HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrans 2011-08-15 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Transportation Committee
Joan Hernandez, Chair
Joe Duffie
Verna Seal
jo
Me ting 011
p0
�g�
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
AGENDA
Distribution:
J. Hernandez
G. Labanara
J. Duffie
C. Knighton
V. Seal
A. Le
D. Robertson
S. Kerslake
A. Ekberg
Clerk File Copy
Mayor Haggerton
2 Extra
S. Hunstock
K. Matej
e -mail to: A. Le, C.
B. Giberson
O'Flaherty, D. Almberg-
F. Iriarte
Dideon, B. Saxton, S.
R. Tischmak
Norris, M. Hart, S. Kirby
MONDAY AUGUST 15, 2011
Time: 5:00 PM Place: Conference Room #1
Item
a) 2011 Funding Programs -Grant Applications
Transportation Improvement Board
b) 2011 Overlay Repair Construction Mgmt
Consultant Selection and Contract
c) TUC Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge
Type, Size, and Location Study
(to be continued at 9/6 TC meeting)
3. SCATBd
a) July 19, 2011 Meeting Summary
b) August 16, 2011 Meeting Agenda
4. MISCELLANEOUS
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Recommended Action Page
a) Committee Approval Pg. 1
b) Forward to 8/22/11 C.O.W. Pg. 5
and 9/6/11 Regular
c) Information Only Pg. 19
a) Information Only Pg. 21
b) Information Only Pg. 27
Future Agendas:
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 (due to Holiday)
x
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director.
August 12, 2011
2011 Fundina Proarams Transportation Fundina Opportunities
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)
ISSUE
The Transportation Improvement Board has announced its 2011 Funding Programs and signed
applications must be postmarked by August 31, 2011.
BACKGROUND
The grant funding programs which have called for project applications include:
Program
Urban Arterial Program (UAP)
Urban Corridor Program (UCP)
Sidewalk Program
DISCUSSION
Statewide Fundinq Puaet Sound Allocation
30 million 16.9 million
40 million 22.5 million
1 million 562,000.00
Per CIP policy, appropriate committees must approve applying for any grants. The following
projects are recommended for 2011 TIB grant applications:
Andover Park West Tukwila Pkwy to Strander Blvd (with Transit Cntr CIP pg. 19)
Interurban Ave S S 143r St to Fort Dent Way (CIP pg. 30)
Typical maximum project funding is $5.5 million from the UCP and $3.0 million from the UAP.
TIB requires a minimum City match of 20 but the match depends on the project costs and the
application submittal (higher match higher score). Discussions with TIB staff suggest that the
projects identified above would be the most competitive projects for grant funding this year.
Project selections for 2011 funding will be announced at the November 18, 2011 Board meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is being asked to approve submittal of grant applications to the Transportation
Improvement Board for the Andover Park W and Interurban Ave S projects.
Attachment: CIP Pages 19 and 30
WAPW Eng10THER1Grant Applicabons1201111nfo Memo TIB 2012 Grant Apps TC 08 -12 -11 gl.docx
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
Pro
,lect Location
Gds
2011 2016 Capital Improvement Program 19
2
2011 to 2016
PROJECT:
Andover Park West (Tukwila Pkwy Strander Blvd) Project No. 98810404
DESCRIPTION:
Study and implement revised channelization.
JUSTIFICATION:
Revising left turn lanes will reduce accidents and lessen congestion.
Major portion of Andover Park W at intersections are complete. Next phase is to revise turn lanes along
STATUS:
length of project. To be coordinated with the development of the Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center.
MAINT.IMPACT:
Negligible.
Project is on impact fee list and goal is to begin project by 2011. Design report completed in 1991 updated
COMMENT:
in 2009. ACME Bowling mitigation of $111 k and Westfield Mall of $205k in 2007.
FINANCIAL
Through Estimated
(in $000's)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 BEYOND
TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
77 123
200
Land(R/W)
656
656
Const. Mgmt.
105
105
Construction
700
700
TOTAL EXPENSES
77 0 123 1,461 0 0 0 0 0
1,661
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
0
Proposed Grant
0
Mitigation Actual
316
316
Impact Fees
981
981
City Oper. Revenue
(239) 0 123 480 0 0 0 0 0
364
TOTAL SOURCES
77 0 123 1,461 0 0 0 0 0
1,661
Pro
,lect Location
Gds
2011 2016 Capital Improvement Program 19
2
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2011 to 2016
PROJECT: Interurban Ave S (S 143 St Fort Dent Way) Project No. 90310402
DESCRIPTION: Design and construct sidewalks, pavement restoration, drainage and lighting
Orolect Location
2011 2016 Capital Improvement Program 30
3
Pedestrian traffic is forced to walk in traveled way, lighting is substandard, drainage is poor and
JUSTIFICATION:
pavement failure is accelerating.
Design to be completed in 2010. Federal STP construction grant submitted in 2009 was unsuccessful
and State
STATUS:
TIB did not issue a call for projects in 2009.
MAINT. IMPACT:
Reduce annual pavement repairs and increase pedestrian safety.
