HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2021-06-14 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETTukwila City Council Agenda
❖ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE •❖
„,4: -.1" -ILA wQs
Q
4
"',n 2
190$
Allan Ekberg, Mayor Counci/members: ❖ Verna Seal ❖ Kathy Hougardy
David Cline, City Administrator ❖ De'Sean Quinn ❖ Thomas McLeod
Kate Kruller, Council President ❖ Zak Idan ❖ Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson
THE MEETING WILL
20-28 ADOPTED
ANY PUBLIC AGENCY,
RCW 42.30 UNLESS
NOT BE
CONDUCTED AT TUKWILA CITY HALL, BASED ON THE GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION
2020 WHICH SAYS IN PART:
TO RCW 42.30, IS PROHIBITED FROM CONDUCTING ANY MEETING, SUBJECT TO
MARCH 24,
SUBJECT
(A) THE
MEETING IS NOT CONDUCTED IN-PERSON AND INSTEAD PROVIDES AN OPTIONS)
FOR THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND THE
THE PHONE
For Technical
Monday, June 14, 2021; 7:00
PROCEEDINGS THROUGH, AT MINIMUM, TELEPHONIC ACCESS, ...”
NUMBER FOR THE PUBLIC TO LISTEN TO THE MEETING IS:
1-253-292-9750, ACCESS CODE: 670077847#.
Click here to: Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
Support during the meeting call: 1-206-431-2179.
PM
1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. LAND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City of Tukwila is located on the ancestral lands of the Coast Satish peop/e.
We acknowledge their continuing connections to land, waters and culture.
We pay our respects to their elders past, present and emerging.
3. PUBLIC
COMMENTS—
including comment
on items both on and
not on the meeting
agenda
* 2021 update * Those wishing to provide public comments now have
opportunity to verbally address the City Council via phone or Microsoft Teams
for up to 5 minutes for items both on and not on the meeting agenda.
To take advantage of this option, please email citycouncil@tukwilawa.gov
the
with your
the
the
name and the topic you wish to speak on by 5:00 PM on the date of the meeting.
Please clearly indicate that your message is for public comment during
meeting. You will receive further instructions and be called upon during
meeting to address the City Council.
4. PUBLIC
HEARING
A resolution adopting the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program.
To provide public hearing comments, please email
citycouncil@tukwilawa.gov, provide your first and last name, and
Pg.1
reference the public hearing topic in the subject line, by 5:00 PM on
June 14, 2021. Once you have signed up by email, your name will
be called upon during the meeting to speak for up to five minutes.
Call 1-253-292-9750, ACCESS CODE: 670077847# to participate or click
here to Join Microsoft Teams Meeting at 7:00 PM on June 14, 2021.
(continued...)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
June 14, 2021
Page 2
5. SPECIAL ISSUES
a. A resolution adopting the 2022-2027 Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program.
b. Weekly COVID-19 report.
c. Emergency Management update:
(1) An update on the Emergency Management Program Work Plan.
(2) A resolution to become a signatory of the Regional Coordination
Framework for resource sharing during a disaster.
d. An update and Council consensus on the Fire Advisory Task Force
and funding request for consultation services.
e. An update and Council consensus on options for BNSF Alternative
Access Study.
Pg.1
Pg.43
Pg.51
Pg.55
Pg.125
Pg.143
6. REPORTS
a. Mayor
b. City Council
c. Staff
7. MISCELLANEOUS
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION
9. ADJOURNMENT
This agenda is available at www.tukwilawa.gov, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Remote Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped (and video taped as of 9/14/20). Available at www.tukwilawa.gov)
WELCOME TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The Tukwila City Council encourages community participation in the local government process and
welcomes attendance and public comment at its meetings.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month. The City Council takes
formal action in the form of motions, resolutions and ordinances at Regular Meetings.
Committee of the Whole Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month. The
City Council considers current issues, discusses policy matters in detail, and coordinates the work of
the Council at Committee of the Whole meetings.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public are given the opportunity to address the Council for up to 5 minutes on items both on
and not on the meeting agenda during Public Comments. The City Council will also accept comments on an
agenda item when the item is presented in the agenda, but speakers are limited to commenting once per
item each meeting.
When recognized by the Presiding Officer, please go to the podium if on-site or turn on your microphone if
attending virtually and state your name clearly for the record. The City Council appreciates hearing from you
but may not respond or answer questions during the meeting. Members of the City Council or City staff may
follow up with you following the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public
interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. The City Council
Rules of Procedure provide the following guidelines for Public Hearings:
1. City staff will provide a report summarizing and providing context to the issue at hand.
2. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
3. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
4. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.
5. After the proponents and opponents have used their speaking time, the Council may ask further
clarifying questions of the speakers.
6. Members of the public who wish to address the Council on the hearing topic may speak for 5
minutes each.
7. Speakers are asked to sign in on forms provided by the City Clerk.
8. The Council may ask clarifying questions of speakers and the speakers may respond.
9. Speakers should address their comments to the City Council.
10. If a large number of people wish to speak to the issue, the Council may limit the total amount of
comment time dedicated to the Public Hearing.
11. Once the Presiding Officer closes the public hearing, no further comments will be accepted, and the
issue is open for Councilmember discussion.
12. Any hearing being held or ordered to be held by the City Council may be continued in the manner as
set forth by RCW 42.30.100.
For more information about the City Council, including its complete Rules of
Procedure, please visit: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/city-council/
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initiair
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
06/14/21
JR
Improvement Program (2022 - 2027)
06/14/21
06/21/21
JR
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
CATEGORY Discussion
11 Resolution
Mtg Date
Mtg Date 06/21/21
SPONSOR ❑Council ❑Mayor HR DCD ❑Finance Fire ❑TS' P&R Police
BPIF ❑Court
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM No.
4 & 5.A.
1
STAFF SPONSOR: CYNDY KNIGHTON
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 06/14/21
AGENDA ITEM TITLE
Resolution for Six
-Year Transportation
Improvement Program (2022 - 2027)
06/14/21
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
CATEGORY Discussion
11 Resolution
Mtg Date
Mtg Date 06/21/21
SPONSOR ❑Council ❑Mayor HR DCD ❑Finance Fire ❑TS' P&R Police
BPIF ❑Court
SPONSOR'S This Resolution is to update the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) required by
SUMMARY the RCW. The TIP generally lists only those transportation -related projects planned within
the next six years that are deemed regionally significant or that have grant funding
awarded or expected. Five new projects were added, and one project was removed because
it is expected to be completed before July 1, 2021. Council is being asked to approve the
Resolution for the 2022 - 2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program.
REVIEWED BY
Trans&Infrastructure
❑ CommunitySvs/Safety Financc Comm. Planning/Economic Dcv.
❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. n Planning Comm.
COMMITTEE CHAIR: VERNA SEAL
❑ LTAC
DATE: 05/24/21
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
Public Works Department
Forward to Committee of the Whole and Regular Consent Agenda
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Fund Source: NO FISCAL IMPACT
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
06/14/21
06/21/21
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/14/21
Informational Memorandum dated 05/21/2021
Draft Resolution
Draft 2022-2027 TIP Summary
2022 — 2027 "Draft" Transportation Improvement Program
Current Adopted 2021— 2026 TIP
Minutes from Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting of 05/24/2021
06/21/21
Final Resolution
1
2
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Public Works Depart rnerat-Hari Ponnekanti, Director/City Engineer
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Services Committee
FROM: Hari Ponnekanti, Public Works Director/ City Engineer
BY: Cyndy Knighton, Senior Program Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: May 21, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution for Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (2022 - 2027)
ISSUE
Approve a Resolution adopting the annual update of the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
for 2022 - 2027.
BACKGROUND
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is updated annually as required by the Revised Code
of Washington (RCW). The TIP is adopted by resolution after a public hearing at the local agency level
and incorporated into regional and state TIPs. The TIP is primarily a financial planning document for
projects competing for grants. Any project submitted for federal grant funding must be included in the
local, regional, and state adopted TIPs. The TIP is a rolling plan showing various funding sources:
grants, developer and local funds. Projects "roll" as funds or stages occur (design report, final design
and construction).
Tukwila's TIP and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list many of the same transportation -related
projects. The TIP generally lists only those transportation -related projects planned within the next six
years that are deemed regionally significant or that have grant funding awarded or expected. The TIP
is scheduled for adoption on June 21, 2021.
ANALYSIS
The attached spreadsheet is the "Draft" 2022 - 2027 TIP and was created by modifying the 2021 - 2026
TIP to add or remove projects and adjust project costs. No prioritization was assigned and the list of
projects is presented in alphabetical order. Prioritization of projects is reflected in the current CIP. Five
new projects were added, and one project was removed because it is expected to be completed before
July 1, 2021.
New: Keeping South King County Moving with TDM, South King County Regional TDM, Transportation
Demand Management Implementation, S 119th Street Pedestrian Bridge Painting, Southcenter Blvd/65th
Avenue S Signal
Deleted: BAR over Airport Way Bridge Seismic Retrofit. (project completed)
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to approve the Resolution for the 2022 - 2027 Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program and consider this item at a Public Hearing at the June 14, 2021 Committee of
the Whole and subsequent June 21, 2021 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution
Draft 2022-2027 TIP Summary
2022— 2027 "Draft" Transportation Improvement Program
Current Adopted 2021 — 2026 TIP
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/publicworks/engineering/pw drop box/01 tic agenda/2021 agenda items/tic 05-24-21/c. 2022-2027
six year tip/info memo tip 2022.docx
3
4
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A SIX-YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2022-
2027), AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH
THE STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of RCW Chapters 35.77 and 47.26, the
City Council of the City of Tukwila has previously adopted a Transportation Improvement
Program and thereafter periodically modified said Transportation Improvement Program
by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the work accomplished under said
program, determined current and future City street and arterial needs and, based upon
these findings, has prepared a Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for the
ensuing six calendar years (2022-2027); and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021, a public hearing was held regarding the City's Six -
Year Transportation Improvement Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Program Adopted. A Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
for the calendar years 2022 to 2027, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted.
Section 2. Filing of Program. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
file a copy of this resolution, together with the exhibit attached hereto, with the Secretary
of Transportation and the Transportation Improvement Board of the State of Washington
CC:\Legislative Development\TIP 2022-2027 5-10-21
CK:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton
Page 1 of 2
5
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2021.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk Kate Kruller, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
Office of the City Attorney
Exhibit A: City of Tukwila Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for 2022 to 2027
CC:\Legislative Development\TIP 2022-2027 5-10-21
CK:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton
6
Page 2 of 2
2021-2026
CIP Sheet
DRAFT 2022 - 2027 TIP SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE
May 19, 2021
Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars FUNDING SOURCES
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 TOTAL Federal State/TIB Unsecured City
9 42nd Avenue S Bridge Replacement 750 1,250 9,450 9,450 0 0
4 46th Avenue Safe Routes to School 265 250 2,065 0 0 0
14 ADA Improvements 35 50 50 50 50 50
20 APE/Minkler Blvd Intersection 144 1,570 0 0 0 0
13 Annual Bridge Inspections and Repairs 75 200 200 200 200 200
12 Annual Overlay and Repair Program 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,500 1,650
BNSF Regional Center Access 0 0 0 0 0 100
11 Green River Trail 74 1,200 0 0 0 0
Keeping South King County Moving with TDM 210 210 210 210 0 0
5 Macadam Road S Complete Streets Project 0 500 3,100 0 0 0
18 S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge Painting 0 0 200 0 0 0
- S 140th St Intersection Improvements 0 200 1,200 0 0 0
21 S 144th St Bridge Sidewalks 0 443 0 0 0 0
3 S 152nd Street Safe Routes to School 0 2,600 0 0 0 0
South King County Regional TDM 100 175 175 76 0 0
19 Southcenter Blvd/65th Avenue S Signal 100 900 0 0 0 0
Transportation Demand Management Impleme 37 37 37 37 37 38
8 West Valley Highway/Longacres Way 140 0 0 0 0 0
20,900
2,580
285
1,714
1,075
8,850
100
1,274
840
3,600
200
1,400
443
2,600
526
1,000
223
140
15,500 3,500 17,500 1,900
2,275 2,275 305
285
1,714
1,075
8,850
100
966 966 308
840 672 0
3,250 3,250 350
200
1,400 1,400
400 400 43
2,340 2,340 260
450 76 0
550 550 450
223 148 0
100 40
TOTAL
3,330 10,985 18,087 11,523 1,787 2,038 47,750 16,350 14,120 29,501 17,280
PROJECTS REVISED FROM 2021-2027 TIP
New Deleted/Completed:
Keeping South King County Moving with TDM BAR over Airport Wy Bridge Seismic Retrofit
S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge Painting
South King County Regional TDM
Southcenter Blvd/65th Avenue S Signal
Transportation Demand Management Implementation
8
Washingtan State
IVO Departmento! Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
05
STP
TUK-62
42nd Ave S Bridge Replacement
42nd Ave S over the Duwamish River
Interurban Ave S to Northern end of bridge
Replace the existing 42nd Ave S steel truss bridge. The replacement will require
preliminary engineer design, right-of-way, and construction phases. The new
structure will meet current road and bridge design standards. The replacement
structure configuration will be two through -lanes, possibly a turn pocket, and include
sidewalks.
06/14/21
06/21/21
0
1,500,000
11
CN
0.100
DCE
Yes
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
PE
2022
STP
1,500,000
0
0
1,500,000
P
CN
2024
STP(BR)
12,000,000
TIB
3,000,000
0
15,000,000
P
CN
2024
STP
2,000,000
FMSIB
500,000
3,029,000
5,529,000
Totals
15,500,000
9,450,000
3,500,000
3,029,000
22,029,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
750,000
1,250,000
0
0
0
CN
0
0
9,450,000
9,450,000
0
Totals
750,000
1,250,000
9,450,000
9,450,000
0
CD Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 1
Washington State
O Vir, Department o! Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
19
WA -11113
46th Avenue Safe Routes to School
46th Avenue S
S 150th Street to S 144th Street
Design and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side of 46th Avenue S,
including curb bulb -out at the SE corner of 46th Avenue S/S 144th Street with raised
crosswalk across S 144th Street with RRFB.
06/14/21
06/21/21
85,000
265,000
05
RW
0.370
Yes
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2022
0
SRTS
180,000
85,000
265,000
P
RW
2023
0
SRTS
230,000
20,000
250,000
P
CN
2024
0
SRTS
1,865,000
200,000
2,065,000
Totals
0
0
2,275,000
305,000
2,580,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
265,000
0
0
0
0
RW
0
250,000
0
0
0
CN
0
0
2,065,000
0
0
Totals
265,000
250,000
2,065,000
0
0
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 2
Washing-tan State
IVO Departmento! Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
4th
WA -05405
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvements
Various locations
to
Design and construct ADA compliant upgrades to City infrastructure in conjunction
with a City developed plan.
06/14/21
06/21/21
285,000
285,000
06
0
50,000
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
ALL
2022
4th
0
5th & 6th
0
285,000
285,000
Totals
0
50,000
0
285,000
285,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
35,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
100,000
Totals
35,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
100,000
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 3
Washingrtan State
N IVO Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
16
RW
WA -07746
Andover Park E/Minkler Blvd Intersection
Andover Park E
Minkler Blvd to
Construct left turn lanes on Andover Park East and reconstruct traffic signal
06/14/21
06/21/21
134,000
134,000
03
C G O P S
TW
2022
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2022
RW
0
0
0
134,000
134,000
P
RW
2022
0
0
0
0
10,000
10,000
P
CN
2023
0
0
1,570,000
1,570,000
Totals
0
0
1,714,000
1,714,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
134,000
0
0
0
0
RW
10,000
0
0
0
0
CN
0
1,570,000
0
0
0
Totals
144,000
1,570,000
0
0
0
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 4
Washing-tan State
IVO Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
14
4th
WA -03731
Annual Bridge Inspections and Repairs
Various City Street
to
Perform load ratings and bi-annual inspections as well as construct necessary
repairs and maintenance
06/14/21
06/21/21
1,075,000
1,075,000
06
0
200,000
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
ALL
2022
4th
0
5th & 6th
0
1,075,000
1,075,000
Totals
0
200,000
0
1,075,000
1,075,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
75,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
400,000
Totals
75,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
400,000
W Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 5
Washirigrtim State
Virj, Departmento! Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
16
4th
WA -03733
Annual Overlay and Repair Program
Various City Streets
to
Repair, rehabilitate, and overlay City streets as needed in an annual program
06/14/21
06/21/21
8,850,000
8,850,000
06
C G O P S
TW
1,400,000
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
ALL
2022
4th
0
5th & 6th
0
8,850,000
8,850,000
Totals
0
1,400,000
0
8,850,000
8,850,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
1,400,000
1,400,000
1,400,000
1,500,000
3,150,000
Totals
1,400,000
1,400,000
1,400,000
1,500,000
3,150,000
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 6
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
WA05409
BNSF Regional Center Access Study
to
Study access to the BNSF Regional Distribution Center.
06/14/21
06/21/21
100,000
100,000
18
® 4
r
EIS
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2027
0
0
100,000
100,000
Totals
® 4
r
0
100,000
100,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
0
0
100,000
Totals
0
0
0
0
100,000
01 Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 7
i
jrz Washington State
0) liar Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
WA -11115
Green River Trail
Green River Trail
Christensen Road to Green River
Replace the existing 8 -foot wide Green River Trail with 12 -foot wide concrete paved
trail with 2 -foot gravel shoulders, including illumination, CCTV, wayfinding, and
pedestrian plaza.
06/14/21
06/21/21
8,000
74,000
28
CN
0.140
DCE
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2022
0
Ped/Bike Program
66,000
8,000
74,000
P
CN
2023
0
Ped/Bike Program
900,000
300,000
1,200,000
Totals
0
CN
966,000
308,000
1,274,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
74,000
0
0
0
0
CN
0
1,200,000
0
0
0
Totals
74,000
1,200,000
0
0
0
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 8
i
WiWashington State
r Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
TUK-63
Keeping South King County Moving with TDM
South King County
Various to Various
This project will help people access sustainable transportation options that reduce
drive -alone travel and traffic congestion in South King County. TDM programming
and services will be provided to residents, workers, visitors, employers, property
managers, and students in Tukwila and the partnering jurisdictions of Burien, Des
Moines, Kent, Renton, and SeaTac. The program will target those willing and able to
try sustainable modes of transportation at activity centers (community hubs,
commercial areas, business parks, multifamily housing complexes, and educational
institutions). Examples of activity centers include the Tukwila International Boulevard
District, Southcenter, and Sea -Tac Airport. The TDM Program will work in
partnership with transit agencies, nonprofits, employers, and community
organizations to reach priority populations through trusted channels. The project
aims to reduce 542,997 vehicle trips and 8,093,549 vehicle miles traveled.
06/14/21
06/21/21
0
672,000
44
ALL
0.000
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
ALL
2022
0
OTHER
672,000
0
672,000
S
ALL
2022
0
OTHER
168,000
0
168,000
Totals
0
840,000
0
840,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
210,000
210,000
210,000
210,000
0
Totals
210,000
210,000
210,000
210,000
0
�1 Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 9
i
WaE-hingta, :state
Co VA, Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
17
WA -11110
Macadam Rd S Complete Streets Project
Macadam Road
S 150th Street to S 144th Street
Design and construction of a complete street on Macadam Road. Road widening
and rechannelization to add 5 -foot bike lanes and 5 -foot sidewalks on both sides of
the roadway. Includes illumination, curb, and storm drainage.
06/14/21
06/21/21
40,000
400,000
04
RW
0.350
DCE
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2022
0
Ped/Bike Program
360,000
40,000
400,000
P
RW
2022
0
Ped/Bike Program
90,000
10,000
100,000
P
CN
2023
0
Ped/Bike Program
2,800,000
300,000
3,100,000
Totals
0
0
3,250,000
350,000
3,600,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
400,000
0
0
0
RW
0
100,000
0
0
0
CN
0
0
3,100,000
0
0
Totals
0
500,000
3,100,000
0
0
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 10
i
WaE-hingto, State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
WA -13494
S 119th St Pedestrian Bridge Painting
S 119th Street
West bank Duwamish River to East bank Duwamish River
Ongoing maintenance of the S 119th Street Pedestrian Bridge in the
Allentown/Duwamish neighborhoods. Painting of bridge is outstanding maintenance
needed.
06/14/21
06/21/21
200,000
200,000
06
0
0.040
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
CN
2024
0
0
200,000
200,000
Totals
0
0
0
200,000
200,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
CN
0
0
200,000
0
0
Totals
0
0
200,000
0
0
CO Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 11
sir, un State
IVO Departmento! Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
14
WA -09873
S 140th St Intersection Improvements
S 140th Street
Tukwila International Blvd to
Design and construct a new traffic signal at the S 140th Street/Tukwila International
Blvd intersection
06/14/21
06/21/21
150,000
150,000
04
C G P S T
W
0.100
DCE
Yes
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2027
0
0
150,000
150,000
P
RW
2027
0
0
50,000
50,000
P
CN
2027
0
0
0
1,200,000
1,200,000
Totals
0
0
0
1,400,000
1,400,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
150,000
0
0
0
RW
0
50,000
0
0
0
CN
0
0
1,200,000
0
0
Totals
0
200,000
1,200,000
0
0
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 12
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
17
SRTS
WA03782
S 144th St Bridge Sidewalks
S 144th Street
51st Ave S to 53rd Ave S
Widen existing sidewalks on bridge over 1-5 between 51st Ave S and 53rd Ave S
06/14/21
06/21/21
43,000
443,000
28
® 400,011
0.250
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2023
SRTS
400,000IIIE
4th
0
43,000
443,000
Totals
® 400,011
0
43,000
443,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
443,000
0
0
Totals
0
443,000
0
0
0
N
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 13
Washingrtan State
NIVO Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
19
WA -11112
S 152nd Street Safe Routes to School
S 152nd Street
Tukwila International Blvd to 42nd Avenue S
Design and construct curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides including widening
pavement width by 3 feet to construct on -street parking lane on north side of street.
06/14/21
06/21/21
260,000
2,600,000
05
0
0.300
2,340,000
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
CN
2023
0
SRTS
2,340,000
260,000
2,600,000
Totals
0
0
2,340,000
260,000
2,600,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
CN
0
2,600,000
0
0
0
Totals
0
2,600,000
0
0
0
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 14
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
CMAQ
TUK-64
06/14/21
06/21/21
15,000
525,750
24
450,000
0.000
CE
No
525,750
175,000
South King County TDM
75,750
0
Totals
100,000
175,000
175,000
South King County
75,750
0
N/A to N/A
This project will provide TDM programming and services at selected activity centers
in Tukwila and partnering South King County jurisdictions. Activity centers include
community hubs, commercial areas, business parks, multifamily housing complexes,
and educational institutions. For example, places such as Tukwila International NIIIIIIIISI
Boulevard District, Southcenter, and Sea -Tac Airport. By providing transportation
resources and incentives, the project will encourage people to choose sustainable
transportation options that reduce drive -alone travel and traffic congestion in South
King County. TDM services will be provided to residents, commuters, and visitors,
targeting those willing and able to try sustainable modes of transportation. The
program will work in partnership with partner agencies, nonprofits, employers, and
community organizations.
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
ALL
2023
CMAQ
450,000
OTHER
60,750
15,000
525,750
Totals
450,000
100,000
60,750
15,000
525,750
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
100,000
175,000
175,000
75,750
0
Totals
100,000
175,000
175,000
75,750
0
N
W Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 15
wirz sir, un State
Virar Departmento! Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
04
CN
WA -13495
Southcenter Blvd/65th Avenue S Signal
Southcenter Boulevard
65th Avenue S to
Design and construct a new traffic signal at the Southcenter Boulevard/65th Avenue
S intersection to improve level of service and safety.
06/14/21
06/21/21
50,000
100,000
21
CN
2023
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2022
CN
0
TIB
50,000
50,000
100,000
P
CN
2023
0
0
TIB
500,000
400,000
900,000
Totals
0
550,000
450,000
1,000,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
100,000
0
0
0
0
CN
0
900,000
0
0
0
Totals
100,000
900,000
0
0
0
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 16
vingtun State
IVO Departmento! Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
WA -13491
Transportation Demand Management Implementation
to
Provision of TDM services to Commute Trip Reduction -affected employment sites.
Facilitate employer reporting and records associated with biennial CTR survey.
Engage CTR employment sites with opportunities for improvement and remain
connected via technical meetings with other CTR jurisdictional representatives.
06/14/21
06/21/21
0
74,204
44
ALL
0.000
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
ALL
2022
0
WSDOT
74,204
0
74,204
P
ALL
2022
0
WSDOT
148,408
0
148,408
Totals
0
222,612
0
222,612
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
37,102
37,102
37,102
37,102
74,204
Totals
37,102
37,102
37,102
37,102
74,204
N
01 Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 17
Washingtan State
IrfAir Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2022 to 2027
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
03
/ 0181(019) TUK-60
06/14/21
06/21/21
40,000
140,000
28
0
0.170
DCE
No
140,000
0
West Valley Highway/Longacres Way Shared Use Pathways
0
0
Totals
140,000
0
0
SR 181 & Longacres Way
0
0
West end of planned Green River Bridge to Longacres Way
The West Valley Highway/Longacres Way project modifies northbound
channelization between Strander Boulevard and S 156th Street. A 600ft section of
general-purpose lane will be added, north of Strander. The existing dedicated NB ‘1411111111S1
turn lane at Longacres will change to a thru-right lane, transitioning into 2 NB thru
lanes on the north leg as the existing inside lane will be changed to a dedicated NB
left turn lane. Sidewalks will be added to the east side of the roadway where there
are currently none. A wider, shared -use path will replace the existing sidewalk on the
west side of the road between Longacres Way and the new sidewalks installed for
the Pedestrian -Bicycle bridge. A new two-way cycle track will be added to Longacres
Way from WVH to the Tukwila Station, including new street and pedestrian
illumination. A pedestrian signal crossing of WVH near the landing of the Ped -Bike
bridge and a rapid flashing beacon on Longacres at the Interurban Trail crossing will
be added.
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
CN
2022
0
TIB
100,000
40,000
140,000
Totals
0
140,000
100,000
40,000
140,000
Expenditure Schedule
Federal Funds
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
Phase
16,350,000
1st
14,104,362
2nd
48,878,362
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
CN
140,000
0
0
0
0
Totals
140,000
0
0
0
0
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 18
Federal Funds
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
Grand Totals for Tukwila
16,350,000
14,104,362
18,424,000
48,878,362
Report Date: June 10, 2021
Page 18
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
05
STP(UL)
TUK-62
42nd Ave S Bridge Replacement
42nd Ave S over the Duwamish River
Interurban Ave S to Northern end of bridge
Replace the existing 42nd Ave S steel truss bridge. The replacement will require
preliminary engineer design, right-of-way, and construction phases. The new
structure will meet current road and bridge design standards. The replacement
structure configuration will be two through -lanes, possibly a turn pocket, and include
sidewalks.
0
1,078,000
2,578,000
11
1,500,000
0.100
DCE
Yes
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
PE
2021
STP(UL)
1,500,000
0
1,078,000
2,578,000
Totals
1,500,000
2,578,000
0
1,078,000
2,578,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
2,578,000
0
0
0
0
Totals
2,578,000
0
0
0
0
N
�1 Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 1
i
Washingtan :state
CO IVA. Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
19
WA -11113
46th Avenue Safe Routes to School
46th Avenue S
S 150th Street to S 144th Street
Design and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side of 46th Avenue S,
including curb bulb -out at the SE corner of 46th Avenue S/S 144th Street with raised
crosswalk across S 144th Street with RRFB.
06/22/20
07/06/20
90,000
1993
05
RW
0.370
Yes
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2022
0
SRTS
180,000
90,000
270,000
P
RW
2022
0
SRTS
232,000
24,000
256,000
P
CN
2023
0
SRTS
1,865,000
205,000
2,070,000
Totals
0
0
2,277,000
319,000
2,596,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
270,000
0
0
0
RW
0
256,000
0
0
0
CN
0
0
2,070,000
0
0
Totals
0
526,000
2,070,000
0
0
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 2
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
4th
WA -05405
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvements
Various locations
to
Design and construct ADA compliant upgrades to City infrastructure in conjunction
with a City developed plan.
06/22/20
07/06/20
1,200,000
1993
06
0
200,000
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
ALL
2021
4th
0
5th & 6th
0
1,200,000
1,200,000
Totals
0
200,000
0
1,200,000
1,200,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
400,000
Totals
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
400,000
N
CO Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 3
i
WaEhin mn :matte
O VW Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
16
RW
WA -07746
Andover Park E/Minkler Blvd Intersection
Andover Park E
Minkler Blvd to
Construct left turn lanes on Andover Park East and reconstruct traffic signal
06/22/20
07/06/20
134,000
1993
03
C G O P S
TW
2022
1,570,000
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2022
RW
0
10,000
0
134,000
134,000
P
RW
2022
1,570,000
0
0
0
10,000
10,000
P
CN
2023
0
0
1,570,000
1,570,000
Totals
0
0
1,714,000
1,714,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
134,000
0
0
0
RW
0
10,000
0
0
0
CN
0
0
1,570,000
0
0
Totals
0
144,000
1,570,000
0
0
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 4
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
14
4th
WA -03731
Annual Bridge Inspections and Repairs
Various City Street
to
Perform load ratings and bi-annual inspections as well as construct necessary
repairs and maintenance
06/22/20
07/06/20
2,380,000
1993
06
0
335,000
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
ALL
2021
4th
0
5th & 6th
0
2,380,000
2,380,000
Totals
0
335,000
0
2,380,000
2,380,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
335,000
335,000
405,000
405,000
900,000
Totals
335,000
335,000
405,000
405,000
900,000
W
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 5
i
Washingtan State
N A Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
16
4th
WA -03733
Annual Overlay and Repair Program
Various City Streets
to
Repair, rehabilitate, and overlay City streets as needed in an annual program
06/22/20
07/06/20
11,800,000
1993
06
C G O P S
TW
1,850,000
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
ALL
2021
4th
0
5th & 6th
0
11,800,000
11,800,000
Totals
0
1,850,000
0
11,800,000
11,800,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
1,850,000
1,850,000
1,950,000
2,050,000
4,100,000
Totals
1,850,000
1,850,000
1,950,000
2,050,000
4,100,000
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 6
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
4th
WA05409
BNSF Regional Center Access
New Facility
to
Construct a new access to the BNSF Regional Distribution Center, relocating the
900+ daily truck trips from residential streets in Allentown.
06/22/20
07/06/20
100,000
1993
08
0
0
EIS
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2026
4th
0
5th & 6th
0
100,000
100,000
Totals
0
0
0
100,000
100,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
0
0
0
100,000
Totals
0
0
0
0
100,000
W
W Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 7
Washington :state
� ITO Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
WA -11115
Green River Trail
Green River Trail
Christensen Road to Green River
Replace the existing 8 -foot wide Green River Trail with 12 -foot wide concrete paved
trail with 2 -foot gravel shoulders, including illumination, CCTV, wayfinding, and
pedestrian plaza.
06/22/20
07/06/20
128,000
1993
28
0
0.140
DCE
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
ALL
2022
0
Ped/Bike Program
1,146,000
128,000
1,274,000
Totals
0
74,000
1,146,000
128,000
1,274,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
74,000
1,200,000
0
0
0
Totals
74,000
1,200,000
0
0
0
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 8
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
17
WA -11110
Macadam Rd S Complete Streets Project
Macadam Road
S 150th Street to S 144th Street
Design and construction of a complete street on Macadam Road. Road widening
and rechannelization to add 5 -foot bike lanes and 5 -foot sidewalks on both sides of
the roadway. Includes illumination, curb, and storm drainage.
06/22/20
07/06/20
40,000
1993
04
RW
0.350
DCE
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2022
0
Ped/Bike Program
360,000
40,000
400,000
P
RW
2022
0
Ped/Bike Program
90,000
10,000
100,000
P
CN
2023
0
Ped/Bike Program
2,800,000
300,000
3,100,000
Totals
0
0
3,250,000
350,000
3,600,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
0
400,000
0
0
RW
0
0
100,000
0
0
CN
0
0
0
3,100,000
0
Totals
0
0
500,000
3,100,000
0
W
C31 Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 9
i
Washingtan :state
cy) VW Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
14
WA -09873
S 140th St Intersection Improvements
S 140th Street
Tukwila International Blvd to
Design and construct a new traffic signal at the S 140th Street/Tukwila International
Blvd intersection
06/22/20
07/06/20
150,000
1993
04
C G P S T
W
0.100
DCE
Yes
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2023
0
0
150,000
150,000
P
RW
2023
0
0
50,000
50,000
P
CN
2024
0
0
0
1,200,000
1,200,000
Totals
0
0
0
1,400,000
1,400,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
0
150,000
0
0
RW
0
0
50,000
0
0
CN
0
0
0
1,200,000
0
Totals
0
0
200,000
1,200,000
0
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 10
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
17
SRTS
WA03782
S 144th St Bridge Sidewalks
S 144th Street
51st Ave S to 53rd Ave S
Widen existing sidewalks on bridge over 1-5 between 51st Ave S and 53rd Ave S
06/22/20
07/06/20
43,000
1993
28
400,000
0.250
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
P
PE
2023
SRTS
400,000
0
43,000
443,000
Totals
400,000
0
0
43,000
443,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
0
0
443,000
0
0
Totals
0
0
443,000
0
0
W
�1 Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 11
Washington State
CO ITO Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
19
CN
WA -11112
S 152nd Street Safe Routes to School
S 152nd Street
Tukwila International Blvd to 42nd Avenue S
Design and construct curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides including widening
pavement width by 3 feet to construct on -street parking lane on north side of street.
