HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP272163 (5)CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
layor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
February 20, 1997
Bob Peterson
King County
Wastewater Treatment Division
821 Second AVENUE - MS 81
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
SUBJECT: MAY VALLEY BASIN WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PLAN REPORT
Dear Bob:
As requested, I have reviewed the subject repqrt. Overall, the report does a very good job of
documenting the course of events that have taken place since the signing of the MOA as well as
effectively evaluating future potential options for the provision of sewer service in the May
Valley Basin. The majority of comments are minor in technical nature but important in
maintaining the accuracy of this report..
The following is a list of my comments and their relation to pages in"the report:
0 Throughout the report Water District 9.0 is referred to as King County Water and Sewer
District 90. Since they are not a provider of any sewer service at this time and Avenue not
received any approvals either by the 'Membership in their district, Boundary Review Board, or
the State, they should only be referred to:as King County Water District 90. This reference
appears at least on pages I and * 2 of the Table of Contents, ES2 ' , 1-7 (also need to add word
"potentially" when referring to the District providing service in the future), I- 10, 2-4, 2-5, 2-
6, 3-1, 3-7, 5-5, 5-6. and 5-7.
• The cost estimate shown for the Sunset Interceptor on page ES-4 should be revised to 3.2
million instead of the indicated 1.7 million.
• The population estimate listed for the City on page 1-9 is low. Currently the population of
the City of Renton is just over 45,000. The number used was from our plan, which was
wrong at that time.
• The first paragraph on page 1-10 states that WD 90 completed a comp plan in 1970. This
document was not a comprehensive -plan but an engineering study. Please revise text to
reflect this difference.
• The fourth paragraph on page 2-4. Street references to our Honey Creek Subbasin need to be
revised from Hoquiam Avenue to Ilwaco Avenue and from NE 4th Street to NE I Oth Street.
• Figure 2-4 needs to show WD 90's service area as a water service area and not as a sewer
service area as they do not have authority at this time to provide sewer service.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
MThiq nnnp.r rAlAi �;m rpnvr.1�0 qn-1 t
Bob Peterson, King County Wastewater Treatment Division
May Valley Basin Wastewater Conveyance Plan Report
Page 2
Oil page 2-5 the first paragraph under WD 90 needs to be revised to state that the District
provides no sanitary sewer service at this time. The fact that they provide maintenance
services for Issaquah School District at Apollo Elementary School does not make them a
sewer service provider, as such, reference to the lift station should also be removed.
On page 2-6 reference is made to the 370 acres east of Renton being tile jurisdiction of WD
90. Since the District is not a sewer provider, this reference needs to be revised to say that
there is currently no sewer service provider to this area but that the City has shown it as a
potential future service area, and that the District is currently evaluating the potential of
becoming a sewer district that would include this area. Again reference is made to tile
District being a sewer provider to Apollo Elementary. The City of Renton is the sewer
service provider to Apollo Elementary. The District only provides maintenance services for
the school district for the lift station.
Page 3-1 first paragraph should be revised to say "potentially" KCWD 90. Reference to the
District being a sewer district should be removed.
• Page 3-7 should be revised to reflect that"WD 90 is solely, a water district and provides no
sewer services.
• Page 5-7. The peak hour total 1/1 of 1.6 mgd seems'like;�iC igh number. Is this what the
report said?
• Page 6-1 last paragraph. City's Honey, Creek, I nter,centor.-,is,a 12- inch facility and that: tile
roadway crosses Honey Creek not May Cr6eik'.%,
• Page 6-2 first paragraph. In the last s6ntence, reference the connection point of the City
facility to King County at approximately NE 26th Street-iind'Like.-Washington Blvd.
• Page 6-5 Honey Creek Interceptor.. Change referenceJo interceptor as an 18 inch facility to a
12 inch facility.
• Page 6-7 revise sentence as follows: "Optiorf 1 c"O"u' I d be accomplished at lower cost if the
existing gravity main had sufficient capacity ......
• Page 6-9 third paragraph. Revise text regarding Devil's Elbow Lift Station to state that
station is currently scheduled to be replaced as part of the City's East Kennydale Interceptor
project.
• Page 6- 10 last paragraph. Revise sentence to read "The proposal may WOuld allow ...... The
City has concerns regarding the strong wording in reference to future needs within tile UGA
portion of the basin.
• Page 7-1 first paragraph, second sentence. Same comment as above.
• Page 7-3 first paragraph, second sentence. Same comment as above.
• Page 1-1 first paragraph. Typographical error: "watewater" should be "wastewater".
4
Bob Peterson, King County Wastewater Treatment Division
May Valley Basin Wastewater Conveyance Plan Report
Page 3
Page 1-7 third paragraph. Omitted word, "As part of its planning..."
Page 5-14 last sentence. Extra work, "... alternative would eventually to enter the ..."
Thank you for the opportumty to review this report. If you have any questions please contact me
H:DOCS:97-179:]Df I:ps
CC: lohn Hobson
As' ,�„
i�•
`;Y 9!!,
� ��
� ,
,r, ,
.,;� z
+�` .1t
., `.�,.�,,„,�y �� m
� `� ` '
�� • � � ,a;.
>�iti�S�T• �
� _ y
�: �
. . �`.
' �
�� `�,��
. " t �wY y .+t �� .
�� �
�
Wastewater Utility Supervisor
King Countv
Water and iand Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, IVA 98104
(206) 296-6519
(206) 296-0192 FAX
TO: Bob Peterson, Water Quality
Division.
VIA: John Lombard, Cedar Lake
FT-K/t Loper, -May Creek Ba
RE: May Valley Basin Wastewai
Thank you for the opportunity to re
Conveyance Plan Report. The appi
the May Creek basin has evolved o
initially proposed, and this current
evolution. The.current proposal, %
wastewater conveyance in the basin
boundary is revised eastward, is a i
The work you have done with Rent
Honey Creek subbasin sewer needs
As for long-term wastewater planninj
promising for eventual service to the
in the future, and we support the rerr
(Alternatives I and 2) from further o
Honey Creek pump station and route
I have put together a few specific
overall the report is excellent. 0
March 12Y 1997
III, King County Wastewater Treatment
Coordinato64
Plan Project Manager
In the Executive Summary, it is
the proposal is to defer a decisi(
stated.
ew the draft May Valley Basin Wastewater
ich to providing sewer service to the urban areas,of
siderably since the May Valley interceptor was
.)ort does an excellent job of documenting this
ch recommends no further King County investment in
ntil or unless the Urban Growth Area (UGA)
jor improvement over construction of an interceptor.
..to develop a cost-effective way of dealing with
to be commended. Good job!
While Chapter 3 does a good job
jurisdiction, but within the city o�
would be helpful to show all of t
understand the overall picture of
we agree that Alternatives 3 and 4 seem the most
Lstem portions of the basin if this becomes necessary
ial of a gravity line down the May Creek canyon
sideration. The Renton project to upgrade their
ows along Sunset Boulevard is preferable.
�s as listed below, but nothing major. Again,
follow:
iclear whether Alternative 3 or 4 is preferred. If
between these two options, that should be clearly
of describing services not only within King County
Renton and the water and sewer district as well, it
ie systems on one map to allow the reader to better
wastewater service provision within the basin.
WORM
Bob Peterson
March 12, 1997
Page 2
The surface water resource section of the report underrepresents'the basin's wetland
coverage. I would recommend you use the wetland database from the May Creek
Current and Future Conditions report: we can provide the appropriate data layer if
desired. Furthermore, the discussion of May Valley wetland (#5) on page 4-13
suggests that the degraded condition of the wetland has impaired nearly all functions.
Actually, this wetland still provides substantial flood attenuation and hydrologic
support, reducing peak flows considerably in the Mdy Creek canyon. The revised
wetland cover -age from the condidons report should be factored into the discussion of
wetland impacts in Chapter 7 as well (although no significant change in the findings
would be expected).
On page 4-20, the first paragraph suggests that the quantity and durability of large
woody debris (LWD) in the May Creek canyon will improve as vegetation in the
riparian area matures, but that little improvement is expected in the next few years.
It should be noted, however, that the draft May Creek Basin Action Plan proposes
LWD installation combined with conifer plantings throughout this reach, which could
result in substantial improvements to overall LWD density, stream complexity, pool
habitat, and general improvements in fish habitat in the canyon over the next few
years.
On page 4-20, the fifth and sixth paragraphs refer to a fish passage barrier at a ladder
constructed at a natural gas line crossing. This ladder has now been removed, and
passage measures are being incorporated into a final design for stabilization of the
crossing. Construction is expected to occur this year.
In general, the fish population and habitat discussion in the Chapter 4 seems to focus
unduly on coho salmon. Most staff members at the Water and Land Resources
Division view habitat for all species as being equally important, and I would note that
sockeye may actually be the most abundant salmonid in the May Creek canyon (68
adult fish per mile during 1992-93 spawning survey). The report discusses an
unreferenced "recent study" estimating coho abundance at 686 fish per mile in May
Creek, and 2,746 per mile in Honey Creek. Please reference this finding, and
indicate whether these are.juveniles or adults. Did this most recent study count other
species, or only coho?
On page 5-14 (Construction factors for Alternative 3), the report should discuss the
proposals for Coal Creek Parkway road widening that have been put forth by King
County and by the City.of Newcastle. Opportunities could exist for saved
construction costs and minimization of traffic impacts, if construction timing allowed
the two projects to be coordinated.
Bob Peterson
March 12, 1997
Page 3
• In the Construction Consider-Ations portion of Chapter 7 (beginning on page 7-34),
references to mitigating for sensitive areas according to King County and Renton code
should be expanded to include Newcastle code wherever appropriate. For
Alternative 3, the reference to erosion hazards should also include mitigation for
wetland impacts, gi ven the pr I oximity of several wetlands to the Coal Creek Parkway
alignment.
• Chapter 8 offers a brief syi osis of the major planning efforts and policies that have
led to selection of the preferr�d altem*ative. I would recommend including a short
synopsis of the Renton Plan h1ere as well, given the importance that Renton's Honey
Creek project has played in th I e selection of the preferred alternative(s), and the
expected timing of implementation.
The plan discusses the inconsi'stency between the location of the (UGA) boundary and
the current and exp ' ected densi I ties in some of the eastern areas of the May Creek
basin. Comprehensive plan policies specifically allow provision of sewer service to
these rural areas only when pr I ecomp plan permitted structures with septic systems are
contributing to a public health or safety issue. Regardless of stated romp plan policy,
on -site systems cannot effectiv ely se rve the densities that already exis t in some
portions of the rural May Creek basin. In addition, a high percentage of septic
systems in the basin are in fail I ing or prefailing condition, and fecal coliforms are one
of the parameters that exceed recommended levels in May Creek. What work is
.being done to evaluate sewer needs, and possibly planning policies, as they relate to
the medium and high density "irural" areas of the basin? I would view properties
adjacent to May Creek and Lake Kathleen as especially important in this
consideration.
There are still some unmet nee ' ds for sewer servicewithin the UGA as well, including
critical locations in the city of Newcastle, such as around the perimeter of Lake
Boren. Will the Coal Creek Utility District upgrades (including Olympus pump
station or one of the new proposed pump stations) serve these areas? Is the intent
still to provide sewer service to all areas within the UGA? What is the likely time
frame? I
What kind of public review has occurred? The May Creek Basin Plan's Citizen
Advisory Committee has expressed interest in the resolution of the interceptor
project, and might wish to be in1volved in alternative selection for this project.
CL:tVF15
cc: Dave Christensen, City of Renton Wastewater Utility Supervisor
Robert Cugini, Chair, May Cre I ek Basin Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
R4�
Earl Clymer, Mayor
September 1, 1995
Bob Peterson, A.I.C.P.
King County Department of Metropolitan
821 Second Avenue - M/S 81
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR 1NTERIM SOLUTION PROPOSAL
Dear Bob: -... -4 . � the City's basis for a Metro participation of $636,143 toward
As you have requested, this letter will expla
the interim solution.
The amount of $636,143 was based on a 50�o participation to replace the City's Sunset Lift Station, 2,230
linear feet of force main and 3,355 linear i I eet of downstream gravity sewer line at an estimated cost of
$1,272,286. This option was originally chosen because it was the least expensive, had the fewest
environmental constraints, and would increase the capacity of the existing sewer system to handle the flows
I
projected for the year 2000 which would allow King County Metro more time to install the May Creek
interceptor. I
Upon further review, the City has decided th�
Lift Station and force main with a gravity sew
deep' the original estimate has increased to a
provide capacity to the Honey Creek subbasin
Creek Interceptor for this subbasin's sewer i
build the May Creek Interceptor on their owi
constructing the May Creek line is questiona
permitting the installation of utilities within �
While we prefer the Honey Creek/May Creek
require permits by the regulatory agencies, at
adequate capacity to our subbasin in a timely r
As you know, to fund this project the City a
ranked number 15 on the 1996 preliminary lis
anticipated that King County Metro would co
the application). This would equate to a partii
City believes this to be a fair level of con
Interceptor and relieves King County Metro c
commitment for this solution, Metro may wis
shown in William Nitz's letter dated Decemb(
May Creek Interceptor has increased significaj
t it would be in it's best interest to replace the existing Sunset
-r line. Since this new solution will require lines up to 40 feet
.)proximately $3.2 million. This gravity line will be sized to
at saturation thereby eliminating Renton's reliance on the May
teeds and allowing King County Metro to study, design and
i time schedule. As we have stated before, the feasibility of
ble considering the current regulatory agencies stance of not
&nsitive areas such as the Honey and May Creek corridors.
�Interceptor methodology, the City's proposed project does not
�,d, therefore, we believe that it is the best solution to provide
plied for a Public Works Trust Fund Loan. Our project is
(see attached list). As part of the local agency funds, it was
�ribute $636,143 to the project (please refer to your copy of
pation from King County Metro of approximately 20%. The
ibution because it eliminates our need for the May Creek
the pressure to install it in the near ftiture. In considering a
to perform a present -worth savings such as the one that was
1993 (copy attached) since the estimated project cost for the
ly since the original calculation was performed in 1993.
Please review our proposal and notify us of yo I ur response. If you have any questions, please contact John
Hobson at (206) 277-6179 or Dave Christensen�at 277-6212.
Sincerely,
� ANn
Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
H:DOCS:95-735:JDH:ps
Enclosures
CC: Bill Nitz, Metro
Ron Olsen
Dave Christensen
John Hobson
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
1
This paper contains 50% recycled material, 25% post consumer
I
�� �T1ETR0
King County Department of Metropolitan Services
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 •(206) 684-1280
December 21, 1995
Mr. Gregg Zimmerman
Administrator
Pianning/Bui�ding/Public Works Department
City of Renton
Municipal Building
200 Milf Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Gregg:
i' +�jG..IG.� \;J ' �
� ,
�I
,.
C 2 71595 ��-
nF P,Ei�Tt;��
i wouid like to conTirm our intsnt to financialiy participaie with the City of Renton in the wastewater
conveyance project known as the Renton Sunset Interceptor, and our intent to seek Metropolitan King
County Council approval of that participation. As you know, my staff is working closely with your staff to
complete the appropriate amendments to the 1991 City of Renton and METRO Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) for implementation of the Phase III enlargement of the treatment plant in the City of
Renton. Through this amendment, King County will discharge its obligation under certain sections of the
1991 MOA by contributing part of the funding for the Sunset Interceptor project. The City will then design,
permit and construct this conveyance facility to serve that portion of the May Valley Basin, known as the
Honey Creek Subbasin, that is served by the City of Renton. �
Please �et me know if you have any questions. You may also contact Bob Hirsch or Bob Peterson of my
staff at 684-1266 or 684-2093 respectively for questions regarding this effort.
Sincerely,
Dary Grigsby
Director, Water Pollution Control
cc: Dave Christensen, City of Renton
.lohn Hebsen, Ci� of !?enton
Bob Hirsch, King County Water Pollution Control
Bill Nitz, King County Water Pollution Control
Bob Peterson, King County Water Poliution Control
Water PoIlution Control Department • Clean Water—A Sound Invest�nent
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 21, 1995 e---
TO: Larry Warren
FROM: John Hobson 9t�-
SUBJECT: Amendment to MOA; $636,143 Metro Participation
in Sunset Interceptor
Enclosed please find the latest version of the amendment to the MOA. Please review and return it
to me with your revisions.
If you have any questions by December 22, please call me at (206) 277-6179. 1 am on vacation
from December 25 through January 1. Dave Christensen (277-6212) can answer any questions
while I'm out.
H:DOCS:95-1058:JDH:ps
Enclosure
From: Bob Peterson To: John Hobson Date: 12/21/95 Time: 13:05:18 Page 1 of 11
FAX COVER
PAGE
Date: 12/21/95
Time -. 13.-04.-08
To:John Hobson
For Information Call: (206) 684-2093
From -. Bob Peterson
At: King County Metro -Water Pollution Control
Pages:11
Fax Number : (206) 689-3119
Subject: amendment
John ... this had to be sent separately...
Bob
Created using VVinFax PRO 3.0 Delrina Technology Inc.
From: Bob Peterson To: John Hobson Date: 12/21/95 Time: 13:01:38
Page 1 of 2
FAX COVER
PAGE
Date - 12/21/95
Time -. 13:0034
ToAohn Hobson
For Information Call: (206) 684-2093
From : Bob Peterson
At: King County Metro -Water Pollution Control
Pages:2
Fax Number : (206) 689-3119
Subject: revised letter and amendmenL..
HiJohn ... the attached letter and amendment have had scrutiny from Bill Blakney, Bob Hirsch and
Bill Nitz ... these drafts include reconciliation of any issues internally to us at this point .... I have also
dealt with Dave's comments that he sent yesterday....
so ... let me know if you have any additional questions....
Happy Holiday's
Bob
Created using WinFax PRO 3.0 Delrina Technology Inc.
' From; Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12120/95 Time: 06:56:17
Page 11 of 2
FAX COVER
PAGE
Date : 12/20/95
Time -. 6:55:34
To: Dave Christensen
For Information Call: (206) 684-2093
From : Bob Peterson
At: King County Metro -Water Pollution Control
Pages: 2
Fax Number: (206) 689-3119
Subject: Draft letter of Intent
Dave and John ... thanks for meeting with us yesterday ... I thought we made some good headway on
the substance and of course on the form ....
I will try to get a draft out within the next hour but
wanted to send a first, unreveiwed cut at a
letter of intent .... PLEASE MARK UP AND FAX BACK ANY
COMMENTS ...
Thanks again ... and Happy Holidays!
Bob
Created using WinFax PRO 3.0 Delrina Technology Inc.
' From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20/95 Time; 08;03:05 Page i of 11
FAX COVER
PAGE
Date: 12/20/95
Time -. 8:01:52
To: Dave Christensen
For Information Call: (206) 684-2093
From : Bob Peterson
At: King County Metro -Water Pollution Control
Pages: I I
Fax Number : (206) 689-3119
Subject: Draft for early review..
Dave and John ... this is again another unreviewed copy for your review and comment ...... others
here are reviewing asap....
let me know what you think....
Bob
Created using WinFax PRO 3.0 Delrina Technology Inc.
' From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20/95 Time: 06:57:03
Page 2 of 2
December 20, 1995
Mr. Gregg Zimmerman
Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Gregg'.
I would like to confirm our intent to financially participate with the City of Renton in the wastewater
conveyance project known as the Renton Sunset Interceptor. As you know, we are working closely together
to complete the appropriate amendments to the 1991 City of Renton and METRO Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) for implementation of the Phase III enlargement of the treatment plant in the City of
Renton, Through this amendment, King County will discharge its obligation under certain sections of the
1991 MOA and will provide for funding for the Sunset Interceptor project. The City will then design, permit
and construct this conveyance facility to serve that portion of the May Valley Basin, known as the Honey
Creek Subbasin, that is served by the City of Renton.
Please let me know if you have any questions. You may also contact Bob Hirsch or Bob Peterson of my
staff at 684-1266 for questions regarding this effort.
Sincerely,
Daryl Grigsby
Director, Water Pollution Control
cc: Dave Christensen, City of Renton
John Hobson, City of Renton
Bob Hirsch, King County Water Pollution Control
Bill Nitz, King County Water Pollution Control
Bob Peterson, King County Water Pollution Control
I From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20/95 Time: 08:03:46 Page 2 of 11
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PHASE III ENLARGEMENT
OF THE TREATMENT PLANT IN THE CITY OF RENTON
BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON
EXECUTED COUNTERPARTS
COUNTERPART NO. @ OF 2
P:IWINDO WSIWDOCITRIBA LIMA YVA LLEIMOAAMD5A.DOC PAGE I
Draft of 12120195
' From: Bob Peterson To; Dave Christensen Date: 12/20/95 Time: 08:04:13 Page 3 of I I
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 1991
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PHASE III ENLARGEMENT
This Amendment to the 1991 Memorandum of Agreement is made and entered into this
day of 1 199, by and between King County, a home rule
charter county in the State of Washington with a place of business at 821 Second Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98104 (hereinafter King County) and the City of Renton, an optional
code city of the State of Washington with a place of business at 200 Mill Avenue South,
Renton, Washington 98055 (hereinafter the City).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6146 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, also
known as "Metro", on June 6, 1991, the Metro Council authorized the Executive Director to
execute a Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") with the City of Renton for
implementation of the Phase 111,Enlargement of the treatment plant at Renton', and,
WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1994, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle was consolidated
into King County, a home rule charter county in the state of Washington', and,
WHEREAS, the rights and responsibilities of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle under this
Agreement and Amendment have been assumed in accordance with state and county law by
King County.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the City expedited processing of certain permits and
approvals for the Phase III Enlargement project and King County agreed to undertake certain
improvements to its sewage conveyance system; and,
P:1W1NDOWS1WDOC1TR1BALWA YVALLEMOAAMD5A.Doc PAGE2
DRAFT OF 12120195
I From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20/95 Time; 08:05:06 Page 4 of 11
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
WHEREAS, one of the projects identified for conveyance system improvements is described in
section 5.3 of the Agreement as the May Valley Interceptor, Phase I Project; and,
WHEREAS, the technical and engineering staffs of the City and the County have determined that
construction by the City of its' Sunset Interceptor project would be the most appropriate and most
cost effective P pproltpi astewater conveyance service to the
,J�e portio)16f the May Valley
Basin within the City's service area; and,
WHEREAS, the City is willing to manage the design and construction,,,the Renton Sunset
Interceptor Project, as described in Attachment A to this Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, construction of said project would obviate or defer the need for the County's May
Valley Interceptor, Phase I project, and the County is prepared to participate financially in the
Renton Sunset Interceptor project because of the cost savings resulting from such obviation or
deferral and water quality benefits; and,
WHEREAS, Section 10.9 of the Agreement provides for written amendment to accommodate
necessary adjustments in the terms of the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the County and the City do agree as follows -
Section 1. Amendment of Section 6.
Section 5.3 Renton Sunset Interceptor (Page 16 of the Agreement)
5.3.1 Participation. King County shall participate financially with the City in their project
known as the Renton Sunset Interceptor that will serve the City's Honey Creek sub -basin that is
P:IWINDO WSIWDOCITRIBA LIMA YVA LLEIMOAA MD5A.D
DRAFT OF 1212(
Post -it" brand fax transmittal memo 7671
F of pages P- 112
Tol-;,
151F, 4—
F
�-7
Co
Co
Dept.
Phone #
C2117 UZI
Fax # 6�40
Fax �25
�id
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20/95 Time: 08:05:57 Page 5 of 11
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
within the May Valley Service Basin as described in Section 5.3.3 below. Said project is generally
described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
5.3.2 Responsibilities. The City shall have full responsibility for design, permitting,
construction and ultimate operation and maintenance of the Renton Sunset Interceptor.
5.3.3 Cost. The estimated total cost of this project is $3,332,000. King County will
contribute $636,143 to the project.
Section 11. Amendment of Section 6.2
Section 6.2 is hereby amended to read as follows :
6.2 Maximum Disbursement Amount. (Page 18 of the Agreement) In no event shall the total
amount of Disbursement to the City pursuant to this Agreement exceed $2,500,000 (Excluding
$3,500,000 for Wetland/Wildlife Improvements and $636,143 for participation in the Renton
Sunset Interceptor project).
Sect n C111, Amendment of Exhibit A-2
Exhibit A-2 is amended to remove the May Valley Interceptor, Phase 1, schedule that details
County May Valley Interceptor activities from Spring 1991 to Winter 1993; and to add Exhibit A of
this Amendment.
Section 6.3.4. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. The fulfillment of the revised Section 5.3 with the transfer of funds as set forth in this
agreement shall constitute completion of King County's obligation under this section.
P:tWiNDOWStWDOC�TRIBAL�MAYVALLEtMOAAMD5A.DOC PAGE4
DRAFT OF 12120195
14f�� j4AL� M OV f r—j &, 01'�" �al ��
I From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12120/95 Time: 08:06:44
Page 6 of 11
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
B. If the costs of the project exceed those estimated in Section 1. of Exhibit A, the extra costs
shall be the responsibility of the City.
C. Funds transferred to the City under this Amendment shall only be used for the Renton
Sunset Interceptor Project as described in Exhibit A.
Section 6.3.6 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF RENTON
A. The City shall be responsible for the following project related activities:
All aspects of project design
2. Obtaining all necessary permits
3. All aspects of construction
4. Final acceptance of the facility from the construction contractor
B. The City shall provide King County with progress reports according to the following schedule:
1 . Completion of Final Design
2. Award of Contract
3. Mid Point of Construction
4. Project Completion (including closeout report to the Local Public Works
Triust Fund )
C. Ownership of the facilities constructed under this amendment shall be with the City', all
operation and maintenance responsibilities and costs shall similarly be the obligation of the City.
D. The City shall also assume all liability for the construction, operation and maintenance of
the facility.
Section 6.3.6 RESPONSIBILITY OF KING COUNTY
P:IWINDOWSIWDOCtTRIBAL�MAYVALLE�MOAAMD5A.DOC PAGE 5
DRAFT OF 12120195
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20/95 Time: 08:07:28 Page 7 of 11
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
A. King County shall make available to the City, a total of $ 636,143, upon written formal
notice to the County of award of a contract for the construction of the Renton Sunset Interceptor
project as described herein.
P:IWINDO WSIWDO CITRIBA LIMA YVA LLEIMOA AMD5A.DOC PAGE 6
DRAFT OF 12120195
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20195 Time: 08:07:52 Page 8 of 11
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the 1991
Memorandum of Agreement to be executed by their respective officers or representatives as of
the day and year first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Norm Maleng Date
King County Prosecuting Attorney
CITY OF RENTON
Lawrence J. Warren Date
City Attorney
KING COUNTY
By
Gary Locke, Executive Date
CITY OF RENTON
By ---67��
Jesse Tanner Date
Mayor
Attest:
Marilyn Petersen Date
City Clerk t ED
P:WNDO WSWDO CITRISA LIMA YVA LLEIMOAAMD5A.DOC
DRAFT OF 12120195
PAGE 7
' From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date; 12/20/95 Time: 08:08:22 Page 9 of 11
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
EXHIBIT A
TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 1991
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PHASE III ENLARGEMENT OF THE TREATMENT PLANT
IN THE CITY OF RENTON BETWEEN
KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON
SECTION 1. SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
A. SCOPE
NEED:
The Renton Sunset Interceptor Project will allow the elimination of an existing sanitary
sewer lift station (Renton Sunset Lift Station) and the need to bypass excess flows to
another sewage lift station (Renton Devil's Elbow Lift Station). The Renton Sunset Lift
Station was originally constructed in 1963 and was rehabilitated in 1975. It has reached its
useful life and as such, either needs to be replaced or eliminated. The Renton Sunset Lift
Station currently operates at or above its capacity for a substantial portion of the wet
weather season. It is not uncommon for the station to run continuously at peak capacity
for periods exceeding five days. It is difficult to quantify precisely the number or duration of
these events because they vary based on the type, duration and frequency of rain events.
What can be said is that this station, by far, has the greatest number of operating hours of
any of the City's twenty-three (23) lift stations.
If this station has either a failure or if the flows to the station exceed its pumping capacity,
then the excess flows are diverted by way of an overflow manhole to the Renton Devil's
Elbow Lift Station. The Renton Devil's Elbow station was constructed in 1985 as a
temporary station until a gravity main could be installed. Because of environmental and
permitting constraints, the ability to construct the gravity facility may not be feasible. As
such, the City has decided to pursue the Sunset Interceptor Project as the permanent
solution. This decision is based on the anticipated ability to obtain environmental and
permit approval in an expeditious manner due to the project being located entirely within
existing City right-of-way.
The existing system as described, because of its reliance on two sewage lift stations, is
prone to overflows. In addition, because of these stations proximity to Honey Creek, when
overflows occur they typically flow to Honey Creek. Since 1990 there have been a number
of overflows from the Renton Devil's Elbow Lift Station. The largest overflow occurred in
April of 1991 when as much as one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons of sewage was
P:IWINDOWSIWDOC�TRIBAL�MAYVALLE�MOAAMD5A.DOC PAGE8
DRAFT OF 12120195
. From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20195 Time; 08:09:32 Page 10 of 11
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
released. Besides the one large overflow, the other spills have been relatively small (1,000
gallons or less). Since 1990 these small events have occurred less than twice per year.
Honey Creek is a 1.2 mile tributary to May Creek, which is tributary to Lake Washington.
Honey Creek presently provides habitat to juvenile cutthroat trout and Coho salmon. The
City has also designated the pathway that currently exists adjacent to Honey Creek as part
of its master trail system and as such is currently obtaining property and/or easements
along the entire reach.
In addition to the sensitivity of Honey Creek, both stations are located within Zone 2 of the
City's Aquifer Protection Area (APA). This APA was established in recognition of the
City's aquifer being designated a sole source aquifer by the Environmental Protection
Agency. One of the goals of the APA is to limit the potential of contaminates from entering
the groundwater that may have the potential of entering the City's water supply. As such,
the Wastewater Utility evaluates projects within the APA that provide the ability to either
eliminate existing lift stations or upgrade them to minimize the potential for an overflow.
BENEFIT:
The Renton Sunset Interceptor Project will allow the City to direct the majority of the basins
flows (approximately 80%) by gravity to the Metro Eastside Interceptor- This will greatly
minimize the potential of a sewage overflow either to Honey Creek or the City's aquifer by
removing the to need rely on the mechanical and electrical components of a sewage lift
station for 80% of the flows within the basin. It will also defer or obviate the need for the
May Valley Interceptor as envisioned in t he sewage plan for the metropolitan area.
The Renton Sunset Interceptor will significantly reduce operation and maintenance needs
through elimination of the Sunset Lift Station and Forcemain. Currently, the City performs
maintenance of its stations twice weekly. Installation of this interceptor will eliminate the
need to provide the twice weekly maintenance to the Renton Sunset Lift Station as well as
reduce material costs associated with that maintenance. Typical maintenance for a gravity
interceptor is yearly inspection with cleaning as required. The Sunset Interceptor will also
provide an anticipated fifty (50) year life to this portion of the City system that currently is at
the end of its useful life.
The City has adopted a recycled content procurement policy which encourages the use of
recycled products in projects, wherever practicable. In addition, this project will conserve
electricity through the elimination of a sewage lift station for a gravity sewer main.
DESCRIPTION:
This project consists of construction of approximately:
5,785 linear feet of 15-inch to 18-inch sanitary sewer main
15 sewer manholes
3,300 square yards of asphalt paving
P:IWINDO WSI WOO CITRIBA LIMA YVA LLEIMOAA MD5A.DOC PAGE 9
DRAFT OF 12120195
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/20195 Time: 08:10:50
Page 11 of il
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 5
Related appurtenances to the construction of a sanitary sewer main
B. SCHEDULE
City of Renton Proiect Time Schedule
Preliminary Engineering Report
Loan Agreement Signed
Required Permits Obtained
Design Engineering
Land ROW Acquisition
Prepare Bid Documents
Award Construction Contract
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Close-out Report completed
C. BUDGET
January 1996
April 1996
May 1996
May 1996
June 1996
July 1996
August 1996
September 1996
July 1997
October 1997
Estimated Prowect Budget
Total
Preliminary Engineer Report
Design Engineering
$500,000
Land/R-O-VV Acquisition
$_0_
Sales or Use Taxes
$207,460
Other Fees
$_0_
Construction Inspection
$80,000
Start-up Costs
$_0_
Financing Costs
$-0-.
Contingency (15%)
$330,000
Construction
$2,214,600
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$3,332,060
P:IWIAfDOWS�WL)OCITRIBAL�MAYVALLE�MOAAMD5A.DOC
DRAFT OF 12120195
PAGE 10
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works
Dept/Div/Board.. Wastewater Utility
Staff Contact ...... John Hobson (X-6179)
Subject:
Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the City of Renton and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
for the Phase III expansion of the Metro Renton Treatment Plant
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Draft Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement
I Al #: I
For Agenda of -
Agenda Status
Consent..............
Public Hearing ...
Correspondence..
Ordinance .............
Resolution ............
Old Business ........
Now Business .......
Study Sessions .......
Information .........
December 18, 1995
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Council Concur Legal Dept ......... X
Finance Dept..
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required ... 0 Transfer/Amendment ....... 0
Amount Budgeted .......... 0 Revenue Generated ......... $636,143
Total Project Budget 0 City Share Total Project.. 0
Summary of Action:
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department has requested the participation of Metro to amend the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The amendment entails Metro contributing $636,143 to the
construction of the City's Sunset Sewer Interceptor. Th . is shall be done in exchange for not requiring
Metro to construct the May Valley Interceptor, and will meet the intent of the original agreement which
was to provide full capacity to the City's Honey Creek Sewer subbasin.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department staff recommends that the City Council authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement for the Phase III
expansion of the Metro Renton Treatment Plant.
H:DOCS:95-1035a:IDH:ps
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
STAFF CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNINGIBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
December 12, 1995
Timothy J. Schlitzer, President
City Council Members
Mayor Earl Clymer
Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
John Hobson (X-6179)
�A
Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Renton and the
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
To fulfill a requirement of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and Metro for the May Valley
Interceptor, the City has requested financial support from Metro in the amount of $636,143 for participation in the
construction of the Sunset Sewer Interceptor. The Sunset Interceptor will provide the City's Honey Creek subbasin
with sewer capacity that was to be provided by the combination of the City's proposed Honey Creek Interceptor and
Metro's May Valley Interceptor. Metro has agreed to the contribution, and a draft of the amendment to the MOA is
attached. Because Metro is formally merging with King County on January 1, 1996, the City and Metro desire to have
the amendment executed by both parties prior to the merger in order to ensure the ability to amend the MOA as
outlined in the agreement. After January 1, 1996 it is unclear as to whether the process Metro uses will substantially
change.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendment to provide financial support will allow the City to construct the Sunset Interceptor to
provide full sewer capacity to the Honey Creek subbasin. The Sunset Interceptor will be constructed at no
additional cost to the City than the originally scoped Honey Creek/May Valley projects identified in the original
MOA.
It is the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Staff that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign
the amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement that allows the elimination of the May Valley project from the
MOA and provides funding in the amount of $636,143 from Metro towards the construction of the City's Sunset
Interceptor Project.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
As mitigation for the Phase III expansion of Metro's Renton Treatment Plant, the City and Metro entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). This agreement included a number of projects that Metro would construct or
participate in. One of the projects of the MOA was construction of the May Valley Interceptor by Metro. 'Me
) I
December 12, 1995
Page 2
May Valley Interceptor was to be constructed to provide sewer service to the May Creek Basin area. It would also
provide a connection for Renton's future Honey Creek Interceptor which was to provide sewer service for the City's
Honey Creek Sewer subbasin. The City had determined that the Honey Creek Sewer subbasin would reach capacity by
the end of 1996. If a solution was not implemented in time, then a moratorium would possibly have to be placed on
construction within the basin. Under the terms of the MOA, the May Valley Interceptor was originally to be
constructed by the winter of 1993.
During preliminary design of the interceptor, several agen"cies expressed concern over the pipe alignment. The Army
Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Fisheries, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and private citizens
all questioned placing the new interceptor in and near a creek. The King County Surface Water Management division
had already designated the May Creek Basin a sensitive area. Since there were possible alternatives to the May Valley
Interceptor for serving the May;Creek Basin, the agencies indicated that they would be extremely reluctant to issue
permits, if at all, for the interceptor which caused delays to the original schedule. These issues caused Metro, their
consultants to reevaluate the proposed alignment which equated to a delay in the project.
Since the delays meant that the May Valley Interceptor would not be completed prior to the City's Honey Creek
subbasin reaching capacity, the City requested that Metro agree to a 50% participation in an interim solution. The
City's interim solution entailed rebuilding the Sunset sewer liftstation and it's force main at a cost of $1,272,286.
Metro's share of the project would be $636,143 and they have agreed to the participation.
In reevaluating the proposed interim solution, the City's staff c ' oncluded that it would be advantageous to make changes
to the design so that it would now become a permanent solution. The staff decided on this approach for several
reasons:
• Since Honey Creek would have similar design concerns as May Creek, and the regulatory
agencies have expressed reluctance to grant permits for construction of the May Valley
Interceptor, then any construction in Honey Creek would probably meet the same resistance. The
permanent solution would make thb Honey Creek Interceptor unnecessary.
• Changing environmental regulations may make construction and/or access to the future Honey
Creek Interceptor all but impossible in the future.
• The permanent solution would allow Metro time to reevaluate the construction of the May Valley
Interceptor without any impact to the City.
• The City's cost of constructing the permanent solution would be the same as participating in an
interim solution and the eventual construction of the Honey Creek Interceptor.
The permanent solution, the Sunset Interceptor, entails constructing a gravity sewer interceptor in Sunset Blvd. NE
instead of rebuilding the Sunset liftstation and force main. This line will extend from Union Avenue NE to Harrington
Avenue NE.
H:DOC:95-1035JDH:ps
� •_ C__\ • • � • :
AI #:
Submitting Dat.�: PlanningiBuildingiPublic Works For Agenda of: DCCelriUef 18, 1995
De�vD���Boa�d.. Wastewater Utility
Staff Contact...... JOhCI HObSOII (X-6179) Agenda Status
Consen[ .............. X
--_ � _.,----_�_��
5ubject: PublicHearing... CONCURRE�e'
Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Correspondence.. 1��
the_City of Renton and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle DATE a-/a-
Cor the Phase III expansion of the Metro Rentbn Treattnetii Pia7iC�, a E �r�iria�
-- --- Ordinance ............. �Z Z
Resolution............ �
Old Business........ �'
t
Exhibits: New Business....... !
\ ..,.`
Issue Paper Smdy 3essions....... "'--� -----•-
Draft Amendment t�,,the Memorandum of Agreement Information.........
\
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Council Concur Legal Dept......... X
Finance DepL.
Other...........
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Reyuired... � Transfer/Amendment....... �
Amount Budgeted.......... 0 Revenue Generated......... �63f),143
Total Project Budget O City Share Total Project.. O
3ummary of Action:
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department has requested the participation of Metro to amend the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The amendment entails Metro contributing $636,143 to the
construction of the City's Sunset Sewer Interceptor, This shall be done in exchange for not requiring
Metro to construct the May Valley Interceptor, and will meet the intent of the original agreement which
was to provide full capacity to the City's Honey Creek Sewer subbasin.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
�
The Planning/Building/Public Works Department staff recommends that the City Cou4zcil authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement. ,,
�:�
H: DOCS:95-1035a:JDH: ps
�
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM :
STAFF CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
December 12, 1995
Timothy J. Schlitzer, President
City Council Members
CONCURREl�JCE `
/ � -J a. ` i� �
DATE !
yAME. IPJITIAL/DF T�
ri��� lZ IZ
�_ �� �
�
Mayor Earl Clymer
Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
John Hobson (X-6179)
Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of
Renton and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
q-N
���ip �Y
ISSLTE: � a � i �,` f�,�.�;,r�--
G�
To fulfill a requirement �f the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and Metro� the ��F�
�,.... „
City has requested from Metro, $636,143 for paxti�y�ation 1n the construction of the Sunset Sewer
Interceptor. The Sunset Interceptor will provide the City's Honey Creek subbasin with sewer
capacity that was to be provided by the combination of the City's proposed Honey Creek Interceptor �,��
and Metro's May Valley Interceptor. Metro has agreed to the contribution, and t"P�„��t��g �n �r �� �
�nendment xo the MOA. Because Metro is formally merging with King County on January 1, 1996, `' ��,�.�"r"�"
the City and Metro desire to have the amendment executed by both parties prior to the merger in
order to ensure the ability _to amend the MOA as outlined in the agreement. After January 1, 1996 it
is unclear as to whether the process Metro uses will substantially change.
RECOMMENDATION:
, � n � ►"1��2� .✓ 7�+i.. SUroda i� r�Te2C� 1
"(�; 1, ,.,�.. c_ i r�n,u.c�.<._ Sy t.�i�� Al�:
• The proposed amendment��wi}} allow-t#�e city to provide full sewer capacity to the Honey Creek
subbasin at no additional cost to the City th�n the originally scoped Honey Creek/May Valley
projects identified in the original MOA.
It is the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Staff that the Council authorize
the Mayor to sign the amendmen�to� Memorandum of �greement that allows the elimination
, � �,� �.-<.� .. �, .4:., ���. -_ �� f fcfc.v
of the May Valley project�" and provides funding o�� $636,143 from Metro towards the City s
Sunset Interceptor Project. " � �`
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
As mitigation for the Phase III expansion of Metro's Renton Treatment Plant, the City and Metro
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). This agreement included a number of projects
that Metro would construct or participate in. One of the projects of the MOA was construction of the
Timothy J. Schlitzer/City Council Members
Page 2
May Valley Interceptor by Metro. The May Valley Interceptor was to be constructed to provide
sewer service to the May Creek Basin area. It would also provide a connection for Renton's future
Honey Creek Interceptor which was to provide sewer service for the City's Honey Creek Sewer
subbasin. The City had determined that the Honey Creek Sewer subbasin would reach capacity by
the 'end of 1996. If a solution was not implemented in time, then a moratorium would possibly have
to be placed on construction within the basin. Under the terms of the MOA, the May Valley
Interceptor was originally to be constructed by the winter of 1993.
During preliminary design of the interceptor, several agencies expressed concern over the pipe
alignment. The Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Fisheries, the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and private citizens all questioned placing the new interceptor in and near
a creek. The King County Surface Water Management division had already designated the May
Creek Basin a sensitive area. Since there were possible alternatives to the May Valley Interceptor for
serving the May Creek Basin, the agencies indicated that they would be extremely reluctant to issue
permits, if at all, for the interceptor which caused delays to the original schedule. These issues
caused Metro, their consultants to reevaluate the proposed alignment which equated to a delay in the
project.
Since the delays meant that the May Valley Interceptor would not be completed prior to the City's
Honey Creek subbasin reaching capacity, the City requested that Metro agree to a 50% participation
in an interim solution. The City's interim solution ' entailed rebuilding the Sunset Sewer and it's force
main. at a cost of $1,272,286. Metro's share of the project would be $636,143 and they have agreed
to the participation.
In reevaluating the proposed interim solution, the City's staff concluded that it would be advantageous
to make changes to the design so that it would now become a permanent solution. The staff decided
on this approach for several reasons:
Since Honey Creek would have similar design concerns as May Creek, and the regulatory
agencies have expressed reluctance to grant permits for construction of the May Valley
Interceptor, then any construction in Honey Creek would probably meet the same resistance. The
permanent solution would make the Honey Creek Interceptor unnecessary.
Changing environmental regulations may make construction and/or access to the future Honey
Creek Interceptor all but impossible in the future.
The permanent solution would allow Metro time to reevaluate the construction of the May Valley
Interceptor without any impact to the City.
The City's cost of constructing the permanent solution would be the same as participating in an
interim solution and the eventual construction of the Honey Creek Interceptor.
The permanent solution, the Sunset Interceptor, entails constructing a gravity sewer interceptor in
Sunset Blvd. NE instead of rebuilding the Sunset Lift Station and force main. This line will extend
from Union Avenue NE to Harrington Avenue NE.
H:DOCS:95-1035:JDH:ps
I From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/11195 Time: 11;59:22 Page 2 of 10
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 2
AMENDMENTTOTHE
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PHASE III ENLARGEMENT
OF THE TREATMENT PLANT IN THE CITY OF RENTON
BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON
EXECUTED COUNTERPARTS
COUNTERPART NO. @ OF 2
P:�WtAfDOWS�WDOC�TRIBALkMAYVALLEIMOAAMD2.DOC PAGE I
Draft of 1211 f1195
I
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/il/95 Time: 11:59:48 Page 3 of 10
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 2
AMENDMENT TO THE 1991
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PHASE III ENLARGEMENT
This Amendment to the 1991 Memorandum of Agreement is made and entered into this
day of 1 199_, by and between King County, a home rule
charter county in the State of Washington with a place of business at 821 Second Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98104 (hereinafter King County) and the City of Renton, an optional
code city of the State of. Washington with a place of business at 200 Mill Avenue South,
Renton, Washington 98055 (hereinafter the City).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6146 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, also
known as "Metro", on June 6, 1991, the Metro Council authorized the Executive Director to
execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Renton for implementation of the Phase III
Enlargement of the treatment plant at Renton; and,
WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1994, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle was consolidated
into King County, a home rule charter county in the state of Washington-, and,
WHEREAS, the rights and responsibilities of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle under this
Agreement and Amendment have been assumed in accordance with state and county law by the
King County Department of Metropolitan Servicesj A4jt,,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the City expedited processing of certain permits and
approvals for the Phase III Enlargement project and King County agreed to undertake certain
system improvements; and,
P:IWINDO WSI WDOCITRIBA LIMA YVA LLEIMOAA MD2.DOC PAGE2
DRAFT OF 12111195
From: Bob Peterson To: �ave Christensen Date: 12H1/95 Time: 12:00:41 Page 4 of 10
DRAFT C1TY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISIDN # 2
WHEREAS, the City and King County agree that certain system improvements contemplated in
the Agreement to resolve specific wastewater conveyance problems are best managed by
different alternatives; and,
WHEREAS, the King County and City project managers of the May Valley Interceptor project
defined in Section 5.3 of the Agreement and those responsible for the actions and coordination of
the technical teams from the City and King County, agree that adjustments to the Agreement with
respect to section 5.3 must be made; �
WHEREAS, construction by the City of an alternative to the May Valley Interceptor project would
minimize construction impacts and disturbances and would be most appropriate and most cost
effective alternative to providing wastewater conveyance service to the May Valley Basin ; and,
WHEREAS, the City �f is willing to manage the design and construction of the May Valley
I
Alternative project, known as the Renton Sunset Interceptor Project, as described in Attachment
A to this Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, King County is prepared to participate financially in the Renton Sunset Interceptor
project because of cost savings and water quality benefits; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 10.9 of the Agreement which provides for written
amendment to accommodate necessary adjustments in the terms of the Agreement; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the following sections of the 1991 Agreement are amended as indicated:
Section 5.3 Renton Sunset interceptor�a�le�-Ir�eF , �
P:IWINDOWSIWDOCITRIBALIMAWALLEIMOAAMd2.DOC PAGE 3
DRAf7 0F 12H1/95
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/11/95 Time: 12:01:33 Page 5 of 10
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 2
5.3.1 ParticipatiC King County shall participate financially with the City in their pro'ect
known as the Renton Sunset Interceptor that will serve the City's Honey Creek sub -basin that is
within the -Mav Vallev Service Basin. P FeGGRst-.P' -Ctig.n. - N.449 Will firlalize p!aRR*Rg and
.................................. . ------ - -- ---------------- . ......................................................... -------------------------- =
GGRdur,t preknirlaFy and final design. Metro will obtaffirl Gity arld other ageRGY permits as required.
The Gity will aGt as SEPA lead ageRGY and will prepare a pFqjeGt speGifiG erlViranmental review fer
5.3.2 Responsibilities. The City shall have, among others, full responsibility fo
design, permitting, construction and ultimate operation and maintenance of the Renton Sunset
[n1p1qpp.tp.r G.99-6.4-UG4.11C).R. SubjeGt to eRviFORmental FeVieW arld permittiRg, arld 6UbjeGt to land Use
n-ertifin-ation as provided by Reso!Ut'GR No. 2933, Metro will ORStall 5,400 to 6,000 fe-e-t of 24 on
sewer line frern existing MetrG wastewater treatment system faGilities tG appoint near th
GonfluenGe Of May arld Honey Greeks. The exaGt GenneGtien points will be identified fellewing
P redesign.-st.udies -and.- environmenta I review, -- The- project- sched ule--is -incl uded.-in Exhibit.-A-2,
5.3.3 Cost. The estimated total Metro -cost of this project is $3,332,000. King County will
c.p.n.t.6.1p.q.te app-r.PAMalely 2..0_%_.Q.r $..6.3.6.,._1 4.3 to the prpjeqtA,7G0,G00. �jg Gity f6lRdS will be used to
6.2 Maximum Disbursement Amount. In no event shall the total amount of
Disbursement to the City pursuant to this Agreement exceed $2,500,000 (Excluding $3,500,000
for WetlandANildlife Improvements and $636,143 for participation in the Renton Sunset
Interceptor proffiect).
P:IWIAfDOWSIWDOC�TRIBALIMAYVALLEIMOAAM02.DOC PAGE4
DRAFT OF 12111195
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/11/95 Time: 12:02:35
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REV1SlON # 2
Page 6 of 10
FURTHER, Exhibit A-2 is amended to strike the May Valley Interceptor schedule that details
County May Valley Interceptor activities from Spring 1991 to Winter 1993.
AND FURTHER, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants incorporated in the
1991 Memorandum of Agreement, the Parties do mutually agree to Exhibit A to this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the 1991
Memorandum of Agreement to be executed by their respective officers or representatives as of
the day and year first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Norm Maleng Date
King County Prosecuting Attorney
CITY OF RENTON
KING COUNTY
:
Gary Locke, Executive Date
�, .,.� D � �--�o �l
1� -1
� �-�r� i l�a�t�� 1��
By
Date
L�� w� �
(��ry �rrna.��
State of County of ��� �� ��� -�.� L�-
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath st ed that (he/she) was authorized to
execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes
mentioned in the instrument •
Date
(Stamp or Seal)
Title
(Signature of notary public)
My appointment expires
P:IWINDOWSIWDOCITR/BALIMAWALLEIMOAAM02.00C PAGE 5
ORAFT OF 12/19/95
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/il/95 Time: 12:03:17 Page 7 of 10
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 2
EXHIBIT A
TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE 1991
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PHASE III ENLARGEMENT OF THE TREATMENT PLANT
IN THE CITY OF RENTON BETWEEN
KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON
SECTION 1. SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
A. SCOPE
NEED:
The Renton Sunset Interceptor Project will allow the elimination of an existing sanitary
sewer lift station (Sunset Lift Station) and the need to bypass excess flows to another
sewage lift station (Devil's Elbow Lift Station). The Sunset Lift Station was originally
constructed in 1963 and was rehabilitated in 1975. It has reached its useful life and as
such, either needs to be replaced or eliminated. The Sunset Lift Station currently operates
at or above its capacity for a substantial portion of the wet weather season. It is not
uncommon for the station to run continuously at peak capacity for periods exceeding five
days. It is difficult to quantify precisely the number or duration of these events because
they vary based on the type, duration and frequency of rain events. What can be said is
that this station, by far, has the greatest number of operating hours of any of the City's
twenty-three (23) lift stations.
If this station has either a failure or if the flows to the station exceed its pumping capacity,
then the excess flows are diverted by way of an overflow manhole to the Devil's Elbow Lift
Station. The Devil's Elbow station was constructed in 1985 as a temporary station until a
gravity main could be installed. Because of environmental and permitting constraints, the
ability to construct the gravity facility may not be feasible. As such, the City has decided to
pursue the Sunset Interceptor Project as the permanent solution. This decision is based
on the anticipated ability to obtain environmental and permit approval in an expeditious
manner due to the project being located entirely within existing City right-of-way.
The existing system as described, because of its reliance on two sewage lift stations, is
prone to overflows. In addition, because of these stations proximity to Honey Creek, when
overflows occur they typically flow to Honey Creek. Since 1990 there have been a number
of overflows from the Devil's Elbow Lift Station. The largest overflow occurred in April of
1991 when as much as one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons of sewage was released.
Besides the one large overflow, the other spills have been relatively small (1,000 gallons or
less). Since 1990 these small events have occurred less than twice per year.
P:IWINDO WSIWDOCITRIBA LIMA YVA LLEIMOAA M02.DOC PAGE 6
DRAFT OF 12/11/95
From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/11/95 Time: 12:04:29 Page 8of10
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 2
Honey Creek (WRIA 08.0285) is a 1.2 mile tributary to May Creek (WRIA 08.0282), which
is tributary to Lake Washington. Honey Creek presently provides habitat to juvenile
cutthroat trout and Coho salmon. The City has also designated the pathway that currently
exists adjacent to Honey Creek as part of its master trail system and as such is currently
obtaining property and/or easements along the entire reach.
In addition to the sensitivity of Honey Creek, both stations are located within Zone 2 of the
City's Aquifer Protection Area (APA). This APA was established in recognition of the
City's aquifer being designated a sole source aquifer by the Environmental Protection
Agency. One of the goals of the APA is to limit the potential of contaminates from entering
the groundwater that may have the potential of entering the City's water supply. As such,
the Wastewater Utility evaluates projects within the APA that provides the ability to either
eliminate existing lift stations or upgrade them to minimize the potential for an overflow.
BENEFIT:
The Sunset Interceptor Project will allow the City to direct the majority of the basins flows
(appro- -iimately 60%) by gravity to the Metro Eastside Interceptor. This will greatly minimize
t ro��
e
he Q�
e,uti I of a sewage overflow either to Honey Creek or the City's aquifer by removing
the ne aXlr" y on the mechanical and electrical components of a sewage lift station for 80%
of the fI s within the basin.
The Renton Sunset Interceptor will significantly reduce operation and maintenance needs
through elimination of the Sunset Lift Station and Forcemain. Currently, the City performs
maintenance of its stations twice weekly. Installation of this interceptor will eliminate the
need to provide the twice weekly maintenance to the Sunset Lift Station as well as reduce
material costs associated with that maintenance. Typical maintenance for a gravity
interceptor is yearly inspection with cleaning as required. The Sunset Interceptor will also
provide an anticipated fifty (50) year life to this portion of the City system that currently is at
the end of its useful life.
The City has adopted a recycled content procurement policy which encourages the use of
recycled products in projects, wherever practicable. In addition, this project will conserve
electricity through the elimination of a sewage lift station for a gravity sewer main.
DESCRIPTION:
This project consists of construction of approximately:
5,785 linear feet of 15-inch to 18-inch sanitary sewer main
15 sewer manholes
3,300 square yards of asphalt paving
Related appurtenances to the construction of a sanitary sewer main
This project will allow the elimination of the following:
0 The Sunset Sanitary Sewer Lift Station
P:IWINDO WSIWDOC7R1BA LIMA YVA LLEIMOA AMD2.DOC PAGE 7
DRAFT OF 12111195
I . From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12/11/95 Time; 12:05;45
Page 9 of W
DRAFT CITY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 2
Approximately 2,200 linear feet of 6-inch forcemain
B. SCHEDULE
Projected Time Schedule
Loan Agreement Signed
Preliminary Engineering Report
Required Permits Obtained
Design Engineering
Land ROW Acquisition
Prepare Bid Documents
Award Construction Contract
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Close-out Report completed
C. BUDGET
Estimated Proiect Budaet
ADril 1996
January 1996
May 1996
May 1996
June1996
July 1996
Auaust 1996
September 1996
4*4ey 1997
Auaust 1997
Total
Preliminary Engineer Report
$_0_
Design Engineering
$500,000
Land/R-O-W Acquisition
$_0_
Sales or Use Taxes
$207,460
Other Fees
$_0_
Construction Inspection
$80,000
Start-up Costs
$_0_
Financing Costs
$_0_
Contingency (15%)
$330,000
Construction
$2,214,600
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$3,332,060
SECTION 2. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. Nothing in this Amendment shall preclude King County's or the City's responsibilities
under the wastewater services contract with the City dated May 2, 1961 as amended.
P:kWINDOWS�WDOCITRiBAL�MAYVALLEIMOAAMD2.DOC PAGE8
DRAFT OF 121ffl95
�� From: Bob Peterson To: Dave Christensen Date: 12111195 Time: 12:06:25 Page 10 of 10
DRAFT ClTY OF RENTON MOA AMENDMENT
REVISION # 2
B. The fulfillment of the revised Section 5.3 with the transfer of funds as set forth shall
constitute completion of King County's obligation under this section.
C. If the costs of the project exceed those estimated in Section 1. above, the extra costs shall
be the responsibility of the City.
SECTI4N 3. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF RENTON
A. In addition to the work and services as set forth in Section 1. above, the City shall be
responsible for the following project related activities:
1. All aspects of project design
2. Obtaining all necessary permits
3. All aspects of construction
4. Final acceptance of the facility from the construction contractor
B. The City shall provide King County with progress reports according to the following schedule�
1. Completion of Final Design
2. Award of Contract
3. Mid Point of Construction
4. Project Completion
C. Ownership of the facilities constructed under this amendment shall be with the City; all
operation and maintenance responsibilities and costs shall similarly be the obligation of the City.
D. The City shall also assume all liability for the construction, operation and maintenance of
the facility.
SECTION 4. RESPONSIBILITY OF KING COUNTY
A. In additi special terms and conditions as set forth in Section 2. above, King
County sha on or about une 30, 1996, make available to the City, a total of $ 636,143.
/,�,1.A-� .i,r�,o� �
P:IW/NDOWSIWDOCITRlBALIMAWALLEIMDAAM02.DOC PAGE 9
DRAFT OF 12/i1�'95
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................:.........:.......................................:.......................................:...................................... :.......................................:.......................................:......................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....:....:....:....:....:....:....: .. .. .. .. . �Qsi�v�:'�tv�;�..:�.��.� ...
. .:. .:. .:. .:.
. : � ��. .'2l�"�/:t�i���l: • . .
S_?3�..��.�:... ,, : . .:.....��....��Q�Wti�'.��:.o-�-...�`jy�:h�'/ �..;Z.,�..'t.;�,o�'a�....
....:....:....:....`....:. . . ; . . . ; . . . , . . . ; . : . : . . .
: : : : : . . . , ..�1�w�"o,1-i� ��.1sr�n�3-a' .�.L/G. .��1. . .d?��Gi/; . v�, ..��. . � . ..
.........:......��?s,'�i �._�:'L-��'r3�{J':..�yo':'a-��i��:a-�-.�-�"��1�1�..�.�.�� J...
C�; �-
......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:......................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....:....:..�:R��s ..�'� ;/�t'o�(L�: '�'�%Y�7: �.'-�.��`�'-br7 ��?�'l��!'.�.:..`�`f,`>.J��iYs��....
. . . . : . . . . : . . �� t-�t��rr� . . s . . : . . . . . . . � � �.r � � � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .:. �
� : I':'. ; : : : �� :. .. :...� : �Yr�: (,�- :
�'1�'�' : �'l.�l''Y!�1ivi�. t!;-� . . : . . . . : . . . . : .�..lr�-� . : r�; .�. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � : : : :
:. .:. .:. .: .:. .:..�. ..��....
. . : V" . . . .1 . . . : �� : : . � .
. . ... . ........ .
�7..�!..a�... �. �,..C�....>�l�'���s....ad'-�"i.... .aD :... ��tl�i-�i���sf?�a�. . . s.� .. ... �. . .
. . . . : . . . . : . ..�,�,fi1=� ��1:✓��`�'��. . .aQ : . a1.. .�Q�.�. �;� . . . . ; . . . . : . . . . : . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : . . .
....:...,:....:... : . .....:....:....:..... . : . . . : .. .. ... .. .. ....... ... ...
� ........ ............ .... . . � � ...:. .:
. .. . .,. ...
.. ... .
: �..�9i.r�! �c� �j1�'�/T�'1>"1'� �N! �n�'��W i�" �'�'�-' . :c�%✓ : : . :
........:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........: ..
: : : ; : : : : crr�l�Gi....��...�....�...�.�...�.�;....�.��.�..�.��f�'.....
....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....: .. .. . .. .. .. ....... ....... ..
. .:. .:. .:. .:. .:
. :. � .:. �
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ��� .
: �i�i�i:hil�• ' _J�'a�. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : .
....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....: .. .. .. .. .. � .. .. ' .. . ..
. .:. .:. .:. .:. ..
. .:. .:..�
: : : : : : : ; : : : ; : : : : : :� .
.... • .. ..............:........ ... .
:�-.�/'ti"z� � �ev�ss
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:..� ... ....
�+i�W:6� .2r� .:... ...:.....�T :. . ..
....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.........:... ........:... .. .. .. .. .. ...: ...:....: .. .. ...
: : : : . .:. .:. .:. .:. .:.
.: �-�!.,��,....
�L.G�-, �. '• : : : : : : : � : : � : : : : � : : : : : : :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ��;;si�`:���. . . ,�� �12'l,d%�. . .-��Y`'".�: . . . �'�`d��?�,.� . . . : . .�"�'y. . . /ly"f . . .�'��. .
........:.........:.........:.........;s.....��i�ozi�%:.:.....;�..y�Cl....�.�...:....i�;.oG��....��....:...�da�,�.._'.....�;�x'�'�'o:...� —
....:....:....:....'....:....:....:....;....:... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...���3����y��
� . . :.. `"""zy..
. . . . . . : . � � . . . .`,�,�ti�� . .' . . . . � Q;ir'�5 ` . . . : � ��. . . . . . . : • �0. . : . . . : . . . . : �,v. : . . . �
.:. . �� . � :.��... a���} �
........:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........:........:.........:....... ... ... -z� ... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ...
.......
. .:... ...:... �
.:....................... � :
: : : � ��:� �� �"''`�. : :
� �.r...y .:... ...:... ..
... . .. .. . ---,--a.- : .. ....... .. ... . .. ......... .. ............ �....... .. ..
. . ... . . ... .:. ...
.:. .. .
::::::::::::: .. :..
� s���
�if'`�� " �"!s���iif.�. .'..��. . . :2-fit_1�: � `'if'/i�'r��l.�"�,' . .. �/-:-'+�,es� �r�; ...
.:�.
. . ...:....:.. . . . : . : . . . . .
. : ...:...
.:.
. . . . : . . ._.0 �+� : �.z�%t1�il�' �.r '��, ; `�'•r�'i� �'��t1:f�,t �J.� �-� � . . .;'►. f� T �'�?a:� ' �-
: : : ; : : : ; : : : ': : : : `��'
. ........ �. ........
:l
......................................................................................................................:.......................................i...................:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........i.........:.........:.........:........
....:..............:....:.........:... .. .. . .
.:. ... ..
: : : : : : : : : :�'O�/` � �'� � ��� : � i��lGi!�L'%�Y�b�%'f . . . .�N . . �
. • - � : N: :/ :
....:....:....:....:..t'r-�'r�4YJ.�f":f'�'�-i_�'iF11..i .. . .. .. ����� .
:. .:. ... ..: ...:....: .
..:....:.........:.
. . ::
� . . . �
KC WPC & CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
KING COUNTY MEETING
12/7/95
9:00 AM to 11:00 AM
CITY OF RENTON
Meeting called by: BOB PETERSON Type of meeting: INFORMAL UPDATE
Attendees: DAVE CHRISTENSEN, JOHN HOBSON, BILL NITZ, BOB PETERSON
----- Agenda,Topics -----
1. KC WPC MGT DIRECTION
2. CITY OF RENTON DIRECTION
3. MOA AMENDMENT PROCESS- Timing,
schedule, extent of authorization
4. MOA AMENDMENT SPECIFICS --outline or
list of issues to detailed in amendment
5. DISCUSSION
BOB PETERSON/BILL 9:.00-9:15 AM
NITZ
DAVE CHRISTENSEN 9:15-9:30 AM
ALL 9:30-10:00 AM
ALL 10:00-10:30 AM
ALL 10:30-11:00 AM
Other information
ORAFT RENTON HONEY CREEK INTERIM SOLUTION EVALUATION SCHEDULE
1995 1996 1997 1998 1989 2
ID Task Name Durat Start Finish Pre Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2
1 RENTON HONEY CREEK PROJECT EVALUATION 126d 7/17/95 1/8/96
2 RECIEVE RENTON PROJECT DETAIL 1d 7/25/95 7/25/95
3 FACILITY PLANNING--PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS 118d 7N7/95 12/27/95
9 B8C PROJECT REVIEW �TASK 900) 70d 8/15/95 11/20/95
�
10 Review project description 49d 8/15/95 10/20/95 2
14 Determine Metro/Renton consistency 54d 8/15/95 10l27/95
17 Prepare draft TM 16d 10/30/95 11/20/95 10,1
20 Prepare final TM Od 11/20/95 11/20/95 17
22 KING COUNTY DECISIONS 97d 8/25/95 1/8/96 �
23 KC WPC 66d 8/25/95 11/24l95 �
24 Systems Team briefing #1 Od 8/25/95 8/25/95 �25 �
25 Systems Team briefing #2 Od 10/20/95 10/20/95 24 b/20
26 Systems Team decision Od 11/17/95 11/17/95 25 ; ����
27 KCDMS Executive Briefing 6d 11/17/95 11/24/95 26 � ob,Bill Nitz
28 KC EXEC 10d 11/27l95 12/8/95 27
29 KC Executive Briefing 10d 11/27/95 12/8/95 27 ob,Bill Nitz
30 KC Executive Approval Od 12/8/95 12/8/95 29
12/8
31 KC COMMITTEES/COUNCIL 13d 12/21/95 1/8/96 �
32 RWQC 1d 12/21/95 12/21/95 ;{-gob,Bill Nitz
'J
33 UNR STAFF 4d 12/22/95 12/27/95 32 ob,Bill Nitz � : '
34 UNR 1 d 12/28l95 12/28/95 33 ob,Bill Nitz
35 FULL COUNCIL STAFF Sd 12/29/95 1/4/96 34 ob,Blll Nitz �
36 FULL COUNCIL 1d 1/8/96 1/8/96 35 ob,Bill Nitz "
37 Full Council Approval Od 1/8/96 1/8/96 36 � ��$
Project: Honey Creek Solution & Evalu Task Milestone � Rolled Up Task � Rolled Up Progress
Date: 12/7/95 Progress Summary Rolled Up Milestone
Bob Peterson Page 1 12/7/95 8:06 AM
;;:mE-rRo
King County Deparlment of Metropolitan Services
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 •(206) 684-1280
October 4, 1995
John Hobson
Wastewater Utitity
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue S.
Renton, WA 98055
---�,,-,� ���c}�,
. µ� `.� �.`' � `y �
� OCT 6 i995
CITY pF RENTON
Engineering Dept.
RE: Foll up to the May Valley Interceptor Project's September 28, 1995 Planning Workshop
Dea hn:
On behalf of the May Valley Interceptor project team, I would like to thank you for participating
in the planning workshop held last Thursday. The objective of the workshop, to understand how
growth is occurring in the May Valley area, was met with your help. The information received
from those unable to attend was also important to the effort; I want to thank them also.
Included herewith is a short summary of the meeting as well as four maps that reflect population
changes in the subregional study area as forecast by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
These maps were included with the meeting handouts but were not the best depiction of the
forecasts. You should toss those maps from the workshop and replace with these.
Please review the workshop summary and let me know if there are changes that should be
made and/or clarifications that would help in understanding the project.
The project team will be moving forward to assess the wastewater flows and timing needed for
King County METRO facilities in the area and will keep you apprised of the project's
conclusions.
John, thank you again for your help
any questions.
Si cer I
�
Bob rson
May Valley Project Manager
Attachments: Summary
May Valley Study Area Maps
CC: Brown and Caldwell-Mike O'Neal
May Valley Project Team (with workshop packet)
Invitees unable to attend (with workshop packet)
I can be reached at 684-2093 (fax at 689-3119) if you have
L:\WRKSHP3.DOC
SUMMARY
Planning Workshop - May Valley Interceptor Project
September 28,1995
INTRODUCTION
Everyone was welcomed at 9:10 a.m. Project descriptions, a timeline for the project and a set of maps
covering the May Valley study area were distributed. The objective of this workshop was outlined: to
understand how growth is occurring in the May Valley area so the project may be planned and timed
appropriately.