COMMENT:
Federal Hwy STP Grant of $389,000 for design only. Proposed grants are Federal and State TIB.
FINANCIAL
Through Estimated
(in $000's)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 BEYOND
TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
424 39 250
713
Land (RM)
150
150
Const. Mgmt.
1,300
1,300
Construction
9,400
9,400
TOTAL EXPENSES
424 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,100
11,563
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
367 22
389
Proposed Grant
5,000
5,000
Mitigation Actual
0
Impact Fees
0
City Oper. Revenue
57 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,100
6,174
TOTAL SOURCES
424 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,100
11,563
Orolect Location
2011 2016 Capital Improvement Program 30
3
x
City of Tukwila
TO:
I a 0918
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee w
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director- 01—
August 12, 2011
SUBJECT: 2011 Overlav and Repair Program
Project No. 91110401
Construction Management Consultant Selection and Agreement
ISSUE
Execute a contract with Anchor QEA to provide Construction Management services for the 2011
Overlay and Repair Program.
BACKGROUND
The City uses the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) Consultant Roster
whenever possible in selecting engineering firms to provide necessary services. Five firms were
selected which have proven knowledge and expertise in Construction Management. A Request
for Proposal was issued to these firms with general guidelines for their response. Their
proposals were reviewed and ranked based on the relevant criteria for the contract (see
attached scoring sheet). Anchor QEA has been selected to provide Construction Management
services for the City's 2011 Overlay and Repair Program.
DISCUSSION
Anchor QEA has provided a contract, scope of work, and fee estimate to provide lead
Construction Management services for the 2011 Overlay and Repair Program. Additional
Construction Engineering and Project Management oversight will be provided by KPG, Inc. and
City personnel according to the following budget assumptions.
Budqet Contract
Construction Mgmt Budget (2011) $150,000.00
CM Services Anchor QEA $104,708.00
CE Services KPG 23,846.52
CM City Staff 21,000.00
149.554.52
$150.000.00
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve and forward the proposed contract with Anchor QEA in
the amount of $104,708.00 for consideration at the August 22, 201 Committee of the Whole
meeting and subsequent September 6, 2011 Regular Meeting.
Attachments: Consultant Selection Scoring Sheet
Contract, Scope of Work and Fee Estimate
MPW Eng1PROJECTSW RW RS Projects19 1 110401 (2011 Overlay and Repair Program)lConstructionW.200 Correspondence\ DRAFTSVnfo Memo Anchor CM 0 8-12 -11 gl.docx
5
S f o
o a
9u
U) a LO A LO
o e IT IT
m
o$±Inb ,q
JOG
Aa 0 7 LO
f j N N
We
JO E?�� 2A0
'VIL R 2 LO
»t���
�m
R
c
r
z
CD
�w
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, herein -after referred
to as "the City and Anchor QEA, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant in consideration
of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified.
Project Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform Construction
Management services in connection with the project titled 2011 Overlay Program.
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.
Time for Performance. Work under this contract shall commence upon the giving of 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 within 180 calendar days from
the date written notice is given to proceed, 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 One Hundred Four Thousand Seven Hundred Eight dollars ($104,708)
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 is 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 state for a period of three (3)
years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon request.
7
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 to be rendered under this Agreement.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability,
including attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property
occasioned by any negligent act, omission or failure of the Consultant, its officers, agents and
employees, in performing the work required by this Agreement. With respect to the perform-
ance of this Agreement and as to claims against the City, its officers, agents and employees,
the Consultant expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of
Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees, and agrees that the
obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to
any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Consultant. This waiver is
mutually negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any damage resulting
from the sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the
damages referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent
negligence of the City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless is valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Consultant, its
officers, agents and employees.
8. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of this
contract comprehensive general liability insurance, with a minimum coverage of $500,000 per
occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal, injury; and $500,000 per occurrence/
aggregate for property damage, and professional liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000 per occurrence and annual aggregrate.
Said general liability policy shall name the City of Tukwila as an additional named insured
and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy except upon thirty (30)
days prior written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage as required by this section shall
be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement.
9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an inde-
pendent 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
2
0
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 they have 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 they have 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, color, national origin, religion,
creed, age, sex or the presence of any physical or sensory handicap in the selection and
retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies.
12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this
Agreement without the express written consent of the City.
13. Non Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation
provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
14. Termination.
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10)
days written notice to the Consultant.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its
supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant
hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do
so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement
between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses.
15. Attorneys Fees and Costs. In the event either party shall bring suit against the other to
enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such suit shall be entitled to
recover its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in such suit from the losing
party.
3
9
16. 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:
Anchor QEA, LLC
Ed Berschinski
720 Olive Way, Suite 1900
Seattle, Washington 98101
17. Integrated Agreement. 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. This Agreement may be
amended only by written instrument signed by both the City and the Consultant.
DATED this
CITY OF TUKWILA
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Attest /Authenticated:
day of
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
20
CONSULTANT
By:
Printed Name: C ReirC'r �v oa V t
Title: P rj ,"e -t rr ul
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
4
10
ANC O
A.