06/22/20
07/06/20
369,000
1993
05
CN
0.300
0
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
PE
2021
CN
0
2,600,000
0
369,000
369,000
P
CN
2022
0
0
SRTS
2,340,000
260,000
2,600,000
Totals
0
2,340,000
629,000
2,969,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
PE
369,000
0
0
0
0
CN
0
2,600,000
0
0
0
Totals
369,000
2,600,000
0
0
0
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 12
i
Washington State
Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
00
TUK-63
South King County Regional TDM for Centers and Corridors
South King County
Various to Various
The project will focus on providing TDM services at selected activity centers (e.g.
business parks, commercial and residential multi -tenant buildings, educational
institutions) and/or congested corridors in Tukwila, Renton, SeaTac, and Kent to
reduce drive alone travel and traffic congestion in south King County. A key strategy
will include the development of partnerships with embedded organizations in the
communities we are serving to facilitate more effective outreach and improve long-
term program outcomes.
OTHER
200,000
0
200,000
24
0
0.000
CE
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
CN
2021
0
OTHER
200,000
0
200,000
Totals
0
200,000
200,000
0
200,000
Expenditure Schedule
Phase
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
200,000
0
0
0
0
Totals
200,000
0
0
0
0
W
CO Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 13
miz Washington State
O liar Department of Transportation
Agency: Tukwila
County: King
MPO/RTPO: PSRC
Y Inside
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
From 2021 to 2026
N Outside
Functional
Class
Priority Number
A. PIN/Project No. B. STIP ID
C. Project Title
D. Road Name or Number
E. Begin & End Termini
F. Project Description G. Structure ID
Hearing
Adopted
Amendment
Resolution No.
Improvement Type
Utility Codes
Total Length
Environmental Type
RW Required
03
/0181(019) TUK-60
West Valley Highway/Longacres Way Shared Use Pathways
SR 181 & Longacres Way
West end of planned Green River Bridge to Longacres Way
The West Valley Highway/Longacres Way project modifies northbound
channelization between Strander Boulevard and S 156th Street. A 600ft section of
general-purpose lane will be added, north of Strander. The existing dedicated NB
turn lane at Longacres will change to a thru-right lane, transitioning into 2 NB thru
lanes on the north leg as the existing inside lane will be changed to a dedicated NB
left turn lane. Sidewalks will be added to the east side of the roadway where there
are currently none. A wider, shared -use path will replace the existing sidewalk on the
west side of the road between Longacres Way and the new sidewalks installed for
the Pedestrian -Bicycle bridge. A new two-way cycle track will be added to Longacres
Way from WVH to the Tukwila Station, including new street and pedestrian
illumination. A pedestrian signal crossing of WVH near the landing of the Ped -Bike
bridge and a rapid flashing beacon on Longacres at the Interurban Trail crossing will
be added.
TIB
2,260,000
2,995,000
5,255,000
28
0
0.170
DCE
No
Funding
Status
Phase
Phase Start Year (YYYY)
Federal Fund Code
Federal Funds
State Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
S
CN
2021
0
TIB
2,260,000
2,995,000
5,255,000
Totals
0
5,255,000
2,260,000
2,995,000
5,255,000
Expenditure Schedule
Federal Funds
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
Phase
1,900,000
1st
11,473,000
2nd
37,509,000
3rd
4th
5th & 6th
ALL
5,255,000
0
0
0
0
Totals
5,255,000
0
0
0
0
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 14
Federal Funds
State Funds
Local Funds
Total Funds
Grand Totals for Tukwila
1,900,000
11,473,000
24,136,000
37,509,000
Report Date: May 12, 2021
Page 14
City of Tukwila
City Council Transportation & Infrastructure Services Committee
Meeting Minutes
May24, 2021 5:30 p.m. - Electronic Meeting due to COVID-19 Emergency
CouncilmembersPresent:Verna Seal, Chair, De'Sean Quinn, Thomas McLeod
Staff Present: David Cline, Hari Ponnekanti, Scott Bates, Cyndy Knighton, Brittany
Robinson, Gail Labanara, Bryan Still, Dan Nguyen, Adam Cox, Cody Lee
Gray, Laurel Humphrey
Chair Seal called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Bid Award: 2021 Overlay and Repair Program
Staff is seeking Council approval of a construction contract with Miles Resources, LLC in the
amount of $1,037,358.40 for the 2021 Overlay and Repair Program.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to June 7, 2021 Regular Consent Agenda
B. Contract Amendment: 2021 Overlay and Repair Program
Staff is seeking Council approval of an amendment to the contract with KPG, Inc. in the amount
of $147,206.00 for construction management services of the 2021 Overlay and Repair Project.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to June 7, 2021 Regular Consent Agenda
C. Resolution: 2022-2027 Transportation Improvement Program
*Staff is seeking Council approval of a resolution to adopt the Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program for 2022-2027.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to June 14, 2021 Committee of the Whole.
D. Resolution: 2021 Fleet Surplus
Staff is seeking Council approval of a resolution to authorize the sale of surplus equipment
valued at $33,800.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to June 7, 2021 Regular Consent Agenda
41
42
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayors review
Council review
06/14/21
RB
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM No.
5.B.
43
STAFF SPONSOR: RACHEL BIANCHI
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 06/14/21
AGENDA ITEM TITLE A weekly update on the City's planning and response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
CATEGORY 11 Discussion
06/14/21
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
Mtg Date
SPONSOR n Council 11 Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ TS ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ Pr
SPONSOR'S The City is actively engaged in regional efforts to address the coronavirus (COVID-19).
SUMMARY Staff are providing the Council with updated information regarding the City's response to
COVID-19.
REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure ❑ CommunitySvs/Safety ❑ Finance Com ❑ Planning/Economic Dev.
❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: N/A COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
N/A
N/A
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$ $
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/14/21
Coronavirus Report
43
44
CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE UPDATE
June 14, 2021
* Denotes All New Content in the Section
ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND CITY OPERATIONS
Current Phase 3
Next Evaluation June 30, 2021
Essential Services & City Operations
The city is targeting July 6, 2021, to phase back in full in-person operations at City facilities. Like other
jurisdictions in the area, it is anticipated that this will be a phased approach with some additional remote
work opportunities when feasible.
Financial Sustainability
On Monday, May 17, 2021, the Council provided initial direction on how to spend much of the FYI 2021
Streamlined Sales Tax funds. Finance and Governance Committee will begin to take up how to spend the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds at the June 14, 2021 meeting and that conversation will move to
the full Council for consensus in July.
* Human Services
Summary: This week HS staff assisted with a total of $4,000. Currently 10 households are in various stages of
the intake process. The lowest request for back owing rent this week was $700 and the highest was $1 1,876.
Residents and landlords who applied for the EPRAP program can check their status by going to:
httos://kingcounty.ciov/depts/community-human-services/COVID/eviction-prevention-rent-assistance
LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) has additional heat funds to assist residents who have
PSE energy arrearages up to $2,500. Resident must have already received LIHEAP funds this year to qualify
for the additional funds. Staff continues to refer residents with PSE arrearages to utilize this program first, as
well as Seattle City Light's Utility Discount Program.
Source Households
Assisted/Ind
General Fund Contracted Rent: $1,600
Partners 2/4 Utility: $
Covid Rental & Utility Assistance Rent: $ 2,400
1/6 Utility: $
Sewer/Water $
HB 1406 Rental Assitance $
Information from the community
on total past due rent amount
Funding Breakdown
$500-$1,200 = 2
$1,250-$3,500 = 10
$3,600-$4,000 = 6
Over $4,000 = 4
The eviction moratorium is in place until June 30. The utility shut-off moratorium is in place until July 31.
45
Fire Staffing and CaIIs for Service
There have been no changes to Fire staffing since the last report.
Police Staffing and CaIIs for Service
There have been no changes to Fire staffing since the last report.
Business Recovery
Business Re -Openings and Closings
On May 13, 2021, Governor Jay Inslee announced that all counties in Washington will move to
Phase 3 of the Healthy Washington: Roadmap to Recovery reopening plan on May 18 and the
state is moving toward a full reopening statewide on June 30. King County was already in Phase 3
so that did not change our phase. As of June 9, the State continues in Phase 3. If statewide ICU
capacity reaches 90%, activities will be rolled back again.
In Phase 3 most indoor activities are allowed up to 50% occupancy to a maximum of 400 people.
Examples of these activities are dining, retail, professional services, personal services, worship
services, card rooms, museums, gyms and fitness, and movie theaters. Other types of indoor
entertainment are also allowed with restrictions, such as: karaoke and recreational singing, darts,
billiards, arcade games, trampoline facilities, indoor playgrounds, and training classes.
Some in-person spectators at events are also allowed in Phase 3. This includes professional and
high school sports, motorsports, rodeos, graduations, and other spectator events. Generally,
indoor and outdoor venues are capped at the lower of 25% of normal capacity; however,
vaccinated -only sections may be seated at full capacity.
On May 13, the CDC issued new guidance on masks and the Governor announced that the State
would adopt the CDC's guidance. The guidance allows fully vaccinated people to not wear
masks except where still required such as in hospitals and public transportation. Businesses still may
require employees and customers to wear masks. King County strongly encourages all residents
five years and older to wear a face mask in all indoor public areas. The County also strongly
encourages businesses that are open to the public to ensure their customers and employees wear
face masks.
Business Assistance
In early 2021 the State approved $2.4 billion of federal funding for COVID assistance which
includes $240 million for small business assistance grants. The grants are being administered by the
State's Department of Commerce. Their application portal opened on March 29 with applications
due by April 9. On March 29 and April 2, we notified our businesses about the grant opportunity.
The State Department of Commerce implemented a very efficient grant portal and process for this
round. Based on a very preliminary review, approximate 165 small businesses in Tukwila applied.
The demographics of the majority ownership of the businesses was self -identified as approximately
26% African American/Black, 37% Asian American, 5% Hispanic, 2% LGBTQ+, 34% Woman, and 1%
Veteran. Note, ownership of a particular business may include multiple categories and not all
applications may be qualified. The State approved the grants in early May. Staff has requested the
final results for Tukwila businesses. On May 25th staff contacted six Tukwila businesses who had
been awarded grants but hadn't completed the process to receive the funds.
46
The federal government's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act includes very significant funding
to support business including $28.6 billion for a Restaurant Revitalization Fund, an additional $15
billion for Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), an additional $10 billion for State Small Business
Credit Initiative (SSBCI), and an additional $7.5 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
Those programs will be administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration. The PPP application
period ended on May 31.
King County is distributing $145 million of federal funds for residential rental assistance and eviction
prevention to tenants and landlords through their Eviction Prevention and Rental Assistance
Program (EPRAP). The program distributed $37 million in 2020. Landlords and tenants can apply.
Financial assistance is based on household income and other criteria. Eligible tenant applications
are selected by lottery. Human Services staff notified landlords with whom they have relationships
and on May 13 Code Enforcement staff sent an email to all licensed residential landlords
announcing the opportunity.
Unemployment
The unemployment claims data report will be included monthly. The report though April was
included in the agenda packet for the June 7th Council meeting.
On March 11, 2021, the President signed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act. The new law
extends Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), which is for workers who
have exhausted all other benefits, plus the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), which
benefits people who do not qualify for regular unemployment such as self-employed people and
independent contractor, for an additional 29 weeks. It also extends the Federal Pandemic
Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) which provides an extra $300 per week for eligible
claimants who are receiving benefits from any unemployment program through September 6,
2021.
Information on employment resources for community members that have been affected by job
loss or reduced hours due to COVID is posted on the City's website and has been shared with
social service partners. Staff promoted it through our social media accounts.
MEETING THE COMMUNITY'S BASIC NEEDS
* Food Resources and Distribution
Park n' Play, number reflects spring
distribution total to date: April 22 - May 27.
Spring Park n' Play has concluded, the
summer program will begin July 6.
Senior Meals, number of meals distributed.
Week of 6/7.
Tukwila Pantry
The National Guard end date: June 30, 2021.
A request has been put through the EOC for
an extension. (TBD)
Attendance
Meals
Breakfast Items
Snack Items
Rec Kits
Masks
579
2191
1612
1612
746
836
Duwamish Curb Cafe 39
Meals on Wheels 257
6/3/2021 383
6/05/21 325
6/08/21 411
47
48
Tukwila
COVID-19 UPDATES
* Covid-19 Tukwila Overview
King County
Public Health - Seattle & King County COVID-19 Outbreak Summary
Update date
6/9/2021
8:44 AM
Click on the icons to explore
this dashboard:
Overview
Demographics
Geography
Geography over time
Select city to compare:
Count
New since
yesterday
Summary of counts for Tukwila
Overall
Percent
Rate per 100,000 Compared to King
residents County rate
Past 14 days
Count Percent
Positives 1,979 5 9.0% of all tests 9,455.3
Confirmed 1,928 5 9,211.7
Probable 51 0 243.7
Hospitalizations 94 3 4.7% of all positive cases 449.1
Deaths due to 17 0 0.9% of all positive cases 81.2
COVID-19 illness
All PCR test results 21,615 ' 103,272.8
People tested by
10,288 • 49,1543
PCR
Legend: Lower than overall King County rate • Similar to overall King County rate
•
23.00
22.0
1.0
1.0 4.3%
0.0 0.0%
• 425.0
• 22.0
. Higher than overall King County rate
Mobile Vaccination Team
On Monday, March 1, 2021, the Tukwila Fire Department deployed its Mobile Vaccine Team (MVT)
to provide COVID-19 vaccines to eligible under the state's 1 B category. Tukwila's MVT is now
working with other agencies on a regional level to provide vaccines.
49
* Vaccine Update & Locations
There are many ways for community members to access the vaccine at no cost. Multiple
appointments are available at publicly run mass vaccination sites in the area, as well as private
opportunities. As of this writing, all locations below have open appointments; additional locations
can be found at: vaccinelocator.doh.wa.gov
• Walgreens - 3716 S. 144th Tukwila. walgreens.com/findcare/vaccination/covid-19
• Target - 301 Strander Boulevard. cvs.com/vaccine/intake/store/covid-screener/covid-qns
• Auburn - 1 101 Supermall Way - appointment required. KingCounty.gov/COVID/Registration
• Kent - Showare Center - appointment required. KingCounty.gov/COVID/Registration
• City of Seattle - Rainier Beach Boat Launch - subscribe to list to learn for open appointments
at Seattle.gov/Mayor/Covid-19/vaccinations or call 206-684-2489 (interpretation available)
• SeaMar - Burien, Seattle and White Center locations. seamar.org/covid-vaccine
• Kaiser Permanente - 2715 Naches Avenue, Renton (membership not required)
Vaccinations in King County as of June 9, 2021:
• 1 dose: 1,477,103 or 76.9%
• 2 does: 1,289,597 or 68.6%
Below is a chart of vaccinations by region in King County. Note that South King County has a lower
vaccination rate than many other areas in the county.
Table of all KC residents who have at least one dose by age group and regions
12+ years 12-19 years 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60-69 years 70-79 years 80+ years
old old old old old old old old old
Overall King County 755% 56.0% 63% 71% 79.5% 83.7% 88.7% >95% >95%
East 84.8% 78.1% 76.4% 76.7% 90.7% 90% 87.0% >95% >95%
4 North 81.8% 62% 68.7% 85.5% 87.5% 77% 911% >95% 86.2%
Regions Seattle 782% 61.7% 67.2% 825% 84.7% 82.3% 79.4% >95% 81.2%
South 66.1% 36.8% 505% 595% 65.7% 76.7% 92.2% 92.9% >95%
Kirkland, Redmond, Bothell, and Woodinville 84% 722% 68.1% 83.8% >95% 84.8% 86% >95% >95%
N Seattle and Shoreline 79.2% 63.1% 64% 815% 90.5% 80.6% 87.2% >95% 80.9%
Central Seattle 77% 59.6% 71.7% 85.7% 77.2% 77.9% 68A% 90% 832%
W Seattle, S Seattle, Delridge and Highline 80.9% 61.5% 64.9% 81.8% 88.0% 88.0% 88.5% >95% 76.4%
10 Burien,Renton,TukwilaandSeatac 70.0% 42.6% 51.7% 64.6% 755% 815% 92.7% 88.7% >95%
Regions Auburn, Kent, and Federal Way 62.1% 31.1% 463% 54.9% 61S% 76.5% 933% 89.4% >95%
South East King County 65.7% 37.6% 55.8% 59.1% 595% 715% 915% >95% >95%
Bellevue, Issaquah and Mercer Island 853% 78.1% 815% 80.6% 88.7% 92.7% 83.2% 832% >95%
East King County 855% 80.7% 81.2% 65.1% 87.7% 895% 94.8% >95% >95%
Vashonlsland 892% 74.2% >95% 90% 771% 691% 902% >95% >95%
* COVID-19 Testing
The following are the number of individuals tested over the past week at the Church by the Side of
the Road. This is a regional testing facility drawing individuals from across south King County. All
testing locations in the region are seeing a significant surge in the number of people requesting tests.
King County has contracted with off-duty officers to provide traffic management along Tukwila
International Boulevard and Military Road to mitigate traffic impacts in the neighborhood.
6/9 - 110 individuals tested
6/8 - 120 individuals tested
6/7 - 160 individuals tested
6/6 - closed
6/5 - 120 individuals tested
6/4 - 135 individuals tested
6/3 - 137 individuals tested
50
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
zVl) or's review
Council review
6/14/21
MM
6/21/21
MM
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM No.
5.C.
STAFF SPONSOR: MINDI MATTSON
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 6/14/21
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Resolution for execution of the Regional Coordination Framework
Presentation about the RCF and Emergency Management program.
CATEGORY ❑ Discussion
Mtg Date 6/14/21
❑ Motion
b [tg Date
® Resolution
Mtg Date 6/21/21
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
i\ltg Date
Other
bLtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adnzin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Pc R ❑ Police ❑ PIF
SPONSOR'S
SUMMARY
The Regional Coordination Framework established a cooperative, voluntary platform
linking private businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and special
purpose districts to address emergency assistance covering the legal and financial
obligations of signatories sharing personnel, equipment, materials and/or support during a
disaster or major planned event within King County. Through this resolution, Tukwila will
be authorized to become a signatory to the RCF. An EM Program overview will also be
provided.
REVIEWED BY
❑ Trans&infrastructure Svcs ® Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev.
❑ LTAC
DATE: 5/3/21
❑ Arts Comm.
❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
COMMITTEE CHAIR: DELOSTRINOS JOHNSON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Police Department
COMMITTEE
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED
$o
AMOUNT BUDGETED
$O
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$o
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
6/14/21
6/21/21
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
6/14/21
Informational Memorandum dated 6/2/21
Draft Resolution
Minutes from the Community Services and Safety Committee meeting of 5/3/21
PowerPoint Presentation
6/21/21
51
52
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Mindi Mattson, Emergency Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: 6/2/21
SUBJECT: Resolution to Execute the Regional Coordination Framework and
Emergency Management Program Overview.
ISSUE
The City of Tukwila should become a signatory to the Regional Coordination Framework to
enhance our ability to share information and resources between jurisdictions and agencies
during a disaster or large planned event.
BACKGROUND
The Regional Coordination Framework establishes a cooperative, voluntary platform linking
private businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and special purpose districts
to address emergency assistance covering the legal and financial obligations of signatories
sharing personnel, equipment, materials and/or support during a disaster or major planned
event within King County.
DISCUSSION During a major disaster, it may be necessary to prioritize emergency response
and recovery efforts to save lives and minimize long-term impacts to our region. The Regional
Coordination Framework and The Agreement create a decision-making process for minimizing
competition for resources and conflict of efforts.
The RCF is constructed to allow authorized entities to enter into a contract to loan resources to
others, or to acquire emergency resources and supplies. These contracts are voluntary and
entered into at the time of the disaster. The RCF is a strategic document that may influence the
allocation of incoming resources within a collaborative decision-making model.
The Agreement is a companion document to the RCF and covers the legal and financial aspects
of resource sharing and cost recovery. Any public, private, or non-profit organization authorized
to enter into a contractual agreement can participate in the RCF and Agreement.
The Regional Coordination Framework has been in existence under several different names
since 2002. There are almost 40 signatories to the Framework representing local governments,
special purpose districts, local non -profits, and private sector partners.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Signing on the Regional Coordination Framework does not obligate any city funds. Any
obligation of resources would be negotiated and contract during the disaster.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the Council approves of the City Tukwila signing on to the Regional
Coordination Framework and The Agreement.
53
54
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
The Council is being asked to approve the resolution and consider this item at the June 14,
2021 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent June 21, 2021 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Resolution
Regional Coordination Framework
The Agreement
List of Signatories to the RCF
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/Council Agenda Items/Police/RCF Informational Memorandum.doc
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, TO BECOME A
SIGNATORY TO THE REGIONAL COORDINATION
FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTERS AND PLANNED
EVENTS AND THE ASSOCIATED AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila recognizes the importance of regional coordination
and resource sharing during a disaster; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned
Events and the associated Agreement have been established by King County for the
purpose of allowing various public, private, tribal and non-profit entities to coordinate
during a disaster; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Coordination Framework facilitates a systematic,
coordinated, and effective response to multi -agency or multi -jurisdictional disasters or
planned events that occur within the geographic boundaries of King County,
Washington, thereby enabling the resources and capabilities of the public, private, tribal
and non-profit sectors to be more efficiently coordinated and utilized to address
emergency assistance covering the legal and financial obligations of signatories sharing
personnel, equipment, materials and/or support during a disaster or major planned
event within King County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila wishes to become a signatory to the Regional
Coordination Framework;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The Mayor of Tukwila or designee is hereby authorized to execute the Regional
Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events and the associated
Agreement with King County (Exhibits A and B, respectively).
CC:\Legislative Development\Regional Coordination Framework -Agreement 6-4-21
MM:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton
Page 1 of 2
55
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a Special Meeting thereof this day of , 2021.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk Kate Kruller, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
Office of the City Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A—Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
Exhibit B—Regional Coordination Framework Agreement
CC:\Legislative Development\Regional Coordination Framework -Agreement 6-4-21
MM:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 2 of 2
56
Regional Coordination Framework
for Disasters and Planned Events
for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
King County
57
February 2014
Emergency Management Partners,
As we arrive at another milestone in our regional planning efforts here in King County, we would like to
share a brief look back on the cornerstone efforts of the `Regional Disaster Plan' and its notable history.
It is reality that disasters do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, let alone economic environments. Our
citizens throughout King County expect the public, private, non-profit and tribal entities to work together
in responding to and recovering from a disaster. Geographical King County is 2,134 square miles of
diverse terrain with over 1 9 million people, 39 cities, over 120 special purpose districts, two tribal
nations, and over 700 elected officials. With our population density, complex system of governance, and
significant hazards we face, disasters present the need to plan for a coordinated response among
governments, non -profits and businesses.
In 1998, elected officials from Seattle, Suburban Cities and King County passed a motion (#10566) to
initiate the planning efforts of a `regional response plan and mechanism to share resources.' That effort
was pioneering new territory by establishing a cooperative and voluntary platform linking private
businesses, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and special purpose districts. Through
collaborative planning and participation, hundreds of entities can behave in a coordinated manner,
provide assistance to each other and maintain their authority.
The King County Office of Emergency Management (KCOEM) began the `regional planning' effort in
1999 and formed the Regional Disaster Planning Task Force (now the Regional Disaster Planning Work
Group). Any and all partnering disciplines, agencies and organizations were invited to the table and
actively participated in taking the ground breaking steps to create the `Regional Disaster Plan for Public
and Private Organizations in King County.' Over a two-year period many meetings were held, numerous
ideas and concepts discussed and debated, and multitudes of briefings and updates all contributed to a
collaborative and transparent regional planning process. Throughout the process the multi -disciplinary
groups representing King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) and the King
County Regional Policy Committee were briefed and engaged. By early 2001, a Basic Plan and legally
vetted `Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement' were completed, and then... September 11 ti, occurred.
All of us found ourselves in a new era. Our view of the world changed significantly post September 11th
and we collectively recognized the need to be even more collaborative in our emergency management
efforts. Even the largest of cities would not be able to do it alone. The cumulative efforts of all those
engaged partners had moved the regional plan from a concept to the reality of an actual plan ready for
signature and implementation. In January 2002, with EMAC endorsement, the EMAC Chair Barb Graff
(City of Bellevue Emergency Management) and Co -Chair Bill Wilkinson (Port of Seattle) initiated the
inaugural promulgation of the `Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King
County.' By December 2002, 99 cities, fire districts, businesses, schools, water and sewer districts and
non -profits were official signatory partners. That same year the 9-11 Commission and the National
Association of Counties (NACo) formally awarded and recognized KCOEM for the regional
collaboration and planning endeavor — the `Regional Disaster Plan.'
Page 2 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
58
The original Regional Disaster Plan was designed using the model of the Federal Response Plan, i.e. a
basic plan followed by a series of "Emergency Support Functions," such as communications and
transportation. Through the following years and various Presidential Directives (transitions to the
National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System), the Regional Disaster Planning
effort continued to engage regional partners from public, private, non-profit and tribes and alternations
were made to keep the Plan current. Additional promulgations occurred with Plan updates and more
signatory partners joined. With the last official promulgation and signatory process in March 2008, and
with continued interest since then, there are currently 145 signatories.
Over time partners and the region have matured with additional focused planning efforts (mass care,
evacuation, regional catastrophic, etc.), putting the Regional Disaster Plan in a good position to evolve.
After over a year's work of transformation, the Plan (along with the associated Agreement, which is the
legal and financial document addressing sharing of resources; formerly the `Omnibus') are in a new state.
Embodying again true regional coordination, the Plan has transitioned to a new format: `Regional
Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events.' In a streamlined form, the new Framework
(like the former Plan) facilitates a systematic, coordinated, and effective response to multi -agency or
multi jurisdictional disasters or planned events that occur within the geographic boundaries of King
County. By leveraging existing plans, the Framework focuses on five key areas of coordination:
Direction and Coordination
Information Collection, Analysis and Dissemination
Public Information
Communications
Resource Management
All emergency management partners will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on this new
and fresh Framework through an identified process. The goal is to roll out the Framework and Agreement
to all partners in January 2014 for official promulgation and signature. Regional Disaster Planning Work
Group and EMAC members will be active in informing and promoting the intent and benefits of the
Framework and Agreement.
The efforts put forth by the Work Group have been well coordinated, and the EMAC has been kept
apprised and has advised as needed. We look forward to your agency and organization officially joining
in supporting this Framework. Through this Framework, together we can assist one another in a more
coordinated response, which will ultimately assist in the quicker recovery of our communities and
economy.
Sincerely,
C— cA./v -e-
Dominic Marzano, Chair Gail Harris, Vice Chair
City of Kent Emergency Management City of Shoreline Emergency Management
Page 3 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
59
Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC)
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 4 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
60
Log of Changes
Date of
Change Description of Change
Page #
Page 5 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
61
Introductory Materials
Promulgation
The Regional Coordination Framework (formerly the Regional Disaster Plan) is intended
to embody the true essence of regional collaboration and coordination. From its
inception in 1998, by King County Motion #10566, this regional plan "... allows for
shared resources and cooperation within existing capabilities and is consistent with
emergency management priorities established by the governing body of each
jurisdiction, special district, organization or appropriate agency." The value of the
Framework that is that the organizational networking and administrative workload can
be coordinated in advance of a disaster, thus expediting the response capability from
partner to partner and throughout the region.
Approval and Implementation
The Regional Disaster Planning Work Group (RDPWG) is the inter -jurisdictional and
multi -disciplinary group responsible for developing, enhancing, and maintaining the
Regional Coordination Framework. The RDPWG consists of representatives from
regional partners and serves as a subcommittee to the King County Emergency
Management Advisory Committee (EMAC), which in turn serves as an advisory entity to
the King County Executive and the King County Office of Emergency Management
(OEM). All emergency management partners are included and encouraged to
participate throughout the review and vetting process.
Modifications to the Framework and its related documents are shared and distributed to
all partners. Ongoing reviews and feedback shall occur routinely. When Framework
modifications have been vetted through the RDPWG and initial review conducted by
partners, the RDPWG Chair/Co-Chair will present them to EMAC for review and
endorsement. In accordance with King County Motion #10566, "Any draft regional plan
proposed by the Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) should be
submitted through each jurisdiction, special district, organization, or appropriate agency
governing body for review and comment." Therefore, all updated documentation is
presented for 'Open Comment' for at least 30 days. Emergency management partners
are responsible for reviewing and vetting through their internal channels for any
concerns and/or issues. Those concerns and/or issues that arise may be documented
and sent to the King County Office of Emergency Management. All comments will be
reviewed and addressed by the RDPWG, which will in turn recommend amendments
and/or changes to EMAC for consideration and recommendation.
Page 6 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
62
The RDPWG holds open meetings, keeps all partners apprised of work and products,
and provides reports to EMAC. According to King County Motion #10566, the RDPWG
in coordination with EMAC, will "...report to the regional policy committee periodically on
its progress in developing the plan, and bring forward to the regional policy committee
significant policy issues arising in the process."
Distribution
EMAC will formally endorse the Framework and associated Agreement, and through
their `letter of endorsement,' begin encouraging adoption by partners (public, private,
non-profit) within their respective jurisdiction, agency and/or organization. The King
County Office of Emergency Management will be responsible for collecting, gathering
and maintaining the emergency contact information for participating partners as well as
the signatory sheets for those partners who are signatory to this Framework's
associated Agreement.
In recognition of the expanding nature of this Framework and the partnerships it
encourages, a comprehensive distribution list cannot be provided within this document.
Please visit the King County Office of Emergency Management website for a full and
current listing of partners to the Regional Coordination Framework and signatories to
the associated Agreement.
http://www. kingcounty.gov/safety/prepare/EmergencyManagementProfessionals.aspx
Page 7 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
63
Table of Contents
I. Purpose, Scope, Situation Overview and Assumptions 9
II. Concept of Operations 11
III. Responsibilities 14
IV. Direction and Coordination 18
V. Information Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination 21
VI. Public Information 23
VII. Communication 26
VIII. Administration, Finance, and Logistics 28
IX. Document Development and Maintenance 31
X. Terms and Definitions 33
XI. Authorities and References 35
Page 8 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
64
I. Purpose, Scope, Situation Overview and Assumptions
Purpose
The Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events facilitates a
systematic, coordinated, and effective response to multi -agency or multi -jurisdictional
disasters or planned events that occur within the geographic boundaries of King County,
Washington. It provides a framework whereby cooperative relationships can be formed
among public, private, tribal and non-profit organizations in order to accomplish this
common goal. Through the implementation of this framework, the resources and
capabilities of the public, private, tribal and non-profit sectors can be more efficiently
utilized to minimize the loss of life and property and to protect the environmental and
economic health within King County.
The Regional Coordination Framework is a voluntary guide to regional response and
short term recovery actions. Signatory partners are those organizations from the public,
private, tribal, and non-profit sectors in geographic King County that are committed to
working together in accordance with this framework and have signed the associated
Agreement. There is no preferential treatment or priority given to those partners who are
signatory to the Agreement versus those who are not. The benefit of being a signatory
partner to the RCF and the Agreement is to save time during a disaster by having
decision making authority for jurisdictions already in place and on file.
Scope
The RCF applies to any disaster or planned event that concurrently challenges multiple
jurisdictions or multiple disciplines within King County or affects a single entity to such a
degree that it relies upon external assistance. The Framework and the associated
Agreement are intended to be utilized in conjunction with other state and local
emergency plans, including but not limited to mutual aid agreements such as the Intra-
state Mutual Aid System (within Washington State), the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (state -to -state), other public, non-governmental organization, tribal,
or private sector agreements, and the Pacific Northwest Emergency Management
Arrangement (States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington and the Province of
British Columbia).
The Framework addresses strategic response activities and allocation of incoming
scarce resources for those disasters or planned events where normal emergency
response processes and capabilities become overtaxed, or where there is a need for
regional coordination of response operations shared situational awareness and
coordinated public information due to the complexity or duration of the disaster(s). The
Page 9 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
65
associated Agreement articulates the financial aspects of voluntarily participating in
accordance with the Framework.
Although the focus is on disaster response, the Framework assumes future coordinated
efforts to address regional protection, mitigation, preparedness, and recovery issues.
Likewise, while relationships with other counties and neighboring jurisdictions are not
specifically included in this Framework, they are not precluded from participating as a
partner.
The framework describes five key areas of coordination:
Direction and Coordination
Information Collection, Analysis and Dissemination
Public Information
Communications
Resource Management
Situation Overview
Disasters and planned events can present unique challenges to the public and private
sectors for the efficient and effective use of resources, the protection of lives and
property, the protection of the regional economy, and the preservation of the
environment or other essential functions. Natural or human -caused hazards may have
impacts sufficient to require partners to seek assistance or manage emergency
resources and supplies through use of this Framework. Specific information about
natural or human -caused hazards may be accessed from emergency management
jurisdictions.
