011 2012 2013 Years 0-3 4-6 7-10 2015 2017 42 Opportunities for Expansion and Focus of Education Programs The two main purposes of this survey were to assess changes in the public's storm water knowledge and related behavior from 2011, 2012 and 2013 to 2015. These comparisons are needed because of the city's educational program and to develop priorities for future storm water public education and outreach. As in the baseline study, the results are organized by the percent of the respondents who provided a correct answer for the current survey—the lower the percent of correct answers given by the sample, the higher the priority for education: Priority 1 Issues: Less than 50% correct answers Priority 2 Issues: From 50 to 80% correct answers Priority 3 Issues: Over 80% correct answers In administering the questionnaire, respondents were presented with statements that were either true or false and were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Each of the statements in the tables appearing below include a letter indicating the correct answer for that statement, an A for "Agree" and a D for "Disagree. Responses for the knowledge questions were first categorized as being either a correct response or an incorrect response. The incorrect response category was made up of wrong answers plus responses classified as "need more information," "don't know/refused," and "not applicable." 43 Priority 1 Issues Priority 1 issues represent areas of knowledge and behavior where less than half of the respondents provided the correct or desired response. Table 1 shows the percent of correct answers for Priority 1 issues in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2017. Priority 1 Issues (based Statement on 2911 results) Correct 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 Q.12 The runoff from washing a car with biodegradable soap is safe in storm water drains. 30.20% 31.00% 38.81% 28.00% 21.2% D Q.7 Pollution in our rivers, wetlands and lakes is more the result of commercial discharge practices than individual human activit . D 35.00% 43.60% 45.86% 20.79% 19.4% Q.22 Bricks or pavers offer no advantage for reducing runoff over concrete or asphalt savement. D 38.50% 42.10% 45.91% 42.00% 67.5% Q.17 Sediment or dirt in storm water is natural and not regarded as pollution. D 48.00% 53.30% 48.72% 39.00% 30.4% Q.22 Impervious surfaces and streets are better for managing runoff than porous ones. D N/A N/A N/A 39.00% 22.5% Q.16 Pesticides, fertilizers, and weed control chemicals add to storm water pollution. A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29.1% Q.23 Use organic fertilizer for lawn care. A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23.3% Related Multivariate Analysis Findings The question where the public showed a statistically significant difference between the benchmark year 2015 and 2017 was: 1. Bricks or pavers offer no advantage for reducing runoff over concrete or asphalt pavement. The percent of correct responses increased from 42% in 2015 to 67.5%% in 2017. (p -value = 0.001, Cramer's = 0.314) Statistically Significant Differences 44 There were no statistically significant differences in responses to Priority I issues when analyzed by Gender, by years in Tukwila and by home ownership. 45 Priority 2 Issues • Priority 2 issues represent areas of knowledge and behavior where 50% to 80% of the respondents provided the correct response. Table 2 shows the percent of correct answers for Priority 2 issues in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017. Priority 2 Issues (based Statement Q.12 When I wash motor vehicle at home, the biodegradable soap is safe in storm water drains. D on 2011 2011 51.20% results) 2012 45.80% Correct 2013 46.47% 2015 39.24% 2017 21.2% Q.6 Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to the same sanitary or sewage system for waste. D 54.80% 46.50% 47.30% 42.16% 38.8% Q.14 The best place to dispose of water from cleaning a Latex paint brush is in a sink inside, not outdoors. A 60.30% 64.00% 77.35% 49.00% 56.4% Q. 7 Non -Point storm water runoff is the leading cause of pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes. A 62.30% 60.70% 73.08% 56.86% 50.0% Q.15 Chemical treatments to kill moss on roofs pose little risk for polluting storm water. D 63.20% 61.50% 77.05% 54.00% 45.6% Q.20 An illicit or unlawful storm water discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a storm drain system that is not made up entirely of storm water. A 64.30% 58.50% 65.46% 68.00% 60.0% Q.13 Washing a vehicle at a commercial car wash causes less pollution than washing a vehicle on the street usin: a biode:radable soa 9. A 67.40% 62.50% 73.67% 68.00% 56.5% Q.22. Unlike porous surfaces such as gravel and brick, impervious surfaces such as concrete and asphalt prevent water from passing through to be absorbed b the underl 'n: soil. A 71.60% 71.90% 71.47% 53.00% 67.5% Q.18 The downspouts at my house convey the water to an area where it is absorbed by the : ound. A 79.90% 85.60% 78.29% 77.08% 67.1% Q.26 Disconnecting roof drains from the storm water system and allowing the runoff to flow into the rain gardens and the landscape is a low impact development technique. A NA NA NA NA 63.3% Q.28 Infiltration trenches, drywells, and other features store storm water runoff and allow it to soak into the ground over time NA NA NA NA 45.6% 46 Priority 3 Issues Priority 3 issues represent areas of knowledge or behavior where more than 80% of the respondents provided the correct response. Table 3 shows the percentage of correct answers for Priority 3 issues in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017. Priority Questions 3 Issues Correct 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 Q.10 Oil changed by auto shop. A NA NA NA NA 79.5% Q.29 Price of protecting our water ways from pollutants compared to cleaning contaminated water is less A NA NA NA NA 76.4% Q.11 My family stores auto fluids and other chemicals under a cover away from weather. A 92.60% 93.20% 97.92% 91.01% 84.7% 47 Multivariate Analysis Findings Multivariate Analysis depicted significant differences in the following responses 1. The downspouts at my home convey the water to an area where it is absorbed by the ground so it doesn't flow into the road. By number of years in Tukwila depicted significant difference p value = .035, Cramer's V= .298 Downspouts helps to absorb water by number of years in Tukwila Q.18 The downspouts at my home convey the water to an area where it is absorbed by the Years in Tukwila ground so it doesn't flow into the road. <'=10 11 - 20 21 - 30 31— 40 >= 41 Agree 50% 62.5% 90.0% 100% 81.8% Disagree 17.9% 29.2% 10.0% 0% 0% Others (Need more info., uncertain) 32.10% 8.30% 0% 0% 18.28% 2. Familiar with the term: Storm water runoff By gender depicted significant difference p value = .001, Cramer's V= .278 Familiar with the term: Storm water runoff by gender 5 Familiar with the term: Storm water runoff Yes No 98.4% 1.6% 84.7% 15.3% 48 3. Yard care methods by house owners depicted significant difference p value = .022, Cramer's V = .345 Yard care by house ownership Q.23 Select from the following all the yard care methods you use House Ownership Rent Own Apply inorganic fertilizer (standard commercial grade) 15.8% 13.1% Apply organic fertilizer 0% 32.8% Use de -moss treatment 5.3% 6.6% Use pest control 10.5% 9.8% None 26.3% 29.5% N/A 42.1% 8.2% 4. Heard of Low Impact Development, also known as LID depicted significant difference by house ownership (p value = .045, Cramer's V = .289) Heard of Low Impact Development by house ownership Q.23 Select from the fol methods you use owing all the yard care Yes No Rent 78.9% 21.1% Own 50.0% 50.0% 49 5. Installing brick, pavers, or pervious pavement is a low impact development technique depicted significant difference by gender( p value = .002, Crammers V = .427) Installing brick, pavers, or pervious pavement is a low impact development technique by Gender Q.25 Installing brick, pavers, or pervious pavement is a low impact development technique Agree Disagree Need More Information Uncertain 42.1% 5.3% 36.8% 15.8% Female 46.3% 9.8% 4.9% 39.0% 6. Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to the same sewage system and treatment centers as for regular household wastewater by House ownership. P value (.000, Cramer's V = .345) and by Gender (p value .032, Cramer's V = .311) Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to sewage system by House ownership Q. 6 Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to the same sewage system and treatment centers as for regular household wastewater Agree Disagree Need More Information Uncertain 53.8% 5.1% 20.5% 20.5% 14.0% 48.6% 15.9% 21.5% Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to sewage system by House ownership Q. 6 Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to the same sewage system and treatment centers as for regular household wastewater Agree Disagree Need More Information Uncertain 24.7% 45.2% 19.4% 8.1% 25.00% 31.9% 15.3% 27.8% 50 7. Oil change by Gender p value = .027, Cramer's V = .234 Oil change by gender 8. The runoff from washing a vehicle with biodegradable soap is safe in storm water drains by Gender (p value = .000, Cramer's V .511) Runoff from washing a vehicle with biodegradable soap is safe in storm water by gender Runoff from washing a vehicle with biodegradable soap is safe in storm water Agree Disagree Need More Information Uncertain 35.5% 29.0% 24.2% 11.3% 43.8% 12.3% 0.0% 43.8% 9. Where do you wash your car by house ownership p value = .006, Cramer's V = .223 and by years in Tukwila p value = .004, Cramer's V = .333 Carwash by house ownership 51 Carwash by years in Tukwila NA Carwash Home 13.7% 72.5% 13.7% 2.1% 55.3% 42.6% 5.3% 47.4% 47.4% 37.5% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 52.6% 47.4% 10. If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used paint thinner into a storm water drain, which agency would you call first to report it by house ownership p value = .000, Cramer's V=.399 and by gender p value = .031, Cramer's V = .320 Report storm water violation By House ownership Q.21 If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used paint thinner into a storm water drain, which agency would you call first to report it? The Washington Department of Ecology House ownership Rent 35.1% Own 10.0% The police Department 5.4% 10.0% The ci Public Works Desartment 21.6% 39.0% 911 5.4% 2.0% Need more info 16.2% 15.0% I would not resort it 5.4% 2.0% Don't know 10.8% 22.0% Report storm water violation By Gender Q.21 If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used paint thinner into a storm water drain, which agency would you call first to report it? By gender The Washington Department of Ecology The police Department The ci Public Works Des artment 911 Need more info I would not resort it Don't know 17.5% 6.3% 39.7% 6.3% 17.5% 3.2% 9.5% Female 16.4% 12.3% 26.0% 0.0% 13.7% 4.1% 27.4% 52 11. Infiltration trenches, drywells, and other features store storm water runoff and allow it to soak into the ground over time. P value .004, Cramer's V = .311 Infiltration trenches, drywells and other helps to soak storm water by house ownership Q.28 Infiltration trenches, drywells, and other features store storm water runoff and allow it to soak into the ground over time Agree Disagree Need more info Uncertain Refused Doesn't A..1 House ownership Rent 35.1% 0.0% 16.2% 43.2% 5.4% 0.0% 52.6% 13.4% 17.5% 15.5% 0.0% 1.0% 53 Lawn and Moss Care Q.19.a Get lawn professionally fertilized How often Less than a month 0.0% fertilize Annually 0.0% NA 25/0 Yard care method Inorganic fertilizer (standard commercial grade) Monthly 75%° Organic Fertilizer 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% Use de -moss treatment 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% Pest Control 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% Q.19. b Lawn not fertilized professionally How often fertilize Yard care method Less than a Never month Annually NA Inorganic fertilizer (standard commercial grade) 20% 20% 60% 0.0% 0 Organic Fertilizer 35.7% 14% 28.6% 21.4% Use de -moss treatment 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% Pest Control 49.2% 0.0% 14.3% 42.9% 54 Reporting Storm water Violations Respondents were asked the following question: "If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used paint thinner into a storm water drain, which agency would you call first to report it?" A variety of options were given as choices. Q.21 If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used, paint thinner into a storm water drain, which agency would you call first to report it The Washington Department of Ecology Proportion 17.3% The • olice De • artment 9.9% The city Public Works Department 34.6% 911 2.5% Need more info 16.0% I would not re • ort it 3.7% Don't know 16.0% Multivariate analysis of storm water violation by gender, years lived in Tukwila and house ownership depicted no significant differences. Multivariate test of storm water reporting violation reporting depicted significant differences by years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017 (Chi square = 91.065, p value = .000, Cramer's V = .241) Reporting Storm water violation by Year Q. 21 If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used paint thinner into a storm water ' drain, which agency would you call first to report it 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 The Washington Department of Ecology 34.0% 23.0% 16.7% 37.9% 17.3% The •olice De•artment 8.0% 7.0% 16.7% 10.3% 9.9% The city Public Works Department 23.0% 16.0% 50.0% 26.4% 34.6% 911 13.0% 28.0% 16.7% 23.0% 2.5% Need more info 17.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% I would not re sort it 2.0% 4.0% 0.0% 2.3% 3.7% Don't know 2.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 55 Major Causes of pollution in and around Tukwila Respondents were asked what they think are the major causes of pollution. Following are the responses: • People and littering • Industrial wastes such as lubricating oils and oil spills from cars • The mall. It attracts cars, has multiple restaurants, etc. • Septic tanks not operating correctly, storm water runoff. • Carbon monoxide from vehicles • Businesses closer to the port • Industrial, citizens improperly disposing of pollutants • Misuse of storm water drains. • Runoff from human and business activities • Improper disposal of poisonous chemicals • Boeing • Ignorance of pollution laws, industrial runoff, ambivalence of population • Highway traffic/ carbon pollution. BNSF railway pollution/ industry • Lawn and auto runoff • Cars, residential and commercial property runoff. • Pesticides, soap from car washing. • Careless dumping of pollutants • Leaking septic tanks, DIY mechanics illegally disposing of oil, fluids, 56 Business Results 57 Respondent's profile Business Category 100% s0% 60% 40% 20% 0% Other Business Categoty: 2017 Automotive Company Property Owner/Manager 2017 Restaurant 58 Water Quality Rating Rating of water quality in 2017 Surface water Quality 2017 Mean Rating 6.67 Standard deviation 2.952 Kurtosis .478 Skewness -1.167 Test of significance by business category F = 3.259, p value = .038 Rating of water quality in 2017 by business category Surface water Quality Mean Restaurant 5.27 Property Owner/Manager 7.94 Automotive Company 8.00 Other 3.50 59 Research Findings Statement Q.17 Sometimes wash or wastewater from our business ends up in the parking lot Agree 33.3% Disagree 6.7% Don't Know 0.0% No Response 60.00% Q.18 Wash water is disposed of into an internal building drain connected to the sanitary sewer system and not into the exterior storm water system. 36.7% 3.3% 0.0% 60.00% Q.19 Wet mops are properly cleaned and stored. 36.7% 3.3% 0.0% 60.00% Q.20 The dumpster at my restaurant is always closed after use. 33.3% 3.3% 3.3% 60.10% Q.21 A proper way of disposing cooking oil and grease is through the storm water system. 30.0% 6.7% 3.3% 60.00% Q.22 External wash water disposal is an illicit discharge. 36.7% 3.3% 0.0% 60.00% Q. 23 Resident car washings are discouraged on site and suggested alternatives are provided. 46.7% 6.7% 0.0% 46.60% Q.24 My complex has a designated area for residential car washing. 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 50.00% Q.25 In the last 12 months, my complex has implemented landscaping techniques to improve the absorption of rainwater. 3.3% 3.3% 0.0% 93.40% Q. 26 Chemical treatments to kill moss on roofs pose little risk for polluting storm water. 50.0% 0.0% 3.3% 46.70% 60 Statement Q. 4 Yes I am familiar with storm water runoff is rain that falls on streets, parking areas, sports fields, gravel lots, rooftops or other developed land and flows through pipes or other water conveyance into nearby lakes, rivers and the Puget Sound. Agree 73.3% Q. 6 Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to the same sanitary sewer system used for treating human waste 80.00/0 Q. Non -Point Storm water runoff is the leading cause of pollution in rivers , wetlands, or lakes 93.3% Q. 9 Non-toxic, biodegradable soaps do not pollute storm water runoff 90.0% Q. 10 My employees have been trained properly on how to clean up hazardous 80.3% spills. Q.11 My business has spill kits readily available in case of a hazardous spill. 83.3% Q.12. a Contracted to clean parking lot and other hard surfaces 66.7% Q.13 The trash container outside is in a contained area and does not leak 95.2% Q.14 Sediment in storm water is natural and not regarded as pollution. 94.6% Q.15 Planted vegetation in the landscape reduces storm water pollution? 96.1% Q.16 A key principle for effective storm water management is to reduce the amount of storm water runoff. 96.7% 61 Residential questionnaire '1�11111�� V3.2 Hello, this is from HR2 Research/Analytics on behalf of the City of Tukwila. We are asking residents about important storm water issues and we would like to include your opinions. All your answers are strictly confidential and will not be connected to your name. 1. Would you be interested in participating? a. Yes (continue with survey) b. No (Thank and terminate) 2. How many years have you lived in Tukwila? [Record Number] 3. Do you rent or own your apartment or home? a. Rent b. Own 4. My first research question is about the water in Tukwila. I'd like you to rate your perception of the overall quality of the water in our city's rivers, wetlands and lakes. By "quality of water" I mean how absent it is from pollution. Could you please rate Tukwila's water quality on a 0 to 10 scale where "0" means the water is "extremely polluted" and 10 means the water is "extremely clean." [RECORD NUMBER] 5. Are you familiar with the term `storm water runoff'? a. Yes i. How would you describe storm water runoff to your neighbor? [Evaluate their response. If it does not match the following definition, then read the "King County" definition of storm water runoff. Ask them if this definition better reflects their understanding of storm water runoff.] b. No [Read the following definition.] i. Storm water runoff is rain that falls on streets, parking areas, sports fields, gravel lots, rooftops or other developed land and flows through pipes or other water conveyance into nearby lakes, rivers and Puget Sound. [Definition adapted from kingcounty.gov] [READ] I will now be reading a number of statements regarding storm water. Some of these statements may be true, some may be false, they all may be true, or they all may be false. Unless indicated otherwise, the responses for each question are as follows: Agree, Disagree, Need more information, Uncertain, Don't Know, Doesn't Apply, or Refuse to Answer. If you believe that a statement is true, please say `Agree'. If you believe the statement is false, say "Disagree. " If you are not certain about the statement and need more information, you can answer with "Need more information ". If the question does not apply to you or your family, say "Doesn't Apply ". Here is the first one. Do you Agree, Disagree, or Need more information about the following statement: 6. Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to the same sewage system and treatment centers as for regular household wastewater. 7. Non -point storm water runoff, or polluted water that can't be traced to specific culprits, is the leading cause of pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes. 62 8. What do you think are the major causes of pollution in and around Tukwila? [Verbatim] [ROTATE Q9 -Q23] [NOTE: These questions will be asked in a random order to prevent sequencing bias.] 9. What is the acceptable method to clean up spilled oil on driveways? [Verbatim] 10. Do you get your oil changed at an auto shop or do you change it yourself? a. Go to an auto shop b. Change it myself A. What do you do with your car oil when you change it yourself? [Verbatim] c. Not applicable 11. My family stores all containers holding oil, antifreeze, transmission oil or other chemicals under a cover away from the weather. 12. The runoff from washing a vehicle with biodegradable soap is safe in storm water drains. 13. Do you wash your car at home or do you go to a car wash facility? a. Go to a car wash facility b. Wash at home A. What happens to the soapy water when you wash your car at home? [Verbatim] c. Not applicable 14. The best place to dispose of wastewater is in a sink inside, not outdoors. 15. Do you consider chemical treatments used to kill moss on roofs, decks, driveways or walks to be unharmful, a minor or a major cause of storm water pollution? a. Unharmful/Neutral b. Minor c. Major d. Need more information 16. Do you consider pesticides, fertilizers and weed control chemicals used in lawn care and landscaping to be unharmful, a minor, or a major cause of storm water pollution? a. Unharmful/Neutral b. Minor c. Major d. Need more information 17. Sediment or dirt in storm water is natural and not regarded as pollution. 