HISTORY
As described in the items mailed out to all in mid -September, the project was first anticipated to be an
interceptor extension; it evolved into a regional service planning effort because of timing and
environmental issues. Specifically, the City of Renton, one of King County Metro's component agencies
with a long term wastewater conveyance and treatment service agreement, has a time frame in which
service improvement is needed in it's Honey Creek subbasin.
PROJECT FOCUS
In the current Predesign Phase 11 of the project, King County METRO will study a set of subregional
service alternatives and their environmental impacts. The alternatives will take into account service
needs in the following areas: Part of Issaquah (portion of Tibbets Creek), Coal Creek, May Creek, East
Renton plateau as delineated on the maps prepared for the workshop.
LANDUSE AND ASSUMPTIONS
King County Surface Water Management (SWM) designates planning areas according to,land cover,
using impervious surface or vegetation as its two broad categories. Projections are based on zoning in
current and future plans. King County SWM information is important to the current King County METRO
service basin characterization effort.
The planning assumptions for this effort include Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) forecasts, base
flow unit factors as described on a workshop handout, maps of sewered and unsewered areas, King
County Countywide Planning Policies, King County and local comprehensive plans and the adopted
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and data being used for King County METRO's Regional Wastewater
Services Plan.
The specific King County METRO defined service basins in the study area are designated as Factoria,
Hazelwood, Coal Creek, May Creek and Renton ESI-2 as identified in the maps in the handouts.
Wastewater flow projections in these areas are derived assuming uniform distribution of PSRC
forecasts of residential, commercial and industrial population and the results from other King County
METRO flow models.
DISCUSSION
A question arose about growth in the Burnstead annexation area.
A question arose about whether growth will occur outside of Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). It was
acknowledged that the Puget Sound Regional Council's Traffic Analysis Zone JAZ) forecasts assume
some growth in the rural area.
A question arose about whether the Urban Growth Boundary will change.
Comment: Metro's WASTEWATER 2020+ and the Regional Wastewater Services Plan assume that
there will be more sewered area through the year 2020 until the Urban Growth Area is 100% sewered..
Comment: In the Coal Creek subbasin, some growth will occur around the landfill.
Comment: Using PSRC's TAZ data, and looking at entire King County METRO system, growth -is not an
upward, straight-line curve, although in this particular planning subregion it may appear to be.
Comment: Between Bellevue and Issaquah within and along the Urban Growth Boundary, pressure for
growth is expected to be intense.
Comment: If the UGB does change, it may affect the long-term extension of service but most likely not
this -specific project nor will it critically alter near term planning assumptions.
Mike O'Neal from Brown and Caldwell, consultants to King County METRO on this project, presented
additional history of the project's planning; it was noted that timing is the crucial decision in this project.
Maps describing the various utility district boundaries were reviewed noting that "unserved" areas shown
on the maps are considered by the local jurisdictions as potential annexation areas.
BREAK
In closing it was agreed that the PSRC JAZ level) forecasts fairly describe the near term and the longer
term (to 2020) growth in the defined study area. However, it was noted that the projected growth along
the Urban Growth Boundary needs a closer look.
The workshop was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
List of September 28, 1995 May Valley Interceptor Project
Planning Workshop Attendees
Allen Johnson
City of Renton
277-6187
John Hobson
City of Renton
277-6179
Dave Christensen
City of Renton
277-6212
Tom Peadon
Coal Creek Utility District
235-9200
Larry Jones
Coal,Creek Utility District
235-9200
Susan Boyd
CCUD/Penhallegon
827-2014
Rick Rutz
King County SWM
296-8051
Stacy Patterson
King County DDES
296-7143
Nancy Laswell
King County DPW
296-3775
Mike O'Neal
Brown and Caldwell
281-4000
Ken Madden
King County METRO
684-1374
Ron Post
King County METRO
:684-1143
Bob Peterson
King County METRO.
684-2093
WWII� W--W&
Legend
� Sev�er lirbs
� Urban Grw,kh Boundary
�
� Study Area Boundary
Fbpulation
� 900 - 2000
� 2001 - 4000
� 4001 - 6000
,f.sr 6001 - 8000
� 8001 - 10000
Inoorporated Areas
OVlfaterbodies
�:TETFIO � �
�•v��, i
rus D�..o; ��e.�msn.•m
� � � 2 ���
lhe IkTmbnua.�i \fetr.qw.lnyi Smne� dt.:Lum• �+
uwrsm G� ise �+fUn. dqad przluy MmJ Ua
i.t xhdl q��a �ks01a! �;e1tlR dls A101]I
�riJrt m+r a�)� pnx� tMi �•1 mn� le rayrnfiia l ui
an� (.Rn.� kn�an'rreTu wY}kvt th e�7mc. ��Mm
�eMnrrhm .t�hr Dqurmnn �i \km��.�
icn� �1}i� �livrcn m�iulea dYa a�wrnitnlln�
9ie F:rull \Iq� a�n�n aJ r t� �naJ u� thrr
�anmarn l'aeu'eihxtai
Ma Valle Pro�ect Stud Area
v y J �/
PSRC Population 1990
Legend
N � ���
NUrben Growth Boundary
�--- Study Alea Bourdary
Fbpuladion 2000
� 900 - 20D0
� 2001 - 4000
� 4001 - 6000
� 6001 - 8000
� 8001 - 10000
Incorporeted areas
a ���
�-m�Tao , �,
�.
K,���m, �„„:xme ,e��.. �
1 0 1 2 Miles
�il�e LY�wm�mt .,i '.kn. h�.,ln.n� s.r».e� �n: Wrm an�
�+aram� f� ine �,ftlm demtal �x.�L.i lr.�i dei
fnr uluti rt aac il: poial `:atln 0� �tWl
�mAst nx sn pm � Ur�a�,i � le mrn6�vd m
sn- Rm� �� t* am� m�s� ��ele,n Ur afie« urma�
nelmrm��n,N thelhpame�n ot 11rP•q..d�mn
Senwa Thn d��nen mchtle� Jta �qn�li.d In
Eie V:n,U \iq o.A�vn� anl n hem� in�l •.�wh �hrn
pm�axm C��eureMani
Ma Val I e Pro� ect Stud Area
y v J Y
PSRC Forecast Population 2000
� ,,,,�;��
�(�
% � /J 1
i
�.
� � ���
` SP�ttI e ���, , , Islan
1 �� r
/ r
i_ � '���,� .
levu� �
l
� '° - J
' 'e : . ' �•
0 • O
�, e � � �
_.
�
.�
` — •• — :�i���
�� _
" --'F'i,i-�' '-' � ;'"i;.
:5';a�ii�%��::�.1,%:%i i::;:.
� ;
� /. .f �/' ':
� � 6 � _ ri
. ,c..., .
\ ��;
1�
, : - �.�:,�;,;._ . �
SeaTac , . , . � -- .
� . � p .
o r—�\ � • , . Q � p '
Legend
/ \/ � �����
NUrban Growth Bourxiary
_ _ Study a,ree eoundary
�r�,�c+«, zo, o
� 900 - 2000
o �,_�
Q aooi-s000
, r �� sooi - e000
eaoi-i0000
��������
o �� ��
�-m�rAo „�
�� I
K�.x �'�_,.� om. ,:r. ei �t.,.q.u.�.�..,ro
' ° --- , 2 Nh�es
�1Tre Ik�avtmanr,.,i \k�r�q.,6im� S�r,i.�..6tlann. �+
wara�n f•� v:e.,t Uu, y¢na] �r�.L�i tr�;n�.1 ilu
ix ��hnli n na �l: p�c.1 `�ertlrr Ua: d�mtal
�ntiaL nt r�� p,�r� �1m�M mn h n;x.ihae�i m
an� f.an a tn om� ncau �.tlnu� Or �a ���rma�
ath�r�nw� .dthr C�ann+n �d \kmy.�lmm
Senwa �ihn a: �mei� m�htla �Nx ..qnr�hai ln
dr F:roll \bp onqurn mf «h.vip �naJ s��h Urc
}a�rmem l'�eMn�trkyni
Ma Val I e Pro� ect Stud Area
v v � y
PSRC Forecast Population 2010
�
4'
If
!
�/
1
.
�i
, y �q �./�
�� Se�at� e `
j 4 %
1, �J
�
Legend
/� 58WBf �If1E5
N��n Cxowth Boundary
. Sudy Arm Boundary
Population 2020
� 500 - 2000
o �, -�
� 4001-6000
� 6001 - 8000
8001-10000
Incorporated Ar�s
QNtater Bodiea'
�:TETRO , � F
R�-x ��.., �„ cr��Y�. �� ��+�� w�,
1 Q 1 2 Miles
�
1 J� �
Tu�wwila
�Ihe Dr�wm�ait ..�i `.ktr�q.•lran i�.'n.�. .In. Lum.:ort
uarain I:Y ire ,�� tln..,1�a1 ���xh�+ Ir���xt dw
fx ��fixfi rc wa� J�. �anal ': ciUer dm ,im�al
(rt�3aL n�a dn-pY�r� �hno+l m.n h ���x��hrnl e�
an� fvn «M� em� maan utlx•rt th eqn+. ufnim
atMiv.�b�.ti thr fx�Th�a+n �.f \km�.d�
Smwa "!hi a.vnxn rcwhak. •.In.�:•`f^r�}ea1 �n�
B�e F:r.>II \iq ov�wn� ani c hm¢ �ivJ .�th Urr
�lTII1LNAYl l�x n re�irK�nf
Ma Val I e Pro� ect Stud Area
y v J Y
PSRC Forecast Popu I ati on 2020
WELCOME
KING COUNTY METRO
WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL
MAY VALLEY PROJECT
PLANNING WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 28, 1995
FINAL AGENDA �
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
PLANNING WORKSHOP
Bellevue Fire Station #9
12412 SE 69th Way
Newcastle
SEPTEMBER 28, 1995
9:00 AM TO 12 NOON
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS—LANDUSE, UTILITIES (Service Areas) AND
POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT
4. ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION ON ASSUMPTIONS
5. RECAP OF DISCUSSION
6. NEXT STEPS: REPORT DRAFTED AND ROUTED FOR PARTICIPANT REVIEW
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The City of Renton requested King,County Metro to extend the May Valley Interceptor approximately 7,000 LF to
the confluence of Honey Creek where the City would tie-in with their Honey Creek Interceptor. This action would
alleviate the City's overloaded Honey Creek pumping station as well as provide for the long term needs of the
service area..
The objective *of the project is to accelerate the May Valley Interceptor Extension to serve the City's Honey
21
Creek drainage as well as the future overall subregional service needs.
EARLYPLANNING
• The current project was identified in the Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage and Drainage Survey 1956-1958 as
part of the plan to serve the South Lake Washington basin.
• In 1977 a design for the %ay Creek Sewer Interceptor was prepared by King County Water District No. 107.
• Extension of a King County Metro interceptor up May Creek was projected to be included in King County
Metro's capital expansion program in about "l 0 years�'.
CITY OF RENTON SERVICE AREA PROBLEMS
In recent years, the City of Renton has experienced flows from the Honey Creek service area exceeding the
capacity of the City's Sunset pumping station.
The problems with capacity of existing facilities and high growth rate in the Honey Creek service area led the
City of Renton to. identify the need for the May Creek Interceptor earlier.
PREDESIGN PHASE I
While the focus of.the King County METRO project is the May Creek alignment, other alternatives were
investigated in the Phase I Predesign effort completed in 1994.
Regulatory and technical issues affecting the alignment along May Creek proved difficult and the on-line date
of 1993 anticipated earlier could not be met.
The project team recognized even before the onset of the project that environmental regulation would be a
significant factor. It was decided that in Phase 11 of the Predesign effor� through a full Environmental Impact
Statement process, all reasonable alternatives would be identified and initially screened to reveal the impact of a
variety of technical, regulatory and public issues on each alternative.
.�. PREDESIGN PHASE U
Phase 11 of the Predesign began this Spring and includes tasks to not only complete an EIS on the proposed King
County METRO May Creek project but also to assess the broader subregional service needs with the RWSP
standards an.d planning assumptions.
The basin characterization and the initial technical evaluation of subregional options will be completed in late
1995. 22
2 1 The attached maps describe the overall May Valley Study area from'which the subregional service area will be
determined.
22 The attached summary schedule includes the basin characterization (task 800) and the initial technical
evaluation effort.
III�
�.��
Predesign
Phase I
Planning/
Predesign
Phase II
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PR4JECT
PROCESS CHART
Predesign/
Engineering
Preferred
Alternative
Predesign
EIS Effort
Bob Peterson
September 27,
1995
I.D.
1
2
11
12
20
26
30
57
62
66
80
90
130
143
- - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - ------ --- --- ----- - - ---- -- - -- - — - ----- - - - - - -
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT DRAFT SCHEDULE
---- -- - — ---
99 2000 — - � - - -----2001 2002 2003 - - - -- 2004 - �
description __ ptr 3 Qtr 4 �tr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 �tr 1 �tr 2 Qtr 3 atr 4 atr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 G�tr 3
May Valley Project Phases Ii, III 8� IV
Contract Amendment Phase II
Planning/Predesign Phase II
Basin characterization (T-800�
5asin workshop
Workshop #1a/basin charactenzation
� �;- f,r�;Cess ' i 20n ?�f7� 1 T 200 :�
SurveylROWIMap (T-300)
Geotech. evaluation (T-400)
Predesign/Engineering (T-500)
Pref'd Alt. Predesign/Engr (T-500.11
Final Design Engineering Phase III
Construction Contracting
Construction Phase IV
Task
Project: May Valley Critical Task
Date: 9/27/95
Progress
L: {MVENV.MPP 9/27/95 2:51 PM
��'
__,. , . . _ ._ Milestone � Rolled Up Critical Task ` _ _ -
. Summary Rolled Up Milestone
Rolled Up Task ,_ . � Rolled Up Progress
Page 2
1�'II_�1
I.D.
1
2
11
12
20
26
30
57
sz
66
80
90
130
143
VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT DRAFT SCHEDULE
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1�
Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Cltr 4 Qtr 1 Cltr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 G1tr 1 Qtr 2 C1tr 3 �tr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 �tr 1• Qtr 2
May Valley Project Phases II, III 8� IV
Contract Amendment Phase II
Pianning/Predesign Phase II
Basin characterization (T-800)
Basin workshop
Workshop #1a/basm character�zation
i=1S `�rr;�,ess ( T2C?0; T?_OG 1 i"r.�ii'� ''
SurveylROW/Map (T300)
Geotech. evaluation (T-4001
Predesign/Engineering �T-500)
Pref'd Alt. PredesignlEngr {T-500.1)
Final Design Engineering Phase III
Construction Contracting
Construction Phase IV
Project: May Valley
Date: 9/27/95
L: {MVENV.MPP 9/27/95 2:51 PM
��
��
���
� 9128
�" � _
w
r1
Task Milestone � Rolled Up Critical Task __. _.____
Critical Task ; ��-� Summary Rolled Up Milestone
Progress Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Progress
Page 1
0
May Valtey Project Study Area
-,
:- _ °r�=s
- ���. :_� - ��
�,
1 _ } _.�,�
�:� - `�-:�_ :
`;� .- ,�=�;�;
.� .t� _ :�
: �� , �
e -�'�`�
� �- �
�. �.
k '4 L_
.. .Y� ��,'� � �1J
..� __
+O _�^'}— � . ���I.
\ I
' Y I
b' (:
�� � `�\�
` �. � . � • \ '.
\
J X \
� `
/\� ' —_
I
:;1meTAo
� c�� �� � M��vm, s�+.��«s
�
��
1\
�. ,-.
, �
.! �
' �_�� � _�
May Valley Project Study Area�
'�`- `�
Mence�
Island ; �
I �
� I' .^,
� % �
1
��\� ti
r �..J
�
�
��
� ��. � w��
,_,,, �_ � ��.
�, .�..... � w�._
� �...d... C _,_..�...
�) � �... � ._..�
�
:;;: mETrao
xng cou,vs� I7�pa�u»ent ot MehopoLuo s«v�«6
,� — �
�' J J ��
�
� � - - .
�' �`�
� � May Valley Project Study Area
Contours
.�
-� �„ :�
� � ,��'�--� � � - � � r
�. .� � � -- _ E'�'" i (
Mercer �, - �.,,,- - � . - �
,
� ,.-,- :. �
Island ''' � ... �`' .^ �� � ,�...
� - - �_:•.- :
�:.
' K `��, � .. � , c�
. � ,' � ! 1 J _':
� / � ' .�\l � �� . 1 _ " �c�.�
• 1 � `L.. _ • �
dF
.� �a � � � - . •r�3:�.:� ♦ `', ` ' - /\/�"L
� � 8wIl4wf � � � , � � �-"� �
� _ � � � • l �� �,,,,jj�� .
. � � � , � j� , _ � [,�}� � /� ._
M I � `C_�' �� ` � ♦ �� ' � �aJ � —' \ � ' / f
� � �` ,.' : ,�:��� . �� 1ti - ♦M5"'ry r ;
1 ii �'.� ` '�. �/� �Y-�
, -j � � �� . , � � �, t a :� � �
1�'e�cicas�l¢ �• , r. -«�-� +1� � s q'`�a h
1`T`. i .
� �.1 i �. /
� �; � � ��. � `� �-.,_r�_i� � � � ` � �-�
. f► J ` .,.� S. .-�
Lryt!!i . � .. I - ._�. A� A [. �� �
M�� -����'.e+�' . + iiy � ' 1.� �._ �� -t.w. r��
' - � �.e . �£.�' LyI_- N
.�,�, , , '��'� �� 1 ,. � , ` , ,� � _ ��' � � . •.� f
-", - �o.rya.0 n� �� � �, � �°; �i�..r7
� , . ry . . ..�'.:,,_ - .. , �� �"�• ��
x;'
. ` , � • , ` . � _ � �t �G
. _y •- . 1 I i , ' ;. t ` �� ; � ��t �-
� , "��-
�� . � • �� -
..
`� � �� i! �-� O tt � ` � 3�'�,�—r-� , ' � e tr` _ �
� ----- . �s �� `�` �. - _ -
,Y+-- . i - � '
� ,,.,
' .4 . ♦ . ;� �.' ..-� ���.
:� �
, � _ Q . � ...." � `. . \ .,. ' ' � �.
/�— _ . _ / �..r.re
- " .. _- 1 ' ��.-':. -_ � �.� �/ v. .. — .
� ,�� - i .— r.�Orr � n�r4�
. . ��, 4 - - � -
�r-- . _... . �. —
—_ � � - . , � =r- - � � . � /�i ... a....+. � ..�.
,, ,�I -�� � , F ' M(nm � /� / o....�.. r.r. �.. w� c �.�
i �J '� - L
,,., ♦ �
i`:
i`� � � . _
L' � �
-"-meTwo �� � p I� _.._._...___,_..._--
�►- -- - -
IciaccormtrDepa*trn�usotMeuvpnliunsnwcee % �_ ��-�..�_.—__.r
May Valley Project Study Area
Existing Landuse/Land Cover
s;� m�TAo
x,r� covnry n�ment of Mraopouw� sw�o�
�
,�
/.
�
�
�
�
i ��- �
� � M.. ,... ,.._.
� � �...� ��
� .....:
� ...,.
� �. ...
� �.
� a......�
i '-
� .�,�.
� "^`"'
���
� Y .�
May Valiey Project Study Area
Existing Landuse/Land Cover
_.�
:;1mETAo
Ring Co�ty Degarmimt ot Metropolitan Serviw
` _ ` -�'
.� .�'
,
tT �f���Jp..',' . � �*.,k. '�Y++4... i;:' _
t � •�`4. f� . . � . . � • . -!� ;,
' -! ' � �. �hF �� 1 ��
',�i�..�_��� . . , �_4�r^� � � R ' � ` .,'SY,�
T ���
��;�� � , °1 � �=#�
'k • .: i � �,..;,y'jy,. ry� _ �
� '�� y �-*' ... �'f 4 4 � -�
� �fi�' � � � ����p`'� � ��: �( i
� . f'" �i
__ � �,� j .:� t -- h'�� �, e �"'� •'t{:."� �F L� -. .
- : ' ".` � Y �-v�`� t .,��,�+�a �t . ��g dr Y"�" � � �� �%' +{. ��,..
�� _ , � Yid;�•�'> �a �!� ; 1. • � "'•.� . ��. � � : � .
. . . t � . : � -•-.
� ' +�' �p � 'C _ , . f• � . � 9 e - .. ..r'•, §
� ?'1t , +i.rK�, �- � . 'b . . f :. �$
. � rY S . x , � ,s" �,' � . q .' . . 1 �.. . f. '"�i�.sa
r� r� ��; 4t �� ~ �✓$. �� �,
� w 4 ��
r � � -�-` - s�1j , =4 � _ s K' -r ' ' � : � '�
. s� . ,. J
n
ti
t
-� i. .. �a� " . '
f j - -. 0 ' ' . �} •. , � o�ayS� 'y,vi� � � �'�. K
t'ti..;.�r . �` g•} y_ 4. . y .
N � �" �AF� ' - -
. . . � i �- � .q '' �i� , � 4r � ; � �
� j � �Y ��` _ � ��. ' � _ ;' , �.J ` �� � � �p.` � 1 °M -�%F:a.
�' y`tyt' �;= � :,, y► Y ' . . ' � �r '" + _ Y' r ��� . � .
N V
S' � � �S � � +l,S r �N k� .. .� . G � � . � , A
. , A ;. .r . . . ��: �� *�'� � .� -.
E � �` .�+.�+{y{y
�`� ��• y# �' * ���.:.lH P� � . .� �' � . �S
9 H } �
_
�{ • . }�'' , . .���~ � � �` �� x -, � � +�Y.
� ��
., , ..
a
, 1. ¢ � � • �; , .� .�� �F iC
'� ,t','� 4 :i� 3 ` � . i t� � ` 4
�y y • ' t• '` t` ' '���"
-_ '�� 3ti�� ',. �'� `�'" � " .. . e<��'Y- ,�'{4 1 �.
� i y r . . ,�• , �.� � "� � p � i.
- , - ! vdI � • ��� �!h�'+R {�!��q�
�'�-- � � ,� . + •_ ,� �� : �
,�p .�',
x' ��."F `'}.� t��: " �� t � .,a��7-
` ,L ;q.�:.�� '-.
a ''�4
�
�
I �
I �
�
I �
i �
� �
I �
�
� � �
.,....�....�
sr. rr e..
■
�
�
�
�
�
�
... ti..•
r.. �
i .......��.,�......�.���....�+ �
i � �:= ---- =--•-=---
King County METRO Water Pollution Control Facility
Planning Assumptions
Puget Sound Regional Council Demographics —
Subarea forecasts
Base Flow Unit Factors: Residential --- 60 gpcd
Commercial--35 gpcd
industrial--75 gpcd
e Sewered and Unsewered Areas
e Adopted Comprehensive Plans and the UGB
e Regional Wastewater Services Plan
LAPLASS.00C 9127/95 Page I
Legend
/ \ � Sew�er
� Metro Service Basins
� ��Y
� � � Urban Growth Bound�
Cities
--merao ,, �,
�(i. � i r. �. IJrya.. eni„ �H�Ral�n.i .�.. <.
1 o i 2 MIiEs
�rtK tle{wmion or�tertopo�n,m sc,*�e+ a,r:lwn. an
�wrrsin-f r iwe �,I'tlw �tiptd rmhu teu.Mt tl�
Fr \1i1k�1 II 4F �yf1Kt� �.Clt)lT (fIH c�k[tl!�
{rtri t, n�x sn p.�tx� Jcra�f rtm� ts,qmYti�ui m
mn� Gnn «kn�am� itwao u�}n�R Ile �wtn. urmm
a6lnnrwtim nf the DeQshnen d\IM�d�
SS.�nxa. �f}inJ•ti-�ennvm:hiia-.1en��ynnµFeul'���
nc� V::�,p �,�ap.�•nqwr. an::.!a.r.4 n�•i •nah iYa..
�anm.:i�n �.4�i.�.�.«�iaei
Ma Val I e Pro� ect Stud Area
Y Y J Y
Metro Service Basins in the Study Area
19yo
Land Area I RmIder, BASELINE BASELINE ---
Smin - I M '4 R- r. S."md Total r,'d) ffl()�1VFjfI I!AIVIVF 11=1 reeak I)f�' 'A'1vWF Peak 7Flow Iml)
0 85 3 - 58
'ald)
Sewert"41 nm. ro". ropa 9--:tM Area
d) (jjjgd
P.P.1.11011 owered ro gd gd
Unlelwood 1.857 7,359 100% 7,357 1,553 A. - (fagd)
54
9964 83 1541 0.50 0.15 J 5 0 1 4 1308
0. 3.08 0.65 0.85 3.58
0 0 1 0 . 9
by Creek 943 3,761 48% 1,805 275 30 2110- 44 415 0.12 0.114 0.09 0.8i 0.16 0.21 0.95 89 319
oat Crerk 4,411 11,480 98% 11.287 530 32 1 IR40 Al
0 0 1
1897 0.70 0.18 .43 3.79 0.89 13 4.49 1721
715 3,644 3,602 2;143 699 6444 89 636 0.34 0.06 0.14 1. 0
99% 1.13 1906
J. 91 1.27 40 0 .49 1.62
806 927
.. .... ... .. T. 9 6 0.30 0.49
talon ESI-2 9 _:iO,074 .94% 18,913 6,090 8,147 33149 79 3150
..... ... 0.71 12.91 2.26
.61 14.S7 256 4g7o
BASEILIN13 ---
[And Area 2m HASHU-NII
Duln (at e Residential 2W
I % It". roll Smered �(qunwrclm ladi rI.I Tot 9d lAnd Sewer,f flags Flow ADWF 1/1 AIVIVP 1/1 reak Ill A
ropula(lonj Sewered -op 1%7 A MW prok Flow
'tw "I'll -I,
....... .............. 1104. 1`0 ropulMlon I I." ered r- StWeted A �01? '"S
'j79 TtQ (Qc) (ragd) gd) (ragd) (Ing 9d)
H" 8280 100% 8 60 ad) 11)
F ".1 "o- "011
I'i;7
Mai Creek 1634 0. 7 0.18 0.42 - Tni
3.36 0.75
- 943 4296 65% 2 - 900 500 34 3335 63 59LI 0.19 0.06 1.00 4.07 14 !"O"'"_
Coal Creek 4.411 0.15 1.27 0. 2j
Fadorlm IALI �5- 99%- ......... 1.4353 gie 41 15312 62 273+1 ...... -- 0.311 1.46 441 496
............ I ................. 715 4191 "% 4164 .......... ym .................... ...... Q19.9 ........... ........... 5.91 1.19
19,19 i7i -
........................ ..... . .............................. ..... .......... W6
Rtuton ESI-2 3,987 ...... ............. !!�! ... ..... 0.41 - 0.07 .................... .......... 2197
-1-4.2--0-49--]).58 9110 974
1 86 ...... " 2DO50 3719-1 86 MZ9 2.14 0.37 0.99 15011 2.51 5591, 52aij
3.031 17.19
rul Area .......
........... .......................... V . I . S . I . Otj I ................................ .. ............ . ........
.................................................... :. ......
2010 ....................................... r� - 0 . N
. .. .. .... ... 210fo
............ ...
;ewer" w
I�TT �-iil 1,
op. po VF
r - op!aA . jol . I 1_ - .. :
L'-- _ '. _ .- - Pall Stwered
......... 7 ....... (i gd)
1.957! 89L15 166i
1746 d)
.............
m
......... U.45 3.74 0.81 1.07 4.3 1447
Coal C 4 1615
.......... 50 ....................... ...................................................................... .46
4,411 16119 999 16625 11 "*** ...... . ...... 0' .. .....
....... ...... � ..... ��9 ............ ........... ............ 49 4393 Of 764 0.26
.......... ..... T.-
.............
0.0S 0.20 1.63 0.34
.. ... .......
)radorla . ..... ...... 61 ............ 179 39 81 357) ................... 1..9.9 ..... ...... 6 ' 1 8 ----685
715 4582 ...... .............. I . 0 . 4 ............ 0, . 39 0.92 ...... 1.96 R.69
100% 45M 3318 9,18 9830 1.43 ?151..
72131 6 . ... ..................... . 2829
........ * ........ 9-R,'%' .... .... . . 2-1-7-0--1 ... .. ....... ... .. .... .. ........ ?� ............. .. .. ....... ........
... ........ jj?�.7 ---_1.4 -0.07 0.18 1.47 0.54 0.64 1.93 ...................
.............................. . ........ -00:0 ................ -6�!: ams 39487 9 3 - 10(0 1099
............. . ....... 2.26 . . ......................... .............. ....
VISION I ............. : ... 0.40 0.95 16.27 2.66
...... ........ 3.21 18.53
Land Area ... 2W . . .. ......... .. . ................ . .................... .. . ..... . ......... . .......... VISION I ........ ......... 5949 5535
. . ..................... ...... .... .................. . ....... ......... ..............
L11.1n . .... 2m
'vi
fluln (acre) R"WentInj % it". pol ..... .. . % Land B fM ADWF 1/1
6 Ind
P.Pulallon Sewered 1"Res. rop, ro iati n ropwation twered r Sewered (ragd) (Ingd)
Haleh"Od - Area (ac)
1,057 10055 (Ing'I
i�M . j06
(ragd)
3 2?! 167 0.70, (mgd) (ingd) a8d) (Ibfd:
�:W 0.21 - 0.51
Coal Creek 100 J.gq 0.91 1.21 4.69 1624 1015
............. .......
... .. ......................... ... 5 2.02
............ 16537 ........... 1 1426 59 ......... ........... .......... �0.26 ........ -
.................... ..... ........... loo 4411 ....... ......... _P:61 2.37 PJ7 W9
115 100% j60 I-- ................. io�i ................ -- .... ... .................. - . .......
........ 3874 .................................. 0.50 .... 9.44
.. .. . ........ .. : ..... 821 100 1.61 2948 3159
... . ... ..... ...... .......... 9709 (0.61
... : .......... ...... -1-11111-1 0.50
Ren(�n ESI-2 .............. ..................... ... 9.09
..... .... 3,987 23657 100 .. ................ .................
...... 9 73657 0:20 ........... 1.5.1
. . ...... 10706 765 ... .... ................ 0-18 Ito]
. .. ............. 9 42022 100 3997 2. -- ...................
vIii6R i - 0.46 Log 3.4d
lAnd Area ...... . .......... ... 19. R6 (0002 590)
SION I . .....
(acre) Sfwvred 7onvaercla Fraf,wrial 2U3Q
: 11 ! low M 1/1 ��� 7��i ��i
ro WI et Res. rop. ropulallon V ulation ewered I AMIT
........ PO Sewered Area (ac) (rugj)
dw 1,851 11102 . IOD% ... .... .................. (mg(l) (Ingd) (rngd) Pe.k F16w ROD 71.9s
a Cr k Y3 .. ... ..... .............. .......................... ........
1102 3586 95 14783 857 0. SO 0*22 0.54 3.97 . . - I ..........
943 5901 100% 59al 1409 56 .............. 1.02 1.34 (algd) (lb/d) (1b1d)
7369 loo 943 0.41 4.77 1820 2639
2-1001 2194 2J274 0.11 0.27 2.0,2 0.32 0.68 2.43 951 1060
........................ 100 4411 1.46 0.53
- . �: -"? ! 715 57 8 lo0% 5718 4872 - --- - - -- - ---------
Renton ESI-2 .1. _22 ......... . . . ..... ................................ . ........ ... 937 11547 715 1.28 9.44 2W74 155) 39613
. ...... 3.987 24967 ....... ... 0.59 0.09 0.21 -LoiT.- ---,
......... 0.79'
100% - 24867 -14 7�?g 46929 100 1.53 0.67 2.12 1291
V ........ 4 . ....... 1360
.. 39 7 ---- --- -- 0- A 1:15 .......... 1 .49 3.04 3:73 --
Larml Ar" ISION I ........ .......... ... . .......... ------ ------ ....... 6 2 �18
Saiurvilon IONI
Diu allon
In (acre) Rex 0 1 % r latfumertal Total Ha" Flo. AMVr 1/1 A%V1VF 1/111 ... a 11
.. ....... ................ - I'd .. Ree. rop. ropoidion ro olation twered re Sewere' Aj)jYF AMW r,.k now ROD
............... . ............ d =A,. I 'SS
ood 1,857 13 ... .......................... ............... ............ (n Igil)
6-18 100% 13mg 50 126 20123 Im ---- (nagd) (Ingd) a8d) (R"(1)
reek 943 .7381 100% 7381 6-2i 0.54 3.97 ............ -T-T"-IT -.1 . .......
Creek .. ........ 100% )jglg 3251 77 191UH 100 96f3 0 56 0.11 0.27 -- 1.19 1.60 2321 2620
... 139119 40M
........................ ..................................... 0.6 0.03 --__ 2.58 1245
715 ........... 100 4411 2.21 1401
il'.ion .......... 7131 10099 7113 737-1 0.53 1.?R 9.44 7. 7J 3.49 11.61
155 5 1 .... .................................................................... . . 5.108
3.947 27637 ............... L .......... .. . 715 . .. .. ........ ....................... 5901
............ . 100% 27631 0430 590111 0.77 0.09 0.71 1.13 0.97 710 1 Ay) 1 7 . 42....
17.49
J.
Legend
� s� r�
n / U� Growth Boundary
i v
Study Area Boundary
Fbpulation
� 919 -1925
� 1926 - 3210
� 3211 - 4.'i88
� ,389 - 5294
� ;295 - 8502
Incorporated Ar�s
� Vlfa[erbodies
"TETpO
�.- �,ti i
r. ..� .,. uq�,��-�M �. � �,.,Rw�.� �,. �:._
1 0 1 2 Miles
ilio i e7cuim�ni ...i `,ktr�7r.lnan:iu�r.r �IR.Lwro :vi.
uarrmn t.� �ne �,1 thn dep�t�I pndu-� tx�m� tlsa �
ke ��fiui� n u� Jes4mel �etler tFu di�W
p�h.t nur:m� p.mn tMa.f rtn� tr re{rafi�vd ni
an- fnn .� !n� �ary �s xtlkin the eKnres wnnm
mth.xvaum,Y the L\patrrutt �J'\hm.pd�mn
'�eni.e, �iliiz �.i��na�t nk-liil.t �tmn o.�nt�}pul hn
mc!.:�.11'.hnom,rynn:c�.nl m¢rtnf��7htlry
�nnnai�n l�..rwmo�,�
Ma Val I e Pro� ect St ud Area
Y Y J Y
PSRC Population 1990
Legend
�� Sewer lines
� Urban Grwkh Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Fbpulation 2000
� 1512 - 2440
� 2441 - 3682
� 3683 - 4987
� 4988 - 6124
6125 - 7629
Incorporated areas
- V1Faterbodes
"TETRO
i.` u
.,�-<<��.�„ rxw,:r�.� �t��.yo.��,<� < <-
S
1 0 1 2 Miles
The IJc7wm�ent ,,1 \fetr,.qn htan Smxe. dRcla�m. em�
ueraiq-kt u+e n(dnr d�ai pn�y Ge�i�d tl�a �
for uhdi rt� dm�p�al. Valhr tlm dpuW
R�0. Mx m�P�te� Ur`o�4mq�tc rqmnnhi-ed m
an� f vn r M� an� �u wttun Ut eyicu xNtm
ae3x�tin M'the [kp�fiivn �f \krtcqxJtmn
Srnxm ThP �krirrrn mchtla �t�H,.,f^nF��tt1 U!.
8re F;ndl \4W �.mpury enl � ln��y iise.i uYh their
�amo�nawi l ��e u �1a3
Ma Val le Pro�ect Stu
y d Area
Y � Y
PSRC Forecast Population 2000
Legend
�' �� ���
� Urban C�owth Boundary
Study Area Boundary
Population 2010
� 1417 - 2528
� 2529 - 3802
� 3803 - 5619
� 5620 - 5908
.ri� - 8680
Incorporated Areas
� VVat� Bodies
�: fT1ETR0
rc--z..���.�., i�:,--:�.�� .r,,,y�n.nsr,..c. .. !:
� � � 2 ���
The I a�wmnar �•I `.kh��p,Inar.Smnec.:InLmn. �vry
�wram t;� v:c �,i il;< <iyuul �+rtluY inm.! dw
b�f Hfud� rt Hv� tles}QKt�. ':qf)et 1}IN t♦�[its�
{n�t rv�r un� p�nkn thn �f mn� h rq�nai��al m
an� fan �r tn �un� nme wt}kut t)r eyre.. wnuai
aflrrvanm �M [he Depaamd �d �IeR�+pi�n
Smxer Thn�ka�nrttmchtlo<<�Mo�ngMai!n
Aie t:mll `,ia�, owrqam� a�il i. hrm� uv f vth thry
�RlliLL�tilMl �.�41NNNhilftj
Ma Val I e Pro� ect Stud Area
Y Y J Y
PSRC Forecast Population 201 �
0
Legend
� s� u�
� s��,ay fv� e«,�,a�y
Urban Growth Boundary
Population 2020
� 1412 - 2558
� 2559 - �80
� 3981 - 5903
� 5J04 - 6798
6799-9693
Incorporated Preas
� 1Nater 8od�es
��TETRO �,
7P
Ki. K �.'v n�� IXpa��.�z�rt r\y�l�.qo inn �cn .�
1 0 1 2 Miles
lT�e D germien �,f \kMq.��un Sv�n�n de.laune xn-
umram� !�� �nc oi dm 1�pn�l Fx,tiuv Mmd dp
C.r �dudi n uss da.p�ed p,min iFu Ag�l
poh�ct nx an�prtn� t1K+e�(ma� he r�n�ed m
an� f vn �r tn-an- r�� ut} �n �hc yiex writm
alMvad+n ,d thr D�}wm�m� �J �koc�xJ�n
Srnnc n� �a�vrri. m:�h�la� :►tn..��^tiph d kn�
g12 F.f�.��� \kif� �`ffRN11M1':11t� l9 �YYfIQ'N[`� Hllil ih`9
ixnl¢KAR �xl�Rtitle�l
Ma Valle Pro�ect Stud Area
Y Y J Y
PSRC Forecast Population 2020
-',;:mE-rRo
King County Deparlment of Metropolitan Services �
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 •(206) 684-1280
September 5, 1995
John Hobson
Wastewater Utility
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue S.
Renton, WA 98055
RE: May alley Interceptor Project---Planning Workshop---September 28, 1995
Dea .
�
,�1 �� ,; ��
��
G9.. �
;ti � �
.- P - G.�1�
� 8 i995
r OF RF�Tn,��
King County METRO's Water Pollution Control is moving forward with its May Valley Interceptor project. This project,
described more fully in the attachment, was identified in our 1958 service plan to serve the South Lake Washington Basin by
extending our interceptor up May Creek to Tibbets Creek. This plan has changed over the years to reflect adjusted landuse
assumptions. However, in order to appropriatety develop subregional alternatives for further consideration in the predesign
process, the facility planning effort and May Valley project staff must understand both the short term and the long term growth
that you see in the May Valley area.
With this as a focus, the May Valley Project team will conduct a workshop on September 28, 1995. This half day effort will
begin at 9 am as the attached draft agenda indicates. There will be a confirming letter out to you a week before the the
planned workshop with particulars about the location and final agenda. At this workshop the King County team will first
describe the over all project objective in greater detail, describe what information the project team currently has regarding
growth in the study area, and then ask for your assistance in developing a better "picture" of what types and level of
residential, commercial and industrial growth our long range wastewater system planning should consider. Important of
course, is information on current planning processes, the status of the various wastewater system plans and the location of
various important demographic and utility planning data.
As a note, the water pollution control planning effort uses the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) subarea allocations of
population and employment as the basis for its long range wastewater planning. Your help is needed in confirming our
assumptions based on the PSRC information.
To allow preparation of both a cursory subregional look at the demographics and utility plans, the project team would like
copies of any recently adopted land use or sewer utility plans covering the area as well as any drafts of such....it is anticipated
that part of the workshop will include going through the various plans and visions so that the facility planning effort can best
integrate all the plans into our predesign and design process. If this information is available digitally, so much the better. All
digital mapping data, CAD or GIS based, is requested also. This can be forwarded to me at MS 81 at the above address.
Included herewith is a set of GIS maps showing various land use coverages and basin details that will be used to assess the
wastewater system needs of the subregion. You will see from these maps what is considered the fullest extent of the
"subregion" or study area...one goal of the workshop will be to define the short term and the long term growth within this
area....and to narrow down the specific subregional boundaries. �
To begin an early look at any information you may be able to provide, I look forward to hearing from you by 5eptember 18.
John, than ' advance for your assistance; I can be reached at 684-2093 (fax at 689-3119) if you have any questions.
incer I ,
t rs
May Valley Project Manager
Attachments:
Project Background
May Valley Study Area Maps
Draft Agenda on Upcoming Planning Workshop
CC: Brown and Caldwell-Mike O'Neal
May Valley Project Team
DRAFT AGENDA
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
PLANNING WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 289 1995
9:00 AM TO 12 NOON
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS-LANDUSE, UTILITIES AND POPU LATION/E MPLOYM ENT
4. ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION ON ASSUMPTIONS
5. RECAP OF DISCUSSION
6. NEXT STEPS: REPORT DRAFTED AND ROUTED FOR PARTICIPANT REVIEW
BACKGROUND ON MAY VALLEY PROJECT
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The City of Renton requested King County Metro to extend the May Valley Interceptor approximately 7,000 LF to
the confluence of Honey Creek where the City would tie-in with their Honey Creek Interceptor. This action would
alleviate the City's overloaded Honey Creek pumping station as well as provide for the long term needs of the
service area..
The objective of the project is to accelerate the May Valley Interceptor Extension to serve the City's Honey
Creek drainage as well as the future overall subregional service needs.'
EARL Y PLANNING
• The current project was identified in the Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage and Drainage Survey 1956-1958 as
part of the plan to serve the South Lake Washington basin.
• In 1977 a design for the May Creek Sewer Interceptor was prepared by King County Water District No. 107.
• Extension of a King County Metro interceptor up May Creek was projected to be included in King County
Metro's capital expansion program in about "10 years".
CITY OF RENTON SERVICE AREA PROBLEMS
In recent years, the City of Renton has experienced flows from the Honey Creek service area exceeding the
capacity of the City's Sunset pumping station.
The problems with capacity of existing facilities and high growth rate in the Honey Creek service area led the
City of Renton to identify the need for the May Creek Interceptor earlier.
PREDESIGN PHASE I
While the,focus of the King County METRO project is the May Creek alignment, other alternatives were
investigated in the Phase I Predesign effort completed in 1994.
Regulatory and technical issues affecting the alignment along May Creek proved difficult and the on-line date
of 1993 anticipated earlier could not be met.
The project team recognized even before the onset of the project that environmental regulation would be a
significant factor. It was decided that in Phase 11 of the Predesign effort, through a full Environmental Impact
Statement process, all reasonable alternatives would be identified and initially screened to reveal the impact of a
variety of technical, regulatory and public issues on each alternative.
PREDESIGN PHASE 11
Phase 11 of the Predesign began this Spring and includes tasks to not only complete an E18 on the proposed King
County METRO May Creek project but also to assess the broader subregional service needs with the RWSP
standards and planning assumptions.
The basin characterization and the initial technical evaluation of subregional options will be completed in late
1995. 2
' The attached maps describe the overall May Valley Study area from which the subregional service area will be
determined.
2 The attached summary schedule includes the basin characterization (task 800) and the initial technical
evaluation effort.
�.� �i
�/►�
� �
�� m
�
a
� o ��
�
� �%
� �
�
��` _�`,
� ; � �'__ � � ,c
�, ��..
i� ..
,,`,
,_ ---
`� �J _
�� � � �
�-�l
��
� J
-y �i
��
i
� I'
� �
� I
G
�
-
�
�
�
0
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.
�
a
�
�
�
� -��-�---�
-�=� , P h_ �
�\�t�� �
�� � -, .
..�.�
i
� ' �
� -
_ "�: � ; � �
�M
i
� -- ;
�
., , .
_ `��
�' � 1 '
� �
�,
�{
�
.� d �
� ���.
` °� �
_ .�, .a.
I
— ___ � �;.�;
��-�=
� �
�
'� �y ilY}N�irs
4 �
e ��
<<s�
-:.....
r.i..•� w.�
\ _ �
Y �
I�' T
:;;:mrTAo
4C ing. ('au9> n±�{wnnent or Meu, Tn�itm, se,vicea
�
,.
�-
, ' __
��
�
� i Metro and Adjecent
i _Facilities
��._. L _
�� . . . o - -- ---� --- — ---
��_1— (� 1 �......... �- � �„�
L� I�
� �........, ,� � � ..._.
— �- � , �
� ����z��.�
� �,, _
-- :
,- o
� f
� '
^ "
Y
T wr
May Valley Project Study Area
� �,
� , � ;� � �
�� _' " � � � 'Z �� ���_
' ���� �..a-r. ,
Me�er J _ a �,o,a - -
� � Aemr4 � � � C�
Island � � � d `� �" -_ 4� � ,�� _ _�
r� ��k' � �' .... __� �;�ti� f �'
� . -��� ^ ' � .
I / , : � - � 7.-��- [,� ` , '{ //'
� � ; ,�_ �, � '�' �� -�
��
: ,�.
��
� , ,
$d�eol ,. �� ' � �r ..
in � � i �I � �r-- � r, �, �_ �•�. ti
� �J �� r� L.
r"' y � . � � � /
, .,-�
�3
i�� � •.� �. �..�.5 „y � � � I .
L
� � � 1V�`�ewcdstle - - ��i� I �� s �. � a h
-- ��� � � �� � � � - -
, � ' � � �
`; � � � -- -- - , � I �
�� ��� � �
; ' I � �.
��� � M. �,
� � �._ i
��. � ' �
; � �,.�. _
_ r'_ / � ri.i ��
.. _ ' � , ~� —�`'��
; I
t o n _ -�G �--i. , ��
� � �. � _ . ' � �� l
? ----,`�"
_ � \
7---i � �°�
' � / '� . _r"— " �
, _ _ � , �-�-- �,
, , �
_
,
I . � � 'a: � - `• - .
'. � M�vtwd+� . -- •- :. '�.
__.' �
; y- . �; \ - - -" ,
� ���--- . � �, L _ - , -
.� a��� �� � � � .-�_ `i - _`,
i :;;:meTAo
�, tiinc couacy nepua�eat af Meaoponcan srn�ias
I� �-�.. �-�-, �.�......_,
I� n, / r.. ,� rr...
i�; �.� � w..,.�
_, u ""'"'
N►'n � _� °"...... ',�� { ..� r
�y
� �_
� � _.._._------.-�
May Valley Project Study Area
Contours
� . �G �
I �..� � _ ' . - {,
_ — E�
Me�er � . , '�.,r. '' `, - �-
- , � ,� - r
Island ' � ` � '°'�` `�,���,; � � - � _ ,�
�' .
? ,, k �'� '� �, �,} � �
.f , , �' ,I �+ .
' i � .� , , . , �. '
f � � �. � ,1 �� -' F " -;�
e��� �{`�--',, - , r� - ~ � _
, � � . . �_.., i '
� + },�����
. , :�.,,, ,L���,�r ►'1 • ''°'�----, �_ �1�-r�
' �...�m,. �,J �- ` :�,. S" ` t . ,��J�' �
t
., . 1�� , ' , � .'��� —[,� � : '� . •'" • r �,� �
� � �t . 1 . y. r . �
, �5 � � • � � 1 � . � .__., ;-
� y . � � � i
�= �
_ IV"er,iicastlP ' y�—� -,�:�� �� � .� 9`�a/h ��
. .� ' �j . . , y� . . '' ` ,
, .,� t .-, . � `: .tr i � . , � ,
•.a ,l ' s . � . . �i1�,._ �. . � �,.j _1
• �
, r�dr , �. . � � e + . . _ �!° �r -.; �� i �. r ''
! �
+1s+ �;:.�w� . {�..;,� `t".�^ _ f ` i. - � . K Yu � � -
� T
• 1 ^ �� � ^ � t, � • . . . - �� � . �# } � _T� �,
,. �u� , , J _� � � � ` �. , co.tr.0 �.- � �r t'�'��..y1 '� �-�,� fl._�. (
� � ;, w.. � � : a.";:
_ . . � :h' � a .�, , �
f , . • • . � `, � , ' f �s�
� ; " �. r .
�--., , . � , � � ;,�: .:
( � , � J� � � � ' � . . . ' w . . � + .�t
, � ' . ` `• �. ` � �
� t �S
� � , , � _ � 1 (� �� (`�i?. � x �,..- .
\I �\ fi �^� O 1! r- `"� :'•,�.� : — _ �
,-r : - �, , :, r
� r '�'" ..� � � � , ^ � �
�pIF - �
r—' � �y�
\
i '
� _ '; � ,
- . .y . f __. � ... .
. ' �' . -r �. " .:'
'` .
�-s
� '�,iy�'�,r�y-�dj'+A;..'.�•� �.- � � ._ �.' ._
� � �.. . . ..� .♦ . �: � ♦
_� MqEpN -� .. ' ' ... +: �' - . -..
- � � �
] � i � - , . ' � �
,�
`
?i s_.L_ ssr • ` �
ar.r.� ��, t;
i �
; :;;:meTwo
� liing Cuunry peparnnenc of Mnuopoitan Servicee
�l--� - —
����i�l�����i�
�l�����■■■C�■��
�� � ��
��! ,:1��! �i
i#;!�ttl�ta�tt
�� i������n■�❑■�c��
I � i
� a�
ao
�V
I � �
!� � �
�
V �
�� �
L �
a�
� �
� ��
� �
� .�
� �
� W
� . -.:
; �# .. � .� �,��:,�
�� • � �� �, �. s
_� N�r �.. �7 .� ��
a'M"J�� �.. � : nq,• - - � � i -
�1 �� ��'� lr' 4 iL? 4 � � � ��';y{�.'i!
-g�;�-" � TM�� �A� ��� �
' . ! i �.��� ^^'�a7, � r.'�- F ' �.�6-�' i ti_ .
�� ��� � �
{. , .��... :` '� �. . c ��. .Y ' . _-�n
� •��ti � ,_- � e •�
� ,
, ''�;�., � ' ��,y�;, � �. '"� „�
:x;a,,. i r � � � : ,z � �� r _ � ti _�;:
�'1�t ., � _ � �. W ,s .
,; R .�.. y n �. � . � 4
� , �f,�,. ;t'
, t..
;
�. �l
�
1
, , .� . � ��" ,r F ,..a ,�
� �» r�
-$;'�a¢ � w ' ' ' r_ � � :•,��. •.•' � ,S
� t� � ..ti � �
•� , ��s,��„ . . . .
ti� .r -.}c^ f . � ,s' * ••/r .
. i'yi ` .:�',� ( �• �S ���'p � M �' { .. .5•.
' . !� �� . i7 i h . -'.%. �W.� � ' {�`y . ✓ �� '• . I� y 4 � . W
s�
� � • t .- �,F � � � ��t�i, rs
�
¢{�.e � ��y ,. _, �r , . �. . . .� , • i �fw 4, ,
' ; ���:t/� Y �:Y��.. K� ' . } 1 if Y 11Y� . _
�C
.�. }1 .' �,� . • . . .._ � � �,
A �� � I
i . � ,} ., '
�a� � :. -✓ ��. '.� , �r � � Ar • .
y..i4•M�� �-7 � � ��...�
. . ,1 sa� � }��•�-ti.��: fTt•. �,`-'T` ":Ar .`�e
� `f� , �.� r � � � � �.. 4 � .. S f . �'�'.. . �. ■ 'Ji tN . ,
i yF. �'T � . �sy�:" o-t:.'�.�y- � TY��`: F, • { c � _ �%.%.��.
s.• w i. ?' r � a,
� 4 � _. x �. � �' T • . �;,
var�K a�, � • a ��. �,���,. �,
ry � � v , s e .: �,��.... ,
� 2yP,� _ , f � '�G�r , � A.., � K t�� �� _`� i .
�� . � �r�� �J 'F ���.
��" ;_ «.. �"� �► ��� � � � , r ,g. . �
x '�_ "''' ." � �' ` ' ^ , � .
�� ��,3 .. , �r `, _ � ,
�, � . r . �x `,�� ,�.
. �.1 . . : �,, �
�'.. ' ._ ,. _ .._ ..�'�
i �
B
�
�
�
�
O�
a�
�
E�
r►. �
�
-�-
�
ilft
�;��
,, ►
; �;
i�lt
,,
i�;:
�+il
:j
�iil�
..,,:
� ._.
May lfaliey Project Study Area
Subbasins
�
f
�
�
�
,ti.
r_J
\``
� �
:;;:mETwo
xing cuunn [hpartrnent of Me�opoli„� Sm�oes
MAY VALLEY
I.D.
1
2
11
30
57
s2
66
80
90
130
143
May Valley Project Phases II, 111 8� IV
Contract Amendment Phase II
Planning/Predesign Phase II
EiS E�rncesti T2p(? 7?0[; 1 T?QO 2�
Survey/ROWlMap (T-300)
Geotech. evaluation (T-400)
Predesign/Engineering (T-500)
Pref'd Alt. PredesignlEngr (T-500.1►
Final Design Engineering Phase III
Construction Contracting
Construction Phase IV
Project May Valley
Date: 9/1/95
L:;MVENV.MPP 9/1/95 9:39AM
Task
Critical Task
Progress
__
INTERCEPTOR PROJECT DRAFT SCHEDULE
1994 - --- 1995 �—T 1996 -- 1997 1998 --- -1 ` -
Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 � Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 G�tr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 r Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 T Qtr 2�
��
. w
��
�T��j Milestone
_ : . . _.. . . _ . Summary
Rolled Up Task
� Rolled Up Critical Task � -�4 �'..��
Rolled Up Mlestone
,_ '' —:—� Rolled Up Progress
Page 1
MAY VALLEY
I.D.
1
2
11
30
57
62
66
80
90
130
143
May Valley Project Phases II, III � IV
Contract Amendment Phase II
Planning/Predesign Phase II
EIS {)roc=r55 iT200 T2L}l1 1 '?�)f' �:
Survey/ROW/Map (T-3001
Geotech. evaluation (T-400►
PredesignlEngineering (T-500)
Pref'd Alt. Predesign/Engr (T-500.1)
Final Design Engineering Phase III
Construction Contracting
Construction Phase IV
INTERCEPTOR PROJECT DRAFT SCHEDULE
i9 � 2000 � 2001 I 2002 � 2003 I 2004
Qtr 3�Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 rQtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 j Qtr 3 Cltr 4 Qtr 1 T Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3
��
Task Milestone
Project: May Valley -- -
Date: 9/1/95 Critical Task ___ � Summary
Progress Rolled Up Task
L: IMVENV.MPP 9/1/95 9:39 AM
�
Page 2
Rolled Up Critical Task �:�' �.��'�
Rolled Up Milestone
Rolled Up Progress
August 30, 1995
Bob Peterson, A.I.C.P.
King County Department of Metropolitan Services
821 Second Avenue - M/S 81
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
/ /
��
/� ����' � "`►
� �r��i
_
r
i
/
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR INTERIM SOLUTION PROPOSAL
Dear Bob:
As you have requested, this letter will explain the City's basis for a Metro participation of $636,143 toward
the interim solution.
The amount of $636,143 was based on a 50% participation to replace the City's Sunset Lift Station, 2,230
linear feet of force main and 3,355 linear feet of downstream gravity sewer line at an estimated cost of
$1,272,286. This option was originally chosen because it was the least expensive, had the fewest
environmental constraints, and would increase the capacity of the existing sewer system to handle the flows
projected for the year 2000 which would allow King Counry Metro more time [o install the May Creek
Interceptor.
Upon further review, the City has decided that it would be in it's best interest to replace the existing Sunset
Lift Station and force main with a gravity sewer line. Since this new solution will require lines up to 40 feet
deep, the original estimate has increased to approximately $3.2 million. This gravity line will be sized to
provide capacity to the Honey Creek subbasin at saturation thereby eliminating Renton's reliance on the May
Creek Interceptor for this subbasin's sewer needs and allowing King County Metro to study, design and
build the May Creek Interceptor on their own time schedule. As we have stated before, the feasibility of
constructing the May Creek line is questionable considering the current regulatory agencies stance of not
permitting the installation of utilities within sensitive areas such as the Honey and May Creek corridors.
While we prefer the Honey Creek/May Creek Interceptor methodology, the City's proposed project does not
require permits by the regulatory agencies, and, therefore, we believe that it is the best solution to provide
adequate capacity to our subbasin in a timely manner.
As you know, to fund this project the City applied for a Public Works Trust Fund Loan. Our project is
ranked number 15 on the 1996 preliminary list (see attached list). As part of the local agency funds, it was
anticipated that King County Metro would contribute $636,143 to the project (please refer to your copy of
the application). This would equate to a participation from King County Metro of approximately 20%. The
City believes this to be a fair level of contribution because it eliminates our need for the May Creek
Interceptor and relieves King County Metro of the pressure to install it in the near future. In considering a
commitment for this solution, Metro may wish to perform a present-worth savings such as the one that was
shown in William Nitz's letter dated December 1993 (copy attached) since the estimated project cost for the
May Creek Interceptor has increased significantly since the original calculation was performed in 1993.
Please review our proposal and notify us of your response. If you have any questions, please contact John
Hobson at (206) 277-6179 or Dave Christensen at 277-6212.
Sincerely,
Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
H: DOCS:95-735:JDH:ps
Enclosures
CC: Bill Nitz, Metro
Ron Olsen
Dave Christensen
John Hobson
R40
Earl Clymer, Mayor
September 1, 1995
Bob Peterson, A.I.C.P.
King County Department of Metropolitan Services
821 Second Avenue - M/S 81
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK 04TERCEPTOR 1NTERIM SOLUTION PROPOSAL
Dear Bob:
As you have requested, this letter will explain the City's basis for a Metro participation of $636,143 toward
the interim solution.
The amount of $636,143 was based on a 50% participation to replace the City's Sunset Lift Station, 2,230
linear feet of force main and 3,355 linear feet of downstream gravity sewer line at an estimated cost of
$1,272,286. This option was originally chosen because it was the least expensive, had the fewest
environmental constraints, and would increase the capacity of the existing sewer system to handle the flows
projected for the year 2000 which would allow King County Metro more time to install the May Creek
Interceptor.
Upon further review, the City has decided that it would be in it's,best interest to replace the existing Sunset
Lift Station and force main with a gravity sewer line. Since this new solution will require lines up to 40 feet
deep' the original estimate has in ' creased to approximately $3.2 million. This gravity line will be sized to
provide capacity to the Honey Creek subbasin at saturation thereby eliminating Renton's reliance on the May
Creek Interceptor for this subbasin's sewer needs and allowing King County Metro to study, design and
build the May Creek Interceptor on their own time schedule. As we have stated before, the feasibility of
constructing the May Creek line is questionable considering the current regulatory agencies stance of not
permitting the installation of utilities within sensitive areas such as the Honey and May Creek corridors.
While we prefer the Honey Creek/May Creek Interceptor methodology, the City's proposed project does not
require permits by the regulatory agencies, and, therefore, we believe that it is the best solution to provide
adequate capacity to our subbasin in a timely manner.
As you know, to fund this project the City applied for a Public Works Trust Fund Loan. Our project is
ranked number 15 on the 1996 preliminary list (see attached list). As part of the local agency funds, it was
anticipated that King County Metro would contribute $636,143 to the project (please refer to your copy of
the application). This would equate to a participation from King County Metro of approximately 20%. The
City believes this to be a fair level of contribution because it eliminates our need for the May Creek
Interceptor and relieves King County Metro of the pressure to install it in the near future. In considering a
commitment for this solution, Metro may wish to perform a present -worth savings such as the one that was
shown in William Nitz's letter dated December 1993 (copy attached) since the estimated project cost for the
May Creek Interceptor has increased significantly since the original calculation was performed in 1993.
Please review our proposal and notify us of your response. If you have any questions, please contact John
Hobson at (206) 277-6179 or Dave Christensen at 277-6212.
Sincerely,
� AIM a -AA ONWAI ---
Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
H:DOCS:95-735:JDH:ps
Enclosures
CC: BRI Nitz, Metro
Ron Olsen
Dave Christensen
John Hobson
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
Earl Clyrper,'Mayor
July 25, 1995
Bob Peterson, A.I.C.P.
KingCounty Department of Metropolitan Services
821 Second. Avenue'-M.S. 81
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
CITY."OF-R-ENTON
Planning/Building/Pu.blic Works Department.
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., -Administrator
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR INTERIM SOLUTION PROPOSAL
Dear Bob:
The enclosed data. is for -your information in response to your letter of May 8, 1995. The
information below or on the enclosed material corresponds to your questions *in your letter (copy
enclosed). I apologize for the delay in getting this information to you.
I Copies of the pertinent chapters from the City's 1992 Lbng-Range Wastewater
Management Plan and City of Renton Comprehensive Plan have been enclosed.
2. The basin contains Single Family, Multi Family and Commercial zon ' ing. The City's
projections for these years are based on the Puget Sound Regional Council sub -area
projections. Below are the projections of the number of units for each designation for
the listed years.
Single Family
Multi Family
Year
Units
Units
Total
Jobs
1990
1133
757
1891
466
2000
1307
758
2065
621
2010
1482
760
2242
776
2020
1657
762
2419
931
3. Please see the attached map for the specific subbasin boundaries (the enclosed disk
contains this map in autocad release 12 form).
4. The design criteria for this project was derived from the City's 1992 Long -Range
Wastewater Management Plan, Land Use Plan and Inflow and Infiltration Study.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
Bob Peterson-, King County Departm&nt 6f.Metropolitan Services
.Honey Creek Inter.cepto'r�ln_terim'Solutiori Proposal
Page 2
5. For a copy of the .1994 flow monitoring, please contact Steve Kluzman of your
department.
6. -The f6llowing is a list of alternatives that the. City and their consultant considered to
handle the projected future flows from the subbasin. Please use the following table in
conjunction with the enclosed 'Map entitled "Interim Honey Creek Improvements"..
All Scenarios Using the City's Sewer Model, peak flow from the Honey Creek'Basin to. the
Sunset Lift Station is calculated to be_1�070 gallons per minute (gpm).
The subbasin's Inflow. and. Infiltration 0/1) will'be reduced 50 %, from 14,875
gallons per inch -diameter per mile (gpidm) to 7,438 gpidm. Tlis will be
accomplished through the City's I on -going 1/1 reduction program.
Scenario No. 1 30% of flow directed to the Devils Elbow, Lift Station; 321 gpm plus 191 gpm
from direct local 'flows equal.'512. gpm (400 gpm max. rate of existing lift
sta . ti6n). -'Result: New Lift Station Required. -
'Remaining 70% of flow directed to the Sunset Lift Station; 749 gpm (500 gpm
max. rate of existing lift station). Result: New Lift Station Required..
Required PipeReplacement:
2,445 ft. -of ' 10" dia.
540 ft.-of 12" dia.
1,634 ft. of 15" dia.
50ft. of 18" dia.
2,239 of 10" dia. force main.
Scenario No. 2 0% of flow directed to the Devils Elbow Lift Station; 191 gpm from direct
local,flows (400 gpm max. rate of existing lift station). Result: Existing Lift
Station Sufficient.
100% of flow directed to the Sunset Lift Station; 1,070 gpm (500 gpm max.
-rate of existing lift station). Result: New Lift Station Required..
Required Pipe Replacement:
1,525 ft. of 10" dia.
1,830 ft. of 12" dia.
2,230 of 10" dia. force main.
Scenario No. 3 100% of flow directed to the Devils Elbow Lift Station; 1,070 gpm plus 191
gpm from direct local flows equal 1,231 gpm total (400 gpm max. -rate of
existing lift station). Result: New Lift Station Required.
0% of flow directed to the Sunset Lift Station; 0 gpm (500 gpm max. rate of
existing lift station). Result: Existing Lift Station Sufficient.
.B.6b Peterson, King County Department of metropolitan Services
Honey Creek I I nterceptor Interim,Solution . Proposal*
Page 3
Required Pipe Replacement:
lj8ll ft. of 10" dia.
200 ft. of 12" dia.
696 ft. of 15" dia.
2168 ft of 18" dia.
50 ft of 24" dia.
2,175 of 10" dia. force main.
Scenario No. 4 63% of flow directed to the Devils Elbow Lift Station; 670 gpm plus 191 gpm
from direct local flows equal 861 gpm total (400 gpm max. rate of existing lift
station). Result.- New Lift Station Required.
37% of flow directed to the Sunset Lift Station; 400 gpm (500 gpm max. rate
of existing lift station). Result: Existing Lift Station Sufficient.
Requited Pipe Replacement:
1,084 ft. of 10" dia.
1,643 ft. of 15" dia.
850 ft of 18" dia.
2,175 of 10" dia. force main.
7. The City used bid tabulations from previous projects to estimate costs for this project.
These bid t�abulations have been enclosed.
8. A copy of the City's Public Works Trust Fund Loan Application for this project has
been enclosed.
9. The explanation for the 50/50 cost share will be forwarded to you following review by
the City's Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator.
If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 277-6179.
Y,
— V �
D. Hobson
ewater Utility
H:DOCS:95-649JDH:ps
Enclosures
:;;:mETRo
King County Deparlment of Metropolitan Services �
Fxchange Building • 821 Seo�nd Ave. • Seattle, WA 9810+�--1598 •(Z06) 684-1280
May 8, 1995
John D. Hobson ' � �'.a\,�` � : r � � �°"� � � r
Wastewater Utility '`��'� ' «'
City of Renton , �� � � -� ,;�95
Planning/Building/Public Works Department '
200 Mill Avenue South ',�jTGN
Renton, Washington 98005
'�.-,r,s�
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR INTERIM SOLUTION PROPOSAL
Dear John:
As we discussed a few weeks ago, I am forwarding an initial set of questions on the above proposal that was sent to King
County Metro on March 2, 1995. These questions are essential to beginning Water Pollution Control's deliberation on
participating in the City's recommended interim solution to the capacity needs of the Honey Creek Subbasin.
To reiterate, King County Metro is aware of the timing and capacity concerns of the Honey Creek system and hopes to work
cooperatively with you to solve these problems. In that regard, your prompt response to the following will help METRO staff
to better discuss your proposal with our managers.
1. Which specific adopted comprehensive plans did you use in your planning? Please forward copies of the particular
chapters and data that you used?
2. What is the specific land use in terms of residential, commercial and industrial population that you assumed for the
years 2000, 2010 and 2020? How do these compare to the recent Puget Sound Regional Council subarea projections
for these same years.?
3. What is the extent of boundaries of the specific subbasin that you are considering in this proposal? Please provide a
map showing the specific area....lt would be preferable if you could send this as a digital file.
4. What are the specific design criteria that you developed for this project as noted in the predesign scope of work for the
project?
5. Please forward the results of the flow monitoring that you completed in 1994 and your subsequent analysis.
6. What other alignment and/or technological alternatives (pump or gravity for example) did you consider in proposing the
March 2, 1995 solution? Did other alternatives include off loading all flows from the subbasin? If not, what part of the
flows were considered?
7. Please forward the specific source information and references used to develop the project costs as forwarded with your
March 2, 1995 proposal.
8. What is the result of your recent request for permanent project funding to the Washington State Local Public Works
Trust Fund? Please forward a copy of that application.
9. What is the basis of the 50% King Counry Metro share that you propose in your March 2, 1995 letter?
John, there undoubtedly will be other questions that our management will ask, but I am sure answers to the questions above
will move us further along the decision path.
Thank you in advance for your prompt response. Please let me know if you have any questions
' /y' -
,
�C Q� L�
Bob Peterson
Facility Planning
an�.00c
CC: BIII NItZ
.!CITY'OF kENTON
Planni.ng/Building/Public Works Department
Earl C.1yrrier, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,.Administrator
April 28, 1995
Bob Peterson, A.I.C.P.
