Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2007-03-27 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETITEM 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA g. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. MISCELLANEOUS City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee Pam Linder, Chair Pam Carter Dennis Robertson AGENDA Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 7PM THIS MEETING ONLY Conference Room #3 a. Update on Interurban Court Project; Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Manager, b. Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness; Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Manager. c. Building height issue; Steve Lancaster, DCD Director. d. Consultant selection for Tukwila Pond Park; Rick Still, P &R Deputy Director. e. Performance -based contract process; Rick Still, P &R Deputy Director. f. Golf Course Green Fees; Rick Still, P &R Deputy Director. Macadam Winter Garden update; Rick Still, P &R Deputy Director. g. Distribution: P. Carter V. Griffin P. Under D. Robertson Mayor Mullet R. Berry E. Boykan J. Cantu B. Fletcher K. Fuhrer ACTION TO BE TAKEN a. Information only. b. Forward to 4/9 C.O.W. and 4/16 Regular Meeting. c. Information only. d. Forward to 4/9 C.O.W. and 4/16 Regular Meeting. e. Information only. f. Forward to 4/9 C.O.W. and 4/16 Regular Meeting. Information only. Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 S The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 for assistance. V. Jessop Legislative Analyst S. Kerslake S. Lancaster M. Miotke C. O'Flaherty J. Pace D. Speck R. Still CC File (cover) Page Pg. 1 Pg. 3 Pg. 7 Pg.13 Pg.23 Pg.35 Pg.39 DATE: 3/27/07 TO: MAYOR'S OFFICE, COMMUNITY AND PARKS CC: L2 FROM: EN. lh BOYKAN, HUMAN SERVICES RE: UPDAIE ON INTERURBAN COURT M E M O R A N D U M Early in 2007 Community and Parks learned of a proposed effort to purchase the Towne and Country extended stay motel for the purpose of housing homeless vets and other homeless mentally ill adults. This project has fallen through due to a conflict between the price that the property owner wanted for the property and the appraised price. The attached letter explains what happened.. It appears there is no need to bring this to full Council. March 14, 2007 John deChadenedes, Program Coordinator King County Housing and Community Development Program Exchange Bldg. 821 Second Ave. 5th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Interurban Dear John, LIHI very much appreciates King County's support for the Interurban project. As with all projects, LIHI ordered an appraisal of the property. The appraisal showed the property to be worth less than our purchase price. LIHI shared the appraisal with the owner, and offered to have him do an appraisal to show a number closer to the purchase price. The plan was that we would then have the two appraisers discuss and settle on a purchase price. The owner had agreed, and we executed an extension to the purchase agreement to accommodate this. The owner then could not find an appraiser who thought that they could appraise the property for the price the owner wanted. The owner has refused to lower the price to the appraised value, and we therefore can't go forward. I have executed a termination agreement on the property. We very much appreciate the support of King County for this project, and we do have our broker looking for other hotel/motel property in Tukwila. Mayor Steven Mullet and staff members at the City of Tukwila were very supportive in the development of this proposal and we hope to work with them again. We would still like to find a site which meets the Jump Start criteria. Thanks for your support and help. Sincerely yours, +n t,e Executive Director cc: Tukwila Mayor Steven Mullet Rhonda Berry Evelyn Boykan Derek Speck LOW INCOME HOUSING 4 ;'1V gl INSTITUTE 2407 1st Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 981 21 -1 31 1 (206) 443 -9935 Phone (206) 443 -9851 Fax (800) 833 -6388 TTY URL: vn.tiv.lihi.org To: Mayor's Offic Community and Parks From: Evie Boykan,, Duman Services Date: March 27, 2007 Subject: 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness INFORMATION MEMO ISSUE Suburban jurisdictions are being asked to endorse the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County. BACKGROUND Homelessness is a local, regional and national issue. The Committee to End Homelessness in King County (CEHKC) developed a ten year plan to end homelessness in King County City Council received a briefmg on this plan in the fall of 2006. The Committee seeks endorsements of the plan from suburban jurisdictions. This endorsement shows support for the plan and a willingness to work with others to end homelessness, not just manage it. There is no financial impact in endorsing the plan. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS /ALTERNATIVES Bill Block, Project Director of the Committee to End Homelessness already provided a presentation to the full Council in the fall of 2006. RECOMMENDATION Endorse the "A Roof Over Every Bed in King County: Our Community's Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness" and adopt the attached resolution. di) COMMITTEE ;Y3 END HOMELESSNESS KING COUNTY Finally, a real plan to end homelessness "A Roof Over Every Bed in King County" within ten years How many people are homeless in King County? On any given night more than 8,000 people are known to be homeless in King County. This includes at least 400 youth and young adults, and approximately 2,400 people in families. About 2,500 meet the federal definition of chronically homeless, often with disabling conditions. Over 25% are children under the age of 17. As a community, we know this is unacceptable. What are we doing about homelessness? For the first time in our community's history, we are coming together to end homelessness. The Committee to End Homelessness in King County made up of representatives from nonprofit organizations, business, local government, homeless advocacy groups, the faith community and people who are or have been homeless has developed the Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County. The effort is focused on regional and cross system collaboration, and engaging communities and institutions that have not previously prioritized housing as their area of focus. This plan will end homelessness, not merely manage it. Why is it so important to end homelessness? Homelessness is expensive. Not only does it take a toll on people's lives, it is a huge financial burden on society. Tens of millions of dollars are spent each year in King County to feed, shelter, shower, medically treat or imprison homeless people. As we move more of these folks into housing and employment whenever possible we will spend far less in emergency services and they will contribute far more to their community and to the economy. What is in the Ten -Year Plan? The plan (available in full at www.cehkc.org) lays out a series of specific strategies and actions, with clear goals and measurable outcomes, for local leaders and their organizations to pursue over the next decade. The plan works to ensure alignment and coordination among all the entities in our community that are engaged in meeting the needs the homeless, and builds on local and national best practices for resolving homelessness. The key strategies are: 1. Prevent homelessness Make sure an adequate supply of appropriate housing and supportive services are available to help people stay in their homes as well as to engage in discharge planning. Discharge planning involves the jail, mental health programs and foster care. Services include rent and utility assistance, job training, employment and education assistance, health care, mental health counseling, foster care and chemical dependency treatment. 2. Move people rapidly from homelessness to housing Place homeless people as quickly as possible in permanent housing and then help them to stabilize and function independently by providing them with the supportive services they need to be successful in their homes. 