Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWWP272163King County Water Pollution Control Division Department of Natural Resources 821 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1598 December 31, 1996 John Hobson J A N 3 10997 Wastewater Utility CITY OF RENTON City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Engineering Dept. Renton, WA 98055 RE: King County Water Pollution Control's May Valley Interceptor Project Dear John: This short note is to refresh and update you about the King County Water Pollution Control Interceptor Project. This project has a lengthy history in which you and/or your organization have been involved. REFRESHER This Project was identified in our 1958 service plan to serve the South Lake Washington Basin by extending our interceptor up May Creek to Tibbets Creek. s 0 2(= 4M R Laic - � ] 1`.•.-.._\ '1 —`City o(Reu un4 � fa lWnev Ccc i,t� Legend qhl n f 1958 Pmposed dtay Valley Into gAor *.� •ti.., - ��y�Sub-buin Boundary NMay Valley Dmn&ge Basin Boundary Rivera and Streams ' ! Contours Watcrbodiex LR cb-07 a �,,.,, � \ �•. \\i King County Water Pollution Control's May Valley Interceptor Project 12/31 /96 Page 18 This plan has changed over the years to reflect adjusted landuse assumptions. In order to appropriately develop subregional alternatives for further consideration in the facility planning effort and predesign process, May Valley project staff conducted a planning workshop on September 28, 1995. At this workshop the King County team described the over all project objective in greater detail and described what information the project team currently has regarding growth in the study area. The Team then asked for and received assistance in developing a better "picture" of what types and level of residential, commercial and industrial growth the King County long range wastewater system planning should consider. Important of course, was information on current agency planning processes, the status of the various wastewater system plans and the location of various important demographic and utility planning data. Following this workshop, a series of project alternatives, developed by King County and its consultant, Brown and Caldwell, in conjunction with the City of Renton and others, were evaluated leading to June 1996 King County Council action on this project. This action, Ordinance 12344, authorized King County participation with the City of Renton in a sewer interceptor project designed to eliminate a local system lift station by constructing a one -mile gravity sewer main and to defer King County's need to build the May Valley Interceptor project. Specifically, the action amended an existing 1991 Memorandum Of Agreement between King County and the City of Renton, deferred a $5.4 Million King County project and authorized King County participation in a $3.3.City of Renton project. CURRENT EFFORTS While King County obligations under the 1991 MOA to the City of Renton are being completed, .a project report, The May Valley Basin Wastewater Conveyance Plan Report; is nearing completion. This report documents planning efforts and decisions related to the May Valley interceptor extension and presents the findings of the recent predesign engineering effort. The report describes the relevant planning efforts, utilities, and natural characteristics of the May Valley basin and presents various wastewater engineering alternatives developed for the May Valley basin and the City of Renton's Honey Creek sub -basin. The final draft report will be forwarded to you in mid -January. Two weeks later, the Report will be made final, incorporating any comments and suggestions received. John, thank you again for your help in completing this project. I can be reached at 684-2093 (fax at 689-3119) if you have any questions. And I wish you a safe and Happy New Year! Sincerely, (3vo atu�-� Bob Peterson May Valley Project Manager CC: Council Member McKenna Brown and Caldwell -Mike O'Neal May Valley Project Team King County Distribution L:\WRKSHHP4.DOC CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: Submitting Data: Planning/Building; Public Works Dept/Div/Board.- Utility Systems Division/Wastewater Utility Staff Contact..... David Christensen (x-6212) Subject: Consultant Engineering Contract for Brown and Caldwell, Inc. to perform preliminary design services for the Honey Creek Interceptor Project. Exhibits: Consultant contract with scope, budget, and schedule For Agenda of: June 7, 1993 Agenda Status Consent .............. X Public Hearing... Correspondence.. Ordinance........... Resolution........... Old Business....... New Business...... Study Sessions.... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee June 9, 1993 Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept..... X Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $262,500.26 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... $521 ,486.1 2 Revenue Generated....... Total Project Budget 421 /400/18.596.35.65.45125/5430 City share Total Project.. Summary of Action: Brown and Caldwell, Inc. will perform preliminary design services for the Honey Creek Interceptor Project. A final design element: will be included as a later phase. Balance of the $521,486.12 project budget covers staff time and the final design element. Construction funds are proposed within the 1994 and 1995 Capital Improvement Programs with construction proposed to begin in the summer of 1995. Because the City's Honey Creek Interceptor project and Metro's May Valley Interceptor project are integral to one another, a joint board of Metro and City staff selected a single consultant to perform work for both agencies. Utilizing Metro's consultant selection process, all RFP/RFQ were published in November of 1992. Five consultants submitted proposals with two being invited for an interview. Brown and Caldwell was then selected to perform engineering services for both agencies. Staff Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the consultant contract with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. to perform preliminary design services on the Honey Creek Interceptor Project. %1:vui,o:V15-wZI:u1v1u:ps I'IH (—G1-1y':J j 1c 4d I -_HIM 1 IJKUTAN 6 I.HLllWLLL ttH I ILL I I_I 3132_ 'D. S41 P. 0l_1�;'l_It EXHIBIT B SCOPE OF WORK CITY OF RENTON SUBBASIN PROJECT HONEY CREEK 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 - Project 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 B-- Page 1 of 6 e:\adm\802\9938_11\nenxopc.wpw May 21, 1993 =-11 r . l_ILI, l_1Vlt_, 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 B-- Page 2 of 6 e:\edm\802\9938_1Mmnacopc.wpw May 21, 1993 1 , n r IIJI I L-MUI I4 .-HLL1bItLL '_EI-i I I LE I i_I _1 -'=`: _".q 1 F' . l 1l_14 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 1"=50' 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 B-- Page 3 of 6 e:\edm\802\9938_ll\mntcope.wpw 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 B-- Page 4 of 6 May 21, 1993 c Aad m\802\9938_ 1 l \ronzcc pc.wpw ,�eafofl Homey Creek SabbasIll Proie( - 1redesi 7 hase Professional Merrill $43.27 O'Neal $33.29 Getz $28.21 Denson $30.09 Knott $26.90 Flanigan $23.07 Technical Miller $24.70 Drafting $22.36 Administrative WP $16.26 Other Direct Costs Travel Communication Computer/CADD Reprodu ction/P r i nti ng Word Processing Subconsuftants Adoffson Associates incl. Watershed Dyr Lee 6 Associates Inca GooEngineers Total Labor Hours Profossional Technical Administrative Total Labor Dollars Overhead Total ODC's Fee TASK TOTALS Phase I Hours Task 100 Project Management Hours Task 200 Environmental Compliance Hours Task 300 Pre -Design 4 $173 42 $1,817 170 $5,659 160 $5.326 40 $1,128 340 $9.591 56 $1,685 212 $6,379 40 $923- 180 $4,446 120 $2,683 40 $650.40 80 $1,300.80 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $2,400.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $400.00 $800.00 $41,500.00 $5,220.00 amiss $7, $26,100.00 Phase I Cost: 214 56 794 300 40 80 $25,174.89 $51, 468.65 $259,500,26 4 3 coo u ) $182,856.73 Exhibit C Page 1 of 1 APPROVED �- /',/- 95 UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT June 14, 1993 CONSULTANT ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR BROWN AND CALDWELL, INC. TO PERFORM PRELIMINARY DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PROJECT (Referred: 6/7/93) The Utilities Committee recommends concurrence of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department's recommendation that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a consultant contract with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. to perform preliminary design services for the Honey Creek Interceptor Project. The total cost of this contract is $262,500.26 and is within the current authorized budget for this project. �01 -)Kl-* X� G Timothy J. Sc i er, Chair Richard Stredicke, Vice Chair Kathy olker-Wheeler, Member C:DOCS:93-545:DMC:ps CC: Gregg Zimmerman David Christensen 1�91917 M JUN 15 1993 CITY OF RENTON Engineering Dept. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division/Wastewater Utility June 7, 1993 Agenda Status Staff Contact..... David Christensen (X-6212) Consent .............. Public Hearing... CONCURPEC Subject: Consultant Engineering Contract for Brown and Caldwell, Correspondence.. DATE Inc. to perform preliminary design services for the Honey Creek Interceptor Project. Ordinance........... Resolution........... NAME INITIAL/D Old Business....... New Business...... Exhibits: Consultant contract with scope, budget, and schedule Study Sessions.... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee June 9, 1993 Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept..... X Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $262,500.26 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... $521 ,486.12 Revenue Generated....... Total Project Budget 421 /400/18.596.35.65.45125/5430 City share Total Project.. Summary of Action: Brown and Caldwell, Inc. will perform preliminary design services for the Honey Creek Interceptor Project. A final design element will be included as a later phase. Balance of the $521,486.12 project budget covers staff time and the final design element. Construction funds are proposed within the 1994 and 1995 Capital Improvement Programs with construction proposed to begin in the summer of 1995. Staff Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the consultant contract with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. to perform preliminary design services on the Honey Creek Interceptor Project. C:DOCS:93-509:DMC:ps ._.. , .... ... _................................ - ._...... ....__. .........._._........... ......... ...... _ _ ............__._................_ ............. EXEMPTION FROM ROUTINE VEGETATION ,;:. MANAGEMENT PERMIT REQlJIRElU1E111..; ....... :..I July 29, 1993 APPLICANT: City of Renton Wastewater Utility 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 PROPOSAL: Minor brush and blackberry cutting in order to survey an an area (see attached map) for the City's future May Creek Interceptor easement. PROJECT LOCATION: South of May Creek, North of NE 27th Street, West of 120th Avenue SE and East of Aberdden Avenue NE SEC-TWN P-R: 4-23-5 An exemption from a Routine Vegetation Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby granted on the proposed project described on the attached form for the following reason(s): • Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code Section RCW 4-9-7(C)---"... Routine Vegetation Managment and essential tree removal for public and private utilities". i manson nager, Development Services Division c:,-pe-p CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2, 1992 TO: Gregg Zimmerman FRO on Erickson, for Jim Hanson SUBJECT: Project Proposal for the May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptor Project Thank you for your memo of June 1 8th regarding the above referenced project. We have reviewed the project narrative and believe it does a very good job in identifying most of the necessary design steps and the types of permits that are likely to be needed to do this project. One of the issues that we think needs to possibly be given somewhat more weight is the role of SEPA in helping anticipate environmental impacts early on and incorporate these into the design process. By using comparative evaluation techniques and establishing environmental impact criteria early on it would be possible to evaluate different design alternatives for their environmental (and other) impacts while the proposal is still at the conceptual level. Impacts that will obviously need to be addressed will be those affecting fisheries and wildlife habitat, steep slopes and topographical stability, loss of native habitat and impacts on existing or future recreational amenities, and possibly issues related to future growth and land use because of increased service capacity. We are assuming that the City would be the nominal lead for the project(s), although you might want to consider allowing some joint "lead" involvement with Metro and King County on those portions that they are doing or possibly will be responsible for. The portion of the project in the county may be contentious, based on our experience with the East Renton Interceptor and Sierra Heights sewer lines. As a consequence, you may wish to provide a distinct step for public involvement at the design conceptualization and/or evaluation stage where these group's interest would be the most meaningful. We can assist you in this effort if you would like us to. If there are existing environmental documents that are relevant to this project(s), you may also want to consider incorporating these by reference as a time saving tool. In reviewing the list of permits that may be required we believe that you may also need to get a conditional use permit for those portions of the proposed new sewer line (particularly the 21 to 24 inch line) if they traverse private property that is zoned such that utility facilities are only allowed as conditional uses. Normal sewer, water, electrical service utility lines are not considered to be "utility facilities" but larger trunk lines, power transmission lines, power substations, and large pump stations, etc. are. It also appears likely that you will need a Routine Vegetation Management Permit for the construction of this facility since these sewer lines are of such a size as not to be exempt from SEPA (8 inches or greater) and this proposal, albeit important to the City has not, as far as we can tell, been defined as an " ...emergency situation[s] involving immediate danger to life or property, ...or interruption of services provided by a utility." Project Proposal for the May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptor Project 7/2/92Page 2 We would like to be involved on the design team for this project and accept your invitation. After reviewing the proposal, however, it appears that our involvement might be more constructive is we were involved during the design development phase of the project where different design alternatives are being considered and their impacts evaluated. In such situations we would see our role as merely advisory on SEPA type issues if they arose. I have discussed this project with my staff and would like to assign Lenora Bluman to the Design Team, if that is all right with you. As you know Lenora has worked Dave Christensen on the East Renton Sewer Interceptor project EIS for the last few months. If you have any questions please give me call. Thanks again for inviting us to participate on your design team. CC: Jim Hanson CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: December 28, 1993 TO: Gregg Zimmerman FROM: Dave Christe SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK/MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS - FUNDING ISSUES ISSUE: The City of Renton' and Metro in accordance with the MOA have almost completed the first phase of the pre -design work which establishes the various alternatives for providing sufficient capacity in the Honey Creek Subbasin for saturation development. A screening matrix has been established that lists advantages a.hd disadvantages of each alternative for both gravity • and pump station methodologies. A section of the matrix will include cost and funding mechanisms. - In order to finalize the screening matrix, we must come to agreement on participation limits for both agencies dependent upon which alternative is selected. This is critical to the City as it will be a key factor in selecting an appropriate alternative. RECOMMENDATION: Given that' what Metro (Metro has offered $400,000; City needs 1.1 million) has offered us to date is insufficient to meet the project need as we have budgeted, and given that this project has a strong ability to receive state-PWTF loan funds, it is recommended that we take the following approach with Metro: We will request that Metro increase its funding participation from. $400,000 to $800,000 with the understanding that the City will pursue state PWTF loan for the remaining portion of the project. If the City is unsuccessful in obtaining this loan within the 1996 PWTF loan cycle, then Metro shall agree to increase its funding support from $800,000 to $1,100,000. DISCUSSION: The MOA established during Phase III of the Renton Treatment Plant expansion included system improvements to various portions of Metro's collection system including the specific system improvement identified as May Valley Interceptor, Phase I. Gregg Zimmerman Honey Creek/May Valley Interceptor Alternatives Analysis Page 2 The project description in the MOA states that Metro will install 5,400 to 6,000 feet of 24 inch sewer line from existing Metro facilities to a point near the confluence of May and Honey Creeks. It goes on to provide flexibility by stating that the exact connection points will be identified following predesign studies and environmental review (pg. 16, Section 5.3.2 of MOA). In addition, as this project has been scoped with Metro staff, the emphasis has been on the need to provide an adequate level of sewer service to the City's Honey Creek Subbasin. This is evident in both Metro's review of the City's project proposal as well as during the consultant selection process with the creation of the RFP/RFQ document. This has lead City staff to