King County Department of Metropolitan Services
821 Second Avenue, M.S. 81,
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK SEWER INTERCEPTOR INTERIM SOLUTION; SCHEDULE
Dear Bob:
Below is the City's project schedule for the Honey Creek Sewer Interceptor Interim
Solution. ' As you are aware, the City expects to run out of sewer capacity in' the
Honey Creek subbasin by the end of 1996.
City/Metro Agreement
Review, Comment and Approval June, 1.995 to November, 1995
Agreement Signed
Preliminary- Engineering
Obtain Permits and SEPA Process
Design Engineering
Right-of-way Acquisition
Prepare Bid Documents
November, 1995
November, 1995 to Mid January, 1996
Mid February, 1996 to May, 1996
Mid January, 1996 to May, 1996
Mid February, 1996 to Mid June, 1996
May, 1996 to Mid June, 1996
Award Construction Contract June, 1996
Construction Mid July, 1996 to March, 1997
If you have questions, please call me at (206) 277-6179.
corely,
�ohn D. Hobson
Wastewater Utility
H;DOCS:95-358:JDH:ps
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189
FAX: 235-2541
Company: �45Trzr
Phone:
Fax: 6aO�-5)19
.From:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
Date: A-Trzi 190t-��
Pages including this
cover page:
Comments:
-4+0�4�Y CfZ4215--� lt-i-Q�Mt
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189
FAX: 235-2541
To : ►�'Id►.� �I - ��►��, T;�T-
Company: I`�erzz�
Phone: �v�84-- i���S
Fax: �84-I-7to
From: �a� -�as��.l,
� Company:
Phone: 2�t-1-� ��`�
Fax:
Date: 5�2� 15
Pages including this
cover page: 2,
Comrnents:
Earl Clymer, Mayor
March 2, 1995
William E. Nitz, Capital Projects Supervisor
Metro - MS 83
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
CITY'OF �RENTON
Planning/Buil ' ding/ , Public Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
SUBJECT: MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT; INTERIMSOLUTION FOR
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
Dear Bill:
This letter is to outline the City's -recommendation for an interim solution to the capacity needs
of the Honey Creek Subbasin. As you are. aware, this subbasin requires imp . roved service by
the . end of 1996 to avoid potential overflows. Since it appears that the May Creek Interceptor
may not be constructed in time to provide adequate capacity for * the subbasin, it is . the City's
desires to upgrade the existing Honey Creek system to handle these flows.
The City is recommending 'the rebuilding of the Sunset Lift Station, it's f6rce main and the
downstream gravity main line along Sunset Blvd. NE from Union.'Avehu6 NE to Harrington
Avenue NE (scenario .2 on the attached map). This 'Would, provide -the. needed capacity. for the
Honey Creek Subbasin until the year 2000.. This: alignment was 'chosen for the following
reasons:
0) This option is the most cost effective.
0 This option is the only one which would not. require permits from the
Washington State Departments. of Fisheries and, Ecology. Any
improvements to the Devils Elbow Lift Station, because of its. proximity to
Honey Creek, will require these permits.
The Devils Elbow Lift Station's force main is locatedin NE 27th Street.
This street is located on an unstable hillside which has failed in the past.
Geotechnical concerns would have to be addressed if this alignment were
used.
(A) The recommended alignment would replace all. of the sewer pipe from the
Sunset Lift Station to Harrington Avenue NE in one contiguous run. All
other options would require improvements to non-contiguous portions of
the downstrearn pipe systems which may i ncrease construction costs.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington.98055
-Willi :Nitz, Metro
i am
May.Valley Interceptor Project
Page 2
The City believes that the recommended. improvements provide the minimum capacity needed
until the year. MOO. The City also believes* it would be in. it's best interest to construct these
facilitie's to accommodate the Honey Creek Subbaslin at, saturation. Saturation is expected to be
achieved by 2014.
As part -of the- Memorandum of Agreement, whichwas prepared for the Phase III expansion of
',the East Divisiorf Plant, construction of the May Valley Interceptor was include,d.in recognition
of the need t6provide sufficient sewer capacAy.'f9r--the Honey Creek.'Sub.ba'sin: and May Creek
letter"dated May 16, 4994. .�Gi�en Metro's. initial'..
Basin. This premise was supported in your.
commitment. to this" project as part of.the'MOA'-and your' letter. acknowledging the need -to.,
provide an interim solution, the City is requesting that Metro -ftind 'fifty percent of the.
construction costs for'the interim solution. Th&.total construction cost of.the preferred option is
approximately $1-1272,285. Metro's portion of`.the costs -would -be approximately. $636,143.
I co'str-uction costs to increase the size'of
Engineering costs for the project, and the additiona . n
the system to prov ide sufficient capacity -for the.yqar- 2014, would be' -funded entirely by the
City. Cost estimates for all of the bptions..has been attached.
Please review this proposal and let us know your response. We appreciate your continued
cooperation and assistance on issues related to. the Memorandum of Agreement.
Thank you.
Sinc* erely,
e qq
Gregg ZimmIrkan
Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works, Department
H:DOCS:95-189:JDH:ps
Attachments
CC: David Christensen
John Hobson
'R
Earl Clymer, Mayor
January 5, 1994
Mr. Bill Nitz, Capital Projects Supervisor
Metro - MS 83
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA -.98104-,1598
CITY OF RENTON
Planii-ing/Building'/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
SUBJECT- MAY VALLEY AND HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECTS
Dear Bill:
Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1993 outlining your response to our April 30,
1993. request to "re -prioritize" the pumping option 6s a preferred alternative. You
suggested that Metro *rnay be able to apply present worth savings (nearly $400,000)
towards a pumping alternative based upon the next anticipated need of the facilit y
being approximately 2010. This conclusion must be based upon an anticipated ability
to construct such a facility. Given ' the strong response by the regulatory agencies not
to permit such activities as the installation of utilities within the Honey Creek and May
Valley corridors due to the sensitive nature of these corridors, especially in respects to
fish habitat, it is in the City's opinion justifiable to state that the originally scoped
methodology of constructing the Honey Creek and May Valley Interceptors through this
sensitive corridor is not feasible at this time..
Given the infeasi * bility,?f constructing the May Valley facility discussed in the MOA, it
is the City's opinion that in the spirit and intent of the MOA, Metro should commit to
providing a solution to the City's capacity restraint within the Honey Creek Subbasin
through other alternatives such as the pumping alt * ernatives identified in- the
alternatives analysis report prepared by Brown and Caldwell for the City and Metro.
The City has evaluated, from a cost standpoint, the level of participation needed from
Metro. The amount varies from $1.1 million to $1.0-million depending upon the
pumping alternative. This equates to a match to the City's participation varying from
35% to 41 % accordingly. Attached are the worksheets derived by the City (utilizing
data from Brown and Caldwell) that puts total anticipated costs to the two alternatives
that the City feels have the most potential for construction. As these figures represent
a preliminary cost estimate,, the City feels their greatest worth are to establish the cap
of Metro's participation as well as the percentage of total project participation. As
such, it is the City's intent to have Metro participate in alternative one, if.selected, at a
percentage of 35% of total project cost not to exceed $1.1 million. If alternative two
is selected then Metro would participate at a percentage of 41 % npt to exceed $ 1.0
million.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
THIS PAPER cot�rrAHNS 50c,'�, RFC-YCLFD MATERLAI.. 10M, POSTCONSUMER
The City also understands through conversations with Metro, Metro's desire to meet
the needs of the remaining service area, and as such the City is willing to evaluate the
potential to provide the capacity to meet the future needs of that service area within
the proposed pump station system. This will be considered, with the condition that
Metro would be fully responsible for all costs associated with providing additional
capacity to the system above the needs for the City's service area.
Thank you for your continued participation in this discussion and I look forward to
Metro's response to this correspondence.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (206)
277-6212.
incerely,
st'6nse'n-------� -
11-avid M--Phrli
WasteW-ater Utility Supervisor
H:DOCS:94-013:DMC:ps
CC: Gregg Zimmerman
Attachment
�Alternative No. I
Put Sun*set Lift Station on standby and rebuild Devil's Elbow
for full capacity, including
downstream gravity improvements in conjunction with East Kennydale
Interceptor.
Fm Option 2 and 3 (use costs for Option 2)
Construction Cost Estimate:
Devil's Elbow Lift Station Replacement
$850,000
Devil's Elbow Force Main Replacement
$139,000
Gravity System to Metro.
$1,092,000
Channel Restoration
$60,000
Demolition
$40,000
Total Construction Cost:
$2.181,000
20%'Contingency
$436,200
25% Engineering
545,250
Total Project Cost
$3,162,450
BUDGET:
Honey Creek Phase IV
$1,200,000
E. Kennydale Interceptor
$770,000
East Valley Lift Station
$105,000
$2,075,000
Potential Metro Share
$1,087,450
Say
$1,100,000
Alternative N o. 2:
Utilizing both. Sunset Lift Station and Devil's Elbow 'Lift Station
(FM - Option 5A and 5B.
Option 5A puts. most flows in Sunset Blvd. Lift Station and
minimizes flow to Devil's
Elbow. Option 5B optimizes flows to both stations.
Construction Cost Estimate:
FM - Optio*n 5A - Emphasis on Sunset
Sunset Lift Station Replacement
$875,000
Sunset Force Main Replacement
$112,000
Sunset Gravity Main Replacement
$301,000
Devil's Elbow Lift Station Replacement
$347,000
Roadway Restoration
$270,000
Channel Restoration
$60,000
Construction
$1,965,000
20% Contingency
$393,000
Engineering (25%)
$491,250
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$2,849,260
BUDGET:
Honey Creek Phase IV
$1,200,000
East Kennydale Interceptor
$170,000
E. Valley Lift Station
$1.05,000
Metro Share:
$1,374,250
Say
$1,400,000
FM Option 5B - Equal division of flows:
Sunset Lift Station Replacement
$500,000.
Sunset Forcemain Replacement
$112,000
Sunset Gravity Main Replacement
$301,000
Devil's Elbow Lift Station Replacement
$455,000
Roadway Restoration
$270,000
Channel Restoration
$60,000
Construction:
$1,698,060
20% Contingency
$339,600
25% Engineering
$424,500
Total Project Cost:
$2,462,100
BUDGET: Honey Creek Interceptor Phase V $1,200,000
E. Kennydale Interceptor
$ 170,000
E. Valley Lift Station
105,000
$1,475,000
METRO SHARE:
$ 987,100
Say
$1,000,000
�
CONCURRENCE
DATE '
N�E /J INITIAVDA �
�s".�/JL�J ,�
January 5, 1994
G-oos� G!� or�.
Mr. Bill Nitz, Capital Projects Supervisor ,/,P�/� ��/%�,��
Metro - MS 83 ����
821 Second Avenue r,y���� /��C�i// .
Seattle, WA 98104-1598 f�
SUBJECT: MAY VALLEY AND HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECTS
Dear Bill:
Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1993 outlining your response to our April 30,
1993 request to "re-prioritize" the pumping option as a preferred alternative. You
suggested that Metro may be able to apply present worth savings (nearly 5400,000)
towards a pumping alternative based upon the next anticipated need of the facility
being approximately 2010. This conclusion must be based upon an anticipated ability
to construct such a facility. Given the strong response by the regulatory agencies not
to permit such activities as the installation of utilities within the Honey Creek and May
Valley corridors d �the sensitive nature of these corridors, especially in respects to
fish habitat, it i�� e City's opinion justifiable to state that the originally scoped
methodology of co structing the Honey Creek and May Valley Interceptors through this
sensitive corridor is not feasible at this time.
Given th �n�asibility of constructing the May Valley facility discussed in the MOA, it
is the City s opinion that in the spirit and intent of the MOA, Metro should commit to
providing a solution to the City's capacity restraint within the Honey Creek Subbasin
through other alternatives such as the pumping alternatives identified in the
alternatives analysis report prepared by Brown and Caldwell for the City and Metro.
The City has evaluated, from a cost standpoint, the level of participation needed from
Metro. The amount varies from S 1.1 million to $1.0 million depending upon the
pumping alternative. This equates to a match to the City's participation varyin from
35% to 41 % accordingly. A tached are the worksheets derived by the Cit uti�izing
data from Brown and Caldwell hat puts total anticipated costs to the two alte natives
that the City feels have the st potential for construction. As these figures represent
a preliminary cost estimate, the City feels their greatest worth are to establish the cap
of Metro's participation as well as the percentage of total project participation. As
such, it is the City's intent to have Metro participate in alternative one, if selected, at a
percentage of 35% of total project cost not to exceed 51.1 million. If alternative two
is selected then Metro would participate at a percentage of 41 % not to exceed S 1.0
million.
The City also understands through conversations with Metro, Metro's desire to meet
the needs of the remaining service area, and as such the City is willing to evaluate the
potential to provide the capacity to meet the future needs of that service area within
the proposed pump station system. This will be considered, with the condition that
Metro would be fully responsible. for all costs associated with providing additional
capacity to the system above the needs for the City's service area.
Thank you for your continued participation in this discussion and I look forward to
Metro's response to this correspondence.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (206)
277-6212.
Sincerely,
David M. Christensen
Wastewater Utility Supervisor
H:DOCS:94-013:DMC:pS
CC: Gregg Zimmerman
Attachment
Memo
February 2-2,1994
en
TO: Ken Madd
FROM: Bill Nitz
SUBJECT: Summary of May Creek meeting with.Gregg Zimmerman, Dave
Christensen on 2/17/94
Bill Burwell, Mann -Ling Thibert and I met with Gregg and Dave to discuss the May
Creek project. Bill Burwell had requested the meeting so that he could fully -
understand the City of Renton's objectives, problems they are attempting to solve,
and any concerns they may have about the way we are currently proceeding.
We had an excellent meeting, and I believe Bill (and we) understand Renton's goals
and concerns. I think that the meeting gave Bill an opportunity to talk about the
potential benefits of constructing a gravity line (stream improvements and
restoration, avoidance of pump stations and associated failures /overflows,
improved trail access to the area, etc.). We were able to hear Renton's objectives and
concerns. Briefly, they are the following:
1. They have a capacity problem at.their pump station, and feel that it will be
critical in approximately 2 years. Constructing a new pump station (and
associated system improvements) solves the capacity problem and also allows
them to solve a problem adjacent to May Creek with Renton's Kennydale
interceptor. The pump station alternative enables Renton to combine two
projects into one, and is a cost effective solution for them.
2. They have recent experiences with communities on projects in the Renton
area. Local conununities and individuals may view the gravity system as a
first step toward future growth, and also view the line as a potential financial
burden if sewer service leads to forcing abandonment of septic tanks. ' They
may not agree that the'Growth Management Act (not sewers) will control
growth. To summarize, they do not expect the communities to support the
gravity project, rather we should expect resistance and challenges.
I The City has recent experience with regulatory agencies on projects sin-dlar to
May/Honey Creek. Agencies (and their associated permitting authority ) who
have the potential to impact the project scope, schedule, and budget are:
"'OMIETRO Clean Water' A Sound Investment
• Washington State Department of Fisheries - we will need a permit to
work in and near the creek. We should not underestimate their ability
to delay construction. Their recent letter to us "encouraging" us to stay
out of the creek sets the tone for a lengthy process. Even if we
ultimately obta.in a permit it could be a long process, and have a
significant cost impact.
• LI. S. Army Corps of Eng-ineers - the City's recent experiences in
working in and adjacent to wetlands has caused them to be very careful
when evaluating and selecting alternatives for their projects. The
Corps evaluates available alternatives for projects. The Corps
"requires" the selection of other feasible solutions to avoid
construc:ion in wel3nds, and they do not consider financial impacts as
a criteria in determination of feasibility.
• King Caunty Surface Water Management - the City of Renton is
working with SWM on the May Creek basin plan. Renton's direct
knowledge of the basin plan gives them familiarity with the creek area
and the Count�s goals for future restoration and improvements to the
basin. The basin is viewed as an area that is very sensitive, slopes and
hillsides are unstable, and access should be discouraged. Metro's view
was that construction in the ravine could lead to positive trail and
access improvements. Gregg's opinion is that they would not be
supported as positive improvements, but would be viewed negatively
in order to protect the area from intrusion.
To summarize, Gregg is not optimistic that we will get cooperation and support
from the community and regulatory agencies. Resistance to the gravity sewer
option will likely delay our schedule and increase project cost to both Metro and
Renton.
We also briefly discussed the pump station option as it relaies to future sewer
service needs for the basin. The City of Renton is willing to work with Metro and
Water District 107 in an attempt to negotiate agreements and construct a pump
station that could provide for future service/capacity in the basin. Renton has
requested that Metro contribute 1 to 1.1 million dollars to the pump station
alternative. The amount may increase dependent upon the cost to provide
additional pumping capacity in the station.
I also explained to Bill Burwell and Gregg that you recently met with Vicki Fisher
and Greg Bush so that we could determine if the pump station alternative was
discussed during negotiation of the MOA. Greg and Vicki recalled that the
possibility of Metro contributing to the cost of a pump station was considered at that
time, but the gravity line was selected because it had the potential to provide Renton
� ,,�
�
ti with future revenue. I mentioned this because it can help us to understand why we
!' had discussions about May Creek during negotiation of the MOA, and to remember
that we are doing this project to help the City of Renton solve a problem at their
pump station. �
We had some discussion about our next steps. I expla.ined that a meeting was
scheduled with Daryl Grigsby and Carolyn Purnell to brief them on the project. We
anticipate that we will need to brief Gary Locke and probably Bruce Laing and Brian
Derdowski since the May/Honey Creek project could impact both districts. We want
to get a sense of how the council and the communities might react to the project
before we proceed with formal predesign.
We wrapped up by agreeing that it will take up to 60 days to do the following:
• Schedule tour(s) for regulatory agenci.es to discuss pros and cons of the gravity
option, and attempt to get a fix on permit hurdles, costs, etc.
• Meet with management and elected officials to get input on political
considerations.
• Get input from communities that would be impacted by the various
alternatives.
Our goal is to have agreement by April ISth on the preferred alternative for the
project. We agreed not to extend the deadline unless Renton requested us to do so.
Please talk to Mann-Ling or myself if you have any questions.
cc Dave Christensen, City of Renton
Mann-Ling Thibert
Bill Burwell
i'IiK-1�1-17'7�1 1G ��b Y-KUI'I tiKUWN 2� I.HLllW�LL `�tH I I Lt I U 'Jb�.35�541 F'. l7L'J1/l;�b.S
Post-It'" brand fax transmittai memo 7671 N of psQes ► j
�r
March 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVE CHRISTENSEN, CITY OF RENTON
MAN-LING THIBERT, METRO
FROM: MICHAEL O'NEAL
BROWIV AND CALDWELL
SUBJECT: MAY VALLEY/HONEY CREEK PROJECT SCHEDULE
As this project has delayed over the issues related to
considering the non-gravity sewer alternatives, no one has
taken a close look at the actual impact on the calendar. I
had started to believe that we were beginning to run out of
slack time; so in order to assess where we were we updated
the schedule. The schedule was updated for both the gravity
options and the pumping options since there are now apparent
some differences to implementing each approach.
In each case, once the "Phase I" decision is made the
predesign work and report must be completed. It is assumed
that this decision is made on April 15, 1994. We are now
convinced that a full EIS will be required for the gravity
approach but a(mitigated) SEPA is still appropriate for the
pumping options. We believe that d minimi�m of 10 months
will be required to complete an EIS. And then the full
original effort for acquiring permits will still be
required.
The duration of EIS, permitting and bidding have been
overlapped (perhaps optimistically) in the belief that
mitigation requirements can be resolved and negotiated
through a veiy proactive dialogue with the permitting
agents. At best then, construction of the gravity option
appears to now just fit into the end of 1996. Weather, and
specific final mitigatian requirements, could push
completion into 1997.
4Jhat is notable in the pumping option schedule is that the
design and construction durations are longer. This is
because the pumping approach is more complex with mechanical
systems and equipment selection/procurement. The SEPA,
design and permitting work have been overlapped to minimize
overall time. This project approach could within the surruner
of 2994.
Clearly, time is becoming critical ta having a project to
serve Honey Creek subbasin completed in 1994. We may have
already compromised this target, depending on the final
alternative selection. Please call if you have questions.
Task
.... ..........
Ay �M4
...... . . . . . . . .
..............
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Complete Phase I
Pre -Design
T
. . .
Complete Pre -Design
EIS
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
......
...
Final Design
* . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
LI
Permitting
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
LI
Bidding/Award
7
Notice to Proceed
Construction
City of Renton/Metro Schedule
Brown and Caldwell Proposed Schedule
-4
r:
Schedule Revised 3114/94
Gravity Option
A
Task III
Complete Phase I
Pre -Design
Complete Pre -Design
SEPA
Final Design
Permitting
Bidding/Award
Notice to Proceed
Construction
gMP&pIq-___ Me,
OMM City of RentorvMetro Schedule
Brown and Caldwell Proposed Schedule
Schedule Revised 3114/94
Pumping Option
���:IT1 �- ��
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Buildin� • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
December 1,1993
Mr. David W. Christensen
Wastewater Utility Supervisor
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98005
SUBJECT: May Valley and Honey Creek Subbasin Projects
Dear Dave:
This letter is a follow-up to our correspondence dated April 30 and June 9,
1993 concerning the subject projects. Renton's letter of April 30 requested that
Metro consider prioritizing the upgrade of two Renton pump stations and
constructing a new force main system as the preferred alternative for the May
Valley/Honey Creek project. Renton also requested that Metro consider
contributing up to 1.7 million dollars in our MOA to Renton for the upgrade
of the pump stations in lieu of proceeding with construction of a gravity line
in May Creek.
Metro's letter on June 9 states that Metro would need to conduct some
predesign evaluation of all alternatives, and would also need to determine if
and when a gravity line might need to be constructed by Metro at a future
date to serve the May Creek basin. The predesign has occurred and is
summarized in a"Phase 1" report. Metro has also evaluated future service
needs in the May Creek basin to consider when and if the gravity system
might need to be extended or upgraded.
The draft phase I predesign report has been reviewed by Metro and City staff
and discussed during a presentarion by the Consultant on October 28, 1993.
The technical issues, environmental impacts and input from affected agencies
have been discussed with Metro management in light of the City's preference
for the pumping station/forcemain alternatives. Metro agreed to accelerate
the May Valley project and commit to it in the MOA because it starts the
Honey Creek Subbasin project and constructs a project identified in our
comprehensive plan that would also enable us to provide service to the
remainder of the May Creek basin. The next request for service extension in
the May Valley is anticipated in the year 2010. Our concern with re-
prioritizing and committing 1.7 million dollars to the pumping
stadon/forcemain alternative is that there would be an additional cost to
Metro to extend the May Valley Interceptor in the future. We have
Water Pollution Contral Department •(206) 684-1280 • Clean Water—A Sound Investment
Mr. David W. Christensen
May Valley and Honey Creek Subbasin Projects
Page 2 -
concluded that the gravity interceptor extension is the only alternative to
which we can commit the 1.7 million dollars because it is the only one that
would serve the entire May Creek (May Valley) drainage as delineated in our
comprehensive plan.
Metro understands your concern about the reliability of your existing
pumping stations in the Honey Creek subbasin and the need to correct those
problems as quickly as possible. In the spirit of the MOA, we could consider a
commitment for this effort equivalent to the present -worth savings assuming
the May Valley Interceptor extension was constructed in the year 2010 as
opposed to now. A present -worth analysis indicates this value to be nearly
$400,000 0=3.8%, r=6%). We can discuss this further with you when we meet
on December 2, 1993.
Thank you for your support during the phase I predesign effort on this
project.
Sincerely,
azj�__Ie� (�'�
William E. Nitz
Capital Projects Supervisor
cc: Daryl Grigsby
Bill Burwell
Gunars Sreibers
Maryann Ness
Bob Hirsch
Ken Madden
Mann -Ling Thibert
��:1'T1ET�l7
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
June 9, 1993
Mr. David W. Christensen
Wastewater Utility Supervisor
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98005
D . (� �' ��� �
��
�Uid 14 1993
CI i'�( OF REND pN
E ngineering
SubjecE: Honey Creek Subbasin project; response to your letter of April
30,1993
Dear Dave:
Your letter of April 30th requested Metro to consider re-prioritizing the
preferred design alternative for the May Creek/Honey Creek project.
Specifically, you requested that Metro support "the City's recommendation
that the alternative of pumping flows from the Honey Creek Subbasin be
considered the preferred alternative during the design effort." Your letter
also asked Metro to consider committing 1.7 million dollars (presently in the
MOA for the May Creek project) to the pump station upgrade project.
Dave Dittmar and I met with John Spencer and his management team on
May 3rd. We shared your request with them and discussed how we should
proceed.
Our conclusion is that we will need to conduct some predesign analysis prior
to even considering abandoning or re-prioritizing the May Creek project.
May Creek is shown as a project in our current comprehensive plan. We
agreed to accelerate the project, and commit to it in the MOA, since it helps
the City of Renton solve a problem in the Honey Creek Subbasin and
constructs a Metro project that we would have done at some time in the
future. Our concern about re-prioritizing, and perhaps not constructing the
May Creek project, is that we will probably have to provide service capacity in
the subbasin at some time in the future at additional cost to Metro (over and
above the 1.7 million dollars). At the very least, we want to perform some
predesign analysis of the May Creek alternative that will: evaluate
community response to the proposal, consider input from other agencies, and
consider geotechnical information, cost, and environmental impacts.
I understand that you and Dave Dittmar are proceeding with contract
negotiations with Brown and Caldwell in a manner that is consistent with
WaterPollution Control Department •(206) 684-1280 • Clean Water—A Sound Investment
Mr. David W. Christensen
Honey Creek Subbasin, response to 4/30/93 letter
Page 2 of 2
our preferred approach. Metro does understand your concern about the
reliability of your two lift stations, and that you are anxious to arrive at a
project decision as quickly as possible. We are hopeful that we can conclude a
phase I predesign study on the May Creek alternative within 2 to 3 months,
and at that time will be in a better position to discuss a preferred alternative
and funding.
Thank you for your patience and support, and please contact Dave Dittmar or
me if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
���
William E. Nitz
Project Manager
WEN:tI
cc: Mr. John Spencer, Metro
Mr. Dave Dittmar, Metro
Mr. Bill Burwell, Metro
Mr. Ken Madden, Metro
Mr. Gunars Sreibers, Metro
Earl Clymer, Mayor,
April 30, 1993
Bill Nitz, Capital Projects Supervisor
Metro
821 Second Avenue South - MS 130
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
CITY OF. RENTON
Planniing/Building/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
Dear Dave:
Per our previous discussions, this letter serves as the City's initial position on the
.Honey Creek Subbasin Project. This provides a "starting point" for Metro and the City
to come t6agreement on a preferred approach to this project.
The primary intent of the. City. requesting Metro to elevate, in priority, the May Valley
Interceptor is to ensure that'sufficient capacity be 'available within the Honey Creek
.-Subbasin to meet future.demand from development within this subbasin. In addition,
the City -has great -concern over the reliability of the current Devil's Elbow and Sunset
Lift Stations currently being utilized to serve this subbasin.
Given that the. primary objective of t.his joi.nt.'project is to ensure.that sufficient
capacity is available within. the Honey Creek Subbasin,' the City is requesting that
Metro. evaluate the - City's proposal -to re -prioritize the design alternatives for this
project.. It is the City's'recommendation that the alternative of pumping the flows from
the Honey Creek.Subbasin into our Kennydale Subbasin be considered the preferred
alternative'during the.. predesign effort. The 'originally scoped *gravity alternative Will
also be evaduated, but in . a less detailed format.
This re-prioritzation.of. design alternatives is reliant upon a determination that Metro
. will continue.to dedicate its funds to this'project as presented. Methodoldgy for cost
sharing, would be that the City would cover the' initial 1.4 million in cost with Metro
covering all additional . costs in excess of 1.4 million, up to its initial commitment of 1.7
million to a'combined -total of 3.1'million. All costs in excess of the 3.1 million will be
equally split by the ' City and Metro. Currently our preliminary cost esiimate for
pumping alternatives range from 2.7 million to 3.5 million. ,
KEY ELEMENTS OF OUR PROPOSAL INCLUDE:
Establishing the pumping alternative as the preferred alternative with the gravity
alternative studied in less detail.
Pla ' ce Metro's ' proposed contract with Brown and Caldwell for the May Valley
Interceptor on hold (or eliminate it) and consolidate all work within the City's
contract.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
Bill Ni.tz, Metro
Honey Creek Subbasin Project Page 2
Re -scope the City's proposed contract with Brown and Caldwell to include the
pumping -alternative as , a preferred alternative, and to include within the
predesign report an evaluation of the gravity alternative for both the Honey
Creek and May Valley Interceptor.
Revise Metro's staff role to that of. review and approval of key elements of the
project including but not limited to:
Consultant Contract
Predesign Report
SEPA Submittal
Final Design Approval
-Approval of Contractor Bid
Final Acceptance of Project
Ownership of the new facilities, if a pumping alternative is selected would be by
the City'of Renton.
We feel this provides many benefits to the City. In addition, we feel it also will benefit
Metro' in two' key areas. First, it will greath reduce the amount of Metro staff time
y
-needed . to complete *this .. project by changing Metro's role to that of review and
Approval. instead of '.having direct responsibility. Jor, completing certain.. products.
Secondly, it permits.Metro to fully evaluate the need for any future extensions of the
May Nalley Interceptor without the urgency or need to provide 'service to thio'City's
Honey Creek Subba'sin.
I,n conclusion'. it'is the,-City's opinion that revising the projqct.as 'proposed in. this.letter
will. be mutually beneficial to' the City and Metro., '.In addition, Jt will greatly reduce
potential impacts to sensitive areas and not trigger potential impacts to future growth'.
areas.* The -City feels, strongly that the proposed methodology' for this project best
�uiilizes the funds currently. dedicated by both agencies in solving the future capacity
needs bf-the.CR''s 116ney. Creek Subbasin.
y
Thank.y6u-for your: consideration of this request. If you have any questions 'or 'require
additionaLiAtorma contact me at (206) 277-6212.
Wastewater Utility Supervisor
C:DOCS:93-439MI)s
qC: Lynn Guttmann
Gregg Zimmerman,
Paul Forsander
July 6, 1995
May Valley Service Options
Initial Alternative Identification and Screening
The following alternatives (or variants) -were identified from area mapping and
defined by traveling the routes by automobile. Each alternative was generally
defined in terms of alignment, grade (in order to distinguish approximate
length of force main and gravity pipeline segments), pumping station
locations, and special features or obstacles such as stream crossings, slope
descents, private property versus public right-of-way, and special construction
requirements.
Alternative 1 Gravity Sewer Along May Creek
This is the current project to serve May Valley service area as shown in the
current Metro Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan generally shows a
gravity sewer following the alignment of May Creek. For purposes of this
evaluation it is assumed that a gravity sewer will carry collected wastewater
from the service area east of Coal Creek Parkway on an alignment following
SE May Valley Road. This would permit most property in the May Valley
service area, east of Coal Creek Parkway, to be served by gravity.
Depending on depth of sewer construction along SE May Valley Road, some
properties adjacent to the creek may require pumping. The gravity sewer
would need to constructed either extremely deep or be located off the right-of-
way at an elevation comparable to the adjacent dwellings. This latter
approach is probably not feasible due to high construction cost, impact to
developed property and potential impact to the creek.
At the intersection with Coal Creek Parkway there is required a significant
descent into the valley in order to follow the creek alignment and avoid
extensive construction on slopes. This descent might best be made continuing
on an extension of May Valley Road until a drainage feature is encountered
that offers slightly flatter slopes for the descent than a direct descent to May
Creek at Coal Creek Parkway. The gravity sewer would follow grade at an
elevation not far above the creek for most of the length between Coal Creek
Parkway and Jones Avenue NE.
The entire alignment along May Creek, between Coal Creek Parkway and
Honey Creek (point of interface with the Phase 1 alignment study), will
encounter signficant environment obstacles including stream crossings,
descents or traverses of steep slopes, potential erosion, potential wetlands and
a generally unbuilt, undeveloped environment. Some alignment choices
between construction within the stream or cutting into adjacent steep slopes
may be encountered.
Alternative 2 Parallel May Creek Along SE 95th Street
This alternative offers the only feasible parallel alignment to a location along
the Creek that avoids most of the environmental obstacles encountered within
the proximity of the creek. A similar parallel route on the north side of the
valley would encounter several major drainage features, making this option
less feasible. The existing SE 95th Street roadway offers the advantage of
bypassing what appears to be more substantial impacts than identified in the
lower valley for the alignment considered for the Phase I segment. The SE
95th Street alignment would place the sewer an elevation above May Creek
on the order of 150 feet thus providing limited opportunity to provide service
to the portion of the service area currently within the service ar ea of Water
District 107. This alternative faces its greatest challenges at each end of SE
95th Street.
At Coal Creek Parkway, the upper valley gravity sewer following May Valley
Road would have to cross May Creek at Coal Creek Parkway, turning south,
to reach SE 95th Street. There appears to be a rise in ground surface
elevation at the Coal Creek Parkway bridge crossing of May Creek to the
intersection of SE 95th Street of about 50 feet. This would require either an
extremely deep cut for sewer construction or, more probably, construction of a
pumping station at May Valley Road to lift sewage up to SE 95th Street.
This initial rise might be avoided by diverting the sewer west immediately
following the May Creek crossing. This diversion would cut across private
property, taking a "short cut" to an alignment on SE 95th Street. The short
cut might require purchase of an existing house in addition to easements.
Once this location is reached on 95th, the grade rises for about 1/2 mile
approximately 30 to 40 feet before reversing to provide favorable gravity
slope to Devils Elbow. This is enough rise to require a pumping station to lift
the flow, a total lift of about 50 to 60 feet would be required.
When the alignment along SE 95th Street reaches the descent at Honey Creek
several options can be considered. A descent directly to Honey Creek would
face a vertical elevation change greater than 150 feet on slopes of 40 percent
or more. This would not be permitted under the City of Renton's Sensitive
Areas Ordinance. The more likely descent to Honey Creek will be down the
existing road grade to Devil's Elbow. Problems to be encountered will
include the instability of the slopes supporting the road foundation and the
presence of several existing pipelines within the roadway. Upon reaching
Honey Creek, near the existing Devil's Elbow Plumping Station, there may be
a choice of descending Honey Creek to the May Valley Interceptor extension
as developed in the Phase 1 project or participating with the City of Renton
in an expanded, upgraded pumping station serving regional needs.
Alternative 3 Pump North Into Coal Creek Basin
This alternative would transfer flows collected within the May Valley service
area east of Coal Creek Parkway into the conveyance system serving the Coal
Creek service area. This flow would arrive by gravity sewer along May
Valley Road similar to Alternatives 1 and 2. Pumping is required to lift flow
out of May Valley and into Coal Creek basin. The site preferred by way of
initial reconnaissance is north of May Valley Road and east of the Parkway.
It may be possible to construct the pump station west of the Parkway; this
would need to be verified through additional examination. Space is limited
south of May Valley Road by the proximity of May Creek. A total lift of 80
to 100 feet would be required.
A force main will be constructed north on Coal Creek Parkway to
approximately SE 67th Avenue turning to gravity to descend the Parkway to
about SE 52nd Street, where connection will be made to the existing Metro
Coal Creek Trunk. The gravity section will parallel an existing gravity sewer
of unknown capacity owned by Water District 107. Opportunities for sharing
capacity should be explored. This alignment would require minimal
mitigation efforts; most impacts relating to construction activities. The
greatest construction impact on traffic will occur within the first 5000 feet
where the Parkway is a 2-lane roadway confined within cuts and roadside
ditches.
Alternative 4 Pump South Into Cedar River Basin
This alternative would transfer flow collected from the May Valley Service
south into the Cedar River Basin, eventually to enter the Metro system
through the Cedar River Trunk. A pumping station would be required as
described under alternative 3 although the station could be sited either north
or south of the May Creek bridge crossing. A force main is required south
along 138th Avenue SE -to approximately NE 10th Street at which point flow
by gravity is possible to NE 4th Street.
Several options occur at NE 4th Street (called SE 128th Street east of 148th
Avenue SE). The first option would be to turn east to 144th Avenue SE,
continue south to Maplewood Heights to a location where a pipeline descent
must be made to connect to a City extension from the Cedar River Trunk into
the Maple Valley Golf Course. A proposed City project previously considered
a descent at this location to provide service to the East Renton Plateau, the
area generally north to about SE 120th Street and east to 156th Avenue SE.
This proposal was challenged by residents of Maplewood Heights, eventually
forcing the City to re -design the project to the form of the East Renton
Interceptor recently constructed.
The East Renton Interceptor starts at Duvall Avenue and NE 4th Street. The
interceptor proceeds west on 4th Street on grade (a considerable length was
micro -tunnelled to depths of about 35 feet) to the vicinity of the large open
gravel pit near 4th and Edmonds Avenue where it turns south, eventually
descending the heights to the Cedar River Trunk through a directionally
drilled section of pipeline.
Three additional options turn west at NE 4th and 138th Avenue SE (Duvall
Avenue) on an alignment similar to the East Renton Interceptor. Conveyance
west will be require pumping or tunnelling as performed by the City project.
From a pumping station located at NE 4th Street and 138th Avenue SE, a
force main could proceed west to Union Avenue then turn south on Union
for about 1000 feet to a point where flow continues by gravity, turning
generally west and south to an alignment with an existing City sewer
descending to the Cedar River valley floor.
Under the second option, the force main would continue west past Union
Avenue along 4th Street to a point where flow would continue by gravity. A
descent to an elevation and proximity to the Cedar River Trunk can be made
by turning south on Monroe Avenue or on an alignment similar to that
followed by the East Renton Interceptor. The third option would continue
directly down NE, 3rd Street. This descent would require less impact to
undeveloped landscape and steep slopes, however, would require construction
through major traffic routing along 3rd and under 1-405 to Sunset Boulevard
where connection could be made with the recently relocated section of Cedar
River Trunk.
Alternative 5 Pump South Along 148th SE
This alternative would provide conveyance for the May Valley service area
via a pumping station located at the intersections of May Valley Road and
148th SE. With this alternative the upper valley flows would be conveyed
south to the Cedar River trunk. Service to development further west in May
Valley would require other means. Available topographic data used to
approximate force main and gravity line requirements to evaluate alignments.
This alternative would require a force -main from the May Valley Road/148th
SE pump station site to approximately SE 120th Street, then conveyance
would continue via gravity sewer to SE 128th street, then turn west along that
road alignment. Siting the pumping station may encounter issues with
wetlands' The flows would be conveyed to the Cedar River Trunk by either
of the slope descents as described in Alternative 4. It is anticipated that the
pipelines would be constructed along existing road rights -of -way where
possible to reduce environmental disruption and Mitigation requirements.
This alternative for conveyance traverses areas that are not currently being
served either by the City of Renton or Water District 90, although the City of
Renton is currently planning an annexation of a large portion of the area ,
generally referred to as the East Renton Plateau. Possible merger of Water
Districts 107 and 90 could also create additional complexity to service
questions in this area. Although this alternative may have a regional service
dimension to Metro at this time, the current expansion plans of Renton or the
service consolidation plans of the Districts may establish a service precedence
much earlier than the current Metro implementation horizon.
�
.,
�
,,,
0
I1
1'
•�es
�� �
i��-1. 1 \ •• • ; .� _ -- F - � ��I (
� `P � i ' \
�; ` \ � I ;- 1 1 hls � ( / n
j - � I � ; �I � � � r ° ' ;
� ;' � �.= 1 _, \1l\ �(\1 � �
J �� I � ` .' �..iQh . M\ M L � � 1�690 �
��� 'r P� � .'•�, ' .�� � .`1 � (� � � �f ;
��'' I � � 2s _ N� _ �I �:`._ � \( C i
�' i' ir � It � �
�)\..l . � t _ _- 2 - -- . _
� J�'- ,� y I
,« � Pleasure BM�.. � U p "► 1,
� ,' � Point 21 t r� �� 1�� 3�.SJ�,%� �:� _q • Yn 1`� 8 �� (��1`�\ J` �
� �l ? 1 � �k � �' � �"� ' 1 � i '� � �; `�� � �� ? i �\l ��� i
� ��. � a� /ood , ' { 1 . ; I - � \\ �� '�- �''���1\�.- 1
i l: ' �4 � '� � ` � , -� �_ �; ,, �� �� � � \���
,. , .� ��t I� �.� �� r(� ( �1�:_,
° �� 1 • i � �JeO \ \��� _ �
� I I _ . �� �= ., �: : _ �
,F ��. ._` �._ TE BWND V " ""' - , I
� � / ' i ���I l�� `` \ ` .. �`. I ` . / �—� �1 ' �` O -' _ = _ 'r' ' ' _ � -_ ! I � � t
.� \ : � 1 iI + I _ i . � , � . j i O _ I .. . I ' .,� E
.i I ~��/ � I j � Pinrs � I / �� 1 ` � �� L. `�'��n�� ` ,
/� ' � � - - `• �` _-- _ _ _ ��.�avel !
� �_ ��( ,I �� ' I' 11 BM 1 �; f� ��� _ � - ,'_" _ _ _' _ -_ -
;/ �:- 1 } \„ / /,. I � � ,,� �: •g `��.._ _ . \ i — Pi[ - _ \ 1
� E��r � � ��, � � � , � �� �'�" � , �'; "`:'. ��+ ,� � - -- �$, �1 �
��/ ) '�� �j' ; ;' i /%�� '1,"s�s�ao � ; �� /� , �I� _ - I
i /- ! J-/� � �� � __ � - � `� � '�I . n� — �_ , �
! �; / �►;i- �s ��a!" � „ . � I � .�: ' \ u ' �,',,' '�� _ -- I 26 -- � i
� / ' ; '� - • c --- . . , � � `., _ _ � ` y- ! ' I r• �
-� ` .� • - } I,� ' :Heie . � � ��
/ l � �; '/� _ �, Trailer . �� � k
y: . :J ��� �K POrk i . � � ark �°• �. i �
l 7 / .' ��'� ' (1' dal �' ;p•.: : ' S . �,:`� . � � i I � , a 'i �- f
i •� � • `:. ..•. ' I
� - . iI - �, a� �� �`\ ,\ �1�1� '• � ` ' -_ ' � , I� y
�� \ ' ; < \�•b.� �''i ;r � '�'. o� ..* � y_ i
� Crcek.� \' � �� '♦ A - _ � s '
/ ��' . � 1�� �� � � � '1, a� �ch � . � i �"�
� � , (�'�'. - _ �E 1 �� .� � �� �, � �� w
( 1 �: � :, � 01- - - - - - - -- _ _ _ _ , i
� a - ' .: �� •� t �- �� '.- � - ,� �;- .:�-��. ` . f
� ,,', �'�, - ,� � . - -- '� ! ._ -- �;; .:-� \ �� �. �. �
� � r� ,y � � • -- � `i', ,\�' �,),� �_ i j * ; c �' � '` ° 'S'.// � ,
_ e =�_ M s� '. \\..'- ( I I � 41 � _ s. � i
o\ ,I�1�! B /^ � _ �. �' .'� �� � J I 1 a • \\ � � , ,�- .. 1 � � �
�>.�/. ,/ - -, i , I � '\.\ L�'�i ,p0' ' � ^i I ( 1` �
; /// 15 �. �� . \� �—ti , // �.� � I (� �
n. /� t \ �, � � 1 �; \ �
�� = Q� . � � �"• �. ��'y'� ; C� �� i
/,� _ : � ,' •p . u� � .
l��! . ` '�+� ' J''�0° `'_' � � � `�� + � ���°° �
; _� ��� I' .� i:. •--� ��c -� �
, a�¢ , 1�7' • ;J . t,`� _ :oo I \
Kennydale .�.m s � ' _\� ••! �'a, ` .; - - � _ _ �
J � � ; ��; �n - ,�,e�=R� � ' ��� �— ;- - — , - ;. �
� .+i )i i � i� •.--- . *►.�A� �,. , .� � � � ,
.�• ; - �i�.l � _..�: �� i �
. • � ����_�� 1 � � �� � i
� Poin , � - • ' ..l. i��� - . � jf` , \� . S,`\ �` �.. .r -
� L� , . --.._ �„�--� SL � � r� � I
�'�� '��i��r�'�' //1-��'�•� '��.; Y:�l.;•.i,!g��:..�.. i� .o� .. .5 . ti': _ \�,C,• '001,� �. ''? �\ � Y��.. � 1.�
� ',���►��j. Q!y'` ; T = _• ; � �Park �� � ,ps�;' � - - - ,? � ���� � ` �„ J ` .,\ i �`
`a � •� � � (�' r _, �'.. • ���� � �� . ,/'� .` ^l `., �,,
l � ,. - � ��... � ,� �
�� . , � -- � � •., � �
\, \) � 1,��� � i'� . � z - �. �.� , �. , , � � �":'• t ; �� � ' _..� > I � f
. � �. _ ... _ , _
- � - - - - � :i --- :� ' � �'� � '`�-..� � i
i_� � Y � .
�, :� '.;. � • •• ;�_._. � a ` �
'' �,- i 5 0 � 8 8': _r ' +� ' ,. � . < _� "' :':� • ,, , �y
!,�.�� _ •• � 1 � �. �, �, +;` � �
J� t �, • _ � � � ' —� i ':R�.'. t. , • • ,
��'�.�T. � �• ej ii ~ P Ik i�' _ ,`y . %; J� ! �• � . q� � \�,�/� �
��. � �., . .'�� � -, �� � . i\ ' `
.` � ` '� B �; �: T N . � �.��; ,� .., �,, � � =.,�o �''��� �� y '�� �� ` i
� if r` �� .�,� � '"�' ' � •� � 1r � i� � ' ' \\ �I�1railer � � \ \e.,,• ���io i�. F
;,_� 1- � :: �\. ' � „ r,¢ •L � : � . � '' _l ■ t livk ■E: . i v�L.
• ".� .u-i`�/ .. �t . ,- 1 B ni �� � . ' ::: ...�•r:.• : � �' \ 9/r..: I
� �! �T," g • p R QE Sl ♦ t �� 1 I�� R '• � i i• • .• � i
* �.I �. R � � � .�_w ��;�"a'.J i j. �
��, • _ ' �•��� � - � .'.:_i.+ •hkMSd'.. ._'r• � . J !i-'1T' �.
�� � 8 • 1 r \ i - � , . �.�
� , _ � • , • , . �,.. . •. . : ' • �S p�.
' �� ` • '�'_ ' ' ' � •\ .� e � ``J
\� L � -...I ''� L • � .
� � \ 7 �t
. � �� �qpp ( Kiws e • '� 5 �. • 0 • S�b • � 1 • •P .
Z ��,\ 1 t � \ 9 �` a ---- �"n °"� _ � � � �� ' ■ • • � t1 '
ro �A� �, \\ � 7'!� i`'y � ' -_' • :i •1� � �� • • !. : . �•':
� _ �'�\ �N'pp,� rq , �• ^ �' .. � ' � \�• ��.
-' I `` !\� 1 ( � 1 ..�,� {�� ._ ..
• ��`5 �L� 8 � � � 1•� . • � \ ✓ :
, • �� .. _ "_'
I d � ., ..� � � � � . \ ' � . � i ark ,
��.. � 1 I 'I • � �\ �\ , -- I .. . ' °• ' O. '•g. •�: • . f•�b� 'Le
�� ��• ' / �\, � � �� *� �'• Tr a� Substan I � \ • �� • _ � �n � 1
�1� �,: �. -�._--,.��� �, � � �.� ; �,
uu��: '. � � �� swHius � . IS■ �� 'r '� '� usn� %t •� :�re�� ^� I�r+:
- ' 1 e ' � � � [, `� * . `• � � u�' �• • � ; , ` o i. i t � ,
. /. a �I' I� , -�./w ( �� . .\ , _. �. .
^' � � - ;�•, � - .;y,. � .'� . �� �\ �� \ _ ' I, ,:• .... ,'•Fire. � ,�
� 9 � �• 6 • i , ��� . ' �a� _ _ �o" � � _ _ ve Steua� , � ; ' C :.•.
• ��t' �l. � !t `� �0 X� -- -� ) . . _ .... _ \ .' .
� v � ' yL- x , t'. - � • � � 'r-• ' : ��.::::.
•� �.� � - a . � . o .i . ; ' . ' ,; e:
� �i . . .r _�q . �TrailA�.. i; ��(� � � ....r �� � �� :\\. �'` �i •��'
;' , ' . • ,� / • �I• _,��: . : _ _ ' ; . pk �IphU � �•\ "� � i � �'8� i
•�. t� �I; PaLB° Park° 't �N1tAl�2t �� 1 �J'� �1�:...._ . � I.' - •t.= , ° � � ' : .�� :I.n ' I
i w � ' � ,ty! • Cen/-, -� � .. ��.— S t :F' 't ` � ; � � _� � -.�_ i I �: Y I
�. .- , I�_ .. . � �—
' I i ' �Y = t �,e a ♦ �•4' ` -1 -.� � � � � "' ^. . � w'. � llhr
�� :lall � ?��r�� ��j i/ � 'tl I,�`� � HIghS
.r 7T �.�.-_�� ;-�:� , o/� `"`__"�� � ••n _',•'�'-• - • � � .`-'-- �
� ., �, �; - :_'� Fo � � � •� - - -j -_= _ .�� .. _ '`.
� '' ►. ` - ... .«...» � 1 � '. � MaPi,
�? k � �� � � ....... ,.� � , M1;' �= Hc•
. r � ` �� ,..-;: :, \ ;.• `
a .'i. _ : - � / � .
r
f
�r�
�I : •� r' : _ « .
.�= -
i - i' • .
i' �I ,
,'� -
�I, � �,�C.ilrl __�- /'���:� `\ -- :w.;� �f '� � � g � • . . • •
. . . ��`C'� �� _ �� _ .._ _ \'' �:•Iti; 'ei:i,� •!� I
LEGEND ������'1,� l� � - �-- - - a ' "' �'� : :, �
=1• `\�,�°.�._ � _ _ \ ' ' �'(:.' a �i3 =1 i
Interce `1 ' itea � �j Force Main `� � =� � °= —: J ::�_' t : ' ' 6 i
/////� METRO Ptors ��m � . - �-` � .,_, ` - - "- P'
z : , ,,, ; -�s ; � ravit Line ;; :;.:, '~ _�_-_ `� • ° '�:
�� City of Renton 1�1�1�1�� G Y � : � : •.' _ �"�'a. -p,�� . ; � � -
Pum Statfons • ~' , i � � Pe�- eeii h ,..� .- • � i� �.._ —
nnnm�m�t� Phase 1 � Proposed P - ''��a ,`, -= ' .::� . ,. ceysrR�"; : 2� \ .
�
R �ictinrl R�IItG ' ' �j' -- - _ = r",�e -- �Atti�eu Par4 _:v .1
Y_ to. Pa�k � �
• • . • • ' Afternative 1 �� " , - ��s "' F`°a o � • �
I M � � - - - ,EN.o
�c �-oµ �o. • R���o�+ - ,�' ; . a �,, o__ � � :::
� _��� � � - :�:
� �
. � � S�i° - _ . -- . � . - _
��P�� sf �� �
206-6Q9-3706 METRO WPCD COMM
502 P01 APR 07 '94 11:00
P,�hN" braf�
Fax Transmittal Memo %672 ':; ":',,`;' �h, ,�} No.ofPagea / Today'9Da� j / C� Time
,.. `�" S ��f i
� ��V �C, � N � � �>� � � S (r� �/ From � G � � (�D s l
\t .
Company Company
Location
Laat�on
' Dept• Che�ga
Fe�� y3 5� �� �f� r
Comments
Telephcne �F
�^ �C � vK C� 1�. �t vc,c.
C�tQ� eS '/O�t
(,I{�.Q �C �Jo h" ,f �
Fflx d� Telephone �► /' C� J J��
�� o
Original � Destroy � Rewrn � Cau tor p�ckup
Oisposi�ion:
� � � �
�t. �( c/ t � ,� v �. -
/f !�`
f14f�tr�i(- d�v✓ ��r�,l i
U '
D (� �' � i�f
APR 7 1994
May Creek/Honey Creek public meeting
4/5/94
CITY OF RENTON
Engineering Dept.
Staff and consultants present: Dave Christensen, Ciry of Ren#on; Ken Madden,
Metro; Mike O'Neal, Brown and Caldwell; Gail Roberge, Adolfson Associates;
Ron Post, Metro.
List of public participants is attached.
1. Dave Christensen talked about the geographic location of Honey Creek and
the development (and subsequent need for sewers) that led to the sewage
pipeline and lift stabon in 1985. The City of Renton planned tv hook into the
extensian of Metro's interceptor when i� would be built. In 1989, the City of
Renton and Metro agreed to begin planning that interceptor extension. Since that
time, the city decided to study other alternatives and would like to build a new
pumping sta#ion and force mains by 1996.
2. Mike O'Neal described the history of the planning effort to extend the
interceptor up the creek. The project has been mentioned in planning documenfis
by Metro and Water District 107 for many years. More recently, growth and
subsequent capacity problems in the Honey Creek area have made a solution
urgently necessary for the City of Renton. The two alternatives under
investigation are: a gravity line up May Creek that would intercept the Honey
Creek line from the City of Renton, or a new pump station and new pipeline
within the city limits that would join Metro's East Side interceptor.
A gravity line extending Metro's interceptor up May Creek would eliminate the
need for a pump station in Honey Creek. There are real challenges to building a
gravity extension, including stream crossings, wetland crossings, etc. Gail
Roberge will say mare about those.
TTr�orariina �hp T�nnov f'roolr r�>>mn c�a:+nr will ���ALf ►1�L! COTt71f`C� �n rocirinnfe
along whatever pipeline route through the city is chosen. One of the challenges
here is crossing under 1-405 to reach, Metro's East Side interceptor.
3. Gail Roberge. described the different effects of the two.alternatives. The city's
pump station/force main project would affect the built environment, city streets,
etc. Metro's gravity alternative would affect the stream/wetland environment.
Both the Honey Creek and May Creek ravines have some steep side slopes and
May Creek is a significant wildlife. area according to the county and the state.
1
206-699-3?06 METRO WPCD COMM 502 P02 APR 07 '94 11:oe
Gail has contacted government agencies that would be involved in regulating
construction in the ravine: state fisheries, state ecology, state wildlife, county
parks, federal corps of engineers, Muckleshoot tribe. The two major
environmental issues in the gravity alternative (May Creek) would be fisheries
and wetlands issues. In Honey Creek, there are cutthroat trout and coho salmon.
In May Creek, there are chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, and
steelhead. Two big wetlands lie along May Creek. Impacts from construction
could destabilize slopes a nd cause erosion that would silt over spawning areas.
4. Questions and answers:
Is there financing already available no matter which alternative is selected?
The project is budgeted.
Is it possible to solve some of the area's stormwater problems with the same
project in May Creek?
That is a broad question and invites speculation about SWM plans,
further growth, etc. No planning efforts associated with this -project have
looked at stormwater conveyance.
Is a pipeline for stormwater even a likely scenario for this drAinage?
That would be difficult to answer in this meeting.
Is there a schedule for this project?
The City of Renton needs a new facility by 1996.
What was the original plan for the interceptor extension, and how much detail
did it go into?
Not much detail. The predesign effort seeks to answer some questions;
other details would be provided in the design phase.
How would the costs of the project be shared by Metro and theCity of Renton?
Metro has committed $1.7 million in its budget to a gravity alternative.
No details have been negotiated for the city's alternative.
F,
206-6e9-3706 METRO WPCD COMM
502 P03 APR 07 194 11:09
Is there much chance of the gravity line alternative actually being built in the
May Creek ravine, given the environmental concerns?
Considering the regulatory environment, chances are very poor.
Can we influence the odds of the gravity alternative getting a fair hearing -
There are several things to consider. Capital budget expenditures are
decided by management unless the expenditure is large. Management has
chosen to seek information from the regulatory agencies, the public and
others before deciding how to proceed. This project could also require
mitigation. Mitigation often means looking for other viable alternatives
first. In this case there seem to be other viable alternatives, at least in the
short term.
Can the new city council (of Newcastle) write a letter or -pass a motion or do
anything to keep open the possibility of Metro's gravity option or any other
option that would prvide increased service in the future?
During a public process that would accompany the environmental
review, yes.
Can the new city's (Newcastle) future needs be served without the gravity line?
There are ways to serve the area around Newcastle in any event, whether
the gravity line is built or not.
Is it really safe to build sewer lines down creek beds? Can we really effectively
mitigate the effects of this type of construction?
The record for mitigation around the state is not convincing. Water flows
downhill, and that's the reason for building sewer lines along natural
drainages.
Is there a way the Honey Creek gravity line could be eliminated?
Not easily or inexpensively.
206-689-3706 METRO WPCD COMM 502 PO4 RPR 07 '94 11:09
Concerns
The urgency of the city's problem should not precludethe construction of a
pipeline large enough to handle future service in the upper May Creek area,
It seems that the same problems with capacity and environmental issues are
popping up in Coal Creek area.
It's evident that the regulatory climate is different now than it was when this
project was conceived for May Creek.
It's also evident that a solution should take into account that more service will be
needed in the area, and a series of pump stations may not be reliable enough to
handle that need.
The environment is also at stake in making a decision.
It seems that a decision on which way to proceed is important, and soon.
Two veoRle strongly recommend proceeding with the review process for a
gravity line, based on its more adequate solution to the whole area's need for
service.
There have been public meetings about flooding in the upper May Creek area
and very little was done at first because of so many competing interests,
especially between regulatory agencies. Hopefully, a decision will be made
faster in this case.
(meeting adjourned at 9 p.m)
4
206-689-3706 METRO WPCD COMM 502 P05 APR 07 '94 11:09
Briefing on May Creek/Honey Creek subbasin project
April 13,1994
11:30 a.m.
King County Courthouse Auditor's Conference Room
City of Renton: Dave Christensen, Mayor Earl Clymer, Gregg Zimmerman
Metro: Bill Burwell., Ken Madden., Ron Post
AGENDA
1. Memorandum of Agreement
2. Public process
3. Decision route
4. Questions
See attached notes from informal public meeting held April 5,1994
AGENDA
HONEY CREEK PROJECT
DISCUSSION
APRIL 139 1995
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. OBJECTIVES .... HONEY CREEK PROJECT REVIEW ---
INFORMATION TO WPC MANAGEMENT
3. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
DEMOGRAPHICS AND LAND USE
4. TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS
SCOPE AND SCHEDULE
FLOW FACTORS ETC ETC
5. NEXT STEPS
RTN41495.00C
� c�^��uRr�Er�cE i
nnrE 3 ' z �
� ��; ,i i in.�,�n,,,_ ��,,
o i
W�
' I
�
February 27, 1995
William E. Nitz, Capital Projects Supervisor /
Metro - MS 83 `� P e G�' .
821 Second Avenue ��G���,�
Seattle, WA 98104-1598 � �/
SUBJECT: MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT; INTERIM SOLUTION FOR HONEY
CREEK SUBBASIN CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
Dear Bill:
This letter is to outline the City's recommendation for an interim solution to the capacity needs of the
Honey Creek Subbasin. As you are aware, this subbasin requires improved service by the end of 1996 to
avoid potential overflows. Since it appears that the May Creek Interceptor may not be constructed in time
to provide adequate capacity for the subbasin , it is the City's desires to upgrade the existing Honey Creek
system to handle these flows.
The City is recommending the rebuilding of the Sunset Liftstation, it's force main and the downstream
gravity main line along Sunset Blvd. NE from Union Avenue NE to Harrington Avenue NE (scenario 2
on the attached map). This would provide the needed capacity for the Honey Creek Subbasin until the
year 2000. This alignment was chosen for the following reasons:
�O This option is the most cost effective.
� This option is the only one which would not require permits from the
Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Ecology. Any improvements
to the Devils Elbow liftstation, because of its proximity to Honey Creek, will
require these permits.
m The Devils Elbow liftstation's force main is located in NE 27th Street. This
street is located on an unstable hillside which has failed in the past.
Geotechnical concerns would have to be addressed if this alignment were
used.
40 The recommended alignment would replace all of the sewer pipe from the
Sunset liftstation to Harrington Avenue NE in one contiguous run. All other
options would require improvements to non-contiguous portions of the
downstream pipe systems which may increase construction costs.
Page 2
February 27, 1995
The City believes that the recommended improvements provide the minimum capacity needed until the
yeaz 2000. The City also believes it would be in it's best interest to construct these facilities to
accommodate the Honey Creek Subbasin at saturation. Saturation is expected to be achieved by 2014.
As part of the Memorandum of Agreement, which was prepared for the Phase III expansion of the East
Division Plant, construction of the May Valley Interceptor was included in recognition of the need to
provide sufficient sewer capacity for the Honey Creek Subbasin and May Creek Basin. This premise was
supported in your letter dated May 16, 1994. Given Metro's initial commitment to this project as part of
the MOA and your letter acknowledging the need to provide an interim solution, the City is requesting
that Metro fund fifty percent of the construction costs for the interim solution. The total construction cost
of the preferred option is approximately $1,272,285. Metro's portion of the costs would be
approximately $636,143. Engineering costs for the project and the additional construction costs to
increase the size of the system to provide su�cient capacity for the year 2014 would be funded entirely by
the City. Cost estimates for all of the options has been attached.
Sincerely,
Gregg Zimmerman
Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works Department
��:
LETTER.DOT/bh
. � %
�
j�� �.� �I �r,� �lti d � ��-�-P ���C l
� � � ��u' � �iP� �it � �� �Je
�
� C�c�'-� � c��'�I f 7 `l�� ��1�I
�
a�� q ���������-� � /c s� �I P� �
� ������� �
�
�
:;;:mETRo
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
May 16,1994
Mr. David W. Christensen
Wastewater Utility Supervisor
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98005
Subject: May Valley Interceptor Project
D ��t��
MAY 19 �g94
CITY QF RENTON
Engineering Dept,
This letter is a follow-up to your correspondence, dated January 5, 1994 and
our meeting on February 17, 1994. The project team has succeeded in
accomplishing the tasks outlined at the February meeting: tours for resource
agencies were conducted; a public meeting was held; and a project briefing
was conducted for County Council members Bruce Laing and Brian
Derdowski. In addition, we have held two presentations with Metro
management.
Metro recognizes the problems and service needs of the Honey Creek
Subbasin. We also recognize our responsibility to serve the needs of the
entire May Creek Basin. To accomplish both of these goals, we will need an
approach that solves the Honey Creek Subbasin problem within the context of
a regional approach. A regional solution, such as the May Valley Interceptor
meets this objective. Metro management has recommended that we proceed
with ±he �redesign development of the gravity May Valley Interc2ptor
alternative.
The City has indicated a need for improved service at the Devil's Elbow
Pumping Station by 1996 in order to avoid potential overflows. Metro
recognizes that the implementation of the May Valley Interceptor may
exceed this date. In the spirit of the MOA, Metro management has asked us to
work with the City of Renton to identify interim solutions or modifications
that Metro could fund that would improve the capacity of the existing system
until the May Valley Interceptor is on-line. We are interested in discussing
this with you in more detail. Please feel free to contact myself or Mann-Ling
Thibert on this matter.
WaterPollution Control Department •(206) 654-1280 • Clean Water—A Sound Investment
Mr. David Christensen
May Valley Interceptor Project
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your support and patience during the phase I predesign
portion of the project.
Sincerely,
W ;:. ", *1�7 XT,
illiam E.Nitz
Capital Projects Supervisor
cc: Daryl Grigsby
Bill Burwell
Maryann Ness
Gunars Sreibers
Bob Hirsch
Ken Madden
Mann -Ling Thibert
Roger Browne
......................................:.......................................: ......................................:.......................................:.........:.............................:.......................................:.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .
......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:......................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....:....:... /' � ..:. . � � . . . . ... .. .............. ....... ........
: : : ' • :.. .�� .; . . : : : :
.:�....:
. . . � � � � �: .
..: :
. . �
..................���....:....�.:....:....: .. � .. ....... ............ . . ..............
� . : . : : : : -- : .��,--� : -�r� :
........:...................:.........:.............................:.........:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:......................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........:.........:.........:.........:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:.......................................:......................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....:... : : : � : � : : : : : . . : : : : : : : : �
. . . .
. .
�� ..:.�..,.r:..�. � .:....:....:....:....:....�11n�.v� .�.�`��.����. :. . ....
. .
.........: ........:...................:...................:...... � . .
. . � . . . � �
.. ...:.........:. . .� . ..:.........:.........:... .. �... ...:.........:.........:.........:.........;..... . .:. . . . : : � : : : : : � : : :
... : _ : � � : . : .... 7;�. . . � � �► .....:.......:...... .:........
: sb : : : � �.�..�..���� .
....:....:.. .:....:.............�.:....:....:....:... .. ... .. .. ................. ................. .. .. . ...
.:. .: ... .:. .:. . . : .:.
:.:�:::�::::::::::::::::::::
: : . .
....: ��. �.:.._:.�� � .:....:....:....:....:....:... :....:....:....:... ��q�i��n:.. :..�i.. :....
....:....;.� ....:............ ......:.........:....:....:....:... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ........ . .. . .. .. .....
. . . . . .�:. .�:
: �{� � . _ : �7b . � � ; : : `--`��''-''�.� , � � � �� � ,�-�-� ��-� r� � � ��- :�:
,::�:::.::::... . .. ....
... ..... . . . : . . .
: � .�.�.�.:._:....�.1� :....:....:....:....:....:....������: ��:��►�-� ..:...�i:::::
.......... � :....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.......... .. .. .. ......... .. .. .. .. . .. I.. ... .
. . . � .:. .
: ::: �:::::::... .......
:::: �
. ... .: ...... . . ... :.........:...... ..:. .... :.. ..:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........:.........:..... ...:.. ... : .. ��:.. .....:... ....�....... :....... .:........ :.. ...:.........:.... .. .:........
��: . . . . . . : . .-: . .�.� �� : . .. . : . : : : : : �'''''� : : . �. . : .'�.�''�►�. : . . . d. � � . . ..
... ........................................ ...
. ��� . . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:... .. .. .. .. . .. ...
:. :.-:.. ...
..::..
. .:. .:. .:. .:�� .
....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:... .. .. .. .. .. .... . .... ..... ... ..... .. �... .. . ...:....
.:. .:. .:. .:. .:. .� .:...
.:..... ...
�.. : . . h.�
.:. �....: : .:.
- • �4va : .
�,I'z m��
�"'-&METRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building G 57.1 Secbnd Ave. 0 Seattle, WA 98104-1598
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COV'ER SHEET
DATE SENT:
TRANSMITTED -TO: Avc-
TRANSMITTED FROM: 144A1-jj -- z- / IJ &-� 16 c-le T
(Name) (Mail Stop)
7
(Phone)
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION NUMBER: (206) 684-1710
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(Including Cover sheet)
FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY:
PROJECT: 11
ARMS/TASK NO.:
SUBJECT:
NOTES:
0 C/ /i C-';:
0
0- 3
EZE h
TO ' d (IS3 ET:TT V66T-6E—Nnf
May Valley Interceptor Project
TASK NO:A61 PROJECT:A64041
PROJECT SCHEDULE AS FOR 7- 23-94
TASK DURATION
PR -DESIGN PHASE
Project Scope/Bob
SEPA Scope /Tim
Identify Renton PS
capacity problem
&interim solution/Renton
(with Metro tech. support)
Coordination of
Install flow meter/MLT, Bob
Metro/City Discussion
of the project scope/ team
Consultant Contract Revision
Pre -Design II-/MLT, B&C
Budget update/MLT
Amend MOA/ Ron, MLT
EIS Process/project team,B&C
Obtain Permits/Tim, B&C
Survey /Consultant
Soil Investigation/Consultant
Preliminary Pipe Design & Spec.