Exhibit A
City of Tukwila: Construction Management Services
2011 Overlay Program
City Project No. 911110401
SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WORK CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
The following represents the general scope of services to be performed by Anchor QEA, LLC
(Anchor QEA) during construction of the City of Tukwila (City) 2011 Overlay Program. The
services are divided into different categories of work that represent the chronology of the
activities, as well as the types of services provided. This scope is intended to reasonably
address the construction related services that would normally be anticipated for a project of
this type.
The project contract documents indicate a 70 calendar day (approximately 50 working day)
construction contract, which will govern assumptions regarding hours for field personnel.
Task 1 Pre Construction Services
Subtask 1.1 Construction Document Review
scope
Obtain from City and become familiar with plans, specifications, property owner
agreements, and other existing information pertinent to performance of the work.
Hold kick -off meeting for Anchor QEA project team.
Subtask 1.2 Pre- Construction Meeting
Scope
Prepare meeting agenda.
Conduct and attend pre construction meeting.
Prepare and distribute pre construction meeting minutes.
I
11
Subtask 1.3 Submittal Review
Scope
Log and track contractor submittals (as outlined in specifications).
Review contractor submittals for general compliance with contract operational
requirements; such submittals will include general requirements (i.e., schedule and
wage rates. Technical product submittals (i.e., catalogue cuts, material test reports,
and certifications) will be reviewed by the designer (KPG). Submittals will be routed
as requested for review by City maintenance staff and/or City /consultant design team,
but all recorded on one log.
Subtask 1.4 Conditions Review
Scope
Pre Construction Conditions: Document pre construction conditions, including pre
construction site condition surveys, photographs, and record any visible property
corners.
Task 2 Contract Administration Services
Subtask 2.1 Planning
Scope
Prepare a brief project specific construction management plan that outlines tasks,
staff responsibilities, procedures and forms, documentation methods, safety
procedures, and communication links.
Subtask 2.2 Records Management
Scope
Documentation: Establish project specific documentation management system for
maintaining project records and tracking multiple party review /approval documents.
Documents include submittals, Requests for Information (RFIs), change orders, test
reports, surveys, meeting minutes, project photographs, and general correspondence.
Liaison: Act as City's representative /liaison for daily coordination/communication to
contractor, as well as that from other agencies, other contractors (adjacent projects),
2
12
site tenants and other third parties that will have access impacted during the course of
the project, and the City Police Department regarding traffic control.
Correspondence: Conduct telephone correspondence with various parties, and
prepare a draft response on behalf of the City to formal project construction
correspondence requiring responses.
Status Reports: Prepare and transmit monthly invoices and status reports. Status
reports to accompany invoices shall include project progress with respect to critical
timelines, budget status, and identification of any issues that may affect schedule or
budget.
Products
Project documentation system (files)
Tracking logs for correspondence
Draft letters
Status reports
Subtask 2.3 Progress Payments
Scope
Payment: Prepare payment spreadsheet. Review monthly progress payment requests
submitted by the contractor. Provide measurements and verification of progress and
submit monthly application for payment to the City for processing.
Products
Payment spreadsheet with signature page
Task 3 Field Observations /Inspections
Scope
Activities performed by field engineer /technician:
Observation: Observe the technical conduct of the contractor's work for quality
and compliance with design documents, approved submittals, and/or applicable
technical standards. Prepare a daily inspection report and take progress
photographs.
3
13
Interpretations: Provide day -to- day interpretation of contract requirements and
respond to contractor's questions including resolution of minor issues.
Testing: Perform or cause to be performed sampling and testing of materials to be
incorporated into the project. Review compaction testing results performed by
testing technician and verify compliance with specifications (for materials testing
by subconsultant, see Task 8). All test acceptances will be performed by City
personnel.
Measurements: Perform or cause to be performed field measurements and collect
and tally truck tickets to determine material quantities, verify placement limits, or
other measurements to verify pay requests and conformance with project
requirements. (Actual survey, if needed, may be done by others, see Task 7).
Field Changes: Facilitate minor field changes to circumvent change orders due to
variations in field or other unanticipated conditions. Coordinate with design
engineer for any changes that may impact project cost or time. (See Task 4).
Communications: Maintain primary day -to -day communications with the
contractor and keep the construction manager and City representative informed
of activities. Receive comment from neighboring property owners and the
general public and provide responses for questions and concerns.
Check for contractor compliance with requirements for traffic control and notice
requirements with City.
Participate in weekly project meetings
Note: For budgeting purposes, this proposal assumes one full -time equivalent
inspector on site for 70- calendar day construction contract duration (50 working days
9 hours /day). An average of one person on site during active contractor working
periods means the inspector may not be on site full -time, or if the contractor is
working on multiple sites simultaneously during short durations, two people may be
on site at the same time.
Products
Inspection Daily Reports
Field sketches and measurements
Progress photographs
4
14
Task 4 Construction Engineering /Change Orders
Scope
Respond to questions related to site engineering.
Evaluate contractor proposed revisions or substitutions.
Change Orders: Prepare calculations, drawings, cost estimates, and justification for
change orders for approval by the City. This includes coordination with the designer
for input regarding design changes. Negotiate change orders with the contractor and
incorporate into the project.