believe that Metro shared the City's same objective of providing sufficient capacity for its Honey Creek Subbasin. As work progressed in the first phase of the predesign report, it became apparent that Metro was reluctant to commit any dollars to any alternative that differed from the initial May Valley system that provided gravity service along May Creek. Any option that included pumping out of the Honey Creek/May Valley Basin while looked upon engineering and permitting as feasible, financing was not determined. On December 2, 1993, we met with Metro staff to discuss status of this and other projects. At that meeting Metro presented us a letter offering $400,000 toward a pumping alternative. This offer will not meet the minimum financial need for pumping alternatives of $1,100,000 for Metro as indicated on the alternative cost analysis sheet attached. We currently are funding the Honey Creek Interceptor at $1,200,000. One alternative could combine this project with the East Kennydale Interceptor which is budgeted for $170,000. In addition, we may be able to postpone a lift station rehabilitation project slated for East Valley due to maintenance work already accomplished which could provide an additional $105,000 to the total City match. Given the funding parameters for both agencies, the following are options that can be pursued under .the first two alternatives (see attached sheets): Alternative 1: Original City share $2,075,000 Metro's proposed contribution 400,000 Subtotal: 2,475,000 Total Project Cost: 3,162,450 Additional City Funds Required: ($687,450) TOTAL CITY PARTICIPATION: $2,762,450 Gregg Zimmerman Honey Creek/May Valley Interceptor Alternatives Analysis Page 3 Options: 1) Metro contributes: $400,000 Existing City funds for 93/94 $852,000 PWTF for 1995 $ 1, 910,450 Total Funds: $3,162,450 2) Metro contributes: $1,100,000 Existing City funds for 93-96 $2,075,000 Total Funds: $3,175,000 or possibly ask Metro to contribute a variation, possibly $800,000 which would either reduce the loan amount required in Option 1 or raise the City participation needed in Option #2. Alternative 2: Original City share: $1,475,000 Metro's proposed contribution $400,000 Subtotal: $1,875,000 Total Project Cost: $2,462.100 Additional City funds required: ($587,100) Options: 1) Metro contributes $400,000 Existing City funds for 93/94 $626,000 PWTF for 1995 $1,436,100 Total Funds: $2,462,100 2) Metro contributes: $1,100,000 Existing,City funds for 93-96 $1 ,475,000 Total Funds: $2,475,000 or possibly- as Metro to contribute a variation, possibly $800,000 which would either reduce the loan amount required in Option 1 or raise the City participation needed in Option 2. Gregg Zimmerman Honey Creek/May Valley Interceptor Alternatives Analysis Page 4 Metro has offered the City $400,000 toward a pumping alternative. In order to meet the project budget, 1 to 1.1 million is needed from Metro. However, if we attempt to secure a PWTF loan for this project, we could .accept Metro's offer or request an amount somewhere in the middle without having an additional rate impact on future years (95 and beyond). There would be some risk involved since the loan could not be guaranteed. Our project would rank high due to its ability to provide additional protection to Honey Creek, provide ability to sewer large portions of Kennydale which is in Zone 2 of APA and to reduce potential overflows to Honey Creek from Devil: s Elbow Lift Station and to the local neighborhoods in the vicinity of Sunset Lift Station. It compares closely in certain areas to two recently funded projects. The first, East Renton Interceptor, had capacity restraints within its existing infrastructure during peak wet weather events as does the Honey Creek System. As a result, this project as East Renton did, will remove a potential health hazard that would result during overflows at peak. The second similar project is the Dayton LID project, also located in the Kennydale area, it provides direct local service to a portion of the Kennydale neighborhood. The Honey Creek project will also provide similar service to a portion of NE 24th Street. This was a selling point to the PWTF staff because it provides the ability to remove existing residents from septic systems to public sewer within Zone 2 of our Aquifer Protection Area. In addition, since it. also- will serve as an interceptor it has the ability to serve a significant portion of the currently unsewered portion of the Kennydale Subbasin that lies within the Aquifer Protection Area. Alternative No. 1 Put Sunset 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 No. 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 - Option 5A - Emphasis on Sunset Sunset Lift - Station Replacement $875,000 Sunset Force Main Replacement $1 12,000 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 $105,000 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 $1 12,000 Sunset Gravity Main Replacement $301,000 Devil's Elbow Lift Station Replacement $455,000 Roadway Restoration $270,000 Channel Restoration $60,000 Construction: $1,698,000 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 Alternative No. 3: GRAVITY - Renton's Share Construct gravity line Demolition of Devil's Elbow Roadway Restoration Channel Restoration Mitigation 20% Contingency 25% Engineering Total Construction Cost: BUDGET: Honey Creek Interceptor Phase IV E. Kennydale Interceptor E. Valley Lift Station ` Total Budget: Difference: H:DOCS:93-1226a:DMC:ps $176,000 $40,000 $ 270,000 $ 60, 000 $ 500,000 $1,046,000 $ 209, 200 $261,500 $1, 516, 700 $1, 200,000 $177,000 $105,000 $1,482,000 ($34,700) r �� Gr6�� ,� I . lN�► t�LOI� &L �� oDD_ �$fi �lc� .- � `�T - od1.'t_-I(L 'y 'I Wastewa er - ut $235,00 m 1 4 ANALYSIS '1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Rate Increase 0.0% 13.0% a7.8% '' 8.2%_ 6.2% • 5.4% 5.1 % 3.1 % New Revenue Bonds 1,598,000 405,000 788,000 1,000,000 1,025,000 966,000 1,117,000 1,700,000 CIP from Rates 716,000 88,000 140,000 175,000 250,000 350,000 400,000 500,000 Total CIP Sources 10,591,620 1,514,354 3,019,348 1,326,474 1,434,329 1,437,342 1,640,053 2,326,030 Total CIP Applications 10,369,751 1,512,000 3,017,-000 1,3-17,500 1,425,000 1,428,000 1,629,500 2,313,400 . Total CIP Projects 5,513,704 1,503,900 3,001,240 1,297,500 1,404,500 1,408,680 1,607,160 2,279,400 Ending Bal. CF 221,869 2,354 2;348 8,974 9,329 9,342 10,553 12,630 Ending Bal. OF 264,323 215,609 215,667 215,213 215,003 213,447 213,224 202,796 Target Bal. OF 151,692 157,898 166,437 175,546 185,274 195,672 206,798 218,716 DSC 2.05 2.07 2.15 2.19 2.18 2.17 2.14 2.24 Rate Increase Needed 20.2% 0.0% 0.0%- 0.06/. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Base Case 20.2% 20.1% - 36.8% 45.8% 53.8% 60.7% 67.9% 69.1% rate increase 1.32 0.89 .1.01 0.83 0.77 0.76 0.49 cummulative rate 10.15 11.47 12.36 13.38 14.21 14.97 15.74 16.23 percent depreciation 25% 33% 40% 55% 72% 77% 90% Wastewater - Cut $235,000 CIP in 1994 ANALYSIS 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Rate Increase 0.0% 13.0% 8.2% `7.5% 6.2% 5.5% 5.1% 3.2% New Revenue Bonds 1,598,000 405,000 970,000 1,000,000 1,025,000 966,000 1,117,000 1,700,000 CIP from Rates 716,000 88,000 140,000 175,000 250,000 350,000 400,000 500,000 Total CIP Sources 10,591,620 1,514,354 2,737,468 1,327,536 1,435,435 1,438,492 1,641,250 2,321,276 Total CIP Applications 10,369,751 1,512,000 .2,734,100 1,317,500 1,425,000 1,428,000 1,629,500 2,313,400 Total CIP Projects 5,513,704 1,503,900 2,714,700 1,297,500 1,404,500 1,408,680 1,607,160 2,279,400 Ending Bal. CF 221,869 2,354 3,368 10,036 10,435 10,492 11,750 13,876 Ending Bal. OF 264,323 215,609 216,710 215,590 213,712 213,598 214,515 212,643 Target Bal. OF 151,692 157,898 166,437 175,546 185,274 195,672 206,798 218,716 DSC 2.05 2.07 2.13 2.15 2.14 2.14 2.11 2.21 Rate Increase Needed 20.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Base Case 20.2% 20.1 % 36.8% 45.8% 53.8% 60.7% 67.9% 69.1 % rate increase 1.32 0.94 0.93 0.83 0.78 0.76 0.50 cummulative rate 10.15 11.47 12.41 13.34 14.17 14.95 15.71 16.21 percent depreciation 25% 33% 40% 55% 72% 77% 90% -52 vt�+,�lC�- t-WTT-- 1� 4:�&, 6 (� Wastewater - Cut $235,000 CIP in 1994 ANALYSIS 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Rate Increase 0.0% 13.0% 8.6% 7.6% 6.2% 5.4% 5.0% 3:1 % New Revenue Bonds 1,598,000 405,000 1,350,000 1,553,000 1,025,000 966,000 1,117,000 1,700,000 CIP from Rates 716,000 88,000 140,000 175,000 250,000 350,000 400,000 - 500,000 Total CIP Sources 10,591,620 1,514,354 1,681,389 1,881,394 1,425,920 1,428,589 1,630,943 2,316,548 Total CIP Applications 10,369,751 1,512,000 1,677,000 1,880,500 1,425,000 1,428;000 1,629,500 2,313,400 Total CIP Projects 5,513,704 1,503,900 1,650,000 1,849,440 1,404,500 1,408,680 - 1,607,160 2,279,400 Ending Bal. CF 221,869 2,354 4,389 894 920 589 1,443 3,148 Ending Bal. OF 264,323 215,609 215,664, 217,050 218,460 219,892 220,013 221,114 Target Bal. OF 151,692 157,898 166,437 175,546 185,274 195,672 206,798 218,716 DSC 2.05 2.07 2.07 2.01 2.01 2.02 2.00 2.09 Rate Increase Needed 20.