HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2004-04-12 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET T cwila City CoUncil Agenda
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: · Pam Carter · Joe Duffie
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator · Dave Fenton · Joan Hemandez
Jim Haggerton, Council President · Pamela Linder · Dennis Robertson
EXECUTIVE SESSION - 6:30 PM
Contract Negotiations, Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1 )(g)
SPECIAL MEETING TO FOLLOW
Monday, April 12, 2004 Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. SPECIAL Friends of Grandmother's Hill -
PRESENTATION Bruce Fletcher, Director of Parks and Recreation
3. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on
COMMENT/ this agenda. To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save
CORRESPONDENCE your comments until the issue is presented for discussion.
4. SPECIAL a. Discussion of additional staffing resource needs for the Tukwila Valley
ISSUES South annexation.
b. Position reclassification of Public Works Coordinator.
c. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to AG 02-036, with KPG, Inc., modifying
the scope of services, time for performance and payment, relative to South
144th Street.
d. Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to AG 99-050, with Perteet Engineering,
Inc., agreeing upon a negotiated fee in relation to an additional scope of
services relative to Tukwila International Boulevard-Phase I.
e. Award a contract to Pride Electric, Inc., In the amount of $67,347.20, for an
Emergency Operations Center generator installation project.
f. Property acquisition (in the amount of $60,000.00)'near the 56th Av. S.
Bridge for the Sanitary Sewer Lift Station in the Foster Point
Neighborhood.
g. A resolution rejecting low bidder and awarding a contract to Totem
Electric, in the amount of $194,905.00 for the Green River Valley signal
interconnect.
h. Library issues update.
i. ,Consideration of revised City Council Travel Guidelines/Policy.
, j. Transportation impact fee update.
k. An ordinance establishing a moratorium on social card game gambling
activities.
5. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental
b. City Council d. City Attorney
6. MISC~.I.I.ANEOUS
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
8. ADJOURN TO SPECIAL MEETING
April 12, 2004
Page 2
°:. SPECIAL MEETING
· Ord #2042 · Res #1548
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
2. OLD BUSINESS a. Approve additional staffing resource for the Tukwila Valley South
annexation (see item 4a above).
b. A resolution rejecting low bidder and awarding a contract to Totem
Electric, in the amount of $194,905.00 for the Green River Valley
signal interconnect (see item 4g above).
c. An ordinance establishing a moratorium on social card game
gambling activities (see item 4k above).
3. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the
City Clerk's Office 206-433-1800/TDD 206-248-2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped.
Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review
04/12/04 JM~ ~ ~7~/r' ~ , (~.
CAS Number: Ref. 04-046 ] Original Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: Contract Assistance for Tukwila Valley South Annexation
Original Sponsor: Council Adrnin. Public Works
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: The Segale family has proposed annexation of approximately 250 acres within the
Tukwila Valley South (TVS) area. Neither DCD nor Public Works have the resources
to adequately manage such a significant endeavor. Propose additional staff to meet the
requirements.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Approve staffing outlined.
Committee: Forward to COW and then on to Regular for approval of staffing.
Administration: Same as Sponsor.
Cost Impact (if known): $270,000.00
Fund Source (if known): General Fund $175,000 and CIP Funds $95,000
Meeting .Date Action
04-05-04 Council discussion. Consensus existed to forward the item to 4/12/04
for additional information from staff. If all questions are addressed
dd~ing the C.O.W. meeting, Council agreed to forward the item to the
Special meeting which will immediately follow the C.O.W.
Meeting Date Attachments
04/12/04 Mere, o from Mayor dated.gpr±l 8, 2004
Finance and Safety Committee Meeting Minutes from April 5, 2004
CITY OF TUKWILA
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO: Mayor Mullet
Finance & Safety Committee
FROM: Steve Lancaster
Jim Morrow
SUBJECT: Contract Assistance for TVS Annexation
DATE: April 8, 2004
SUMMARY
We have previously spoken about the need for additional staff resources within DCD and Public
Works related to the proposed Tukwila Valley South annexation. Our specific proposal for
meeting this need is to:
1. Retain a Project Manager on a one-year contract (with the possibility of extension) to
coordinate the DCD workload.
2. Assign Ryan Larson on a half-time basis to coordinate the PW workload.
3. Transfer Ryan's remaining project management workload (Cascade View Drainage
Project, Small Drainage Projects) to Mike Ronda (currently a contract employee).
4. Retain an additional Project Inspector to assist Mike Ronda with the increased
construction inspection workload.
5. Retain the services of an engineering firm to address the transportation, water and sewer
issues association with the infrastructure needed to support the annexation.
Funding Sources
General Fund
Annual 2004 Costs 2005 Ending Fund CIP Project
Costs (May to Dec.) Costs Balance Funds
1. DCD Project Manager $100,000 $ 60,000 $100,000 $160,000
3. PW Mike Ronda 30,000 20,000 30,000 $ 50,000
4. Add'l Project Inspector 65,000 38,000 65,000 103,000
5. Engineering Firm.* 75,000 10,000 75,000 85,000
~ Total $ 270,000 $128,000 $ 270,000 $ 245,000 $153,000
$ 398,000 $ 398,000
No. 5 - Engineering Firm will be on an "on-call" basis and only pay for requested tasks.
Costs are a worst case scenario. These costs are not budgeted for 2004, and so would come
out of the ending fund balance.
Page I of 4
BACKGROUND
The Segale family has proposed annexation of approximately 250 acres within the Tukwila
Valley South (TVS) area. Associated with the annexation, they have also proposed:
· Adoption of a "pre-annexation agreement."
· Adoption of a "Master Plan" for the TVS area.
· Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
· Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.
· Adoption of a "development agreement."
These documents and agreements will guide the long-term development of approximately 500
acres. They will have significant implications for land use, environmental protection,
infrastructure development and the City's fmancial health. It is imperative that they accurately
reflect the needs of the property owner as will as those of the community at large.
As we discussed during the 2003 budget process, neither DCD nor Public Works have the
resources to adequately manage such a significant endeavor, in light of other important priorities
(Mall expansion, GMA update, TUC Plan, Link unclassified use permit, transportation plan, CIP
execution, etc.)
PROPOSAL
1. Retain a Proiect Manager on a one-year contract (with possibilit3, of extension if needed) to
coordinate the DCD workload.
The Project Manager would coordinate the City's review and consideration of the TVS
annexation. S/he would provide support to a Project Team comprising the City
Administrator, Community Development Director, City Attorney, Public Works Director and
Finance Director.
The Project Manager would oversee the preparation of the Master Plan, the Environmental
Impact Statement, Development Regulations, and a Development Agreement. The Project
Manager would advise the Project Team concerning land use, environmental, infrastructure,
financial and other issues, highlighting and evaluating policy issues requiring City Council
decisions.
Depending upon qualifications and experience, the Project Manager would:
· Serve ~s the primary staff liaison to the property owner's consultant team.
· Monitor work of consultants to ensure the development of objective, accurate, complete
and well-written information for decision-makers.
· Review proposals relating to land use policy, development regulations, infrastructure
financing and related issues, and advises decision-makers.
· Coordinate inter-departmental review of project-related information and
recommendations.
Page 2 of 4
· Coordinate the City's project-related activities and decisions with other governmental
ageneias.
· Identify and evaluate policy and implementation options, and draft issue papers, staff
reports and recommendations for consideration by decision-makers.
· Make presentations to decision-makers and other groups.
It is estimated that it will cost approximately $100,000 per year to hire an experienced project
manager.
2. Assign Ryan Larson on a half-time basis to coordinate the Public Works workload.
Ryan Larson is knowledgeable of the annexation proposal and would be able to provide
immediate value to the project. Because surface water issues will be a major component of
the annexation plan, Ryan will be able to effectively provide input and advice. In order to
assign Ryan to the project, his project management workload (Cascade View Drainage
Project Design and Construction, Surface Water Small Drainage Design and Construction)
will have to be reassigned.
3. Transfer Ryan's remaining project management workload to Mike Ronda (currently a
contract employee).
Mike Ronda has proven to be an invaluable asset. He provided engineering and construction
management services for the S. 180th Street Grade Separation Project. He currently is
supervising the Interurban Bridge Widening and Trail Bridge Project. His engineering skill
and management capability, as well as being a registered professional engineer, has been
tested and proven many times. His talent would transfer well to the Cascade View Drainage
Project (Design and Construction) and the City's Small Drainage Project. It is recommended
that Mike's salary and benefits be increased to the same level as that paid to the Golf
Clubhouse Project Manager because Mike's role and responsibilities are being significantly
increased.
The additional costs would be approximately $30,000 per year and would be paid by the
Cascade View Drainage Project. That project currently has budgeted $620,000 for
construction management and construction engineering services. Expanding Mike's
workload will decrease the services and associated costs required of the construction
management consultant. Because there is a 68% mark-up placed on salary, material, and
service costs, it has been estimated that the City can reduce the expected construction
management budget by $50,000 because the consultant will not need to provide a full-time
construction manager. It should be noted that the need for an outside construction
management consultant will still be required, but at a reduced scope of work.
4. Retain an additional Project Inspector to assist Mike Ronda with the increased construction
inspection workload.
A portion of each major CIP project's budget includes the cost of an outside fn'm to perform
construction management functions, including construction inspection. These services come
at a premium because of consultant mark ups and company overhead expenses. The Cascade
View Drainage Project budget (funded by a Public Works Trust Fund Loan) includes
Page 3 of 4
construction management services because the Public Works Department does not have
sufficient staff to perform these fuhctions. If an additional contract construction inspector
were to be hired, at an added expense of $65,000 per year, and placed under Mike Ronda's
supervision, then the City could reduce the number of inspectors needed by the consultant. It
should be noted that the need for an outside construction management consultant will still be
required, but at a reduced scope of work. The need for an additional inspector would not be
required until construction of the Cascade View Drainage Project begins in late 2004 or early
2005.
Summary of PW Cost & Savings
Cascade View Drainage has budgeted $620,000 for construction management services,
which is approximately 8% of the total project budget.
Costs of CIP Consultant Cascade View
Project Funding Const Mgmt Total Construction Savings
Proposal Services Costs Mgmt Budget
Cascade View Drainage $153,000 $367,000 $520,000 $620,000 $100,000
This savings of $100,000 is money that does not have to be borrowed from the Trust Fund
Loan.
5. Retain the services of an angineering firm to address the transportation, water and sewer
issues associated with the infrastructure needed to support the annexation.
Public Works' current workload prevents the staff from addressing the engineering issues
that will arise becanse of the proposed annexation. In order to address these issues in a
timely manner, it is proposed that an outside consultant fn'm be retained to provide Ryan
Larson with the needed engineering support. The contract would be structured as a task
order contract - no costs would be incurred unless the City issues a specific scope of work.
It is estimated that the consultant costs could be as high as $75,000 per year.
OPTIONS
1. Authorize the Mayor to implement the proposal described by this memo.
2. Continue to staffthe proposed annexation and associated work with existing resources. This
would result in significant delays to virtually all major initiatives, including the CIP Program
and the annexation proposal. (Please note, howeTger, that most of these initiatives have
legally or contractually mandated timeframes).
3. Request that the proponent fund the additional resource needs described by this memo.
4. Decline to process the annexation proposal at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Mayor to implement the proposal described by this memo.
Page 4 of 4
Fina..nce and Safety Committee
April 5, 2004
Present: Dave Fenton, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Keith Haines, Jim Morrow, Steve Lancaster, Alan Doerschel, P, honda
Berry, Lucy Lauterbach
1. Military Benefits Clarification Resolution 1529 provides medical insurance for the
families of people who are serving in the military. The resolution was unclear whether
the twelve month coverage was for a contiguous period, or if it could cover people who
served overseas for six or eight months, came home, and then left again for another six
month tour. Jim Morrow made a plea for the military families, saying it would remove
one worry from those who have a head of a household in active service. Dennis asked
how much it cost last year, and Alan said it was a.minimal cost to the City. The
Committee unanimously recommended that the twelve-month limit (and possible
extension) start over with each activation for service. Report clarification to Council.
2. Position Reclassification Jim Morrow said he had planned to do a reclassification
during the budget review process last fall. In the draft budget he had put a Business
Manager in the organizational chart and planned for Frank to fill it, but then found it was
no such position existing in the City's position classification system. Administrative
Services recommended either devising a new classification of service, or finding one
that would work for the "new" position. The Classification Description for Assistant
Director worked for the newly named position of Deputy Director for Business Services.
In the list of additional duties, Joan asked for a clarification of why the Deputy Director
would oversee the Emergency Operation Center (ECG). Jim said he was not giving up
being co-chief (with Nick Olivas) of the EOC, but that in an emergency the Deputy
Director would oversee the Public Works Department-specific duties while Jim oversaw
the overall EOC operations. The position is funded, and it will acknowledge the
additional Workload Frank has assumed over time, including some engineering contract
management. Dennis said the Classification was very general, but others said it is
necessarily so, as it can apply to a variety of positions and is not a job description.
RecOmmend to COW and Regular Meeting.
3. TVS Staffin,,q Needs, Steve L explained that DCD has been limited in the amount of
work that can be done on the Tukwila Valley South (TVS) annexation because of the
other pressing issues such as TUC, TOD, Sound Transit, the Mall expansion, and the
Comp Plan. Steve said he could have spent' 30 hours on the TVS proposal last week,
but he was'~on[y able to spare 3 hours. Public Works is also Very busy with projects and
Cannot spare staff to work on TVS. As the TVS proposal is starting to gain momentum,
staff will be needed to work on it. Steve wants to hire a contract employee as a project.
manager for the DCD portion on the workload required to adopt a pre-annexation
agreement, a master plan, an ElS, Comp Plan amendments, and a development
agreement. All of these will be needed before annexation. Public Works plans to assign
Ryan Larson work on TVS half time, and to hire a current contract employee, Mike
Finance and Safety
4/5/04
Ronda, to backfill Ryan's work on surface water. Mike will retain some inspection, and
another inspector will be hired on a contract basis to help Mike. Costs are estimated to be from
$60,000-$120,000 for the rest of 2004. Funds will come from savings in project budgets of other
Public Works projects, as well as from Ending Fund Balance. The Mayor strongly recommended
against allowing Segale to fund the positions, as the contracted persons would spend most of
their time outside of City Hall working with Segale in meetings. The Mayor wants to avoid an
appearance of fairness issue that could result from the positions being developer-funded. One
issue Steve L raised is that because of all the pre-annexation items Segale wants before he will
annex, the City could spend a lot of money working through all the items. The City may want to
include something in the Pre-annexation agreement that, in the event the property owner decided
against annexation, would require the City be reimbursed for work completed up to the point of
the decision not to annex. There won't be any permit fees incurred until about 2006. If the
project were successful, development would then continue for an estimated ten years. Joan said
she was uneasy about the funds coming from the ending fund balance. She thought it was
confusing to read about the Cascade surface water budget going to the contract employee, Mike
Ronda, and she wanted to be clear about where all the funding was coming from. Staff was
interested in moving ahead quickly with this proposal, but they agreed not to push for its
approval that evening, but to reschedule it for next week's COW and Special Meeting.
Recommend mayor's proposal to 4/5 meeting~ 4/12 COW and Special Meeting.
4. Crime Update for Tukwila International Boulevard Keith said criminal activity has
picked up on TIB in recent months. Prestitutes are more in evidence there, and there
has been loitering that might indicate drug activity. The cameras are broken, which
seems to encourage illegal activity. Police are responding with hire patrols and plain-
clothes police officers. They have already arrested some prostitutes. Committee
members asked about the Highway 99 Citizens Patrol, and were told they have largely
lost interest as crime had dropped off. Litter is a real preblem around the intersection of
TIB and S. 144t". The Stop By corner grocery is selling marijuana pipes and has
pomogrephic magazines in clear view of any kids who walk into the store. As neither of
these things is clearly illegal, police walk a fine line trying to convince the store owner it
is not in the community's interest to have these things. ,loan asked how much crime is
the result of the cameras being down. Keith said he didn't know, but he's eager to get
the new cameras. In the meantime, a new controller that will work with the old cameras
and the new ones has been installed. The olfl cameras should be able to be used in a
limited fashion soon. The new cameras have to wait for City Light to pull their wires and
the new lights'to go up, so it could be some time before they're installed. Information;
reschedule'in one month.
5. Memorandum of Understandin.q (MOU) Law Enforcement Info Exchan.qe (LinX)
The last time this issue was discussed at Committee, Dennis had suggested several
changes to the MOU. However, when Keith took those recommendations to the next
LinX meeting he found several cities and agencies had already approved the agreement
CO UNCIL ,4 GENDA SYNOPSIS
I IrV, M No.
....................... Initials
Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor'~s reviewCouncil review
CAS Number: 04-047 I Original Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: Reclassification of Public Works Coordinator to Deputy Public Works Director
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. Public Works
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: Due to increased workload including managing the Business Services Division of
Public Works, Personnel has conducted an analysis and has recommended that the
Public Works Coordinator position be reclassified to a working title of Deputy Public
Works Director~
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Approve reclassification.
Committee: Forward to COW and then on to Regular for approval of reclassification.
Administration: Same as Sponsor.
Cost Impact (if known): $7,000.00
Fund Source (if known): General 000.13 Public Works Administration
Meeting Date Action
04/12/04
I
Meeting Date Attachments
04/12/04 Mem, o from Mayor dated March 31, 2004
Classification Description of Deputy Public I~orks Director
Finance and Safety Committee Meeting Minutes from April 5, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Steve Mullet, Mayor
DATE: Mamh 31,2004
RE: Position Reclassification
Public Works Coordinator
The current Public Works budget allows for a Public Works Coordinator to manage the Business Services
Division. As discussed during the 2004 budget process, this position has expanded and has had to
assume a greater role of increased responsibility within the Department due to budget constraints, an
increasing departmental workload, and changing needs within the City. Some of the additional duties
include:
· Planning and managing the goals and objectives for the Business Services Division which now
includes engineers, project managers, and administrative and technical personnel;
Managing the 303 Fund, a $1.1 million dollar fund for the maintenance and repair of the City's
facilities;
· Managing and administering the City's construction program;
· Overseeing the Public works operations of the Emergency Operations Center when activated; and
· Managing sensitive issues that have City/Region-wide impact upon the citizens, such as the Citrus
Long-homed Beetle and the Ecology Lead and Arsenic Contamination Programs.
The Personnel Department has conducted an analysis and has recommended that this position be
reclassified to an Assistant Director and assigned the working title of Deputy Public Works Director
(classification description is attached). The DBM rating for this classification is D-6-3, and the 2004 salary
range is minimum $5,982 - maximum $7,477. It is also recommended that the position be reclassified
retroactive to January 1, 2004. Fiscal impact will be absorbed by Public Works budget savings. The
2004 cost is approximately $7,000.
Thank you for y~3ur consideration.
cc: Viki Jessop, Administrative Services Director
Jim Morrow, Public Works Director
Alan Doerschel, Finance Director
Kathy Rohlena, Personnel Analyst
CITY OF TUKWILA
CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
D / 6 3
' This position is not responstble for work performed by another banded at the same level.
SA~ ': :!~r~:: ~:~-,~.. ', :~! ~;!;~" -.,5!;~:'~:~ ,APP,ROV~.: :,~ ' :~ ~: ¥: DATE UPDATED
CLASSIFICATION TITLE : ' ~ J~ TITLES:
Assis~nt Dkector Depu~ Co~u~ Development Director
Depu~ Public Works Director
CLASSIFICATION 'fI'I'LE OF IMMEDIATE SUPER~SOR
Depa~ent Head
D~a~ent Director
CLASSIFICATION SUM~I~Y
Under ~e general direction ora Depa~ent Head 0r Depa~ent Director, peffom a varie~ of mnagerial
ad~s~ative work that includes pla~ing, coordinat~g and directing t~e activities of~e depa~ent an~or
~jor divisiom/~nctional areas. Se~es as acting Depament Head or Deponent Director in ~e absence of the
imediate supe~isor.
1. Mamges and provides direction to the depa~ent and ~jor Daily D6
divi~io~/~ctional areas, such as plam~g, business se~ices, gro~ and ~5%
shorel~e mnagement, development regulation, and econo~c development.
2. Provides policy/tec~ical guidance to staff, depa~ents, comssio~, Weekly D6
elected officials, and the public to ensure compliance with sta~to~' 10%
requiremenB and regulation. Reviews and approve~ plans, proposals,
projects, applications, or pe~ts.
Pa~ I
~ :.; . · :' ' . .. ~ ~E~SENTIAL DUTIES FREQUENCY .RANn/
3. Provides direction in the development and implementation of department and Weekly D6
division goals, objectives, and long and short-range plans. 10%
4. Manages interdepartmental and intergovemmental projects and programs, Monthly D6
such as land use, economic development, and capital improvements. 10%
>. Supervises and coordinates activities of employees in the department; Monthly C5
directs the selection, supervision and evaluation of assigned staffand 10%
recommends disciplinary action to the Department Director or D~partment
Head.
6. Maintains reasonable, predictable, and regular attendance daring the Daily D6
standard work week. 5%
7. Responds to concerns and issues and determines appropriate resolutions to Daily D6
maintain positive customer relations for the department and/or major 5%
division.
8. Develops department policies by identifying regional and local policy needs Weekly D6
and recommends policy options for City management and Council. Plans 5%
and develops programs and procedures to implement policies; identifies
program outcomes, processes, and priorities; obtains resources via budget,
contracting, interlocal agreements, and other mechanisms; monitors
performance of work programs and projects; and allocates resources.
9. Prepares budget~ to enable the department and divisions to achieve its Weekly D6
objectives, including special activities assigned by the City Council; and 5%
ensures that the department and divisions function within budget
appropriations.
10. Evaluates and determines consultant requirements; negotiates and Monthly D6
administers contracts; oversees consultant performance; and authorizes 5%
~ayments.
11. Represents the interests of the City on boards and ~ommittees for issues Monthly D6
affecting the operations and activities of the department. Develops 5%
interdepartmental and intergovernmental teams and partnerships with outside
stakeholders.
D-6-3
Classification Description
Page 2
· ' ' ESSENTIAL DUTIES , ' FREQLrENCY BPuND/
12. Serves as Acting Department Director or Department Head in the absence of Quarterly D6
the Department Director or Department Head. 5%
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Bachelor's degree in public administration or a related field and five years of related experience including
two years of supervisory responsibility; or an equivalent combination of education and experience to
provide sufficient evidence of the successful performance of the essential elements of the job such as those
listed above. A valid State of Washington driver's license is also required.
IfuNOWLEDGE:
Knowledge of:
· Principles, practices, and methods in field as applicable;
· Applicable codes, laws, regulations, and ordinances;
· General municipal operations and structure;
· English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation; and
· Budgeting principles and processes.
SKILLS
Demonstrated skill in
· Operating personal computers and utilizing computer applications and software;
· Developing and administering grant program;
· Establishing and maintaining working relationships with City personnel, outside agencies, and the
general public;
· Conducting'necessary research and compiling comprehensive reports;
· Working independently with little supervision;
· Communicating effectively, both orally and in writing;
· Making and implementing sound decisions and exercising judgment in solving complex problems;
D-6-3
Classification Description
Page 3
· Guiding, directing and motivating employees;
· Developing and implementing programs, policies, ariS'or procedures to achieve specific goals and
objectives; and
· Working effectively on several projects concurrently.
.. PHYSICAL ACTIVITYfREQUIREMENTS:
To perform the essential fimctions of thc class, incumbents must be able to perform the physical activities
listed on the Physical Checklist.
D-6-3
Classification Description
Page 4
Fina.nce and Safety Committee
April 5, 2004
Present: Dave Fenton, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Keith Haines, Jim Morrow, Steve Lancaster, Alan Doerschel, Rhonda
Berry, Lucy Lauterbach
t. Military Benefits Clarification Resolution 1529 provides medical insurance for the
families of people who aro serving in the military. The resolution was unclear whether
the twelve month coverage was for a contiguous period, or if it could cover people who
served overseas for six or eight months, came home, and then left again for another six
month tour. Jim Morrow made a plea for the military families, saying it would remove
one worry from those who have a head of a household in active service. Dennis asked
how much it cost last year, and Alan said it was a minimal cost to the City. The
Committee unanimously recommended that the tWelve-month limit (and possible
extension) start over with each activation for service. Report clarification to Council.
2. Position Reclassification Jim Morrow said he had planned to do a reclassification
during the budget review process last fall. In the draft budget he had put a Business
Manager in the organizational chart and planned for Frank to fill it, but then found it was
no such position existing in the City's position classification system. Administrative
Services recommended either deviSing a new classification of service, or finding one
that would work for the "new" position. The Classification Description for Assistant
Director worked for the newly named position of Deputy Director for Business Services.
in the list of additional duties, Joan asked for a clarification of why the Deputy Director
would oversee the Emergency Operation Center (EOC). Jim said he was not giving up
being co-chief (with Nick Oiivas) of the EOC, but that in an emergency the Deputy
Director would oversee the Public Works Department-specific duties while Jim oversaw
the overall EOC operations. The position is funded, and it will acknowledge the
additional workload Frank has assumed over time, including some engineering contract
management. Dennis said the Classification was very general, but others said it is
necessarily so, as it can apply to a variety of positions and is not a job description.
Recommend to COW and Regular Meetin.q.
3. TVS StaffinR Needs Steve L explained that DCD has been limited in the amount of
work that can be done on the Tukwila Valley South (TVS) annexation because of the
other pressing issues such as TUC, TOD, Sound Transit, the Mall expansion, and the
Comp Plan. Steve said he could have spent 30 hours on the TVS proposal last week,
but he was pnly able to spare 3 hours. Public Works is also very busy with projects and
Cannot spare staff to work on TVS. As the TVS proposal is starting to gain momentum,
staff will be needed to work on it. Steve wants to hiro a contract employee as a project.
manager for the DCD portion on the workload required to adopt a pro-annexation
agreement, a master plan, an ElS, Comp Plan amendments, and a development
agreement. All of these will be needed before annexation. Public Works plans to assign
Ryan Larson work onTVS half time, and to hiro a current contract employee, Mike
O COUNCILAGENDASYNOPSIS
..................... Initials ................. ITEM NO.
Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Court?il review
4/12/04 CK~ /,~[p,-. ,..~7,1/~
~; ............... ,~.~ ........ ?~ ~ ITEM ~O~TION , ~ ........ - ....
CAS Number: 04-048 I Orig~al Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: SoUth 144th St Improvemen~ (42na Ave S - Milita~ Rd) Consultant's Supplement.
