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 AboutCouncil 07/21/2003AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 21, 2003 Monday, 7:30 p.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: WSDOT Update on SR-167 Corridor Improvements 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 6. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of July 14, 2003. Council concur. b. Mayor Tanner appoints Jeremy Chambers, 15823 130th Pl. SE, Renton, 98058, to the Municipal Arts Commission to fill the unexpired three-year term of Virginia Corder, who has resigned (term to expire 12/31/2003). Refer to Community Services Committee. c. Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department requests waiver of City Center Parking garage fees from July 22 to July 27 for 2003 Renton River Days activities. Council concur. d. City Clerk reports bid opening on 7/15/2003 for CAG-03-113, Logan Ave. Bridge Seismic Retrofit; four bids; engineer's estimate $121,000; and submits staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Advanced Construction, Inc., in the amount of $84,864. Council concur. e. City Clerk reports bid opening on 6/25/2003 for CAG-03-069, 2003 Overlay; five bids; engineer's estimate $577,269.50; and submits staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder, Lakeside Industries, in the amount of $714,270.26 (budgeted amount $523,740). Staff also recommends that $96,000 be transferred from the Oakesdale Phase 2 project, and $104,000 be transferred from the Benson Rd. S./S. 31st St. signal installation project to cover the additional costs. Council concur. f. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation denying the rezone for the Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat (PP-01-034); appeal filed by James Handmacher representing Labrador Ventures, LLC on 5/08/2003, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning & Development Committee. Consideration of the appeal by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties (RMC 4-8-110F.6.) g. Court Case filed by T. Jeffrey Keane on behalf of M. Monica Fix alleging negligence or intentional misrepresentation in regards to a sewer easement granted by the plaintiff to Labrador Ventures, LLC for access to a sewer connection via the easement across the plaintiffs property located at 3007 Mountain View Ave. N. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) h. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends approval of an amendment to CAG-03-048, contract with Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. for the Boeing Renton Plant EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) preparation, for Phase 3 services. The Boeing Company will reimburse the City in the amount of $103,500. Council concur. i. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits 10% Notice of Intent to annex for the proposed Carlo Annexation, 37 acres located in the vicinity of 136th Ave. SE, 140th Ave. SE, NE 3rd St., and SE 135th St., and recommends that a public meeting be set on August 4, 2003, to consider the petition to annex. Council concur. j. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits 10% Notice of Intent to annex for the proposed Merritt Annexation, 4.8 acres located in the vicinity of SE May Valley Rd., Lyons Ave. NE, SE 100th St., and NE 26th St., and recommends that a public meeting be set on August 4, 2003, to consider the petition to annex. Council concur. k. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits 10% Notice of Intent to annex for the proposed Mossier Annexation, 31 acres located in the vicinity of 142nd and 144th Avenues SE, and SE 136th St., and recommends that a public meeting be set on August 4, 2003, to consider the petition to annex. Council concur. 1. Fire Department recommends acceptance of $449,081 from King County for basic life support services in 2003. Council concur. (See 9. for resolution.) m. Transportation Systems Division submits CAG-02-115, Airport Security Gate Replacement; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $326,362.98, commencement of 607day lien period, and release of retained amount of $17,177 to C.A. Carey Corporation, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. n. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract in the amount of $59,000 with Berger/Abaco Engineers, Inc. for Duvall Ave. NE and NE Sunset Blvd. intersection improvement design services. Refer to Transportation Committee. o. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract in the amount of $744,500 with Berger/Abaco Engineers, Inc. for Duvall Ave. NE widening project design services. Refer to Transportation Committee. p. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an agreement with King County regarding improvements to Coal Creek Parkway, King County's portion of the Duvall Ave. NE widening project. Refer to Transportation Committee. q. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a supplement to CAG-01-071, agreement with Perteet Engineering, Inc., for additional engineering services in the amount of $121,884 for the Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) HOV, 140th Way SE to SR-900 project. Approval is also sought to transfer $122,000 from the SW 27th St./Strander Blvd. project to cover the additional costs. Council concur. 7. CORRESPONDENCE OLD BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the chairman if further review is necessary. a. Planning & Development Committee: Highlands Redevelopment — Harrington Square b. Utilities Committee: Street Light System Connection Fee Addition to City Code; East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill Phase II Special Assessment District 9. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Resolution: Agreement with King County for 2003 basic life support services grant (see 6.1.) 10. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENT 12. ADJOURNMENT (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) IV CONIlV =E OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Mid -Year Financial Report; Revenue Manual Review; Long Range Financial Forecast Follow -Up • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES. & THURS. AT 11:00 AM & 9:00 PM, WED. & FRI. AT 9:00 AM & 7:00 PM AND SAT. & SUN. AT 1:00 PM & 9:00 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting July 21, 2003 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Council President; TERRI BRIERE; KING COUNCILMEMBERS PARKER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; SANDRA MEYER, Transportation Systems Director; LESLIE LAHNDT, Transportation Design Supervisor; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; MIKE WEBBY, Human Resources Administrator; COMMANDER KATHLEEN MCCLINCY, Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Carol Hunter, Transportation Planner with the Washington State Department of WSDOT: SR-167 Corridor Transportation (WSDOT) gave a briefing on the SR-167 corridor analysis Improvements requested by South King County elected officials for inclusion on the Regional Transportation Improvements District (RTID) ballot measure. Ms. Hunter explained that the study area is from I-405 to I-5, and the project area is from S. 180th St. to the King/Pierce County line for initial project funding under RTID. She stated that WSDOT has four months to develop a range of options that can be advanced into an environmental process; to select an initial project definition for RTID; to develop a cost estimate and cost estimating evaluation process; and to analyze the potential for a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane conversion. Ms. Hunter reviewed the evaluation criteria used, which included moving more people, reducing congestion, saving time, and improving safety. She also reviewed the four improvement options and explained how Option 4 - ten lanes with managed lanes - was selected as the preferred option. Ms. Hunter reported that the preliminary cost estimates for all options can be phased or constructed within the $650 million South King County budget. In conclusion, she detailed the next steps in the process, which includes submitting the project definition to RTID for its August, 2003 draft outreach plan. She indicated that this analysis will become part of the SR-167 environmental review process that is scheduled to receive $9.6 million in funding in 2005-2007 from the recently adopted five - cent gas tax increase. Responding to Mayor Tanner's inquiry, Ms. Hunter confirmed that the SR-167 planning group is coordinating with the I-405 planning group (who is responsible for SR-167 down to S. 180th St.) so that the two projects are compatible and result in the same number of lanes. In response to Councilman Parker's inquiries, Ms. Hunter defined TDM (Transportation Demand Management) as a program where people are encouraged to look for alternative modes of transportation rather than driving alone. She indicated that construction of the SR-167 improvements could start in 2014. July 21, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 252 Michael. Cummings, WSDOT Corridor Planning Manager, briefed Council on High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes and the potential implementation of HOT lanes on SR-167. Mr. Cummings explained that High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes need to be used in a more efficient manner, and WSDOT is reviewing changes to the use of HOV lanes including HOT lane implementation. He described HOT lanes as separated lanes dedicated to specific user groups (carpools and transit) and the "extra" capacity is sold to. other users. The fees are set to maintain the free -flow conditions of the lane for users. Stating that San Diego, California currently uses HOT lanes (known as FasTrak) on an eight -mile stretch of I-15, Mr. Cummings reported an 88% approval rating of the FasTrak program by FasTrak customers, and a 66% approval rating by other I-15 users. He explained that candidate roadway segments for HOT lane implementation must meet the following primary requirements: congestion in the peak direction, available HOV lane capacity, and available space to make the needed improvements. Mr. Cummings stated that SR-167 meets the primary requirements for HOT lane implementation and a feasibility study is being conducted. WSDOT's recommendations and final report will be presented to the State's Transportation Commission by the end of this year. In response to Mayor and Council inquiries, Mr. Cummings explained how the HOT lane usage would be enforced, and he commented that the HOT lanes can likely be implemented within the existing footprint of SR-167. He indicated that the Mayors of Kent and Auburn support going forward with the feasibility study. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City'.s recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2003 and beyond. Items noted included: • IKEA Renton River Days begins July 22, and runs through July 27. This week long festival offers many activities and opportunities for family, friends, and neighbors to come together and celebrate the great community of Renton. • On July 17, over 200 children, parents, and friends attended the first of the Picnic Pizzazz Kids Entertainment Series, held from noon to 1:00 p.m. at either Kiwanis Park or Liberty Park every Thursday through August 14. • King County advises that the Renton Transfer Station will be closed from September 8 through late November to replace the aging roof and scale house. Alternate disposal and recycling stations are available. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association (HCA) President, 1137 Citizen Comment: DeMastus - Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, reported that HCA will hold a general Highlands Community meeting on July 24, and the annual neighborhood picnic will be held at the Association Highlands Neighborhood Center on August 20. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Council President Keolker-Wheeler, items 6.e. and 6.q. were removed for separate consideration. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of July 14, 2003. Council concur. July 14, 2003 July 21, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 253 Appointment: Municipal Arts Mayor Tanner appointed Jeremy Chambers, 15823 130th Pl. SE, Renton, Commission 98058, to the Municipal Arts Commission to fill the unexpired three-year term of Virginia Corder, who has resigned (term to expire 12/31/2003). Refer to Community Services Committee. Community Event: Renton Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department requested waiver of River Days City Center City Center Parking garage fees from July 22 to July 27 for 2003 Renton River Parking Fee Waiver Days activities. Council concur. CAG: 03-113, Logan Ave City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/15/2003 for CAG-03-113, Logan Ave. Bridge Seismic Retrofit, Bridge Seismic Retrofit; four bids; engineer's estimate $121,000; and submitted Advanced Construction staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Advanced Construction, Inc., in the amount of $84,864. Council concur. Appeal: Clover Creek II City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation denying the Preliminary Plat, Labrador rezone for the Clover Creek Preliminary Plat (PP-01-034); appeal filed by Ventures, PP-01-034 James Handmacher representing Labrador Ventures, LLC on 5/08/2003, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Court Case: M Monica Fix, Court Case (Summons and Complaint for Breach of Contract, Declaration of CRT-03-004 Easement, and Consumer Protection Act Violations) filed by T. Jeffrey Keane, 14205 SE 36th St., Suite 325, Bellevue, 98006, on behalf of M. Monica Fix alleging negligence or intentional misrepresentation in regards to a sewer easement granted by the plaintiff to Labrador Ventures for access to a sewer connection via the easement across the plaintiffs property located at 3007 Mountain View Ave. N. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. CAG: 03-048, Boeing Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Plant EIS Preparation, Blumen recommended approval of an amendment to CAG-03-048, contract with Consulting Group Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. for the Boeing Renton Plant Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) preparation, for Phase 3 services. The Boeing Company will reimburse the City in the amount of $103,500. Council concur. Annexation: Carlo, 136th Ave Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department SE & 140th Ave SE submitted 10% Notice of Intent to annex for the proposed Carlo Annexation, 37 acres located in the vicinity of 136th Ave. SE, 140th Ave. SE, NE 3rd St., and SE 135th St., and recommended that a public meeting be set on August 4, 2003, to consider the petition to annex. Council concur. Annexation: Merritt, SE May Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Valley Rd & Lyons Ave NE submitted 10% Notice of Intent to annex for the proposed Merritt Annexation, 4.8 acres located in the vicinity of SE May Valley Rd., Lyons Ave. NE, SE 100th St., and NE 26th St., and recommended that a public meeting be set on August 4, 2003, to consider the petition to annex. Council concur. Annexation: Mossier, 142nd & Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department 144th Aves SE submitted 10% Notice of Intent to annex for the proposed Mossier Annexation, 31 acres located in the vicinity of 142nd and 144th Avenues SE, and SE 136th St., and recommended that a public meeting be set on August 4, 2003, to consider the petition to annex. Council concur. Fire: 2003 Emergency Medical Fire Department recommended acceptance of $449,081 from Seattle -King Services Funding, King County Department of Public Health/Emergency Medical Services Division for County (Basic Life Support) basic life support services in 2003. Council concur. (See page 256 for resolution.) July 21, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 254 CAG: 02-115, Airport Security Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-02-115, Airport Security Gate Gate Replacement, CA Carey Replacement; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay Corporation estimate in the amount of $326,362.98, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $17,177 to C.A. Carey Corporation, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Transportation: NE Sunset Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract in the Blvd & Duvall Ave NE amount of $59,000 with Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. for Duvall Ave. NE and Intersection Improvements, NE Sunset Blvd. intersection improvement design services. Refer to Berger/Abam Engineers Transportation Committee. Transportation: Duvall Ave Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract in the NE Improvements, amount of $744,500 with Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. for Duvall Ave. NE Berger/Abam Engineers widening project design services. Refer to Transportation Committee. Transportation: Duvall Ave Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with NE Improvements, King King County regarding improvements to Coal Creek Parkway, King County's County portion of the Duvall Ave. NE widening project. Refer to Transportation Committee. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEMS 6.e. AND 6.q. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration City Clerk reported bid opening on 6/25/2003 for CAG-03-069, 2003 Overlay; Item 6.e. five bids; engineer's estimate $577,269.50; and submitted staff recommendation CAG: 03-069, 2003 Overlay, to award the contract to low bidder, Lakeside Industries, in the amount of Lakeside Industries $714,270.26 (budgeted amount $523,740). Staff also recommended that $96,000 be transferred from the Oakesdale Phase 2 project, and $104,000 be transferred from the Benson Rd. S./S.31st St. signal installation project to cover the additional costs. Transportation Systems Director Sandra Meyer stated that the 2003 Overlay project bids exceeded the project estimate due to higher than anticipated asphalt, traffic control, mobilization, finish and clean-up costs. She indicated that since the contractor is not available in September, the item was listed as Council concur rather than referral to Transportation Committee because the work needs to be completed in August. Ms. Meyer explained that to ensure there are adequate funds to cover the overlay project costs, $200,000 must be reallocated from other projects listed in the Transportation Division's 2003 appropriated budget of approximately $7.6 million. Additional funding for this project can be transferred from the Oakesdale Phase 2 project which has been completed, and from the City's share of the new signal to be installed by King County at the Benson Rd. S./S. 31st St. intersection for which payment to King County would be deferred until 2004. Responding to Council President Keolker-Wheeler's inquiry as to why an additional $10,000 above the bid award amount was requested, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington explained that the budget amounts for all these projects include the design, and in some case project management costs, as well as the actual bid award. Thus the bid award is almost always below the July 21, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 255 actual appropriation because of the soft costs included in the project. Ms. Keolker-Wheeler requested that a detailed explanation be forwarded to her regarding how the additional $10,000 will be used. Discussion ensued regarding the project cost estimate, the project budget, the higher than anticipated costs for the project, and the project timeframe. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6.e. AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a supplement to Item 6.Q. CAG-01-071, agreement with Perteet Engineering, Inc., for additional CAG: 01-071, Maple Valley engineering services in the amount of $121,884 for the Maple Valley Hwy. Hwy HOV, Perteet (SR-169) HOV, 140th Way SE to SR-900 project. Approval was also sought to Engineering transfer $122,000 from the SW 27th St./Strander Blvd. project to cover the additional costs. Sandra Meyer, Transportation Systems Director, explained that as the preliminary design has progressed, conditions have changed necessitating additional work outside the initial scope of the project. The project limits have increased in the vicinity of I-405 requiring a considerable amount of field surveys, base maps, engineering work, and design plans that were not scoped. She indicated that the transfer of $122,000 from the SW 27th St./Strander Blvd. project will cover the additional costs. The Strander Blvd. project is estimated to spend $400,000 of its $1,610,000 appropriation in 2003, and staff will restore the Strander appropriation in 2004 with 2004 revenues from the per capita business license fee. Responding to Mayor Tanner's concern that funds dedicated only for the Strander Blvd. project are being borrowed for this project, Ms. Meyer assured that the $1 million of dedicated funds for the Strander Blvd. project will not be touched. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6.q. AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Added Correspondence was read from Reed Brott, 2306 Vashon Ct. NE, Renton, CORRESPONDENCE 98059, requesting that the use of fireworks be banned in Renton. MOVED BY Citizen Comment: Brott - CLAWSON, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER Fireworks Ban THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Council President Keolker-Wheeler stated that the teen musical "Cinderella" Community Services: playing at Carco Theatre through August 9 is fantastic, and she encouraged "Cinderella" Teen Musical everyone to attend. Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Committee regarding the Highlands redevelopment area residential -oriented City Code Planning: Harrington Square, amendments. The Committee met on July 17 to consider the Planning Highlands Redevelopment Commission's recommended City Code amendments.to Title IV (Development Regulations) that are designed to encourage new residential development in the Highlands area. The Planning Commission recommendation allows up to 80 dwelling units per net acre and urban parking standards in exchange for higher design standards and on -site open space requirements. July 21, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 256 The Committee recommended setting a public hearing on August 4, 2003, to consider this proposal. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the amendment Development Services: Street to the Utility Fee Code (RMC 4-1-180) regarding the street light system Light System Fee, City Code connection fee. The City of Renton requires developers of plats, short plats, Amend and projects with street frontages to install street lighting systems to City specifications and then turn the system over to the City for ownership and maintenance. The Operations Division coordinates and authorizes system connections and pays the power bills. Under their tariff, Puget Sound Energy began billing the City of Renton a connection charge for time and materials for the physical hookup of new street light systems at an average cost of $317 per project. This fee will increase August 1, 2003, to a base fee of $375 with an anticipated average cost of a minimum of $465 per project. Staff proposes amending the Utility Fee Code to add a new flat fee of $500 per street light system connection payable prior to issue of the construction permit. The Committee recommended concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to approve the proposed City Code amendment to add a street light system connection fee to the public works fees. The new fee will be set at $500 per new street light system and payable prior to issue of the construction permit. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. SAD: East Kennydale Sanitary Stating that he recused himself from the Utilities Committee meeting during Sewer Infill Phase II discussion of the special assessment district since his home is affected by it, Councilman Corman also recused himself from the Council meeting for presentation of the related committee report. Time: 8:37 p.m. Utilities Committee Vice Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence in the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation that preliminary approval be given for the East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill Phase II Special Assessment District. The Committee further recommended that staff proceed with the establishment of the final special assessment district upon completion of the construction of the East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill Phase II project. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Councilman Corman returned to the meeting. Time: 8:39 p.m. ORDINANCES AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution #3647 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Fire: 2003 Emergency Medical 2003 King County agency services contract for emergency medical services Services Funding, King (basic life support). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, County (Basic Life Support) COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, Council: Meeting COUNCIL CANCEL ITS REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMITTEE OF Cancellations (7/28/2003, THE WHOLE AND COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 28, COW & Regular Meeting) 2003. CARRIED. July 21, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 257 Fire: Station #12 Contract MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL Issues REFER FIRE STATION #12 CONTRACT ISSUES TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Wiles - Councilman Persson reported receipt of correspondence from William O. Action Aviation Closure Wiles, President of Action Aviation, Inc., 840 W. Perimeter Rd., Renton, 98055, regarding Action Aviation's inability to obtain a reasonable sublease at the Renton airport resulting in the closure of the business. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR ACTION. CARRIED. Community Services: Farmers Councilwoman Nelson announced that a new organic bakery vendor and the Market "crab man" will be present at the Farmers Market on July 22. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL AND ADJOURNMENT RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES TO DISCUSS LITIGATION WITH NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND THE COUNCIL MEETING BE ADJOURNED WHEN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS ADJOURNED. CARRIED. Time: 8:45 p.m. Executive session was conducted. There was no action taken. The executive session and the Council meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. BONNIE L WALTON, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann July 21, 2003 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 21, 2003 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA AD HOC COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Briere) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Keolker-Wheeler) COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE (Parker) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (Briere) PUBLIC SAFETY (Clawson) TUES., 7/22 Electronic Mail and Correspondence 3:30 p.m. Policies MON., 7/28 CANCELLED MON., 8/04 Emerging Issues; 6:00 p.m. Boeing Environmental Impact Statement *Council Information Conference Room* MON., 8/04 Chambers Appointment to Municipal 5:30 p.m. Arts Commission MON., 8/04 5:00 p.m. TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 7/24 (Persson) 4:00 p.m. UTILITIES (Corman) Vouchers Boeing Environmental Impact Statement; King County Agreement Regarding Coal Creek Parkway Improvements; Berger/Abam Engineers Contract for Duvall Ave. NE Widening Project; Berger/Abam Engineers Contract for Duvall Ave. NE Intersection Improvements NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. 0 HOT Lane Update Michael Cummings Corridor Planning Manager July, 2003 imIkk 3�1— Washington state V/JF Department of Transportation HOV Lane Performance During Peak periods: • Provide a travel time advantage in all corridors. • in most corridors, move more people than the adjacent general purpose lane • Starting to be congested (failing) in key locations. During off-peak periods: • Show a sharp decrease in volumes • Creates an empty lane syndrome. -Bottom line: HOV lanes need to be used in a more efficient manner than they are today. 1 Commission Request • Transportation Commission has asked WSDOT to look at changes to the HOV lane use including the potential implementation of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. What are High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes? • Separated Lane(s) specifically dedicated to specific user groups (Carpools 2+, 3+, ...Transit) • "Extra" capacity is sold to other users • Fees are set to maintain near free -flow conditions for users • Provides benefits to all roadway users fA 0 ca Moveable Berner 2 National Experience: California I-15: San Diego-FasTrak — 2 barrier separated lanes, 8 miles long — Opened 1988 as an HOV facility — Converted to HOT lanes in 1996 • 2+ free and Single Occupant Vehicles tolled • 21,500 vehicles per day with approximately 25% tolled • Revenue approximately $2M/yr — Currently expanding to 20 miles 3 California Exnerience:How have they liked it? Approval of FasTrak Program on I-15 Approve Approve 88 % 66% Disapprove Don't 11% Know 1% FasTrak Customer Disapprove 28 % Other I-15 Users Owron 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ >40 40-7070-100100+ Age Income ($000's) lon't :now 6% 4 Review of Public Support Measures • Saves Time • Reduces Congestion • Cost Effective • Safe • Fair • Minimal System Impacts • Simple to use • Institutional and Political Support • Can be implemented in two years • Sustainable (successful over long term) • Single Occupant Vehicle Use Demonstration/ Pilot Basic Decisions • HOV 2+ free access • Test pricing, single lane system and multiple access points • Test key issues before moving to more complex technical and political environments 5 Primary Requirements • Congestion in the peak direction - As indicated by continuous GP speed reduction (from desired free flow speed of 60 mph) • HOV lane capacity available (400 to 500 vph desired) based on 1500 vehicles per hour (vph) capacity • Space available to make needed improvements Candidate Segments Best Meeting Primary Evaluation Criteria L406: Sea bk dAM Peak Hour S*,Ob UR! PM Peak Hour 6RIST.Hfta—AM Peak Han SR 167 ""' 1.90: W—... d AM Peak Hour peHevuF 190 I=405 to,Issaquah T I 1-405: Northbound PM Peak Period HOV Capacity: Congestion: Number of vehicles GP Speed Reduction ��SR below 1500 vph below 60 MPH 527 Behe 600 -23mph SR 522 202 500 =' -10 NE 1241h NE 851h 150 400 -28 20 r SR 520 watt Bellevue 550-800 -5-20 Less than 5 desired SR capacity Sso-, - -s `' "Cao'Y available oo -12 GP speed RedYet'°R en SR 167 8UU -12 Data from May 0 650 15 -28 Congestion: SR 167-Southbound PM Peak Period HOV Capacity: Number of vehicles below GP Speed 1500 V h Reduction below 11 60 MPH 1-405 40s, enton 650 vph -10 SE 180th St 1t e 3 550 -15 5 � 841h Ave S yam; Kent 550 -21 516 SR 516 Con inuous 5, Big ficant 500_ -23 HO capacity y Aubur 151h NW< NOV A-11We � Gvsv»d t8 . Red-fl- Continuous speed Data from May 2002 reduction 7 SR 167 - Northbound AM Peak Period HOV Capacity: Congestion: Number of vehicles GP Speed below 1500 vph Reduction below 405 60 MPH 10a enton 800 vph -14 m SE 1801h St 1e1 ' . 5 s 850 -8 841h Ave S 950 . � -5 Kent Continuous 5 , significant 950 ; HOV capacity . ti -16 Aubur 15'h NW NOV Av.il.bl. ap.ary 167 � Gp Sp.W +g R.d-I�c^ Continuous speed Data from May 2002 reduction Scope of Work for SR 167 HOT Lane Feasibility Study Feasibility Study will include: • 1% design of the HOT lane roadway • Traffic modeling and operational evaluation • Revenue estimates • Recommendations and Final Report (Fall 03) SR 167 Valley Freeway Corridor Analysis Renton City Council Douglas B MacDonald Carol Hunter Secretary of Transportation Transportation Planner July 21, 2003 AdIlk "'W- Washington state IAI Department of Transportation Background • Requested by South King County Elected Officials for inclusion for RTID Ballot Measure (Due Date: RTID Public Outreach Plan, August 2003) -Received $500,000 April of 2003 PSRC - $400,000 King County - $34,000 Kent - $33,000 Auburn - $33,000 1 Tasks in our 4 month schedule • Develop a range of options that can be advanced into an environmental process • Select an initial project definition for RTID • Cost estimate & CEVP* • Analyze potential for HOT Lane conversion *CEVP — Cost Estimating Validation Process TIMELINE Executive Committee Selected Option 4 as Preferred Option (July 8th) 9 CEVP - July 1 7th & 1 8th Confirm Option Selection after CEVP Results 9 Forward Project Description & Cost Estimate to RTID by mid August for Draft Public Outreach Plan 2 ' ` • Study Area 1-405 to 1-5 • Project Area — 180th to King/Pierce County Line for initial project funded under RTID (Note: The SR167 Analysis is assuming the recommendations -` for the 1-405 Bus Rapid Transit Project and SR 167 Extension Project) Analysis Area •Study Area - 1-405 to 1-5 •Project Area — 180th to King/Pierce County Line for initial project funded under RTID (Note: The SR167 Analysis is assuming the recommendations 1-405 and SR 167 Extension Project) Evaluation Criteria • Move More People • Reduce Congestion for Traffic and Freight • Save Time • Improve Safety • Maintain or Enhance Environmental Impacts • Cost Benefit SR 167 Improvement Options *Option 1 — 7 lanes with Transit & TDM + a reversible lane • Option 2 - 8 lanes plus TDM & 50% more Transit • Option 3 — 9 lanes with a reversible lane • Option 4 — 10 lanes with Managed Lanes *All Options have Transit and TDM and assume Phase I of Sound Transit H 2030 Hours of Congestion Today's hours of delay 12 01 00 10 i 8FM 0 = 6 4 0 No Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Action 2030 Daily Vehicle Trips 118,000 300,000 ol Todayt Volume- Vehicles per day 250,000 includes 9,000 200,000 [ Trucks per day 150,000 g IBM �< Traffic shifts from 15, 100,000 '�" k �" (g 50,000 SR 509 and arterials 0 'kt'f ,E Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 5 2030 Daily Person Trips on SR 167 400,000 N 350,000 i C 300,000 y L- 250,000 l 2002 Person Trips on SR d Q. 200,000 167 .r. 150,000 00 e�rF 50,000 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Acres of Wetlands Impacted 25 N 20 Aga Q 10 Alin 0 s�...' Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Note: In comparison, the 1-405 selected alternative impacts 25 acres of wetlands. 0 Preliminary Costs and Benefits Findings (Pre-CEVP) • Preliminary Cost Estimates (in current $) for all options can be phased or constructed within the $650 million South King County budget. • Initial B/C ratios for all options rate above 1 Next Steps • Final Executive meeting to confirm option and cost estimate post CEVP (Mid August) • Submit project definition and cost estimate to RTID for August, 2003 RTID Draft Outreach Plan • Finalize Report • 05 — 07 EIS will consider alternatives similar to the performance of Option 4 and a range of options ($9.6M funded in the Nickel Package) 7 Contact Information Carol Hunter WSDOT Urban Planning Office (206) 464-1219 hunterc@wsdot.wa.gov .ice. Washington State wwDepartment of Transportation cai Zff SR 167 VALLEY FWY. - TRANSIT/TDM PLUS REVERSIBLE LANE - OPTION 1 AM OPERATION VARIES 134' VARIES 20' 7 LANES 20' +� 12`-- SOUTHBOUND 1 NORTHBOUND 12 1 j -kw6l1 _ _ _ O _ o __ _ _-9 — 12, 10OULDER' 12 12' 4 HOV HOULDER� �SH0lULDJR'HOV ��.10 4�GP�GP SHOULDER ' \ \ W _ ` OULD GP.— 4 HOV HOV SHOULDER' ' SHO]: 12' ULDER'HOV 4�GP�GP SHOULDER ' i I I I I I SOUTHBOUND PM OPERATION NORTHBOUND • ADD 1 REVERSIBLE HOV LANE AND MOVABLE BARRIER SYSTEM 7 LANES TOTAL, 3 HOV LANES AND 4 GP LANES • AM OPERATION - 4 LANES NORTHBOUND 3 LANES SOUTHBOUND PM OPERATION - 3 LANES NORTHBOUND 4 LANES SOUTHBOUND Washington State Department of Transportation REQUIRES 24FT OF ADDITIONAL ROADWAY WIDTH DAVID EVANS W2-1 AnoASSOCIATESiN 415 - I I8th Avant SE Bellevue Wes►intto• 90005J510 Phony. 425319.6500 SR 167 VALLEY FWY - SIX LANES PLUS PEAK HOUR SHOULDER - OPTION VARIES VARIES 126' 20' +� 20' +� I� ll I I oe o B, B --�_---- ----_SHO-_-- - SHO LDER- 10, \ SHOULDER' GP GP� AGED PEAK12'UHOUJ IPEAKLDER 14' UHOUR MANA EG D ' ,, GP GP SHOULDER TRANSITiHOV TRANS"OV SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND • 6 LANES PLUS 2 PEAK HOUR SHOULDER LANES (1 NORTHBOUND AND 1 SOUTHBOUND) • PEAK HOUR OPERATION - 2 GP LANES, 1 MANAGED HOV LANE AND 1 MANAGED SHOULDER LANE • OFF-PEAK OPERATION - 2 GP LANES AND 1 MANAGED HOV LANE • REQUIRES 16FT OF ADDITIONAL ROADWAY WIDTH ::9 Amb► .: DAVID EVANS Y�L p Q •r+oASSOCIATES iNc. "• • Washington State Department of Transportation eau..,e Pe•ne:e: 425 ro.saoos�sra usrsssoe iY SR 167 VALLEY FWY - EIGHT LANES PLUS TRANSITITDM - OPTION 2 VARIES 20' +< 146' 1 1 1 1 o wi�w 1 1 1 1 B' O 8 —_8 — — — L 2 GP�GP�GP� 4� HO' 1 ULDJOULDE HOV 4 �GP=GP— SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND Washington State Department of Transportation • ADD 2 GP LANES (1 NORTHBOUND AND 1 SOUTHBOUND) • 8 LANES TOTAL, 2 HOV LANES AND 6 GP LANES • REQUIRES 36FT OF ADDITIONAL ROADWAY WIDTH VARIES 20' +,- DAVID EVANS p Q ANoASSOCIATES inc. 0 415-119thA. wSE Bellmc Wu6i.tten 9"05-35/E Pee..: 42KS19.6M y�l �.'M w rl«a SR 167 VALLEY FWY. - NINE LANES WITH REVERSIBLE LANE - OPTION 3 AM OPERATION VARIES 158' VARIES 20' +� 9 LANES 20' +A SOUTHBOUND nZ NORTHBOUND 11 11 24' _---L17---- -----o -o— _—_—_--- - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2' 10, 77 HOULD G 1 GP�4 HOV SHOULDE��OULDER' HOV ~HOV 4 �GP�GP�GP $HOULDER \ °L \ O HOULDER' GP GP GP 4 HOV HOV SHOULDER' �SHOULDER'�HOV 14 �GP�GP�GP SHOULDER SOUTHBOUND PM OPERATION NORTHBOUND • ADD 1 REVERSIBLE HOV LANE AND MOVABLE BARRIER SYSTEM • ADD 2 GP LANES • 9 LANES TOTAL, 3 HOV LANES AND b GP LANES �► e AM OPERATION - 5 LANES NORTHBOUND 4 LANES SOUTHBOUND. PM OPERATION - 4 LANES NORTHBOUND 5 LANES SOUTHBOUND VrAf Washington State • REQUIRES 48FT OF ADDITIONAL ROADWAY WIDTH Department of Transportation WEDAVID EVANS Ar+oASSOCIATESmc. 415-llathAye..eSE Bellevue Washington 93005-3SIS Phone: 425.519.6500 SR 167 VALLEY FWY - TEN LANES WITH MANAGED SYSTEM - OPTION 4 VARIES 170' 20' +A- 10 LANES TOTAL 30 ° o uu _ -�--- -a-- _-- [ 1'2' 12' 10, SHOULDER GP GP�GP� MANAGED MANAGED 'SHOULDER' 'SHOULDER' MANAGED MANAGED ' E�21 GP SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND • ADD 2 GP LANES (1 NORTHBOUND AND 1 SOUTHBOUND) . ADD 2 MANAGED LANES (1 NORTHBOUND AND 1 SOUTHBOUND) • CONVERT EXISTING HOV LANES TO MANAGED LANES • 10 LANES TOTAL, 4 MANAGED LANES AND 6 GP LANES • REQUIRES 60FT OF ADDITIONAL ROADWAY WIDTH AAlkkk 'I/ lF Washington State Department of Transportation VARIES 20' +,- 10' DAVID EVANS FC2-OT aetic�NoASSOCIATESmc.au 4IS-11EthA.ueSE vewu9lOOSJsIS PbO /ZSS19.6w CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Jesse Tanner, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT • IKEA Renton River Days begins tomorrow, Tuesday, July 22nd, and runs through Sunday, July 27`s. This weeklong festival offers many activities and opportunities for family, friends, and neighbors to come together and celebrate the great community of Renton. Visit the festival website at www.ientonriverdgys.org for a complete schedule of the IKEA Renton River Days activities, entertainment, and locations or call festival headquarters at 425-430-6528. • Do you know someone who promotes and supports Renton - someone who is dedicated to making the Renton community a great place to live, work, play, and learn? Here is your chance to recognize that special person for their commitment to Renton. Nominations for Renton Citizen of the Year are being accepted through September 3`d. Visit the Spotlight section of the City's website at www.ci.renton.wa.us to nominate the Citizen of the Year on-line or call the Chamber of Commerce at 425-226-4560 for a nomination form. • Now airing on Cable Channel 21 is a new edition of CityView, the City's video magazine. This edition features segments on the 40' of July Celebration at Coulon Park, the Renton Ahead of the Curve Day, the Veterans Memorial dedication, the Downtown Parking Garage, the IKEA Performing Arts Center, the American Girl Tea Party, the Young Musicians Showcase, and the Cinema on the Piazza. Visit the City's website for a list of show times and other interesting programs. Previous editions of CityView are available to check out at the Renton Public Library. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • The City of Renton offers scholarships for low-income Renton residents of all ages to participate in educational and recreational activities offered by the Recreation Division. Administered by the Human Services Division, the program is solely funded by donations from the Renton community, fraternal organizations, and businesses. In early spring, the demand for scholarships exceeded available funds and 47 children were put on a waiting list. Thanks to a $1,000 donation from both the City of Renton Management Association and the Renton Community Foundation, and a $500 donation from the Renton Police Athletic Association, there is no longer a waiting list. • On Thursday, July 17d', over 200 children, parents, and friends attended the first of the Picnic Pizzazz Kids Entertainment Series which is held from noon to 1:00 p.m. at either the Kiwanis Park or the Liberty Park every Thursday through August 10. Future events will feature Paul Hann, Brian Waite Band, Rhys Thomas, and Bubble Man. Check out the Spotlight section of the City's website for details. Administrative Report July 21, 2003 Page 2 The Youth Track and Field Program concluded last week with 161 boys and girls, ages 9 to 14, participating on the Renton team. Nineteen of these young athletes placed at the recent Hershey Track and Field State Meet in Wenatchee. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, & STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • The North Renton Neighborhood Association will hold their annual neighborhood picnic on Tuesday, July 29`', from 5:30-8:00 p.m. at Jones Park, 98 Wells Avenue South. North Renton residents are encouraged to attend the picnic to get acquainted with their immediate neighbors and to meet City representatives. • The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for The Boeing Company's Renton site has been issued for public review and comment. The DEIS studied four different redevelopment alternatives on Boeing's 280-acre site, as well as the Puget Sound Energy property adjacent to the northeastern corner of Boeing's property. On Wednesday, July 30`i', at 6:00 p.m., the City of Renton Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on the DEIS to take public comment. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers, on the 7 h floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. The DEIS comment period ends August 7`�. For additional information, visit the City's website at www.ci.renton.wa.us or call Elizabeth Higgins at 425-430-6576. PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • King County advises that the Renton Transfer Station will be closed from September 8`s through late November to replace the aging roof and scale house. Alternate disposal and recycling stations are available. For more information about sites and operating hours, call King County at 206-296-4466, or visit their website at www.metrokc.gov. POLICE DEPARTMENT • During the week of July 22-28, the Police Department will be conducting traffic emphasis in the following areas: Renton Police Department Traffic Enforcement Emphasis July 22-28 Date 6:00 a.m. to Noon Noon to 6:00 P.M. All Da Motorcycles Cars Motorcycles Cars Radar Trailer July 22 SW Sunset Blvd 1400 Houser Way Lk Wash Blvd 200 blk, S 2nd St 400 blk, Cedar Tuesday Turns/speed Seed Seed Seed Ave S July 23 1100 blk, Carr Rd Williams Ave/Grady 400 blk, Cedar Ave Rainier Ave N 2600 blk, NE 7`s Wednesday Speed Way Stop sign S Speed St Speed July 24 Rainier Ave N SW Sunset Blvd Maple Valley Hwy Maple Valley Hwy 2600 blk, NE 7 th Thursday Seed Turns/speed Seed Seed St July 25 Rainier Ave/Grady Rainier Ave N Rainier Ave N 200 blk, S 2° St 2600 blk, NE 7 Friday Way Red lights Seed Seed Seed St July 28 1100 blk, Carr Rd 400 blk, Cedar Ave S S 2 St/Rainier Ave 1400 Houser Way 3800 blk, NE 12 Monday Seed Seed Red li ht/tums Seed St 1 b CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Staff Contact...... AJLS/Mayor's Office Jesse Tanner, Mayor Subject: Municipal Arts Commission Appointment Exhibits: *Recommendation from Dennis Culp, Administrator, Community Services Department *Community Service Application a Al #: y For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Community Services Committee Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Tanner appoints Jeremy Chambers to the Municipal Arts Commission for an unexpired three-year term expiring on December 31, 2003, replacing Virginia Corder who resigned. Mr. Chambers' address is: 15823 130`h Place SE, Renton, WA; Telephone: 425-864-1497. The other members of the Municipal Arts Commission are: Ava Hammond, Gifford Visick, Paul Webb, Diana Hagen, Renne Saling, Jerri Everett, Edythe Gandy, Michael J. O'Halloran, Eleanor L. Simpson, Doug Kyes, and Nancy Hobert. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the appointment of Jeremy Chambers to the Municipal Arts Commission. K1 Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 ECEI V E 'NIA"(" RS0 F CE TO: Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator�t;�„� SUBJECT: Recommendation for Appointment to Renton Municipal Arts Commission DATE: July 7, 2003 The members of the Municipal Arts Commission would like to recommend the appointment of the following candidate to fill the following vacancy on the commission: Jeremy Chambers to fill Virginia Corder's term that expires 12/31/03. Jeremy Chambers submitted an Application for Community Service on June 4, 2003. He attended one meeting of the Renton Municipal Arts Commission on July 2 and was interviewed after the meeting by a panel of commission members. Jeremy has an MBA in Marketing from the University of Washington and is a sales representative for Rodda Paint Company. He is a business owner specializing in industrial paint equipment service and repair. He serves as a board member, music leader, church secretary and youth director for his church. He also serves as a board member for Papuri Northwest, a Filipino organization. Jeremy says that he has never been involved with civic duty and would like to serve the City of Renton as a member of the Renton Municipal Arts Commission. He will be a valuable asset to the Arts Commission with his performing arts background and business marketing expertise. CC: Sylvia Allen, Recreation Director 2003-144aa CITY OF RENTON APPLIC4TIONFOR COALIM INITYSE'RVICE �UN 0 6 f- If you are interested v) participating in local government by membership on any of the following City boards, co{� e committees, please complete this application and retuni it to: " FIC Office of the :'1Jayor 4,ndfff 0eectuW Ar I1 (txaoldtr City of Renton Iov Tas4, '''der, t•�.tQ � �J.� 6� } )055 South Grady Way sha�vn �i• s Renton, WA 98055 9,5= Check the.boarAlcommissions/committees in which you are interested: c XTI AIRPORT AD\•ISORY C0IVIfv11ITEE HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMIvII7EE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - BOARD OF, ETHICS LIBRARY BOARD: NICIPAL CIVIL. ARTS COMMISSION'. SERVICE COMMISSION ARK BOARD fl HORIZONS COMMII'IEE PLANNING COMMISSION. OUSING AUTHORII Y 0 SENIOR CTT7ZENS ADVISORY COIti1M1T T"EE HUMAN RIGI ITS AFFAIRS COkmISSION SISTER CITY COly1nBJ 1 EE: Special membership requirements apply:. Your application will be given eve iy considers;ioiz as Vacancies occur. ' NAM b PHONE: DAY DATE k�00 ZIP CODE v +� T*' �"EMATL RENTON RESIDENT?__ �l HOW LONG? fi CITY OF FORMER RESIDENCE k5Af9 )v1f S t w EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OCCUPATION OCCUPATIONAL COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES (organizations/clubs/service REASON FOR APPL G FOR THIS I CAN ATTEND DAY MEETINGS etc. EMPLOYED�V V /ter �r CAN AI] -END NIG14T MEETINGS? Applications will be kept on file for one year. If you have questions about serving on a boar . commission, or committee, please feel free to contact the Mayor's Office at 425A30-6500. il& /I 1 'ER Jeremy Chambers 15823 130t'' PI SE, Renton, WA 98058 425-864-1497 (cellular), 425-255-4240 (home) June; 2003 Experience 2003 - Sales Representative, Rodda Paint Company Developing Rodda's entry into the Southern Idaho/1Jtah market through dealers. 2001 - CEO and Co -Founder, American Sprav Equipment, Inc— & Chambers Associates, Inc. • Consumer, Contractor & Industrial Paint Equipment Service/Repair. • Importers of specialty paint equipment. • Consultants for export management of coatings to Asia (China mainly). 2000-2001 Outside Sales, Kelly -Moore Paint Company, Seattle • Northwest Industrial Specialist: part of a company -wide team that developed and promoted marketing, programs and directed R&D budgeting. • Participated with the Corporate Marketing Manager in organizing and working national trade shows_ • Worked to develop export business. • Wrote and submitted, "Customer Segmentation for Kelly -Moore Paint Company #402: Most Profitable Customer Segments from the Perspective of Actill-Ity-Based Costing." 1994-2000 Outside Sales, Kellv-Moore/Preservative Paint Company, Renton • Earned the President's Award for Top Achievement in Sales. • Helped to grow sales and increase margins while simultaneously minimizing the Preservative product line and implementing the Kelly -Moore product line and brand after acquisition of Preservative in 1994. • Worked to develop export business. • Part of a team that wrote and submitted, "Strategic Recommendations for Kelly- Moore/Preservative Paint Entering the East Asian Paint Market." 1991-1994 preservative Paint Company, various locations • Inside Sales & Operations 1990-1991 Preservative Paint Company, Seattle Factory • Worked in the warehouse and factory. 1988-1996 US Armv Reserve • Interrogator & Translator (Korean Language) • Letter of Commendation for Operational Excellence in the Field Education 2002 Master's Degree in Business Administration (MBA) University of Washington, Seattle, WA: June, 2002 1998 Baccalaureate Degree in Oreanizational Management (BA) Northwest College, Kirkland, WA, • Summa Cum Laude 1994 Associate of Arts Degree North Seattle Community College, Seattle, WA 1990 Diploma, US Army Interrogation School, Fort Huachuca, AZ 1990 Diploma, Korean Language Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Monterrey, CA • Korean Department Head's Award for Excellence in Language Learning Community Service 2002- Board Member of Papuri Northwest (Filipino Organization) 2002- Member of the Filipino Community of Seattle 2003 - Lifestream Worship Center (Board Member, Music Leader, Church Secretary, and Youth Director) CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board. . Staff Contact...... Subject: Exhibits: AJLS Sonja Mejlaender Waiver of parking fees at City Center Parking during IKEA Renton River Days Recommended Action: Council Concur Al #: _ > For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: X Requesting permission to have City Center Parking Garage fees waived July 22-27, 2003 during IKEA Renton River Days. Events are primarily located at Liberty Park, and there are events in the downtown core such as Jazz at the Piazza on July 23, and the Chalk Art Contest and Parade on July 26. Note: Council adopted Ordinance No. 5011 on 6/2/2003, which set parking fees and parking restrictions for the City Center Parking Garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to waive City Center Parking Garage fees during IKEA Renton River Days. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBMITTING DATA: Dept/Div/Board.. City Clerk Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton SUBJECT: Bid opening on July 15, 2003, for CAG-03-113, Logan Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project EXHIBITS: Staff Recommendation Bid Tabulation Sheet (four bids) AI #: AGENDA OF: July 21, 2003 AGENDA STATUS: Consent......... X Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance....... Resolution...... Old Business.... New Business.... Study Session... Other........... RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept...... Council concur Finance Dept.... Other. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... $84,864 Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted........ $200,000 Revenue Generated... (SUMMARY OF ACTION: Project Estimate: $121,000 RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following three criteria: There was more than one bid, the low bid was within the project budget, and there were no irregularities. Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid submitted by Advanced Construction, Inc. in the amount of $84,864. CITY OF R1EN T 0tA1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17, 2003 TO: City Council VIA: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk FROM: Transportation Design STAFF CONTACT: JasoXTritzler, Project Manager x7243 SUBJECT: Logan Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit As part of the City's effort to upgrade all of its existing structures to better withstand seismic events, it has identified the Logan Avenue Bridge over the Cedar River as a candidate for a phase 1 seismic retrofit. This project will construct longitudinal and transverse restrainers to be fitted to the bridge to limit the movement of the bridge span in the event of an earthquake. The Logan Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project (Project #12201) is ranked number 15 in the 2003-2008 TIP and currently has $200,000 allocated. The lowest bid submitted by Advanced Construction fell well within the projects budget at $84,864 and under the engineer's estimate of $121,000. The Transportation Design Section would like to recommend that the contract be awarded to Advanced Construction. Additionally, we also recommend that the Agenda Bill outlining this project go Council Concur since the low bid is within budget, there were four bids submitted, and there were no irregularities in the low bid. cc: Leslie, Sandra, Jason, File Attachments H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TATI DESIGN.ENGUASON\Projects\Logan Ave Seismic\Contract Award Memo.doc\jf CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET _'ROJECT: Logan Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit; CAG-03-113 DATE: July 15, 2003 FORMS Non- Mini- BID BIDDER Bid Collu- Anti- mum Includes 8.8% sales tax Bond Sion Tnist EEO Wage Advanced Construction, Inc. X X X X X $84,864.00 14532 N. Creek Dr., Suite 618 Mill Creek, WA 98012 A.J. Smith C.A. Carey Corporation X X X X X $122,944.00 PO Box 1006 Issaquah, WA 98027 Steve Murdoch Diamaco, Inc. X X X X X $156,574.08 40 Lake Bellevue, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Rick Lambert L.W. Sundstrom, Inc. X X X X X $124,032.00 ?0 Box 893 Ravensdale, WA 98051 Carrie Sundstrom ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE TOTAL: $121,000.00 LEGEND: EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL / i Al #: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Bonnie 1. Walton Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation dated 4/24/2003 regarding Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA-01-034; PP, R, ECF, AAD Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: A. City Clerk's letters (7/11/2003 & 7/16/2003) Study Sessions...... B. Appeal (5/8/2003) Information......... C. Hearing Examiner's Report & Recommendation (04/24/03) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: NSA Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal filed on April 24, 2003 by Labrador Ventures, LLC represented by James V. Handmacher of Morton McGoldrick, accompanied by required $75 fee. I:\WORD\Memo&Letter\APPEAL\labrador agenda bill.DOC/ c� CITY OF RIENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Jesse Tanner, Mayor July 11, 2003 APPEAL FILED BY: Labrador Ventures, LLC, represented by James V. Handmacher of Morton McGoldrick RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated 4/24/2003 denying a request for rezone from R-1 to R-5 for Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA-01-034; PP, R, ECF To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding the Clover Creek H Preliminary Plat has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is July 21, 2003. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on August 21, 2003, in the Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at. a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at (425) 430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachment 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 ® This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30 % post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE �, CITY Off' RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner, Mayor Bonnie I. Walton July 16, 2003 RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiners recommendation dated 4/24/2003 regarding the Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat, File No.. LUA-01-034, PP, R. ECF, as filed by Labrador Ventures, LLC, represented by James V. Handmacher of Morton McGoldrick TO: PARTIES OF RECORD: At the request. of the appellant's representative, the date for review of the above referenced appeal by the City Council's Planning and Development Committee has been changed. The Committee will not meet regarding this matter on August 20. Instead, the Planning and Development Committee will meet regarding this matter at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 4, 2003, in the Council"Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98055. All other statements made in the notification letter of July 11, 2003, remain the same. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-65 10/ FAX (425) 430-6516 MThis nanar rnntains 50 % recvcled material. 30 % post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE MAY-08-2003 11.:54 RENTON CITY CLERK OFC R,Anro&, P.02%03 APPEAL - HEARING EXAMINER y 8 2003 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMLii1r'A/T6bRENTON CITY COUNCIL. K`s 0;7r/GE� FILE NO. LUA01-034, PP. R. ECF Z_ APPLICATION NAME: T.al,rnHnryPntiirPa- LLC.. The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated April 24, 20 03 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: Labrador Ventures, LLC Address: p.o. Box 3344 Kirkland, WA 98083 Telephone No. REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: James Handmacher Address: P.O. Box 1533 Tacoma, WA 98401 Telephone No. 25�-682-7234 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Correction: u CONCLUSIONS: No. 1 Error: States requested classification is not justified and rezone should not be approved Correction:_ Requested reclassification meets all decision criteria and should be approved OTHER No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTIONREQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach exRllanation, if desired) X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: approve rezone Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other Signature 9 Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipat Code, and Section 4-8-110F, fn specific appeal procedures. heappeat.doc/forms City of Renton Municipal Code Title rV Chapter 8 Section 110 — Appeals 4-8-11 OC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-11017: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-05OF1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050172 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be should be disregarded or modified, the City Council -may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden.of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) File No. LUA01-034, PP,R,ECF Application Name: LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC CONCLUSIONS (cont'd.) No. 2 Error: Nothing compels City to reclassify. Correction: Since request satisfies all decisions criteria, city code compels rezone. No. 3 Error: Creek and ravine serve as buffer or transition. R-8 is generally on one side of the ravine and creek and R-1 on the other. Correction: R-8 in on both sides of the ravine, and it cannot serve as buffer. R-5 would provide buffer between R-8 and R-1. No. 4 Error: Nothing in GMA compels city to rezone the property. Correction: GMA compels urban density and R-1 does not provide urban density, but R- 5 does. No. 5 Error: R-1 zone complements the Griffin Home property and slope will be protected without native growth protection easement proposed by request. Correction: Griffin Home is surrounded by R-8 and multifamily zoning, so R-1 not needed to "complement" it. Development on north side of creek, in area of R-8 zoning, right down to creek banks, shows that further protection needed. No. 7 Error: Site would lose rural character under R-5. Ravine would be better served by less development. Correction: City has already approved R-5 as appropriate for residential rural comprehensive plan designation. Ravine already has R-8 zone on both sides, and requested rezone will not affect the ravine. No. 8 Error: Existing zoning provides reasonable return. Correction: Existing large lot zone is not reasonable or fair to property owner when all other properties on three sides of the site are zoned R-8. No. 9 Error: Additional development increases noise and traffic. Correction: Increase in noise and traffic not "materially detrimental", as established by environmental determination of non -significance. For. less impact than surrounding R-8 zones. File No. LUA01-034, PP,R,ECF Application Name: LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC CONCLUSIONS (cont'd.) No. 13 Error: Repeats many errors set forth above. In addition, states that change in area were anticipated. Correction: See corrections noted above. Claim that changes were anticipated inconsistent with conclusion 12 that there have been substantial changes since last area zoning. April 24, 2003 The following are the minutes of the original hearing. The testimony and record of that hearing provided the basis for the factual determination on remand. OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: Brad Hughes Labrador Ventures, LLC File No.: LUA01-034;PP,F ECF LOCATION: The site is located at Park Avenue North and N 27`h Place SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezone site from Residential — 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1) zone to the Residential — 5 dwelling units per acre (R-5) zone, as well as subdivide the 4.43-acre site into 15 single-family lots. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on September 18, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the September 25, 2001 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit. No. 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 3: Slope Delineation Map Exhibit No. 4: Proposed Lot Layout Map Exhibit No. 5: Preliminary Grading Plan Exhibit No. 6: Preliminary Utilities Plan Exhibit No. 7: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit No. 8: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 9: Aerial Photo Exhibit No. 10: Aerial Photo After Clearing Exhibit No. 11: Aerial Photo with Lots Exhibit No. 12: Aerial Photo Exhibit No. 13: Traffic Analysis Exhibit No. 14: Photo of Access to Scott Property Exhibit No. 15: Underlying Lot Pattern (4 Parcels) Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Kemand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 2 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant is proposing to rezone an.approximately 4.5-acre site from R-1 to R-5. Concurrently the applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to separate the parcel into 15 single-family lots. There are two existing single-family structures on the site. There is an existing public roadway that bisects the site. It was the subject of a previous rezone application back in 1999 that was denied at the time. This rezone is permitted within the umbrella of the Comprehensive Plan Designation of Rural Residential. In considering the rezone request, staff looks at whether or not the rezone is in the public interest. The applicant has contended that the proposed rezone would allow for development of new housing and would be at densities compatible with the neighborhood. There has been a significant amount of public comment from neighbors and concerned citizens with regard to the rezone. The comments did express opposition for the upzoning of the property. They primarily cited traffic and drainage problems that they believe could be aggravated. The drainage problems referred to were based on the recent development of Clover Creek I. The subject site is surrounded by R-8, which allows up to eight dwelling units per acre. R-8 is to the north and partially to the west. There is R-1 to the west and to the south and R-8 generally to the east. The property owners who reside in the vicinity have commented on the rezone. Many have mentioned that they believe that their property values might be affected negatively if the rezone was granted because the current spacious and private character of the neighborhood might be affected if a higher density zone is allowed to be placed on the proposed site. Although the intensification of the residential density in the area would assist the City in accomplishing goals of housing and infill development, the City is not obligated to grant these upzones in order to accomplishment density projections. Additional criteria considered is whether the upzone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the petitioner. The applicant is maintaining that the use of the property in a manner consistent with surrounding properties would further the preservation and enjoyment of his property rights. The majority of lots in the vicinity of the subject site are either equal to or smaller then lots in the proposed subdivision. The applicant is contending that the projects avoidance of sensitive areas where there are environmental constraints does further justify the development of the property. Another criteria considered is whether the rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare or other properties or persons located in the vicinity of it. The applicant has stated that the rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare. It would assist in carrying out policies of the growth management act; however, comments have been received from neighbors opposing the rezone because they believe it would increase traffic and drainage problems in the area. Whether or not the property is potentially classified in the zone being requested pursuant to policies in the Comprehensive Plan is another criteria considered. The subject site is classified Rural Residential under the Comprehensive Plan. Both the zone it is currently, R-1 and the proposed R-5 are permitted. The subject site is.also designated on the City's Critical Areas Maps, which includes slopes, erosion and landslide. There is a creek located partially on the property and partially off, called Kennydale Creek. There is a Category 2 wetland about 7,000 square feet in size. A portion of the north property does contain steep slopes. Generally, the property is vegetated with grasses and low-lying vegetation. The wetland area is partially on and partially off the site. Kennydale Creek runs through a ravine and slopes leading down to the ravine are present on the subject site. The lots would range in size from 7,200 to 24,000 square feet. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-26 states the maximum density should range from one home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in the rural residential designation except where there are significant environmental constraints. It appears that the requested rezone is consistent with this; however the retention of the R-1 zone would also be consistent with this policy. In 1995, the Council created the R-5 zone. Because the R-5 zone did not exist in 1993, the last time this site was rezoned, it was not considered for this site or any other in the City. Ms. Henning stated that the proposal is for a subdivision of a 4.43-acre site. Fifteen single-family lots are being proposed. There are two existing homes on the site, which will remain. The proposed plat would have a density of 4.6 dwelling units Clover Creek II Preliminary Pla. Remand File No.: LUA-0 1-03 4,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 3 per acre. There are steep slopes at the north side of the property and there are erosion and landslide critical areas that have been mapped and are located immediately south of Kennydale Creek as is the Category 2 wetland. As part of the applicant's proposal and staff s recommendation, is the creation of a native growth protection easement which is basically a no touch zone. The homeowner's will maintain the split rail fence. There are existing storm drainage facilities that were designed for the Labrador/Clover Creek I development to the west that would be utilized in conjunction with the platting if it were to be approved. Additional improvements would consist of the construction of the new cul-de-sac. Water and sanitary sewer facilities would be extended from the existing improvements on the west side. The proposal was subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, conducted an environmental review. They asked the applicant to go back and accomplish some additional geotech studies and soil sampling and borings. The ERC issued a determination of non -significance mitigated (DNS-M). There were 20 mitigation measures placed on the property designed to eliminate or diminish and significant environmental impacts. There were no appeals filed. The ERC's mitigation measures were primarily with regard to erosion control and drainage. There are 15 conditions associated with the erosion control, drainage and construction. The remaining five conditions have to do with payment of mitigation fees. In regard to geotech measures, the ERC stated that the applicant should comply with recommendations of the geotechnical engineer and retain six trees proposed for removal. There are temporary erosion control measures required by the Environmental Review Committee which include having a qualified geotech engineer present to observe installation of all the erosion and sedimentation control measures, weekly reports need to be provided to the City's inspection group and the geotech needs to make periodic visits to the site. The applicant needs to identify the project clearing limits and those must be clearly identified on the map and the ground. They are subject to the 1990 King Surface Water Design Manual. There are criteria in the Code that staff must look at in regard to the preliminary plat proposal. The subject site is designated R-1. If the rezone to R-5 is approved the plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. If the plat is not approved the R-1 would prevail and a maximum of four residential parcels could be developed without exceeding the maximum density of the R-1 zone. The proposed plat meets all lot dimensions and setback standards for the R-5 zone. The access for proposed lot 5 would be via a driveway across proposed lot 6 and staff is asking that it be defined as an easement if the glat is approved. All the other proposed lots are accessed off the public road. Proposed lot 15 has frontage on North 26 Street, as do proposed lots 12 and 13. Proposed lot 14 is a pipestem that comes out to North 26"' Street. Proposed lot 14 does not appear to provide appropriate front yard setback when the pipestem portion of the lot is excluded. This would need to be addressed prior to approval of any final plat drawing. In the R-5 zone the minimum front yard setback. is 15 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for attached garages. The ERC has required a minimum building setback of 15 feet along the protected slope portions of the property. This applies to proposed lot I thru 5 on the north portion of the property. Under the City's street standards there must be a minimum inside radius of 45 feet and a minimum right-of-way radius of 55 feet as well as curb, gutter, sidewalk. This proposal meets all of those Code requirements. Proposed lot 5 has a secondary access that has been in place via an easement for many years. It comes from the north down a driveway. The driveway easement also goes through proposed lots 6 and 7 because it serves a property not associated with this development, the Scott property. Staff is requiring that this easement and access be maintained. The primary access to proposed lot 5 would be through proposed lot 6 and would be a shared access easement. Staff is recommending that the applicant have a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement established for any private driveways that are shared as well as shared utilities. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-0 I -034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 4 There are concerns from residents in the area who have been impacted by construction vehicles during the construction of Clover Creek I, which is why the ERC required the applicant to limit construction vehicles to use North 27°i Place and Burnett Avenue North. There was a traffic report prepared by Transportation Consulting Northwest in 1998 to access the rezone if it were approved at that point in time. The report did conclude that the construction of the Clover Creek subdivision would result in small increases in traffic volume that would result in small overall delays. Three intersections were studied. They would still continue to operate at level of service, A which is the best with one exception, which is operating at level B and would continue to operate at level B. The borings that were conducted concluded that lots 1 thru 5 are stable with respect to deep seeded earth movements and the 15-foot setback from the top of the slope as recommended is adequate. Fire and police have indicated that they do have adequate resources to provide service if this plat and rezone is approved provided that the mitigation fees are paid. There is no onsite recreation offered, the City prefers that the applicant pay a fee to offset impact to existing parks and recreation facilities. This proposed plat would generate about six students for the Renton School District. The School District does have the ability to support additional students generated by the proposal. The property is located in Aquifer Protection Area Zone Two. The drainage reports discuss how the surface water and runoff would be handled. Surface water from the development will be directed to the recently built roadway and storm drainage facility in Clover Creek I. The flow from the detention vault would restrict the outfall would discharge into an open ditch along the northside of North 26`l' Street and the flow would eventually be directed into Kennydale Creek. The wetland is located just above a small concrete dam on the property. It does have a lot of silt and has created wetland conditions over time. There are existing water facilities in North 26'h Street and Park Avenue. Fire hydrants will need to be installed within 300 feet of all structures. There is an existing sanitary sewer main in North 27`h Place and eight inch mains in North 26'h and Park Avenue. The project will be required to design and construct a 15-inch sanitary main either along the east property line in lot 44 of Clover Creek I or through lots I and 2 of the proposed Clover Creek 11. If the rezone is approved, then staff will recommend that the preliminary plat be approved. If the Hearing Examiner determines that the change in the zone classification is advisable and in the public interest tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property right of the petitioner, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and is in harmony with the purpose and effect the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Henning stated that staff is proposing five conditions to the proposed plat. Establishing access easements necessary for emergency access to proposed Lot 5, establishing access to Lot 5 a shared driveway for both lots 5 and 6 are the first two conditions. Proposed condition 3 is to make sure that the development of lots 6 and 7 shall not preclude the use of the easement along the east boundary. Condition 4 is to create a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the common improvements and condition 5 is creation of the Native Growth Protection Area for all portions of the wetland buffer and it should contain the protected slope area, the 25 foot stream setback, the 50 foot wetland buffer and it needs to be recorded concurrently with the final plat, if approved. Marleen Mandt, 1408 N. 26t' Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that the report references the haul route to be on N. 27'b Street. She is located on N. 26'h Street and there is currently hauling being done on N. 26fl' Street. There is damage to the road caused by tractor blades going up and down the street. They are asking that the haul route be taken off of N. 26a' Street because of the damage and safety concerns. She also asked that the easement route not be used for hauling. She discussed drainage concerns. There is already a drainage problem and she is concerned with where the water will go after these large homes are built and how it will impact water into the creek. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat t(emand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 5 She also voiced concerns over the hours of operation and that they are clearly indicated in the report. She voiced concerns over the number of trees that have already been removed and the number proposed to be removed. The trees act as a buffer for the creek. She and the neighbors are concerned with preserving the creek. She stated that she would like to see something put place to keep vehicles from parking on the bridge. Joan Jensen, 2621 Meadow Place N., Renton, WA 98056 stated that her sewer clean out is on the access road so she does not want to see that road closed. She mentioned that there was flooding on the new street and is concerned that with the new development it will get worse. James Morton, Bonneville, Viert, Morton & McGoldrick, 820 "A" Street, Suite 600, PO Box 1533, Tacoma, WA 98401 stated he can shed some light on why the rezone should be accepted, why it is in the best interest of the community, why it is consistent with the Renton plans, and why the plat should be approved. He then reviewed his background and qualifications. He displayed an aerial photograph of the site, which shows that the area is already cleared and demonstrates that there is no threat to Kennydale Creek. It is a crucial element to the development. The preservation of the area will be significantly enhanced if the rezone and plat are approved. If the site remains R-1 and is developed into four lots he believes that there will be much more significant intrusion. If the activity taking place on the side of the creek opposite the proposed development took place on the proposed site the neighbors could go to the City and that activity could be stopped. The site is predominantly surrounded by R-8. The tax parcels are more consistently R-5. In addition to the amenities the applicant has provided in Clover Creek, there are many other significant changes in the vicinity. The most significant development is the bridge. It was a considerable expense. The ability to preserve this area is significantly enhanced by the design of the bridge. Clover Creek I is a neighborhood the City can be proud of. This proposed rezone and plat are very consistent with the goals and objective of the Growth Management Plan. It is good for the community, tax base and neighborhood. The actual construction that would take place in the plat is confined to the cul-de-sac itself because Park Avenue is complete. There will not be a significant intrusion. The site is relatively flat and gently slopes away from the creek and the steep slopes. If there is any pooling of water anywhere on the site, it will be resolved before the City signs off on final plat approval. The applicant is not objecting to any of the proposed conditions. The applicants are mindful of the sensitivity of the neighborhood. Brad Hughes, 2631 Park Avenue N, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he lives on lot 11 of the proposed plat. In regard to the concern of emergency access to lot 5, he stated that the sole reason that a 25 foot shared access easement is being placed on lot 6 is for Fire Department access. Even with the imposed restrictions from the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) there is still substantial building pad to develop a home that is proper for the area. The topography maps illustrate on lots 13, 14, and 15 takes into account some temporary stockpiles of topsoil that are currently on this location of the property. They have been seeded and covered to avoid erosion. They will be removed when approval