HomeMy WebLinkAboutmem_thunderhills_cost_Memo 10_20160315
CITY OF RENTON
Technical Memorandum No. 10
Cost Study
Thunder Hills Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Alternative
Analysis
March 15, 2016
Prepared By:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
11130 NE 33rd Place
Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98004
425.869.9448
as v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160315.docx
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1
2.0 COST COMPARISION ..................................................................................................2.1
3.0 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................3.3
APPENDIX A – PERMITTING COST ...............................................................................................
APPENDIX B – ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION COST .................................................................
APPENDIX C – EASEMENT ATTAINMENT COSTS .........................................................................
APPENDIX D – CONSTRUCTION COSTS ......................................................................................
APPENDIX E – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ...........................................................
as v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160315.docx
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 10
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160315.docx 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Stantec has completed an investigation of the costs associated with improvements to the
Thunder Hills Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor located in Renton, Washington. Based on the
findings of previous technical memorandums, the City has narrowed the analysis to two
remaining alternatives. Alternative No. 1 is to improve the existing Thunder Hills interceptor and
access road so that it can support the existing and ultimate flows and can be adequately
maintained by City Staff. Alternative No. 2 is to divert the upstream flows to the Talbot Hills Sewer
Basin, and only improve the section of the interceptor that will remain in active use. Alternative
2 will also require improvements be made to portions of the existing sewers in the Talbot Hill
Sewer Basin.
This memorandum reviews the engineering, permitting, environmental mitigation, easement
attainment, construction, and operation and maintenance costs for the two remaining
alternatives. It draws upon the findings presented in the previous Thunder Hills Sanitary Sewer
Interceptor Alternative Analysis Technical Memorandums (TMs) for the assumptions made for
each cost. The goal of the cost comparison of the two remaining alternatives will be used to
help the City make its final decision on the best alternative for its needs.
2.0 COST COMPARISION
Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 show a summary of the costs associated with both alternatives. The
assumptions used for these costs are provided after the tables, and a more detailed breakdown
on the costs is included in the appendices. Because the following costs are for planning level
purposes, each of the costs listed include a 25% contingency.
Table 2.1 Cost Comparison
Description Estimated Initial Costs
Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 2
Engineering Design $370,000 $740,000
Construction Engineering $200,000 $220,000
Permitting $40,000 $41,000
Environmental Mitigation $131,250 $131,250
Easement Attainment $170,000 $170,000
Construction $2,442,000 $4,959,000
Total $3,353,250 $6,261,250
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 10
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160315.docx 2
Table 2.2 Annual Cost Comparison (Operation & Maintenance Costs)
Description Estimated Annual Costs
Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 2
Thunder Hills Interceptor $1,750 $1,750
Additional sewer main $0 $600
Total $1,750 $2,350
Engineering design costs were assumed to be 15% of the total construction costs.
Construction engineering costs were assumed to be 8% of the total construction costs for
Alternative No. 1, and 8% of the Thunder Hills Interceptor section of Alternative No. 2. This cost
assumes that a trenchless specialist will observe the CIPP installation, and a geologist will observe
the gravity walls being installed. A City inspector will observe all open cut installation.
Permitting costs were estimated based on the findings from Technical Memorandum No. 9,
“Permitting Assessment Alternatives No. 1 & 2,” dated October 19, 2015. The permitting costs
were estimated from similar previous projects, and include the estimated labor costs to prepare
and submit the permits. Exact costs required for permitting are impossible to determine until the
reviewing agencies have seen the applications. For more information about the permitting
costs, reference Appendix A.
Environmental mitigation costs were estimated based on findings from Technical Memorandum
No. 8 “Summary of Sensitive Area Impacts,” dated October 21, 2015, and were prepared by The
Watershed Company. The mitigation costs were broken down into indirect (buffer only impacts)
and direct wetland impacts. There are two options for offsetting direct wetland impacts: the
Springbrook Creek Mitigation Bank and the King County Mitigation Reserves Program. The costs
shown in Table 2.1 use the Springbrook Creek Mitigation Bank estimate. For more information on
the environmental mitigation costs, refer to the “Wetland Mitigation Cost Estimate” technical
memorandum, prepared by The Watershed Company and included in Appendix B.
Easement attainment costs were estimated with Stantec’s standard easement value estimator.
The costs assume easements would be obtained for the entire interceptor. Land value was
taken from the King County Assessor. Additional information about the easement cost estimates
is included in Appendix C.
Construction costs were estimated from the findings and preliminary drawings presented in
Technical Memorandum No. 7, “Operation and Maintenance Study,” dated November 13, 2015.