Planning Assumptions
No perfect response is implied by the availability of this framework
Local, regional, and state resources may not be sufficient to respond to all needs
in a timely fashion
Damages to regional infrastructure may result in unreliable communications and
slow delivery or distribution of requested resources
Impacts to some partners may require assistance from other partners, adjacent
counties, the State of Washington, Emergency Management Assistance
Compact partners, or the Federal Government and other entities
Emergencies may require the establishment and/or multi -jurisdictional
coordination of emergency actions
Participation in the Regional Coordination Framework is voluntary
Page 10 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
66
Acquisition, use, and return of resources as well as the reimbursement for those
resources are guided by the associated Agreement
Regional policy decision-making participants will vary from disaster to disaster
All partners will comply with federal, state, and local legal obligations
The King County Office of Emergency Management (KCOEM) will serve as the
lead for regional emergency management activities. KCOEM will activate the
Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center (RCECC) in
support of disaster response or planned event coordination, during which the
RCECC will be the focal point for information sharing and regional resource
coordination
First responders will continue to be directed by their incident commanders
Each partner will retain its own internal policies, processes, authorities, and
obligations and organize and direct its internal organization continuity
11. Concept of Operations
In the event of a disaster or planned event requiring central coordination at the RCECC,
operational authority will remain with partners and local incident commanders. Local
procedures will be followed and Emergency Operations Centers or Emergency
Coordination Centers (EOCs or ECCs) staffed in accordance with partner plans.
Procedures governing internal actions will be maintained by the partner. All necessary
decisions affecting response, protective actions, and advisories will be made by those
officials under their existing authorities, policies, plans, and procedures. Use of and
adherence to the Regional Coordination Framework is voluntary.
The Framework provides a structure for disaster response operations that:
Uses geographic divisions or zones of the county to:
o Facilitate coordination of information sharing
o Assist in the management of resource request processes, prioritization
and tracking
Provides centrally coordinated emergency functions within the region utilizing the
King County RCECC
Provides a mechanism for regional policy decision-making
Augments existing mutual aid agreements by providing pre -designated legal and
financial ground rules for the sharing of resources
Is consistent with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and is
based on the Incident Command System (ICS)
Page 11 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
67
Y N----
‘...,,,,----,-4,6
-7.--r-1-0. "tir'"I y�rti.
'llo-rti' 1 L.--
``'; 4 �,
King County Regions[ Emergency Coordination Zones
Figure 1: King County Emergency Coordination Zones (2012)
Geographic Divisions
Predetermined geographic divisions of the County have facilitated efficient preplanning
efforts as well as the sharing of information and coordination of priorities, operations,
and application of resources during a disaster or planned event. The three Regional
Emergency Coordination Zones correlate to the existing King County Fire Zones are
(see Figure 1):
Emergency Coordination Zone 1 — North and East King County
Emergency Coordination Zone 3 — South King County
Emergency Coordination Zone 5 - the City of Seattle
Each Zone may develop protocols and procedures for carrying out inter- and intra -zone
coordination and response functions. During the response to a disaster or planned
event, these zone coordination functions may operate through a Zone Coordinator from
the King County RCECC or in a decentralized location.
Organizations that provide services throughout geographic King County ("regional
service providers") may not have the resources to coordinate their service delivery and
response activities directly with all three Emergency Coordination Zones
simultaneously. Instead, these regional service providers may provide a single point of
coordination through the King County RCECC. Examples of regional service providers
include: public health/medical, banking and finance, energy, transportation, information
Page 12 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
68
and telecommunications, agriculture, emergency services, chemical industry, food,
water, etc. Regional service providers may provide a representative directly to the
affected zone and/or the King County RCECC.
Central Coordination
Where central coordination of regional emergency actions is needed, the King County
RCECC may provide a location from which to coordinate.
In accordance with the National Response Framework, the King County RCECC utilizes
a hybrid response organization that embeds subject matter experts into the Incident
Command System structure through Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). The ESFs,
listed below, represent fifteen broad categories that enable subject matter expertise, like
resources, and similar capabilities to be aligned into groups to aid coordination.
ESF 1 — Transportation ESF 9 — Search & Rescue
ESF 2 — Communications ESF 10 — Oil & Hazardous Materials
ESF 3 — Public Works & Engineering ESF 11 — Agriculture & Natural Resources
ESF 4 — Fire Response ESF 12 — Energy
ESF 5 — Emergency Management ESF 13 — Public Safety & Security
ESF 6 — Mass Care, Housing, & Human ESF 14 — Recovery
Services ESF 15 — External Affairs
ESF 7 — Resource Management ESF 20 — Military Support to Civil
ESF 8 — Public Health, Medical and Authorities
Mortuary Services
In its role as an Emergency Coordination Center, the King County RCECC facilitates
operational response at the regional level and supports operational response activities
that are managed at the local level; the RCECC does not make operational decisions
for local jurisdictions or partners unless specifically requested. Rather, the RCECC
facilitates regional support activities that have been developed collaboratively amongst
the appropriate stakeholders, represented through the ESFs and Zone Coordinators.
When the RCECC has been activated, Zone Coordinators and regional service
providers may coordinate their efforts from the King County RCECC, via their respective
ESF Coordinator, the EOC/ECC of their local emergency management jurisdiction or
most impacted partner. Coordination between regional service providers and partners
may be from locations remote to the RCECC by electronic means. Healthcare
organizations will coordinate through the Northwest Healthcare Response Network,
which will in turn coordinate with emergency management jurisdictions through ESF 8,
Public Health, Medical and Mortuary Services.
Page 13 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
69
Regional Coordination Framework
When the RCECC has not been staffed by ESFs, partners will continue to coordinate
with other partners, contractors, or mutual aid partners and will brief their local
EOC/ECC or emergency management office (with emergency management jurisdiction
as defined in RCW 38.52) and the King County Office of Emergency Management
(KCOEM) Duty Officer if appropriate,. Partners should establish a relationship with their
local emergency management jurisdiction in advance.
Once the RCECC has been activated, the RCECC will be contacted through the main
RCECC email, radio talk group, or phone number. Information and resource requests
will be directed to the most appropriate combination of zone coordinator(s), logistics,
planning, or operations (ESFs) sections for their actions.
The King County RCECC Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination
Center (KC RCECC) facility is located at 3511 NE 2nd Street, Renton, Washington,
98056.
Transition from regional response to regional long-term recovery
Response efforts at the RCECC entail the immediate actions needed to protect lives
and safety of the population, protect or affect temporary repairs to infrastructure, and
protect property or the environment. Long-term recovery includes permanent repair,
relocation, or replacement of that infrastructure or property. Long-term recovery may
take months or many years depending on the nature of impacts. Long-term recovery
and potential federal assistance to tribal nations, the public and private sectors is
governed by the Stafford Act and other documents with specific terms including the
Code of Federal Regulations and Treaties. A separate document addresses regional
long-term recovery.
III. Responsibilities
In accordance with Ordinance 17075, King County Government has the responsibility to
foster cooperative planning within regional concepts to its emergency mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery efforts and to serve as the coordinating entity for
cities, county governmental departments and other appropriate agencies during
incidents and events of regional significance. In addition, King County shall enter into
mutual aid agreements in collaboration with private and public entities in an event too
great to be managed without assistance.
When an emergency impacts regional King County, the King County RCECC and local
EOCs or ECCs may be staffed to address the consequences of the emergency impacts
to the public, government, and regional partners or to support regional first responders.
Page 14 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
70
Regional Coordination Framework
This section of the framework introduces the concept of a regional coordination process
that may be needed to enact emergency powers, suspend or limit civil liberties,
coordinate executive decisions, determine strategies for the allocation of scarce
resources or transition into long term recovery. The diagram below describes the
structure and relationship of regional organizations in response. Also, see Direction and
Coordination as well as the Terms and Definitions at the end of this framework.
All Signatory Partners will:
Identify an Emergency Point of Contact
Work with their authorized emergency agency in their operations or coordination
centers as identified under RCW 38.52.070
Develop, maintain, and utilize internal emergency plans and procedures
Direct information and resource communications to their local Emergency
Operations or Coordination Center, or the RCECC Section as appropriate
Equip and train a workforce to sustain emergency operations
Participate in the development of this framework
Seek and secure mutual aid documentation
Abide by the caveats of the this Framework's associated Agreement
Request regional decision-making on policy issues as needed
The mechanism for regional policy coordination:
Collaboration on the execution of emergency powers, suspension or limitation of
civil liberties
Collaboration to establish strategic priorities for the allocation of limited resources
in support of King County strategic goals and regional objectives
Communicate with partners and the general public directly or to the public
through the RCECC Joint Information Center (JIC)
Elected and Appointed Officials will:
King County Executive will Serve as the facilitator of the mechanism for regional
policy decision-making
Establish and work through their authorized Emergency Operations or
Coordination Centers
Utilize their established emergency and continuity plans
Identify Emergency Points of Contact for the jurisdiction with full authority to
commit or request resources, personnel, and make decisions on behalf of the
jurisdiction
Page 15 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
71
Regional Coordination Framework
Work with and through their designated emergency managers for resource needs
that cannot be filled within their jurisdiction, mutual aid agreements, available
private sector sources, or within the emergency management zone
Coordinate with private sector partners through their designated EOC or ECC
Issue emergency proclamations and implement authorized emergency powers
Coordinate selection and implementation of emergency powers through the
mechanism for regional policy decision-making
Abide by the caveats of the this Framework's associated Agreement
RCECC Incident Manager will:
Direct RCECC coordination activities
Recommend formation of and composition of a mechanism for regional policy
decision-making
Keep the those involved with regional policy decision-making informed of policy
issues, incident coordination and progress
Communicate regional policy decisions to the RCECC staff
Recommend and have drafted a County emergency proclamation as needed
Work with and direct the Joint Information Center and functional sections of the
activated RCECC
Host Zone Coordinators and regional partners as liaisons to the RCECC
Establish and adjust regional objectives, identify policy issues, and allocate
resources with input from Zone Coordinators and regional service providers
Facilitate regional situational awareness, Common Operation Picture and
information sharing with regional partners and the public
Facilitate an effective and efficient resource management process
RCECC Joint Information Center will:
Communicate information to the public and partners that may affect their lives,
safety, health, property, or services
Implement a Joint Information System to assist in coordinating public information
Zone Coordinator(s) may:
Represent the cities within their designated zone in the RCECC
Collect and communicate information to the RCECC and the Incident Manager
Collaborate with the Incident Manager to establish and adjust regional objectives,
identify policy issues, and allocate resources
Direct partner representatives to seek resources within their zone before
forwarding requests to the RCECC
Page 16 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
72
Regional Coordination Framework
Request regional decision-making on policy issues with notice to the emergency
managers
Maintain situation awareness on needed policy issues and resource requests
Make limited operational decisions on behalf of their designated zone
Facilitate information sharing between RCECC and Zone
RCECC Sections will:
Develop situational awareness and support information sharing throughout the
region and up to the state.
Receive, allocate, track resource issues from county departments and regional
partners. Any resources that cannot be provided from within the geographic
county shall be attained via contract or forwarded onto the state for action.
Manage and retain documentation in support of the incident.
Serve as network control for regional radio communications between regional
Emergency Operations or Coordination Centers
Local Authorized EOCs and ECCs will:
Work within their organization's and zone's resources and capabilities before
requesting resources from the RCECC
Communicate resource requests to the RCECC Logistics Section and their Zone
Coordinator in the RCECC when availability within their zone has been
exhausted
Include private sector, non-governmental sector, and tribal nations in local EOC
decisions, information sharing and resource management
Utilize the appropriate mechanism for resource requests to the RCECC
Support the functions and protocols established in this framework
Have or can quickly get the authority to commit available equipment, services,
and personnel to the (borrowing) organization
Participate in decision making conference calls or physical meetings as
appropriate and conditions allow
Emergency Contact Points will:
Be in an established line of succession that includes names, addresses, and 24-
hour phone numbers for each partner
Make emergency contact information available to regional partners, King County
OEM, and the RCECC when staffed
Have or can quickly get the authority to commit available equipment, services,
and personnel to the (borrowing) organization
Page 17 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
73
Regional Coordination Framework
Participate in decision-making conference calls or physical meetings as
appropriate and conditions allow
Resource Lenders will:
Make available such resources as will not deter the Lender of the ability to
continue efforts toward its own response objectives
Abide by the conditions described in the this Framework's associated Agreement
Resource Borrowers will:
First seek and exhaust access to resources within their organizational authority
Seek mutual aid and commercial resources within their emergency management
zone
Request resources through the King County RCECC in accordance with the this
Framework's associated Agreement
State of Washington will:
Seek and accept damage reports and situation reports from the King County
RCECC
Accept and process resource requests received from the King County RCECC
Seek sources of assistance to fill regional King County logistical needs
Proclaim a state of emergency, if warranted
Federal government will:
Provide response assistance to the State of Washington as available and
requested under a state proclamation of emergency
Direct appropriate federal agencies to lend assistance to the State of Washington
where possible
As appropriate, declare a state of emergency in support of response and
recovery from the impacts of an emergency in Washington State and/or to
regional tribal nations
IV. Direction and Coordination
The Regional Coordination Framework does not carry the authority of code. It is a
voluntary agreement between partners to the Regional Coordination Framework and the
associated Agreement and any annexes that may be crafted for the benefit of the
region. King County and each authorized emergency management agency within King
Page 18 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
74
Regional Coordination Framework
County are required to have, maintain, and implement their own emergency plans in
accordance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 38.52. Similarly, other public
entities, private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and tribal nations may
maintain plans that describe how they will direct and manage emergencies within their
scope of authority. The National Incident Management System (NIMS), National
Response Framework and King County Ordinance 17075 are the basis for the regional
direction and coordination function described here.
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to identify a mechanism for regional policy decision-
making, a process for policy coordination and strategies for the allocation of limited
resources to regional disasters within established criteria and priorities.
Situation and Scope
Tactical direction and control of resources available to onsite/on scene incident
commanders remains within the established organizational direction of the incident
commander. See this Framework's associated Agreement.
Loaned employees remain the employees of the lending organization while under the
direction of the borrowing organization during their assignment.
Where regional policy decision-making is needed, elected officials may enact
emergency powers, suspend or limit civil liberties, coordinate executive decisions,
determine strategies for the allocation of scarce resources under proclaimed
emergencies. Regional Partners may not be bound by all of the regional decisions
made. Decisions may impact regional partners that are not signatories to the
Framework's associated Agreement.
All political subdivisions retain the authority to direct requests for assistance to the
Washington State Governor's Office and the State Emergency Management EOC.
Establishing Regional Decision -Making
Regional policy decision-making may be informed by the King County Executive, Local
Health Officer, the legal representative(s) of cities and tribal nations as required by the
disaster and subject matters experts, as necessary. Initial coordination between
impacted regional partners may occur through the initiation of a conference call by the
King County RCECC, the request for such coordination by one or more Zone
Coordinators, or at the request of one or more partners. Subsequent meetings, whether
at the RCECC or by conference call will be scheduled and announced to all authorized
emergency management agencies in sufficient time to allow maximum participation.
Page 19 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
75
Regional Coordination Framework
Coordination meetings and call announcements will include representatives from
authorized emergency management agencies under RCW 38.52.070 and tribal nations.
The interests of private sector and non-governmental organizations should be
represented by their most appropriate authorized emergency management agency.
The King County Executive or designee will facilitate the meetings whether virtual or
conducted at the RCECC. Partners and representatives participating in regional policy
decision-making may vary from disaster to disaster depending on the experienced
impacts to the region. All partner representatives must have the authority to represent
their organization for consensus decision-making and commitment or request
resources. Verification of personnel will be conducted internally through local EOCs or
ECCs.
Authority for KC
Government &
Unincorporated
Areas
King County
Executive
Mechanism
for Consensus
on Regional
Decisions
Appropriate
Elected
Off iciats
_, RDCF Policy
Joint Information
System {11S) with
Partners
KCECC
Asttjated
KCECC Incident
Manager
Joint
Information
Center
Zone 1, 3, 5
Coordinators
O f fkiois to Agency
Emergency Manager
Coordination
KCECC ESFs
KCECC Planning
KCECC Logistics
incident
Coordination
Pre -ECC
Activation
KCDepts &
op Centers
COpra!ination
/ \
1 L
KC OEM
Duty
Officer
Coeil oo
Emergency
M anagement
Agencies /
Partners
Key
} ngC.:unt.
H I Partners
KCECC
Figure 2: Information and escalation flow for regional policy decisions
Establish regional response priorities, policies, and decisions
Information guiding the decision-making process will be made available to all partners
prior to the conference call or physical meeting.
Page 20 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
76
Regional Coordination Framework
Policy deliberations will occur between the County Executive and whichever cities and
tribal nations are needed to participate in regional policy decision-making. When
regional decision-making is needed, all attempts will be made to come to consensus on
all decisions.
General criteria for policy decisions will include doing the most good possible within
each category and may include but is not limited to:
Preservation of life, safety and preservation of human health
Caring for vulnerable populations
Preservation of public infrastructure and property
Protection of the regional economy
Protection of the environment
Preservation of private property
The King County Incident Manager will assign someone to document the
announcement of the conference call and/or physical meeting, the participants and
attendees, the agenda, decisions, next steps, and known or anticipated future
conference calls or meetings times/dates and locations as may apply.
Policy decisions will be communicated through local Emergency Operations and
Coordination Centers and disseminated via the Joint Information System.
V. Information Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination
For the purposes of the Regional Coordination Framework, the collection, analysis, and
dissemination of information include Situational Awareness and Public Information.
Situational Awareness
Situational awareness is knowing what is going on around the region, understanding
what needs to be done in the region, and distributing such information to regional
partners.
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to describe the process of how the region establishes and
maintains situational awareness during regional incidents and events. This process is
critical to effectively create stability, implement response, and undertake recovery within
the region. With this process documented, the region will have a major component of its
Common Operating Picture (COP) established.
Page 21 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
77
Regional Coordination Framework
Situation and Scope
Situational awareness is developed by timely and accurate information about the level
of impact, resources currently utilized in the response, resources available to support
the response, and perceived needs of the jurisdiction, partner and public. Each entity
manages the information and needs specific to that entity and its area of responsibility.
When entities share their specific situational awareness with each other and partners
develop an understanding of each other's impacts and needs, a Common Operating
Picture (COP) is created. The development and management of situational awareness
and a Common Operating Picture are vital to effective and efficient response and
proactive planning on a regional level.
Responsibilities
It is expected that all partners (public entities, tribal nations, private sector, and non-
governmental organizations) manage their own situational awareness streams. When
disasters occur, impacted partners will consolidate damage and situational information
with their most appropriate emergency management jurisdiction EOC or ECC. Local
EOCs and ECCs will relay all appropriate information to the King County RCECC. The
region's situational awareness and Common Operating Picture are dependent on all
streams of information.
The County Zone Coordinators will play a pivotal role by incorporating information from
their related geographic areas into the region's COP. The King County RCECC will
have the responsibility to collate these streams into a shared situational awareness as
part of the region's COP.
Concept of Operations
Information collection, analysis, and dissemination are critical elements that must be
maintained before, during, and after a disaster. Through coordination and collaboration,
KCOEM and regional partners support a regional information management strategy
through all phases of emergency management with a particular emphasis on both
preparedness and response to ensure a smooth transition into a response drive
information management cycle.
Since situational awareness is part of a larger COP, an information management cycle
(often referred as a reporting cycle) will be developed to facilitate regional partners
providing their information streams. The cycle will identify when information will be
collected and distributed.
The 24 hour cycle of the regional planning clock consists of two operational shifts within
the RCECC, beginning at 0700 and 1900 respectively. In general, the RCECC will
Page 22 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
78
Regional Coordination Framework
compile information and publish it in a situation report every 12 hours. Additionally,
snapshots, brief updates to the more complete situation report, may be generated every
three hours. Partners are expected to maintain the capability to share and receive
information and to actively participate in information sharing within the region.
Recognizing that not every incident will occur on a timetable to easily fit within the 24
hour planning clock established; the King County RCECC may adjust the planning clock
as necessary but will always strive to attain a 0700 and 1900 cycle. One benefit of the
planning clock is the pre -determined sequence of events that are necessary to best
prepare for and inform critical decision making throughout the response coordination.
The planning clock recognizes the importance of sequencing events where the
collection and analysis of available information is followed by internal briefings,
distribution of information to partners and the public, internal and external conference
calls, and objective setting for future operational periods. The schedule of these
information management steps recognizes the local and national media deadlines for
the morning work commute (usually about 0430) and the evening commute deadline
(usually about 1500).
Fundamental products of situational awareness such as snapshots, situation reports,
etc., are designed to represent the current situation and ultimately project the future
status of an incident or event. Essential elements of information will be identified for
each disaster or planned event. At a minimum the following essential elements of
information will be incorporated within snapshots and situation reports:
Current situation or situation update
Availability of regional services
Local operation and coordination center activation status(es)
Impact on and response by geographic area (i.e. city or zone) or Emergency
Support Function (i.e. transportation, public health, utility, etc)
References
Zone 1, 3, and 5 Situation Report Templates
KC RCECC Situation Report and Snapshot Templates
King County CEMP
List of Plans -Reference to "Plans Inventory"
VI. Public Information
A cooperative and technically effective use of the media, Internet, social media
channels, and community warning systems will provide the best chance of conveying
life -safety and public awareness information to large numbers of at -risk people.
Page 23 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
79
Regional Coordination Framework
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish a regional Joint Information System (JIS) that
will support emergency response through the effective development, coordination, and
dissemination of emergency public information in the event of a wide -spread emergency
or disaster within King County. The expected outcomes of this coordinated planning
effort are intended to facilitate:
Coordinating communications between agencies, tribal nations, and
organizations with the media and public for accurate and consistent messaging
Establishing a central point for information distribution on behalf of partners
needing public information assistance as well as facilitating regional information
coordination
Expanding the utility of electronic notification systems to include online multi -
organizational systems to intentionally enhance information sharing amongst
partners
Establishing and/or utilizing redundant community warning systems to ensure
messaging is sent to impacted areas by the most expedient means possible
Situation and Scope
When multiple regional partners recognize a need to coordinate the distribution of
emergency information to the public, a Joint Information System may provide a process
for consistent messaging. A Joint Information System may include a wide range of
public, private, non-governmental, or tribal partners to include partners from beyond the
geographic boundaries of King County.
Responsibilities
All partners are invited to contribute to this communication capability. While there are
some agencies, prescribed by law or designated authority, that are responsible to enact
specific systems, such as the Emergency Alert System and other jurisdictional or
community warning systems (i.e. reverse 911 capabilities), it is with the combined and
coordinated use of all our collective communication systems that we can reach the
broadest number of people with the most accurate information -
Public and Tribal Entities
E911 Centers in King County, The King County RCECC, Public Health - Seattle
& King County, cities, special purpose districts, and Tribal EOC's, National
Weather Service, Washington State Emergency Management Division, are all
Page 24 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
80
Regional Coordination Framework
examples of public sector organizations and Tribal Nations with warning and
notification capabilities. These organizations use their access to electronic
notification systems, websites, web based systems, reverse dialing from 911
database, social media, PIO's, media releases, phone banks, trap lines, and
volunteers who hand deliver information to disseminate and receive critical
information.
Private Sector
Private partners can aid in warning and notification by coordinating the release of
critical information or receiving information through their own internal
communication processes and working within the Regional Joint Information
System (see below for definition) to disseminate and receive critical information.
Non -Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Non-government organizational partners also aid in reaching the more vulnerable
populations that may not receive warning messages from more traditional
means. Ensuring that NGOs support the receipt and dissemination of critical
information is critical to meeting the needs of vulnerable community members.
Concept of Operations
This section assumes that regional partners will establish a public information function
to provide emergency information and warning to their respective communities and
constituent's before, during, and after a disaster or planned event. This emergency
information function should include the coordination of information with other affected
organizations. For the purposes of the Regional Coordination Framework, we are
addressing the need to coordinate for a wide scale disaster with regional impacts.
Notification and Warning
There are multiple warning systems that currently exist throughout all levels of
government that provide alert and warning notification to governmental agencies as well
as the public. Details on specific systems can be accessed through the appropriate local
emergency management jurisdiction. Non-governmental, private and non-profit partners
should be familiar with the various systems available through their respective
emergency management jurisdiction. All partner organizations should also be familiar
with the various systems utilized by partner emergency management jurisdictions to
activate support personnel and Emergency Contact Points identified in accordance with
this Framework. All partner organizations are encouraged to use their agency's email,
social media sites, and phone systems to pass on appropriate warnings to employees
and customers.
Page 25 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
81
Regional Coordination Framework
Joint Information Centers/System (JIC/JIS)
Joint Information Centers (JICs) are physical and centralized locations from which
public affairs and critical emergency information responsibilities are performed. JICs
facilitate operation of a Joint Information System (JIS) — the mechanism used to
organize, integrate, and coordinate information to ensure timely, accurate, accessible,
and consistent messaging across multiple jurisdictions and organizations.
The King County RCECC will activate a regional JIC/JIS as needed to verify and align
various streams of information, and release timely messages to the media, key
stakeholders, and the general public. This information is issued in cooperation with
affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations. Regional partners may be asked to
send a representative to assist with JIC/JIS operations, either through direct support
within the JIC or via remote access (phone, internet, video conferencing). This does not
preclude any jurisdiction, agency, organization, or Tribal Nation from issuing information
that pertains to them exclusively; however it is highly recommended that the regional
JIC/JIS be informed of those communications.
References
King County CEMP ESF 15
King County Emergency Coordination Center Operations Manual
King County Public Information Officers (P10) Procedures Guidelines
Regional Joint Information Center (JIC) Manual
VII. Communication
The ability to communicate through a variety of different mediums in order to share
timely information and to gain accurate situational awareness is critical during disasters
and planned events. During a large scale regional disaster it is paramount to sound
decision-making.
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish a communication process where regional
partners will have the capability to access information "lines" to the King County
RCECC, while establishing one central location to collect, prioritize, and disseminate
information. These access modalities can generate from several different technologies.
Redundant systems are in place for better odds of gaining access during times when
many of these communication modes may not be functional.
Page 26 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
82
Regional Coordination Framework
Situation and Scope
This section of the Framework describes the communications process and systems
needed to manage information collection and distribution during a disaster or planned
event as the organizational structure expands and contracts within geographic King
County.
Responsibilities
It is expected that all partner organizations will endeavor to obtain and maintain a
variety of ways to communicate their status and resource needs to their respective
emergency management jurisdiction and the King County RCECC during disasters and
planned events. The King County Office of Emergency Management will test these
internal communication systems on a regular basis to ensure communication
connectivity with regional partners. Maintaining communication connectivity is critical to
successful response during a disaster. It is expected that regional partners will work
with KCOEM to maintain their internal communications systems, test them, and improve
upon them as resources allow.
King County RCECC may act as a network control manager for radio frequencies and
talk groups used to maintain situation awareness, support decision-making, manage
resources, or to continue regional services.
Concept of Operations
To facilitate internal communication for situational awareness, partners have a variety of
means at their disposal to give and receive information.
Emergency communications includes tools, processes, interoperability, and redundancy
that govern the management of information, warning and notifications, decision-making,
and resource management. Survivable infrastructure is an important element of the
support needed to ensure continuous communications within and between regional
partners. Available tools may include email, regular phone service, cell phones, 800
MHz radios and talk groups, VHF radio frequencies, amateur radio, facsimiles, the
internet, social media, reverse 911 programs, or other technology.
King County, in cooperation with other local jurisdictions and organizations, will support
regional collaboration and information sharing. The RCECC will serve as the primary
information hub for regional communications including a regional Common Operating
Picture. Information on operational or policy topics may be posted as available.
Page 27 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
83
Regional Coordination Framework
References
King County Communications Plan
Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan
VIII. Administration, Finance, and Logistics
This section to the Regional Coordination Framework describes the maintenance of the
document and the management of resources in response to emergency impacts to
geographic King County. The financial management of costs and expenses incurred
during an emergency is covered in the associated Agreement to this Framework.
Resource Management
Mutual Aid is considered the pre -agreed sharing of resources between entities to
support response activities. During a disaster or planned event, requests for mutual aid
within the zone should be the first call for help. During a disaster or when requests for
mutual aid cannot be granted, any threatened participating organization can request
resources from other participating organizations. This document facilitates the sharing
of resources amongst regional partners willing and able to share resources.
The Resources section of the Regional Coordination Framework Agreement addresses
resource lending and borrowing protocols. When a disaster is large or complex enough
to initiate an emergency proclamation from the city, county or state level; various
emergency powers may be enacted to aid and support resource management. Only
jurisdictional cities, counties and tribal nations can sign an emergency proclamation. If
further support is needed, the chief elected official or their successor/designee of the
affected partner will proclaim an emergency, and then contact their designated Zone
Coordinator or other Point of Contact and/or the King County RCECC to request further
assistance.
Assistance may be requested by using one of the following mechanisms:
A request or supply of resources under the auspices of this Framework's
associated Agreement, or
A request or supply of resources under the auspices of Intra -State Mutual Aid or
Emergency Management Assistance Compact, or
A request or supply of resources under the auspices of another form of mutual
aid or other assistance.
Page 28 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
84
Regional Coordination Framework
Resource management involves knowing what resources are available to the region or
county (inventory), identifying them based on what they are and what they can do (type
and kind) and developing procedures and protocols for their use (request, dispatch,
demobilization/recall).
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to describe a resource management process which
regional partners within King County will follow in a disaster.
Situation and Scope
This section of the Framework describes the processes for management of regional
finance and logistics during and after a disaster impacting regional partners to the
Regional Coordination Framework and associated Agreement. This Framework
expands on those principals described under Intra -State Mutual Aid RCW 38.56 for
sharing resources.
Responsibilities
Regional partners will endeavor to obtain the ability identify, inventory, request, deploy,
track and recall the critical resources needed to respond to, and recover from, any
disaster.
Logistical and resource coordination will be through the three King County Emergency
Coordination Zones and the King County Regional Communications and Emergency
Coordination Center (RCECC).
The staff of the activated RCECC will coordinate and support regional resource
management activities in collaboration with the region's Resource Management
Workgroup through all phases of emergency management. Since resource
management is critical to a successful resolution during a disaster, it is important that
each regional partner commits to establish a process to describe, inventory, request,
deploy and track resources within their jurisdictions and to work in a cooperative effort
with the King County RCECC.
Equipment, supplies, and personnel needed by partner organizations should be sought
first from within their own agency/jurisdictions/organization, other local sources, mutual
aid agreements, then within the King County Fire/Emergency Management zone, and
then from King County RCECC. Resource needs beyond the capacity of the local level
and King County will be forwarded to the State of Washington or through the State to
the Federal Government.
Page 29 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
85
Regional Coordination Framework
Regional Coordination Framework partners will follow the legal and financial guidelines
established in the associated Agreement.
In situations where important resources are scarce, the regional decision-making
mechanism may be utilized to recommend strategies for resource management. The
King County Executive, or designee, still retains the authority for King County
government resource priorities and distribution. As noted earlier and also reflected in
the Framework's associated Agreement, all entities retain authority over their resources,
and respective elected officials retain authority over their government resource priorities
and distribution. See Direction and Coordination.
Concept of Operations
King County Office of Emergency Management maintains a 24/7 duty officer capability
to assist partners during events when coordination needs arise. When activated for
disasters or planned events, the RCECC will be the focal point for resource
management for all regional partners within King County, King County government and
unincorporated areas.
KC RCECC, in cooperation with other local jurisdictions, will
Provide technology to assist with the primary tasks associated with resource
management
Manage a process to describe, inventory, request and track resources
Activate these systems before and during a disaster/event
Dispatch resources before and during a disaster/event
Deactivate/demobilize or recall resources during or after a disaster/event
The KC RCECC will accept resource requests utilizing information provided on
accepted forms. The resource requests will be accepted by: phone, email, radio,
facsimile, hardcopy or any verifiable electronic method. Confirmation of receipt with the
requestor will be made as soon as possible.
Requests for resources should be stated in terms of need (i.e. type and kind, mission
requirements, etc.) and the particular resource if known. Should clarification of the
request be required, follow-up may be conducted by a RCECC Logistics Section staff
member, appropriate Zone Coordinator, or appropriate ESF representative.
The KC RCECC will update the resource request status, ensuring full disclosure of
where the request is within the process. All requested resources will be tracked through
completion of assignment as many resources will be in high demand amongst the many
regional partners within King County. Effective and efficient response coordination is
Page 30 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
86
Regional Coordination Framework
aided by expeditious reassignment of resources from partner to partner rather than
having a high demand resource is completely demobilized from the disaster and
returned to its parent organization prior to reassignment to another requesting partner.
The borrowing organization will maintain status and resource information for effective
and efficient resource use. Resources committed to a disaster will remain available to
that incident site until they are released by the on -scene command structure or re -called
by their own organization.
When resources are no longer needed, they will be released and demobilized by the on -
scene Incident Commander/Manager, the organization that made the initial request, or
the RCECC Incident Manager. The requestor must ensure that the resource is in the
agreed upon condition prior to returning to the lending agency or vendor. In addition, the
requestor must communicate the resource status to the KC RCECC for tracking.