18. The downspouts at my home convey the water to an area where it is absorbed by the ground so it doesn't flow into the road. 19. [Three-part question] a. Do you get your lawn professionally fertilized? i. Yes [Record answer] ii. No [Continue to next part] 1. How often do you fertilize your own lawn? a. Monthly or more frequently b. Less than monthly c. Annually 63 d. Never e. Not applicable 2. [If answer to part 1 was a, b, or c, ask:] The last time you used fertilizer, how did you determine the amount to apply to your lawn? [Verbatim] 20. Illicit or unlawful storm water discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a storm drain system that is not made up entirely of storm water. 21. If you witnessed someone pouring waste materials into a storm water drain, which agency would you call first to report it? [READ a -e] a. The Washington Department of Ecology b. The police department c. The city Public Works Department d. 911 e. Need more information f. I would not report it g. Don't Know h. Refused 22. Unlike porous surfaces such as gravel and brick, impervious surfaces such as concrete and asphalt prevent water from passing through to be absorbed by the underlying soil. 23. Select from the list all of the yard care methods you use a. Apply inorganic fertilizer (standard commercial) b. Apply organic fertilizer c. Use de -moss treatment d. Use pest control e. None f. Not applicable [READ] To conclude the survey, we would like to include questions about your knowledge of Low Impact Development. 24. Have you heard of Low Impact Development, also known as LID? a. Yes i. How would you describe LID to your neighbor? [Evaluate their response. If it does not match the following definition, then read the Wikipedia definition of LID. Ask them if this definition better reflects their understanding of LID.] b. No [Read the following definition.] i. Low Impact Development (LID) is a term used to describe land planning and design approaches to manage storm water runoff. LID emphasizes conservation and the use of on-site natural features to minimize downstream runoff [adapted from Wikipedia.org1. 25. Installing brick, pavers, or pervious pavement is a low impact development technique. 26. Disconnecting roof drains from the storm water system and allowing the runoff to flow into rain gardens and the landscape is a low impact development technique. 64 27. To what degree does storm water collection through rain gardens reduce the amount of pollutants absorbed into the ground? a. Slightly Reduces Pollutants b. Significantly Reduces Pollutants c. Completely Reduces Pollutants d. Need more information 28. Infiltration trenches, drywells and other features store rainwater runoff and allow it to soak into the ground over time. 29. Do you think that protecting our streams, rivers and the Puget Sound from pollutants is less expensive, more expensive or about the same as cleaning contaminated water? a. More Expensive b. Less Expensive c. About the Same d. Need more information [READ] That concludes our survey. I want to thank you very much for your time and cooperation. You have been very helpful. Have a good day! Thank them and ask if they would like to be included in future Tukwila storm water surveys. 30. POSTCODE GENDER: e. MALE f. FEMALE 31. DATE: Research Assistant: 32. PANEL: Yes/No 65 Business Storm water Research Questionnaire TUKWILA QUESTIONNAIRE: PROJECT #1707040 Initial Target Quota Cells # Sample Category Completes # of Questions 1 Restaurants 15 20 2 Property Owners/ Managers 20 20 3 Automotive Companies 15 20 Hello, may I speak to [INSERT NAME ON SAMPLE]? IF NOT AVAILABLE, ARRANGE A CALLBACK. Hello, my name is and I am conducting research on behalf of the City of Tukwila. We are asking businesses to provide input on important environmental issues and would like to include your opinion. We would like to speak to the individual in your business who is most knowledgeable about your business. Sl. May I speak to the person responsible for this? 1. Yes 2. No [SCHEDULE A CALLBACK] 3. Don't Know/Refused [SCHEDULE A CALLBACK] S2. Good! Your input is strictly confidential and will not be attached to your name or business. [SHOW NAME OF BUSINESS CATEGORY ON SCREEN] [ENTER NUMBER FOR BUSINESS CATEGORY] You will be in our category labeled: 1. Restaurant 2. Property Owner/Manager 3. Automotive Company 1. What is your title? [Verbatim] 2. For how long have you held this position at your company? [Record number of years] 3. My first question is about the water in our area. I'd like you to rate your perception of the overall quality of the water in our city's rivers, wetlands, and lakes. By "quality of 66 water" I mean how free it is from pollution. Rate it on a 0 to 10 scale where "0" means the water is "extremely polluted" and 10 means the water is "extremely clean." [RECORD NUMBER] 4. Are you familiar with the term `storm water runoff'? c. Yes i. How would you describe storm water runoff to your neighbor? [Evaluate their response. If it does not match the following definition, then read the "King County" definition of storm water runoff. Ask them if this definition better reflects their understanding of storm water runoff.] d. No [Read the following definition.] i. Storm water runoff is rain that falls on streets, parking areas, sports fields, gravel lots, rooftops or other developed land and flows through pipes or other water conveyance into nearby lakes, rivers and Puget Sound. [Definition adapted from kingcounty.gov] [READ] I will now be reading a number of statements regarding storm water. Some of these statements may be true, some may be false, they all may be true, or they all may be false. Unless indicated otherwise, the responses for each question are as follows: Agree, Disagree, Need more information, Uncertain, Don't Know, Doesn't Apply, or Refuse to Answer. If you believe that a statement is true, please say 'Agree'. If you believe the statement is false, say "Disagree. " If you are not certain about the statement and need more information, you can answer with "Need more information ". If the question does not apply to you or your family, say `Doesn't Apply ". Here is the first one. Do you Agree, Disagree, or Need more information about the following statement: 5. Illicit or unlawful storm water discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a storm drain system that is not made up entirely of storm water. 6. Drains on city streets for storm water are connected to the same sewage system and treatment centers as for regular household wastewater. 7. Non -point storm water runoff, or polluted water that can't be traced to specific culprits, is the leading cause of pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes. 8. What do you think are the major polluters of water quality in and around Tukwila? [Verbatim] 9. Non-toxic, biodegradable soaps do not pollute storm water runoff. 10. My employees have been trained properly on how to clean up hazardous spills. 11. My business has spill kits readily available in case of a hazardous spill. 12. Does your own staff clean your parking lot and other hard surfaces or do you have it contracted? 1. Have it contracted 2. Clean yourself i. What is your process? ii. How often do you do this? 13. The trash container area outside is in a contained area and does not leak. 14. Sediment in storm water is natural and not regarded as pollution. 15. Planted vegetation in the landscape reduces storm water pollution. 16. A key principle for effective storm water management is to reduce the amount of storm water runoff. 17. Sometimes wash or wastewater from our business ends up in the parking lot, alley, street, or in a ditch. 67 [INFO: Examples of `wash' or `wastewater' are the soapy runoff from washing a car, the rinse water from mopping a floor, the dirty water from washing the paint out of a paint brush, water used in a manufacturing process --generally, water that has something additional in it beyond plain water that you want to dispose of.] 18. [ASK ONLY IF RESTAURANT COMPANY] Wash water is disposed of into an internal building drain connected to the sanitary sewer system and not into the exterior storm water system 19. [ASK ONLY IF RESTAURANT COMPANY] Wet mops are properly cleaned and stored. 20. [ASK ONLY IF RESTAURANT COMPANY] The dumpster at my restaurant is always closed after use. 21. [ASK ONLY IF RESTAURANT COMPANY] A proper way of disposing cooking oil and grease is through the storm water system. 22. [ASK ONLY IF RESTAURANT COMPANY] [AFTER ANSWERING THIS QUESTION, SKIP TO Q 37] External wash water disposal is an illicit discharge. 23. [ASK ONLY IF PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER] Resident car washings are discouraged on site and suggested alternatives are provided. 24. [ASK ONLY IF PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER] My complex has a designated area for residential car washing. 25. [ASK ONLY IF PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER] In the last 12 months, my complex has implemented landscaping techniques to improve the absorption of rainwater. 26. [ASK ONLY IF PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER] Chemical treatments to kill moss on roofs pose little risk for polluting storm water. 27. [ASK ONLY IF PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER] What is the primary method for controlling storm water on your site? [Verbatim] [AFTER ANSWERING THIS QUESTION, SKIP TO Q 37] 28. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] When cleaning a vehicle, rinse water, having little soap and dirt, can be safely added to a storm water drain. 29. ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] My Company disposes of all oils, chemicals, and other fluids through an approved disposal facility. 30. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] The best way to clean up small quantities of spilled oil is to fully absorb it using kitty litter or absorbent pads and deposit this waste in a garbage can. 31. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] All mechanic work is done indoors and under cover. 32. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] Scrubbing oil and grease spots on concrete or asphalt with soap and hosing it off is a good way to prevent polluting storm water runoff. 33. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] The area where my business washes vehicles allows the rinse water to flow to the proper sanitary sewer system. 34. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] My business stores all oils, soaps, chemicals, and other materials (like batteries and car parts) under a roof or cover or in a containment area. ["Cover" means shielded from rain. A "containment area" is a space surrounded by a wall that is constructed to prevent any spilled fluid from passing beyond it.] 68 35. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] If a car or truck in our business is dripping oil, the leak is always contained immediately and fixed in a timely manner 36. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] In my business, all waste, such as the particle dust from sanding or grinding, and all worn out car parts, such as old transmissions, radiators or brake pads, are all stored in a covered area out of the rain until disposed of. 37. [ASK ONLY IF AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY] All vehicles, mechanical parts and equipment stored outside are checked for leaks at least once a month. DEMOGRAPHICS 38. What is your first name? [NAME IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT REPORTED WITH RESPONSES] 39. Approximately how many employees work at your company currently? [Record Number] 40. In your opinion, what is most effective method for educating your employees? For example, some employers put pertinent information in the employee manual or on a bulletin board. [Verbatim] [READ] That concludes our survey. I want to thank you very much for your time and cooperation. You have been very helpful. Have a good day! Thank them and ask if they would like to be included in future Tukwila storm water surveys. 41. POSTCODE GENDER: g. MALE h. FEMALE 42. DATE: Research Assistant: 43. PANEL: Yes/No 1. Email: That concludes our survey. On behalf of the City of Tukwila, I want to thank you very much for your time and cooperation. You have been very helpful. Have a good day! 69 70 City of Tukwila Public Works Department - Bob Giberson, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Robin Tischmak, Acting Public Works Director BY: Mike Cusick, Senior Program Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: November 9, 2017 SUBJECT: Martin Luther King Jr Way S Water Main Project No. 90640102 Design Consultant Selection and Agreement for 2017 Allan Ekberg, Mayor ISSUE Approve Carollo Engineers for the design of the Martin Luther King (MLK) Way S Water Main Project. BACKGROUND During the construction of Sound Transit's light rail along MLK Way S, the existing 12" D.I.P. watermain was found to be heavily covered in corrosion and in need of being replaced or relined. ANALYSIS & FISCAL IMPACT The City invited Requests for Professional Qualifications from five consulting firms that were listed in the Municipal Research and Services Center's Consultant Roster. Only two RPQ's were received for the project from Carollo Engineers and PACE Engineers. After reviewing the RPQ'S, Carollo Engineers was selected to design the MLK Way S Water Main Project. Carollo Engineers has completed other design projects for the City and their work has been satisfactory. Consultant Design Agreement Budget Martin Luther King Jr. Way S Water Main Design $ 69,967.00 70,000.00 RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to approve the consultant agreement with for Carollo Engineers for the design of the Martin Luther King Jr. Way S Water Main Project in the amount of $69,967.00 and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the November 20, 2017 Regular Meeting. Attachments: Consultant Rating Sheet Page 69, 2017 CIP Consultant Agreement with Scope of Work W:\PW Eng\PROJECTS \A- WT Projects\MLK WATERLINE (90640102)1INFO MEMO mlk watermain OCT 26 2017 SM.docx 71 z 0 U W MLK WATER LINE CONSULTANT SE .J 0 Ja 4.,Pa .09 9,)6,0 --k a o4bp4 !oa 09. C C a z 0 0 a 0 z 0 0 0 z b ,-1 (NI O O O U) to .r In O 0 0 0 Q1 01 0 0 0 s 0 rn rn 0 0 0 1 0 al al 0 0 0 1-4 0 Ol On 0 0 0 ,-4 0 Ql 61 0 0 0 10 10 rn O O O 0 'Pace RH2 IParametrix OTAK 0 L U Mike Cusick Carollo is selected for the project. 72 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2017 to 2022 PROJECT: Martin Luther King Jr Way S Water Main Project No. 90640102 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct replacement of 800 LF of 12" water line and hydrants. JUSTIFICATION: During the construction of Sound Transit light rail along Martin Luther King Jr Way South, the existing 12" D.I.P. waterline was found to be heavily covered with corrosion. STATUS: Design will begin in 2017 with construction in 2018. MAINT. IMPACT: A relined pipe will reduce the risk of failure. COMMENT: Project will require a franchise agreement with WSDOT for existing waterline located in WSDOT right-of-way. FINANCIAL Through Estimated in $000's 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 202 2022 EXPENSES Project Location S , , N \\\ GJ Q Boetn a } Design 1 70 , , y co N 71 Land (RAN) 111, �flfl s11.st W1 D > to \,) A� w Str 4`0 -,s, 0 Const. Mgmt. w N w�.b S 12: t� 40 40 80 Construction GIS V ' a ° � 273 116 389 TOTAL EXPENSES 1 0 70 313 156 0 0 0 0 540 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected 0 Utility Revenue 1 0 70 313 156 0 0 0 0 540 TOTAL SOURCES 1 0 70 313 156 0 0 0 0 540 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program 69 73 Project Location S , , N \\\ GJ Q Boetn a } / y S1 2 S , , y co N . a 111, �flfl s11.st W1 D > to \,) A� w Str 4`0 -,s, w N w�.b S 12: t� S 125 t ...�- 0 GIS V ' a ° � 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program 69 73 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Contract Number: CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, hereinafter referred to as "the City", and Carollo Engineers, hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant", in consideration of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified. 1. Project Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform engineering services in connection with the project titled Martin Luther King Jr. Way South Water Main. 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies. 3. Duration of Agreement; Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing upon execution and ending , unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. Work under this Agreement shall commence upon written notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement no later than January 31, 2018 unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City. 4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services rendered under this Agreement as follows: A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not exceed $69,967 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the City. B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made to the Consultant in the amount approved. C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City. D. Payment as provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed, services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City and the state of Washington for a period of three (3) years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon request. 74 5. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this Agreement shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any use of the said documents, drawings, specifications or other materials by the City on any project other than the project specified in this Agreement. 6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services rendered under this Agreement. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, to the extent caused by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Consultant's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 8. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. Consultant's maintenance of insurance as required by the agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A. Minimum Amounts and Scope of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types and with the limits described below: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. Automobile Liability insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. 2. Commercial General Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an insured under the Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City. 3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. CA revised : 1-2013 Page 2 75 4. Professional Liability with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. Professional Liability insurance shall be appropriate to the Consultant's profession. B. Other Insurance Provision. The Consultant's Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be contributed or combined with it. C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. D. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work. Certificates of coverage and endorsements as required by this section shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. E. Notice of Cancellation. The Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such notice. F. Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five business days notice to the Consultant to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Consultant from the City. 9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Consultant, or any employee of the Consultant. 10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, age, veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political affiliation or the presence of any disability in the selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies. 12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. CA revised : 1-2013 Page 3 76 13. Non -Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 14. Termination. A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant. B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses. 15. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be subject to, and the Consultant shall at all times comply with, all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and rules, including the provisions of the City of Tukwila Municipal Code and ordinances of the City of Tukwila. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit. Venue for any action arising from or related to this Agreement shall be exclusively in King County Superior Court. 16. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions of this Agreement, which by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the completion, expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement. 17. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address: City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Carollo Engineers, Inc. 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 18. The Consultant shall not be responsible for warranties, guarantees, fitness for a particular purpose, breach of fiduciary duty, loss of anticipated profits or for economic, incidental or consequential damages to the City or any third party arising out of breach of contract, termination, or for any other reason whatsoever. Additionally, the Consultant shall not be responsible for acts and decisions of third parties, including governmental agencies, other than the Consultant's subconsultants, that impact project completion and/or success. 19. Third Parties. The services to be performed by the Consultant are intended solely for the benefit of the City. No person or entity not a signatory to this Agreement shall be entitled to rely on the Consultant's performance of its services hereunder, and no right to assert a claim against the Consultant by assignment of indemnity rights or otherwise shall accrue to a third party as a result of this Agreement or the performance of the Consultant's services hereunder. CA revised : 1-2013 Page 4 77 20. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by the parties. CA revised : 1-2013 Page 5 78 DATED this day of , 20 CITY OF TUKWILA CONSULTANT Allan Ekberg, Mayor Printed Name: Eri` J. Waligorski, P.E. ciate Vice P ; sident Printed Name: Brian R. Matson, P.E. Title: Senior Vice President Attest/Authenticated: Approved as to Form: City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty Office of the City Attorney CA revised : 1-2013 Page 6 79 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA DESIGN OF THE MLK WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCOPE OF SERVICES The following Scope of Services has been developed to assist the City of Tukwila (City) with the design and construction of the MLK Water Main Replacement Project. The following tasks under this Scope of Services has been prepared based on Carollo Engineers' (Consultant) current understanding of the proposed project, previous efforts by the Consultant team members on other water projects, and discussions with City staff. PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila (City) is replacing approximately 800 feet of 12 -inch ductile iron water main along Martin Luther King Jr. Way South (MLK) from South Boeing Access Road to the Seattle City boundary. The dead-end water main serves customers and hydrants along MLK before turning west on South 104th Place. As such, water service will need to be maintained during construction. The overlaying roadway and sidewalks are concrete and in relatively good condition. Sound Transit's light rail runs adjacent to the water main on an elevated track. The City's Water System Plan has identified a goal to serve 1,500 gallons per minute fire flow from the completed water main. The water main currently operates at approximately 140 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure and the City would like to test this water main at 200 psi. Trenchless pipe replacement options is being sought to limit the need to repave/replace existing roads and sidewalks, minimize traffic disruptions during construction, and limit overall project costs. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS • Carollo Engineers, Inc., will be referred to as "Consultant" in this document. • The City of Tukwila and its staff will be referred to as "City" in this document. • All meetings will be held at the City offices or at the project site unless otherwise specified. • Draft deliverables will be provided in electronic copy (PDF and/or Microsoft (MS) Word) transmitted via email or secure file transfer. • Meeting notes and related materials will be transmitted electronically in MS Word and PDF formats via email. • The City will print and produce additional copies of all documents as necessary for its use beyond what will be provided by the Consultant as stated within this scope of services. • The City will provide available information related to the project and as requested by the Consultant in a timely manner. The City will furnish Consultant available studies, reports, and other data pertinent to Consultant's services; obtain, or authorize Consultant to obtain, or provide additional reports and data as required; furnish to Consultant services of others required for the performance of Consultant's services hereunder, and Consultant shall be entitled to use and rely upon all such information and services provided by the City or others in performing Consultant's services under this Agreement. pw:l\Carollo/Documents) 80 EXHIBIT A • The Consultant shall perform the services required hereunder in accordance with the prevailing engineering standard of care by exercising the skill and ability ordinarily required of engineers performing the same or similar services, under the same or similar circumstances, in the State of Washington. • The City shall arrange for access to and make all provisions for the Consultant to enter upon public and private property as required for Consultant to perform services hereunder. • In providing opinions of cost, financial analyses, economic feasibility projections, and schedules for potential projects, the Consultant has no control over cost or price of labor and material; unknown or latent conditions of existing facilities that may affect construction costs; competitive bidding procedures and market conditions; time or quality of performance of third parties; quality, type, management, or direction of personnel; and other economic and operational factors that may materially affect the ultimate project cost or schedule. Therefore, Consultant makes no warranty that the City's actual project costs, financial aspects, economic feasibility, or schedules will not vary from the Consultant's opinions, analyses, projections, or estimates. PROJECT TASKS Exhibit A and B establish the Scope of Services, level of effort, and authorization to complete the design and bidding support for the MLK Water Main Replacement project. This Scope of Services does not cover Bidding Support or Construction Services. This Scope of Services is divided into the following tasks: Task 100 - Project Management Task 200 - Preliminary Design Task 300 - Design Task 400 - Bidding Support (Future) Task 500 - Construction Services (Future) The specific tasks are discussed in detail in the text that follows. SCOPE OF SERVICES DETAIL TASK 100 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT The objective of this task is to manage and coordinate engineering and related services required for Project completion in accordance with the schedule, budget, and quality expectations that are established. Task 100 includes the following activities: • Prepare an abbreviated PMP document that describes project roles and responsibilities, lists contact information for the project team, describes communication protocols, quality management, and includes the scope of services, schedule, and budget. Project schedule will be updated as necessary throughout the project to reflect current progress. • Manage the Project team to track time and budget, work elements accomplished, work items planned for the next period, manpower, scope changes, and time and budget needed to complete this Scope of Services. • Prepare monthly project status reports that compare work accomplished with schedule activities and compare expenditures with task budgets, and submit reports to the City's Project Manager with monthly invoices. pw:1 Carollo/Documents\ 81 EXHIBIT A Task 100 Assumptions: 1. It is anticipated that the project duration will be 3 months. 2. Consultant will develop meeting materials, agenda, attend meetings, and develop meeting minutes. Task 100 Deliverables: 1. Project Management Plan summary in PDF format. 2. Monthly invoices and progress reports in PDF format. 3. Updated project schedules in PDF format. TASK 200 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN The objective of this task is to collect all available information, verify existing utilities within the project area, identify potential conflicts, and to verify existing hydraulic conditions. • Conduct initial site workshop to identify existing information needs and to verify design requirements. The site workshop will serve as the project kick-off meeting. • Coordinate utility locating to be complete using One -Call system. This task assumes that the City will call in locates based on locations identified by Consultant. • Perform topographic survey of proposed excavation locations for the replacement of the existing 12 -inch ductile iron water main. • Verify existing utilities and surface features in locations where excavation work is not anticipated. • Update hydraulic model based on survey. City to conduct hydrant flow test for the MLK main. Calibrate model to the hydrant test. Perform hydraulic analysis to confirm available fire flow and system pressures. • Research alternative materials for the possible water main replacement. This task assumes that three (3) material options will be researched: HDPE, FPVC, and CIPP, and that slip lining the existing water main is the only feasible option for replacement. In the event that slip lining does not meet the design flow criteria, the City will reevaluate alternative options for providing service to the affected area. • Prepare a short draft Preliminary Design letter. • Conduct internal QA/QC. • Attend a Preliminary Design Workshop to present the draft preliminary design letter. • Prepare a comment design response. • Prepare a final Preliminary Design letter. Task 200 Assumptions: 1. The City will provide all available record information, including surveys, drawings, studies, and geotechnical reports for 12 -inch water main. 2. This task will include no more than three (3) alternatives. 3. The design criteria meeting will coincide with the information data review/request meeting. 4. No geotechnical explorations are anticipated for this scope of work. 5. No environmental assessments are required for this scope of work. 6. No easements will be required for this work. 7. The City will perform the hydrant flow testing and will be responsible for disposal of the water. pw:\\CarollolDocuments\ 82 EXHIBIT A 8. The City will be responsible for calling in the One -Call locates. 9. In the event that the flow analysis determines that slip lining the existing water main does not meet the design criteria, the City will reevaluate how to provide service to the affected area, pipe splitting is assumed to not be feasible due to the depth of the existing line and proximity of adjacent utilities. Task 200 Deliverables: 1. Draft and final Preliminary Design letter in PDF format. TASK 300 — DESIGN The objective of this task is to provide draft and final design drawings, technical specifications, and opinions of probable construction cost (OPCC). This task includes the following activities: • Attend design workshops prior to submitting 50% and 90% design submittals to identify and address design concerns. • Prepare and submit design drawings, specifications/contract documents, and OPCC to the City at 50%, 90%, and final design stages. • Conduct internal reviews of 50%, 90%, and final design packages prior to submittal to the City. • Develop and maintain a Decision Log to record key decisions made by the City and others during the project to document the evolution of the design. • Develop and maintain a Record of Comment Log to track City review comments and Consultant's responses for all project deliverables. • Assist the City with the preparation of permit package for submittal to WSDOT. This task assumes that the City will take the lead in preparing the permit package and will submit the permit and pay all associated fees. Task 300 Assumptions: 1. Specifications will be prepared using WSDOT style specifications. 2. The City will provide front-end documents to be used to bid the project. Carollo will provide and stamp only the Technical Specifications for the project. 3. No easements will be required for the project. 4. The draft design drawings and specifications will be stamped by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington, but will not be signed or dated. 5. The Final bid documents will be stamped and signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. 6. OPPC's will be subject to the levels of accuracy and contingency percentages recommended by the former Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) for different design levels. 7. No additional environmental studies will be required by outside permitting agencies. 8. If required, the City will be the lead agency for the SEPA Checklist and determination. 9. The WSDOT permit will be prepared and submitted by the City, including the payment of all fees. 10. If required, the City will prepare the DOH project report for their files. Task 300 Deliverables: 1. Electronic half-size copies of the 50%, and 90% design drawings, specifications and OPCC in PDF format. pw:llCarollolDocumentsl 83 EXHIBIT A 2. Decision Log in Excel format. 3. Record of Comment Log in Excel format. 4. Electronic copy of the Final bid documents in PDF format. 5. Design workshop meeting agendas and minutes in electronic PDF format. 6. Exhibits and figures required for permit applications in electronic PDF format. TASK 400 — BIDDING SUPPORT (FUTURE) Following the design of the project, the City may request budding support services. This task would provide assistance to the City during the bidding and award process. It is understood that the City would lead this task with the Consultant providing technical support through the tasks outlined below. • Assist the City with responses to prospective bidder's questions during the bidding period. • Assist the City with the preparation of up to two (2) addenda (as needed). • Attend the bid opening and provide input on the apparent low bidder. TASK 500 — CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (FUTURE) Following the design and bidding of the project, the City may request construction support services. This task would provide general discussion, submittal reviews of specialized work, and prepare draft and final Construction Record Drawings (CRD's). The Consultant would also provide review and response to Contractor generated Requests for Information (RFI's) and/or change order requests on an as needed basis. It is assumed that the City would take the lead on the construction observation of the project. The Construction Services would include the following tasks: • Attend the preconstruction meeting to be led by the City. • Perform submittal review and provide responses. • Review and respond to any Contractor generated RFI's or Change Order requests on an as needed basis. • Consultant will provide onsite construction support. This task assumes that the City will lead the construction observation and that the Consultant will provide onsite support of specialized activities on an as needed basis. • Attend up to four (4) construction meetings to be held onsite or at the City. • Prepare draft and final Construction Record Drawings (CRD's). pw:\\Carollo/Documents\ 84 TASK / DESCRIPTION City of Tukwila MLK Water Main Replacement Project Exhibit B - Schedule of Charges c c (p a) :f) o m m U` m io c c c @ C o - .o i `o - .ca a� a m m O m c a) N w •C U a> a`� C1' F - "iii • t o �o aE a a. Q < cL of Ch i= o r U Total Labor Rate $ 226 $ 205 $ 175 $ 135 $ 226 $ 135 $90 Total Hours Carollo Labor Cost Sub Sub Total Markup Cost @ 10% Total Cost OTHER DIRECT COSTS Travel and Printing Tasks 100 Project Management 200 Preliminary Design 300 Design Total PECE $11.70 TotalODC TOTAL COST 3.0 17.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 21.0 12.0 36.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 52.0 0.0 108.0 20.0 75.0 22.0 6.0 90.0 14.0 150.0 20.0 79.0 28.0 30 80 277 387 $ 5,503 $ 12,843 $ 41,865 $ 60,211 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,680 $ 468$5,148 $ - $ - $ - $4,680 $ 468 $ 5,148 co 10/11/2017 $ - $ 351 $ 351 $ 40 $ 936 $ 976 $ 40 $ 3,241 $ 3,281 $ 80 $ 4,528 $ 4,608 $ 5,854 $ 18,967 $ 45,146 $ 69,967 1 of 1 86 City of Tukwila Public Works Department - Robin Tischmak, Acting Director Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Robin Tischmak, Acting Public Works Director BY: Mike Perfetti, Habitat Project Manager DATE: November 9, 2017 SUBJECT: Riverton Creek Flapqate Removal Project Project Number 99830103 Contract 17-070, Amendment No. 1 ISSUE Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Contract No. 17-070 with OTAK, Inc. BACKGROUND In May 2017, the City entered into a consultant agreement with OTAK, Inc. for design services of the Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal Project. This project will remove two culverts and flap gates where Riverton Creek joins the Duwamish River. A new trail bridge will be installed over the new open channel which should improve fish passage. DISCUSSION Four additional service items have emerged since the OTAK contract was initiated: 1. OTAK has determined that the geotechnical investigations and hydraulic modelling were lacking key information needed for the design of the new pedestrian Green River Trail bridge, modifications to the TIB bridge abutment, and channel bank stabilization. 2. The City was notified by our funding partner, the State's Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), that cultural resource review will be required. 3. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board recently approved with conditions the City's RCO grant application stating that "this project needs to demonstrate that increasing fish access to Riverton Creek will not increase toxic exposure to salmonids from stormwater inputs...", meaning that additional stormwater water quality modeling is necessary. 4. Staff requested that OTAK conduct a brief alternative analysis exercise, and shift budget from other tasks to do so. To partially offset cost increases, staff will take on a handful of items that were previously in the OTAK scope including permit work and landscape design. OTAK is providing a scope of services that includes additional geotechnical exploration, hydraulic modeling, cultural resource investigation, and stormwater modelling. The additional work and completion of the remaining tasks will require additional contract time and Supplemental Agreement No. 1 will extend the time for performance to April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT The current agreement with OTAK is for $105,363.00 and with Amendment No. 1 for $39,993.00, the total contract amount will be $145,356.00. To fund Amendment No. 1, the project will utilize the 2018 CIP construction budget of $200,000. Two pending grants, totaling $846,965.00, are expected to be executed in 2018, which will replace the borrowed City construction funds. Agreement 2017-2018 Budget Original OTAK Contract $105,363.00 $108,00.00 OTAK Amendment #1 39,993.00 200,000.00 $145,356.00 $308,000.00 RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to approve design Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for $39,993.00 with OTAK, Inc. for the Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal Project and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the November 20, 2017 Regular Meeting. Attachments: Page 108 of 2017 CIP OTAK Supplemental Agreement #1 W:\PW Eng \PROJECTS \A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contractAmendment #11Info Memo for Supplement #1.docx 87 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2017 to 2022 PROJECT: Riverton Creek Flap Gate Removal Project No. 99830103 DESCRIPTION: Remove two culverts and flap gates at Duwamish River; install pipe arch, create open channel confluence, install trail bridge over new channel, restorelrevegetate 200 feet of creek channel and 450 ft. of pond shoreline. JUSTIFICATION: Increase available salmonid rearing habitat and increase flood refuge in lower Duwamish River. Improve fish access to Riverton Creek and enhance salmon rearing and resting area. STATUS: Design at 70% completion in 2011 with a Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant of $42,500 and $30,000 from People for Puget Sound. Construction is grant dependent. MAINT. IMPACT: Expected to increase maintenance. COMMENT: Proposed grants include State & Federal habitat grants. Project used as mitigation for East Marginal Way Pipe Replacement Project and HPA Control#133763-1 requires work to be completed by June 11, 2019. FINANCIAL Through Estimated in $000's 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Location ( m ti Design 114 10 108 l s] D- Vry \`\p\\moi I\'\q \S' �l;r Fr 232 Land (RM/) 0 Const. Mgmt. 100 100 Construction 650 650 TOTAL EXPENSES 114 10 108 750 0 0 0 0 0 982 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 72 72 Proposed Grant 550 550 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected 0 Utility Revenue 42 10 108 200 0 0 0 0 0 360 TOTAL SOURCES 114 10 108 750 0 0 0 0 0 982 CD Project Location ( m ti s,n % ut i- s; = s. SiY2 St \� /{GGbSFb _ 1 I,n C r'--- [1 I i i III snf Sit215Jt\ 4.1 130 St. r a 1 �_ 2' '6, l s] D- Vry \`\p\\moi I\'\q \S' �l;r Fr 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program 108 88 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Agreement Number: 17-070 CONTRACT FOR SERVICES Amendment #1 Between the City of Tukwila and OTAK, Inc. That portion of Contract No. 17-070 between the City of Tukwila and OTAK, Inc. is hereby amended as follows: Section 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A-1" attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies. Exhibit A-1 supplements Exhibit A. Section 3. Duration of Agreement; Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing upon execution and ending April 30, 2019, unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. Work under this Agreement shall commence upon written notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement no later than April 30, 2019 unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City. Section 4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services rendered under this Agreement as follows: A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit "B-1" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not exceed $145,356.00 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the City. Exhibit B-1 replaces Exhibit B. B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made to the Consultant in the amount approved. C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City. D. Payment as provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed, services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City and the state of Washington for a period of three (3) years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon request. CA Revised December 2016 Page 1 of 2 89 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Agreement Number: 17-070 All other provisions of the contract shall remain in full force and effect. Dated this • G day of ck A -t ej- , 2017. CITY OF TUKWILA CONTRACTOR Allan Ekberg, Mayor Printed Name: t CA Revised December 2016 Page 2 of 2 90 Exhibit A- I Scope of Work Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal Project City of Tukwila October 17, 2017 Otak Project No. 32740 Amendment No. I A 75 -percent design for the Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal Project was completed previously by a different consultant. Under the original Scope of Work, Otak performed an Intake Review of the previous design and found that on-site geotechnical evaluation, cultural resources, and hydraulic modeling and scour analysis had not been provided with the previous design, even though stability concerns had been documented. Further, based