The costs include the features shown in the preliminary plans. Unit costs were estimated from
recent projects and additional pricing research. A more detailed breakdown of preliminary
construction costs is included in Appendix D. In this breakdown, Alternative No. 2 is separated
into three schedules. Schedule A includes the improvements to the Thunder Hills Interceptor
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 10
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160315.docx 3
($2,752,000), Schedule B includes the necessary improvements to the Talbot Sewer Basin
regardless of whether or not the Thunder Hills Basin is diverted to the Talbot Sewer Basin
($239,000), and Schedule C includes the additional improvements to the Talbot Sewer Basin if
the Thunder Hills Basin is diverted to the Talbot Sewer Basin ($1,968,000). Separating Alternative
No. 2’s costs into these three schedules shows that only $1,968,000 (or the cost of Schedule C) of
Alternative No. 2’s estimated $4,959,000 construction cost can be avoided by choosing
Alternative No. 1.
Operation and maintenance costs (shown in Table 2.2) include standard cleaning of the sewer
main every two years, and providing CCTV for the sewer main every seven years. The costs
were estimated based on the number of hours, personnel, and equipment needed to complete
these tasks. The costs estimate how much each alternative would increase the annual
operation and maintenance costs, by reviewing the cost to maintain the Thunder Hills
Interceptor as well as the additional linear feet of sewer pipe added to the system for the Talbot
Hills Sewer Basin. For more information, see Appendix E.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Alternative No. 1 is more economical to design and construct, but Alterative No. 2 better
mitigates the risks associated with Thunder Hills Creek. Alternative No. 1 would save just over $2.0
million of the initial design, permitting, and construction costs (accounting for the necessary
improvements to the Talbot Sewer Basin regardless of whether or not the Thunder Hills Sewer
Basin is diverted). It would also save approximately $600 annually in general operation and
maintenance costs.
However, Alternative No. 1 leaves a major sewer main adjacent to the Thunder Hills Creek,
which is an environmental risk to the City. If Alternative No. 1 is implemented, a failure of the
Thunder Hills Interceptor could lead to a greater sewage spill in an environmentally sensitive
area than if Alternative No. 2 is implemented. A spill in an environmentally sensitive area would
likely cause negative press for the City and cost the City significant money in clean up and
mitigation efforts. This risk would be mitigated and significantly reduced through the
improvements that would be implemented in Alternative No. 2.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
Appendix A – Permitting Costs
By Stantec Consulting Services Inc..
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE - PERMIT COSTS
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
11130 NE 33rd Pl, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98004
OWNER:City of Renton
PROJECT: Thunder Hills Alternative Analysis Report
Agency Permit
Timeline from
Submittal Fees Labor Hours***
• Land Use
• Grading
• Variance
• Environmental Review
• Building
• Right of Way
Williams NW WilSOP Permit 4 – 6 Weeks No Review Fee 6
Puget Sound Energy Consent for Use
12 – 15
Months To Be Determined 22
• Section 404
• ESA Section 7
• DOE Section 401
Department of Ecology NPDES 6 – 8 Weeks
Fees Relating to
Notice of Intent
Advertisement =
apx $800
10
King County Water Treatment Division Review 2 – 4 Weeks No Review Fee 2
Submittal Fee =
$300
Traffic Control
Plans = apx. $500
WA State Department of Fish & Wildlife HPA 4 – 6 Weeks
Submittal Fee =
$150 10
No Review Fee
Subconsultant
apx $6,000 (not
including
construction
monitoring)
TOTALS $7,850 $22,680
$30,530
Contingency 25.00% $7,632.50
$38,163
Carried to Cost Estimate $40,000
***Assumes an average labor rate of $135.00
Labor budget based on an average rate of $135/hr
excludes TWC scope/budget items
City of Renton 4 – 6 Months Internal City Fees 48
TOTAL
US Army Corps of Engineers 12 – 18
Months
Submittal Fee =
$100 56*
**Not a franchise agreement
Washington State Department of
Transportation
Limited Access Right of Way
Permit 6 – 12 Months 6**
Washington State Department of
Archaeological and Historic Preservation DAHP Review 4 – 6 Weeks 8
Subtotal
*Assumes permit coordination work divided between Stantec and TWC;
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
Appendix B – Environmental Mitigation Cost
By The Watershed Company
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M
Date: December 18, 2015
To: Stephanie Ard, Stantec
From: Hugh Mortensen
Project
Number: 131113
Project Name: Thunder Hills Sanitary Sewer Interceptor
Subject: Wetland Mitigation Cost Estimates
This estimate covers costs associated with mitigating for impacts arising from
improvements to the Thunder Hills Sanitary Sewer Interceptor system, including
sewer line slip-lining, new sewer line and maintenance access upgrades. Costs
outlined below are broken into costs to mitigate on-site, indirect (stream buffer
and/or wetland buffer only) impacts and two options for offsetting direct
wetland impacts. Assumptions used in the estimates are provided following
each section.