References
Memorandum of Understanding for Coordinated Policy and Decision Making
During an Emergency
Resource Typing System Governance Document
King County CEMP ESF 7 Resource Support
KC RCECC Resource Request Process
Revised Code of Washington 38.56
IX. Document Development and Maintenance
Planning Limitations
This Framework and associated Agreement forge new territory as a cooperative
agreement among public and private organizations, and as such, may not have
completely anticipated the issues in public/private cooperation and resource sharing.
During simulations, exercises, or real disaster, interactions may occur that illustrate
shortcomings in the design that would require modifications or clarifications in this
Framework.
In a situation where the King County RCECC cannot perform the duties outlined in this
document, those duties could be assumed by the Washington State EOC.
Regional partners to this Framework will make every reasonable effort to prepare for
their responsibilities identified within this document in the event of a disaster. However,
all resources and systems are vulnerable to natural, technological and human caused
Page 31 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
87
Regional Coordination Framework
disasters and may be overwhelmed. Regional partners can only attempt to respond
based on the situation, information and resources available at the time.
There is no guarantee implied by this Framework that a perfect response to a disaster
or planned event will be practical or possible. Regional partners, including their officials
and employees, shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise of, or failure to
exercise or perform a public duty or a discretionary function or duty while carrying out
the provisions of this Framework.
Training and Exercises
Training
Training is a vital component to helping all regional partners understand the purpose
and scope of the document. Collaboratively, regional partners are responsible for
training their organizations to the purpose, scope and operations of the Framework. The
King County Office of Emergency Management is responsible for assisting potential
partners with training their community or organization. The training effort can be
accomplished through presentations to public, private and non-profit organizations on
the benefits of working within the auspices of the Regional Coordination Framework.
Exercises
Exercises are conducted to determine if the Framework is operationally sound.
Exercises of the Regional Coordination Framework may be conducted collectively as a
county region, by zone or by individual partner. Evaluations of exercises will identify
strengths and weaknesses encountered during the exercise and may identify necessary
changes to the document and components. In conjunction, training may also be
identified to facilitate in overall effectiveness of the Framework and its support
documents.
Ongoing Document Development and Maintenance
This framework has been developed and will be regularly updated by the Regional
Disaster Planning Work Group. The Work Group consists of representatives from
regional partners and serves as a subcommittee to the King County Emergency
Management Advisory Committee (EMAC), which in turn serves as an advisory entity to
the King County Executive and the King County Office of Emergency Management
(OEM).
The King County OEM will ensure continuity of the Regional Disaster Planning Work
Group, which will coordinate updates to this document. King County OEM will maintain
Page 32 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
88
Regional Coordination Framework
and publish the Framework and supporting materials on the King County OEM web site
at http://www.kingcounty.gov/prepare.
Suggested changes will be considered yearly and can be mailed to: King County Office
of Emergency Management, 3511 NE 2nd Street, Renton WA 98056. Faxes will be
received at (206) 205-4056. Telephone messages can be left at OEM's general number:
(206) 296-3830. The King County OEM Plans Manager is the staff person specifically
tasked with the maintenance of the Regional Coordination Framework, its associated
Agreement and any annexes to the Framework.
Modifications to this Regional Coordination Framework and its associated Agreement
will be developed by the Regional Disaster Planning Work Group and then submitted to
the Emergency Management Advisory Committee for review and comment. Further
vetting with regional partners beyond the membership of EMAC will also be conducted.
X. Terms and Definitions
`Agreement' — refers to identical agreements executed in counterparts which bind the
executing signatory partners to its terms and conditions to provide and receive
Emergency Assistance. The terms and conditions of the Agreement are all identical and
the execution of the Agreement binds a signatory partner to all other signatory partners
who have executed identical Agreements in counterparts. To be effective for purposes
of receiving Emergency Assistance, this Agreement and the Regional Coordination
Framework must be fully executed and received by the King County Office of
Emergency Management.
`Borrower' — refers to a signatory partner who has adopted, signed and subscribes to
the associated Agreement, and has made a request for emergency assistance and has
received commitment(s) to deliver emergency assistance pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement.
`Disaster' — refers to but is not limited to, a human -caused or natural event or
circumstance within the area of operation of any participating partner causing or
threatening loss of life, damage to the environment, injury to person or property, human
suffering or financial loss, such as: fire, explosion, flood, severe weather, drought,
earthquake, volcanic activity, spills or releases of hazardous materials, contamination,
utility or transportation emergencies, disease, infestation, civil disturbance, riots, act of
terrorism or sabotage; said event being or is likely to be beyond the capacity of the
affected signatory partner, in terms of personnel, equipment and facilities, thereby
requiring emergency assistance.
Page 33 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
89
Regional Coordination Framework
`Emergency Contact Points' — refers to the persons, in a line of succession, listed on the
Emergency Contact Information Form to be submitted to the Zone Coordinator and the
King County Office of Emergency Management by each partner. The list includes
names, addresses, and 24-hour phone numbers of the Emergency Contact Points of
each partner. The people listed as Emergency Contact Points will have (or can quickly
get) the authority of the partner to commit available equipment, services, and personnel
for the organization. Note: The phone number of a dispatch office staffed 24 hours a
day that is capable of contacting the Emergency Contact Point(s) is acceptable.
`Emergency Operations or Coordination Center (EOC/ECC)' — refers to a location from
which coordination of emergency response and recovery functions can be hosted.
`Framework' — `Regional Coordination Framework for Public and Private Organizations
in King County' ("Framework") means an all -hazards architecture for collaboration and
coordination among jurisdictional, organizational and business entities during
emergencies in King County.
`Lender' — refers to a signatory partner who has signed the Agreement and has agreed
to deliver Emergency Assistance to another signatory partner pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement.
`Long-term Recovery' — (FEMA description) refers to the phase of recovery that may
continue for months or years and addresses complete redevelopment and revitalization
of the impacted area.
`National Incident Management System' (NIMS) — (FEMA description) refers to the
systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of
government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work seamlessly
to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of
incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss
of life and property and harm to the environment.
`RCECC' — refers to the King County Regional Communications and Emergency
Coordination Center; the location from which information and resource management is
conducted in support of disasters or planned events.
`Region' — refers to geographic King County and its adjacent jurisdictions.
`Regional Partners' — refers to all public, private, non-governmental, or tribal
organizations that may or may not be signatory/subscribing organizations to the
Regional Coordination Framework, the associated Agreement and its annexes.
Page 34 I Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
90
Regional Coordination Framework
`Regional Policy Decision -Making' — refers to the mechanism established to enact
emergency powers, suspend or limit civil liberties, coordinate executive decisions,
and/or determine strategies for the allocation of scarce resources under proclaimed
emergencies.
`Regional Service Providers' — refers to those organizations, both public and private,
that provide services to the region. These may include but are not limited to: adult and
juvenile detention facilities, water and sewer utilities, power companies, transit, food
distribution, or other services.
`Response' - (FEMA description) refers those capabilities necessary to save lives,
protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after a disaster has
occurred.
`Short Term Recovery' — (FEMA description) refers to the phase of recovery which
addresses the health and safety needs beyond rescue, the assessment of the scope of
damages and needs, the restoration of basic infrastructure and the mobilization of
recovery organizations and resources including restarting and/or restoring essential
services for recovery decision-making.
`Signatory Partners' — refers to those organizations signatory to the associated
Agreement of the current Regional Coordination Framework.
'Zone(s)' — refers to those geographic areas conforming to the fire response zones in
King County and designated Zone 1 (north and northeast county), Zone 3 (south and
southeast county to include Vashon Island), and Zone 5 (the City of Seattle).
'Zone Coordination Function' — refers to those activities that may include pre -planning,
training, or information collection and resource status activities within a particular Zone.
'Zone Coordinators' — refers to those individuals who may perform the Zone
Coordination Function.
XI. Authorities and References
RCW 38.52.070 (summary)
Incorporated jurisdictions in King County are mandated by RCW 38.52.070 to perform
emergency management functions within their jurisdictional boundaries. Although
Page 35 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
91
Regional Coordination Framework
special purpose jurisdictions and private businesses are not mandated under RCW
38.52, this framework allows such entities to participate in this regional response plan.
RCW 38.56 Intrastate Mutual Aid System (summary)
Code that describes the sharing of resources between political subdivisions of
Washington State, documents like mutual aid agreements, and others governing the
terms under which resource may be borrowed, loaned, and reimbursement protocols.
King County Ordinance 17075, May 2, 2011
The King County Office of Emergency Management is tasked with regional coordination
in disaster preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation by King County ordinance
17075.
Excerpts: "The mission of the office of emergency management shall be to provide for
the effective direction, control, and coordination of county government emergency
services functional units, to coordinate with other governments and the private, non-
governmental sector, in compliance with a state -approved comprehensive emergency
management plan, and to serve as the coordinating entity for cities, county
governmental departments, and other appropriate agencies during incidents and events
of regional significance.
And,
"Foster cooperative planning at all levels to enable a uniform and rational approach to
the coordination of multi -agency and multi -jurisdictional actions for all regional
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts."
The Washington Mutual Aid Compact (WAMAC)
The Washington Mutual Aid Compact (WAMAC) is the operational implementation of
the Intrastate Mutual Aid System and provides for resource sharing between
governments in response to a disaster which overwhelms local and mutual aid
resources. The elements of this Regional Coordination Framework are designed to work
in conjunction with the operational elements of WAMAC.
Mutual Aid Agreements
Any participating organization may enter into separate emergency assistance or mutual
aid agreements with any other entity. No such separate agreement shall terminate any
responsibility under the Regional Coordination Framework or associated Agreement.
Page 36 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
92
King County
AGREEMENT
Regional Coordination Framework
for Disasters and Planned Events
for Public and Private Organizations
in King County, Washington
February 2014
93
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
Updating Process of former "Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement"
As the development of the `Regional Disaster Plan' began in 1999, there was also a need to
create a `mechanism to share resources.' The Plan focused on establishing a cooperative and
voluntary platform linking private businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies,
and special purpose districts. A legal document was needed to address emergency assistance
covering the legal and financial obligations of partners sharing personnel, equipment
materials and/or support during a disaster.
Back in 1999 to 2001, legal advisors from King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and
several other public and private entities worked together to frame the appropriate legal and
liability language forming the `Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement.' The Agreement
withstood the legal review and approval of many public, private and nonprofit organizations
that thereafter signed onto the Plan and Omnibus.
As the Plan transitioned and evolved into the `Framework,' the time was also appropriate to
revisit the Omnibus. Over the twelve year tenure of the Omnibus, mutual aid methodology
and practices had evolved at the regional, State and Federal levels; as well as alterations in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) public assistance arena.
In 2012 a subcommittee of the Regional Disaster Planning Work Group began the process to
revisit the Omnibus language. The subcommittee existed of legal advisors from King
County, City of Auburn and City of Seattle and emergency managers from King County,
Seattle, Bellevue, Zone 1, Zone 3 and Washington State. Through several meetings
leveraging the guidance and expertise of the legal and mutual aid subject matter experts
involved, the subcommittee finalized the current draft of the `AGREEMENT for
Organizations Participating in the Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and
Planned Event for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington.' A large
percentage of the original language has stayed the same with a few language and terminology
updates. The key areas of adjustment include:
New Changes
Document re -titled to `Agreement' — simpler title; Replaced `Omnibus Legal and Financial
Agreement'
Replaced `Plan' wording throughout document with `Framework'
Replaced `Omnibus' wording throughout document with `Agreement'
Terminology changes made by replacing `borrower' and `lender' with `requester' and
`responder'
Adjusted language in `Article I — Applicability' to say "...located in King County.";
Replaced "...in and bordering geographic King County."
Updated verbiage in `Article II — Definitions' on `Basic Plan' and `Package' since it is now a
`Framework'
Cleaned -up language in `Article II — Definitions' on `Emergency'
2 1 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
94
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
Cleaned -up language in `Article II — Definitions' on `Emergency Contact Points'
Updated respective sections with correct King County Office of Emergency Management
address; Former '7300 Perimeter Road' address
Updated verbiage in `Article IV — Role of Emergency Contact Point for Signatory Partners
Renaming to and cleaned -up language in `Article VI — Payment and Billing'; Formerly titled
`Article VI — Payment for Services and Assistance'
Cleaned -up language in `Article VIII — Requests for Emergency Assistance'
Removed section 'IX — General Nature of Emergency Assistance'; Repetitive of existing
language
Renaming to `Article IX — Provision of Equipment'; Formerly `Article X — Loans of
Equipment'
Renaming to `Article X — Provision of Materials and Supplies'; Formerly `Article XI —
Exchange of Materials and Supplies'
Renaming to `Article XI — Provision of Personnel'; Formerly `Article XII — Loans of
Personnel'
Renaming to and cleaned -up language `Article XII — Record Keeping'; Formerly `Article
XIII — Record keeping'
Renaming to and cleaned -up language `Article XIII — Indemnification, Limitation of
Liability, and Dispute Resolution'; Formerly `Article XIV — Indemnification and Limitation
of Liability'
Articles following have been renumbered and renamed appropriately
3 I AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
95
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
for organizations participating in the
Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events
for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
This AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by the public and private
organizations who become signatories hereto ("Signatory Partners") to facilitate the
provision of Emergency Assistance to each other during times of emergency.
WHEREAS, the Signatory Partners have expressed a mutual interest in the
establishment of an Agreement to facilitate and encourage Emergency Assistance
among participants; and
WHEREAS, the Signatory Partners do not intend for this Agreement to
replace or infringe on the authority granted by any federal, state, or local
governments, statutes, ordinances, or regulations; and
WHEREAS, in the event of an emergency, a Signatory Partner may need
Emergency Assistance in the form of supplemental personnel, equipment, materials
or other support; and
WHEREAS, each Signatory Partner may own and maintain equipment,
stocks materials, and employs trained personnel for a variety of services and is
willing, under certain conditions, to provide its supplies, equipment and services to
other Signatory Partners in the event of an emergency; and
WHEREAS, the proximity of the Signatory Partners to each other enables
them to provide Emergency Assistance to each other in emergency situations.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements hereinafter set forth, each Signatory Partner agrees as follows:
Article I - APPLICABILITY.
A private or public organization located in King County, Washington, may become a
Signatory Partner by signing this Agreement and becoming bound thereby. This
Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts.
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
96
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
Article II - DEFINITIONS.
A. `Assistance Costs' means any direct material costs, equipment costs,
equipment rental fees, fuel, and the labor costs that are incurred by the
Responder in providing any asset, service, or assistance requested.
B. `Emergency' means an event or set of circumstances that qualifies as an
emergency under any applicable statute, ordinance, or regulation.
C. `Emergency Assistance' means employees, services, equipment,
materials, or supplies provided by a Responder in response to a request
from a Requester.
D. `Emergency Contact Points' means persons designated by each Signatory
Partner who will have (or can quickly get) the authority to commit available
equipment, services, and personnel for their organization.
E. `King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee ("EMAC")' is
the Committee established in King County Code 2.36.055.
F. `Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for
Public and Private Organizations in King County' ("Framework") means an
all hazards architecture for collaboration and coordination among
jurisdictional, organizational, and business entities during emergencies in
King County.
G. `Requester' means a Signatory Partner that has made a request for
Emergency Assistance.
H. `Responder' means a Signatory Partner providing or intending to provide
Emergency Assistance to a Requester.
I. `Signatory Partner means any public or private organization in King
County, WA, that enters into this Agreement by signature of a person
authorized to sign.
J. `Termination Date' is the date upon which this agreement terminates
pursuant to Article V.
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
97
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
Article III - PARTICIPATION.
Participation in this Agreement, and the provision of personnel or resources, is
purely voluntary and at the sole discretion of the requested Responder. Signatory
Partners that execute the Agreement are expected to:
A. Identify and furnish to all other Signatory Partners a list of the
Organization's current Emergency Contact Points together with all
contact information; and .
B. Participate in scheduled meetings to coordinate operational and
implementation issues to the maximum extent possible.
Article IV - ROLE OF EMERGENCY CONTACT POINT FOR SIGNATORY
PARTNERS.
Signatory Partners agree that their Emergency Contact Points or their designees
can serve as representatives of the Signatory Partner in any meeting to work out the
language or implementation issues of this Agreement.
The Emergency Contact Points of a Signatory Partner shall:
A. Act as a single point of contact for information about the availability of
resources when other Signatory Partners seek assistance.
B. Maintain a manual containing the Framework, including a master copy
of this Agreement (as amended), and a list of Signatory Partners who
have executed this Agreement.
C. Each Signatory Partner will submit its Emergency Contact Information
Form to the King County Office of Emergency Management
("KCOEM"). KCOEM will maintain a list showing the succession in all
the Signatory Partners. This list will include names, addresses, and
24-hour phone numbers of the Emergency contact points (2-3 deep) of
each Signatory Partner. Note: the phone number of a dispatch office
staffed 24 hours a day that is capable of contacting the Emergency
contact point(s) is acceptable.
Article V - TERM AND TERMINATION.
A. This Agreement is effective upon execution by a Signatory Partner.
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
98
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
B. A Signatory Partner may terminate its participation in this Agreement
by providing written termination notification to the EMAC, care of the
KCOEM, 3211 NE 2nd Street, Renton WA 98056, or by Fax at 206-
205-4056. Notice of termination becomes effective upon receipt by
EMAC which shall, in turn, notify all Signatory Partners. Any
terminating Signatory Partner shall remain liable for all obligations
incurred during its period of participation, until the obligation is
satisfied.
Article VI - PAYMENT AND BILLING.
a. Requester shall pay to Responder all valid and invoiced Assistance Costs within
60 days of receipt of Responder's invoice, for the Emergency Assistance services
provided by Responder. Invoices shall include, as applicable, specific details
regarding labor costs, including but not limited to the base rate, fringe benefits rate,
overhead, and the basis for each element; equipment usage detail and, material cost
breakdown.
b. In the event Responder provides supplies or parts, Responder shall have the
option to accept payment of cash or in-kind for the supplies or parts provided.
c. Reimbursement for use of equipment requested under the terms of this
Agreement, such as construction equipment, road barricades, vehicles, and tools,
shall be at the rate mutually agreed between Requester and Responder. The rate
may reflect the rate approved and adopted by the Responder, a rate set forth in an
industry standard publication, or other rate.
Article VII - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Responder shall be and operate as an independent contractor of Requester in the
performance of any Emergency Assistance. Employees of Responder shall at all
times while performing Emergency Assistance continue to be employees of
Responder and shall not be deemed employees of Requester for any purpose.
Wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of Responder shall
remain applicable to all of its employees who perform Emergency Assistance.
Responder shall be solely responsible for payment of its employees' wages, any
required payroll taxes and any benefits or other compensation. Requester shall not
be responsible for paying any wages, benefits, taxes, or other compensation directly
to the Responder's employees. The costs associated with requested personnel are
subject to the reimbursement process outlined in Article XI. In no event shall
Responder or its officers, employees, agents, or representatives be authorized (or
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
99
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
represent that they are authorized) to make any representation, enter into any
agreement, waive any right or incur any obligation in the name of, on behalf of or as
agent for Requester under or by virtue of this Agreement.
Article VIII - REQUESTS FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.
Requests for Emergency Assistance shall be made by a person authorized by the
Requester to make such requests and approved by a person authorized by
Responder to approve such requests. If this request is verbal, it must be confirmed
in writing within thirty days after the date of the request.
Article IX - PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT.
Provision of equipment and tools loans is subject to the following conditions:
1. At the option of Responder, equipment may be provided with an
operator. See Article XI for terms and conditions applicable to use of
personnel.
2. Provided equipment shall be returned to Responder upon release by
Requester, or immediately upon Requester's receipt of an oral or written
notice from Responder for the return of the equipment. When notified to
return equipment to Responder, Requester shall make every effort to
return the equipment to Responder's possession within 24 hours
following notification. Equipment shall be returned in the same condition
as when it was provided to Requester.
3. During the time the equipment has been provided, Requester shall, at its
own expense, supply all fuel, lubrication and maintenance for
Responder's equipment. Requester shall take proper precaution in its
operation, storage and maintenance of Responder's equipment.
Equipment shall be used only by properly trained and supervised
operators. Responder shall endeavor to provide equipment in good
working order. All equipment is provided "as is", with no representations
or warranties as to its condition, fitness for a particular purpose, or
merchantability.
4. Responder's cost related to the transportation, handling, and
loading/unloading of equipment shall be chargeable to Requester.
Responder shall submit copies of invoices from outside sources that
perform such services and shall provide accounting of time and hourly
costs for Responder's employees who perform such services.
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
100
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
5. Without prejudice to Responder's right to indemnification under Article
XIII herein, in the event equipment is lost, stolen or damaged from the
point the Requestor has the beneficial use of the equipment, or while in
the custody and use of Requester, or until the Requestor no longer has
the beneficial use of the equipment, Requester shall reimburse
Responder for the reasonable cost of repairing or replacing said
damaged equipment. If the equipment cannot be repaired within a time
period required by Responder, then Requester shall reimburse
Responder for the cost of replacing such equipment with equipment
which is of equal condition and capability. Any determinations of what
constitutes "equal condition and capability" shall be at the discretion of
Responder. If Responder must lease or rent a piece of equipment while
Responder's equipment is being repaired or replaced, Requester shall
reimburse Responder for such costs. Requester shall have the right of
subrogation for all claims against persons other than parties to this
Agreement that may be responsible in whole or in part for damage to the
equipment. Requester shall not be liable for damage caused by the sole
negligence of Responder's operator(s).
Article X - PROVISION OF MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES.
Requester shall reimburse Responder in kind or at Responder's actual replacement
cost, plus handling charges, for use of partially consumed, fully consumed, or non-
returnable materials and supplies, as mutually agreed between Requester and
Responder. Other reusable materials and supplies which are returned to Responder
in clean, damage -free condition shall not be charged to the Requester and no rental
fee will be charged. Responder shall determine whether returned materials and
supplies are "clean and damage -free" and shall treat material and supplies as
"partially consumed" or "non -returnable" if found to be damaged.
Article XI - PROVISION OF PERSONNEL.
Responder may, at its option, make such employees as are willing to participate
available to Requester at Requester's expense equal to Responder's full cost,
including employee's salary or hourly wages, call back or overtime costs, benefits
and overhead, and consistent with Responder's personnel union contracts, if any, or
other conditions of employment. Costs to feed and house Responder's personnel, if
necessary, shall be chargeable to and paid by Requester. Requester is responsible
for assuring such arrangements as may be necessary for the safety, housing, meals,
and transportation to and from job sites/housing sites (if necessary) for Responder's
personnel. Responder shall bill all costs to Requester, who is responsible for paying
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
101
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
all billed costs. Responder may require that its personnel providing Emergency
Assistance shall be under the control of their regular leaders, but the organizational
units will come under the operational control of the command structure of Requester.
Responder's employees may decline to perform any assigned tasks if said
employees judge such task to be unsafe. A request for Responder's personnel to
direct the activities of others during a particular response operation does not relieve
Requester of any responsibility or create any liability on the part of Responder for
decisions and/or consequences of the response operation. Responder's personnel
may refuse to direct the activities of others. Responder's personnel holding a
license, certificate, or other permit evidencing qualification in a professional,
mechanical, or other skill, issued by the state of Washington or a political subdivision
thereof, is deemed to be licensed, certified, or permitted in any Signatory Partner's
jurisdiction for the duration of the emergency, subject to any limitations and
conditions the chief executive officer and/or elected and appointed officials of the
applicable Signatory Partners jurisdiction may prescribe in writing. When notified to
return personnel to Responder, Requester shall make every effort to return the
personnel to Responder promptly after notification.
Article XII - RECORD KEEPING.
Time sheets and/or daily logs showing hours worked and equipment and materials
used or provided by Responder will be recorded on a shift -by -shift basis by the
Responder and will be submitted to Requester as needed. If no personnel are
provided, Responder will submit shipping records for materials and equipment, and
Requester is responsible for any required documentation of use of material and
equipment for state or federal reimbursement. Under all circumstances, Requester
remains responsible for ensuring that the amount and quality of all documentation is
adequate to enable reimbursement.
Article XIII — INDEMNIFICATION, LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, AND DISPUTE
RESOLUTION.
A. INDEMNIFICATION. Except as provided in section B., to the fullest
extent permitted by applicable law, Requester releases and shall indemnify,
hold harmless and defend each Responder, its officers, employees and
agents from and against any and all costs, including costs of defense, claims,
judgments or awards of damages asserted or arising directly or indirectly
from, on account of, or in connection with providing, or declining to provide, or
not being asked to provide, Emergency Assistance to Requester, whether
arising before, during, or after performance of the Emergency Assistance and
whether suffered by any of the Signatory Partners or any other person or
entity.
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
102
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
Requester agrees that its obligation under this section extends to any claim,
demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its
employees, or agents. For this purpose, Requester, by mutual negotiation,
hereby waives, as respects any indemnitee only, any immunity that would
otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance
provisions of Title 51 RCW of the State of Washington and similar laws of
other states.
B. ACTIVITIES IN BAD FAITH OR BEYOND SCOPE. Any Signatory
Partner shall not be required under this Agreement to indemnify, hold
harmless and defend any other Signatory Partner from any claim, loss, harm,
liability, damage, cost or expense caused by or resulting from the activities of
any Signatory Partners' officers, employees, or agents acting in bad faith or
performing activities beyond the scope of their duties.
C. LIABILITY FOR PARTICIPATION. In the event of any liability, claim,
demand, action or proceeding, of whatever kind or nature arising out of
rendering of Emergency Assistance through this Agreement, Requester
agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend, to the fullest extent of the
law, each Signatory Partner, whose only involvement in the transaction or
occurrence which is the subject of such claim, action, demand, or other
proceeding, is the execution and approval of this Agreement.
D. DELAY/FAILURE TO RESPOND. No Signatory Partner shall be liable
to another Signatory Partner for, or be considered to be in breach of or default
under, this Agreement on account of any delay in or failure to perform any
obligation under this Agreement, except to make payment as specified in this
Agreement.
E. MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION. If a dispute arises under the terms
of this Agreement, the Signatory Partners involved in the dispute shall first
attempt to resolve the matter by direct negotiation. If the dispute cannot be
settled through direct discussions, the parties agree to first endeavor to settle
the dispute in an amicable manner by mediation. Thereafter, any unresolved
controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Contract, or breach
thereof, may be settled by arbitration, and judgment upon the award rendered
by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
F. SIGNATORY PARTNERS LITIGATION PROCEDURES. Each
Signatory Partner seeking to be released, indemnified, held harmless or
defended under this Article with respect to any claim shall promptly notify
Requester of such claim and shall not settle such claim without the prior
consent of Requester. Such Signatory Partners shall have the right to
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
103
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
participate in the defense of said claim to the extent of its own interest.
Signatory Partners' personnel shall cooperate and participate in legal
proceedings if so requested by Requester, and/or required by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Article XIV - SUBROGATION.
A. REQUESTER'S WAIVER. Requester expressly waives any rights of
subrogation against Responder, which it may have on account of, or in
connection with, Responder providing Emergency Assistance to Requester
under this Agreement.
B. RESPONDER'S RESERVATION AND WAIVER. Responder
expressly reserves its right to subrogation against Requester to the extent
Responder incurs any self-insured, self-insured retention or deductible loss.
Responder expressly waives its rights to subrogation for all insured losses
only to the extent Responder's insurance policies, then in force, permit such
waiver.
Article XV - WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYEE CLAIMS.
Responder's employees, officers or agents, made available to Requester, shall
remain the general employees of Responder while engaged in carrying out duties,
functions or activities pursuant to this Agreement, and each Signatory Partner shall
remain fully responsible as employer for all taxes, assessments, fees, premiums,
wages, withholdings, workers' compensation, and other direct and indirect
compensation, benefits, and related obligations with respect to its own employees.
Likewise, each Signatory Partner shall provide worker's compensation in compliance
with statutory requirements of the state of residency.
Article XVI - MODIFICATIONS.
Modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and will become effective upon
approval by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Signatory Partners. Modifications
must be signed by an authorized representative of each Signatory Partner. EMAC
will be the coordinating body for facilitating modifications of this Agreement.
Article XVII- NON -EXCLUSIVENESS AND PRIOR AGREEMENTS.
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
104
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall not supersede any existing mutual aid agreement or
agreements between two or more governmental agencies, and as to assistance
requested by a party to such mutual aid agreement within the scope of the mutual
aid agreement, such assistance shall be governed by the terms of the mutual aid
agreement and not by this Agreement. This Agreement shall, however, apply to all
requests for assistance beyond the scope of any mutual aid agreement or
agreements in place prior to the event.
Article XVIII - GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.
This Agreement is subject to laws, rules, regulations, orders, and other
requirements, now or hereafter in effect, of all governmental authorities having
jurisdiction over the emergencies covered by this Agreement or the Signatory
Partner. Provided that a governmental authority may alter its obligations under this
Agreement only as to future obligations, not obligations already incurred.
Article XIX - NO DEDICATION OF FACILITIES.
No undertaking by one Signatory Partner to the other Signatory Partners under any
provision of this Agreement shall constitute a dedication of the facilities or assets of
such Signatory Partners, or any portion thereof, to the public or to the other
Signatory Partners. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give a
Signatory Partner any right of ownership, possession, use or control of the facilities
or assets of the other Signatory Partners.
Article XX - NO PARTNERSHIP.
This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint
venture or partnership among the Signatory Partners or to impose any partnership
obligation or liability upon any Signatory Partner. Further, no Signatory Partner shall
have any undertaking for or on behalf of, or to act as or be an agent or
representative of, or to otherwise bind any other Signatory Partner.
Article XXI - NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any rights in or duties to any
third party, nor any liability to or standard of care with reference to any third party.
This Agreement shall not confer any right, or remedy upon any person other than the
Signatory Partners. This Agreement shall not release or discharge any obligation or
liability of any third party to any Signatory Partners.
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
105
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
Article XXII - ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes any and all prior
agreements of the Parties, with respect to the subject matters hereof.
Article XXIII - SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS.
This Agreement is not transferable or assignable, in whole or in part, and any
Signatory Partner may terminate its participation in this Agreement subject to Article
V.
Article XXIV - GOVERNING LAW.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and enforced in accordance with the
laws of Washington State.
Article XXV - VENUE.
Any action which may arise out of this Agreement shall be brought in Washington
State and King County. Provided, that any action against a participating County may
be brought in accordance with RCW 36.01.050.
Article XXVI - TORT CLAIMS.
It is not the intention of this Agreement to remove from any of the Signatory Partners
any protection provided by any applicable Tort Claims Act. However, between
Requester and Responder, Requester retains full liability to Responder for any
claims brought against Responder as described in other provisions of this
agreement.
Article XXVII - WAIVER OF RIGHTS.
Any waiver at any time by any Signatory Partner of its rights with respect to a default
under this Agreement, or with respect to any other matter arising in connection with
this Agreement, shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver with respect to any
subsequent default or other matter arising in connection with this Agreement. Any
delay short of the statutory period of limitations, in asserting or enforcing any right,
shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver.
AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
106
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
Article XXVIII - INVALID PROVISION.
The invalidity or unenforceability of any provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall
be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provisions were
omitted.
Article XXIX - NOTICES.
Any notice, demand, information, report, or item otherwise required, authorized, or
provided for in this Agreement shall be conveyed and facilitated by EMAC, care of
the KCOEM, 3511 NE 2nd Street, Renton WA 98056, Phone: 206-296-3830, Fax:
206-205-4056. Such notices, given in writing, and shall be deemed properly given if
(i) delivered personally, (ii) transmitted and received by telephone facsimile device
and confirmed by telephone, (iii) transmitted by electronic mail, or (iv) sent by United
States Mail, postage prepaid, to the EMAC.
15 I AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
107
Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT
Signatory Documentation Sheet
The Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for Public and
Private Organizations in King County, Washington is intended to be adopted as the
framework for participating organizations, within King County, to assist each other in
disaster situations when their response capabilities have been overloaded. Components, as of
January 2014, are the following:
Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for Public
and Private Organizations in King County
Agreement (legal and financial)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Signatory Partner hereto has caused this Regional
Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events to be executed by duly authorized
representatives as of the date of their signature:
ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS:
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE:
Please submit this form to the King County Office of Emergency Management
3511 NE 2nd Street
Renton, WA 98056
16
108
IAGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework
Regional Coordination Framework — Current Signatories
Cities
Other
City of Auburn
City of Bellevue
City of Bothell
City of Clyde Hill
City of Covington
City of Duvall
City of Enumclaw
City of Federal Way
City of Issaquah
City of Kent
City of Lake Forest Park
City of Medina
City of Mercer Island
City of Pacific
City of Redmond
City of Renton
City of Sammamish
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
City of Shoreline
City of Snoqualmie
City of Woodinville
Town of Skykomish
Evergreen Health
Harborview/UW Medicine (System)
Highline College
Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
King County
King County Fire District #20
King County Fire District #25
King County Fire District #28
NE Sammamish Sewer & Water District
Northwest Healthcare Response Network
Puget Sound Energy
Ronald Wastewater
Sammamish Plateau W & S District
Seattle Children's Hospital
Shoreline Community College
Soos Creek
UW Bothell
Vashon Island Fire & Rescue
WA State Animal Response Team
Water District #19
VashonBePrepared
Covington Water District
Crisis Clinic
109
110
;1 �1it Regional Coordination
11 '• • 1� Framework:
�
ip
�
•,,,°1111 • A regional mutual aid
so ` 0, agreement11111 *1"..fiti
'06
Mindi Mattson
Emergency Manager
City of Tukwila
Why the RCF is needed
Mutual Aid Agreements are limited
Disasters don't know boundaries
■No jurisdiction can go it alone
We may need help
We may be able to give help
Who's on board?