3. Increase the efficiency of the existing system. We have a number of existing projects that address homelessness. We need to ensure that these are as efficient and effective as possible. 4. Build the public and political will to end homelessness Expand our community's commitment to ending homelessness by educating the public, tracking our successes and building on them, and establishing steady funding. 5. Measure and Report Outcomes We need to know exactly what our efforts are doing, where they are succeeding and where they need to be improved. How does the Plan differ from current practices? The Plan asks for a major change in how we do business and calls for broad and systemic integration of "best practices". In the context of ending homelessness this means integrating services and housing through single points of entry (providing access to both housing and services), service enriched permanent supportive housing (helping individuals get and keep their housing), and common funding processes (to avoid fragmentation of funds and services). These system changes will create efficiencies, avoid duplication and keep people housed rather than cycling through an expensive system. Studies have shown that providing housing to chronically homeless individuals is significantly more efficient and economic than the current system. For example, a local study in 2003 found that the 40 highest users of the sobering center and Harborview emergency room were chronically homeless individuals whose services cost an excess of $2 million. Housing them in supportive housing reduces their use of these expensive services, and is a much better use of public dollars. How is the plan being implemented? The Committee to End Homelessness has three primary policy entities: A Governing Board made up of more than 20 influential leaders provides high -level oversight. They mold and sustain the vision and leadership of the plan. More specifically, they will guide planning, coordinate current funding, and work to create additional resources. Members include business, faith, and elected officials from throughout the County, including, Enumclaw, Shoreline, Bellevue and Seattle. A Consumer Advisory Council is comprised of people who are currently homeless or who have experienced homelessness in the past. They provide needed expertise in how the system really runs and represent the broad interests and needs of homeless people countywide. Representatives include those who can speak to issues of homeless families, adults, veterans, youth, foster kids, and barriers to accessing services in every region in the County. An Interagency Council consists of executive director and department director level personnel from many of the entities working to end homelessness in King County. The Interagency Council designs changes to current programs; coordinates data collection, analysis and reporting; recommends policy direction to the Governing Board; and creates ways to better serve people experiencing homelessness. Members include business, faith, and agency and division directors from Tukwila, Kent, Bellevue, Kirkland, City of Seattle, King County DCHS, YWCA, Multi- Service Center, Kent Youth and Family Services, Plymouth Housing Group, Hopelink and more. Local Collaborations and Committees focus on implementation strategies. Three population committees integrate housing and services solutions for Single Adults, Families and Youth. Communications Workgroup work on day to day communications, legislative advocacy and creating long term public will. Resource Development and Alignment identifies strategies to create new resources and maximize the use of existing resources while being sensitive to other community needs. The South King County Forum on Homelessness and Eastside Homelessness Advisory Committee identify regional solutions in keeping with local needs and priorities. Finally, ad hoc workgroups are regularly convened to implement strategic priorities, such as establishing discharge policies for the criminal justice system and working with landlords to create incentives and other supports to allow them to house formerly homeless persons. Staff support for implementing the plan is provided by the King County Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS) and funded in collaboration with the City of Seattle, United Way of King County and others. For more information on the plan, our work and the committees Visit our website at www.cehkc.oro or contact Bill Block, Director of the Committee to End Homelessness, 206 205 -5506 (bill.blockOmetrokc.aov) or Gretchen Bruce, Program Manager, at 206 296 -5251 (gretchen.bruce @metrokc.gov). Revised 3/20/07 www.cehkc.org A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENDORSING THE GOALS OF "A ROOF OVER EVERY BED IN KING COUNTY: OUR COMMUNITY'S TEN -YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS"; AND DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA TO WORK WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN. WHEREAS, it is estimated that there are over 8,000 people who experience homelessness in King County on any given night; and WHEREAS, in 2004, 11% of homeless households reported South King County as their last permanent address; and WHEREAS, additional attention is needed to restructure our region's existing homelessness services system, from managing homelessness to preventing and ending homelessness; and WHEREAS, the community including local governments, the United Way of King County, the faith community, non -profit organizations, and the business community has worked over the last several years to develop a plan outlining new efforts to address homelessness; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Endorsement. The City Council endorses the goals of "A Roof Over Every Bed in King County: Our Community's Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness" and supports the Plan's "commitment to ensure that there is an appropriate, affordable roof over the bed of everyone living in King County whether young or old, living alone or with families, sick or well." Section 2. Implementation of Plan. The City Council declares its intent to work with other governmental officials, the United Way of King County, faith and civic groups, communities of color, philanthropies, the business community, non -profit housing and service providers, and others to implement this plan over the next ten years. Section 3. Additional Resources. The City Council recognizes that additional resources will be required in order to meet the ambitious goals included in the Ten -Year Plan, and that local government resources are not adequate to achieve these goals. Therefore, the City of Tukwila supports efforts to increase funding at the Federal and State levels to pursue the goals of the Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Verna Griffin, Council President Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF TUKWILA MEMORANDUM TO: Community and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster DATE: March 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Building Height ISSUE Should the City change the way building heights are regulated? BACKGROUND Sandra Kruize addressed the City Council on March 5 regarding her concerns about building heights. She submitted a letter to the Council at that time, a copy of which is attached. Specifically, Ms. Kruize is concerned about a home being built at 15815 47 Avenue South (Ms. Kruize lives at 4457 S. 158 St see attached aerial photograph). Tukwila's Zoning Code establishes a maximum building height of 30 feet in the LDR Low Density Residential district (TMC 18.10.060). The Code specifies that "building height" is to be "calculated by the method in the Washington State Building Code" (TMC 18.06.100). The State Building Code defines "building height" as "the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface" (IBC Section 502.1). The term "grade plane" is defined as follows: A reference plane representing the average of fmished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls. Where the fmished ground surface slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building, between the building and a point 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building. The attached figure provides a graphic representation of how this calculation is made under varying grade circumstances. It also provides information on how our neighboring jurisdictions regulate building height. Q:\CODE_REV\height.doc-sjl-Created on 03/15/2007 9:50:00 AM Page 1 of 2 ALTERNATIVES 1. No change. 