Indirect (buffer only) impacts.
12,500 SF at $2.50 - $3.00 per square foot, $51,300 - $67,500
Assumptions:
1. Project plans provided by Stantec, 8/21/15. Survey does not show all existing
disturbance so some existing areas added in addition to survey.
2. Work within already disturbed buffer areas, such as gravel roads, parking
areas, etc., was not considered a project impact and would not require buffer
mitigation. Only disturbance of existing, vegetated buffer areas was
considered an impact requiring mitigation.
3. Buffer enhancement involving removal of invasive weeds and replanting
native vegetation is suitable to off-set buffer impacts at a 1:1 ratio.
4. Per-square foot mitigation cost ranges are based on past project experience.
Higher accuracy costs should be calculated based on future mitigation plans
for specific buffer areas.
5. Costs include 5-year performance monitoring and maintenance
(weeding/plant replacement).
6. Costs do not include draft or final mitigation plans, permitting applications
or special studies.
The Watershed Company
Technical Memorandum – Thunder Hills Mitigation Costs
December 18, 2015
Page 2
Direct wetland impact
Option 1: Springbrook Creek Mitigation Bank: $22,700 - $37, 500
Assumptions:
1. Project plans provided by Stantec, 8/21/15. Plans show elimination of
Wetland F, which is 1,408 SF.
2. Credit costs based on 12/11/15 email from Ronald Straka, City of Renton
Surface Water Utility Engineering Manager, of $825,000 - $1,500,000 per
category II credit. This calculates to a range of $701,250 - $1,275,000 per
category III credit (85% of Category II credit costs).
3. Estimate does not include costs to prepare the credit release documents or
any local, state or federal permit documentation.
Option 2: King County Mitigation Reserves Program: $175,000.
Assumptions:
1. Project plans provided by Stantec, 8/21/15. Plans show elimination of
Wetland F, which is 1,408 SF.
2. Credit costs based on 12/15/15 phone call with Meagan McNeil, King County
Water & Land Resources Division. Costs quoted are $47,000 per credit, plus
a land fee currently estimated at $1.50 per square foot of impact. Land fee is
subject to change.
3. Credit need based on the attached “Debit” Worksheet (Downloaded 12/15/15
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/creditdebit/debits
.xlsx), which relies on scores from the 2014 wetland rating form for Wetland F
(the impacted wetland), prepared by The Watershed Company July 2015.
4. Estimate does not include costs to prepare the credit release documents or
any local, state or federal permit documentation.
1
Hugh Mortensen
From:Ronald Straka <rstraka@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent:Friday, December 11, 2015 11:58 AM
To:Hugh Mortensen
Cc:Allen Quynn; David Christensen
Subject:RE: Springbrook Mitigation Bank
Hugh,
The cost of credits range that we are considering $825,000 to $1,500,000. This would be what is charged for one credit
in the Wetland Bank, which is equal to one acre of a category II wetland (Ecology’s Wetland Classification System). If
you have category III wetlands then 0.85 credits are needed for every acre of impact to Category III wetlands and 0.70
credits needed for every acre of impact to Category IV wetlands. You can use this in your report regarding the City’s
Wastewater Utility’s Thunder Hills Sewer Project.
As we discussed the benefits of using the Wetland bank is that there is no replacement ratio for impacted wetlands, the
permitting process is streamlined, since there is no need to develop a mitigation plan and have it reviewed by the Corps
of Engineers and City, there is no post construction monitoring for 10‐years that would be normally required by the
Corps as part of their permit, there is no risk of the mitigation failing and having to do additional work if monitoring
shows that performance measures haven’t been met by the mitigation project and you don’t have to purchase land or
find a site to do the mitigation on. All of these thing reduce the cost and risk associated with doing concurrent
mitigation.
Thank you,
Ron Straka, P.E.
Surface Water Utility Engineering Manager
City of Renton
Renton City Hall – 5th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057‐3232
Cell: 206‐919‐4281
Office: 425‐430‐7248
Email: Rstraka@Rentonwa.gov
From: Hugh Mortensen [mailto:HMortensen@watershedco.com]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 10:12 AM
To: Ronald Straka
Subject: Springbrook Mitigation Bank
Ron,
Thanks for your time on the phone just now. Any help on anticipated per‐credit costs would be much appreciated. The
project in mind contains an unavoidable small impact to a Category III wetland.