May Valley Interceptor Project
DESIGN PHASE
Assumed Consultant design
EXPECTED DATES
?_0 * d QS3 ET:11 t7661-6E-Nnf
20'd _ibioi
V
90% Pipeline Design/ B&C
Engineer estimate/MLT,B&C
Request Division O/MLT
90% Design Review & Comments/MLT,B&C
Final design Revision/B&C
Bidding Process
TASK
Authority to Advertise
Print Bid Documents
Advertising for Bids
Pre -Bid Meeting/Job Tour
Bid opening
Bid Evaluation
DURATION EXPECTED DATES
Preparation for Council Authorization
Notice of Award
Notice to Proceed
CONSTRUCTION PHASE,
Pre -Construction meeting
Construction
Punch List Items
As -Built Completion
Project Close-out
20 , d (IS3 VT:TT V66T-6E-Nnf
4 21, ;,7 If Y
las em
wj, so ETRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building 0 521 Second Ave. 0 Seattle, WA 98104-1598
FACSIMILB TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
DATE SENT: �vI2- -7 If 4
TRANSMITTED TO: W ile elle / .5- 7-,en-,FLf -IJ
TRANSMITTED FROM:
(Name) (Ma4j-1 Stop)
6
(Phone)
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION NUMBER:
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(Including Cover Sheet)
FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY:
PROJECT:
. ARMS/TASK No.:
SUBJECT:
NOTES:
(206) 684-1710
TO'd (IS3 TS:9T V66T-LZ-Nnf
May Valley Interceptor Project work plan
1. Metro's Tasks
1==imqpirgd for pro-ject guidelines:
7e",FT
SEPA Process options:
a. Metro lead for the May Valley Basin only. 1he document will adopt by
the City for the Honey Creek Basin
b. Metro/ Renton Joint lead for May Valley and Honey Creek Basin
Recommendation: Option ???
Project scope with respect to the regional issues:
a. The connection of this project with the Regional Waste water Services
Plan . The basis for alternative development should consistent with the
agency's adopted plan.
proposed work conduct by the Pro-Ject team:
a. Offer Renton technical assistant to alleviate the local system wet -
weather capacity problem at the Honey Creek Pump Station. *Form
Metro /Renton team to identify interim solutions or modifications to
improvement the capacity to the existing system.
b. Coordinate with the City staff to install flow meter at Honey Creek.
2. Metro/Renton Discussion Section (facilitate by Consultant B&C)??
3. Consultant Contract Revisions.
4. Amend MOA:
a. Project Scope
b. Budget
c. Project Schedule: dates????
Preliminary Design Activities
Pre -design phase II
(lower May Valley Basin pipe section only?)
7-0 , d CIS3 TG:9T V66T-LE-Nnf,
C-0 - -j -��Jioi
SEPA Process
( include upper and lower May Valley basin)
Design Phase
Construction Phase
CIS3 TS:9T V66T-LE-Nnf
SEP—OS—'9� THU 11:37 ID:MEC — 12TH FLP. TEL �10:C206) 60�-1900 tt121 POS
�1����
-��" � � ,,,�_ f . . .
Po4t-it'' Fax Note 7677 oa�ed p
�Tn � - - - 1 Va�s►
rno„e R
Fax �r � v Z+�
� -
Q��
D�ono M iG.J `� I I
Fn�c R / � a
_ .. �
1' �er, 1�.�- ��.�r So�---� �is,� � r �oa,�r
{�..�v ICJ�J . � ,.�.--� c�', ���. 1 G_`-�c� c:.s,� �'v �
`F�� v f �—t� vSfi �}�_ �9 �T �..?�G.S. L..�.�- -
1 � -v �'`SC'� �� �.G �'�.� �'P �'�.��-' U _
�
Z..-� �... �...�-�.r ••�.a. � � `) �:r �� �1 r'��..1 C..�. � �- 5.��
C:� �-� •
�; . i� v�.--�,. (� C���S� -� t� ur �,� � u � L.�-�-�-� c�;- �
c1 J��c�� s _ �x h°��- -1 �cx� .
�.
1��. ,.� — � �` � �.�� D � �� � V
� � �.w
� � P � �-� 1994
.
� - •
� =i= � .�.� . �- -, • . .
.i ' i � .
r • • '� ,� �� �• � �'r�� . � `i' .�.. �
.. . -�� . �. • � � 1' �i • 4- _�•
� r • - �• �- '� • -j•. . .
� • 1 � 1 " - � • � - - -
- � - � /" 1t . •
�' .��- r�. •1 �,
• _•� �� '%��. ' � ,
' � 1 �' 1f . - � • � • -,l • 1 • 1
1
• ' . � e - � y L - • - ' � '
" 1 � � . 1 � : • � � • - • � • � j
1 1 . 1 ' 1 - a � • . 1 N ' • � . •
. � 1 � � � /
_�� •� • y- • • . � - r , 1� .� - + � 1.
' • � � ' 1 •
.1 ' y .
� • - - 11 - � � - ! , • � • ( • , - � - - . � , . - - - � •
'�1 -i � �: • • '19 N 1' ■ •1- -
� r- � - �'1 1/��
-�.' .�1 . • � :� . � � . 1' ' • - rNl � � al !
� • 11 - - .
i ' � • � • • � ! � . i • N
- '� •1/!" -. 1�'
w,
N do
A
NO
9 MAL
. K
Earl. Clymer, Mayor
November 301 1994
Mann -Ling Thibert
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
8 21 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Departme . nt
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERIm Ho'NEY CREEK SUBBASIN SEWER CAPACITY SOLUTIONS
Dear Mann -Ling:
Enclosed you will find a map and cost estimates of the four possible scenarios for the
Honey Creek subbasin sewer capacity problems. These solutions will provide capacity
until the year 2000.
If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 277-6179.
Since.rely
o 0
hn D. Hobson
Wastewater Utility
WDO CS: 94-108 9: J D H: ps
Enclosure
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
July 20, 1993
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
PROJECT STARTUP MEETING
AGENDA
1. CONTRACT STATUS and OBJECTIVES
a. Metro - two phase predesign
b. City - predesign phase, design/construction phase
2. TEAM ORGANIZATION/RESPONSIBILITIES
a. participants and assignments
-METRO review/alt selection
-CITY OF RENTON review/alt selection
-Brown and Caldwell project management,
engineering, permitting BC lead roles:
Mike O'Neal - prj mgt, engrg
Bob Gatz - alt developmlt/eval, engrg
Render Denson permits
Jane Lindsey contract admin
-INCA survey, mapping
contact: Ben Petersen 450-0933
-ADOLFSON w/Watershed Dynamics env assessment,
SEPA, public relations
contact: Gail Roberge 778-4273
-GEOENGINEERS geotechnical
contact: Nancy Tochko 861-6000
-LEE AND ASSOC env mitigation
contact: Jim Brennan 583-0620
b. work scopes attached
3. COMMUNICATIONS/DOCUMENTATION
a. questions of information or performance
b. product distribution
C. invoicing (MEMO)
4. WORK PLAN, MILESTONES and PRODUCTS
a. mapping and survey
0
b. alternative identification
c. agency contacts/identify issues �
- County and City Parks Depts ��
- County SWM ��% �'
- County DDES ��"
- State Fisheries
d. site r�connais a� nce ���
e. alternative evaluation/public information
f. hard copy products:
MAY VALLEY (METRO) Phase I
geotechnical memorandum
environmental screening matrix
scale/contoured planimetric map
project alternatives matrix
MAY VALLEY (METRO) Phase II
mapping scaled to design level
geotechnical report
memo detailed env findings for SEPA
engrg report for May Creek section
HONEY CREEK (RENTON�
mapping for alt selection and design
SEPA checklist and Mitigation Document
geotechnical prelim memo and final report
landscape restoration/mitigation tech memo
alt selection matrix and engrg report
SCOPE OF WORK
KAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
PHASE I PREDESIGN
Task 100 - Proiect Management
The purpose of this task is to manage and coordinate project
technical resources and assure a level of service and
responsiveness consistent with project schedule and budget.
Activities included within this task include:
1. Prepare a detailed work plan that identifies all
activities, completion schedules, and responsible party
for task completion. Submit three copies of draft work
plan to Metro for review. Metro Project Manger shall
consolidate staff comments and reconcile conflicting
staff issues. Incorporate Metro's consolidated comments
as appropriate. Provide five copies of the final work
plan to Metro.
2. Conduct project start-up meeting with Metro Staff, City
of Renton staff and consultant team members to develop
consensus on approach and focus on issues and assign
responsibilities.
3. Monitor progress and expenditure of budgets.
4. Conduct periodic meetings, twice per month, to review
progress, maintain coordination between participants,
identify and make necessary schedule adjustments, and
provide opportunities for early distribution and response
to findings. Primary participants are the consultant
team. The City of Renton and Metro may attend.
5. Prepare monthly invoices that provide information on
budget expenditures, current status of tasks, and
progress toward completion. Provide two copies to Metro
by the loth of each month.
Task 200 - Environmental Review
The objective of this task is to conduct a reconnaissance
level review of the proposed May Creek pipeline alignment and
develop a screening level matrix to summarize the environmental
and permit considerations.
1. Conduct site reconnaissance of established alignment.
2. Identify probable environmental issues and mitigation
requirements.
3:46pWJuly 15, 1993-e/adnV802/9938_1 I/ractacpimpw
K
3. Prepare a matrix for comparing identified issues and
selection criteria.
Task 300 - Survey, Right -of -Way and Mappina
This task will provide 111 equals 5011 contour strip mapping
(2-foot contour interval over 100 feet to each side of the
proposed Phase I alignment) suitable for design purposes and 11,
equals 1001 photo mapping inclusive of the valley floor for
purposes of presenting the proposed pipeline alignment or
alternatives.
1. Provide survey control for aerial photography sufficient
to produce 111 equal 5011 scale, 2-foot contour interval
mapping of selected interceptor alignment. Aerial photo
and placement of control targets provided under separate
contract.
2. Prepare photo mapping with property lines for alignment
section and 2-foot contour strip mapping suitable for
final design. Mapping will be prepared from aerial
photography previously provided supplemented with limited
ground survey and map edits.
3. Locate proposed alignment an the ground for guidance of
geotechnical and environmental specialists.
Task 400 - Geotechnical Review
This task will provide a geologic reconnaissance to identify
primary issues and mitigation alternatives or requirements.
1. Review existing geologic and geotechnical documents
related to the project area.
2. Conduct reconnaissance of proposed pipeline alignment to
gather information on landforms and geologic processes,
soils types and characteristics, groundwater flow
characteristics, and areas sensitive to slope
instability, erosion, seismic shaking and flooding.
3. Identify primary geotechnical issues facing pipeline
construction and possible mitigation options.
4. Summarize findings in a technical memorandum.
Task 500 - Predesign Engineering
This task will define a proposed pipeline alternative in
sufficient detail to be compared with competing alternatives
developed under the City of Renton contract. The preliminary
3:46pm/July 15, 1993-e/adm/802/9938-11/metacpi.wpw
3
alternatives will be defined with respect to select criteria
developed in this phase and compared in a matrix format.
1. Locate pipeline alignment on the ground and review with
Metro for concurrence. Alignment will be located based
on finding most feasible, least impacting route.
2. Review previous studies and work relative to project.
3. Prepare overview mapping to show proposed pipeline
alignment.
4. Prepare preliminary construction cost estimate. Pipeline
grade and depths of excavation will be based on previous
Water District 107 design and mapping created in this
phase.
5. Prepare matrix for Metro and City review and use in
selecting a preferred project alternative.
Task 600 - Public Relations Sunport
This task will provide a fixed budget for providing technical
support to Metro Public Relations staff, including attendance at
public meetings.
3:46pm/July 15, 1993-c./adni/902/9938-11/metacpi.wpw
SCOPE OF WORK
KAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
PHASE II PREDESIGN
Task 100 - Proiect Management
The purpose of this task is to manage and coordinate project
technical resources and assure a level of service and
responsiveness consistent with project schedule and budget.
Activities included within this task include:
1. Monitor progress and expenditure of budgets.
2. Conduct periodic meetings, twice per month, to review
progress, maintain coordination between participants,
identify and make necessary schedule adjustments, and
provide opportunities for early distribution and response
to findings. Primary participants are the consultant
team. The City of Renton and Metro may attend.
3. Prepare monthly invoices that provide information on
budget expenditures, current status of tasks, and
progress toward completion. Provide two copies to Metro
by the loth of each month.
Task 200 - Environmental Compliance
The objective of this task is to identify and evaluate
environmental impacts and determine mitigation requirements
associated with the May Valley section of the project. The City
of Renton will serve as the lead agency and Brown and Caldwell
will prepare documentation for an expanded Determination of Non -
Significance. This task will provide for field studies and
analyses within the Metro project segment for incorporation into
the overall project checklist. This task will include:
1. Field investigations and environmental studies along
proposed pipeline alignments to determine location of
potential wetlands, determine value and functions of
identified wetlands according to City of Renton and King
County protocols, identify sensitive areas, assess stream
channel conditions including fisheries habitat, and
assess fisheries species and population presence.
2. Evaluation of proposed construction with respect to
environmental characteristics including:
a. Impacts to traffic and local residents
b. Slope stability
c. Ground and surface water
d. Soil disposal
e. Noise
f. Wetlands
cAadm\8M\9938-1 1\rwWscp.wpw
2
g. Fisheries
h. Vegetation
i. Erosion potential
j. Cultural resources
3. Evaluate issues related with long term operation of the
completed project including:
a. Water quality, surface restoration
b. Access by maintenance vehicles
c. Long term slope stability
d. odor
4. Assemble and prepare information and study findings for
inclusion into SEPA checklist prepared by City of Renton.
5. Participate and provide information for use in
development of project alternatives.
6. Provide five copies of the draft findings for Metro's
review. Metro Project Manager shall consolidate staff
comments and reconcile conflicting staff issues.
Incorporate Metro's consolidated comments as appropriate.
Provide ten copies of the final findings.
Task 300 - Survey . Right -of -Way and Mapping
The objective of this task is to provide mapping of project
alignment including surface features, contour elevations and
property lines. Activities will include:
1. Refine topographic base maps produced in Phase I using a
combination of aerial photogrammetry and additional
ground survey information. The mapping will include all
visible planimetric features such as structures,
utilities, improved surfaces, vegetation including trees
greater than 811 diameter, identified wetlands or geologic
features, water courses and property lines. Electronic
files of project mapping and drawings in AutoCADD Release
12 will be provided.
2. Provide supplemental ground topographic mapping as
necessary to enhance the aerial mapping information.
This mapping will include the interior detailing of
accessible utility structures as necessary to define the
size, depth, and direction.
3. Provide survey ties to existing survey monuments as
necessary to determine and include within the project
plans all applicable easements, property lines and
rights -of -way.
c:\adm\802\9938-1 I \metii&cp.wpw
3
4. Locate, tie and reference pertinent existing survey
monuments and control points and benchmarks along the
preliminary alignment for future use.
5. Identify private and public property ownership's abutting
the proposed May Valley alignments.
Task 400 - Geotechnical Evaluation
This task will provide geotechnical inforiation and
recommendations in support of predesign engineering evaluations.
Information will be developed through field and laboratory
investigations relative to the following:
1. Field investigations will include acquisition of soil
samples by hand augur of by truck or tailer mounted drill
rig. Borings (7 to 10) will be 10 to 20 feet deep.
2. Laboratory testing will be conducted on selected samples
including moisture content and dry density, sieve
analyses and shear strength.
3. Impacts of soil erosion on the adjacent stream during
construction.
4. Stability of the canyon walls, as affected by the
installation of the sewer and the impacts of canyon wall
stability on the completed construction.
5. Suitability *of the excavation soils for reuse as trench
backfill.
6. Sewer crossings at streams, including consideration of
pipe jacking or microtunneling techniques.
7. Stability of trench walls, including the need for
temporary shoring.
8. Pipe bedding and support.
9. Evaluation of potential water infiltration into
excavations and mitigation methods.
10. Potential seismic event on the completed construction.
11. Quantification and identification of soils and imported
fill which would be required for clearing and grading of
construction access, pipeline alignment and staging areas.
12. Characterization and quantification of imported backfill
for the sewer installation.
e: \adm\802\99381 I \nieW&cp.wpw
4
13. Soils report summarizing the findings of field and
laboratory investigations. Provide five copies of the
draft findings to Metro for review. Metro Project Manager
shall consolidate staff comments and reconcile
conflicting staff issues. Incorporate Metro's
consolidated comments as appropriate. Provide five final
copies to Metro.
Task 500 - PreDesign Engineering
This task will develop and evaluate a specific alignment and
grade of pipeline for the May Creek - Metro section of the
project. The application and limitation of employing trenchless
pipe installation technologies, such as pipe jacking, or boring,
at stream crossings will be explored. Activities will include:
1. Preparation of plan and profile drawings of the selected
pipeline alignment.
2. Based on flows developed for Honey Creek Subbasin and
flows provided by Metro for May Creek Service area,
evaluate pipe sizes necessary to 1) serve Honey Creek
Subbasin only, and 2) serve Honey Creek Subbasin and May
Creek service areas.
3. Evaluate construction requirements considering depth of
excavation, soil stability, groundwater and features.
Consider opportunities for trenchless construction
methods for creek crossings.
4. Prepare estimate of cost of 2 options of pipe sizing
described above. Furnish to Metro the quantity takeoff,
unit prices, and all economic assumptions.
5. Evaluate mitigation requirements determined in Task 200
as to how they might influence construction requirements.
6. Prepare report on findings, conclusions and
recommendations concerning conveyance of interceptor flow
through Metro -owned May Creek Interceptor. Provide ten
copies of the draft findings to Metro. Metro Project
Manager shall consolidate staff comments and reconcile
conflicting staff issues. Incorporate Metro's
consolidated comments as appropriate. Provide ten copies
of the final findings to Metro. Coordinate the
incorporation of findings into the overall Honey Creek
Subbasin Report with the City of Renton.
Task 600 - Public Relations SupDort
e:\adm\802\9938-1 I \=W&cp.wpw
5
This task will provide a fixed budget for providing technical
support to Metro Public Relations staff, including attendance at
public meetings.
Task 700 - Upper May Creek Investigation
1. Prepare an evaluation of major environmental and/or non-
economic issues relating to a future pipeline route
through the Upper May Creek Basin. This evaluation will
largely focus upon land use/population/recjulatory
considerations including consistency with adopted plans
and policies.
2. Evaluate potential impacts to natural resources along the
corridor in a generalized manner utilizing existing
documentation; field reconnaissance is not included as
part of this task.
3. Prepare technical memorandum summarizing evaluations
conducted and outlining major considerations relating to
implementation of the future pipeline. Additional data
collection/analysis needs will also be described. Five
copies of the technical memorandum will be submitted for
Metro review and the final memorandum included as an
Appendix in the Final Report.
eAadm\802\993 811 \nrAiiscp.wpw
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR SURVEYING AND MAPPING
HONEY CREEK SEWER PROJECT
METRO PORTION - PHASE I
TASK 300 SURVEY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY - PHASE I
a.) 1) Compile aerial topographic mapping from existing photography sufficient to
produce 1" = 100-foot scale, 6-foot contour Interval, topographic base
maps along May Creek from 11 6th Ave. N. E. (extended) to approximately N. E.
40th Street. The mapping will extend outward from the creeks to the (approx.)
toe of the adjoining slopes.
2.) Provide horizontal and vertical survey control, using a combination of GPS and
conventional survey methods, as necessary to *control" the aerial mapping. The
horizontal datum for the project will be NAD '83-91. The vertical datum will be
NGVD-29.
b.) 1.) Provide field editing of the aerial mapping, within selected *aerially obscured"
areas, as necessary to enhance the aerial topographic mapping.
2.) Provide digitizing of county assessor or other maps as necessary to orient and
include right-of-way and property fines with the aerial mapping.
3.) Provide a reference baseline and/or numbered survey points along the project
route for use by the project team in locating themselves on the project maps.
Exhibit A --Page 1 of 2 e\adm\802\9938_11\incamet--Pw
June 21, 1993 11:35am/June 21, 1993
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR SURVEYING AND MAPPING
HONEY CREEK SEWER PROJECT
METRO PORTION - PHASE 11
TASK 200 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT - PHASE 11
c.) 1.) Locate wetlands as flagged by the project team as necessary to include them
within the mapping.
TASK 300. SURVEY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY - PHASE 11
a.) 1.) Compile aerial topographic mapping from existing photography sufficient to
produce 1" = 50-foot scale, 2-foot contour Interval, topographic base
maps covering a 200-foot (plus or minus) strip along May Creek from 11 Sth Ave.
N. E. (extended) to approximately N. E. 40th Street.
C.) 1.) Provide supplemental ground topographic mapping as necessary to enhance
the aerial mapping information including interior detailing of pertinent and
accessible storm and sanitary sewer structures, and the location and invert
elevation of culverts, etc... as necessary to define the size, depth, and direction
of flow lines.
d.) 1.) Provide survey ties to existing survey monuments along the preliminary pipe
alignment as necessary to determine and include within the project plans
applicable easements, property lines, and right-of-ways.
e.) 1.) Locate, tie, and reference pertinent existing survey monuments and
benchmarks along the preliminary pipe alignment for future use.
TASK 400 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION - PHASE 11
C.) 1 Provide surveying support services, as necessary to locate and determine the
elevation of geotechnical explorations.
Exhibit A --Page 2 of 2 e\adm\802\9938_11\incamet.wpw
June 21, 1993 11:46am/June 21, 1993
PIN'
WAM
RV
to
00
Iv
NJ
CITY OF RENTON
AERIAL MAPPING LIMITS
1 .7 , I �1-
- jc,�
6p
I Ina. I to
v it j r)
resew
ATTACHMENT "All son'
see a-#-
SIM, AI
JL
--r—Ti It. li
SCOPE OF WORK
METROMONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
METRO
JUNE 15,1993
PHASEI
Task 200 - Environmental Reconnaissance/Screeniny
The objective of this task is to identify and evaluate environmental impacts and
determine mitigation requirements associated with the May Valley section of the project. The
City of Renton will serve as the lead agency and Brown and Caldwell will prepare
documentation for an expanded Determination of Non -Significance. The project Will be
completed in Phases. The first task will be to prepare a reconnaissance level screening
evaluation of proposed alternatives.
Develop a screening level matrix to summarize the environmental and permit
considerations for the May Valley section of the Project.
Task 600 - Provide Public Involvement Support
AAI will provide technical support for public relations efforts, as directed by Metro.
AAI will attend up to 3 public/agency meetings as directed by Metro.
PHASE II
Task 200 - Environmental COMDliance
This task will provide for field studies and analyses within the Metro project segment for
incorporation into the overall project checklist. This task will include:
2. Field investigations and environmental studies along the proposed pipeline alignments to
determine the location of potential wetlands, determine value and functions of identified
wetlands according to City of Renton and King County protocols, identify sensitive areas,
assess stream channel conditions including fisheries habitat, and assess fisheries species
and population presence.
3. Evaluation of proposed construction with respect to environmental characteristics
including:
0 Impacts to traffic and local residents
Slope stability
Ground and surface water
Exhibit A Page 1 of 2 e\adm\802\9938_1 1\ado1fmet.wpw
June 17, 1993 2:34pm/June 17, 1993
'r A, Ai
• Soil disposal
• Noise
• Wetlands
• Fisheries
• Vegetation
• Erosion potential
• Cultural resources
4. Evaluate issues related with long term operation of the completed project including:
9 Water quality, surface restoration
Access by maintenance vehicles
• Long term slope stability
• Odor
Assemble and prepare information and study findings for inclusion into a SEPA checklist
prepared by the City of Renton.
6. Participate and provide information for use in the development of project alternatives.
7. Provide five copies of the draft findings for Metro's review. Metro Project Manager shaU
consolidate staff comments and reconcile conflicting staff issues. Incorporate Metro's
consolidated comments as appropriate. Provide ten copies of the final findings.
Task 700 - Upper May Creek Section
The objective of this task is to identify environmental constraints associated with the
proposed additional alignment up May Valley. AAI will perform reconnaissance -level
analyses of the proposed additional alignment up May Valley. Analyses will focus upon
identification of sensitive areas, including wetlands, steep slopes, water quality and
fisheries issues. Potential fatal flaws or particularly sensitive issues will be identified.
AAI will evaluate consistency with adopted plans and policies, and will describe general
consistency with the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Evaluations will be summarized in a technical memoranda.
Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 c\adm\802\9938_11\ado1fmet.wVw
June 17, 1993 2:49pm/June 17, 1993
SCOPE OF SERVICES
MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR
TASK 400 (GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION)
GENERAL
This section provides a description of our anticipated scope of servim for the Metro
portion of the project (May Creek Interceptor below the confluence of Honey and May Creeks).
The scope of our services will be in support of Task 400 (Geotechnical Evaluation) for the project
and will be divided into two phases. Phase I will include review of available existing information
and reconnaissance along the proposed route as a basis for identifying primary predesign issues.
Phase 2 will include explorations and developing specific predesign. criteria for the sewer.
Phase 2 for the Metro portion will only proceed if the Honey Creek alignment is the final selected
alignment for the Renton portion of the project. The Metro portion of the alignment option
indicated in the RFQ comprises about 4,900 feet of a total alignmen length of about 6,500 feet.
We understand there would be three stream crossings within the Metro portion of the project.
PHASE 1 - PRELIMINARY ROUTE SELECTION
As discussed above, the purpose of our Phase I services is to ideatify primary Issues for
construction of the sewer. Our Phase I services will include the foilowing specific tasks:
1. Review existing geologic and geotechnical documents for the project area including the
King County Sensitive Areas map folio, water well logs obtained from Ecol I ogy
(Washington State Department of Ecology), other available boring log information and
aerial photographs to develop a thorough understanding of geologic, &oil and ground water
conditions along the proposed route.
2. Conduct a geologic reconnaissance of the proposed route to gather information on
landforms and geologic processes, soil types and characteristics, ground water flow
characteristics, and areas sensitive to slope instability, erosion, seismic shaking and
flooding.
3. Identify primary geotechnical issues for the proposed alignment such as excavation, pipe
support, shoring, dewatering, erosion or slope instability.
4. Develop possible options for mitigation of the primary geotechnical issues identified.
S. Provide consultation with the design team. We have budgeted two meetings; one with the
design team and a public hearing meeting.
6. Present the results of our Phase I services in a letter.
G e o E n S i n e e r s 4 He No. 0693-039-RO5
PHASE 2 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN
General
Our scope of services for each element of this task are presented below. We will also
attend meetings with the project team as appropriate. We currently have budgeted three meetings
for the Phase 2 portion of the project. In addition, we will provide a brief letter describing the
status of our study with each invoice.
Environmental Compliance
The purpose of our services is to evaluate geotechnical considerations with regard to the
Earth/Soils and Water Resources elements of the environmental assessment. Our services will
include the following specific tasks;
1. Review and incorporate the data developed from Phase 1.
2. Prepare the Earth/Soils and Water Resources portions of the draft for the Environmental
Assessment, including construction and operational impacts, sensitive areas concerns and
alternative mitigation methods. Sections will be written as "drop ins' in a letter report.
3. Review and respond to comments from the Earth/Soils and Water Resources portions of the
Draft SEPA EA.
4. Prepare SEPA Earth/Soils and Water Resources portions of the final EA.
Geotechnical Evaluation
The purpose of our services for this element is to eviore subsurface so!] and ground water
conditions and to develop specific geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the
preferred alignment (selected in Phase 1). Our specific scope of services will include the
following tasks:
I. Explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions along the alignment. We will perform
about 4 to 6 borings along the alignment and 3 borings at the 3 stream crossings of May
Creek, for a total of 7 to 9 borings. The borings will be drilled to depths of about 10 to
20 feet using a special. limited -access skid or trailer -mounted drill rig on that portion of the
alignment not located on established roads. We will use a truck -mounted drill rig for those
borings located on an established road.
2. Perform laboratory testing on selected samples including moisture content and dry density,
sieve analyses and shear strength tests.
3. Evaluate the stability of the canyon walls for both construction and postconstruction
conditions and provide criteria for stabilization of these slopes, as appropriate.
4. Provide recommendations for trench slopes and criteria for excavation support.
S. Evaluate the suitability of the excavated soil for trench backfiU and establish compaction
requirements.
6. Provide criteria for imported backfill.
7. Develop recommendations for pipe and manhole support including bedding.
0 e o E n g i a e e r s S Fft No. 0693-039-RO5
S. Evaluate the potential effects of earthquakes on project facilities including soil liquefwfion
and ground shaking.
9. Evaluate the potential for soil erosion during construction and recommend mitigation
measures to prevent sediment impacts on the stream.
10. Evaluate ground water conditions and provide general recommendations for site dewatering.
11. Evaluate the use of pipe jacking, microtunneling or open cuts for each stream crossing and
develop design recommendations and criteria for the preferred options.
12. Present the results of our geotechnical evaluation in a written report, including the field and
laboratory data and appropriate illustrations. We will provide five copies of a draft report
for the Metro portion of the project. The final report will incorporate both the Metro and
Renton portions of the project in a single document. Ten copies of the final report will be
provided.
Upper May Crook Addendum
1. Review existing geologic and geotechnical documents for the project area, the King county
Sensitive Arm map folio and aerial photographs to develop anarea perspective on geologic
conditions and processes.
2. Summarize our conclusions and recommendations regarding the upper May Creek alignment
alternative in a brief technical memorandum.
0 a o E n & i n e e r s 6 File No. 0693-039-RO5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE SUBAGREEMENT
BETWEEN BROWN AND CALDWELL AND
LEE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FOR SUBCONSULTING SERVICES FOR
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE
KAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Phase II - Predesign Task 300
Subconsultant will assist with defining selected project
alternative. Execution of subconsultants work will include:
a. Prepare monthly progress reports. Track expenditures.
Prepare invoices.
b. Attend up to two team meetings.
c. Attend up to one meeting with Metro and/or King County
Parks.
d. Attend up to one public meeting.
e. Identify park and landscape impacts and potential
mitigation measures.
f. Biological resources: Describe impacts and mitigation
related to vegetation and park resources. Assume Lee &
Associates is providing technical input to Brown and
Caldwell for landscape architectural work. Brown and
Caldwell has primary responsibility for assessment.
g. Project description: Assist in identifying tree and park
protection measures.
Product
Brief 2- to 3-page Technical Memorandum Plans and Sections
showing impacted areas and relationship to future park plans.
Exhibit A --Page 1 of 1 c\adm\802\9938_11\1eemet.wpw
June 21, 1993 10:58am/June 21, 1993
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF RENTON
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
PHASE I - PRE -DESIGN
The pre -design phase will be conducted to first identify all
possible, feasible project alternatives and define them
sufficiently for comparison and selection of a preferred project.
Each task will contain a preliminary step that will examine the
identified alternatives from an overview perspective with the
intent of identifying primary issues. The second step is to
provide detailed studies of the selected alternative in order to
begin implementation.
Task 100 - Proiect Management
The purpose of this task to plan and manage the work effort
in order to complete project elements within scheduled
timeframes and within budget and to provide a level of service
consistent with the requirements of the project and needs of the
city.
A detailed work plan will be developed at the beginning of
the project. This plan (Project Management Plan) will coordinate
Brown and Caldwell and subcontractor activities with labor
estimates and budgets, scheduled milestones, and product
deliverables. The plan will also identify protocol for lines of
communication, documentation, and invoicing procedures.
Periodic meetings twice per month during pre -design and once
per month thereafter, will be convened with project staff and
with appropriate outside agencies to assure continued awareness
of project issues and to identify new concerns or project impacts
as early as possible. Minutes of meetings and progress reports
with invoices will document the status of the project.
Task 200 - Environmental Compliance
The objective of this task is to identify and evaluate
environmental impacts and determine mitigation requirements
associated with the Honey Creek project alternatives. This task
will include a preliminary review of all feasible alternatives
and a detailed study of the selected project.
The City of Renton will serve as the lead agency. Brown and
Caldwell will prepare documentation for an expanded Determination
of Non -Significance. All environmental issues identified by SEPA
will be addressed but the focus of analyses will be on concerns
Exhibit A-- Page 1 of 4 e:\adm\802\9938_11\renscopc.wpw
May 21, 1993
identified by agencies, the public and other interested groups.
It is anticipated that construction -related issues will be of
greatest concern including (but not limited to) impacts on
traffic, noise, slope stability, soil disposal, ground and
surface water, wetlands, and fisheries. Issues associated with
long-term or operational considerations such as odor, long-term
slope stability, and water quality will also be evaluated.
Study results will be coordinated with both the City of Renton
and Metro on a regular basis throughout the environmental
evaluation. Existing information will be used to the greatest
extent possible including studies done by the City, Metro, and
King County. Environmental studies and evaluation will be
conducted by Adolfson and Associates and Watershed Dynamics
through subcontract.
Issues relating to permits will be identified and mitigation
requirements determined. Mitigation plans for affected natural
resources (wetlands, water quality, and fisheries) will be
summarized in a Mitigation Document along with mitigation plans
for traffic and other affected utilities.
The product of this task will be a SEPA checklist and a
Mitigation Document for the selected project.
Task 300 - Pre -Design
This task will identify issues and concerns of the various
interested parties related to this project and develop these in
sufficient detail to evaluate all feasible alternatives for
providing wastewater conveyance of the entire service area
defined in the Honey Creek Subbasin. A Public Awareness Program
will be designed and implemented to inform the city's target
population of the progress and form of the project.
We propose to initiate this project by meeting with the City
to review all earlier work and identify currently known issues
and interested parties. Potential impacts on the project from
other agencies will be identified through discussions and a
project start-up meeting. Currently, we expect project
involvement by the City and County Parks departments, King County
BALD, King County SWM, King County WD 107, State Department of
Fisheries and possibly by private property owners. Required
permits and their impact including intent, scope and application
procedures will be identified and summarized.
once initial concerns and issues are identified, preliminary
plans for mapping and geotechnical and environmental
investigations will be made. The Honey Creek subbasin will be
delineated and current and future land use identified. Flow
projections will be made in order to define service requirements.
Projections will be reviewed with Metro for consistency with
previous planning. Design flows will be developed consistent
Exhibit A-- Page 2 of 4 e:\adm\802\9938_1 I \renwopc-wpw
May 21, 1993
with the City's comprehensive plan and the current flow
monitoring in Honey Creek Subbasin.
All possible alternatives for providing service will be
identified. Alignments will be established and reviewed on the
ground with City staff. Previous studies by City staff that
evaluated various alternatives will be reviewed. Alternative
alignments that appear advantageous to compliance with current
environmental regulation will be sought and evaluated. Obstacles
precluding implementation will be identified and alternative
refined to eliminate or mitigate problems.
The more promising alternatives will then be defined and
compared in a matrix format for review and comment by applicable
Metro, County and State agencies.
cost estimates will be prepared and implementation
requirements will be identified for each feasible alternative.
Funding sources and their unique requirements will be identified.
Evaluation criteria will be identified from the set of issues and
concerns evident from the various alternatives. The completed
matrix will be presented for City review and selection of a
preferred project.
A significant effort will be required to develop geotechnical
information and mapping to support alternative identification and
evaluation and to support design of the selected alternative.
These tasks will be done consistent with the level of information
that will be required for environmental review and final design.
Geotechnical investigations will be performed consistent with
defining and evaluating the issues discussed earlier.
Survey control and new aerial photography will be provided
sufficient to produce 111=501 scale, 2-foot contour interval
degree of accuracy, topographic mapping of the Honey Creek
Drainage Basin. Additional aerial photography, sufficient to
produce photo and planimetric scale mapping, will be required to
provide full coverage of the pumping station/force main
alternatives. This mapping will be supplemented with centerline
profiles. Field map editing and surveys will be provided as
necessary to include existing utility surface structures and
natural features within the mapping.
A Public Awareness Program will be developed to inform the
City's target population of the project's development and to
provide a means for directing citizen input. A periodic
newsletter, directed to the City's target population, will be
prepared to present project issues, progress and goals as well as
other City issues. Newsletters will be prepared midway and at
the end of the predesign phase and later prior to and midway
through construction.
Exhibit A-- Page 3 of 4 e:\adm\802\9938_11\reruW0Pe-wP-
May 21, 1993
The preferred project will be sufficiently detailed to
identify pipeline alignments, size and material of pipeline, pump
station location, size and type of pumping equipment, power
requirements, architectural considerations, and site development
requirements. The product of Task 300 is a draft and final
report summarizing the various technical investigations,
implementation requirements including permits and funding, and a
recommended plan of action.
Exhibit A-- Page 4 of 4 c:\adm\802\9938_11\renscOpe-wJ-
May 21, 1993
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR SURVEYING AND MAPPING
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT - PRE -DESIGN PHASE
CITY OF RENTON PORTION
TASK 300 HONEY CREEK GRAVITY SEWER ROUTE PRE -DESIGN
1) Compile aerial topographic mapping from existing photography sufficient to
produce I" = 100-foot scale, 6-foot contour Interval, topographic base
maps along Honey Crook from the pump station to its' confluence with May Creek
and Westerly along May Creek to 11 6th Ave. N. E. extended. The mapping will
extend outward from the creeks to the (approx.) too of the adjoining slopes.
2.) Extend horizontal and vertical survey control to and throughout the project area,
using a combination of GPS and conventional survey methods, as necessary to
*control" the aerial topography and for later use in providing supplemental
ground surveys. The horizontal datum for the project will be NAD '83-91. The
vertical datum will be NGVD-29.
3.) Provide field editing of the aerial mapping, within selected "aerially obscured"
areas, particularly within the pump station "canyon", as necessary to enhance the
aerial topographic mapping. Provide digitizing of county assessor or other maps
as necessary to orient and include right -of -way and property lines with the aerial
mapping.
4.) Provide a reference baseline and/or numbered survey.points along the project
route for use by the project team in locating themselves on the project maps.
N.E. 27TH AND N.E. 24TH ST. FORCE MAIN ROUTES PRE -DESIGN
1.) Acquire new black and white aerial photography along the proposed N.E. 27th
St. and N. E. 24th Street force main routes sufficient to produce, at some later, 1
= 20-foot scale, 1 -foot contour intervai, 200-foot wide topographic mapping along
either route.
Splice the black and white contact prints, above, together to produce a series of
overlapping 11" x 17", 1N = 20400t (approx.) horizontal scale, black and white
photographic strips centered along both the proposed N.E. 27th St. and N.E.
24th Street force main routes.
Digitize the public right-of-ways and selected property lines, along both the
proposed N.E. 27th St. and N.E. 24th Street force main routes, from county
ass6ssor or other maps as necessary to overlay them onto the photographic
strips produced under SubTask Item 7, above.
Provide two sets of the black and white photo strips produced under SubTask
Item 7, above, photographically overlaid with the digitized right-of-way and
property lines, produced under SubTask Item 8, above.
Exhibit A --Page 1 of 1 e\adm\802\9938_11\inCRr=WPW -
June 21, 1993 11:36am/Junt 21, 1M
SCOPE OF WORK
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
RENTON
JUNE 15, 1993
Task 200 - Environmental Compliance
The objective of this task is to identify and evaluate environmental impacts and
determine mitigation requirements associated with the Honey Creek alignment. The City of
Renton will serve as the lead agency under SEPA; an expanded environmental checklist
(Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance) will be prepared. AAI will address all
environmental issues identified by SEPA, however we will focus our analyses on concerns
identified by agencies, the public, and other interested groups.
1 Field evaluations will be conducted to determine the location of potential wetlands; value
and functions of identified wetlands will be characterized according to City of Renton
protocols. Sensitive areas will be identified on an overlay map, including wetlands, steep
slopes, critical habitat areas, critical fisheries habitat, and others as determined by
literature review and field investigations. Sensitive area inventories will be conducted
within the construction corridor; the survey area will be adequate to include potential
buffer requirements.
2. Evaluate proposed construction with respect to environmental impacts including (but
not limited to):
• Traffic
• Slope stability
• Ground and surface water
• Soil disposal
• Noise
• Wetlands
• Fisheries
3. Evaluate issues associated with long term, or operational considerations such as:
• Water quality
• Growth implications
• Long-term slope stability
0
• Odor
Exhibit A --Page 1 of 2 e\adm\802\9938_11\adoIf.wpw
June 17, 1993 2:55pm/June 17, 1993
b-3
4. Identify mitigation requirements, develop mitigation measures and prepare Mitigation
Document relating to:
0 Wetlands, water quality, and other sensitive areas issues, in accordance with the
City of Renton's wetlands ordinance;
0 Watershed Dynamics will identify permitting considerations/ mitigation require-
ments relating to fisheries and will coordinate directly with the
appropriate agencies regarding fisheries permits;
0 SEPA issues
5. Insure efficiency by:
0 Discussing consistency with adopted policies, regulations, land use plans and the
Growth Management Act;
0 Using existing information to the greatest extent possible, including studies done
by the City, Metro, and King County.
6. Attend up to two meetings with the City of Renton
7. Develop the following products:
0 SEPA Environmental Checklist (Mitigated DNS): one internal review document
and one final Checklist;
0 Meeting minutes;
Overlay map illustrating Sensitive Areas;
Mitigation Document, per City of Renton requirements.
Task 300 - Predesign Activities
AAI will provide input regarding environmental considerations to the pre -design
alternative evaluation process.
1 Products include:
Input at meetings;
Memorandums
Exhibit A --Page 2 of 2 e\adm\802\9938_11\ado1f-wVw
June 17, 1993 2:56pm/June 17,1993
SCOPE OF SERVICES
HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR
TASK 300 (PREDESIGN)
GENERAL
This section provides a description of our anticipated scope Of services for the City of
Renton portion of the project (Honey Creek Interceptor). The scope of our services will be in
support of Task 300 (Predesign) for the project and will be divided into two phases. phase I wW
include review of available existing information and reconnaissance along the creek alignment
(gravity flow) and up to two alternative alignments (forced flow) to support selection of the most
feasible route. Phase 2 will include explorations and developing specific design criteria for the
selected route. The City of Renton portion of the alignment indicated in the RFQ comprises
about 1,600 feet of a total alignment length of about 6,500 feet. We understand there could be
one stream crossing within the City of Renton portion of the project.
PHASE 1 PRELIMINARY ROUTE SELECTION
As discussed above, the purpose of our Phase I services is to identify primary issues and
mitigation options for the creek and two alternate alignments to support selection of the most
femible route. Our Phase I services will include the following specific tasks:
1. Review existing geologic and geotechnical documents for the project area including the
King County Sensitive Areas map folio, water well logs obtained from Ecology
(Washington State Department of Ecology), other available boring log information and
aerial photographs to develop a thorough understanding on geologic, soil and ground water
conditions along the proposed routes.
2. Conduct a geologic reconnaissance of the creek route and two alternative forced main
alignments to gather information on landforms and geologic processes, soil types and
characteristics, ground water flow characteristics, and areas sensitive to slope instability,
erosion, seismic shaking and flooding.
3. Identify primary geotechnical issues for each alignment such as excavation, pipe support,
shoring, dewatering, erosion or slope instability.
4. Develop possible options for mitigation of the primary geotecbnical issues identified.
5. Provide consultation with the design team. We have budgeted two meetings, one with the
design team and a public hearing meeting.
6. Present the results of our Phase I services in a letter.
G e 0 B n g i n e e r i I Ffte No. 0693-039-RO5
PHASE 2 - PREDESIGN
General
Our scope of services for each element of this task are presented below. We will also
attend meetings with the project team as appropriate. We currently have budgeted three meetings
for the Phase 2 portion of the project. In addition, we will provide a brief letter describing the
status of our study with each invoice.
Environmental Compliance
The purpose of our services for this element is to evaluate geoteclWcal considerations with
regard to the Earth/Soils and Water Resources elements of the environmental assessment. our
services include the following specific tasks:
L Review and incorporate the data developed from Phase 1.
2. Prepare the Earth/Soils and Water Resources portions of the Environmental Cbeckfist,
including construction and operational impacts, sensitive areas concerns and alternative
mitigation methods. Sections will be written as "drop ins' in a letter report.
3. Review and respond to comments from the Earth/Soils and Water Resources portions of the
Draft SEPA EA.
4. Prepare SEPA Earth/Soils and Water Resources portions of the final EA.
Predesign
The purpose of our services for this element is to explore subsurface soil and ground water
conditions and to develop specific geotechnical recommendations and predesign criteria for the
preferred alignment (selected in Phase 1). Our specific scope of services will include the
following tasks:
1. Explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions along the preferred alignment.
Explorations will consist of borings spaced at approximately 500-foot intervals, as well as
at critical locations such as stream crossings, as appropriate. We will perform about three
borings along the alignment depicted in the RFQ and one boring at the stream crossing of
Honey Creek. The borings will be drilled to depths of about 10 to 20 f=4 using a special
limited -access skid or trailer -mounted drill rig. Slug tests wi1l be performed in selected
borings to provide information for development of recommendations for dewatering design.
If an alternate alignment is selected, the exploration program wiU be revised, as
appropriate.
2. Perform slug tests in selected borings, as appropriate.
3. Perform laboratory testing on selected samples including moisture content and dry density,
sieve analyses and shear strength tests.
4. Evaluate the stability of the canyon walls for both construction and postconstruction
conditions and provide criteria for stabilization of these slopes, as appropriate.
5. Provide recommendations for trench slopes and criteria for excavation support.
G e o E iD g i n e e r s 2 File No. 0693-039-RO5
6. Evaluate the suitability of the excavated soil for trench backfill and establish compaction
requirements.
7. Provide criteria for imported backfill.
8. Develop recommendations for pipe and manhole support including bedding.
9. Evaluate the use of pipe jacking, microtunneling or open cuts for the stream crossing and
develop design recommendations and criteria for the preferred options.
10. Evaluate the potential effects of earthquakes on project facilities including soil liquefaction
and ground shaking.
11. Evaluate the potential for soil erosion during construction and recommend mitigation
mcasures to prevent sediment impacts on the streams.
12. Evaluate ground water conditions and provide recommendations for site dewatering.
13. Present the results of our Phase 2 geotechnical evaluation in a written report, including the
field and laboratory data and appropriate illustrations. We will provide five copies of one
draft report for the City of Renton portion of the project. The final report will incorporate
both the Renton and Metro portions of the project in a single document. Ten copies of the
final report will be provided.
0 e o E n S i n e e r s 3 He No. 0693-M9-RO5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE SUBAGREEMENT
BETWEEN BROWN AND CALDWELL AND
LEE AND ASSOCIATESt INC.
FOR SUBCONSULTING SERVICES FOR
CITY OF RENTON
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 300 - Pre-Desicin
a. Identify park and landscape impacts and potential
mitigation measures
b. Assist in identifying pipeline alignment alternatives
C. Discuss alternatives, impacts and mitigation with Park
Department
e. Prepare illustrations to use in Public Awareness Program
Attend up to two public open houses
g. Develop mitigation design criteria
h. Prepare landscape restoration and mitigation cost
estimate
i. Attend up to 6 team meetings
j. Prepare technical memorandum
k. Assist in determining evaluation criteria
Exhibit A --Page 1 of 1 e\adm\802\9938_11\1eeren.wpw
June 21, 1993 3:37pm/June 22, 1993
HONEY CREEK / MAY VALLEY INT 12� R`OIJJEC� ���
�J(s �►
7/21/93
ACTIVITY 7/19 7/26 8/2 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25 11/1 11/8 11/15 11f22 11/29 12J6 12113 12J20 12/27
KICK OFF MEETING �
MAPPING / SURVEY
r --- �
SITE I I
RECONNAISSANCE � �
--- -�
PREL. EVALUATION
MATRIX �
PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL
ALTERNATIVE
IDENTIFICATION
PRELIM. ALT. EVAL./
MATRIX �
PERMIT �
REQUIREMENTS
-- - - --- -- --- -- ---
METRO / CITY
REVIEW _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PUBUC y
INFORMATION v
--- --- --- -- ��
SELECT
ALTERNATIVES � �
COMPLETE PRE-
DESIGN
MAPPING
SEPA
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
PUBLIC
AWARENESS
r-
;;:m E-rRo
1�lunicipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 •(206) 684-2100
July 20, 1993
90562
A61
--T -� r � , ,�-,-* - -_ �ti
, � � �� ���. ��t�" � �
Mr. David Christensen I� C�., �I
City of Renton �� = �'� V
Planning/Building/Public Works Departm �
2 0 0 Mi 11 Avenue South �; � ���2 1993
Renton, WA. 98055
Mav Vallev Pro�ect
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. Christensen:
C;ITY OF RENTON
����inc;eri;�� � ��:�;'r.
Attached for your use is one copy of Metro's contract with
Brown and Caldwell Consultants and the Notice to Proceed
letter. Please let me know if you have any questions.
er� tru u s,
� - �
David Dittmar, P.E.
Project Manager
DD: sc/msk1�,y
Attachments
�;�F l'�� � ,
,1��"( �� �
�� ��r ��,
�
�L��✓
%'-'AMF.TRC)
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building - 821 Second Ave. - Seattle, WA 98104-1598 (206) 684-2100
July 15, 1993
Mr. Mike O'Neal
Brown and Caldwell Consultants
100 West Harrison Street
Seattle, Washington 98119
N otice to Proceed for May Valley Project
Contract No.- CS/M135-92
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. O'Neal:
90542
A61
You are hereby given Notice to Proceed for all tasks under
Phase I of Contract No. CS/m135-92. The total contract
amount for Phase I is $83,962. Attached is one original of
the contract for your use.
we look forward to working with Brown and Caldwell on this
project.
Very truly yours,
Victor C. Oblas, P.E.
Director of Technical Services
VCO: dd: sc /mskk��/-
Attachment
CC: David Dittmar - 117
AGREEMENT . FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR THE
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT PHASE I PRE-DESI.GN
CONTRACT NO.. CS/M135-92
BETWEEN
THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE
AND
BROWN AND CALDWELL CONSULTANTS
EXECUTED COUNTERPARTS
COUNTERPART'NO. ]Z_ -OF 3
CS/M135-92
14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION ............ I ....................................................
SECTION2
SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................
2
SECTION 3
CHANGES IN AND ADDITIONAL WORK ................................................................
2
SECTION 4
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSULT ANT ............................................................
2
SECTION5
PROJECT DESIGN ................................................................................................
2
SECTION 6
COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF PROJECT WORK ............................... 3
SECTION7
COMPENSATION .............. I .................................................................................. 4
SECTION 8
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT ..........................................................................
6
SECTION9
SUBCONTRACTS ................................................................................................
7
SECTION 10
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ...............................................................
7
SECTION 11
UTILIZATION OF MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESSES .......................................
8
SECTION 12
PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND RIGHTS IN DATA ...................................................
8
SECTION 13
AUDIT AND ACCESS TO RECORDS ....................................................................
9
SECTION 14.
PROHIBITED INTERESTS ..................................................................................
10
SECTION 15
CONTINGENT FEES, GRATUITIES & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ........................
10
SECTION.16
LEGAL RELATIONS ...................................... ...................................................
10
SECTION17
INSURANCE ......................................................................................................
11
SECTION 18
DISPUTES AND REMEDIES ...............................................................................
13
SECTION19
NOTICE ......................... q ....................................................................................
13
SECTION 20
PROHIBITION ON SOUTH AFRICAN PRODUCTS ................................................
14
SECTION 21
ENTIRETY, AMENDMENT AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT ...........................
14
CS/M135-92
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR THE
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT PHASE I PRE -DESIGN
CONTRACT NO. CS/M135-92
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 16 �_A dd cLb - . 1 Gd�
by and between the MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE, a metrbpolitan municipal corporation
of the State of Washington with a place of business at 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104
(hereinafter referred to as "Metro') and Brown and Caldwell Consultants, a Corporation with a place of
business at 100 W. Harrison Street, Seattle, Washington 98119-4186- (hereinafter referred to as the
"Consultant").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, as authorized by Metro's Executive Director, Metro desires to retain the Consultant to perform
certain professional services, including Phase 1. Pre -design of the May Valley Interceptor Project (hbreinafter
called the 'Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Consultant represents it has available and offers to provide expert personnel and facilities
necessary to accomplish such services required for the Project within the required time and that there are
no conflicts of interest prohibited by law in entering into this Agreement with Metro;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained or,incorporated
herein, Metro and the Consultant agree as follows:
SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION
A. ;The Consultant represents that it has, or will obtain, all personnel necessary to perform the
services required under this Agreement and that such personnel shall be qualified, experienced and
licensed as may be necessary or required by laws and regulations to perform su ' ch services. All services
required under this Agreement shall be performed by -the Consultant, its employees, or by subconsultants
whose selection has been authorized by Metro; provided, that Metro's authorization shall not relieve the
Consultant or its subconsultants from any duties or obligations under this Agreement or at law to perform in
a satisfactory and competent manner. The Consultant will remove from the Project any of its subconsultants
or personnel assigned to the Project if, after the matter has been thoroughly considered by Metro and the
Consultant, Metro considers such removal necessary and in the best interests of the Project and so advises
the Consultant in writing.
B. The Project must be coordinated and integrated with other Metro Director of Technical
Services activities. Management and general supervision for the Project will be the responsibility of Metro's
Director of Technical Services, hereinafter called the "Director.' Management on a daily basis of the
progress of work on Project tasks shall be performed by an employee of Metro, hereinafter called the
'Project Manager, who shall be designated in writing by the Director. The Director will issue notices to
proceed, authorize termination or modification of tasks, and approve additions or deletions in the Project
budget and all requests for payment. The Director will be responsible for determining when all work -has
been satisfactorily performed by the Consultant and for ensuring that the Consultant complies with all
provisions of this Agreement, including minority/women business enterprise and equal employment
opportunity commitments.
CS/M135-92
SECTION 2. SCOPE OF WORK
Metro hereby retains the Consultant upon the terms and conditions contained herein to perform
certain work and services on the Project. The work and services for the Project to be performed by the
Consultant and a general Project schedule are set forth in the Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by this reference. Metro shall make available to the Consultant, without cost,
copies of as -built plans, drawings, survey notes, studies, soil reports, maintenance and performance
records, and other relevant data, and property descriptions of various Metro facilities related to the. Project
which are readily available and on file at Metro. These documents are available solely as additional
information to the Consultant and do not relieve the Consultant of its duties and obligations under this
Agreement nor constitute any representation or warranty by Metro as to conditions or other matters related
to the Project. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant to gather and become familiar with all site
information including existing improvements.
SECTION 3. CHANGES IN AND ADDITIONAL WORK
A. Metro may, at any time, by written order direct the Consultant to revise portions of the
.Project work previously completed in a satisfactory manner, delete portions of the Project or make other
changes within the general scope of the services or work to be performed under this Agreement. If such
changes cause an increase or decrease in the Consultant's cost of, or time required for, performance of any
services under this Agreement, an equitable cost and/or completion time adjustment shall be made and this
Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly. The Consultant must assert any claim for adjustment
under this Section in writing within thirty days from the date of receipt by the Consultant of the notification of
change.
B. Metro may, at any time, request that the Consultant perform additional work beyond the
scope of the Project work, hereinafter referred to as "Additional Work." Compensation for each such
request for Additional Work will be negotiated by Metro and the Consultant consistent with the
compensation provisions set forth herein and, if so authorized, shall be considered part of the Project work.
The Consultant shall not perform any Additional Work until so authorized by Metro in writing.
C. No services for which additional compensation will be charged by the Consultant shall be
furnishe d without the prior.written authorization of Metro.
I
D. All changes in and Additional Work shall be implemented in accordance with. the "Utilization
of Minority and Women Businesses" provisions in Section 11 C herein.
SECTION 4. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSULTANT
A. The Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical adequacy and
accuracy, timely completion and coordination of all plans, designs, drawings, specifications, reports and
other services prepared or performed by the Consultant and its subconsultants under this Agreement. The
Consultant shall,,without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors, omissions or other
deficiencies in such plans, designs, drawings, specifications, reports and other services. The Cons ' ultant
shall perform its work to conform to generally accepted professional standards applicable to the types of
services and work provided horeunder.
B. Metro's approval of plans, drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and other products of
the professional services rendered hereunder shall not in any way relieve the Consultant of responsibility
for the technical adequacy or accuracy thereof. Neither Metro's review, approval or acceptance of, nor
payment for, any of the services shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this
Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement.
SECTION 5. PROJECT DESIGN
A. In the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall, to the extent practicable,
provide for maximum use of structures, machines, products, materials, construction methods, and
CSIM135-92 2
equipment which are readily available through competitive procurement, or through standard or proven
production techniques, methods and processes.
B. The Consultant shall not, in the performance of the work'under this Agreement, produce a
design or specification which would require the use of structures, machines, products, materials,
construction methods, equipment, or processes which the Consultant knows to be available only from a
sole source, unless the Consultant has adequately justified the use of a sole source in writing.
C. The . Consultant shall not, in the performance- of the work under this Agreement, produce a
design or specification which ' would be restrictive or.written in such a manner as to contain proprietary,
exclusionary, or discriminatory requirements other than those based upon performance, unless such
requirements are necessary to test or demonstrate a specific thing, or to provide for necessary
interchangeability of parts and equipment. When one or more brand names or trade names of comparable
quality or utility are listed, they must be followed by the words "or approved equal.' With regard to materials,
H a single material is specified, the Consultant must substantiate in writing the basis for the selection of the
material.
D. The Consultant shall rep I ort to Metro any sole source or restrictive design or specification
giving the reason or reasons why, in the Consultant's professional judgment, it is necessary to restrict the
design or specification.
SECTION 6. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF PROJECT WORK
A. After execution of this Agreement by Metro and'the Consultant, Metro will issue written
notice to proceed on the Project or specific tasks thereof. Such notices to proceed will be provided for
specific tasks identified as necessary to produce specified work products and shall set forth the date of
commencement of the work, a description of the work to be performed, the schedule for the work
auth . orized, and the budgets for such tasks. Upon receipt of a notice to proceed, the Consultant shall
promptly commence work. Upon the satisfactory completion of Project work, Metro will evaluate such work.
B. Time is of the essence in the per * formance by the Consultant under this Agreement. The
consultant shall complete its work and services within the Project schedule, including the established
milestones and task and Project completion dates, set forth in the Scope of Work. The completion dates for
tasks may be modified only upon written agreement of the parties hereto. The completion dates for tasks
and the completion date of the entire Project shall not be extended because of any unwarranted delays
attributable to the Consultant, but Will be extended by Metro in the event of a delay caused by Additional
Work requested by Metro or because of unavoidable delay caused by any governmental action or other.
conditions beyond the control of the Consultant which could not be reasonably anticipated.
C. During performance under this Agreement, the Consultant shall ensure that its and its
subconsultants' work and services are provided and performed in the most cost-effective and efficient
manner practicable. Task budgets are established in the Scope of Work. The Consultant shall complete its
work and services within said task budgets. Task budgets may be modified only upon written authorization
of the Director. Task budgets shall not be increased because of any unwarranted delays or costs
attributable to the Consultant, but will be increased by Metro in the event of Additional Work within or
affecting a task or because of unavoidable delay caused by any governmental action or other conditions
beyond the control of the Cotisultant which could not be reasonably anticipated.
D. Not later than the loth day of each calendar month during the performance of the Project,
the Consultant shall submit to the Project Manager a copy of the current schedule and a written narrative
description of the work accomplished on and the percentage completion for each task by the Consultant
and subconsultants as of the last day of the previous month. Such monthly report shall identify all
scheduled milestones met or not met during the previous month; if a scheduled milestone was not met, the
Consultant shall provide a detailed explanation of the reasons therefor. The Consultant shall identify in its
monthly report all issues which may result in completion of any task beyond the established schedule or
budget therefor. Additional oral or written reports shall be prepared by the Consultant at the request of
Metro for presentation to federal, state and.local agencies and to the public.
CS/M135-92 3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION
A. 6ubject to the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the Consultant will be paid on a
monthly basis by Metro for authorized and satisfactorily completed work and services rendered under this
Agreement. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed and services rendered, for all
supervision, labor, supplies, materials, equipment or use thereof, taxes, and for all other necessary
incidentals, but in no case shall such payment exceed the earned value (i.e., percentage of work
completed) as determined by Metro. The amount to be paid to the Consultant shall be computed as
hereinafter set forth; provided, that such payment shall not exceed a maximum amount of EIGHTY-THREE
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS ($83,962.00) (hereinafter called the "Total Price"),
subject only to authorized adjustments as specifically provided in this Agreement. In the event the
Consultant incurs costs in excess of the Total Price, adjusted as provided herein, the Consultant shall pay
such excess from its own funds and Metro shall not be required to pay any part of such excess and the
Consultant shall have no claim against Metro on account thereof.
B. Compensation for work and services shall be on a cost plus fixed fee basis but not to
exceed the Total Price. Compensation shall be the sum of direct labor costs, indirect costs, other direct
costs and a fixed professional fee, as described below. Costs to be paid are identified on the Cost Summary
form, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, and comprise the
following:
1) Direct Labor Costs. Direct labor costs shall be the total number of hours worked
on the Project by each employee multiplied by the regular time rate for such employee's labor category.
Time rates shall be subject to reasonable adjustments not more than once during each twelve (12) month
period of work beginning on the date of executi * on of this Agreement; provided, that the Consultant shall
inform Metro at least thirty (30) days in advance of any changes in time rates for employees or principals;
provided further, that any such adjustment shall have no effect whatsoever on the Total Price. No overtime
or premium rates of pay shall be paid by Metro on the work and services performed by the Consultant
without the prior written approval of the Metro Project Manager.
2) Indirect Costs. Indirect costs shall be the product of all direct labor costs
multiplied by an overhead rate. The parties agree that an overhead rate of 180% shall be used during the
term of this Agreement. Said overhead rate may be adjusted once annually during the term of the
Agreement beginning twelve (12) months from the above effective date. The Consultant shall submit
accounting -data justifying such adjustments as outlined in Section 13, Audit and Access to Records, based
on historical costs over the preceding fiscal year. Proposed rates shall 'be subject to a Metro audit of
submitted data. Any adjustment to the overhead rate shall be effective on work performed subsequent to
the requestfor such adjustment and shall not result in an increase in the Total Price.
3) Other Direct Costs. Other direct costs shall be billed at cost without markup by
the Consultant and shall include the following described costs and expenses actually incurred by the
Consultant for Project work:
(a) Travel costs, including transportation, lodging, subsistence and incidental
expenses incurred by employees of the Consultant and each of the subconsultants while in a travel status
in connection with Project work; provided, as follows:
@ that local travel shall be by bus, taxi or compact rental car;
(ii) that a maximum of 28 cents per mile *will be paid for the operation,
maintenance and depreciation costs of company or individually owned vehicles for that portion of time they
are used for Project work;
(iii) that reimbursement for meals inclusive of tips shall not exceed $8
for breakfast, $9 for lunch and $18 for dinner or a maximum,of $35 per day;
(iv) that accommodation shall be at a reasonably priced hotel/motel;
and
(v) that air travel shall be by coach class at lowest price available.
CS/M135-92 4
(b) Cost for equipment, materials and supplies, including but not limited to:
approved equipment rental; telephone, telegraph and cable expenses; reproduction costs including
blueprinting, photographing, telecopying, mimeographing, photocopying and printing; express charges;
commercial printing, binding, artwork and models; and, computer programming and keypunching costs.
(d) Authorized subcontract services; provided, that the limitations set forth in
item (a) above shall be applicable to such subcontract services.
(d) Other direct costs, if any, not included above but which had prior approval
of the Project Manager.
4) Fixed Professional Fee (Profit). Metro shall pay the Consultant a fixed
professional fee (profit), which amount shall not.exceed a maximum total sum of FOUR THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED ELEVEN DOLLARS AND THIRTY-SIX CENTS ($4,911.36). Such profit includes all profit
allocable to subconsultants and is included in the Total Price set forth above. It is understood and agreed
that the fee is a fixed amount which cannot be exceeded because o ' f any differences between the Total
Price and actual costs of performing the work required by this Agreement, and in no event shall payments to
the Consultant exceed said Total Price, adjusted as provided herein. It is further understood and agreed
that the fixed fee is only due and payable for Project work for which Metro has given notice to proceed and
for which the Consultant has satisfactorily completed. The fixed fee will be prorated and paid monthly in
proportion to the Project work satisfactorily completed. The proportion of work completed shall be
documented by invoices and shall be determined by a ratio of the total approved.costs to date compared to
the Total Price, less profit. A payment for an individual month shall include that portion of the fixed fee
allocable to the Project work satisfactorily completed during said month and not previously paid. Any portion
of the fixed fee not.previously paid in the monthly payments shall be included in the final payment. The
method of proration may be adjusted by Metro to reflect deletions or amendments in the Project work which
are approved as herein described.
C. Not later than the 1 Oth day of each calendar month, the Consultant shall submit to the
Project Manager an invoice for payment for Project work completed to the end of the previous month. Such
invoices shall be for work performed subsequent to that work covered by all previously submitted i ' nvoices
and shall be computed pursuant to the rates and limitations set forth hereinabove. Invoices shall detail the
work, hours and employee name and level for w ' hich payment is being requested, and shall itemize with
receipts and invoices attached the Other Direct Costs for which reimbursement is being requested. Within
forty-five days of receipt of an invoice and upon approval of the work satisfactorily completed and amount
billed, Metro will pay ninety percent of the amount of the invoice so approved and will withhold ten percent
as contract retainage. At no time shall the total cumulative amounts paid for Project work exceed the total
which would. be due upon the completion of all Project work multiplied by the percentage of the required
work satisfactorily completed, as determined by Metro. Copies of all invoices submitted by the authorized
subcontractors, associates or subconsultants shall be submitted to Metro.
D. Monies reserved by Metro as contract retainage from payments to the Consultant will be
either retained in a fund by Metro or deposited in an interest -bearing Metro account in a bank, mutual
savings bank or savings and loan association with,interest accruing to the benefit of the Consultant. Not
later than the time of submittal of Us first invoice, the Consultant shall make all arrangements with Metro's
Controller and complete the necessary forms and procedures to effect the Consultant's election to have the
monies deposited in an interest -bearing account; otherwise, the monies will be retained by Metro with no
interest thereon paid to the Consultant. All costs, other than Metro administrative costs, related to setting
up or administration of such interest7bearing account or escrow arrangement shall be paid by the
Consultant. Payment or release of such contract retainage and accrued interest, if any, shall be made upon
final payment by Metro under Paragraph E of this Section.
E. Final payment of any balance earned by and payment or release of retainage (including
accrued interest) to the Consultant for Project work will be made within sixty days after all of the following: (1)
satisfactory completion of all work required by this Agreement; (2) receipt by Metro of the plans, studies,
surveys, photographs, maps, calculations, notes, reports and all other documents which are required to be
prepared and submitted by the Consultant under this Agreement; (3) delivery of all equipment/materials
purchased specifically for the project where Metro has reimbursed the Consultants for such costs; (4)
receipt by Metro of fully executed final statement of amounts paid to, owed to, and held in retainage for each
minority and women business under this Agreement; (5) such audit and verif ication as Metro may deem
necessary; and, (6) execution and delivery by the Consultant of a release of all claims against Metro arising
CS/M135-92 5
under or by virtue of this Agreement, other than such claims, if any, as may be specifically exempted by the
Consultant from the operation of the release in stated amounts to be set forth therein.
F. . No payment, whether monthly or fina�l, to the Consultant for any Project work shall
constitute a waiver or release by Metro of any claims, right or remedy it may have against the Consultant
under this Agreement or by law, nor shall such payment constitute a waiver, remission or discharge by Metro
of any failure or fault of the Consultant to satisfactorily perform the Project work as required . u . nder this
Agreement.
SECTION 8. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. Metro may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, in writing if the Consultant
substantially fails to fulfill any or all of its obligations under this Agreement through no fault of Metro;
provided, that, insofar as practicable, the Consultant will be given: (1) not less than ten calendar days'
written notice delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to terminate; and, (2) an
opportunity for consultation with Metro before termination.
.B. In addition to termination under Paragraph A of this Section, Metro may terminate this
Agreement, in whole or in part, in writing, for its convenience; provided, the Consultant will'be given: (1)
not less than ten calendar days' written notice delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent
to terminate; and, (2) an opportunity for consultation with Metro before termination.