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. Public Works
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: In April 2002, KPG began design of the South 144'" Street Improvement Project. Final design
is nearing completion yet several factors l~ave necessitated a revision in scope. This
supplement includes KPG subcontracting Casne Engineering to design the Seattle City Light
undergrounding conversion for expediency and includes specific issues that needed additional
analysis, such as True Value's parking lot.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Authorize the Mayor to sign supplement with KPG, Inc.
Committee: Authorize Mayor to sign supplement and forward to COW for information only.
As a supplement to an existing contract, no formal action is needed by Council.
Administration: Same as Sponsor.
Cost Impact (if known): $98,154.82 for a new contract amount of $282,236.24
Fund Source (if known): 104.02 Commercial Streets (pg. 41 2004 CIP)
Meeting Date Action
4/12/04
Meeting Date Attachments
4/12/04 Information Memo dated March 16, 2004
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Contract 02-036 Project No. 95-R$01
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from March 22, 2004
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
Prom: Public Works Directo[,..q~l'Q
Date: March 16, 2004
Subject: South 144tb Street Proiect (TIB to Military Road)
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with KPG, Inc.
Project No. 95-RS01, Contract No. 02-036
ISSUE
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to KPG's original scope of work for services.
BACKGROUND
In April 2002, KPG, Inc., began working on the design for the South 144th Street (TIB to Military Road)
project and the half-street frontage improvements adjacent to the Cascade View Community Park.
Additionally, a design report for South 144th Street between 'l.'lg and 42"a Avenue South was also to be
developed to accommodate the future Tukwila Village development.
The draf~ design report is completed and the half-street frontage improvements for the Cascade View
Community Park have been constructed. Final design is nearing completion, except for the work
associated with undergrounding power supply and subsequent coordination with Seattle City Light.
Original contract amount was $184,081.42, including both the S 144~' Street project and the work
associated with the Cascade View Community Park.
ANALYSIS
As thc design process progressed, several factors came forward which have necessitated revising thc
original scope of work with KPG, Inc. First off, thc City originally planned on contracting with Seattle
City Light for much of the design of thc underground conversion. Since that time, a decision has been
made to have consultants provide that work for expediency and KPG, Inc., has subcontracted with Casne
Engineering, Inc., for those services. Cost: not to exceed $87,295.30
Second, additional study was required for the design and design report. Specific issues needed were an
in-depth analysis of access alternatives for the True Value parking lot on South 144th Street at 37z
Avenue South and a signal warrant analysis for the intersection of South 144z Street at 42"d Avenue
South. Cost: not to exceed $10,859.52
Total supplemental agreement cost not to exceed $98,154.82.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve and execute Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with KPG, Inc.
attachments: Supplemental Agreement No. 1
3-26-02 Information Memo (original scope of work)
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1
AGREEMENT NO. 02-036
PROJECT NO. 95-RS01
City of Tukwila KPG, Inc.
Public Works Department 753 - 9th Avenue N.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100 Seattle, WA 98109
Tukwila, WA 98199
PROJECT: S 144m Slxeet (TIB to Military Road)
This SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 is to supplement the agreement entered into with KPG,
Inc. and the City of Tukwila, which was executed on the 1 st day of April 2002.
All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect, except as expressly modified as follows:
Article 2, Scope of Services, shall be modified as follows:
The Consultant agrees to provide engineering services as requested by the City in accordance with the
scope of work included as Exhibit A.
Article 3, Time for Performance, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of
the work to read:
Work under this contract shall commence upon the giving or written notice by the City to the Consultant
to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to
this .~greement bF May 3L 2004, unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City.
Article 4, Payment, shall be modified as follows:
Payment for work provided by Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit B, attached hereto,
provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant for this work not exceed $98,154.82 without
express written modification of the .4greement signed by the City. The new total contract shall not exceed
$282,236.24 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this __ day
of ,2003.
APPROVED: APPROVED:
CITY OF TUKWILA KPG, INC.
Stev~n M. Mullet Nelson Dav~ P.E.
Mayor Senior Engineer
Attested:
Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk
Exhibit A
City of Tukwila
South 144th Street Roadway Improvements
42"d Avenue South to Military Road
KPG, Inc
Supplemental Agreement No. 1
December 4, 2003
INTRODUCTION
This Amendment is to provide design services to the City of Tukwila for a revised
work scope for the South 144th Street Roadway Improvement Project.
The original scope stated that Seattle City Light would provide the design for
underground conversion of existing overhead utilities. The City of Tukwila
decided to hire a consultant to complete the design so that the City has more
control over the contents and completeness of the design documents. This
amendment includes completing design drawings, specifications, and cost
estimates for the underground conversion and coordinating the design with the
City of Tukwila, Seattle City Light, telephone and CATV companies.
The City is considering adding a traffic signal at the South 144~ Street and 42nd
Avenue South traffic signal. This amendment includes performing a traffic signal
warrant analysis to determine the suitability of a traffic signal. However, satisfying
one of the warrants does not necessarily require the installation of a traffic signal
and installation of a traffic signal does not require meeting any of the warrants.
The City is considering changing the access to the True Value parking lot to
accommodate the relocation of a Metro bus stop and to improve safety by
increasing the separation between 37th Avenue South and the True Value
driveway on South 144th Street.
This work was not included in the original project scope of work. This
Amendment No. 1 includes the following major changes in project scope:
c3 Desigh of underground conversion of existing overhead'utilities.
n Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis for the South 144~' Street and 42nd Avenue
South intersection.
~ Evaluation of access alternatives to the True Value parking lot at South 144~
Street.
City of Tukwila - South 144th Street Roadway Improvements
Supplemental Agreement No. 1
B, DELIVERABLES
The Consultant shall provide the following deliverables with this project:
Preliminary plan drawings with proPosed alignment, vault and transformer
locations.
a Preliminary one-line diagram
90% review set (Plans and One-line)
a Final design drawings (Plans, One-line, and Detail sheets)
Specification sections for bidders Project Manual
Construction cost estimate
Additionally, 70% and 95% review sets will be submitted to SCL and the
various Telecommunications companies for review, comment and approval.
The City of Tukwila shall provide the following: '
n Contact information for the owner of the True Value Hardware store.
n Minimum number of parking stalls at True Value that is required by City Code.
Accident Data for the South 144th Street and 42nd Avenue South intersection.
Projected traffic generated from the Tukwila Village development.
Projected growth rate in the area to determine future traffic volumes.
The following tasks are in addition to the tasks included in the odginal South
144th Street Scope of Work.
TASK 8 -- UNDERGROUNDING EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES
8.1 Coordination and Meetings
The Consultant and undergrounding subconsultant, Casne Engineering,
Inc., will participate in pre-design meetings with the City of Tukwila, SCL
and others to establish lines of communication, project goals, schedule,
and general design guidelines. Additional meetings will be held with utility,
Telephone and CATV companies as the preliminary design progresses.
The following meetings are anticipated:
· Kickoff Meeting between Consultant and Casne
· Meetings between Consultant, Casne, and City of Tukwila
· , Basis of Design and Preliminary alignment and vault placement
meeting with SCL.
· Meetings with Telephone and CATV engineers
·Meetings to review Preliminary Alignment and One-line drawings with
SCL and City of Tukwila
·Utility coordination meetings between Consultant and Casne to
address utility conflicts.
Page 2 of 5
City of Tukwila - South 144th Street Roadway Improvements
Supplemental Agreement No. 1
8.2 Data Collection and Field Review
Casne Engineering will obtain from Seattle City Light, telephone and
CATV companies, copies of their current overhead and underground
distribution standards and available drawings of their existing facilities.
Following an initial review of the existing plan/profile drawings and
roadway modification plans a detailed field review will be made. Existing
overhead distribution circuits, feeders, distribution laterals, services,
transformers, communication lines, and CATV, along the proposed
alignment will be photographed and inventoried. Physical constraints,
service drops and existing underbuilt facilities will be noted and
documented. Reference measurements will be taken for verification
purposes.
8.3 Establish Alignment and Preliminary Design
Based on the established design and alignment criteria, Casne
Engineering will develop a proposed new underground alignment and
preliminary system one-line diagram showing the proposed electrical
components and their approximate locations. Using the results from the
field review we the location of the proposed underground facilities will be
overlaid on the proposed roadway modifications. Following a review by
the Consultant, the City of Tukwila, SCL,-and others, Casne will
incorporate comments and refine the alignment and equipment locations.
8.4 Preparation of Detailed Design Drawings and Bid Specifications
Casne will develop both a 90% review set and final bid documents using
cdteda and standards and locations developed in the preliminary design
phase. Final bid documents will include detailed drawings and pertinent
specification sections.
Casne will participate in additional utility coordination meetings with the
Consultant to identify electrical and non-electrical utility conflicts and
design solutions to resolve them.
8.5 Construction Cost Estimate
A{ the completion of the 90% design process, Casne will develop an
estimate of the construction cost for the scope of work depicted on the ·
drawings and in the technical specifications,
Page 3 0£5
City of Tukwila - South 144th Street Roadway Improvements
Supplemental Agreement No. 1
8.§ QC and Review
Casne Engineering will perform in-house QC review of design documents
for technical quality, details, constructability and conformity to project
standards. Casne Engineering will also conduct review meetings with the
Consultant, the City of Tukwila, and the utilities to ensure completeness
and co-ordination of all aspects of the bid set. Casne will then incorporate
all review comments into the bid set.
8.7 Assistance During Bidding
Casne will respond to questions during the bid period and prepare
required addenda.
Additionally, Casne will participate in the pre-bid walkthrough with the
contractors and assist in bid evaluation.
TASK'9 -- WARRANT ANALYSIS
The warrant analysis will be divided into two phases. The tirst phase will include
evaluating the following warrants:
1. Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
2. Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
3. Peak Hour (except Stopped Time Delay will not be analyzed)
4. Pedestrian Volume
5. School Crossing
7. Crash Experience
Phase 2 warrant analysis, if required, is considered extra work and would include
evaluating the following traffic warrants:
6. Coordinate Signal System
8. Roadway Network
9.1 The Consultant shall coordinate traffic counts as required to complete the
timt phase of a signal warrant analysis for the intersection of South 144t~
Street and 42nd Avenue South. The data obtained will include vehicular
vo'lumes, vehicle speeds, pedestrian counts, student crossings, gap data,
and bicycle counts.
9.2 The Consultant shall prepare a signal warrant analysis for the intersection
of South 144th Street and 42nd Avenue South for the warrants identified
above.
Page 4 of 5
City of Tukwila - South 1~4t~ Street Roadway Improvements
Supplemental Agreement No. 1
TASK 10 -- TRUE VALUE PARKING LOT ACCESS
10.1 The Consultant will meet with the property owner throe times, once to
identify concerns and constraints, once to observe the delivery truck
access and operation and once to discuss parking lot access and layout
altematives.
10.2 The Consultant shall meet with King County Metro Transit to identify the
design issues for a bus stop on South 144th Stroet.
10.3 The Consultant shall develop up to three alternatives for accessing the
True Value parking lot.
10.4 The Consultant shall meet with the City of Tukwila once to review
alternatives.
OTHER SERVICES
The City may require additional services of the Consultant. These services could
include completing phase 2 warrant analysis or work associated with
underground conversion beyond what is described above. At the time these
services aro roquired, the Consultant shall provide the City with a detailed scope
of work and an estimate of costs. The Consultant shall not proceed with the work
until, the City has authorized the work and issued a notice to proceed.
Page 5 of 5
HOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1
Project: City of Tukwila
South 144th Street Improvements
Tukwila International Boulevard to Military Road
EXHIBIT B
• Architecture •
Landscape Architecture
• Civil Engineering •
Task
Description
Labor Hour Estimate
Total Fee
Project
Principal
$ 138.22
Senior
Engineer
$ 113.89
Project
Engineer
$ 96.75
Engineer/
Landscape
$ 76.02
Technician
$ 62.20
Clerical
$ 55.29
Fee
Task 8 - Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utllitl
8.1 Coordination and Meetings
8
32
0
0
0
0
$ 4,750.24
8.2 Data Collection and Field Review
0
0
0
0
0
0
$ -
8.3 Establish Alignment and Preliminary Design
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
8.4 Preparation of Detailed Design Drawings and Bid Specifications
0
8
16
0
0
8
$ 2,901.44
8.5 Construction Cost Estimate
0
0
2
0
0
0
$ 193.50
8.6 QC and Review
4
16
0
0
0
0
$ 2,375.12
8.7 Assistance During Bidding
0
0
0
0
0
0
$ -
$ 77,075.00
Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details
Task Totals
12
56
18
0
0
6
I $ 87,295.30
-
9.1 Traffic Counts
0
0
4
0
0
0
$ 387.00
9.2 Warrant Anal�is
0
4
50
0
0
0
$ 5,293.06
Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details
0
12
0
24
0
0
$ 90.50
Task Totals
0
4
54 1 0
0
0
$ 5,770.56
True Value Parking L
10.1 Property Owner Meetings
0
8
0
4
0
0
$ 1,21520
10.2 King County Transit Meeting
0
2
0
0
0
0
$ 227.78
10.3 Develop up to 3 alternatives
0
12
0
24
0
0
$ 3,191.16
10.4 City of Tukwila Meeting
0
2
0
2
0
0
$ 379.82
Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details
$ 75.00
Task Totals
0
1 24
1 0
30
1 0
0 I$ 5,088.96
Total Estimated Fee: $ 98,154.82
12/4/2003
HOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE EXHIBIT B
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1
Project: City of Tukwila
South 144th Street Improvements
Tukwila International Boulevard to Military Road
IC
• Architecture •
Landscape Architecture
• Civil Engineering •
Reimbursable Breakdown
Task 8 - Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities
Casne - Underground Conversion Design
Mileaa e
Reproduction
Cost
Task 1 - Total
$ 77,000.00
$ 50.00
$ 25.00
$ 77,075.00
Task 9 - Warrant Analysis
Mileage
Reproduction
Task 2 - Total
$ 40.00
$ 50.50
$ 90.50
Task 10 - True Value Parking Lot
Mileage
Reproduction
Task 3 - Total
$ 50.00
$ 25.00
$ 75.00
12/4/2003
Transportation Committee
March 22, 2004
Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Pam Carter, Joe Duffle
Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Bob Giberson, Cyndy Knighton, Gall
Labanara, Lucy Lauterbach; Sandra Meyer, Gregg Zimmerman-
Renton; Rich Perteet-consultant; Sue Byers-KPG
1. Strander Boulevard Extension Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Director in
Renton, presented Renton's case for Tukwila supporting the Strander Boulevard
Extension project. He said the project would benefit both cities, being the third east-west
corridor in both cities besides S. 180th and Grady Way. The Strander project would
provide access t° the Sounder rail station, reduce congestion on S. 180th and Grady,
and would benefit freight. The project cost is somewhere between $47-52 million.
Gregg said the project would compliment Tukwila's TOD. The Strander project ($2.3 m)
has been combined with Tukwila's Klickitat project ($3.2 m) in an application to PSRC
for design funds. Renton's design team for the project wants Tukwila to finalize its
Sounder station design so they can plan the read near it.
Gregg brought up a 1986 Interlocal Agreement which stipulates that Tukwila will pay
half the local share costs of 80% federal funding grants received to pay for the Strander
extension. The same Agreement says both will also pay half for federal grants received
for S. 180th's improvement. Another handout showed the funding source for $47 m. That
sheet showed Tukwila's share being $3.84 million and Renton's contribution being
$2.49 m. Several other grants and donations are planned, and some have already
been received. Gregg said Renton would pay half the cost of improvements in Tukwila,
which comprise half the project costs. The road would go under the railroad, and would
benefit from combining or moving closer together the Union Pacific and Burlington
Northern tracks there. No bike path is planned, as a 12' sidewalk should provide
adequate access for all. 30% design will be done in early 2005. Information.
2. Southcenter Parkway Extension Southcenter Parkway extends south of S. 180th
to the south City limits. At the Committee's last meeting staff reported they had selected
David Evans & Associates to do the P.S. & E. Since then a price of $350,577 has been
negotiated. The budget was $381,000. The road will support the Segale annexation
plans to extend the read further south. Part of the project will be to evaluate alignments
for the roadway, so project management was a focus of the evaluation for who was
selected. J(~an and Pam C had comments on the Scope of Services and Geotechnical
Report requirements. Recommend proiect to COW and Reqular meetinqs for
approval.
,_3. S. 144th Street prOject This project will run from TIB to Military Road, though some
work will also be done TIB-42ha. KPG has been retained to engineer the project. Ms.
Byers has worked on the bus stop at the True Value, and it has now been moved to
Cascade View Park. It is near a'crosswalk to get to Larry's at 37th. The plan is to
increase visibility to improve sight distance. Landscape trees and a small median strip
will be put in west of 37th to act as traffic calmin~ objects. The TIB themes will be used
on the portion of the street between TIB and 37"', with pede,strian lighting, similar bus
shelters, and wide sidewalks. The sidewalks will narrow to 6 west of 37th, and cobra
lights will replace ped lights. The City will need to get land donations for sidewalks. This
supplement to the engineering contract is to pay for the work needed to move the bus
stop from True Value, and for using KPG to negotiate with City Light about
undergrounding. The $98,152.82 cost is within budget. As this is a Supplement to an
existing contract no formal action is needed. Recommend issue to COW for
information.
4. Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) 138th~152nd Perteet has worked on
engineering for TIB since 1999. In that time period there have been two Supplemental
Agreements, one each for more time and more work. Jim said WSDOT caused much of
the work done in 2002 and 2003 which comprise this $122,319.35 Supplemental
Agreement #3. WSDOT has changed channelization five times. Funding will come from
the 104/02 Commercial street fund. Again, as this is a Supplement, no formal action is
necessary. Recommend issue of Supplement #3 with Perteet EnRineerinq to COW
for information.
Committee chair approval
............... . ....... - ............... I~M NO.
Prepared by Mayor's review Council review
Meeting Date BG~]'~
4/12/04 ./~LO"' ~'7 ~/f ~. 0~.
CAS Number: 04-049 I Orig~al Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: Tu~la International Blvd Ph~e I (S 138~ St- S 152~a St) Consultant's Supplement.
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. Public Works
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: Perteet Engineering's contract No. 99-050.was for design and construction engineering
services for the Tukwila International Bird Phase I Improvements. In 2002 and 2003,
additional scope was requested and is now being formalized in this Supplement No. 3.
Additional scope includes right-of-way coordination, revisions due to WSDOT and Seattle
City Light undergrnunding coordination.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Authorize Mayor to sign supplement with Perteet Engineering, Inc.
Committee: Authorize Mayor to sign supplement and forward to COW for information only.
As a supplement to an existing contract, no formal action is needed by Council.
Administration: Same as Sponsor.
Cost Impact (if known): $122,319.35 for a new contract amount of $1,663,233.35
Fund Source (if known): 104.02 Commercial Streets (pg. 38 2004 CIP)
Meeting Date Action
4/12/04
Meeting Date Attachments
4/12/04 Information Memo dated March 17, 2004
Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Contract 99-050 Project No. 91-RW03
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from March 22, 2004
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Directo~
Date: March 17, 2004
Subject: Tukwila International Boulevard - Phase I (S 138 St to S 152 St)
Supplemental Agreement No. 3 with Perteet Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 91-RW03, Contract No. 99-050
ISSUE
Perteet Engineer'mg, Inc., performed additional work as directed by the City in order to complete the
design for Tukwila International Boulevard Phase 1. The additional scope of work accumulated over
several years and the fee has just now been negotiated.
BACKGROUND
Consultant Agreement No. 99-050 for the maximum amount payable of $459,414.00 with Perteet
Engineering, Inc., included project administration, coordination, community involvement,
environmental permitting/approvals, right-of-way plans and legal descriptions, utility coordination, and
final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) with a required completion date of July 30, 1999.
In September 2000, Supplemental Agreement No. 1 was executed for a tune extension, no additional
fees. In May 2001, after numerous issues developed that were not included in the original contract,
Supplemental Agreement No. 2 in the amount of $1,081,500 was executed. Additional scope of work
included additional time due to PSRC funding constraints, subsurface utility engineering/mapping
required by the Transportation Improvement Board, right-of-way acquisition assistance, coordination of
streetscape design, fiber optic conduit coordination, Tukwila Village coordination, update 1994 survey
base map, and construction engineering services.
In 2002 and 2003, numerous additional work tasks were requested of Perteet Engineering that are now
being formalized in this Supplemental Agreement No. 3. Additional scope of work includes right-of-
way acquisition coordination, right-of-way plan revisions, design revisions, WSDOT approvals, Seattle
City Light coordination of undergrounding, additional meetings and coordination with staff and the
public, and S 144a St design coordination.
ANALYSIS
The original contract with Perteet did not anticipate the multitude of issues, delays and complications
that developed in order to finalize the design of this project. Perteet handIed the challenge with tenacity
and vigor. This Supplemental Agreement No. 3 in the amount of $122,319.35 is budgeted in the
104/02 Commercial Street fund. The new overall contract amount is now $1,663,233.35.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve and execute Supplemental Agreement No. 3 with Perteet Engineering, Inc.
attachment: Supplemental Agreement No. 3
City of Tukwila
Tukwila International Boulevard - South 152nd Street to South 138th Street
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 3
The City of Tukwila desires to supplement the agreement entered into with Pcrtcet Engineering,
Inc., executed on March 16, 1999. All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except
as expressly modified by Supplements 1, executed on August 18, 2000 and Supplement 2,
executed on May 16, 2001 and this supplement.
The changes to the agreement are described as follows:
I
Paragraph 2, Scope of Services, is modified by adding the following:
DESIGN SERVICES:
1.0 Project Management & Coordination
1.1 Coordinate with the City's Right-of-way consultant. Advise the consultant as to the
project impacts on private properties and the purpose of individual casements and Rights-
of-way dedications for a total of 21 properties.
1.2 Preparation of the License to Co.nstruct merge document and database for 56 properties.
This will be used to produce the cover letter & license to construct documents for 56
properties. The merge document and database will be prepared to provide a different
cover letter for those properties that require relocation of utility services.
1.3 Attend an additional twelve coordination meetings with Agency staffon urban design,
City artwork, landscaping, and utilities.
1.4 Provide documentation for monthly billing invoices.
1.5 Internal project coordination meetings.
1.6 Coordinate with City's consultant for the 144th Street project.
2.0 Property Owner Meetings/Public Involvement
2.1 Provide information and answer property oWner questions over the phone, with respect to
the project and private property impacts.
2.2 Prepare a cover letter for initial contact with the 21 property owners involved in the
acquisition process.
2.3 Provide assistance with the more significant acquisitions by attending 4 field meetings
with the City's R/W consultant and property owners to explain the project.
Supplement No. 3 Page ]
Tulo~ila International Boulevard Perteet Engineering, Inc.
2.4 Revise up to 12 right-of-way exhibits, and legal descriptions, if required by property
owners as a condition of the acquisition.
2.5 Prepare exhibits for relocation of pad mounted switch gear on the prOject.
2.6 Prepare a composite digital image simulation of the project improvements for 1 parcel.
2.7 Prepare exhibits for public meeting.
3.0 Revisions to R/W Plan
3.1 Identify and tabulate all of the RAV takes as to need/purpose.
3.2 Revise the individual exhibits for 21 properties for a 'neat' line acquisition.
3.3 Revise the project right-of-way plan to reflect the changes described in paragraph 3.2 of
this supplement.
3.4 Revise the project base map to reflect the changes described in paragraph 3.2 of this
supplement.
3.5 Revise the individual acquisition legal descriptions for the 21 properties to reflect the
changes described in paragraph 3.2 of this supplement.
4.0 P$&E Revisions
4.1 Revise the street improvement plans to indicate excavation of tree pits without planting
trees.
4.2 Revise the current street improvement project contract to include the changes necessary
for a separate contract for tree planting, including preparation of tree pits.
4.3 Revise plans to reflect changes to the urban design and landseepe plans, including
elimination ofrails and the addition of walls at the back of walk.
4.4 Prepare exhibit and plan revisions to eliminate sign relocation.
4.5 Update contract specifications from 2000 to 2002 Standard Specifications.
$.0 Channelization Plan Revisions
5.1 Provide WSDOT with electronic copies of plans for their evaluation of HALs.
5.2 Participate in additional discussions with WSDOT on the ehannelization plans and PALs
identified by WSDOT. Evaluate alternatives for the City and provide exhibits for the
alternatives.
5.3 Prepare WSDOT Channelization plan to include revisions for access and left tums at
South 146t~ Street and South 141st Street. Revise the current project basemap to include
Supplement No. 3 Page 2 a:trra~_t~lgnlg~$~ l-na~ta t.~.~ ~t,~Co.~,~m~q~ J ~.$.~.dat
Tulovila International Boulevard Perteet Engineering, Inc.
separate sheets to meet the City's standard channelization and signing plans while
maintaining the sheets necessary to meet WSDOT ehannelization plan requirements.
6.0 Revisions for Seattle City Light ·
6.1 Prepare quantity takeoffs of Seattle City Light Plans.
6.2 Evaluate the SCL 10/12/01 plans for the replacement of the existing overhead power
system, including evaluation of redundancy. Update the evaluation for the 5/2/02
estimate using the 3/20/02 SCL plans.
6.3 Revise the plan set and evaluate changes and conflicts for the 9/7/01 Seattle City Light
plan revisions.
6.4 Revise the plan set and evaluate changes and conflicts for the I0/12/01 Seattle City Light
plans.
6.5 Revise the plan set and update quantities for 3/20/02 SCL plans. Evaluate utility conflicts
for the 3/20/02 plan set.
6.6 Revise the plan set for the 7/31/02 plans.
6.7 Evaluate the 8/15/02 plans for contract addendum.
ADDITIONAL WORK:
PS&E for planting trees removed from the plan set has not been included in this supplement.
III
Paragraph 4(A), Payment, shall be amended as follows:
The additional work will cause an increase in the maximum payable of One Hundred Twenty-
Two Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($122,319) for a new total maximum payable of
One Million Six Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars
($1,663,233) as set forth in the attached Exhibit D-l, and by this reference made a part of this
supplement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Consultant have executed this Supplement No. 3 as
of the day of ,2004.
CITY OF TUKWILA PERTEET ENGINEERING, INC.
Richard L. PerfeeL- P.E.
TITLE:
DATE:
Supplement No. 3 Page $ ~..m~,._tx~is.l~it.r~t~to
Tukwila International Boulevard Perteet Engineering, [nc.