Regards,
2
HUGH B. MORTENSEN, PWS
Principal
(425) 822‐5242, Extension 107
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland, WA 98033
http://www.watershedco.com/
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
C
r
e
d
i
t
s
a
n
d
D
e
b
i
t
s
f
o
r
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
o
f
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
De
b
i
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
(c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
5
/
5
/
1
3
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Th
u
n
d
e
r
Hi
l
l
s
S
e
w
e
r
Li
n
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
:
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
D
e
l
a
y
e
d
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
On
l
y
f
i
l
l
i
n
b
o
x
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
.
U
s
e
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
L
o
s
s
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
b
e
l
o
w
(
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
In
p
u
t
R
a
t
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
S
c
o
r
i
n
g
S
h
e
e
t
We
t
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
A
l
t
e
r
e
d
(
#
1
)
We
t
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
A
l
t
e
r
e
d
(
#
2
)
We
t
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
A
l
t
e
r
e
d
(
#
3
)
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Si
t
e
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
H
,
M
,
L
)
L
L
L
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
H
,
M
,
L
)
M
M
L
Va
l
u
e
(
H
,
M
,
L
)
M
H
H
Sc
o
r
e
f
o
r
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
5
6
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
Ac
r
e
s
o
f
no
n
-
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
ar
e
a
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
0.
0
3
2
3
2
3
2
Ba
s
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
(
B
M
R
)
0.
1
6
1
6
1
6
0.
1
9
3
9
3
9
2
0.
1
6
1
6
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
Te
m
p
o
r
a
l
l
o
s
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
(
s
e
e
b
e
l
o
w
)
3
DE
B
I
T
S
0.
4
8
4
8
4
8
0.
5
8
1
8
1
7
6
0.
4
8
4
8
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ac
r
e
s
o
f
D
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
Ba
s
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
(
B
M
R
)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Te
m
p
o
r
a
l
l
o
s
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
DE
B
I
T
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ac
r
e
s
o
f
Ev
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
F
o
r
e
s
t
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
Ba
s
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
(
B
M
R
)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Te
m
p
o
r
a
l
l
o
s
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
(
s
e
e
b
e
l
o
w
)
DE
B
I
T
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ac
r
e
s
o
f
Ca
t
.
1
D
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
Ba
s
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
(
B
M
R
)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Te
m
p
o
r
a
l
l
o
s
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
(
s
e
e
b
e
l
o
w
)
DE
B
I
T
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ac
r
e
s
o
f
Ca
t
.
1
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
Ba
s
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
(
B
M
R
)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Te
m
p
o
r
a
l
l
o
s
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
(
s
e
e
b
e
l
o
w
)
DE
B
I
T
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TO
T
A
L
S
We
t
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
A
l
t
e
r
e
d
(
#
1
)
We
t
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
A
l
t
e
r
e
d
(
#
2
)
We
t
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
A
l
t
e
r
e
d
(
#
3
)
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Ac
r
e
-
p
o
i
n
t
s
0.
4
8
4
8
5
0.
5
8
1
8
2
0.
4
8
4
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
i
t
s
b
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Ac
r
e
-
p
o
i
n
t
s
0.
4
8
4
8
5
0.
5
8
1
8
2
0.
4
8
4
8
5
Ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Te
m
p
o
r
a
l
L
o
s
s
Fa
c
t
o
r
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
– At
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
h
a
s
p
a
s
s
e
d
s
i
n
c
e
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
o
r
o
n
e
ye
a
r
s
i
n
c
e
“a
s
-bu
i
l
t
”
p
l
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
1.
25
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
– Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
a ye
a
r
of
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
,
b
u
t
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
m
a
y
b
e
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
u
p
t
o
2
y
e
a
r
s
if
n
e
e
d
e
d
to
op
t
i
m
i
z
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
.
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
m
e
rg
e
n
t
o
r
s
h
r
u
b
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
mp
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
om
m
u
n
i
t
y
1.
5
2.
0
2.
5
3
3.
5
De
l
a
y
e
d
- Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
is
n
o
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
o
n
e
ye
a
r
of
im
p
a
c
t
,
b
u
t
is
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
(i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
)
wi
t
h
i
n
5 gr
o
w
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
s
o
f
i
m
p
a
c
t
.
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
o
r
s
h
r
u
b
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
3 4 5 6 7
Ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Te
m
p
o
r
a
l
L
o
s
s
Fa
c
t
o
r
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
– At
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
h
a
s
p
a
s
s
e
d
s
i
n
c
e
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
o
r
o
n
e
ye
a
r
s
i
n
c
e
“a
s
-bu
i
l
t
”
p
l
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
1.
25
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
– Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
a ye
a
r
of
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
,
b
u
t
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
m
a
y
b
e
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
b
y
u
p
t
o
2
y
e
a
r
s
if
n
e
e
d
e
d
to
op
t
i
m
i
z
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
.