C. If Metro terminates for -default on the part of the Consultant, the Director shall determine the
amount of work satisfactorily completed to the date of termination and the amount owing to the Consultant
using the criteria set forth below; provided, that (1) no amount shall be allowe . d for anticipated profit on
unperformed services or other work and (2) any payment due to the Consultant at the time of termination
may be adjusted to the extent of any additional costs Metro incurs because * of the Consultants default. In
such event, the Director shall consider the actual costs incurred by the Consultant in performing the Project
work to the date of termination, the amount of work originally required which was satisfactorily completed to
the date of termination, whether that work is in a form or of a type which is usable and suitable to Metro at the
date of termination, the cost to Metro of completing the work itself or of emplcying another firm to complete
it and the inconvenience and time which may be required to do so, and other factors which aff ect the value
to Metro of the Project work performed to th e date of termination. Under no circumstances shall payments
made under this provision exceed the Total Price set forth in this Agreement. This provision shall not
preclude Metro from filing claims and/or commencing litigation to secure! compensation for damages
incurred beyond that covered by contract retainage or other withheld payments.
D. If Metro terminates for convenience, Metro will pay an a.mount for services satisfactorily
performed to the date of termination, a reasonable profit for such services or'other work satisfactorily
performed, and an amount_ for expenses incurred before the termination, in addition to termination
settlement costs the Consultant reasonably incurs relating to commitments which had become firm before
the. termination, unless Metro determines to assume said commitments.
E. Upon receipt of a termination notice under Paragraphs A or B above, the Consultant shall
(1) promptly discontinueall services affected (unles-8, the notice direct's otherwise), and (2) promptly deliver
or otherwise make available to Metro all data, drawings, specifications, calculations,, reports, estimates,
s . ummanes, such other information and materials as the Consultant or subconsultants may have
accumulated in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in progress and all equipment/materials
purchased specifically for the Project where Metro has reimbursed the Consultant for such costs.
Upon termination under any paragraph above, Metro may take over the work and prosecute
the same to completion by agreement with another party or otherwise.
G. If, after termination for failure of the Consultant to fulfill contractual obligations, it is
determined that the Consultant has not so failed, the termination shall be deemed to have been effected for
the convenience of Metro. In such event, the equitable adjustment shall be determined as set forth in
Paragraph D of this Section.
CSIM135-92 6
H. If, because of death, unavailability or any other occurrence, it becomes impossible for any
lead personnel empLoyed by the Consultant in. Project work or for any corporate officer of the Consultant to
render services to the Project, the Consultant shall not be relieved of its obligations to complete
performance under this Agreement without the concurrence and written approval of Metro. If Metro agrees
to termination of this Agreement under this provision, payment shall be made as set forth in Paragraph C of
this Section.
SECTION 9. SUBCONTRACTS
A. Any subconsultants and outside associates or consulting firms or individuals, including any
substitutions thereof, required by the Consultant in connection with services to be provided under this
Agreement are subject to the terms and conditions herein and will be subject to prior authorization by Metro.
Each subcontract and a cost summary therefor shall be subject to review by the Project Manager prior to the
subconsultant proceeding with the work. The Consultant shall be responsible for the professional
standards, performance and actions of all persons and firms performing subcontract work.
below:
B. Metro hereby authorizes the Consultant to subcontract with the persons and firms listed
Adolfson Associates
Inca Engineers
GEO Engineers
Lee & Associates
C. The Consultant shall submit monthly reports detailing all work completed by subconsultants
during the preceding month and copies of all invoices relating thereto.,
SECTION 10. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
A. The Consultant shall comply with the Equal Employment opportunity Requirements set
forth in Metro Resolution No. 6054, which resolution is hereby incorporated herein by this reference.
B. The Consultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, nationality, or the presence.of any sensory,
mental or physical disability, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualif ication. The Consultant will
take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during
employment, without regard to their race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, nationality, or the
presence of such disability. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or
other forms of compensation; and selection of training, including apprenticeship. The Consultant agrees to
post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the
provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
C. The Consultant will, prior to commencement and during the term of this Agreement, furnish
Metro, upon request and on such forms as may be provided by Metro, a report of the affirmative action taken
by the Consultant in implementing the terms of this provision, and will permit access by Metro's Executive
Director or his designee to the Consultant's records of employment, employment advertisements,
application forms, and other pertinent data and records for the purpose of inv . estigation to determine
compliance with this provision.
D. The Consultant will implement and carry out the obligations contained in its sworn
statement regarding equal employment opportunity submitted as part of its proposal to perform this Project
and said sworn statement is incorporated herein by this reference. Failure to implement and carry out such
obligations in good faith may be considered by Metro a material breach of this Agreement and grounds for
withholding payment and/or termination of the Agreement and dismissal of the Consultant. The Consultant
shall require that sworn statements substantially in the form of that required by Metro from the Consultant be
submitted by its subconsultant(s) and that substantially the foregoing provisions be contained in all such
subcontracts.
CS/Ml 35-92 7
SECTION 11. UTILIZATION OF MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESSES
A. It is the policy of Metro that minority and women businesses as defined in Metro Resolution
No. 6054, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and
subcontracts under this Agreement. Consequently, the minority and women business requirements of
Metro Resolution No. 6054, apply to this Agreement and. said resolution is hereby incorporated herein by
this reference.
B. The Consultant shall ensure that minority and women businesses as defined above have
the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts under this
Agreement. In this regard, the Consultant shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accord with said
resolution to ensure that minority and women businesses have the maximum opportunity to compete for
and perform contracts and subcontracts hereunder. The Consultant shall ensure its subconsultants make
affirmative efforts to utilize minority and women businesses in subcontracts. The Consultant shall not
discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, nationality, or the presence of
any sensory, mental or physical disability in the award and performance of such contracts and subcontracts.
C. Throughout the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall comply, as to tasks and dollar
amounts, with all commitments made in the Consultant's proposal for the participation by minority and
women businesses, which commitments are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. Specifically, the
Consultant shall utilize minority and women businesses at least to the levels provided below:
Minority Businesses 24.6%
Women Businesses .8.9%
of the Total Compensation for this Agreement.
The Consultant shall ensure that participation by minority and women businesses is taken into account in
supplements, amendments, or change orders to this Agreement such that, insofar as practicable, overall
utilization of such businesses will remain. at levels not less than those stated above. Unless otherwise
approved by Metro, any such minority and/or women businesses which for any reason whatsoever no
longer remain associated with the Consultant under this Agreement shall be substituted, subject to prior
authorization by Metro, with other minority and/or women businesses, as applicable, such that, insofar as
practicable, utilization of such businesses will remain at levels not less than those stated above.
D. With each request for payment, including final payment, the Consultant shall submit a
statement of amounts -actually paid to each minority and women business under this Agreement. Such
statement shall be submitted on a form provided by Metro. Payments will not be made to the Consultant
unless such statements have been properly submitted.
E. During the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain sufficient records
necessary for monitoring the Consultant's compliance with the provisions of Resolution No. 6054.
F. Failure by the Consultant to comply with any requirements o f Metro Resolution No. 6054, or
this Agreement related to utilization of minority and women businesses will be considered a material breach
of this Agreement. In the event the Consultant fails to comply with such requirements, Metro may impose
sanctions including, but not limited to, the following: (1) suspension of this Agreement; (2) withholding of
payments under this Agreement; (3) termination of this Agreement; and (4) any other sanctions authorized
under Resolution No. 6054. Any such failure by the Consultant may be considered by Metro in determining
whether to award any other agreements to the Consultant.
SECTION 12. PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND RIGHTS IN DATA
A. Any patentable result or materials suitable for copyright atising out of this Agreementshall
be owned by and made available to Metro for public use, unless Metro shall, in a specific case where it is
legally permissible, determine that it is in the public interest that it not be so owned or available.
CS/M135-92 8
B. The Consultant agrees that ownership of any plans, drawings, designs, specifications,
computer programs, technical reports, operating manuals, calculations, notes, and other work submitted, or
which are specified -to be delivered under this Agreement or which are developed or produced and paid for
under this Agreement, whether or not complete (referred to in this Section as "Subject Data') shall be
vested in Metro or such other local, state or federal agency, if any, as may be provided by separate contract
with Metro.
C. All such Subject Data furnished by the Consultant pursuant to 1h is Agreement, other than
documents exclusively for internal use by Metro, shall carry such notations on the front cover or a title page
(or in the case of maps, in the name block) as may be determined by Metro. The Consultant shall also place
fts.endorsement on all Subject Data furnished by it. All such identification details shall be subject to approval
by Metro prior to printing.
D. The Consultant shall ensure that substantially the foregoing, paragraphs are included in
each subcontract for the work on the Project.
SECTION 13. AUDIT AND ACCESS TO RECORDS
A. The Co . nsultant, including its subconsultants, shall maintain books, records, documents,
and other evidence directly pertinent to performance* of the work under this Agreement in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied. Metro, or any of its duly
authorized representatives, shall, for the purpose of audit and examination, have access to and be
permitted to inspect such books, records, documents, and other evidence for inspection, audit and
copying for a period of three years after completion of the Project. Metro shall also have access to such
books, overhead data, records and documents during the performance of Project work -if deemed
necessary by Metro to verify Consultant work and invoices, to assist in negotiations for Additional Work and
to resolve clainns and disputes. Such information shall include but not be limited to:
1. A statement about the accounting system indicating the following:
a) An overview of the accounting system and its capability to track costs and
provide financial information.
b) Written procedures and policies concerning the accounting system,
timekeeping, payroll, purchased services and materials, direct and indirect cost control, asset capitalization,
depreciation, and pre -contract costs.
2. Chart of accounts including definition of what, is included in each account.
3. A statement indicating the basis for the overhead rate 9 it is historical information, or
future information. If it is future information, then indicate both historical and future and explain the change
from historical information to future. In executing this Agreement, the Consultant certifies under penalty of
perjury that the overhead burden rate information, separate direct and in ' direct charges that no direct
charges are included with the indirect charges and that the indirect charges do not include any
unauthorized charges per the Federal Acquisition Regulations Part 31.
B . Audits conducted under this Section shall be in. accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards and established procedures and guidelines of the reviewing or audit agency(ies).
C. The Consultant agrees to the disclosure of all information and reports resulting from access
to- records under paragraphs A and B of this Section provided that the Consultant is afforded the
opportunity for an audit exit conference and an opportunity to comment and submit any supporting
documentation on the pertinent portions of the draft audit report and that the final audit report will include
written comments of reasonable length, if any, of the Consultant.
D. The Consultant shall ensure that substantially the foregoing paragraphs are included in
each subcontract for work on the Project.
CS/M135-92 9
SECTION 14. PROHIBITED INTERESTS
No member, officer or employee of Metro or its governing body, or of any of its component
agencies, during.such person's tenure or one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement or the proceeds thereof unless such interest has been disclosed in writing to Metro and
Metro has determined that no prohibited conflicts of interest or ethical violations inhere in the
circumstances.
SECTION 15. CONTINGENT FEES, GRATUITIES & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Consistent with the Municipality's Resolution No. 2613, the Consultant agrees as follows:
A. The Consultant warrants and covenants that no person or selling agency has been
employed or retained to solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement or understanding for a
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees. For broach of
violation of this warranty Metro shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or in its discretion,
to deduct from the Total Price or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage,
brokerage or contingent fee.
B. The Consultant warrants and covenants that no gratuities, in the form of entertainment, gifts
or otherwise, have been or will be offered or given by the Consultant or any of its agents, employees or
representatives to any official member.or employee of Metro in an attempt to secure a contract or favorable
treatment in awarding, amending or making any determination related to the performance of this
Agreement.
C. The Consultant warrants and covenants it has no direct or indirect pecuniary or proprietary
interest, and that it shall not acquire any such interest, which conflicts in any manner or -degree with the
performance of the services required to be performed under this Agreement and that it shall not employ any
person or agent having any such interest. In event that the Consultant or its agents, employees or
representatives hereafter acquires such a conflict of interest, the Consultant shall immediately disclose such
interest to Metro and take action immediately to eliminate the conflict or to withdraw from the Agreement as
Metro may require.
D. If Metro's Executive Director has reason to believe that the covenants set forth in
Paragraphs A, B or C above have been breached, he shall so notify the Consultant in writing. The
Consultant shall respond to said notice within ten days of receipt with a detailed written explanation or
answer to any facts, allegations or questions contained or referenced in said notice. The Consultant may
request a hearing on the matter by Metro's Executive Director which shall bo.conducted within fifteen days
of the ' receipt by the Executive Director of the request unless a later date is,concurred in by Metro and the
Consultant. The decision of the Executive Director shall be a prerequisite to appeal thereof to the Metro
Council or to Superior Court in the County of King, State of Washington. If, after consideration of the
Consultant's response and any hearing, the Executive Director determines that the covenants have been
breached, the Executive Director shall have the discretion to exercise those remedies provided by any
applicable federal or state laws or regulations or by this Agreement in the event.of said breach and/or
prohibited conflicts of interest.
SECTION 16. LEGAL RELATIONS
A. To the best of its ability, the Consultant shall comply, and shall ensure its subconsultants
comply, with all Metro resolutions and federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances applicable to
the work and services to be performed under this Agreement.
B. In performing work and services hereunder, the Consultant and its subconsultants,
employees, agents and representatives shall be acting as independent consultants and.shall not be
deemed or construed to be employees or agents of Metro in any manner whatsoever. The Consultant shall
not hold itself out as, nor claim to be, an officer or employee of Metro by reason hereof and will not make any
claim, demand or application to or for any right or privilege applicable to an officer or employee of Metro. The
CS/M135-92 1.0
Consultant shall be solely responsible for any claims for wages or compensation by Consultant employees,
agents and representatives, including subcons'uftants, and save and hold Metro harmless therefrom.
C. To the maximum extent p, ermitted by law, the Consultant agrees to indemnify and save
harmless Metro, its officers, agents and �mployees, from and against any and all su ' its, claims, actions,.
losses, costs, penalties and damages of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of, in connection with, or
incident to work or services provided by or' on behalf of the Consultant, except to the extent caused by the
negligence of Metro. The Consultant further agrees to assume the defense of Metro and its officers,
agents and employees in all legal or claim �proceedings arising out of, in connection with, or incident to such
work or services, to pay all defense expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs
incurred by Metro directly or indirectly on! account of.such litigation or claims and to satisfy any judgment
rendered in connection therewith or to pay or reimburse Metro's payment of any sums reasonable to settle
such litigation or claims. In the event of litigation between the parties to enforce the Hghts under this
paragraph, reasonable attorney fees shall� be allowed to the prevailing party. This indemnification obligation
shall include, but is not limited to, all claims against Metro by an employee or former employee of the
Consultant or its subcontractors, and the Consultant expressly waives all immunity and limitation on liability
under any industrial insurance act, including Title 51 RCW, other worker's compensation act, disability
benefit act, or other employee benefit act �of any jurisdiction which would otherwise be applicable in the case
of such claim.
. D. The Consultant shall not assign any interest, obligation or benefit in this Agreement or
transfer any interest in the same, whether by assignment or novation, without prior written consent by
Metro; provided, however, that clairns� for' money due or to become due to the Consultant from Metro under
this Agreement may be assigned to ai bank, trust company or other financial institution without such
approval. Notice of any such claim assig , nment shall be furnished promptly to Metro.
E. Metro's rights and remedies in this Agreement are in addition to an y other rights and
remedies provided by law.
F. This Agreement and all,provisions hereof shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of
the State of Washington in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement. Subject to the provisions
I
herein regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Superior Court of King County, Washington,
shall have exclusive jurisdiction and venue over any legal action arising under this Agreement.
SECTION 17. INSURANCE
A. ' EVIDENCES AND CANCELLATION OF INSURANCE:
At the time of execution of this Agreement, the Consultant shall file with Metro evidences of
insurance from the insurer(s) certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. All evidences of
insurance must be certif ied by a properly authorized officer, agent, general agent or qualif ied representative.
of the insurer(s) and shall certify the name of the insured, the type and amount of insurance, the location
and operations to which the insurance applies, the expiration date, and that the insurer(s) shall give, by.
registered. mail, notice to Metro at least 30 days prior to the effective date of any cancellation, lapse or
material change in the policy. Any fa . ilure to mail such notice shall not relieve the insurance company, its
agents or representatives from obligations and/or liability hereunder.
The Consultant shall, upon demand of Metro, deliver to Metro a certified copy of all such policy or
policies of insurance and the receipts1for payment of premiums thereon; and should the Consultant neglect
so to obtain and maintain in force any such insurance or deliver such policy or policies and receipts to Metro,
then Metro shall request that the Consultant deliver a specific action plan to acquire such insurance and/or
deliver policies and receipts within three days or before any further performance hereunder, whichever is
first. Failure to provide such insurance in a tinie-frame acceptable to Metro shall enable Metro to suspend or
terminate the Consultants work hereunder in accordance with Section 8 herein. Suspension or termination
of this Agreement shall not relieve the Consultant from its insurance obligations hereunder.
CSIM135-92
Taking into account the scope of work and services to be performed by a subconsultant, the
Consultant shall paidently determine wheiher, and in what amounts, each subconsultant shall obtain and
maintain public liability, professional liability and any other insurance coverages.
B. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:
The Consultant shall obtain and maintain the minimum insurance set forth below. By requiring such
minimum insurance, Metro shall not be ' deemed or construed to have assessed the fisks that may be
applicable to the Consultant under this Agreement. The Consultant shall assess its own risks and, if it
deems appropriate and/or prudent, maintain greater limits and/or broader coverage.
1 . General Liability:'
a. Bodily Injury Liability affording limits of liability of $500,000 each
occurrence and $500,000 aggregate, fo r bodily injury or death suffered or alleged to have been suffered
by any person or persons by reason of or in the course of operations under the Agreement.
b. Property Damage Liability affording limits of $500,000 each
occurrence and $500,000 aggregate, for damages to property suffered or alleged to have been suffered
by any person or persons by reason of o I r in the course of operations under the Agreement.
C. If such insurance is written on a Combined Single Limit (CSL) basis, the limit
of liability required is $1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate, CSL.
2. Automobile Liability:
a. Bodily Injury Liability affording limits of liability of $500,000 each
person and $1,000,600 ' each accident, for bodily injury or death suffered or alleged to have been
suffered by any person or persons by reason of or in the course of operations under the Agreement.
b. Prope'rty Damage Liability affording limits of $250,000 each
accident, for damages to property suffered or alleged to have. been suffered by any person or persons by
reason of or in the course of operations under the Agreement.
C. If such; insurance is written on a Combined Single Limit (CSL) basis, the limit
of liability required is $1,000,000 per'accident, CSL.
3. Such liability insurance shall indemnify the Consultant, Metro and its officers,
officials, agents and employees against loss from liability imposed by law upon, or assumed under
agreement by the Consultant and/or its subconsultants for damages on account of bodily injury, property
damage and/or other damages. Suck insurance shall include: (1) personal injury; (2) blanket contractual;
(3) broad form property damage; (4) owned and non -owned vehicles and equipment; and (5) Washington
stop -gap (Employees Liability). Such insurance shall not exclude, explosion, collapse, or underground
hazards (X,C,U).
4. Additional coverages required:
a. Whenever the work under this Agreement includes "professional
setvices', the Consultant shall maintain the appropriate Professional Liability, affording limits of liability of
$1,000,000 each claim and $2,000,600 aggregate for damages. sustained by reason of or in the course
of operations under the Agreement" whether occurring by reason of acts, errors or omissions of the
Consultant.
b. — Whenever the Consultant has vehicles, equipment or other property of
Metro in its care, custody or. control, the Consultant shall maintain Garage Keepers Legal Liability, or other
appropriate legal liability coverage, a I ffording limits of liability equal to the maximum value of all property of
Metro in the Consultant's care, custody or control or $50,000 per occurrence, whichever is greater.
Coverage shall be on an "ail risle form.
C. Whenever the work under this Agreement involves advertising activities,
the Consultant shall maintain A&ertisers Professional Liability affording limits of $500,000 each
occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate.
d. Whenever the work under this Agreement involves'the use of watercraft,
the Consultant shall: (1) provide Protection & Indemnity coverage affording a liability limit of $1,000,000
per occurrence and such insurance, shall include coverage for injury to crew (Jones Act); and (2) maintain
Pollution Insurance in the amount of Statutory Section A limit and $1,000,000 Section B limit.
CS/M135-92 12
e. If applicable (e.g., if work performed is on or about navigable waterways),
I
the Consultant shall also maintain statutory United States Longshoremen & Harborworkers' coverage.
f. Other insurances as may be deemed appropriate by Metro.
Such insurance shall be maintained through the term of this Agreement and, except for automobile
liability, for a period of 365 days after termi nation or acceptance of work, as the case may be. If coverage is
on a "claims made" basis, coverage shall.be further extended to cover claim's made during one additional
year beyond said period.
All liability insurance policies, except as required in subparagraphs 4a and 4b above, shall include
Metro and its officers, officials, agents and employees as additional insureds and shall contain.'severability
of interest" (cross liability) wording.
The Consultant's insurance shall be primary to and not contributing with any insurance or self-
insurance which may be carried by Metro.
Such insurance shall be provided 'on forms and by insurance companies satisfactory to Metro.
No provision in this Section 17 shall be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant for work not
done in accordance with the Agreement,or express or implied warranties. The Consultants liability for the
work shall extend as far as the appropriate periods of limitation provided by law.
C. WORKERS'COMPENSATION:,
The Consultant and its subconsultants shall maintain Workers' Compensation insurance in the
amount and type required by law for all employees employed under this Agreement who may come within
the protection of workers'. compensation laws. The Consultant shall make all payments arising from the
performance of this Agreement due the State of Washington pursuant to Titles 50 and 51 RCW.
SECTION 18. DISPUTES AND REMEDIES
All claims, counter -claims, disputes and other matters in question between Metro and the
Consultant arising out of or,relating to this Agreement or the breach of it shall be referred to Metro's
Executive Director or a designee for determination, together with all facts, data, contentions and so forth
which relate thereto. The Executive Dir,6,ctor or a designee shall make a determination within thirty days of
such referral. Such referral and deterni ' ination by the Executive Director or a designee shall be a condition
precedent to 4he commencement of a civil action to adjudicate such dispute in the Superior Court of King
County, Washington.
SECTION 19. NOTICE
- Any notice required to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be* directed to the party at
the address set forth below. Notice shall be considered issued and effective upon receipt thereof by the
addressee -party or twenty-four hours after mailing to the place of business set forth below, whichever is
earlier.
Metro: Metro
Exchange Building
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
Attn: Vic Oblas, Director
Technical Services
Consultant: Brown and Caldwell Consultants
100 W. Harrison Street
Seattle, Washington 98119-4186
Aftn: Jack Warburton, S.V.P.
CS/M135-92 13
SECTION 20. PROHIBITION ON SOUTH AFRICAN PRODUCTS
Pursuant to Resolution No. 5250 of Metro, the Consultant shall not, in the performance of the work
under this Agreement, produce a design or specification which would permit or require the acquisition or
use of products manufactured or fabricated in the Republic of South Africa.
SECTION 21. ENTIRETY, AMENDMENT AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement merges and supersedes ail prior negotiations, representations and agreements between
the parties relating to the subject, matter hereof and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.
This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by the parties hereto.
This Agreement shall be executed in three (3) counterpart copies, any of which shall be considered for all
purposes as the original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by.their
respective authorized officers or representatives as of the'day and year first above n.
MUNICIP�LITY OF 19T P ITAN SEATTLE
?+rd K. Sandaas, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
E�
Carolyn J. Pu:hell
Chief Counsel
BROWN AND CALDWELL CONSULTANTS
el V
Tifie-ZZ.z�.
SUe of
Comty Of \C-
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that L-:� " 2e-k- \-�� signed
this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to e�ecute the instrument and acknowledged it
as the of C6-k.,A— ekQ- j to be the free
and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Date. -:Y'A " -) kc\"� -N
0
C.3
T A
P Ll
13
14,
F
(Signature of
V-) 0 4a--� \ f 'A'u-c-
Tale
My appointment expires '3 j4 1 lok
CS/M135-92 14
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
I
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
PHASE I PREDESIGN
Task 100 - Project Management
The purpose of this ta �k is to manage and coordinate project
P
technical resources and assure a level of service and
responsiveness consistent with project schedule and budget.
Activities included within this*task include:
1. Prepare a detailed.work plan that identifies all
activities, completion schedules, and responsible party
for task completion. Submit three copies of draft work
plan to Metro for ' review. Metro Project Manger shall
consolidate staff ' comments and reconcile conflicting
staff issues. Incorporate Metro's consolidated comments
as appropriate. Provide five copies of the final work
plan to Metro.
2. Conduct project start-up meeting with Metro Staff, City
of Renton staff and consultant team members to develop
consensus on approach and focus on issues and assign
responsibilities.
3. Monitor progress and expenditure of budgets.
4. Conduct periodic meetings, twice per month, to review
progress,-maintaih coordination between participants,
identify and make necessary schedule adjustments, and
provide opportunities for early distribution and response
to findings. Primary participants are the consultant
team. The City of Renton and Metro may attend.
5. Prepare monthly invoices that provide information on
budget.expenditures, current status of tasks, and
progress toward completion. Prov - ide two copies to Metro
by the 10th of each month.
Task 200 - Environmental Review
The'objective ot this task is to conduct a reconnaissance
level review of the proposed may Creek pipeline alignment and
develop a screening level matrix to summarize the environmental
and permit considerations.
1. Conduct site reconnaissance of established alignment.
2. Identify probable environmental issues and mitigation
requirements.
10:22am/Ju6e 3, 1993-e/adm/802/9938_11/metsepi.wpw
2
3. Prepare a matrix for comparing identified issues and
selection criteria.
Task 300 - Survey, Riccht-ot-Way and Mappincr
I
This task will provide�111 equals 50 ' I contour strip mapping
(2-foot contour interval over 100 feet to each side of the
proposed Phase I alignment) suitable for design purposes and 1"
equals 100' photo mapping Inclusive of the valley floor for
purposes of,presenting-the,proposed pipeline.alignment or
alternatives.
1. Provide survey control for aerial photography sufficient
to produce 111 equal 5011 scale, 2-foot contour interval
mapping of selected interceptor alignment. Aerial photo
and placement'of control targets provided under separate
contract.
.2. Prepare photo mapping with property lines for alignment
section and 2-foot contour strip mapping suitable -for
final design. Mapping will be prepared from aerial
photography previously provided supplemented with limited
ground survey and,map edits.
3. Locate proposed . alignment an the ground for guidance of
geotechnical and�environmental specialists.
Task 400 - Geotechnical �eview
This task will provide a geologic'reconnaissance to identify
primary issues and mitigation alternatives or requirements.
1. Review existing geologic.and geotechnical documents
related to the ptoject area.
2. Conduct reconnai ' ssance of -proposed pipeline alignment to
gather information on landforms and geologic processes,
soils types and characteristics.j groundwaterflow
characteristics,: and areas sensitive to slope
instability, erosion, seismic shaking and floodi . ng.
3. Identify primary geotechnical issues facing pipeline
construction and possible mitigation options.
4. 'Summarize findings in a technical memorandum.
Task 500 - Predesign Engineerinct
This task will define a proposed pipeline alternative in
i
sufficient detail to be -compared with.competing alternatives
developed under the City of Renton contract. The preliminary
1:50pm/May 26, 1993--c/adm/802/9938_11/metscPi.wPw
9
alternatives will be defined with respect to select criteria
developed in this*phase and compared in a matrix format.
1. Locate pipeline alignment on the ground and review with
Metro for concurrence. Alignment will be located based
on finding most feasible, least impacting route. . .
2. Review previous studies and work relative to project.
3. Prepare overview mapping to show proposed pipeline
alignment.
4. Prepare preliminary construction cost estimate. Pipeline
grade and depths of excavation will be based on previous
Water District 107 design.and mapping created in this
phase.
5. Prepare matrix for Metro and City review and use,in
selecting a preferred project alternative.
Task 600 - Public Relations Support
This task will provide a fixed budget for providing technical
i
support to Metro Public,Relations staff, including attendance at
public meetings.
9
1:26pm/May 26, 1993-e/adm/802/9938_11/mctscPi-w�' *
Time Schedule of Completion
May Valley-InterceptorlProject Phase,I Predesign
ACtivity/Milestone 'Completion Date
Authorize to Proceed July 1, 1993
Identify/Define Alternatives August 27, 1993
City/Metro/Public Review September 30, 1993
Select Project Alternative
e:\adm\802k9938-1 Nmy.wpw
EXHIBIT B
IV,Y,v ValleK 1,a&mGa&c 111-o el - Ahme I
Professional
Merrill $43.27
O'Neal $33.29
Getz $28.21
Denson $30.09
Knott $26.90
Technical
Miller $24.70
Drafting $22.36
Graphics $23.36
Administrative
WP $16.26
Admin $16.58
Other Direct Costs
Travel
Communication
Computer/CADD
Reproduction/Printing
Word Processing
B & 0 tax @ 1.9%
Subconsultants
Adolfson Associates
Lee & Associates
Inca
Geo Engineers
Total Labor Hours
Professional
Technical
Administrative
Total Labor Dollars
Overhead
Total ODC's
Fee
IrASK TOTALS
Hours
Task 100
Project
Management
Hours
Task 200
Environmental
Compliance
Hours
Task 300
Survey
Right -of -Way
Hours
Task 400
Gootechnical
Evaluation
Hours
Task 500
Pre-DesIgn
Hours
Task 600
Public
Relations
Hours
Task 700
Upper
May Creek
4
$173
60
$1,997
8
$266
4
$133
4
$133
20
$666
16
$M
20
$564
12
$339
20
$564
20
$564
50
$1,411.
16
$451
12
$361
10
$301
4
$108
30
$741
8
$196
40
$988
16
$358
60
$1,342
24
$561,
20
$325.20
4
$65.04
6
$97.56
12
$195.12
32
$520
20
$331.60
20
$332
$60.00
$60.00
$60.00
$60.00
$120.00
$60.00.
$60.00
$60.00
$60.00
$60.00
$50.00
$50.00
$100.00
$200.00
$80.00
$60.00
$60.00
$100.00
$200.00
$50.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$260.00
$95.00
$393.30
$136.80
$47.50
$5,000.00
$2.5W.00
$20,700.00
$7,200.00
80 32 24 24 88
46 8 124
AO 4 6 12 52
32
$10.342.90 $8,548.09 $27,371.88 $11,055.29 $20,900.52 $5,743.32
TOTAL PHASE 1 $83,962.00 WBE=8.9% MBE=24.6%
ft"'DMETRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building 0 821 Second Ave. 0 Seattle, WA 98104-1598
March 10, 1992
Mr. David M. Christensen
Wastewater Utility Engineer
Utility Systems Division
Planning/Building/Public Works
Department
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WashingtL� �
Dear Mr..5>�nTsen--�
Per my letter of March 4, attached is an expanded work plan
for our joint Honey Creek and May Valley Interceptor
Projects. Please let me know when you have finished
reviewing it and I will schedule a meeting with our
respective teams to discuss it. Thank you.
ly,
Vicki S. Renier
Renton Projects Liaison
May Valley Co -Project Manager
cc: David Dittmar
Tim Goon
Marc Dallas
HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR IV
MAY VALLEY INTERCEP'I'OR
WORK PLAN
March 10, 1992
The following is offered as further clarification of Metro's
understanding of Honey Creek Interceptor IV and May Valley
Interceptor Work Plan, per the February 26 joint Metro and
City of Renton team meeting and previous policy meetings
which included directors of both agencies.
P�oject Scope
This project consists of two components, Honey Creek
Interceptor Phase IV and May Valley Interceptor Phase I.
The former is a City of Renton project and the latter a
Metro project. Each of the two projects has an engineering
and construction, environmental and public involvement
effort. The responsibility for conducting and paying for
the efforts is addressed below in terms of the individual
efforts for each component.
The May Valley Phase I component is a distinct, gravity line
alternative that will be considered during the evaluation of
all alternatives to alleviate the City's problems of
overflows and inadequate capacity in the Honey Creek system
and pump station. This is of course unless the City has
already prepared a Capital Improvement Plan which identifies
a gravity line down May Valley. If so, and if SEPA was
conducted on such a CIP, then evaluation of alternatives ma
be reduced to gravity lines only. ��n "���,� �,;��;,'�y„t����'�F-
SEPA Process ���
As Metro understands it, the City as SEPA lead agency, will
y�jhire a consultant to conduct the SEPA process. The
consultant will examine the problems associated with sewage
flows in the Honey Creek Basin. An as yet to be determined
number of solutions to the problem(s) will be examined, one
�� of which is a gravity line through May Valley. This line is
known as Metro's May Valley Interceptor Fhase I. Phases II
and III will not be considered. As mentioned above, if the
City has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which has
undergone SEPA review and recommends only gravity lines as
solutions to basin problems such as that of Honey Creek, the
City's consultant will only be required by SEPA to examine
gravity flow alternatives.
�
��►�.ii,� �` � �
Honey Creek/May Valley Workplan
March 10, 1992
Page Two /
�i� ti- '' �
Metro will participate in the SEPA process, in a review
capacity. Metro will also provide a SEPA level
description/evaluation of the May Valley Interceptor as an
alternative.
Metro will compensate the City for their costs of the SEPA
process, if the City so desires. However, the effort will
be funded out of the $1.7 million Metro May Valley
Interceptor budget. If the City funds the environmental
effort, Metro's budget will cover only Metro's costs for
environmental review and analysis.
Predesign (Preliminary Design, 30 Percent Complete)
Metro further understands that the City will hire a
consultant to conduct predesign work on all of the
alternatives for the Honey Creek project except for the May
Valley alignment option. This consultant may be the same
one doing the SEPA work. The City would like to focus the
predesign on gravity line alternatives. However, Metro
recommends that options other than gravity lines be exami d
in order to satisfy potential public interests. �.(����%��
r
���
�� �����
Metro will not pay for the City's predesign work nor the
resulting report. However, Metro will provide predesignr��� ��,�c,��r�
engineering for the May Valley Interceptor which can be
included in the report. Metro will also coordinate as �`�%� ��/�1
appropriate with the City and their consultant. Metro's ������
predesign effort will be funded out of the $1.7 million May
Valley Interceptor budget.
Consultant Selection
Metro will participate in the City's consultant selection.
It is recommended that the RFP/RFQ scopes include
coordination elements between the City and their consultant
and Metro for SEPA, predesign, and public awareness.
Any work to be performed by the consultant on May Valley
would be negotiated up front by Metro and the consultant.
The consultant would then bill Metro through the standard
billing process. Process guidelines will be provided to the
consultant upon selection. Incidentally, the consultant
will be required to satisfy Metro's M/WBE requirements, per
Section 6.3 (page 18) of the MOA.
�,,,�p��(��� �-� ��-��Ti
_ v��� �`' . �.u� � P�- '
�� ��4 �� ��
�����
Q� �
� �'.�
.�-�� �
����
Honey Creek/May Valley Workplan
March 10, 1992
Page Three
Permits
Metro and the City agree that efforts to obtain permits will
be coordinated. Metro has developed a list of permits that
may be required (see attached list). Metro and the City
will meet to determine a strategy and schedule for obtaining ����
all necessary permits. Wherever possible, the agencies will
work together to secure permits.
Easements
Metro believes that the minimum lead time for appraisal for
easements is four months. Metro and the City need to take
this into account as appropriate. A master schedule will be �-
developed by Metro and the City including, easements,
permits, SEPA, etc.
�- .� . .!_ .
Before final design begins, Metro and the City will decide
whether or not the Honey Creek and May Valley projects will
be combined or remain separate during design and
construction. Metro will perform the final design of the
May Valley Interceptor. The City will be responsible for
the design and construction of the Honey Creek project. ��
Metro and the City will negotiate who will manage the L�n��
construction of the May Valley Interceptor. Al1 of Metro's
efforts will be funded out of the $1.7 million May Valley
Interceptor budget.
Public Involvement
If the May Valley Interceptor is determined to be the �
preferred alternative in the predesign and SEPA processes,
the public awareness program will be for both projects and
the City and Metro will handle public meetings and SEPA
hearings jointly with the City taking the lead and Metro
dealing with May Valley Interceptor issues. However, prior
to, or during predesign, and with or without the help of a
consultant, it is recommended that the City with assistance
from Metro as necessary meet with targeted interest groups
to discuss the project(s) and identify public interest and
any potential opposition. This will also serve in
identifying any alternatives that the public would like the
consultant to consider and prevent alternatives being
i ��'"�
� ��� y L
� ��
Honey Creek/May Valley Workplan
March 10, 1992
Page Four
suggested at a later date which could delay the predesign
and SEPA phase.
Kin.g County Involvement
Metro will contact King
(SWM) to determine what
Designation on May Creek
interceptor extension.
L�� ��5��
2 4%
County Surf ace Water Management ./,,)l�j�
affect the Critical Basin ��,1�J�V
will have on the proposed .�� ��`�
Water District 107 Involvement
Metro will contact King County Water District #107 to
determine their interest, if any, in the joint projects.
Wastewater District representatives are interested, Metro
will schedule a meeting with them which will include the
City of Renton.
Metro Team
Members of the Metro Team include:
� �
If �
� �
-�� -! �
� ����,/��
./ ���'J'
��
David Dittmar, Technical Services Project Manager
Vicki Renier, City of Renton Liaison and Co-Project Manager
Tim Goon, Environmental Planner
Marc Dallas, Right-Of-Way Agent
Honey CreekL,May Valley Schedule*
(Per David Dittmar on March 6, 1992)
Begin Predesign:
Finish Predesign:
Begin Final Design:
Apply for Permits:
Obtain Permits:
Finish Final Design:
Advertise for Bids:
Notice to Proceed:
Construction Complete:
May 1992 �
December 1992 �'
January 199�
May 1993
March 1994
April 1994
May 1994
August 1994
January 1995
��
O
*Planning level schedule. A detailed schedule will be
prepared in final design.
Honey Creek/May Valley Interceptor
March 10, 1992
Permit Attachment
[1�:L�iI��•Y� : �IT+�
��
A_qency/Partv
Shoreline (2)
Sensitive Area
Review
�7 Section 404
A
Street use
Grading (2)
(special)
Parks
Hydraulics
Lease/ROE
Others (?)
Renton & King County
as above
US Army Corps. of
Engineers
Renton
�-��
Renton ' King County
King County
WA. Fisheries
DNR
, �
�o �� �
,�
\, �L
��
IJt•7'K-• - • -
1 year m/1
as above
final follows above
1 month m/1
6 months m/1
1 year m/1 depends
on original funding
source
6 months m/1
1 year m/1
MAY CREEK BASIN PLAN
Scoping Survey
The May Creek Basin Plan is being developed under the King County Surface Water
Management Basin Planning Program. The plan will cover about 15 square miles in
central King County. It will assess stream and stormwater runoff -related problems and
resources, and will predict how development will affect surface water in the future. The
plan will then recommend ways to protect resources and reduce significant problems
such as flooding, erosion and sedimentation, nonpoint water pollution, and aquatic
habitat degradation. The basin plan will be coordinated with the update of the Newcastle
Community Plan (expected to begin in 1994).
Please review the attached draft scope of the May Creek Basin Plan and answer the
following questions:
1. What are the three most important surface water -related issues for your program or
agency? (example: (1) Flooding of County Roads)
2. What can the May Creek Basin Plan do for your program or agency? (example:
Analyze current and future flood elevations at I 64th Ave SE)
3. How can your program or agency assist our work? (Example: Provide the dates and
locations of past road flooding incidents)
4. Is your agency conducting studies or programs in the May Creek area? Please list the
titles and scopes of these studies and programs.
5. Other comments:
6. Your name, title, agency or organization, address, phone, person to whom future
communications should be sent (if not you):
Please return this survey to:
Richard Rutz, King County Surface Water Management, Basin Planning Program,
400 Yesler, Room 400 Seattle, WA 98104-263 7. Call hirn at 296-6519 if you have
questions. Please return by July 27, 1992. Thank you.
MAY CREEK BASIN PLAN
Draft Scope of Work
6-24-92
Description: The May Creek basin covers about fifteen square miles in central King County,
between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and Issaquah Creek drainages. May Creek flows through
the May Valley, a wide valley with seasonally wet areas, then through a gorge to meet Lake
Washington at its southeastern corner. Feeder streams and tributaries descend the highly
erodible slopes of the valley to meet the creek. The western and southwestern portion of the
basin (approximately ten percent of the total area) is incorporated in the City of Renton, and
additional areas have been proposed for annexation or incorporation.
While much of the valley is still in a rural condition, land development is occurring in various
locations in the basin. Historically and currently the valley has experienced periodic and
occasionally extensive flooding that ' has been worsened by increased stormwater runoff, filling of
wetlands, and floodplain development. Naturally high erosion and sedimentation rates in the
basin have also been exacerbated by development and increases in stormwater runoff. Water
quality is affected in various locati6ns by nonpoint pollution that is contributed by agricultural
and livestock practices, gravel pit operations, septic tank failures, small commercial businesses,
highway runoff, and other sources. Large areas of the basin are identified as wetlands, many of
which have experienced extensive filling, grazing, dredging and other activities that have
seriously degraded both their habitat and stormwater storage qualities. Anadromous fish use was
once quite extensive in the creek, but is now greatly reduced both in numbers and range due to
habitat loss and degradation, poor water quality, and high water temperature.
The new surface water basin plan for May Creek will be produced primarily by a consultant
team, overseen by King County Surface Water Management Division personnel. Initial
assessment has identified addressing flooding problems, reducing sedimentation/erosion,
improving and protecting water quality, and enhancing aquatic/wetland habitat as the most
significant issues for the basin plan.
May Creek Basin Plan Objectives
I. Consultant Selection. Develop minimum qualifications and draft scope of work, advertise
the request for qualifications, review submittals and select consultant, negotiate the
contract.
11. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination. Involve the public and agencies in basin
plan development and implementation using:
A. A Citizens' Advisory Committee that includes knowledgeable and interested
individuals from the local area who can speak from a variety of viewpoints and
perspectives, and who can assist the County in developing and prioritizing solutions;
B. A Technical Advisory Team with County, City of Renton, tribal, regional, state,
MAY CREEK BASIN PLAN SCOPE
6-24-92
Page 2
and federal agency representatives that participates in scoping and document review;
C. Public meetings during scoping and after release of the draft plan;
0
D. Mailings of basin plan notices and information; and
E. Community stream -based activities.
III. Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepare a report that assesses the condition of
streams, lakes, wetlands, and man-made conveyance systems and predicts how development
will affect surface water resources in the future. Include the following elements:
A. Database, Land Use and Mapping. Develop a logical database for -a geographic
information systern(GIS) that may be integrated seamlessly into the County's GIS.
Enter project data (such as geology, topography, current.and future land cover and
community plan designations, zoning and lot sizes, impervious surface percentages,
sediment yields, characteristics of streams, lakes, and wetlands, floodplains, instrearn
structures, water quality information, surface water problem locations and
characteristics, significant resource areas, and measures and recommendations of the
basin plan) into GIS databases, and use the GIS to produce maps and assist in
analyses.
B. Hydrolog . Determine subcatchments and evaluate peak flows and flow durations
under pre -developed, current, and future land -use conditions using the Hydrologic
Simulation Program —Fortran (HSP—F) model.. Calibrate the model to regional and
local gage and precipitation data and identify 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year flows at the
outlet of each subcatchment. Coordinate data needs and modeling results with
hydraulic, sediment transport, and habitat analyses. Initial scoping suggests that
urbanization -related changes in hydrology will be a major focus of this analysis.
0 1
C. Hvdraulics. Evaluate the ef�',`ect of current and future hydraulic, cond-itions:on erosion,
habitat problems, and localized flooding using small-scale computer backwater
modeling. Map identified and predicted problems to determine geographic patterns.
Use data sources including field observations, records of other agencies, sections, and
divisions, HSP—F-modeled current and future flows, and 1991 and 1992 aerial
photographic coverage. Initial scoping suggests that the contribution of hydraulic
conditions to flooding and erosion will be a major focus of this analysis.
D. Geology, Erosion and Sedimentadon. Prepare a geologic map of the basin that shows
the distribution of surficial deposits. Describe the characteris tics of the deposits,
environments of deposition, stratigraphic relationships (vertical layering), and
implications for groundwater recharge, movement, and discharge. Map the Renton
aquifer recharge area in the basin. In combination with topographic information,
identify those areas with a particularly high susceptibility for rapid strearn-channel
erosion and landslide hazard. Update the Sensitive Area Folio maps for Class Ill
MAY CREEK BASIN PLAN SCOPE
6-24-92
Page 3
landslide and erosion hazard areas. Evaluate the major stream channels in the basin
for susceptibility to erosion from increased flows, and identify likely repositories of
the eroded sediment. Initial scoping suggests that erosion and sedimentation, with
associated flooding and aquatic habitat effects, will be a major focus of this study.
E. Aquatic and Wetlands Habitat. Conduct an analysis of the current and future
conditions of stream and wetland habitat and fisheries using field observations from
stream and wetlands inventories, spawning surveys, and other fish population and
habitat problem -related data. The analysis will include: identification and mapping of
-spawnin . g- and- reariiig-areas, problem -areas and code -violations ame7nable'to.�-'
restoration or enhancement, and unique/sensitive habitats and species; evaluation of
habitat effects of increased flows at culverts and in sensitive habitat reaches using
modeled flow data; comparative analysis of stream and wetland habitat changes and
loss using historic and current photographs and mapping; evaluation of riparian
characteristics and conditions; evaluation of pollution effects on habitat quality.
Initial scoping suggests that aquatic and wetland habitat enhancement and restoration
will be major focuses of this analysis.
F. Water Quality. Prepare a water quality assessment based on existing data (land use,
water quality, habitat, biologic conditions). Survey and characterize point and
nonpoint sources of pollution. Differentiate between nonstorm and storm nonpoint
polutant problems where data are available. Identify, map, and rank beneficial uses
and problem areas. Identify order' of magnitude land use -related changes in water.
quality using existing data and HSP—F model results. Identify surface water pollution
sources that could affect the sole -source aquifer. Conduct a water quality
reconnnalssance for Lake Boren and Lake Kathleen. Evaluate pollution effects on
aquatic habitat quality. Initial scoping suggests that nonpoint pollution issues will be
a.7major focus of this analysis.
G. Problem Ranking and Evaluation. Compare and rank significant surface water
problems and resources.
IV. Basin Plan. Develop a watershed management strategy that addresses and reduces
significant surface water problems, and protects and enhances water quality and aquatic
resources, including:
A. Capital projects and other measures to address significant current problems;
B. Basin -wide and area -specific drainage and sensitive areas regulations;
0
C. Land use density recornmendations (if needed);
MAY CREEK BASIN PLAN SCOPE
6-24-92
Page 4
D. Area -specific changes in County programs, such as public education, code
enforcement, cooperative programs, and drainage facility maintenance;
E. Stream and wetlands habitat improvement projects;
F. An assessment of the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost of recommended solutions to
problems; and
G._. Priorities, schedules, funding, responsibilities, and staffing requirements for
im,plementation.
V. Adoption and Implementation of Plan. Prepare documents as necessary for plan adoption
and implementation, including:
A. Ordinances and motions;
B. SEPA checklist and threshold determination;
C. Program and project proposals, and budget documents; and
D. Implementation guidelines.
VI. Monitoring and Update Program. Develop and implement a baseline monitoring program
that will continue after adoption of the basin plan. Hire a basin steward to coordinate
monitoring and to assist the public. Assess plan implementation and basin conditions
periodically and update the plan as needed.
IK
�S4t�,k*, A
Lxka
cced
k
X,/
MO-Y Co-eek 6,o,6;r�,
0 le
4-6
le
i LS;
Lake
1 0,
,C.,f V,)L,
I I
v
(9
MAY 12 '93 13:45 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710 P.1/2
m!W40-mMETRO
11090 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building . 0 821 Second Ave. G Seattle, WA 98104-1598
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
DATE SENT: M
TRANSMITTED TO: 12tv ; C9 ul� 4e V�--59 V\.
TRANSMITTED FROM: OLV,,*
(Name) (mai.L b-Lop)
(phone)
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION,NUMBER: (.206) 684-1710
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(including cover Sheei)
FOR INTERNAL STA*P USE ON
PROJECT:
A:?XS/TASK NO.:
SUBJECT:
NOTES.
MAY 12 '93 13:45 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066e41710
P. 2/2
Honey�Creek Subbasin Project
Revised Project,Schedule
By: David Dittmar
Date: may 12, 1993
Task
Start DatQ
End Dat
November, 1993
Predesign
June, 1993
SEPA
september, 1993
February, 1994
Final Design
December, 1993
June, 1994
Permitting
March, 1994
March, 1995
Bidding
March, 1995
June, 1995
Notice to Proceed
June, 1995
Construction
June, 1995
June, 1996
U"L 1 0,�
co v,,Qa
�� C1011-
4jpyj�2)JN14�0-4
4 "&- A6r,"
1WWA4,4AA1- 7#18a7- kis M cp
Zrtr^ T"omP5*'v
NkMtn -rOCUVO
Lay, r I t::>- exk r n 0 6A
L
11;�'11A:Z �>ooT
B ,-- n Pe- Y-rf c n
A
(;Eo EVU611vcEref
eo �-V%o , vlee- 0-5
wak�er al� 1� n O./rr%, 4s
,*3�7�
TAICI+-
-TNCI�-
7/2-1/5 3
..- �kr"k
13
4-4-81- ft:FS
4494 -9704--
-961-6o-#7
S(p I - &0'11
"735- 4--Z 8b
oe I - 9,0M
.? ev_,vew1::p
MY&W
-4 50 - C) 9 33
.iso-oJ33
013�
TASK NO.: 4"-METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle DATE:
r
PROJECT NO. ENGINEERING COMPUTATION SHEET BY:
TITLE: APPROVED:
SHT. OF
:;;;m E-rRo
1�lunicipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchanbe Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 •(206) 684-2100
July 27, 1993
Mr. Mike 0'Neal
Brown and Caldwell Consultants, Inc
100 West Harrison Street
Seattle, wA. 98119-4186
May Valley Project
C'c�nt rac-t No . CS/M135-92
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. 0'Neal:
90573
�, 61
_a ,T,
, _� , ; , h �
i :� �,�� ��� �',
`1+� y � V
(.�
.;���2',� 1993
CIiY OF RENTON
�r�gineering Dept.
At the project kick-off ineeting on July 21, 1993, Bob Gatz
asked when the last Metro Council meeting will occur in 1993.
The Metro Council is currently scheduled to meet December 2
and 16. To be safe, I would count on December 2 as a target
Council meeting.
If the results of the Phase I predesign requires that Mann-
Ling Th�ber� prese:�t a resolution befnre the Council dealing
with changes to the City of Renton/Metro Memorandum of
Agreement, the project team would need to take into account
the following Metro Council schedule.
Distribute resolution for Metro agency review
Resolution�'goes to Council Clerk
Resolution presented to Water Quality
Committee
Resolution considered by full Metro
Council
10/25/93
11/2/93
11/11/93
12/02/93
Before Mann-Ling can distribute the resolution for agency
review, the City of Renton and Metro need to complete all
negotiations and agreements.
I hope this information helps your project planning effort.
Please call me at 684-1813 if you have any questions.
er trul ours,
David Dittmar, P.E.
cc: Ms. Mann-Ling Thibert - Metro, MS-117
Mr. David Christensen - City of Renton
.. � 1
' Kf NG
c, ;�y t.:,�, �t,,
� 2��
�V � � �L.
3.� �
�
��E�
.a.�y4 �
y1'�
r9S <<r_/
�
e
� --•--- �...'"_ � i -� '�� . '-�'
r-�•�� ; «
C��J l� N �l
� ,� 1
- S W 3�
�,.�r��2.�z) ;
N.88-1
/6/ 2B
�, �
� y
o ,
y S
� cy
� t�
. c
oc }��
, �� -�.,
osF � �� �,f�
-�. �r,.oa �s, _ ) I
R Y-�
e��xR� 3 57�c.
u \�o .
�� o
- � :�� � ,8
c o
�
s�
`3\ ,..
is.\�
K
b ., .
�\��
} � � ^n �
�
�
U` N
' o v
� N, • �
' �? ,.
*
' c
� �
r` e�
: :;� �
I �
m D
u
�' `v �.
- S
�`�. �
� � .
�'Z'�
o \o ,v
m �
�
c
« .rs.aw.w�u4'_.) ;' .�� !
.,+:�r..M..r.w.,.-._....�y . �� � .
y �
—�' A�S S
�
-24 -5 .
p � v s sba.�
�1 Gc�i.o��.�
�W� , r2 e. �r7 - r
.f�� � �.c f c� > a
- N REiv r .,
r o 4095
�
•� �
, . R,� ,�
� ��a
� ��Z ��.� �
�
o +► � w �` Q¢S R
o � �, � a o ^
z z- � i��� Q.
o � � �,�0 .
W � �
� . - �' 0
��
a �
k
v �
� � v
30 � �
;_ �so � 2
� 0
�� ��� � �
.a W h
,,00M � .
V�����
. ; � .. ,G�
.� �
N Z� I
o m�
,
� ���
v
W
� '� � �
� � �
ti
a' ` N
� � I�
rn y1m
� ``A�
�'' O
�
-� '
., �a
`��' �,
�,e�
7
(��'�,�s
�����
Z D� •` �j9 ' 33,
�I J �
� \i- �
. "l _n'' � .7 N
, � k
.� � a
_�
38C. 3 B
f
i f.
L /
r , + 1�%!
:. � .
, . ,
� �' . �
!�/
�°
-�1 •
, � �
. b �*�'� o, oo�A-.
:;
< < i., o�♦
p ��owp 227
. �t
� � 0
� �' �'�- �`�' � si...s��o
Fm �
,� ,. � � � S. E
j; � M
�n o
N &9- /9 F,
s,co ��
.�.� �.c^
97T1� ST � , � a �s - � a `� �o � `s-s
� Q h I jr�' `�.� �'}o
' �l C. J �
f ... � t O y9PG _ �,G' Av' 4i c'j �� Q� �'la� N� 368 tsf. �85
� �,� m o- 1g? � atig o.2°� o s.a�-asF
m ti 30 `. �Z'�°� I 224 � -�. 9 s oo s<�. 5
:_.7 �'�h ��� ----- � - � /32.7 (
+ " � '� � o �. .
` I0 0.0 3
i N' pp N 86 °�s •is� W 290.4G ,6 �o
'- � 4� _ g �b��`��O h 7B.5R6
z i52,00 �
'`� c�F' _ v �o � 4e I O bqoo0 �7 �
., w o 0
. ,p��r � h ^ 1 I o a # °�°� �� ,y�°b �
: � � g4�� E-f3.yR r� loop N
, a ,�, 1 p q
,: . .
--.
�
.
i
� � r
0 q
, . 3 yp �a �030 �0. ��� � . � a90
o� B4.7g u �a M�8'/2•42�,
o � eo.o1
Z iOp.41 0 �. Z f
�ov tt� �12 � � o j a pgo o b
�Y , u • 0
� `. �u p�2� M � I p o� � Ml
^ ,� ��a � He�-�s � ��-w "' j•i �, � ���°�� ,� h
� � Q �a
� T� /¢ p,Q 73.43 a � h 'an� �t8is�„W
a� � — �� �ti°''� ° ' �W o • 93.02
�f `�^ �oo �� 13 � UJ �25 a p o�;�
�' � 7 h =
Q � �1 o�3a --� io �
p� Q i� ���G o��
� 0,19 �o W o ��20�0 0 � i� po7o
,�� 0 4j ` ° Z�0 9S,n2 p\
� �v �4 v �2 0 0 ;�
� ��¢a Q: h .,�° 6 .�
ioo a Ni8•isis"r1. (� ��"' `� �'�0060 � 0
z 9S. 4 3 � r �. N88° /,s �/S M/ �
O � �4c. ^� y4 N � 95'v2 O
� A •ZZ � �b� � 5 ,� �/� V. �y''�e S v
Q ��� A� 5� � a° 2 5 I 2 S r,ti �'1 pC 5� �a
�oo, oZ ' 7s.eo * �qo'
i 7J.9S
v;: o IJ.E. 2 5`�H � T. 7541.0
�
I�r-' � o,-0 � rzo.o3 0
� L•__}� ~B8 • �3 � /6"W 3 {o .Sp �_
`\•.,�/`►-- F � /9 T � '�
80.on 7•s.00 �y.��
e! W 3o v2•oo �2•F9
_ _ n.L.n� n� . ,'1� � .., '")
_..,�
�
36�. 37
. «..�.. 2
� ���.o, .-
2�'7 • L� ?b �
303.96
�/�/oH
1 �
-�
I `
C�'
�,�"�Q °'�`t
Z 919�%c.
3p4 .
�
�i.
�
FAX TRANSMIT'1'AL MEMO
_ u�xv �-,r�� �,�
� QQow� � G�a tl Ja� cawu
���� �
r�,
— I Tp. 7 J - �
I
4
3 5:6
32 3
I 3y P� � ��
i
� 2$ �
�_ _i � n
...�I �
I I
la ' O�
�' _ �
HG : �
t 38 ��� -i
�52 ��3 85 �
i�o.�� � _ � 2
.3 70. 7/ — --
,. J �w � ss w�ss ��� .arr j �+yT,� s+`:" �
__ `, 1 a•ti•��w s.�s iit! ~ i».�i ,c,i�ss.��
0 1 R ssk ~ (IJ ' ;r
M-�� ° ( ABANDOfVEO P. C. R. R. ) e"O '�
. `
_ ,vs�-re•ss�✓ nv_ -- * -
iar ,�
` _ / / L8 = O
i
�
;��
Lot. —� C
�� f,a,�..� �I= L
''••, or." s
NuO. �r.+ ,,.+• ��
��''-
. �
� � '''*.
� � I
'. . � �
. �� � � �
� � �� �
'. �Iz3 �i=, y �
1 I
�' , Nu�N �1 `.� 370 +;;
r _ / 1\ ` Y �
,l.� 3 ; _ .. AVE,
s�s Js'r�. � j=-'''f ` � 11Z ��� `� Ng�N��;� �s
o�o ,� � � Aiwsrra�� z, F ��•-
�.� �� `(s. r' Na'w,l ". ..
` pw .w�/ Y ^^rty.n...
• �• .� . ^..-.ti, s,• �� 379
,
• K � ����'� ��s�
-s�ie V� 7lIAr e\ e�,� ��' ,�����c
— I O � M�� r �, � ti / • io
._.._ _ _ . L.G. � � ��- =-•'' - �'•.sv o� -= -- ,�� a
' y �.
1
S 9 -_- .. —�� . .. .>.. —
� s.,-�.f � ..
� 1303.fi _ ��„ ��
� • � �--� . •..a ,�p �� " N sB- I d - 36 M ; �
� �\� � ��� _
� ,i..
� � •
44„r � :�
� wc � H
� � �' / � � • � � z
� . ir �iie •��r . , o
`+ . c.v �� � i '�' :
� ��
� w
. � 5C4�t /�' �� � � I � � �
,.��- � .. , ���� Q�Ti� b � �
'rf � ' � , Z � � ,�, � �.
� .� �' •� � .i.�.s �f I -
s "„ ^s st-is! yr'- ,i^
� . . v 1
..-..•..- 7• � S.E . ST7}� sr �� �� t�" J�
� � e�� , .L z ' � =. �.
� �;; �� Q �1 ta, . � �t-o:�f v ar,
C � � • /0' 1/o�V r �r�i• '��s �1r..vrJ.:s e''an ilfsJ �,s��r.��7� � "�1M•a AV I
•. 3o i! 1 ��Q 1 Iti � .s� ii'-+•' t�'� � �� '1(y ���
i ) 4 u. • .u.. ...e .w. s.wr ' O��y`�' �j.
.. � i �''a �
C ,o ------ -����_7/ � O _ O
��•I � 1 9L� - ... ' o � . � • � �, ♦
L oo,�,> � � ,oeo. � .. I _.��o.�r- � _,we_ � 'ti —i
� I_ _ _ o +�+: � • � � v,�. _•
- -I �
.
�� �
�ti� �
,
}� , � �,
�
� ;�� ; , � , ,U.. _
I. ,,"✓v�
� ,.4 , i fi�i�
; r ' �' ,,. �
i ' • J � v � 'W i
� " ,����
HONEY CREEK SEWER PROJECT
.1.f
r
PROJECT PROPOSAL
' l c(� �tn�tiv�,�M-�"�
, '
l.11��(� ���t�
�� , k`;�.:�',.
'-�� r,- ;;.
, � t'c
t,j,� �'� ; i `/"
, /_
� � �� t�
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
Prepared by: UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION
Gregg A. Zimmerman, Director
David Christensen, Project Manager
August, 1992
HONEY CREEK SEWER PROJECT
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this joint project between the City of Renton and Metro is to provide
sufficient sanitary sewer service to the existing as well as futu�e development within
the Honey Creek Sewer Subbasin. The project consists of two p�eferred components,
Honey Creek Interceptor Phase IV and the May Valley Interceptor. See attached
vicinity and location maps.
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND5
The first section of the May Valley Interceptor was constructed in 1971. The
Honey Creek Interceptor was developed as a result of insufficient capacity
within the Sunset Lift Station. In 1981, a moratorium on future connections
within the Honey Creek Subbasin was established by Resolution No. 2392.
Phaseyl through III of the Honey Creek Interceptor were completed in 1986,
allowing the removal of the moratorium, but not providing the capacity
necessary fo� full development of this subbasin (0.6 MGD provided, 1.3 MGD
currently projected to be needed).
As a result of increased development within this subbas�' j he interim flow
capacity made available by the installation of Phases I-I11 bf the Honey Creek
Interceptor is quickly approaching capacity and is greatly increasing the need
for the last phase of the Honey Creek Interceptor.
Both the Honey Creek Interceptor Phase IV and May Valley Interceptor (a Metro �,��
project) are included in the City's 1992 Long Range Wastewater Management ,y�l�
Plan as the preferred solution to providing the ultimate sanitary sewer needs of �
the Honey Creek Subbasin. Their selection as the preferred solution is based
primarily upon their being an all gravity facility that meets the saturation needs
of the Honey Creek Subbasin. The City's 1992 Long Ran�e Wastewa 1/�N���
Management Plan was given a Determination of Non- ignifica�c �n �•
-- and adopted by the City of Renton with Resolution�lo.
2892 on April 6, 1992.
�����lX-
Metro's current comp' p n does not, within the near future, include the
extension o f the May Valley Interceptor to a point where the Honey Creek
Inte�ceptor could connect to it. However, the passage of a Memorandum of
Agreement between the City of Renton and Metro has committed Metro to
accelerate the construction of this portion of the May Valley Interceptor
according o a schedule agreed to by the City and Metro.
��
Project Proposal
Honey Creek Sawer Project Page 2
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.
B.
Existing Conditions:
The currently preferred route for the Honey Creek Interceptor as
identified in the City's 1992 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan
is along the East Side of Honey Creek f�om NE 27th Street to ��'��
approximately the convergence of Honey Creek and May C�eek. A trail '',��
currently exists within this reach and is being considered for the routing �o �
of the new interceptor. �11 ,
� ��
The alignmen r ferre for the May Valley Interceptor is also identified p,Pl
in t e City's 1992 Lo�g Range Wastewater Management Plan and in the
MOA between Metro and the City. This route follows primarily the
existing right-of-way of Jones Avenue NE and Gensing Avenue as well
as within easements adjacent to Gensing Avenue. Jones Avenue NE
consists of a two lane paved roadway with gravel shoulders.
Approximately one-half of Gensing roadway is paved similar to Jones
Avenue NE. The remaining portion on Gensing Avenue is undeveloped ��'Y��?
right-of-way. A portion of the May Valley alignment may e outsi e of
the City of Renton boundary.
Scope of Work:
I n�� �OV�
This project consists of evaluating alternatives to provide sanita�y sewer
service to e Honey Creek Subbasin and constructing the preferred
alternative . One preferred alternative (Honey Creek Interceptor)
consists of installing approximately 2,700 lineal feet of 12-inch gravity
sewer from the existing Devil's Elbow Lift Station at NE 27th Street to
the convergence of Honey Creek and May Creek. The line will be
installed along the East Side of Honey Creek primarily within the existing
pathway/trail. The trail will be widened to act as both a vehicle access
road for the sewer as well as a portion of the Parks Department's Trail
System. If this alternative is selected, this portion of the work will be
the responsibility of the City.
In conjunction with the Honey Creek Interceptor, Metro's work (May
Valley Interceptor) would consist of installing approximately 5,400 lineal
feet of 21 to 24-inch gravity sewer. The sewer main will be installed
from Jones Avenue NE and NE 40th Street to the convergence of May
Creek and Honey Creek where the Honey Creek Interceptor will tie into
it.
The selected alte�natives will provide reliable gravity sewer service to
the City's Honey Creek Subbasin. The preferred alternatives at this
point are the Honey Creek and May Valley Interceptors.
�
. � �� "� �.�-P'
� �,��14 �
n,� � r���,�`�R
. ,. p�� �
L-� �c�� ��'t
; �f `���� .
P
Projact Proposal
Honey Creek Sawer Project Page 3
C. Preliminary Design Steps:
The steps that will be included within the preliminary design phase for
both projects are: � ���
� 1) Establish all potential^impact issues of the project;
� ) Identify alternatives to meet the sewer needs of the Honey Creek
a Subbasin. ��,� ���i�-�
� 3) Prepare SEPA documents on the project. The City will be the
lead agency.
4) Research and develop Park Department, King County, King
County WD 107, and other agency's participation in the project;
5) Analy�i�/s# alternatives for providing sewer service needs to the
Honey Creek Subbasin;
6)
i "' ���1�' '�}� �
0
�C��;�11� 8 )
����
� a,� 9 i
�`�
10)
11)
12)
Establish a Public Awareness Program;
Perform an aerial survey to analyze the various alternatives;
Develop design criteria for the interceptors (sizing, performance,
etc.);
Prepare cost estimates of the identified feasible alternatives; and
Combine all data in the form of a report to be used as a guide in
environmental review and final design. b.,,�. �p,ro i'�
r��.
Evaluate connection pointS �� � �(� .
�
Determine evaluation criteria, including citizen input, for the
ranking of the alternatives.
D. Special Design Considerations:
1) Fishery enhancement within the Honey Creek and May Valley
corridor.
�V� �
2) Identifying sensitive areas within the alternative route corridors.
3) Coordination of design and connection aspects with Metro, if
required.
4> Perform geotechnical investigation of alternative routes.
5)
CConstruction impacts (ie. dewatering, stream crossings, etc.)
�h���.�-
Project Proposal
Honey Creek Sawer Project
Pape 4
�
E
F.
G.
�
C�' "_
, ��
b
��n
rA1" 1�
V'
H
Right-of-Way:
Easement needs and assistance to City Parks Department for trail
property acquisition and/or easements will be addressed. The potential
exists for significant easement issues along the May Valley alignment.
Environmental Documents: �'j�
An environmental checklist ' prepared for this project.
City will be lead agency.
Metro will participate in the SEPA process to the extent it involves
facilities under Metro's control. Metro will participate in the selection
and management of a consultant to conduct a SEPA review for the
project.
Permits:
A preliminary list of potential permits that will be required include:
TYPE AGENCY/PARTY
Shoreline ��'r�� Renton and King County
Sensitive Area Review
Section 404
Street Use
Grading
Parks
Hydraulics �
Leas OE
Preliminary Cost Estimate:
Renton and King County
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Renton
King County
Renton and King County
Washington Fisheries
DNR
Honey Creek Interceptor - S 1.2 Million
May Valley Interceptor - 51.7 Million
I. Funding Source:
Honey Creek Interceptor - Wastewater CIP (421)
May Valley Interceptor - Metro MOA (Metro Resolution #6146)
�
Project Proposel
Honey Creek Sewer Project Pape 5
d��% '
� 1e � `�
�
�
J. Project Schedule:
Consultant Selection
Pre-Design
SEPA
Finai Design
Permitting
Bidding
Notice to Proceed
Construction
INVOLVEMENT/PARTICIPATION
A.