Cities:
Auburn, Bellevue, Bothell, Clyde Hill, Covington, Duvall
Enumclaw, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kent, Lake Forest Park,
Medina, Mercer Island, Pacific, Redmond, Renton,
Sammamish, Seatac, Seattle, Shoreline, Snoqualmie,
Skykomish, Woodinville
Who's on board?
Other Signatories:
Evergreen Health, UW Medicine, Highline College, PS Fire
Authority, King County, KC Fire Districts 20, 25, and 28, NE
Sammamish Water, Northwest Healthcare Response Network,
Puget Sound Energy, Ronald Wastewater, Sammamish Water,
Seattle Childrens' Hospital, Shoreline CC, Soos Creek, UW
Bothell, Vashon Fire, WASART, Water District 19, Vashon Be
Prepared, Covington Water, Crisis Clinic
The RCF in a nutshell
Administered by King County
Covers:
• Direction and Coordination
• Information Collection, Analysis and Dissemination
• Public Information
• Communications
• Resource Management
The RCF in a nutshell
Completely voluntary and non-binding
L Does not impact "home rule"
❑ Contracts for shared resources done at time of disaster
Q Resource can be recalled back to Tukwila at any time
Questions?
Mindi Mattson, MA, CEM
Emergency Manager
(206)971-8750 desk
(206)673-7480 cell
�
I Emergency
Management Overview
1'
P °I
1 • Where are we at?
1 1`foo, • Where are we going?
O 141A1/
• I
. Ott
Mindi Mattson
Emergency Manager
City of Tukwila
• Where are we at?
• Completed Plans Review
• Secured Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funding for 2021
• Updated Draft Comprehensive Emergency Management Nan (CEMP)
• Created Cascadia Rising Training and Exercise Plan (TEP)
EOC Staff Training Elected Officials Training
Tabletop Exercises "Mini" Activations of EOC
Where are we going?
Emergency Operations Center (EOC)Build-out
Emergency Operations Center readiness
Cascadia Rising June 2022
Build out Emergency Management Budget
Build out backup EOC at Station 52
Where are we going?
Develop plan revision schedule
Train and Exercise other capabilities
Develop staff preparedness program
Develop public -facing presence and education strategy
Build partnerships with businesses, schools, and community
organizations
Questions?
Mindi Mattson, MA, CEM
Emergency Manager
(206)971-8750 desk
(206)673-7480 cell
City of Tukwila
City Council Community Services & Safety Committee
Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2021 - 5:30 p.m. - Electronic Meeting due to COVID-19 Emergency
Councilmembers Present:
Staff Present:
Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson, Chair; De'Sean Quinn, Zak Idan
David Cline, Ben Hayman, Tracy Gallaway, Eric Dreyer, Mindi Mattson,
Norm Golden, Jay Wittwer, Kris Kelly, Laurel Humphrey
Chair Delostrinos Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. 2021 Parks & Recreation Capital Projects and Related Contracts
Staff provided an overview of capital projects completed in 2020 and planned for 2021, and
requested authorization for two contracts: 1) Security Lines US in the amount of $143,456 for
security cameras at Cascade View, Codiga, Crystal Springs, Tukwila Pond, and the Community
Center; 2) Mid Pac Construction Inc. in the amount of $53,000 for tennis court repairs at Tukwila
Park and Crystal Springs.
Items(s) requiring follow-up:
Provide additional context for security cameras in parks, including potential benefit to the
community and insight from the Police Department.
Committee Recommendation:
Mid Pac Construction Inc. Contract - Unanimous approval. Forward to May 17 Regular Consent
Agenda.
Security Line US Contract - Return to Committee with information requested.
B. Emergency Management Update and Work Plan
Staff presented an overview of the Emergency Management program.
Items(s) requiring follow-up:
Provide presentation to full Council.
Committee Recommendation:
Discussion only.
C. 2020 Fire Department Annual Report
Staff presented the report.
Items(s) requiring follow-up:
Return to Committee with Fire Marshal's Office update.
Committee Recommendation:
Discussion only.
123
124
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
6/14/21
NG
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM No.
5.D.
125
STAFF SPONSOR: JAY WITTWER
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 6/14/21
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Fire Advisory Task Force
CATEGORY 11 Discussion
6-14-21
11
Motion
Date Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
Mtg Date
Mtg
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD
❑ P&'R ❑ Police ❑ PIF
❑ Finance 11 Fire
SPONSOR'S Update on activities of the Fire Advisory Task Force. Advising of actions taken so far, and
SUMMARY requesting approval for 1 - continuing our work, 2 - hire consultants, and 3 - pursue
options for the Fire Marshal's Office.
REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure
❑ LTAC
DATE: 6/7/21
Svcs I Community Svcs/Safety
❑ Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev.
❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
COMMITTEE CHAIR: DELOSTRINOS-JOHNSON
❑ Arts Comm.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
Fire Department)
Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$80,000 $ $
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
6/14/21
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
6/14/21
Informational Memorandum dated 6/7/21
Copy of Charter for Task Force
April 26, 2021 Informational Memo
Copy of Karen Reed Resume
Copy of Bill Cushman Resume
Minutes from the 6/7 Community Services & Safety Committee
125
126
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Services & Safety (CSS)
FROM: Chief Jay Wittwer
BY: Deputy Chief Norm Golden
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: June 7, 2021
SUBJECT: Fire Advisory Task Force / CPSM Report Update
ISSUE
Update on activities of the Fire Advisory Task Force and the Center for Public Safety
Management (CPSM) Report review. The group is asking for the City Council to support hiring
consulting services to provide a neutral party to help move the process forward and to provide a
timeline for completion.
BACKGROUND
The CPSM report was presented to the Committee of the Whole on March 8, 2021.The report
provided recommendations for improving fire services in the city. An internal work group was
formed to evaluate the report recommendations and determine strategies to provide high-level,
financially sustainable fire services. The city will form a Fire Advisory Task Force (Task Force)
to work in a co -creative space with the community to present options to the Council.
The internal work group is providing an update on their work since March 8, 2021. The group
meets weekly and is working from a Chartering Document, previously shared with the Councill
on April 26, 2021, to define the scope of this project. The group agrees that our purpose is not
to "get rid" of the fire department, but to determine how best to provide a high-level, financial
sustainable fire services. Maintaining our current response staff, equipment, and capabilities is
the starting point of our project.
The group has solicited potential regional partners to gauge interest in partnering to provide
services as alternatives to retaining fire services in-house. The next step is to form a Task Force
to evaluate the options and present them to the Council. This community task force will be
comprised of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), residents, business representatives, local leaders,
etc.
The group has identified the main options for providing fire services to the City of Tukwila. The
threshold decision is whether to continue to provide services as a city department, standing up
our own regional fire authority, or to partner with another organization. Then there are options to
explore within each of these options.
City of Tukwila
Provide a municipal fire department (current practice).
Establish a Regional Fire Authority within our own city.
Establish new revenue sources such as a Fire Benefit Charge and/or a Levy Lid Lift.
127
128
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Partnerships
Enter a contract for services.
Annex into an existing Regional Fire Authority (RFA).
Regional Fire Authority (RFA) — These are special purpose districts created under RCW 52.26.
An RFA establishes a municipal corporation with independent taxing authority through a
property tax levy as well as a Fire Benefit Charge (FBC). An RFA requires a vote of the people
(simple majority), and the FBC requires a 60% supermajority that is renewable every 6 years,
10 years, or can be voted in as a permanent funding source. RFAs are fairly new in Washington
State as they were authorized in 2004. The first RFA is the Valley Regional Fire Authority
(Auburn, Algona, and Pacific) established in 2007. Currently there are three RFAs in King
County, three in Snohomish County, and about eight more throughout the state.
DISCUSSION
Consulting Needs
The group explored the options for consultants with experience in working with emergency
services and particularly working with cities on fire services and exploring options such as
contracting for services, annexing to a current agency or formation of Regional Fire Authorities.
The group believes engaging consulting services for this process would be beneficial to the city.
Financial Consultant Bill Cushman and Facilitator Karen Reed are two consultants who do have
extensive local experience in this arena and we are recommending contracting with them to
assist the City. The group did explore other consultant firms such as Berk Consulting and
Emergency Services Consulting International (ESC!), but these firms are more focused on
strategic plans for emergency services.
Bill Cushman is a financial consultant with extensive experience in municipal finance. Mr.
Cushman has over 50 years of budget analysis, developing financial planning models, and
strategic financial planning. Mr. Cushman has worked specifically with many fire service
providers on mergers and formation of Regional Fire Authorities. A Financial Analyst is needed
to provide "apples -to -apples" comparison projections for the Task Force to evaluate.
Karen Reed (principal of Karen Reed Consulting, LLC) provides facilitation services for
organizations looking for sustainable delivery models. Ms. Reed has extensive experience
facilitating and negotiating multi -stakeholder public policy matters. Ms. Reed is very experienced
in working with fire service providers associated with Fire Services contracts and RFAs, and has
worked with Bill Cushman on many of the projects in our area.
Mr. Cushman and Ms. Reed have teamed up to successfully guide cities such as Lynnwood,
Renton, and currently Mill Creek on exploring and implementing fire services through contracts
and forming Regional Fire Authorities. They have also worked with Fire Districts and Fire
Authorities on Sustainability Assessments, and Strategic Fire Service options in Snohomish,
King, and Pierce County.
Timeline
The internal work group would like to bring the consulting team onboard and gather information
over the next three months to provide to the Task Force. We will simultaneously implement the
recruitment and appointment process to ensure an effective Task Force with a membership that
is representative of the community and that meetings are ready to commence without further
delay.
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/Council Agenda Items/Fire/Info Memo.docx
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Fire Marshal Services
Improvements to the Fire Marshal's Office (FMO) was part of the CPSM recommendations. Due
to current staffing issues within the FMO and the continued demand for fire permit services, The
group is interested in exploring various options for providing these services. These options
could include additional staff or redirection of existing staff, increased fees for cost recovery of
services, and possible partnerships with another FMO as a more sustainable service model.
The Fire Marshal and Finance Director are working on these ideas and will be presenting
options to the Community Services & Safety Committee at a future date for a recommendation
to the Council.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial request for the two individual consultant contracts (Facilitation Services and
Financial Analysis) are each within the Mayor's budget authority. A budget amendment up to
$80,000 ($40,000 each) will be needed to fund this request.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve the proposal for consultation services, and consider this
item at the June 14, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting.
The Council is also being asked to approve the timeline for information gathering and continued
work on establishing the community Fire Advisory Task Force.
Additional information will be forthcoming to the Council in the future regarding staffing in the
Fire Marshal's Office.
ATTACHMENTS
Chartering Document
April 26, 2021 Informational Memo
Bill Cushman Biography
Karen Reed Resume
129
130
TO:
FROM:
BY:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Committee of the Whole
David Cline, City Administrator
Jake Berry, Public Safety Budget Analyst
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
04/26/2021
Fire Advisory Task Force Internal Working Group
ISSUE
Now that the City has received CPSM's Operations & Data Report, an internal working group has
been established to distill the knowledge contained within the report, augment it with our own, and
then apply it with the goal of providing a high-quality Fire Service to the Community at a
sustainable cost. The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the CSS of the formation of this
working group and the process it intends to use to carry -out its mission.
BACKGROUND
Mandated by Council via Ordinance 2621, the Fire Department commissioned CPSM to provide
an independent review of Fire's budgetary and management practices. CPSM presented their
findings to Council on March 8th and subsequent discussions were held during the March 15th CSS
meeting.
DISCUSSION
At the direction of the Mayor, an internal working group consisting of Mayor Allan Ekberg, City
Administrator David Cline, Finance Director Vicky Carlsen, Fire Chief Jay Wittwer, Deputy Fire
Chief Norm Golden, HR Director Juan Padilla, Local 2088 President James Booth, and Public
Safety Budget Analyst Jake Berry has been established. This group with work closely with City
Council and Community Services and Safety Committee members as well as Tukwila Staff from
other departments to gain their input and to leverage their knowledge.
With the ultimate goal of providing a high-quality Fire Service at a sustainable cost, the group will
evaluate the recommendations (both specified and implied) contained within the CPSM report and
determine which are reasonable priorities from a contractual, data, and time -based standpoint.
The group will research and evaluate other teams that have created value -driven processes so
that we can learn from their achievements and challenges. We understand that change is desired
immediately but we believe this issue is too important to rush.
Community Engagement
The working group plans to seek the assistance and input of the Community. Because the group
values the advice and knowledge of the Community, we would like to formally invite Community
members to actively participate in some of our discussions. These Community members will be
selected via a Boards and Commissions type process. To include a diverse set of knowledge we
will seek representatives from our business and residential Communities by reaching out to civic
groups, multi -family groups, business developers, and other groups as the Committee directs.
Applications to join our discussions will be sent to these groups and then, once received, will be
presented to the Committee for vetting and acceptance. The group would also like to invite a
Page 1 of 2
131
representative from another Fire Department within Zone 3 to provide an expert third -party
perspective.
The purpose of including such a large and diverse set of experts and stakeholders is to foster a
co -creative space that will allow for the collaborative development necessary to achieve our
primary goal.
Financial Sustainability
The term "Financial Sustainability" has become a hot topic since the release of the CPSM report
and the Group would like Committee's input on how we define this term. What does Financial
Sustainability mean to the Committee? What are the associated service -level implications?
High -Level Process
Once we have defined Financial Sustainability and Community Engagement, the group will
evaluate the 37 stated recommendations (as well as some unstated recommendations found
within the report) to determine which meet the following criteria:
• Reasonable: as CPSM's Mr. lacona stated, not all of the recommendations will make
sense for Tukwila
• Not Bargaining Related: because the Local 2088 contract runs through 2022, we will focus
on those recommendations that can be accomplished in the meantime
• Impactful: based on cost (or savings) and the return to the Community
• Label as either Policy or Procedure -Related: to determine involvement and timeline
From the recommendations that remain, we will identify those that are easiest to accomplish, the
"low hanging fruit". Tackling these tasks first will allow us to test and refine our process and
prepare us for the larger tasks.
Attachment #1 is a table containing questions the group has received from Council as well as the
group's response to each of the questions. We will include an updated version of this table with
each update to CSS and the Council.
The Mayor stated to the working group that providing a high-quality Fire Service at a sustainable
cost is one of the City's highest priorities and has drafted a team charter to guide the group and to
frame its actions and responsibilities. That charter is included as Attachment #2.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
We ask that Committee approves the formation of this Task Force and the updated Charter. With
Committee approval, the Group will present to C.O.W on April 26th to seek their input and
approval. This will allow the group to begin recruiting Task Force members in May.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CPSM Operational & Administrative Analysis: Council Question Follow -Up & Parking Lot
2. Fire Department Financial Sustainability Project Chartering Doc
Page 2 of 2
132
Chartering Document
A Chartering Document allows for a mutually agreed upon understanding
of what a team effort and purpose is.
TEAM name: Fire Advisory Task Force
Background:
The Tukwila Fire Department and Administration share the common goal of ensuring robust
community engagement regarding the necessary financial support to sustain Tukwila Fire
service. Our focus is to advise City policy officials (the City Council) on options and opportunities
to enable and sustain fire services to the City of Tukwila. We will rely on a data -driven focus to
ensure optimum response to questions, inform members and help drive informative outcomes.
It is the intent of the team to consider and present multiple options to help identify operational
fire service funding models while considering best practices to ensure an effective and efficient
service to the community.
Team Objective:
To advise the City Council and the public on financial recommendations and fire operational
models to facilitate a common understanding of service options. With the ultimate objective to
seek a sustained financial model that achieves public support through:
• Shared Value -Driven Process
• Co -Created Work Plan
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Cooperation
• Data Informed Analysis
• Defined operational models
• Engagement with public
• Financial modeling
• Support of the public
• Vote of the public
Overview
The team will meet regularly to review and provide oversight on data acquired, operational
models to be considered, along with financial aspects and matching revenue needs and
solutions. Appropriate community outreach shall be conducted to inform the public and seek
public acceptance while incorporating community criteria into decisions.
Team Configuration
The team shall have several members comprising of those roles deemed necessary, members
may consist of union representation, fire administration, city administration, City Council
representatives, project manager, finance, fire personnel, business community representation,
and public/community participants.
1 Page
133
The Mayor can help to identify and appoint the business community member(s) and the Council,
through the council president, can be asked to do the same for community member(s).
Recommendations will be accepted by all team members.
Participation by City Council representatives is recommended based on specific roles of Council
members. For example, these representatives might include Council President, Finance
Committee Chair, and Community Services and Safety Chair. The Council may also choose
representatives based on past experience working on fire studies.
The team seeks to include a large and diverse set of experts and stakeholders to foster a co -
creative space that will allow for the collaborative development necessary to achieve our goal of
providing a Community -supported and financially sustainable Fire Department model.
The expected duration of the team's activity
The team shall continue in existence until a preferred outcome is achieved and the 2023/2024
biennium budget is approved or if a resolution is achieved sooner.
Team Organization
The team will choose a chair and/or co-chairs to help facilitate meetings, this position may
rotate, based on volunteers. Each team member is an equal in the process and all due decorum
and respect is expected. Team creation generally goes through a process of Forming, Storming,
Norming and Performing, thus each individual member is expected to help each other through
this process. Sub -teams can be formed for specific tasks; while it is the duty of the sub -team to
report back to the overall team often to keep all team members informed.
Time Expectations
Team should meet no less than every -other -week, and likely more during formation and critical
times.
In Scope: The expectations & deliverables of the team
Major areas to understand / deliver information on include:
• Co -Create a Timeline and Workplan
• Value identification and agreement
• Seek all necessary data to drive a data -informed decision
• Provide a definition to required funding
• Define where required funding can be achieved from
• Receive and review public comment
• Visit with community members to share work effort and outcomes
• Produce justification of selected outcome
• Advise the full City Council on progress and outcomes
• Seek council support on decision points
• Inform the community of progress and outcomes
• Promote the desired outcome with the public/community
134
21Pa
Out of Scope: Items the team is not to consider
• Collective Bargaining Issues
3
135
Team members (fill in as members are identified)
The following team members have committed to participate on this team:
Reporting Hierarchy
The team is self -actuating equals, if an issue comes up that the team cannot resolve, the mayor
can make a final decision. The team seeks to build a collaborative environment that fosters
creative and innovative thinking and that honors the perspectives and ideas of all members.
Team Principles
This team's members are bound by and subject to the City's code of ethics policy, TMC 2.95,
Code of Ethics for Employees and Appointed Officials.
41Page
136
Organization/Group
Team Member Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Reporting Hierarchy
The team is self -actuating equals, if an issue comes up that the team cannot resolve, the mayor
can make a final decision. The team seeks to build a collaborative environment that fosters
creative and innovative thinking and that honors the perspectives and ideas of all members.
Team Principles
This team's members are bound by and subject to the City's code of ethics policy, TMC 2.95,
Code of Ethics for Employees and Appointed Officials.
41Page
136
Bill Cushman - Biography
Bill Cushman began his association with municipal finance fifty years ago armed with a degree in English
Literature from the University of Washington, followed by several years at various endeavors, including
a year as a disk jockey at KISW, FM, 99.9 on your radio dial, the field of technical writing seemed like a
natural fit.
He was first introduced to municipal finance as a novice technical writer and budget "analyst" for the
City of Everett in 1971. After a two-year stint in the same role with the data processing department at
PACCAR, he returned to Everett where he was named Computer Services Manager in 1976 and then
Finance and Budget Director in 1978 remaining in that role for the next 25 years.
Retiring after 30 years' service with Everett, Bill was recruited by the largest fire district in Washington,
Snohomish County Fire District 1 where he oversaw financial matters for 15 more years. The highlight of
the SnoCo FD1 gig was the development of strategic financial planning models that allowed the Fire
Commissioners and the Fire Administrative to work in concert to develop long-range financial and
organizational programs with a high level of confidence that their common goals would be met with
success.
In 1993 while still with Everett, and continuing for the next 20 years, Bill was invited by organizations
such as the Washington Association of Cities, Washington Finance Officers Associations, Washington
Fire Chiefs' Association, and Washington Fire Commissioners' Association to lecture and present
seminars about strategic financial planning. During this time, he handed out more than 3,600 copies of
a simplified planning model to introduce the audience to some of the basic concepts involved with
setting long-range goals and targets that incorporate the financial resources required to bring the
envisioned plans to a satisfactory conclusion.
The final application with SnoCo FD1 was to prepare financial plans and documents that resulted in the
creation of the South Snohomish County Regional Fire Authority, a consolidation of SnoCo FD1 and the
City of Lynnwood, an effort that was artfully managed by Karen Reed who oversaw all the planning and
logistical requirements to bring the program to a successful voter -approved completion in 2019.
Bill also provided the financial documentation that brought the City of Monroe and Fire District 3 and
Fire District 7 into a merger that was followed by the additional merger with Fire District 8 and the City
of Lake Stevens, creating a new agency, Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue.
Other agencies that have benefitted from the financial models provided by Bill Cushman include North
County Regional Fire Authority, City of Arlington, City of Mill Creek, City of Kenmore, City of Bothell,
Woodinville Fire, Northshore Fire, City of Marysville, Marysville Fire, City of Brier, and about 35 more
municipal corporations which would be tedious to enumerate.
He is currently engaged by Whatcom County Fire District 21 with goal setting and financial planning and
the setting of fire tax levies. Also under contract is the City of Mill Creek in assisting them in seeking
alternative service provisions with a neighboring fire authority. Lewis County Fire 6 is in the process of
establishing a strategic budgeting process that incorporates most of the planning models available and
which would serve as the basis for a critical analysis of Tukwila Fire over a period 2021 through 2027.
137
138
Karen Reed
Karen Reed Consulting, LLC
4951 S.W. Forney Street Seattle, WA 98116
(206) 932-5063 1 cell: (206) 948-3556 1 kreedconsult@comcast.net
■ Public Process Facilitation ■ Interlocal Agreements
■ Multi -Agency Negotiations ■ Strategic Planning
EXPERIENCE:
KAREN REED CONSULTING, LLC, Seattle, WA
Principal/Owner August 2003 — Present. Karen's consulting practice focuses on facilitation and
negotiation of multi -stakeholder public policy matters. Her clients include counties and cities in
Western Washington, state and regional government agencies, and nonprofit organizations.
Recent projects include:
• Snohomish County Fire Districts 4 and City of Everett Regional Fire Authority Facilitation
(2021 -ongoing). Facilitate discussions between three agencies seeking voter approval to
form a regional fire authority.
• City of Mill Creek Fire Service Options (2021 -ongoing) Providing strategic advice to City on
fire service delivery options.
• City of Mil Creek Park Properties Development Visioning (2021 -ongoing). Facilitate efforts
to develop multi -acre public property for park and recreation purposes.
• Arlington -North County Regional Fire Authority Annexation (2020-2021). Facilitate
discussions between two jurisdictions to secure voter approval for annexation.
• North Whatcom Regional Fire Authority (2020) Facilitate discussions between two fire
districts for potential ballot measure to create a regional fire authority.
• Seattle Public Utilities Customer Review Panel (2013 -ongoing) Facilitate 9 -member citizen
panel advising utility in development and ongoing updates of its 6 -year strategic business
plan, which links capital and operating budgets to utility rates.
• Seattle City Light Review Panel (2010 -ongoing) Facilitate citizen panel charged with
providing advice in the development and ongoing updates of the utility's 6 -year strategic
business plan linking capital investment and operations to rates.
• Everett Fiscal Sustainability Advisory Committee (2020). Facilitate citizen task force
charged with assessing options to strengthen City's financial sustainability.
• Graham Fire Department Public Education (2020). Assist fire department in developing
public education plan related to benefit charge ballot measure.
• Medina Council Retreat (2016, 2018, 2020, 2021). Develop and facilitate Council retreat.
• Monroe Court Options Study (2020). Analyze court service delivery options for cities of
Monroe, Lake Stevens and Sultan.
• Snohomish County Housing Affordability Taskforce (2018-2020). Facilitated taskforce
charged with developing recommendations to increase regional housing affordability.
• South Sound 911 Governance (2018-2019) Facilitated regional governance discussion
between Pierce County and group of cities regarding oversight of regional 911 call center.
• City of Bothell Municipal Court Options Study (2019). Analyzed local courts service options.
• City of Bothell Council Teambuilding (2018 — 2019). Teambuilding facilitation.
139
• SNO911-SERS Merger Steering Committee Facilitation (2018) Facilitated successful merger
discussions between the two regional 911 call centers in Snohomish County.
• Kitsap Regional Council Retreat (2018) Facilitated retreat for regional council.
• Renton Parks Citizen Advisory Committee (2017-2018) Facilitated 16 member citizen group
tasked with developing recommendations to City for a potential parks ballot measure.
• SNOCOM-SNOPAC Consolidation (2016-2018) Facilitated discussions leading to the January
2018 consolidation of the two 911 -call centers in Snohomish County.
• Lynnwood -Fire District 1 Regional Fire Authority Planning Committee (2016-2017)
Facilitated work of elected official committee and staff group to develop finance and
operations plan for proposed regional fire authority; approved by voters in August 2017.
• King County Land Conservation Task Force (2016) Facilitated 25 -member task force pro-
viding recommendations on county executive proposal to expand green spaces preservation.
• Snohomish County Dept. of Emergency Management Strategic Plan (2015-2016)
Facilitated staff leadership project to develop department strategic plan; drafted plan.
• Auburn Mayors' Homelessness Task Force (2015 -present) Facilitated community task force
to develop recommendations to respond to homelessness in the city.
• Tacoma Property Crimes Reduction Task Force (2015) Facilitated blue ribbon panel tasked
with recommending strategies for reducing property crime in the city.
• Renton Regional Fire Authority Public Education (2015) Assisted city with developing public
communications plan that led to voter approval of the fire authority.
• Mercer Island Town Center Visioning and Development Code Project (2015-2016) Provided
strategic advice, analysis and communications materials for land use code revision effort.
• Redmond Community Homelessness Task Force (2015) Facilitated community task force
charged with making recommendations to address homelessness.
KING COUNTY, Seattle, WA
Special Project Manager, Office of Management and Budget, January 2003 -July 2003; Director's
Office, Dept. of Natural Resources and Parks, February 2002 -December 2002.
• Facilitated blue ribbon task force on County general fund budget crisis.
• Developed business plan for transformation of King County parks system. Facilitated
citizen task forces charged to recommend parks system funding options; led staff team
negotiating transfer of dozens of county parks and recreation facilities to local agencies.
CITY OF BELLEVUE, Bellevue WA
Assistant City Manager for Intergovernmental Relations 1998 -June 2001
Intergovernmental Relations Manager October 1993 through 1997
• Directed government relations for the City at regional, state and federal levels, and
negotiated service contracts on behalf of Bellevue and suburban cities.
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS, Seattle WA
Attorney, January 1986 to July 1992.
• Practice in municipal law and finance.
EDUCATION:
STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, Stanford, CA Juris Doctorate, 1985
POMONA COLLEGE, Claremont, CA B.A., magna cum laude, Economics and Public Policy, 1982
140
City of Tukwila
City Council Community Services & Safety Committee
Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2021- 5:30 p.m. - Electronic Meeting due to COVID-19 Emergency
Councilmembers Present:
Staff Present:
Guests:
Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson, Chair; De'Sean Quinn, Zak Idan
David Cline, Eric Dreyer, Eric Lund, Jay Wittwer, Ben Hayman, Norm
Golden, Trish Kinlow, Vicky Carlsen
David Kirshenbaum & Timothy Goss
Chair Delostrinos Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Public Defense Program
Kirshenbaum & Goss presented an overview of the city's public defense program.
Items(s) requiring follow-up:
• Provide information on advocacy opportunities for the next state legislative session.
• Plan for annual check -ins with the City Council.
Committee Recommendation:
Discussion only.
B. Use of Force Review
Councilmembers and staff continued discussion of the use of force review process.
Items(s) requiring follow-up:
• Invite community representatives on Use of Force Review Board to share their
experience with the Council.
Committee Recommendation:
Discussion only.
C. Request for Consultation Service Funding for Fire Advisory Task Force
Staff is seeking Council approval to proceed with the timeline, activities, and consultation
*services for the Fire Advisory Task Force project, which will require a budget amendment up to
$80,000 at the end of the year.
Committee Recommendation:
Unanimous approval. Forward to June 14, 2021 Committee of the Whole meeting.
141
142
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
ITEM NO.
Q.
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayors review
Council review
)-6-1
N
6/14/21
BR
�!!!
%)1,
:� z
5.E.
x9OB
ITEM INFORMATION
STAFF SPONSOR: HARI PONNEKANTI
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 6/14/21
AGENDA ITEM TITLE BNSF Alternative Access Study
Project Update and Council Consensus on Options
CATEGORY
11
Mtg
Discussion
Date 6/14/21
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police
►1
PIS
SPONSOR'S Access alternatives for the BNSF intermodal yard have been considered by the City since
SUMMARY the late 1990's; no preferred alternative route has been selected. The Council is being
asked to consider and approve a David Evans contract to revise the cost estimates for the
2015/2016 Draft BNSF Alternative Access Study report (Option 1) and an environmental
impact statement process (Option 2).
REVIEWED BY ►/ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev.
❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 5/24/21 COMMITTEE CHAIR: VERNA SEAL
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Public Works Department
COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$1,250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Fund Source: No FUND ALLOCATED
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
6/14/21
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
6/14/21
Informational Memorandum dated May 21, 2021
Draft BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study - Draft Alternative Screening Analysis
Draft BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
Minutes from Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting of 05/24/21
143
144
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Public Works Department - Hari Ponnekanti, Director/City Engineer
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Services Committee
FROM: Hari Ponnekanti, Public Works Director/City Engineer
CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg
DATE: May 21, 2021
SUBJECT: BNSF Alternative Access Study
Project No. 99510409
Project Update and Next Steps
ISSUE
Information regarding the BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to share history and information regarding alternatives for a new truck traffic route into the
BNSF intermodal yard to relieve truck traffic from the Allentown neighborhood ("the Project"). While the Tukwila City Council
has been considering access alternatives for the BNSF intermodal yard since the late 1990's, no preferred alternative route
has been selected.
The goal of an alternative route has always been to improve the quality of life for residents in the Allentown, Duwamish and
surrounding areas, which are impacted by the estimated 3,000 trucks per day (of the total 10,000 vehicles per day) which use
the current route (status quo) on S. 124th St. and 42nd Ave. S. bridge to access the BNSF intermodal yard. These trucks
impact air quality, noise, and the safety of residents. A common goal is to move this truck traffic out of the residential area.
Selecting and creating an alternative route into the BNSF intermodal yard has several challenges due to overall costs, lack of
funding options for an alternative route, environmental concerns and potential litigation.
Immediately below is a historical timeline of events related to consideration of alternative routes. This timeline is based on
available records and remembrances of those involved.
I. Historical Alternative Route Consideration Timeline
As shown below, in 1997, the City of Tukwila began studying access alternatives to the BNSF Intermodal Facility.
Date
Activity
1997
•
Hanson & Wilson Co. Access Study for BNSF
1998
•
Harding Lawson Associates Study
2000
•
Cooper Consulting Engineering Study (because previous two studies presented substantially
different capital estimates)
May 2011
•
City Council adopted Res 1741 opposing federal pre-emption relating to railroads
•
Council Member (CM) Hougardy met with Port Commissioner Tarleton to discuss BNSF
expansion concerns
•
City met with BNSF to discuss alternate access
•
City sent letter to BNSF discussing lack of financial assistance, deterioration of 42nd Ave
Bridge from truck traffic
•
BNSF response letter offering further discussions but no specifics
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/Council Agenda Items/Council/info memo BNSF alternatives 050721 .docx
145
Date
Activity
July 2011
•
•
City met with BNSF to clarify understandings and address neighborhood concerns, Council
Members (CMs), Ball Janik (Federal Lobbyist) and reps from Senator Murray, Senator.
Cantwell, Congressman Smith in attendance
City met with Allentown residents
August 2011
•
BSNF letter to city proposing to meet every six months and asserting no plans for expansion
(follow up meetings were not made)
February 2012
•
City met with Ball Janik (Federal Lobbyist) to discuss BNSF and Strander Blvd Ext
May 2012
•
DC trip to meet with reps from Surface Transportation Board
July 2012
•
City met with BNSF followed by letter to Sen. Cantwell
August 2012
•
Allentown residents give public comment opposing alternative route on 115th/116th
November 2012
•
City met with BNSF
April 2013
•
•
•
City Council discussed BNSF Railyard
City met with BNSF and Ball Janik to discuss engineering options, 30% design, EIS, cost
sharing, pursuit of TIGER (Federal grant opportunity), neighborhood livability
Council's CAP Committee discussed scope of work for neighborhood livability study
May 2013
•
City met with BNSF
June 2013
•
Council added BNSF Regional Access Center to Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
August 2013
•
City Council discussed options for study/report for Allentown and BNSF intermodal facility
October 2013
•
City receives Request for Proposal (RFP) from BNSF on southern access alternatives for
review
March 2014
•
City met with BNSF
April 2014
•
City forms internal working group of staff and three CMs
May 2014
•
•
BNSF group meets with Allentown residents on draft Request for Quote (RFQ) for livability
Mayor and CMs meet with Murray, Cantwell and Smith in DC
June 2014
•
•
City talked with Smith office about cooperative funding agreement
BNSF group met with Allentown residents
July 2014
•
•
BNSF Workgroup Tour arranged by Ball Janik
Cooperative Funding Agreement with BNSF for alternative access study
November 2014
•
•
Neighborhood canvassing re: livability
City Council discussion on draft scope of work for BNSF Facility Access Study
March 2015
•
Contract with David Evans and Associates for BNSF Facility Access Study
August 2015
•
Council briefed on progress of BNSF study - August 10, 2015 Council of the Whole (C.O.W.)