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Base Case 20.2% 20.1% 36.8% 45.8% 53.8% 60.7% 67.9% 69.1% rate increase 1.32 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.77 0.75 0.49 cummulative rate 10.15 11.47 12.46 13.40 14.23 15.00 .15.75 16.24 percent depreciation 25% 33% 40% 55% 72% 77% 90% CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 10, 1991 TO: Kathy Koelker-Wheeler, Chair Members of the Utility Committee VIA: Mayor rl Clymer FROM: L n / ttmann, Administrator Depar ment of Planning/Building/Public Works STAFF CONTACT: David M. Christensen, Wastewater Utility SUBJECT: NEIGHBORS FOR MAY VALLEY LETTER REGARDING THE MAY VALLEY SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT BACKGROUND: As part of the Utility System Division's budget for 1991, $10,000 was appropriated to the May Valley Sanitary Sewer Interceptor project. On November 19, 1990, Neighbors for May Valley submitted a letter addressed to the Mayor, Council, and administration voicing their concerns for development of sanitary sewer within the May Valley Corridor. This letter was presented to Council and referred to the Utilities Committee on November 26, 1990. The City Clerk responded by letter to the Neighbors for May Valley on November 27, 1990, informing them of it inclusion in the November 26, 1990 Council meeting. A copy of the Neighbors for May Valley letter is attached for reference. DISCUSSION: The letter submitted by the Neighbors for May Valley focused on two major issues. Their first issue of concern is the potential degradation of their neighborhood as a result of sanitary sewer becoming available through the proposed installation. They see the construction of new sewer lines as a contradiction to the adopted Newcastle Community Plan providing sewer to the area. The second major issue is the ability of the City to perform a sewer feasibility study in light of what they feel is an insufficient and inexperienced planning staff. The letter inaccurately states that $100,000 was proposed by the Utility Systems Division; actually $10,000 was proposed and appropriated for initiating the May Valley Interceptor Project. Mayor Earl Clymer Neighbors for May Valley Sewer Interceptor Project Page 2 The purpose for the $10,000 is only to pay for City staff time to form an inter -local agreement between the City, King County Water District 107, and METRO to accelerate the scheduling of Phase 2 of the May Valley Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Program. Upon consummating an agreement with Water District 107 and METRO, the City will determine the necessary steps towards planning, designing, and constructing the interceptor be it by METRO, Water District 107, the City, or any combination of the above. CONCLUSIONS: The Mayor sent a letter to the Neighbors for May Valley (copy attached). In addition, the Utility System's staff will prepare an issue paper for Council which covers the entire scope of the May Valley Sanitary Sewer Interceptor project at a later date. Tentative schedule for that report is early March, 1991. 91-012:DMC:ps CC: Dick Anderson Randall Parsons Attachment CITY OF RENTON Mayor Earl Clymer January 10, 1991 Neighbors for May Valley 9605 - 143rd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT: May Valley Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Dear Neighbors: Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1990. Public input, as well as sound planning and engineering, are key to the success of a project of this magnitude. Your input assures the City that the scope of the project addresses all of the pertinent issues. Your letter included many key issues that will be addressed during the planning stage of the project. In addition, the City will also hold public meetings to obtain the input of the affected citizens. Prior to finalization of the design for this project, environmental review will be completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Please understand that the $10,000 (not $100,000 as was indicated in your letter) which was budgeted in the 1991 Utility Systems Capital Improvement Program is to be utilized only to pay for City staff time to form an inter -local agreement between the City of Renton, King County Water District 107, and METRO in order to accelerate the scheduling of Phase Two of the May Valley Interceptor Program and not for a sewer feasibility study as was indicated in your letter. A full study of this proposed project will be completed at a later date pending our discussions with Water District 107 and METRO. If your group would like additional information regarding this project, they may contact David M. Christensen of the Wastewater Utility Section at 277-6212. Mr. Christensen is the City's project engineer for the May Valley Interceptor Project. Very truly yours, a Earl �Iymer Mayor 91-005:DMC:ps CC: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator, Dept. of Planning/Building/Public Works Richard J. Anderson, P.E., Manager, Utility Systems Division Randall L. Parsons, P.E., Supervisor, Storm/Wastewater Utility David M. Christensen, Wastewater Utility Engineer 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2580 Referred to Utilities Committee Council meeting of 11/26/90 Copies: Dick Anderson Mike Benoit Mayor, Council & Administration City of Renton 200 Mill Street South Renton, WA 98055 Dear City of Renton: NEIGHBORS For MAY VALLEY 9605 143rd Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 November 19, 1990 We appreciate the interest that the City Valley. However we learn with some trepi considering a sewer interceptor feasibild understand that this proposed sewer inter Washington to 148th Avenue SE. There are several reasons that the majori area do not want sewers, namely: 1. Most have perfectly acceptable, op(: 2. Installation cost for home owners c Many of the area residents live in low cc limited incomes. In addition there would taxes to pay the considerable constructic 3. Sewers would increase development p Valley basin a large part of which is a r. sensitive area. In part, the valle itse very reason. A� 4. The Newcastle Community Plan, of w devoted considerable time and energy to d boundary adjustments and other amendments areas are not anticipated during the life Plan. (paragraph 1, page 85) 5. On December 18, 1989 City Council nature of May Valley. It unanimously pas some kind of interlocal planning process administration to come back with a recomm of... May Valley as a scenic and recreat 6. Erosion and deterioration of May C level. This is primarily due to sewer en "Highlands" and Lake Boren vicinity. Fig of the crisis and does not yet reflect th Basin development. Further, residents of increased flooding from recent developmen CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COPIES TO: ILI AIRPORT BUILDING DIVISION CITY ATTORNEY CITY COUNCIL COMM U�RIN V.�IRE TOR, ENGIN IV``//''I((�-SI N FINANCE DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT/PREVENTION HEARING EXAMINER HOUSING & HUMAN RESOURCES MAYOR PARK DEPARTMENT _ PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIVISION POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION INSURANCE CARRIER NEWSPAPER CODIFIER PARTIES OF RECORD 7. In light of the above 6 observations, it would appear that to perform a study of anything as impacting as a sewer line in the context of anything less than a full basin study (which falls under King County juris action) wou e inadequate, if not irresponsible. City of Renton November 19, 1990 Page 2 8. Renton already has a community planning budget shortage and has recently lost four experienced key planners. Therefore, it would appear that Renton does not have the capacity to adequately address all probable significant adverse impacts that a sewer interceptor would bring; especially, the obvious pressures that would be brought to bear by real estate developers. We feel that the City of Renton should prudently budget its limited resources both human and cash. The City should focus on the challenges within its current city limits before attempting to address complicated issues beyond. We feel that the citizens and tax payers of Renton would be better served if the $100,000 proposed for the May Creek sewer interceptor study was spent on immediate needs downtown. Thank you for your understanding and consideration. Sincerely, Neighbors for May Valley Figure 7a DREDGING (OR SILTATION MILLS AT MOUTH OF 30 20 w RATE) BY BARBEE MAY CREEK 1950 1960 1 9 / U Time (years) Atj 'y�•�! rN�1:`:i � al-. i'v �If.��r ;��(. •+TIC. :.I .. tr.•. ...: :!. �. .M'!�!•� Y;`� �� • ',• .tr: i�•. �: >i �•1�w�•► ♦(. !• e. 1 •., 'r .>S' !l . tiT+ �.. �• •. �.y, � y,•,��,r..:. ,,}.. . �. ,_'i ' � f !• .�. yt � •arm► ; r ..w.••_, w '.r ,. ' •♦ 4r. � . •, A. i . • ,� • . i 1, t 1. •'. ♦•'••��'j�' ••7ry ,� •tam .. - N.. '•fi•"•.�y ... it i,• 'I';�,.f i t. :�r �'. ''•%..o . ,•.,•fir. �. .�,• •��Ai� i�. r + ��..� : .. .t .'f'•I �•. •�-:q •,r�.�t .. .Jt' ••1.. I�•f" y��'�/''��'•�di.l•:..��.r�� `'• ew ': +. �' �•j�+I u• .-•,1, :��_ i•n •�is�l.� .,,•� .. •. �� /'�' �, (� i� .�'�(. • �•�%,1k For �. .•Z• : • i �;;� . I� � ...:.�' •... �r fib. �.. r... 4 i' ! 1\ •r •�� .•;,�:'` .jar,• ..• ..f,. L; •, _. 