2. Reduce residential height standard from 30 feet to something lower. 3. Measure residential building height from lowest grade rather than average grade. RECOMMENDATION Tukwila's single family height regulations are similar to those of nearby, similarly situated communities. No action recommended. Attachments: March 5, 2007 from Sandra Kruize. GIS map /photo of Kruize neighborhood. Comparison of Maximum Building Height Standards. Q:\CODE_REV\height.doc-sjl-Created on 03/15/2007 9:50:00 AM Page 2 of 2 Sandra fraize 4457 S. 158 St. tuhwila, 11 98188 206 -246 -9189 sandrahraize(knahoo.com Mayor and Council Members, City of Tukwila March 5, 2007 I thank you for allowing me to address you with my concern about large buildings going up in low- density residential neighborhoods. Here are the main points: Tukwila City policies obviously enhance life for residents, with programs such as the Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program, free dump passes, free chipping days, and awards for homes and yards which their owners ,lave fixed up nicely. Especially in a city i l such positive policies: 1. I was more than dismayed at the enormous -sized house being built in my neighborhood, kitty -corner off my back yard. Nearby houses are being dwarfed by it, losing a substantial amount of their privacy, light and view. 2. The zoning and building codes state a maximum height for buildings in `Low Density Residential' neighborhoods as 3.0 feet, but this is somehow interpreted to allow much higher heights than this to be built. 3. I believe if such interpretation of maximum height is allowed to continue. 'Low Density Residential' neighborhoods will-look like they are filled with apartment buildings and they will become more like slums. How cart people care as much about their properties when they have lost so much of their privacy, light and view? 4. With all the good things the City does, I can't believe it would condone such an interpretation, and I petition the Council t look into this. Sincerely, Tukwila Kent Renton Seatac Burien 3ut lot. hi ghe .r_than_1-0_teet-aboY.e..tf. etc we.: Lgrade- in..5.feet .of_ he structure Cit Max Height I Lower Datum __Tukwila eaTa_c 30 Average grade 35 Lowest grade within 5 feet 35 Highest grade within 5 feet 30 Average grade 35 Average grade Upper Datum Mid -point of sloped roof Mid -point of sloped roof Mid -point of sloped roof Mid -point of sloped roof Highest point of structure Kent Renton 1 Comparison of Maximum Bui ding Height Standards irt Burien Marsh Residence Aerial Photo TO: MEMORANDUM Mayor Steve Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: (4 Rick Still, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: March 21, 2007 SUBJECT: Tukwila Pond Park Authorize Consultant Agreement Project Number 03 -PK -10 TUKPOND2007 Parks and Recreation Department Bruce Fletcher, Director ISSUE Select a consultant to provide design services and for the Tukwila Pond Park development. BACKGROUND The Tukwila Urban Center Master Plan includes further development of the Tukwila Pond Park. An informational report and conceptual design were completed and presented to the City Council in 2006. Concurrently, there are two different design issues being performed for the Tukwila Pond Park Project. A water quality feasibility study is being conducted by the Department of Community Development. The Parks and Recreation Department is utilizing the 2006 conceptual design to develop schematic designs and final plans and specifications for the development of this park. The attached proposal, dated March 16, 2007, is presented in two phases. The first phase (written in black) is the scope of work for which we are seeking approval. Phase one will provide wetland delineation, boundary and design survey, concept plan and cost estimate, and enough detail drawings to obtain the required permits. The second phase (written in gray) scope of work is for consultant services that need to be performed once funding is acquired for development. ACTION TAKEN Three firms were short- listed from the City's consultant roster of firms that indicated they provide expertise in landscape architecture, park design, wetland issues, boardwalk and trail construction, wildlife enhancements and interpretive presentations, and are familiar with public projects, funding and grant programs. All three firms were rated based on the expertise and experience necessary to perform the work. Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, P.S. was selected as the most qualified (see rating sheet attached). A draft scope of Work and Fee Estimate are attached. RECOMMENDATION Approve the selection of Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, P.S., as the Tukwila Pond Park development design consultant and authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, P.S. in the amount of $90,820.00. Attachments: Map, Rating Sheet, Consultant Agreement, Scope of Work, Fee Estimate. cc: City Administrator Director of Parks Recreation Tukwila Pond Park 300ft Site Location Map Landscape Architecture Park Design Wetland Issues Boardwalk Trail Design Public Projects, Funding Grant Programs Public Involvement Public Presentations TOTALS CONSULTANT SELECTION 2007 TUKWILA POND PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Wildlife Enhancements Interpretive Presentations Score consultant 1 to 4, with 1 being highest and 4 being lowest. Lowest score is consultant ranked highest. Hough Beck Adolfson Robert W. Droll Baird Inc. Associates, INC. Landscape Architect 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 12 13 Attachment A Tukwila Pond Trail Tukwila Parks Recreation Scope of Services 3/16/2007 Tukwila Pond Trail Boardwalk City of Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department Scope of Work This assignment includes the Schematic and Final Design services work to be performed by Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS and Project Team (hereinafter collectively, RWD) for the City of Tukwila, Washington on Tukwila Pond Trail Boardwalk. RWD will serve as consultant to Tukwila in the capacity of Park Planner/Landscape Architect and will prepare Bid Documents. The goal of the project is to implement a new Loop Trail and Boardwalk around Tukwila Pond. Basis of Proposal This Scope of Services and Fee Proposal are based upon discussions and information provided by the Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department, site visits and documentation review. Scope of Services RWD proposes the following Scope of Services to accomplish the work necessary for the preparation of Tukwila Pond Trail Boardwalk (hereinafter the "Trail Phase 1 I Task 1 Schematic Design -35% Submittal Task 1.01 Site Visit RWD will visit site with Client, wetland biologists and survey crew. Task 1.02 Wetland Delineation Conduct wetland delineation, category rating and report in compliance with City of Tukwila Critical Areas Ordinance. Task 1.03 Boundary and Design Survey Conduct topographical fieldwork necessary to generate mapping of one foot contours, spot elevations, trees, six inches and larger, and other planimetric features. Survey will include bathymetric survey of pond from shoreline to fifty feet into pond. Show Boundary Survey as provided by Tukwila. Prepare mapping in ACAD format. Task 1.04 Concept Plan Cost Estimate RWD will prepare Concept Plan illustrating type, size and location of main loop trail and boardwalk and spur connections. RWD will provide Estimate of Probable Cost based upon measured quantities. Task 1.05 PreSubmission Conference w/ Tukwila RWD will prepare PreSubmission Conference application and attend PreSub Conference. Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS, 4405 7" Avenue, Lacey, WA, SE, 98503, 360.456.3813, bob@rwdroll.com 1 Attachment A Tukwila Pond Trail Tukwila Parks Recreation I Task 2 Permit Processing Tasks 2.01 Layout and Grading Plan Layout and Grading Plan will be prepared by RWD defining horizontal and vertical relationships of proposed Trail and Site improvements. Horizontal definition of proposed improvements will be achieved by dimensioning from coordinates derived from Design Survey. Grading will be defined by contours and spot elevations that will be relative to vertical datum. Task 2.02 Boardwalk Plan Details Boardwalk Plan will define the horizontal and vertical alignment of Boardwalk, which anticipated to be located over the water in locations where there is insufficient public property to locate the trail in an upland area. RWD will provide all details and calculations to comply local codes, ADA regulations and International Building Code. Task 2.03 SEPA JARPA Permitting, Biological Assessment RWD will prepare SEPA and Site Plan Approval and JARPA applications and respond to inquiries and follow up on permits. RWD will prepare Biological Assessment. Task 2.04 Illustrative Plan Prepare one each color illustrative site plan, floor plan and two elevations for Client's use in public meetings. Color will be applied to In- Process drawings (3 sheets maximum): no separate drawings /sketches will be prepared specifically for Illustrative drawings. Task 2.05 Public Presentation of Tukwila Pond Trail RWD will prepare for and attend a public presentation of project. Task 4,02 Demolition and Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan RWD will prepare plan indicatine. the existin site features that shall be demolished, abandoned salvaged and retained as well as ti e location of erosion control measures. 3/16/2007 I Task 3 Project Management Task 3.01 Project Management Manage the contractual elements, scheduling, billing and timing of project. Manage the coordination of consultants and the execution of the Project Schedule. Communicate and coordinate with Client. Phase 2 I Task 4 Design Development -60% Submittal Task 4.01 Title Sheet Title Sheet with 1 t t it Map, General ti tes. Legen. Abbreviations, i_ Ci:(ia1•L li Shee ;�L'�liti?3L•:YtCli "'t 1. t ;t, list City Council Members and Parks Department Staff. Tasks 4.03 Layout and Grading Plan 3 and will prepared t i horizontal ai.d �;radinti Plan .i";ll be 1.tei�a:• =�:d 1",,, RWD n;�riraittal and vertical relationships of proposed Trail and Site improvements. horizontal definition of proposed improvements will be proposed by dimensioning from coordinates derived from Design Survey. Grading will be defined hss contours and spot elevations that will he relative to vertical datum. Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS, 4405 7` Avenue, Lacey, WA, SE, 98503, 360.456.3813, bob@nvdroll.com 2 Attachment A Tukwila Pond Trail Tukwila Parks Recreation Task 4.04 Boardwalk Plan Details Boardwalk Plan will define, the horizontal and vertical alianment of Boardwalk. which anticipated /c be located over the water in locations where there is insufficient public p1 operty to locite the trail in an upland area. RWD will provide all details and calculations to comply local codes_ ADA regulations and International Building Code. Task 4.05 Site Details Prepare details for project oiic improvements. Tasks 4.06 Estimate of Probable Costs RWD will provide Estimate of Probable Cost based upon measured cuantities. RWD will organize Estimate by Trail Segment vu allow Client to render Phasing decisions i[necessary. Estimate will include all Project Development Costs including consultant costs, construction administration, mobilization, bonds. contingencies, taws, projected construction year cost escalation (if neeessar taxes and all identified costs associated with this proiect's development. Task 4.07 Review with Stu[[ Review Plans with Staff. Task 5 Final Design 90% Submittal Tasks 5.01-5.06 are the same Tasks as 4.01-4.06 except Work will he at a 90% eomp(odonhr6. Task 5.07 Specifications Prepare Technical Specifications, Sections 1-16. in Construction Specification institute tCSI) fc, Task 5.08 Review with Staff Review Plans with Staff. Task 5.09 Building Permit Application Processing FOND will submit and process Building Pennit applications. Task 5.10 Quality Review K\YD will retain a Construction Manager to review a set of hjd documents. 3/16/2007 Task 6 Con/rurtDwxumrom— lUO% Submittal Tasks 6.0/-6.07 arc the same Tasks ox5.0i'5,07 except Work v ill howtu 1OU% completion level and ready for Advertising and Bidding. Task 6.08 Assemble Deliver Contract Documents RWD will assemble Technical Specifications and Plans in .pdf format and forward to Client. Robert m Droll, Landscape Architect, PS, 7 Avenue, Lacey, WA, SE, n�360.456.3mx.bobr&rwdroll.com 3 Attachment A Tukwila Pond Trail Tukwila Parks Recreation Task 7 Project Management Task 5.01 Project Management j x the coordination the contractual elements, scheduling. scheduling. L�ill;� and f11 ?l�s of project. '��c the t: C >ittf::..:;';7 of consultants and the execution of the Project Schedule. Communicate and coordinate with Client. I Task 8 Bidding Negotiations, Task 10.01 Pre -Bid Conference RIND will attend Pre -Bid Conference and prepare Addenda. it necessary.. I Task 9 Construction Administration t g will ti. t 1 time following Tasks i:l 1?c tleg ti�t.;_ at t ?a ti i2e a: 3idi,'slc, if requested by Client. Task 9.01 Task 9.02 Task 9.03 Pre Construction Conference Submittal Review Construction Observation 3/16/2007 Additional Services, Excluded Services Specific items that are not within the scope of work/services include, but are not limited to, the following: Traffic studies Stormwater Drainage studies /design Demand analysis /economic modeling Legal Descriptions of easements, Rights -of -Ways, etc. Hydrology /Water Quality Studies, Environmental Studies Geotechnical Investigation, Recommendations, and Material Testing. Construction Staking Mitigation Design Permit Fees Wildlife and Archaeological investigations Web -site preparation and hosting, visual impact analysis, photo simulations, perspective character sketches Tree valuation, noise studies, air quality studies Boundary Survey Public Presentations, Neighborhood meetings, Hearing Examiner meetings, etc. other than in those identified in scope. Professional Fee Professional Fees to accomplish the Scope of Services as shown in Attachment B. RWD will perform the Scope of Services on a Time Materials, Not Exceed Basis. Direct Expenses are reimbursable. Client's Responsibilities Client shall provide the following information or services as required for performance of the work. RWD assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of such information or services and shall not be liable for errors and omissions therein. Should RWD be required to provide services in obtaining or coordinating compilation of this information, such services shall be charged as Additional Services. Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS, 4405 7 Avenue, Lacey, WA, SE, 98503, 360.456.3813, bob rixdroll.com 4 Attachment A Tukwila Pond Trail Tukwila Parks Recreation Provide Title Report Provide space for Public Meeting Provide Division 00 and City Bidding information Advertise for Bid, Award, Bid Tabulation, etc. Existing as-built site engineering and utility base information. Provide aerial photos. 