Classification Hours Rate Cost
TOTAL DSC
OVER.HEAD (OH COST - including Salary Additives):
OSRatex OSC ~ x ~J~:
FIXED FEE (FF):
FF Rate X (DSC + OH)~ x ~=
REIMBURSABLES:
SUBCONSULTANTS:
Supplement Total:
Previous Total: ~ $ ~i'~ 1,540,914,00.
_PREP~IRED BY: Ross I-Ieller D/IrE: March 3. 2004
Supplement No. 3 Page 4
Tukwila International Boulevard Perteet Engineering, Inc.
TRANSPORTATION (/]~U.'X'~'":": (March 22, 2004) - Page 2 '
Byers has worked on the bus stop at the True Value, and it has now been moved to
Cascade View Park. It is near a crosswalk to get to Larry's at 37th. The plan is to
increase visibility to improve sight distance. Landscape trees and a small median strip
will be put in west of 37th to act as traffic calming~ objects. The TIB themes will be used
On the portion of the street between TIB and 37 , with pede,strian lightin.~, similar bus
shelters, and wide sidewalks. The sidewalks will narrow to 6 west of 37"', and cobra
lights will replace ped lights. The City will need to get land donations for sidewalks. This
supplement to the engineering contract is to pay for the work needed to move the bus
stop from True Value, and for using KPG to negotiate with City Light about
undergrounding. The $98,t52.82 cost is within budget. As this is a Supplement to an
existing contract no formal action is needed. Recommend issue to COW for
information,
4. Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB) 138th~152nd Perteet has worked on
engineering for TIB since 1999. In that time period there have been two Supplemental
Agreements, one each for more time and more work. Jim said WSDOT caused much of
the work done in 2002 and 2003 which comprise this $122,319.35 Supplemental
Agreement #3. WSDOT has changed channelization five times. Funding will come from
the 104/02 Commercial street fund. Again, as this is a Supplement, no formal action is
necessary. Recommend issue of Supplement #3 with Perteet EnRineering to COW
for information.
Committee chair approval
O c°
Meeting Date Prepared byMayor's review Cou~n¢il review
CAS Number: 04-050 Original Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: Bid Award for Emergency Operations Center - Generator Installation Project
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. Public Works
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: The Golf and Park Maintenance Build'rog has been slated to be the Emergency Operation
Center. A previously purchased 60 kW generator needs to be installed to support this function.
The project was advertised on February 11 and four bids were received and opened on March
11, 2004. The low bid of $67,347.20 was from Pride Electric, Inc., who performs quality work
in a timely fashion.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Award contract to Pride Electric, Inc.
Committee: Recommend to COW and then Regular Council to award contract to Pride Electric.
Administration: Same as Sponsor
Cost Impact (if known): $67,347.20
Fund Soume (if known): 303 Facilities
Meeting Date Action
'4/12/04
Meeting Date Attachments
4/12/04 Information Memo dated March 24, 2004
Bid Tabulation
Utilities Committee Meeting Minutes from April 6, 2004 '
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
Prom: Public Works Director..~
· Date: March 24, 2004
Subject: Emergency Operations Center - Generator Installation
City Project No. 01-PK03
Bid Award
ISSUE
Award the bid for the Emergency Operations Center Generator Installation project.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Golf and Park Maintenance Building has been slated to be the Emergency Operation Center.
A previously acquired 60 kW generator needs to be installed to support this function. Project
includes new transfer switch, related electrical devices, an enclosure to match building architecture
and fencing for security. Generator includes a self-contained fuel tank. Additionally, while
electrical work is underway in this area, there is a need to raise a low-lying power transformer
from a flood prone area. We have negotiated a $7,000 fee from PSE to relocate the transformer.
ACTION TAKEN
The project was solicited for bids on Februaryll. Four (4) bids were received on March 10,
2004, with the apparent low bid of $67,347.20 submitted by Pride Electric, Inc. See attached bid
tabulation. We have reviewed the bids, notified the apparent low bidder of their opportunity to
claim error within 24 hours, which they declined, and checked the low bidder's references.
During the bidding process, the original generator vendor informed us that the existing generator
needed to be brought to current UL listing and the costs would be approximately $3,500. The
estimated total project cost of $82,847 is within the project budget of $85,000 with an adequate
contingency for construction.
BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY
Bid Results Engineer's Estimate 303 Fund Budeet
Bid - Installation & Enclosure $ 61,900.00 $ 52,000.00 $ 85,000.00
Sales Tax 5,447.20 4,576.00 0.00
Total Bid Amount $ 67,347.20 $ 56,576.00 $ 85,000.00
PSE Transformer Fee 7,000.00 7,000.00
UL2200 fee , 3,500.00 3,500.00
Contingency 5,000.00 5,000.00
Total $ 82,847.20 $ 72,076.00 $ 85,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Award the Contract to Pride Electric, Inc., in the amoum of $67,347.20.
attachment: Bid Tabulation
Emergency Operations Center
Generator Installation &
Transformer Relocation
Bid Tabulation
Project 01-PK03
Sales Tax
Bidders Base Bid 8.8% Bid Total
Construct company 67,465.00 5,936.92 73,401.92
Nordic Construction 63,944.00 5,627.07 69,571.07
Sary Harper Construction, inc. 62,500.00 5,500.00 68,000.00
Pride Electnc~lnc,,~.-..~ =~.~ ~,~! :~
52,000.00 4,576.00 56,576.00
Estimate
Engineer- Abacus Engineered Systems
Amhitect-Wayne Ivary Architects 03/24/2004
Advertised 2/11/04
Pre-bid Conference 2~20~04
Bid Opening 3/11/04
. Utilities Committee April 6, 2004
Present: Pam Carter, Chair; Pam Linder, Dennis Robertson
Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Bob Giberson, Ryan Larsun, Tom Pulford, Pat Brodin,
Gall Labanara, Mike Cusick, Lucy Lanterbach
1. Emergency Operations Center Generator Public Works has decided the new Golf
Maintenance building off of Interurban Avenue will be the new Emergency Operation Center
(EOC). Some improvements are needed to make it fulfill this function. The City has a generator
that is available for use there, though it needs to be brought up to code. At the same time space at
the Maintenance Building is being readied staff will move a power transformer out of a flood
prone area. The cost of improvements needed including moving the ffansformer, enclosing space
for the generator, and readying the new space will be $82,847.20. Pride Electric was the lowest
responsive bidder. Para asked if Homeland Security funds were available to help fund this, but
Jim said they were not, as many cities don't even have an EOC yet. The Committee asked about
the stability of the site, as it is on the Valley floor near the river. Jim said it is above the 100-year
flood plain, and was built on 4 feet of rock to stabilize it. Recommend bid award to Pride
EleCtric at a Regular Meeting.
2. North End GIS Results Ryan showed the Committee results of the information gathered
from the GIS inventory of the north end of Tukwila. The computer results can show only one
thing at a time (such as sewer outfalls), or it can show all appurtenances in the streets and at
addresses. Some of the things Ryan demonstrated were water and sewer pipes, surface water
lines, catch basins, plats, elevations and contour lines, conditions of facilities like pipes. The
program is very detailed and useful; staff found they had more catch basins than they had known
· of. The program will be very useful in locating clogged drains that are under water, for example.
While it is possible to give a CD of this information to a contractor or developer, this is not done
for security reasons. However, the information may be viewed at the counter. Private as well as
public facilities need to be shown in future maps. Another issue on the horizon is that the City
may ask developers to submit permits as-builts in GIS to be able to add them to this program.
lnformationl refer to an available Council agenda.
3. Propert3, Acquisition Foster Point The City needs some property near the Foster Point
bridge in order to put a lif~ station in for sewer service to Foster Point. Staff investigated two
properties, but one got developed in the mean time. The remaining property available belongs to
Jerry Wheaton. To use a small portion of the property will cost the City $60,000. The good thing
is that when Mr. Wheaton short plats his land, the City will own the property, though it will be
on an easeme~at Until that time. Since the owner rejected the City's first offer, a price was
negotiated tha~ saves the city the cost, time delay, and uncertainty of going to condemnation.
This is the best site and price available. Recommend acquisition to COW and Regular
Meeting.
Committee chair approval
O
Prepared by Mayor '~ review Coun~eil r~view
Meeting Date MC{~ ~
4/12/04 ~, ~,
CAS Number: 04-051 m Orig~al Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: Foster Point Sewer Lift Station - E~ement & Aequ~ifion of Wheaten Prope~
Orig~al Sponsor: Council Jdmin. Public Works
Timeline:
Sponsor's Smm~: ~e Ci~ needs to acquke 1,200 square feet of prope~ outside ~e right-of-way for
cons~ction of a s~it~ sewer li~ station to se~e ~e Fo~er Po~t nei~borhood. ~e station
needs to be located ne~ the FoAer Point Bridge ~d ~e ~eaton prope~ is ~e best location.
S~negotiated ~e p~chase of the prope~ for $60,000 to avoid condemnation ~d ~e
possibili~ of delaying ~e project up to six mon~s.
Re~endations:
Sponsor: Au~ofize Mayor to si~ the easement and p~ch~e a~eement for ~e ~eaton prope~.
Commi~ee: Fo~d to COW ~d ~en to Re~l~ Council for Mayor to si~ ~eaton a~eement.
Adm~is~ation: Sine ~ Sponsor.
Cost ~pa~ (if~om): $60,000.00
i F~d Source (if ~om): 403 Sewer Fund ~g. 97 2004 CIP)
Meeting Dee Action
4/12/04
Meeting Date ~ Attachments
4/12/04 Information Memo dated March 24, 2004
.4greement and Easement for the Sewer Lift Station
Map of Foster Point Neighborhood
Utility Cmte meeting minutes-April 6, 2004 . . .
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works DirectoI~W~
Date: March 24, 2004
Subject: Acquisition of Property near the Bridge on 56~ Avenue South for the
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station in the Foster Point neighborhood
ISSUE
The City of Tukwila needs to acquire 1,200 square feet of property outside the right-of-way for
construction of a sanitary sewer lift station to serve the Foster Point neighborhood. The installation of
the lift station is slated for this summer.
BACKGROUND
Since 2001, the City has been applying for Public Works Trust Fund Loans to provide sewers to the
Allentown Phase 2 and Foster Point neighborhoods. In October 2003, the Trust Fund Board approved
the City's loan request. An integral part of the Foster Point neighborhood project requires the
installation of a sewer lift station. The sewer lift station needs to be located near the Foster Point
Bridge to minimize piping, insure proper gravity and be above the flood plain line. The best location
found was the southeast comer of Mr. Jerry Wheaton's property (see map).
In December 2003, the City requested an appraisal of Mr. Wheaton's property. The appraisal was
done by CJM Investment Property Advisors, Inc., of Bellevue, who recommended a price of $33,375
for the 1,200 square feet of property. On January 26, 2004, the City offered $33,375 for the property
and Mr. Wheaton rejected the City's first offer.
On February 24, 2004, the City offered Mr. Wheaton $53,375 after the City Attorney's office provided
direction that the offer could be increased over the appraiser's recommendation based on the costs the
City would likely incur if the City would have to go to court for condemnation. The City Attorney
advised that court costs on each side could average $30,000 for a "normal" condemation case and go
as high as $60,000. Mr. Wheaton rejected the $53,375 offer.
At a March 23, 2004 meeting, Mr. Wheaton accepted a f'mal offer of $60,000 for the property. An
easement will be in effect for the property until installation of sewers, then Mr. Wheaton will complete
a short plat and a new 1,200 sq. ft. parcel will be created and owned by the City.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council ma5' approve the purchase of Mr. Wheaton's property allowing the project to begin
construction this summer or go to court for condemnation, postponing the project 6 to 12 months.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the easement and purchase of Mr. Wheaton's property for $60,000.
MC:lw
attachment: Agreement and Easement for Sanitary Sewer Lift Station
AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT FOR
SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION
This agreement made this day of ,2004, between Gerald A.
Wheaton, Jr. and Jane Wheaton, husband and wife ("Wheaton" herein) and the City of Tukwila,
a Washington Municipality ("Grantee" herein);
WHEREAS, Wheaton is the owner of Tract 32, Second Addition East Riverton Garden Tracts,
King County, Washington; and
WHEREAS, Grantee desires an easement for a sanitary sewer lift station on Wheaton's property
at a location more specifically described as herein below;
Now, therefore, in consideration of Sixty thousand dollars and no cents ($60,000.00) and other
good and valuable consideration in hand paid receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in
consideration of the performance by Grantee of the covenants, terms, and conditions hereinafter
set forth, Wheaton hereby conveys and Quit Claims to the Grantee the following easement:
An exclusive perpetual easement over, across, along, in, upon, and under that portion of
Wheaton's property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing,
replacing, and using the sanitary sewer lift station and appurtenances thereto (herein the
"Improvements").
The terms "easement" and "easement area" in this instrument refer to the easement herein
granted on Wheaton's property and as described on the attached Exhibit "A".
1. Cost of Construction and Maintenance. Grantee shall bear and promptly pay all costs and
expenses of construction and maintenance of the Improvements.
2. Compliance with Laws and Rules. The Grantee shall construct, maintain and use the
Improvements in accordance with the requirements any statute, order, rule or regulation of
any public authority having jurisdiction.
3. Required Prior Notice and Approval of Plans and Specifications. Prior to any installation,.
alteration, replacement or removal of the Improvements or any other major activity by
Grantee on Wheaton's Property, Grantee shall give Wheaton written notice thereof together
with preliminary plans and specifications for the same at least one (1) month prior to the
scheduled commencement of such activity.
Nothing herein shall be deemed to impose any duty or obligation on Wheaton to determine ·
the adequacy or sufficiency of the Grantee's plans and specifications, or t~ ascertain
whether Grantee's construction is in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by Wheaton.
4. As-Built Survey. Upon Wheaton's request, Grantee shall promptly provide Wheaton with
as-built drawings and survey shox~ing the location and elevations of the Improvements on
Wheaton's property.
5. Access. The Grantee shall design, construct, maintain and use its Improvements in such
fashion as to permit reasonable access to Wheaton's Property. Grantee shall at all times
keep Wheaton's Property free and clear of ail obstructions and equipment.
6. Termination for Cessation of Use. In the event Grantee ceases to use the Improvements for
the period of five (5) successive years, this Agreement and ail Grantee's fights hereunder
shall terminate and revert to Wheaton.
7. Release and Indemnity. Grantee does hereby release, indemnify and promise to defend and
save harmless Wheaton from and against any and all liability, loss, cost, damage, expense,
actions and claims, including costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Wheaton in
defense thereof, asserted or arising directly or indirectly on account of or out of (I) acts or
omissions of Grantee and Grantee's servants, agents, employees, and contractors in the
exemise of the fights granted herein, or (2) acts and omissions of Wheaton in its use of
Wheaton's Property which affect Grantee's employees, agents, contractors, and other
parties benefiting from said Improvements; provided, however, this paragraph does not
purport to indemnify Wheaton against liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to
persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of Wheaton
or Wheaton's agents or employees.
8. Successors. The rights and obligations of the parties shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon their respective successors and assigns.
9. Liability. In the event of any assignment of the fights hereunder, the liability of Grantee
and its assignees shall be joint and several.
10. Utility Relocation. Grantee shall relocate naturai gas and water service lines to a mutually
agreeable location determined in the field by both parties.
EXECUTED as of the date hereinabove set forth.
ACCEPTED:
GRALNTEE
~o~ow~s ~
Oerald~ A. Wheato~ Jr.
By:
Its:
AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: SS.
County of )
On:this 2Brai day of /V[Clrc],} , 2004, before me personally
appeared ~-¢rald A h/hea~com and
O"'a~ae. 5. I~he.a-I'an , to me known to be the individuals
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the
same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses'and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written.
~ :o ~ m. ~ No~ Public in ~d for ~e State of W~o~
{~ 5 ~m / ~ residing at gen+o~
~,~..ff.16.0~...~J My Appoin~ent expires ~- / &-O ~
(P:Laurie AdminfMike/Agreement & Easement for SS Lift Station)
AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: SS.
County of )
On this day of , 2004, before me personally
appeared and
, to me known to be the individuals
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed
the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written.
Notary (print name)
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing at
My Appoin~nent expires
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
of Whole Parcel
Tract 32, Second Addition East Riverton Garden Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in
Volume 12 of Plats, page 79, in King County, Washington;
EXCEPT any portion thereof as originally platted lying below the line of ordinary high water of
the Duwamish River.
Legal Description
of Easement to Tukwila
for the Lift Station
Beginning at the Sot/theast Comer Tract 32, Second Addition East Riverton Garden Tract,
thence N 55°-01'-00" W a distance of 40.00 feet; thence N 34°-59'-00'' E a distance of 30.00
feet; thence S 55°-01 '-00" E a distance of 40.00 feet to the North Margin of 56th Avenue South;
thence S 34o-59'-00'' W a distance 30.00 feet along the North Margin of 56th Avenue South to
the point of beginning.
Foster Point Map
. Utilities Committee
April 6, 2004
Present: Pam Carter, Chair; Pam Linder, Dennis Robertson
Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Bob Giberson, Ryan Larson, Tom Pulford, Pat Brodin,
Gail Labanara, Mike Cusick, Lucy Lauterbach
1. Emergency Operations Center Generator Public Works has decided the new Golf
Maintenance building off of Interurban Avenue will be the new Emergency Operation Center
(EOC). Some improvements are needed to make it fulfill this function. The City has a generator
that is available for use them, though it needs to be brought up to code. At the same time space at
the Maintenance Building is being readied staff will move a power transformer out of a flood
prone area. The cost of improvements needed including moving the transformer, enclosing space
for the generator, and readying the new space will be $82,847.20. Pride Electric was the lowest
responsive bidder. Pam asked if Homeland Security funds were available to help fund this, but
Jim said they were not, as many cities don't even have an EOC yet. The Committee asked about
the stability of the site, as it is on the Valley floor near the river. Jim said it is above the 100-year
flood plain, and was built on 4 feet of rock to stabilize it. Recommend bid award to Pride
Electric at a Regular Meeting.
2. North End GIS Results Ryan showed the Committee results of the information gathered
from the GIS inventory of the north end of Tukwila. The computer results can show only one
thing at a time (such as sewer outfalls), or it can show all appurtenances in the streets and at
addresses. Some of the things Ryan demonstrated were water and sewer pipes, surface water
lines, catch basins, plats, elevations and contour lines, conditions of facilities like pipes. The
program is very detailed and useful; staff found they had more catch basins than they had known
of. The program will be very useful in locating clogged drains that are under water, for example.
While it is possible to give a CD of this information to a contractor or developer, this is not done
for security reasons. However, the information may be viewed at the counter. Private as well as
public facilities need to be shown in future maps. Another issue on the horizon is that the City
may ask developers to submit permits as-builts in GIS to be able to add them to this program.
Information; refer to an available Council agenda.
3. Property Acquisition Foster Point The City needs some property near the Foster Point
bridge in order to put a lif~ station in for sewer service to Foster Point. Staff investigated two
properties, but one got developed in the mean time. The remaining property available belongs to
lerry Wheaten. To use a small portion of the property will cost the City $60,000. The good thing
is that when Mr. Wlaeaton short plats his land, the City will own the property, though it will be
on an easement Until that time. Since the owner rejected the City's fir.st offer, a price was
negotiated thalt saves the city the cost, time delay, and uncertainty of going to condemnation.
This is the best site and price available. Recommend acquisition to COW and Regular
Meeting.
_~.~. Committee chair approval
COUNCIL A GENDA SYNOPSIS
................ Initials ITEM NO.
Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review
4/12/04 BG ,,.~ ~ ~.~ ~._/7/
CAS Number: 04-052 I Original Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: Bid Award for Green River Valley Signal Interconnect Project
and Resolution Rejecting Nonresponsive Low Bidder.
Original Sponsor: Council ddmin. Public Works
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: This project will coordinate traffic signals along West Valley Hwy and S 180m St in Tukwila,
Renton, and Kent. The project was advertiged on March 3 and 10 and six bids were received
and opened on March 26, 2004. The low bid from North Sky Communications is considered
nonresponsive for not including the required sales tax. The second low bid of $194,905.00 is
from Totem Electric, Inc. Recommend award bid to Totem Electric.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Award contract to Totem Electric, Inc. and adopt resolution rejecting North Sky
Communications' bid.
Committee: To be presented to Transportation Crate April 12, 2004
Administration: Same as Sponsor.
Cost Impact (if known): $194,905.00
Fund Source (if known): 104.02 Commercial Street Fund (pg. 43 2004 CIP)
Meeting Date Action
4/12/04
Meeting Date Attachments
4/12/04 Information memo dated April 5, 2004
Location Map
Bid tabulation
Resolution
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Director
Date: April 5, 2004
Subject: Green River Valley Signal Interconnect Pro|ect.~]
City Project No. 92-RW01
Bid Award
ISSUE
Award the bid for the construction of the Green River Valley Signal Interconnect Project to Totem
Electric of Tacoma, Inc. in the amount of $194,905.00.
BACKGROUND
The project will result in all traffic signal coordination along West Valley Hwy and S 180~ St in
Tukwila, Renton and Kent. Interagency coordination will improve safety and reduce congestion along
the arterials and the freeway ramps, The project will install approximately 30,200 linear feet of fiber
optic cable, 14,100 linear feet of interconnect communication cable, conduit, junction boxes and related
work. This regional signal interconnect project is being coordinated with the King County Tram-Valley
ITS project and will require permits from the Rcnton, Kent and WSDOT.
ANALYSIS
The project was advertised for bids March 3 and 10 and bids were opened March 26, 2004. Six bids were
received with the low bid of $142,225.16 from North Sky Communications. All bids were checked and
tabulated. The apparent low bidder, North Sky Communications, is considered to have submitted a non-
responsive bid for modifying the bid proposal with the language "does not include sales tax". As
described on the bid proposal, roadway projects must include the sales tax in the various bid prices per
WAC 458-171 ('Rule 171'). The next lowest bidder, Totem Electric of Tacoma, Inc., submitted a bid
for $194,905.00. Totem Electric has worked successfully with Tukwila on several past projects.
BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY
Bid En~ineer's Estimate Budget
Bid $194,905.00 $ 263,750.00 $ 315,000.00
Contingency 10% 19,490.50
Signal Equipment 120,000.00 120.000.00 100,000.00
Total $ 334.395.50 . $ 383,750.00 $ 415,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Reject low bid submitted by North Sky Communications. Award the construction bid to the second low
bidder for the Green River Valley Signal Interconnect project to Totem Electric of Tacoma, Inc. for
$194,905.00.
attachment: Location Maps Bid Tabulation
Resolution Rejecting Noaresponsive
GREEN RIVER VALLEY
SIGNAL INTERCONNECT
LOCATION MAPS
Washington
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, REJECTING THE BID SUBMITTED BY NORTH SKY
COMMUNICATIONS, FOR THE GREEN RIVER VALLEY SIGNAL
INTERCONNECT PROJECT; AND AWARDING THE BID TO TOTEM
ELECTRIC, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $194,905.00.
'~¥H ~;REAS, sealed bids were received for the Green River Valley Signal Interconnect Project;
and
XVlt~REAS, bids were opened and read aloud by the City Clerk's Office on March 26, 2004, and
the apparent low bidder was North Sky Communications, whose proposal was in the amount of
$142,225.16; and
Wi~EREAS, upon examination and inquiry by City staff of the North Sky Communications bid
documents, it was determined that the bid documents submitted by North Sky Communications included
a modification stating that they did not include the required sales tax incidental to each bid item, and
therefore the bid submitted by North Sky Communications has been determined to be nonresponsive; and
WHEREAS, the disclaimer on the bid proposal makes North Sky Communication's bid
unreliable, and as unreliable bids must be rejected in the public's interest, North Sky Communieation's
bid must therefore be rejected as nonresponsive; and
WHEREAS, Totem Electric, Inc. submitted the next lowest bid of $194,905.00 including the
incidental sales taxes; and
WHEREAS, upon examination and inquiry by City staff, the City of Tukwila determined that the
Totem Electric's bid is responsive;
NOW, THEREFORE, TH]g CITY COUNCIL OF TlcHg CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASH 1NGTON, I-W. REBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above "whereas" recitals are herein adopted as findings of fact.
Section 2. The bid submitted by North Sky Communications for the Green River Valley Signal
Interconnect Project is not reliable due to a modified bid proposal, and is hereby rejected as
nonresponsive.
Section 3. Totem Electric, Inc. is determined to be the lowest responsive bidder with a bid of
$194,905.00 after taxes.
Section 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign a contract with Totem Electric, Inc. for the
Green River Valley Signal Interconnect Project in the amount of $194,905.00.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
Regular Meeting thereof this day of ,2004.
COUNCIL SYNOPSIS
-' .................... "- .................... ITEM NO.
Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor,s review Cou..ncil review
4/12/04
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS Number: 04-005 I Original Agenda date: 1/19/04
Agenda Item Title: Discussion of Library Issue
Original Sponsor: Council x Admin.
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: After a meeting of the Mayor and staff with the Library District's Bill Ptacek and his
staff, a Council Committee discussed library issues. The entire COW can now discuss
the merits of protesting the recent changes and trying to change them, or not.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Discuss issue
Committee: Community and Parks had no recommendation after their discussion
AdministraUon: Same as sponsor
Cost Impact (if
knownS:
Fund Source (if known)
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting Date Action
1/~.o/04 COW discussion
4112104
APPENDICES
Meeting Date ~ Attachments
4/12/04 Memo from L. Lauterbach dated 3-12 regarding library services
Summary of meeting notes of meeting with library staff and director
King County Library Plan for Tukwila Library
199! Interlocal
Community and Parks Committee minutes (3-23-04)
To: City Council
From: Lucy Lauterbach
Date: March 12, 2004
Subject: Tukwila Library
In February the Council discussed the recent changes that were being made to Tukwila
Library. Several citizens were in the audience, and they were clearly unhappy with the
changes. At that time the Council expressed their displeasbre at the changes that had
been made seemingly without any input from the community. The general consensus
was for the City group meeting with the Library Board, to protest the changes and ask
that the provisions of the 1991 Intedocal be enforced.
As a result of the meeting with the Library Board, Jim Haggerton reported that their visit
had been well received, and that the Board seemed receptive to honoring the Interlocal.
They had asked that their staff meet with Tukwila staff as a first step in resolving this
conflict.
At the March staff meeting that was attended by Mayor Mullet, Rhonda Berry, Alan
Doerschel, Bruce Fletcher, Rick Still, Lucy Lauterbach, Bill Ptacek and two of his staff,
Bill said that although there had been the perception of missed communication between
the library and the city, they had tried through their usual methods to get the information
about changes out. Part of the problem may have been not so much the fact that the
library was being changed, but that wholesale changes would be made, and that the
library would be radically changed.