Note: For this cost estimate we have assumed up to four minor change orders (up to 8
hours per change order).
Task 5 Site Visits /Meetings
Scope
Periodic site visit by construction manager in combination with conducting a weekly
coordination meeting with the contractor. Prepare agenda and minutes of meetings
including tracking of action items. (Assumes 10 meetings 3 hours /meeting).
Task 6 Record Drawings
Scope
Review mark -up drawings provided by the contractor that include any field changes
and final configuration of facilities. Review provided by field inspector in Task 3.
Actual CAD drafting of record drawings is assumed to be provided by KPG.
Task 7 Surveying
Scope
Activities: Although none is anticipated, we understand a budget has been established
for a licensed surveyor to perform any survey verification (if needed) to confirm any
monumentation, questionable property corners, verify grades, or similar services.
The survey work will be done by a City- approved survey subconsultant (as needed)
under the services during construction performed by KPG.
15
Task 8 Materials Testing
Scope
Work on this task will not begin until receipt of City approval of a qualified,
independent subcontractor. We are proposing Krazan for these services.
Provide tests of materials for compliance with contract requirements for gradation,
compaction, etc. (as needed only to verify).
Products
Test Reports
Note: Anchor QEA will review test results for compliance with the project
specifications. A budget of $10,000 has been established for this task.
EXCLUSIONS
Anchor QEA shall assume no responsibility for proper construction techniques and jobsite
safety. The presence of Anchor QEA personnel at the construction site is for the purpose of
providing the City a greater degree of confidence that the work will generally conform to the
Contract Documents and that the integrity of the design concept as reflected in the Contract
Documents has been implemented and preserved by the construction contractor.
Anchor QEA will endeavor to protect all parties against defects and deficiencies in the work
of the contractor(s) but cannot guarantee the contractor's performance and shall not be
responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences of procedures, or for
safety precautions and programs in connection with the work performed by the construction
contractor or any subcontractors.
ESTIMATED COSTS
A detailed breakdown of labor and cost estimates by task is provided in the accompanying
budget spreadsheet. Note that labor hour breakdowns by subtask are included in the
spreadsheet. We will track and bill costs at the subtask level.
6
16
We trust that this proposed scope and cost estimate is sufficient for your needs. If you have
any question regarding this scope, please do not hesitate to contact Ed Berschinski at
eberschinski(@anchoraea.com or 206 -819 -6009.
17
ft
X
U)
C
L
U
N
m
W
L
N
L (6
E to
Z A
r D O o O c0 0 1 o�
(D M N 0 N 't O
r N CD
O
V) V) V) V) co V) V) V) E9 V) V) V) V) V) V) 63 V) J) V) EA V) V) V) V) V) V)_ V) V) V)
co O O (O co
r V (f) -IT M
O 0
F-
Y
F O O O O O O
V) V) V) V) V) V) V) 63 0 V) 69 V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) (I3 V) Vj
Y
N M
omFr
<t 0 O
t�
m (oQo
w '7 O N
o00
O O O
V)
N V O
V)
O r I m
O O O
to
O O CV r
N
O In 0
0 0
ro
r
07
N CJ r�
O
o
r D O o O c0 0 1 o�
(D M N 0 N 't O
r N CD
O
V) V) V) V) co V) V) V) E9 V) V) V) V) V) V) 63 V) J) V) EA V) V) V) V) V) V)_ V) V) V)
co O O (O co
r V (f) -IT M
O 0
F-
Y
F O O O O O O
V) V) V) V) V) V) V) 63 0 V) 69 V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) (I3 V) Vj
Y
N M
0 0 0 0 0
V)
V)
V)
(0
O
(O
Y
c0
co
O
O M
rn 2
cc)
d' OO U)
Cl)
o
N m
O C V) V} V) V)
C
N
m
V) V) 60 V) 63 Vi EA V) V) V) w H3 V) w V) V) V) V) V)
O O O i t r i i r i s i r i i r co
O O O Cl)
O O O O
O O N
V) V) V) E9 V) V) V) V3 V) V) V) V) e3 V) w 64 V) 09 V)
im
T N t`
O O O O O
o
LL (n '3
V)
V) EA V)
fA
V) V)
V) V) 0 V) V)
V) V) V) V) V) 69 V) V)
69
V) 64
co rn CD m
Y Y Y Y r
N N N co Y
Y
N N N t6 N
a D
0 0 0 0 0
V)
V) EA V)
V)
69 V)
V) V) 63 E9 V)
69 V) V) V) V) w V) V)
V)
69 V)
m
M d N
(D O r i
O
r-
to
to v Un
d: M 0
o
m
O O N
O O O
r (D
N (O
M M
co
V)
0 V) V)
V3
V) V3
V) d3 V) V) d)
V) V) V) V) d) V) V) K)
V)
V) fA
c0
co V M
r
i r
r r L r 0
r r L O i
i
r I-
LO
rl
co co r
L6 tli O
N
N
N
of
C) O O of CC, N
O
t`
V)
d) V) V)
E9
V) 0
V) 0 V) V) V3
V) V) 64 EA V) 64 V) V)
V)
V) V)
N
co O
Cl) O
O co O
Cl)
M
n
V N
C')') t, Cl)
LQ
Y
m M
O O W
O LO O O (O
En V CD
N d'
r
N
t0
E
V)
V) E9 V)
64
69 V)
w V) V) V) V)
V) V) V) 0 V) V) EA
V)
V) V)
2
N N
N 'D
O
N M
r
i r
r r O i i
0 r
r
r O
a
�o
NO
O Lq co
'L
(6 U
N T
O O V U)
O
O co c co N
U S N N
M (O N
tb
O
V
O L
N U
C
N En U D
69
V) 69 V)
V)
V) V)
V) V) (a V) V)
V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V)
V)
V) w
O 2
N pt C
O p D_ "C
i
r i r r
r
r
N U
Z (n N
m
to co N
M r cD
m t0 O
(O N M
O t O
O co r
(D N C C N Y
n
'V' O 0 O M
0 n t
V
N
6
C C 0 F
N N (O
o
o 0
o" Co W Z
.0 E Co C N
V)
V) V) V)
V)
V) V)
V) V) V) V) 0
V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V)
V)
V) V)
C) E
Z
C U i 'N U N
M P- O Imo.