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
m
e
rg
e
n
t
o
r
s
h
r
u
b
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
mp
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
om
m
u
n
i
t
y
1.
5
2.
0
2.
5
3
3.
5
De
l
a
y
e
d
- Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
is
n
o
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
o
n
e
ye
a
r
of
im
p
a
c
t
,
b
u
t
is
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
(i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
)
wi
t
h
i
n
5 gr
o
w
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
s
o
f
i
m
p
a
c
t
.
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
o
r
s
h
r
u
b
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
an
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
3 4 5 6 7
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
Appendix C – Easement Attainment Costs
By Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
L
E
V
E
L
C
O
S
T
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
-
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
S
T
S
St
a
n
t
e
c
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
n
c
.
11
1
3
0
N
E
3
3
r
d
P
l
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
0
0
Be
l
l
e
v
u
e
,
W
A
9
8
0
0
4
OW
N
E
R
:
Cit
y
o
f
R
e
n
t
o
n
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
T
h
u
n
d
e
r
H
i
l
l
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
:
BP
A
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ma
r
k
e
t
Va
l
u
e
=
Lo
t
Va
l
u
e
x 1.
2
5
L
o
t
va
l
u
e
co
m
e
s
fr
o
m
KC
As
s
e
s
s
o
r
20
1
1
Ot
h
e
r
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
Fe
e
Va
l
u
e
=
Ma
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
x
0
.
2
5
f
o
r
u
n
e
n
c
u
m
b
e
r
e
d
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
x
0
.
1
0
f
o
r
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
B
P
A
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
Fe
e
=
F
e
e
Va
l
u
e
/ Lo
t
Siz
e
x Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
Ar
e
a
Pe
r
m
i
t
Fe
e
=
M
a
r
k
e
t
Va
l
u
e
/ Lo
t
Siz
e
x 0.
0
1
x No
.
of
mo
n
t
h
s
x Pe
r
m
i
t
Ar
e
a
WA
R
N
I
N
G
:
A
r
e
a
s
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
e
n
c
u
m
b
e
r
e
d
b
y
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
w
o
r
t
h
l
e
s
s
!
C
h
a
n
g
e
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
.
No
.
of
Mo
n
t
h
s
=6
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
/
P
e
r
m
i
t
P
a
r
c
e
l
Nu
m
b
e
r
Ow
n
e
r
Na
m
e
Lo
t
Siz
e
L
o
t
Va
l
u
e
"
M
a
r
k
e
t
"
Va
l
u
e
"
F
e
e
"
Va
l
u
e
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
Te
m
p
Es
m
t
To
t
a
l
(s
q
ft
)
Ar
e
a
(s
q
f
t
)
F
e
e
A
r
e
a
(s
q
f
t
)
F
e
e
3
20
2
3
0
5
9
0
5
0
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
84
3
,
2
7
7
$2
5
,
0
0
0
1
6
4
,
0
0
0
$
16
,
4
0
0
$
3,
1
1
2
6
0
.
5
2
$
‐
$
60
.
5
2
$
4
20
2
3
0
5
9
0
0
5
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
39
,
0
8
3
$2
5
,
0
0
0
3
1
,
2
5
0
$
3,1
2
5
$
3,
2
5
6
2
6
0
.
3
4
$
‐
$
26
0
.
3
4
$
5
20
2
3
0
5
9
0
7
0
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
37
,
9
6
4
$3
8
,
7
0
0
4
8
,
3
7
5
$
4,8
3
8
$
2,
2
3
1
2
8
4
.
2
8
$
‐
$
28
4
.
2
8
$
6
20
2
3
0
5
9
1
1
2
Wo
o
d
c
l
i
f
f
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
20
1
,
6
8
2
$1
,
8
1
5
,
1
0
0
2
,
2
6
8
,
8
7
5
$
56
7
,
2
1
9
$
5,
8
0
8
1
6
,
3
3
4
.
6
6
$
‐
$
16
,
3
3
4
.
6
6
$
7
20
2
3
0
5
9
1
1
3
Be
r
k
s
h
i
r
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
I
n
v
e
s
t
.
50
0
,
9
5
6
$7
,
5
1
4
,
3
0
0
9
,
3
9
2
,
8
7
5
$
2,
3
4
8
,
2
1
9
$
18
,
2
5
0
8
5
,
5
4
6
.
4
2
$
‐
$
85
,
5
4
6
.
4
2
$
8
20
2
3
0
5
9
0
1
2
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
80
2
,
8
2
0
$8
2
6
,
9
0
0
1
,
0
3
3
,
6
2
5
$
10
3
,
3
6
3
$
19
,
8
1
5
2
,
5
5
1
.
1
7
$
‐
$
2,
5
5
1
.