on a site investigation of existing conditions, Otak's team recommended that the proposed channel section be revised to address slope stability and erosion concerns. The City requested an amendment to add services for the technical analysis and to make revisions to the previous design. In order to reduce the additional cost, tasks were identified that could be led by the City staff with support from Otak such as preparation of permit applications and landscape design. The following scope is for additional services required to complete the final design for the Riverton Creek Flapgate Removal Project. These services are in addition to those set forth in the Scope of Services of the Consultant Agreement for the project. The additional tasks are organized according to the tasks being supplemented in the original contract; in addition tasks that are proposed to be reduced or eliminated are described below. The following table provides a summary of the contract value for the project as modified by Amendment No. 1. Contract Authorized Fee Original Contract $105,363.00 Amendment No. 1 $39,993.00 Total $145,356.00 91 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued New Scope Items The following task list is new tasks that are to be added to the Contract. Following these tasks is a section pertaining to Contract items that are to be modified because of changes in scope. Task 2 — Intake Review 2.5 Alternatives Analysis and Meetings (New) Otak will complete additional work related to development of conceptual plans and cost estimates for two alternatives for the proposed open confluence of Riverton Creek and the Duwamish River. Alternative 1 will include a pedestrian bridge with a revised channel section to allow for channel side slopes less steep than the 1.25'H : 1'V slopes proposed in the 75% design by others. Alternative 2 will include a box culvert and wingwalls. Otak's subconsultant, GeoEngineers, will review the concept designs and provide comments on stability and recommendations for geotechnical evaluation. Task 4 — Permitting, Environmental Review and Coordination 4.8 Water Quality Monitoring (New) In order to provide an initial assessment of potential stormwater impacts to salmonids, Otak will evaluate water quality conditions in the system using the WSDOT Hi -Run model and field verification of existing conditions. The model and field verification will extend from the confluence of Riverton Creek and the Duwamish River upstream to the culverts conveying Riverton Creek under SR 599. Work for the Hi -Run modeling effort will involve collecting information on the discharge area for contributing stormwater, precipitation data, existing baseline conditions, end -of - pipe -loading subroutine, and receiving water dilution subroutine. Otak will prepare a technical memorandum describing and interpreting the modelling and field verification results. Task 6 — Hydraulic Analysis (New) This task includes the hydraulic analysis necessary to support the design of the removal of two flap gates and creek channel restoration for Riverton Creek at the confluence with the Duwamish River. A previous hydraulic analysis was conducted by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) to evaluate any potential increased flood risk from the flap gate removal. The analysis was based on a long-term (52 -year) HEC -RAS unsteady flow simulation to evaluate potential changes in the frequency of water levels along the creek. The long-term simulation accounts for the complex W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_1027.docx 2 92 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued interaction of Riverton Creek and the Duwamish River wherein the hydraulic conditions at the confluence are governed by the timing of flows in the creek and stages on the river. However, due to the configuration of the model that includes a storage area at the upstream side of the existing outfall, detailed hydraulic information (velocities, etc.) in the design reach is not available. The hydraulic analysis presented here builds on the NHC hydraulic analysis to obtain the necessary hydraulic design information as described in this task. 6. I Data Review Review the previous hydraulic model and report (NHC, 2010). 6.2 Statistical Analysis Perform a statistical analysis of the time series data from the NHC hydraulic analysis to develop the joint probability of flows in Riverton Creek and stages on the Duwamish River. This will provide a range of plausible flow scenarios for the hydraulic analysis of Riverton Creek at the confluence. Deliverables: • Results of the statistical analysis and recommended flows and stages for use in the hydraulic analysis of Riverton Creek. 6.3 Hydraulic Analysis Construct a detailed one-dimensional (1-D) steady flow HEC -RAS model of Riverton Creek for the study reach that extends from the confluence with the Duwamish River to the northbound SR -599 on ramp. Cross sections along Riverton Creek will be based on available topographic survey data of the study reach. The model will be configured for existing and proposed conditions and run for a range of design flows and Duwamish River stages based on the joint probability analysis performed for Task 6.2. Assumptions: • Available survey data are sufficient for the development of accurate cross sections for use in the hydraulic analysis Deliverables: • Electronic files of the hydraulic model 6.4 Channel Stability Analysis and Hydraulic Design of Scour Countermeasures Utilize results of the hydraulic analysis to assess the impacts of the flap gate removal on hydraulic conditions and the stability of Riverton Creek, and to develop the hydraulic design of any necessary scour countermeasures at the site of the flap gate removal and replacement pedestrian bridge. Any W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_1027.docx 3 93 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued necessary scour calculations will be included in the analysis to support the design of scour countermeasures (toe -down depths). Assumptions: • Evaluation of channel stability impacts upstream of the flap gate removal will be based on assessment of changes in predicted hydraulic conditions and will not include detailed channel stability or sediment transport calculations. • This task does not include detailed design drawings or cost estimates that are assumed to be covered by other project tasks. Deliverables: • Scour and design calculations 6.5 Technical Memorandum Write a draft and final technical memorandum that documents the hydraulic analysis and results. Deliverables: • Draft and final technical memorandum in electronic format Task 7 — Geotechnical Analysis (New) This task includes a geotechnical evaluation by GeoEngineers, a subconsultant to Otak. Phase 1 geotechnical services included a brief review of preliminary drawings and available existing subsurface information, including the 1996 geotechnical report, as -built drawings of the existing TIB bridge and sheet pile wall, and a site visit with the design team. Phase 2 services will include completing geotechnical explorations for the planned pedestrian bridge, completing engineering analysis to support final design, preparing a final geotechnical report for the project, providing consultation, and reviewing the project plans and specifications, as needed. This contract amendment includes scope and fee estimate for Phase 2 of the project. Our Phase 2 scope assumes the as -built drawings will provide information on the backfill type and geometry behind the sheet pile wall for design of the ground anchors and explorations behind the wall are not necessary. Our specific scope of services for Phase 2 is presented below. 7. I Explorations and Final Design Report 1. Review available subsurface information including our 1996 geotechnical report, as -built drawings of the existing sheet pile retaining wall, and available geologic and topographic W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_I027.docx 4 94 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued maps. We assume Otak, Inc. (Otak) and the City of Tukwila (City) will provide as -built information for the existing bridge and wall. 2. Review preliminary drawings for the planned project including trail improvements, flapgate removal and culvert modifications, and upgrades to the bulkhead. 3. Complete a site reconnaissance to observe the existing surficial conditions of the site. 4. Develop approach for tie -back and sheet pile wall analyses. 5. Explore subsurface conditions at each end of the planned pedestrian bridge by completing two geotechnical borings to depths of about 50 to 60 feet. The preliminary depths were estimated to determine the contact elevation between the anticipated sand layer and lower very soft organic silt layer. It may be necessary to drill deeper borings through the lower organic silt layer, depending on the foundation loads and seismic requirements of the bridge structure. The drilling services will be subcontracted to GeoEngineers and will be completed using hollow -stem auger or mud rotary drilling equipment. We will contact the Washington State One -call service to locate the explorations in areas that are clear of underground utilities. We will also use a subcontract a private utility locate service, to locate utilities not covered by the one -call service. The drilling will generate excess soil that will not be replaced in the borehole. Our scope and fee estimate assumes that the soil cuttings will be left on site and that the site restoration, is not necessary. If the soil cuttings will need to be hauled off- site, then additional expenses will be needed. The borings will be backfilled in accordance with the Department of Ecology's requirements. 6. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the site soils based on laboratory tests from the borings. The laboratory tests will include moisture content, grain - size distribution, Atterberg limit determination, and percent fine contents, as appropriate. 7. Prepare a draft and final geotechnical design report. Our specific scope of services for the design -level report will include the following: • Project vicinity map and site plan showing the location of the geotechnical exploration with • respect to the proposed development including new or previously completed explorations. • Previous boring logs and boring logs and laboratory test results completed for this study (if • completed). • Summary of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. • Seismic design recommendations based on the current International Building Code (IBC). • Foundation design recommendations (axial and lateral pile capacity) for the proposed • pedestrian bridge. We have assumed the foundations will consist of deep piles. • Anchor recommendations for stabilization of the existing sheet pile wall. • Recommendations for stability of site slopes, including stability evaluations and • recommendations for the existing steep slopes in front of the sheet pile wall where tie -backs • may be needed for the planned project. W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_1027.docx 5 95 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued • Recommendations for earthwork including: o Stripping, removal of soft, organic or other unsuitable material; o Excavation considerations including temporary cut slope inclinations; o Placement and compaction of structural fill; o A discussion on the effects of weather and construction equipment on the site soils; and o A discussion on site drainage and dewatering, if necessary. 8. Provide consultation to the design team including reviewing the plans and specifications for conformance to our geotechnical recommendations. W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_1027.docx 6 96 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued Scope and Budget Modifications Several tasks are forecasted to be under budget or are reduced in scope, which will reduce the budget requirement, and include the following: 2.4 Develop Permitting Strategy Plan This task is omitted. The City will lead the permitting effort. Any permitting support, if requested by the City, will be provided under Task 4.7 Permitting Support. 3 Coordination Meetings This task is omitted. Otak will facilitate meetings to review assessment of alternatives under new Task 2.5. Any participation of a meeting with permitting agencies, if requested by City, will be provided under Task 4.7 Permit Support. 4. I JARPA Preparation The scope for this task is reduced. The City will prepare the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for the project including the preparation of the required drawings. The JARPA and existing Critical Areas Report will be used to apply for and support a Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Streamlined Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for a fish habitat enhancement project. The City will prepare the complete application and manage the submittal. Otak will provide support and review of the draft application materials, as requested. 4.2 Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) The scope for this task is reduced. The City will prepare and submit the Specific Project Information Form (SPIF), per the Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) for Restoration Actions in Washington State and associated Biological Opinion (BiOp). Otak will provide support and review of the draft form. 4.3 Cultural Resources This task is revised to include a Cultural Resources Assessment by Cultural Resource Consultant (CRC), a subconsultant to Otak. CRC will provide the following project components as part of this cultural resources assessment: • CRC will conduct a search of site files recorded at Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP); review of relevant correspondence between the project proponent, stakeholders and DAHP; and, review of pertinent environmental, W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_1027.docx 7 97 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued archaeological, ethnographic and historical information appropriate to the project area from a variety of available resources. • CRC will contact the cultural resources staff of tribes that may have an interest in the project area. This communication is intended to inform the cultural resources assessment and does not constitute government -to -government consultation. • CRC will provide a field investigation of the project location for identification of archaeological and historical resources and, if necessary, excavation of shovel test probes or other exploratory excavations in environments that might contain buried archaeological deposits. Field methods will be consistent with DAHP guidelines. • CRC will monitor during geotechnical explorations (two borings anticipated) in order to observe subsurface conditions near the proposed culvert removal. • CRC will document and record archaeological and historic sites within the project area, including preparation of Washington State archaeological and/or historic site(s) forms. Documentation will be consistent with DAHP standards. • CRC will prepare a technical memo describing background research, field methods, results of investigations, and management recommendations. The report will provide supporting documentation of findings, including maps and photographs, and will conform to DAHP reporting standards. Report and support materials will be provided electronically. 4.4 Ecology Construction Stormwater General Permit This task is omitted. The City or the Contractor will submit for this permit once the project is scheduled for construction. 4.5 Wetland Delineation The scope for preparing a Critical Areas Report is reduced to only include the preparation of a memorandum to supplement the Critical Areas Assessment prepared with previous work. 4.6 Agency Meetings This task is omitted. Any participation of a meeting with permitting agencies, if requested by City, will be provided under Task 4.7 Permit Support. 4.7 Permitting Support The scope for this task is reduced to include the attendance of up to two meetings with permitting agencies by two Otak staff. Each meeting is assumed to take 3 hours including travel time. Task 5 — Final Design W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_1027.docx 8 98 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued The preparation of final signed bid set plans and specs is removed from the scope. A final bid set can be prepared later once additional funding has been secured for construction. 5. I Final Design and Plans Sheets 4 Creek Grading, Trail Restoration, and Bank Armoring Design The scope for final design and plan preparation is revised as the City will perform all landscaping design for revegetation of Riverton Creek and for edge restoration along Green River Trail. The City will provide construction plan sheets for all landscaping features including the placement of Large Woody Debris (LWD). The City will also provide all planting details. Otak will provide the details for LWD. Otak will also provide electronic drawing files for the sheet titleblock and any civil basefiles that the City will need to prepare the landscaping sheets. Otak will revise the grading prepared previously (by others) to allow for channel side slopes with a maximum slope of 1.75'H : 1'V. It is assumed that this proposed slope will be able to be stabilized with a bio -engineered system with components such as LWD, rip -rap, plastic geocell, and biodegradable matting that is compatible with the City's design for slope vegetation. This scope does not include engineering for a mechanically stabilized earth wall or soil nails for channel slope stabilization. 6 Retaining Wall Design (3 sheets) The scope for final design and plan preparation is revised to include a retaining wall adjacent to the parking lot with greater vertical and horizontal extents. It is assumed that this wall will be a reinforced concrete retaining wall. A computer -modeled visualization is omitted from the scope. 5.2 Specifications The scope for this task is reduced as the City will lead the preparation of the master Contract Manual and the preparation of landscaped Special Provisions. Otak will provide General Special Provisions (GSP) and project -specific Special Provisions for Divisions 2 — 9, excluding the landscape and planting Special Provisions. The City will prepare Special Provisions for all landscape and planting work including topsoil, compost, seeding, and plant establishment. The City will prepare Division 1 of the Specifications and compile the master Contract Manual including all Contract and Bid Forms, Amendments to the WSDOT Standard Specifications, and Appendices. The City will incorporate Special Provisions provided by Otak. W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_1027.docx 9 99 Exhibit A-1 Scope of Work Continued Otak will provide a review of the Specifications Manual at the 90 percent and Final design levels. The City will provide revisions as necessary. Otak will prepare an estimated construction schedule to determine the number of working days for the construction contract, for review by the City at approximately the 90 percent design level. Deliverables: 1. Special Provisions at 90 -percent and 100 -percent design (pdf format and MS Word format)., sealed by a Washington state registered PE. 2. Estimated construction schedule, draft and final in Microsoft Project (.mpp and .pdf format). 5.3 Construction Cost Estimates The scope for this task is reduced as the City will provide quantities and unit costs for all landscaping bid items. Otak Project Expense Budget Expense costs will be significantly less than projected and site visits that will incur mileage costs will be limited. W:APW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Riverton Flap Gate Removal (99830103 98-DR03)\Consultant Selection\Phase 2\contract\Amendment #1\Riverton SOW_Amend 1_17_1027.docx 10 100 TO: FROM: BY: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Jack Pace, DCD Director Maggi Lubov, CTR Coordinator Valerie Lonneman, TDM Coordinator CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: November 9, 2017 SUBJECT: WSDOT Grant Awarded for Non -Traditional Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Pilot Program 2017-2019 ISSUE Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) awarded grant funds to the City of Tukwila to implement a pilot program to reduce regional congestion and improve air quality in Tukwila and South King County. The question before the Council is should the City accept the grant? BACKGROUND WSDOT announced a funding opportunity to pilot the expansion of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs beyond traditional CTR affected sites into new markets for trip reduction. TDM Program staff applied for the grant in August 2017. The City of Tukwila was one of two recipients selected to receive this competitive statewide grant. DISCUSSION The pilot project will have regional impact by encouraging employees at SeaTac Airport to reduce drive -alone trips, thereby decreasing congestion in Tukwila and surrounding communities, improving air quality in the SeaTac Airport travel -shed (1-5, 1-405, SR 518, SR 99), and reducing the demand for parking at nearby park and ride stations, including the Tukwila International Boulevard Station. The implementation will include use of a new ridesharing/trip logging platform, which will provide an optimized end-user experience, with the goal of engaging more employees in commute challenges. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact to the general fund. WSDOT awarded the City of Tukwila $107,000 to implement the pilot project. Partners King County Metro and the Port of Seattle will provide a combined local match of $25,000. The grant funding leverages other TDM Program grants, allowing for more robust implementation, and contributes to sustaining the Program's expanded staffing capacity. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to accept the WSDOT grant award for the Transportation Demand Management Program in the amount of $107,000 and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the November 20, 2017 Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: WSDOT Grant Award Letter for Non -Traditional Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Pilot Program 2017-2019 101 Attachment A September 22, 2017 Valerie Lonneman, TDM Coordinator City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. SO. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7:300 360-705-7000 STY: 1-800-833-638 s a ot. w a.gilli Subject: 2017-2019 Non -Traditional Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Pilot Program Dear Ms. Lonneman: WSDOT is pleased to announce your 2017-2019 Pilot Program award. Using new state funding approved by the 2017 Legislature, this year's awards will support two innovative projects. Congratulations! The information below reflects the funding awarded for your project submitted in August 2017. Project 2017-2019 Award Sea -Tac Airport Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) $107,000 This award letter serves as pre -award authority. Funds are reimbursable for grant -related activities beginning September 22, 2017. Your primary contact and project manager for this award throughout the life of the grant is Keith Cotton who can be reached at 360-970-1796 or cottonk@wsdot.wa.gov. Keith will contact you soon to assist with development of your project's scope, schedule and budget, and the next steps for executing your contract(s). Methodology for determining your grant award An independent review panel created a ranked list of projects by evaluating applications on the transportation needs identified, measurable benefits, vehicle miles travelled and vehicle trip reduction, trip markets addressed, techniques transferability and replicability, impact on transportation system and readiness to proceed. Congratulations! If you need assistance, please contact Keith. We look forward to finalizing your grant agreement and funding your project so that you can provide valuable services in your community. Sincerely, Don Chartock, Grants and Community Partnerships Manager Public Transportation Division cc: Keith Cotton, WSDOT Nicole Patrick, WSDOT 102 TO: FROM: BY: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Transportation & Infras Jack Pace, DCD Direc ucture Committee Robin Tischmak, Acting Public Works Director Moira Bradshaw and La n Miranda CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: November 7, 2017 SUBJECT: Update on Tukwila International Boulevard/Congress for New Urbanism Implementation Recommendations ISSUE To continue moving forward on implementing the community's vision for the Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) neighborhood and the Congress for New Urbanism's (CNU's) recommended short-term action, the City needs to review expected impacts and provide direction on a preferred rechannelization design for TIB. BACKGROUND In 2015 the City updated the goals and policies for the TIB District Element of the Comprehensive Plan, calling for transformation of the neighborhood into a walkable, safe, attractive destination with TIB as a "main street" versus a street serving regional through -traffic at higher speeds. The Congress for New Urbanism and the City held a community workshop in February 2017 to build upon and to identify specific actions towards placemaking and redevelopment efforts. In May, CNU issued a summary of the workshop and briefed the Council on the two major short-term actions that, if undertaken, would implement the community's vision: • Change the street design to reduce through -lanes to two rather than four, allowing for on - street parking and bicycle lanes, and add more crosswalks (see Attachment A). • Update the zoning code, including setbacks, building heights, and permitted land uses. The City Council subsequently requested information on potential traffic impacts associated with the decrease in the number of vehicle -travel lanes on TIB. They also agreed with CNU's recommendation that the decision on the street's design should precede any changes in zoning, as street design has a direct impact on site plans for future redevelopment — developing a "main street" is not possible without the TIB rechannelization. In August, DCD staff briefed the Planning Commission on preliminary zoning code revisions. In September, a six-month moratorium on new auto -oriented uses and hotels/motels in the TIB district was established. The moratorium allows the City time for the rechannelization and zoning code revisions to be prepared and adopted and to ensure that any future development proposed during this interim review period is consistent with the community's vision. Consultant contracts for traffic analysis and preliminary rechannelization design were also initiated in September. 103 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 DISCUSSION The impacts associated with the removal of a northbound and southbound travel lane and the potential mitigation for the resulting shift in travel patterns are contained in the Fehr and Peers report (see Attachment B). The report focuses on traffic conditions during a two hour period of the day from 4-6 p.m. The morning peak has vehicular traffic volumes that are 40% less than the afternoon; therefore, traffic impacts may still be substantial but less than during the p.m. peak hours. Significant Findings for the PM Peak Hours: ■ At least 50% of existing traffic is pass through that does not stop and is not related to local businesses or residents. This pattern of travel behavior is more consistent with a regional roadway than a local arterial. Approximately 45% of existing trips do not start or end within one mile of TIB, with the largest number of these travelling between SeaTac and Central Seattle. ■ Traffic diversion will occur on adjacent streets in the following order — 42 Avenue S., Military Road S., 1-5, Des Moines Memorial Drive S., and 51 Avenue S./Macadam Road. ■ With the rechannelization of TIB, if the existing volume of pass through travel (800 vehicles during the p.m. peak) were to shift to alternate routes, the TIB corridor could accommodate the growth in traffic from planned development in the district and operate with a similar quality of service as experienced today. Mitigation of Off-site Impacts — Alternatives ■ Typical traffic calming measures on side streets would not reduce speeds enough to be effective in preventing additional traffic on those streets. ■ Alternatives to traffic calming are intersection diverters or short one way segments, which would be an inconvenience to residents, but could prevent cut -through traffic while maintaining as much connectivity as possible for local residents. Rechannelization Alternatives and Cost Estimates The City contracted with KPG to prepare preliminary rechannelization design alternatives for TIB and associated cost estimates. All three alternatives remove one travel lane in each direction and restripe each lane to include on -street parking and a bicycle lane (see Attachment C): ■ Alternative 1 —Adds bulb -outs at mid -block pedestrian crossings ($1,130,000). ■ Alternative 2 — Restriping only; no additional crosswalks or bulb -outs ($400,000). ■ Alternative 3 — Adds crosswalks and bulb -outs at intersections to shorten the travel distance across TIB for pedestrians ($1,270,000). 104 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Committee forward their recommendation to the 1/22/2018 COW meeting. Staff recommends implementing Alternative 2 — removing one travel lane in each direction and restriping each lane to include on -street parking and a bicycle lane with a cost estimate of $400,000. This alternative: ■ Allows the City to continue the momentum gained from the CNU workshop and the City's commitment to the community's vision that calls for the transition of TIB from a street serving regional needs to more of a "main street" serving the local community. ■ Provides other benefits, such as providing additional on -street parking for adjacent businesses along TIB and safe lanes for bicyclists. ■ Allows staff to move forward on zoning changes that, when combined with the street redesign, will transform the built environment along TIB that brings buildings forward to the back of the sidewalk and creates a safer, more attractive, and walkable neighborhood that is transit supportive. ■ Allows the City to invest minimal funds to test the rechannelization design. Once TIB is restriped, staff can evaluate traffic operations and, if needed, come back to the Council with suggested changes to the configuration to mitigate any unintended consequences. NEXT STEPS 1. A 2018 budget amendment is required to move forward with implementing the rechannelization, and a CIP sheet for the project must be approved by Council. Staff will bring this to Finance Committee in 1st quarter 2018. 2. If rechannelization of TIB is approved, staff will continue developing zoning code revisions for the district per the current Comprehensive Plan and CNU direction. 3. Restriping of TIB could begin spring/summer 2018. ATTACHMENTS A. Excerpt from CNU Legacy Project Report, April 2017. B. Tukwila International Boulevard Rechannelization Study, by Fehr & Peers, September 2017. C. KPG Report of cost estimates 105 BOULEVARD J a z 0 NTERNAT Q J H P CNU LEGACY PROJECT 17 APRIL 2017 Implementing the Vision 106 IMPLEMENTATION Short term steps for implementation include re -striping the Boulevard and amending the zoning. RESTRIPING PLAN The initial step in the TIB evolution is a restriping plan for the Boulevard. Traffic studies must be done in ad- vance of the work, but a schematic plan was developed during the work- shop, shown on the next pages. Some parts of TIB have distances as great as 2,500' without a crosswalk. This distance provides a dangerous enviroment where residents cross midblock with no protection. To build a robust main street environment, pedestrians must be able to easily cross the street to access shops on the other side. In addition to cross- walks, new RRFBs are recommended. A RRFB is an amber -colored flash- ing light (LED) that is activated by a pedestrian before using a crosswalk. The purpose of an RRFB is to increase vehicle yielding at crosswalks. RRFBs are attached to pedestrian crossing warning signs, and are also accompa- nied by piano key crosswalks and ad- vance yield makings. The beacons are usually solar powered, and flash us- ing an irregular patten that is similar to emergency vehicle flashers on po- lice vehicles. KEY ifExisting signal + crosswalk Existing RRFB Image Credit: City of Bloomington, Indiana TUKWILA CNU LEGACY PROJECT 32 Riverton Heights Existing walkcji (City of Seal -6[c, King County, BLM, ESRI, Garmin, USGS, EPA, USDA) 33 TUKWILA The plan to the right shows a change from 5 lanes to 3 lanes beginning with S. 139th Street in the north to S. 152"d Street at the southern end. The new street section ! New crosswalk is illustrated above, as compared to the existing condi- tions in the upper right image. New RRFB In addition to the restriping, new pedestrian crosswalks and signals should be added. New RRFBs should be lo- Restriping area cated at S. 141'L Street and S. 1461h Street. New crosswalks should be added at 5. 142"d, S. 148'h, S. 150th, and each New streets new east 1 west street as they are developed over time as shown on the plan to the right. KEY To assure local traffic is managed well, provide additional development opportunities, and create a bicycle and pe- destrian network, new streets should be added to pro- vide multiple routes north/south and east/west. (© Microsoft, 2017) CNU LEGACY PROJECT 11011 jilts (City of SeaTac, King County, BLM, ESRI, Garmin, USGS, EPA, USDA) 34 35 HIGHLINE SPECIALTY CENTER II S 128 s FOSTER GOLF LOURS F <4 S 140 ST S 142 ST S 144 ST S 146 ST S 148 ST 150 ST cr' S 148 ST !S 150 ST S 154 ST S 151 S S 152 ST TyCFn�,�� m OD OD D.• m SJ147 S 149 ST S 150 ST Lr - S 152 ST ST LIMITS OF 11B s 1— 6® LANE REDUCTION, z 0 ST S 150TH ST TO S 140TH ST ST Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet Vicinity Map 109 Tukwila International Boulevard Rechannelization Study Prepared for: City of Tukwila September 2017 SE17-0561 FEHRr PEERS Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Chapter 2. Existing Conditions 2 2.1 Intersection Traffic Counts 3 2.2 Travel Times 3 2.3 Field Observations 4 2.4 Travel Behavior Data 5 Chapter 3. Microsimulation Analysis 7 3.1 Existing Scenario 7 3.2 Future Baseline 9 3.3 Project Scenarios 10 3.4 Demand Sensitivity Tests 12 Chapter 4. Diversion Analysis 13 4.1 Traffic Diversion 13 4.2 Traffic Calming Toolbox 14 Chapter 5. Conclusion 17 111 This page intentionally left blank. 112 Chapter 1. Introduction The City of Tukwila is considering a rechannelization project on Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) between S 144th Street and S 152nd Street. The current configuration of the '/2 mile corridor is a 5 -lane cross section with 2 northbound lanes, 2 southbound lanes, and a two-way left turn lane. The proposed project would remove a travel lane in each direction to allow for on -street parking and striped bicycle lanes. In addition, new mid -block pedestrian crossings could be constructed along the corridor and the rechannelization would decrease the required crossing distance and associated risk for pedestrians. The rechannelization is intended to increase the mobility and safety foster an attractive and inviting environment for all users of TIB. The potential effects of reducing the number of travel lanes on TIB were first analyzed using microsimulation software to evaluate vehicular operations and second with the City's travel demand model to investigate potential traffic diversion. The microsimulation analysis focuses on the TIB corridor and reports changes in travel time, queuing, and intersection level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions. The diversion analysis explores the alternative routes that drivers could use to avoid TIB and traffic calming measures the City could implement to reduce diversion onto residential streets. This report is organized as follows: • Chapter 1. Introduction • Chapter 2. Existing Conditions: This chapter documents existing conditions along the study section of the TIB corridor and includes vehicular volumes, travel times, field observations, and travel behavior data. • Chapter 3. Microsimulation Analysis: This chapter discusses the development and validation of the microsimulation model and the analysis results for the project under both existing and future demand scenarios. • Chapter 4. Diversion Analysis: This chapter provides an analysis of potential traffic diversion due to the project and a suite of traffic calming strategies that could be used by the City to mitigate impacts on residential streets. • Chapter 5. Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the results from the microsimulation and diversion analyses and recommends further actions the City can pursue in support of the rechannelization project. FEHR PEERS 113 \ Chapter 2. Existing Conditions Existing travel behavior data (intersection traffic counts, corridor travel time, and origin -distribution travel data) and corridor infrastructure data (lane geometries, pedestrian crossing locations, and traffic signal timings) were collected along the study corridor during May 2017. The study corridor, shown in Figure 1, includes the following intersections along Tukwila International Boulevard. 1. S 144th Street 2. S 146th Street 3. S 148th Street 4. S 150th Street 5. S 152nd Street The intersections at S 144th Street and S 152nd Street are signalized while the other three intersections are side -street stop -controlled. There is one mid -block signalized crossing for pedestrians between S 150' Street and S 152nd Street that is activated with a push button. 'ado FEHR PEERS spa Tac S i.v,r ji 41 Tu kw la �'i The following information was not only used to understand current operating conditions along the TIB corridor, but also to calibrate and validate the microsimulation travel model. Since traffic volumes are higher during the evening peak hour than the morning peak hour, the data collection effort and subsequent analyses focused on the evening peak period. Traffic volumes collected during the City's Comprehensive Plan Update in 2010 show that the morning peak hour volumes on TIB are 40% lower than the evening peak hour volumes. The significantly lower volumes in the morning suggest that any impacts from the proposed rechannelization would be substantially less during the morning than in the evening. 2.1 Intersection Traffic Counts Traffic counts at the five study intersections along the corridor were collected on May 15th during the PM peak period between 4:00 and 6:00 PM and included vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes. The peak hour at all intersections occurred between 4:15 and 5:15 PM. There were approximately 700 northbound vehicles and 900 southbound vehicles that travelled along Tukwila International Boulevard during the peak hour. The number of observed bicycle users was less than five at any of the approaches at all study intersections and the number of pedestrians crossing TIB at the unsignalized locations was also minimal. The traffic counts are included in Appendix A. The 2017 traffic volumes at the two signalized intersections were compared with the intersection volumes collected for the Comprehensive Plan update. Since those counts were collected, volumes have increased by 10 to 15% in the study corridor with the majority of increases occurring on TIB (as opposed to the east - west streets crossing TIB). The cause of the increased volumes could be spillover from congested regional routes since limited land use development has occurred near the study corridor in the last decade. 2.2 Travel Times Travel time data along the study corridor was collected using advanced sensors that track the unique identifiers of internet connected devices (cell phones, GPS devices, and Bluetooth electronics). A sensor was placed at each end of the corridor and using paired device IDs the travel time can be estimated for each device that travelled through the corridor. A total of 81 southbound pairs and 60 northbound pairs were collected between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. 3 minutes was determined to be an appropriate threshold to separate vehicles that travelled through the corridor from those that stopped at a destination along TIB. Approximately 65% of southbound trips and 55% of northbound trips met this criteria for pass-through travel. Table 1 summarizes the travel time data for these trips. FEHR ` PEERS 115 Direction iLK�1tR1 Table 1: Observed Travel Time Summary Northbound 60 Total Observed Pairs (Pass-through and Local) Pass-through Observed Pairs (<3 minutes travel time) Average Observed Travel Time (minutes) Average Observed Travel Speed (mph) Observed Travel Time Standard Deviation (minutes) Source: Fehr & Peers. Southbound 81 34 (56%) 52 (64%) 1:45 1:45 18 mph 18 mph 0:40 0:35 The average travel time both northbound and southbound through the study corridor is approximately 1 minute 45 seconds which corresponds with an average travel speed of 18 mph. The fastest observed travel time was less than 1 minute in each direction with an average travel of approximately 40 mph northbound and 50 mph southbound. Vehicles that were able to travel through the corridor at this speed likely had green lights at both ends of the corridor and did not need to slow down. The traffic signals at S 144th Street and S 152"d Street are operated by the Cities of Tukwila and SeaTac and do not have coordinated timing plans. If the traffic signals were coordinated, higher vehicle speeds northbound and southbound on TIB throughout the study corridor could likely be achieved. 