December 2015
•
Council briefed on progress of BNSF study - December 14, 2015 C.O.W.
March 2016
•
BNSF Access Study Open House (Tukwila Community Center and Online)
November 2016
•
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study — Draft Alternative Screening Analysis Report
November 28, 2016
December 2016
•
Draft Study findings transmitted to City Council
March 2017
•
City met with BECU to discuss their concerns with the Gateway Drive alternative
Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
146
Date
Airport Way S.
3
Activity
May 2017
S. 112th Street
•
Notice of SEPA Application issued with comment period ending - June 2, 2017
August 2017
•
Open House — Preferred Alternative Outreach -. August 17, 2017
September 2017
•
Bob Giberson retires; Robin Tischmak becomes Interim Public Works Director
January 2018
•
Henry Hash becomes Public Works Director
March 2019
•
Great Northern Corridor Coalition (GNCC) Meeting and Tour of the BNSF South Seattle
Intermodal Facility. March 27, 2019
June 2019
•
•
TIS Committee discussed project and sent to C.O.W.
Councilmembers toured BNSF facility
October 2019
•
CM Kruller toured BNSF facility with NLC's Brittney Kohler
July 2020
•
Hari Ponnekanti named Interim Public Works Director
February 2021
•
Hari Ponnekanti appointed Public Works Director
May 2021
•
Council's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agenda item
June 2021
•
Public open house to be held
II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
In 2015, the City of Tukwila and BNSF jointly funded an access study for a total cost of $241,173.23 to determine a potential
new alternative route for truck traffic into the intermodal yard. As part of the study, open houses were held and community
input was collected. The following four alternatives were considered along with the status quo (S. 124th St. and 42nd Ave. S.
bridge).
1
Airport Way S.
3
Gateway Drive - north leg
2
S. 112th Street
4
48th Avenue S.
In December 2016, the City began environmental review of the access study by completing a SEPA checklist. After receiving
comments that probable, significant adverse environmental impacts of some for the truck route alternatives would trigger the
requirement for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the City paused environmental review in August 2017 due to
several factors, including but not limited to:
- City staff did not clearly articulate the various challenges associated with the alternative access effort, including:
o No budget or clear direction for completing next phases of alternative access study
o Required environmental regulatory process and potential project opponents
o Increased concerns regarding 42nd Ave S. Bridge and focus on securing state grant funds (City applied for
bridge replacement grant funds in 2017 and 2019 without success)
o Other capital project priorities on Capital Improvement Plan, (such as the Strander Boulevard extension into
Renton and 42nd Ave S. Bridge replacement)
- Changes in city personnel
Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
147
Map of the study area and alternatives routes
Airport W.y_�+'
At ernabve
•
Rainier
Valley
\ 41/4
�1
kr i 0
s f i nr street =
1 \ ARNinatIve
; �rG r'Is ,p
0
r fiu.. A,bA
• -fr^ _meet
i
r cx.w.y awe
T► ,4 Extension
ARMn.tfve
Ctstttrete Cots
Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
148
III. POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS
To move forward with an alternative access analysis, the environmental review must be resumed for a set of feasible
alternatives and the status quo (no action alternative). Early SEPA review requires having each of the access alternatives
defined well enough to adequately conduct the review for possible environmental impacts.
A. SEPA Review of All Routes (EIS).
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") on all four alternative routes as compared to the status quo / "no
action" alternative is recommended prior to choosing a preferred route. An EIS is intended to be an impartial tool to identify
and analyze probable adverse environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation for the impacts. An EIS
is required when significant adverse environmental impacts are likely from a project, such as here, where two of the
alternatives involve a new bridge across a salmon bearing river. If a full scope EIS is undertaken, all of the alternatives in the
2016 Draft BNSF Access Study would be analyzed.
Below are the elements considered during SEPA review/analysis:
Environmental Elements for SEPA Analysis
1. Earth
2. Air
3. Water
4. Plants
5. Animals
6. Energy and Natural Resources
7. Environmental Health
8. Land and Shoreline Use
9. Housing
10. Aesthetics
11. Light and Glare
12. Recreation
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
14. Transportation
15. Public Services
16. Utilities
Scoping is the first step in the EIS process. The purpose of scoping is to narrow the focus of the EIS to significant
environmental issues, eliminate insignificant impacts from detailed study, and identify alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS.
Scoping also provides notice to the public and other agencies that an EIS is being prepared, and initiates their involvement in
the process. The result of the scoping process might be a reduced number of access alternatives and/or environmental
elements to be studied. While a narrower document will reduce costs, one that does not fully consider environmental impacts
may be more vulnerable to legal challenge.
IV. PROJECT CHALLENGES
The Project presents numerous, significant challenges. The status quo involves the 42nd Ave S bridge, which is nearing the end
of its useful life, is beyond repair and requires replacement. All potential alternatives are challenging due to overall costs, lack
of funding options for an alternative route, environmental concerns and potential litigation.
Anticipated Cost Considerations:
Option 1: Update Previous Cost Estimates: Estimated cost is $15,000 to $50,000
Staff estimates that the supplemental costs to update the David Evans contract for the cost estimate revisions to the report will
be approximately $15,000 to $50,000.
Option 2: EIS on all alternatives: Estimated cost is $750,000 to $900,0001
Staff estimates that the supplemental costs to start and finish an environmental impact application process is approximately
$750,000 to $900,000. The cost would depend on the scope, such as the number of route alternatives (or the number of
environmental elements) selected for review. The estimated timeline for completing this EIS is 18 to 24 months. This EIS would
be useful only for a certain period of time and depending on when funding was secured (if several years later due to Federal or
Updated (April 2021) cost estimate from David Evans and Associates; a limited scope EIS would be less, yet likely could still
cost between $500,000 and $750,000.
Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
149
State funding availability), it may need to be updated (supplemented) for an additional cost. A full EIS or partial EIS will both
require the City to hire a term -limited Project Manager at a cost of approximately $300,000 for two years. This brings the total
estimated costs up to $1.2 million dollars for the EIS and City staff requirements.
Option 3: Research and analyze funding options to secure future funding if feasible:
Seek via State and Federal funding for an alternative access route, once it has been defined. At this time there is a current lack
of funding for new bridges, which are proposed in two of the four alternatives, as such, there is not currently a good fit for state
and federal funding. However, the potential for a Federal infrastructure package may occur, but is unknown at this time. Nor are
the application requirements known. Those potential funds may be used to fix deteriorating infrastructure rather than `build new'.
The City will follow this closely. In addition, if a bridge was chosen as the alternate access, it will serve primarily as a bridge for
freight traffic. Access to Baker Commodities or residential use would have to be considered but may be a design challenge in
certain cases. The reality that the public will not be able to use this infrastructure, and that it will largely benefit private industry,
makes it a difficult candidate for public funding.
Project Costs
Project costs for any alternative are unknown until preliminary engineering is underway. For example, an estimated cost for the
48th Ave S. route alternative, developed in 2016, was approximately $20 million. Due to price escalation, in 2019, it was estimated
that this cost could have nearly doubled to $34M. Any estimate will need to be updated, and based on this alternative's less
than 10% design, any alternative's design would need to progress further to get a better cost estimate.
An example of a project in the City for comparison is the Strander Boulevard easterly extension into Renton, WA. That project
was originally estimated at $29 million, upon completion of design work, it was identified at $80 million. The City, even with
existing State and Federal resources, did not have the money to proceed with the project, so it was cancelled. The City had
received Federal grant funding of $5 million for the design work, but since the project was stopped, the City had to return that
funding to the Federal Government.
Potential Litigation
Due to the complexity of these alternatives, there are various entities who may challenge any of these alternatives, including
adjacent property owners, tribal governments, other city and state governments, and local businesses.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Option 1: Staff estimates that the supplemental costs to update the David Evans contract for the cost estimate revisions to the
report will be approximately $15,000 to $50,000. Please note that these cost estimates are based on a very preliminary
engineering design and are subject to change.
Option 2: Staff also estimates that the supplemental costs to start and finish an environmental impact statement process is
approximately $750,000 to $900,000. This effort will also require a term -limited Project Manager at a cost of approximately
$300,000 for two years. The total for Option 2 is approximately up to $1.2 million dollars.
RECOMMENDATION
It is Staff's recommendation that it would be most appropriate to proceed with Options 1 and 2.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study - Draft Alternative Screening Analysis (full draft)
Draft BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
150
BNSF RAILWAY INTERMODAL FACILITY ACCESS STUDY
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING ANALYSIS REPORT
Prepared for:
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98005
Prepared by:
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
14432 SE Eastgate Way
Bellevue, WA 98007
November 28, 2016
151
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 2
PROJECT BACKGROUND 2
SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA 2
ALTERNATIVES 2
Airport Way S Alternative 4
S 112th Street Alternative 4
S 124th Street Alternative 4
Gateway Drive Alternative 5
48th Avenue 5 Alternative 5
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION 6
Critical and Sensitive Areas 6
Fish and Wildlife 6
Water Resources 6
Hazardous Materials 7
Geological and Soils 7
Cultural and Historical Resources 7
SCREENING MATRIX 7
Matrix Criteria 8
Scoring Methodology 10
SCORING OF ALTERNATIVES 11
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ESTIMATES 13
CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHEETS 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1— Project Study Area 3
Figure 2 — Selection Criteria Screening Matrix 12
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Alternative Plan Sheets
Appendix B — Truck Access Routes
Appendix C — Roadway Cost Estimate Back-up
P:ItITUKA00000013'06001NFO10670RegortsIBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary 2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila i Alternative Screening Analysis
152 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Alternative Screening Analysis Report for the City of Tukwila was prepared by David Evans and
Associates, Inc. to evaluate alternative access to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway
intermodal facility in Tukwila, Washington. This facility is also known as South Seattle Yard. BNSF
Railway also sponsored this study.
The existing access to the intermodal facility uses 42nd Avenue S and S 124th Street. S 124th Street
is also a residential collector street serving the community of Allentown. Several residential homes
with driveways are located on S 124th Street, as is the Tukwila Community Center which houses an
aquatic center, meeting rooms, classes and activities for all ages, and playground and ball fields.
This study did not create new alternatives but used alternatives that were developed by previous
studies. A total of five alternatives were studied: Airport Way S, S 112th Street, S 124th Street,
Gateway Drive — North Leg, and 48th Avenue S.
Several desktop researches were performed as part of this study. These researches included critical
and sensitive areas, fish and wildlife, water resources, hazardous materials, geological and soils, and
cultural and historical resources.
A scored screening matrix was developed collaboratively between the City of Tukwila, BNSF
Railway, and David Evans and Associates, Inc. The matrix was presented to Tukwila City Council as
well as to the public for their feedback on the screening matrix criteria. The public was allowed to
provide feedback via an on-line open house and an in-person open house.
Representatives from Tukwila, BNSF Railway, and David Evans and Associates, Inc. met to score
each alternative using a numerical scoring system from 1 to 9. The score for each criteria was
added, and the lowest score is the preferred alternative.
Based on the scoring result, the 48th Avenue S alternative is the preferred alternative.
P:I0TUKA00000013106001NF010670ReportslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1126.docx
City of Tukwila 1 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
153
INTRODUCTION
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway owns an intermodal facility that transfers containers
from trucks to railroad and vice versa. This facility is located within the City of Tukwila city limits in
the Allentown community. The intermodal facility is adjacent to Interstate 5 (1-5) and just south of
King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field. BNSF calls this facility South Seattle
Yard.
The only access route to the intermodal facility is along the southern edge of the Allentown
community on S 124th Street. In order to improve livability and safety without compromising the
operations of the yard, the community and the City are seeking an alternative access route to the
intermodal facility.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project area is located in the incorporated community of Allentown, within the City of Tukwila.
For several years, the City has worked with Allentown residents on issues related to community
impacts resulting from the BNSF South Seattle Intermodal Facility, and on identifying alternatives
for a rerouted truck access—one with fewer adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Trucks currently
use 42nd Avenue S and S 124th Street to access the rail facility. Over 20 different alternatives for
truck access to the rail facility have been studied since 1998.
Truck traffic has increased along the existing truck route over the last several years, due to
increased rail activity. The approximately 50 homes along S 124th Street experience 24-hour per
day truck traffic, adding to the other existing airport, highway, and train noise levels in the
neighborhood. Truck traffic also creates safety issues for residents. Trucks back up at the
checkpoint station at the east end of 5 124th Street, idling on S 124th Street, waiting to check into
the rail facility, creating access difficulties, vehicle exhaust, noise, and safety issues for residents.
SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA
After discussions with the City, the typical roadway section for this project used a 12 -foot lane, 5 -
foot bike lane, 5 -foot landscape strip, and 5 -foot sidewalk. The total width for this roadway section
is 75 feet (includes 1 -foot for curbs on both side of the street). This same width was also used for
the bridge section.
In developing the concept roadway profiles, a design speed of 35 mph was used.
Since the new access would primarily be used by trucks, the maximum roadway grade used was five
percent.
ALTERNATIVES
The City of Tukwila began studying access alternatives to the BNSF Intermodal Facility in 1998. An
alternative study was performed by Harding Lawson Associates. Another access alternative study
was performed by Cooper Consulting Engineering in 2000. This access study did not develop new
alternatives, but used leading alternatives from these previous studies.
P:ItITUKA0000001310600INFO10670ReportslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 2 Alternative Screening Analysis
154 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
Figure 1 shows the project study area. The following provides a description for each alternative.
Figure 1— Project Study Area
P:ItITUKA000000131U60011VFOIM74HepuK61&NSF Intermodal Access Screening summary 2016-1126.docx
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
3
Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 2016
155
Airport Way S Alternative
This alternative access would connect the northern end of the intermodal facility to Airport Way S.
The existing railroad maintenance road would be reconstructed and provide ingress and egress to
the intermodal facility. A new intersection and traffic signal would be required at Airport Way and
the access road. Plan sheets for this alternative can be found in Appendix A.
Due to geometric constraints and the alignments of Airport Way S and the new access road, access
from Airport Way south of the new intersection to the intermodal facility is not feasible. Entry and
exit from the intermodal facility would only be north of the new intersection. Taking into account
these restrictions, 1-5 freeway access would be via S Norfolk Street, East Marginal Way S, and S
Boeing Access Road. A figure of the truck freeway access route can be found in Appendix B.
This alternative access would require the existing bridge on S Boeing Access Road over the railroad
tracks to be reconstructed due to the width of the new access road and the existing bridge
configuration.
This alternative would require the intermodal facility to construct the following at the north end of
the yard: a check-in/check-out facility, truck queuing lanes, an operations building, and a truck
storage access road along the western edge of the facility. This new road cannot be built within the
existing BNSF parcel, so new right-of-way would be required.
S 112th Street Alternative
This alternative would connect to the northern half of the intermodal facility. This new roadway
would begin at East Marginal Way S and use the existing Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle City
Light utilities corridor. The utilities corridor borders a shooting range to the north, and Duwamish
Hill Preserve and a residential neighborhood to the south. A bluff separates the higher -elevation
residential neighborhood from S 112th Street to the north and the rail facility to the east.
The existing utility corridor contains three separate high-power transmissions lines and a large -
diameter water line, as seen in aerial photos.
Plan sheets for this alternative can be found in Appendix A.
The truck freeway access route to 1-5 would be via East Marginal Way S and S Boeing Access Road. A
figure of the truck freeway access route can be found in Appendix B.
This alternative would require the intermodal facility to construct the following at the north end of
the yard: a check-in/check-out facility, truck queuing lanes, an operations building, and a truck
storage access road along the western edge of the facility. This new road cannot be built within the
existing BNSF parcel, so new right-of-way would be required.
S 124th Street Alternative
This alternative would use the existing route and connect into the intermodal facility at its current
location. Truck traffic would continue to access the rail facility using Interurban Avenue S, 42nd
Avenue S, S 124th Street, and the existing check-in/check-out facility. No improvements or changes
would occur to the streets along the route as part of this project. This route is adjacent to
P:ItITUKA00000013106001NF0I0670ReportslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 4 Alternative Screening Analysis
156 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
approximately 50 homes and the Tukwila Community Center, and runs through the middle of the
Allentown neighborhood. Impacts to the neighborhood associated with the truck traffic would
continue, similar to existing conditions, and could continue to worsen, based on recent increases in
freight -related truck traffic in this area. Due to its age and service life, the 42nd Avenue S bridge
over the Duwamish River would require replacement. Plan sheets for this alternative can be found
in Appendix A.
As a mitigation measure for the truck noise, it is assumed that a noise wall would be constructed
along the northern edge of 42nd Avenue S. The construction of this new noise wall would require
the acquisition of all homes whose driveways are on 42nd Avenue S. Also, seven roadways (43rd
Avenue S, 44th Avenue S, 45th Avenue S, 46th Avenue S, 47th Avenue S, 48th Avenue S, and 49th
Avenue S) would have their access to 42nd Avenue S closed. These streets would become dead-end
streets, and new cul-de-sacs would be constructed at the south end of each street. All of the
neighbor access would be shifted to S 122nd Street to the north.
There would be no changes to freeway access with this alternative. A figure of the truck freeway
access route can be found in Appendix B.
There would be no changes to the intermodal facility as part of this alternative.
Gateway Drive Alternative
This alternative access would connect to the intermodal facility at its current check-in/check-out
location. This alternative would begin at Interurban Avenue S, use the north leg of Gateway Drive,
construct a new roadway between the Boeing Employee Credit Union (BECU) buildings, construct a
bridge over the Green River Trail and Duwamish River, go through residential parcels, and tie into
the existing intermodal check-in/check-out facility. This alternative would construct three new at -
grade intersections at Gateway Drive (east leg), 50th Place S, and 51st Place S. The new bridge
would include a 10 -foot -wide pedestrian facility. Plan sheets for this alternative can be found in
Appendix A.
The truck freeway access route to 1-5 would be via Interurban Avenue S. A figure of the truck
freeway access route can be found in Appendix B.
There would be no changes to the intermodal facility as part of this alternative.
48th .Avenue S Alternative
This alternative access would connect to the southern end of the intermodal facility. This
alternative would begin at Interurban Avenue S, use the existing 48th Avenue S roadway, and
construct a new bridge over the Green River Trail and Duwamish River, as well as a roadway that
goes under the existing S 129th Street bridge and into the rail yard facility. The new bridge would
include a 10 -foot -wide pedestrian facility. Plan sheets for this alternative can be found in Appendix
A.
The truck freeway access route to 1-5 would be via Interurban Avenue S. A figure of the truck
freeway access route can be found in Appendix B.
P:ItITUKA00000013106001NF010670ReportslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 5 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
157
158
This alternative would require the intermodal facility to construct new truck queuing and exiting
lanes. All new lanes can be constructed within BNSF parcels. No construction or modification would
be needed at the existing check-in/check-out facility or operation building.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION
To assist in screening the alternatives, existing information in the following subjects was gathered
and displayed as geographic information system (GIS) maps. No field work was conducted, and the
information for the existing conditions came from publicly -available sources. An Existing Conditions
Technical Memorandum was prepared for each subject area. This information will also be used in
the technical discipline reports prepared as part of the environmental documentation under SEPA.
• Critical and Sensitive Areas
• Fish and Wildlife
• Water Resources
• Hazardous Materials
• Geological and Soils
• Cultural and Historical Resources
The following sections provide a summary of the findings.
Critical and Sensitive Areas
The project area is located in the Puget Sound lowlands, within the tidally -influenced Duwamish
estuary ecosystem. Category III and IV wetlands exist within the project study area. The Duwamish
River runs through the middle of the project area and is designated by the City of Tukwila as a
shoreline of statewide significance.
Fish and Wildlife
Fish and wildlife use of the project study area is limited by its high density of industrial, commercial,
and residential development. Terrestrial wildlife habitat in the project area is limited to the buffers
of wetlands, the narrow riparian fringe along the Duwamish River, and a few scattered undeveloped
steep slopes and undeveloped parcels.
Fish use in the Duwamish River, which contains a wide range of native and nonnative fish species,
includes several species listed as threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA), including Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout.
Water Resources
According to the King County Aquifer Recharge Area map, no critical aquifer recharge areas are
located within the project area. Since the Duwamish River is a designated floodway that is
contained by constructed levees, there are no 100 -year or 500 -year floodplains located within the
project study area.
All alternatives fall within Tukwila's shoreline jurisdiction.
P:ItITUKA000000130600INF0406:0Reporl5ONSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 6 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
The Duwamish River is on the Ecology 303(d) list for over 300 water quality pollutants.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous material sites were identified within the project study area. Each site was assigned a risk
rating (low, medium, or high). The risk assigned was based on professional judgment considering
each site's distance to the alternative footprint, type, duration of historical development,
contaminated media, known gradient and contaminant migration potential. The majority of the
sites were classified as low risk. Concerns exist based on historical or current development, but the
likelihood for conditions at the site to affect the project is assessed as relatively low.
Geological and Soils
The project study area is located within the Duwamish River valley. Prior to human modifications,
the Duwamish River was a natural distributary channel of the Cedar and Green Rivers, as well as the
White River. These rivers originate on the flanks of Mount Rainer.
Predominate geologic units mapped in the area of the proposed route alternatives include:
alluvium, bedrock, and glacial deposits. The alternative routes are primarily located within the areas
mapped as alluvial deposits. Bedrock is mapped along the southeastern edge of the Duwamish
River valley in the project study area. Exposed bedrock outcrops are also mapped in the northern
portion of the project area while a glacial deposit area was mapped along the southwestern edge of
the project study area.
In general, there are relative good soils within the project area; however, the potential of
liquefaction does exist within the project study area, especially along the riverbanks.
Cultural and Historical Resources
The project study area is within an area identified by local Native American groups as a traditionally
important landscape. Traditional cultural properties are known to be in the vicinity of each access
alternative.
Remnants of electric railroad may be located at the western ends of all of the alternatives, and
would be considered as items of archaeological importance if encountered.
The project study area contains several buildings, structures, and objects (BSO) that are 35 years or
older. The majority of these BSOs are residential homes. Survey and elevations need to be
performed to determine if they are eligible for registry.
SCREENING MATRIX
In the following two sections, an explanation of the selection criteria matrix is presented. The first
section, Matrix Criteria, discusses the criteria groups and each individual criterion. The second
section, Scoring Methodology, discusses the approach used to score each alternative.
P:ItITUKA00000013606001NF410670AepartslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 7 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
159
Matrix Criteria
A screening matrix was developed to score the alternatives. The City of Tukwila, BNSF Railway, and
David Evans and Associates, Inc. worked collaboratively to create the screening matrix. The matrix
was then presented to the City Council and the public for their comments. Bob Giberson, Tukwila
Public Works Director, presented the screening matrix to the City Council. The City Council did not
have any comments on the screening matrix.
The screening matrix was presented to the public via two venues: an on-line open house and an in-
person open house. The public did not have any comments on the screening matrix.
The screening matrix contained four groups of scoring criteria. The groups and group descriptions
are as follow:
• Right -of -Way
This group evaluates the need for new right-of-way to construct the alternative and
railroad yard modifications and the complexity or difficulties in obtaining the new right-
of-way.
• Construction
This group evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of constructing the
alternatives.
• Railroad
This group evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to the operations of the
existing railroad intermodal facility.
• Environmental
This group evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to the environment,
preparing the required environmental documentation, and obtaining construction
permits.
For each of these groups, more in depth scoring criteria were used. The following section describes
these additional scoring criteria.
Right -of -Way
• Residential
This criterion evaluates the need for new residential right-of-way to construct the
alternative, and the complexity or difficulties in obtaining the new residential right-of-
way.
• Commercial
This criterion evaluates the need for new commercial right-of-way to construct the
alternative, and the complexity or difficulties in obtaining the new commercial right-of-
way.
P:ItITUKA000000130600INFOi06:0RepartsLEWSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 8 Alternative Screening Analysis
160 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
• Vacant Land
This criterion evaluates the need for new vacant land right-of-way to construct the
alternative, and the complexity or difficulties in obtaining the new vacant land right-of-
way.
Con, t, irr.YtIon
• Utilities Relocation
This criterion evaluates the complexity or difficulties of relocating existing utilities
(power, telephone, gas, water, etc.). A couple of examples are the type of overhead
lines (transmission versus distribution), and the size of water line (12 inches versus 6
feet).
• Road Construction
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to existing roadways in
constructing the alternative. Some examples are roadway horizontal or profile revisions,
stormwater or sidewalk reconstruction, and illumination/traffic signals construction or
revisions.
• Impacts Traffic during Construction
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to existing traffic in
constructing the alternative. Some impact examples are the number of days and hours
for lane or roadway closures, the length of detour routes, and the delays for vehicles to
reach their destination.
Railroad
• Railroad Yard Access To and From Freeway
This criterion evaluates the complexity or difficulties of vehicle access from the railroad
intermodal facility to the freeway and vice versa. Some examples are the distance a
vehicle travels from the intermodal facility to the freeway, the number of signalized
intersections a vehicle will cross, and the turning movements (i.e., right turns versus left
turns).
• BNSF Yard Access Reliability
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to providing a reliable
access to the intermodal facility. The main criterion is the risk associated with an
alternative for a closure of a route that restricts access to the facility. This could be due
to any reason: bridge closure or collapse, flooding, or road closure.
• Impacts to Railroad Operations
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to existing intermodal
facility operations. Some examples are relocating the check-in/check-out facility,
relocating the operations building, vehicle circulations within the facility, or access to
storage areas.
P:ItITUKA00000013106OOINF0§06TORaports68NSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 9 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
161
Etiviroizrlento]
• Air Quality
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of air quality.
• Noise
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of noise to sensitive
receivers.
• Historic. Cultural. and Archaeological Resources
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts on historical structures
and to cultural or archaeological sites.
• Critical/Sensitive Areas
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to critical and sensitive
areas.
• Geotechnical
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of geotechnical items to
the construction of the alternative.
• Traffic - Operations
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of traffic operations due
to the alternative.
• Permitting
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of obtaining permits
needed to construct each alternative.
Cost
The last group in the screening matrix is construction cost. This was included for information
purposes only. The construction cost was separated into two groups. The first one, Roadway
Construction, represents the cost to construct the roadway improvements, or reconstruction of the
existing roadway. The second one, Railroad Yard Construction, represents the cost to construct
improvements or reconstruct the intermodal facility.
Scoring Methodology
A numerical scoring system was used to score each alternative. The scoring range was 1-9 with 1
representing the least difficulty or complexity and 9 representing the most difficulty or complexity.
With this system, the preferred alternative will have the lowest total.
In addition to a numerical score, a color coding system was implemented in order to provide a quick
of the scoring. The colors used were red, yellow, and green. The color assignment for the numerical
scores is as follows:
P:ItITUKA0000001310600tNF010670Reports46NSF Intermodal Access Screening summary 2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila
162 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
10 Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 2016
Color
Numerical Score
Description
Green
1 through 3
Low Complexity/Difficulty
Yellow
4 through 6
Medium Complexity/Difficulty
Red
7 through 9
High Complexity/Difficulty
SCORING OF ALTERNATIVES
The selection criteria matrix was sent to the City of Tukwila and BNSF Railway in order for them to
score, independently, each alternative. David Evans and Associates, Inc. also scored each alternative
independently. On July 20, 2016, representatives from City of Tukwila, BNSF Railway, and David
Evans and Associates, Inc. met to develop a collaborative score for each alternative. The following
figure shows the scoring as a result of this meeting.
P:ItITUKA0000001310600INFO10670ReportsIBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 11 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
163
0)
Figure 2 — Selection Criteria Screening Matrix
Legend:
1-3 Low Complexity/Difficulty
4-6 Medium Complexity/Difficulty
7-9 High Complexity/Difficulty
P:ItITUKA00000013106007NF010E70Reports1BNSfi Intermodal Access Screening summary_2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
12 Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 2016
SELECTION CRITERIA MATRIX
Right -of -Way
I Construction
I I Railroad
I I Environmental
I Total
Cost
Alternatives
A
rl
7
v
d
E
S
Vacant Land
A
o
to
IUtilities Relocation
Road Construction
Impacts Traffic during Construction
Subtotal
Railroad Yard Access to and from Freeway
BNSF Yard Access Reliability
Impacts to Railroad Operations
II=
w
Air Quality
z
Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources
ti
d
a
d
3.
33
c
d
eCI °'
v
Geotechnical
Tragic - Operations
a
ie
CO
d
15
Roadway Construction Cost (Millions)
Railroad Yard Construction Cost (Millions)
Total Project Cost (Millions)
Airport Way S
8
9
9
26
9
9
9
27
8
9
9
26
6
1
2
7
4
6
6
32
111
$19.3
$90.0
$109.3
S 112th Street
8
9
9
26
9
2
4
15
8
4
9
21
7
5
2
7
4
7
7 139
101
$21.4
$68.0
$89.4
S 124th Street
9
2
3
14
4
9
9
22
6
5
1
12
5
9
9
4
7
8
8
50
98
$28.9
$0.0
$28.9
Gateway Drive - North Leg
7
9
6
22
7
8
8
23
4
4
1
9
3
6
6
7
7
5
6
40
94
$23.3
$0.0
$23.3
48th Avenue SE
1
8
6
15
6
7
7
20
3
4
5
12
2
7
6
7
7
5
6
40
87
$15.9
$4.4
$20.3
Legend:
1-3 Low Complexity/Difficulty
4-6 Medium Complexity/Difficulty
7-9 High Complexity/Difficulty
P:ItITUKA00000013106007NF010E70Reports1BNSfi Intermodal Access Screening summary_2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
12 Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 2016
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ESTIMATES
Conceptual construction costs and right-of-way estimates were determined for each alternative.
The construction cost estimates were separated into three categories: roadway construction cost
(includes bridge construction), railroad construction cost, and right-of-way acquisition cost.
The estimates were by three separate entities. The conceptual roadway construction cost estimates
were determined by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA). The railroad costs were determined by
BNSF Railway. The right-of-way costs were determined by Abeyta & Associates, a right-of-way
specialist, and a subconsultant to DEA.
The following table provides the conceptual costs for roadway construction, roadway right-of-way,
railroad facilities construction, and railroad right-of-way.
Alternative
Conceptual Cost Estimate (in millions)
Roadway Costs
Railroad Costs
Roadway
Right -of -Way
Railroad
Right -of -Way
Total
Airport Way S
$14.5 - $19.3
$0
$58.5 - $78.0
$9.0 - $12.0
$98.3 - $109.3
S 112th Street
$12.4 - $16.6
$3.6 - $4.8
$47.7 - $63.6
$3.3 - $4.4
$80.5 - $89.4
S 124th Street
$18.9 - $25.3
$ 2.7 - $3.6
$0
$0
$26.0 - $28.9
Gateway Drive
-North Leg
$11.3 - $15.0
$6.2 - $8.3
$0
$0
$21.0 - $23.3
48th Avenue S
$10.2 - $13.6
$1.7 - $2.3
$3.3 - $4.4
$0
$18.3 - $20.4
CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHEETS
For each alternative, plan sheets were created. These plan sheets show the proposed roadway
edges and new right-of-way. Intermodal facility new construction is not included in these plans.
P:ItITUKA0000001310600INF010670ReporlslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 13 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
165
166
Appendix A —
Alternative Plan Sheets
PNITUKA0000001310600INF010670FlepurtsIONSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
167
168
50
40
cc 30
20
10
Nr
r 2
LL
Co Cr.
PVI STA 4+85 01
PVI FLEV: 20.02
K 95 58
LVC: 95 58
0
1.50%
0 10 20
PROPOSED GRADE
PVI STA 8+09 78
P'✓I ELEV: 21 E5
K 4916
LVC: 73.73
0
40
HIGH PT STA: 7+97 49—
HIGH PT ELEV. 21 52
n
00
0
r— EXISTING ( iADE
i
LTD
03
r
CO
rn
0
0
0
010
03 LO
0 0
N N
co
CO
O
3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
0310
NIN
0
MJ
N
5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50
50
40
30
20
10
0
+ N
co 0
. IZ
<
v ,
'W
W W
Z2
(/)
= W
Cf)
2
P LrBL1C wCJ� S i i i
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
Field Bk #
MLF
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425 519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AIRPORT WAY S. ALTERNATIVE
No. Date Revisions
PP01
of
File No.