O) 10 N M
Ct U CD
o
p
0
0
O O N
2
0O co N
O O o
O
En
o
O
O
Q N
C a C O Q Of
O N O 15
co V V N
(O O
O
O
V)
O
O
0-
Ef} V) V) V)
V)
f"
N M 'ct (O
U "V U C v O
w -C d
H
N Q�
Qr
W
N N N N N
co (0 7 L
d d d LL
7
U
Y
U
Y
F F F F to
N m-j N S J
d i
to
E O
V
Gr
EL 0K CQ «w°
N
w
y
H r C
C B
to
J O Z N
C
X
fA
W 'D F-
0
2O'a 'C
7
W
4
O
r41
W m "O
N V tU C
CY
y�_
K
y
(D
W W "O
m
W d
O"
tr LL (a
O Q
m O N O
LT y
J
V
4
O
B
p in
U
g
.Q
a� v
Q a
d
c
E
R
Q
w
y x
o m o x Q
4
O
a
Q
��m
�Q-
Ooh
2 oN
Cl)
O��o
CL
Z N
Q m
c
m
o ro
Q N IL t--
cn2
U2UU-
im
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director w;
DATE: August 12, 2011
SUBJECT: TUC Pedestrian Bicvcle Bridqe
Project No. 90510403
Type, Size and Location Report
ISSUE
Presentation of the Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge project from inception to the draft Type, Size, and
Location Report.
BACKGROUND
In 2007, the City contracted with KPFF to begin the design of a pedestrian /bicycle bridge
crossing the Green River. This work was partially funded by an Enhancement Grant of
$200,000.00. The first step in designing a new bridge involves a Type, Size, and Location
(TS &L) Study to determine the best placement for the bridge and what kind of bridge is
appropriate. The first draft of the TS &L was completed in August 2008. Additional funding was
necessary to complete the design of the bridge and staff continued to pursue grant
opportunities. With recent awards of two grants totaling approximately $1,251,000.00, adequate
funding is available to complete the bridge design.
DISCUSSION
The TS &L Report has been reviewed by staff and is being finalized for presentation to the
Council for acceptance and selection of the bridge type to complete design. A presentation on
the history of the Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge project, along with highlights of the forthcoming
TS &L Report, will be presented to the Transportation Committee on August 15, 2011. The Final
Draft of the TS &L Report will be distributed to the Committee under separate cover sometime
the following week. The TS &L Report will be formally presented to the Committee at the
September 6, 2011 meeting. The draft Executive Summary is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Information Only.
Attachment: Draft Executive Summary
w: \pw eng\old p drive\cyndy \pedestrian bridge \information memo is &I presentation 8- 15- 11.docx
19
1. Executive Summary
The primary goal of the Tukwila pedestrian bridge is to create a strong link between transit oriented
development related to Tukwila Sounder Station and the Tukwila Urban Center. In analyzing potential
bridge locations across the Green River, it became apparent that bridging the river is just one link that
needs to be considered. There are no clear connections with Chrmstonsen Road to west or the
Interurban Trail and future Tukwila Station to the east. It also became apparent there are two rivers to
cross: the Green River and West Valley Highway (SR 181). The West Valley Highway acts as a barrier
as much as the Green River because of its width, amount of traffic, anc€ no direct access across.
This report provides the results of the type, size, ario Iopation (TS &L) studyfor. the Green River crossing
and the associated trail alignment beginning at &ikr Boulevard crossing ove #1 Green River, and
terminating at the West Valley Highway. The TS &L phase includes the study of tf}' ,locations and
alignments, bridge types and sizes, and project aesthetics, and defines permitting requirements
related to the trail approaches and river, crossing.