6.
C.
Community
START DATE
September, 199
December, 1992
April, 1993
September, 1993
October, 1993
November, 1994
March, 1995
March, 1995
END DATE
December, 1992
July, 1993
October, 1993
September, 1994
October, 1994
February, 1994
March, 1996
A public involvement program will be established at the predesign stage
of the p�oject. The City of Renton will take lead on the program and
Metro will provide support for the May Valley Interceptor.
Agencies
This p�oject is a joint venture between the City of Renton and Metro.
Private Utilities
Coordination with private utilities will begin in the predesign stage of the
project. The City of Renton will be responsible for utilities on the Honey
Creek Interceptor while Metro will be responsible for utilities on May
Valley.
IV. STAFFING
A. Project Management
The City's Project Manager will be David M. Christensen of the
Wastewater Utility Section. Metro's Project Manager will be David
Dittmar, P.E., of its Technical Services Division. Metro's liaison with the
City of Renton will be Kenneth Madden, P.E. of its Water Pollution
Control Department.
Project Proposal
Honey Creek Sewer Project Page 6
B. Preliminary and Final Design
A consultant will be selected to perform the environmental process for
both projects as well as preliminary and final design for the Honey Creek
Interceptor. Metro will perform its own preliminary and final design for
the project in-house. Metro may use the consultant to do some work
during preliminary and final design.
C. Design Team
The design team will consist of the following City and Metro staff:
CITY OF RENTON
Dave Christensen
Paul Forsander
Jennifer Henning
Leslie Betlach
METRO
Dave Dittmar
Kenneth Madden
D. In -House Reviews
Wastewater Utility Section
Current Planning Section
Long Range Planning Section
Parks Department
Technical Services Division
Water Pollution Control Dept.
In-house reviews will be coordinated through the affected divisions and
all design team members.
Project Proposal
Honey Creek Sewer Project
Page 7
MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT
PROJECT: HONEY CREEK SEWER PROJECT
The following signatures indicate concurrence with the project scope, schedule, and
budget as outlined in this project proposal.
Project Manager
Date
Utility Systems Division Manager
Date
Transportation Systems Division Manager
Date
Maintenance Services Division Manager
Date
Planning and Technical Services Manager
Date
Development Services Division Manager
Date
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
Date
C:DOCS:92-633:DMC:ps
Project Proposal
Honey Creek Sewer Project Page 8
SCOPE OF WORK
HONEY CREEK SEWER PROJECT 1
INTRODUCTION: �I�'V� G�
V1
The first section of the May Valley Interce or was constructed in 1971. The
Honey Creek Interceptor was developed as result of insufficient capacity within
the Sunset Lift Station. In 1981, a mor orium on future connections within the
Honey Creek Subbasin was established by Resolution No. 2392. Phase I through III
of the Honey Creek Interceptor were completed in 1986, allowing the removal of
the moratorium, but not providing the capacity necessary for full development of
this subbasin (0.6 MGD provided, 1.3 MGD currently projected to be needed).
As a result of increased development within this subbasin the interim flow capacity
made available by the installation of Phases I- III of the Honey Creek Interceptor is
quickly approaching capacity and is greatly increasing the need for the last phase of
the Honey Creek Interceptor.
This project consists of evaluating alternatives to provide sanitary sewer service to
the Honey Creek Subbasin and constructing the preferred alternatives. One
preferred alternative (Honey Creek Interceptor) consists of installing approximately
2,700 lineal feet of 12-inch gravity sewer from the existing Devil's Elbow Lift
Station at NE 27th Street to the convergence of Honey Creek and May Creek. The y�
line will be installed along the East Side of Honey Creek p' xistin �i
pathway/trail. The trail will be widened to act as both ehicle access roa the
sewer as well as a portion of the Parks Department's Trai . f this
alternative is selected, this portion of the work will be the responsibility of the City.
Work under this project includes project management, predesig�, environmental
compliance, final design and construction management. The project objective is to
provide reliable sanitary sewer se�vice that meets the saturation needs of the Honey
Creek Subbasin.
SCHEDULE:
Work under this contract will be completed within the schedule shown heron:
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Consultant Selection
Pre-Design
SEPA
Final Design
START DATE
October, 1992
December�1992
April, 1993
September, 1993
END DATE
December, 1992
July, 1993
October, 1993
September, 1994
�U�" "
.�i �I 7
���
Scope of Work
Honey Creek Sewer Project
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Permitting
Bidding
Notice to Proceed
Construction
Page 2
START DATE END DATE
October, 1993 October, 1994
November, 1994 February, 1994
March, 1995
March, 1995 March, 1996
TASK 100
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
This task includes all work related to the management, administration, and
coordination of consultant activities. Specific activities will include the following:
Coordination of work efforts between the Consultant, the City, Metro, and
other agencies or consulting firms which may become involved in the
project.
Preparation of monthly project reports which show work accomplished in
comparison with scheduled activities, track expenditures in comparison with
task budgets and provide documentation for invoices. Documentation will
include details of expenditures on each task and will show the hours worked
by project personnel and other direct expenses related to the task. Reports
will be submitted to the City's Project Manager.
Conduct project team meetings on a regular basis to discuss current
activities, coordinate the work and obtain information from team members.
TASK 200
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Under this task the consultant will complete the preparation of all environmental
documents required for SEPA compliance. Integral to this task are the following:
Identifying potential adverse effects of the proposed project and identifying
feasible project mitigation measures.
Coordination with the Fisheries Biologist Consultant under contract with the
City of Renton.
Understanding of shoreline permitting process.
Scope of Work
Honey Creek Sewer Project Page 3
Understanding of SEPA legislation including City ordinances and regulations
as they apply to SEPA and sensitive areas.
The Environmental Checklist, DNS, and mitigation document will be prepared by the
consultant for submittal to the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee.
TASK 300
PRE -DESIGN
This task will assist the City in its selection of an alternative through establishment
of a Public Awareness Program, preparation of a pre -design report, and
establishment of all participating agencies involved in the project. Key elements
within the process include:
0 Establish all potential impact issues of the project;
0 Identify alternatives to meet the sewer needs of the Honey Creek Subbasin;
Research and develop Park Department, King County, King County WD 107,
and other agency's participation in the project;
0 Analysis of alternatives for providing sewer service needs to the Honey
Creek Subbasin;
0 Establish a Public Awareness Program;
0 Perform an aerial survey to analyze the various alternatives;
0 Develop design criteria for the facility (sizing, performance, etc.);
0 Prepare cost estimates of the identified feasible alternatives;
0 Combine all data in the form of a report to be used as a guide in
environmental review and final design;
Evaluate connection point;
Determine evaluation criteria, including 'Citizen input, for the ranking of the
alternatives; and -
0 Perform Geotechnical investigation of alternative routes.
Scope of Work
Honey Creek Sewer Project Page 4
In addition, the following permits have been identified as possibly being required for
this project and are to be included within the predesign work:
TYPE AGENCY/PARTY
Shoreline Renton and King County
Sensitive Area Review Renton and King County
Street Use Renton
Grading King County
Parks Renton and King County
Hydraulics Washington Fisheries
Lease/ROE DNR
TASK 400
FINAL DESIGN
Under this task the consultant will prepare final plans, specifications and an
engineer's estimate for bidding of the alternative selected through the
environmental and predesign work. Integral to this task is the following:
0 Preparation of construction plans utilizing current City drafting standards;
Performing additional ground topographical survey to support aerial survey
work;
Incorporate Fisheries' mitigation enhancement work into final design plans
and specifications;
Preparation of bidding specification in accordance with City standards;
Coordination of design work with Metro staff regarding connection point,
routing, etc.; and
0 Preparation of easement and/or Right -of -Way documents.
4
Scope of Work
Honey Creek Sewer Project Page 5
TASK 500
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Under this task the consultant will assist the City with construction management.
Integral to this task is the following:
0 Assist the City in answering questions from bidders.
0 Attend pre -bid and pre -construction meeting.
0 Review construction submittals.
0 Provide technical support during construction.
0 Prepare as -built drawings upon completion of construction.
REFERENCE MATERIALS:
The following reference materials are available for review at the 4th Floor Customer
Service County, City Hall, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton during the hours of 8:00
AM to 5:00 PM, weekdays. The Customer Service Counter's, telephone number is
(206) 235-2631.
1992 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan - Wastewater component
to City Comprehensive Plan;
City of Renton Drafting Standards - Adopted City Standards for preparation
of construction plans; and
City of Renton Standard Details and Specifications - adopted City Details and
Specifications that amend/supplement WSDOT current details and
specification.
C:DOCS:92-706:DMC:ps
�
�% �
�
Earl Clymer, Mayor
November 18, 1992
David Dittmar, Project Manager
Metro - M/S 1 17
821 Second Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
SUBJECT:
Dear David:
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
HONEY CREEK SUB-BASIN PROJECT
DRAFT LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
The draft Letter of Understanding submitted by fax on October 23, 1992 has been
reviewed by myself and Gregg Zimmerman, Utility Systems Director. Our comments
and/or revisions are shown on the attached draft.
Upon inclusion of these items, we would like a second review, in order that our
administrator will have a chance to review this document prior to receiving an original
for signature.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (206?
277-62� 2.
C:DOCS:92-939:DMC:ps
Attachment
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
Wastewater Utility Engineer
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Honey Creek Subbasin Project
Letter of Understanding
October 22, 1992
Introduction
The Honey Creek Subbasi Project is a joint City of
Renton/Metro effort to
within the City of Renton's Honey Creek Subbasin. The C 0
Renton and Metro agreed to work jointly on this project as
stated in section 5.3 of the Renton Memorandum of Agreement,
dated June 6, 1991. -0 LL,
This Letter ' of Un4derstanding describes in greater detail what
i i
roles and responsi ti he City of Renton and Metro will
i
each have for th work on the Honey Creek Subbasin
st
Project. Final d nd construction are not covered in
this letter because results of the predesign work may require
changes in Metro's and Renton's roles and responsibilities.
At the end of predesign, Metro and Renton will reexamine
their roles and responsibilities and make any necessary
changes.
Consultant Selection
Metro Responsibilities:
1. Prepare the solicitation document and advertise the Honey
Creek Subbasin project. Distribute copies of selection
document.
2. Prepare consultant scope of work and estimated consultant
costs for the May Valley Interceptor alternative.
3. Answer any questions concerning the consultant selectionv/
process.
4. Answer any consultant questions concerning the May Valley-�
Interceptor alternative.
5. Participate with Renton in the consultant selection/
process.
6. Negotiate a consultant contract for the predesign effort
for the May Valley Interceptor alternative.
7. Pay for all consultant costs relating to the May Valle
Interceptor alternative. yl�,/
City of Renton Responsibilities:
1. Prepare a scope of work and an estimated consultant cost
for consultant services for all other alternatives of the
Honey Creek Subbasin project. �/'
2. Participate in preparing the consultant solicitation
document. V
3. Answer any consultant questions concerning the City,
scope of work. L��
4. Participate with Metro in the consultant selection
process. tl�
5. Negotiate a consultant contract for the_,Q-� effort
0, =e;T- the City's scope of work.
- f
6. Pay for all consultant costs relating to the City's scope
of work.
Predesign Phase
Metro Responsibilities:
1. Conduct engineering and environmental analysis of the May
Valley Interceptor alternative.
2. Write the May Valley Interceptor chapter for the Honey
Creek Subbasin Project Predesign Report. 1__'
3. Participate in community meetings only with regard to the
May Valley Interceptor alternative.
4. Investigate permits, easements, rights of way for the May
Valley Interceptor alternative.
5. Work with outside agencies as necessary.
6. Manage the consultant contract for all May Valley tasks.
7. Pay for one-half of all printing costs for final report.,_,�
8. Conduct the Land Use Certification for the May Valley
Interceptor alternative.
City of Renton Responsibilities:
1. Be the lead SEPA agency for the entire Honey Creek V/
Subbasin Project.
2. Conduct engineering and environmental analysis
of all,'Z
other alternatives.
3. Write all other chapters for Honey Creek Sewer
Predesign
Report.
4. Incorporate Metro's chapter into the predesi n
report.�,�
5. Take the lead role in the public process.��
6. Investigate permits, easements, rights of way for
allt__z
other alternatives..
7. Work with outside agencies as necessary.\,-'-
8. Manage the consultant contract for all tasks except
the z
May Valley task.
9. Print the Predesign report. Pay for one-half of
all�,�
printing costs for final report.
L� -
Project Costs
Metro Responsibilities:
1. Metro will pay for the land use certification.
2. All Metro costs will come o t f the established project
budget of $1.7 million�pr,� 5, 1 -
7"7�, 9�,�
City of Renton Responsibilities Ad���
1. The City of Renton will pay for all of its costs FISIZMieT
:-tcr the Honey Creek Subbasin Project,?�
/K�
Date:
Lynn Guttman
Administrator
Planning/Building/Public
John Spencer
Director
Water Pollution
Works Department
Date:
Control Department
7Z,
7 2
;; mETRo
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
June 23, 1992
90156
A61
Mr. David Christensen �; ,-�—,
�� ,�� �� ��� �� �
Utility Systems Division � ��;� -,
Planning/Building/Public Works Department ti
Municipal Building �
200 Mill Avenue South ��fJ ti�; 1392
Renton, WA 98055
�,y Valley Interceptor
ARMS No. A64041; Task No. A61
� �� �F RERiT0i�1
^r;-;; �
Dear Mr. Christensen:
Attached for your use are a
your draft project proposal.
you have any questions.
V truly yo ~,
��' v �
David Dittmar, P.E.
Project Manager
few additional comments regarding
Please call me at 684-1813 if
DD: jym/msk,��(t
attachment
cc: Bill Nitz - 130
Tim Goon - 120
Marc Dallas - 122
Gerry Larrance - 95
NE consists of a two lane paved roadway with gravel shoulders.
�lpproximately one-F�alf of Gensing rosdway is paved similar to Jones
Avenue NE. The remaining portion on Ger�sing Avenue is ur�developed
right-of-way.
B. Scope of Work:
This project consists af two projects that ara being compieted joi�tly by
the City of Renton and Metro. The City portion of work (Honey Greek
Interceptor? consists of +nstalling �ppr�ximately 2.700 lineal feet of 12-
inch gravity sewer from the existing Devil's Elbow Lift Station at NE
27th Street to the convergence of Honey Crsek and May Creek. The
fine �vi(I be installed along the East Side of Honay Creek primariiy within
t�e existing n8thway/tr�il. The trail will be widened to act as both a
��ehicle access raad for the sewe� as well as a part�on of the Parks
Department's Trail System.
Metru's portion of the wark (May VaHey Interceptor) Consists of
installation of approximately 5,400 lineal feet pf 27 to 24-inch gravity
sewer. The sewer main wil[ be installed fram Jones Avenue NE and NE
�Oth Street to the converger►ce of May Creek and Honey Creek where
tha Honey Creek Interceptor will tie int0 it.
7he combination of these two projects will provide reliable gravity sewer
service to the City's Honey Creek Subbasin.
C. Preliminary Design Steps: � � (�a� P,ro��S
The steps that wilf be included within the preliminary design phasayare:
1) Est2blish all potential impact issues of the project;
2) Determine apprapriate methodolofly for environmental process
�combined or separate SEPA documents), etc.;
3} Research and develap Park Department participaiion in the
p[oject;
�? Analysis o# aftern�tive 2[ignments for providing sewer service
needs to the Honey Creek Subbasin;
�) Establ�sh a Publ�c Awaraness Program;
6} perform an aerial survey to analyze the various alternatives;
7► Develop design critaria for the interceptors (sizing, perfarmance,
etc.);
g} Prepare cast estimates of the idantified #easible alternatives; and
Qrait Pro�ect �roposal
May Vellayr'Honey Craak Inteccaprors Page 3
u6- 1S 9� 1S::1�? F.-�1 'uu _'1.i =5a1 RE`�Tii� p: g: p�s t�u05
0
�
E
F
9! Combine ali data in the form of a report to be used as a guide in
environmental review and iinal design. ,
Special Qesign Considerations: — 5�ar.c�.c �r �.�_ p r-a���.�
1 Q
1} Fishery enh�n�ement within the Honey Cresk corridor.
2) Ident:fying sensitive areas with�n the alternative route corridors.
3) Coordination of design and connection aspects with Metro.
4) Perform geotechnical investigation of alternative routes.
Ri�ht-of-Way:
Easement need� and a�sistance to City Parks Department for trail
p�operty acquisition and/or easements will be addressed.
Envi�onmental Documents:
An environmental checklist will be prepared for this project.
G. Permiis:
A preliminary !ist af potential permits that wili be required include: —5�0�� ��
1 '7
7YP� AG NCYIPARTY ��'� ,Q`r`'��'
— u
Shoreline Renton a�d King County
Sensitive Area Review Renton and King County
SeCtion 404 kJ. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Street Use
Grading
Parks
Hyd�aulics
LeaselRdE
Renton
King County
Renton and King County
VVashington Fisheries
e�NR
draft Projnct Proposal
May ValleyjHoney Crenk Intercepcore PeAa a
�
.1.
Preliminary Cost Esiima#e;
Honey Creek interceptor
May Vailey Interceptor
Funding Source:
Hvney Creek Interceptor
ivl�y Valley Inte�ceptor
Project Schedule:
Con�ultant Selection
Pre-Design
SEPA
Final Design
Permitting
Bidding
Nctice to Proceed
ConstruCtiOn
1.2 Million
1.7 Million
Wastewater CIP (421 }
Metro C1P
July, 1992
September, 1992
April, 1993
June, 1993
August, 1993
Saptember, 1994
January, 1995
January, 1995
September, 1992
April, 1993
�ctober, 1993
June, 1994
August, 199�
Decembe�, 1994
January, 1996
III . INVOLV�M�111T(PA�TICIPATION
A. Community
A public invalvament program will be established at the predesign stage
of the proje�t. � C�f o-� ��,.,�o,� ,,,,; (1 �� ��- I� w`�'-�
����'a-w.-.µe-}Ya w;l� prov�dt-e. ��.r-(- �� � f�l�Val�e�.�,�i,��.
B. Agencres � 4
This project is a jo�nt venture between the City of Rentan and Metro.
C. Private UtilitiEs
Coordination with private utilities will begin in the predesign stage of the
�. °� e�c-.tc�� ��' �,,����r�-�`�►.. �„� ` ( l �v¢- res� rs � � I.c �v ,� U.�+ � � �'eQ-
,
�+�. �r,a �F.Gt_ ��v-�G���r �,1�1 Itr /�C�" W� V` �
�'e5�'r`� � b I.� ��,�,r v'�i I��' �. M µc„� U�.
Draft Project Propoael
Mey Valtay/Honey Creek l�tercepcors
Page 5
IV. STAFFiNG
A. Project Management
The City's Rroject Manager will be David M. Christensen of the
Wastewater Utility Section. Metro's Project Manager will be David
Dittmar, P.E., of its Technical Services Divisian.
B. Preiiminary ar7d Final Design
A corisultant will be selecxed to perform the environmental process for
bo�h projects as ws11 as preliminary and final design for the Honey Creek
Intarcaptor. ti1etro will perforrn its own preliminary and final design far
the project in-hou,�e. M�� � v�St- � �5 �av�.� ��
5GM^�t- W o rk- '�_�i � p�'G�� � v�p�-� �j' �S �j v� .
C. Design Team � (J �.J
A design team will be established at the time of final project proposal.
D. In-H�use Revi6ws
In-house reviews will be C��ordinate� ihrough the affected divisions and
all design tsam members.
Draft Project Proposai
Msy Ve11ey/Honey Creeic Interceptors P9fle 6
� � :;'►=mE-rRo
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
June 22, 1992
Mr. David Christensen
Utility Systems Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
MuniCipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA. 98055 -
Subject: Mav Valley Interceptor
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. Christensen:
90149
A61
-���,;P �;� p
IM� Ig \��: �� 1
i �., , ,
� �, �,..�....� �� `
Y� i
�
; ��f ! ' �' �gg`'
�Y OF RENTON
��,n�r�n� (�,nt
Attached for your use are Metro's comments regarding your
draft project proposal. I have tried to emphasize in the
proposal that the work is to solve capacity problems in the
Honey Creek Subbasin. The Honey Creek and May Valley
Interceptors are the preferred alternatives at this time,
based on the City's and Metro's long range planning and comp
plans. I believe this strategy will minimize any questions
from the public regarding the justification for the work.
Please call me at 684-1813 if you have any questions.
�
V tru o ,
a '�'�`�-�.
David Dittmar, P.E.
Technical Services Project Manager
DD : MK / 1 s�,r�,�
cc: Bill Nitz - 130
Tim Goon - 120
Marc Dallas - 122
Gerry Larrance - 95
HONEY CREEK I
Pp- O'Te C -F
DRAFT PROJECT PROPOSAL
Plan ning/Building/PUblic Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
Prepared by: Utility Systems Division
Gregg Zimmerman, Director
David Christensen, Project Manager
June, 1992
HONEY CREEK4NTFReeP4'ePR
FROO-ec-T-
PROJECT OBJECTiVE
The purpose of this joint project between the City of Renton and Metro is to provide
sufficient sanitary sewer service to the existing as well as future development within
the Honey Creek Sewer Subbasin.by iirsW�img the larst se9FAqMt ei-the 1 leneY --Iaelc
and fo�
, ie
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The first section of the May Valley Interceptor was constructed in 1971. The
Honey Creek Interceptor was developed as a result of insufficient capacity
within the Sunset Lift Station. in 1981, a moratorium on future connections
within the Honey Creek Subbasin was established by Resolution No. 2392.
Phase I through III of the Honey Creek Interceptor were completed in 1986,
allowing the removal of the . moratorium, but not providing the capacity
necessary . for full development of this subbasin (0.6 MGD provided, 1.3 MGD
currently projected to be needed).
As a result of increase de�velo ment within this subbasin the interim flow
capacity made availab by the installation of Phases 1 -111 of the Honey Creek
Interceptor is quick! approaching capacity and is greatly increasing the need
0 for the last phase 0 the Honey Creek Interceptor.
AA ( /,,I V-V& ;V%CJV'R4
�A A' L 41
...... &tYLVtes the tin-lil"19 01 4 the May Valley
44- 1 be T4.- tt— , gnl~
Interceptor to a !0NIt wher-e the Honey Creek Interceptor could connect to it
-This 49011e-w" L.J"cZ441he passage of a Memorandum of Agreern ant
n (1:ikO committed Metro to
between the City of Rento and Metro the
'construction of this portion of the May Valley Interceptor -i-R a timely
Gfeek lntere&ptef-
ll. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
-a -
A. Existind Conditions: dL6 sev-44-
r 4�elq
The currentl* *rop� route for the Honey Creek Interceptor/is along
the East Side of Honey Creek from NE 27th Street to approximately the
convergence of Honey Creek and May Creek. A trail currently exists
within this reach and is being considered for the routing of the new
interceptor. e , - �-'J , � V-s-
A
YxAJ(T
The alignment for the May Valley Interceptorifollows primarily
the existing right-of-way of Jones Avenue NE and Gensing Avenue as
well as within easements adjacent to Gensing Avenue. Jones Avenue
Draft Project Proposal
May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 2
NE consists of a two lane paved roadway with gravel shoulders.
of
Appr t I ne-half of Gensing roadway is paved similar to Jones
V I
"ma'e y
oy
Avenue NIC. T e remaining portion on Gensing Avenue is undeveloped
right-of-way. ;5A.A
B . Scope of Work: 64WI5
This project conz b�—
C*V�-� RQA%QF:l-emd MetF-- Tl:te pQrtian ai wwk WeRey-QFeek
JA&rt4t�� -1418"elqteri consists of insta U*ng approximately 2,700 lineal feet of 12-
VIA inch gravity sewer from the existing Devil's Elbow Lift Station at NE
27th Street to the convergence of Honey Creek and May Creek. The
line will be installed along the East Side of Honey Creek primarily within
the existing pathway/trail. The trail will be widened to act as both a
vehicle access road for the sewer as well as a portion of the Parks
Dq artment's Trail System. ,L7� tt',,- A.V-*Zrv�� �A
WV,4AJk& L"'A.
az 'SO,
kAy% Met9-91 pertion of the, work (May Valley Interceptor) O�onsist$ of
installat�aft &f- approximately 5,400 lineal feet of 21 to 24-inch gravity
sewer. "%e sewer main will be installed from Jones Avenue NE and NE
40th Street to the convergence of May Creek and Honey Creek where
the. Honey Creek Interceptor will tie into it.
;� 4.ze-dav . 3
The 'we pi:ejeets-will provide reliable gF8kMt sewer
service to the City's Honey C k S ' bbasin.
C. Preliminary Design Steps;
The steps that will be included within the preliminary design phase are:
- -T XtA--fi-fy A-0eev,-Wt1e,,5
1) Establish all potential impact issues of the project;
&� .
2)
1QA= AF A'- docu-nel-Its), etc-4
3) Research --ol-l'op �ark Departmen�
project; ;i nd ri _participation in the
VJ> 10-7 A--C
12 4-'If,
4) Analysis of alternative:�,elivjmfmemts for providing se r s6rvice
iieeds to the Honey Creek Subbasin;
5) Establish a Public Awareness Program;
6) Perform an aerial survey to analyze the various alternatives;
7) Develop design criteria for.the interceptors (sizing, performance,
etc.);
8) Prepare cost estimates of the identified feasible alternatives; a#t&
Draft Project Proposal
May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 3
0,Y 'fevf-- A G4 Ma-g� 6,- 5 e-7
e VJ,
" c4v, 2 4--.!;
9) Combine all data in the form of a report to be used as a guide in
environmental review and final designi.
D. Special Design Considerations:
1 ) Fishery enhancement within the Honey Creek corridor.
2) identifying sensitive areas within the alternative route corridors.
3) Coordination of design and connection aspects with Metro, 1�
4) Perform geotechnical investigation of alteenative routes
6� loyAds d6,JA-te,, 6�rz4v-- C--�,056( 5.
E. Right -of -Way:
Easement needs and assistance to City Parks Department for trail
property acquisition and/or easements will be addressed. f 4>*4 07c/,$
;rv,- -IL
114&a v, r,,, e
F. Environmental Documents: . 4A
LU 24
An environmental checkli�� be prepared for this project. L,,,,
5 efA
G. Permitsl 'a -
A preliminary list of potential permits that will be required include:
TYPE
AGENCYIPARTY
Shoreline
Renton and King County
Sensitive Area Review
Renton and King County
Section 404
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Street Use
Renton
Grading
King County
Parks
Renton and King County
Hydraulics
Washington Fisheries
Lease/ROE
DNR
,
-Me-r� I
TAe �,
041'r
re,o i
Draft Project Proposal
May VallayiHonsy Creek Interceptors
V ca*d"
5&2Z,;6 �D
ejvJi��4 et a15PA
Page 4
H. Preliminary Cost Estimate:
Honey Creek Interceptor
May Valley Interceptor
I. Funding Source:
Honey Creek Interceptor
May Valley Interceptor
J. Project Schedule:
Consultant Selection
Pre-Desion
SEPA
Final Design
ff-,'M;f7 Permitting
LAA Bidding
Notice to Proceed
Construction
1.2 Million
1.7 Million
Wastewater CIP (421)
Metro 0 AA 0 -A (MZ4
July, 1992
September, 1992
September, 1992
April, 1993
April, 1993
October, 1993
June, 1993
June, 1994
August, 1993
August, 1994
1 9
September, 1 94
December, 1994
January, 1995
January, 1995
January, 1996
Ill. INVOLVEMENT/PARTICIPATION
A. Community
A public involvement program will be established at the predesign stage
of the project.
B. Agencies
This project is a joint venture between the City of Renton and Metro.
C. Private Utilities
Coordination with private utilities will begin in the predesign stage of the
project.
Draft Piojact Proposal
May Valiayil-lon6y Cr6ok Intercaptors
Page S
IV. STAFFING
A. Project Management
The City's Project Manager will be David M. Christensen of the
Wastewater Utility Section. Metro's Project Manager will be David
Dittmar, P.E., of its Technical Services Division. /44e7W15 liot(-sev, LLI-17111
tt--X- 0� &V i ((
B. Preliminary and Final Design
A consultant will be selected to perform the environmental process for
both projects as well as preliminary and final design for the Honey Creek
Interceptor. Metro will perform its own preliminary and final design for
the project in-house.
C. Design Team
A design team will be established at the time of final project proposal.
D. In -House Reviews
In-house reviews will be coordinated through the affected divisions and
all design tiaarn members.
Draft Frojoct Proposal
May Vailay/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 6
MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT
PROJECT:
HONEY CREEK .4ffvfft-fi-�B P-T4R
Pk'T6C:T—
The following signatures indicate concurrence with the project scope, schedule, and
budget as outlined in this project proposal.
Project Manager
Utility Systems Division Manager
Transportation Systems Division Manager
Maintenance Services Division Manager
Planning and Technical Services Manager
Development Services Division Manager
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
C:D0C$:9Z-434:DMC:p9
Draft Project Proposal
May Valley/Honay Creek Interceptors
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Page 7
;; m E-rRo
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchan�e Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 •(206) 684-2100
October 1, 1992
Mr. David Christensen
Utility Systems Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA. 98055
Subject: May Valley Interceptor
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. Christensen:
90281
A- 61
, �j �Ii: 1���,��
: � ,� i.:.. ,t, r
,_ ,,
, , .,�,- �.
�
� � �� 1992
�F REr�roN
Thank you for allowing Metro to review your revised project
proposal and consultant scope of work for the Honey Creek
Sewer Project. We have two comments with regard to the
project proposal. First, King County and the tribes most
likely will want to participate in the predesign work.
Second, Bill Nitz is Metro's liaison with the City of Renton.
Please incorporate these comments into your project proposal
as appropriate.
The project proposal referenced the City's 1992 Long Range
Waste water Management Plan and a Determination of Non-
significance. As indicated by Petrina Gee in her telephone
conversation with you, we would appreciate receiving a copy
of both documents when they are available.
Please call me at 684-1813 if you have any questions.
�
` 2ry trul � y ur ,
.
David Dittmar, P.E.
Technical Services Project Manager
DD/MK:ls��
OCT 02 '92 08:19 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710 P.1/2
�`&METRO
Irwr Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building 0 821 Second Ave, 0 Seattle, WA 98104-1598
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
DATE SENT: 2,- 5�
TRANSMITTED TO: 7),4 V r-;:�r �Ie PA le P%,
TRANSMITTED FROM: JDA V
(Name) (Mail Stop)
(Phone)
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION NUMBER: (206) 684-1710
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(Including Cover Sheet)
FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY:
PROJECT:
ARMS/TASK NO.: A40 A401
SUBJECT:
C4�
NOTES: 3—IF gt4
V
A
YK.a JCAO�� eld� UCT- /P-
OCT 02 '92 08:19 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P. 212
CSelectlon Criter and iderations. The crit ia outlined below will be used in evaluating
ia an :Co:nsd ons- The It
0 si erati cri
s P
rpmAntq of ualfflcattons and n the following order of priority.
Specialized experience and technical competence of the firm and its personnel (including
a joint venture, associate or professional subcontract), considering the type of services
required and the complexity of the project. Recent experience and expertise with projects
of a similar type will be a key consideration;
2. Past record of performance on contracts with Metro, other government agencies or public
bodies, and with private industry, including such factors as control of costs, qu afity of
work, ability to meet schedules, cooperation, responsiveness, compliance with @
utilization requirements, and other managerial and attitudinal considerations;
3. The firm's familiarity with types of problems applicable to the project:
4. The extent to which the Proposal demonstrates a commitment to levels of utilization of
minority and women owned businesses that meet and exceed the, established @
participation goals for this contract. The @? utilization commitment should allow these
businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for subagreements to be
performed using Metro funds, and should demonstrate Q utilization in significant project
tasks with meaningful participation;
S. The firm's capacity to perform the work (including any specialized services) within the time
limitations, considering the firm's current and planned workload;
*6. Problem identification and proposed method to accomplish the work required Including,
where appropriate, demonstrated capability to explore and develop innovative of
advanced techniques and design;
.*7. The project employment profile, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action,
plans of each proposer and its team firms; and
*8. Apparent ability to comply with and perform consistent with the contract terms and
conditions substantially similar to those provided to finalists.
E. Contract Terms and Negotiations. Negotiation of a contract will be in corTfQrmance with
applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and procedures. 'The objective of the
negotiations will be to reach agreement on all provisions of the proposed contract. To assist In the
negotiations, Metro will prepare a draft contract for review by the selected firm.
Generally, the terms of the contract will include, but are not limited to: (1) completion of the
planning and design within the schedule outlined in the scope of work; (2) retainage of 10 percent
of consultant's oi�ogress billings pursuant to Metro requirements, (3) no additional work without
prior approval: (4) no additional costs or profit without prior approval; (5) maintenance of time and
cost records and access to those records for auditing; (6) termination of contract under certain
conditions; (7) Metro approval of subconsultants; (8) @ participation and equal employment
opportunity requirements; and (9) minimum general and automobile liability insurance
requirements of $1,000,000 combined single limit, with Metro as an additional insured and
professional liability insurance affording limits of liability of $500,000 per claim/$ 1,000,000
aggregate.
*An -I &4tjr8rt%1 PFoposalphase only.
UPDATFED 07/15/91 3 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
206-609-3706 METRO WPCD COMM
NOlt-tt" Dra+xJ
Faz Transmittal Memo 7s�� ,� ��, ,�� ,:�.,� .,,,. � HQ o�Pages
�
Company
Location
Fa: �
Cflmmenu
D,6 VG
�� � ��
��� �s� r
Te�epnone i
;; mETRo
From
Compsny
Locarion
Fax #
Or�glnal
pispaltlon:
458 P01i01 MAR 20 '94 12:52
Tod3y�s D�te Time
� 1V/
�.,. P � �� �
�t�/b
�e°`�1`P� 2 81994
Telephone * �
C I TY � E ��0'I�1
�Des�roy ❑�y�pginee��"i�� y?
�
King County Depariment of Metropolitan Services
Exchange $uilding • 821 Second Ave. � Seattle, Wp 98104-1598 •(206) 684-12$0
Notice of public meeting
March 28,1994
Dear Resident:
Metro and ihe City of Renton will hold an informal public meeiing
Tuesday, Apri15, to discuss potential plans for improved sewage service to
the Honey Creek subbasin and May Creek basin area. You are welcome to
attend fihis meeting and listen to a short presentation about the need for
improved service in this area. Your quesiions and concerns will also be
welcome.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, Apri15, at 7:30 p.m. in the Kennydale
Memorial Hall, 2424 NE 27th in Renton (see map below}. Please call Ron
Post at 68�1143, for more information.
If you are unable to attend fihis meeting but would like more information,
you may write to Ron Post, M.S. 95, Water Pollution Control Departrnent,
King County Depariment of Metropolitan Services, 821 Second Ave,
Seattle, WA 981Q4-1598.
C.�( R � S P"E N S�{J
/ , .,,.l� .�, � � � � :
Iti' _ �f� :' , :� . � .��•.
` ' s c sr �-�—� r, j,� 4` 1�,nrn,',.�;.'
_ _ _ � � ° � � _ ` . = _____ ���••' � `.. 7;� f'i: � K ,.. _ .��:`.
ni�"'i�r� _ � ]ISLi_ 0. .. _7117.�+) �S�m �•1 �^I!. L��
Water Pollution Control Department e Clean Water— A Sound Investment
I
MAR-04-1994 14:49 FROM BROWN & CALDWELL SEATTLE. TO 902352541 P.001/001
POSt-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 1 #of Daaas o, I
March 4, 1994
MEMORANDUM
JU X*7AAA,(
Co.
Go.
Dept.
Phon*#
Fax #
ax #
TO: MAN -LING THIBERT, METRO
DAVE CHRISTENSEN, RENTON
FROM: MICHAEL OINEAL
BROWN AND CALDWELL
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK/MAY VALLEY
PHASE I ADDITIONS
7767.01
The following budget has been estimated for the additional
work that we discussed yesterday.
Specifically, this estimate is based on:
l. Conducting the two site tours to prepare agenda for
and then meet with Dept of Fish, COE, etc.
2. Revise the matrix as necessary to incorporate any
additional findings that result from the above meetings.
3. Attend up to 3 public meetings to discuss the
project. Prepare handout material for meetings (Metro/City
will organize meeting arrangements and provide necessary
graphics)
contractor
Adolfson/Burnstad
Brown and Caldwell
TOTAL
task/hours
1/ 24
2/ 32
3/ 22
Watershed Dynamics
total
1/ 30
2/ 8
3/ 16
total
estimated cost
$1370
1400
1806
2000
$6576
$3200
800
1400
$5400
$11,976
Per our discussions this cost would be split 50/50 between
the City and Metro. The Metro cost addition would be about
$6000, of which $2700 is the Brown and Caldwell portion. As
of this moment our current contracted budget would probably
just cover this cost. Since we will need to create a
contract amendment in any case I would suggest including the
B-C portion so that we're covered in the event of anything
unforeseen at this time. Both B-C and our affected
subcontractors have sufficient budget to attend the first
tour scheduled for next Tuesday, March 8 at 9:30am.
cc. Gail Roberge
i�AR-14-1994 16:26 FROM BROWN & CALDWELL SEATTLE TO 902352541 P.001/003
post-ltl-m b�rand tax �transmittal memo 7671 #Wpages'.
From 4
Co.
March 14, 1994 Co. Co.
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVE CHRISTENSEN, CITY OFKt_W�6W
MAN -LING THIBERT, METRO
FROM: MICHAEL O'NEAL
BROWN AND CALDWELL
SUBJECT: MAY VALLEY/HONEY CREEK PROJECT SCHEDULE
As this project has delayed over the issues related to
considering the non -gravity sewer alternatives, no one has
taken a close look at the actual impact on the calendar. I
had started to believe that we were beginning to run out of
slack time; so in order to assess where we were we updated
the schedule. The schedule was updated for both the gravity
options and the pumping options since there are now apparent
some differences to implementing each approach-.
In each case, once the "Phase I" decision is made the
predesign work and report must be completed. It is assumed
that this decision is made on April 15, 1994. We are now
convinced that a full EIS will be required for the gravity
approach but a (mitigated) SEPA is still appropriate for the
pumping options. We believe that a minim of 10 months
will be required to complete an EIS. And then the full
original effort for acquiring permits will still be
required.
The duration of EIS, permitting and bidding have been
overlapped (perhaps optimistically) in the belief that
mitigation requirements can be resolved and negotiated
through a very proactive dialogue with the permitting
agents. At best then, construction of the gravity option
appears to now just fit into the end of 1996. Weather, and
specific final mitigation requirements, could push
completion into 1997.
What is notable in the pumping option schedule is that the
design and construction durations are longer. This is
because the pumping approach is more complex with mechanical
systems and equipment selection/procurement. The SEPA,
design and permitting work have been overlapped to minimize
overall time. This project approach could within the summer
of 1994.
Clearly, time is becoming critical to having a project to
serve Honey Creek subbasin completed in 1994. We may have
already compromised this target, depending on the final
alternative selection. Please call if you have questions.
re)
Task
0
0
IL
Complete Phase I
Pre -Design
ro
N
Q
0) Complete Pre -Design
EIS
Final Design
W
CE Permitting
W
co
W
Bidding(Award
CE
Notice to Proceed
0
Construction
0
Q�
LL
C-
G)
AN
-g "IM 100.0 -
SRI
M �5*
.
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . I . . .
M=R7
. . .
. . . . . . . . . .
V:
Z
mmmm City of Renton/Metro Schedule
�� Brown and Caldwell Proposed Schedule
Schedule Revised 3114/94
Gravity Option
M
Task
Complete Phase I
Pre -Design
CD
0) Complete Pre -Design
SEPA
0
Final Design
W
CE Permitting
W
co
W
BiddingtAward
CE
015
Notice to Proceed
0
7-
0 Construction
Q�
U_
Q�
CE;
7-
.. . ... . ...
'g,
.R i ft
Wot;
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . .
. . . .
z
. . . . . . .
City of Renton/Metro Schedule
�01 Brown and Caldwell Proposed Schedule
Schedule Revised 3/14/94
Pumping Option
0
C
F
C
F
. �..�._
, �? • , .
�
iiin�; Count��
Surface R'ater Management Division
Tkparnncnt of Public Worl:s
700 Fifth Avenue Suitc �"�00
Scattic. 1iR 98101
(206) 29G-6519
(20G) 29f,-0192 FA7C
March 4, 1994
Mr. Michael 0'Neal, Project Manager
May Valley and Honey Creek Interceptors
Brown and Caldwell Consultants
100 West Harrison Street
Seattle, WA 98119-4186
�
�•
RE: Additional Information for Pre-scoping Alternatives Review
for Honev Creek/Mav Vallev Interceptor Pro.iect
Dear Mr. 0'Neal:
The Conditions Report for the May Creek Basin Plan is now in preliminary draft
form. The following additional information about stream segments, contiguous
wetlands, and fisheries should be of interest:
A. Stream segments and contiguous wetlands that have been identified as
Locally Significant Resource Areas (LSRAs):
May Creek Mainstem {0282): RM 0.2 to 3.9
Honey Creek (0285): RM 0.0 to 0.4
Boren Creek (0287): RM 0.0 to 0.5
Wetlands #38, 39, and 40
Locally Significant Resource Areas (LSRAs) contribute to the resource base of
the region, but at a lesser level of both abundance and diversity compared to
Regionally Significant Resource Areas (RSRAs). LSRAs are, however,
significant within a particular watershed, providing habitat that is important
for plants and animals.
Because aquatic systems require adequate functioning of all elements to
contribute significantly to system productivity, all of the following criteria
are necessary to recognize LSRAs in the watersheds of King County:
1. Watershed functions have been altered by clearing and filling, but
corridor integrity, hydrologic regime, sediment movement, and water
quality are adequate for spawning and rearing of salmonids or for
maintenance of other plant and animal species, and
�,
��
Mr. Michael 0'Neal
March 4, 1994
Page Two
2. The diversity and abundance of aquatic and riparian habitats are good
but not exceptional; instability, damage, and stream alterations are
evident but confined to localized sites, and
3. Aquatic and terrestrial life, particularly salmonids, are supported at
one or more species and life stages at population levels that may be
low but are sustainable.
6. Fish and Redd Counts
Please see attached tables 1-3.
Thank you for your interest. Please call me at 296-8051 if you have any
questions about this information.
Sincerely,
." �
,
Richard Rutz, Project Manager
May Creek Basin Plan
RR:mc
GW:LT5
Enclosures
cc: Mann-Ling Thibert, May Valley Project, Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle
David Jennings, City of Renton Surface Water Utility
David Christensen, City of Renton Wastewater Utility
Ken Guy, Assistant Manager, Surface Water Management Division
Jackie Krolopp-Kirn, Manager, Regulations Program
ATTN: Don Althauser, Senior Engineer
Sam Casne, Manager, Ecological Services Unit
ATTN: Mary Harenda, Senior Ecologist
Keith Hinman, Manager, Basin Planning Unit
ATTN: Clint Loper, Senior Engineer
Table 1. Distribution of Anadromous and Adfluvial Salmonid Species and Habitat in Reaches of Interest to Interceptor Projects"
C u rre ntly
Total Accessible
Stream or WRIA Length Length"
Lake Name Number (miles) (m iles) SpecieS31'41 Comments
May Creek
0282
0.0-3.92
All
CO/SE/CH/CT/SH
Heaviest utilization by fish of any reach in the basin.
Gypsy Creek
0284
0.9
0.18
Unknown
Accessible to anadromous fish to culvert barrier at RM
0.18, but no documentation of any use. Entire channel
largely barren of habitat (much incising, no pools or LVVD).
Honey Creek
0285
2.9
0.35 or 1.08
COICT
First culvert barrier may be at RM 0.35, could be flow -
related. Cutthroat use to RM 1.08. Schools plant coho fry
in reach RM 0.4-1.0. Entire streambed is armoured -in RM
1.0-1,38. Long culvert from RM 1.35-1.95.
Newport Hills
0286
0.8
0.18
CT
Outlet of railroad fill dam at RM 0.2 is a fish barrier.
Creek
Boren/China
0287
2.45
0.75
CO/CT
Potential culvert barrier at RM 0.48; definite culvert barrier
Cr eek
at RM 0.75. Natural fish barrier (waterfall) at RM 1.89.
Lake Boren
0287
0.91-1.29
0.0
RB/CT
WDW stocks rainbow trout in the lake.
1/ Fish observations were made during stream habitat surveys in February through April 1993, and seasonal spawning surveys conducted
during Fall -Winter of 1992-1993 (for salmon) and Wnter-Spring 1993 (for steelhead and cutthroat trout). Streams 0284, 0286, 0287D,
0289, 0295,, and 0282 (above RM 7.0) were not included in seasonal spawning surveys. See Table 9-2 for spawning survey data.
2/ Accessible by anadromous and adfluvial fish to this mile; 0.00 means inaccessible to anadromous fish. Resident fish -may utilize stream
above the barrier.
3/ CO=Coho, SE=Sockeye, CT=Cutthroat, SH=Steelhead, RB=Rainbow
41 Most of the cutthroat trout observed were adfluvial (migrating from Lake Washington).
G:\WP16\KCTY\04762T.o 3-2-94
Table 2. Summary of May Creek 1992-1993 Spawning Surveys in Reaches of Interest to the Interceptor Projects"
SOCKEYE COHO CUTTHROAT"
Peak
Peak
Total
Reddst
Peak
Peak
Total
Redds/
Peak
Peak
Total
Redds/
Stream
Total
Fish/
Redds
M lie
Total
Fish/
Redds
M lie
Total
Fish/
Redds
M lie
Fish
M lie
Fish
M lie
Fish
M lie
May Creek 0282
RM 0.0-4.5
305
67.8
248.0"
55.1
9
2.0
o 31
o 31
47
10.4
119
26.4
Honey Creek 0285
V
RM 0.0-0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Boren/China Creek 0287
RM 0.0-0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2.2
18
20.0
1/ Seasonal spawning surveys were conducted during Fall -Winter of 1992-1993 (for salmon) and Writer -Spring 1993 (for steelhead and
cutthroat trout).
2/ No steelhead were observed during any spring spawning survey.
3/ A few sodkeye redds may have been coho redds.
4/ Cutthroat trout and their redds were found above RM 0.35.
G:\WP16\KCTY\04762T - 3-2-94
Table 3. Steelhead and Cutthroat Escapement Data for Lower May Creek (RM 0.0 to 4.0
or 4.5).
WINTER WILD STEEL HEAD
WILD CUTTHROAT
Estimated
Fish
Fish
Fish
Year
Redds
Escapement' Observed
Redds
Observed
1993,
0
0
0
119
473/
1992
3
2
0
41
3
1991
--
--
--
1990
13
22
0
30
7
1989
11
12
0
9
2
1988
14
22
1
0
0
1987
18
30
2
10
0
1986
7
26
1
1
2
1985
4
6
3
7
2
1984
12
1/ 1984-1992 data from Bob Pfeiffer (Washington Department of Wildlife). Numbers of fish
observed are approximate. Cutthroat count was made after major spawning period, and
therefore is not comparable to 1993 data.
2/ WDW goal of fish escapement to May Creek is 46 wild winter steelhead.
3/ 1993 fish count is the total from the first two weeks of the March survey periods.
G:\WP16\KCTY\04762T - 3-2-94
�..,.
k;= ,
r,i i�� :.� ,
YFASEfi�fs�YW �;� '
�a"
� O
3;u'- _
��-
::?�.'+��' _
--','
: �•�
'. .� ' 9
� ' ��..
�t �'J �,�a3 � � J� >
E:>::;"F � � � z
;>:� ,
.. � .T
,. .
;;:�: . . ..
`,> ; .
� h as m �
;, cyQ
- ��
� �� . �
+�� � � 405 ' a6
ae
( F y� _'
�
�
Map 1
Water Features Map
o� ��=� o'° May Creek Basin
�6
� n � me
Il _
' 80 � r £i �, p1evc LQ so
hi
.F Q ., - ,� a��� nn
Y 4:m : . Q
= Q ` �`?l � � etk
Y � O
.z
aJ�
P � �'� %
;, > . �. o
' o :; �eo
`.. iz Bfl�S" . R: � .+ • Q
SV p �''�'OO SS � O / ��
� � �
�
�0 (i�4 $E MaY �n11sY Re dO 01B f'• p1�b 1Aar,h G��4
:.... ..
0.,.., ".
� ""•..
..
, �, ......... .
. o^ � .
O 9 Y' � � e
'� " `' n Q � i. �Q o` �
o7pj��. �
� \� ' ^ ` ��y.\ es �
� : �.� [i (1
� : :
^�`�f � , .Q Q � � �� \ ^f
_... . .... ..
"..�� . :r.' -_
y� �dl ... ��
900 `�`�� ... �
. ' o > _ O� SF1 `O?? ,
, Q � -- oY'
� o; si : > ���.
sz n �6� .�^� faa _ �►_�
� : • .. .. . .'
i,n o -� __ _
•^ a
> . o : _
Si O t, a:; t�— \`: ..:'��-'
's
/.\�: 6V w O
ll >'
� 1 Sl Oj %
�Q OJ o
6F� O �
� r��� Q f
.........._ ._......;
_ _......._
................ .._ �.=Q,� s,
_ i _.. ..
N � t'+-
�,/�• Basin Boundary
_ j— Stream 8� Stream Number
�:�� Lake
o i: i nn�ie
���=� Wetland 8� Wetland N�mber
�+ ro � �
�P � se� �s����
re 1 e v'� � fio -i n`fie r c e p�� r� i-oJ �c�s
!y
i�
0
P'�� �
�� �
< p�
' �s
� � I� ��
...... .... , �
�Q�~��e �'�.� 1�<�
1 L
�_ r
�' � % z�1� _ ��
��
1
N=
o \
�
: `.
�n
lake
Urlec
l
:,
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT � �V
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT �,�`.`��\�/j ��/�
, Y , \ � �.I
\�J
�, � 2,� 1gg3
MINUTES OF INITIAL TEAM MEETING � �UL .���`1
prepared July 22, 1993 j� �� FtE O�p�,.
The following summarizes discussions held at our te �<<..��EeC��`�
startup meeting on July 21, 1993. Participants fr��Ietro,
City of Renton, B-C and subconsultants are listed on the
attached signup sheet. The agenda for the meeting is also
attached.
The initial part of the meeting was directed to reviewing
the phased approach to the project, roles and responsibility
of participants, and relationships between participants. An
interactive, information-sharing relationship was
encouraged. Participants are free to contact one another to
exchange information and coordinate efforts. Questions
relating to performance of others, scope of work or
distribution of products should be directed through the B-C
project manager.
Contracts between B-C, City of Renton and subs have been
executed and notice to proceed rendered. The B-C/Metro
contract has been signed and sent to B-C. Delivery of
signed subagreements for the Metro portion of the project is
pending. [The Metro prime contract was received and
subagreements sent on July 22] Each participant was
presented the written scope of work for each prime and sub-
contract.
A work plan and schedule was presented and validated for the
initial phase of the predesign. The following items were
discussed:
l. The critical startup task is location of the
proposed May Valley Interceptor alignment "on the ground"
from the Honey Creek interface to location where the
alignment will follow the existing public roadway and a
level of mapping that can be used for site reconnaissance
purposes. B-C is to provide INCA with the proposed
alignment. [Marked drawing, copy attached, showing
alignment was delivered to INCA on July 22]. INCA concluded
the work could be completed as shown on the schedule. Dave
Christensen suggested that INCA contact the City to obtain a
Routine Vegetation MaintenanCe Permit to facilitate brush
cutting on the alignment to be staked.
2. Project alternatives to be evaluated include the
original gravity sewer down Honey and May Creeks and at
least two alignments associated with a pumping approach.
Refinements to these alternatives may be discovered during
the site recon.
3. An initial contact of agencies that may be involved
with the project will also be done prior to the site recon.
Anticipated concerns of County DDES will be summarized by
B-C based on recent work with a variance to SAO request. In
addition to agencies listed in agenda, Corps of Engineers
(404 permit), State Wildlife, City Planning Dept, and the
Muckleshoot (and perhaps the Tulalip) Tribe are expected to
have an interest in the project.
Watershed Dynamics (upon completing a contract with
Adolfson) will begin contacting State Fisheries/wildlife,
Muckleshoots and County SWM to find usable stream
habitat/resource data. Lee & Associates will develop a
contact with County Parks. B-C will begin contacting other
agencies to identify interests and issues.
4. A site reconnaissance of the alignment and
alternatives was scheduled for August 12 to begin at 9am.
[Travel arrangements and meeting location can be made prior]
The site visit will, at a minimum, include B-C, GeoEngrs,
and Adolfson w/Watershed Dynamics. Metro and City reps may
attend if interested.
5. The initial phase of the predesign will culminate
with screening and selection matrices. The form and
criteria will be developed and circulated to City and Metro
for review and comment. The City, Metro, Adolfson and
Watershed Dynamics will develop a list of agencies and
interest groups that will be targeted for project
information and solicitation of input to the selection of a
project alternative. Currently, the contracted scope of the
public awareness effort provided by the consultant is to
support Metro efforts and prepare and mail a newsletter to
the target groups/residents in behalf of the City. Specific
plans or revisions to this approach must developed by end of
September.
6. The target for concluding a selected alternative is
before the end of the year. The decision will be made
administratively by the City. To the extent that the
decision involves one of the pumping alternatives with Metro
funding participation, the decision must be presented to the
Metro Council for concurrence. Metro will provide a
schedule of activities and timing in order to include the
project for business at the December Metro Council meeting.
B-C will incorporate those activities on the attached
schedule.
u
oj .0"7
co v,,Qa
�� C-),C&-
4,py 1�&3(t4�0t-4
Q zi
(T-N-
1jWp,4A1A1- I- IA14 7-#/Sler A4s re r
Utv'^ T"o^'NP5Qfv
Nkmen -T-OCA-Ako
-A 77-
B,--n pc�rrjcn
ov
GEO Eru61rjcEref
1� n &/rn i
d" qz-
""",* #- Cvi-
116�7,1-
TAIC14-
TNCI�-
-8 1c,
6I.-t n a�
712-115 3
T)kr%-k
(o 6 A - \ \-71'r
5�5 3 - O&Z-0
41-8- ftl 3
469,0-4704--
-961-6o-47
sco t - & 0-1cr
'735- 4-2 8b
oe I - 90W
FFA��
-450 -09:33
-i50-oJ33
TASK NO.: 4pr-ME RO Municipalityof Metropolitan Seattle DATE:
PROJECT NO. ENGINEERING COMPUTATION SHEET BY:
TITLE: APPROVED:
SHT. OF
July 20, 1993
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
PROJECT STARTUP MEETING
AGENDA
1. CONTRACT STATUS and OBJECTIVES
a. Metro - two phase predesign
b. City - predesign phase, design/construction phase
2. TEAM ORGANIZATION/RESPONSIBILITIES
a. participants and assignments
-�Q review/alt selection
-CITY OF RENTON review/alt selection
-Brown and Caldwell project management,
engineering, permitting BC lead roles:
Mike O'Neal - prj mgt, engrg
Bob Gatz - alt developm't/eval, engrg
Render Denson - permits
Jane Lindsey - contract admin
-INCA survey, mapping
contact: Ben Petersen 450-0933
-ADOLFSON w/Watershed Dynamics env assessment,
SEPA, public relations
contact: Gail Roberge 778-4273
-GEOENGINEERS geotechnical
contact: Nancy Tochko 861-6000
-LEE AND ASSOC env mitigation
contact: Jim Brennan 583-0620
b. work scopes attached
3. COMMUNICATIONS/DOCUMENTATION
a. questions of information or performance
b. product distribution
c. invoicing (MEMO)
4. WORK PLAN, MILESTONES and PRODUCTS
a. mapping and survey
b. alternative identification
c. agency contacts/identify issues
- County and City Parks Depts
- County SWM
- County DDES
- State Fisheries
d. site reconnaissance
e. alternative evaluation/public information
f. hard copy products:
MAY VALLEY (METRO) Phase I
geotechnical memorandum
environmental screening matrix
scale/contoured planimetric map
project alternatives matrix
MAY VALLEY (METRO) Phase II
mapping scaled to design level
geotechnical report
memo detailed env findings for SEPA
engrg report for May Creek section
HONEY CREEK (RENTON)
mapping for alt selection and design
SEPA checklist and Mitigation Document
geotechnical prelim memo and final report
landscape restoration/mitigation tech memo
alt selection matrix and engrg report
HONEY CREEK / MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT ��2��93 �
ACTIVITY 7/19 7/26 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25 11/1 11/8 11/15 11/22 11/29 12J6 12J13 12/20 12/27
KICK OFF MEETING �
MAPPING / SURVEY
r ----�
SITE � �
RECONNAISSANCE � �
� -----+
PREL. EVALUATION
MATRIX �
PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL
ALTERNATIVE
IDENTIFICATION
PRELIM. ALT. EVAL. !
MATRIX �
PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS
-- ------ --- --- -- --- -- ---
METRO / CITY
REVIEW - -- -- - --- - --- -- ---
PUBLIC
INFORMATION
SELECT
ALTERNATIVES �
COMPLETE PRE-
DESIGN
MAPPING
SEPA
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
PUBLIC
AWARENESS
a :._s�M,n 6..w,�a _ �_ 5�-ie�sruBs ��va.4n� ¢ Easa
� � I~ ��f�_......_— . -- —� _...� � LAI'AT.Vhv 6.9,voE'S ::
� � � � � I i I . . . PC G5 lNQS: . . . . : /30
. / , .. .. ' . . ' -- ,:.
./ � � � ..::.::. :i , ! , ; :: ::1 I
� / � _ . , ; . : � '.:.��: �
:a ' '�� -- _ ., /E13/.?a.: �: _ , ��. . . ' /Z3
. � � � . .::. � ' �::::::..:i�.. ::..:j �
I.
, , �� � . _. , , /£/�Q9 � � ::. . ' : I. i i ... � .::. : ....... :: : . :�
� � � ' _ . � . ... :�:.. . ,
-- - . / � i ; . .. . � I .:: . i.: . , . .I I I � i �:.:::. : ....i.::��:. :{ : . :
� � , .. ... . . /�
, , �. i j ; , i ... , _ i ,
_ 1 _ � ,� . .. .: ::: : :::. ; ... : : :. . 1. . ..:: ..�: .. :..:j::... :I :': I� .. :. �
_"�— ---- � :.. .: . lGr�lP/. 29 �. : � I �;......: ::: (:::.. ... .. . j:... .. �..... : � ! - .. i : . . :. ::; ::::� . �: ::':1:: :: .
: .. , �.•:.._'.....� . . . . : : . : : . . . : : : : : . . . . : . : : : - : : : . � . . . . � . . : . . � �
. � I
,. �. ' ; : I ' � . ' � � . . � 1�
.._.•. ; : , , _: _ _. �.. . . . ... .. . .. . � . . : .::::: . ...... ...
� � ���
. I , ... . . .. . . . . . .
.
.: � , . ..... _ .: : .::.� � :... i .: � ::... : ..:::�::... . .� . : . _ . .. � I ..�... , . . :�...
. :I. . .
i ,
:i j i�:::. I..:::::.�i i�
. � �� I� :,
___� ,__ _ _ ....... ._ _ :::�:: ::: .:::.:,:::::::::_.: :
_ . . ._. ; . _.. � . . .. , .. ..... . . . . . .. ..... . ..... .. ... ... . ...
. , .... , ... . ..... ...... . ... ..... � ... .. .,:... t _ . . . .:i: .... i .--...
i i ...... i: .... .... ... . . �
. . .. . . . .. ....... . .. ....... .. ..... ���
, �.. .. . ,. � .. . ..... ..
� ..... ... . ....... ...... ....... . ... .. .... ...... ... ...... .. . . .. _ . ... . . .... .. ... ..:� ....
.��: �� . �
��:� ..... ...
_ .... ...... .... .. ... .. . ...... .... ..... _ . ... . ....:�� .... .
� � . . .. . . . .. :i� ... ..:i:..... .... ....... .. .
.. ...... ..... . .. ...... - ....... . .. .. ...... :,:
. .. . ... .... .
.. . ..
.�.�:: ... .. . .. . . .. ... .... . .
..
.. .
. . . .... . ..
. .. .
.. .........
. , .. .,. . .. . . ..
.. .. ,...
.. :. ..
. � ... . . .... .. . .. . . .: : • : :�. : .:I : ... .......
�� � : �: ::::: .. .� ... :..:::..: ::::. .� :::..::.: ....: :::.....� :.:::::::�:.:.:.::: :::.:...: :.......: ......: :... ...: :.......: :: ::.:..... ........ .::::::.,..::::::: ::::� .: .:.i :: �: , .::::�:: �::::.::: ��o
�: : :� .:�
. � I , . . .l . . . . �. . . . . ......., ... . . ... ...... . t . . . . . .I .. .. �. .. � . ., � . � �.�.
_ � . . , . . . . . . . . ... ........ . .., : ::� :: :::::::::::�:: ::�: :::::::::::::: ::: :::�::::::, : ::::::::::::::::::::
. . . : ::: : :::: : : � : :: ::: ::::� ::: : : :�: �:�::►� : : :::_ :::: �� :::::: : ::::::: ::::::::: :::::::: : :: � � :: :::: : ::�:: . ...... ... .. .. ........ .....
� � . ._ _ . _. .. . . . . .. ... . .. ........ ......... . . . . ... . . .. .. ...: . ::: ::: :::::�::: ::::::::: �:::::: :�: ::: ::: ::::: �: . ::: ::::::::: ::::-:: : ::::::::: ::::::::: .,
� .:: :.:::: ::: :::::::.:::::::: :::.:. ::::: :.:::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: :::::::. .... ...... ........ ::. ::::::::: ::::::�::::::::::.::::.:i................ �
� :.. .. . .. : . ....... . . . ..... . . . ... _ .... :..: : .. . .... . ... .. . ::::. . . . ..I .... . . .: .... ::: . .. .: ,� ,
� . . . .... ..... . . ... ... .... .... ..... ... ... ... . ... I. I . . _: 1: :: ..:. . .. . :I� ..:,:
i .. .. ._� . . ...:� . . . . . :l . .. . ...i:. .
� � i . . .._ . . .. .. ..
_ .._.. . ::::::: :: ::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::.:�::::::: :::::::::: .::::::.:::::�:::::::: :::::::.: :::::::::::: ::.::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
... .......... ... ....... .. ... . ....
. _. ................_........ ........... ... .. . ._..... .. ...... .. ... .
.. . .... ... ...... ... ..
: :.. .::: ::::.. .::::: :: : ::::: :::::: :: _:::. ::.. :.::... ..:��: ��:�. .... :: �- :.�::: ::::�:� ::::: :::::. :�::: :..::: : ::::�: :.:�: ::�:::: �:�:::- ::...� . ::::::: �
.. .:...:::::�..::.:::::�::.:: : . :. . :::.� ::::::...:::::::::::::::.:::::::�::::::�:::�:::::::�::::::�:::::: :::.�.: :....: :::����::. �:::�::.�::�:::���::::�:::::::=::::-::::::�: ::: :.::�:�=:::::::::::.::::::::::::
.. . :..: .:.::....:._::: . :: ..... ::. . ......: ::::....::....::::::::::..:::::.:.:::.:::::. :..:::_:: ..:..:::..:.:: ....:: ::....::..::...: ::...::.::::::::: .:::::.:: .:::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....... ,00
I .. I.. _... .
I , ._... ..... ........... ............................................................._.... .
, . ..:..:.�::::::::: .::::.::. I. �. ::..:...::::::.::..:.::::::.:...::::..::..:.� � �:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::� ,
� . _ . , .. .. .i _. .. ..:. ! � : ::::: 1 , , . . ....... ....:.: : :�:: :�� :: . ...... ,. . , ..I. ... ..... ..: . . - . . . {
. .....
..' � !. . , _ I. : �� �oo"�B�FacrErHnEivQ����l �: :� :�:: I . .I� . . �aa9.....re."ft7[1'fTfJl'GfNf�fYPf'.....�. .. ... .... ... . . .. ...
I60 i9' R�L 1'ETf/J'LEME' ' P//� . � . . . . : : . : . . . . . . . . . .
.i :I I ..: !,� x .. �.: . � ... . . . . .. .. .. � - - . ....
, ..'.I......:..I .....:. �'.1/d �Q:::. .:�:... ...':. . .:i....
.. ...
. . ....... .
... �.. . .
. . .... :
. . . . ..... . .::
....
':...' :
........ .
........ .
... ..... .. ......... .
........
. . ... ... .. .........
[01 t 9B�L ; . . � , .
,..... . ; i .
..... . . . .
. 3�i LE6EN0, �
\ �O�sa[ afR
a•pra,uw,�Nr savrowr PARA' c-cormn�aao
�� fMtR EAJf/�l�N/ E . s � .
_ - �UEN QYR^fL 3t/JlIO-Ri , u. � � • N �,MaoICE .
(/`r '- ' : : ` � � r . rREcs /nbr �ncnno�ra
�\ \` ` � � �_ •� � t .'� � . �fi��G ���i
/ � �_ Aa�rcc a�ssm-ro \ nc+mc v��r
M
__--_ � ,.e -- 1-� . e-�
� ` ` �@ "'�
� � �' ° t i i ' _� ; �+.�'`�'.,•t+ru -� \ � ` � +ati. �` ,
� [ I i j � � ' �'is r � � ` r�rr ; , � � � .?.3�p'
/� f � �t� o�r ����s,� v � � \ -�,(•�: `�` •i rM� \ d. 26•arir
.-�. s--. c- �ct.c• A-soo• Ffaavri[ �•�-ise
� j�t � y ,��cc v ` � �. � U .:-�. � ' -sr.�r o•re•rs•�r
�, - � �� R-�' '� � t-� � P �,,, � � c •rrz.e• P�9RK fv�tnvr rnwnar,crav
• , • � � • �O'at'.�f' � D � '`�.p�. ` �� t � //3. /P' /B' P�
L�10�3' Q- � �`l�v� • \
C �� •�, T • /KlX.' �a'�Z o�. 7Ds„`�� `,��\� "
� o- .
! � I . �o� E�' � \ "' FQ _ REfX-. _�—� � .
_„RG ,.• ,,,� • ,h
� �� EV P�' � R .10i0' ��J
� � = — MA �.r � �r nr�et y
` � .s-.. - ,. � � •Z6• is•l4'
'� .�r �� ' __ L • ?290' �j\�� fi/1lIPf CDNS714GC'J1qY
� 1 � - r-.� . �'";�ry"� ^. � � T • //6.SI' �— /I'FPPl�
� �- � �/�911 �''� � � , �'�''' s�� 4}1 •-.�v ve.�,r"S�ya� ew-� _ '�1..�1,. �I�j I►
9 � �� ��E� Ao�Cc � G�'� ��n ,,� , . �(cs•r �b 1f �`� � � ~ 5. , c� �i` � �, �!� /
� 31ej10'tlB ?. � � � � � � \�y���� Q � �•� r ' N i .. � ` �
`�r. � rn S7L+✓ �Vti/ i �s�Il7w ~s���fv � ��`'�� / ia�r
� T \ -� -
�O'���1. �r� ` 1 ' ' �� � b (•.-� � � � � / � C \
1ir 7�` -�
� �
�r � tJl" � . �' M �� � � / , j �� � ��•✓ ;^� � _ � i.� % ,O� ��R/P-fIiOP /.�' ff�CN �\
r.� � 3C � -��- � � � '�+ e+ry �? * � 'O• � SiOif OF P/IL�
� �_� e.` Zo` `f -/1 r. � / ,-.,;,1 �du
� � �I`r ��\ ' � � _ Q�q t;,�Jio� li ,�p � �Yl . `�
Q� �(�..,, � _ �_"- — � y - � — �' _ _o _" � � \
■� � � ��{'� �iw�1' �'w� — br—_ _ _ ` .�v �'!y�eV�C \\ \\
\ �� \� �.�.,C,�f�'alc -V h � v
� e�1ovr t.eo�.i .C'PC'RAA4NENT S.9M7XWr' \
, •--r Q~ ��.•.. sE�vfsr E�osfiar�vr ��}
V � /if / ING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT N0.107
AOAL'fL .�aevro-rs�o S806A II9TH aVENUE S.E.