1 ' 1 � \ �. y KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 7415 129th Avenue S.E., Renton, Washington 98056 • (206) 235.9200 D RC�y�(0 OF Ong Dept. Ergj�'eev Mr. Richard Anderson, P.E. Utility System Manager City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue, South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Dick, ROZ,I's©A I.-L, .aysr' C, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John R. Janson President Elmer F. Foster Secretary Victor J. Carpine Member MANAGER Thomas Peadon April 2, 1991 91-4-84WS The District received your March 18th, 1991, letter regarding the May Valley Sewer Trunk Line. District No. 107 has extensive studies, proposed plans, and other ancillary information prepared in the mid 1970's. The project was abandoned for many reasons; consequently, the line was never installed. However, the District supported such a project then and is very much interested in seeing it built now. As a result of new interest by Renton, the District is now preparing a support letter to Metro for renewing this sewer system project. We will be sending a copy of our letter to you as soon as it is ready. Feel free to call me to review the file or discuss details. Sincerely, Thomas F. Peadon, District Manager g TFP/blh r II 9R Earl Clymer, Mayor November 27, 1990 Neighbors for May Valley 9605 143rd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 CITY OF RENTON Re: Sewer Inteceptor Feasibility Study for May Creek Dear Neighbors: Finance Department �f1i.10/3L.L : �L.6A3 e T2 -M TI+G (�h l Cn w.ppr.� o iv TFl IS L e T- is 4 12i'SPoiv f.r'� PICK Your letter to the Mayor and Council regarding the referenced subject was entered into the record at the Renton City Council meeting of November 26, 1990, and referred to the Council's Utilities Committee for review. For information regarding the date and time this matter will be discussed by the Utilities Committee, please contact the Council secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. Sincerely, Marilyn sen, CMC City Clerk 235-2502 cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Council President Nancy Mathews Dick Anderson, Utility Systems Management Mike Benoit, Senior Engineering Specialist 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 1992 TO: Jack Crumley Jim Hanson Kay Shoudy Mel Wilson FROM: Gregg Zimmerman c' '- STAFF CONTACT: David M. Christensen SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE MAY VALLEY/HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PROJECT Attached for your review is the Wastewater Utility Section's project proposal for the installation of sanitary sewer interceptors to serve the Honey Creek Subbasin area. Please submit all comments to me by July 2, 1992. If you have any questions or wish to designate staff for the design team, please contact Dave Christensen at X-621 2. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. C:DOCS:92-450:DMC:ps Attachment CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 1992 TO: Jack Crumley Jim Hanson Kay Shoudy Mel Wilson FROM: Gregg Zimmerman STAFF CONTACT: David M. Christensen CONCURRENCE DATE _S�[__'Z NAME T�, ',it / D E z SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE MAY VALLEY/HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PROJECT Attached for your review is the Wastewater Utility Section's project proposal for the installation of sanitary sewer interceptors to serve the Honey Creek Subbasin area. Please submit all comments to me by July 2, 1992. If you have any questions or wish to designate staff for the design team, please contact Dave Christensen at X-6212. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. C:DOCS:92-450:DMC:ps Attachment MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR NE 27TH STREET (DEVIL'S ELBOW) TO JONES AVENUE NE AND NE 40TH STREET DRAFT PROJECT PROPOSAL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Prepared by: Utility Systems Division Gregg Zimmerman, Director David Christensen, Project Manager June, 1992 MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR 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 installing the last segment of the Honey Creek Interceptor and the second segment of the May Valley Interceptor. See attached vicinity and location maps. I. 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 increased development within this subbasin the interim flow capacity made available by the installation of Phases 1 -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. The largest unknown to the City was the timing of extension of the May Valley Interceptor to a point where the Honey Creek Interceptor could connect to it. This issue was resolved with the passage of a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Renton and Metro that committed Metro to the construction of this portion of the May Valley Interceptor in a timely manner concurrent with that of the Honey Creek Interceptor. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Existing Conditions: The currently proposed 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. The alignment proposed for the May Valley Interceptor 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 Draft Project Proposal May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 2 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. B. Scope of Work: This. project consists of two projects that are being completed jointly by the City of Renton and Metro. The City.portion of work (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. Metro's portion of the work (May Valley Interceptor) consists of installation of 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 combination of these two projects will provide reliable gravity sewer service to the City's Honey Creek Subbasin. C. Preliminary Design Steps: The steps that will be included within the preliminary design phase are: 1) Establish all potential impact issues of the project; 2) Determine appropriate methodology for environmental process (combined or separate SEPA documents), etc.; 3) Research and develop Park Department participation in the project; 4) Analysis of alternative alignments for providing sewer service needs 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; and Draft Project Proposal May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 3 9) Combine all data in the form of a report to be used as a guide in environmental review and final design. 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. 4) Perform geotechnical investigation of alternative routes. E. Right -of -Way: Easement needs and assistance to City Parks Department for trail property acquisition and/or easements will be addressed. F. Environmental Documents: An environmental checklist will be prepared for this project. G. Permits: A preliminary list of potential permits that will be required include: TYPE AGENCY/PARTY 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 Draft Project Proposal May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 4 H. Preliminary Cost Estimate: Honey Creek Interceptor - 1.2 Million May Valley Interceptor - 1.7 Million I. Funding Source: Honey Creek Interceptor - Wastewater CIP (421) May Valley Interceptor - Metro CIP J. Project Schedule: Consultant Selection July, 1992 September, 1992 Pre -Design September, 1992 April, 1993 SEPA April, 1993 October, 1993 Final Design June, 1993 June, 1994 Permitting August, 1993 August, 1994 Bidding September, 1994 December, 1994 Notice to Proceed January, 1995 Construction January, 1995 January, 1996 III. 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 Project Proposal May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 5 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. 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 team members. Draft Project Proposal May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 6 MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT PROJECT: MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR The following signatures indicate concurrence with the project scope, schedule, and budget as outlined in this project proposal. Project Manager Date -,A t4_40-14f, :�� w"A�e� C - m Utillty SysffQjwion 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:92-434:DMC:ps Draft Project Proposal May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 7 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 1992 TO: Jack Crumley Jim Hanson Kay Shoudy Mel Wilson FROM: Gregg Zimmerman G 2- STAFF CONTACT: David M. Christensen SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE MAY VALLEY/HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PROJECT Attached for your review is the Wastewater Utility Section's project proposal for the installation of sanitary sewer interceptors to serve the Honey Creek Subbasin area. Please submit all comments to me by July 2, 1992. If you have any questions or wish to designate staff for the design team, please contact Dave Christensen at X-6212. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal, C:D0CS:92-450:D1V1C:ps Attachment � D cctj]0" MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR NE 27TH STREET (DEVIL'S ELBOW) TO JONES AVENUE NE AND NE 40TH STREET DRAFT PROJECT PROPOSAL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Prepared by: Utility Systems Division Gregg Zimmerman, Director David Christensen, Project Manager June, 1992 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. 