of the final plat is received. In regard to flooding on lot 11, he stated that that is his home and he knows nothing of any flooding. He goes into and out of his driveway several times a day and he is not aware of any flooding. There are no drainage problems. The property is surrounded by R-8 to the north, east and west. None of the tax parcels for the site conform to the R-I zone. They are all smaller then one acre. He believes the only issue that needs to be examined is the rezone issue. Matt Pool, 1317 N. 28'h Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he and his family live in the home on proposed lot 5. He is also the builder for Clover Creek 1. As far as construction traffic, he can remember only twice in the entire year that they Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat ttemand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 6 used N. 26t' Street to bring rock and dirt in and out of the plat. It was truck and trailer, which is very difficult to turn without a cul-de-sac. He feels they have been very good about working with the neighbors and addressing problems. As far as storm water, the area is very sandy, there is no surface water problems the soil absorbs the water very nicely. Jim Scott, 1405 N. 28'h Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that the easement he uses for a driveway has been heavily damaged from the trucks and bulldozers. He inquired as to who would be using the access beside himself and the other neighbors who have been using it. He also had concerns about a homeowner's association maintaining the easement. Ms. Henning replied that when she spoke of the homeowner's association maintaining the road she was not referring to the easement in question. Mr. Scott inquired about the sidewalks proposed for N. 20h Street. Along the new road, Mr. Hughes as put plantings along the bank and believes that he indicated he would attend to the maintenance of the plantings but there has been no upkeep. Ms. Henning replied that as part of Clover Creek I, N. 26a' Street was developed east and improvements were made along Meadow Avenue N. Mr. Hughes stated that the plantings were made at the request of the City on Mr. Scott's private property. They improved the right-of-way and widened the street to City standards as requested and conditioned on Clover Creek I. As a concession to appease Mr. Scott and the City they implemented a landscape plan. There was no condition made to maintain Mr. Scott's private property. Mr. Scott stated that he does not believe this area is his property. Amy Buhrig, 1301 N. 26`h Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that her first concern is traffic. In the 1998 study there was a proposed road along the easement but it is not on the current plan. The previous study did not address N. 261` Street at all. The revised study makes some assumptions about N. 26`b Street that she questions. She would like to know what the resolution is for conflicting traffic data. She asked for clarification on how the R-5 zoning would better protect the creek. Ms. Henning stated that it is a case -by -case basis. If a property owner wishes to build they must go through several steps to determine whether or not they may build the structure they are planning to build. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98056 stated that there had been some difficulties during construction with storm drainage but not during engineering construction. There was only one complaint on the books. In regard to the secondary access it allows the fire department to setup in the cul-de-sac to serve proposed Lot 5. It will be marked as a fire lane. Ms. Kittrick went over the two sets of hours of operations, the utility construction hours and the homebuilding construction hours. Ms. Kittrick stated that she received no complaints of flooding during the last big rain. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 12:50 p.m. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-0 I -034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 7 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: Brad Hughes Labrador Ventures, LLC File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF LOCATION: The site is located at Park Avenue North and N 276 Place SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezone site from Residential — 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1) zone to the Residential — 5 dwelling units per acre (R-5) zone, as well as subdivide the 4.43-acre site into 15 single-family lots. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: No recommendation on rezone. Approve plat if rezone is approved. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on September 18, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING: This is a remand from Superior Court, it is a recommendation to the City Council. MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 15, 2003 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were re-entered into the record for use at today's hearing: Exhibit No. 8: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 3: Slope Delineation Map Exhibit No. 16: Hearing Brief prepared by Morton McGoldrick Law Firm The hearing opened with a summary of the background information on the project to this point by Leslie Nishihira, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The proposal is requesting the rezone of the 4.43-acre site from R-1 to R-5. If the R-5 rezone is approved the property would be subdivided into 15 single-family lots. The density for the property would arrive at 4.6 dwelling units per acre after the deduction of critical areas and roadways. The sensitive and protected slope areas extend along the ravine on the northern portion of the site. The creek that abuts the north side of that ravine is also considered a critical and sensitive area. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 8 The proposal did go before the City's Environmental Review Committee on August 14, 2001, a determination of Non - Significance — Mitigated was issued for the project. There were twenty mitigation measures, including temporary erosion control during site preparation and building construction, limit construction vehicle traffic on N 27`h Place and Bumet Avenue, comply with the geotechnical report for the project, some retention of trees within Lots 2, 3, & 4, and payment of Parks, Traffic and Fire Mitigation Fees. Pursuant to Rezone Criteria, Section 4-9-180 F.2, referring to rezones not requiring an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Criteria A, The Rezone is in the Public Interest. The applicant contends that the rezone would allow for the development of quality new housing at densities compatible with the neighborhood and as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. There was a significant amount of public comment from concerned citizens in the area, predominately those concerns expressed opposition to the up -zoning of the property based on increased traffic and increased drainage problems that have been aggravated by recent development, and the potential decrease in property values as a result of reducing the currently spacious and private character of the neighborhood. The subject open area is private property with the potential for development. The intensification of the residential density in the area would assist the City in accomplishing goals of infill development. When determining whether the proposed rezone is in the public interest, issues previously analyzed when adopting a Comprehensive Plan must be considered in conjunction with the concerns raised by the residents of the area. Criteria B, The Rezone Tends to Further the Preservation and Enjoyment of Any Substantial Property Rights of the Petitioner. The applicant maintains that the use of the property, in a manner consistent with surrounding properties, would further the preservation and enjoyment of his property rights. The majority of the lots in the vicinity of the subject site are equal to or smaller than the lots included with the proposed subdivision. The applicant contends that the project's avoidance of sensitive areas or environmental constraints further justifies the development of the property in a reasonable manner as proposed. Criteria C, The Rezone is Not Materially Detrimental to the Public Welfare or the Properties of Other Persons Located in the Vicinity Thereof. The rezone would not be detrimental to public welfare or other properties and would assist the City in carrying out policies established by the Growth Management Act. The opposing point of view raised by the citizens in this area contends that the project would exacerbate drainage and traffic problems and would diminish their quality of life in that area they refer to as open space. Presently there are four underlying lots, two of the lots contain existing homes, there would be two new residences constructed. Park Avenue right-of-way is presently improved and runs through the central portion of the site. Criteria D, The Rezone meets the Review Criteria in Subsections F.1. b and F. Lc of this Section. (i) The Property is Potentially Classified for the Proposed Zone Being Requested Pursuant to the Policies Set Forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is classified Residential Rural on the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Both R-1 and R-5 zoning are permitted for the property under consideration under the Residential Rural designation. The site does contain slopes, erosion and landslide areas as identified by the City's Critical Area Maps. It is located immediately south of Kennydale Creek and a Category 2 wetland. The southern portion of the site where the proposed development site is located, is generally flat, it is the very north end of this property that is characterized with steep slopes bordering a ravine that contains Kennydale Creek. The lower portion of the property is predominantly vegetated with grasses, low-lying vegetation, and deciduous trees. Policy LU-18 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City should encourage large lot single-family development providing a more rural lifestyle in environmentally sensitive, habitat -valuable or agriculturally resource laden lands. The requested rezone from R-1 to R-5 appears to be consistent with another policy of the Comprehensive Plan (Policy LU-26), stating that maximum density should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in the Residential Rural designation. Accordingly, retention of the R-1 zone would also be consistent with the Rural Residential Designation and Policy LU-26. (ii) At Least One of the Following Circumstances Applies. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 9 * The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or * Since the most recent land use analysis for the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. The subject site was rezoned during the last area land use analysis and area rezoning in June of 1993. Prior to that the site was designated R-l. The neighborhood located directly north of the site was developed under the old R-I standards. That area is now designated R-8, but you can see by the pattern that the old R-1 and the current R-8 are pretty consistent. In June of 1993 the City Council adopted new zoning for the area. The western 11.21 acres were assigned R-8 zoning and the 4.43 acres on the east was zoned R-1. Any increase in density requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone of the property. In June 1995 City Council adopted Ordinance 4537 that created the R-5 zone. The R-5 applies to the Residential Rural and Residential Single Family land use designations. Since the R-5 zone did not exist at the time of the last area wide rezone, it was not specifically considered for the subject parcel or for any other parcels in the city. However, since the last analysis of the zoning for the site of Phase I of Clover Creek Preliminary Plat, a number of authorized public improvements have taken place that affect the subject property, specifically roadway and utility improvements have been installed in conjunction with Labrador Plat. This has established the necessary infrastructure improvements to support future development of the subject site. Staff has reviewed the legislative record for substantive support as to why the Council applied the R-I zone to this particular area, but the record appears to be silent on this issue. The presumption is that the Council had substantive reasons for imposing the R-1 zoning which were unexpressed or which are in the record but unfound. James Handmacher, Morton, McGoldrick Law Firm, P.O. Box 1533, Tacoma, WA 98401-1533 handed the Examiner a Hearing Brief that summarizes the analysis under the code. There are two issues before you, one obviously is the rezone, but the other is the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat was denied previously because the rezone was denied, if the Examiner reconsiders that decision and decides to recommend approval of the rezone then there would still need to be a resolution on the preliminary plat. The court directed its reconsideration on the criteria, and I would like to go through that now. In 1999 Council revised the decision criteria for rezones in a number of ways that we think are significant. Starting with whether the rezone is in the public interest. That public interest is best defined by the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City. This Plan contains a number of policies that specifically encourage the zoning that we are asking for here. Policy LU-11 states that future residential growth should be accommodated through the development of new neighborhoods in an environmentally suitable land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown. That is exactly what this piece of property is, the property is primarily flat, mostly cleared, suitable for development and surrounded by single-family residential development in an area that has good access to both downtown and the surrounding communities. Policy H-1 specified that the City should provide sufficient capacity to accommodate housing provided through growth forecast. Policy H-4 encourages infill development as a means to increase capacity. These policies all clearly identify this as an appropriate place for a residential development and the densities that we are seeking here are consistent, if not lower densities than in the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff noted that there was neighborhood concerns about traffic and drainage. I would point out that virtually every development has some neighborhood opposition because people's tendencies are to not want things to change. The issues of traffic and drainage were specifically addressed in the Mitigated DNS. The Environmental Review concluded that there is no significant impacts on the environment from this development. Clover Creek II Preliminary Play-fcemand File No.: LUA-0 I -034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 10 As to neighborhood concerns about property values, again, in every area neighbors would like to see a greenbelt around their property as long as someone else is providing that greenbelt for them. As the Examiner noted a little while ago, this is private property, they have as much right to develop their property as the people that are living around them. The development that is being proposed here will be larger lots than all of the houses in the surrounding area, including the ones that are voicing the opposition. It will provide a suitable buffer between R-8 zone and the adjacent Griffin Home. I believe it was the Supreme Court in the Polygon case that said, "Neighborhood opposition standing alone is not ground for denying the rezone application." Moving to the second rezone criteria, which is whether the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner. Here's where the City recognizes that private property owners have rights and they have a right to develop their property as long as it is consistent and compatible with the development in surrounding properties. That is exactly what is proposed here. It would be not at all inconsistent to be asking for R-8, but the property owner in an attempt to be sensitive to the concerns that were expressed is only asking for R-5 zoning. To single this property out as a R-1 zone in the absence of any significant environmental concerns and in the fact that it is surrounded by R-8 would be a detriment to the property rights of the petitioner and that is why the City Council specifically included that criteria in there to recognize those private property right interests. As staff points out there is no one at this point in time that seems to know why this property was designated R-1 to begin with. It was clearly not to provide open space to protect the ravine, as is shown by the drawing, R-8 zoning separates this property from the ravine. Clover Creek Plat I included roughly eight to ten lots at R-8 zoning on the east side of the ravine. The property here does not border the ravine, it borders the creek on the north, but the ravine where there was such concern about the original plat for Clover Creek is entirely within the other subdivision and it is entirely within the R-8 zoning. The City would not have used R-8 zoning around the ravine if it was going to designate this property to protect the ravine. The same is true about trying to explain the R-I zoning as a means of protecting the headwaters of the creek. Keep in mind that the headwaters of this creek are on the other side of 405, that it culverts under 405 to get to this property. The north side of the creek is all R-8 zoning and those properties are developed all the way down to the creek. The most significant protection that this property owner has offered is to designate the entire area of the slopes along the creek banks as a native growth protection easement. That entire creek bank area as well as all of the sensitive slopes due south of the creek will be within the native growth protection easement and will not be developable by any of the lot owners, will not be useable by any of the lot owners. It distinguishes what will be happening on this property as opposed to what is happening on the north side of the creek where those property owners have developed all the way down to the creek itself. The third rezone criteria is whether the rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare or properties of other persons in the vicinity. All the road and utilities are already in place, all of the drainage facilities are virtually in place, all environmental impacts have been sufficiently mitigated for DNS to be issued. All of the properties around this subject property are developed at equivalent densities and in most cases higher densities. There is no impact on traffic, schools, or on any of the standard areas where there is usually an issue on a new plat. As to the criteria of whether the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone, staff acknowledges that it is. I think it is clear that the Comprehensive Plan allows for R-5 zoning in this rural land use category. The last criteria, which are alternative criteria, are either that the subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning, or there have been substantial changes in circumstances since the last area land use analysis and area zoning. You only have to have to find one of those two, and in this case they both exist. The subject reclassification is to reclassify to R-5. It is important to note that it is not relevant as to whether this subject reclassification was considered at the time of the plat of Clover Creek, the Code says the last area land use analysis and area zoning. That was in 1993, prior to the plat approval for Clover Creek. So the fact that the City Council may not have considered all of the issues dealing with an R-5 zone when it approved the Clover Creek plat is not what the criteria is looking at. I think that is an important point to keep in mind, therefore, the first criteria is met on its face. Clover Creek II Preliminary Pla, remand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 11 The second one is also met and this one takes a little bit more analysis. The issue is whether there were substantial changes in circumstances of the use around the property since the last area land use analysis and area