3/16/2007 Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS, 4405 7 Avenue, Lacey, WA, SE, 98503, 360.456.3813, bob'rr�rwdroll.com 5 3 -16 -07 Tukwila Pond Interpretive Trail City of Tukwila, WA Project Scope of Work Fee Tasks Phase 1 1.00 Schematic Design 35% Submittal 1.01 Site Visit 1,600.00 8 920.00 8 680.00 1.02 Wetland Delineation 6,800.00 4 460.00 4 340.00 6,000.00 1.03 Boundary and Design Survey 30,260.00 8 920.00 4 340.00 1.04 Concept Plan Cost Estimate 9,740.00 16 1,840.00 40 3,400.00 1.05 PreSubmission Conference w/ Tukwila 970.00 4 460.00 6 510.00 Task Total 49,370.00 2.00 Permit Submittal Processing 55% 2.01 Layout/Grading Plans 2,276.66 ,270.00 2 230.00 24 2,040.00 2.02 Boardwalk Plan and Details 5,090.00 2 230.00 16 1,360.00 SEPA and JARPA Permitting /Processing, 2.03 Biological Assessment 21,680.00 40 4,600.00 48 4,080.00 2.04 Illustrative Plan 920.00 8 920.00 Tasks Subtotal Direct Expenses (plots, phone, reproduction, mail, travel) Subconsultant Administration 1 Professional Services Fee Total Total Attachment B 83,720.00 11,500.00 1,500.00 5,600.00 90,820.00I Wetland biological RWD Delineation Assessment Survey Electrical Structural ine Bob Droll /Project The Coot Watershed Larson MC Manager Land. Tech Ill Clerical Company Company Associates BCE Squared hours: total :hours total hours: total total total total total i total 2.05 Public Presentation of Tukwila Pond Trail 920.00 8 920.00 as tal o 30,880.00 3.00 Meetings Project Coordination Project Management via phone, tax, email 3.01 etc 3,470.00 24 2,760.00 2 170.00 12 540.00 a'� sks Total 3,470.00 13,000.00 29,000.00 3,000.00 1,500.00 3,500.00 12,750.00 540.00 6,000.00 13,000.00 29,000.00 3,000.00 5,000.00 Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS 360.456.3813 3 -16 -07 Tukwila Pond Interpretive Trail City of Tukwila, WA Project Scope of Work Fee Tasks Total Phase 2 _4.00 Design Development 160 Submittal 4.01 Title Sheet 4.02 Demolition TESC Plan 4.03 Layout/Grading Plans 4.04 B an oardwalk Plan d Details 4.05 Site Details 4.06 Estimate of Probable Costs 4.07 Review with Staff Task Total 5.00 Final Design 90% Submittal 5.01 Title Sheet 5.02 Demolition TESC Plan 5.03 Layout/Grading Plan 5.04 Boardwalk Plan and Details 5.05 Site Details 5.06 Estimate of Probable Costs 5.07 Specifications Division 1 -16 5.08 Review with Staff 5.09 Building Permit Application /Processing 5.10 Quality Review Task Total 6.00 Bid Documents -100% Submittal 6.01 Title Sheet 6.02 Demolition TESC Plan 6.03 Layout/Grading Plan 6.04 Boardwalk Plan and Details 6.05 Site Details 6.06 Estimate of Probable Costs 6.07 Specifications Division 1 -16 6.08 Assemble Deliver Contract Documents Task Total 7.00 Meetings I Project Coordination 7.01 Project Management via phone, fax, email, etc Task Total 8.00 Bidding, Negotiations Task Total 9.00 Construction Services 9.01 Pre Construction Conference 9.02 Construction Observation 9.03 Punchlist and Final Walk -Thru Task Total Phase 2 Not in this Scope of Work Tasks Subtotal Direct Expenses (plots, phone, reproduction, mail, travel) Subconsultant Administration !Professional Services Fee Total Attachment B Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS 360.456.3813 Parks and Recreation Department Bruce Fletcher, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Steve Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: CS Rick Still, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: March 21, 2007 SUBJECT: City of Tukwila Pool HVAC Performance -Based Contract Process ISSUE Performance -Based Contractor selection process for the City of Tukwila Pool's HVAC system. The City of Tukwila Pool Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system has had emergency repair work performed 5 times in the past ten months costing $9,956. Staff was hopeful that these repairs would keep the system operational for a long period of time. However, the fan motor, bearings and shaft of the main system continue to get out of balance and need to be completely replaced, as well as, many other parts of the system are not operational. When the system does stop operating (usually during the middle of the night), the condensation builds up on the fire alarm beam detectors, due to the extreme humidity, and this sets off the fire alarm in the middle of the night causing an unnecessary call out for the fire dept and potentially calling them away from a more serious situation. This also causes a staff member to be at the building (24 hours, 7 days a week) on a fire watch until the situation is fixed. The current HVAC system repairs need to be made or the pool may not be operational for an undetermined time and at an unknown cost. Staff has investigated Chapter 39.35A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) with the City Attorney's office and Finance Department. This code allows a performance based contract for energy equipment and supplies. Instead of hiring a HVAC consultant to put a bid packet together for a specific scope of contracted work, the city can utilize the performance -based contract process to: 1. Conduct a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select the most qualified Energy Services Company (ESCO); 2. Have said company perform an energy audit that meet the qualifications and criteria of the City, i.e. guaranteed energy- savings, guaranteed installation cost, and guaranteed performance; 3. Construct or implement the projects identified through the energy audit; and 4. Verify the energy savings and overall system performance as guaranteed. Community Affairs and Parks Committee Information Memorandum City of Tukwila Pool HVAC Performance -Based Contract Process Page 2 This memorandum is to inform you of the process that staff is using for energy equipment, i.e. City of Tukwila Pool's HVAC system. The City of Tukwila "can, by resolution, choose to negotiate a performance -based contract under Chapter 39.35A RCW" to guarantee energy- savings, installation cost, and HVAC performance rather than developing plans and specifications to publicly `bid' this scope of work. To help answer any questions you may have, staff has invited an ESCO contractor representative to attend the CAP meeting. ALTERNATIVES Alternative One: The City can choose to utilize the ESCO process. Consequences: The HVAC system will be audited to seek energy efficiencies and repair items. A list of projects will be provided from the audit that the City can choose from to make repairs based on a cost benefit analysis approach. The City can choose to make these repairs or plan to have them made in the future. The energy performance and construction installation cost are guaranteed, if they are done as part of the ESCO process. Alternative Two: The City can choose to make repairs as things wear out and break down and not repair items that are not working. Consequences: There are known items that are on a weekly staff watch list to keep operational. There are known items that are not working, which means the system is not working efficiently. Repairs that are performed on an emergency basis cause unscheduled pool closures; and there are no performance guarantees (cost savings), and the repair cost are time and materials until the system is operational (no cost control). Alternative Three: The City can choose not to do anything at this time. Consequences: This alternative is very similar to Alternative Two since there are known items that need to be replaced /repaired to keep HVAC system operational. cc: City Administrator Director of Parks Recreation City Attorney Finance Director Community Affairs and Parks Committee Information Memorandum City of Tukwila Pool HVAC Performance -Based Contract Process Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Information Only: Staff is currently in the RFQ process to obtain an ESCO contractor. Once the energy audit is conducted, a preferred action will be recommended to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. RCW 39.35A 2. Comparison of Energy Performance Contracting with Conventional Procurement Procedures 3. Energy Savings Performance Contracting Adds Value to Public Works Projects 4. RFQ for Energy Performance Contract Chapter 39.35A RCW Performance -based contracts for energy equipment RCW Sections 39.35A.010 Legislative finding. 39.35A.020 Definitions. 39.35A.030 Performance -based contracts for energy equipment and supplies. 39.35A.040 Application of other procurement requirements. 39.35A.050 Energy service contractor registry Identification of performance -based contracting services. 39.35A.010 Legislative finding. 39.35A.020 Definitions. The legislature finds that: (1) Conserving energy in publicly owned buildings will have a beneficial effect on our overall supply of energy; (2) Conserving energy in publicly owned buildings can result in cost savings for taxpayers; and (3) Performance -based energy contracts are a means by which municipalities can achieve energy conservation without capital outlay. Therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy that a municipality may, after a competitive selection process, negotiate a performance -based energy contract with a firm that offers the best proposal. [1985 c 169 1.] Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the definitions in this section shall apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Energy equipment and services" means energy management systems and any equipment, materials, or supplies that are expected, upon installation, to reduce the energy use or energy cost of an existing building or facility, and the services associated with the equipment, materials, or supplies, including but not limited to design, engineering, financing, installation, project management, guarantees, operations, and maintenance. (2) "Energy management system" has the definition provided in RCW 39.35.030. (3) "Municipality" has the definition provided in RCW 39.04.010. (4) "Performance -based contract" means one or more contracts for energy equipment and services between a municipality and any other persons or entities, if the payment obligation for each year under the contract, including the year of installation, is either: (a) Set as a percentage of the annual energy cost savings attributable under the contract to the energy equipment and services; or (b) guaranteed by the other persons or entities to be less than the annual energy cost savings attributable under the contract to the energy equipment and services. Such guarantee shall be, at the option of the municipality, a bond or insurance policy, or some other guarantee determined sufficient by the municipality to provide a level of RCW 39.35A Page 1 of 2 assurance similar to the level provided by a bond or insurance policy. [2001 c 214 18; 1985 c 169 2.] Notes: Severability Effective date 2001 c 214: See notes following RCW 80.50.010. Findings 2001 c 214: See note following RCW 39.35.010. 39.35A.030 Performance -based contracts for energy equipment and supplies. (1) Each municipality shall publish in advance its requirements to procure energy equipment and services under a performance -based contract. The announcement shall state concisely the scope and nature of the equipment and services for which a performance -based contract is required, and shall encourage firms to submit proposals to meet these requirements. (2) The municipality may negotiate a fair and reasonable performance -based contract with the firm that is identified, based on the criteria that is established by the municipality, to be the firm that submits the best proposal. (3) If the municipality is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm that submits the best proposal, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated and the municipality may select another firm in accordance with this section and continue negotiation until a performance -based contract is reached or the selection process is terminated. [1985 c 169 3.] 39.35A.040 Application of other procurement requirements. If a municipality chooses, by resolution or other appropriate mechanism, to negotiate a performance -based contract under this chapter, no otherwise applicable statutory procurement requirement applies. [1985 c 169 4.] 39.35A.050 Energy service contractor registry Identification of performance -based contracting services. The state department of general administration shall maintain a registry of energy service contractors and provide assistance to municipalities in identifying available performance -based contracting services. [2001 c 214 19.] Notes: Severability Effective date 2001 c 214: See notes following RCW 80.50.010. Findings 2001 c 214: See note following RCW 39.35.010. RCW 39.35A Page 2 of 2 COMPARISON OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING WITH CONVENTIONAL PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES STANDARD PROCUREMENT SPEC AND BID EVERY PHASE OF IMPLEMENTATION 1. Usually requires a capital budget authorization. 2. Extended completion time due to need to obtain budgetary approvals from Agency, Governor and Legislature. Time for completion can vary from 2.5 years to 6 years. Increased costs can vary from 3 -15% due to inflation. 3. Project is funded by State issued bonds which are repaid over a 30 year period using tax exempt financing. 4. These projects seldom qualify for utility rebates since the programs are normally over before the projects are funded. 5. Long term energy savings are, rarely, if ever guaranteed. Staff turnover, lack of ongoing training, lack of energy conservation expectations, and maintenance failures often kill project performance. 6. Comfort and lighting performance standards are seldom a part of any construction contract with a hardware vendor. 7. Change Orders are common practice because of misinterpretation or funding availability and scope of project do not match. 8. Separate phases of project implementation diffuses the source of responsibility for effective performance and often results in disputes over liability for non performance. 9. Equipment is guaranteed to be free from defects for one year from substantial completion. ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1. Utilizes existing appropriated utility budget line item to pay all project costs. 2. Third party financing is available, which allows the public building owner to construct projects sooner. Time for completion for an average project will be 18 months from project conception. No increased costs due to inflation. 3. Project is funded by State Treasurer lease purchase financing or Municipal Lease (tax exempt or capital) financing which is repaid over a 10 year period. 4. EPC maximizes utility financial participation in the project. This reduces the amount to be financed or allows additional conservation projects to be implemented. 5. ESCO provides guarantee of performance, monitors and verifies energy consumption, and trains staff to achieve long term project performance. Energy savings are guaranteed by the ESCO. 6. EPCs typically contain a performance definition and guarantee of lighting and comfort conditions. 7. No change orders unless Owner elects to increase project scope within cost effectiveness criteria. 8. A single point of financial and technical accountability for total project performance is standard. 9. EPC guarantees the project functions as designed, maintains specific comfort conditions, saves energy and saves dollars over the life of the Agreement with the ESCO. April 2003 Washington State Department of General Administration Visit our web site at httn:/ /www.aa.wa.gov /EAS /enc /esnc.htm 10. Incremental project implementation often leads to eliminating cost effective retrofits due to inadequate funds, limited staff time, and overly narrow or biased project specifications. 11. Most public institutions can not afford to pay for top notch technical energy staff nor can they afford to train existing staff. 12. Capital energy projects must compete with other capital priorities in an environment of limited budget resources. 13. There is no direct reward to managers or staff for reducing energy costs. 14. New project responsibilities can bring risks of non- performance and technical errors due to lack of internal technical expertise. 15. The operations and maintenance budgets of public institutions are usually under funded resulting in comfort problems, equipment breakdowns, lack of staff training, and wasted energy. 16. When project construction is accepted by staff, there is no guarantee that future improvements will be made to respond to changing conditions. Washington State Department of General Administration 10. Performance contractors consider all cost effective retrofits and secure financing for all feasible improvements. The costs of other needed capital improvements may be underwritten from any additional utility cost savings generated by the project. 11. ESCOs internalize technical expertise in order to guarantee project performance. 12. EPCs are not fmanced through a capital process. Funding is available from ESCOs, lenders and State Treasurer. Performance guarantees are designed to cover the costs of project financing, ongoing guarantees, and monitoring and verification of savings. 