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 team members. Draft Project Proposal May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 6 MANAGEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT PROJECT: MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR The following signatures indicate concurrence with the project scope, schedule, and budget as outlined in this project proposal. Project Manager Date Utility Systof Divisi Manager Date cansp ation Systems Division Manager Date Maint ance Services Divisi Ma g Date Planning and Technical Services Manager Date Development Services Division Manager Date Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Date C:DOCS:92-434:DMC:ps Draft Project Proposal May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptors Page 7 DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM June 18, 1992. Jay Covington Alan Wallis A. Lee Wheeler John Webley Dan Clements Lynn Guttmanr�lli David M. Chris t: CITY OF RENTON Engineering Dept, PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE MAY VALLEY/HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PROJECT Attached for your review is the Wastewater Utility Section's project proposal for the installation of sanitary sewer interceptors to serve the Honey Creek Subbasin area. This draft proposal is being reviewed concurrently by Planning/Building/Public Works Department Section Managers and staff for their input. Please submit all comments to Dave Christensen by July 2, 1992. If you have any questions or wish to designate staff for the design team, please contact Dave at X-6212. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. D:92-449:LAG:DMC:ps Attachment Z41 MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR NE 27TH STREET (DEVIL'S ELBOW) TO JONES AVENUE NE AND NE 40TH STREET DRAFT PROJECT PROPOSAL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Prepared by: Utility Systems Division Gregg Zimmerman, Director David Christensen, Project Manager June, 1992 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 1992 TO: Alan Wallis A. Lee Wheeler John Webley Dan Clements ��y (`OBI iv1G-�r FROM: Lynn Guttmann STAFF CONTACT: David M. Christensen CONCURRENCE r DATE NAME, INITIAL/D TE GEC Sul -�� P� � �- �r►►'►"��"d SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE MAY VALLEY/HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PROJECT Attached for your review is the Wastewater Utility Section's project proposal for the installation of sanitary sewer interceptors to serve the Honey Creek Subbasin area. This draft proposal is being reviewed concurrently by Planning/Building/Public Works Department Section Managers and staff for their input. Please submit all comments to ;Re by Jul\yM2, 1992. 5-�i+-Vic..-- If you have any questions or wish to designate staff for the design team, please contact Dave4go"swrat X-6212. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. D:92-449:LAG:DMC:ps Attachment CITY OF RENTON .�_.,. MEMORAN®UM ,Ug 8"EOF % Dep' June 18, 1992 g�neeri Jack Crumley Jim Hanson Kay Shoudy Mel Wilson FROM- Gregg Zimmerman G Z STAFF CONTACT: David M. Christensen SUBJECT: PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE MAY VALLEYMONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PROJECT Attached for your review is the Wastewater Utility Section's project proposal for the installation of sanitary sewer interceptors to serve the Honey Creek Subbasin area. Please submit all comments to me by July 2, 1992. If you have any questions or wish to designate staff for the design team, please contact Dave Christensen at X-6212. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. C:DOCS:92-450:DMC:ps Attachment met MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR HONEY CREEK INTERCEPTOR NE 27TH STREET (DEVIL'S ELBOW) TO JONES AVENUE NE AND NE 40TH STREET DRAFT PROJECT PROPOSAL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Prepared by: Utility Systems Division Gregg Zimmerman, Director David Christensen, Project Manager June, 1992 CITY OF RENTON PARKS AND RECREATION MEMORANDUM TO: David M. Christensen t � I FROM: Sam Chastain J IJ L .' 1992 DATE: July 1, 1992 CITY OF RENTO�\ , ,Pr SUBJECT: Proposal for the May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptor Project I have attached the Park Staff's comments for your consideration. The project as presented is acceptable to our department. When you enter the design phase of this project, the Parks Department would like to have a staff person be on the design team. Thanks for allowing our department to review this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at 235-2568. Attachments C: Leslie Betlach Randy Berg City of Renton Parks and Recreation Memorandum TO: Sam /I FROM: Lesli� SUBJECT: Project Proposals for the May Valley/Honey Creek Interceptor Project DATE: June 29, 1992 Both of these projects are necessary, however the potential to damage the environment in this area is great. I agree with the proposed routing of the new Honey Creek Interceptor along the existing Honey Creek Trail on the east side of the creek. Routing the May Creek line along Gensing Avenue means crossing May Creek several times. This has the potential to destroy salmon habitat, in addition to potential future problems with breakages and spills into the creek. The Renton School District, under the direction of Ms. Susanna Eplar, release salmon fry into Honey Creek at Devil's Elbow with the hope of re-establishing the salmon that once filled both creeks. It also appears the proposed Sierra Heights Interceptor will tie into the Honey Creek Interceptor. MEMORANDUM TO: Sam FROM: Randy RE: Review of May Creek/Honey Creek Sewer Interceptor Projects DATE: June 23, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------- These two projects have a potential to do allot of harm if not handled well. Laying underground utilities in these sensitive areas will hopefully not do too much damage. The project does offer a great opportunity to expand our trail system. Leslie should probably work with the design team. Alli to -a AP t M,;, GIFT IDEAS make shopping easier. A9 I Hyl I CVt,I I III Kingbowl defeat. 131 WRESTLERS from Tahoma, Enumclaw ready for action. 134 SEAHAWKS win again on last play. 131. NW$oyDail 1 MONDAYews Serving South King County since 188y Se,wer.- MIN divides suburb Area jobs forecast: Cool i ni By ERIC LUCAS Valley Daily News The first cracks are appearing in the South King County jobs jugger- naut. The area's long -booming employ- ment market is slowing. Several observers have detected signs of decline, such as a marked upswing in unemployment claims and By TINA HILDING employer pessimism about the first Valley Daily News quarter of next year. RENTON - It's a small item in the city's proposed 1991 budget, but mention sewer study and Everett Wilcock is ready to raise a stink. For $10,000, says Wilcock, a member of the Friends of May Val- ley, the city will study a proposed May Valley sewer interceptor that on one hand might solve a small sep- tic leakage problem, but on the other could create bigger headaches. "Instead of several minor septic problems, we will have a major drainage and flooding problem, not to mention the traffic problem," he said. Like Wilcock, some residents of May Valley and the East Renton pla- teau see sewers as a dreaded and expensive symbol that will end a way of life and will portend devel- opment, floods and traffic. it But, to mention the East Renton plateau's septic systems around Renton City Hall brings a strong . reaction about pollution problems created by leaking septic systems in urban areas. "In an urban area with a couple million people, I don't want a mil- lion little sewage systems percolat- ing a few feet beneath the ground," says Jay Covington, Mayor Earl Clymer's executive assistant. "It's ridiculous." Covington says the earth can't fil- ter sewage from homes every 7,000 square feet, the size of some lots with septic systems. "They're liv- ing in a city," he says. Stuck somewhere in the middle of the debate are residents like Virginia Bitz and Jeannie Scott. Bitz, Scott and their neighbors in the Sierra Heights neighborhood annexed to the city three years ago with the hope of getting sewers after years of taking clothes to a laundry and using care with showers and toilets. The residents are still waiting for a solu- tion to their problems, although at least Scott says she's not sure that expensive sewers are the answer. And so the debate rages on several fronts. Friends of May Valley recently wrote a letter to the city expressing its concern with the proposed sewer trunk line. Meanwhile, another battle will be fought Monday night with the pro- posed Honey Creek Ridge annex- ation, which the city says, with a subsequent development of the property, will help lower the costs. for providing sewers to Sierra Heights: Wilcock says the May Valley is a flood basin that has reached its drainage capacity. A sewer line in the area means dev6lopers could See SEWER, A5 "We've definitely seen an building