zoning. What we are looking at is 1993, not what the City Council considered when it approved the prior plat in 1997-98. The changes in the area are quite significant, the most obvious one being the plat of Clover Creek I, which developed not only a number of additional lots at the R-8 density but it also provided all the infrastructure for these lots which were not there previously. It provided the road, the bridge to provide easy access out of the development onto the major city streets. It provided the drainage facilities. In addition to that, there has been a substantial development south of the property along Lake Washington Boulevard, next to the Griffin home, that's all multi family development. The only other R-1 property in this area is the Griffin home. All of the other properties in the area have, since 1993 developed at R-8 or greater densities. In the prior analysis, I think both in the Examiner's decision as well as at the City Council level, there was talk about whether these improvements such as the road and bridge, and the development of Clover Creek were anticipated at the time this property was turned down for rezone as part of the Clover Creek development. The issue however, is not whether or not those developments were anticipated at that time, under the Code you look at the last area zoning not to the last site specific zoning. Furthermore, I provided you with a couple cases that I think specifically deal with that. The whole issue of substantial change of circumstances is originally a court created doctrine, before the City started specifying criteria for rezones. The Supreme Court adopted the Substantial Change of Circumstances as the criteria that must be satisfied. There have been several cases that have been looked at under that court created substantial change condition element whether or not anticipated uses could meet that standard. The courts have clearly considered that approved uses on the subject and contiguous properties can be a sufficient substantial change in circumstances to justify a rezone. We have approved uses on the subject and adjacent properties which have been built out since the last time this property was considered even for a site specific rezone and clearly since the time of the 1993 area -wide zoning. The Examiner inquired if that kind of change in circumstance was justified, on our east plateau, there are demarcations between more rural and more intense development. At the time it was adopted one anticipated that on one side of the line whether it was 148`s or Duvall Avenue there would be more intense uses, and on the other side there would be less intense uses. Now the intense uses have been developed, on the east side of that line is lower residential, and if someone comes in and says that we are justified, even though the comprehensive plan and zoning seem to show that there is a demarcation of that line, look what has gone on west of it, we think it is justifiable also. At some point the Council speculates, the same thing could be said here that maybe instead of R-8, you could start moving to R-10 or R-12 because of what has gone on along Lake Washington. Somewhere we need to say that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning is anticipated and we are not going to let each new development drive more densification on the other side. We know that zoning is an arbitrary line somewhere in Clover Creek, the creek was picked again, historic reasons seem to have escaped analysis. Mr. Handmacher disagreed that the creek was picked as the demarcation, the creek bisects the R-8 zone through the Clover Creek development. Zoning is an evolutionary process and traditionally you start with dense zoning in a downtown core and it gets lesser and lesser as it extends out to the rural areas. The Examiner stated that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow for the analysis of the entire area, zoning drives zoning. The question is, do you want each parcel zoning to drive the one next door, or do you want the comprehensive planning process to limit that? As Ms. Nishihira said, growth management does not mandate that we use one site to provide the density and infill if we have already accommodated it someplace else in the City and the City has done that along Lake Washington with the variety of other developments. Mr. Handmacher: We are not asking for a change of the Comprehensive Plan to allow for denser development than the Comprehensive Plan would otherwise allow. The Comprehensive Plan specifically authorizes the zone that we are asking for. The Comprehensive Plan would not allow for R-8, R-10 or any other density zone on this parcel. The Comprehensive Plan does specifically allow for what we are asking, you then have to look at which is the more suitable use within the Comprehensive Plan designation for this particular property. Does it make sense at R-1 when it is surrounded by R-8 or does it make sense at R-5, which is more consistent with what is allowed around it? If environmental issue was the only one at stake here, this property will be more protected under the R-5 zone and plat that is being proposed than it is now. There is no native growth protection easement along that creek bank that will afford protection. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-0 I -034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 12 The Examiner stated R-5 does not do that, it would be the platting with the native growth protection easement, or is the applicant willing to make that a contract with the R-5 zone? Mr. Handmacher acknowledged that the property owner would be willing to make that a condition of the rezone as well as the preliminary plat, they go together and the property owner intends to develop them that way. The Examiner further stated that there is nothing that guarantees that the plat would be developed once the R-5 is rendered. Mr. Handmacher continued that if the concern was that one may not follow the other, the property owner is willing to condition the rezone upon the Native Growth Protection Easement. This area has been determined to handle growth up to an R-5 zone. All we know is that back in 1993 when that rural residential classification was put on this property R-5 was not an option. All criteria support this rezone application. We are asking you to take a fresh look at the facts of the protections that are being provided, the fact that there is no necessity of retaining an R-1 zone for environmental protection, the development of the ravine has already taken place as part of the previous plat. The R-5 zone is consistent with the growth management act and the policies the City has adopted to use infill development as opposed to expanding out into agricultural areas. Clearly this is not a rural area, this is not an agricultural area, this is the middle of City, it is an area that is appropriate for residential development. As was pointed out at the original hearing, the applicant has no objections to any of the conditions that were recommended by the City staff, they are all appropriate. We are asking for you to approve both the rezone and the plat at this time. The Examiner asked for further testimony in support of this rezone; opposition, or questions regarding this matter. The Examiner further asked for additional time since a vacation was planned in advance. Ms. Nisihihira: Page D4W of the City,Zoning Atlas. Shows subject property with surrounding zoning of RMI (Multiple Family), just to the south, more R-8 and then RMI continues towards the south. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:50 a.m. The matter was remanded by Superior Court back to the Hearing Examiner to utilize the criteria found in Section 4-9-180 to determine whether or not the property in question should be reclassified from R-1 to R-5 and whether a 15-lot plat should be developed on the subject site if the reclassification were approved. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: (The hearing that occurred on remand did not introduce any new factual issues regarding the subject site, impacts or other issues and the original Findings are included for ease of reading the entire decision) FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Brad Hughes, for Labrador Venture L.L.C., filed a request for approval of reclassification of property from R-1 (Single family/one unit per acre) to R-5 (Single Family/five units per acre), together with a plan to subdivide the same property into 15 single-family lots. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non - Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. Clover Creek II Preliminary Pla,..cemand File No.: LUA-0 I -034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 13 The subject site is located in the vicinity of Park Avenue North and North 27th Place. The site is northeast of Lake Washington Boulevard and north of North 26th Street. The site is located west of the Griffin/Friends of Youth home. The subject site is a very irregular parcel of approximately 4.43 acres. The subject site is comprised of four underlying lots that contain two existing and occupied single-family homes. 7. While the parcel is irregular, it is approximately 600 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 550 feet deep. The parcel is comprised of 4 separate legal lots that would be consolidated and redivided by the new plat. The existing four lots could contain a total of four homes or two additional homes over the current two homes. 8. The parcel has complex topography. It slopes generally downward from east to west with the exception of the north margin of the site where a ravine with its stream creates a very steep slope downward to the north. The ravine has slopes that range up to and over 40 percent. The steepest areas have been proposed for a set aside as Native Growth Protection areas. The wetland near the dam at the northwestern comer of the site would be protected by a 50-foot buffer, which would also be incorporated into the Native Growth Protection area under a staff condition. The elevations on the site range from approximately 200 feet near the eastern edge of the site to approximately 140 feet at its southwestern corner. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1821 enacted in March 1960. 10. The citywide zoning that the City approved in June 1993 reclassified the approximately 4.43 acres to R-1. 11. The Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City was adopted in February 1995. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family use but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The plan suggests that the acreage is suitable for Residential Rural uses. The "rural" designation may support either the current R-I or R-5 zoning according to staff. Terrain, access and adjacent uses are considered when reviewing any proposed changes. Staff did not make -any recommendation on the proposed rezone. They did suggest that if the rezone were approved, then the plat should be approved for 15 lots. 12. Two existing single-family homes are located on the subject site. One is located near the northeast corner of the site. The second is located in the western half of the site. 13. An easement driveway runs along the eastern edge of the site and connects a separate parcel located near the southeastern corner of the subject site to N. 28th Street. This provides the primary access to that third party property. 14. The subject site would have access to the newly constructed roadways of N. 27th Place and Park Avenue N. Those roadways form a right angle near the center of the proposed plat. A cul-de-sac would be located near the 90-degree turn. 15. The site also has frontage along N. 26th Street along its southeast boundary. 16. The applicant proposes reclassifying the 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5 to allow increased density. Fifteen dwellings would be constructed on this portion of the site if it were rezoned to R-5. 17. The applicant has already developed a plat generally west of the subject site with 47 single-family lots. That new plat has developed a road system with a bridge over the ravine near the northwest edge of the subject site. 18. The proposed plat would have a tier of lots running along the north and east edges of the site with the remaining lots clustered in the southwest corner of the site west of Park Avenue. The existing homes would be located on Proposed Lots 5 and 11. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 14 19. The site is an interesting mix of the two homes, a variety of vegetation and the steep slopes and creek. 20. The proposed density for the R-5 portion of the site if it were developed with 15 lots would be approximately 4.6 which meets that zone's maximum of 5 units per acre (there is no minimum range in either the R-1 or R-5 zones). If the R-1 zoning were retained only 4 dwellings would be permitted after the roadway and steeper undevelopable portions of the site are subtracted as provided by code. 21. The proposed lots appear to meet the code standards for the R-5 zone with the possible exception of Proposed Lot 14, which may have a substandard yard. Proposed Lots 5 and 14 would have pipestems connecting with public roads. Proposed Lot 5 does have secondary access to N. 28th Street via the easement that runs along the east boundary of the site but staff noted it is substandard. The R-5 zone requires lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. 22. Development of the proposal will generate approximately 9.57 trips per home or a total of approximately 144 trips per day for the 15-lot plat. Approximately 10 percent of the trips would occur in each of the peak hours. 23. The development of the subject site will generate approximately six (6) students using school district values. The school district has indicated it has capacity for these students who will be assigned to schools on a space available basis. 24. The subject site will be served by the City for water and sewer service. 25. Storm water will be contained by vaults located in the roadway and be released near the southwestern corner of the site. 26. In addition to the development of the adjacent plat, the applicant noted that by platting the land the City gains the right to impose development conditions on the slopes and create the Native Growth Protection areas, which would not occur if the plat were denied. The applicant noted that the existing underlying lots would not be subject to the same restrictions. General and specific development regulations would still govern the areas of slope, stream and wetland. CONCLUSIONS: Rezone 1. The propoflent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition, complies with the criteria found in Section 4-9-180, which provides: 4-9-180 REZONE PROCESS: A PURPOSE: (Reserved) B ABILITY TO APPLY: An application for a rezone of property may be made by the property owner, or somebody authorized on his behalf, on forms provided by and filed with the Building Department. (Ord. 3463, 8-11-1980, Ord. 3592, 12-14-1981) C AUTHORITY FOR REZONES REQUIRING A PLAN AMENDMENT: Areawide zoning shall be recommended to the Mayor and the City Council by the Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing thereon and may be thereafter adopted by the City Council upon completion of at least one public hearing thereon. (Ord. 3976, 3-3-1986) Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-0 1 -03 4,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 15 D AUTHORITY FOR REZONES NOT REQUIRING PLAN AMENDMENT: In those instances where there is a rezone request which does not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the processing of the rezone application shall be submitted to the administration. The applicant will have the burden and duty of applying for and pursuing the rezone. The rezone hearing shall be held before the Hearing Examiner under the procedures and rules of the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4437, 2-21-1994) E SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES: Submittal requirements and fees shall be as specified in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees, and4-& 120C, Land Use Applications. F DECISION CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONE CLASSIFICATION: 1. Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall find that: a. The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020G; and b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the polices set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and c. At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. 2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: a. The rezone is in the public interest, and b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections F I b and F I c of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 4794, 9-20-1999) The requested classification is not justified and should not be approved by the City Council. Nothing in the record compels the City to reclassify the subject site to R-5 from its current R-1. Whether or not the City should rezone property is entirely within the discretion of the City. The criteria noted above can help guide the decision making process but does not require any particular outcome. It is clearly established that district lines that separate disparate zones must be drawn somewhere and that results in some properties being developed for high intensity uses and others for less intense uses whether the adjacent zones or uses are varying shades of residential uses or varying shades of commercial, industrial or manufacturing uses or residential uses and commercial uses. The applicant suggested that the R-5 would make a good transition zone between the R-8 found to the north and west of the site and the R-1 found south of the site. Transition zoning is generally used to buffer or step down the intensity of uses to blend between different uses. In this case, the creek and ravine already serve as a transition or buffer and, therefore, no particular land use zoning transition appears necessary. The R-8 is generally on one side of the ravine and creek and R-1 is on the other. There is no need to transition to R-5 to buffer the Griffin Home and its R-I Zoning from the R-8 zoning on the opposite side of the creek. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 16 The applicant also cites policies of the Growth Management Act. Again, nothing in the Growth Management Act compels the City to upzone additional property in this or any other area of the City. Staff noted that the City has accommodated its goals and objectives regarding population and housing types and has accommodated sufficient land for its and the county's population goals. While the applicant can suggest that infill in this close -in area would be appropriate given surrounding uses, there is no reason the City cannot provide for more spacious lots in this area regardless of the proximity to downtown or other urban services. The larger lots of the subject site complement the Griffm Home property. The larger lots continue in a reasonable fashion the larger lots and preservation of additional open space that the Griffin Home provides on lots immediately adjacent to that site. The larger lots allow the preservation of more vegetation and openness between homes on the subject site than would be the case with 15 homes carved from the same acreage. Any argument that rezoning the property provides better protection for the slopes ignores the fact that if the slopes are subject to restrictions due to erosion, gradient or other issues, they will be protected in some fashion by existing sensitive areas' regulations. Depending on the slope angle, protections may be mandated. More intense development even if setback by voluntary agreements would not necessary enhance the slope protections. 