13. Compensation to the ESCO is tied directly to project performance and provides a very tangible financial incentive for reducing energy costs. 14. Willingness to accept technical responsibilities and risks is tied to direct financial rewards which are based on project performance. 15. ESCOs cannot afford to under fund any functions critical to protecting their investment and meeting the performance guarantees contained in the contract. 16. ESCOs have a strong incentive to respond to changes in technology, utility rates, and building requirements to maintain the guarantee of project performance over the term of the contract. April 2003 Visit our web site at httR:// www.ga.wa.ssov /EAS /enc /esac.htm ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING ADDS VALUE TO PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS Energy Savings Performance Contracting, or simply performance contracting (PC), shares many similarities with conventional public works design and construction practices. However, there are some distinct differences between PC and the design, bid, build (DBB) process. PC can provide many opportunities to an owner installing energy efficiency equipment, which are not otherwise available when using the DBB process. The advantages to PC for procuring energy efficiency equipment include: Third party financing is available, which allows the public building owner to construct projects sooner. Some public works projects can take as long as six years to complete: identify project and request funding in the first biennium; design in the second biennium; and, construct in the third biennium. Using PC a similar project can be completed in eighteen months. By using third party financing for procuring energy efficiency equipment the owner reserves scarce capital dollars for more pressing building improvements. Combining third party financing with capital dollars allows the owner to leverage the capital appropriation, essentially doing "more with less." PC maximizes utility financial participation in the project. Energy service company (ESCO) selected based on qualifications. Since the ESCO also provides general contracting services the owner is also selecting the highest qualified general contractor, rather than the low bid contractor. Building audit findings must meet owner's cost effectiveness criteria or owner not responsible for ESCO audit costs. There is a single point of accountability from audit through design, construction and commissioning, which reduces the uncertainty of identifying a responsible party when design or construction issues arise. Subcontractors can be pre qualified and only the most highly qualified and reliable subcontractors will be invited to bid the work. Owner/ESCO can select other than the low bid subcontractor. Owner can specify equipment by manufacturer. ESCO guarantees equipment performance and assists owner with warranty issues. DBB requires that equipment is free from defects for one year. PC guarantees the project functions as designed, maintains specific comfort conditions, saves energy and saves dollars over the life of the contract with the ESCO. No change orders unless the owner elects to increase scope. Open book pricing and construction cost reconciliation assure fairest value for the owner. ESCO guarantees construction cost and assumes financial responsibility for cost overruns. Commissioning is an integral component of PC, not an extra cost. The owner has more control over contractor (ESCO) overhead and profit. O &P is negotiated and multiple markups of subcontractor costs are not allowed. ESCO provides a guarantee of energy savings and reimburses owner for any savings shortfalls. ESCO's monitoring and verification (M &V) services provides owner with assurance equipment will perform for the life of the agreement. Performance contracting is a "value added" process for improving building energy efficiency. April 2003 Washington State Department of General Administration Visit our web site at htta:/ /www.2a.wa.2ov /EAS /enc/esnc.htm Request for Qualifications for Energy Services Company (ESCO) The City of Tukwila Pool City of Tukwila, Washington Introduction The City of Tukwila seeks proposals from interested Energy Services Companies (ESCOs) to provide performance -based contracting for the City. The intent of selecting an ESCO is to develop a qualified project that addresses aging HVAC systems in the City of Tukwila Pool. The likely scope of the Performance Contract will focus on renovating the HVAC systems in the aquatic center which may include upgrades to boiler systems, upgrades to ventilation systems, control system upgrades, and other potential HVAC system improvements, and humidity control measures. The entire process consists of the following four phases: RFO Phase: Through this RFQ, the City will select an ESCO based on written submissions and overall qualifications. The City reserves the right to interview appropriate firms if necessary to further qualify capabilities of ESCOs. Enerav Audit Phase: This phase of work will focus on the development of energy- savings measures that meet the qualifications and criteria of the City. The outcome of this phase will be a formal proposal to the City that includes, but may not be limited to, guaranteed cost, guaranteed energy savings, proposed scope of work, and other miscellaneous supporting documentation. Construction Implementation Phase: Upon satisfactory results of the Energy Audit, and at the option of the City, the City may enter into a contract with the ESCO to implement the proposed measures from the Energy Audit. Performance Assurance Phase: This phase will focus on the verification of energy savings and overall system performance as guaranteed by the ESCO and agreed to by the City. Preliminary Project Schedule The following information outlines the preliminary schedule for the project. The intent of the City is for the proposed project to be completed prior to the end of the 2007 calendar year. As such, it will be critical that the ESCO have the resources available to meet these dates and accommodate the development and construction schedule. All dates are subject to change at the discretion of the City. RFQ Responses Due April 6, 2007 ESCO Selection April 11, 2007 Audit Development April 2007 May 2007 Approval Long Lead Equipment May 2007 Project Construction June 2007 September 2007 RFQ Response Please submit three copies of RFQ response by 4:00 pm on April 6 2007 to The City of Tukwila at the following address: City of Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department Attn: Rick Still 12424 42n Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Any questions regarding this RFQ should be directed to the following: Rick Still. Deputy Director Parks and Recreation Department Phone: 206 767 -2344 E -mail: rstilaci.tukwila.wa.us City of Tukwila Pool RFQ for Energy Services Company Due: April 6, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Proposal Response: Please respond to the following questions in your RFQ response. Please present information in a clear and concise format. There is no limit to the number of pages of the response. 1. EXPERIENCE Provide a list of all Energy Services Performance Contracting (ESPC) projects completed in the past five years. Include the value of the project, project dates, project team, summary of the work completed, and any other relevant information. Limit experience to the following categories: a. Aquatic projects in the State of Washington b. Other project experience in Washington State (no more than ten projects) 2. PROJECT TEAM Provide information that details the proposed project team, organization structure, and management approach. Identify who will have primary responsibility for each task of the project, including technical analysis, engineering design, construction management, and performance assurance. Provide resumes for each project team member. 3. DESIGN Describe your firm's design capabilities and whether design services would be conducted with in -house ESCO engineering personnel or whether design services would be contracted to outside consultant /engineering firms. 