The Library staff said at that meeting that they thought the new arrangement could
serve both the youth and the larger community. They assured the City they were putting
in books for all ages, as well as magazines and newspapers, and more computers.
They made the point in the meeting that the Library System is an independent authority
that works with but does not answer to cities. They see their work as crossing borders,
and are more concerned with providing service to all the citizens in King County than
with any specific library. Tukwila Library is an anomaly in the system, with another
library within a mile, and the City owning the building, for example.
Staffing is a difficult issue as the Library practice dictates the use of two librarians at
each library for safety's sake. Activity and circulation had increased at Foster Library, so
a Tukwila librarian was moved to help up there. Bill Ptacek thought it could be possible
to use only one librarian if some arrangement could be made for regular checks on her,
or for her to access immediate help if she needed it. Keeping the Library open during
Baby and Me sessions could add about 5 hours, for a total of 25 hours a week.
A final point is that the City Attorney has said that the 1991 Interlocal is not a very
strong document to rely on. It wa~ intended to be a temporary intedocal, and she
thought it might not hold up in court.
The City has two options for responding to the Library System:
1. The City can visit the Tukwila library, assess the changes and how well they are
working, and can adopt a "wait and see" attitude to let the System prove that it can work
in its current mode.
2. The City can decide it wants to enforce the provisions in the 1991 Interlocal and
request the Library Board act to remove the furniture, carpet and stuffed toys that are in
the space now; restore more shelves with more books to the Library, and increase
hours to the 31 hours that were open in 1991.
Meeting Between City and Library Staff 3/17/04
Attending: Mayor Mullet, Rhonda Berry, Alan Doerschel, Bruce Fletcher,
Rick Still, Lucy Lauterbach -City; Bill Ptacek, Nancy Smith, Kay Johnson-
KCLS
Bill Ptacek started the meeting by saying there had been a great deal of
misinformation between the Library and the City. The City had questions
about library issues as well, which is where the discussion started. The
first issue of hours brought the comments from Mr. Ptacek that Tukwila
Library did not get visitors during its open hours before the changes. He
said the Library counts circulation in the number of items checked out, but
also keeps tabs on the numbers of people coming in just to read the paper
or work on computers. He had a comparison of similar sized libraries such
as are in Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Fall City and Snoqualmie. Of
all those libraries, the Library system spent as much on Tukwila as on the
others ($55, 264 in 2003), but circulation was less than half of most of the
other libraries. He argued that the biggest users of the Library had been
youth who came after school. There is an issue with librarians and
somewhat with union rules, that encourage two librarians to work together.
However, he thought if some kind of system like relying on the next door
fire station personnel could be counted on to respond in an emergency,
they could work something out.
The City raised the issue of restoring newspaper and magazines to the
Library, which Nancy said was already being planned to be done. She said
videos, music and computer access will all be available. In fact, they are
increasing the number of computers from 3 to 11. They will also have
books for all ages, including their Choice Picks of the most popular titles.
Books can also be picked up and dropped off there.
Other questions the City had were why the Baby and Me program had
been moved from Foster. Nancy sa~d they had asked al the partic pants
and all but three could easily get to Tukwila Library. Foster had run out of
room, as the program outgrew the conference area and spilled into the
regular library. She asked if the City had any transportation to help the
three moms who couldn't make it to the new location.
Communication needs to be improved, and Mr. Ptacek acknowledged it
hasn't worked well recently. He thought Alan Doerschel knew about the
planned changes, and the Library Board also knew. He said it was in the
newsletter the Council gets as well. There was discussion about the extent
of the changes that were mentioned, as no one in the City knew the
wholesale change that would be made. Mr. Ptacek said he would let Bruce
who will be the new liaison to the Library Board, know about issues.
Mr. Ptacek said staffing is an issue, because Foster has needed more
librarians as their number of visitors has increased. He has taken from
Tukwila Library staff to be used at Foster. He talked about the addition of
the Mall library, meaning there will be three libraries in the City. Though the
space was bought by the Library Foundation, it will be operated by the
regular Library system, and is viewed as a Tukwila Library. They have
planned that for a long time, as he claims people from the Mall make up
many of the people who visit the Tukwila Library. That will be the library
with the most materials for adults, as Tukwila is geared 90% toward kids
from babies through high school and Foster has mostly middle and high
school kids.
Nancy introduced material that addressed misinformation about the Library.
They included only circulation being used to judge it a Iow use library, when
librarians have reported only 25-30 people use it each day.
As far as the rumor only old and dusty books were there, they said they
spent as much money replacing old books there as at any library, and that
they did regularly rotate old books out and put new books in. They said
they've spent $165,000 in the past three years at the Library.
As far as the need to increase advertising at the Library, they said they
have used their normal avenues in the newspapers including the Voice,
Des Moines News and Highline Times. They also send information to
schools, and postcards were mailed to all residents in Tukwila in 2003 to
invite them to, a meeting to talk about Tukwila Library's future.
Mr. Ptacek raised the possibility of using wireless internet access, which
they have been invited by a Phone company to try out. They had
considered Tukwila, as wireless could go from the Library to City Hall in
one direction, and down the hill to Riverton in another direction. This would
allow people with laptop computers to more easily access the internet.
In conclusion, they said they-would look into increasing hours at Tukwila
Library if they can get just one librarian to work. They asked about the
building condition, including wiring, an unstable and uneven floor, and
water under the building that causes mold issues. Kay said the restrooms
were quite bad. When asked specifically why they were bad, she said
people should go look at them. She also raised the issue of the building
being ADA accessible. Rhonda said it is not a requirement for the building
to be accessible, though it would be desirable. After some discussion, it
was admitted there is a ramp through an emergency door now.
If the security of one worker there can be resolved, it would be easier to get
more library hours. Again, Mr. Ptacek said the Fire Station is right there,
and he thought they could just check in with the staff on a regular basis.
Rhonda said she would see what options could be worked out.
Finally, they talked about the possibility of a sign on the 147th entrance to
their parking lot. They have standardized library signs, though they don't
have one at Tukwila Library. As the City maintains that building the Library
staff do not have keys to it.
Mr. Ptacek encouraged everyone to wait until all the changes now being
made are completed. New carpeting is being put into part of the building,
and toys and furniture will complete the space. When the Mall library is
open and Tukwila Library has operated serving children for a while, it can
be assessed more fairly than right now.
Prepared for: The Honorable Mayor Steve Mullet
City of Tukwila, January 14, 2004
KZNG COUNTY I.]BRARY SYSTEM Tukwila Library Plan - Executive Summary
On 3anuary 1, 200~,, the Tukwila Library's focus and open hours changed. The Library's new focus is in service
to children and is open 20 hours weekly, reduced from thirty-six, lin addition to those open hours, several
Family Place programs will take place while the Library is closed to enhance the experience for those attending.
Several factors converged to make the decision to reduce Tukwila Library's open hours and change its service
focus. As a full service library, Tukwila was one of the least used in the King County Library System with a cost
per check-out of $10.90. In contrast, Burien's per transaction cost is $5.07 and Fosters is $8.03.
Tukwila Library's use was limited primarily to after school visits by children to use computers, read and do
homework and averaged about 1~; kids daily. Weekday mornings and evenings had very little traffic, usually 5
visitors or fewer. Saturday was busier with families visiting together, averaging about 25 people. Children's
story times were never successful at Tukwila with little or no attendance and were discontinued several years
ago.
At the same time, the use at Foster Library was growing past the ability of that staff to provide appropriate
service. The Family Place grant program was popular with growing attendance but was taking more space than
the Library could continue to offer. Staff changes made it impossible to continue to open the Library on Friday
nights for grant programs.
The Tukwila facility seemed a perfect spot to develop a children's library, thereby acknowledging the primary
users of that building, and to move the Family Place program there to have adequate dedicated space and be
able to continue the evening programs.
KCLS is revamping the interior with new carpet, furniture and computers scaled for children; a colorful play
space with oversized stuffed animals and a new collection of popular titles for adults at the Ubrary with their
children. Tnformally, the City has agreed to address some of the physical issues with the building.
Bottom line considerations:
· Foster Library had growing use creating a critical shortage of staff to serve the residents using that
building and maintain its 56 open hours weekly.
· The Family Place grant program had outgrown the Foster meeting room space originally dedicated to
the program and spilled over into all areas of the Library, with considerable crowding and confusion.
Staff changes made it impossible to continue the Friday night Family Place programs.:The program
would~ have to be scaled back both in space and evening programs.
· Tukwila Library was not,being used sufficiently to warrant the number of staff needed to keep it open
36 hours weekly.
Therefore:
· Best use of resources dictated the switch of staff to Foster Library with commensurate open hours
reduction at Tukwila Library.
· Continuation of The Family Place grant program hinged on moving it to the Tukwila Library.
· Re-focusing Tukwila Library to serve children in an outstanding way addressed its current users.
960 Newport Way NW [ssaquah, WA 98027 425-462-9600 w~n~.kcl$.org
TI-lIS AGREI~'ENT is dated the 19th day of December 1991, and is entered into by end
between King County Rural Library District, herelzmlter re~erred to as the "District", and the
City of Tukwlia, hereinaher adled the "City":
~, the City owus the buflcling housing the Tukwila Library, at 14475 59th Avenue
South, and
~, the District owns the building housing the Foster Library, at 4205 South 142.nd,
and
~AS, the City currently pays an annual contract fee to the District for provision of
library services within the City, and
~, the City by Ordinance No. 1619 will initiate the process for annexation of the
City into the Dlslrlct pursuant to Section 27.12.360, RCW, end
WHEREAS, the District will not realize en¥ direct tax revenue for operation of the Ubrariss
and provision of library services until the 1993 calendar year, end
WHEREAS, the City end the District desire to make provisions for continued lundin§ of
library operations during the calendar year 1972, now, therefore, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Dislrict will continue to assume maintenance and utility costs for the Tukwila and
Foster Libraries in 1992.
2. The District will hold the City's 1992 contract at the 1991 fee level of $564,021.
3. The Dis~'ict recobmlzas the importance of neighborhood Ubraries to the City of Tukwlla
and consequently ag~s to maintain library set, cas at both the Foster and Tukwilaiibraries.
4. The District agrees that if the City chooses to annex to the District, the District will be
r~sponsible and pay for the construction and all related costs of at least a 5,000 square foot
library expandable to 7,500 square feet, including furnishings and materials and appropriate
surface parking exclusively for library patrons, and an anticipated completion date in early
1995 (replaces exisiing Foster branch). This will be a full service Ebrasy which will have
maximum hours, programs and services commensurate with similar sized libraries.
5. The Tukwila Library at 14475 59th Avenue South will be maintained at a minimum of
current service levels.
6. The District will provide or pay up to $400,000 for suitable land (the sits) for the structure
and parking with the requirements that:.
a) the site be chosen jointly by the City and the District and will have convenient access
:with good visibility.
b) the deeign and construction will be consistent with the standards of current District
building projed~s and be in keeping with the desired neighborhood concept.
7. The City shall be the designated SEPA leed agency for all Sr~PA reviews.
8. Any off-site public improvements such as street, sidewalk, storm draix3age and/or mility
modifications as may be required as a result of the construction of the library shall be paid
for by the District.
9. All on-site work and improvements, such as site preparation, grading, landscaping, shall
be paid for by the District.
10. The City by its Mayor shall designate CitY administration personnel to participate in the
District's d~sign review process for the library, and to act as coordinator with the District
during the planningt dasi§n and consl~uctton proc~ssas. ·
11. The District will continue to reimburse the City for the library's poriion of maintenance
and utility costs for the library's portion of the existing Tukwila Library building at 14475
$9th Avenue South. District will pay $1 per year for an annual lease.
2
1'0242
1'ii. If the City chooses to annex to the Dis~ict, then within 60 days of the date of certiiqcation
of the results of the annexation election, City and District by a supplemental interlocal
governmental agreement shall either supplement or emend this agreement to more
~pecilically set forth gae terms and conditicr, s relative lo hhe Matters set forth in Paragraphs 1
throu§h 11 above.
General Recitals
1. This agreement is to de.,ine the rlghts and obligations of the parties in the event
annexation of the City to the District is approved at a special election to be held prior to May
26, 1992. Included in the purposes of this agreement is the provision for continued funding
by the City ol~ library services within the City during the period bet'ween January 1,1992 and
December 31, 1992. If annexaiion to file Dlsh'ict is not approved at said election, fids
agreement shall be ol~ no further force or effect.
2. Should annexation to the Libra~ Dis~ict fail to pass, and the City chooses to'enntinue te
contrac~ with the Library District for services, it is understood that:.
a) The contract rate for library services for gae calendar year commencing lanuary 1,
1993 will be according to the phase-in formula, and
b) The conh'act rate for library services for the calendar year commencing lanuary 1,
1994 and for calendar years thereafter will be 100 percent of the full comparable rate
assessed taxl~a)~ers in the King County Rural Library District.
3. In the event the City chooses to appoint a Tukwila Library ltoard of Trustees dur~g any
time l~etiod when the City is annexed to the District, the District shall reb, ularly solicit input
from the lioard on issues relating to all aspects of library services and facilities for the
residents of Tukwila.
C~,,,,~nity and Parks Cmte (Mar~h 23, 2004) - Page 2
permits, and l0 were removed. Two notices have been sent to 5 other container owners, and' the
City's heard no reply. Three of those five did not apply for a "grandfather" permit; two could be
· legal if they can be screened properly. Three new applications for cargo containers have been
received. One was denied, another doesn't meet screening requirements so far, and the third
applied too late. Steve brought up the issue of the containers at Showalter not.m[eting the
requirements for both size and for applying on time. Pam L said those containers are examples of
how they should be screened. Even though they are too long to be legal, she thought it could be
possible to change the length requirement to allow them. Steve thought if containers can be
screened, it may be possible to take away the 30' restriction. Information.
/,~ 4. Update on Library Issues The packet had included information about the meeting held last
week between the Library administration, the Mayor and City staff. Pam L clarified that the
minutes of the meeting were written by Lucy, and not by the Library staff. Lucy and Rhonda ,
reported that the Library is an independent agency, and that because the daily staff of Bill Ptacek
does the mo~t work on libra~ issues, the King County Library Board has some input but is not
as involved in policy making as the Library Administration. The Librmy System made it clear at
the meeting that Tukwila Library was not used often according to comparisons with other
libraries its size, and that the changes they are making is their solution for not closing the
Library. Tukwila staff thought it unlikely that the City could persuade them to return it to its
former state. Para C said Ptacek has ignored the 1991 Interl0cal, but Rhonda noted our attorney
has said it is not a strong enough document to be able to enforce easily. Pam said libraries, like
schools, are the heart ora City. Joe felt strongly that the Library had dismissed the feelings of the
citizens, and that the citizens really wanted the previous arrangements. Bruce said he had visited
the Library, and that is does look like the improvements are quite nice. There are lots of
computers, he said, and the space is really coming together. He did say the restrooms need to be
upgraded. The Committee.talked about the programs now being held there, and Pam C
calculated there were about 23 families in programs, three of whom will have a hard time getting
to that library. Rhonda asked if the Committee thought the City would want to be a co-sponsor
of the Library Grand Opening April 10, and the consensus was that they would not. When Pam C
wondered why the Council had not been invited to the Grand Opening, discussion about the
Library System and their lack of political sensitivity was explained. The last issue was whether a
sign could be put on S. 147th. Staffwill check on that. The Committee's consensus was that even
if Mr. Ptacek came to a Council meeting, the outcome would remain the same. They were
reluctant but moving towards being ready to accept the Library System's suggestion that the City
wait to see how it is, and give the new configuration a chance to work for a few months before
they declare it a failure..Information.
~'~./Committee Chair approval
GCOUNCILAGEN,, ASYNOPSIS,,EMNo'
Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review l Cou..ncil ~e~view
t-FEM TNFORMA-FION
CAS Number: 04-024 I Original Agenda Date: 2/23/04
Agenda Ttem Title: City Council Travel Policy
Original Sponsor: Council x Admin.
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: A proposed new travel policy has been recommended to the Council by the Finance
and Safety Committee.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Discuss policy
Committee: Finance and Safety recommended policy for adoption
Administration: Same as sponsor
Cost Impact (if None
knownS:
Fund Source (if known)
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting Date Action
2/23/04 COW
4/12/04
APPENDICES
Meeting Date , Attachments
4/12/04 Memo from Lauterbach dated :~/12/04
Proposed Travel Policy Attachment C
Current Attachment C Travel Policy
Finance and Safety minutes 4/5/04, 3/15/04, 3/1/04 and 2/17/04
To: City Council
From: Lucy Lauterbach
Date: March 12, 2004
Subject: .City Council Travel Policy
Most of you have heard rumors or reports of this policy as it has made its way through
several meetings of the Finance and Safety Committee over the past two months. The
policy, if. adopted, would be in effect for 2005, though consideration of the new
provisions might result in some new budget considerations during this fall's budget
preparations.
The main point of the proposed new policy would be to allot to each Council member
some portion of the travel funds to use for whatever travel they choose to make during
the year. If a Council member had $1,000 in his or her allotment, he/she could choose
to go to an AWC Conference, and one national NLC conference. Those two things
could use up $1,000 easily.
Mileage reimbursements for local meetings, meals at Suburban Cities, and parking
would be covered outside of the personal allotments, and the Council retreat and any
Tukwila meals are also separate.
The policy is self explanatory, and the Finance and Safety Committee tried to cover all
the relevant points. Travel to Ikawa may be planned for 2005, and if any Council were
interested in going to that, it would come from the personal allotments.
An important provision in the policy is that if a Council member does not plan to use his
or her allotment, it can be returned to a central shared account. Others can then apply
to use these shared funds when their allotment runs out.
You can discuss the proposed Policy, and decide to forward it for adoption, or revise it.
Committee members are quite familiar with the Policy's provisions, and they or I should
be able to answer your questions.
ATTACHMENT C
Proposed Council Travel Guidelines
I. Statement of Policy
The Tukwila City Council encourages Council members to be actively involved in
city, county, state, regional, and national organizations that affect Tukwila, its residents,
and its businesses.
II. Decisions About Travel
It is the responsibility of the entire Council to approve the travel budget. It is the
responsibility of individual Council members to decide upon their own travel with their
travel allotment.
III. Purposes for Travel A. Education
B. Lobbying
C. Professional responsibility, e.g., policy boards, offices, and committees
D. Public relations, i.e., representing the City
E. Fostering better relations with local, state, federal and sister city officials
IV. Travel Budgets
A. Budgets for Council travel will be set in the fall prior to the year the travel is to
occur.
B. Estimates of who shall travel in the next year will be made at budget time the
preceding year in order to set an adequate budget, which shall serve as a guide in
allocating travel for the following year.
C. The Council will consider the City's financial situation in setting their annual
travel budget.
V. Council Travel Decisions
A. Beginning each year, after funds for local meetings, the Council retreat, and
meals are subtracted, each Council member will be allotted an equal share of the
remaining Council travel budget for State, National and Sister City travel. That share
shall be available to that Council member for use in travel expenses throughout the
year.
B. Each Council member will prepare a travel plan at the beginning of the
budget year showing planned travel and expected associated costs. Dates and
locations of known state and national conferences will be supplied as soon as they are
known.
4/8/04
C. Any Council member's funds that ara not used for travel in that year will be
raturned to the shared travel fund Which can then be used by other Council members.
1. Council members desiring to use sharad travel funds will prapara a
Request for Travel Form highlighting the benefits to the City.
2. The Council Prasident will prioritize the raquests to the Council. The
City Council will make the final decision on use of the funds.
3. After all Request for Travel forms ara raceived by the Council Prasident
and no sharad funds ramain, travel requests will be denied unless additional
funds ara budgeted.
4. If an opportunity for a conference or training arises mid year after travel
funds ara expended or planned for, the City Council will decide if the benefit to
the City is high enough to warrant the additional travel expense.
D. Upon returning from a class or conferance, Council members will prapara a
written report to be distributed to the Council. If mora than one Council member attends,
a consolidated raport may be prasented.
E. Sister City Travel
1. Sister City travel will not be budgeted separately and will be part of each
Council member's travel allocation.
2. Funding for travel to a sister city will be planned in the budget for the year in
which the travel will take place.
3. Travel to a sister city will not praclude travel to a national conferance if costs
ara taken from the Council member's travel budget or central sharad funds.
4. The City will pay for basic travel on a sister city trip, including the
transportation, lodging, and meals included in the basic price for the trip. All other
expenses will be borne by the City Council member.
VI. Travel Expenses
A. The City will pay for airfare, ragistration, hotel, and meals when a Council
member is on official travel.
B. When a spouse or non-City person accompanies the Council member on
travel, his/her expenses will be separately paid in full by that person, and the City will
not assume any extra costs for that companion. The difference between the cost of a
single and double room incurrad when a spouse accompanies the Council member is
the rasponsibility of the Council member, and will be paid at the time of the hotel stay.
4/8/04
C. A record of expenses foi: lodging, meals, transportation, and incidental
expenses should be kept on a daily basis, with receipts attached to the record. An
itemized bill should be kept for meals, especially when several persons' costs are
included.
D. A detailed bill or other itemization of the cost should accompany a city credit
card receipt. The credit card should not be used for any non-city expenses, such as
spouse meals or lodging.
VII. Travel Arrangements
A. City CounCil travel should be processed through the Legislative Analyst, who
will coordinate with the entire Council. The Legislative Analyst can make arrangements
for travel, if desired, and copies given to the member who will travel.
B. Efforts wilt be made to secure the best cost for airline travel and lodgings in
the designated travel city by planning ahead, and by taking advantage of any discounts
available.
C. Council members can get travel advancements by completing the required
forms in a timely manner.
VIII. Miscellaneous
A. When a City vehicle is available, it should be used for intra-state travel.
B. If a Council member uses his or her personal vehicle, mileage will be
reimbursed according to Internal Revenue Service rules.
4/8/04
Reqi~est for Shared Funds
Date:
Council Member Name
Conference/Training/Workshop Information:
Title: Date:
Estimated Expenses:
Registration:
Lodging:.
Meals:
Travel:
Other:
Total Request for Funding
Describe the scope~ content, and benefit to the City this event would bring.
Include any projects currently planned that could benefit directly.
ATTACHMENT C
Council Travel Guidelines
I. Statement of Policy
The Tukwila City CoUncil encourages Council members to be actively involved in
city, county, state, regional, and national organizations that affect Tukwila, its residents,
and its businesses.
II. Decisions About Travel
It is the responsibility of the entire Council to approve travel by its members.
II1. Purposes for Travel A. Education
B. Lobbying
C. Professional responsibility, e.g., policy boards, offices; and committees
D. Public relations, i.e., representing the City
E. Fostering better relations with local, state, federal and sister city officials
IV. Travel Budgets
A. Budgets for Council travel will be set in the fall prior to the year the travel is to
occur.
B. Estimates of who shall travel in the next year will be made at budget time the
preceding year in order to set an adequate budget, which shall serve as a guide in
allocating travel for the following year.
C. The Council will consider the City's financial situation in setting their annual
travel budget.
V. Out of State Travel
A. National
1. Costs for travel to national conferences shall generally follow the budget plans
made for that year's budget.
2. In order to gain the most benefit from a conference, the goal shall be to send '
two council members to each NLC Conference. This number does not include any
member who is attending an NLC Steering or Policy committee meeting. If more than
two members wish to attend a national conference, the City Council can approve
additional travel by a motion at a Regular Council Meeting.
1,,loo
3. Travel for a Council member on a national board or committee that requires
that Council member's attendance will be budgeted separately and will not count in the
number of counci~ members traveling to a conference.
4. When more than two council members are interested in attending an NLC
conference, priority is given to the member(s) who has not attended a national
conference for the longest period.
5. After returning from a national conference, attendees will issue a report to
share the information and perspectives with the entire Council. If more than one
Council member attends, a consolidated report may be given.
B, Sister City Travel
1. Travel to a sister city will be planned in the budget for the year in which the
travel will take place.
2. Travel to a sister city will not preclude travel to a national conference.
3. The City will pay for basic travel on a sister city trip, including the
transportation, lodging, and meals included in the basic price for the trip. All other
expenses will be borne by the City Council member.
VI, In-State Travel
A. City Council travel to state conferences will generally be allowed for all
Council members.
B. In the event the travel budget does not allow as many to travel as would like
to go, those who have not attended conferences recently shall have first preference.
C. Travel to state conferences will not affect opportunities for a Council member
to travel to national conferences.
VII, Travel Expenses
The City will pay for airfare, registration, hotel, and meals when a Council
member is On official travel.
B. When a spouse or non-City person accompanies the Council member on
travel, his/her expenses will be separately paid in full by that person, and the City will
not assume any extra costs for that companion.
C. A record of expenses for lodging, meals, transportation, and incidental
expenses should be kept on a daily basis, with receipts attached to the record. An
itemized bill should be kePt for meals, especially when several persons' .costs are
included.
D. ^ detailed bill or other itemization of the cost should accompany a city credit
card receipt for costs. The credit card should not be used for any non-city expenses,
such as spouse meals or lodging.
VIII. Travel Arrangements
A. City Council travel should be processed through the Legislative Analyst, who
will coordinate with the entire Council; The Legislative Analyst can make arrangements
for travel, if desired, and copies will be given to the member who will travel.
a. Efforts will be made to secure the best cost for airline travel and lodgings in
the designated travel city by planning ahead, and by taking advantage of any discounts
available.
C. Council members can get travel advancements by completing the required · .
forms in a timely manner.
IX. Miscellaneous
A. When a City vehicle is available, it should be used for intra-state travel.
B. If a Council member uses his or her personal vehicle, mileage will be
reimbursed according to Internal Revenue Service rules.
Fina.qce and Safety Committee
4/5/04
6. Council Travel Policy After considerable time has been spent recently reviewing a
policy, the Committee made some editing changes and recommended the policy to the
Council. Recommend issue to COW and Re.qular Meetin.q.
7. Financial Plannin,q Model The Committee worked to understand the Planning
Model and the City's budget related to it. Alan pointed out there is no money in the
Planning Model for connectivity, TUC, TOD, TVS, or the Mall/Klickitat. Even without
those projects and even if Eyeman's latest initiatives don't pass the City will run out of
funds by 2008. They will run out sooner if revenues go down or expenses increase for
any reason. Some additional things that could lead to budget increases include
employee health care costs, and the PERS and LEOFF payments, which have gone
from 2% to 7% by 2007. The City has had cost cutting for several years now, so that '
departmental budgets are stripped down. When an issue like TVS staffing comes up,
the money must come from the ending fund balance.