6. In addition to the general conclusions above regarding the proposed rezone, code provides additional criteria. The proposed R-5 Zone requested by the applicant does not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment since the R-5 zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's designation of the site as suitable for rural residential uses. Therefore the decision criteria are those found in subsections 4-9-180(F)(2)(a) through (d) along with those found in subsections 4-9-180(F)(1)(b) and (c). Criterion: a. The rezone is in the public interest: The public interest does not appear to compel the reclassification of the subject site. The site consists of four separate legal lots that would support four homes, of which two already exist. If the rezone were approved five lots would be carved out along what is generally the south side of the creek and an additional 10 lots would be created from the remaining acreage. More intensive development of the subject site, even granting the applicant's intention to protect the creekside ravine, will require the removal of more trees, shrubs and vegetation in order to accommodate the additional building pads, cul-de-sac and access driveways. The site would lose its more rural character even with the R-5 "rural" designation requested. It will bring more urban pressures on the site and even with preservation of the slopes, on those slopes and the creek. The existing, larger lots would probably preserve more open space in this area between the four permitted homes than would be preserved by 15 homes. Preserving the current R-1 zoning remains in the public interest. While permitting more dense development might accommodate some of the City's population goals and provide infill development, those goals have been achieved by providing for more intense development in other areas of the City, including the companion property already developed by the applicant adjacent to this site. The public interest is served by permitting a range of lot sizes in the City to accommodate those who want smaller lots and those who want larger lots. There does not appear to be a need to confine all large lot development to the fringes of the City. The ravine's natural features will be affected by the number of homes directly adjacent to it. The ravine might be better served by less rather than more development. 8. Criterion b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner: The applicant might reap higher profits from the ability to sell more homes on smaller lots but larger lots might also provide a reasonable return. But economics are not the only factor which determines if property should be rezoned for more intensive uses. Four lots already overlay the property preserving development potential. The applicant has not been denied reasonable use of the land as it is currently zoned. Two homes are located on the property and the four lots could accommodate two additional homes. Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat, Remand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 17 Criterion c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof: Additional development increases the density and population of an area with the attendant increase in noise and traffic. The four existing lots would each generate just under 10 vehicle trips per day for approximately 40 trips per day. Fifteen lots, or 11 more than currently exist, would generate approximately 110 additional trips per day. The impact of such increases might not be substantial but it is not inconsequential. 10. Criterion d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections F I b and F I c of this Section: b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the polices set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and c. At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. 11. The Comprehensive Plan permits the proposed R-5 zone and provides a rural overlay for areas zoned R-5. 12. At the time the last area land use analysis occurred, the City did not have an R-5 District. So the proposal R-5 classification was not considered at that time. Since the adoption of the last area land use analysis, the companion plat has been developed along with extensive infrastructure including what would be the main road for access to the proposed new lots. There have also been changes along Lake Washington Boulevard both north and south of the subject site. But while the circumstances do apply to the subject site, those are not the sole criteria for granting a reclassification of property. 13. In addition, nothing in the remand negated the conclusions of the original report and those probably bear reiterating (The following are from the original conclusions): "There is nothing that particularly recommends the R-5 over the existing R-1 zoning for the subject site. Even staff, which should have made a recommendation, did not favor one zone over the other. There simply is no reason not to have some larger in -city lots. So while R-5 would meet the Comprehensive Plan's objectives and the zoning code designates either R-I or R-5 to meet the rural residential objectives, R-1 also meets those objectives. 3. The applicant noted that the recent development of the plat adjacent to the subject site has changed the area and those changes are fairly substantial. There is no denying that the plat's development has substantially altered the character of the area. But the demarcation of the creek provides a substantial topographic boundary between the subject site and the new plat. There is also no denying that those changes were prophesied by the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning for that adjacent site. So while there have been changes due to the recent development they are and were not unexpected. The subject site was always adjacent to land designated for greater densities and those densities have been realized. That does not change the fact that the subject site was designated for lesser densities adjacent to those lands designated for greater densities. In other words any changes are not changes that were unanticipated. The changes do not Clover Creek II Preliminary Pla, Remand File No.: LUA-01-034,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 18 mandate or even necessarily recommend that the subject site's zoning be changed or that it is not still suitable for R-1 Zoning. 4. The site was rezoned during a citywide effort. The eastern portion of the subject site was specifically designated for the large lot, R-I zoning, while the western portion of the site was designated for the more urban sized lots of R-8. Due to the irregular boundaries that separate the R-1 and R-8 portions of the site, it would appear that it was a deliberate reasoned determination. It clearly also respected property lines. The subject site and its companion Griffin home site were both designated R-I and this might have been an effort to preserve the larger lots and slopes near the headwaters of the creek. 5. The City Council in reviewing the last requested zone change had found the rezone was not justified at the same time it was approving the plat for the adjacent property. In other words, again, it is not as if the development of the new plat was unforeseen and has substantially changed the landscape in ways that were not predicted two years ago. The City Council understood fully that the land immediately west of the subject site was going to be developed at a more intense level but nonetheless determined that R-I zoning on the subject site was appropriate. It remains just as appropriate now. 6. While it is true that the R-5 Zoning category did not exist when the site was originally classified R-1 and so was not considered that does not mean that it is appropriate. The R-5 zoning option did exist when the City Council last reviewed this specific site. It was found at that time that R-5 was inappropriate. Again, nothing has happened that should change that. Yes, the land next door was developed but it was anticipated to be developed. The current zoning is not only compatible with the Comprehensive Plan but it is compatible with the zoning on the adjacent R-1 Griffin Home parcel. The larger lots will permit the preservation of more of the open space and provide an opportunity for home ownership of larger parcels that enjoy the environmental amenities that this unique site holds. Rezoning the site to R-5 would create approximately 3 or 4 times as many lots and essentially carve up the unique ravine, slopes and forests into small parcels where less of the amenities would remain. 7. It would appear that the Comprehensive Plan would permit an R-5 designation for the land designated rural residential but that does not mandate such development. Again, while there are more rugged areas near the site that might have been suitable for R-1 does not mean that this site is unworthy of maintaining its R-1 zoning. 8. The applicant is not being denied reasonable use of the property. The applicant clearly understood the property was zoned R- I when it was purchased. Two existing homes are already located on the site providing reasonable use of two of the lots. Two other existing lots may be developed subject to the City's development regulations. The applicant may have hoped that the subject site was suitable for more intense use but the governing language of the Comprehensive Plan does not guarantee more intense use. It offers alternatives of which the R-1 zoning remains appropriate. 9. The City specifically designated stretches along Lake Washington Boulevard for multiple family uses, urban density single family uses and rural single family uses. There does not appear to be any compelling reason to alter this arrangement. Again, the changes that have occurred were planned for the area. They cannot be used to justify R-5 zoning. 10. The City's current land use policies and zoning comply with the Growth Management Act. The City Council was very deliberate in adopting its housing elements to make sure that the City, in total, accommodated its forecasted housing units and populations. It balanced its various Zoning Districts and their respective densities and arrived at a mix of housing types to Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-0 1 -03 4,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 19 meet the required goals. The Council clearly divided the City for a mix of housing types and densities. This resulted in a variety of neighborhoods and uses separated from one another or adjacent to one another in trying to achieve a balance of larger apartments, duplex and triplex buildings and small lot and larger lot single family housing types. Courts have been very clear that during area -wide zoning initiatives, a Zoning line must finally be drawn somewhere and as long as it seems fair, it is acceptable to draw a line through a neighborhood and divide it into more and less dense districts. This area along Lake Washington Boulevard seems to provide a residential mix of RM-I accommodating apartments, R-8 accommodating smaller lot single family uses and R-1 accommodating larger lot single family uses. 11. There does not seem to be anything inherently wrong with the juxtaposition of the R-1 and the R-8 districts. It appears as if the natural open space and ravine as well the then existing property lines and ownerships provided the basis for the R-1 versus R-8 demarcation. There certainly is no compelling reason to alter the zoning on the subject site. 12. Therefore, the City Council should deny the application to reclassify the subject site from R- I to R-5. Preliminary Plat 14. The recommendation to deny the rezone makes it inappropriate to review the plat at this time. 15. In summary, the record does not justify the reclassification of the east or south side of the creek from R-1 toR-5. The zoning demarcations seem appropriate in light of the area, the goal of providing a variety of zoning districts and preserving to some extent the open feeling of a portion of this unique site. RECOMMENDATION The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5. ORDERED THIS 24`h day of April, 2003. FRED J. KA N HEARING EXA14INER TRANSMITTED THIS 24th day of April, 2003 to the parties of record: Lesley Nishihira Marleen Mandt Joan Jensen 1055 S Grady Way 1408 N 26' Street 2621 Meadow Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick Brad Hughes Matt Pool 1055 S Grady Way 2631 Park Avenue N 1317 N 28"' Street Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jim Scott Amy Buhrig Labrador Ventures, LLC 1405 N 28"' Street 1301 N 26t' Street PO Box 3344 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98083 Clover Creek II Preliminary Plat Remand File No.: LUA-0 1 -03 4,PP,R,ECF (Original Hearing September 25, 2001) April 15, 2003 Page 20 Tom Touma James Morton James V. Handmacher Touma Engineers Bonneville, Viert, Morton & McGoldrick Morton, McGoldrick 6632 South 191" Place, Suite E-102 820 "A" Street, Suite 600 P.O. Box 1533 Kent, WA 98032 PO Box 1533 Tacoma, WA 98401 Tacoma, WA 98401 TRANSMITTED THIS 24th day of April, 2003 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Members, Renton Planning Commission Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Utilities System Division South County Journal Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Neil Watts, Development Services Director Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev. Administrator Larry Meckling, Building Official Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Director Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2003. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2003. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 7 CLY CU -N 37!th- -0 R --- --- co 'N t 06 1. r!st" R 1 8 is FR -h- N' 34i r3 V;MR'. R-11 1R 1 �i 14 R;_13 lot; R;& P, �o !cc —CD R' 78 0� i k id I Fg8 t-h� ig . _TJ L cc) RT8 8 R7 R-1 ZONING - P/WPW TECHNICAL SERVICES 8 ov" I d2 R 01 ;cc 11'"00 0 C-3 31 T24N R5E E 1/2 t CLOVER CREEK NO. 2 PORnOv OJT 00KRNMENT LOT I rIcc �c�-1 OF Sf0T70N A TOWSHIP 23 NORIM RANGE S EAST. W.M. V•y — — — — CITY OF PENTON, WASHINGTON — — GRAPHIC SCALE N NYD7MYC� CL Z -J(„) FoZ?Z IfITI T�nnocr2 mw�.TrFJ.,'.•�� TI { TI 3 TI Te I —) 1( —9 II —D 10 TI J1 IIleTT.TIIPRT[SLIxrvnTK IT.T ICKEI W��t4ARON ID 20 21 IS'12 I2J 24 25 ' 1~mod rnr ) GA IlTr C.O. NIUMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON 1 OEN OF EDEN No. I �aT- 1 AIL --I 't t Ly 1 iP4:•. �tnryt� N MIN ST lL1 LY o�yz — CL r.1ty—. 28 I 29 I 30 I 37 I J2 I 31 1 J4 I JS I 36 II' 37 I� 3B I I39 I 40 I 41 I 42 143 I 441 / = !o I rz 3) I Irz Je PARCEIL t \ ;7t: 27 I iz ( Fvxc�t 16 I y I 6 I 7 7 7J I CL n )J < � � gy \ \ � — EI Is �� ,�fl , i �` •` �\. ;'ia�1;,,1�,,;,��,` •, e� '~;'••` I 'sy:. ✓ — — — 15 / 76 17 TRAC7 A• / ,;;.k. N :\.•, ' WCr 6 ��"w rTTr•' �k `?:� :/ ,,'ail 'TL s4 I / � w±. �,i J4 _ � 19 20 li `4 \\'� \ � / 22 L-� �iY.•=�1°�c•"�'". i. � \� �,t�«;.� ,'i :, I 1 `, i �,J•�,r; ,�j� ��; ,,,,�, �j� \c-LDON ACRES' I K I' iill��.. �/, u WFL Nat ,Rar >n a11DKD r 1 � li.. ••'J�1 �`1�1i ramp, CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBMITTING DATA: Dept/Div/Board.. City Clerk Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton SUBJECT: CRT-03-004; Court Case — M. Monica Fix vs. Labrador Ventures; Bradley K. Hughes; Jane Doe Hughes; Estate of Sylvia Morrison; City of Renton; and Puget Sound Energy EXHIBITS: Summons and Plaintiffs Complaint for Breach of Contract, Declaration of Easement, and Consumer Protection Act Violations FOR AGENDA OF: AGENDA STATUS: Consent ......... XX Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance....... Resolution...... Old Business.... New Business.... Study Session... Other........... RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept...... Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Finance Dept.... Other. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted ........ Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: AI#: r�c; — July 21, Summons and Plaintiffs Complaint for Breach of Contract, Declaration of Easement, and Consumer Protection Act Violations filed in King County Superior Court by T. Jeffrey Keane, 14205 SE 36th St., Suite 325, Bellevue, 98006, on behalf of M. Monica Fix alleging negligence or intentional misrepresentation in regards to a sewer easement granted by the Plaintiff to Labrador Ventures for access to a sewer connection via the easement across the Plaintiffs property located at 3007 Mountain View Ave. N. agendabl.doc/c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 � �etk s Otlicc � Supu"'q°1t G, 1,, Krug DID JI{+ rL rO U 1`i tIstdGC Sect+an KN CITY OF REN n,N V'20'33 , JUL 1 RECEIVE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING M. MONICA FIX, a single person, Plaintiff, VS. LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, BRADLEY K. HUGHES, JANE DOE HUGHES, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, ESTATE OF SLYVIA MORRISON, CITY OF RENTON, PUGET SOUND ENERGY, Defendants. Defendant: City of Renton ® -2® 057 3 3 - 91 No. SUMMONS pta IYIam a 1. A lawsuit has been started against you in the above -entitled court by the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiffs claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this summons. 3. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned person within 20 days after the date of service on you of this summons, excluding the date of service, or a default SUMMONS - 1 Law Offices T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, Washington 98006 425-460-2294 • Facsimile 425-401-8491 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where the plaintiff may be entitled to what is asked for because you have not responded. 4. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned person you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. 5. If not previously filed, you may demand that the plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, your demand must be in writing and must be served upon the undersigned person. Within 14 days after you serve your demand, the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void. 6. If you wish to seek the advice of a lawyer in this matter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served on time. 7. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court of the State of Washington. DATED this day of June, 2003. LAW OFFICES OF T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC SUMMONS - 2 Law Offices T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, Washington 98006 425-460-2294 • Facsimile 425-401-8491 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in -„< G CS�rtry 5u�ii©r �'tJ Iti Plst i 9fiiGs JUN 2 7 2003 CashierSAction KNT Superior Court Clerk IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING M. MONICA FIX, a single person, Plaintiff, Vs. Q-2-05733- 9 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC, a ) FOR BREACH OF Washington limited liability company, ) CONTRACT, DECLARATION BRADLEY K. HUGHES, JANE DOE ) OF EASEMENT, AND HUGHES, husband and wife, and the marital ) CONSUMER PROTECTION community composed thereof, ESTATE OF ) ACT VIOLATIONS SLYVIA MORRISON, CITY OF RENTON, ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY, ) ) Defendants. ) M. Monica Fix, through her counsel, T. Jeffrey Keane and the Law Offices of T. Jeffrey Keane, PLLC, for complaint against defendants, alleges as follows: 1.0 PARTIES 1.1 Plaintiff M, Monica Fix is a single person who, at all material times, has resided in King County, Washington. COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, DECLARATION OF EASEMENT, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS - 1 Law Offices T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, Washington 98006 425-460-2294 • Facsimile 425-401-8491 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.2 Defendant — Labrador Ventures, LLC Labrador Ventures, LLC (hereafter "Labrador") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Washington. 1.3 Defendant — Bradley K. Hughes and Jane Doe Hughes Bradley K. Hughes is the General Manager and control person of Labrador Ventures, LLC. All acts taken by Bradley Hughes were taken for his benefit and for the benefit of his marital community. 1.4 Defendant — Estate of Sylvia Morrison Estate of Sylvia Morrison (hereafter "Morrison") holds a deed of trust on land in issue in this lawsuit. At all material times Morrison has owned, or held an encumbrance upon, the land in issue in this lawsuit. 1.5 Defendant City of Renton City of Renton is a duly organized municipality under the laws of the State of Washington. Renton holds an easement for the use and protection of the citizens of Renton, which runs on the land in issue in this lawsuit. 1.6 Defendant — Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Energy (hereafter "PSE") is a utility doing business in Washington State, holds an interest in an easement which runs on the land in issue in this lawsuit, and accordingly has an interest in this lawsuit. 