activity, for example. The increase (in claims) over the past ' few farm workers in the area find three weeks," reports Jerry Clark, employment at a low ebb from manager of the Auburn Job Service Thanksgiving to Easter. Center. But a local job outlook survey "But it's not out of line with this seems to suggest that more than a time of year in other years. I don't seasonal slowdown is at hand. Man - know if it's a recession, or just ordi- power, the temporary help firm, nary seasonal slowdown." polls local employers four times a The latter is caused by the weath- year for their hiring plans in the next er, mostly. Construction workers quarter, and the most recent survey lose jobs when rain and cold curb turned up gloomy results. Nosing around for a bargain 1t� k , x w� 3 I Valley Daily News photo by DUANE HAMAMURA Dave Swetalla of Enumclaw looks over a horse held by Pam Watterson at WTBA sale. Another buyer. eventually paid $4,800 for the bay filly, by Sharper One out of Stormy Session. ■ 'Horse andtrack all sign,ingondotted By IRENE SVETE cy, lease track and racing maintenance equipment Valley Daily News from the former owners, and be licensed to run the RENTON - Horse buyers and sellers weren't the track by the Washington Horse Racing Association. only ones signing on the dotted line at Longacres last Emerald president Jack McCann said all that weekend. remains is to fine-tune the season dates. The Emerald Racing Association, a non-profit The signing announcement, coupled with surpris- organization of area Thoroughbred interests, formal- ingly strong sales at the WTBA's annual Winter ly signed their lease with the Boeing Co. Saturday. Mixed Sale last weekend, signaled a reprieve from Boeing, which purchased the facility from the ' the uncertainty that has rocked the industry for the Alhadeff family Sept. 27, earlier agreed to allow the past two months. racing group to operate the Longacres Race Track "The industry has been watching carefully and I next year if they fulfilled four conditions. think the announcement helped," McCann said. The group was required to raise $2.5 million in, start-up money, secure a $100 million liability poli-See HORSES, A5 Of the South King Coul employers contacted by Manpow 17 percent plan to cut back empl, ment in the first quarter of 19, while only 10 percent intend to , staff. The remaining 73 pert foresee no change. "We're already seeing this slow down," says Claire Camill, Manpower in Federal Way. "I'd say we're only sending 75 percent of our temporaries on Sadda chancy at`fift. . el . By LAURA KING Associated Press , Saddami Hussein's armies ratth ,, nerves around the. Persian Gulf Sw day with the`first;test of surface-t1 5, surface "missiles • since Ahe' invask t0i!!of Kuwait, and bags presidenti4 "Use chances of war are "50-50. ` In Washington, Secretary of Stt James A. Baker III said the Unit -States would not attack Iraq - pr vided Iraqi troops are withdrav from Kuwait and foreign hostag are freed." ' Iraq, which has been sporadical releasing captives, let more go I Sunday. Fifteen freed America flew out of Iraq to Amman, Jorda with former world heavyweig champion Muhammad Ali, wl secured their release in talks wi Saddam. A spokesman for the boxer said I planned to return to Baghdad c Christmas Eve to try to bring o more of the hundreds of remainil captives, who were stranded wh1 Iraq invaded small, oil -rich Kuw: on Aug. 2. Also in Amman, Jordanian Fo eign Minister Marwan Kassem to Kuwaiti leaders that Jordan favo the total withdrawal of Iraqi trool from the emirate, according Kuwaiti reports and a senior Jord; Wean official who spoke on conditic of anonymity. A statement signed by forms Kuwaiti Parliamentarian Ahmad A Rabee said the meeting "was a stc toward improving relations between the two nations. King Hussein has criticized Iraq invasion of Kuwait, but has failed I strongly condemn it like most corn 4tries. There was also speculatic some supplies were shipped throug Jordan to Iraq in violation of th U.N.-backed trade embargo. The Kuwaiti delegation, whit includes lawmakers, journalists an, writers, was scheduled to meet Kini Hussein and other state officials. Iraq, meanwhile, told the Sovie Union that it could lose its influence in the Arab world if it sent troops tt ml—nGv. lAftersix months ti L rt F.; � into orbit with two cosmonauts and a •I!"�` � 6' �,;, �- f � t , P�' ?, ( f' s? - +y+ . 'fw, '� + � , `'Japanese:television journalist who + I e t:�, +, e . s r , ;:• Fa � t vo>; � � ,.. K'I �'' tr, K 5: i �' •i, 1 f F Q ,l4 r twill join two other men at space sta r _, , •� 4 s lion Mir.". �' . , -'° .. .. �� ;.,�'F �� 1 �:I*,'� ! I• Twelve people consequently are a•-�,. � �� , � • sxb d now in 'space, the most at one time, �q g and' the Americans are hoping to ' "�•s",: r `, ;communicate with their Soviet and ✓ '�rq�,�it�ba'8 d ra .' *S'e-� Y 'i `Japanese counterparts by ham radio �ww k duaing the mission., „ Scientists who have been working ,`.3� for yearson'the` Astro project said_ _ whey' could hardly'believe it:when Columbia finally took off. d : We were so used to not getting it ' Y; _ . {• a. P y g the Idea that :it s 'actuall been t + a launched and it's u there orbiting e' rth i amazing," said Arthur x;th Ea s am g i 4 .r tea avidsen of Johns Hopkins Univer fi sity, principal investigator for one of "Z µthe telescopes. ... ., i:; :}' • t r .., working minor problems ry r fRt ,; and we're delighted to be working" w3f• , } , �,%I them after I 1 years, believe me,". Valley Daily News photo by DUANE HAMAMURA ,. said mission scientist Ted Gull. a yearling colt that sold for $11,500 Saturday:! The first difficulty involved the instrument pointing system for the band Steve load their horse trail- "' Commercial Run, ayearling filly,' . three'�ultraviolet telescopesc i•The was the sales topper at $22,000.'The system's star trackers failed to work Despite concern by sellers, final highest -priced horse of racing age, � properly in a stowed position; but r q • •' �` ' u ults for the two-day sale showed 3-year-old Sharp Special owned by A appeared to operate well after being ..f 3 horses sold, grossing $1.05 mil- Karjory Bennett of Renton, went for •Ielevated in the cargo bay, said mis- n, an increase of 15 percent over . $7,700: �' sion manager Jack Jones. 89 Vacca'said the increase in the '''*Later in the day, one of the three "I think there was some real number of yearlings available was,,'.', trackers had trouble detecting dim ' xr �" • ` ad potential," said horse owner not linked' to the Longacres sale.'jstars.and_ was being readjusted to use,,,-. ike McCann of Kent. "I was sur- The_horses'were listed for auction .;:.,' ghteryobJects for. calibration:pur_• '_ ised that it was pretty much a nor- more than a month before the track"" �- ` it sale. I think this says business as sale was announced. The pointing system was used ual." As usual, about one-third of the (only once before, for solar observa- l:tions in 1985. Numerous problems The number of yearlings sold rose , horses sold. are taken out of state, r, P � ,„�, �� . �'� ,� < �;<<; "• <, )in183 last year to 268 this year. Vacca said: "We really are prettyyi ;were encountered during that mis= Valley Daily News photo by MARCUS DONNER :)wever, the average price per much of an exporter," he said.'" =;sion, known as Spacelab-2. Jeannie Scott pulls leaves from a storm drain near her Sierra Heights home. ;arling ran $3,011, down 5 percent 'r'' Not all members of the industry ±f,>' ``"I ' had.,visions of Spacelab-2 • om the 1989 winter sale.' were upbeat last weekend. `+-' '' :,;:dancing in my head, astronaut-as- P, dancintronoi Robert' Parker, on,aold Mis- ■ Clymer said since he was elected In spite of the price drop, the :<`The good ones are selling; but . ! ;,:,,' i.. SE WER■ Some , mayor in 1988, he has seen a change -eeders associations general man- not for the prices people want, ' said:;,rf sion Control. ;r'try + t. ;er Ralph Vacca called the 'sale a L'r'' in the Cedar River: Nowadays, he P Ruel Johnson of Blue Heron Farm. tr; There were some telescope prob s say growth issue ` ;.says, ;he frequently sees detergent tremendous show of support and lams' later, most'iof which .were " ;floating: down the river PP Johnson, said the threat of races "resolved ; uickl and a 'coin uter , t: decided.. n ago,:-. r, „ ; rength in our industry:" i� q Yn P g Given the number of horses :.sion and a possible war in the Midterminal in; the' flight tdeck;! wass;i''i ,, s£r;"t 1 "'''''�` '.,,at ' '' ,f, , .�' "M Its, coming out of,the septicsys; die East have also thrown a damper Continued from page.A1_', F', 1, i 'a�tems not the'sewer;':'+he says' "'' Ffered and the recent upheaval at P ,turned+}off:;after Columbia',com-V"`"'isle Councilwoman Nanc .Mathews on acres, he said he would not on the Thoroughbred market.:,. ; murder Vance smelled some `,° yr' z�� "t''"" `' "i,'hook to tortFarees'tha`tt,urbane areas, eed sewers ave been'sgrprised to see yearling Mike Radovich of Lakeview;; thing .burning.'rThe•-computerais "ge �he'larae'sewerrandd i�elo %tar e;to'ku' rt�urbanaevels'of develo - rices off by 10 to 15 percent. Ranch in. Lake Stevens said .they .' believed to have overheated ',; Y t g,t•3�er7:l� r rrz+ .rs� 4 ;icpt «} �g� xjlt' I?1� P "We're: absolutely,.: completely were still getting calls Sunday from .,-'ScientistsstilChopedtomaketheir' :pr i city;Ihe:says, has no zoning, fr`ersnto-prevent hthe growththe are not .,static with yesterday's results;" trainers in Eastern Washington con- first scientific observation: by early..,policies consistedt, with terrain such : ;succeeding; she says. 