2.3 Field Observations Fehr & Peers conducted field observations on May 30th during the PM peak hour to verify intersection geometry, traffic signal timing and phasing, pedestrian volumes, vehicular travel behavior, and any existing congestion and queuing throughout the corridor. During our observations, there was no recurring or sustained congestion at any of the signalized or unsignalized intersections along the corridor. While vehicle queues were present at the traffic signals, there was sufficient green time to serve all of the queued demand at each of the approaches and most vehicles were able to travel through the intersection during one cycle. The available storage in the turn pockets was also sufficient to store the existing demand without spilling back into the through lanes. At the side -street stop -controlled intersections there were sufficient gaps in traffic for vehicles to enter on to and exit from TIB. There was also no sustained congestion or queuing at the driveways along TIB to any of the local businesses. The vehicle compliance rate at the signalized mid -block pedestrian crossing between S 150th Street and S 152"d Street was also very high. The observed demand at this crossing location was approximately 40 pedestrians per hour. FEHR PEERS 116 2.4 Travel Behavior Data Origin -distribution (OD) data for vehicles travelling on TIB through the study corridor was collected from Streetlight travel behavior data. Streetlight aggregates and normalizes travel behavior data from a wide variety of internet connected devices (cell phones, GPS devices, connected cars, fitness trackers, and commercial fleet management systems) to generate an OD matrix that represents average travel conditions within a study area. F Streetlight Arialysis ZonesWAVOWMI ifs FEHR PEERS Kent A custom zone system was developed for this project which is shown in Figure 2. The zone system uses smaller zones closer to the study corridor and larger, more aggregate zones further away. The Streetlight data provides a summary of average travel patterns from data collected between April 2016 and March 2017, the most recent months available. The data was filtered to personal (not commercial) vehicle trips occurring on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday between 3:00 and 6:00 PM. Only vehicle trips which travelled on TIB within the study corridor were recorded and analyzed. The Streetlight OD data was used to characterize the origin and destination location of travelers on TIB as well as to estimate the percentage of pass-through trips during the 117 PM peak period. The analysis zones were aggregated by approximate distance from the study corridor to calculate how far away driver's origins and destinations are. The results are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Origin and Destination Distance from TIB Distance from Study Corridor Trip Origins Trip Destinations < 1 mile 33% 25% < 5 miles 26% 31% < 10 miles 17% 16% < 20 miles 10% 16% < 20 miles 13% 13% Source: Fehr & Peers. According to the Streetlight data only 60% of the driver's origins or destinations are within 5 miles of the study corridor. For 40% of drivers on TIB, their origin or destination is more than 5 miles from the study corridor and for almost 15% of drivers, their trip starts or ends more than 20 miles away. This pattern of travel behavior is more consistent with a regional roadway than a local arterial. The percentage of pass-through trips was estimated by calculating the number of trips that do not start or end within one mile of the study corridor. Approximately 45% of trips fall into this category, with the largest trip pairs occurring between SeaTac and Central Seattle. The Streetlight data and travel time data suggest that approximately 50% of the travel through the study corridor on TIB is pass-through and that 40% of trips start or end more than five miles from the study corridor. FEHR i PEERS 118 sa Chapter 3. Microsimulation Analysis A microsimulation model of the TIB study corridor was developed using PTV's Vissim software (version 9.00- 06). For congested and oversaturated conditions, a microsimulation analysis is preferable to a static analysis (using Synchro software for example) because microsimulation better captures the interaction of closely spaced intersections along a corridor. The primary metrics used to evaluate the proposed rechannelization project are changes in travel time, vehicular queuing, and intersection LOS along the study corridor. The following four scenarios were evaluated using the microsimulation model: • 2017 Existing • 2030 Baseline • 2017 with Project • 2030 with Project When reporting results from Vissim, 10 different simulation runs with different random seeds are used. Each simulation run includes a 15 minute loading period and four 15 -minute analysis periods. Detailed LOS and queuing results for each scenario are included in Appendix B. 3.1 Existing Scenario The existing conditions PM peak hour model was calibrated and validated using the collected travel data described in the Existing Conditions chapter. The model also included the transit stops and scheduled arrivals for King County Metro Routes 124 and 128 which have 15 minute and 30 minute headways respectively. Intersection geometries and signal timings at each of the study intersections were confirmed during field observations and the vehicular and pedestrian volumes at each study location were taken directly from the observed counts. However, the westbound approach at S 144th Street was closed due to construction activity when counts were collected, so the missing turning movements were estimated from the available 2010 count data and increased based on the observed growth rate at adjacent intersections along TIB. The microsimulation model was calibrated to match existing travel volumes, travel times, and observed queues. The model is considered validated when each of these metrics are within an acceptable range of the observed values. FEHR 'PEERS 119 Table 3 shows the intersection LOS results calculated using the HCM 2010 methodology and the percent demand served at each of the study intersections. For signalized intersections, the LOS grade is determined using the average control delay for the entire intersection while at side -street stop -controlled locations the average control delay for the worst movement is used. The percent demand served is calculated using the observed hourly demand at each location and the number of vehicles that were served in the microsimulation model. Acceptable values are greater than 95%. As shown in the table, the model is serving 100% of the demand at each study intersection. Table 3: 2017 Existing - Intersection LOS and Demand served Study Intersection Intersection LOS / Average Percent Served / Control Control Delay (sec) Demand (veh) 1. TIB / S 144th St Signal D / 40 100% / 2,282 2. TIB / S 146th St Side -street stop C / 21 100% / 1,846 3. TIB / S 148th St Side -street stop C / 17 100% / 1,709 4. TIB / S 150th St Side -street stop C / 17 100% / 1,762 5. TIB / S 152nd St Signal C / 30 100% / 2,030 Source: Fehr & Peers. Table 4 shows a comparison of corridor travel time and average speed calculated from the microsimulation model with observed data. The model's estimate are within an acceptable range of 15% of the observed values. The average travel speed through the corridor is less than 20 mph. Table 4: 2017 Existing - Corridor Travel Time Direction Observed (minutes) / Modeled (minutes) / Percent Average Speed (mph) Average Speed (mph) Difference Northbound 1:45 / 18 mph 01:55 / 18 mph 9% Southbound 1:45 / 18 mph 01:50 / 19 mph 5% Source: Fehr & Peers. Table 5 shows the average and maximum northbound and southbound queue lengths at the two signalized intersections along TIB. Theses calculated values from the microsimulation model are measured in vehicles and are consistent with observed conditions. The average queue lengths during the PM peak hour at all four approaches is not greater than five vehicles. FEHR' PEERS 120 Intersection 1. TIB / S 144th St 5. TIB / 5 152nd St Source: Fehr & Peers, Table 5: 2017 Existing — Intersection Queuing Northbound: Average / Maximum Queue Lengths (veh) 2 vehicles / 9 vehicles 2 vehicles / 10 vehicles Southbound: Average / Maximum Queue Lengths (veh) 5 vehicles / 17 vehicles 3 vehicles / 14 vehicles Based on the comparison of results from the microsimulation model with collected data and observed conditions, the model is considered validated to existing conditions. 3.2 Future Baseline Travel conditions along the study corridor were evaluated for future 2030 conditions using the City's travel demand model to forecast changes in traffic demand volumes. The land use in the City's model near the study corridor was updated based on adjustments provided by City staff. The updated land use forecast includes approximately 800 new housing units and 700 new jobs by 2030. Compared with the 2010 estimates in the model, these represent a 40% increase in residential land use and a 55% increase an employment along the study corridor. The resulting 2030 intersection forecasts are between 20% and 25% higher than the 2017 existing counts. The northbound and southbound volumes on TIB through the corridor increase by approximately 200 vehicles per hour in each direction. The study corridor geometry and signal timing data in the 2030 Baseline scenario are consistent with the existing conditions model. Table 6 summarizes the intersection LOS and demand served for the 2030 Baseline scenario. As shown in the table, all intersections operate at LOS D or better and 100% of the vehicular demand is served at the signalized intersections. Compared with existing conditions, average intersection delay increased by approximately five seconds per vehicle at the two signalized intersections. Table 7 shows the corridor travel time and average speed estimates calculated from the microsimulation model. Compared with the existing conditions model, travel times increase by approximately five seconds in each direction with no significant change in average travel speed. Table 8 shows the average and maximum northbound and southbound queue lengths at the two signalized intersections along TIB. Compared with existing conditions, the average queue lengths increased by one to two vehicles while the maximum queue increased by at most five vehicles. FEHR 'iPEERS 121 Table 6: 2030 Baseline — Intersection LOS and Demand served Study Intersection 1. TIB / S 144th St 2. TIB / S 146th St 3. TIB / S 148th St 4. TIB / S 150th St 5. TIB / S 152"d St Source: Fehr & Peers. Direction Northbound Southbound Source: Fehr & Peers. Intersection 1. TIB / S 144th St 5. TIB / S 152"d St Source: Fehr & Peers. Intersection Control Signal Side -street stop Side -street stop Side -street stop Signal LOS / Average Control Delay (sec) D/44 D / 26 C / 24 D / 26 D / 36 Table 7: 2030 Baseline — Corridor Travel Time Percent Served / Demand (veh) 100% / 2,690 99% / 2,240 99% / 2,140 99% / 2,160 100% / 2,520 Travel Time (minutes) / Average Speed (mph) 02:00 / 18 mph 01:55 / 18 mph Table 8: 2030 Baseline — Intersection Queuing Northbound: Average / Maximum Queue Lengths (veh) 3 vehicles / 13 vehicles 3 vehicles / 12 vehicles Southbound: Average / Maximum Queue Lengths (veh) 6 vehicles / 20 vehicles 5 vehicles / 19 vehicles The results for the 2030 Baseline scenario show that there is sufficient capacity along the study corridor to accommodate increased growth while maintaining the same operating conditions that exist currently. Vehicular delay, corridor travel time, and queue lengths are all relatively consistent with the results from the 2017 Existing scenario. 3.3 Project Scenarios The proposed rechannelization along TIB removes one travel lane in each direction and adds bicycle lanes and on -street parking while preserving the two-way left turn lane for accessing businesses along the corridor. Three additional signalized mid -block pedestrian crossings, similar to the existing crossing FEHR PEERS 122 between S 150th Street and S 152nd Street, are also proposed. This rechannelization was evaluated under both 2017 and 2030 demand conditions. Table 9 shows the resulting intersection LOS and demand served at each study intersection for the rechannelization scenario using 2017 and 2030 demand volumes. Under both scenarios, the delay significantly increases at S 144th Street and the demand served falls to approximately 85% with 2030 demand. The total southbound demand at S 144th Street increases to 1,100 vehicles in the 2030 forecast and this demand greatly exceeds the capacity of single traffic lane, which is assumed to be approximately 600 vehicles per hour. While only two intersections operate at LOS F in the 2017 scenario, four of the five are overcapacity and operate with LOS F conditions in the 2030 scenario. Table 9: 2017 and 2030 Project - Intersection LOS and Demand Served 2017: 2017: 2030: 2030: Study Intersection LOS / Average Pct. Served / LOS / Average Pct. Served / Delay (sec) Demand (veh) Delay (sec) Demand (veh) 1. TIB / S 144th St F / >150 90% / 2,282 F / >150 83% / 2,690 2. TIB / 5 146th St D / 25 90% / 1,846 F / >120 82% / 2,240 3. TIB / S 148th St C / 23 91% / 1,709 F / >120 84% / 2,140 4. TIB / S 150th St F / 53 92% / 1,762 F / >120 84% / 2,160 5. TIB / S 152nd St D / 42 95% / 2,030 E / 75 86% / 2,520 Source: Fehr & Peers. Table 10 shows the travel time results on TIB between S 144th Street and S 152nd Street for the 2017 and 2030 demand scenarios. In the 2017 scenario, travel times only increase by 20 to 30 seconds with the average speed decreasing by 1 to 2 mph compared with existing conditions. These results show that once vehicles enter the study corridor, vehicular travel speeds are similar to existing conditions. However, the excessive southbound delay experienced by drivers before entering the corridor (more than 8 minutes) is not included in these travel times. Under the 2030 conditions, the travel time for southbound vehicles within the study corridor more than doubles and drivers experience more than 10 minutes of additional delay before even entering the corridor. Table 10: 2017 and 2030 Project - Corridor Travel Time Direction 2017: 2030: Travel Time (min.) / Speed (mph) Travel Time (min.) / Speed (mph) Northbound 02:15 / 16 mph 04:35 / 8 mph Southbound 02:05 / 17 mph 02:50 / 12 mph Source: Fehr & Peers. FEHR ' PEERS 123 Table 11 shows the average and maximum queue lengths for the northbound and southbound approaches at the two signalized intersections. Southbound queues longer than 50 vehicles at S 144th Street extend past S 140th Street and northbound queues longer than 20 vehicles at S 152nd Street will spillback into the intersection at Southcenter Boulevard. Consistent with the results shown in the previous tables, the rechannelization has a significant impact on southbound travelers on TIB. Under both 2017 and 2030 scenarios, the average southbound queue at S 144th Street (during the entire PM peak hour) is longer than 50 vehicles. In the 2017 scenario, the maximum northbound queue at S 152nd will spill back into the intersection at Southcenter Boulevard. By 2030, the average queue length would also spillback to this intersection. Within the study corridor on TIB, average vehicles queues are approximately 10 vehicles long in 2017 but are four to seven times longer by 2030. The maximum southbound queue at S 152nd Street extends almost the entire length of the study corridor on TIB in the 2030 scenario. Intersection 1. TIB / S 144th St 5. TIB / S 152"d St Source::: Fehr & Peers. Table 11: 2017 and 2030 Project - Intersection Queuing 2017 NB: Avg. / Max Queue Lengths 2017 SB: Avg. / Max Queue Lengths 2030 NB: Avg. / Max Queue Lengths 5 veh / 24 veh >50 veh / >50 veh 38 veh / 60 veh 6 veh / >20 veh 12 veh / 36 veh >20 veh / >20 veh 3.4 Demand Sensitivity Tests 2030 SB: Avg. / Max Queue Lengths >50 veh / >50 veh 79 veh / 104 veh Fehr & Peers performed additional sensitivity tests to determine the volume of traffic that would need to shift to an alternative route for the performance on TIB in the 2030 Project scenario to be similar to performance in the 2017 Existing scenario. If approximately 450 southbound vehicles and 350 northbound vehicles per hour were to shift to alternate routes, the intersection LOS, travel time and queuing along TIB would be similar to existing conditions. This volume is approximately 50% of the demand travelling through the study corridor today, and represents the estimated pass-through volume: non -local traffic that does not have an origin or destination near the study corridor. FEHR PEERS 124 Chapter 4. Diversion Analysis The results from the microsimulation analysis show that under both 2017 and 2030 demand scenarios, TIB will be overcapacity with the rechannelization, especially in the southbound direction. With this excessive delay, even under existing conditions, drivers will likely divert to alternate routes including 42nd Avenue S, Military Road S, and Interstate 5 (I-5). Of particular concern to the City is the potential for parallel residential streets (42nd Avenue S and 51st Avenue S) to see significant increases in traffic due to the rechannelization. Based on the available 2010 counts, the daily volumes on these nearby residential streets are 75 to 85% lower than the daily volumes on TIB. 4.1 Traffic Diversion The City's travel demand model was used to assess what facilities traffic is likely to divert to in response to the increased congestion along TIB after the rechannelization. The results were estimated from the 2030 model scenario since regional facilities are likely to be more congested in the future and this would result in more drivers choosing to divert from TIB to local streets, rather than choose the congested I-5 route, for example. Figure 3 shows which parallel facilities drivers chose as alternatives to TIB. PM Peak HourTra unWaM& WRANN c Diversri FEHR PEERS 125 u1`ifr--_tllgtty, �„u�r nfS, lt,� Sid The results from the model show that a majority of trips avoiding congestion on TIB (approximately 65%) choose to divert to streets within the City of Tukwila. Specifically, the results indicate the following distribution to the main north -south streets in the area: • Military Road S (25%) • 42nd Avenue S (35%) • Macadam Road/51ST Avenue S (5%) Approximately 10% of diverted trips used Des Moines Memorial Drive S via S 133rd Street and 15% of diverted trips used I-5 via State Route 599. The remaining 10% of diverted trips use a combination of SR 509, 1” Avenue S, 8th Avenue S, or 24th Avenue S. If approximately 800 vehicle trips are diverted during the PM peak hour, this would result in an increase of 280 vehicles on 42nd Avenue S and 200 vehicles on Military Road S. Based on the forecasted intersection volumes from the City's Comprehensive Plan, this would increase the traffic on 42nd Avenue S by 40% and on Military Road S by 30% in 2030. 4.2 Traffic Calming Toolbox One common strategy to combat diversion of regional traffic onto local streets is to employ traffic calming. The Urban Street Design Guide from the National Association of City Transportation Engineers (NACTO) provides a blueprint for designing streets that are safer, more livable, and economically vibrant. The guide provides strategies for how cities can reduce vehicular travel speeds/volumes through physical changes to a roadway or psychological changes to how drivers perceive a roadway. The 6 images in Figure 4 from NACTO's guide show some of the commonly used strategies for calming traffic on urban streets. These approaches work by introducing vertical or horizontal deflections into the roadway, narrowing a vehicle's travel way, or increasing the likelihood of vehicles yielding to pedestrians and bicyclists on the street. The effectiveness of these strategies in reducing vehicle speeds range from approximately 5-15%. The percentage reduction in traffic volumes due to the implementation of these traffic calming measures would be less than the percent reduction in travel speeds. The diversion of traffic from the rechannelization of TIB onto parallel roadways could be partially mitigated using any of these traffic calming strategies to decrease the travel speeds on the nearby roadways. However, since drivers would be saving over 5 minutes of travel time compared with travelling through the TIB corridor, the traffic calming measures would need to decrease the average travel speed by over 50% on 42nd Avenue S and Military Road S to remove the travel time advantages of these facilities. The current speed limits of the roads are 30mph and 35mph, respectively. The combinations of measures that would be required to reduce the travel speed to 15mph for 8 blocks would likely be impractical on a minor FEHR PEERS 126 arterial/collector street. In general, the common traffic calming measures shown in Figure 4 are designed to encourage vehicles to travel at the posted speed limit rather than to dramatically reduce speeds to a level less than is typically seen on a residential street. Ru€ ed Cro Eurbiese To significantly discourage traffic diverting from TIB, more significant countermeasures would be required, likely in addition to some of the traffic calming strategies documented above. Strategies cities use to explicitly deter cut through traffic involve the prohibition of certain traffic movements at key locations along the corridor. Two different approaches that would prohibit northbound and southbound through trips would be intersection diverters or short one-way travel segments. The implementation of these mitigations FEHR .Jry" PEERS 127 kM could be less expensive than other traffic calming treatments since the installations would be limited to key intersections or segments of Military Road or 42nd Avenue S near the vicinity of S 144th Street. Special consideration would need to be provided for transit vehicles to ensure that existing or planned traffic routes could still be accommodated. Some cities have had limited success with signage that restricts movements for all vehicles except bicycles and buses, but regular enforcement is required for this strategy to be successful. Time of Day Turn Res //MI 'I 2t _r Icbwn 'rfaCsf$ $Ul\\l4Kif�. ts• r Moe?-Fr'i 4-7pm FEHR ?PEERS or brcycifsts. An example of a current pilot study in Bellevue is shown in Figure 5 where there are time of day restrictions in place on a collector arterial street (not dissimilar to 42nd Avenue S) to deter traffic from Downtown Bellevue traveling through a residential area and encouraging traffic to stay on regional routes like Bellevue Way or 112th Avenue SE. Like in Tukwila, the degree of diversion is partially dependent on traffic congestion on the adjacent freeway (I-405 in this case). 