Looking at the 6 year capital plan Alan noted that even the Public Works Artedal Street
fund includes within it $1.2 million per year on street ovedays and maintenance. By
2007, only maintenance will be allowed with the budget unless there is a substantial
increase in revenues by then. There will be no "like to do" projects in the budget after
2006. Dennis suggested including the previous year in the Attachment A, and showing
the $1.2 million maintenance cost separate from Artedal streets. He also wanted to see
Tukwila Village's revenues and expenditures included. Information.
8. Requests for Casinos Both DCD and the Mayo~s office have gotten calls from
people asking generally about adding casinos in the City. One obvious site is at the old
Chips (formerly Pete's Flying Aces) on TIB. Other sites have been mentioned, but not
proposed formally, The City Attorney has recommended putting a moratorium on new
gambling establishments to prevent new casinos going in everywhere in the City without
careful planning. Recommend ordinance to COW and Special Meetinq 4/'12104.
~ Committee Chair approval
/~.
Finance and Safety Committee
March 15, 2004
Present: Dave Fenton, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Alan Doerschel, Lucy Lauterbach
1. Council Travel Policy A new draft travel policy was in the packet, and the Committee members
suggested several changes to improve it. The policy still sets up a system of allocating each Council member
some portion of the travel budget, and it will be up to each member to allocate their money to specific trips.
$oan asked about trips that come up after the first of the year after everyone has planned trips already. The
policy says in that case the whole Council has to decide if the trip is important enough to increase thc travel
budget. Sister City travel is another issue that will need to be accounted for in budgeting. The policy now
says it must come out of each member's share, but that could mean no one goes if they all have planned for
other national travel that year. The three members all supported thc new draft with its improved language.
The 2003 travel budget will be close to being over spent this year. Reschedule.
2. Rainy Day and Contingency Funds The City has "contingency" funds in two places in the budget. One
is on Page 134 of the budget in the General Fund, and is named the Rainy Day fund. That amount is
currently $1,I00,000. On page 143 of the budget is a 105 Fund Contingency budget. Neither of the two
budgets is counted in the 6 year Financial Plan.
The Contingency Fund grows very slowly, with its interest added to it each year. The rainy day fund is
contained in the larger ending fund balance. Alan said Rainy Day had been established ten years ago, and its
name is not very accurate. Because it is in the General Fund, it is much easier to get at than the Contingency
Fund, which has some restrictions on its spending. Alan said the ending fund balance used to be much
larger, but now we are using it to pay for the city's spending each year, and it is decreasing at such a rate as
to be at zero by 2007. The City's ending fund balance now is getting low enough that we use more than half
of it each year to fund the first few months of the year before any new revenues come in. Alan needs $4-5
million each year for paying the first bills of the new year. When cities don't have enough funds to cover
those expenses they do tax increment financing to tide them over. Some smaller cities like Normandy Park
already have to do this; we'll need to do it in two or three years. Alan said increasing the Rainy Day fund
by paying it interest each year would take money from the ending fund balance so the 6 year Financial Plan
could run out of money earlier than 2007. The Committee was concerned about these figures. They agreed
to study Attachment A of the 6 year Financial Plan at their next meeting. Resehedule.
3. Proieet Prioritization Dennis had talked to Terry Moore who has led groups through processes such as
the Council will go through in prioritizing large projects for the next few years. Alan said it will be hard to
get numbers for projects like the TVS, and the Committee knew some projects would have hard numbers
and others very soft estimates. Still, they are looking for a rough guide that will enable them to judge all the
projects together. Dennis was convinced spending some money to hire Terry Moors would benefit the
Council and be money well spent in the long term. Schedule Moore at Committee.
4. Utility Tax Rebates Alan reported he will be drafting an ordinance to give low income people and
seniors a rebate on their utility taxes. He will advertise it in the next Hazelnut, and figure out how much
everyone~'~as Paid who needs a rebate. Information.
f~,~. Committee Chmr approval
/
Finance and Safety Committee
March I, 2004
Present: Dave Fenton, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Viki Sessop, Alan Doerschel, Rhonda Ben'y, Shelley Kcrslake, Lucy Lauterbach
I. Economic Development Position Classification and Wage Viki passed out a new page
summarizing the mission and responsibilities of the proposed position Economic Development
Administrator. Included in the packet were a Classification Description, Essential Duties,
Position Title and minimum qualifications, all of which elicited comments from the Committee.
Dennis questioned the task that had the person representing the city in negotiations, but was
satisfied with the explanation that could be in relation to buying property. Joan questioned the
goal that the person establishes goals and objectives for the Department: Viki said that would be
removed. Under minimum qualifications Dennis questit~ned how low the requirements seemed,
and added under either the Knowledge or Skills section "contract development and negotiation
of real property transactions". In the end, the Committee approved the position. The memo Viki
just passed out will go to Council, and some of the classification information might not be
included, as it had a little more information than needed. Recommend position to COW.
2. Training Options for Teaching Ethics Shelley explained the types of classes she has done
to teach public officials and others about ethics. Topics that would be most relevant to Council
and Planning Commission (with DCD and PW directors and the City Clerk's office also being
present) include the Open Public Meetings Act, Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and Conflicts
of Interest. That could be a two-hour session. Other topics such as Basic Powers, Duties,
Liabilities, and Immunities of the City, would be relevant only for Council and the Clerk's office
in another two hours. Derails suggested drawing up an ethics policy. Viki and Rhonda noted
there is already an ethics policy that covers employees. Dave said he thought the Council could
develop a separate policy that was relevant to their decisions and work. Shelley's material will
be both written and in a power point presentation. Plan a May training session.
3. Council Travel Policy The COmmittee members spent some time going through the policy
fi:om the beginning. Getting into the section previously called Out of State Travel, they discussed
again the policy of giving each Council member a travel allotment that could be used for any
local, state or national travel. Once they established that, they turned to making sense of the
policy, as that decision does away with several sections of the current policy. They talked about
the issue of what happens to the shared travel funds that result when a Council member chooses
not to travel, and retums his/her allotment to the central shared travel fund.
Turning next to Sister City travel, Dennis said he did not think the City should fund Council
travel to lkawa. Joan thought that Ikawa travel could benefit the City. The Committee decided
each Council member could use his or her individual travel allotment toward a trip to Ikawa if
that Council member wanted to go.
They then talked about the section that addressed travel to national conferences, and allowing
those on national committees not to count in the number of people who go. Dave said he
recognizes the benefit of city representation on national committees. Dennis said that he agrees,
but that the City finances do not allow'all the travel that's been done in the past. Because
representatives' terms of three years on a national committee can be extended beyond one term,
and travel several times a year can be expected for each term, those national committees could
potentially e~{haust the Council travel budget, After discussing ways to set aside money for this
travel before individual allotments are made, they decided there was not enough money to do so.
In the end, the Committee agreed that again, each Council member would get their equal share of
the travel budget funds. People would need to know at the beginning of the year What
conferences they would like to go to. Ifa member decided not to travel, his/her money could go
into the central shared fund.
Returning to th~ topic of the shared central fund, they decided that for additional travel beyond
their allotment, a Council member could submit a Request for Travel listing the travel benefit to
the City. The Council President would prioritize the requests received, and the Council would
make the final decision about who could use the central travel funds. Joan raised the issue of one
criterion being someone who had not traveled for a long time. The others thought that due to our
current budget restrictions there should be no list of criteria. The Committee agreed it is very
awkward and difficult for the Council to deny travel request from their peers. Every effort will
be made to accommodate individual travel requests.
The Committee will consider a revised Council travel policy at their next meeting. In a separate
but related vein, they talked about how they would be able to fund all the travel that's anticipated
for this year. Alan again said that any department heads that travel pay their own travel except
the City pays registration. They decided to ask every Council member to submit their expected
travel for 2004, and they would discuss it at their next meeting. Resehedule.
~hlir approval
Finance and Safety Committee
· February 17, 2004
Present: Dave Fenton, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Viki Jessop, Rhonda Berry, Alan Doerschel, Lucy
Lauterbach
1. Council Chamber Uogrades This issue had been to the COW with a request to pare down
the costs, which the engineer's estimate had pegged at $664,000 initially. There was some
confusion about what a basic package would cost, and the item was referred back to committee.
There were sketches of how some new equipment would be placed in the room. The new cost of
ail improvements would be $503,000. The Committee talked about implementing only parts of
the plan, Or the whole plan. Dennis argued fog putting in the bare necessities of the sound system,
which staff omphasized as necessary for various upcoming hearings and cases that will need to
be transcribed if the system is not improved.
Joan said she also wanted to upgrade the audience seating and carpet, and to improve the look of
the whole room, Which she said gives a poor impression to visitors. To improve the ability to
plug in power point computers would move the project more toward doing everything, since
once electronics work is started, everything must be tom out and it makes sense to replace things
then. Labor and materials costs are mixed together in part of the proposal, and there is a 25%
increase for ailthe labor since it must be done outside of normai work hours. There was aiso
discussion about biting the bullet and upgrading the Chamber once and for all, as no major
upgrades have be.en done since it was built thirty years ago. Putting band-aid replacements in as
things fail apart could save money now only to cost more later. Both sides of doing little now or
doing everything now were touched on, with no fmai consensus from the Committee. Refer,
issue to COW.
2. City Administrator Position, Viki had drafted an ordinance covering the issue of the city
administrator needing to live in the city. A provision was added for the Mayor and Council to be
able to waive this condition if they agreed to do so. The Committee supported the ordinance.
Recommend ordinance to COW..
3. SWKC Chamber Contract Alan said the 2004 contract was similar to last year's contract,
with the same service levels. Ioan ensured that Chamber representation on Equity and Diversity
was spelled out. The Committee questioned Service B, which had wording about the Chamber
having information about "City projects, facility, issues and services". Alan will check with the
Chamber on that, and instead will perhaps reference the Government Affairs Committee of the
Chamber. Recommend Contract to COW. .:
44. Council'i/raVelPolicy Withthe Couneil's travel budget having been cut i_n 20. O4,~the.
~ Committe? cousider, ed ways to deai with it. They agreed there sh°uld be justincatt°n mr mt
travel, which explains the proposed benefit the Council member will receive from travel.
Joan proposed what some other cities have done, which is to divide the travel budget among ail
the Council members. If each member got a Certain amount of money, she/he could plan to use
that funding for a trip. If no more money were available, it could be donated from another
member's 'pot of money ~f one person did not intend to use it. However, this system would
T cil member to travel if he/she wanted to do so. Refer to COW_.
rmttee chair approval . ·
..... , ............. Initials ITEM 2~0.
Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor'* review Council review
04/12/04 CK ~('~ ~ fi~,'~ t~l l-/7' ~
CAS Number: I Original Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: Adopt Ordinance for Traffic Concurrency Standards and Impact Mitigation Fees
Original Sponsor: Council ~ldmin. Public Works
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: Recent legal challenges to the City's Traffic Concurrency Standards ordinance, specifically to
the impact mitigation fee methodology, have created a need for Tukwila to modify the
Tukwila Municipal Code (Chapter 9.48). We also have to update the project list.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Amend the Traffic Concurrency Standards Ordinance (TMC 9.48) and approve by resolution a
new Impact Mitigation Fee Schedule:
Committee: Forward to Committee of the Whole.
Administration: Same as Sponsor.
Cost Impact (if known): N/A
Fund Source (if known): N/A
Meeting Date Action
04-12-04
Meeting Date Attachments
11-24-03 0~) Informational Memorandum dated l l-19-03
~) TMC- Ch. 9.48 & Table 12- Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs
(~ Additional information provided at Transportation Committee & COW on 11-24-03
(~ Transportation Committee Minutes- 11/10/03 & 11/24/03
t01-26-04 ~ Informational Memorandum dated 01-22-04 ~ 1-26-04 was Crate meetin9
Table 12- Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs ~ ?..nl~ y (not COW or Regular
(~ Transportation Committee Minutes - 01-26-04 / ~g. ). Information provided
4/12/04 Information Memo dated.4pril 7, 2004 ~or nistorxca, purposes.
Draft Impact Fee List with CIP Sheets
Draft TMC 9.48 Language
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Director
Date: April 7, 2004 J
Subject: Transportation Concurrency and Impact Mitigation Fees Ordinance Changes
ISSUE
Update to the Impact Mitigation Fee list and modifications to the Concurrency Ordinance (TMC 9.48).
BACKGROUND
Recent legal challenges to the City's Concurrency Ordinance, specifically to the impact mitigation fee
methodology, have created a need for Tukwila to modify the Concurrency Ordinance (TMC 9.48) and
update the Mitigation Fee list.
ANALYSIS
Proposed modifications to the City's Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee list have been brought
forward to the Transportation Committee on two occasions and once to the Committee of the Whole.
New sections have been introduced for clarification purposes as well as to bring the language into
compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 82.02).
The City's Impact Fee list also needs to be updated to include current project costs, eliminate completed
projects no longer requiring development contribution, and introducing new projects required to maintain
the City's established Level of Service standards. Within the Comp Plan, the City is given the authority
to update the impact fee list on a regular basis at least every two years or in conjunction with the annual
update to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
During the January 26, 2004 Transportation Committee meeting, staff was given policy direction that no
individual cost per -trip fee amount should exceed approximately $2,500.00. The GMA requires that
reasonable financial assumptions be made when establishing impact fees, balancing between impact fees
and other sources of public funds. In other words, the City cannot rely solely on impact fees to finance
public facilities. Given both the policy direction and the legal requirements within the GMA, staff has
developed a possible option for the updated Impact Fee list.
The attached proposed list includes the current project costs from the CIP but assumes that the City is not
expecting to fully fund all projects through grant monies and general revenue. Policy direction is needed
from Council before the final Impact Fee list can be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed ordinance changes and mitigation fee list and refer to full Council for adoption
\WIQ\wll\pubwo Xcyndy\infb u im nnmo 9A8 upE briefing x3413 -0C.d
Draft Impact Fee List
Proposed Update
Estimated New Impact Fees based on assumption of expected mitigation o$0
1990 2010 Total
Modeled Modeled Pk Vol Improvement Publid
Project # Intersection or Link Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Local Cost
Awarded
Grant
Expected
Grant
Actual
Mitigation
Impact Fee
Expected Funded
Mitigation Amount Cost/Trip
96 -RW18
Southcenter Pkwy
168 signal (1) _.
2,425
3,324
899
$340,000
8170,000
$0
$0
$0
8170,000',
$170,000
$190
93-RW 11
W Valley /Strander
NB dual left turn lanes (1)
3,433
4,316
883
$953,000
$244 500.
$464,000
$0
$244,500
$244,500
$280
89 -RW13
Interurban Bridge
widen for dual lefts (1)
2,831
3,945
1,114
$1,887,000
$309,000
$1,228,000
$0
$41,000
$309,000
$268,000
$240
84 -RWO7
Minkler (APW - Southcenter Pkwy)
construct 3 lane street (2)
0
1,015
1,015
$1,644,000
$1,219,000
$0
$0
$425,000
$425,000
$420
88 -RWO4
Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander)
widen to 5 lanes (2)
1,112
1,833
721
$800,000
$400,000
$0
$0
8400,000
8400,000
$550
03 -RWO5
Andover Pk E @ Minkler
widen to 5 lanes @ ints. (1)
970
1,420
450
$200,000
$100,000
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$220
84 -RWO3
Southcenter Pkwy (180 - S city limits)
construct 3 and Slane street (3)
500
788
288
$7,096,000
$1,374,000
$350,000
$4,646,780
$0
$725,220
$725,220
$2,520
02 -RWO4
Southcenter Blvd (51 S - TIB)
widen to 3 lanes (1)
408
1600
1,192
$1,750,000
$875,000
$0
$0
$0
$875,000
$875,000
$730
89 -RW05
E Marginal (BAR - 112)
widen to 3 lanes (2)
1685
2432
747
$1,955,000
$595,000
$0
$700,000
$0
$660,000
$660,000
$880
84 -RW19
Klickitat (Southcenter Pkwy -15)
Construct Flyover (4)
2337
3372
1,035
$13,300,000
$3,800,000
$0
$7,000,000
$0
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,420
Assumptions::
(1) 50% of project cost public cost, 50% of project cost to be collected through impact fees
(2) Financing strategy mirrors adopted CIP
(3) 86.5% of assumed grant from CIP, 13.5% of assumed grant assigned to expected mitigation
(4) Following policy direction of no individual fee to exceed approximately $2,500, assuming some percentage of project cost to be paid through impact fees
Note:
Impact fees are collected for each project until the "Impact Fee Funded Amount" is fully collected
Impact Fee Worksheet
Printed 4/7/04 2:25 PM
CITY OF TUKWlLA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2001 to 2006
PROJECT: Southcenter Parkway Signals
LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.5951'xxx. xx. 93 PROJECT NO. 96-RWXX
DESCRIPTION: Evaluate need for signals on Southcenter Parkway. Construct traffic signal at S 168 Street.
JUSTIFICATION: Vehicle and pedestrian safety.
STATUS: Southcenter Pkwy/S 168 St. signal will be designed and constructed in 2001.
MAINT. IMPACT: Additional maintenance needed.
COMMENT:
FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted
(In $000's) t999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 BEYOND TOTAl
ExPENSES ............
Engineering 38 2 38 7~
Land (R/VV)
Construction 4C 222 26~
TOTAL ExPENSES 38 42 260 a 0 0 C 0 a 34(
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
Proposed Grant
Mitigation Actual
Mitigation Expected
City Oper. Revenue 38 42 260 0 0 0 (] 0 0 34C
TOTAL SOURCES 38 42 260 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 34(
42
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2003 to 2008
PROJECT: West Valley Hwy & Strander .Blvd.
LINEITEM: 104/02.595.. .12 PROJECTNO. 93-RWll
DESCRIPTION: Design and construct safety and capacity improvements for trail pedestrian traffic and northbound dual left turn
lanes.
JUSTIFICATION: Pedestrians cross between Interurban and Green River Trails. Northbound lelts queue through curves affecting
safety and capacity.
STATUS~ Channelization approval from WSDOT received in 2002. Construction advertisement scheduled for late 2002,
award early 2003,
MAINT, IMPACT: Minimal.
COMMENT: Federal Hwy STP Grant for $464,000.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Engineering 151 1 a 60 221
Land (R/W) C
Construction 297 435 73;
TOTAL EXPENSES 448 1 a 495 0 0 (~ o 0 a 95~
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant 61 7 396 46z
Proposed Grant C
Mitigation Actual (
Mitigation Expected (
City Oper. Revenue 387 3 99 0 O C 0 0 a 48~.
TOTAL SOURCES 448 la ' 495 0 a C 0 0 {~ 95."
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 to 2009
PROJECT: Interurban Bridge Widening (Sctr BlvdlGrady/I-405)
LINE ITEM: 104 / 01.595. .98 PROJECT NO. 89-RW13
DESCRIPTION: Design and construct widening of Interurban Bridge for northbound HOV lane to F405 Southbound on-ramp,
Improve traffic by increasing capacity for freeway access. Dual left turn lanes (one HOV) to on-ramp for increasing
JUSTIFICATIONi traffic volumes.
Construction began in May 2003 with completion scheduled for the summer of 2004. Construction of Trail Bridge
STATUS: (Parks) and West Valley Hwy System & Abandonments (Water) to be included in project.
MAINT. IMPACT: To reduce maintenance.
COMMENT: Federal Hwy Fund grant (ISTEA) = $1.08 million and $148,000 of National Highway Funds.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
~n,3uuus! ~uu~ .~003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Engineedng 220 132 55 407
0
Land (PJW)
Construction 1 ;000 480 1,480
TOTAL EXPENSES 22(; 1,132 535 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 1,887
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant 136 979 113 1,228
0
Proposed Grant
Mitigation Actual 41 41
0
Mitigation Expected
City Oper. Revenue 43 153 422 0 (; 0 0 0 0 618
TOTAL SOURCES 220 1,132 535 0 (; 0 0 0 0 1,887
32
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 to 2009
PROJECT: Minkler Blvd (Andover Park W - Southcenter Pkwy)
LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. .72 PROJECT NO. 84-RW07
Widen Minkler Blvd from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway. Add third lane and curb, gutter, and
DESCRIPTION: sidewalk on the south side.
JUSTIFICATION: Accommodate anticiaated future development fmntat improvements to complete three lane street section.
Completed construction of"half street" and opened road to Southcenter Pkwy with two lanes and sidewalks
STATUS: on one side with water, sawer and drainage improvements in 1995.
MAINT. IMPACT: Minor addition for maintenance.
COMMENT: Anticipated future developer frontal improvement construction.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
!003 .... 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL
~ln :~UUU s~ ,~uu~ ~'-"~-~ 2004
EXPENSES
Engineering 460 75 535
Land (R/VV) 27 27
Construction 732 350 1,082
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,219 0 0 0 0 (} 0 425 0 1,644
FUND SOURCES
C
Awarded Grant
C
Proposed Grant
Mitigation Actual ..
Mitigation Expected 425 42.~
City Oper. Revenue 1,219 0 0 - C 0 0 0 d 0 1,21.~
TOTAL SOURCES 1,219 0 0 C 0 0 0 425 0 1,64~
Project Location
60
CITY OF TUK~NILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 to 2009
PROJECT: Andover Park West (Tukwila Pkwy to Strander Blvd)
LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595, .47 PROJECT NO. 88-RW04
DESCRIPTION: Complete widening for left turn lane,
JUSTIFICATION: Adding an improved left turn lane will reduce accidents and lessen congestion.
Major portion of Andover Park E at intersections are complete. Next step would be to complete the
STATUS: entire road with a left turn lane.
MAINT. IMPACT: Negligible.
· COMMENT: Anticipated future developer frontal improvement construct[on.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000°s) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Engineering 100 15(] 25C
Land (PJW) 5(] 5C
Construction 50(] 50C
TOTAL EXPENSES 0 (] 0 0 100 0 0 0 700 80C
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant C
Proposed Grant C
Mitigation Actual C
Mitigation Expected 400 40C
City Oper. Revenue 0 0 0 0 100 (] 0 0 300 40C
TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 0 0 100 (] 0 0 700 80(
53
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 to 2009
PROJECT: Andover Park E/Minkler Blvd.
LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. PROJECT NO. 03-RW05
DESCRIPTION: Design and construct left turn lanes on Andover Park East and reconstruct traffic signal.
JUSTIFICATION: Improve safety and provide needed capacity.
sTATus: New project for 2004-2009 ClP.
MAINT. IMPACT: Annual signal re-lamping and routine operations.
COMMENT:
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) - 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPE~NSES
Engineering 50 5C
Land (R/W) '
Construction 150 15C
TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 a 0 200 0 0 C 20C
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
Proposed Grant
I
Mitigation Actual
Mitigation Expected
City Oper. Revenue 0 0 0 a 0 200 0 0 C 20c
TOTAL SOURCES 0 0! 0 0 0 200 0 0 C 20C
56
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 ' to 2009
PROJECT: Southcenter Pkwy (S 180.St - South City Limits)
LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. .60 PROJECT NO. 84-RW37
Extend 5-lane Southcenter Pkwy to south city limits including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage, and
DESCRIPTION: possibty combining with water and sewer improvements.
JUSTIFICATION: Southwest access needed for commercial business district (CBD) and development of adjoining area.
STATUS: Alignment is decided. Updating design report is scheduled for 2004.
MAINT. IMPACT: Additional street maintenance.
* Both the Federal Hwy Surface Transportation Program (STP) Grant of $200,000 and the $150,000 State Artedal
COMMENT: (ALP) Grant are obligated.
· FINANCIAL Through Estimated
V" ? .... ! 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Engineering 381 615 99(
Land (PJW) 2,00(~ 2,00(
Construction 4,10C 4,10(
TOTAL EXPENSES 0 (3 381 0 C 0 C 0 6,71~A 7.09(
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant 350 35(
Proposed Grant 5,372 5,37;
Mitigation Actual ..
Mitigation Expected
City Oper. Revenue 0 0 31 (3 0 (3 0 (3 1,343 1,37,
TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 381 £ 0 (3 0 ~ 6,715 7,091
45
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 to 2009
PROJECT: Southcenter Blvd ( I-5 to International Blvd)
LINE ITEM: 104/02.595. . . PROJECT NO. 02-RW04
Improve roadway to a three-lane urban arterial with medians, turn lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street
DESCRIPTION: lighting, and drainage.
Traffic volumes are growing and full urbar? standards will accommodate future growth and improve safety for
JUSTIFICATION: motorists and pedestrians. Project includes improvements needed in conjunction with the proposed Sound
Transit Light Rail station at Southcenter Blvd (formerly S 154t~ St) and Intemational Blvd.
STATUS: Design Report needed.
MA]NT. IMPACT: . Minimal to high, depending on whether landscaped medians are used.
COMMENT:
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
tin $000's) 2002 2003. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Engineering 150 15(3
Land (PJW) I 100 10(3
Construction 1,50(3 1,50(~
TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 0 0 (3 0 150 1,60(3 1,75C
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
Proposed Grant C
Mitigation Actual
Mitigation Expected
City Oper. Revenue (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 150 1,60(3 1
TOTAL SOURCES (3 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 150 1,60C 1
64
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 to 2009
PROJECT: E Marginal Way (BAR - S 112 St)
LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. .29 PROJECT NO. 89-RW05
DESCRIPTION: Design and construct curb, gutter, drainage, lighting, tum lanes, and traffic control
JUSTIFICATION: Safety, capacity, and drainage items needed to serve this area of increasing vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Design report scheduled for 2004. Project will include improvements needed in conjunction with the proposed
STATUS: Sound Transit Light Rail.
MAINT. IMPACT: Reduction in maintenance.
COMMENT:
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES ,'.
Engineedng 35 320 35,~
Land (R/W) 500 50(
Construction 1,100 1,10(
TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 3~ C 0 0 0 C 1,920 1,95,'
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant (
Proposed Grant 700 70(
(
Mitigation Actual ..
Mitigation Expected 660 66(
.City Oper. Revenue 0 (~ 35 0 0 0 0 0 560 59!
TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 1,920 1,95~
Project Location
52
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2004 to 2009
PROJECT: Klickitat/S/C Pkwy/i-5 Access Revision
LINE ITEM: 104 / 02.595. .20 PROJECT NO. 84-RW19
Preliminary design and alternatives analysis for capacity and safety in order to improve traffic flow on Southcenter
DESCRIPTION: Parkway, Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard.