Scale AS SHOWN
Date
+ r
p L10^
I —
< IZ
vJ W
W W
Z(25o
J
= W 40
UW
f — (/) 30
CQ
20
10
N
–1 00`;
N
PVI STA 9+42 04
PVI ELEV 20 32
K: 2721
LVC: 75 00
LOW PT STA 9+31 75
LOW PT ELEV 20 56
76%
i3
PVI STA: 10+61 05
PVI ELEV: 22.41
K: 33 24
LVC: 75 00
HIGH PT STA: 10+81 93
HIGH PT ELEV 22 27
�n n'
N D N
CO N N N
NEj
LJ
V �
0
O
O
e
r
O
0
O
O
O
O
N
8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00
PUBLIC wcfl?J<.S DH:PT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
PVI STA 11+6013
PVI ELE! 21 92
K: 75 00
LVC 75 00
LOW PT ST,, 11+6013.
LOW PT E _EV: 22 01
PVI STA: 12+7912
PVI ELEV: 22.51
K: 50 00
LVC: 75 00
HIGH PT STA: 12+66 62
HGH PT ELEV 22.39
— PROPOSED
/ GRADE
O
N
O
N
00
N
0 50%
EXISTING GRADE
03
M
M C
0. N
N N
10 20 40
O N O
co
0 00 M
00
50
40
30
20
10
10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00
By Date
Designed
VxV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AIRPORT WAY S. ALTERNATIVE
PPO2
m
I Scale AS SHOWN
PPO3
TT-ALT AIRPORTWAY PP03-TUKA0013.dwg
w
MATCHLINE STA. 12+00
SEE SHEET PP02
+ N
N p
^
• I L
Cf) - UJ
ZI-1-1
'= 50
VJ
w
40
I- CO 30
20
10
rt -
111161111111MEIT :11171_7=111‘4„ )''
«1 02
N CD
'OCD
w
•
+
-1 007
PVI S A: 15+7013
PVI ELE✓ 19 60
K 0 00
vc 75.00
LOW PT STA 15+82 63
LOW PT E,EV 19 73
u
BNSF FACILITY
0 507
PROPOSED GRADE
444-
02
0
N
0
PVI STA 18+06 13
PYA ELEV 20 '5
K 7500
LVC: 75 00
GH 00 STA 1810013
KGF P ELEV .0 66
0 10 20 40
-0.507
EXISTING GRADE
14+00 14+50 15+00
W
O
m
15+50 16+00
O cl
p
N
O
O
O
00
4D N
� O
O
O
O
N
0
I\
50 z
40
30
20 2
10
16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50
0
a
a
w
w
(i)
)
w
w
_P U13LIC c R r s IXE-P T_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
vxv
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone. 425 519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AIRPORT WAY S. ALTERNATIVE
I File No.
I Scale AS SHOWN
LT_AIRPORTWAY_PPO4
W
8
E
MATCHLINE STA. 17+50
SEE SHEET PP03
+ M
O
▪ a
rQ^ - ILL''
v i W
W
Z '_^ 50
v /
J W 40
ILI
(n 30
2 20
10
.,..!.111111!ItI1111IIIIi1I11I111111i1111111111{NIt III!
Ot
0
PVI STA 20+20 3
P2 ELEV 191.5
K 7347
LVC 75 00
LOW PT STA 20-1 19 36
LOW PT ELEV 1'175
— EXISTING GRADE
r PROPOSED GRADE
N
14
10
0
O
0 52%
0 10 20 40
0
O
O
O
N021
O
O
O
19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50
50
40
30
20
10
1
1' i,IC V'VC] KS DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425 519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AIRPORT WAY S. ALTERNATIVE
PPO4
1 Scale AS SHOWN
1
U
E
50
40
30
20
10
O
03
O
03
N
00
02
co
G 2
1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
i
0 10 20
0 50%
PROPOSED GRADE
0
0
00
oo
00
00
O
02
M
3+00 3+50
0
ai
0 (0
n
r —
U
CO
PVI STA 5+09 96
�/1 K o3 88 0.
LVC 75 00
HIGH PT S 4+9440
HIGH PT E_EV: t 980
CO
4+00 4+50
00
m
5+00
40
FYK`711J!_
• :dRADE
5+50
6+00
O
cp
LL< 0
w
I.I_I I.LI
Z2
= W
Urrw^^
cQ vJ
3
1
O
+
a.
< 0
IF
VJ
W W
50 Z
_
J CO
40 = W
Uw
30 I— Cr)
20
10
PL 1I IC We J?
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone. 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 112TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PP01
of
1 File No.
i
1 Scale AS SHOWN
mlf 11/18/15 5:55pm - P:\5TUKA00000013\0400CAD\TT\SHEETS\TT-ALT_112TH_PP02-TUKA0013.dwg
+ r
O
.a.
as
u)w
W
zIJ
2 W
U W
I- CO
50
40
30
20
10
/— PROPOSED GRADE
32
0
r
0
r
a
r EXISTING
GRADE
VI STA 9+5410
PVI ELEV 14 44
K 112.5)
LVC 75 "r0
N
N
0
+
V1.0
6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00
0
0 10 20
40
-0 549
m
2
nj
03
01
n1
8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50
0
0
+ M
(V O
• a.
• 13-
c~w
n
WW
z=
▪ U)
= W
U W
Q
2
50
40
30
20
10
+ M
N O
▪ a.
Q a.
V) w
I-
Ww
Z
J �
=w
Uw
I- (0
CQ
PUBLIC C]RKS DEPT_
*ENGINEERING*STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
Drawn
VXV
DLO
Checked
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
MLF
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone 425 519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 112TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PPO2
I�
I File No.
I Scale AS SHOWN
11111.1
0 10 20 40
0
+ CV
N p
r ^
Q °
VJ
_Z = 50
J W 40
w 30
2 20
10
co oo
M N
ro
N
PVI STA: 13+29 63
PVI ELE'- 12 46
K 9506
LVC 120 00
LOW PT STi. 13+22 82
LOW PT EL EV: 12.64
R
N
03
— PROPOSED GRADE
1 68%
ul 03 c0
N
M
PVI STA 16+72 72
PVI EL EV 1450
,2J
LVC 150 00
rn N
0 m
U
ID
ol� 0
M
0
EXISTING
GR UDE
0
3-
n
30
4 -
12+00 12+50
13+00 13+50
14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 1600 16+50 17+00 17+50
50
40
30
20
10
+
N.
^
''QH
CDLL
LIJ
W W
Z
J C%)
I..LI
U W
I—
CQ
PUBLIC W+C71_r£ S _E EPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
Designed
By
VIN
Date
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone. 425 519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 112TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PP03
a
� J
File No.
Scale AS SHOWN
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
Mf 11/18/15 5:56pm - P:\t\TUKA00000013\0400CAD\TT\SHEETS\TT-ALT 1121'•! PP04-TUKA0013 dwg
+ M
r' O
UJ
r �
Qn'
W
W =
Z_
_1 W
HW
V)
Q
2
+ (0)
N O
r
V) W
z = U -I 50
I-1-1
40
c1) 30
20
G 10
CV
N
u7
PROPOSED FADE
EXISTING
GRADE
O
co
17+50 18+00 18+50
1 907
m
19+00 19+50
l►
o ,o 00
40
50
40
30
20
10
1908
PUBLIC W R1 IS 1I 1PT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone. 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 112TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PP04
Of
File No.
Scale AS SHOWN
PP01-TUKA0013.dw0
dlo 11/12)15 1:58pm - P:U\TUKA00000013\0400CAD\TT\SHEETS\TT-ALT_ 1
W �
Z a
2
I- • m
2• a
W
W
0 10 20
40
14.
P�B�.IC V�RKS D_EPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
=, • ANDASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PP01
L � J
I File No.
1 Scale AS SHOWN
)
0-
F
0
U
E
50
40
30
20
10
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET PPO1
0
4)
N
a
CO
0
1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
3+00
F+IJSTe4G.
GRADE
10 20 40
T
N
0
N
0
0
04
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
+ co
(p O
a_
d
i`
W
W w
Z
Cr)
= W
C.) LU
u)
2
PUBLIC we i s DEPT_
*ENGINEERING*STREETS*WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
yxV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425 519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PPO2
1 File No.
1 Scale AS SHOWN
MATCHLINE STA. 6+00
SEE SHEET PPO2
O
O
+ N
CO
Cl_
1-
w
w
Z 2 50
07
W 40
(n 30
20
10
O
10 20 40
r— EXISTING
/
GRADE
IfJ m
T v
N N 0
N N N
6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50
0
O
0
8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50
MATCHLINE STA. 11+50
50
40
30
20
10
SEE SHEET PPO4
UBLIC W[rniiS L7EP T_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By Date
Designed
vXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425 519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PPO3
1 File No
1 Scale AS SHOWN
dlo 11/12/15 2:O6pm - P:\I\ TLIKA00000U1310400CAflM1171SHEETSITT-ALT 124TH_PP04-TUKA0013.dwg
r
MATCHLINE STA. 11+50
Ln
+ C')
• O
r W
Q a
I- I-
U) W
W
Z_ =
J �
= W
UW
w
M
IZ
0
I --
W
W
= 50
U)
40
W
CO 30
20
10
0 10 20
40
O
N
N
rn
11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00
13+50
14+00
14+50
15+00
15+50
16+00
16+50
17+00
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
+
Q 0-
1 -
Lu I-
W
W W
Z =
J �
= W
U W
I- U)
CQ
PUBIC ' RJ IS DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
o..ia 01,44
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 -118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone. 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PPO4
or
1 File No
1 Scale AS SHOWN
1 nom
UD
MATCHLINE STA. 17+00
SEE SHEET PPO4
SEE SHEET PPO4
50
40
30
20
10
20 40
r EXISTING GRADE
N
m
N
O
co
O
O O
c 00
17+00 17+50 '.8+00 18+50
19+00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50
MATCHLINE STA. 22+50
50
40
30
20
10
SEE SHEET PPO6
N p
N
Q 0
W
W
Z
• W
• U -I
2
J
PUBLIC W R ISS DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By Date
Designed
VXv
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
J( ANDASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425 519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
•
PPO5
a
1 File No.
1 Scale AS SHOWN
I n�ro
dlo 11/12/15 2:12pm - P:\t\TUKA00000013\0400CAD\TTSHEETS\TT-ALT 124
Lf)
+ LC)
N p
N
Q a
I- I-
(/) W
W W
Z
J O)
= W
U W
F-
CD
L1i
+
N
N
(/)
Z = 50
= rrr 40
30
20
10
22+50
23700
r EXISTING GRAIDE
0 10 20 40
m
a
1
o
0
co
a,
r r
m
o
ro
23+50
24+00
24+50
25+00
25+50
26+00
26+50
50
40
30
20
10
P UBl✓IC W c1I S DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
vxv
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519,6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
PPO6
or
File No.
Scale AS SHOWN
dlo 11/12/15 1:26pm - P:\t\TUKA00000013\0400CAD\TT\SHEETS\TT-ALT_GATEWAY PP01-TUKA0013.dwg
50
40
30
20
10
0
m
2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00
EXISTING
GRADE
0
rn
0
ro
0
co
f•)
0 10 20 40
MATCHLINE STA. 7+50
SEE SHEET PPO2
CALL 48 HOURS
BEFORE YOU DIG
COMMON GROUND
ALLIANCE
811
4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50
50
40
30
20
10
O
Lf)
+ N
I` CD
Qa
w
ww
Z_=
J O)
O w
2
PZTBLIC W+C012_I<S DEFY
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425 519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
PP01
I File No.
of
0
1 Scale AS SHOWN
PP02-TUKA0013.dwg
dlo 11/12/15 1:30pm P:\5TUKA00000013\0400CAD\TT\SHEETS\
r
+
co
H
w
w
Z i= 50
J
= w 40
U w
u) 30
• 20
10
O1
O
rn
rn
02
O
7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00
EXISTING
GRADE
o 0
o n
10 20 40
n o
c0 0
m o
50
40
30
20
0
9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 1 +50 12+00 12+50 13+00
0
0
+ M
M p
1— IZ
LU
w
LU =
Z�
J w
• III
- W
CQ
J
If
3
F
u
o-
F
v
1
PUBIC w 1ZICS' DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
ANDASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425 519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
I —I
i 1
I File No
PPO2
1 Scale AS SHOWN
l
5
r
dlo 11/12/15 1•38pm - P1l\TUKA00000013\0400CAD\TT\SHEETS \TT -ALT GATEWA
MATCHLINE STA. 13+00
SEE SHEET PPO2
50
40
30
20
10
N
O
— EXISTING GRADE
0
0
N
13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50
O
0
0
0
0
15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50
2.77
0 10 20
PVI STA: 17+68.96
PVI ELEb 22 09
K 3318
LVC. 15 00
40
m
0
0
O
rn
(`.10'
N
rn
1,74
17+00
17+50
18+00
CD
U1?
ryT
W
Q
50 U)
w
40 _Z
30
2
20
10 C
18+50
w
w
2
w
w
J
PUBLIC T. ERIC S DEP Y
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone- 425 519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
PP03
I File No.
Mn r1nln Dnuricinnc
I Scale AS SHOWN
nnto
MATCHLINE STA. 18+50
SEE SHEET PPO3
50
40
30
20
10
5.00%
- 00
0
N
W
>
CO
PVI OTA 19+67.12
PVI ELEV 32 00
K '778
LVC 80 00
2' SI AB DEPTH
EVC'; 20+07101
8.5' GIRDER DEPTH w'ITH- ADDED 10"
TO ACOMMODATE 4% SUPERS EVATED STRUCTURE
*ASSUME 38' WIDE BRIDGE WITH', 4% SUPER ELEVATION
050% I
BEGIN PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
n
O
0)
W
END PEDESTRIAN TRAIL J
0
CO
rn
O
PVI STA: 21+9510
PVI ELEV 33.14
K. 17.27
LVC 95.00 _
o 0 HIGH PT STA 21+56 23 0
`r° N HIGH PT ELEV. 32 92
M
7
N W
c
BASE FLOOD ELEV.\TION=16'
0
0-
18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00
rn
n
M
CD
M
0
PROPOSED GRADE
—5.00%
EXISTING GRADE
20
40
O
M7
02
N
I3EGIN 5. 12
m rn 0
ro
Lc', N M
N N
0
Nr"
c\I CD
CO4
w
ww
(,)
_zx
J �
W
UW
cr
1
O
+
d' p
N a
LL
50 (n W
4o ZW
2 ■�
(/]
30 =
20 W(/)
0 CQ
G
20-50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00
PUBIC Q.fKS DEPT_
* ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
Fidri F4 if
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
0
PP04
or
File No.
No. Date Revisions
ScaleDate AS SHOWN
J
00CAD\TT\SHEETS\TT-ALT GATEWAY PP05-TUKA0013.d
E
MATCHLINE STA. 24+00
SEE SHEET PPO4
1-
CLw
w
2
w
//w�
vJ
50
T
(NI40
Q 30
CO - 20
w 10
J
2
0
I- tr
Q
PVI STA 24+2211
PVI EL=V 21 79
K 37.57
LVC, 120.00
ST
O
24+00
— PROPOSED
GRADE
N
N
–1 81%,,
0,
0-
24+50
25+00
25+50
— EXISTING
GRADE
10 20
40
co
(0
o
N
.
o
u,
O
o
.
I
N
n =
c N
N
n
N
i
to
o
N
26+00
26+50
27+00
27+50
28+00
28+50
29+00
29+50
50
40
30
20
10
30+00
P BLICI WC) I EP T_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
CLQ AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone. 425.519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
1
1 File No
PPO5
1 Scale AS SHOWN
OOCAD\TT/SH EETS\TT-ALT 48THPP01-TU KA0013.dwg
dlo 11/12/15 10:13am - P:\t\TUKAO
50
40
30
20
10
�V"`•ilLt4Y ,Ft,,i:: h.fiw0.! ; NL1
NTS
aVEFLAI
.;Y•�'bJ.S":R'_h y.,ar,:c,.':;'.� VENTS
0
<v
0
0
0
EXISTING
/ GRADE
0 10 20
40
0
0
ro
0
0
w
w
0
0
1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 0+00 4+50 5+00
5+50 6+00 6+50
O
tf')
+
CO
<
1—
co
co W
W W
Z_
J [n
= W
O W
Q O)
2
O
10
+ N
CO CD
a.
50 W
W W
40 Z
_.l (/)
30O 111
W
20 Q (/j
10 2
0
PUBLIC WCJIhS DEPT_
*ENGINEERING*STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
ANDASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
PPQ1
1 File No.
1 Scale AS SHOWN
E
MATCHLINE STA. 6+50
+
O
Qa.
I— F_.
(n W
W W
Z_
J Cn
I W
O W
I— CO
2
IZ
D..
U J - 50
W
40
W 30
W
(1) 20
0
0
6+50
7+00
7+50
O
O
rEXISTING GRADE
N
m
0
r0
8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00
0 10 20 40
O
72
11+50
12+00
MATCHLINE STA. 12+00
SEE SHEET PPO3
N
50 (/- )
W
40
30
20
0 2
0
PUBIC WiiCkRI<S DSPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
=2 AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone. 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
PPO2
File No.
Scale AS SHOWN
nata
dlo 11/12/15 10:34am - P:\t\TUKA0000001310400CAD\TT\SHEETS\TT-ALT_48TH_PP03-TUKA0013.dwg
+ N
(V p
a
Qa
I— 1—
(/) W
W W
ZI
-CO
= W
U W
H
+ �y
CV
a
w 50
Z _ 40
• (/)
W 30
• (n 20
Q
• 10
0
rn
0
ro
j EXISTING GRADE
1'
12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00
14+50 15+00
15+50 16+00
0 10 20
40
16+50
17+00
17+50
O
Lc)
h -
Q W
I— I—
�W
WW
zco
- W
= W
co
Q
2
50
40
30
20
10
0
P LJB1IC wef? ICS DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed vXV
Drawn DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519 6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
1
1 File No.
PPO3
of
1 Scale AS SHOWN
I /f
dlo 11/12/1510:39am-P:\t\TUKA00000013\0400CAD\TTISHEETS\TT-ALT 48TH PP04-TUKA001
p
+ M
I`
a
I- 1-
U) W
W W
Z_
(/)
= W
U W
U)
+ m
I`
r a
11
U)
ZW
�_'^) 5050
v
= W ao
(n 30
G 20
10
0
O
0 0
0
r7 N O
d N
-0 05%
OVERLAY ROADWAY AND
CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS
PVI STA 9+15 58
PVI ELEV 9 96
K 26-2
LVC 13E 00
LOW PT STA: 18+49 50
LOW FT ELEV 20 00
0
co
+
DRIVEWAt' RT (FILL 3.2')
W
DFIVEWAY LT (FILL 2.5)
FINISHED GRADE
/ r EXISTING GRADE
f
-, V V is — _ —
2' S_AB DEPTH -
PVI STA 21+77 32
PVI ELEV 33 05
K 1228
LVC 7 ) 00
H GH PT STA 22+03 70
HIGH PT ELE.V: 32 83
:0 20 40
85' GIRDER DEPTH WITH ADDED 10"
.,:.Ci.i' ATE 42. 3D ERELEvA ED TTRUCT-DRE
BEGIN PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
END PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
J
-0 7
V G TEE—V7TiC+ry = —
0
CA
O
0
0
O
0
0
COCA
d
0
O
O
0
CO
03
0
00
d'
N
O
O
m
0
03
N
M
�r1
03
17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50
20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22,-50 23+00
50
40
30
20
0
0
1
i
11111
3
ins
IL
ICI
M p
Lo
CV d
U)
Z= IIM.
rIj �
PUBLIC W1R S DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
Maki Rk It
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 -118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone. 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
Na Date Revisions
1
1 File No.
1 Scale AS SHOWN
1 Date
PPO4
0,
N
PP05-TUKA0013.dwg
dlo 11/12/15 1 22pm - P:\OTU
MATCHLINE STA. 23+00
SEE SHEET PPO4
• p
N ^a
• LL
C/) - W - 60
W W
Z 50
J �
(j 40
o ▪ (UT) 30
2 20
0
0
- RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY
RAISE ROADWAY PROFILE
PVI STA 24+20 06
PVI ELEV 31 35
K 139 32
LVC 75 00
00
U
w
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING BRIDGE
REMAIN IN-PLACE
- 1245
BEGIN RAILROAD AVE(FILL 9.4')
EXISTING GRADE
L1
u
23+00 23-50 24+00 24+50 25+00
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25+50 26+00 26+50
20 40
PUBLIC 1/17071 IC S DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
Drawn
DLO
Checked
MLF
Pro) Eng
Proj Dir
Field Rk
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
1
1 File No.
r PPO5
No
Date
Revisions
1 Scale AS SHOWN
1 Date
Appendix B —
Truck Access Routes
P:ItITUKA00000013h0600INFO10870ReportsMISF Intermodal Access Screening summary 2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
193
194
w
r
0
U
e
sI :s[4{'.Y.711:NEIFY
48TH AVE S
ALTERNATIVE
LEGEND
•
NOT TO SCALE
ROUTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD (0.5 MILE)
ROUTE: BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY (0.5 MILE)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
P UBP_TC W CPRS DEPT_
* ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
Designed
Drawn
Checked
By
VXV
DLO
MLF
Date
10/15
10/15
10/15
Proj Eng
Proj Di
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S
TRUCK ACCESS TO FREEWAY
I File No.
I Scale AS SHOWN
1
a
_P UBJ.IC WCI R C DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
Designed
Drawn
Checked
Proj Eng
Proj Dir
By Date
VXV
DLO
MLF
10/15
10/15
10/15
DAVID EVANS
ANDASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519.6500
LEGEND
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DR.
TRI U'I( A!`.rFSS TC PRFFWAY
•
NOT TO SCALE
ROUTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD (0.9 MILE)
ROUTE: BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY (0.9 MILE)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
File No.
Scale AS SHOWN
cc
'o
S 124TH ST
BNSF
YARD
S 124TH STREET
ALTERNATIVE
_PUBLIC WC R ICS DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
Designed
Drawn
By
VXV
DLO
Date
10/15
10/15
Checked
Proj Eng
MLF
10/15
Proj D'r
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519.6500
LEGEND
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST.
TRI J(K AC;C;FSS TC) FREEWAY
•
NOT TO SCALE
ROUTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD (1.3 MILE)
ROUTE: BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY (1.3 MILE)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
of
L
File No.
SCale AS SHOWN
1_.
0
5
S 112TH ST
ALTERNATIVE
LEGEND
•
NOT TO SCALE
ROUTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD (1.1 MILE)
ROUTE: BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY (1.1 MILE)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
PUBLIC' VAC. RI S _DEPT_
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
Designed
Drawn
Checked
Proj Eng
Proj Di y
By
VXV
DLO
MLF
Date
10/15
10/15
10/15
DAVID EVANS
Q AND ASSOCIATES INO.
415 -118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 112TH ST
TRUCK ACCESS Tn FRFFWAY
I
•
-t File No.
1 Scale AS SHOWN
of
AIRPORT WAY S
ALTERNATIVE
LEGEND
•
i
NOT TO SCALE
ROUTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD (1.4 MILE)
ROUTE: BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY (1.4 MILE)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
PUBLIC WCi1IS DEPT_
* ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING *
By
Date
Designed
VXV
10/15
Drawn
DLO
10/15
Checked
MLF
0/15
Proj Eng
Proj Di
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98005-3518
Phone: 425.519.6500
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
1
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AIRPORT WAY S.
TRUCK ACCESS TC) FREEWAY
File No.
Scale AS SHOWN
200
Appendix C --
Roadway Cost Estimate Back-up
P:ItITUKA00000013106OWINF00670RsporfsIBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016
201
202
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate: Airport Way S
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
Airport Way S to BNSF Intermodal Facility
1800'
CI
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES IND.
Date:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
11/28/16
MLF
Alternative uses Airport Way S to northern end of BNSF yard.
See alternative exhibit
Existing Widths:
Proposed Widths:
Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Sidewalk 0
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Pavement 44' Sidewalk 6' both sides Right -of -Way 67'
Preparation
1 I Structures
1 Mobilization $772,900.00 48-51 Retaining Walls $71,860.00
2-4 Preparation Items $164,500.00 52 Bridge Structure $6,160,000.00
5-12 Removal Items $82,000.00 Structure Subtotal $6,231,860.00
Preparation Subtotal $1,019,400.00
Grading
13-14 Roadway Grading
15-18 Roadway Foundation
19-24 Utility Excavation
Grading Subtotal
$112,548.00
$150,275.00
$20,400.00
TESC and Landscaping 1
I 53-55 TESC $53,200.00
56-60 Plantings $105,000.00
61-62 Irrigation $0.00
TESC and Landscaping Subtotal $158,200.00
$283,223.00
Storm Drainage
25-36 Conveyance System
37 Culvert/Stream Crossing
38 Detention/Water Quality Facility
Storm Drainage Subtotal
$188,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$188,500.00
[ Traffic I
I 63-71 Markings and Signing $5,884.00
72-75 Guardrail/Handrail $0.00
76-80 Traffic Signal System $170,00000
81-83 Illumination System $75,000.00
84-89 Traffic Control $50,000.00
Traffic Subtotal $300,884.00
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
39-42 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
$146,850.00
HMA Subtotal $146,850.00
Concrete
43-44 Sidewalks and Driveways $100,345.00
45-46 Curbs and Gutters $64,500.00
47 Concrete Roadway $0.00
Concrete Subtotal $164,845.00
Other Items
90-91 Utility Relocates
92-94 Misc. Construction
Other Items Subtotal
$0.00
$22,200.00
$22,200.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $8,515,962
CONTINGENCY 30% $2,554,790
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (a) $11,070,752
DESIGN ENGINEERING 18% $1,992,740
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 12% $1,328,500
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 5% $553.540
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL (b) $3,874,780
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 5% $553,540
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5% $553,540
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL (c) $1,107,080
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c) $16,050,000
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY $0
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $16,050,000
MARKET CONTIGENCY 20% $3,210,000
ROADWAY TOTAL (d) 519,260.000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (e)
20%
$65,000,000
$10,000,000
$75,000,000
$15.000.000
$90,000,000 1
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016) $109,300,000
Page 1 of 1
PAATUKA000000134G3CAfNFOZ6500estgnCeeei1653EallmBlnsiOl_BNSF Access Cost Est Airport.xls
Printed: 11/28/2016 203
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate:
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
South 112th Street
East Marginal Way to BNSF Intermodal Facility
1750'
D DAVID EVANS
ANDASSOCIATES INC.
Date:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
11/28/16
MLF
Alternative uses utility corridor and ties into the northern half of BNSF yard
see alternative exhibit
Existing Widths:
Proposed Widths:
Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Pavement 44'
Sidewalk 0
Sidewalk 6' both sides
Preparation i r Structures
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Right -of -Way 67'
1 Mobilization $276,700.00 49-52 Retaining Walls
2-4 Preparation Items $91,600.00 53 Bridge Structure
5-12 Removal Items $30,450.00
Preparation Subtotal $398,750.00
Structure Subtotal
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TESC and Landscaping
Grading 54-56 TESC $46,400.00
13-15 Roadway Grading $96,889.00 57-61 Plantings $84,890.00
16-19 Roadway Foundation $122,325.00 62-63 irrigation $32,400.00
20-25 Utility Excavation $16,640.00 TESC and Landscaping Subtotal $163,690.00
Grading Subtotal $235,854.00
Storm Drainage
Traffic
64-72 Markings and Signing $5,084.00
26-37 Conveyance System $149,850.00 73-76 Guardrail/Handrail $0.00
38 Culvert/Stream Crossing $0.00 77-81 Traffic Signal System $170,000.00
39 Detention/Water Quality Facility $1,500,000.00 82-84 Illumination System $150,000.00
Storm Drainage Subtotal $1,649,850.00 85-90 Traffic Control $30.000.00
Traffic Subtotal $355,084.00
[ Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement 1
40-43 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement $118,800.00 [ Other Items
HMA Subtotal $118,800.00 91-92 Utility Relocates $4,000,000.00
93-95 Misc. Construction $29,000.00
Other Items Subtotal $4,029,000.00
[ Concrete I
44-45 Sidewalks and Driveways $81,690.00
46-47 Curbs and Gutters $52,500,00
48 Concrete Roadway $0.00
Concrete Subtotal $134,190.00
2 Q4nruKA00000013\o600IN=nso6oLoesis,n
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $7,085,218.00
CONTINGENCY 30% $2.125.570.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $9,210,788.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING 18% $1,657,950.00
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 12% $1,105,300.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 5% $460.540.00
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL $3,223,790.00
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 10% $921,080.00
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5% $460.540.00
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL $1,381,620.00
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c)
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
ROADWAY TOTAL (d)
20%
$13,820,000
$4.000.000
$17,820,000
$3,560,000
$21,380,000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS $53,000,000
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY $3,700,000
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL $56,700,000
MARKET CONTIGENCY 20% $11.340.000
RAILROAD TOTAL (e) $68.040,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016)
$89,400,000
. sFimateskJ22_BNSF Access Cost Est 112th.xls
Page 1 of 1 Printed: 11/28/2016
so
$0
So
$0
So I
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate:
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
S 124th Street
Interurban Avenue S to BNSF Intermodal Facility
3400'
CI
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES NC.
Date:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
11/28/16
MLF
Alternative uses 42nd Avenue S, over Duwamish River, right on S 124th Street, and into the existing BNSF yard access.
Improvements along the existing route must be made, i.e. pavement rehabilitation, replacement of bridge over Duwamish River. See
alternative exhibit
Existing Widths:
Proposed Widths:
Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Pavement 44'
Preparation
1 Mobilization
2-4 Preparation Items
5-12 Removal Items
Preparation Subtotal
$937,800.00
$154,400.00
$121,228.00
$1,213,428.00
Grading
13-14 Roadway Grading
15-17 Roadway Foundation
18-23 Utility Excavation
Grading Subtotal
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Storm Drainage
24-35 Conveyance System
36 Culvert/Stream Crossing
37 Detention/Water Quality Facility
Storm Drainage Subtotal
$65,200.00
$0.00
$75,000.00
$140,200.00
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
38-41 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
$311,500.00
HMA Subtotal $311,500.00
Concrete
42-43 Sidewalks and Driveways
44-45 Curbs and Gutters
46 Concrete Roadway
Concrete Subtotal
$44,000.00
$66,300.00
$0.00
$110,300.00
Sidewalk 0
Sidewalk 6' both sides
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Right -of -Way 67'
Structures
47-52 Retaining Walls
53 Bridge Structure
$4,811,400.00
$2,745,600.00
Structure Subtotal $7,557,000.00
TESC and Landscaping
54-56 TESC
57-61 Plantings
62-63 Irrigation
TESC and Landscaping Subtotal
$256,200.00
$86,860.00
$13,500.00
$356,560.00
Traffic
64-72
73-76
77-81
82-84
85-90
Markings and Signing
Guardrail/Handrail
Traffic Signal System
Illumination System
Traffic Control
Traffic Subtotal
$17,680.00
$73,500.00
$180,000.00
$125,000.00
$250,000.00
$646,180.00
Other Items
91-92 Utility Relocates
93-95 Misc. Construction
Other Items Subtotal
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
30%
$100,000.00
$33,200.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL
18%
12%
5%
$133,200.00
$10,468,368 00
$3.140.520.00
$13,608,888.00
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 10%
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 10%
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL
$2,449,600.00
$1,633,070.00
$680.450.00
$4,763,120.00
$1,360,890.00
$1.360.890.00
$2,721,780.00
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c) $21,090,000
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY $3.000.000
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $24,090,000
MARKET CONTIGENCY 20% $4,820.000
ROADWAY TOTAL (d) $28,910.000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (e)
20%
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016
$28,900,000
Page 1 of 1
P:ANTUKA00000013108001NF010&500esignaoeati65s'Exiimales103_BNSF Access Cost Est 124th.xls
Printed: 11/28/2016 205
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate:
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
Gateway Drive - North Leg
Q DAVID EVANS
A" ASSOCIATES '"c•
Date: 11/28/16
Interurban Avenue S to BNSF Intermodal Facility Prepared by:
2700' Checked by:
MLF
Alternative uses north leg of Gateway Drive, goes between the two Boeing Credit Union Building, over Duwamish River, and into the
existing BNSF yard access.