Hydraulic, geotechnical, and environmerltak` aaKs were performmlE
trail alignment and bridge structure alternatives The hydraulic t
Corps of Engineers, King County, and theVty to establish the cu
floodplain and the required•.vertical ciearan'cefor structures abo
geotechnical study was performed to evaluate the genetat, geol
alignments and provide recommendations for ea h erpinkmer
foundations. A preliminary environmental evaluat orl"Was condu
define possible permits.
to support the development of both
>k included coordination with the
ant location of the 100 -year
the 104 -year floodplain. A
conditions along the proposed
>,.:retaining walls, and bridge
ed to identify critical areas and
Site constraints affecting the bridge kicatido -wo trail alignment include the proximity of private
propel'ty�#nd the loc tlon_of a major waterline o i 'ad. by the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). Properties
incl'ude'Riverview Plaza Park,. Embassy Suite's, Marriott Courtyard, Residence Inn, a 76 Gas
Station, and a private residbrice. Each alignment alternative balances the need for right -of -way
acquisition while not encroaching within the CPU right -of -way with the bridge structure.
The bridge alternatives evaluated for the main spans over the Green River were a twin tied arch bridge,
a single inclined arch bridge, a single tied arch bridge, and several truss alternatives. These options
were selected due to the long spans 200 feet) required to span the Green River. The structure
alternatives were developed to Xfbvel that enabled the preliminary sizing of structural member that
could then be used to develop cost estimates.
Three trail alignments were studied for the approach west of the river. The alternatives travel at -grade
through or around the Riverview Plaza. East of the river, both a structural ramp alternative and an
elevator /stairway combination alternative were considered for the approach to the main river span.
Cost estimates were developed for each bridge and trail alignment alternative. The cost estimates
included three trail alignment alternatives for the western approach, five Green River pedestrian bridge
alternatives, and two structural approach styles for the eastern approach.
City of Tukwila
Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd)
July 19, 2011
MEETING SUMMARY
Members
Councilmember Wayne Snoey
Brian Ziegler
Michael Drollinger
Kelly McGourty
Grant Fredricks
Mayor Bart Taylor
Mayor Suzette Cooke
Mayor Noel Gerken
Councilmember Marcie Palmer
Chris Arkills
Councilmember Joan Hernandez
Councilmember Clarke Brant
Larry Blanchard
Councilmember Jeannie Burbidge
Councilmember Lynda Osborn
Stacy Trussler
Mayor Pete Lewis
Councilmember Ralph Shape
I. June 21, 2011 Meeting Summary
The June 21, 2011 meeting summary was approved.
II. Reports:
City of Covington (Chair)
Pierce County
Port of Seattle (Alternate)
PSRC (Alternate)
City of Des Moines (Alternate)
City of Milton
City of Kent (Alternate)
City of Maple Valley
City of Renton
King County Executive (Alternate)
City of Tukwila
City of Normandy Park
City of Burien (Alternate)
City of Federal Way
City of Algona (Alternate)
WSDOT
City of Auburn
City of SeaTac
Chair Snoey reviewed the new subarea population totals that were sent out to
Boardmembers. The new population numbers are based on the 2010 census information.
He noted that the SCATBd subarea still had the largest percentage of population out of
the three subareas represented by SeaShore, ETP and SCATBd. Chair Snoey also
reported that he had attended a Regional Access Mobility Partnership (RAMP) meeting.
The RAMP group was briefed on Pierce Transit service reductions and on the Tacoma
Tideflats Area Transportation Plan. The study identifies future transportation needs for
the growth of freight related traffic to and from the Tacoma Tideflats area. The biggest
obstacle to implementing the plan is a lack of money for the proposed projects. Chair
Snoey reported on the action of the PSRC Executive Board to change the status of
WSDOT's SR 99, South King to Roy Street Central Waterfront Viaduct Replacement
projects from its current status of "conditionally approved for design build" to
"conditionally approve." This change in status will allow construction money to be
programmed into the regional transportation improvement program.
21
SCATBd Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 2
111. Representative Judy Clibborn, Looking Ahead to the 2012 Legislative Session
Chair Snoey reported that he had discussed with Rep. Clibborn, SCATBd's priorities
which included funding for the major regional projects in the South County area, local
funding issues, and the street maintenance utility (SMU) legislation. Chair Snoey noted
that the SMU legislation did not serve the needs of every city, that there were cities like
Algona and Covington that had a high degree of pass through traffic that impacted local
roads. In such cases, Chair Snoey noted, there needs to be a regional effort to address the
preservation concerns of those cities.
Rep. Clibborn first explained that she felt that it was her job to educate the people on the
transportation issues facing the public and hoped that SCATBd members would use some
of the information that she was presenting in their talking points. Representative
Clibborn briefly described the bipartisan atmosphere that the House and Senate used to
address that last transportation budget. She said that the last transportation budget passed
in the House 89 to 6, and that she will be listening to everyone as the legislature moves
forward on addressing transportation funding issues. She reviewed the projects that the
State has been working since the passage of the Nickel and Transportation Partnership
account gas taxes. She noted that the Mega projects were soaking up a lot of dollars, and
said the next big project she expects to move forward will be the Columbia River
Crossing. As the big projects get closer to completion, the Nickel and Transportation
Partnership gas tax will be used to pay off the construction bonds for the next 25 years.