JUSTIFICATION: Provide needed future traffic capacity and safety improvements and reduce accidents.
STATUS: New project for 2004-2009 CIP. The design study will be the first phase.
MAINT. IMPACT: None during study phase.
Coordinate with WSDOT regarding potential impacts to I-5 on-romps and Southcenter Mall regarding planned
COMMENT: additions.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
lin $0ou's~ zuuz ~vvo 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 3EYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES 200
Engineering 300 500
0
Land (R/W)
0
Construction
TOTAL EXPENSES C 0 30C 200 0 ¢ 0 (~ 0 500
FUND SOURCES 0
Awarded Grant
0
Proposed Grant '-
0
Mitigation Actual 0
Mitigation Expected
City Oper. Revenue 0 (; 300 200 0 0 (~ 0 0 500
TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 300 200 0 0 £ 0 d 500
Project LoCation
46
Division I: Authority and Purpose and Definitions, etc.
9.48.010 Authority and Purpose
A. Tukwila is authorized to impose transportation concurrency standards and transportation
impact fees on new development pursuant to the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A.070 and P, CW 82.02.020
B. The purposes of this chapter are to:
L Establish reasonable transportation concurrency standards to ensure that adequate
facilities are available to serve existing and future traffic demands on city facilities.
2. Ensure that financial commitments are in place so that adequate transportation
facilities are available to serve new growth and development;
3. Promote orderly growth and development by 6stablishing standards requiring that new
growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new transportation facilities
needed to serve new growth and development;
4. Ensure that transportation impact fees are imposed through established procedures and
criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the same
impact; and
5. Implement the transportation policies of the transportation element of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan.
9.48.xxx Definitions.
"Development Activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use,
any change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land, that creates
additional demand and need for Transportation System Improvements.
"Director" means the Tukwila Director of Public WOrks or his or her authorized designee.
"Transportation Impact Fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a
condition of development approval to pay for Transportation System Improvements needed to
serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new develoPment that
creates additional demand and need for public transportation improvements, that is a
proportionate share of the cost of the transportation improvements, and that is used for
transportation improvements that reasonably benefit the new development. "Impact fee" does not
include a reasonable permit or application fee.
"Transportatioh System Improvement" means any and all capital improvements to the
transportation infrastructure of the city constructed pursuant to city design and development
standards and requirements, including without limitation roads, bridges, overpasses, sidewalks,
curbs, turn lanes, traffic signals, traffic signs, HOV lanes, bus shelters, and associated
landscaping.
DR,4FT
9.48.020 Exemptions
A. This chapter shall not apply t°'single family building permits, multi-family building
permits for projects containing four or fewer units, short plats, or any non-residential
project that is categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to TMC 21.04.080, 100, or 110.
The Department shall also waive compliance with this chapter for other projects which
will not generate new traffic trips.
B. Any impact fees resulting from the Development Activities listed in this subsection shall
be paid from public funds.
Division 1I. Transportation Concurrency Management
9.48.010 .Determination of traffic Concurrency required
A. Any new development or redevelopment which is not categorically exempted under
9.48.020 is required to demonstrate compliance with this chapter.
B. No Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision which is subject to this chapter shall be approved unless
a determination is made by the appropriate Department that the standards of this chapter have
been met.
C. For Type 1 and 2 decisions, the Department of Community Development shall refer the
application to the Department of Public Works, which shall determine whether the application
complies with City standards regarding traffic concurrency and, if not, what mitigation is
required.
D. For Type 3, 4, and 5 decisions, the Department of Community Development shall refer
the application to the Department of Public Works, which shall determine whether the
application complies with City standards regarding traffic concurrency and, if not, what
mitigation is required. A statement identifying the required mitigation, if any, shall be
incorporated into the staff report required by TMC 18.112.020.
9.48.030 Level-of-Service methodology
A. Level-of-service ("LOS") gradations for corridors shall be graded from LOS A to LOS F,
as defined in the most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual published by the
Transportation Research Board. Intersections shall be measured in average delays at intersections
or average travel speeds on corridors, as determ'med by the Department of Public Works
following the methodology included in the Highway .Capacity Manual or other approved
methodology.
B. The Department of Public Works may, in its discretion, utilize either a standard LOS
gradation system or, in the case of intersections that are experiencing high congestion, an
expanded LOS gradation system to evaluate. The LOS gradations for intersections, based on
average delays are:
Level of ~
Service Existing Expanded
A <7.5 seconds < 7.5 seconds
B 7.5 - 15 seconds 7.5 - 15 seconds
C 15.1 - 25 15.1 - 25 seconds
seconds
D 25.1 - 40 25.1 - 40 seconds
seconds
DR, F'I'
E 40.1 - 60 40.1 ~.60 seconds
seconds
F > 60 seconds 60 - 120 seconds
G 120 - 180 seconds
H 180 - 240 seconds
I 240 - 300 seconds
J >300 seconds
9.48.040 Arterial classification system
A. The Tukwila Functional Arterial Classification System, which is in accord with required
Federal and Washington State arterial standards, is as follows:
Street Classification Principal Use
Access access to abutting property
Collector Arterial between access & minor
Minor Arterial between collector &
principal
Principal Arterial between communities
B. The Department of Public Works shall classify all streets in the City in accordance with
the classifications in Subsection A. Such classifications shall be reviewed and modified as
necessary by the Department from time to time.
9.48.050 LOS standards for specific locations
A. A minimum LOS standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a
calculation of average LOS, for the following arterial segments:
1. E Marginal Way (S. 112th St. to North City Limit)
2. Interurban (Southcenter Blvd. to 1-5)
3. Pacific Highway S. (S. 152nd St. to Boeing Access Rd.)
5. 4.West Valley Highway (I-405 to S. 180th St.)Southcenter Parkway south of S. 180th St.
B. In the Central Business District ("CBD") area, a minimum average LOS level of E shall
be maintained. In the CBD, LOS shall be determined by using the "link" averages for the 17
segments defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. For purposes of
this section, the CBD is the area bounded by 1-5, 1-405, the Green River, and S. 180 St.
C. A mira'mum LOS standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a
calculation of LOS for individual intersections and 9orddor segments for all other minor,
collector and principal arterials principally serving commercially zoned property.
D. A minimum LOS standard of D for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a
calculation of LOS for individual intersections and corridor segments for all minor and collector
arterials in predominantly residential areas, provided that for the following arterials, LOS shall
be calculated based on the average LOS for the arterial: 42nd Ave. S., S. 160th St., S. 164th St.,
Macadam, S. 124th St., S. 130th St., S. 132nd St., S. 144th St., 53rd Ave. S., and 65th Ave. S.
E. Access streets which exceed 1,000 vehicles per day volume will be evaluated on a case
by case basis to determine whether traffic improvements or control measures arc required to
reduce volumes and provide adequate safety.
DRAFT
DRAI=T
9.48.060 Design of arteriai improvements; load limits
A. Arterial improvements in commemial areas shall be designed to include tracking
geometric and loading parameters.
B. Trucking will be allowed on all arterials as well as commercial area access streets unless
restricted by load limits. Load limits may be used as restrictions following a traffic study.
Division III Impact Fees
9.48.xxx Transportation System Improvement for which Transportation Impact Fee may be
Imposed.
An Impact Fee may only be imposed on Transportation System Improvements that are
identified within the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan and/or any associated
background reports therein referenced or adopted, Or any updates to the aforementioned
documents.
9.48.xxx Scope and use of impact fees.
Impact fees:
A. Shall only be imposed for transportation improvements that are reasonably related to
the traffic impacts of the new development;
B. Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of transportation improvements that
are reasonably related to the new development;
C. Shall be used for transportation improvements that will reasonably benefit the new
development;
D. Shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies; and
E. Shall not be Imposed to mitigate the same off-site traffic impacts that are being
mitigated pursuant to any other law.
9.48.xxx Designation of Service Area
The service area in which the City shall calculate and impose an Impact Fee for Transportation
System Improvements per unit of development shall be the area contained within the legal
boundaries of the city.
9.48.xxx Previously Incurred Transportation System Improvement Costs
The Director may impose a Transportation Impact Fee for Transportation System Improvement
costs incurred by the city prior to Development Activity if the Development Activity will be
served by the previously constructed Transportation System Improvement. However, no Impact
Fee imposed pursuant to this subsection may make up for any Transportation System
Improvement Deficiencies.
9.48.100 Traffic studies and mitigation of impacts
A. TMC 9.48.050 identifies Level of Service standards for specific areas and corridors that
can be maintained by making improvements identified in the Transportation Element based on
2010 "build out" development traffic projections. Level of Service standards are also established
for other non-specific arterials and for access streets.
DR, IFT
Any proposed project which requires a Type 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 decision and which will
generate five or more vehicle trips m an AM, noon, or PM peak hour period shall submit, as part
of the application process, a trip generation analysis using standard generation rates published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, other standard references, or f~om other documented
information and surveys approved by the Department of Public Works. In addition, such
projects shall submit a trip distribution study, unless the requirement for such study is waived by
the Department of Public Works.
~.C~ If the trip generation and distribution studies demonstrate that the proposed project will
generate five or more additional peak hour traffic trips in a specific area or corridor prior to the
horizon year established by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan impact
mitigation fees shall be determined based on the fees established in this chapter.
~.~, If the trip generation and distribution studies demonstrate that the proposed project will
generate five 5 or more additional peak hour traffic trips on any non-specific arterial or access
street such that the intersection, corridor, or area will be below the Level of Service standards
established in TMC 9.48.050, prior to the horizon year egtablished by the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan, the Director of the Department of Public Works shall require, as
appropriate to the particular circumstances, one of the following methods for mitigation of the
project's traffic impacts:
1. Require the applicant to pay a mitigation payment equal to the applicant's
proportionate fair share of the cost of the improvements necessary to restore the
intersection(s) arterial(s) or access street(s) to (1) the level of service that would exist at the
time the project is completed, but without project traffic, or (2) the level of service standard
established in TMC 9.48.050; or
2. Require the applicant to complete the improvements required to restore the
intersection(s) arterial(s) or access street(s) to (1) the level of service that would exist at the
time the project is completed, but without project traffic, or (2) the level of service standard
established in TMC 9.48.050; or
3. In appropriate cases, mitigation may consist of a combination of improvements
constructed by the applicant and mitigation payments.
If the proposed project does not generate five or more additional peak hour traffic trips at an
intersection or corridor which will be below the Level of Service standards established in TMC
9.48.050 prior to the horizon year for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, no
mitigation under this section will be required for that intersection or corridor.
~. ~. A project applicant shall have the right to mitigate all or a portion of the capacity impacts
of a project by utilizing capacity mitigation measures, including but not limited to, carpooling
and rideshare programs, widenings (roadway, lane, radius), signal improvements, and other
capacity improvements. In the event that mitigation measures such as carpooling and fideshare
programs are proposed, the applicant shall execute such agreements with the City as are
necessary to assure the permanent availability of such programs.
,~. ¢. In the ~vent that the applicant completes improvements which'are part of the
Transportation Impact Fee Schedule and the cost of such improvements exceeds the applicant's ~
proportionate fair share of the cost of such improvements, the applicant shall be entitled to apply
to enter into a Latecomer Agreement with the City
DRA/ I'
9.48.110 Impact mitigation fees.
A. Impact fees for the specific areas, intersections and corridors identified in TMC 9.48.050
are provided in the Schedule of Impact Fees in section 9.48;xxx. The Transportation Impact Fee
Schedule has been reasonably adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which were
anticipated to be available to fund public improvements.
B. The Transportation Impact Fee Schedule shall be updated annually by the Department of
Public Works and adopted by motion or resolution of the City Council.
C. If the trip generation and distribution studies demonstrate that the proposed project will
generate five 5 or more additional peak hour traffic trips on any project or projects identified in
the Transportation Impact Fee schedule, an impact mitigation fee will be assessed, payable at
issuance of the building permit. Final fee determination is based on the number of trips
impacting the project multiplied by the cost per trip identified in the Transportation Impact Fee
schedule.
9.48.xxx Schedule of Impact Fees.
The standard Transportation Impact Fees to be imposed are set forth as follows: ,
Intersection or Link 1990 2010 Pk Vol Improvement CosfJ
Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Trip
Southcenter Pkwy/168
signal
W Valley/Strander
NB dual left turn lanes
Interurban Bridge
widen for dual lefts
Minkler (APW - Southcenter PIoNy)
construct 3 lane street
S 178 St (Southcenter Pkwy - WCL)
, malign (cap/safety/transit)
Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander)
widen to 5 lanes
Andover Pk E @ Minkler
widen to 5 lanes I~ ints.
Southcenter Pkwy (180 - s. City limits)
construct 3 and 5 lane street
9.48.xxx Credit to Developer
A developer is entitled to a credit against an Impact Fee for the value of any dedication of land
for, improvement to, or new construction of any Transportation SyStem Improvement provided
by the developer to the city as a condition of approval of the Development Activity.
9.48.xxx Unusual Circumstances
At the time a Transportation Impact Fee is imposed, the city shall be allowed to adjust the
standard Transportation Impact Fee to consider unusual cimumstances in specific cases to ensure
that an Transportation Impact Fee is imposed fairly.
DR,4FT.
DRA?T
9.48.xxx Consideration of Studies or. Data provided by Developer.
In calculating the mount of a Transportation Impact Fee, the Director may consider studies and
data submitted by the developer in determining whether any adjustment of the standard Impact
Fee is warranted.
9.48.120 Adjustments to mitigation requirements
A. If, in the rare instance, and in the judgment of the director, none of the options for
calculating impact mitigation amounts accurately reflect the impacts of the new development, the
director may allow the fee payer to conduct an independent fee calculation. The fee payer shall,
at that time, prepare and submit to the director an independent fee calculation of the development
activity for which the building permit or development approval is sought. The document(s)
submitted shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made and the
proposed amount of the fee. The director is not required to accept any documentation that the
director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or unreliable and may require the fee payer to submit
additional or different documentation for consideration. Based on the information within the
director's possession, the director may adjust the impact fee calculation to the specific
characteristics of the development, if necessary.
9.48.130 Mitigation o f traffic safety hazards
A. If the Department of Public Works determines that a hazard to safety could reasonably
exist as a result of traffic generated by a project, the applicant shall be required to construct the
improvements necessary to mitigate the traffic safety hazard regardless of whether the roadway
corridor or intersection meets the capacity standards of this chapter.
B. If the Department of Public Works determines that there is an existing hazard to safety
affect'mg a traffic corridor or intersection which will be impacted by traffic from a proposed
project and that the improvements necessary to resolve the safety hazard are not a funded project
in the Capital Improvement Program and are not already funded for correction from other
sources, the applicant shall have the option of (1) constructing the improvements necessary to
mitigate the traffic safety hazard, subject to the right to apply to enter into a Latecomer
Agreement regarding such project, or (2) postponing the project until such time as a project to
correct the safety hazard has been fully funded.
Division IV. Appeals
9.48.200 Appeals
A. Any party seeking to appeal an impact fee or mitigation requirement imposed by a City
administrator under this chapter may file an appeal of Type 1 decision as provided in TMC
18.104.010(B) and TMC 18.108.010(B).
B. Any fee payer may pay the impact fee imposed by this chapter under protest in order to
obtain development approval. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development
activity may oflly be taken forward by the fee payer of the property where such development
activity will occur. No appeals shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have .
been paid.
C. Determination of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a
given development activity, the availability or value ora credit, or the director's decision with
respect to the independent fee calculation or any other shall be appealed to the heating body
pursuant to TMC 18.104.010(B) and TMC 18.108.010(B).
DRAFT
Attachment III.C.
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Director,,_q~
Date: November 19, 2003t ~
Subject: Transportation Concurrency and Impact Mitigation Fees Ordinance Changes
Project No. 01-RW06
ISSUE
Update to the Impact Mitigation Fee list and modifications m the Concurrency Ordinance (TMC 9.48).
BACKGROUND.
Recent legal challenges to the City's Concurrency Ordinance, specifically to the impact mitigation fee
methodology, hive created a need for Tukwila to modify the Concurrency Ordinance (TMC 9.48) and
update the Mitigation Fee list. Originally, staff thought modifications to the Comprehensive Plan and
the associated Transportation Background Report would be necessary but further review has shown
modifications to be unnecessary at this time.
ANALYSIS
Recent litigation decisions, still in the appeals process, exposed a very r~al n~ed for updates to the.
City's way of collecting impact mitigation fees..Staff is developing p~oposed language changes to'the
Transportation Concurrency ordinance and updaiing Table 12: Mitigation Proportionate Fair Share
Costs from the Transportation Background Report.
Because of the very short timeframe in which these changes are being done, the actual verbiage and
updated impact fee list will be presented'during the Transportation Committee, immediately followed
by the Committee of the Whole on November 24, 2003: Schedule for this:process is:
November 10112 - Transportation Committee and Community Affairs & Parks Committee
November 24 - Transportation Committee and Committee of the Whole
December 15 - Ailoption by City Council Action
A full update to the Transportation Element will be done in late 2004. Those changes will be in
conjunction with other city-wida updates currently underway as required by state law.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and adopt the proposed ordinance changes and mitigation fee list.
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 9.48 B. Volume (V) to capacity (C) ratios shall be used
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY STANDARDS to quantify LOS for corridors as follows:
LOS Volume/Capacity
'~ A up to 0.6
Sections: . B 0.6.0.7
9.48.010 Determination of traffi~ concurrency required C 0.7- 0.8 '
9.48.020 Exemptions. D 0.8 - 0.9. --
9.48.030 Level-of-Service standards E 0.9- 1.0
9.48.040 Arterial classification system
9.48.050 LOS standards for specific locations F · greater than 1.0
9.48.060 Design of arterial improvements; load limits C. The Department of Public Works may, in its
· 9.48.070 Traffic studies and mitigation discretion, utilize either a standard LOS gradation
9.48.080 Mitigation of traffic safety hazards system or, in the case of intersections that are
9A8.090.Appeals experienqing high congesti, on, an expanded 'LOS
" gradation system to evaluate. The LOS gradations for
9.48.010 Determination of traffic concurrency intersections, based on average delays, are:
required ' Level of,
A. No Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision which is Service' . Existing · Expanded
subject to this chapter shall be approved unless a ' A <7.5 seconds < 7.5 seconds
determination is made by the .appropriate Department B .7.5: 15 seconds 7.5 - .15 seconds
that the standards of this chapter, have been met. ' C 15.1 - 25 seconds - 15.1 - 25 seconds
B. For' Type 1 and 2 decidons, the Department of D 25.1 - 40 seconds · 25.1 - 40 seconds
community Development shall refer the application to E 40.1 - 60 seconds ' 40.1 - 60 seconds'
the Department of 'Public Works, .which .shall F > 60 seconds' 60 - 120 seconds
determine whether the .application complies with 'City G 120-. 180 seconds
standards regarding traffic cohcurrency, and, if not, what · H · . · 180 - 240 seconds
mitigation is required. ' . I ' 240 - 300 seconds
· C.' For Type 3, 4, and 5 'decisit~ns, the' Department· ': j. ' >300 seconds
of'Community Development shall refer the appilcatioti . " Ord. 1769 ~3[pa(t), 1993]
tO the Departmefit of Public Works 'which shall . .. .... ~ . '.
determine whether the' opplication complies with City ..9.48.040 Artenal classification sy~tem'i': . · .
standards regarding traffic concurrency and, if not, what' .A. The Tukwila Functfo'nal. Arterial Classification
mitigation is re~tuir~d. A .statement identifying the System~ which is in accord with required Fed~rai and
required 'mitigation, if ~ny, shall br..incorporated'into' -Washington State arterial standards is as follows:. · ' ·
the ~taff rePort required by TMC 18.112.020."...' ' · .' '-... : · :--' ' · - - · ' : ' '.
(Ord. l?d9 §3[part), 1993] Street Classification" Principal Use"' -. ~.. '
· . . . · ." ' ' - ' · . . .' · Access.. · access to abutting pr0perty.'-
9.48.020 Exemptions" ·
-'.This chapter shall not 'apply't6 single 'family .: Collector Arterial ... between access & minor .
. Minor Arterial - · between collector &'principal .
.building'. permit§', multi-family building permits, for Principal Arterial between communities -... :
"pr0Iects containing fbur or few~r'units~ short plats, m; ·
anynon-residential project that is categorically exempt .-. B.' The Departmeni of Public Works ~hafi ci'assif7
from.SEPA pursuant to TMC 21.04.080;:100, or 110. 'all streets, in the City 'in accordance with the
The Department shall also.waive compliance with this classifications, in 'Subseqtior/ A. Such. classifications
' chapte~ for other projects which will not generate new ' shall be reviewed and modified as. necessary, by the
traffic urips? ' Department from time to time. ' ' ' - '
[Ord:/?dg §3(part), 19~3) : .. · [Ord. 17~ §S[part), lg~S)
9,48.030 Level-of-Service standards '9.48.050 LoS standards for specific locations
A.. Level-of-service ("LOS") gradations for corridors A. 'A minimum LOS standa/~d Of E. for traffic
shall' be measured with volume to .capacity ratios capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation
graded from LOS A to LOS F, as pr6vided in subsection of average LOS, for the following arterial segments:
B, and intersections shall be measured in 'average 1. E Marginal Way (S. 1 l'2th St. to North City
delays at intersections, or average travel speeds on Limit)
corridors, as determined by the Department of Public 2. Interurban (Southcenter Blvd. to 1-5)
Works. 3. Pacific Highway S. (S. 152nd St. to Boeing
Access Rd.)
TITLE 9 - VEHICLE5 ANU I HAFFIC
" '4. West Valley Rd {I-405 to S. 180th St.) trip generation analysis using standard generation rates
5. Southcenter Parkway south of S. 180th St. published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
B. In the Central Business Dis~ct ("CBD"} .area, a other stan~lard references, or from other documented
minimum average LOS level of E shall be maintained, information and surveys approved by the Department
In the CBD, LOS shall be determined by Using the of Public '~orks~ In addition, such projects shall submit
"llnk"'averages f~r the 17 segments defined in' the a trip distribution study, unless the requirement for
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive' Plan. such study ls waived by the Department of Publi~
For purposes of this section, the CBD is' the area Works.
D. If the trip generation and distribution studies
b0ufided by I-5, I:405, the Green River, and S. 180 St.)- .
'C. 'A.minimum LOS standard, of E for traffic demonstrate that the proposed project will generate
capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation five or more additional' peak hour traffic trips in a
of. LOS for individu'al inter~ections and corridor specific area or corridor prior to the horizon year
.segments for all other minor, collector and principal established by the Transportation Element of the
arterials principally' serving'commercially zoned 'comprehensive Plan established in'TMC 9.48.050,
' impact mitigation fees shall .be paid .for the fairshare
property. - .
D. iA minimum LOS standard of D for' traffic mitigation costs established in the Transportation
· capacity Shall be malntair~ed~ based upon a calculation Element of .the Comprehehsive Plan or subsequent
of LOS. for individual intersections' and: corridor 'Capital Improvement Plan. .
segments for all re!nor and collector arte/'ials in' E. If the trip generation and distribution'studies
predominantly residential areas, provided that. for the demohstrate, that the proposed project will generate
following arterials, LOS Sha~l be calcblated based on the' five 5 or more additional peak ~our traffic trips on any
average 'LOS for' the arterial: 42nd Ave. S:, S. 160th St., . non-Specific, arterial or access street such that. the
S. 164th'St., Macadam,"S. 124th St., S.: '130th St.,'S. intersection,'corridor,'-or area will be belo~v the.Level
132nd St. S~ 144th St, 53rd Ave. S, and 65th A'~el S. ' 'of Sea,'vice standards established ~n TMC 9.48.050, prior
· E.:' Access .streets' whihh exceed 1,000 v~hicle$ to the horizon year established by. the Transportation.
per day volun~e will-be evaluated bna case .by. case Element of the Comprehensive Plan;-'the Director of..
' basis to determine whether 'traffic improvements hr the Department of 'Public Works shall .require, as
· control, measurei are. ~'equir~d to reduce, volumes andappropriate to .the particular circumstances, one 'of the '
provide adequate safety~ ' following methods for mitigation of the. project's traffic
· .' ' ''i' (Ord. 'l'Y69§$(pa~t),:f~j. impacts: ' ' ' ' · ·
· '.' . ' ' ' ' ' 1. Require the .applicant t~ pay. a :Mitigation
9.48.060~ Design of arterial improvement's; 10ad' payment equa! to the applicant's proportionate fair
limits "' . .. ~ "' ~ Share of the cost of.the .improvements necessary to
· A." Arterial improvements iff domme~:~ial, areas ~'estore the intersection(s)amrial(s)~or 'access street(s)
shall be designed to include trucking geometric and to [1) the level of se~ice .~hat would exist .at .the time..':
' ~oadin8 parameters. .... . the projedt'is completed; but' without project h'affic; or
· B. Trucking wiil be allowed On all arterials as Well "(2) 'the level of service standard established~ in .TMC
as commercial area access streets.unless restricted by' 9.48.050; or
load' limits. Load .limits may'be' used .as restrictions 2. Req[ti're the applicant- tO .compl'ete' the.
followinga ~affic study:.. ' improvements required ..to' restore thel intersection(s}
. · {Ord.. 1769 §3(part), 1993] arterial(s) or. access stre~t(s)'.to (1) ~he. level of service.
..... :' that would exist at the time the project is completed,
' 9~48.070 Traffic studies and mitigation· ". 'bUt without Pr0jec{ t. faffic, or (2) the. level·of service.
A. 'TMC 9.48.050.'identifies 'Level of Service standard established in TMC 9.48 050;.or "
standards for specific· areas' and corridor~ that can be 3. Id. appropriate cases~' mitigation may consist
maintained by making improvements identjl~ed in the of. a combination of improvements constructed by the
Transportation Eleme~t based:on 2015 "build Out" applicant and mitigation paYments.. ' '
development traffic projections. Level'of Service' If the proposed.project does not.generate five or
standards' are also' established for other non:specific more additional peak hou~ traffic trips at an intersection
· arterials and for access s~eets.. · or 'corridor which will be below the Level of Service
· B. Fairshare.mitigation ~0sts/trip for.the specific standards established in TMC 9.48.050 prior to the
areas and 'corridors identified in TMC 9.48.050 are horizon year for the Transportation Element of the
provided in the Transportation Element and Comprehensive Plan, no mitigation under this section:
subsequent updates of the Capital Improvement Plan. will .be required.