1
7
$
9
20
2
3
0
5
9
0
8
4
W
o
o
d
c
l
i
f
f
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
18
7
,
7
4
0
$2
,
2
5
2
,
8
0
0
2
,
8
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
28
1
,
6
0
0
$
8,
2
5
9
1
2
,
3
8
8
.
0
6
$
‐
$
12
,
3
8
8
.
0
6
$
10
20
2
3
0
5
9
0
1
3
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
58
6
,
5
8
5
$5
9
8
,
3
0
0
7
4
7
,
8
7
5
$
74
,
7
8
8
$
1,
7
9
3
2
2
8
.
6
0
$
‐
$
22
8
.
6
0
$
11
86
4
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
(
N
o
t
L
i
s
t
e
d
o
n
i
M
a
p
)
22
8
,
8
0
0
$2
,
2
8
8
,
0
0
0
2
,
8
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
71
5
,
0
0
0
$
2,
2
7
0
7
,
0
9
3
.
7
5
$
‐
$
7,
0
9
3
.
7
5
$
12
20
2
3
0
5
9
1
1
6
W
o
o
d
c
l
i
f
f
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
74
,
6
0
0
$1
,
0
0
7
,
1
0
0
1
,
2
5
8
,
8
7
5
$
12
5
,
8
8
8
$
4,
9
3
0
8
,
3
1
9
.
3
8
$
‐
$
8,
3
1
9
.
3
8
$
13
20
2
3
0
5
9
0
1
3
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
58
6
,
5
8
5
$5
9
8
,
3
0
0
7
4
7
,
8
7
5
$
74
,
7
8
8
$
6,
8
9
9
8
7
9
.
6
0
$
‐
$
87
9
.
6
0
$
14
20
2
3
0
5
9
1
1
4
W
o
o
d
c
l
i
f
f
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
43
,
3
2
8
$5
5
,
4
0
0
6
9
,
2
5
0
$
6,9
2
5
$
6,
0
1
6
9
6
1
.
5
2
$
‐
$
96
1
.
5
2
$
13
4
,
9
0
8
.
3
0
$
25
%
3
3
,
7
2
7
.
0
7
$
16
8
,
6
3
5
.
3
7
$
Ca
r
r
i
e
d
to
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
1
7
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Co
n
t
i
g
e
n
c
y
To
t
a
l
Co
s
t
fo
r
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
Appendix D – Construction Costs
By Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.Prepared by: SMA
11130 NE 33rd Pl, Suite 200 Date:
Bellevue, WA 98004 Revised by: ELB
Date:
OWNER:City of Renton
PROJECT: Thunder Hills Alternative Analysis Report - Alternative No. 1
Approx.
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Construction Estimate
1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS 132,200.00$ 132,200.00$
2 Trench Excavation Safety Systems 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
3 Construction Survey, Staking, and As-builts 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
4 Traffic Control 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
5 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
6 Site Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
7 12-Inch Diam. HDPE Gravity Sewer Pipe Installed under Access
Road 1,410 LF 300.00$ 423,000.00$
8 Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Rehab.1,470 LF 50.00$ 73,500.00$
9 Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers 2,880 LF 2.00$ 5,760.00$
10 Abandon & Fill Sanitary Sewer Main 1,410 LF 15.00$ 21,150.00$
11 48-Inch Diam. Sanitary Sewer Manhole 7 EA 6,000.00$ 42,000.00$
12 Connect to Existing Sewer System 6 EA 6,000.00$ 36,000.00$
13 Pavement Restoration (Existing Entrance)400 SY 150.00$ 60,000.00$
14 New Asphalt Entrance 1,010 SY 250.00$ 252,500.00$
15 Gravel Access Road & Path 0 SF 10.00$ -$
16 Gravity Walls and Rockeries 1 LS 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
17 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material 30 TON 25.00$ 750.00$
18 Storm Culverts 50 LF 150.00$ 7,500.00$
19 Misc. Site Restoration 1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
Subtotal 1,784,360$
9.5% 169,500$
Subtotal 1,953,860$
25%488,500$
2,442,360$
Unit costs for linear foot of new sewer pipe includes estimated cost of trench backfill
3/1/2016
Sales Tax @
Contingency @
Total Probable Construction Cost
3/11/2016
V:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\cost_alternative1.xlsx
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.Prepared by: SMA
11130 NE 33rd Pl, Suite 200 Date:
Bellevue, WA 98004 Revised by: ELB
Date:
OWNER:City of Renton
PROJECT: Thunder Hills Alternative Analysis Report - Alternative No. 2
Approx.