4. ENERGY AUDIT APPROACH a. Baseline Calculation Describe in detail the methodology your firm normally uses to compute the baseline energy use in facilities. b. Baseline Adjustment Describe the method(s) used to adjust the energy baseline due to such factors as weather and facility use changes. Describe factors that would necessitate adjustment. c. Savings Calculations List all procedures, formulas and methodologies, including special metering or equipment your firm will use to calculate energy and Operation Maintenance savings. 5. SUBCONTRACTING APPROACH Describe your firm's approach to subcontracting and whether your firm has the capabilities to provide any of the expected work with in -house forces. Describe how cost competitive pricing will be secured and maintained for this project. 6. CONSTRUCTION CLOSE -OUT Describe your firm's construction close -out processes including project commissioning, training, and other related activities. City of Tukwila Pool RFQ for Energy Services Company Due: April 6, 2007 Page 3 of 4 7. MEASURE VERIFICATION Describe the methodology proposed for ongoing monitoring and savings verification of the proposed project. 8. FEE SCHEDULE Provide a fee schedule and show how it would be applied to project costs. Clearly indicate any in -house staff labor that would be utilized and the associated labor rates for each labor category. Describe how project costs will be reconciled at the end of the project. Proposal Evaluation: The City will use City staff to evaluate all proposals. The evaluation will be scored using the criteria below. Responses will be evaluated and ranked /scored. Should two or more ESCOs have similar scores, the City reserves the right to conduct interviews of the ESCOs in order to gain additional insight into each firm's capabilities and qualifications. Should this step be required, the City will notify only those ESCOs that have been selected for interviews. Evaluation Criteria Weight. Experience Project Team 15 Design 10 Energy Audit Approach 10 Subcontracting Approach l 15 Construction Close -Out 15 Fee Schedule 10 Measure Verification 5 City of Tukwila Pool RFQ for Energy Services Company Due: April 6, 2007 Page 4 of 4 City of Tukwila Parks Recreation Department Bruce Fletcher, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs Parks Committee FROM: Bruce Fletcher, Director of Parks Recreation Marty O'Brien, Golf Manager DATE: March 22, 2007 SUBJECT: Foster Golf Green Fee Increase The Foster Golf Links 2007 revenue projection was set with an aggressive goal of reaching $1,250,000.00 in green fee sales. Since building the new clubhouse, the golf division has experienced a 2% annual increase in rounds played and countless complimentary comments on our new facility and course improvements. The city's green fees continue to be very competitive and just under the market of the local municipal golf courses. In order to reach our revenue projections, we will continue to offer promotions and events, increase our league play and implement a new marketing campaign. Since we have not had a green fee increase since the 2005 season, it is also the recommendation of our PGA golf professional to adjust the fees for our upcoming season. Our proposal is to increase the 18 -hole weekday and weekend fee by $2.00. This modest fee increase is expected to raise our green fee revenue an additional $80,500.00 while maintaining our fees equal to or below our local municipal competitors (Renton, Kent Auburn). After serious consideration, it was decided not to increase our senior rates or our 9 -hole green fees. The proposal to increase the 2007 green fees will assist our goal to reach our revenue projection while continue a proper price point to stimulate growth and increased play. It is the recommendation of the Parks Recreation Department to approve the following Foster Golf Links green fee increase. Attachments: a. Proposed 2007 Green Fee Increase b. Green Fee Resolution Cc: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator Kevin Fuhrer, Director of Finance The Center of YOUR Community Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 12424 42nd Ave. S. Tukwila, Washington 98168 Phone: 206- 768 -2822 Fax: 206 768 -0524 Proposed 2007 Green Fees Foster Golf Links Green Fees Foster 06 1 01 Renton I Kent 25.00 I 27.00. 28.00 32.00 A 18.00 18.00 I 19.00 18.00 1 28.00 1 30.00 I 32.00 37.00 I 21.00 I 21.00 1 19.00 22.00 T No 32.00 37.00 9 Weekend Friday Sunday No 19.00 22.00 Sr. 18 Holes I 20.00 1 20.00 I 19.00 25.00 Sr. 9 Holes 15.50 I 15.50 15.00 Jr. 18 Holes 14.00 I 15.00 I 16.00 22.00 Jr. 9 Holes L 9.50 9.50 j 12.00 12. 00 18 Holes 9 Holes 18 Weekend Sat Sun 9 Weekend Sat Sun 18 Weekend Friday Sunday Resident Fee 1 Foster 06 Proposed 07 Renton Kent Resident 18 Holes I 23.00 2100 ;I 28.00 Resident 9 Holes 17.00 17.00 16.00 Residentl8 Weekend 26.00 I 28.00 Resident 9 Weekend 20.00 20.00 w Res Sr. 18 Holes I 18.00 18.00 Res Sr. 9 Holes 14.50 I 14.50 Auburn i 28.00 20.00 35.00 22.00 No No 22.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 Auburn A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, SETTING GREEN FEES FOR THE CITY'S FOSTER GOLF LINKS. WHEREAS, green fees are the major source of revenue to operate and improve the City of Tukwila owned golf course; and a green fee increase was necessary to meet the revenue needs to operate, maintain and make capital improvements at Foster Golf Links; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal code 12.12.010(a), green fees will be established and updated by City Council resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following green fees are established for play at the City's Foster Golf Links. 18 holes $27.00 9 holes $18.00 Weekend 18 holes (Saturday Sunday) $30.00 Weekend 9 holes (Saturday Sunday) $21.00 Senior 18 holes (62 years or older Monday Friday) $20.00 Senior 9 holes (62 years or older Monday Friday) $15.50 Junior 18 holes $15.00 Junior 9 holes 9.50 Twilight 9.00 Weekend Twilight $10.50 Resident 18 holes $25.00 Resident 9 holes $17.00 Resident Weekend 18 holes (Saturday Sunday) $28.00 Resident Weekend 9 holes (Saturday Sunday) $20.00 Resident Senior 18 holes (62 years or older) $18.00 Resident Senior 9 holes (62 years or older) $14.50 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney GOLF FEES RESOLUITION 2007 GREEN FEES 2007 day of 2007. Verna Griffin, Council President Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number: ys Parks and Recreation Department o Bruce Fletcher, Director Mayor Steve Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: C5 Rick Still, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation TO: DATE: March 21, 2007 SUBJECT: Macadam Winter Garden Update ISSUE Design changes and publicly bidding the construction of Macadam Winter Garden. BACKGROUND In 2005, Macadam Winter Garden was put out for public bid two times. The first time we received no bid and the second time we received one bid that was nearly $125,000 over our budget. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Macadam Winter Garden was barrowed for another project in 2006. It turned out the funds were not expended. So, now the project is back in the 2007 CIP. The proposed time line is as follows: April 27th Bids Due May 8 May 14 May 21 June 1 September 30 ACTION TAKEN Staff has worked with the project design consultant Johnson Braund Design Group, Inc. (JDBG) to revise the construction documents. The modifications should allow the City to obtain bids within our budget. The two major changes include eliminating the main entry structure and all work in the wetland buffer zone. As the above time line indicates, the project has 120 days for construction. The larger time allowance should provide the contractor enough time to perform the work in a more cost effective manner. RECOMMFNDATION No Action at this time. cc: City Administrator Director of Parks Recreation INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM CAP Council Meeting COW Council Meeting Regular Council Meeting Construction Begin Construction Completion