128 Chapter 5. Conclusion The rechannelization of Tukwila International Boulevard between S 144th Street and S 152"d Street to remove one northbound and southbound travel lane and to install bicycle lanes and on -street parking would result in significant congestion for southbound vehicles entering the corridor under both 2017 and 2030 demand scenarios. The existing demand for vehicles travelling through the entire study corridor on TIB exceeds 700 vehicles in both directions during the PM peak hour. This demand is forecasted to increase by over 20% by 2030 due to new residential and commercial development near the study corridor. Removing a travel lane in each direction results in overcapacity conditions, especially for southbound drivers at S 144th Street. Delay, travel times, and vehicular queuing increase substantially in both 2017 and 2030 scenarios and would likely result in drivers choosing parallel routes as alternatives to TIB. The travel time data and Streetlight OD data provide information on travel behavior for drivers currently using TIB. An analysis of the data suggests that at least 50% of existing travel on the roadway is pass- through trips. These trips represent non -local travel: trips that pass through the corridor without stopping or those not related to nearby residential or commercial land uses. Popular origins and destinations are SeaTac and Central Seattle. Since 2010, the traffic volumes on TIB have increased by 10% to 15% despite limited land use development near the study corridor. The increases in traffic volumes are likely due to spillover from congested regional routes as drivers seek less congested alternatives. If the existing volume of pass-through travel, approximately 800 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, were to shift to alternative routes, the TIB corridor could accommodate the growth in traffic from planned development with the rechannelization and operate with a similar quality of service to that experienced today. The traffic calming measures that would need to be implemented to prevent traffic from diverting onto 42' Avenue S and Military Road S after the rechannelization of Tukwila International Boulevard would need to reduce vehicle speeds by at least 50%, compared with posted speed limits. This is beyond the range of effectiveness of most common traffic calming treatments and would require average travel speeds of 15mph on these facilities which would significantly impact local residents who live along these streets. Alternatives to traffic calming measures are physical barriers or turn restrictions that prevent vehicles from using these parallel routes as alternatives to TIB: intersection diverters or short one-way segments. The most effective locations for installation of these preventative measures would likely be in the vicinity of S 144th Street. While these barriers occupy a small area, they are still an inconvenience for residents who are accustomed to traversing the area on Military Road or 42"d Avenue S. If the proposed rechannelization is pursued, the City could further investigate the optimal design and placement of these devices which would prevent cut -through traffic while maintaining as much connectivity FEHR ` PEERS 129 as possible for local residents as well as students travelling to Foster High School or Thorndyke Elementary School. As part of a larger outreach program to promote this project, the City could also consider a temporary installation of the lane conversion on TIB to bicycle lanes and traffic calming devices on nearby streets to demonstrate to the local community how the project would be implemented and its potential benefits to all users. This "tactical urbanism" approach would also allow the City to quickly assess traffic operations conditions before and after implementation of the project. The proposed rechannelization of TIB would necessitate a change in usage and perception for this facility. While the route today serves a high percentage of regional pass-through traffic, the reduction in vehicular capacity would likely limit the facility's usage to local residents and employees. Even with the existing travel demand, a significant volume of trips would shift to alternate parallel routes to avoid the increased congestion along TIB. However, the removal of two travel lanes would allow for the installation of bicycle lanes and on -street parking which would contribute to a more amenable environment for all users. FEHR PEERS 130 FEHR \ PEERS 131 www.idaxdata.com 01 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD S 144TH ST O t N Peak Hour O CD F- El I z5 0 00 F I- Q I- x- N 274 328 0 172' 0 TEV: 1,832 PHF: 0.91 o 0 Date: Thu, May 18, 2017 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM HV %: PHF EB 2.4% 0.91 WB 0.0% 0,25 NB 2.0% 0.93 SB 1.8% 0.89 TOTAL 2.0% 0.91 Two -Hour Count Summaries Interval Start S 144TH ST S 144TH ST Bicycles TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD 15 -min Total Rolling One Hour UT Eastbound LT TH RT UT Westbound LT TH RT UT Northbound LT TH RT UT Southbound LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 33 0 46 C•1000%-<-00 O O O O O s- s-0 00.000000 0 39 91 2 1 0 176 24 415 0 4:15 PM 0 47 '.. 0 40 0 45 117 0 1 0 225 26 501 I 0 4:30 PM 0 29 0 39 0 43 89 0 0 1 199 28 428 0 4:45 PM 0 41 0 42 0 41 107 4 0 0 179 24 438 1,782 5:00 PM 0 55 0 35 1 36 122 0 1 0 183 31 465 1,832 5:15 PM 0 35 0 47 0 45 100 0 0 0 169 24 423 1,754 5:30 PM 0 22 1 42 1 37 93 1 0 0 182 19 400 1,726 5:45 PM 0 41 0 45 0 46 111 0 0 0 147 30 420 1,708 Count Total 0 303 1 336 0 2 3 4 2 332 830 7 3 1 1,460 206 r 3,490 0 1 Peak Hour 0 172 0 156 0 0 0 1 1 165 435 4 2 1 786 109 1,832 0 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) South Total EB WB NB SB Total 1 EB WB NB SB Total East West North 4:00 PM 1 0 4 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 7 17 20 60 415 PM 2 0 2 7 11 0 1 0 2 "3 8 8 5 13 34 4:30 PM 2 0 2 5 9 10 0 0 1 1 17 10 7 10 44 4:45 PM 3 0 3 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 20 19 54 5:00 PM 1 0 5 2 8 0 2 1 0 3 16 8 20 3 47 5.;15 PM 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 9 7 26 5:30 PM 1 0 1 4 6 0 1 0 0 1 4 8 24 9 45 5:45 PM 1 0 7 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 14 7 32 15 68 Count Total 11 0 26 29 66 0 4 1 3 8 92 56 134 96 378 1 Peak Hour 8 0 12 16 36 0 3 1 3 7 f 52 30 52 45 179 Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 132 www.idaxdata.com 02 TUKWILA 01 N INTERNATIONAL S 146TH ST Peak Hour BLVD Date: Thu, Count Period: 4:00 Peak Hour: 4:15 =I May 18, 2017 PM to 6:00 PM PM to 5:15 PM z p .... F ti m IYJO 07 Y F o0 IA CD O H z Q M O ~ N IS 146TH ST 87 0 "y 68 6 108 o 100000 3 _ c —_ 20 TEV: 1,846 10 PHF. 0.97<• 34 0• ��ii ; j N L ` 7_ 8(.7___ 0 ' 158 50 z 0 V'� 0 W fl0000L S 146TH ST 1 11 1i u) j z m HV %: PHF ir,` FZQWB 0.0% 0.71 0 m NB 2.0% 0.92 SB 2.0% 0.93 TOTAL 1.8% 0.97 Two -Hour Count Summaries S 146TH ST S 146TH ST TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD Interval 15 -min Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 4 4 11 0 5 5 17 0 13 129 11 0 25 207 7 438 0 4:15 PM 0 8 1 15 0 8 1 9 0 13 152 11 4 31 211 10 474 0 4:30 PM 0 4 3 11 0 9 3 16 0 8 118 8 1 24 237 9 451 0 4:45 PM 0 3 3 17 0 9 2 13 0 9 149 10 0 27 197 8 447 1,810 5:00 PM 0 5 3 7 0 8 0 30 0 16 143 10 2 27 215 8 474 1,846 5:15 PM 0 2 6 11 0 7 3 22 0 11 148 13 0 31 190 9 453 1,825 5:30 PM 0 4 3 17 0 2 7 16 0 9 155 10 0 37 191 10 461 1,835 5:45 PM 0 2 3 9 0 6 7 25 0 13 165 6 1 36 161 8 442 1,830 Count Total 0 32 26 98 0 54 28 148 0 92 1,159 79 8 238 1,609 69 3,640 0 Peak Hour 0 20 10 50 0 34 6 68 0 46 562 39 7 109 860 35 1,846 0 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 0 0 4 2 6 0 0 2 0 2 5 11 3 1 20 4:15 PM 0 0 3 7 10;:1 0 0 0 2 2 3 5 1 1 10 4:30 PM 0 0 2 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 0 0 17 4:45 PM 0 0 4 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 2 0 15 5:00 PM 1 0 0 4 2 6 0 0 2 0 2 6 5 0 0 11 5:15 PM 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 2 0 2 6 6 0 1 13 5;30 PM 0 0 1 5 6 0 0 0 1 1 3 5 1 1 10 5:45 PM 0 0 7 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 0 13 Count Total 0 0 27 34 61 0 0 6 3 9 38 60 7 4 109 Peak Hour 0 0 13 20 33 0 0 2 2 4 22 27 3 1 53 Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.corn www.idaxdata.com 03 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD S 148TH ST Peak Hour o N V � O 01 N z O - > ?> J F CO tO F Q N co 46 11 6 28 ^n S 148TH ST TEV: 1,709 PHF: 0.95 tnt 1 13 Iw, 0 51 ✓ N M I> O 07 Date: Thu, May 18, 2017 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM ¢ HV %: PHF I- w EB 0.0% 0,52 �— N z WB 0.0% 0.91 NB 2.2% 0.95 SB 1.5% 0.95 TOTAL 1.7% 0.95 Two -Hour Count Summaries _ Interval Start S 148TH ST S 148TH ST TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD' TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD 15 -min Total Rolling One Hour UT Eastbound LT TH RT UT Westbound LT TH RT UT Northbound LT TH RT UT Southbound LT TH RT 41)0 PM 0 5 3 6 0 3 1 8 5 13 130 4 0 15 204 6 403 0 4:15 PM 0 2 0 5 0 5 0 8 1 10 164 6 0 13 208 5 427 0 4:30 PM 1 3 0 5 0 2 1 9 4 19 119 8 0 12 224 6 413 0 4:45 PM 0 2 2 4 0 3 0 11 3 13 154 9 1 10 205 4 421 1,664 5:00 PM 0 4 4 14 0 3 0 9 1 5 15 154 8 1: 6 220 5; 448 1,709 5:15 PM 0 3 0 12 0 1 5 10 1 13 157 5 0 14 194 8 423 1,705 5:30 PM 0 6 2 12 0 4 0 11 2 7 154 6 0 7 197 7 415 1,707 5:45 PM 0 2 2 8 0 1 1 11 3 14 156 11 0 16 154 4 383 1,669 Count Total 1 27 13 66 0 22 8 77 24 104 1,188 57 2 93 1,606 45 3,333 0 Peak Hour 1 11 6 28 0 13 1 37 13 57 591 31 2 41 857 20 1,709 0 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals EB WB NB SB Total Bicycles EB WB NB SB Total Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) East West North South Total 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM Count Total 0 0 5 2 7 O 0 3 5 8 O 0 5 4 9 0 0 3 3 6 6 0 0 3 4 7 0 0 2 5 7 0 0 7 3 10 0 0 32 28 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 2 6 8 3 6 8 4 5 3 5 6 8 8 3 6 8 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 16 8 12 11 11 7 39 47 2 2 90 Peak Hour 0 0 15 14 29 0 0 0 2 2 23 25 2 1 51 Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 134 www.idaxdata.com TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD S 150TH ST N Peak Hour Date: Thu, May 18, 2017 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM • A.4 flRR 4 r.1 04 z o I'S 1 R zD --I , , _ a' er co , 1 u:, • --•••• •-- • r , a „, -. — • ••• ..- -• • - • ••• 48--1.11101110.-> 102 67 A 1 o ' 5 ig 15 ,....) TEV: PHF. 1,762 ---- zri• c4 0/0 0,94 6,7.>. 10—s --- 14 -,-- ' 0 LPQ 0— 0 V 36— S 150TH ST ' ,.JUD1il HV %: PHF 2 1 0.76 0.0% 09 tt,EB 00 WB3 1... NB 17% 093 SB 21% 095 TOTAL 1.8% 0.94 Two -Hour Count Summaries Interval Start S 150TH ST S 150TH ST TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD 15 -min Total Rolling One Hour Eastbound UT LT TH RT Westbound UT LT TH RT Northbound UT LT TH RT Southbound UT LT TH RT 4 00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 500 PM 5'15 PM 5.30 PM 5.45 PM 0 1 1 6 0 4 4 6 0 4 3 8 0 2 0 10 0 5 3 12 0 4 4 7 0 6 1 4 0 6 3 10 0 3 1 6 0 3 1 12 0 5 2 11 0 2 1 13 0 4 1 12 0 3 2 8 0 2 0 5 0 6 1 7 1 10 140 4 1 17 171 4 1 13 136 4 5 8 162 6 1 15 169 7 1 20 159 7 4 17 148 3 2 16 164 2 0 11 208 5 0 11 197 9 0 16 200 12 0 14 203 12 0 19 210 11 0 18 179 11 0 15 183 8 0 13 155 5 397 440 415 438 469 423 396 390 0 0 0 1,690 1,762 1,745 1,726 1,678 Count Total 0 32 19 63 0 28 9 74 0 14 5 48 16 116 1,249 37 8 53 638 21 0 117 1,535 73 0 60 810 44 3,368 1,762 - 0 0 Peak I -lour 0 15 10 36 Note. Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exc ude bicycles in overall count Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4.00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 500 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5.45 PM 0 0 5 1 6 0 0 2 7 9 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 3 9 12 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 2 5 7 0 0 1 6 7 0 0 8 3 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 19 12 0 0 31 7 11 0 0 18 6 16 0 0 22 5 7 0 0 12 11 8 1 0 20 4 10 0 1 15 5 11 0 0 16 0 12 0 0 12 Count Total _ 0 0 28 34 62 1 0 3 4 8 0 0 12 19 31 0 0 2 1 3 57 87 1 1 146 29 42 1 0 72 Peak Hour Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 mark skaggs@idaxdata.com 135 www.idaxdata.com 05 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD S 152ND ST N 2§3 128 Peak Hour Z et TN 0 I- J Z 0 §�� O : LU m H Z Q M n CO O 0 f n, 39 : 62 TEV: 2,030 PHF: 0.95 1152ND ST - 24 &o 53 ,,, 53 130 216 Date: Thu, May 18, 2017 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM HV %: PHF EB 0,0% 0.84 WB 0.8% 0.79 NB 1.5% 0.91 SB 1.9% 0.95 TOTAL 1.5% 0.95 Two -Hour Count Summaries Interval Start S 152ND ST S 152ND ST TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD Eastbound UT LT TH RT Westbound UT LT TH RT Northbound UT LT TH RT Southbound UT LT TH RT 15 -min Total Rolling One Hour 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 0 10 20 7 0 13 16 9 0 6 14 1 0 11 16 10 0 9 16 7 0 0 0 10 4 17 11 7 11 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 11 10 11 15 15 12 12 19 6 4 8 7 0 17 10 5 0 17 17 0 12 19 0 7 11 9 8 6 1 40 36 41 48 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 134 10 200 14 137 16 165 12 45 17 51 44 43 155 169 157 7 8 14 1 19 184 16 0 14 181 12 0 20 180 5 0 0 0 0 21 186 10 29 193 3 29 164 5 17 161 12 22 146 7 474 523 454 521 532 483 465 445 0 0 0 1,972 2,030 1,990 2,001 1,925 Count Total Peak Hour 0 80 111 44 0 39 62 27 0 100 115 53 0 53 53 24 16 348 1,294 99 9 170 679 60 1 171 1,395 70 0 84 740 30 3,897 2,030 0 0 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count, Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5.45 PM Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 3 1 6 2 7 4 1 2 3 5 5 4 3 5 10 5 11 7 7 8 0 1 28 29 58 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 3 7 11 22 17 11 11 13 19 17 4 0 3 1 2 0 4 1 6 1 2 2 0 0 4 3 1 1 3 0 2 8 4 3 23 23 26 15 15 27 24 23 121 13 12 30 176 Peak Hour 0 1 14 16 31 Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 2 0 1 1 4 61 4 5 9 79 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 136 FEHR PEERS 137 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 1 Direction Movement Tukwila International Blvd/S 144th St Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2017 No Build PM Peak Hour Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. NB SB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 166 405 63 634 92 763 109 964 167 101% 415 102% 63 99% 644 102% 88 95% 766 100% 107 98% 960 100% EB WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 122 146 101 369 78 198 39 315 2,282 126 103% 155 106% 100 99% 380 103% 80 103% 197 100% 37 96% 315 100% 2,300 101% 69 27 11 36 67 37 24 38 57 41 26 42 62 49 32 50 40 10 5 4 4 11 4 4 3 9 7 8 7 12 6 9 6 Signal LOS E C B D E D C D E D C D E D C D Intersection 2 Direction Movement Tukwila International Blvd/S 146th St Demand Served Volume (vph) Volume (vph) Average Percent Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Std. Dev. LOS 7 4 A 1 0 A 2 2 1 0 5 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 21 8 19 11 10 1 14 2 16 3 15 13 10 1 12 1 3 0 Average NB SB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 46 562 39 647 116 860 35 1,011 44 96% 570 101% 37 94% 651 101% 117 101% 868 101% 32 92% 1,018 101% EB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 20 10 50 80 19 96% 9 86% 43 86% 71 89% WB Fehr & Peers Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 34 6 68 108 35 101% 5 90% 67 98% 107 99% 1,846 1,846 100% A A A A A A C C A B C B A B 9/29/2017 138 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 3 Tukwila International Blvd/S 148th St Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2017 No Build PM Peak Hour Side -street Stop Direction l Movement Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 76 109% 5 2 A NB Through 591 599 101% 1 0 A Right Turn 31 29 92% 2 1 A Subtotal 692 704 102% 2 0 A Left Turn 43 46 107% 4 2 A SB Through 857 855 100% 1 1 A Right Turn 20 21 103% 2 1 A Subtotal 920 922 100% 1 1 A Left Turn 12 13 105% 17 12 C EB Through 6 5 82% 10 8 A Right Turn 28 25 88% 9 2 A Subtotal 46 42 91% 12 4 B Left Turn 13 11 85% 11 7 B WB Through 1 0 20% 0 0 A Right Turn 37 34 91% 10 2 A Subtotal 51 45 88% 11 3 B Total 1,709 1,713 100% 2 0 A Intersection 4 Direction Movement NB SB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Tukwila International Blvd/S 150th St Demand Volume (vph) 61 638 21 720 60 810 44 914 Served Volume (vph) Average Percent 64 104% 651 102% 20 96% 735 102% 60 100% 799 99% 43 99% 902 99% Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. EB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 15 10 36 61 14 93% 9 85% 34 93% 56 92% WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 14 5 48 67 1,762 16 111% 6 114% 49 103% 70 105% 1,764 100% LOS 9 3 A 3 1 A 3 2 A 4 1 A 6 2 A 1 0 A 2 1 A 1 0 A 12 8 B 14 7 B 10 2 B 12 2 B 15 4 B 17 17 C 10 2 B 12 2 B 3 0 A Fehr & Peers 9/29/2017 139 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 5 Tukwila International Blvd/S 152nd St Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2017 No Build PM Peak Hour Signal Direction Movement Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 179 180 101% 54 4 D NB Through 679 696 103% 22 3 C Right Turn 60 59 98% 6 2 A Subtotal 918 936 102% 27 2 C Left Turn 84 79 93% 59 9 E SB Through 740 739 100% 26 4 C Right Turn 30 29 97% 26 11 C Subtotal 854 846 99% 29 4 C Left Turn 39 38 98% 43 11 D EB Through 62 69 110% 52 5 D Right Turn 27 31 114% 36 12 D Subtotal 128 138 108% 45 6 D Left Turn 53 55 104% 42 11 D WB Through 53 54 101% 45 10 D Right Turn 24 24 100% 13 8 B Subtotal 130 132 102% 39 7 D Total 2,030 2,052 101% 30 2 C Fehr & Peers 9/29/2017 140 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 1 Direction Movement Tukwila International Blvd/S 144th St Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2017 Road Diet PM Peak Hour Signal Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS 102 18 F 42 6 D 28 8 C 57 9 E 964 68 F 930 51 F 932 66 F 934 54 F 54 6 D 44 6 D 32 8 C 44 4 D 62 7 E 47 8 D 29 12 C 48 8 D 361 26 F NB SB EB WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total Intersection 2 Direction NB SB Movement Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 166 405 63 634 92 763 109 964 122 146 101 369 78 198 39 315 2,282 169 102% 417 103% 61 97% 647 102% 72 78% 569 75% 77 70% 718 74% 130 106% 148 102% 98 97% 376 102% 82 105% 196 99% 35 90% 312 99% 2,053 90% Tukwila International Blvd/S 146th St Demand Volume (vph) 46 562 39 647 116 860 35 1,011 Served Volume (vph) Average Percent 45 98% 569 101% 38 96% 652 101% 92 79% 705 82% 25 73% 822 81% Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS 12 8 B 7 5 A 6 4 A 7 5 A 7 2 A 4 1 A 4 4 A 4 1 A 25 10 D 16 8 C 17 5 C 19 6 C 21 7 C 23 28 C 18 8 C 20 8 C 7 2 A EB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 20 10 50 80 19 93% 8 84% 45 91% 72 90% WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 34 6 68 108 35 103% 5 83% 68 100% 108 100% Total 1,846 1,654 90% Fehr & Peers 9/29/2017 141 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 3 Direction NB Tukwila International Blvd/S 148th St Demand Movement Volume (vph) Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 70 591 31 692 Served Volume (vph) Average Percent 72 103% 600 102% 28 89% 700 101% Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2017 Road Diet PM Peak Hour Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS 9 3 A 4 1 A 4 1 A 4 1 A 9 3 A 3 1 A 4 2 A 3 1 A 23 12 C 18 17 C 15 4 B 19 7 C 20 10 C 1 4 A 12 2 B 13 3 B SB EB 1 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 43 857 20 920 12 6 28 46 39 90% 712 83% 17 85% 767 83% 13 108% 6 103% 27 95% 46 100% WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total Intersection 4 Direction NB SB Movement Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 13 1 37 51 1,709 11 84% 0 30% 33 89% 44 87% 1,557 91% Tukwila International Blvd/S 150th St Demand Volume (vph) 61 638 21 720 60 810 44 914 Served Volume (vph) Average Percent 66 107% 645 101% 20 96% 731 102% 51 84% 678 84% 35 80% 764 84% Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. 15 6 B 5 1 A 3 3 A 5 1 A 9 4 A 9 12 A 7 8 A 9 12 A 35 39 D 25 22 C 53 89 F 49 75 E 23 19 C 19 20 C 16 5 C 19 7 C 9 8 A EB WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 15 10 36 61 14 5 48 67 12 79% 9 89% 35 98% 56 92% 16 114% 5 94% 54 113% 75 112% Total 1,762 1,626 92% LOS Fehr & Peers 9/29/2017 142 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 5 Direction Movement Tukwila International Blvd/S 152nd St Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2017 Road Diet PM Peak Hour Signal Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS 55 5 D 32 6 C 5 2 A 35 4 D 86 13 F 47 11 D 48 27 D 50 11 D 48 5 53 6 29 12 47 5 52 8 40 11 18 11 42 6 42 5 NB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 179 679 60 918 184 103% 690 102% 61 101% 935 102% SB EB WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 84 740 30 854 39 62 27 128 53 53 24 130 71 85% 638 86% 25 83% 734 86% 40 102% 67 108% 28 104% 135 105% 53 99% 53 101% 26 107% 132 101% Total 2,030 1,935 95% D D C D D D B D Fehr & Peers 9/29/2017 143 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 1 Direction Movement Tukwila International Blvd/S 144th St Demand Volume (vph) Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2030 No Build PM Peak Hour Served Volume (vph) Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Signal LOS NB SB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 170 570 80 820 100 890 110 1,100 166 98% 569 100% 77 96% 812 99% 97 97% 899 101% 108 98% 1,104 100% EB WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 120 170 100 390 100 220 60 380 123 103% 172 101% 99 99% 394 101% 101 101% 221 101% 55 92% 377 99% Total 2,690 2,687 100% 76 13 30 5 17 6 38 4 77 6 40 2 30 6 43 3 55 6 46 10 33 8 45 6 72 14 58 7 39 14 59 9 44 3' E C B D E D C D E D C D E E D E Intersection 2 Direction Movement Tukwila International Blvd/S 146th St Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. NB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 50 740 40 830 47 95% 731 99% 38 94% 816 98% SB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 120 1,030 50 1,200 123 103% 1,038 101% 50 100% 1,211 101% EB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 30 10 50 90 27 89% 8 82% 45 91% 80 89% WB Fehr & Peers Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 40 10 70 120 2,240 38 96% 9 94% 67 96% 115 96% 2,222 99% 10 1 2 2 7 3 4 3 22 18 11 16 20 26 11 15 4 LOS 5 A 0 A 1 A 0 A 2 A 1 A 2 A 1 A 7 C 6 C 2 B 3 C 5 18 2 2 C D B B 9/29/2017 144 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 3 Direction Movement NB Tukwila International Blvd/S 148th St Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2030 No Build PM Peak Hour Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS 6 2 A 1 0 A 3 1 A 2 0 A 5 2 A 1 0 A 2 1 A 1 0 A 24 10 C 19 9 C 10 2 B 15 3 B 17 5 C 14 6 B 11 4 B 15 4 B Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 80 770 40 890 87 108% 762 99% 38 94% 886 100% SB EB WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 40 1,040 30 1,110 10 10 40 60 30 10 40 80 43 109% 1,035 99% 29 96% 1,107 100% 10 99% 8 81% 41 103% 59 99% 27 91% 9 92% 37 91% 73 91% Total Intersection 4 Direction Movement 2,140 2,125 99% Tukwila International Blvd/S 150th St Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent 2 A Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS NB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 80 820 20 920 82 102% 814 99% 20 100% 916 100% SB EB WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 60 1,000 40 1,100 20 10 40 70 10 10 50 70 63 104% 987 99% 39 98% 1,089 99% 18 89% 10 102% 35 88% 63 90% 10 102% 10 95% 53 106% 73 104% Total Fehr & Peers 2,160 2,141 99% 10 4 B 3 1 A 4 3 A 4 1 A 4 2 A 1 0 A 2 1 A 1 0 A 22 10 C 26 13 D 13 5 B 17 6 C 21 12 C 22 17 C 10 2 B 13 2 B 3 0 9/29/2017 145 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 5 Direction NB SB EB Movement Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Tukwila International Blvd/S 152nd St Demand Volume (vph) 240 850 70 1,160 90 910 40 1,040 60 70 30 160 Served Volume (vph) Average Percent 246 103% 841 99% 70 101% 1,158 100% 89 99% 899 99% 38 94% 1,026 99% 62 104% 75 108% 34 112% 171 107% Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2030 No Build PM Peak Hour Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. 