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Schedule A - Thunder Hills Improvements
1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS 148,900.00$ 148,900.00$
2 Trench Excavation Safety Systems 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
3 Construction Survey, Staking, and As-builts 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
4 Traffic Control 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
5 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
6 Site Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
7 12-Inch Diam. HDPE Gravity Sewer Pipe Installed under Access
Road 1,040 LF 300.00$ 312,000.00$
8 Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Rehab.1,010 LF 50.00$ 50,500.00$
9 Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers 2,050 LF 2.00$ 4,100.00$
10 Abandon & Fill Sanitary Sewer Main 1,040 LF 15.00$ 15,600.00$
11 48-Inch Diam. Sanitary Sewer Manhole 5 EA 6,000.00$ 30,000.00$
12 Connect to Existing Sewer System 4 EA 6,000.00$ 24,000.00$
13 Pavement Restoration (Existing Entrance)400 SY 150.00$ 60,000.00$
14 New Asphalt Entrance 1,010 SY 250.00$ 252,500.00$
15 Gravel Access Road & Path 35,000 SF 10.00$ 350,000.00$
16 Gravity Walls and Rockeries 1 LS 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
17 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material 25 TON 25.00$ 625.00$
18 Storm Culvert 50 LF 150.00$ 7,500.00$
19 Misc. Site Restoration 1 LS 130,000.00$ 130,000.00$
Subtotal 2,010,725$
9.5% 191,000$
Subtotal 2,201,725$
25%550,400$
2,752,125$
Approx.
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Schedule B - Talbot Hill Sewer Basin Improvements (regardless of whether or not Thunder is diverted)
1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS 12,900.00$ 12,900.00$
2 Trench Excavation Safety Systems 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
3 Construction Survey, Staking, and As-builts 1 LS 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
4 Traffic Control 1 LS 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$
5 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
6 12-Inch PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe Installed in ROW 110 LF 375.00$ 41,250.00$
7 Pipe Bursting under Talbot (8-Inch Pipe to 12-Inch Pipe)170 LF 450.00$ 76,500.00$
8 Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers 280 LF 2.00$ 560.00$
9 Connect to Existing Sewer System 4 EA 6,000.00$ 24,000.00$
10 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material 10 TON 25.00$ 250.00$
11 Asphalt Restoration 50 SY 115.00$ 5,750.00$
Subtotal 174,710$
9.5% 16,600$
Subtotal 191,310$
25%47,800$
239,110$
3/1/2016
Sales Tax @
Contingency @
Schedule A Total Cost
3/11/2016
Sales Tax @
Contingency @
Schedule B Total Cost
V:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\cost_alternative2.xlsx
Approx.
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Schedule C - Talbot Hill Sewer Basin Improvements for Thunder Hills Basin Diversion
1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS 106,500.00$ 106,500.00$
2 Trench Excavation Safety Systems 1 LS 17,500.00$ 17,500.00$
3 Construction Survey, Staking, and As-builts 1 LS 22,000.00$ 22,000.00$
4 Traffic Control 1 LS 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
5 Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
6 8-Inch PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe Installed in ROW 980 LF 325.00$ 318,500.00$
7 10-Inch PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe Installed in ROW 200 LF 350.00$ 70,000.00$
8 12-Inch PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe Installed in ROW 910 LF 375.00$ 341,250.00$
9 Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers 2,090 LF 2.00$ 4,180.00$
10 48-Inch Diam. Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 EA 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$
11 Rechanneling Existing Manholes 2 EA 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$
12 Connect to Existing Sewer System 7 EA 6,000.00$ 42,000.00$
13 Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation Material 40 TON 25.00$ 1,000.00$
14 Asphalt Restoration 4,000 SY 115.00$ 460,000.00$
Subtotal 1,437,930$
9.5% 136,600$
Subtotal 1,574,530$
25%393,600$
1,968,130$
4,959,365$
Unit costs for linear foot of new sewer pipe includes estimated cost of trench backfill
Sales Tax @
Contingency @
Schedule C Total Cost
Total Probable Construction Cost (Schedule A + Schedule B + Schedule C)
V:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\cost_alternative2.xlsx
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
Appendix E – Operation and Maintenance Costs
By City of Renton & Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
v:\2002\active\2002003607\analysis\cost\mem_thunderhills_cost_final_20160304.docx
THIS PAGE WAS INITIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
L
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
C
O
S
T
S
St
a
n
t
e
c
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
n
c
.
11
1
3
0
N
E
3
3
r
d
P
l
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
0
0
Be
l
l
e
v
u
e
,
W
A
9
8
0
0
4
OW
N
E
R
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
R
e
n
t
o
n
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
Th
u
n
d
e
r
H
i
l
l
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
.