C. Any proposed project'which requires a Type 1, F. A project applicant shall have the right to
2, 3, 4 or $ decision and which will generate five or mitigate all or a portion of the capacity impacts of a
more vehicle trips in an AM, noon, or PM peak hour project by utilizing capacity mitigation measures,
petiod shall submit, as part of the application process, a including but not limited to, carpooling and rideshare
Printed danuary 2, 2003 Page 9-21
TUKWILA ·MUNICIPAL CODE
programs, widenings' {roadway, lane, radius), signal . .
improvements, and other capacity improvements. In
the event' that mitigation measures such as carpoollng ..
and.r{deshare programs are proposed, the applicant
shall execute such algreements with the City as are
necessary to assure the permanen[ availability of such
prbgrams.
G. In the event that the applicant completes
improvements which are part of the Circulation
System adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and the
cost of such improvements exceeds the. applicant's
proportionate fair share of the cost .of such
· improyements, the applicant ~hall'be entitled to apply
to enter into a Latecomer Agreemen[ with the City.
H. The Mitigation ·Payment Schedule for the
Transportation Element of,the Comp/'ehensive Plan
shall be updated every, three years or with the annual
Capital Improvement. Plan update.
[Ord. 1769 §3[part), 1993)
9.48.080 Mitigation of traffic safety' hazards
'~A. If the Deparunent of Public-Works determines
that'a hazard to safety could reasonably exist as a result
of traffic, generated by a projec[, the applicant shal} be .
.required to construct' the improi, ements necessary [o . . .....
mitigate the traffic safety hazard regardless of whether ..
the roadway, corridor or lores:section meetS'the capacity , . .
standards of this chapter.
B. If the: Department o! Public Works determines
that there is an existing hazard to safety affecting a traffic .
.corridor or .intersection-which will be impacted by .... ..~:. ~..._..-...:....
traffic from a proposed project and 'that :the
improvements necessary 'to. resblve the safety hazard
are i~ot' a funded project in 'the Capital 'Improvement.-
'Program and are not already:funded for correction from '.
other sources; the applicant.shall'have the opttqn of (l)
· consmicting the improvements necessary-to mitigate.. ..:... ~ :..?......:
the traffic safety hazard', subject to the right to'apply m . . . ..
~n(er tiro a Latecomer. Agreement regal'ding such · ..
.project, or [2) postponing the project until such time as - · . "
a project to correct the safety' hazard has been fully . ' . . ' ..,
:.funded.'. ~), 7'9931
9.48['090 'Appeals ' .. "- -- '
. Any party seeking to appeal an impact fee or mitiga- .. ~..
tion requirement imposed by a City' administrator
under'this chapter may file an appeal of'Type 1
decision as provided in TMC 18.104.010(B) and TMC
· 18.108.010(B).
Printed January 2, 2003
9-22
Table 12 - Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs
1990 2010 PkVol Improvement Cost/
l_nte~sccdon or Link Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Trip
Southcenter/Strander 3,899. 4,853 954 ' "$134,000' $140
widen for WB left tums
Andover ?k E/strander 3,211 3,905 694 $941000. $135
widen for n/s. left tums '
Andover Pk. V~/Strander 3,082 4,016 934 $2~6,000 ' .$317
widen for n/s left tums :'
S 189 st/SRi81 5,236 7,760 2,524 $1,200,000 $475
widen n/s and edw
Ando~er Pk E/Baker 790 1,453 663 $250,000* $377
n/s lefts, signal
AndO~ Pk.W/Nfinkl~r 2,441 · 3,078 637 $250,000*' . $392
n/s lefts, signal
SoUthcenter p.kwy/168 2,425 3,324 899 :$250,000* ·$278
W Valley/S~ander .,3,433 4,316 883 $250,000* $283-
~ dual left mm lanes
Lnterurban Bridge. 2,831 3,945 1,114 $1,250,000' $1,122.
widen fciC' dual left~ ..
· Tiffs is a "planing level" estimate.
Fu t u r e' (Beyond 6 years (2000)): ·
Nfinkl~r (APW - Southcenter PkWY) 0 1,015 1,015
construc
· -8':178 'St iSbumcenter PkWy-WCL) ' 789 1,424 635
malign' ( caplsafety ltranftO
Andovcr PkWy (T PkWy-180) 1,112 1,833 721
widen to 5 lanes.
Andover Pk. E (T PkWy-180) 970 1,420 450'
widen to 5 lanes @ in~.
$outhccnte~ PkWy (180-200) 408 1,600 1,192
construct ~ and 5 lane stxeet
71
November 1993
Table 12 - Mitigation Proportiona[e Fairshare Costs (continued)
1990 2010 Pk Vol Improvement Cost/
Pk Vol · . Diff Cost T~p
Pk Vol
Intersection or Link __' --- .
Pacific Hwy (152~lTD
widen to 7 lanes
S 133 St (Eamst) Bridge 0 518 518
Ga[eway Dr ~o S 129 St
widen, c/g/sw, conrd sigs
Pacific Hwy/S 116S£
widen for dual left SB ,
Pacific Hwy Bridge, .
widen . '
S 154 St (51 S-Pacific Hwy) Future
widen to 3 lanes
B Marginal (BAR-115) (to be determined)
widen to 3 lanes
is
construct 3 lane street
$outhcenter BlYd (I5-62 S)
w~den to 7 lanes
62 Ave S('S" llne bridge)
widen to 6 lane~
Klickitat($outhcenter PkWy-I5)
widen to 5 lanes
Treelc'Dr (Andover Pk'W: And0ver Pk E)
· construct 3 lane street.
W va~ey (I405 i Todd)
widen to 7 lanes
Boeing ACcess Rd/IS SB offleft
comtmct left mnffsignal
Boeing Access Rd/IS NB on
construct NB on re,rision
~ ~-- November 1993
72
Ma~ 28 03 11:42a Ken,on Dorna~ Marshall
City oF
OLYMPIA
Transportation Impact Fee Schedule
Olympia Mnnicipal Code §15.16.040
Adopted through Ordinance 6164 (200 I)
Amended through Ordinance 6176 (2002)
Amended through Ordinance 6224 (2002)
Amended through Ordinance 6235 (2002)
May 28 03 11:42a Kenyon Dorna Marshall
15.16.040 Schedule I). Trayrsr)ortatloat Impact Fees
SCHEDULE D
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Land Uses I�
1
'Cost per Now Trip Generated
'Residential
Jinja Family (Detached)
Multi Family Townhouse, Duplex
Accessory Dwelling
IReti ement Cgmmm ity
!Mobile Home h MH Parts
!Commercial Services
IDrive-in Bank
Igraik:m Bank
IDav Can
(Library
psi Office
Motel/Motel
!Service Station
'Service StationMlioiuurt
IMovil Theater
}Cnwnh
'Health Club
}Racquet Club
Marina
11
11 dwelling II
11 dwelling II
11 11
II se NGPA II
11 ,q ft)GFA 11
II sq NGFA I(
II sp NGFA 11
II sgft/GPA 11
11 mom II
II Fueling Position 11
11 PuaingPoaitloa 9
11 alt 11
11 site 11
I
fl
11 11
a
11
Unit of II
Measure 1
1
dwelling J
dwelling II
sq ft/GFA
eq ft/GFA
Barth
Institutional 11 11
'Elementary /Jr.High High School II student 11
(Univenit,ICoilege 11 student 11
N. IChuroh II sq NGFA II
Hoao
Iital II auft/GFA II
INunMg Home 11 bed 11
'Congregate CacnfAntLving I1 dwelling II
lmdusaial II 11
(Light Indatry/Menufachgmg 11 so NGFA II
Itndusaisl Perk II W NGFA 11
fWarehousing/Stonge 11 agt/GFA 11
[Restaurant 11 11 'Restauran'Restaurant 11 sq fVGPA 11
!Fast Food R..�,.,,.....,iw /oddvetbnt 11 eq NGFA 11
Fut Food Ratawantw /dSa tiny 11 eq NGPA 11
Retail Shoepbag Center 11 11
ue to 9.99911 so NGLA 11
10,000.499991f 14 NGLA II
1 50.000. 99,99911 sq NGLA 11
425 -_.32 7071
p.5
Rate 11 11 Land Uses 11 Unit of fl Rate
11 Measure
L 32.001 61
11 3zo1
576511 IlAutomobile Parts Sales S1.421
$27111 11�ickLubrientien Vehicle Shop I1Servising Positions 11 32,2111
570211 flPhamiecy/Dtugstore(w /o drive -Oun) 32321
Wharmacy/Dmgstore(wit drive -thru) $3.181
31.0741
n
11 I Nuary/Gruen Center II
11
51.26511 1 Automobile Cam Curter
11
�IRetui[ Shopping Center (con[)
11
Sq NGFA
0.q ft/GLA
sq [NGFA
11 eg NGFA
11 s ft/GFA
317.6511 IIKHrdwarc/BuildingMatmiel3 Store 11 sq ft/GFA
510.2411 ll Merchandise Store It sq [NGFA
37.0911 IlVideo Rental II IQ ft/GFA
33.2411 Monte Improvement Supentorc II iq ft/GFA
$4.9211 1 �dmbeisfra a Office 11
51.01711 II 0-99.99911
53.54611 II 100.000 -199 Jl__9 NGFA
$2.44311 II 200.000-29999911 •q NGF A
$98[1 11 over 300,0001J_ et NGFA
530.15611 11 Medical Office&Clinicll sq tt/GFA
sq NGFA
1 1
11
II
11
II
II
II
11
II
II
51.821
52.231
55121
1.191
$4.151
32.711
II 52.:21
II Ss. ;6!
52.31!
$7.5811 11 )1 11 1
51.521! IID TOwN FEES II II 1
319011 IIMuI Fae�yn &d Townhouse, Duplexlldwellmg i1
11 retirement Community Ildwelling 11 $1841
48611 /Pursing Home II bed II 51361
520011 1)Cngrcgate Csre/AsstLiving 11 dwelling II 31161
40.8711 IlDowntown Service' II egNGFA II $1.92!
31.3211 IIWaIk -MBank 11 age/GFA 11 55261
520011 IIBoteFMonl 11 mom II 36351
517011_ IllpM, vi ovie Theater 1! sea 11 3811
11 1 11" `'—Club 11 iq B/GFA If 30.911
$1.7911 11h /farina il Bash II 511111
516811 '(Restaurant 11 egft/GFA 11 31.9'
30.9311 IIFnt Food Restaunnt 11 ag5/GFA II 37.111
11 11DuwntownRetdha 11 miff/GLA 11 $1.10$
57,2911 I Suupetmarket 11 ft/GFA II 53.291
5 ltConveniance Maker II sgNGFA II 35.401
511.9611 Video Rental 11 .q NGFA 11 52.801
I) I1Administrathve Office 11 11 I
stash 11 0-9999911 &q NGFA 11 $2.89
$21911 II 100,000-19959911 sq NGFA 11 522.171
52041! 14 260,000- 199.99911 sq NGPA 11 31.881
5337
http: /www.olympiamu nicipalcode. org/ A55799/ O1y- muni. nsf/ 30c2b313f243223t88255f9c007b49 3/21/2003
May 28 03 11:43a Kenyon Dornay Marshall
Supermarket
IC. a Market
Iivfisoellaneous Retail
tNumlNm Stare
1Cr Sales New/Used
dotes:
425 -.,32 -71371
A•6
100,000499,99911 sgtVGLA II 52.00n 11 ever 300.00011 agfVGFA II Sr.59I
200,000 299,99911 agft/GLA II 51.8211 Wanes! Offie4/Clinio II ag1VGFA II 54.6.71
300,000. 399,999 agtt/GLA 11 $2,1611 i1industnat Park It sq RlGFA 11 S1041
over 400,0001L aq NVGLA 11 52.4311 IIWarehousina/Storage 11 aq ft/GFA 11 50.581
J sq e/GFA I1 56.4911 11 II 11 I
II sgtt/GFA JI 511.2511 IL 11 11 1
11 so R/GLA II 51.1011 11 II II 1
1t agiVGFA 11 $0.1611 11 11. 11 I
II aq 8/GFA II S d 1 1 11 I
For uses with Unit of Measure in. "sq ft/GFA" or "sq ft/GLA trip rate is given as trips per 1000 sq ft of gross floor area (GFA) or
gross leasable area (GLA), and impact fee is dollars per square foot.
Trip Length Adjustment Factor for a and use type is calculated by dividing its Trip Length by the Average City Trip Length in miles.
Downtown: Defined as in December 1994 Comprehensive Plan or subsequent updates.
Downtown Services: Library, Day Care, andHealth Club
Downtown Retail: Includes all retail uses except those otherwise listed.
(Ord. 6235 §1 2002; Ord. 6224 §8, 2002; Ord. 6176 §1, 2002; Ord. 6164 §9, 2001).
http:// www. olympiamunicipalcode .org/A55799 /01y -muni. nsf/ 30c2b313 f243223f88255f9c007b49... 3/21/2003
27.04.030 Assessment of impact fees.
(a) The city shall collect impact fees, based on the schedule in Appendix A, from any applicant
seeking a building permit from the city, or certificate of occupancy permit if a building permit is
not required. . . ,
Co) ,Al_l impact fees shall be collected from the apph .Can. t prior to issuance of the building permit,
or cer1~cate of occupancy permit if no building perrmt ts required, using the impact fee schedui¢
~en in e~ect or pursuant to an independent fee calculation accepted by the director pursuant to
ection 27:04.040.
(c) The department shall establish the impact fcc rate for a land use tha~ is not listed on lhe rate
schedule in Appendix A. The applicant shall submit all information requested by the depa~-u~tent for
purposes of determining the impact tee rate ~..u~s. uant to Sect/on 27.04.040. The adopted cost per
trip in Appendix A shall be.the bads for establishir~ the impact tee rate.
http://search.mrsc.org/nxt~gat~w~y~d~/~drk27:htm~?f`~temp~ates$~=~rkd~c~ame.htm$3.~$q--`~/~2.~. 3/20/2003
May 28 03 11:43a Kenyon Barney Marshall
rnyle. 17. Gldld3 4: 47PM PLANNING DEPT
ay ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDUILE Effective 6/14/99
9m NINO� O
Laud Uses
COST PER TRIP a
AssmwdlaMMIMMORMINEM
Single remits
Multi Family
Retirement Community
Nursing Home
Assisted thing
N10 School
UnNersity /Cofleae
Church
Hos Itat
Millirrigt
Restaurant
Unit of II FEE PER UNIT
Measure
san.0
viawipmarampailis
dwelling II 5946.00
dwelling
dwelllnd
bed
dweling
5585.00
5207.00
$153.00
5130.00
Orfva4n Bank so h /GFA 523.46
Walk-in Bank sq ft/GFA 510.87
Day Care so ft/GFA 35,41
Ubrn sa ft/GFA 92.47
Post Office so ft/GFA 1 53.76
Hasel /Motel room 1 5648.00
Extended Stay Motel mom 1 5382.00
Servica Station VFP I 52.704.00
Service Station /Minimart VFP I 51.864.00
Sarvka Station /MMImauHCarwash VFP 1 52.756.00
arwash site 4 523.020.00
Made Theater screen 1 523,780.00
Health Club so ft/GFA 1 $2.73
Recovet Club 1 so ft/GFA 11 51.16
Marina 1 Barth $144.00
�maeea: 11
c
ElementarySehool /JJr. ilia; Went 1 student 611440
student
student
so t/GFA
sq ft/GFA
676.00
3156.00
30.67
$1.02
sq ft/GFA 55.56
Land Uses
Commix /i/WPa ilgyai erifi?e
up to 9.999 s0 ftl
10,000 so ftto 49,000 so ftl
50.000 so ftto 99699 so ill
100.000 so ft to 199.999 so ft!
200.000 sn ft to 299,999 sq ft1
300,000 sa tt b 399,999 so ftt
aver 400,000 sq ftt
Auto Park Sales
Auto Core Center
Car Sales Naw /Used
Convenience Market
Discount Club
Electronics Superstore
Free Standing Discount Store
PumitureStore
Herdwe a /PeIMStore
Home Improvement Sup_rsbm
Mlarellaneou; Retail Safes
Nurser /Garden Center
Pharmacy (with Drive Through)
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shoo
Video Rental
corrected 4/19/01
425 -..92 -7071
90.000 sq ftto 99,999 so IN
100,000 act ftto 199,999 sa 81
200,000 sq ftto 299,999 so ftl
over 300.000 so ftl
NO.979 P.2 /2
Unit of
Measure
sq ft /GLA
sgft/GLA
so ft/GLA
so ft/GLA
IQ fVGLA
so ft/GIA
se ft/GLA
sg ft/GFA
so ftGLA
SO it/GFA
ft/GFA
so ft/GFA
se ft/GFA
so ft/GFA
sq ft/GFA
ea R/GFA
so ft/GFA
sa ft/GFA
soft/GRA
sa ft/GFA
Service Bay
sa ft/GFA
Supermarket 1 SC ft /GFA
Tire More 1 Service Bay
sgft/GFA
so tt/GFA
sb ft/GFA
so ft/GFA
so ft/GFA
1
1
l
1
1)
an to 9,999 eq ftl se NGFA 1
10.000 so Rto 49.000 so tl so tr/GFA 1
p.8
FEE PER UNIT
tincAppa
62.43
52.13
51.56
$1,52
51,39
51,65
51.85
51.94
61.101
52.31
68.59
$2.91
25.61
61.70
50.13
51.44
91.151
60.84
52.24
52.41
5944.00
$2.17
94.95
51,125.00
Fast Food Resteurantw /a drive thru I so ft/GFA 1I 37.14 Medical OMee. Clinic
Fast Food Rasteurentw/ drNathou I1 so ft /GFA 11, 909.16
/ridr7sbVYsjS fdb ftlnt teOMML:-114 1 c4l v? g
Opp Industry /High Technology 1 so IVGFA if 61.37
industrial Park I so ft/GFA II 51.281
Warehousing/Stefan I sq NJGFA 1 90.71
VFP Vehicle Fuallhg Positions (Maximum humbar of Vehitias that can be fueled simultanefMey)
GU- Gross Leasibia Are
GFA• Gross Fleet Area
I. For additional InfosmatIan, see Kirkland Municipal Code, Chapter 27.04 (Ordinance 305 as adopted).
Z. Fee must he paid pea to Issuance of Building dr Tenentirnproverpent Permit.
9. For land use was not Included Ip ma rate schedule, contact the Public works Oepanment,
4. The impact fee for mixed use developments shall be basal on the proportionate sham of each land use. tress a muitl1enant averaging agreement is approved
by the Public Works Department
S. Accessory Dwelling Units approved under Section 115.65 of the Zoning Code are consk*ted can at the assacteted sinidefamjy unit for the purposes of tills fee.
6. Fee must be paid for change In use if new use has a higher impact ice. Credit Is +Nan to existing error use since Jamrary 1, 1999.
¢wave, .IWIITtY
64.71
54.71
1 52.73
1 t2.07
1 51.31
1 31.6
1 $4.011
Ma~ ~8 03 11:43a Ken~on Dopna~ Mapshail 4~5-~-?071 po?
City of
Transportation Impact Fee Schedule
Kirkland Municipal Code Chapter 27.04, Appendix A
Adopted ~hrough Ordinance 3685 (1999)
Art~rltm~ £
Questions & Answers (EastSide Transportation Concurrency Study) Page 1 of 5
Ui~lOl~ What is the Growth Management Act (GMA)?
nswe~
Washington's Growth Management Act was adopted in 1990 to manage the
Timeline, in the state. Counties and cities are required to create 20-year plans that d,
growth areas for projected development to avoid urban sprawl and to prote
Deliverables, The Growth Management Act also requires local governments to ensure tha
& Project Progress other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any developmer
approved. For more information about the Growth Management Act, log onl
Study TE~ rrls ' htto://www.ocd.wa.gov/info/Iod/orowth/law/index.tel.
Resources Also relevant to the issue of concurrency is Vision 2020, the Puget Sound R
plan for 20-year growth. It has been developed by the Puget Sound Region,
Events &
Neetings What is concurrency?
Site Map
Concurrency is the requirement that infrastructure to support development
and funded before development can be improved and built. Such infrastrucl
-,~. facilities for water, sewage, and transportation. This study is concentrating
transportation element of concurrency.
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that public transpo
the other infrastructure facilities be in place within six years from "the time
accommodate the impacts of new development. Local governments plannin
must establish Level of Service (LOS) standards for their transportation sys
roadways, in their comprehensive plans. They may permit new developmen
jurisdictions as long as the transportation infrastructure will sustain the req
developer mitigates circumstances to achieve the LOS.
What is the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study?
Revised July 16. 2002 The Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study is a two-year assessment o
managed in the four Eastside cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, and is.·
will evaluate the extent to which meeting concurrency requirements assists
complying with the intent of the state's Growth Management Act and the re
objectives. The study will investigate alternative measures of transportatior
suggest what changes, if any, to state and local laws would provide more el
dealing with concurrency issues.
The city of Bellevue is managing the project on behalf of the four Eastside c
$250,000 in funding from the state legislature. The study is being undertak
Washington team led by the Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC
Evans School of Public Affairs, the Department of Urban Design and Plannin
Associates.
Why is the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study being undertaken?
The cities of Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, and Issaquah identified four pro[
with current transportation concurrency practices that this study will try to
1. Existing concurrency measures work against the Growth Managemen
of the GNA was to encourage land development in compact centers v
http://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/questions.html 6/5/2003
Questions & Answers (Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study) Page 2 of 5
could be provided efficiently. From a development perspective, conct
discouraging development in centers when traffic approaches level ol
standards. Instead, development may move out to the urban fringe t
related impact fees and permitting uncertainties. This effect is contra
the GNA, exacerbating sprawl and contributing to even greater level.,
2. Cities must deal with vehicle trips that are diverted from congested s
city streets. People making trips that should be carried by the region
increasingly shifting to city streets to find shorter travel times. This c
t hat would otherwise be available to serve local land use.
3.There i s little cross-jurisdictional coordination on LOS standards or h(
cross-jurisdiction trips. Travel is not restricted to jurisdictional bound
generated by land uses in one city often affects streets in another. G
cities currently practice concurrency, they lack any collective means ·
on a regional or subregional basis.
4. The methodology for determining LOS used by most local governmer
vehicle traffic during the busiest part of the day compared with stree
method does not reflect person movement or provide for pedestrian,
mobility (except to the extent that they reduce vehicle trips). Existin!
measures do not encourage the evolution of the multi-modal transpo
needed to support the region's center-based growth strategy.
What are the goals of the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study?
The cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland and Issaquah will work cooperati~
the following:
· Assess different ways that the four cities measure concurrency, evalt
current concurrency systems have had on supporting the implement~
and the Growth iVlanagement Act, and identify opportunities and chal
with developing a more uniform and coordinated system.
· Identify areas of common agreement on the use of concurrency regu
principles involved in their application to determine whether a mutua
outcomes among the cities is possible.
· Analyze alternative approaches for measuring concurrency (e.g., tim,
vs. peak period, delay, and methods that reward or enhance multi-m
solutions to broaden what is now principally an auto-based accountin
· Evaluate alternative approaches, focusing on helping Bellevue, Kirkla
Issaquah comply with the intent of the Growth iVlanagement Act and
2020 objectives, given the current realities of congested freeways an
· Develop specific'recommendations for changes to state and local law
effectiveness of concurrency methods over time.
Which cities are involved in the Eastside Transportation ConcurrencyStu~
· Bellevue: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/
· Issaquah: http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/
· Kirkland: http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/
http://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/questions.html 6/5/2003
Questions & Answers (Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study) Page 3 of 5
· Redmond: http://www.ci.redmond.wa.us
What is the benefit of studying multiple cities?
Although each local city government is responsible for approving local land
determining a particular level of service standard, decisions made in one cit
neighboring cities. Therefore, the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Stuc
potential concurrency changes to improve coordination on the sub-regional
state and regional transportation providers should be involved.
Who is working on the Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study?
· Executive Steering Committee
The Executive Steering Committee (ESC) provides direction on key issues a
shepherding the project through city councils and providing guidance to the
Committee. The ESC comprises the planning and public works directors of E
Kirkland, and Issaquah.
· Technical Advisor,/Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ensures that affected agencies are
their expertise in a timely and coordinated manner. The TAC comprises star
Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, and Issaquah.
· University of Washington Study Team
The University of Washington Study Team will conduct the research, develo
present findings to the ESC, TAC, and elected and appointed officials, as w~
opportunities for both the TAC and ESC. The Study Team comprises senior
Washington State Transportation Center; the Evans School of Public Affairs.
Architecture and Urban Planning; and Kittelson and Associates.
How is the study being funded?
The State of Washington appropriated $250,000 of the motor vehicle accou
Transportation Concurrency Study. In support of this effort, the cities of Be
Kirkland and Issaquah are providing $100,000 in an in-kind staffing commil
state grant.
When will the study be finished?
By November 1, 2003, a report of the findings will be made to the transpor;
the legislature.
Level of Service Standards
· What is LOS?
LOS stands for "level of service." It is a measure of how well a given transp
performing. In general, LOS is reported as a grade ranging from "A" (very (.
bad).
· How is LOS determined?
http://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/questions.html 6/5/2003
Questions & Answers (Eastside Transportation Concurrency Study) Page 4 of 5
Roadway LOS has been defined both mathematically and descriptively by ti'
Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council for a variety of roac
simple terms, LOS A for any facility means that traffic flows smoothly enou~.
behavio~'(speed, ability to change lanes) is not affected by other vehicles. [
many vehicles are on the facility that vehicle flow has broken down and tral
inconsistently (i.e., stop and go traffic conditions). LOS B through LOS E ar~
between these extremes.
The mathematical calculations used to compute LOS vary from one type of
(e.g., the procedures for freeways are different from those for intersections
some of the preferable measurements are hard to collect, simplified proced
the volume being carried with the theoretical capacity of the facility are con
estimate LOS for all types of roadway facilities.
LOS for transit systems, pedestrians, and bicyclists are less well defined. Ti
developing, and at some point will adopt, standard methods for computing
modes that can be applied uniformly across the nation. Some jurisdictions ~
measures being considered as part of the TRB's development review proces
· How is capacity measured?
Roadway capacity is a function of the type of facility (arterial versus freewa
of lanes), its lane configuration (e.g., any left turn lanes), and any control r
example, the signal timing used at an intersection). Formulas for computin(.
roadways are presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, as well as within ~
standard engineering texts. In some cases, authoritative texts provide mine
capacity calculation. These differences, while minor, allow engineers to trad
capacity calculations with the time and effort required to calculate such esti
versions of these equations ignore or don't estimate the minor effects that ~
design features have on measured capacity, which can be captured more p~
the more detailed (and resource intensive) capacity calculation procedures.