,O` 9E�LEVUE, WASHINGTON
� 1� Aa�rcc ,�esar»-rr `, �� MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR
�\b + /'Z�� �� wn.a� . � _...._._.. __PHASE I _ ____.. _
? �� �
� o..�,o
4��M `""'aid' METRO BOUNDARY
Lake Baliin er � sNowonasn CouHTv
RICMM'� KINO COUNTY
BEAC BALLINGER Y �.a. Foti.�
��� ShordlmWW ��k�A� �ia � FnrkSwemp �oth Q�� ' ti
"^� � Clss
� MU�NP�.Im. � LOGBOOM Tr � �f `m�
�` y� � KENMORB � i a ,�
o�
�` � � , � OODINVILLE
HIDDEN � WWB�sp" �Cottage
Hlghland S���� '�9 , Lake
.� LAKE � � 146tlI 8t � '�� ' �
Puget SEATTLE CITY LIMITS ^ '�ortMa�t Lak ''<Y ''�
Sound ------------ ----- W„���s,a� � �
tfaller ' ' �
'[,ake �s�� �, E 18211d ii �
ti '
S��ttl� T �dfmC m ��e
Carkeek �� 2 ^ „ 1P K
Pe�k � , �� ANITA���� York FMS
'� AY s�m m��h HOLLYWOOD
�� ;�- p Im s Non 1 � , R'
�4 � �L .. ���e Yt Juan.iy Li 1� e h
NORT r <a,� r�� s p� �,y � � " k
BEACH • DENSMORE � aa
� x � Storm Weather �e ♦ MA'��WS s � �� '
� � Pump Station ���� pp��'�, r a'"'""
� 9`„ ��i, KIRKL�'iE�ND MKi �a , Ntake�,a �n ����N
Green �tY tt �� �
Luke �
WeSt BALLARD � � 30TH AVE m �Tr ,
Poi � �a�,.�� Lake � °�'a <
. ���..�
T, L E i ITY� � T, � W�hington y� �'%e
�o� � n, = 1 • YARRO A
N� ♦ '� A �6k �Oi EranrCo-
r�,�,,,.i BELVOIR ay sa �
e�� c Hin� �;�I�IVE�FJSITY � �, ``�s � .,�r,my�
l�LL� P��ar, —MOIVTL/�KE �* �'�, P' „� �'h
� r�, � �
INTERBAY �" w"'' �
E.�EEST
sM �,o�a TER ' � '� � �
$ � ,` � Ha�. im �
6 lnf.Al
1 S T.� � `� ir B• 4� �nP Y
' � E81 `�
� �� K0 �� sw �w� ' MEDI A� s.o tz %
DENNY WAY- � "T' �, �d��• � a
f;fliott � ♦�f � E PI E ST � � �' �� `�~~
e,
E91
ICIN eA'' s'°�� WILBURTON � �p�
�� «s �� BELLEV � m Fsi
q�,�n CONNECTICUT ST Washin�fvn p� sec +E � �^ � �g� � Q��C`' v'�1i� �n
LANDER ST �`� �k� ES �
NDER ST N M RG�E ',�� SW YO-
53RD AVE� '� OUTFALL Ra1n1 '�Mp, ,LO EN Sa '~ T��1 uA Pi�te
Lake
WESTS TLE CWE A. AVE HANF H�o OUT LL ����� p���� 5�� � �JNSET
e � N Merwr 7• E�Eh , �nt-� p
II(1 e" � i � �n �.�.��. so� • F*+
,,�Fa � 4 HAN RD ��` �z�>�� I-80
„RAI IER AVE
�HAR80R � —DUW MISH ' �� �•�w�•so �"�„ o
9 AVE F BRAN ON ST UTFALL
�`• s« i
63RD AV �,��A,��� � 3* BRA ON ST •
� Q � I Hll.vu.
� 5 HIGAN S OUTFALL
3 � S ICHI f
�n. e
""�e E ARGINAL WAY $ ERCER � �
l uke
� " W MICHIGAN ST '? � I3nren
w W
I MURRAY AVE� W MARGINAL AY STH AVE � S HEN ��RSO ST � cn* I,,� +'
r
tm
h9� C; _L ;�� � �' --'� .
'ae�a � � ` 1� " Mry c, ���
�� SEAT"fLE CITY LI ITS �' ��' �� �'- � d`��'
I�------- �--� e � ._ �
uaniuhSi" NOR'F��'s� �
� r -- �-1 /
so„«w.,, �SF � L _ . -,.��._L.
- -� Suburbwn TS
SD Rrin�r Vlsla 9 ,� g�
P�iTJ} Val Yue � Bryn Mriv� � �c2
Y[.�
S � ,
S�ulZ� Conn l*4� `� Bo19`DT s'4�� .t.n�o.,
r$
�,� INTERURBAN AVE � Renton �°�
I� """ NEW INTERURBAN AVE ���000 C�a q WD 90
es� s.c i � c..�.a. `�'r,
pe sip,a� �'a
� �, Cda. Riue.
Hat � �
�' Mighla e � w M M M �
Norm.�ntlV TukW14 Wila t� � = Cf ��/,
G.�rk ` 9R�nlonTr �����
:ieams� ''�j �� y�►
Vashon Gd�r ,».
Island '°r;nxb,o� � "`° ^�,^+
* �,«k N tE 1181h it �,
i 180tl� St .�
� �
K�m rc�
Crw� �
`� V�II�y GRm�an
LEGEND 'm °"'kr` 1 �
f o. G k ! ,�
Facilities �$ E ' w a s
�o � �
WaslewatarTreatmenl Plant � a
■ �. C1oln.. �y CS . \\
West Division Pump Stahon 3D q� � �T �
� t, �
West Division Regulatar Stat�on '�+N°\ K� :� ^ �-''
■ East Division Pump Station �
� Sewage Condun �.,
�
-�
� � . Tunnel Section %
�,
���u���u� OulTell ^� r
c I
Effluent �9' � �'
Planned Facilities a x�� at \� ; :x 6�e
� Storm Weather Treatment Plant
S
. Pump Station ° ,� ; _
L �j +`�a
Sewage Conduit 3 �
e BLACK
� . � Tunnol Soction � �n DIAMOND
�
T �;a
Abbreviations $ .,,,'�,a
; ' �
Tr. Trunk �
IM. Intorcoptor 3
FM Forco Main
ESI Eastside Intercap�or Auburn co�i�y�w,
WD
E� Ellatt Bey Intorceptor ""
ETS EF�uent Trenafor Systom
ULID UlilRy Local Improvameni Distncl ACIFIC �`"� r,.-...� ^
., 1,..,..1... �- .,.�.. � .,,r' ..
SW Storm Woather
Paclflc ty
o i 2 3 ^ 5 KING COUNTY M E T R O B O U N D A R Y
MILES PIERCE COUNTV \
on.a. wr.�,�..n, r.o �ua
.00k.na
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
FM - Option 5A FM - Option 5B FM - Option 6
Devils Elbow PS
Sunset PS
Sierrra Hgts PS
New Condo PS
17th PI PS
126th Ave. SE PS
SE 97th Ct. PS
Foroe Mains
Graviry Sewer
Demolitian
347,000
875,040
112,U00
301,000
21,000
455,000
500,000
9Q9,000
330,000
t 70,000
� 70,�
170,000
170,000
252.000
301,000
21,000
Constn�ction Cost 1,658,000 955,U00 2,493,000
Contingency [� 2096 331,000 191,000 499,000
aa�ed cost @ 25� 414,000 2as,oao s2a,000
7otal 2,401.000 t,385,000 3,615,000
Notes:
1, Pipeline construction costs assume 50� ot bac4ciGi imported.
2. Dewatering is assumed to be limited to sumps in pits and trenches and t�eatment is limited to
settling ponds.
3. Restoration indudes pavement patching only and re-seeding ovedand areas. It is assurned
that the �inal alignments w71 minimize oo�struction impads to private improvements.
4. Trench shoring systems are limited to cuts greater than 20 feet and focations oi inadequate
working space.
5. FM 1 cost indudes retaining wall support of 640' roadway fill. Extent of stabilization must be
verified through more detailed geotech�ical studies.
6. Costs are estimated in curre�t dollars, October 1993 (ENR 5280).
1
� \
d
m
�,ci
m
�
i
�
�
�
��
o �
� �
:+
p Y
; v
�
a
� X
i 3
a � 0 3 3
M O
S ` �
: �
� �
s
� �
0
.
N
�
�
;
m
�
�.:
A
�
�
0
3
m
�
0
�
z
v�
�
�
r
d
�
m
r
r
N
m
D
�
�
r
m
�
� O
�'
\
�
",�
�_,
t_.,
�
m
G
�
N
t!1
A
r
�
..
..
.
..
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
May Valley / Honey Creek ProJect
Gravity Sewer Options
GR - Option 1 GR - Option 2 GR - Option 3 GR - Option 4
Meiro 902,000 902,000 964,000 1,372,000
Renton 176,000 176,000 t 59,000 163,000
Demolition 40,040 40,000 40,000 40,000
Construction Cost 1,118,000 1.118,000 1,163,000 1,575,OQ0
Contingency @ 20� 224,Q00 224,000 233,000 315,a00
Allied Cast @ 2596 280,000 280,000 291,000 394,a00
Total
1,622,OQ4 1,622,000 1,687,000 2,284.000
Purnping / Force Main Options
FM - Option 1 FM - Option 2 FM - Optian 3 FM • Option 4
Pumping Scation 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000
Force Main 399,000 139,000 125,�0 23b,000
G ravity to Metro 750,000 1,092,000 1,092,000 1,092,000
Demolilion 40,OOb 40,0� 40,000 40,Q00
Construction Cost 2,039.000 2,121.000 2,107.000 2,212,000
Contingertcy @ 209b 408,000 424,�0 421 �000 442,Q00
A11ied Cost @ 2596 510,000 530,000 527,000 553,000
Total
2,957,000 3,075,000 3,055.000 3,207,OA0
d
m
� n
i
m
�
i
r
lD
lD
GJ
m
lD
r
�
�'I
�
0
3
-�
0
�
m
N
ui
ti
�
A
r
..
.
..
Ci � �-=
�-
..t�
January 1 l , 1991
Mr. Richard Sandaas, Executive Director
Executive Department
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
82 ] Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104- ] 598
a
- .;-n oF R�NTor�
Ft,�,::C':i;'!'!n� C'�pl.
RE: METRO Regional Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion in Renton and Proposed
METRO May Valley Trunk Line
Dear Mr. Sandaas:
I welcome the close working relationship your management team is developing with staff
in the City's Planning/Building/Public Works Department and your willingness to
address our community's interests in the plant expansion project. I look forward to a
cooperative planning process that furthers both the City's and METRO's interests and
accomplishes projects of mutual need. We are pleased to assist with the planning and
permitting processes and recognize your desire to meet an aggressive schedule.
In the preliminary staff discussions we have identified, for your staff, needs and
projects that METRO can implement as part of its capital improvement program. There
are two projects that are very important to the City of Renton, which are the protection
of our sole source water supply aquifer and sewer service to the May Valley-Honey
Creek Sierra Heights area of the City and Water/Sewer District # 107. The METRO
Cedar River Trunk line is in close proximity to our water supply wells and poses both a
long-term threat and an immediate concern with the pending I-405 "S-Curve"
reconstruction.
I respectfully request that METRO, in keeping with representation by Mr. John Spencer
in our meeting of December 20, 1990, initiate the process to incorporate both of these
projects into the METRO capital improvement program. We are particularly interested
in commitment to an early completion of these projects.
Again, I want to compliment you and your staff on the interest and sensitive approach
being taken in working with local communities on the development of the plant
expansion project.
Sincerely,
�
�-
E 1 lym r
Mayor
o �-
� � ,�- i � ��
�� v �1 �� w �
� 7 CI�
Ra�9)dLL
NTO
9�
a or
Earl Clymer
� � , `� �,
'� ���N� ,� t�
� �
i` �'"�
I��- � :) 'I � ' 1
tail L�
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 -(206) 235-2580
h �
::m�TRo
� „ ilRunicipaliiy o� Meeropolitan Seatfi?e
` Excnange Building � 821 Second Ave. �
��5ruz�y �3, ?99i
_._._.
�c — -- C _ :�--- ��^`� ,�+�__};� � 1 (i�nR,�,�1
,�.0 � i Cc^.n �
���r�- � , .
Sea `� -- �
I�L
�
�M -�
�Z����V��?
� � � 9999
L
;/Y4�fOT5 �"LGt,
�,a-,� p,�-��. �:
i?on. Earl Clymer �
Niaycr, Ci�y or RenLon ��� v� �' �^
200 Mill Avenue SouLh `y1 , K� � �,
Ren�on, Washington 98055
1.K�'_'.�O Rec;� OIl�� �@�7�G�2 div�c'i.��SLZ L T�.�1i+ �X�c''.e'.S=Oa
Dear Mayor Clymer:
Expansion of Metro's �reatment plan�t in Renton is well in�o
design. We appreciate the willingness of City of Renton staff
to identify early project issues, and to expedite processing
of permit requests. As you know, we hope to begin site work
this year. The project's draft envircnmental impact statemen�c
will be released March 15, 1991. Public hearings will be
scheduled for April, 1991.
Your January 11, 1991 letter identified two project related
issues; the City of Renton aquifer and sewer service to the
May Valley-Honey Creek Sierra Heights area.
Protection of the Renton's aquifer is important to both the
City of Renton and Metro. On January 23, 1991, Douglas Houck,
the Metro project engineer, met with City staff to review the
City's short and long term concerns on protecting the aquifer.
Metro is currently reviewing the option of relocating the
Cedar �River Trunk as well as a system to insure that during
I-405 construction, sewage will not contaminate the City's
ac�:ifer.
As part of this effort, a sample of sewage from our trunk line
has been collected and is undergoing extensive chemical
analysis. The analysis will serve as baseline data for the
monitoring program. We are also investigating the feasibility
of a joint application with the City of Renton for a
Washington Department of Ecology�qrant for relocating the
sewer line.
Currently, our 1992 capital budget recommendation includes a
$500,000 Cedar River trunk project. Following the City of
Renton and Metro staff review of alternatives, our budget
recommendation may need to be modified to reflect the
agreement reached.
'3on . Lar� C1�nner
?`b�-uary Z3 , � 199?
.?�.�c T�ao
�n response to Ren�on's reques� ��o se�ve rh� May Val1�y-�o.�c�%
Creek Sierra Heigh'cs area, staif has i�cluded the May Creek
Interceptor projecL in our•1992 capi�al budget.recommendatior_.
The project's initial scope assumes cons�ruction ot��5,400 �ec��
of 24-inch diameter sewer line and has a planning estimai:e o-_
51.7 million. once approved, p�edesign will begin in lat�
1991, with the environmen'cal review process in 1992 and
cor.s��ruction stari: in 1993.
OL� 19Q2 budc�e� r�comr,ienda�ions wil� b� submitted �o �n� Me�c_c
Council on April 15, 1991 with s��aff briefing for the Council
and 'che Water Quality Commit�c�e scheduled in May, 1991. Fir_��
approval is expec��ed in June, I991.
The treatment plant expansion is integral �o meeting the
wastewater treatment needs for the region. The cooperation
shown by the City of Renton in support of this regional
effort, is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
� ��
Richard K. Sandaas
Executive Director
RKS:tfc(20201tr)
cc: Mr. John Spencer, Metro
� :;; mETRo
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. � Seattle, WA 98104-1598
June 29, 1992
Mr. Richard Rutz
King County Surface Water Management
400 Yesler Street, 4th Floor
Seattle, WA. 98104-2637
Mav Vallev Interceptor
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. Rutz:
90165
A-61
'.`' . �C:� � �
s
'� :.
,�ur� 3 � �9Q?
C!TY OF RENTON
F � ��;ineering D�pt,
With regard to our telephone conversation on Monday, June 29,
I have enclosed some preliminary information concerning the
May Valley Interceptor. The preliminazy project schedule is
as follows:
Consultant Selection
Predesign
SEPA
Final Design
Permitting
Advertise
Construction
7/92
9/92
4/93
6/93
10/93
11/94
2/95
9/92
4/93
10/93
6/94
10/94
1/95
2/96
I look forward to working with you on this project. Please
call me at 684-1813 if you have any questions.
�
Trul Yo rs,
� �C�'' /1'��-`-�-�
David Dittmar, P.E.
Project Manager
DD:ls
enclosure
cc: Mr. David Christensen - City of Renton
�
j.
� liI
i�
r
rn
�n
W
W
rr �d n
O t'f D
o m
M �.l• Cf
W (D �
H �
(o u�i H
�
�d -u► �
N ~ (D
ro o rt
O �•
H �
0 o rt
M o (u
• n.
t
UI O �
fi
,d n {u
�-�
o �
u. �
N�
ri� � I{
� a °
�
n
� ()
m
N•
1 �1
tr °
� h�
UGI p'
a
A. N
��
n�
.N
G
Iw,
A•
�
�
1�
r•
rt
�
N
.
m ��• ;r, rn
� �� � n
►'i �� '� {
E1 h• ` �J
F-h (� fh
N. t i ��.
� p. �o u�i
N � D
rn �
�t �, y ,�
(D �� �7 0
�, � � r.
y �� � fl'
,q � . �
rt �v
H 'd � �
� ro � �
n. � �
b u�D► �i n
0 �� j�. �
�,• o r1,
n �' �
rl� �ti m
�n o �
� � �' r�u
@ A' � O
� H�
G � � �
I-' �' N
fD �J ��C
I�
N
ur►� a m A.
�
N
rn. �• a ►d n rr �b
n � tn ru o a' ►,t
� rt F1 u�i � �
a 'n i • rr � �a
F--� �t r
� I-' C �h � O (U
N' u, Q; � t u� a
N. � �, � o t 'd
� � � ' o
� � �. � u.
� o ��C A. cn �
(D ,� N � It
� o o U n• ��
� o G n r t� n.
N rt �r �. r�,
rt � o� rt ° n�
N IU � �
� � y
a � t IJ l� 1"�
►,�-c �� o a `� �
�N • � �
f� � p � � �
(D � w N � �
rt � ' n N '�
� � i�' �� I� N
c�"t" ID f�t. I—�� N N
Z � iy, :, C
� � o �• �• ,�.
(D
�N '� � rt � �
� �• IJ O � O
k7 (D I-' � G1J t�
�
W
I-'
� b' o �j
�D a" a. n
� � n �
~ f F U►
�` n �
r-�• b �
rt h
f; 'C N (1
i J � �J i �
�� � � o
N �� �. �
� o ►�
rr rt ►� m
�
� � � ��
�, p, o
h1 � ty, �
�d ;� t�. �•
,ry 1! � `J
'" �� � ��
I-+ �-'
N �r�o �. �
�• � � a
�
� fi �i N.
.ro � � ro
N
�� � �
� N
� � a �.
a. ' �
�-�� a
� �1 �
I� 11 I �
--� J
-�-� . ,-� a
, �
w
ro
�
a (D U O
p� � ti U�i
K ►1 r�i- �
�n ru n
.-�� � N N
N � p
n rt � .
� U
N
rr ►� � y
P� rd. �j (�D
� � ��
ru ►.� . � �
~� N•
� o rt
� �
0
M �
rh rr
� � �
(D �,� ��
'd rt
n
n, U �.
�d
N
`N � M
rt
�,' iu �
N
J
� 1J� �
n rt ri
(D UI p
u1 ►C fD --•..
�' (D P .. .� ;-.
� IL Ci .. : �:;'.
1� i-� ;r � :.
'J
M ►�C
� o m
o � �
� �
�D m a'
� a
n � �,
N O 1-'
�, �. tr
rt �
w
G �
(�D Y �
N �
N� � �
rt-,.
rt � r j..
� o .:.;;�.
rn
o p' ►Y
M N
�• rr
n A. '�
� � b-
�j H
�-. r-
�
h� H �
� •
o� rt p� '
� ►i rt
N ;1
� � �
b (F ft
/:� :-,. _ ' ' ' \ �r _ , � � --. . . , t '� �� , •\ _ il �,
-� .._5�==��"'ti��. � � , r-'
`�►c' % �v++�'�L ��K _ �, �-�� �' f �� 1. � � , /� � =
`.� •y ...i �. �� \ _ � y/ `,,
j.�� Lr i^ .'.��/'.-Y'�� � � . . .... ; �� ,11 �,. a.r����. � � _ `-' � i
.t��'�4 ;�� :c:jJ, � �r � i` �� • � �! .' ,'�- � '> �,.� L
�: �� :�...� V ^ � • - � � \ �'--� / � �� � '�, T � �'
�, �M - � \ r ;T � MI`w/O�I M�\lf litil! OlfitlCf � `� � _ �
.- s._. (T 1 • % � �•� ` o � : �t.__1�^ ,
.j ^ = •� r ' ' . I � � `I � _ 1�j : �= nn... _ , l,�_ r
j� - ���J
•�: - � \ � � � t � I � � � ; j�:
�� " �,, 1`• _ �j�: �` -�j ' `� `
`. � _ \ Jg , � ,i --�-- -- � !Y' \
. � , � _, , f , _
�, � ��� = ��,. .
� �� i . ,i I ; ��
; � � : _ . o � � , �� �
" � xran�sr = i lal � �.�• � /� � ( : '�� \
� � \ : �� �
� ' ( u t � ;
,=s Ai�E1v:.�E �: � ���^ ` `` I '', � � �� ' I
"=RC.�P �OR ') � �-.. �� � '••, � 1 � �
� � % � ! 1 '�J ',` � 'e �.: i
� \,= o � � _ j' � ' ° ; ' �
' � �� --- • ('t � � ' I o � � �
I I . •- ; � -- �� _ �, ' �-
1 i ME � � $ � . � . �� � �_ � - -
- �MH a I �� I '� � ',, SCALE O a00 HOO � 1200 I600 � L
; �' � ` sa..,.sT I ? � : i � ' � IN FEcT _
� ' � / � I I '., ` 9G � �♦ S� z � ._ �\ Soc�RLE�',, tf'I"Z ^ eoMtat�,tlt"c�{ FhC! .����� ( PL� =
�� ( ,� � 1 � — �- .
u �- ' I \ _ -
a ; e \�'��2 ; � � i r _ K ��wK►�R �E,4`rN+�aT
� j a. / � G — ', - _ • .— � i S �BER L?2��.aop l �"
: � � l�i .e� '• - - -- � .
) �r�s�. � ,�.�J� ; ,� � -.� . .._ ' ' � �+i e :er1.sctiJ _
y,� 1 t1 ] ��T fT. � � I , .�•` \� ` �
���/Z II /: � � ; I r _ � _ ! ' `01 �o _ � ., 4 �'' �\ IY. � ; .
'�.� ;� � � �; ' � +1NTERCEP.TOR1 'q �� ;�'�\ r�b� `� `�
n �
� :�,t 3�r� si ( ai� \ � / , "T '7�. ��
''� � � ' +_� l t�� -�� ..r.. r ( V' .e.l ^ %�`'. fi � �1\{ • r ' �
I ' � --•- I_ ^ � � �., �j�' .. ' ,� �� , '
,L �p .
`��� � \ ' ` ' ! - _` r '-- . =� �.: � -
` •�`. 1 % I� i ; l-_' =uJ G%�.'' `-i` ,L�;% '` �, ��•.
,, � t -�- ; � '( ��"�:. �� � � �� •`~'�
� � � � - � � see �\`�..' ltJ f?� . � . �
j Ctl � 1T7 '6F n � � 1��' �l .' a� V � e ,�� � �� ' ��.
, c� � y ; r.�� �'� � - ` ,
.^ : ;,s . . ; �
� -- -. , � ; �{ � � ac
I . ,o �y ..E
'L( '� � {�j Et�TON f \� ,.'�� � �/� •�,. � -- - � i - ; '!, i \ ��y���r
� Y{ � `•��/ . i� � j �' i ,'j,` {' r � ' � I `--���_
C � „o �: e i r 8 � . � � , _� i :�`, ,:�
`�.. � � I. O� � ,' ; 'n i Q� -r- 'r ;� �',
. " \
'I \ �` �� '-��. w. /, \_111���'�. '�� i/l��i' � � � ti)�^
��,,.._,,L;. ��� N.Y�A�..E �9' � ` •� ',.�.^=�V }` ,:.• g'% ;� G� ��� - E ' Si
�-�-- �� . ^ Y EE K „� '�a :--�'.�.. --�- MP� / �.��' SpU�H�:� .
�1 i . �y �, ', 1` }S. ��la�.
IGi•• � • �� \\ .S�`�� �, ��i��t �JOO/1 '��T �1�T� i�'���� •
�. � � . � 21 . ,:• �• �� 8��� � �` • .
i� � •..`_ _ ` � � 12 � �S �r=, ��
L� �.[. rr � ,`�� t��i ~� - , /' • ftfar..�. �
�ou =�,a , � .' ,`, _-24;;-- `- -� .� � , t �' � •�� �
� „ �,�- i � / � t ;
n � a \ i • �� �
wEsr�� io :L: • � io � � , c. � •�,....- � �`
�KENNYDALE � 8a� �; ''� - I a ( I ,,o`.. '' , / j � 1 f �, . � •,� t .
c� f u 8� �� �• ( i �' ,��., � s�,,�., 1 :
�INTERC�PTORi,; I �EAS� j ' ' � � i4 \�� ' �: _ I ', '
� � . � � � � ..L� ,�: ,� ►�-� ���: � -� -
! I � j � ; KENNYD� E -� �, � L , t • � � ,\ J L ,
� ,p'i I � .,�I � �! •. �� ..,. �. ,; ; � :�K-- __:f-
� / � u , � o , � ��,o, ,o 4; ;::�:.; �.� _=.�v_
� 10 I ��0 8 •� H 1 I+ /�Y-� '� o�.? ; �+ ' �•"t''�=' '�i �'T r
+ \ � i //
1 \, o I � .
I � ♦ I ,,� �' �oe' 7! •O 1r. / � \ \ • � j �{ 1 � `
' I .1. + ,e , ; n 3 ` ._ , _ 1:�'�'
f � 1 � I : .. I /y l i • 0 1 � �� 1; ' � � , 1. $: -
� � ; ; �, � \. � � :�� � f �� : , ��� __=
: � : � ..�,..a ,,. , _ :� � . -
. �. � �, < < , * ` , .
� � ,� _� . �___ j •� �,. � •� .;�: a: •"� � . t i 1� _
- �i i �- . 1=• Q—�' 1 �1 � y: � � i � �1t•��
. . � / . I � le A - �•' ._.. �� =��-.
1C1.1 �� � �� � - _ �"—'— �--t---
8'� � • ' ` I � � __ � � -' \ �' ''. � � .; •-. � - �
170fr I �_ 3L 11 % I t�• '��� �
- - - — - - _T_. � ^ ,� L� ,r-%.� � � �\ •,\ � , ; ';t I i �
� � � I I i � I1 =; i 8 f/�v ` ' � � ~ '- • 1 � t • � ;S � €
� � I � , �/ �� �� � �� �� � .. . -� ��
I ` � � ^ ti `� � �1 �1 'Y •ar �+V•
� I ' I i '' In.L.. 1 — 1 /• 1 � I �i \►Z � �•` �T� •F � I � .
� � �� . � ��' � . - r �
. I I { � I `, � � I / !: . ;� i - I -.�� . '� '� 1 i �
�� �. I � � - , : ,. � �i, : �' ; _: �t_,-:-• - � ; , � . '- _
� i i c�� -C � ` =.� S i ! • r , � ' �' _ � ' ; . _' �—= ?� `� ,t.. . . , -
:!;:mE-rRo
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building � 821 Second Ave. � Seattle, WA 98104-1598
June 2, 1992
Mr. David Christensen
Utility Systems Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA. 98055
Mav Valley Interceptor
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. Christensen:
90116
A-61
� �r'_ �;,,.� � ,.' .. �"a i ,a ,.�,±� �
':��� I i 1 �/ � �
�' � c„s V
�� I�Q�
. OF f�ENTON
:neerin� D�pt,
This letter is to express my concern with regard to the
slippage of the project schedule. I believe that once you
complete the work plan, it will take as long as 3 months for
us to get a consultant working on the job. This means that
the predesign would not effectively begin until September. As
a result, we would not complete the predesign until early
1993. The sliding of the project schedule affects the
scheduling of Metro's staff, as I imagine it affects the
scheduling of the City's staff.
I believe that we need to notify John Spencer and Lynn
Guttman of this slippage of the schedule so that every one
understands the situation. I am available to assist you in
this effort. Let's plan on meeting as soon as possible to
discuss our situation. I will call you to set up a meeting
t. ;_ mP ,
Please Eall me at 684-1813 if you have any questions.
�
V ry tr y rs,
.
a,� '�'j"�.--��
David Dittmar, P.E.
Technical Services Project Manager
DI):MK/lsr���-
cc: Bill Nitz - 130
�
.
. ;� �
�
King Count_y
Surface Water Management Division
Department of Public Works
Yesler Building
400 Yesler VVay - Room 400
Seattle, WA 98104-2637
(206) 296-6519
January 21, 1992
.� � �a,,� �
��
�-� ���� ��,��
�A� ,�,�- � �,.� ��"
� s ,� �� , ��`,,.�
�s w � � ��I''�
� ���� � � � j a' �} 1��''� �r�'� � Oj�/Cfl �! r�O
�' � �G i t V �� "� �, . ."i � I �
I ``a � (kC � k �+i7.��1 n✓�' O✓/L
..:� ,a� �
� 'I�`� �i � Lrr�2�f4/v/� IG%
c��e: � S , °
.., tf� ,� — I.,:ir' ' -
Ci �„ Of ��N?CN
r=��<� :eerin� D�.p�,
RE: Proposed Clesiqnation of the Mav Creek Critical Drainaqe Area
Dear Concerned Citizen:
�� .�✓
��2��? z
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the King County Department
of Public Works intends to establish the May Creek Critical Drainage Area
through the County's public rule process. This designation, if adopted,
will result in the establishment of a standard procedure for reviewing
applications for development within this critical drainage area in order to
preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.
This area has been proposed for designation as a critical drainage area
because of significant erosion, sedimentation, and flooding concerns.
These concerns include damage caused by bank erosion resulting from channel
migration. The proposed Public Rule will address these concerns by requir-
ing significantly more stringent requirements for proposed developments in
this area. �
The King County Department of Public Works has also issued a Determination
of Non-significance on January 21, 1991 stating that the establishment of
this critical drainage area is a non-project action which will not
adversely affect the quality of the environment and that an environmental
impact statement, therefore, is not required.
Written public comment on this proposed Public Rule or Determination of
Non-significance will be accepted until February 10, 1992, and should be
sent to:
Jim Kramer, Manager
Surface Water Management Division
Department of Public Works
400 Yesler Way
Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104-2637
�-
�� �
,:.; . � _,.. .
Concerned Citizen
January 21; 1992
Page• 2
Additionally, the public may comment on the proposed Public Rule in person
at 9:00 a.m. on February 3, 1992, at the Surface Water Management Division,
Suite 400, Yesler Building, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, Washington.
Copies of this proposed Public Rule are available from the Surface Water
Management Division at the address listed above. If you have any questions,
please call Glenn Evans, Basin Planning Program Senior Engineer, at 296-6519.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. We look forward to receiving
your comments on this issue.
Sincerely,
��'.-"",.�
Jim Kramer
Manager
JK:GE:mc
G1:LT6.2
cc: Paul Tanaka, Dir.ector, Department of Public Works
ATTN: Ann Kawasaki, Deputy Director
Ken Guy, Assistant Manager, Surface Water Management Division
ATTN: Debbie Nagasawa, Manager, Finance and Billing Section
Wendy Jackson, Program Analyst
Jan Ostenson, Public Involvement Coordinator
Dave Clark, Manager, River and Water Resource Section
ATTN: Joanna Richey, Manager, Basin Planning Program
Glenn Evans, Senior Engineer
.�
�.: �,� �
� .
�-�::
t`'� _
��;
�
a, �„
�=-J� ;
. � : "\�•.; � l' c ; i l� '� � - - . � , \ � � ` \ � ,
. . : . . . . . . � • v i � � � � , ' �—"'.— ,�� �
/``"�.� �.�.� �l\ _� ^.�, � ' .`�� �\���` (� \ \ . : \� � �\ /^ \ ��\\\ \ �\\\ \�\\ \
�� � \
. . . . .� . .�� ~ ' -,f'�`��. \ � , � �\ , � '` 1 � \ .
. . . �... . . . � . �_
. . . . . . . . � . . . : V.' � . . .~���-i.� _ — l.�' �✓ -1. 1, �—'�, � � � _ `. ! \ `��
. ♦
-. : : - - _ : . .:� � = -g � : : : ;_. � ��y ` � — � _ — -- . � -� �- � ; �: : _ . _ ;' ;
- � �. , ;
:`::::._ ...:-�.� � : :�. - 3� -- ��:Si �� /—' � '. ,
�.� : � � . . `, ) �l � : : : : : :�;: : : : : : . . . :-n.'-'� � "� /�� /
: : : . . . .: ,.` . . : : : J � J / . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . "_J
. . . � �-�=. . . . . �. . : . . ;� : . �, . . . . ~ �, y�\ � �� � � � _ � -
��: /. �. .T. �.'..... '...i.( �
, _� - . . . . 1. M1 . . �/.�. . . . . . : �: . r .l . :�:�\..�_ . . . � . . . ` . J . \':. � - _
, , � , - - � . .l � (J......_ ...... . / . ��: '..... .... _
' . 1 ' "O
. . . . . . . _ _ _ './. . ��. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. � �. . � . . . . ��� � . . . . . . � �� �' )
..�;.. _ ,/�. . .-_ :. ., ,.:,:... . ......:.,, .,.. ...:�:� ....... , _� _�
::'� / �r� ~ `.::::�::��.��'�: � �i::._.. _:::::� .:�.,:: :���: �:;� : ::� ::::::::_... � �
•- -//�'�y..•..( ""\��• .--.\:...: . .. `;�;. ....•��:.%:_.. .�..�.�,7: ,� .._ '�/� �-� "/
. �( i � r�l-� � . . �a�. . . . . . . . . . � � . : .�i��- .�.,. �.`.'�. .. � �f � .. � .. . . �.. . . .,�. . � _.7 -�. . ��%. � K� / ' _.
'�: `:��:� '-:�`.._---.:.�`:: '�:, _ �..::�:..�: : "�: ..::.,-. :'`� '�.. _ .. :' �
� '.r :�lo.........- .... .�--.. �� . .... . .........v: . '. - ��-�/ � - --
— 4:'r-� .J � �.� � • r. . L ti-�{v � � .� �1 f'��
:ti:-�:-���......... ��,:'��:.� ���� �:��::'.f�.,: //:...::�-:...::::::j�,:,,....�:__ - . � —'_ .
: - : :`� :�;,:.: : � ;!:�� : : : �,: � �� . . :��: : .r..: I � : . ��: : : � : : . : . : : ; - .., . ��:� _ __ - : . . . . . _.� � i.—
..... .:'�;�1 -: ):.... � .. _� -�- ... .. ... ........ ...t ��_� . . - ...... ;
�'�.'�::::�:��:.�:., .:\::;�::::\�: ...::: : :: �\:::::::� ';�'��:.1: r.:,..-�� J- (
:`Y:::: Z �...,� ;:�. ��.,�; : � � � ..'`.:�:.:--• ::::: ...:::.. ' �.:�' . ....... �.
.":::::. J �:f������:.• .`... � :'"::`.�� \`` -::: �" .' ::. :::�.'� ; :..::.. � .'"�::�. •�^ _ ;/�;
... _. ;,1{`�._..� . ���`-'��... .'-1-1.. ti�: . .. `�:,��\ �' . . `�: . i : "�:��' .:-i. . . . "�' y� 'J-�.i
: ' : ; : `: 4 1, : �J� . i - . : ' - .� �: : : : : : : : :..1 ., `` v : : �` � ' �' : : : : . . ,'r.'� . . . . . . . . �: ' � ��,�,� _ -: : , • i � �-:,.
:^.: . .; / .
•�-� - _ \ �\� •� a • \ • �. .�. . � : . ,,. + �,--� � . - • - ��. . � r.
::: � .: .. � ,j ' �� :.:: . {: : : � : : : : : MAY C REEK BASIN : =�':J: : :��: � :,': �:r �- - �:;:' � ^,l,
. . : : .,. . . i � . � .'\�'��` . :`� '��' : : : : . : : : : : t . \ : . : : . � ' .- . • - .''� :/- '��'' �7: : :�r . : \1
::.. ... � ' '. ">'"...... .��:''. ... .; ,i�. .. . � .i - ..:" _ - . -I� :i:,:r I �; .
::: ': ...'�':. :...:. .:::... ���;�:..�:�;:.:`.::'.' . ::. . ... �: ','" . _.1'�:(�"�f�.'
.. .�. ... . 's_:=� J .�a. :�.
_.:\ .... ... . .� .. _ ... ..., . ..... . .._' ._ . ./ .-r S_
: . ..; . . . :� . ... ... ; . '1 ._ . . . . :�� . . :"�<. .�. . .,' . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 'v' (/ ' 1 • ��
.�: .+-i. ..:(........ . �_'�-.�..����;._".••' .�'..�.....�. 1�...... .f .. .... ' . ...I-.�/� .��.(....
...... '�' -... • ::::::... , '�:. ' --..:.:"\i..it. " �.�::�:..:: ':Zl ': : .: ."' .:::�:'�":J:; �/' - .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ;'.: . . . . . . . . . . _ .-�` - '"- ' - - •F \� . . .. . '�' .��' f !�'
::::..::::::.:,. � ::::::��::::. ����'t...:::: :. �- .�:� - _. ... .�y:�:�, .. �---��: `
._ ...... ....... ...... .�. ... . ...��: .. �.. �i: . .:�.�. :� , ,.� . ..
: �'`�: � : : : : . : : . . . � . : : : : . . . . . � : : : :��;.��. . . . : � ; ,��/. -� : . : : : : : : : : ... , . : � _ � . .
....^�'. ,'t�: .: ..:.::::" , '. '::.- �..:-�-.. �1���..:C'... :::..:::: .:`\.�..��*::i..
����' .-'. .^ . _ . . . �vQlti �'. ��� � =1; , i� �' ' .. . . . . . . . i . ��- .�: . i. :
. . . : :'��.?�'. . . . . � ` � i.., . . . .���y~' "'" : �. . . . . . . ��I . . . . `=�---t` � �
: '�"��::::. . � ::'•:.. :to...:..:::%"t�, ''. "d�- :.:::::::: 1 : :f�i:�r��`'4-1; •
.............:��It.:�� ....._ . ''.'\ _ - . .��^:-_�.. '�•''�.:::'::-... �,.:�T ... �.:� .:�.
. . . . . . . " ' ' ' ' ' ' � • ' ' " f�' . . ,. ... . �� . . .. . . . , ri .'r . . . . . . . . ?�a _. . .� ��. � t . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . Z ' . . . ' l . � . . _ .:..
. . . . . . . . x . . . . . . ... . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . - � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -_i � _ . . . . . . . . . . . �. . . ���.�.. >ii.
� . : . . . . . � . �. . . . . . . . . ,. . . ��� � . . . . . . . . . . . �; • •� - � . i� �'�� , •
:::::::--�� ----:: �� ~\:- ..��. � ... :::_ ...::::::: .:....'.. � . :.. ............�: ',�'::��c:"��:.��
::::::::'::: ��:' �::' ::::::'> �:::::� .... _ _ ,..:::::. ':::::::::.:':. '::`.�:-::`��"���
:::::::::: '.::- ': ::::::: �� ..::::::::::::. _ - - .. �'���:. ':' '':::::::.::::::::,�:::�:�::' \-�- �
-�:::::::. t:::::'::� ::::...r . .:..�.. . _ :..._ �.��; � ::::::::::::::::. 1,�:::� . . �
:�: - � ��. _. . . . . . .�` : . . . . . . . . . . . . . �:
::::::::� �' :��:::::_� .:::::::: .::::,:.{ .� ._...�;.:- ... �:. .'y::_::::::� ..:�... ��:....�.
...:�::::� �:.... .......... ..::�;�::�::`_Z.�: . .. ::::::.. .:. ����:;��:7::::::... .�.
..... ...._.... ... ..�:. ..._. .. . ...... ,;:... .. ................ ....:;::::.
� : :{ : . : : : \: : � : : . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . : � : � `��:�?i�:; �<:; ._;.
�� ..:::::.:::::::::: ' :::�.. .:l.::._"' . :::::_ :-...::: ......... �
................. ....i .\�... , .. . ... ........i......�..�... � ..............
i :.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :� : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . `'��::����:�:�``� �'::�:::�::::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �,: . . . . . . . . . . . . ��: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ..::t;�:::...,.
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . \� '�� r : . . : : : . . . . . � ��;�: :�: :�: ��:: :<: :
\ .................. .... ..........4�^\ . . . : ....... \J. . ... .. . .�'::..:.
. .�. . . . ;'. . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . i.f/. . . . . "�'"'�'.•i:
4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . � . . . . . . . . . . . . :'. .V . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . ..�. . . . . . . :'l:.':.•.•:'•:...
\................. -......�.. ....... ...... ....J........... _. _. .. ' :.�'
� � \,. . . . . . . . . ... ..... . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .-. .. . ..::::::::::�:•:::�:� ::i•:�. "�
i:.•::.•.�.�::.�� ::::::::::::::::�:•::�::•. ?_:,. '
' _ :::::.....:::::: :t:-.:_:\: i:...:........:::: : '::::::::::::•`:�� - � �� .
\ '4:.�
`� � � . . . . : ,_. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ; . . . . .. . . . . :C'`�: ;�.;_ :�:�:::;:_.
`: .:�.'" . . .. . -- - ��• . . . .. . . .. . . ��..���`•:`�`'::�::�:�-. �:.� .Z
- - --:..:�: - �•`. _ .,..::.��- � •-• � - _
. . � �'-,:-,..-:.,, �:•Y��'� > •�
. . . . ., . . • . . • �<.:::;::'`�:: <:�;:: ;:�:'< cn
:� . . :': � ' : : : : : � : : : . : Z,: . `� : . . : : _' : . . : . : . : `�. � :�.i.::::::�;::��:::;:.:..:;; � �� Q
\ . . . . , . . . . ... . . . . . ��'' � ..
. . . . . . . . .,. : : ' : : . . . . . . . . . . . . �:t-:'':`. `:::- �
_ . . . �� :.. �=:�: 5:�::':..r.: � :. ..
. . . . . I . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . `�:t;::':; : :`�`.>.'•- '.'.:' .'. � .'.
. �.•,..........` 5��.�`..�'_ Y
� • - : : . : : : � _ i� : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . . t,:,,: : ,. . . ��;.>>
� � :: \ i �: ..... , .. .......: ::i=;\�y ...z_.�:. W
.. � . � � �� - : : : : : . . : : : � -: � �������4�����i�.:� �-� w
_ � - . �, �� .. . . . � : : : : : " � : : : . . : : . _ �;. � G
. . . � � . ..: : . . . : : : -- . . . . c.> �
:��. �'�. �J . - . :�;''''«a p
14 . - \ s . �:�� � : � ._ : . � � . : � : : : : : : : �i:: : : =:�: J -:. :�.
. � \ ` � _,r < ;::�;`.�:.�:
\ , . . ; '' :::::. :....:: :::: :: `:`':.
..\ � : �:. -: Z �,:�::::::
. ; � ��� � . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . �:��-;:
. ;( .� � p ;�,,:...:.,.
� , � .\' ( �.. ..... `,. �
. ���:: :::
—� � ti; � . _ � '� : : : : : : . ' :._ , : - : : : Q '`t;:::::
��� �\ :� �}:>: :, .
� . .. . � • � \ . . : : : ' ; . : : : : : ' : : : ,:::::; ., ';::'''
`�� � ;� �>.� U .:t:
J ' ...... � _..,��::...
'!n..��.._ , . .r.:�:�:...
.—r � - T23/24N R5E � . . . . _ . •� - �i . :.. :: ::::: -. '::: i..,.,,�..... :.:
� � � `. - :>t:.
. , .. � . . , ' �\ - . . . . . . . . . :�J�:
.. . � . _ .� � /: . . . .. . . . . ' � T i . . . . . . . . � . . . .{;�'.�� '�;��;:''�':
� � , . . . . . . . . .. •::.:::.
•- � ' `-� - . . . . . . ... .(��i?:�: �' •iY:�??i:
' \ . � . ' - • �\ _ _ '_ ' � . ' _ _ ' '_ . �l�. ' _ .� . �' . . . � . . . � ; + . . .
L:'�.. �
� \ , `/ 7 • ` j t'`
1� �-� �.� �
- . �, � , �, � :4� , - �. 7 _ ._ . � :
_ � ,, _ __ . � � � .
. . Z Z -
• N ��
' . / % .�(� ��' . _ • . . . ... �a�. . . . . .^ . � . r-/�—��`�.. . . � y Y, �' .' . . . . i. . . . . . . . . . . •. � . . . . . • . . . . . . .
1 - i! J ' /� � �1 � . : : . . . . . .. • � . . . ` .. _l��I+`t�ti R✓ � .. . � • • y • . '. . / . . . . . . : . .. . . . • . . . . . . , . . . . ` . . . .
-./ � \. `_,, �1 .�� . � t ..... .,� ; . :<.
. , � �: _ . ,�;`.': .�.„`�:� :.. , . : : . v �: . � .,.,�y- �'.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .�.. . . . . ._.�: : : : : :
,. J f,' � '. . �. �l. /- ... . .�. . .. � . . : : . ... . . . . . . . . . I . . . ..�. . . . . . . . . . . .
� ���' J. .:::�.'=;/.: ��,.. �!�;./:::.�:ot '�: MATCH ,LINE :;:::::,... �,...��;:'::'1 :...::::::::::::::
�.j � : . . � - �v . . r, t � 1 r i . . �. . . . . . . � ...,� .. y. v v � . . . . ! / "'.. . . . . . . . 1 �. � . . . . . . . . . . . . .
./� ,- �- ���swa�� � 1��It�fo�e�� �arPr��/rs��l e�� ����o�l.aa��a�.d��
/ i � . - . . . . " . . . . . /. " . . �. . . �. J'-i . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . /. . .' . . . . . . . ��
�� � .::.<�::.`:.:'' ;- "��� :���`�:"��-�_�J �:f �`l-�!,:��;r��:::' � ::::'' '�'.�"' ::::::::::.
. . �...,�:.•.•.7 \.\ v: � • .�' -. ... ...�... ...........�....-i
�, , � : � : : : ..�' : : ' : ' � ".� �:. .,� �}..�,\-"_ :� . . . �_.. 9: . : : . . .-�_ :::�. : ' • : . �.� . : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : �
' � _. . . . . . . ' �. . - ' . � M1'\��� . : � . . . : ... : . . _ � . . :'� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
:�. . ; - -�� � `�_ r �i � :.�.... _ .,
.j -....:::::: :/'.��✓..:..�t�.�: '_ ,::`5� `:f .. •::� ......... "' ::::�D ::' :: :::: "::::.i
.. ..... . .�_. ., �.... ... .. �.
, . : : : : : : : :.: : : : : : : : _ `.�: : : : : ;�� � : �� :.: ; �� - - . � : .� /'��'.— � . . : : : : . " " _ : : . . . : : : : : : :.
..� .............1�..�..•...� .�����_'/� . . .. . �/,. ........ . .... .. ... . ... ....._
. . -�- . .). , � .��' . .,�. �r,� :! �
• . : . . . . . . . . . . . i." . . .i . . _ _ . �`> �./ � � _ . � . . . . .'f�' . . . . . .-. �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . —. . ^. . . . .
............�. ...�. . _:.� :<. /:.. "". _. . . ......:" .. . .
/�C . j �� :/. . . l.. 1 . . . � . . . 1• _ . . � . . .�v . + .�
_-• . . . . . . . . - ' ..l. .�\_ ... . 4 . `��/��,_',.�.•/ .. . ..' , ' . /. . .. . .. `. . . . . _ _ _. .
"_- . . . . _ . . _ '.7' h.' - ^�-: r.T.-. .:a�� �. . . . . . _. ' .
:.:.....:. .. . ,:i= .f-yr; .. �;. .... _ . .:���:�:� �:�:�.:� .. � :�--;
....... , . .:( .�%`.; ...,.�:..... . .`........ ` :.T .. _ .:�-!t-.�.. ... . � ._
. _ . . . ... . . _ . v �. .�. . . r.. . c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . � . . . . . .
� . . . . � ... . � . �� . . ".�.,_/".�,'.' �t � . . . � -.- . TI. .,: . ' . . " ' ; . y._�� . . : . . — . . . . . . . . . . . . '
..- -.. '.,I . '�. .:� .. �`... `•�!'-\. . ir� � �,�...._ .. ..
J :::::1.`: '/' ::!:,�i"i^ '!:: �:':::: :: � . :j.' ' � :: :: ' ..::::::. - ��'-� z :::::::
, _, " r� . . . , . � � ��� � �.� � � . . � � . . _ � . . . . � . � . . . . . . `�y^' : . � . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . .
•�:y'7i.,.,. i� '�.. .i. '�_-��_ .�: N
:::::::'. �� 1'� • ./."'-•-��.:.'::�::::�:.: .h :"� C ......::..:::::" ��: .:'::;:::...: : C'7 :::::::
.�'^ :::::::::' : ��,t!%r�,�'_1:;::::'::�:::':::' •{:_.:...:::: :^;�:::�:1 : � ././`.Y. � `v
, � .:::.::.. ..�.�� :�� .:::::: :��::::::_�:�1::�:t�._..._::�:��::-:"-:-� .-: :, - ��r.. .... �
: . ^�;�'�-T -;; � .,:� . : : .. . . . . :, . . ... - : : : � � � �" -: : . .:� :,- .. -;�•;- .
, `.:,,.";�. :.-c--j—_MAY CREEK BASIN � �,.. �;. .�:i': ..I:.. /
`_ .. U � -•- �� -�--- �-.,.. .. . �F::::' ..... •
:�- : �v� �,� n� � � � ; .. :
' ......' .1 � �•" �� �,::....... .. (I:�::.'." + �:�.... � . .. �J
.::....: :� "'�. -.. : : .`:: :::.- l~� � J� i�t: :::. � ... �: `: . . � 7C�
. . . . ,y� c Ay:� r . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . � '�Y � �i` . . . . . . . . : . . . :� � �/
/ � . . . . •.� .-�. . . . . : . • . . ':�?' � .. . - •-- `i�~ .�: . t . _ :I. . . : . ;,. _ . � . : . . . , �-.
. . . ;J ; =t . . . . . . :� . . �. ,� :T : =-: . ,
, . . . . :,. . .;�_ . . . . . - . . .. . _ :; � . . . . . ,. �; . : . . . , : . �_ .
,. . �� : . . . . . . ���: : . _ ... . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . =
�. -y` . . . . . . . :�.�--- • -.-... . . . . . ' :f�. . ,.. �. . . : : : . . : : . . : .�;: :C� ��
..... :.... ..... �. _ ._���. . .... . .. ... . :r: ��
�:: . ....._.a ......... _ ./;.. � :i:_ :i,._. ... .�_. ::::•'. ..
r. . �i. . . . .� . ��. . . . . . / . . . . . ... - :4 i.. . �J�. • . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . -f t. 1� , �-�i/�
r.��: .i.�`� . - -�,; . . . . _:.: : : ' - •, ji ?.: - ' �. . . . �: ' . . . .� : . ' .y�'�-/ t /I . �
� . .� .. . .ti':� . � '�-j . . : .�--.. . : : ".-.�� • . . •j, . . . . . � _ . ` 5.
.. _ -�;:�. ...:.. ....'���;-:�.. _-:: :,� ��; � : _::._ .. �;}::'� :c LL 1
� : : : : :��, . . . _ . . ... . . . r. . . . ,� � . : �: . . . . . . . . -
: : : : : : . . . � - 'a>�--� .'��: ,- . . � : . .�-.. _ � 4� . � : . . � %
.. .. ��. . V�T -_ : :/i:r . . . . .: � : : : :: : : : :..���,�: • ' 'ti'
--.:::. : ; .:��.�;.�:::. '..: -._.:.... :: . � -
.,. : . � . a: : T:�,,r. �: ,. �
�-- :��i�' ._'.:�:.� �'...::i: :�. 'i'..'`::::: �.; ...' .M.::::. .. ,'.;., �
,: . ': _ . :o`..:��..: :::.�.... .i:..:'t. - .. . `�'' .
�� .._..'.� ::: . /J ;"^. _-:--:_..:.�. . ., _.._..: :�J_;:.. �.� /
- - � .�. . _ . . !. . . .v1V ... . - .��\ . . ' . . . . . r�l � . 1
_ _ . . . . . . . . .'� . .�� � R\-`\. 1 � . . _ . . . . . _�.r �.� ..��� • - � , Ql
,�� %��' � i � l � : . � � ��. � ,:� : . � � _ 1 .
�.,-+i �: j{� . .. - i7 _ , . . . : I� I� � :�: =. ��: � . : `:.�� l��' �`' ��.� _ � _' . . _ -- - - ---_ =__ _ - _
� - . ' � . � . . . .� . •�• l� .. .-..� - _ . •�' - l =_= -
— � : �/�,,._., _ . _ . _ , . . . � _� • . . �- - - - > - -
. . . .� . .-` . _ . . . . �: . _ . .` � . . . ;• � • � - - � - ; -- •
— ..�:.... -.... -- . :::::':�:. :��. -��:` :�V �,.�-?:.�r: .'i � , ' �''�- _ -
— • ' ',',!. ... . . . . . . � ���. . ��� � �'t . J,.��j.tS�// . J. . . ^+ "'� � - - ,,�,�
� � . � . . �'.- -'-.._... � . .�...� �..� .. .. , � — ���
{ � -� i . : �'''. . o • . `� t -1. /- ... f ', /. •
� � .,,E ` :. ":fi ;. �:, �� �: .,��=- �: � ;
}`� _ j i�:':::.-:.. ::: �.�: ' �j-� ...�j �':.: ' :;: _ - - _ '- F�:' -- � _ ' ��•�:
'� f . : : ' . _. ..._. . . . :;\`�,./j ��.�' : :,, � : : : �-- -_ : t� I',�• �. __ _ `' _ - -
�. � � . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .i . �� � '.. �.Y/� /� . . . . � --1 � 11�
. . ' ' - ' . • . . - - .. -
, �.. . ./'�� - � � �.�\.\ � i1. 1j.�� .f. .� � �.7�
. . �..�.."_.i� ��.F:. -- _ - . - _...... �::
' �.' : : : .�r.. . . . :._. . � tl ' ' . �: " ..: j::. .� : � :� � -- _ • . �r�
� - - .,��.-..�+`�.;.�..._��t .... ..�:•y1" .� �. � - � -
. ' � ,�,:�t: +1' ' "�_ .i .i�:.. f r
�'\\. �/�.` r......_.. .......•...'• .../�. ., . •,{. • :�' .. ��`• •/� 1 • '' ' •/
i��` . . . . . . : : : . . . . : � ' . . � .. L : : : : `. : ` \ � `�' : t ./;ti.:.._, . / �� . ,�,. . , , .�_ _ ^ - . ._���
� ' -...... .... ... .. �.:I .........:�'} .��'' �.i. .. "�'t / " ' ._.
\�-.. . . . ��.-r� . . . . . _ . .�. .`' . . . �. . . . . .� . Y ��. ...i. . . � • ,� _ _ _
� -�� � � ��.`�'"�-'. ' y � .�. . .� . /�/. - �1l j.
�; �`� ;�� --•,: :���� .. . .. : 'i - . J "
- �-- -�:_�� . :_:_..�'. . ��:-�
_�_ . �
� : . _ �.�r � . . .. ; � �.
�i': . ._ . . :.. � _ :�.� =�-: . _ _ - : r � - � l . -
. .. � .�t '► � .
: : : : �-:, ; _ : . ___ � �� = _ -�� � �� � � �-�' ' ~ I
f . . . a' . : : . .....: : : ' : . �,� . .� �� � � ., � �,� �� :-- ;� I---
. ; 4f: _ . . . . _ ��. _ f;,� `',� •- � , o� � � �
_.� . �_ . �.` , .. I_ ,. , _�� •�
. `�`; :��� ; . -
�:� _ ._ _. .-=� _ � � � .� : ��� ►-_ �: _.; � -j: : � - � - . � �. � , ;� _
� _ • " � ' � . :. �1'' � :� �}. ., `� _ � �
�' ' '`� 4�'. '.:i �
�.,r, �`�J LAKE WASHINGTON '"--�}T=--
2.
`_ . r, ;` � � t I j�=` �: . -
� :ITt ETRO
�►
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Ezchan�c Building • 821 Second Avc • ScatHe, WA 9810�1-]598 •(206) 684-2100
February 18, 1993
Mr. David Christensen
Utility Systems Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Municipal Building
200 Mill - Avenue South
Renton, WA. 98055
Subject: May Valley Interceptor
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. Christensen:
90397
A61
���
� �
F E8 Z�' �93
RE���N
C����no��n� �ePt.
E
I have started negotiations with Brown and Caldwell for
consultant services on the May Valley Interceptor.
B&C's work will develop the May Valley alignment only to the
level necessary for the SEPA effort. I am increasing B&C's
scope to include engineering services. The reason for this
increase is that Metro's work load has increased to the point
that Metro staff will not be able to perform any in-house
engineering.
I believe that as soon as B&C's scopes of work are available
for each of our projects, we should get together to compare
the two scopes for consistency and coordination.
I will need to go to the Metro Council for approval of B&C's
contract because of the increase in scope. My estimated date
for notice to proceed is April 30, 1993. We need to discuss
how this affects the overall project schedule.
T l�a�l2 ���?C�`!p� IT?l' CL'Y'��:7�
negotiations for your use.
have any questions.
V ry trul o r,�
;
, ;
David Dittmar, P.E.
Project Manager
Attachment
SC�":e�ll� � Oi ^.C:`:�`'-.L:� t.��..:':t.
Please call me at 684-1813 if you
DD/sa;mk�5�
cc: Ken Madden
Mann-Ling Tibert
Honey Creek Subbasin Project
Metro Scope
CS/M135-92
Consultant Negotiation Schedule
By: David Dittmar
Date: February 18, 1993
D at e I�ID
week of 2/22 develop scope
week of 3/1 develop scope and budget
week of 3/8 finalize scope and budget '
internal audit review
3/22 agency review of reso.
3/30 reso. to clerk
4/g Water Quality Committee meeting
4/15 Metro Council
4/30 Notice to Proceed
�
�
MAR 24 '9� 07��2 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710
8B8I8IT B
BCOPE OP AORi�
METRO/H �TEY CRE�R SQSSASZIi pROJLCT
o ec
P.2i6
�The purpose oP this task is to manaqe and coordinate project
techaical resources and assure a level of service and�
responsiveness consistent vith project schedule and budget.
Activities included within this task include:
1. Prepare a•detailed work plan that identifies all
activities, completion schedules, and responsible party
for task completion. Submit three copies of draft work
plan to Metro for review. I�ietzo Project Manger shall
conso3ldate staff comments and reconcile conflicting
staff issues. Incorporate Metro's�consalidated comments
as appropriate. Provide five copies of the final Work
plan to Metro.
2. Conduct project start-up meetinq vith M,etro Staff, City
of Renton staff and consultant team members to develop
consensus on approach and facus on issues and assign
responsibilities.
3.� Monitor progress and expenditure of budgets.
4. Conduct periodic meetings, tvice per month, to revie�r
progress, maintain ccordination between participants,
identify and make necessary schedule adjustments, and
provide opportunities for early distribution and response
to findings. Primary participants.are the consul.tant
team. The City of Renton and Metro may attend.
5. Prepare monthly invoices that provide information on
budget expenditures, current status of tasks, and
proqress toward cempletion. Provide two copies to Metro
by the 15th ef each month.
� � ' �. •.��= � . . -
The ob.jective�of this task is to identify and evaluate
environmental impacts and determine mitigation requirements
assaciated r�ith the May Valley section of the project. The City
of Renten will serve as the lead agency and Brown and Calds,re31
will prepare documentation for an expanded Determination of Nen-
SigniPicance. This task vill provide for fieid studies and
analyses raithin the Metro project segment for incorporation into
the overall preject checklist. This task wi12 inelude:
Exhibit B-- Page 2 af 5
March 18, 1993
e:4dm180214938_l l b�ub l .�pa�
MAR 24 '9� 07��3 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710 _ P.�i6
J
1. Field investiga.tions and environmental studies a2onq
proposed pipeline alignments to determine location of
potential wetlands, determine valus and functions of
identified wetlands according to City of Renton and King
County protocols, ident�fy sensitive areas, assess stream.
channel conditions includinq fisheries habitat, and
assess fisheries species and population presence.
2. �aluation oP proposed construction With respeet to
'�.,�:�_ environmental characteristics includinq;
a. Impacts to traffic and loca3 residents
b. Slope stability
c. Ground and surface water
d. Soil disposal �
e. Noise
f. Wetlands
q. Fisheries
h. Vegetation
i. Erosion potential
j. Cultural resources
3. Evaluate issues related vith long term operation of tbe
completed project including:
a. Water quality, surface restoration
b. Access by ma�ntenance veAicles
c. Lonq term slope stability
d. Odar
4.
5.
Assembla and prepare information and study findinqs for
inclusion into SEPA checklist prepared by City of Renton.
Participate and provide information for use in
development of project alternatives.
6. �Provide five. copies of the draft findings for Metro's
review. Metro Project ?ianager shall consolidate staff
comlaents and reconcile conflictinq staff issues.
Incorporate Metro's consolidated comments as appropriate.
Provide ten copies of the final findings.
� • - . . . !. . .. !.
The objective of this task is to provide mappinq of project
alignment including� surface featu=es, contour elevations and
property lines. Activities will include:
I. Provide survey control for aerial photography sufficient
to produce 1"=100' scale and 1"=50' scale, 2-foot contour
interval, topographic mapping of the May Valley alignment
suitabZe fer final desiqn. Aerial photo and place�ent of
control targets provided under separate contract.
EXhibit 8-- Page 2 of 5
March 18, 1993 .
e:�am�so2��3a_i t��1_�d
MAR 24 '93 07��� METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710 P.4i6
%
2. Produce topographic base maps at a scale of 1"=100', t�rith
2-foot contours, using a combination oP aerial
photogzammetry and qround survey information. The
mapping will inc2ude all visible planimetric features
such as structures, utilities, improved surfaces,
veqetation includinq trees greater than 8"�diameter and
vater courses and property lines.
3. Provide supplemental qround topographic mapping as
�� :�„r�:b necessary to enhance the serial mapping information.
This mapping will include the interior detai2inq of
accessible utility structures as necessary to define the
size, depth, and direction.
4. Provide survey ties to existinq survey monuments as
necessary to determine and include within the project
plans all applicable easements, property iines and
rights-of-�aay.
5. Locate, tie and reference pertinent existing survey
monuments and benchmarks along the preliminary alignment
for future use.
6. Identify private and public property o�rnership's abutting
the proposed May Valley alignments.
Task 400 - Geotechnical Evaivatien
This task will provide geotechnical information and .
recommendations in suppert of predesign engineering evaluations.
Znforination will be dev_eloped through field and laboratory
investigations�and revie� of previous geotechnical studies
relative to the following:
1. Field investigations will includa a geologic
reconnaissance of the preliminary alignment and
acquisition oP soil samples by hand augur of by truck or
tailer mounted drill rig. Borings (0 ta 10) will be 10
.. to 20 Peet deep.
2. Laboratory testing �ri21 be conducted on selected samples
including moisture content and dry density, sieve
analyses a�d shear strength.
3. Impacts of soil erosion on the adjacent stream during
construction.
4. Stability of the canyon walls, as affected by the
installation of the sewer and the impacts of canyon wall
stability on the completed construction.
Exhibit B-- Page 3 of S c:1�dm18Q2�993811�a�chlbl.v�y�
MarCh 18, 1993
MAR 24 '9� 07��4 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066�41710 P.5i6
5. Suitability of the excavation soi2s for reuse as trench
backfill.
6. Se�er crossinqs at streams, including consideration of
• pipe jackinq or microtunneling techniques.
7. Stability of trench Walls, inc2udinq the ne�d for
temporary shoring.
� ..8:.._ . Pipe beddinq and .support.
9. Evaluation of potential vater infiltration into
excavations and mitigation methods.
10. Patential seismic event on the completed construction.
il. Quantification and identification of soils and imported
Pill vhich would be required for clearing and gradinq og
�onstruction access, pipeline aliqnment and staginq
� areas.
12. Characterization and quantification of imported backtill
for the sever installation.
13. Soils report summarizing the findings of field and
laboratory investiqations. Provide five copies of the
draft findinqs to Metro for revieW. Metro Project Manager
shall consolidate staff comments and reconcile
conflicting staff issues. Incorpbrate Metro's ;
eonsolidated camments ss appropriate. Provide five final
copies to Metro.
Task 5D0 - �PreDesi�ngineerina
This task vi1.3 develop and evaluate a specific alignment and
grade of pipeline for the May Creek - Metro section of the
project. The application and limitation of employing trenchless
pipe installation technoloqies, such as pipe jacking, or boring,
at stream crossings will be explored. Activities �iil include:
I. Review previous studies and work relative to proj.ect.
2. Field investigations to determine most feasible, least ,
impacting -locations for constructinq a pipeline from
Honey Creek to connection with Metro System on Jones
Road.
3. Preparation oP plan and profile drawinqs of the se].ected
pipeline a].ignment. .
4. Based on gla�s developed for Honey Creek Subbasin and
flows provided by Metro for May Creek Service area,
E�ibit B-- Page 4 of 5 «�em�so2�a ii�i.��
March 18, 1993
MAR 24 '93 07��4 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710 _ P.6i6
.� . -
/
evaluate pipe sizes necessary to 1) serve Honey Creek
� Subbasin only, and 2j ser.ve Honey Creek,Subbasin and May
Creek service areas.
5. L�raluate construction requirements considerinq depth of
excavation, soil stability, ground�►ater and features.
Consider opportunities for trench2ess eonstruction
methods for creek crossings.
-�.:6��:.,.. . Prepare estimate of cost of 2 options of pipe sizing
described above.. F�rnish to Metro the quantity takeoff,
unit prices, and all economic asswaptioas.
7. Evaluate mitigation requirements determined in Task 200
as to ho� they might influence construction requiremeats.
8. Prepare report an findings, conclusions and
recommendations concerninq canveyance of interceptor flov
throuqh Metro-owreed May Creek Interceptor. Provide ten
copies of the draft findings to Metro. Metro Project
Manager shall consolidate staff comments and reconcile
conflicting staff issues. Incorporate Metro's
consolidated comtaents as appropriate. Provide ten copies
of the final firidings to Metro. Coordinate the
incorporation of findings into the overall Honey Creek
Subbasin Report with the City of Renton.
Task 600 - Public Relatians Su�port
This task �rill provide a fixed budget for previding technical
support to i�ietro Public Relations staff, includinq attendance at
public meetings. � �
Task �00 - Ugper May Creek Investiqation
i
Conduct preliminary.alignment reconnaissance for locating May
Creek interceptor from Honey Creek through the eastern portion of
the May Creek basin. Environmental and geoiogic reconnaissance
studies of the aliqnment will be conducted to its interception of
Coal Creek Parkway. These studies will assess the extended
alignment with respect to the issues identified and evaluated in
detail in the lower May Czeek section as vell as identify any
significant environ�aental or qeologic characteristic likely to
impact the extended alignment. Environmental impacts beyond Coai
Creek Parkway will be considered as typical to pipeline
construction within roadways.� The findings of this task vill be
used as supplemental to preparation of the SEPA checklist by the
City of Renton.