Rep. Clibborn noted that of the 37.5 cents per gallon gas tax, 14.5 cents are dedicated to
Nickel and TPA projects, 11 cents supports cities and counties local road projects, 4 cents
support debt service to reduce bond debt that funded past highway and ferry projects.
That leaves just 8 cents for maintenance and operations and for preservation, safety and
new congestion relief projects. She said that is another reason why we need to find new
revenue sources for transportation. Representative Clibborn also talked about the impact
of fuel efficient vehicles now being introduced into the market, which will result in
reducing the buying power of the gas tax.
Rep. Clibborn talked about the work that the Transportation Partnership was doing to
support transportation financing. The Transportation Partnership is a coalition of
business, labor, local government and environmental representatives from around the
state who are working to find new revenue sources to address our transportation needs.
The group wanted the state legislature to develop a transportation package. Based on this
request the Governor formed the Connecting Washington Task Force that is charged with
developing a transportation funding package. Rep. Clibborn also said that she did not
think the task force will develop list of projects but will develop a criteria that will be
used to eventually develop and prioritize a project list. She said that she would like to see
a transportation package that was multimodal in nature. She said that the transportation
package should not be limited to what would be allowed under the eighteenth
amendment, that it could address multimodal concerns including transit, rail and
22
SCATBd Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 3
stormwater management. She also said that the list of projects that will be eventually
developed should represent a 10 year time -frame.
She felt that local needs and preservation projects were short changed during the Nickel
and Transportation Partnership gas tax debate. She also said that one of the most
important project selection criteria for this region would include linking the impact of a
transportation projects to economic vitality, jobs, and freight mobility. She also said that
projects that have tolling dollars as part of its revenue package should compete well for
matching state dollars.
Brian Ziegler asked if local projects will be line itemed in the new revenue package.
Rep. Clibbom said she did not envision this new transportation package listing local
projects but the need for more local funding will be specifically addressed in a new
transportation package (i.e. TIB or CRAB programs). She said she expects local
governments will be a bigger player in this transportation funding debate.
Mayor Cooke asked about how the legislature will address the negative public impression
on the value of HOT lanes and cited the limited length of SR 167 HOT lane system as an
example. Rep. Clibbom said that she is not in favor of removing the SR 167 HOT lanes,
because it would be a heavy political lift to re- establish HOT Lanes in the corridor. She
said the Washington State Transportation Commission will be managing an independent
study to look at the feasibility of HOT lanes in the I -405 corridor, and that study result
will determine the future course of the HOT lane project in I -405.
Councilmember Lynda Osborn delivered a letter regarding the City of Algona's view on
the SMU. Chair Snoey summarized the letter's position explaining that while the SMU
worked for some cities, it did not work well for some smaller cities with significant pass
through traffic on their streets. He said that in those cases there needs to be a regional
solution to address those issues of pass through traffic for small cities which do not have
the tax base to support a SMU. Representative Clibborn again stressed the importance of
maintaining connectivity of a local arterial system, and this need for connectivity should
be used to support the need for more regional funds for local preservation needs.
Mayor Lewis noted that funding sources for local streets have been drying up and was
one of the reasons local cities were looking into a street maintenance utility as a local
funding option. He noted from state's perspective, the freight corridors ended at the
freeway ramp. He said that we have to link people and business to the freeways in order
to get economy moving again. Mayor Lewis noted that his constituency responded
positively to preservation projects over new construction projects.
Mayor Cooke voiced her concern about the peanut butter approach when funding project
at the local level, that projects received some funding but not enough to complete the
projects. She said that local jurisdictions find that they lack the snatching funds to
23
SCATBd Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 4
complete the projects. She asked that consideration be given to look at funding local
scenarios where enough funds can be identified so that projects can be completed.
Chris Arkills noted that there were competing needs between freeway and road capital
dollars, and transit operation needs. He asked Representative Clibborn how she viewed
how these needs will be addressed by the Connecting Washington Task Force.
Representative Clibborn said that there will be support for transit, and the discussion will
focus on whether transit needs would be supported through a local option tax or as part of
the new package.
Larry Blanchard asked what needs to be done in order to get the SMU passed during the
next legislative session. Representative Clibborn said that she didn't see a lot of political
backing for the SMU in the last session, and there was strong SMU opposition from the
business community. It was noted that the SMU legislation passed out of the House
during the last legislative session, and Representative Clibborn said SMU supporters
should review the level of support for the SMU legislation in the Senate.
Stacy Trussler asked Representative Clibborn about her views on I- 1125. Representative
Clibborn said that she was concerned about I -1125 impacts to transportation financing if
toll and fare setting responsibility is put into the hands of the legislature and bypass the
Transportation Commission. She said the passage of I -1125 would create higher
financing costs and higher tolls.
Chair Snoey asked how SCATBd could help with the Task Force in their work.