See alternative exhibit
Existing Widths:
Proposed Widths:
Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Pavement 44'
Preparation
1 Mobilization $567,600.00
2-4 Preparation Items $115,000.00
5-12 Removal Items $50,342.00
Preparation Subtotal $732,942.00
Sidewalk 0
Sidewalk 6' both sides
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Right -of -Way 67'
Structures
52-57
Retaining Walls
58 Bridge Structure
$245,250.00
$2.481.600.00
Structure Subtotal $2,726,850.00
TESC and Landscaping
Grading 1 59-61 TESC
13-14 Roadway Grading $28,995.00 62-66 Plantings
15-19 Roadway Foundation $263,004.00 67-68 Irrigation
20-25 Utility Excavation $4,960.00 TESC and Landscaping Subtotal $465,300.00
Grading Subtotal $296,959.00
$256,200.00
$156,720.00
$52,380.00
Traffic
Storm Drainage 1 69-77 Markings and Signing $13,040.00
26-37 Conveyance System $62,200.00 78-81 Guardrail/Handrail $73,500.00
38 Culvert/Stream Crossing $0.00 82-86 Traffic Signal System $170,000.00
39 Detention/Water Quality Facility $1,000,000.00 87-89 Illumination System $247,000.00
Storm Drainage Subtotal $1,062,200.00 90-95 Traffic Control $100,000.00
Traffic Subtotal $603,540.00
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
40-46 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
$207,675.00
HMA Subtotal $207,675.00
Concrete
47-48 Sidewalks and Driveways $119,145.00
49-50 Curbs and Gutters $66,300.00
51 Concrete Roadway $0.00
Concrete Subtotal $185,445.00
1
Other Items
96-97 Utility Relocates $100,000.00
98-100 Misc. Construction $34,600.00
Other Items Subtotal $134,600.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $6,415,511.00
CONTINGENCY 30% $1.924.660.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $8,340,171.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING 18% $1,501,240.00
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 12% $1,000,830.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 5% $417,010.00
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL $2,919,080.00
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 10% $834,020.00
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5% $417,010.00
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL $1,251,030.00
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c)
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
ROADWAY TOTAL (d)
20%
$12,510,000
$6,900.000
819,410,000
$3.880.000
823.290.000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (e)
20%
80
80
80
$0
80
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) Year 2016) $23,300,000
Page 1 of 1
20\TUKA00000013Ouce'40eaiEstimalad1e4_BNSF Access Cost Est Gateway.xls
Printed: 11/28/2016
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate:
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
48th Avenue South
CI
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES 'NC.
Date:
Interurban Avenue S to BNSF intermodal Facility Prepared by:
2600' Checked by:
Alternative uses 48th Avenue S, over Duwamish River, and ties into the southern end of BNSF yard
11/28/16
MLF
See alternative exhibit
Existing Widths: Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Proposed Widths: Pavement 44'
Preparation
1 Mobilization
2-4 Preparation Items
5-12 Removal Items
Preparation Subtotal
$505,500.00
$90,600.00
$71,671.00
$667,771.00
Grading
13-14 Roadway Grading
15-22 Roadway Foundation
23-28 Utility Excavation
Grading Subtotal
$950.00
$110,341.00
$23,760.00
Storm Drainage
29-40 Conveyance System
41 Culvert/Stream Crossing
42 Detention/Water Quality Facility
Storm Drainage Subtotal
Sidewalk 0
Sidewalk 6' both sides
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Right -of -Way 67'
Structures
55-59 Retaining Walls
60 Bridge Structure
$115,250.00
$2,323,200.00
Structure Subtotal $2,438,450.00
TESC and Landscaping
61-63 TESC
64-68 Plantings
69-70 Irrigation
TESC and Landscaping Subtotal
$256,400.00
$136,820.00
$44,280.00
$437,500.00
$135,051.00
Traffic I
1 71-79 Markings and Signing $7,844.00
$201,800.00 80-83 Guardrail/Handrail $94,000.00
$0.00 84-88 Traffic Signal System $180,000.00
$750,000.00 89-91 Illumination System $279,000.00
$951,800.00 92-97 Traffic Control $50,000.00
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement 1
43-49 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
$164,065.00
HMA Subtotal $164,065.00
Concrete
50-51 Sidewalks and Driveways
52-53 Curbs and Gutters
54 Concrete Roadway
Concrete Subtotal
$129,400.00
$65,850.00
$0.00
$195,250.00
Traffic Subtotal
$610,844.00
Other Items
98-99 Utility Relocates
100-102 Misc. Construction
Other Items Subtotal
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
30%
$206,000.00
$18,200.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL
18%
12%
5%
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 10%
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5%
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL
$224,200.00
$5,824,931.00
$1,747,480.00
$7,572,411.00
$1,363,040.00
$908,690.00
$378,630.00
$2,650,360.00
$757,250 00
$378,630.00
$1,135,880.00
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c)
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
ROADWAY TOTAL (d)
20%
$11,360,000
$1,900,000
$13,260,000
$2,650.000
815,910,000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (e)
20%
$3,700,000
$0
$3,700,000
$740,000
$4.440,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016)
$20,400,000
Page 1 of 1 Printed: 11/28/2016
P:\t\TUKA00000013\0600INFO\uo uueeiyrpocs18653Estimate€405_BNSF Access Cost Est 48th.xls
207
208
BNSF RAILWAY INTERMODAL FACILITY ACCESS STUDY
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING ANALYSIS REPORT
Prepared for:
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98005
Prepared by:
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
14432 SE Eastgate Way
Bellevue, WA 98007
November 28, 2016
209
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Alternative Screening Analysis Report for the City of Tukwila was prepared by David Evans and
Associates, Inc. to evaluate alternative access to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway
intermodal facility in Tukwila, Washington, This facility is also known as South Seattle Yard. BNSF
Railway also sponsored this study,
The existing access to the intermodal facility uses 42nd Avenue S and 5 124th Street. 5 124th Street
is also a residential collector street serving the community of Allentown. Several residential homes
with driveways are located on 5 124th Street, as is the Tukwila Community Center which houses an
aquatic center, meeting rooms, classes and activities for all ages, and playground and ball fields.
This study did not create new alternatives but used alternatives that were developed by previous
studies. A total of five alternatives were studied. Airport Way 5, 5 112th Street, 5124th Street,
Gateway Drive — North Leg, and 48th Avenue S.
Several desktop researches were performed as part of this study. These researches included critical
and sensitive areas, fish and wildlife, water resources, hazardous materials, geological and soils, and
cultural and historical resources.
A scored screening matrix was developed collaboratively between the City of Tukwila, BNSF
Railway, and David Evans and Associates, Inc. The matrix was presented to Tukwila City Council as
well as to the public for their feedback on the screening matrix criteria. The public was allowed to
provide feedback via an on-line open house and an in-person open house.
Representatives from Tukwila, BNSF Railway, and David Evans and Associates, Inc. met to score
each alternative using a numerical scoring system from 1 to 9. The score for each criteria was
added, and the lowest score is the preferred alternative.
Based an the scoring result, the 48th Avenue 5 alternative is the preferred alternative.
City of Tukwila
21 0 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
PIIITUKA0000001310S001NFO10670RepurtseNSF Jntermdl Access Screening summ ry_2O16.112a.docx
1 Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 2016
Figure 1 shows the project study area. The following provides a description for each alternative.
Figure 1— Project Study Area
Rarrirer
Valley
lioruiew
1.113
S 124dt Street
Gateway Drive
Extension
Alternative
r.i : L
48th Avenue S
Extension
Alternative
P;11I rUKA000006131p60OINFO10670Reparrsl@NSF tntermada1Accr ss Screening sumrhary_2O16-1128.dbax
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
3 Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 2016
211
212
Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
BNSF Access Study
DRAFT — September 5, 2017
Background
In 2016, the Tukwila community provided input on the screening criteria that was used to develop the
BNSF Access Study report. The City identified a preferred alternative route and shared it with the
community at an open house on August 17, 2017.
Summary
The City of Tukwila hosted an in-person open house at the Tukwila Community Center on August 17,
2017. The in-person house accompanied an online open house, which included the same information as
the in-person open house and was available from August 15 - 28, 2017.
Notifications
The project team advertised the in-person and online open houses in early August 2017. Notifications
included the following:
• Postcard sent to the Allentown and Duwamish neighborhoods
• Emails to the City's project listsery
o Listsery includes community members, business and property owners, other interested
parties
• Flier emailed as attachment to Allentown and Duwamish neighborhood listservs by
neighborhood leaders
• Facebook and Twitter posts on the City's social media accounts
Attendance and visitor statistics
• In-person open house attendance: 42
• In-person comment forms completed: 20
• Online open house visitors: 32
• Online surveys completed: 12
• Overall number of participants: 74
Engagement Methods
In -Person Open House
The City gathered shared information about the preferred alternative and other considered alternatives
during an open house at the Tukwila Community Center on August 17, 2017, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Participants viewed informational boards that described the project purpose, schedule, alternative and
preferred routes, screening criteria and environmental process. Project staff were on hand to answer
questions. Participants contributed comments via comment cards. Comments received at the open
house are shown in Appendix 1 and summarized below.
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary DRAFT
213
In-person open house participants give feedback on comment cards.
Online Open House
In order to reach Tukwila businesses and residents who were unable to attend the in-person open
house, the City advertised an online open house, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, starting
August 15 and ending August 28. The online open house included the same information as at the in-
person open house and a survey that gathered specific feedback in a similar fashion to the comment
boxes at the in-person open house. Comments received through the online open house are shown in
Appendices 2 and summarized below.
Feedback Overview
Several themes emerged from the input received through 32 comments and surveys:
• Those who supported the preferred alternative (15) stated a number of reasons for their
support, including moving the truck route to a commercial street and away from residences,
access/proximity to 1-5 and current residential impacts on 124th.
• All residents who said they live along or near the current access route who participated (4)
supported moving the truck access route to another street.
• Those who opposed the preferred alternative (4) stated increased traffic, business impacts and
residential impacts as reasons for their opposition.
• Several participants urged the City to study or investigate cost (4) and traffic (3). Several
participants also expressed interest in potential environmental impacts (3).
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary DRAFT
214
Next Steps
All feedback presented here is being provided to the project team for consideration. The study and
proposed route will be presented to City Council in the fall of 2017.
One participant requested specific follow up regarding business impacts on 48th Ave S: Quinn Closson,
360-607-8178, qclosson@pape.com.
Appendices
1. Comments gathered at in-person open house
2. Online comments
3. Notifications
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary DRAFT
215
Appendix 1: Comments Gathered at In-person Open House
Note: comments are verbatim as written. Commenters were asked if they live, work or visit Tukwila.
Live Work Visit
Name
Email
Comment (verbatim)
x
Phillip
Camball
Phillameball@hotmail.com
Anything except 48th Ave S.
Minimum public $, maximum
private funding.
x
Angela Steel
angelasb13@hotmail.com
I prefer the 48th Ave S option
as the least impactful to
residential properties in
Allentown and Duwamish.
This option keeps semis on
existing truck routes w/out
creating new roads through
environmentally critical areas
or private property. *Also
need noise wall along edge of
railyard.
[unknown]
[unknown]
My first choice BNSF move out
completely. Second choice I
prefer 48th Ave S. Build wall
to control noise and shaking
control.
x
Mary Fertakis
[unknown]
Thanks for all the work that
has been done on this. The
grid was particularly helpful -
very concrete information and
easy to understand. The
original study in 1990 shows
that the 48th st option was
the least expensive and made
the most sense. It is the same
in 2017. Seems pretty clear
that this is still the direction to
go.
x
x
David
Shumate
David@propeldesigns.com
The 48th Ave and Bridge looks
like the best one!
x
x
Sean Albert
seanalbert2001@hotmail.com
I think the preferred 48th ave
south route is by far the best
alternative!!
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
216
DRAFT
x
Patty Cokus
pcokus@hotmail.com
I agree wholeheartedly with
the preffered study route
where it impacts all identified
impact criteria the least and is
the least expensive. Thank you
for working on this and
advocating for community
input and gathering feedback.
The preferred route makes
the most sense for all.
x
[Illegible]
[unknown]
I think the preferred option
makes the most sense of
those presented. It takes the
traffic completely off
residential streets and on to a
commercial street that
already accomodates semi-
truck traffic.
x
Lucia Nilo
Itannilo@hotmail.com
I hope this project gets look at
seriously as I really enjoy my
home at 124th - but the
vibration of the trucks in and
out 24-7 is really bad and
nuisance. It shakes our house
especially when sleeping - the
NO-Build option: S 124th
should not be an option.
x
Wilfredo Nilo
wznilo@gmail.com
We live by 124th ave which is
active for semi-trucker. Since
we moved here from
september 2016 we felt a
massive vibration everytime
those truckets pass by. We
live in a brand new home and
it created major cracks in aour
garage. We worried whats
gonna happen next.
x
Oscar Uceda
o.uceda@yahoo.com
We would like to support the
prefer alternative for the
trucks route coming in and
out of the BNSF Railroad Yard
facility in Allentown.
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
DRAFT
217
x
x
Becky
[Illegible]
becarosep@aim.com
Concern the increase in traffic
from now and 20 years down
the road on the 48th ave
purposal. What effects it will
have on the businesses on
48th (widening roads etc)
Residents being impacted by
not being able to get access to
the businesses they already go
to.
x
Morgan
Llewellyn
mllewellyn@ccim.net
I'm wonderng how the project
will be funded particularly in
light of the right away
acquisitions required by the
preferred route. It appears the
northern route would have
the least impact on residential
AND commercial businesses.
x
Todd Jones
rain1916@comcast.net
I stronly oppose Gateway
Drive option and 124th st
options. I do like the 48th st
option or others to the north.
x
Hanice
Ludington
shofarJCL@gmail.com
My preference is Airport Way
s
x
[Illegible]
[Illegible]
The road should go out the
north end. I live on 51st
(across the street from the flat
bed trucks, and am concerned
about where the railroad will
put the road inside this yard.
Will trucks have to be
removed and trailers
[illegible]? And if so, where
will they go? It is close to our
homes, your moving one road
to another.
x
Linda
McLeod
sam.linda.mcleod@gmail.com
No on Gateway Dr. Divides
BECU campuses, has many
employees + customers
x
[unknown]
[unknown]
Airport SO. (BEST) [sic]
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
218
DRAFT
x
Edna edna0801@gmail.com
Derr[illegible]
I live in 122nd st. I hope the
124th s st. would be closed as
enterence of BNSF or trucks
facility. The impact to our
home and neighborhood is
terrible, the house vibrates
each time; lots of noise; and
traffic gets crowded. 48th st is
great alternative for the BNSB
enterence.
Steven steve@xmrine.com
We'd like to see a traffic
impact study done on
inerurban and exit 156 off 1-5.
Please go to fife and see the
issues they have and avoid
that happening to us.
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary DRAFT
219
Appendix 2: Comments from Online Open House
Note: comments are verbatim as written.
Comment
1. Will all trucks no longer use 124th st ? 2. Will there be entry and exit capability from 50th PL S/129th
street? we must have the capability to enter and exit from 50th PL S/129th street. Please make sure
this option available. Thanks for your consideration
How much will this cost? What about an option to improve the 42nd st. bridge by the community
center and do some mitigation on the streets that the trucks drive down, such as widening the
shoulders of the street, side walks and maybe even some sort of sound barrier? How is this project
prioritized compared to needs in other neighborhoods such as sidewalks and road repair?
I am an employee of BECU and believe that the 48th Ave So. preferred option is by far the best choice.
Not only from a cost perspective but also from a life safety, employee/member environment and the
disruption of multiple businesses/residential and land/building value standpoint. The 48th Ave So.
option already houses a street with truck yard access and would be a much easier way to execute on
this initiative. While I know this still impacts some, it is the reasonable choice and should be adopted.
I am not only a Tukwila resident but also a Tukwila business owner that would be greatly affected by
the "preferred" route of 48th AVE S. The overall impact on the businesses along this route would be
devastating. People are already frustrated with the current amount of big trucks coming along 48th.
We are already lacking suitable gas stations in Tukwila. Please don't make them impossible to get to.
Tukwila is a growing city and the north side (Airport way) of it is already industrial. Interurban Ave is an
incredibly popular thoroughfare for many people going south/north and the 2 gas stations on 48th Ave
services more than half of those people. Please reconsider 112th or Airport way as the better
alternative that will impact our growing city the least amount. Thank you.
I am very happy that the city is analyzing other options for the truck route into the BNSF yard. The
current route is not sustainable. My family prefers the 48th Av S option since it uses an existing
commercial street and is least impactful to residential communities and the environment. I would like
you to heavily factor in the environmental impacts the other two northerly options would have on
wetlands and existing greenspaces.Will the Airport Way option impede future Light rail/Sounder
station location planning efforts? How will the different entrance options impact yard operations?
Currently, the BNSF yard is very noisy 24/7 with back up beepers. Will these operations shift or
diminish with the varying options? Can the city proceed with pursuing the noise wall installation along
the railyard boundary? I think this will make a significant improvement to the quality of life in
Duwamish and Allentown. thank you
I represent The Pape' Group, Inc. who owns the Ditch Witch dealership on 48th Ave, South. I
understand there will be significant traffic impact during construction. I don't think we're overly
concerned about that. However, I'd like a little more information on the traffic study or estimates on
additional traffic impact on 48th Ave. South after completion of the project. Also, will there be any
improvements done to the 48th Ave road itself? Finally, is there something I'm missing that you think
we should be concerned about as a business right on 48th Ave? Thanks, Quinn Closson 360-607-8178
gclosson@pape.com
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary DRAFT
220
I wish that this 124th St. access be change to a different access ASAP because we moved here in a new
home development last year 2016 of Sept. which we are not aware about this 124th St. right beside
our house is the major access for truckers. We encountered 24-7 of a massive vibration like an
earthquake multiple times everyday and we felt scary that our house may collapse one of this day. So
far we had a multiple long cracks in our garage and hopefully will not affect the foundation. We live
right by the stop sign where those truckers heading out from BNSF gate and also for coming in. That
really distract us everyday. There's a time when some of the truck driver lost their focus on the stop
sign especially in the evening and they made an emergency brakes and it shakes the ground so bad and
it vibrates our house also. I Believe that 48th Ave S is the best alternatives route for the truckers.
I work at BECU. The Gateway alternative would have a negative impact on our members who come
into our Tukwila Financial Center to conduct their personal business (primarily retail banking, trust
services, and investment services). We are about to engage on a Gateway campus upgrade and a truck
route cutting through the middle of it would have a negative impact on our employee experience and
may have a negative impact on our ability to recruit and retain employees. Given the existing land use
abutting most of your preferred alternative (gas stations, commercial, etc.). I can see the potential
noise downside for a hotel (but it's already next To 1-5 and a busy off ramp so marginal impact seems
moderate).
I would like to avoid having another bridge over the river and prefer this option: S 112th Street Thank
you.
Thank you for considering all options and explaining the reasoning. What timeframe are you looking at
for construction of the new bridge and roadway. What impact will there be on the existing Interurban
Bike/Walking Trail both during construction and upon completion. Will traffic studies be done to work
on minimalizing impact at the intersection for traffic on Interurban and from the off ramp on 15?
This route makes the most sense as it is a quick, direct route off of 1-5, drives through a commercial
area only and does not affect the public's experience of their greenspace, except for a small segment
of the bike trail. I fully support this preferred route.
What are the costs? How it will be funded?
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary DRAFT
221
Appendix 3: Notifications
Social media
City of Tukwila - Government
Auouvt v 21 3.34,m 10
Join us for a BNSF Access Study Project Open House on August 1.7, 2017
The City of Tukwila has identified 48th Ave S as the preferred route to
access the BNSF Railway Intermodal Facility in Allentown_ Before the route
is formally decided_ we're holding an Open House and online forum to talk to
you about the route that we selected based on the criteria you heaped us
shape.
BNSF Access Study Project Open House
Thursday, August 17, 2017
5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Tukl,;ila Community Center
2424 42nd Ave 5, Tukvfila, WA 981€B
Can't make it to the open house? Share your thoughts online!
Now through August 28, 2017, you can share your thoughts at
https:IfTukBNSFAccess.Participate.Online All information from the Open
House will be online. Translation options are available.
Email us at AccessStudy@tukwilawa.gov or call 206-433-0170 with any
questions.
CITY OF TUKWILA
BNSF Access Study Project
TN Ccr a+ir l.,aW lu4 Kim nikni YWa *. S es tNe wren ed emir to amer% H.e
NIS< ,pwrin4d.1 mucro n ii-rtimet, Waft) Ike !lsda' >•• lue'> 68ai1 .
.�r.r ! berm Open tilo.,ve era*rime raumrte calk tr. ,.bt .. On,*MR* the
.�r ,Ses ted based w. nhr u.•t-..*; 4Ar 4rirrd u•. alupr
arrival and rerrorna.1 on Oa p....+4. -'ad OF, maii ee rosr6r
OWN PkIP14
IN.014 ry, AMINO J , Xi?
S ya f *CI Rau
Lob imam iC amhalI ,p Glrcllt
1.70141-r.dAve t rim.% WA WM
doer ormrc.f,tdgi, feent Wnf7lepetiwed oArnnti efrre �*d
the ene.ronproem milSkite aoatr aaroufFNIK
Onir Annan
More dkrpuab Aurae. 3*. Zira,, law can ,,lure tour ih uRbts setae.
ya,e Map ' f namtrof mt.&
.l Irl°*la OdOp16eae GHl rPrfM~ 6s4oe Frgrrta aew i/hi. A lei
~Matt
1i Like
3
Comment
40 Share
3 shares
Facebook post published August 9, 2017.
Top Comments F
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary DRAFT
222
0 City of Tu laNiFa CityofTuk-wila , Aug 9
Jain us for a BNSF Access Study Project Open House an August 17, 2017
CITY OF TUKWILA
BNSF Access Study Project
Gorr tveloolla had imerni ild 4Vh Me 5 nth, ormfornicl mum vo Ac€ois tha
IIIb It:w.lway Irnterrrrrd3F;roiiry' n Ailrrtorr¢1.. 9a%rr eirr Toutsis iorrnaip• dara3m.
Mao hclnm'gan Open hieaaw srka online fun...moat Us yaw a131:11k1 that rmuia eliE
w r We -nod based on dm cnfioria hrlgiad us stturpo-
Plookinand [ore aro the psehired aIIr r t've rnwl�
L Open Nous*
IT..rattly. &dull 17. 200
5 iD 730 r1.t11
iukt.114 Corminuelesi Cemex
12.421 QC el 01,115. TwlY+nlp WA 96 i
Mein prArrtl tlrAf lima, atiawr trof pratimer . A w.e
the L1rrPrVT*t ± l j Xtii AMM i 1 041W gia.1200
�- QrrllrYr rpeimr
NOW INCRIsh Anka[ a/. 21317. Kr, Uri 'bate rout thaw 0.15 nnlir�!
Visit .retpn..97120M5F+1c,e5Y 7a+ti ti7rN .,Ilnt
atia
14- 041Y4#100 Mrx.a row grAY, 114.v.Fe Win tbr kOrost Frsire4APPOn WISP,t1, Per
Tweet published August 9, 2017.
Postcard
CITY OF TUKWILA
BNSF Access Study Project
The City has identified 4th Ave 5 as the preferred route to access the BNSF yard in
Allentown. Before the route is formally decided, we're holding an open house and
online forum to talk to you about the route that we selected based on the crite'
you helped us shape.
Review and comment on the preferred alternative route:
1. In person
Thursday, August 17, 2017
5:30 - 7:30 p.m,
Tukwila Community Center
12424 42nd Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98168
Meet project staff, learn about the preferred alternative route and
environmental process, and share your thoughts.
2. Online
Now through August 28, you can share your thoughts online!
Visit TukBNSEAccess.Particlpate.Online
Ali information from the Jn-person event will be online. Translation options are
available.
Questions?
Email us at Access5tudy@tukvvilawa.gov or call 206-433-0179.
One side of a postcard sent to the Allentown and Duwamish neighborhoods.
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
DRAFT
223
CITY OF TUKWILA
BNSF Access Study Project
Public Works Administration
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Review and comment on the
preferred alternative route,
48th Ave S
in person
Thursday, August 17, 2017
5:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Tukwila Community Center
Online
TukB NS FAccess. Pa rtici pa te.O n I i ne
Reverse of a postcard sent to the Allentown and Duwamish neighborhoods.
Emails
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary DRAFT
224
Transportation & Infrastructure Services Committee Minutes May24, 2021
E. State of Tukwila's Bridges Report
Staff presented the report which describes the overall condition of bridges after completion of
the 2020 inspections.
Items needing follow-up:
• Present report to full Council when final report on 42nd Avenue South Bridge is available.
Committee Recommendation
Discussion only.
F. 42"d Avenue South Bridge Replacement Project
Staff provided an update on the 42nd Avenue South Bridge Replacement Project, which has been
approved by PRSC for $1.5M in Surface Transportation Program funding to complete 100%
design.
Committee Recommendation
Discussion only.
G. BNSF Alternative Access Study
Staff is seeking Council approval of next steps for the BNSF Alternative Access Study, including
updating cost estimates for the alternatives, conducting an environmental impact study, and
pursuing funding options for a future alternative.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval of next steps described above. Forward to June 14, 2021 Committee of
the Whole.
II. Miscellaneous
Chair Seal noted that tonight is Ms. Labanara's last committee meeting and Committee members
thanked her for her service to the City of Tukwila.
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by LH
225
226
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS
JUNE 2021
Due to COVID-19, meetings will be held electronically, with telephone access available (see agenda page).
JUN 14 MON
JUN 15 TUE
JUN 16 WED
JUN 17 THU
JUN 18 FRI
JUN 19 SAT
➢ Finance and
Governance
5:30 PM
Electronic meeting
Transportation and
InfrastructureNINIINIIIN
Services
5:30 PM
Electronic meeting
➢ City Council Committee
of the Whole Meeting
7:00 PM
Electronic meeting
w
�
VIRTUAL TOWN HALL
WITH THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Meet the Chief of Police,
learn about our community
outreach efforts, legislative
reform measures and
more.
6:00 PM
Click here for more
information.
➢ Civil Service
Commission
5:00 PM
Electronic meeting
TinkwiMa
CITY OF TUKWILA
PRESENTS
The History of Juneteenth:
Past, Present and Future of
African American History.
11:00 AM
Tune into the virtual event at
ExperienceTukwila.com.
JUN 21 MON
JUN 22 TUE
JUN 23 WED
JUN 24 THU
JUN 25 FRI
JUN 26 SAT
➢ Community Services
and Safety
5:30 PM
Electronic meeting
S. Planning and
Community
Development
5:30 PM
Electronic meeting
➢ City Council Regular
Meeting
7:00 PM
Electronic meeting
Planning Commission
6:30 PM
Electronic meeting
ir=
OW
h .
x.
VACCINATION EVENT
All ages are eligible for the
vaccination. This event is
sponsored by Tukwila
School District and Costco.
8:00 AM —1:00 PM
Foster High School Gym
4242 S 1440 St
S-- r
=,_-
C
G V s
BLOOD
NAL BLV
Action
Committee '
Tukwila International
Boulevard Action
Committee
Trash Pick-Up Day
For more information, call
Sharon Mann at
206-200-3616.
Tukwila Village
Farmers Market
-
HOSTED BY FOOD
INNOVATION NETWORK
Come buy fresh produce
grown by refugees and
immigrants in our
community. The Farmers
Market follow all public
health guidelines to ensure
a safe market experience.
Please wear a mask to the
market, and stay home if
you are not feeling well.
4:00 PM - 7:00 PM
Wednesdays
Jun 23 - Oat 13
Tukwila Village Plaza
14350 Tukwila Intl Blvd
Click here to sign up for
the email newsletter.
S. Arts Commission
6:00 PM
Tukwila Justice Center
TUKWILA BLOOD
SHORTAGE! DONATE
THRU JUNE 30 TO WIN A
RAZOR ECOSMART
ELECTRIC SCOOTER!
Your donation is critical!
With less than a 24-hour
supply of blood on hand for
hospitals, more donors are
needed to make and keep
their appointments with
Bloodworks Northwest.
This shortage has left our
community's blood supply
at emergency levels,
risking the inability to meet
patient needs. Your gift of
blood and time saves lives.
To schedule an
appointment, call
206-241-6300 or
click here to schedule an
appointment online.
COVID-19 FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR RESIDENTS, WORKERS AND BUSINESSES
Many changes are happening in response to the COVID-19 virus and federal, state and local governments are working to help. The City of Tukwila has
compiled a range of information developed by various agencies and governments that may be helpful to our businesses, workers, and residents.
X90., Click here for more information and resources.
TUKWILA ADOPT-A-SPOT AND BECOME A PARK STEWARD
A year round partnership with residents, community groups and businesses to help beatify Tukwila's parks and trails. Will you consider
PARKS & eteckeAnoN
adopting a spot by pitchinin to pick up litter in your favorite parks?
For more information, call 206-767-2315 or visit tukwilawa.gov/adopt-a-spot.
DRIVE THRU PICK-UP 3118 S 140TH ST TUESDAYS, THURSDAYS AND SATURDAYS 10:00 AM - 2:30 PM
. B Tukwila Pantry is in need of shopping bags.
'L Cell r, VOLUNTEERS - In need of volunteers between 8 AM - 1 PM for food packaging Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and food distributions
r Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. To sign-up to volunteer, visit https://www.signupgenius.comlgo/9040a4dabac2ealf85-volunteer2.
DONORS - Please donate at TukwilaPantry.org.
STILL WATER SNACK PACK NEEDS YOUR DONATIONS AND VOLUNTEER HELP!
;.'41111 SnackPack serves food bags on Fridays to Tukwila students in need. Volunteers needed on Wednesdays, 1 PM-3 PM, Thursdays 9 AM-10 AM and
-'s) Fridays 9:45 AM -12:15 PM. Please donate to feed our Tukwila kids.
- For more information, call 206-717-4709 or visit facebook.comlTukwilaWeekendSnackPack.
- Checks can be mailed to Still Waters, PO Box 88576, Tukwila WA 98138.
2 FREE COVID-19 TESTING CHURCH BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD 3455 S 148th St 9:30 AM - 5:30 PM MON -SAT ❑. v..0
Drive-thru and walk-up testing. CHI Franciscan partners with King County and City of Tukwila to provide this free service. See flyer for
li information in multiple languages: records.tukwilawa.gov!WebLink/lledoc/333100/pagel.aspx'
King County For more information to register, call King County at 206-477-3977 (8am - 7pm) or visit www.chifranciscan.org/freetesting. '❑ {�
Public Health COVID-19 VACCINATION
All Washingtonians ages 12 and up are eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination.
Semi',s [ting county For more information, visit kingcounty.gov/vaccine or call 206-477-3977. Interpreters are available for assistance. For telephone-to-text
relay service, dial 711 or 1-800-833-6384. For tactile interpretation, visit seattledbsc.org.
BILL PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
41> sa n PSE offers two bill payment assistance programs for residential customers to help pay your electric or natural gas bills. Eligibility is based on your
ENERGY household income and the number of people that live in your home.
For more information, visit: www.pse.com/pages/bill-and-weatherization-assistance Available in other languages: CN 1 ES 1 HI 1 RU 1 VI
c Federal
Communications
Commission
EMERGENCY BROADBAND BENEFIT FOR ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS
The EBB will provide a discount of up to $50 per month towards broadband service for eligible households and up to $75 per month
Tribal lands. Eligible households can also receive a one-time discount of upto $100 to purchase a
for households on qualifying g
laptop, desktop from if less
computer or tablet participating providers they contribute more than $10 and than $50 toward the
purchases price. Enroll through a participating broadband provider or directly with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) using an online or mail in
application. For more information, visit: www.fcc.gov/broadbandbenefit or call 833-511-0311.
227
Tentative Agenda Schedule
MEETING 1 —
REGULAR
MEETING 2 —
C.O.W.
MEETING 3 —
REGULAR
MEETING 4 —
C.O.W.
JUNE 7
See below link for the agenda
packet to view the agenda items:
June 7, 2021
Regular Meeting
JUNE 14
See below link for the agenda
packet to view the agenda items:
June 14, 2021
Committee of the Whole Meeting
JUNE 21
Appointment
JUNE 28
Special Issues
Confirm the appointment of Kathleen
Gantz to Position #3 on the Park
Commission.
Special Presentation
- COVID-19 Weekly Report.
- A contract with Security Lines
US for Park Security Cameras in
the amount of $125,000.
- A resolution designating
weapons storage for court
visitors.
Special Meeting to follow
Committee of the Whole
Meeting.
Consent Agenda
Report from the Public Safety Bond
Financial Oversight Committee.
Consent Agenda
- Approve an application for Lodging
Tax Funds from the City of Tukwila for
the Rugby 7 Sponsorship in the
amount of $10,000.
- Accept as complete the Minkler
Restroom Project and authorize
release retainage, subject to the
standard claim and lien release
procedures.
- Accept as complete the Fleet and
Facilities Fence Project and authorize
release of retainage, subject to the
standard claim and lien release
procedures.
- Authorize acceptance of the WSDOT
Regional Mobility Grant for the City's
Transportation Demand Management
Program in the amount of $336,000.
Unfinished Business
- Authorize the Mayor to sign a
contract with Security Lines US
for Park Security Cameras in the
amount of $125,000.
- A resolution designating
weapons storage for court
visitors.
- Approve an application for
Lodging Tax funds from the
Tukwila Parks and Recreation
Department in the amount of
$75,000.
- COVID-19 Weekly Report.
- A resolution adopting the 2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement
Program.
- A resolution to become a signatory of
the Regional Coordination
Framework.
- Update on Experience Tukwila.
- Update on Tukwila Teens and Senior
Center Project.
MEETING 1 —
REGULAR
MEETING 2 —
C.O.W.
MEETING 3 —
REGULAR
MEETING 4 —
C.O.W.
JULY 6
Meeting cancelled due to a
holiday week.
JULY 12
Special Issues
JULY 19
Unfinished Business
JULY 26
Special Issues
COVID-19 Weekly Report.
Special Meeting to follow
Committee of the Whole
Meeting.
COVID-19 Weekly Report.
- COVID-19 Weekly Report.
- Resolution on Housing Action
Plan.
228