Exhibit S-- Page 5 of 5 e:�.a��soz�s_ii�i.�
March 18, 1993
J'•
OCT 00 '92 09�11 METRO ENGR. SERVICES z066041710
--::mE-rRo
I, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building � SZ1 Second Ave. • Seattie, WA 98I04-1598
DATE SENT:
TRANSMITTED TO:
'�� ���� ��
1 �%
P.1i10
��� 1- :-' 1992 .
�'ACSIMILE TRANSMI38ION COVER SHEET
CITY OF RENTON
�D _ 8'� �j y Engineering Dept.
,r/aviG�C _�,��s�-PN3ev�
C r �c
�� �35- �5�/
TRANSMITTED FROM: �aV f � �J��"Ma`� �� �
(Name) (Mail Stop)
C��`���F1�3
(Phone) �
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSI�N NUMBER: (206} 684-].710
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(Including Cover Sheet)
FOR iNTERNAL STAFF II3E ONLY:
PROJECT:
� � .
��
ARMS/TASK NO. : ���� �� ��p (
SUBJECT : CO r�bCJ.%I�7t r..7� �d I � �` ��� � �
�o C v hr�� � G�_a.� �a ��
NOTES: �-
r�Ni e,,.�—
�a �-�
�
5
0
�
tr�� r -f� �
OCT 00 '92 09�11 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710
Honey Creek Subbasin Project
�.Project Objective
P.2i10
The purpose of chis joinc project between.the Cicy of Renton and
Metro is to provide sufficient sanitary service to the existi�ng,
as well as fucure�( development within the Honey Creek Sewer
Subbasin. The pro3ect consiscs of two preferrsd components, Honey
Creek Interceptor Phase IV,and the May Valley Interceptor. See
attached vicinity and location maps.
I2. Project Hackground
Metro constructed the first section of the May valley Interceptor
in 1971. The xoney Creek Interceptor was developed as a result of
insufficient capacicy within the Sunse� Lift Station. In 1981,
the City of.RenLon established a moratorium on future connections
within the Honey Creek Subbasin by Resolucion No. 2392. Phasa I
through zII of the Honey Creek Znterceptor were completed in 1986,
allowing the removal of the moratoriurn, but not providing the
capacity necessary for fu31 development of this subbasin (0.6 MGD
provided, 1.3 MGD currently projected to be needed).
As a result of increased development within Lhis subbasin, the
interim flow capacity made available by the installacion of Phases
I-III of the Honey Creek Interceptor is quickly approaching
capacity and is greatly increasing the need for the last phase of
the Honey Creek Interceptor.
Both the Honey Creek Interceptor Phase Iv and May Va21ey
Interceptor (a Metro project) �re inc3uded in the City's 1992 Long
Range wastewater Management Plan as the preferred�solution to
providing the ultimate sanitary sewer needs of the xoney Creek
Subbasin. Their selection as the preferred solution is based
primarily upon cheir being an all gravity facility that meets the
saturation needs of the xoney Creek Subbasin. The City�s 1992
Long Range Wastewacer Management Plan was given a Determination of
Non-significance�on November 27, 1991, and adopted by the City of
Rencon with Resolution No. 2892 on April 6, 1992.
Metro's curx
include the
where the Ho�
the passage
xenton and
cOnsLruction
according to
�enc comp plan does not, within the near future,
extension of the May Valley Interceptor ta � point
iey Creek intercepcor could connect to it. xowever,
of a Memorandum of Agreement becween the City of
Metro has committed Metro �o accelerate che
of this portion of the May Valley Interceptor
a schedu].e agreed to l�y the City of Metro.
1 � A61
OCT 00 '92 09�12 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710
IZY. Project DeacziHtion
A. Existing Conditions:
P.�ilO
The currently preferred route for the Honey Creek Interceptor,
as identified in the City's 1992 Long Range Wastewater
Management Plan, is along the east side of Honey Creek from
NE 27th Street to approximately che convergence of Honey Creek
and May Creek. A trail currencly exiscs within this reach and
is being considered for the routing of the new interceptor,
The alignment preierred for the May Valley Interceptor is also
identified in Lhe City�s 1992 Long Range Wastewater Management
Plan and in the MOA between Metro and the City. This route
follows primarily the existing right-of-way of Jones Avenue xE
and Gensing Avenue as well as within easemencs adjacent to
Gensing Avenue. Jones Avenue NE consis�s of a two-lane paved
roadway with gravel shoulders. Approximately one-half of
Gensing roadway is paved similar �o Jones Avenue NE. 2he
remaining portion on Gensing Avenue is undeveloped right-of-
way. A portion of the May valley alignment may be outside of
the City of Renton boundary.
B. Scope af Work:
This project consists of evaluating alcernatives to provide
sanitary sewer service to the Honey Creek Subbasin and
constructing the preferred alternatives. One preferred
alternative (xoney Creek Interceptor) consists of installing
approximately 2,�00 linear feet of 12-inch gravity sewer from
the existing Devil � s Elbow Lifz Station . ac NE 27th Street ta
che convergence of Honey Creek and Mav Creek. The line will be
installed along the east side of Honey Creek primarily within
the existing pathway/trail. The trail will be widened to act
as both a vehicle access raad for the sewer as well as a
port.ion of the Parks Department�s rail system. z£ this
alternative is selected, this portion of the work will be the
responsibility of the City.
In conjunction with the Honey Creek Intercepcor, Metro's work
(rlay Valley Interceptor) would consist of installing
approximately 5,400 linear feet of 21 to 24-inch gravity sewer.
The sewer main will be installed from Jones ?�venue NE and NE �
40Lh Street to the convergence of May Creek and Honey Creek
where the Honey Creek Interceptor will tie into it.
The selecced alternatives will provide reliable gravity sewer
service to the City's xoney Creek Subbasin. The preferred
alcernatives at this point are che Honey Creek and May Valley
2ncerceptors.
2 A61
OCT 00 '9z 09�1� METRO ENGR. SERVICES z066041710 P.4i10
iV. SCHEDULE
work under chis Concract will be completed within the schedule
shown hereon:
PRO,J _ '►' SCHED TL .
Consultant Selection
Pre-Design
SEPA
Final Design
Permitting
Bidding
Notice to Proceed
START DATE
October, 1992
January, 1993
April, 1993
September, 1993
October, 1993
November, 1994
March, 1995
��
,���"�'°`� ���3
. 1992
July, 1993
October, 1993
September, 1994
October, Z994
February, 1994
Construction March, 1995 March, 1996
IV. CITY OF RENTON SC�PE OF WORR
TASR 100
PXOJECT bSANAGEMENT
This task includes all work related to che management, administra-
tion, and coordination of cvnsultant activi.ties. Specific
activities will includa the following:
a. Coordination of work efforts between the Consuitant, the
City, Metro, and other agencies or consulting firms which may
become involved in the project. ,
b. Preparacion of monthly project reports which show work
accomplished in comparison with scheduled activities, track
expenditures in comparison with task budgeCs and provide
documentacio�n for invoices. Documencation wi13. include
details of expenditures on each task and will show the hours
worked by project personnel and other direct expenses related
to the task. Reports will be submitted to the City's Project
Manager.
c. Conduct project team meetings on a regular basis ta discuss
current accivities, coordinate the work and obtain
information from team members.
3 A61
OCT 00 '92 09�1� METRO ENGR. SERUICES 2066041710
TASR 200
ENVIRONMENTAL COHPLIANCE
P.5i10
Under this task the consultant will complete the preparation of
all environmental documents required for SEPA compliance.
Integral co this task are the following: .
a. Identifying potential adverse effects of the proposed project
and identifying feasible praject mitigation measures.
b. Coordination with the Fisheries Biologist Consultant under
contract with che City.of Renton.
c. Understanding of shoreline permicting process.
d. Understanding of SEPA ].egislation including City ordinances
and regulations as the�� apply to SEPA and sensitive areas.
The Environmental Checklisc, DNS, and mitigation document will be
prepared by the consultant for submittal to the City of Renton
Environmencal Review Commitzee.
TASK 300
PRE-DESIGN
This task will assist che City in its s�election of an alcernative
through establishment of a Public Awareness Program, preparation
of a pre-design report, and establishment of .all participating
agencies involved in che projecc. Key elements within the process
include:
a. Establ.ish a11 poLential impact issues of the project.
b. Identify alternatives to meet the sewer needs of the Hon�y
Creek Subbasin.
c. Rzsearch and develop.Park Departmenc, King County, King
Coun�y WD 107, and other agency�s participation in the
project.
d_ Analysis of �alternatives for providing sewer service needs to
the Honey Creek Subbasin.
e. Establish a Public Awareness Program.
f. Perform an aerial survey co analyze the various alternatives.
g. Develop design criteria for the facility {sizing,
performance, etc.).
h. Prepare cost estimates of che idencified feasible
alternatives.
4 � A61
OCT 00 '92 09�1� METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710 P.6i10
i. Combine all data in the form of a repart to be used as a
guide in environmental review and final design.
j. Evaluate connection point.
k. Determine evaluation criteria, including citizen input, for
� the ranking of the alternacives.
1. Perform geotechnical investigation of alternative routes.
In addition, the following permits have been identified as
possibly being required for this project and �re to be included
within the pre-design work:
ft�'�iLZ�
Shoreline
Sensitive Area Review
Street Use
Grading
Parks
xydraulics
Lease/ROE
Aaency Partv
Renton and King County
Renton and King County
Renton
King Councy
Renton and King County
Washington Fisheries
DNR
TASK 400
FINAL DE3IGN
Under this task the consultant will prepare finai plans,
specifications and an engineer�s estimate for bidding of the
alternative selecced through the environmental and pre-design
work. Integral to this cask are the following:
a. �Preparation of construction plans utilizing current City
• drafting standards.
b. Performing additional ground topographic survey to support
aerial survey work.
c. IncorporaCe Fisheries' mitiga�.ion enhancement work inta final
design plans and specifications. .
d. Preparation of bidding specification in acco�rdance with City
standards.
e. Coordination of design work�with Metro staff regarding
conneccion poinc, routing, etc.
f. Preparation of easement and/or righc-of-way documents.
5 A61
OCT 00 '92 09�14 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710
TASK 500
CONSTRUCT=ON MANAGEMENT
P.7i10
Under this task the consultant will assist the City with
construction management. Integral �o this task are the following:
a. Assist the City in answering quescions from bidders.
b. Attend pre-bid and pre-construction meeting.
c. Review construction submittals.
d. Provide technical support during construc�ion.
e. Prepare as-built drawings upon completion of construction.
REFERENCE MATERIAL3:
The following reference macerials are available far review at
the 4�h Floor Customer Service County, City Hall, 20a Mili Avenue
Souih; Rencon during the hours of 8:00 �N! to 5:00 PM, weekdays.
The Customer Service Counter's telephone number is (206) 235-2631.
a. 1992 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan - wastewacer
component to City Comprehensive Plan;
b. City of Renton Drafcing Standards - Adopted City Standards
for preparation of construction plans; �nd
c. City of Renton Standard Details and Specificatians - adopted
City Details and Specifications that amend/suppiement wSDOT
current details and specification.
V. METRO SCOPE OF 'WORR
TASK 10.0
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Projecc management will include the following tasks:
a. Manage consultant work.
b. Provide monthly status reports.
c. Attend up to 8 meetings with Metro.
d. Actend up to 2 public meetings.
6 A61
OCT 00 '92 09�14 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710
TASR 200
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
�
P.Oi10
Conduct an environmental investigation on the May Valley
alignment. Prepare draft and final reports that detail the
investigation. The final report will be used in the SEPA
process for the project. Environmental assessment information
will be provided for each of the following elements of the
natural and buiit environment and will include a description af
the affected environment, identification of major impacts and
recommend mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the maximum
extent practical. The elemen�t to be considered include:
a. Earth/Soils: Describe area geology, soils types and
characteristics, sensitive areas affected (landslide
hazard, erosion hazard, seismic risk) including diagrams;
contaminated soils potential; extent of soils unsuitable
for backfill; disposaZ requirements for spoils and
excavation quantities; characteristics and quantities of
imported backfill. Include a description of the quantities
and types of spoils and imported fill which would be
required for clearing and grading of construction access
and equipment staging areas.
release
Air Resources/Odor: Identify potential sources of odor
from new facilities (i.e., facilicies with potential to
ador to
acmosphere).
c. Biological Resources: Describe affected vegecation,
wildlife and habitat types. Special emphasis shouTd be
given co sensitive habitats, including wetlands; endangered
or chreatened plant or �nimal specifies (federal and state
criteria.); and commercial and recreational fishing areas.
Discuss anadromous fish habitat. For wetlands in the
project corridor, include a wetlands delineation and
micigation recommendations_
d. Water Resources: Describe aIl .affected water bodies,
including flow characteristics (e.g., flooding and class of
stream). Discuss groundwater conditions and dewatering
required.
volumes, lane closures, and reduced intersection capacity
if any in-street.facilities are proposed. Discuss capacity
of non-arterial streets to handle construction traffic.
For critical intersections, give existing level of service
and projected lev�l of service with project traffic.
Identify school bus rouces affecced by construction.
e. Transporta-tion: Describe vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian.
transportation systems in che affected area. Discuss
construction impacts, including: conscruction traffic
f. Noise: Project noise impacts during construction and
operation of new facility, expressed in Leq.
� A6I
OCT 00 '92 09�15 METRO ENGR. SER'JICES 2066041710
P.9i10
g. Land Use: Describe currenc land uses in the project area.
Identify applicable land use plans, zoning classifications,.
comprehensive plan designation, sensitive areas, designated
shorelines, designaced parks and recreational
opportunities. Discuss requirements of �he Growth
Management Act and how chese may affect approval for this
project..
h. xistoric and Cultural Resources: Describe areas of
historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural
importance.
i. Projecc Description: Include descriptions of the
foliowing;
1. width of conscruction corridor,
2. permanent and temporanl roads which would be
constructed,
3. point of connection between new lines, incZuding
description of structures (e.g., manholes),
4. number and location of stream crossings,
S. construction methods for stream crossings and pipeline
installation, and
6. length of alignment over paved and unpaved ar�as, and
beside surface water bodies.
Ic is anticipated that the City of Renton
environmental checklist which will include the
the May Valley alignments. .
TASK 300
SVRVEY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
Consulcant activities will include the following:
will prepare an
Honey Creek and
a. Use current commercial aerial photographs or conduct an aeria3
photo of the May Valley alignment.
b. Produce plan base sheets oi the preliminary May Valley
alignment showing Copagraphic features at a�contour interval of
cwo foot. Pipe line mapping wi31 be 1" � 100'.
c. Locate exiscing utilities, manmade structures, and natural
feacures and place them on the base m�ps.
d_ Identify and show all existing e�sements and street rights-of-
way on the base maps.
e. Locate existing survey monuments along the preliminary pip.e
alignment.
8 A61
OCT 00 '92 09�15 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066041710
TASR 400
P.10i10
�EOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
For the pre-design phase the consultant will evaluat,e soil
conditions along Che System routes. Consultant activities
include:
a. .Review past geotechnical work in the area of the alignment.
b. Decermine the types of soils along the aZignment.
c. Determine soil stability of slopes.
d. Determine extent of groundwater.
e. Drill up to three borings, up to 25 feet deep.
f. Evaluate the passibility of contaminated soils and groundwater.
g. Investigate and recammend methods for crossing may Creek.
TASK 5oa
BNGINEERING SPECIALTIES
The consultant will provide engineering support for specific areas
as needed. Thosa areas may include the following:
a. Pipe jacking.
b. Microtunneling.
�
�
9 �61
emo
March 4, 1992
Mr. David M. Christensen
Wastewater Utility Engineer
Utility Systems Division
Planning/Building/Public Works
Department
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Mr; � ens��r/�"���
Thank you for providing your 1992 workplan for Honey Creek and May Valley to Dave Dittmar, Tim
Goon and Marc Dallas at your meeting last week. I met with them yesterday to discuss the meeting.
T'hey said it went very well. Dave Dittmar shared his notes with me. I understand that a number of
issues were discussed and many questions were raised. In order to address these issues and questions, I
am in the process of preparing a brief document that should provide a shared understanding of the project
and will expand upon the detail of your plan.
After the Metro team (Dave, Tim and Marc, to date) have had a chance to review the document, I will
send it to you. I am aiming for early next week. With this in hand, I think we will have the scope of the
project, budget and the schedule fairly well nailed down. The document will be based upon information
developed as a result of last week's meeting and direction from previous meetings with John Spencer and
Lynn Guttman which you and I attended. It will address issues including, but not limited to, the
environmental process, predesign, who is responsible for what, who pays, consultant hiring, interested
third parties, the public process and so on.
I trust this information will be helpful and that early next week is timely. After you have had a chance to
review it, we should get together to finalize the schedule and scope details.
I look forward to meeting with you soon. And, by the way, congratulations on your new family
member.
Sincerely,
i
�/ �/� !
Vicki S. Renier
Renton Projects Liaison
May Valley Co-Project Manager
cc: Dave Dittmar
Tim Goon
Marc Dallas
�;�mETR� Clean Water—A Sound Investment
� �� :!; mE-rRo
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
March 10, 1992
Mr. David M. Christensen
Wastewater Utility Engineer
Utility Systems Division
Planning/Building/Public Works
Department
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washingt
Dear Mr. Ch ' nsen:
l
�
��f����
i �� �
:t�
� l } ����Q�
��
_.. �Y R�NT��1
;�ring �ept.
Per my letter of March 4, attached is an expanded work plan
for our joint Honey Creek and May Valley Interceptor
Projects. Please let me know when you have finished
reviewing it and I will schedule a meeting with our
respective teams to discuss it. Thank you.
Sinc�ly,
�
/
Vicki S. Renier
Renton Projects Liaison
May Valley Co-Project Manager
cc: David Dittmar
Tim Goon
Marc Dallas
HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR IV
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR
WORK PLAN
March 10, 1992
The following is offered as further clarification of Metro's
understanding of Honey Creek Interceptor IV and May Valley
Interceptor Work Plan, per the February 26 joint Metro and
City of Renton team meeting and previous policy meetings
which included directors of both agencies.
Proiect Scope
This project consists of two components, Honey Creek
Interceptor Phase IV and May Valley Interceptor Phase I.
The former is a City of Renton project and the latter a
Metro project. Each of the two projects has an engineering
and construction, environmental and public involvement
effort. The responsibility for conducting and paying for
the efforts is addressed below in terms of the individual
efforts for each component.
The May Valley Phase I component is a distinct, gravity line
alternative that will be considered during the evaluation of
all alternatives to alleviate the City's problems of
overflows and inadequate capacity in the Honey Creek system
and pump station. This is of course unless the City has
already prepared a Capital Improvement Plan which identifies
a gravity line down May Valley. If so, and if SEPA was
conducted on such a CIP, then evaluation of alternatives may
be reduced to gravity lines only.
SEPA Process
As Metro understands it, the City as SEPA lead agency, will
hire a consultant to conduct the SEPA process. The
consultant will examine the problems associated with sewage
flows in the Honey Creek Basin. An as yet to be determined
number of solutions to the problem(s) will be examined, one
of which is a gravity line through May Valley. This line is
known as Metro's May Valley Interceptor Phase I. Phases II
and III will not be considered. As mentioned above, if the
City has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which has
undergone SEPA review and recommends only gravity lines as
solutions to basin problems such as that of Honey Creek, the
City's consultant will only be required by SEPA to examine
gravity flow alternatives.
Honey Creek/May Valley Workplan
March 10, 1992
Page Two
Metro will participate in the SEPA process, in a review
capacity. Metro will also provide a SEPA level
description/evaluation of the May Valley Interceptor a� an
alternative.
Metro will compensate the City for their costs of the SEPA
process, if the City so desires. However, the effort will
be funded out of the $1.7 million Metro May Valley
Interceptor budget. If the City funds the environmental
effort, Metro's budget will cover only Metro's costs for
environmental review and analysis.
Predesian (Preliminary Design, 30 Percent Complete)
Metro further understands that the City will hire a
consultant to conduct predesign work on all of the
alternatives for the Honey Creek project except for the May
Valley alignment option. This consultant may be the same
one doing the SEFA work. The City would like to focus the
predesign on gravity line alternatives. However, Metro
recommends that options other than gravity lines be examined
in order to satisfy potential public interests.
Metro will not pay for the City's predesign work nor the
resulting report. However, Metro will provide predesign
engineering for the May Valley Interceptor which can be
included in the report. Metro will also coordinate as
appropriate with the City and their consultant. Metro's
predesign effort will be funded out of the $1.7 million May
Valley Interceptor budget.
Consultant Selection
Metro will participate in the City's consultant selection.
It is recommended that the RFP/RFQ scopes include
coordination elements between the City and their consultant
and Metro for SEPA, predesign, and public awareness.
Any work to be performed by the consultant on May Valley
would be negotiated up front by Metro and the consultant.
The consultant would then bill Metro through the standard
billing process. Process guidelines will be provided to the
consultant upon selection. Incidentally, the consultant
will be required to satisfy Metro's M/WBE requirements, per
Section 6.3 (page 18) of the MOA.
6
Honey Creek/May Valley Workplan
March 10, 1992
Page Three
Permits
Metro and the City agree that efforts to obtain permits will
be coordinated. Metro has developed a list of permits that
may be required (see attached list). Metro and the City
will meet to determine a strategy and schedule for obtaining
all necessary permits. Wherever possible, the agencies will
work together to secure permits.
Easements
Metro believes that the minimum lead time for appraisal for
easements is four months. Metro and the City need to take
this into account as appropriate. A master schedule will be
developed by Metro and the City including, easements,
permits, SEPA, etc.
Desisn and Construction
Before final design begins, Metro and the City will decide
whether or not the Honey Creek and May Valley projects will
be combined or remain separate during design and
construction. Metro will perform the final design of the
May Valley Interceptor. The City will be responsible for
the design and construction of the Honey Creek project.
Metro and the City will negotiate who will manage the
construction of the May Valley Interceptor. Al1 of Metro's
efforts will be funded out of the $1.7 million May Valley
Interceptor budget.
Public Involvement
If the May Valley Interceptor is determined to be the
preferred alternative in the predesign and SEPA processes,
the public awareness program will be for both projects and
the City and Metro will handle public meetings and SEPA
hearings jointly with the City taking the lead and Metro
dealing with May Valley Interceptor issues. However, prior
to, or during predesign, and with or without the help of a
consultant, it is recommended that the City with assistance
from Metro as necessary meet with targeted interest groups
to discuss the project(s) and identify public interest and
any potential opposition. This will also serve in
identifying any alternatives that the public would like the
consultant to consider and prevent alternatives being
Honey Creek/May Valley Workplan
March 10, 1992
Page Four
suggested at a later date which could delay the predesign
and SEPA phase.
Kin,g County Involvement
Metro will contact King County Surface Water Management
(SWM) to determine what affect the Critical Basin
Designation on May Creek will have on the proposed
interceptor extension.
Water District 107 Involvement
Metro will contact King County Water District #107 to
determine their interest, if any, in the joint projects. If
Wastewater District representatives are interested, Metro
will schedule a meeting with them which will include the
City of Renton.
Metro Team
Members of the Metro Team include:
David Dittmar, Technical Services Project
Vicki Renier, City of Renton Liaison and
Tim Goon, Environmental Planner
Marc Dallas, Right-Of-Way Agent
Honey Creek/May Valley Schedule*
(Fer David Dittmar on March 6, 1992)
Begin Predesign:
Finish Predesign:
Begin Final Design:
Apply for Permit5:
Obtain Permits:
Finish Final Design:
Advertise for Bids:
Notice to Proceed:
Construction Complete:
May 1992
December 1992
January 1993
May 1993
March 1994
April 1994
May 1994
August 1994
January 1995
Manager
Co-Project Manager
*Planning level schedule. A detailed schedule will be
prepared in final design.
Honey Creek/May Valley Interceptor
March 10, 1992
Permit Attachment
' : ►� Y ►I�I:RL�T:�•91
Tvpe
Aaency/Party
Shoreline (2)
Sensitive Area
Review
Section 404
Street use
Grading (2)
(special)
Parks
Hydraulics
Lease/ROE
Others (?)
Renton & King County
as above
US Army Corps. of
Engineers
Renton
Renton & King County
King County
WA. Fisheries
DNR
�
� �
o Q
�' �
���� `� )
' • - -• ' •
1 year m/1
as above
final follows above
1 month m/1
6 months m/1
1 year m/1 depends
on original funding
sou rce
6 months m/1
1 year m/1
ATTACHMENT 2
METRO REQUIREMENTS FOR
MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY
CONSULTANT SERVICES
I. POLICY AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. As set forth in the Municipality's Resolution No. 6054, it is the Municipality's policy that minority
and women business enterprises (MBEs and WBEs) shall have the maximum practicable
opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts for materials and supplies and in
providing consulting or construction seniices for and to the Municipality, and that consultants and
subconsultants shall afford equal opportunity in employment while providing materials and
supplies and consulting or construction services for and to the Municipality. Resolution No. 6054
is by this reference incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
B. In furtherance of this policy and the requirements of Resolution No. 6054, the Municipality has
established certain MBE and WBE utilization goals and submittal requirements, set forth in this
Attachment No. 2, with which each proposer must comply. Failure to do so shall render a
proposer not in compliance with the request for proposal. A proposer who does not comply with
these MBE and WBE utilization requirements will not be awarded this contract. Consideration of a
proposal, including negotiations, does not waive the Municipality's right to find a proposer in non-
compliance prior to award of a contract.
C. Consistent with the policy cited above, the proposer shall take all necessary and reasonable steps
to ensure that minority and women businesses have the maximum practicable opportunity to
participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts hereunder. The proposer shall not
discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, nationality or the
presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability in the award and performance of such
contracts and subcontracts.
D. To assist proposers in complying with these requirements, the Municipaliry employs a Contract
Compliance Specialist. Any proposer having questions about these requirements should
immediately contact the Minority and Women Business Enterprise and Contract Compliance
Office, MS 107, Exchange Building, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104, (206) 684-
1330. To ensure that questions can be answered in a timely manner and that all procedures are
complied with prior to the proposal submittal date, proposers are urged to review these -•
requirements immediately.
MINORITY APID WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GOALS
A. It shall be the proposer's responsibility to seek out and utilize minority business enterprises (MBEs)
and women business enterprises (WBEs) on this project. This may involve breaking down the
services into separate elements or tasks to facilitate minority and women business participation.
The Municipality's Minority and Women Business Enterprise and Contract Compliance Office will
provide assistance to proposers when requested. However, it is ultimately the proposer's
responsibility to secure and commit to the required levels of MBE and WBE participation as set
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-1 UPDATED 07/10/91
forth in these requirements.
B. No proposal will be considered in compliance with these requirements and no contract wiil be
awarded unless the percentage of MBE and WBE participation equals or exceeds those
percentage goals set forth in this solicitation document.
C. The percentage goals will be applied to the total compensation provided under the Agreement and
shall also apply to change orders and amendments adjusting the contract price.
III. MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE SUBMITTALS AND EVALUATION
A. Each firm submitting a proposal shall complete the sworn statements entitled "Sworn Statement
Regarding Minority and Women Business Enterprise Solicitation and Utilization" (including
Attachment A), and "Sworn Statement Regarding Equal Employment Opportunity" contained
herein, and submit such completed forms with its proposal.
B. The "Sworn Statement Regarding Minority and Women Business Enterprise Solicitation and
Utilization Commitment" shall be used to determine whether a proposer has complied with the
MBE and WBE goals and these requirements. The Municipality shall consider as not in compliance
those proposals which do not contain such a sworn statement, or contain an incomplete sworn
statement, or which display projected utilization of MBEs or WBEs at levels less than those
percentage goals set forth in this solicitation document.
C. On Attachment A of the "Sworn Statement Regarding Minority and Women Business Enterprise
Solicitation and Utilization Commitment", each proposer shall name the MBEs and WBEs (whether
they will be subconsultants, suppliers or joint venture partners) with whom the proposer intends to
contract if the proposer is awarded this contract, identify or describe the specific work (task) which
will be performed by each named MBE and WBE, and indicate the percentage of the total proposal
for each named MBE and WBE. Failure to specifically name MBEs and WBEs, provide a
description of the work to be performed by each MBE and WBE, and indicate the percentage of
the portion of work for each MBE and WBE, shall result in a proposal being determined not in
compliance with the request for proposal.
D. A proposer who is a certified MBE or WBE can count its own participation toward meeting the MBE
and WBE requirements and goals. If the MBE or WBE proposer elects to subcontract any portion
of the work, affirmative efforts must be made to utilize MBEs and WBEs on those subcontracts.
E. A copy of the joint venture agreement of any business enterprise seeking to satisfy these MBE or
WBE requirements through such agreement must be submitted to the Municipality as a part of the
proposal, as required below.
F. After proposals are submitted, the Municipality may, at its discretion, request additional information
pertaining to the portion of work to be performed by MBEs and WBEs to ensure said MBEs and
WBEs currently meet certification requirements and to verify their performance of a commercially ��
useful function. This information may include copies of quotes and proposals, quantity and pricing
calculations, take off sheets, records of solicitation, plans and schedules by which the MBE's or
WBE's work would be performed and completed, and other documents or information determined
necessary and reasonable by the Municipality. In the event the MBE or WBE expects to share the
resources of a non-certified business enterprise, the Municipality may require information
describing the extent to which facilities, financial assistance, equipment or personnel are to be
shared.
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-2 UPDATED 07/10/91
IV. MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE ELIGIBILITY
A. For purposes of ineeting the MBE and WBE goals and demonstrating compiiance with these
requirements, proposers shall use ONLY minority, women or combination businesses which have
been accepted as certified by the Washington State Office of Minority and Women Business
Enterprises (hereinafter the "State OMWBE") prior to the proposal submittal date for this contract.
Firms which have not been certified by the State OMWBE by the proposal submittal date shall not
be considered by the Municipality in determining whether the proposer has met the goals and
s complied with these requirements. If a business listed by the proposer in its "Sworn Statement
Regarding Minority and Women Business Enterprise Solicitation and Utilization CommitmenY' form
has not been so certified (as MBE, WBE or combination business), the amount of participation will
be deducted from the total proposed MBE or WBE (as the case requires) utilization in order to
determine whether the proposer is in compliance.
B. The term "certified" shall mean that the State OMWBE has notified a firm in writing that the firm has
met all requirements and eligibility criteria as a minority, women or combination business
enterprise under state law and regulations, and the State OMWBE has placed the name of such
firm on the State OMWBE's list of certified businesses. The act of submitting an application to the
State OMWBE shall not be interpreted or construed in any way to render a firm certified. The State
OMWBE shall be the sole body responsible for making a determination of certification.
C. To determine whether a firm is in fact certified by the State OMWBE, a proposer shall contact the
State OMWBE at (206) 753-9693.
D. Proposers and firms applying to the State OMWBE for certification as minority, women or
combination business enterprises are cautioned that certification at times requires detailed
analysis. It is the proposer's responsibility to ensure that all MBEs and WBEs projected for use
have been certified by the State OMWBE PRIOR to the submittal date.
V. MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE SOLICITATION
AND UTILIZATION PROCEDURES
A. All proposers shall be required to comply fully with these MBE and WBE requirements toward the
end of maximizing the equitable utilization of MBEs and WBEs. Such utilization may be
accomplished through contracting, subcontracting, joint ventures, procurement of supplies,
materials or equipment, or by such other methods as may be approved by the Municipality's
Minority and Women Business Enterprise and Contract Compliance Office.
B. Joint Venture Method. A joint venture between a non-MBE/WBE and one or more MBEs and/or
WBEs may be used to meet these requirements in whole or in part, if the MBE or WBE partner(s)
is/are certified by the State OMWBE and the MBE or WBE partner(s) is/are responsible for a
clearly defined portion of the work which is detailed separately from the work to be performed by
the non-MBE/WBE joint venture partner. In addition, a joint venture agreement signed by all
parties shall be submitted with the joint venture's proposal. Such agreement shall identify the
extent to which each joint venture partner shares in the ownership, control, management, risks and
profits of the joint venture. The MBE and WBE partner's portion of the work shall be assigned a
commercially reasonable dollar value if that portion is intended to meet the MBE or WBE
participation requirements for this contract. The burden of persuasion shall be on the joint venture
partners to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Municipality that the MBE and WBE partners will
perform a commercially useful function, as defined herein, under the joint venture agreement. Any
such joint venture will be subjected to the closest scrutiny by the Municipality. Even though a
proposed joint venture agreement may be consistent with legal principles of contracting and with
usual industry practices, that, in and of itself, does not mean that the Municipality will determine
that the joint venture will satisfy the MBE and WBE requirements set forth herein.
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-3 UPDATED 07/10/91
C. Subcontract Method. The proposer may utilize MBEs and WBEs on the basis of competitive
proposals and/or negotiated subcontracts. To demonstrate compiiance with this method, the
apparent successful firm shall submit, no later than the time of the negotiation conference, copies
of executed letters of intent or executed negotiated subcontract agreements countersigned by the
MBE or WBE. Such letters of intent or subcontract agreements shall set forth the work to be
performed by the MBEs and WBEs and the dollar value of that work.
VI. COUNTING MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
PARTICIPATION TOWARD MEETING THE GOALS
A. Failure to provide the MBEs and WBEs named in a proposal with commercially useful functions as
defined herein shall result in the proposal being determined not in compliance.
B. Participation by certified MBEs and WBEs which will perform commercially useful functions shall
be counted toward meeting the goals set forth herein as follows:
1. A proposer may count ONLY the dollar values which will actually be paid to certified MBEs
and WBEs, whether as subconsultants or joint venture partners, toward the applicable
MBE or WBE goals. The dollar value of any work that the proposed MBEs and WBEs will
further subcontract to other than certified MBEs and WBEs shall not be counted toward
the applicable MBE or WBE goals.
2. Except as provided in this subsection, the dollar value which will actually be paid to an
MBE or WBE owned and controlled by minority women is counted toward either the
minority or the women's goal, but not to both; the proposer may choose the goal to which
the dollar value is applied.
3. Contracts performed totally by a combination minority and women business shall be
counted by dividing the total dollar value of the contract or portion of the contract
performed by the combination business by two. One-half of the dollar value will be
counted toward the MBE goal and one-half will be counted toward the WBE goal when the
contract contains both MBE and WBE goals. When the contract contains only an MBE
goal or a WBE goal, only one-half of the dollar value of the combination business's
contract shall be counted toward the goal. "Combination Minority and Women Business"
means a small business concern which is organized for profit, independent, performing a
commercially useful function, and which is fifty percent (50%) owned and controlled by a
minority male and fifty percent (50%) owned and controlled by a non-minority woman.
Both owners must be citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States.
4. A joint venture which includes WBE and/or MBE partner(s) may satisfy the WBE or the
MBE participation requirements herein, in whole or in part, only if the joint venture meets
all criteria set forth in these requirements.
C. The term "commercially useful function" shall mean that the MBE/WBE has the responsibility for ��
the execution of a distinct element or elements of the work and will carry out its responsibilities by
actually performing, managing and supervising the work involved. To determine whether an MBE
or WBE is performing a commercially useful function, the Municipality shall evaluate the type and
amount of work to be performed, the extent of reliance on any non-MBE/WBE firm, industry
practices and other relevant factors. An MBE or WBE subconsultant that relies to a significant
extent on a non-MBE/WBE firm or contracts a significantly greater portion of the work than would
be expected on the basis of normal industry practice will be presumed not to be performing a
commercially usefuf function; the MBE or WBE subconsultant may present evidence to rebut this
presumption to the Municipality.
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-4 UPDATED 07/10/91
D. An MBE or WBE supplier will be considered performing a commercially useful function in the
supply process when the function or service is one which is customarily performed as a distinct
and necessary part of the supply process and when the MBE/WBE supplier:
1. Assumes the actual and contractual responsibility for furnishing the materials; and
2. Is the manufacturer of the materials or is recognized as a distributor by the manufacturers
of the materials; and
3. Owns or leases warehouses, yards, buildings or whatever other facilities are viewed as
customary or necessary by the industry for storage of the materials; and
4. Distributes, delivers or arranges for delivery.
E. In order that MBE and WBE participation remains at the levels set forth in its proposal, the
proposer shall substitute MBEs and WBEs for proposed MBEs and WBES, at no additional cost to
the Municipality, in the following circumstances:
1. In the event such proposer proposed to use a certified MBE or WBE which is determined
to no longer meet the applicable certification criteria; or
2. In the event such proposer reasonably and justifiably relied on the assurances related to
supply arrangements and qualifications submitted by an MBE or WBE proposed to
participate hereunder but such MBE or WBE is determined by the Municipality to not be
performing a commercially useful function as defined herein.
3. In the event such proposer proposed to use an MBE or WBE, which subsequent to
submittal of the proposer and for reasons other than those within the control of the
proposer, is unwilling or unable to perform as projected.
4. In the event such proposer reasonably and justifiably relied upon the assurances of a
proposed MBE or WBE that the portion of work to be counted toward the MBE or WBE
goal would not be further subcontracted to non-certified businesses, but the Municipality
determines that the MBE or WBE will further subcontract a portion of the work to a non-
certified firm.
The term "substitute," for purposes of this solicitation document, means replacing one
certified minority or women business for another or increasing the level of utilization of
MBEs or WBEs in order to maintain the level of utilization set forth in the solicitation
document.
VII. E�UAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY GOALS AND PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
A. The proposer shall comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements set forth in the •�
Municipality's Resolution No. 6054.
B. In furtherance of the Municipality's equal employment opportunity policies, the Municipality has
established certain requirements and goals which proposers, consultants and subconsultants shall
make every reasonable effort to meet. Such requirements are set forth below. The employment
goals established by the Municipality for this project are: (1) 16.6 percent for minorities; and (2) 12
percent for women. A minority woman is counted toward either the minority or the women's goal,
but not both; the proposer may choose the goal.
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-5 UPDATED 07/10/91
*C. If selected as a finalist, the proposer and each subconsultant shail complete the foilowing forms
as part of the proposal to perform the work:
Sworn Statement Regarding Equal Employment Opportunity; and
2. Project Employment Profile.
D. The proposer shall be responsible for ensuring that the proposer and each subconsultant submit a
completed, signed and notarized Sworn Statement. The Sworn Statement shall constitute the
proposer's/subconsultant's plan of affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity in employment is
afforded in the event a contract is awarded to the proposer. If the proposal is opened and it is
found that the proposer has not submitted the sworn statements as required, the proposal will be
determined not in compliance with these requirements. No contract will be awarded until a non-
compliant proposal is brought into compliance.
E. The Project Employment Profile will be considered by the Municipality as the proposer's minimum
level of commitment to minority and women employment during the work. Under-representation of
minorities and women will not itself be deemed a violation of Resolution No. 6054, where the
Consultant adopts reasonable affirmative action measures in good faith. Affirmative action
measures shall be based on what is reasonably required to achieve employment goals which will
cure under-representation.
�
*NOTE: Adjust if SOCIs and Proposals will be submitted simultaneously.
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-6 UPDATED 07/10/91
SWORN STATEMENT -
REGARDING MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
SOLICITATION AND UTILIZATION COMMITMENT
State of
County of
) ss.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, on oath states to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle on behalf of the
Proposer as follows:
A. This Sworn Statement Regarding Minority and Women Business Enterprise Solicitation and
Utilization Commitment constitutes the Proposer's statement of its efforts to solicit and obtain firms
certified as minority and women business enterprises (MBEs and WBEs) by the Washington State
Office of Minority and Women Business Enterprises. In addition, this Sworn Statement constitutes
the Proposer's commitment, if awarded this contract by the Municipality, to utilize certified and
qualified MBEs and WBEs at least to the percentage levels set forth in this Sworn Statement.
B. The Proposer hereby designates:
Name:
Title:
as the person who has been charged by the Proposer with the responsibility for carrying out and
reporting the Proposer's compliance with the Municipality's Requirements for Minority and Women
Business Enterprise.
C. The Proposer hereby affirms that the Proposer has complied with the requirements set forth in the
solicitation document for this contract for providing certified MBEs and WBEs the maximum
practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of the work and that all documentation
submitted herewith to demonstrate such compliance is true and accurate.
D. The names of the minority and women business enterprises to which the Proposer plans to enter
into joint venture agreements or award subcontracts if awarded the contract and the percentage of
such MBE and WBE participation is as follows:
Joint Venture Partner/
Subcontractor
Description of Percentage of
� Wor�ask Project
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-7 UPDATED 09/10/91
�
,
Sworn Statement Regarding Minority and Women -
Business Enterprise Solicitation and Utilization Commitment
E. IF the proposer is a certified firm, please identify the proposer's participation as follows:
Description of Percentage of
Contractor • Work/Task Pro�ect
Summary of Commitment:
1. Percentage of Minority Business Enterprise Participation
2. Percentage of Women Business Enterprise Participation
F. As demonstration of the Proposer's compli�nce and efforts, the Proposer has completed the
MBE/WBE Consultant Utilization Report (Attachment A to this Sworn Statement) of which Report is
incorporated herein by this reference. The Proposer has identified herein those MBEs and WBEs
with whom the Proposer will joint venture or subcontract if awarded this Contract.
G. The Proposer understands that as a prerequisite to contract award, the Proposer will produce
letters of intent or subconsultant agreements if the subcontract method of MBE and WBE utilization
is chosen, substantially consistent with the commitments.
��
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-8 UPDATED 09/10/91
Sworn Statement Regarding Minority and Women
Business Enterprise Solicitation and Utilization Commitment
Name of Proposer
By:
Title:
State of
County of
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the of
to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument.
Date:
(Stamp or Seal)
(Signature of notary public)
Title
My appointment expires
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-9 UPDATED 09/10/91
ATTACHMENT A
MINORITY AND WOMEN (MBE/WBE) CONSULTANT UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Instructions: The "Minority and Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) Consultant Utilization Analysis"
(Attachment A) is to be completed by you and submitted with your Sworn Statement Regarding MBE/WBE
Solicitation and Utilization. Please fill out a separate page for each minority and women firm on your team. Please
indicate on the separate sheets all work the minority and women firm(s) will perform on the project. Please discuss
how your utilization of MBEs and WBEs demonstrates meaningful participation on significant project tasks and
enhanced project management by MBEs and WBEs. In addition, please discuss how you will utilize MBEs and
WBEs in subsequent phases of this project, particularly in final design and construction assistance.
JOINT VENTURE PARTNER/
SUB-CONSULTANT:
PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT:
MBE: WBE: CB:
Discussion of MBE/WBE Utilization:
�
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-10 UPDATED 09/10/91
� SWORN STATEMENT
REGARDING E�UAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
RFQ/RFP NO. @
State of )
) ss.
County of )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, on oath states to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle as follows:
A. This Sworn Statement Regarding Equal Employment Opportunity constitutes the
Proposer's/subconsultant's plan of affirmative action to be followed in the event a contract is
awarded to the Proposer to ensure equal opportunity in employment is afforded by the Proposer
and the Proposer's subcontractors while providing specific materials and supplies or consulting or
construction services for the Municipality.
B. The Proposer/subconsultant agrees that submission of this Sworn Statement constitutes an
acknowledgement of the Municipality's equal employment opportunity requirements as set forth in
the Municipality's Resolution No. 6054, which resolution is incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The Proposer/subconsultant hereby designates:
Name:
Title:
as the person who has been charged with the responsibility for carrying out and reporting
compliance with this plan of affirmative action.
D. The Proposer/subconsultant gives assurance that this plan of affirmative action will be
communicated to supervisors and other employees of the Proposer/subconsultant.
E. The Proposer/subconsultant gives assurance that the Proposer's/subconsultant's work force on
the project will include substantial percentages of minorities and women, and that the percentages
set forth on the Proposer's/subconsultanYs Project Employment Profile will be the
Proposer's/subconsultant's minimum levels of commitment to minority and women employment
during this project. Under-representation of minorities and women will not itself be deemed a
violation of Resolution No. 6054, where the Consultant adopts reasonable affirmative action
measures in good faith.
�
F. The Proposer/subconsultant gives assurance that the Proposer/subconsultant will correct
deficiencies of under-represented persons at all levels of the work force by considering under-
represented persons to fill new positions and vacancies. If additional persons are employed as
part of the work force, the Proposer/subconsultant shall make every reasonable effort to meet the
equal employment opportunity goals established by the Municipality for this project.
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-11 UPDATED 09/10/91
_. . -�
�
SWORN STATEMENT REGARDING EGIUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
G. The Proposer/subconsultant gives assurance that the Proposer/subconsultant wiil make
continuing efforts to recruit minority and female employees, to advertise employment opportunities
in ways which will effectively reach minorities and females, and to include in all solicitations or
advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Proposer/subconsultant a statement
that the Proposer is an "Equal Opportunity Employer".
H. The Proposer/subconsultant gives assurance that the Proposer/subconsultant will provide
opportunity for training and advancement for minorities and women.
Name of Firm
By:
Title:
State of
County of
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the of
to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument.
Date:
(Signature of notary public)
(Stamp or Seal)
Title
My appointment expires
�
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-12 UPDATED 09/10/91
,. y
,
Firm Name:
Address/City/Zip:
Telephone Number:
0
PROJECT EMPLOYMENT PROFILE
EEO Officer:
Number of employees to work on the projecT (An Owner shall not be considered an employee):
, Male Female Total
How many of these will be newly hired for the project:
Male Female
On the following list, identify the number of minorities and females by occupation and skill to be utilized on the Contract:
Occupation/ White A B C D E
Skill* Female M/F M/F M/F M/F M/F
Apprentices
Trainees
TOTALS
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
*List occupations, skills, trades, etc. on blank lines.
A - Black/African American
B - Hispanic/Latino
C- Asian or Pacific Islanders
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
=�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
=�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
D- Native American Indian and Alaskan Native
E- Other (Describe on reverse side
this form)
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
—�—
Do you now have any contracts with the Municipalit�/? Yes _ No _. If yes, list the names of those contracts: (Use reverse
side of form if necessary.)
n
ATTACHMENT 2- WITH GOALS 2-13 UPDATED 09/10/91
, . ... �., �
l f l��-- v�� r`„"'U� i
1992 Work Plan
PROJECT: HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PHASE IV
MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/OBJECTIVE:
Honey Creek Interceptor Phase IV - This is the final leg of the Honey Creek
Interceptor project. The project will begin at the Devil's Elbow Lift Station located
at the convergence of NE 27th Street and Honey Creek. The interceptor will
generally be placed adjacent to Honey Creek within the existing trail and continue
north to connect with Metro's extension of its May Valley Interceptor at
approximately the convergence of May Creek and Honey Creek. This project will
provide sufficient gravity service to the Honey Creek Basin, eliminating the Devil's
Elbow Lift Station and allowing the Sunset Lift Station to be placed on emergency
standby.
May Valley Interceptor - This is the second phase of Metro's May Valley
interceptor. Metro has no current plans for further extension of this interceptor into
May Valley. The project begins at approximately NE 40th Street and Jones Avenue
NE (end of current May Valley Interceptor>. The interceptor generally will be
constructed within the rights-of-way of Jones Avenue NE and NE 31 st Street. It
will end at approximately the convergence of May Creek and Honey Creek allowing
the Honey Creek Interceptor to connect to it.
FUNDING SOURCES: Honev Creek Interceqtor
City CIP 421 Account
1992 Funding = 5203,000
1993 Funding required = 5900,000
Mav Vallev Interceptor
Metro CIP as outlined in MOA between City and
Metro.
COMPLETION DATE: Construction to be completed - 1 st Quarter of 1994
Honey Creek Interceptor Phase IV
May Valley Interceptor
Page 2
MILESTONE TARGET DATE
�� V
Assemble Design Team eb. 25, 1992
May 6, 1992 Begin preliminary design for Honey
Creek and environmental process for
both May Valley and Honey Creek.
Prepare RFP/RFQ Mar. 18, 1992 Prepare RFP/RFQ for consultant
t"„�lC' ���.' selection of environmental and
design.
�--•��Consultant selection Apr. 8, Select consultant for environmental
through May 6, and design engineering.
1992
Establish public May 19, 1992 Through design team, establish a
awareness program public awareness program that
identifies the key issues in the area.
Preliminary design and
environmental
Submit SEPA
SEPA Determination
Final Design
���} � Complete Design/Project
�o � Bidding
��`J' ; Begin construction
1 --- -
4th Quarter,
1992
1 st Quarter,
1993
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
Assemble a design team consisting of
key City and Metro staff.
Submit SEPA review for both May
Valley and Honey Creek.
SEPA Determination issued.
1 st Quarter, Begin final design based on SEPA
1993 Determination and Preliminary Design
Report. -�, ��+!u�;�
v ✓,�� i, �
3rd Quarter, , �j.UG `���y��<�'�`"'' '
1993 ���
3rd Quarter,
1993
Complete construction 1 st Quarter,
1994
� ` ��J�.
G ��;�
�- ��� ��� j �
���
. - . .
Honey Creek Interceptor Phase IV
May Valley Interceptor
Page 3
DISCUSSION:
One of the initial issues that needs to be resolved is funding of the environmental
process for May Valley Interceptor. In reviewing the MOA Section 5.3.1
preconstruction states that "the City will act as SEPA lead agency and will prepare
a project - specific environmental review for the project". Section 5.3.3 states "no
City funds will be used to finance Phase I of this project". Given this information it
is our conclusion that the City will perform the project - specific environmental
review and that all costs incurred by the City for this work will be reimbursed by
Metro through a mutually agreed upon methodology. Metro does not concur with
this determination, therefore, we must come to a mutual understanding on this
issue.
The design team that will be assembled will tackle many difficult issues, some of
which include:
1) Determination of inethodology for environmental process for Honey Creek
and May Valley (combined or separate application, etc.1;
2) Purchase of land for Parks and/or acquisition of easements along Honey
Creek corridor;
3) Pre-design analysis of alignments; and
4) Establishment of a public awareness program.
The design team will consist of key members from the City as well as from Metro.
D:92-1 17:DMC:ps
..�..:.._ �:�,.::.:..�....:.._::::..: _...: . . . . . _... . ._ .. .._.._ ..._.... . _,.. :_ .. .. ..... ._ .. .. ............. . ........ . ...... . - . . .. . .. . . . ..... ...
_.....�._.__. . ._.... . . .. _
-- ..._.. _ _.. . ..._.. . . .. . , . . . . _
. ,.: .
- - ...... . . . ... .
- --.._..----- ------._.._.__.._.__.._.._._._._- �.
--- . ---
�
%�
_ 1� ��� �—,,,'�,��'� ��-�; �-,ua--� _ �,� b r U �yU� ��� -��,�
-��� I =��1� -
� �5.� �--�SS � � �i�.. �yy" �� �'�vU�..�. `�(`' �'
V19.
�
;,�
��:177ETR0 Letter of Transmittal
821 Second Ave., M.S. 117, Seattle, WA 98104-1598
(206) 684-1298
To � � e � �
U����� ��s � i �r�sr o �.
(�� I I / ' v � �
1�%.��. (.J�i' . 9�4 S �
We are sending you the following:�Attached
❑ Under separate cover
�a.o �o _ � s— 9 v �..�, __....__..._. �� r
To Arientan L
A v�� dQ �- h�� Tc v�s� v.
Regard' gN �� � �
�� .
Copies Date Drwg. No. Descrlptlon
� � v— �
/ � � , /� ✓'. �O I /� r ��'�..t
�tj— • C/
These are transmitted
Remarks
/, .
�
�For approval
❑ For your use and information
❑ As requested
�For review and comment
❑ Other
� �-
�
r
�
�
Division
��
�
�
ossi �i2/s�)
DRAFT
October 15, 1992
Honey�� Creek Subbasin Project
I.Project Objective
The purpose of this j,oint project between the City of Renton and
Metro is to provide sufficient sanitary service to the existing,
as well as future, ,development within the Honey Creek Sewer
Subbasin. The project consists of two preferred components, Honey
Creek Interceptor Pha'se IV and the May Valley Interceptor. See
attached vicinity and �location maps.
II. Project Background
Metro constructed the;first section of the May Valley Interceptor
in 1971. The Honey Creek Interceptor was developed as a result of
insufficient capacity�within the Sunset Lift Station. In 1981,
the City of Renton established a moratorium on future connections
within the Honey Creek Subbasin by Resolution No. 2392. Phase I
through III of the Horiey Creek Interceptor were completed in 1986,
allowing the removal,of the moratorium, but not providing the
capacity necessary for full development of this subbasin (0.6 MGD
provided, 1.3 MGD currently projected to be needed).
As a result of increased development within this subbasin, the
interim flow capacity 'made available by the installation of Phases
I-III of the Honey Creek Interceptor is quickly approaching
capacity and is greatly increasing the need for the last phase of
the Honey Creek Interceptor.
Both the Honey Creek Inter.ceptor Phase IV and May Valley
Interceptor (a Metro project) are included in the City's 1992 Long
Range Wastewater Management Plan as the preferred solution to
providing the ultimate sanitary sewer needs of the Honey Creek
Subbasin. Their selection as the preferred solution is based
primarily upon their b;eing an all gravity facility that meets the
saturation needs of t!he Honey Creek Subbasin. The City's 1992
Long Range Wastewater Management Plan was given a Determination of
Non-significance on No�ember 27, 1991, and adopted by the City of
Renton with Resolution No. 2892 on April 6, 1992.
Metro's current comp!plan does not, within the near future,
include the extension of the May Va11ey Interceptor to a point
where the Honey Creek Interceptor could connect to it. However,
the passage of a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of
Renton and Metro has committed Metro to accelerate the
construction of thisi portion of the May Valley Iriterceptor
according to a schedule agreed to by the City and Metro.
1 A61
A
�
III. Project DPscription
Existing Conditions:
The currently preferred route for the Honey Creek Interceptor,
as identified in the City's 1992 Long Range Wastewater
Management Plan,. is along the east side of Honey Creek from
NE 27th Street to approximately the convergence of Honey Creek
and May Creek. A trail currently exists within this reach and
is being considered for the routing of the new interceptor.
The alignment preferred f.or the M<�y Valley Interceptor is also
identified in the City's 1992 Long Range Wastewater Management
Plan and in th�e MOA between Metro and the City. This route
follows primar�ly the existing right-of-way of Jones Avenue NE
and Gensing Avenue as well as within easements adjacent to
Gensing Avenue! Jones Avenue NE consists of a two-lane paved
roadway with gravel shoulders. Approximately one-half of
Gensing roadway is paved similar to Jones Avenue NE. The
remaining portion on Gensing Avenue is undeveloped right-of-
way. A portiori of the May Valley alignment may be outside of
the City of xen;ton boundary.
Scope of Work:
This project consists of evaluating alternatives to provide
sanitary sewer service to the Honey Creek Subbasin and
constructing the preferred alternatives. One preferred
alternative (Honey Creek Interceptor) consists of installing
approximately 2,700 linear feet of 12-inch gravity sewer from
the existing Devil's Elbow Lift Station at NE 27th Street to
the convergence of Honey Creek and May Creek. The line will be
installed along the east side of Honey Creek primarily within
the existing pathway/trail. The Lrail will be widened to act
as 'both a veh�cle access road for the sewer as well as a
portion of the Parks Department's rail system. If this
alternative is selected, this port:ion of the work will be the
responsibility qf the City.
In conjunction 'with the Honey Creek Interceptor, Metro's work
(May Valley Interceptor) would consist of installing
approximately 5�400 linear feet of 21 to 24-inch gravity sewer.
The sewer main will be installed from Jones Avenue NE and NE
40th Street ta the convergence of May Creek and Honey Creek
where the Honey Creek Interceptor will tie into it.
The selected al
service to the
alternatives at
Interceptors.
ernatives will provide reliable gravity sewer
City's Honey Creek Subbasin. The preferred
this point are the Honey Creek and May Valley
2
A61
IV. SCHEDULE
Work under this Con
shown hereon:
Consultant Sel
Pre-Design
tract will be completed within the schedule
�CtlOri
START DATE
October, 1992
January, 1993
April, 1993
September, 1993
October, 1993
November, 1994
March, 1995
�� �•
January, 1993
July, 1993
October, 1993
September, 1994
October, 1994
February, 1994
SEPA
Final Design
Permitting
Bidding
Notice to Proceed
Construction March, 1995 March, 1996
IV. ;CITY OF RENTON SCOPE OF WORR
The consultant willlprovide predesign, design and construction
services for the Citv of Renton.
TASR 100
PROJECT. MANAGEMENT
This task includes a�ll work re.lated to the management, administra-
tion, and coordination of consultant activities. Specific
activities will include the following:
a. Coordination of work efforts between the Consultant, the
City, Metro, and other agencies or consulting firms which may
become involved�in the project.
b. Preparation of monthly project reports which show work
�� accomplished--iri comparison with scheduled activities, track
.expenditures in comparison with task budgets and provide
documentation for invoices. Documentation will include
details of expenditures on each task and will show the hours
worked by proje�ct personnel and other direct expenses related
to the task. Reports will be submitted to tYie City's Project
Manager. �
c. Conduct proj ect team meetings on a regular basis . to discuss
current activities, coordinate the work and obtain
information from team members.
3 A61
TASR 200
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Under this task tlie consultant will complete the preparation of
all environmental documents required for SEPA compliance.
Integral to.this task are the following:
a. Identifying potential adverse effects of the proposed project
and identifyirig feasible project mitigation measures.
b. Coordination with the Fisheries Biologist Consultant under
contract with the City of Renton.
c. Understanding of shoreline permitting process.
d. Understanding of SEPA legislation including City ordinances
and regulations as they apply to SEPA and sensitive areas.
The Environmental Checklist, DNS, and mitigation document will be
prepared by the consultant for submittal to the City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee.
TASK 300
PRE-DESIGN
This task will assist the City in its selection of an alternative
through establishment of a Public.Awareness Program, preparation
of a pre-design report, and establishment of all participating
agencies involved i�n the project. Key elements within the process
include: �
a. Establish all �potential impact issues of the project.
b. Identify alter'r.
Creek Subbasin�.
c. Research and c
County WD 107,
project. _-
atives to meet the sewer needs of the Honey
velop Park Department, King County, King
and other agency's participation in the
d. Analysis of alternatives for providing sewer service needs to
the Honey Creek Subbasin.
e: Establish a Public Awareness Program.
f. Perform an aerial survey to analyze the various alternatives.
g. Develop design criteria for the facility (sizing,
performance, etc.).
h. Prepare cost estimates of the identified feasible
alternatives. �
4
A61
i. Combine all data in the form of a report to be used as a
guide in environmental review and final design.
j. Evaluate connection point.
k. Determine evaluation criteria, including citizen input, for
the ranking of the alternatives.
l. Perform geotechnical investigation of alternative routes.
In addition, the following permits have been identified as
possibly being required for this project and are to be included
within the pre-desi�gn work:
Tvpe
Shoreline.
Serisitive
Street Use
Gr.ading
Parks
Hydraulics
Lease�/ROE
Agency/Party
Renton and King County
Renton and King County
Renton
King County
Renton and King County
Washington Fisheries
DNR
TASK 400
FINAL DESIGN
Under this task the consultant� will prepare final plans,
specifications and an engineer's estimate for bidding of the
alternative selected through the environmental and pre-design
work. Integral to this task are the following:
a. Preparation oflconstruction plans utilizing current City
drafting standards.
-_ i
b. Performing additional ground topographic survey to support
aerial survey work.
c. Incorporate Fisheries' mi_tigation enhancement work into final
design plans`arid specifications.
d. Preparation of bidding specification in accordance with City
standards.
I
e. Coordination of design work with Metro staff regarding
connection poirit, routing, etc.
Review
f. Preparation of easement and/or right-of-way documents.
5 A61
TASR 500
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Under this task the consultant will assist the City with
construction management. Integral to this task are the following:
a. Assist the City in answering questioris from bidders.
b. Attend pre-bid and pre-construction meeting.
c. Review construction submittals.
d. Provide technical support during construction.
e. Prepare as-built drawings upon completion of construction.
REFERENCE MATERIALS:
The following refe'rence materials are available �or review at
the 4th Floor Customer Service County, City Hall, 200 Mill Avenue
South, Renton during the hours of 8:00 AM to.5:00 PM, weekdays.
The Customer Service�Counter's telephone number is (206) 235-2631.
a. 1992 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan - Wastewater
component to Ci�ty Comprehensive Plan;
b. City of Renton '�Drafting Standards - Adopted City Standards
for preparation� of construction plans; and
c. City of Renton '
City Details an��l
current details
The consultant will
for Metro.
�tandard Details and Specifications - adopted
� Specifications that amend/supplement WSDOT
and specification.
V. METRO SCOPE OF WORK
provide predesign services at this time
TASR 100
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
This task includes all work related to the management, administra-
tion, and coordination of consultant activities. Specific.
activities will include the following:
a. Coordination of work efforts between the Consultant, the
City, Metro, and other agencies or consulting firms which may
become involved�in the project.
6 A61
�
b. Preparation of monthly project reports which show work
accomplished in comparison with scheduled activities, track
expenditures in comparison with task budgets and provide
documentation for invoices. Documentation will include
details of expenditures on each task and will show the hours
worked by project personnel and other direct expenses related
to the task. �Reports will be submitted to the Metro's Project
Manager. I
c. Conduct pro�ect team meetings on a regular basis to discuss
current activities, coordinate the work and obtain
information from team members.
d. Attend meetinas with Metro
e. Attend and p
icipate in public meetings.
TASK 200
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Conduct an environmental investigation on the May Valley-
alignment. Prepare draft and final reports that detail the
inve.stigation.l The final report will be used in the SEPA
process for the project. Environmental assessment information
will be provided for each of the following elements of the
natural and built environment and will include a description of
the affected en�ironment, identification of major impacts and
recommend mitigation measures to reduce impacts_to the maximum
extent practical. The element to be considered include:
a. Earth/Soils: Describe area geology, soils types and
characteristics, sensitive areas affected (landslide
hazard, erosion hazard, seismic risk) including diagrams;
contaminated soils potential; extent of soils unsuitable
for backfilll; disposal requirements for spoils and
excavation quantities; characteristics and quantities of
imported backfill. Include a description of the quantities
and types of spoils and imported fill which would be
required for clearing and grading of construction access
and equipment staging areas.
b. Air Resour.ces/Odor: Identify potential sources of odor
from new faoilities (i.e., facilities with potential to
release odor �lo atmosphere).
c. Biological Resources: Describe affected vegetation,
wildlife and habitat types. Special emphasis should be
given to sens�itive habitats, including wetlands; endangered
or threatenedl plant or animal specifies (federal and state
criteria); and commercial and recreational fishing areas.
Discuss anadromous fish habitat. For wetlands in the
project corridor, include a wetlands delineation and
mitigation recommendations.
7 A61
�
e.
Water Resources: Describe all affected water bodies,
including flow characteristics (e.g., flooding and class of
stream). Discuss groundwater conditions and dewatering
required.
Transportation: Describe vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
transportation systems in the affected area. Discuss
construction impacts, including: construction traffic
volumes, larie closures, and reduced intersection capacity
if any in-st�reet facilities are proposed. Discuss capacity
of non-arterial streets to handle construction traffic.
For critical� intersections, give existing level of service
and project�ed level of service with project traffic.
Identify school bus routes affected by construction.
f. Noise: Project noise impacts during construction and
operation oflnew facility, expressed in Leq.
g. Land Use: Describe current land uses in the project area.
Identify applicable land use plans, zoning classifications,
comprehensive plan designation, sensitive areas, designated
shorelines, designated parks and recreational
opportun.ities. Discuss requirements of the Growth
Management Aet and how these may affect approval for this
project. I
h. Historic and'ICultural Resources: Describe areas of
historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural
importance. I �
i. Project Desc'riiption: Include descriptions of the
following:
1. width of construction corridor,
2: permanentl and temporary roads which would be
constructed,
3. point of connection between new lines,.including
description of structures (e.g., manholes),
4. number anci� location of stream crossings,
5. constructi�on methods for stream crossings and pipeline
installati�on, and
6. length of �alignment over paved and unpaved areas, and
beside sur�face water bodies.
�
It is anticip.ated that the City of Renton will prepare an
environmental checklist which will include the Honey Creek and
the May Valley ailignments.
TASK 300
ISURVEY AND. RIGHT-OF-WAY
Consultant activities will include the following:
i
a. Use current commllrcial aerial photographs or conduct an aerial
photo of the May Valley alignment.
�
8 A61
i
b. Produce plan base sheets of the preliminary May Valley
alignment showing topographic features at a contour interval of
two foot. Pipe line mapping will be 1" = 100'.
c. Locate existinl utilities, manmade structures, and natural
features and p�l�ace them on the base maps.
d. Identify and slow all existing easements and street rights-of-
way on the basi � maps.
e. Locate existing survey monuments along the preliminary pipe
alignment.
I
TASR 400
, IIGEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
For the pre-design phase, the consultant will evaluate soil
conditions along�the system routes. Consultant activities
include: I
a. Review past geoiechnical wor)c in the area of the alignment.
b. Determine the types of soils along the alignment.
�
c. Determine soil stability of slopes.
d. Determine exteni of groundwater.
e. Evaluate the possibility of contaminated soils and groundwater.
f. Investigate andllecommend methods for crossing may Creek.
TASK 500
"�ENGINEERING SPECIALTIES
The consultant will�provide�engineering support for specific
areas, as needed. Those areas may include the following:
a. Pipe jacking.
b. Microtunneling.�
�
i
I
0
A61
i
i
REFERENCE MATERIALS:
The following refllrence materials are available for review in the
Metro Library, 9th� floor, Exchange Building, during the hours of
10:00 am - 3:00 pm�, weekdays. The Library's phone number is (206)
684-1129. �
1. Metro "Renton�Service Area Population and Flow Study",
CENTRAC, 1990I. �
2.
3.
Metro "Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage and Drainage Survey",
Brown and Caldwell, 1958.
�
Metro "Second Stage Construction of Comprehensive Sewerage
Plan'�, Metropolitan Engineers, 1970.
�
II
�I
1 0 A61
�, BACRGROUND
The purpose of thi's joint project between the City of Renton and
Metro is to.provid'e sufficient. sanitary service to the existing,
as well as future, development within the Honey Creek Sewer
Subbasin. The pro�ject consists of two preferred components, Honey
Creek Interceptor P;hase IV and the May Valley Interceptor.
Metro constructed the first section of the May Valley Interceptor
in 1971. The Honey Creek Interceptor was developed as a result of
insufficient capacity within the Sunset Lift Station. In 1981,
the City of Rentorilestablished a moratorium on future connections
within the Honey Creek Subbasin by Resolution No. 2392. Phase I
through III of the �Honey Creek Interceptor were completed in 1986,
allowing the removal of the moratorium, but not providing the
capacity necessary�lfor full development of this subbasin (0.6 MGD
provided, 1.3 MGD currently projected to be needed).
As a result of increased development within this subbasin, the
interim flow capacity made available by the installation of Phases
I-III of the Honey Creek Interceptor is quickly approaching
capacity and is greatly increasing the need for the last phase of
the Honey Creek Interceptor.
Both the Honey C'reek Interceptor Phase IV and May Valley
Interceptor (a Metro project) are included in the City's 1992 Long
Range Wastewater Management Plan as the preferred solution to
providing the ultimate sanitary sewer needs of the Honey Creek
Subbasin. Their selection as the preferred solution is based
primarily upon their being an all gravity facility that meets the
saturation needs ofl the Honey Creek Subbasin. The City's 1992
Long Range Wastewater Management Plan was given a Determination of
Non-significance on�INovember 27, 1991, and adopted by the City of
Renton with Resolution No. 2892 on April 6, 1992.
Metro's current cllp plan does not, within the near future,
include the extension of the May Valley Interceptor to a point
where the Honey Cre,ek Interceptor could connect to it. However,
the passage of a M�emorandum of Agreement, on June 6, 1991,
between the City o�f Renton and Metro has committed.Metro to
accelerate the construction of this portion of the May Valley
Interceptor accordirig.to a schedule agreed to by the City and
Metro. I
I�i
A61