Representative Clibborn said that they did rely on the high priority local project list that
PSRC developed with local county and city help. She also said that SCATBd should
highlight the importance of freight corridors, and they should keep hammering this point
in their discussion with legislators. Chair Snoey asked if SCATBd's legislative agenda
that highlights the Board's project priorities was helpful to her. Representative Clibborn
said the SCATBd legislative agenda was helpful to her and said that if projects are not on
a list they will not get noticed.
III. Metro Transit Congestion Reduction Charge
Chair Snoey noted that the SeaShore group had a support letter for the Congestion Relief
Charge (CRC) that was now under consideration by the King County Council. ETP was
considering a support letter but was not ready to send one to the Council. Chair Snoey
wanted to know if the Board wanted to send a CRC support letter. He asked the members
present if their respective councils had taken a position on the CRC. The Board
concluded that they were not ready to sign on to a SCATBd CRC support letter. Chair
Snoey said that he expects that the Board will want to consider a letter of support for the
CRC if it is put on the ballot for a public vote.
24
SCATBd Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 5
IV. PSRC Project Prioritization Update
Kelly McGourty first reported that the PSRC had received an additional $36.8 million in
funds as a result of higher -than estimated Federal Highway Administration funds coming
to the Puget Sound region. There was also an additional $5.1 million of returned
STP /CMAQ funds from PSRC's project tracking program. The total amount of funds
available for distribution to the approved contingency lists is therefore $41.9 million.
These additional funds were proposed to be distributed to projects on adopted
contingency lists developed for these types of circumstances.
Ms. McGourty briefed the Board on the status of the PSRC's project priority process.
She said that the region's transportation plan, Transportation 2040, includes a
commitment for PSRC to develop a prioritization process for projects and programs
within the plan or those seeking admittance into the plan. Ms. McGourty said that they
are planning to develop recommendations and release them for public comments in
December of 2011 and have the General Assembly adopt a project priority process in the
Spring of 2012.
Ms. McGourty said that there were five key outcomes expected from the region's growth
management plan, Vision 2040 they are Mobility, Community Character, Prosperous
Economy, Social Responsibility and Equity, and Sustainable Environment. In order to
achieve the five outcomes, the PSRC spent the last few months developing measures to
put weights on these five outcomes. PSRC staff and PSRC working groups are currently
testing two evaluation methods to determine how to proceed with the prioritization
process. The first method is called the Hybrid approach, which is a detailed exercise
using the transportation model. The second approach is the Scorecard approach; it takes
the same outcomes and measures but uses a qualitative and subjective approach to weight
the outcomes.
Ms. McGourty reported that regardless of method used people weighted the five
outcomes similarly. Mobility and prosperous economy received the highest weight under
both approaches. She reported on lessons learned from the two approach exercise which
included:
Outcomes results were comparable for the two approaches
Understanding of questions can affect weighting results
Weighting exercise was too complex there is a request to simplify process
Consolidate measures (reduce from 17 to 10 measures)
There was general support for the Scorecard approach
Need for more detailed project information.
Next steps include developing a prioritization process recommendation by November
2011, public comment on the recommendation by December 2011, the Transportation
25
SCATBd Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 6
Policy Board forwards its comments Executive Board by February 2012, and the General
Assembly taking action on the project prioritization process in the Spring 2012.
Iti. Preparing for the 2012 Legislative Session
Chair Snoey discussed the preparation of the 2012 legislative agenda. He reminded the
Board about last year's short and long version of the agenda. The long version of the
agenda was used to inform the large number of new members to the legislature. This
year he recommended the Board developing a shorter version of a SCATBd 2012
legislative agenda. He said the agenda's message might focus on preservation and
maintenance.
Mayor Gerken reported that the City of Maple Valley was voted top 10 cities for families
by the Family Circle Magazine. The Board noted that this was a great honor for a local
city.
Other Attendees:
Cathy Mooney, City of Kent
Bob Giberson, City of Tukwila
Rick Perez, City of Federal Way
Pete Stewart, Transportation Choices Coalition
Dennis Dowdy, City of Auburn
Deborah Miller, AECOM
Jim Seitz, City of Renton
Doug Levy, Kent /Fed Way /Renton
Carolyn Robertson, City of Auburn
Paul Takamine, King County DOT
Jim Seitz, City of Renton
Monica Whitman, Suburban Cities Assoc
.Glenn Akramoff, City of Covington
26
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD
(SCATBd)
MEETING
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
9:00 11:00 a.m.
SeaTac City Hall
4800 South 188 Street
SeaTac
AGENDA
1. Open Meeting Action
Introductions
Approve summary of July 19, 2011 SCATBd
Meeting*
2. Reports, Communications and Citizen Requests to Comment Reports and
Chair or Vice Chair Discussion
Participant Updates from TPB, RTC, PSRC Boards,
Other
Citizen Comment
3. Metro Transit Update
Congestion Reduction Charge
RapidRide F Line Update
RapidRide A Line Ridership Update
4. Sound Transit Briefing Rachael Smith
5. PSRC Growing Transit Communities Briefing
6. SCATBd 2012 Legislative Message
*Attachment to agenda
Report and
Discussion
Report and
Discussion
Report and
Discussion
9:00 a.m.
9:10 a.m.
9:30 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:20 a.m.
Discussion 10:40 a.m.
27