1
It
e
m
s
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
Un
i
t
Tim
e
p
e
r
Ta
s
k
(
H
r
)
Tim
e
p
e
r
Ta
s
k
(
h
r
)
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
(
Y
r
s
)
Ho
u
r
s
p
e
r
Y
e
a
r
No
.
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
s
La
b
o
r
C
o
s
t
(
$
/
h
r
)
Va
c
t
o
r
T
r
u
c
k
($
/
h
r
)
Se
r
v
i
c
e
T
r
u
c
k
($
/
h
r
)
TV
T
r
u
c
k
(
$
/
h
r
)
Ba
s
i
c
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
2,
8
8
0
LF
S
S
2
5.
7
6
2
2.
8
8
2
51
$
56
$
26
$
-
$
18
4
$
53
0
$
CC
T
V
i
n
g
2,
8
8
0
LF
S
S
6
17
.
2
8
7
2.
4
7
4
51
$
56
$
26
$
56
$
34
2
$
84
4
$
1,
3
7
4
$
25
.
0
%
34
4
$
1,
7
1
8
$
1,
7
5
0
$
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
f
o
r
O
&
M
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
i
n
TO
T
A
L
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
N
O
.
1
O
&
M
C
O
S
T
S
Se
w
e
r
M
a
i
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
To
t
a
l
Co
s
t
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
Co
s
t
p
e
r
Ho
u
r
To
t
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
t
o
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
Ho
u
r
s
P
e
r
Y
e
a
r
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
L
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
C
O
S
T
S
St
a
n
t
e
c
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
n
c
.
11
1
3
0
N
E
3
3
r
d
P
l
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
0
0
Be
l
l
e
v
u
e
,
W
A
9
8
0
0
4
OW
N
E
R
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
R
e
n
t
o
n
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
Th
u
n
d
e
r
H
i
l
l
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
.
2
It
e
m
s
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
Un
i
t
Ti
m
e
p
e
r
Ta
s
k
(
H
r
)
Ti
m
e
p
e
r
T
a
s
k
(h
r
)
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
(
Y
r
s
)
Ho
u
r
s
p
e
r
Y
e
a
r
No
.
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
s
La
b
o
r
C
o
s
t
($
/
h
r
)
Va
c
t
o
r
T
r
u
c
k
($
/
h
r
)
Se
r
v
i
c
e
T
r
u
c
k
($
/
h
r
)
TV
T
r
u
c
k
($
/
h
r
)
Ba
s
i
c
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
2,
8
8
0
LF
S
S
2
5.
7
6
2
2.
8
8
2
51
$
56
$
26
$
-
$
18
4
$
53
0
$
CC
T
V
i
n
g
2,
8
8
0
LF
S
S
6
17
.
2
8
7
2.
4
7
4
51
$
56
$
26
$
56
$
34
2
$
84
4
$
1,
3
7
4
$
25
.
0
%
34
4
$
1,
7
1
8
$
It
e
m
s
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
*
Un
i
t
Ti
m
e
p
e
r
Ta
s
k
(H
r
/
1
0
0
0
L
F)
Ti
m
e
p
e
r
T
a
s
k
(h
r
)
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
(
Y
r
s
)
Tim
e
p
e
r
Y
e
a
r
No
.
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
s
La
b
o
r
C
o
s
t
($
/
h
r
)
Va
c
t
o
r
T
r
u
c
k
($
/
h
r
)
Se
r
v
i
c
e
T
r
u
c
k
($
/
h
r
)
TV
T
r
u
c
k
($
/
h
r
)
Ba
s
i
c
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
1,
0
0
0
LF
S
S
2
2
2
1
2
51
$
56
$
26
$
-
$
18
4
$
18
4
$
CC
T
V
i
n
g
1,
0
0
0
LF
S
S
6
6
7
0.
8
6
4
51
$
56
$
26
$
56
$
34
2
$
29
3
$
47
7
$
25
.
0
%
11
9
$
59
6
$
To
t
a
l
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
A
+
B
2,
3
1
4
$
2,
3
5
0
$
*
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
o
n
l
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
n
e
w
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
e
w
e
r
m
a
i
n
a
l
o
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
1
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
t
o
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
To
t
a
l
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
f
o
r
O
&
M
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
i
n
TO
T
A
L
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
N
O
.
1
O
&
M
C
O
S
T
S
Co
s
t
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
Ho
u
r
s
P
e
r
Y
e
a
r
Co
s
t
p
e
r
Ho
u
r
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
B
-
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
i
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
To
t
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
A
-
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
i
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
t
o
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
Ho
u
r
s
P
e
r
Y
e
a
r
Co
s
t
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
Co
s
t
p
e
r
Ho
u
r
To
t
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
To
t
a
l
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
f
o
r
O
&
M
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
i
n