'acca said Sunday. ,ti y'; ,: , s„ : cerned about Longacres' fate =Monday ! as the May Valley and consequently 'r't t i' `I''think i,f 'they :were:; to'. look . - ; rar' Ji, �'a't rr( :t i I'.,° they"would'allow'density'greaterr.,,around them, they would see Bevel „:l 1 n't be and'` SnohomishMounties '.;::than the area can handle k.,sw,,opmdnt; r�she says. •!,What:I,mtsee-'?r r in -September. Clark' wou d King J®SS■;+VYorkers s surprised to see.it rise, maybe; to 4 Company'officials:announced plans ";'.,- ther de"veiopments piai:ned for .ingas'sit's'not'curbing growth It s ad Jt` '.� }, percent b Christmas: ' +: (lasts ring to trim that nunibersby c;that. area will increase flood poten- ;;!,,Justidt developing on�septicitanks,�* Mill in short su I r ".-„P g Y c Po g Y y, g `• pp y Pu et Sound Bank economist., 5 60o positions Burin the ear P �r Ual in -that he sa s.' ' that frightens me::• y t' David Hutchinson, .vice resident ;i'' ; r"y^'r`>:rWe re losing it bit'by.bit; says ; • + If urban`idevelopment s'allowedZ;?� or•:serviee- e-jobs p. Boeing won't make it.''Employ ; 'Wilcockj' `In a few years, -it will be.. in an area, she says; a sewer system `y fF' for planning, says he'is calling for a menu bottomed 'out just' below ,: ,, ;. t" }" recession,,even in the, Pu et Sound` `" , 7 a huge drainage problem ,...rt ought;'°to be„ provided before" the ;ontinued from page Al; g ti a a0a OORi I ht now theacom an k has s{`i '+''Right`: now; he. says,. -iiMay. Valley" ;development is built: area'_' sort Of. ' to "'' `' about104,8%workers onplie pay �� and hawks ;and ishome f a nor i a han ducks,-,'.-`.' ``, t,; the densities, let's ou're really look taewh ti he provides a vorkers. '''' It'll- be short 'and mild, and "Workers are still in short supply much less noticeable here than else- roll a,.,. ,:.,j�: ,- r n I�;,: pace: a�+��".�`" Y,r '' a - ' ``"'g*'i plan `says," she'says.`".If they're or service positions, a fact probably where yin the country, Hutchinson ; i , ; llped by the opening `of several said. But I sense people are tight That s hat will cushion hetarea ,� ;Those who support; the sewers;`N .jurban, . if that's what the people in „ . r from F-the�national, recession, esay howaver;'saythe issue:of the area! a.,6 iKing'County,have said is appropri arge'retail stores in South King•', ening their belts. `.• The' onl c Hutclinson{and Clark`i � ;;_;'} j,' , 'growth was decided a'longtime ago: ? ate,'Cwe have to, provide; the servic- ,ounty, Clark says: Nevertheless he ; • Clark senses :that, too. y �r 1 ,.. ,1;.,.. ,.§ „ „ ;xpects the state jobless rate,' when . counterpoint is what's going on of ":Our �uneinpl6yment 4ate ,'may;,, ; � .•If they`want to keep .rural;''don't , t s reported next week for October, ;,the 'area's t economic behemoth,. ; xise, but ;it•rwill still';be below what'; sell your land,''"rsays-Clymersr"If Wilcock 'however, says -that put- o' 'show arise from the remarkable r Boeing. ' ; f..' "' we had Justttwo.-years' ago,'''Clark`;'I you want,farmland, that's great: But „ ting in; sewer lines is an expensive ows �it reached September. ' ` "' :, The aviation giant started the year forecasts k� <`.Compared' to 'what's '. the :' county`has."already -decided solution to .minor, leaking in some ',:' In King County, for example, the .. with 106,700 employees' in : Wash- J.t happening in other parts of the coun-.T they going''to give a permit anyi- , .;;septic systems unemployment rate was 3.2 percent '. ••ington state,'.�irtually..,all ofahose in j try; that s not:bad ra y t'�° r + ?' . '! ,tir�te someone: wants it t4• ::' Septic•systems, if they're proper- , r• j :„ ;, „�a`� afi ra . • ly used and maintained,' are efficient and cost effective, he .says: Sewers, JIM?r on the other. hand ;'are,expensive, • � � - 3:and often development , is • encour- •, aged to pay for them, he says., tIt, r, ryr`s,u s -like your bicycle doesn't ; -New.Truckload of t i g ,�� zit :' i v work because you've got a flat front Major Appliances ' ;' 4r _ :� .tire, so; you're going to buy' a car ' • yt <.• "`�,' r" , > .instead," .he says. "What we're ' bein asked to do is buy a car when at Special Prices ' " Price g ` r 9 ;' KitehlanAid 700 and, and any KitchenAid dryer'�� r '`�� fit'` S ,:G ;.we could et b very well with a t. Means Savin s to r f, �,� h Good' g Y y ,+ You.-.. 11 Q ram{ �' ' '�.i'T rU ` ;bicycle if we kept it in repair.'?. a'Must Sell f1, r 17 COY, _.' �� or;� .t ;�,a ;.,.'Mathews, however, says when an y y ' Before Christmas! {Mc ' �� fi'' •r. Model '8aturda ;.area of Skyway got sewer service, a • s, 'i.:.. 1'" •, .!r ...• #HDA489 T ,., Whirl Ool L C` {state grant helped pay for it 1:7 13.4 Cubic Foot „a i FACTORY BONUS 1tr, p eCember,' t f ` u , ® Washer Quality Features�l,,;l°t. d19.9 Cubic Foot h• r -i' Food banks HotpointlRefri orator T'' ' • Quiet Operation .a g ?'' ;'' :•1 r` • Three wash and spin speeds c ,' } y, ,.y;rr;. ,< ,,South King County food banks ' Large 3.9 cubic -foot freezer! • T-Dura• porcelain Inner wash basket,,. ,Refrigerator ;offer free food for those in need.:,! Dryer Quality Features i�• Adjustable button mount gallon, Food and money donations—. I Renton Food Bank, •.Large capacity drum with Powder.Kote•, +r door storage bins accepted. chip resistant finish .• Adjustable tempered glass shelves Third and Morris, phone 235-6445; i�' • Cushioned Heat drying minimizes over- • Two freezer shelves tE,. Kenn Food Bank, 525 N. Fourth „ • drying ti f' .'- • Vegetable crispers w1hurnictity 71AAve., at Kent Commons, phone : ri °I t:.,t�: ;•„I' controls Bank, i. • �1t,ii JV-'' No finger print textured steel doors'. 859-3438' Auburn Food J; •,. , �'' .,.a.. .+. ,tt' 1 Bth and I St. N E ,: phone • No frost fresh food section=-i`•' ,�}I :, 833-8925. ' Cycle defrost freezer `' Y'YDURS°'TODAY►' — • Energy -saver switch i Zero Down on Your Good Credit: Model #CTA13C Capacity 2-Cycle Washer i ,e• t-. 1. Y 'Model ; #W W A58000 ,et for regular loads. Mini -Basket all loads. Permanent press cycle. vels. 3 washirinse temperature ! ns. FACTORY BONUS Quality. Features • Thru-the-door Ice and water t , i'' 1 ' } . e1r. ' dispenser • Temperatur"ontrolle( a+ Winter Chill • Meat Locker j :T`• Adjustable Crystal Frost ^ f}! glass shelves Slde by -aide models KSRF26DT,KSRS25OW B KSRT26DT r = �1 f Hotpoint 30'' mnge)I t ' . .z;, ppt� r EASY' reap it, r TO CLEAN ;,,'! "g., ,-, _ OVEN`', Model_#RB524J _.. rbbtp■t . Modeler ME5780XS DU' . Whirlpool WASHER • Two Speeds • Gentle Wash • 5 Cycles ' • 3 Water Temperatures • 3 Water Levels #LA5558XS,.}y,r'e.i? Whir 1pool.DRYER.') `. • Large apacity • 3 Drying Cycles e 3 Temperatures • Auto Dry -Miser® Control #LE576 X � .' ff� COUPON � 11111111 11111, ,,Now,' 2° Great Offers,1 :I1. 1 1 /2 PRICE DRINKS 1 AD" ' j {A 1 f.::GREAT MUS C IDuring'D.J• Monday 1 Now every Monday Hite 1 use this coupon for 4 1 hours' of 1/i Price Well ■ Drinks,':Beer and Wine. ■ �� ST 1�7 SE 88th ST�!� A L � o SE 89th g9th Sj a �TF SFBgt SE 90th h p� N i NE rd S SE 91st ST � ITF g2nd NE 31st ST _ I o �PPROXIAMTE . . . . . . . . . . . . { LO(;ri owM � � � HONEYCREEK N� � MAY CREEK J/ INTERCEPTOWYPHASE I NE 2 th T LENSING A SCALE 1 IN = 400 FT T-- ?At-o I QI 2213 ql�j In st ST c c T Ste/ SF ,. V SCALE 1 = 400 1936 N SE 88th _ ST � --- o BS:E— — 89th SA SF a 8g � S=90th fh p� I CN I L IV - NE rd I S SE 91 st ST NE 31st ST I o � PPROXIAMTE LOCATION � — — UIOM /�' OF HONEYCREEK lE - , �, 'lON M n;v CREEK "=-� INTERCEPTOR PHASEN*MR TOR I SE 95th E 2 th T �TTfTT nirl � SCALE 1 IN = 400 FT LL 2 � -]NE gjl24t� fLIT - -- 1 44 HONEv CREEK ST lad 0 N 16 TT— ca- ST:jjL__j 2213 CA-1 (,�1'� pp Va �fp0 p ry 11pp ��pp pp O N ttl Q of 10 m T N N N N N N N N N �N 1Y1 (f1 m m a R Q Q C� Q Q Q Q P N a ry y m r .- N 111 Q N 10 I� m Q N N N N N N N IV N N fA MI m m m i- m m m Q Q Q Q V v Q a Q O 1(1 Uf Ul N I(1 N N N N t0 INO N b t0 i0 ta0 n'. n n h f- •• N m Q 111 10 P l0 A .. .. � �_^, N 1f1 Ifl N N Yl N 110 f0 IV 16 23 2' � 11 ,1� y� q1 �I '� a 1s 22 1 Survey 2 Mobiliiation e 3 Excava e 9, Sacra Bore Pit 3 �-�---- 4 Bore 5 Excavate Set 4H-6C m + 4_ 4_ -I- -E- + � Set "H-6B 6 Excavate t Excavate Lay HH6B-69'- a 4 8 Posh Pipe Through Casing Grout H - 9 � Test Pipe 1 Set MH-Sid & Tie to Existing � + + + + 4_ + a- + + h1 Complete All New Line's - 12 Clean Existing 42' Pipe 1 1Grout Existing 4.� ' Pipe 1 Cleanup & Restore --- � S1_irve-4 1 Mobilization L Excavate 2, Shore Bore Pit 3 Sore 4 Excavate !� Set H--6L 5. Excavate 8r. Set !M!H-6S 6 Excavate Lay I'''IH sB-6L 7 Push Pipe Through Casing & Grout 8 Test Pipe 9 =met MH-6A , Tie to Existingi 10 Complete All New Lines' 11 Clean Existing 42' Oipe 12 Grout Existing 4Z t Pipe 13 Cleanup & Restore 14 !°y f 9 m C J N m r 4 h G C t d r c� v _ e m[ ti.. R �_ N m _ 9' !+ co 01 fJ m �c a r p v c v ir ru u cr