70 12 24 3 7 3 33 3 68 12 34 3 31 12 37 4 50 10 50 8 33 17 47 8 50 5 48 8 14 5 44 4 36 3 WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 70 60 30 160 2,520 68 97% 62 103% 30 100% 160 100% 2,514 100% Signal LOS E C A C E C C D D D C D _ D D B D Fehr & Peers 9/29/2017 146 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 1 Direction Movement Tukwila International Blvd/S 144th St Demand Served Volume (vph) Volume (vph) Average Percent Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2030 Road Diet PM Peak Hour NB SB EB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 170 570 80 820 100 890 110 1,100 120 170 100 390 161 95% 549 96% 76 96% 786 96% 63 63% 559 63% 67 61% 689 63% 117 98% 167 98% 99 99% 383 98% WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total Intersection 2 Direction 100 220 60 380 2,690 102 102% 221 100% 53 89% 375 99% 2,233 83% Tukwila International Blvd/S 146th St Demand Served Volume (vph) Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Total Delay (sec/veh) Average 118 15 F 58 11 E 40 7 D 68 11 E 1081 97 F 1046 98 F 1026 95 F 1047 98 F 66 25 E 80 49 E 68 55 E 71 40 E 65 14 E 52 4 D 34 8 C 54 5 D 362 27 F Signal Std. Dev. LOS Side -street Stop Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS NB SB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 50 740 40 830 120 1,030 50 1,200 48 96% 711 96% 37 92% 796 96% 84 70% 746 72% 33 66% 863 72% EB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 30 10 50 90 25 82% 7 74% 42 84% 74 82% WB Fehr & Peers Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 40 10 70 120 2,240 35 88% 9 86% 60 86% 104 86% 1,836 82% 26 14 D 26 19 D 24 16 C 26 18 D 41 25 E 46 32 E 46 50 E 45 32 E 312 329 F 241 338 F 380 369 F 344 342 F 208 164 F 138 158 F 206 156 F 205 1.60 F 57 16 F 9/29/2017 147 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 3 Tukwila International Blvd/S 148th St Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2030 Road Diet PM Peak Hour Side -street Stop Direction Movement Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 80 78 97% 16 9 C NB Through 770 750 97% 9 12 A Right Turn 40 38 95% 10 13 A Subtotal 890 866 97% 10 12A A Left Turn 40 29 73% 44 20 E SB Through 1,040 760 73% 55 20 F Right Turn 30 21 71% 43 21 E Subtotal 1,110 811 73% 54 20 F Left Turn 10 6 59% 605 678 F EB Through 10 8 77% 556 625 F Right Turn 40 28 70% 958 662 F Subtotal 60 41 69% 925 666 F Left Turn 30 26 85% 57 13 F WB Through 10 10 96% 45 36 E Right Turn 40 36 90% 46 57 E Subtotal 80 71 89% 51 36 F Total 2,140 1,789 84% 48 14 E Intersection 4 Tukwila International Blvd/S 150th St Side -street Stop Direction Movement Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 80 78 97% 28 9 D NB Through 820 794 97% 6 2 A Right Turn 20 21 105% 4 3 A Subtotal 920 892 97% 8 2 A Left Turn 60 47 78% 40 10 E SB Through 1,000 730 73% 64 10 F Right Turn 40 28 70% 59 13 F Subtotal 1,100 804 73% 62 10 F Left Turn 20 16 78% 746 504 F EB Through 10 8 75% 911 554 F Right Turn 40 27 67% 1052 563 F Subtotal 70 50 71% 974 562 F Left Turn 10 11 112% 68 49 F WB Through 10 9 92% 48 49 E Right Turn 50 56 113% 31 17 D Subtotal 70 77 110% 41 23 E Total 2,160 1,823 84% 58 16 F Fehr & Peers 9/29/2017 148 Vissim Post -Processor Average Results from 20 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 5 Direction NB SB Movement Tukwila International Blvd/S 152nd St Demand Volume (vph) Served Volume (vph) Average Percent Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet 2030 Road Diet PM Peak Hour Total Delay (sec/veh) Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal 240 850 70 1,160 90 910 40 1,040 227 94% 801 94% 65 93% 1,093 94% 68 75% 660 72% 29 72% 756 73% EB WB Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 60 70 30 160 70 60 30 160 2,520 61 101% 73 104% 31 103% 164 103% 72 103% 61 101% 33 109% 165 ; 103% 2,178 86% 106 81 64 85 102 69 74 72 49 52 31 48 57 50 24 49 75 15 18 21 15 18 8 24 8 12 7 9 8 9 7 8 7 Signal LOS F F E F F E E E D D C D E D C D Fehr & Peers 9/29/2017 149 CITY OF TUKWILA - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet - S 152nd St to S 114th St Option 1 - Road Diet with New RRFB Pedestrian Crossings at Mid -Block Medians Preliminary Budget Estimate - November 2017 3 travel lanes with bike lanes and on -street parking 3 new midblock RRFB's at existing median locations All new ramps are ADA compliant Excludes ADA upgrades of existing ramps and PPB's throughout project limits KPG No. Section on Item Quantity Unit I Unit Cost I Total Cost ROADWAY 1 1-04 UUnexpected Site Changes-- j- 1 FA $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 10,000.00 2 1-07 Resolution of Utility Conflicts 1 FA,$ 10,000.00 3 1-07 SPCC Plan 1 1 LS LS $ 500.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 500.00 mm$ 70,000.00 4 1-09 Mobilization 5 1-10 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 6 2-02 Removal of Structure and Obstruction 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 7 2-03 Roadway Excavation Incl. Haul 1,100 SY $ 25.00 $ 27,500.00 8 5-04 HMA Cl. 1/2" PG 64-22 l 150 TON- $ 200.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 24,000.00 9 10 8-01 8-04 Erosion/Water Pollution Control Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and Gutter 1 600 LS LF $ 15,000.00 ' $ 40.00 SIDEWALK 11 1 8-14 Cement Conc Sidewalk/Curb Ramp ]- 900 SY I $ 75.00 I $ 67,500.00 STORM SEWER 12 I 7-05 Drainage modifications for bumpouts II 8 I EA I $ 5,000.001 $ 40,000.0.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 13 8-09 Raised Pavement Marker Type 1 19 HUND $ 400.00 $ 7,600.00 14 8-09 Raised Pavement Marker Type 2 14 HUND EA $ 500.00 $ 7,000.00 15 8-20 Rapid Flash Rectangular Beacon (RRFB) 3 $ 35,000.00 $ 105,000.00 16 8-20 Illumination Modifications 1 LS $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 17 8-20 Permanent Signing 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 40,000.00 18 8-20 Signal Modifications 2 EA 19 8-22 Remove Pavement Markings 5,000 LF $ 5.00 $ 25,000.00 20 8-22 'Plastic Traffic Arrow 58 EA $ 250.00 $ 14,500.00 21 8-22 Plastic Bike Sybmol 33 EA $ 400.00 ' $ 13,200.00 22 8-22 Plastic Crosswalk Line 750 SF $ 10.00 $ 7,500.00 23 8-22 Plastic Stop Line - 400 LF $ 20.00 $ 8,000.00 24 8-22 Wide Plastic Line 350 LF $ 4.00 $ 1,400.00 25 8-22 Plastic Line, 4 Inch 16,000 LF $ 1.00 $ 16,000.00 ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT 26 8-02 'Median modifications II 3 I EA I $ 10,000.00 I $ 30,000.00 27 8-02 'Property Restoration II 1 I FA j $ 10,000.00 I $ 10,000.00 Total Estimated Prepare Plans, Total Estimated Construction Management Subtotal Contingency (20%) Construction Cost Survey and Mapping Public Outreach Specs & Estimate Permitting $ 710,000 $ - 150,000 $ 860,000 $ 20,000 $ 15,000 $ 100,000 $ 5,000 Design Cost $ 140,000 Right of Way $ - & Inspection $ 130,000 SCHEDULE A TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,130,000' 150 CITY OF TUKWILA - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet - S 152nd St to S 114th St Option 2 - Road Diet only - no new pedestrian crossings Preliminary Budget Estimate - November 2017 3 travel lanes with bike lanes and on -street parking No new pedestrian crossings No new curb ramps Excludes ADA upgrades of existing ramps and PPB's throughout project limits KPG No. Section No Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost ROADWAY 1 1-04 Unexpected Site Changes 1 FA $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 5,000.00 2 1-07 Resolution of Utility Conflicts 1 FA $ 5,000.00 3 1-07 SPCC Plan 1LS LS $ 500.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 500,00 $ 25,000.00 4 1-09 Mobilization 1 5 1-10 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000,00 6 2-02 Removal of Structure and Obstruction 1 0 LS SY $ 5,000.00 $ 25.00 i $ 5,000.00 $ - 7 2-03 Roadway Excavation Incl. Haul 8 5-04 HMA Cl. 1/2" PG 64-22 0 1 TON LS $ 200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ - $ 5,000.00 9 8-01 Erosion/Water Pollution Control 10 8-04 Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and Gutter 0 LF $ 40.00 $ - SIDEWALK 8-14 Cement Conc. Sidewalk/Curb Ramp 0 I SY I $ 75.00 1 $ STORM SEWER 12 I 7-05 Drainage modifications for bumpouts 0 I EA I $ 5,000.00 I $ - TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 13 8-09 Raised Pavement Marker Type 1 19 HUND $ 400.00 $ 7,600.00 14 8-09 Raised Pavement Marker Type 2 14 HUND ! $ 500.00 $ 7,000.00 15 8-20 8-20 Rapid Flash Rectangular Beacon (RRFB) Illumination Modifications 0 EA $ 35,000.00 0 LS $ 45,000.00 $ - $ - 16 17 8-20 Permanent Signing 1 LS $ 10,000.00 ' $ 20,000.00 $ 10,000.00' $ 40,000.00 18 8-20 Signal Modifications 2 EA 19 8-22 Remove Pavement Markings 5,000 LF 58 EA $ 5.00 $ 250.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 14,500.00 20 8-22 Plastic Traffic Arrow 21 8-22 Plastic Bike Sybmol 33 EA $ 400.00 $ 13,200.00 22 8-22 Plastic Crosswalk Line 750 SF $ 10.00 $ 7,500.00 23 8-22 Plastic Stop Line 400 LF $ 20.00 $ 8,000.00 24 8-22 Wide Plastic Line 350 LF $ 4.00 $ 1,400.00 25 8-22 Plastic Line, 4 Inch 16,000 I LF $ 1.00 $ 16,000.00 ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT 26 1 8-02 Median modifications 27 1 8-02 Property Restoration L 0 I EA 1$ 10,000.00 1$ - 1 I FA 1 $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5000.00 Subtotal Contingency (20%) Total Estimated Construction Cost Survey and Mapping Public Outreach Prepare Plans, Specs & Estimate Permitting Total Estimated Design Cost Right of Way Construction Management & Inspection $ 240,000 $ 50,000 $ 290,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 30,000 $ 5,000 $ 60,000 $ - $ 50,000 SCHEDULE A TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 400,000 151 CITY OF TUKWILA - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Tukwila International Blvd Road Diet - S 152nd St to S 114th St Option 3 - Road Diet with RRFB Pedestrian Crossings at Intersections Preliminary Budget Estimate - November 2017 3 travel lanes with bike lanes and on -street parking 3 new RRFB's at 146th, 148th, 150th All new ramps are ADA compliant Excludes ADA upgrades of existing ramps and PPB's throughout project limits KPG No.No Section Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost ROADWAY 1 1-04 Unexpected Site Changes 1 FA FA $ 25,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 10,000.00 2 1-07 Resolution of Utility Conflicts 1 3 1-07 SPCC Plan 1 -LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 4 1-09 Mobilization 1 LS $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 5 1-10 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 6 2-02 Removal of Structure and Obstruction 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 47,500.00 7 2-03 Roadway Excavation Incl. Haul 1,900 SY $ 25.00 8 5-04 HMA Cl. 1/2" PG 64-22 150 TON $ 200.00 $ 30,000.00 9 8-01 Erosion/Water Pollution Control 1 LS LF $ 15,000.00 $ 40.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 36,000.00 10 ' 8-04 Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and Gutter 900 'SIDEWALK 11 8-14 Cement Conc. Sidewalk/Curb Ramp IJ 1,300 I SY I $ 75.00 I $ 97,500.00 STORM SEWER 12 I 7-05 (Drainage modifications for bumpouts I 8 I EA I $ 5,000.00 $ 40,000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 13 8-09 Raised Pavement Marker Type 1 19 HUND $ 400.00 $ 7,600.001 14 8-09 Raised Pavement Marker Type 2 14 HUND', $ 500.00 ._ $ 7,000.00 $ 105,000.00 , 15 8-20 Rapid Flash Rectangular Beacon (RRFB) 3 EA $ 35,000.00 16 8-20 Illumination Modifications 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 17 8-20 Permanent Signing 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 18 8-20 Signal Modifications 2 EA $ 20,000.00 $ 40,000.00 19 8-22 Remove Pavement Markings 5,000 LF $ 5.00 $ 25,000.00 20 8-22 Plastic Traffic Arrow 58 EA $ 250.00 $ 14,500.00 21__ 8-22 Plastic Bike Sybmol 33 EA $ 400.00 $ 13,200.00 22 8-22 Plastic Crosswalk Line 750 SF $ 10.00 $ 7,500.00 23 8-22 Plastic Stop Line 400 350 LF LF $ 20.00 1 $ 8,000.00 24 8-22 Wide Plastic Line $ 4.00 $ 1,400.00 25 8-22 Plastic Line, 4 Inch 16,000 LF $ 1.00 $ 16,000.00 ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT 26I 8-02 [Median modifications EA I $ FA I $ 27 I 8-02 'Property Restoration 10, 000.00 20, 000.00 $ 20,000.00 Subtotal $ 780,000 Contingency (20%) $ 160,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 940,000 Survey and Mapping $ 20,000 Public Outreach $ 15,000 Prepare Plans, Specs & Estimate $ 140,000 Permitting $ 5,000 Total Estimated Design Cost $ 180,000 Right of Way $ Construction Management & Inspection $ 150,000 SCHEDULE A TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 5 1,270,000 152 City Tukwila Public Works Deportment - Bob Giberson, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure FROM: Robin Tischmak, Acting Public Works Director CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: November 9, 2017 SUBJECT: Interurban Avenue South — S 143rd St to Fort Dent Way Project Number 90310402 Contract 14-067, Change Order No. 9 Allan Ekberg, Mayor ISSUE Approve the final settlement and Change Order No. 9 for the Interurban Ave S Project with Walsh Construction. BACKGROUND Change Order No. 9 settles the additional compensation request and subsequent mediation effort between the City and Walsh Construction commenced on June 16, 2017, and all other disclosed or undisclosed disputes on the construction contract. Change Order No. 9 also increases the contract time by 141.5 calendar days and will allow the Interurban Ave S Project to be closed out. DISCUSSION Walsh Construction has asserted that, during construction, the project encountered unexpected impacts to the Contractor's work. The Contractor has itemized requests for additional compensation that include: 1) unpaid bid items, 2) extra work orders, 3) gravel borrow, 4) sub -contractor costs for Pearson Drilling and ADP Electric and 5) additional costs for inefficiencies and overhead. The City responded to these requests for additional compensation and disputed the Contractor's analysis of cost impacts. On June 16, 2017, the City and Walsh Construction entered mediation to resolve the disputed contract compensation amounts. Several additional settlement conferences were held throughout the summer to negotiate and discuss specific merits of the Contractor's request. Item by item negotiations were set aside in favor of a global settlement discussion. The City Attorney, PW staff, and our construction management consultant met with the Contractor's authorized representatives and discussed the settlement terms to formally close out the project. The discussed settlement terms included that the City shall increase the current contract time by 141.5 calendar days, making the total Contract time 1,067.5 calendar days. As a result of the contract time increase, the City shall rescind the assessed liquidated damage of $358,364.32, which were assessed, but never collected by the City from the Contractor. On top of the liquidated damage reimbursement, the City shall also pay the Contractor a total of $1,425,000.00, in addition to other amounts already paid, to arrive at a final settlement amount for the Interurban Ave S Project. FISCAL IMPACT The total contract amount was $7,836,662.16. With the remaining contract balance of $343,740.85, Change Order No. 9 is for $1,081,259.15 for a total balance owing of $1,425,000 to Walsh Construction. The Transportation Improvement Board has approved an additional $750,000 in grant funds. We are over the 2017 CIP budgeted amount by $950,000, but with the additional $750,000 TIB funds and $35,000 in traffic impact fees for signal improvements, the City overage is $165,000. The total final contract amount is now $8,917,921.31. RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to approve Walsh Construction's Contract No. 14-067's final settlement Change Order No. 9 for $1,081,259.15 with a contract time extension of 141.5 calendar days and consider this item at the November 27, 2017 Committee of the Whole and the December 4, 2017 Regular Meeting. Attachments: Change Order No. 9 Interurban Ave S Project CIP Overview W:\PW Eng\PROJECTS\A- RW & RS Projects\Interurban Ave S (90310402)\Info Memo for CO #9, Final CA 110717 gl.docx 153 Sheet 1 of 1 CITY OF TUKWILA CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 9 DATE: November 6, 2017 BUDGET NO.: 104.98.595.300.65.00 PROJECT NO.: 90310402 CONTRACT NO.: 14-067 PROJECT NAME: Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center Project, Andover Park West Street and Water Improvement Project TO: Walsh Construction You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes to the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract: NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved by the "Owner" and a notice to proceed is issued. Conditions: A. The following change, and work affected thereby, are subject to all contract stipulations and covenants; B. The rights of the "Owner" are not prejudiced; C. All claims against the "Owner" which are incidental to or as a consequence of this change are waived; and D. The Contractor must submit all Field Overhead and Home Office Overhead Rates for approval in advance of all change orders. CHANGE: See Attached Exhibit "A" We the undersigned Contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefore the prices shown above and below. ACCEPTED: Date Contractor By Title Original Contract (with tax) $ 7,597,833.39 APPROVED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA Previous Change Orders $ 238,828.77 Date This Change Order(withouttax) $ 1,081,259.15 By Mayor REV. CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 8,917,921.31 Original Contract Time: 450 Calendar Days Additional Contract Time for this Change Order: 141.5 Days Updated Contract Time: 1,067.5 Calendar Days City Engineer ORIGINAL: City Clerk (1 of 2) Contractor (2 of 2) PW Project Finance File cc: Finance Department (w/encumbrance) Project Management File 154 (11/2014) EXHIBIT "A" CHANGE: This Change Order settles the Contractor's request for additional compensation and is meant to settle all dispute, both disclosed and undisclosed, on the Contract. This Change Order also increases the Contract time by 141.5 calendar days, and will allow this Project to be closed out. Change Order Details: The Contractor, Walsh Construction, has asserted that, during construction, the project encountered unexpected impacts to the Contractor's work that resulted in significant additional expense to the Contractor. The Contractor has itemized requests for additional compensation that include: 1) unpaid bid items, 2) extra work orders, 3) gravel borrow, 4) sub -contractor costs for Pearson Drilling and ADP Electric and 5) additional costs for inefficiencies and overhead. The City responded to these requests for additional compensation and disputed the Contractor's analysis of cost impacts. On June 16, 2017, the City and Walsh Construction entered mediation to resolve the disputed contract compensation amounts. Several additional settlement conferences were held to negotiate and discuss specific merits of the Contractor's request. Item by item negotiations were set aside in favor of a global settlement discussion. The City's project representatives met with the Contractor's authorized representatives, and discussed the settlement terms to formally close out this project. The discussed settlement terms are as follow: Included in this Change Order #9, the City shall increase from the current Contract time by 141.5 calendar days, making the total Contract time at 1,418 calendar days. As a result of the Contract time increase, the City shall rescind the assessed liquidated damage of $358,364.32, which was assessed, but never collected by the City from the Contractor. On top of the liquidated damage reimbursement, the City shall also pay the Contractor $1,425,000.00 as a final settlement amount for all outstanding compensation claims. Once this Change Order #9 is executed, the final payment will be issued, and the Release of Claims form will be completed by the Contractor. Thereafter, the construction project can be closed out by the City Council. Page 1 of 1 155 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2017 to 2022 PROJECT: Interurban Ave S (S 143 St - Fort Dent Way) Project No. 90310402 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct sidewalks, pavement restoration, drainage, and lighting. JUSTIFICATION: Pedestrian traffic is forced to walk in traveled way, lighting is substandard, drainage is poor and pavement failure is accelerating. STATUS: Completed final design in 2013. Construction awarded on 5/5/14 and construction completed in 2016. MAINT. IMPACT: Reduce annual pavement repairs and increase pedestrian safety. COMMENT: Federal Hwy STP Grant of $389,000 for design. State TIB grant of $5m, Federal STP grant of $2.145m, and developer mitigation of $260,000. City Bond for $3.465m in 2014/15. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) EXPENSES 2005-11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL Design Land (R/VV) Const. Mgmt. Construction TOTAL EXPENSES FUND SOURCES Awarded TIB Grant Awarded STP Grant 389 Mitigation/Traffic Impact Bond City Oper. Revenue 75 TOTAL SOURCES 464 464 464 2 2 369 209 578 87 760 1,494 2,341 74 1,395 4,868 6,337 577 1,139 1,716 71 1,425 1,496 996 209 2,803 8,926 12,934 2 2 578 578 296 1,571 99 375 2,341 2,847 552 85 3,558 (705) 6,337 779 937 1,716 966 530 1,496 4,888 2,512 184 3,558 1,792 12,934 BUDGET Diff 996 :aS 209 TM 2 2r1IF hill 2,455 (348) 8,324 (602) 11,984 (950) 4,138 750 2,512 149 35 3,558 1,627 165 11,984 950 156 W.IPW Eng1PROJECTSIA- RW & RS Projectsllnterurban Ave S (90310402)IGrants & Bondllnterurban Final CIP sheet 110617 Y Project Location :aS TM 2 2r1IF hill s III i S 139 ®$ 94 W 5744 Strii �52 /v0i //'' OCL Y®r J/. St g N m ,,. o 1 ���++"�� � Iii -�- 3'156 St ___ a '":. rh ricA .. cera r� i�►`I'I '� ��_/ GISi. stsast it'll�r Tukwila PoavY 156 W.IPW Eng1PROJECTSIA- RW & RS Projectsllnterurban Ave S (90310402)IGrants & Bondllnterurban Final CIP sheet 110617