Capacity is traditionally expressed as the maximum number of vehicles thai
a one-hour period. This is important for reviewing rush hour roadway perfol
hour, traffic demand normally peaks. That is, volume demand is uneven thr
Thus, even though the "hourly volume" is below "hourly capacity," congesti
during part of that hour. This is because at the peak of the rush hour, volur
roadway can handle, whereas at other times during that same hour volume
roadway can handle.
· Why do cities measure capacity differently?
As noted above, the mathematics for computing roadway LOS vary by facili
practical matter, cities have neither the time nor resources to measure cap~
roadway attributes. (For example, LOS can be computed for an entire arter
each intersection along that arterial, as well as for each approach to each o'
intersections.)
To limit the cost of LOS measurements, cities generally choose to examine
attributes when reviewing roadway performance. They commonly attempt t
attributes that the city staff believes most accurately reflect how the public
performance.
The Concurrency Study Web site is maintained by the Washington State Transportal
University of Washington. For more informatio,~ contact Ron Porter (206.543.334 ~).
http://depts, washington.edu/trac/concurrency/questions.html 6/5/2003
Tra~nsportation Committee
November 10, 2003
Present: Richard Simpson, Chair; Dave Fenton, Pam Linder
Jim Morrow, Frank Lriarte, Brian Shelton, Pat Brodin, Steve Lancaster, Cyndy
Knighton. Lucy Lauterbaeh; Dennis Robertson
1. Transportation Concurrency and Impact Fees Although a thorOugh update to.the
Transportation Plan is planned for 2004, a more immediate update is needed quickly. The City
has been challenged on its impact mitigation fees, and Jim said he wants to get those fees and the
method used to calculate them passed before some large upcoming projects are started. Staff
will update, the concurrency list of projects, and calculate the project cost/trip by pegging the cost
'for the project, and subtracting any known grants, and calculating the number of trips. The new
calculaiinns could cause the impact fees to rise substantially, but the method of calculating them
will by following the RCW. Staffplans to finish the work by the next meeting November 24th,
have it onthe COW for the same night, and have it adopted by Council December 15th.
'2. PSRC ' PSRC is talking of changing the way they allocated funds for transportation
projects. It is currently split 60% for regional projects and 40% for local projects A move is
afoot to change the split to 40% for regional projects and 60% to local projects. Information.
Committee chair approval
Transportation Committee . November 24, 2004
Present: Richard Simpson, Chair; Dave Fenton, Pam Linder
Frank Iriarte, Brian Shelton, Robin Tischmak, Cyndy Knighton, Lucy
1. 2003 Overlay Completion and Acceptance Robin passed out a map showing
where the six overlay projects were done this year. Projects were done on 42nd Ave S.,
S. :[53rd, Baker Boulevard, 40TM Ave S., T[B and 51st Ave. S. Lakeside industries was the
contractor, and all work has been done. There was $36,105 in under runs due to
quantity under runs. Traffic control and street planning were overruns, but there were
no weather delays or bad soils: Recommend contract acceptance and release of
retainaqe to Reqular Meetinq.
2. KFC/Taco Bell Turnover KFC is moving to the old Burger King site on 'fiB. As
part of their development, they are dedicating public right of way off of -FIB. This will
make things easier for the city right of way projects. Recommend acceptance of
turnover documents to Reqular Heetinq.
3. Olive Garden Turnover of :improvements As a condition of the Olive Garden's
development they built to city specifications and are now ready to turn over some
utilities. These include storm pipes, catch basins and their lids, and stormceptors. Their
value is $37,048.58. Recommend adceptance of utilities to Reqular Heetinq.
4, Transportation Concurrency and Impact f4itiqation Staff explained that the
rush 6n this is self-imposed both because of the current lawsuit appeal and because of
some impending developments it would be good to have it ready for. The information
presented tonight is a first draft of what needs to be done. [t is more of a quick fix than
a very thorough assessment of the whole concurrency and mitigation system. A more
complete review and ordinance will be done next year. Cyndy said the department is
interested in plugging vulnerabilities with this interim plan.
Cyndy passed out a table of mitigation expected for specific sections of streets in the
CBD. Some were projects that have already been done, and others were projects that
are beyond six years. She then passed out language that would be in the ordinance
but it was written in an easy to read format, which showed current and newly proposed
language. As'she went through the memo and explained some of the changes. Pam
suggested she write a memo to guide people through the changes and the tables, and
explain some anomalies. The committee suggested she explain Level of Service as well
as the difference between concurrency and impact mitigation. She said concurrency is a
yes/no issue of whether facilities are adequate now or in the future to handle the new
growth. [f the answer is "no", developers must pay traffic impact fees. They must also
do a traffic study to determine how many trips their business is expected, to add to the
current traffic. Dave was concerned that traffic mitigation would be a surprise to
developers, but ~taff assured him that even new developers learned about it early in
the process at the pre-applicatioh meeting.
Finally, Cyndy passed out a Working Draft of an Impact fee schedule with more
complete numbers on it than previous drafts. Some project names were changed from
previous lists, and some projects were dropped or added. Numbers for trip costs are
not firm yet, but they are the best current estimate.
lin the end, the committee understood more about the process, but admitted they
would like to spend a little more time on it to learn more. Recommend issue to that
eveninq'$ COW,
committee chair approval
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Director
Date: January 22, 2004
Subject: Transportation Impact Fee Update
ISSUE
Direction ~s needed from Council on how to proceed with the update to the Transportation
Impact Fee list.
BACKGROUND
Recent litigation decisions, still in the appeals process, exposed a very real need for updates to
the City's way of collecting impact mitigation fees. Staff is developing proposed language
changes to the Transportation Concurrency ordinance (TMC 9.48.070) and updating Table 12:
Mitigation Proportionate Fair Share Costs from the Transportation. Background Report.
ANALYSIS
The attached draft table is an update to Table 12 from the Transportation Background Report.
The dollar amounts have been calculated using the existing methodology adopted through the
City's Comprehensive Plan. No dollar amounts have been reduced to reflect potential funding
sources, only known sources for income (including general fund dollars). It is clear that several
per-trip amounts are rather substantial and direction from Council is required for staff to
complete the draft.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the attached table and give direction to staff on how to proceed.
hSpubworks~cyndy~informat~on memo impact fee update 1-26-04.do¢
WORKING DRAFT
Transportation Impact Fee Schedule
Total Unfunded
Improvement Awarded Expected Actual Expected City Improvement Cost/
Project # Intersection or Link Cost Grant Grant Mitigation Mitigation Revenue Cost Trip
??
Andover Pk W /Minkler
n/s lefts, signal
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
, $200,000
$200,000
$830
96-RW18
Southcenter Pkwy
168 signal
$340,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$340,000
$340,000
$380
93-RW11
W Valley /Strander
NB dual left tum lanes
$953,000
$396
$0
$0
$489,000
$489,000
$550
89 -RW13
Interurban Bridge
widen for dual lefts
$1,887,000
$1,228,000
$0
$41,000
$0
$618,000
$618,000
$550
84 -RWO7
Minkler (APW - Southcenter Pkwy)
construct 3 lane street
$1,644,000
$0
$0
$425,000
$1,219,000
$1,219,000
$1,200
88 -RWO4
Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander)
widen to 5 lanes
$800,000
$0
$0
$400,000
$300,000
$300,000
$610.
03 -RW05
Andover Pk E @ Minkler
widen to 5 lanes @ ints.
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$280
84 -RWO3
Southcenter Pkwy (180 - S city limits)
construct 3 and 5 lane street
$7,096,000
$350,000
$5,372,000
$0
$1,343,000
$1,343,000
$4,660
02 -RWO4
Southcenter Blvd (51 S - TIB)
widen to 3 lanes
$1,750,000
$0
$0
$1,750,000
$1,750,000
$3,600
89 -RWO5
E Marginal (BAR - 112)
widen to 3 lanes
$1,955,000
$0
$700,000
$0
$660,000
$595,000
$595,000
$1,590
84 -RW19
Klickitat (Southcenter Pkwy - 15)
Construct flyover
$13,000,000
$0
$0
$13,000,000
$12,900
Beyond Six Years
84 -RW21
S 178 St (Southcenter Pkwy - WCL)
realign (cap /safety/transit)
$140,000
$100,000
$40,000
$140,000
$90
92 -RW21
Pacific Hwy /S 116 St
widen for dual left SB
$4,675,000
$1,900,000
$1,350,000
$1,425,000
$1,425,000
$0
??
Southcenter Blvd (15 - 62 S)
widen to 7 lanes
$0
??
61 Ave S ( "S" line bridge)
widen to 6 -7 lanes
$0
??
Treck Dr (APW to APE)
construct 3 lane street
$0
84 -RW31
W Valley (1405 - Strander)
widen to 7 lanes
$580,000
$530,000
$50,000
$50,000
$0
??
66th Ave Bridge
Widen to 6 lanes
$0
??
Tukwila Parkway (APW to 66th Ave)
Widen to 6-7 lanes
$0
??
Tukwila Parkway (66 Ave to WV Hwy)
Build new 6 -7 lane road
$0
Impact Fee Worksheet
Printed 4/7/04 12:19 PM
Transportation Committee (~
January 26, 2004
Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Pam Carter; Joe Duffle (arr. 6:15)
Jim Morrow, Brian Shelton, B~b Giberson, Ryan Partee, Cyndy Knighton, Gail
Labanara, Robin Tischmak, Lucy Lauterbach; Brent Carson-Westfield Mall
1. Tukwila International Boulevard Because the City did not receive a $4 million grant from
TIB they were hoping for, Phase 3 of TIB is short of funding. To address the issue, the
department decided to combine KPG's Phase 2 and 3 designs to see what kinds of savings they
could get. They showed the Committee some options they have found thus far. As
undergrounding costs are very high,ththe option saving the most money does not include'
undergrounding from about S. 139 north on the highway. To do the two projects together with
only Tukwila money, one lane would be taken out in parts, with no planters in some positions,
and a road shoulder to get to the river. However, it is possible we will be able to use some
WSDOT funds they had scheduled for using in the same area. If so, though there would still be
less undergrounding than if full funding were available, but five lanes would be maintained, and
medians would be put in where there are no left tums. The Committee agreed that changing the
undergrounding ordinance would be a policy decision the Council would need to make before we
could consider option 2 or 3.. loa,.¢ sa. id that, topic is an item on the Council Retreat Agenda.
Information
2. Transportation Impact Fees A recent court case showed that the City needs to fom~alize its
impact fee process. The long-term goal will be to change the Transportation Concurrency
ordinance. For now they have devised a table with impact fees based on the methodology in the
current, comp plan. They showed the cost for several sections of roadway or intersections
calculated according to the RCW. Cost ranged from $280/trip to $12,900 for the most expensive
cost/trip. Trips are calculated on the number of 4-6 p.m.weekday peak trips. When asked what
other cities did, Cyndy said there is a large range of costing methods. Some cities have a flat fee,
and others negotiate every case. Some have different per cost trips for different areas of their
city. The Committee pointed out that the highest three cost/trip (Southcenter Parkway S. of 180th;
Southcenter Blvd 5 lSt-TIB; and Klickitat Southcenter-I-5 flyover) should be looked at for options
that would reduce their high costs. Brent pointed out that one trip could involve several of these
areas, each with a separate cost/trip. Reschedule.
3. 2004 Committee Agendas Jim had a list of 11 potential committee agenda items. Some are
very large items, such as funding options for infrastructure improvements in the TUC. Almost
each of the policies could take several meetings. Staff mentioned that Renton wants a meeting
with the Transportation Committee to talk about the Strander project February 9th. Information.
4. Reloeati6n of City Light Facilities The Sound Transit (S.T.) pi'oject will require
undergrounding some Seattle City Light facilities. Staffpointed out those areas where they will
not be required to underground, areas where they'll need to raise the wire heights, and areas that
will be undergrounded. The area'on S. 154th (Southcenter Boulevard) from 42ad tO TIB is still
under discussion, with the City's view that it needs to be undergrounded. Sound Transit wants
this agreement to be a separate contract with the City. With only four crews for the whole South
end, City Light will lend Sound Transit two of those four crews for this projecti Information.
,- h2~~ Committee Chair approval
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
,~ ~ .,, ~ ) ........................ Initials ......................... ITEM NO.
[ 'G~7~\ ~/~; l ~. Meeting Date Prepared by M~view Council review
04/z2/04~ ~,7~/7~
. ,
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS Number: I Original Agenda Date: April 12, 2004
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance establishing a six-month moratorium on casinos
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. x
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: In light of recent case law, the City has been advised by counsel to review our
current code as it relates to gambling establishm'ents. This moratorium is necessary
while that review is being pen~ormed.
Recommendations: Adopt ordinance
Sponsor:
Committee:
Administration:
Cost Impact (if N/A
known):
Fund Source (if known)
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting Date Action
APPENDICES
Meeting Date Attachments
04/12/04 Proposed Ordinance
Finance & Safety Committee minutes from meeting of 4/5/04
CITY OF TUKWILA
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIT~ OF TUKWH.A,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A .SIX-MONTH
MORATORIUM ON THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS
FOR DEVELOPMENT,FERMITS FOR FOOD OR DRINK
ESTABLISHMENTS CONDUCTING SOCIAL CARD
GAME GAMBLING ACTI~fI'II~; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Vf~.,REAS, the City Council and the community of Tukwila carefully considered the
extent of permlaslble gambling activities in th~ City for a period of years; and
WHEREAS, after numerous public hearings and public meetings, the City Counall adopted
an or~i.ance carefully tailorad ~o address the needs of tho community; and
WHEREAS, among other ~gs, ~he ordinance permitted exi.~ng liec~.~i social card
games to remain as legal nonconfom~-ng land uses, but prohibited the in~duetion of further
licensed su vfal card games in the city; and
WHEREAS, Division I of the Court of Appeals issued itc opinion on Sune 26, 2003, in
~,~mn.d~ Shopping Center Assoc., et al. v. CiV/of Edmonds, which affirmed that cities may
........... ability to exercise
absolutely prohibit any or all gambling ac~vmas, but called into que.~on cites
zoning or other general police powers over licensed gambling activities; and
WHEREAS, at least one business venture has subsequently expressed an interest in
acquirin~ a State license to operate an additional social card game in Tukwila; and
WI-I~REASE, the City Council accordingly desires to establish a moratorimn ~o prevent the
vesting of any new applications, and to maintain the status quo while legal, political, and practical
altemativas are considered;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASI-m~TON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findin_g.s of Fact. The "WHEREAS" clauses, above, are hereby adopted as the
City Council's"~findings of fact and are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in their
Section 2. Moratorium established. A moratorium is hereby established, effective
!mmedin~ly upon adOl:iion of this ordlnsnce, upon the filing of applications for building permits,
d~velopment Immits, or any other permits or approvals required for food or drink astablisinnente
seeking tO conduct new social ca_rd game gambling activities, or to expand existing sodal card
game gambling activities, whether as a principal use or as an accessory use. For the purposes of
this o~i,snce, "development pcrmlts" shall include, but arc not limited to, subdivision approvals,
short subdivision approvals, approvals for any and all rezonas, site plan review approvals, and
building permits for dcvalopment activity resulting in the alteration of existing premises or the
creation of new premises related to social card game gambling activities. No such applications
~hsll be accepted during the effective period of this moratorium.
Section 3. Effective Period of Moratorium. The moratorium established by this Ordinance
shall become effective as set forth in Section 3 below, and shall continue in effect for si_.~x months
thereafter unless repealed, renewed, or modified by the Gity Council after a subsequcut public
heating and entry of findings of fact.
Sectlo~ 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance, as a public cmergancy ordlns,ce necessmy for
the protection of the public health, public safety, public property, or public peace, ~hsl! take cffaet
and be in full force immediately upon its adoption. Pursuant to Matson v. Clark Count'/Board of
Commissioners, 79 Wn. App. 641, 904 P.2d 317 (1995), underlying facts necessary to support this
emergency declaration are included in the "WHEREAS" clauses, above, all of wblch are adopted
by reference as findings of fact as ~f fully set forth herein.
Section 5. Work Program. The Mayor is authorized to allocate the necessary resources to
prepare a work program to address issues related to social card game and other gambling activities,
and to develop appmpxiate proposals for amendment of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Code, and other development regulations as may be necessary.
Section 6. Public .Hearing to be Held. 'A public heating on the issue of the moratorium
shall be beld no later than sixty (60) days ai~e~ the date of adoption herein.
Section 7; SeverabiliW. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, qlanse or phrase of this
Ordi6~ace, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared uncoa~itutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of ~is Ordinance be pre-empted by stale or
federal law or regulation, such decision or pr~-empfian shall not affec~ the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or ch~c.m~ances.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR ~G THEREOF ON
DAY OF ,2004.
CiTY OF TUKWILA
May~S~eM~
A' f l'.~S T/AUTHEZqTICAT.~2L~:
.lane C~tn, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Shelley M. Kerslake, City A~tomey
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Counc'fl:
Date of Pablication:
Effective Date:
-2-
Finance and Safety Committee
4/5/04
so it wasn't possible to include the changes. The Committee agreed to recommend
authorizing the Mayor to sign the MOU, with the caveat that the City will review how it's
working in one year. Council can then decide whether to remain a part of the LinX
group. Joan asked how the City could get its comments included
at an earlier stage of the process. Keith said in the future he will bring items in their draft
state before they are finalized. Recommend MOU to COW and Regular Meetin.qs.
6. Council Travel Policy After considerable time has been spent recently reviewing a
policy, the Committee made some editing changes and recommended the policy to the
Council. Recommend issue to COW and Regular Meeting.
7. Financial Planning Model The Committee worked to understand the Planning
Model and the City's budget related to it. Alan pointed out there is no money in the
Planning Model for Connectivity, TUC, TOD, TVS, or the Mall/Klickitat. Even without
those projects and even if Eyman's latest initiatives don't pass, the City will run out of
funds by 2008. They will run out sooner if revenues go down or expenses increase for
any reason. Some additional things that could lead to budget increases include
employee health care costs, and the city share of PERS and LEOFF payments, which
have risen from 2% to 7% this year. The City has cut costs for several years now, so
that departmental budgets are stripped down to minimum levels. When an issue like
TVS staffing comes up, the money must come from the ending fund balance.
Looking at the 6-year capital plan Alan noted that the Public Works Arterial Street fund
includes within it $1.2 million per year on street overlays and maintenance. By 2007,
only maintenance will be allowed within the budget unless there is a substantial
increase in revenues by then. There will be no "nice-to-do" projects in the budget after
2006. Dennis suggested including the previous year in the Attachment A, and showing
the $1.2 million maintenance cost separate from Arterial streets. He also wanted to see
Tukwila Village's revenues and expenditures included. Information.
8. Requests for Casinos Both DCD and the Mayor's office have received calls from
people asking generally about adding casinos in the City. One obvious site is at the old
Chips (formerly Pete's Flying Aces) on TIB. Other sites have been mentioned, but not
proposed formally. The City Attorney has recommended putting a moratorium on new
gambling establishments to prevent new casinos going in everywhere in the City without
careful planning. Recommend ordinance to COW and Special Meeting 4/12/04.
~ Committee Chair approval
~,.
BID TABULATION
+`4=
1903
Owner: CITY OF TUKWILA
Bid Open Date: 03/26/2004
Bid Open Time: 10:00 A.M.
Project: Green River Valley Signal Interconnect
Pride Electric
ITEM
NO.
Engineer's Estimate -
North Sky Communications
Totem Electric of Tacoma, Inc.
Signal Electric, Inc.
ITEM
NO.
ITEM OR
TASK DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
COST
UNIT
PRICE
COST
NO.
UNITS
UNIT
UNIT
-r PRICE
COST
UNIT
PRICE
COST
UNIT
PRICE
COST
UNIT
PRICE
COST
1
MOBILIZATION
1
LS
$25,000.00 $25,000.00
$7,014.00
$7,014.00
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
$15,850.00
$15,850.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL LABOR
575
HRS
$35.00 L$20,125.00
$35.00
$20,125.00
$35.00
$20,125.00
$35.00
$20,125.00
3
REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE
1
LS
$5,000.00 $5,000.00,
$7,349.00
$7,349.00
$8,400.00
$8,400.00
$2,263.00
$2,263.00
4
CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE
15
TON
r $40.00 $600.00
$37.00
$555.00
$59.00
$885.00
$51.00
$765.00
5
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLASS B
50
TON
$75.00; - $3,750.00
$130.00
$6,500.00
$101.00
$5,050.00
$300.00
$15,000.00
6
POTHOLING
1
FA
$3,500.00 _, $3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
7
RESOLUTION OF UTILITY CONFLICTS
1
FA
: $5,000.00,' '1,
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
8
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
1
LS
`y $2,100.00 °;:.$2;100.00.
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$4,550.00
$4,550.00
$1,800.00
$1,800.00
9
PROPERTY RESTORATION
1
FA
'=;'$7,500.00 r" $7,500.00',
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
10
SIDEWALK
80
SY
i!:? "$35,00s .'. $2,800.00
$150.00
$12,000.00
$47.00
$3,760.00
$49.50
$3,960.00
11
CURB RAMP
1
EA
';; $11,100.00; . ,' $1,100.00'
$1,324.00
$1,324.00
$585.00
$585.00
$1,875.00
$1,875.00
12
24 STRAND FIBER OPTIC CABLE
1
LS
$71,000.00:. , = $71,000.00
$18,876.93
$18,876.93
$33,600.00
$33,600.00
$35,479.00
$35,479.00
13
36 STRAND FIBER OPTIC CABLE
1
LS
• ;$63,000.00; `.,$63,000;00
$11,008.07
$11,008.07
$26,500.00
$26,500.00
$26,897.00
$26,897.00
14
6 -PAIR COMMUNICATIONS CABLE (6PCC)
1
LS
? $8`,500.00( ', "< $8,500.00
$7,959.36
$7,959.36
$24,000.00
$24,000.00
$23,057.00
$23,057.00
15
PVC CONDUIT PIPE - 2 INCH DIAMETER
2100
LF
415.00_ 1 .$31!,500.00';
$12.22
$25,662.00
$11.00
$23,100.00
$8.70
$18,270.00
16
JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 1
3
EA
" "" _q$525 :00 • , $1,575.00'
$289.20
$867.60
$280.00
$840.00
$281.00
$843.00
17
JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 2
4
EA
„".,.';,$800.00' ,•,i_ $3,200.00
$376.80
$1,507.20
$390.00
$1,560.00
$367.00
$1,468.00
18
CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE
1
LS
i'j$2,000.00;? ,', t $2,000.00
$1,749.00
$1,749.00
$1,080.00
$1,080.00
$1,950.00
$1,950.00
19
POLE RISER ASSEMBLY
1
LS
•1;;:.$4,500.00 ;;,1x$4,500.00"
$179.00
$179.00
$3,070.00
$3,070.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
20
MESSENGER CABLE ASSEMBLY
1
LS
'• °,': $2,000.00 'F $2,000.00
$2,349.00
$2,349.00
$3,800.00
$3,800.00
$8,509.00
$8,509.00
Sub Total
SA/.F,S TAX. N/A PER STD SPEC 1 -07.02 APWA 1 -99 & WAC 458 -171
�)
C ^ u
111 [
„r
u�J,�t
�'[1, II i J �i�,
.: $263 750 00
r,' `' ' ` i' ,
�
1i
Bid
, +
marke•
t
r,
as'w
3
o
n
•
�
and
$ 142 225ar16a
4
$194,905.00
$195,111.00
TOTAL
ii'I H" ' � :1'$263,75000
$142,225.1 6
$194,905,00
$195,111.00
�5.
Elcon Corporation
TransTech Electric
Pride Electric
ITEM
NO.
ITEM OR
TASK DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
NO.
UNITS
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
COST
UNIT
PRICE
COST
UNIT
PRICE
COST
1
MOBILIZATION
1
LS
$25,330.00
$25,330.00
$20,500.00
$20,500.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL LABOR
575
HRS
$35.00
$20,125.00
$35.00
$20,125.00
$35.00
$20,125.00
3
REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE
1
LS
$4,135.00
$4,135.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
4
CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE
15
TON
$50.00
$750.00
$50.00
$750.00
$20.00
$300.00
5
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLASS B
50
TON
$127.50
$6,375.00
$85.00
$4,250.00
$100.00
$5,000.00
6
POTHOLING
1
FA
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
7
RESOLUTION OF UTILITY CONFLICTS
1
FA
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
8
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
1
LS
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
9
PROPERTY RESTORATION
1
FA
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
10
SIDEWALK
80
SY
$32.50
$2,600.00
$55.00
• $4,400.00
$44.00
$3,520.00
11
CURB RAMP
1
EA
$750.00
$750.00
$1,450.00
$1,450.00
$1,210.00
$1,210.00
12
24 STRAND FIBER OPTIC CABLE
1
LS
$74,250.00
$74,250.00
$39,974.00
$39,974.00
$80,000.00
$80,000.00
13
36 STRAND FIBER OPTIC CABLE
1
LS
$45,000.00
$45,000.00
$31,509.00
$31,509.00
$50,000.00
1$50,000.00
14
6 -PAIR COMMUNICATIONS CABLE (6PCC)
1
LS
$24,150.00
$24,150.00
$29,000.00
$29,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
15
PVC CONDUIT PIPE - 2 INCH DIAMETER
2100
LF
$10.50
$22,050.00
$32.62
$68,502.00
$10.00
$21,000.00
16
JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 1
3
EA
$325.00
$975.00
$300.00
$900.00
$225.00
$675.00
17
JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 2
4
EA
$440.00
$1,760.00
$550.00
' $2,200.00
$350.00
$1,400.00
18
CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE
1
LS
$470.00
$470.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
19
POLE RISER ASSEMBLY
1
LS
$1,920.00
$1,920.00
$1,000.00
• $1,000.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
20
MESSENGER CABLE ASSEMBLY
1
LS
$3,660.00
$3,660.00
$6,650.00
$6,650.00
$7,000.00
$7,000.00
,SA1 ES TAX: N/A PER STD SPEC 1- 07,02(2) APWA 1 -99 &
Sub -Total
WAC 458 -171
TOTAL
$253,300.00
$263,710.00
$268,730.00
$253,300.00
$263,710.00
$268,730.00
�5.