2.0 VENUE AND JURISDICTION 2.1 The property at issue in this lawsuit is located in King County, Washington, giving this court jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter in the case. The COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, DECLARATION OF EASEMENT, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS - 2 Law Offices T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, Washington 98006 425-160-2294 • Facsimile 425-401-8491 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parties to this lawsuit are residents of the State of Washington. Venue is properly laid in this court. 3.0 FACTUAL STATEMENT 3.1 M. Monica Fix owns the property located at 3007 Mountain View Avenue North, Renton, Washington, which has the following legal description: Lots 64 and 65 in Block A of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1, according to plat recorded in Volume 11 of Plats at Page 63, in King County, Washington. Together with second class- shorelands adjoining as established by decree entered October 19, 1923 in Superior Court Cause No. 156371, in King County, Washington. 3.2 The property includes a residence, and is comprised of two contiguous lots which front Lake Washington's shoreline. 3.3 Defendant Labrador acquired the parcel of land immediately north of plaintiffs property. The street address of the property is 3011 Mountain View Avenue North, Renton, Washington, and it is legally described as follows: Lot 1 and 2 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-01-107-LLA, according to Survey recorded January 24, 2002 under Recording No. 200201249003, in King County, Washington. Together with second class shorelands adjoining as established by decree entered October 19, 1923 in Superior Court Cause No. 156371, in King County, Washington. 3.4 Labrador subdivided the parcel for the purpose of constructing improvements, and selling the improved land. In order to obtain appropriate regulatory approvals, and in order to maximize the economic return which could be generated from the property, Labrador was obliged to access sewer connections. The most advantageous such connections ran to a point located within a few feet on plaintiffs property, described above. Labrador's access to such connections required an easement across plaintiff's land. The closest alternative sewer COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, DECLARATION OF EASEMENT, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS - 3 Law Offices T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, Washington 98006 425460-2294 • Facsimile 425401-8491 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 connection was hundreds of feet distant, and would have required a grant of easements from others to Labrador before becoming usable by Labrador. 3.5 In order to induce plaintiff to permit access, across her property, so that Labrador had less expensive and more economically advantageous connections, Labrador, and defendant Bradley K. Hughes contacted plaintiff in the Spring of 2001. The business problem Labrador encountered was explained to plaintiff and she was asked to provide an easement which would facilitate Labrador's development of the property. 3.6 Plaintiff, after discussions, review of the Labrador project, further discussions with city officials, and representations regarding the advantage to plaintiff of permitting the easement, agreed to permit Labrador to access the sewer connection via a sewer easement across her property. Her agreement was conditioned upon the performance of certain acts by defendants, who have failed to so act.' Her agreement was conditioned upon defendants providing a 20 foot driveway easement, in a westerly direction located at the southern boundary of the Labrador parcel, to a point approximately 165 feet west of the adjoining roadway, such that in future times persons wishing to access the lower portion of plaintiffs parcel would be able to access same without crossing or otherwise trafficking upon her existing, easternmost parcel (upon which her present residence is constructed). Plaintiffs agreement was further conditioned upon defendants providing a paved driveway 12 feet in width, located entirely within the 20 foot easement previously referenced. There was no discussion between plaintiff and defendants regarding maintenance of the easement, though plaintiff assumed defendants would be obliged to maintain the easement, since it was on their property. A depiction of the property, with the easement as promised to plaintiff by defendants, is depicted in Exhibit A hereto which is incorporated by this reference. COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, Law Offices DECLARATION OF EASEMENT, AND T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS - 4 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, Washington 98006 425460-2294 • Facsimile 425401-8491 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3.7 During the time discussions occurred between plaintiff, and defendants, defendant Bradley K. Hughes either negligently or intentionally misrepresented the scope of the relief and accommodation to be provided to plaintiff in exchange for plaintiffs grant of easement across her property. By so acting, defendant Bradley K. Hughes misrepresented the future actions to be taken by Labrador, and himself, respectively, for the sole purpose of inducing plaintiff to provide immediate execution of an easement prepared by defendant and his agents and representatives. For such actions, which did or may have occurred outside the scope of his authority to act for Labrador, defendant Bradley K. Hughes and his marital community, are jointly liable with defendant Labrador for either negligence, or intentional misrepresentation. 3.8 Having provided access to her property, and having conditioned her consent to such easement upon the foregoing particulars, as stated in paragraph 3.6, above, plaintiff later learned that defendants had no intention of providing the easement previously promised, had no intention of performing any of the promises made to plaintiff, had no intention of honoring . . any component of the promises made, and have wholly and entirely repudiated the basis for the original agreement entered with plaintiff. 4.0 CAUSES OF ACTION 4.1 Plaintiff incorporates as if restated paragraphs 1.1 through 3.8, above. 4.2 Accordingly, plaintiff seeks relief in the form of specific performance, such that each and every one of the promises defendants made for the purpose of inducing her to act shall be compelled to be performed by this Court, in a manner, at a cost, and in a timeframe to be set by the court in the exercise of its legal and equitable powers. In so acting, plaintiff requests that the Court also award all costs, fees, and damages sustained by plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, Law Offices DECLARATION OF EASEMENT, AND T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS - 5 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, Washington 98006 425460-2294 • Facsimile 425401-8491 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as a result of the contract breach, misrepresentation, and consumer protection act violations committed by defendants. 5.0 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 5.1 Wherefore; having fully stated her complaint, plaintiff prays for relief as follows: A. Entry of an order requiring defendants to specifically perform, as promised, in all ways and in every particular, without cost or inconvenience to plaintiff; B. An award for general damages to be proved at trial; C. For such other relief as the court deems equitable and proper. Dated this7o(o day of June, 2003. LAW OFFICES OF T. JEFFREY KEANE,PLLC COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, DECLARATION OF EASEMENT, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS - 6 Law Offices T. JEFFREY KEANE, PLLC 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 325 Bellevue, Washington 98006 425460-2294 • Facsimile 425-401-8491 _________________ -� j E X I S TIN G --------- I F— STRUCTURE I I 1 i nTINGi 3e 1 tr j STRUCTURE .I z E S T 1 N G D R I V E Ill Y 1 I' I ------------ 1 \ r W �— EASEMENTRIAN 63� �c� :1 `,1 r ; 1 ' W S4 f....I...... 1 1 EXISTING WILLOW �� t n 1 1 1 ZO' ACCESS ! 1 > TREE TO REMAIN�iyi t ZO' _ _ UTILITY SMNT r - Q its?�aY� a W. 1� f IS..\v 29- -1 1 I j EXISTING - 4 N V UTILITY I I I STRUCTURE I F- Q, EASEMENT I I ' L- -- z i 38 ASH N �0' EASEMENT AF x4is 2h z` - ~ -� ° 1 0 > tiuj z G o m 20 SITE PLAN SCALE: I' - 40.0' 1 i I RECEIVED In King Ccunry SUP000t Ccurt Clark'$ Olii" JUN 2 7 2003 Owil it Section KNIT Rumorcourt Clcrk IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING �x NO. 03 -2 - 05'73 3 . 9KNT Plaintiff(s), ORDER SETTING CIVIL CASE SCHEDULE vs. ASSIGNED JUDGE: JAMES CAYCE � 4,dA,*6 TRIAL DATE: Mon 11/29/04 Defendant(s). (-ORSCS) On Fri 6/27/03, a civil case has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge. I. NOTICES NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Plaintiff may serve a copy of this Order Setting Case Schedule (Schedule) on the Defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaint/Petition. Otherwise, the Plaintiff shall serve the Schedule on the Defendant(s) within 10 days after the later of: (1) the filing of the Summons and Complaint/Petition or (2) service of the Defendant's first response to the Complaint/Petition, whether that response is a Notice of Appearance, a response, or a Civil Rule 12 (CR 12) motion. The Schedule may be served by regular mail, with proof of mailing to be filed promptly in the form required by Civil Rule 5 (CR 5). "I understand that I am required to give a copy of these documents to all parties in this case." Print Name Sign Name ORDER SETTING CIVIL CASE SCHEDULE Revised August 2002 I. NOTICES (continued) NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the King County Local Rules [KCLR] -- especially those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for attorneys and parties to pursue their cases vigorously from the day the case is filed. For example, discovery must be undertaken promptly in order to comply with the deadlines for joining additional parties, claims, and defenses, for disclosing possible witnesses [See KCLR 26], and for meeting the discovery cutoff date [See KCLR 37(g)]. SHOW CAUSE HEARINGS FOR CIVIL CASES [King County Local Rule 4(g)] A Show Cause Hearing will be held before the assigned judge if the case is not at issue. The Order to Show Cause will be mailed to all parties by the Judicial Assistant of the assigned judge. The parties or counsel are required to attend. A Confirmation of Joinder, Claims and Defenses must be filed by the deadline in the schedule. PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE: When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, and a courtesy copy delivered to the assigned judge, all pending due dates in this Schedule are automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the parties to 1) file such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution of the case, and 2) strike any pending motions by notifying the bailiff to the assigned judge. Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and the Trial Date by filing a Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a final decree, judgment or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is not filed by 45 days after a Notice of Settlement, the case may be dismissed with notice. If you miss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCLR 41(b)(2)(A) to present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date. NOTICES OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL AND ADDRESS CHANGES: All parties to this action must keep the court informed of their addresses. When a Notice of Appearance/Withdrawal or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy. ARBITRATION FILING AND TRIAL DE NOVO POST ARBITRATION FEE: A Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the deadline on the schedule if the case is subject to mandatory arbitration and is at issue. If mandatory arbitration is required after the deadline, parties must obtain an order from the assigned judge transferring the case to arbitration. Any party filing a Statement must pay a $220 arbitration fee (effective 10/1/2002). If a party seeks a trial de novo when an arbitration award is appealed, a fee of $250 and the request for trial de novo must be filed with the Clerk's Office Cashiers. NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FEES:AII parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4.71.050 whenever the Superior Court Clerk must send notice of non-compliance of schedule requirements and/or Local Rule 41. ORDER SETTING CIVIL CASE SCHEDULE Revised August 2002 If. CASE SCHEDULE CASE EVENT DEADLINE or EVENT DATE Case Filed and Schedule Issued Fri 6/27/03 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ✓ Confirmation of Service [See KCLR 4.1] Fri 7/25/03 -------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ./ Statement of Arbitrability [See KCLMAR 2.1(a) and Notices on Page 21 Fri 12/05/03 $220 arbitration fee must be paid — OR — [Consult Local Rules to determine which document applies for your case.] ✓ Confirmation of Joinder of Parties, Claims and Defenses [See KCLR Fri 12/05/03 4.2(a)(2)] NOTE: If "Joinder" document applies to the case and is not filed, the parties may be required to appear at the Show Cause Hearing. ------------------------------------------------=-------------------------------------------- DEADLINE for Hearing Motions to Change Case Assignment Area [KCLR 82(e)] Fri 12/19/03 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses [See KCLR 26(b)] Mon 6/28/04 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ✓ Joint Pretrial Report [See attached order] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Rebuttal Witnesses [See KCLR 26(c)] Mon 8/09/04 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ./ Jury Demand [See KCLR 38(b)(2)] Mon 8/23/04 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEADLINE for a Change in Trial Date [See KCLR 40(e)(2)] Mon 8/23/04 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEADLINE: Discovery Cutoff [See KCLR 37(g)] Mon 10/11/04 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEADLINE: Exchange Witness & Exhibit Lists & Documentary Exhibits Mon 11/08/04 [KCLR 16(6)(3)] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEADLINE for Hearing Dispositive Pretrial Motions [See KCLR 56; CR 56] Mon 11/15/04 DEADLINE to Comply with Settlement Conference Requirement [See attached Order] --------------- ------------ Joint Statement of Evidence [See KCLR 16(a)(4)] Mon 11/22/04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial Date [See KCLR 40] Mon 11/29/04 'Indicates a document that must be filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office by the date shown. II1. ORDER Pursuant to King County Local Rule 4 [KCLR 4], IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the schedule listed above. Penalties, including but not limited to sanctions set forth in Local Rule 4(g) and Rule 37 of the Superior Court Civil Rules, may be imposed for non-compliance. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Civil Case Schedule and attachment on all other parties. DATED: 6/27/2003 ol%n 3 �ii i ■ ;1PIR1: ORDER SETTING CIVIL CASE SCHEDULE Revised August 2002 CIVIL Page 4 of 6 IV. ORDER ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE READ THIS ORDER PRIOR TO CONTACTING YOUR ASSIGNED JUDGE This case is assigned to the Superior Court Judge whose name appears in the caption of this Schedule. The assigned Superior Court Judge will preside over and manage this case and wilt conduct trials, motions, and conferences in this matter until completion of all issues. COMPLEX LITIGATION: If you anticipate an unusually complex or lengthy trial, please notify the assigned court as soon as possible. The following procedures hereafter apply to the processing of this case: APPLICABLE RULES: Except as specifically modified below, all the provisions of KCLR 4-26 shall apply to the processing of civil cases before Superior Court Judges. CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUIREMENTS: A. Trial: Trial is confirmed for 9:00 a.m. on the date on the Schedule. The Friday before trial, the assigned court will contact the parties to determine the status of the case and inform the parties of any adjustments to the Trial Date. B. Show Cause Hearing: A Show Cause Hearing will be held before the assigned judge if the case is not at issue. If the case is not at issue or in accordance with the attached case schedule, all parties will receive and Order to Show Cause that will set a specific date and time for the hearing. All parties and/or counsel are required to attend. C. Joint Pretrial Report: 120 days before the Trial Date, parties shalt prepare and file, with a copy to the assigned judge, a joint pretrial report setting forth the nature of the case, whether a jury demand has been filed, the expected duration of the trial, the status of discovery, the need to amend pleadings or add parties, whether a settlement conference has been scheduled, special problems, etc. Plaintiff's/Petitioner's counsel is responsible for proposing and contacting the other parties regarding said report. D. Pretrial Conference: A pretrial conference will be scheduled by the assigned judge. Approximately thirty (30) days before the conference, you will receive an Order Setting Pretrial Conference that will set the specific date and time for the conference. The conference will be held in the courtroom of the assigned judge, and the following nonexclusive list of matters will be addressed at that time:. 1) Status of settlement discussions; 2) Jury trial -- selection and number of jurors; 3) Potential evidentiary problems; 4) Potential motions in limine; SEE NEXT PAGE revised 5/29/2002 L: forms/cashiers/iv orders CIVIL Page 5 of 6 5) Use of depositions; 6) Deadlines for nondispositive motions; 7) Procedures to be followed with respect to exhibits; 8) Witnesses -- identity, number, testimony; 9) Special needs (e.g. interpreters, equipment); 10) Trial submissions, such as briefs, Joint Statement of Evidence, jury instructions, voir dire questions, etc. 11) Receipt of Public Assistance Payments (Domestic Cases) -- If any party is on public Assistance, notify the Prosecutor's Office of this proceeding now at 296- 9020. E. Settlement/Mediation/ADR: 1) 45 days before the Trial Date, counsel for plaintiff shall submit a written settlement demand. Ten (10) days after receiving plaintiff's written demand, counsel for defendant shall respond (with a counteroffer, if appropriate). 2) 30 days before the Trial Date, a settlement/ media tion/ADR conference shall have been held. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS. 3) 20 days before the Trial Date, counsel for plaintiff shalt advise the assigned judge of the progress of the settlement process. MOTIONS PROCEDURES: A. Noting of Motions 1) Dispositive Motions: All Summary Judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole or in part will. be heard with oral argument before the assigned judge. The moving party must arrange with the bailiff a date and time for the hearing, consistent with the court rules. 2) Nondispositive Motions: These motions, which include discovery motions, will be ruled on by the assigned judge without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered. All such motions must be noted for a date by which the ruling is requested; this date must likewise conform to the applicable notice requirements. Rather than noting a time of day, the Note for Motion should state "Without Oral Argument." SEE NEXT PAGE revised 5/29/2002 L: form s/cashiershv orders CIVIL Page 6 of 6 LE 3) Motions in Family Law Cases: Discovery motions to compel, motions in liminet motions relating to trial dates and motions to vacate judgments/dismissals shall be brought before the assigned judge. All other motions should be noted and heard on the Family Law Motions Calendar. 4) Emergency Motions: Emergency motions will be allowed only upon entry of an Order Shortening Time. However, emergency discovery disputes may be addressed by telephone call, and without written motion, if the judge approves. B. Filing of- Papers All original papers must be filed with the Clerk's Office on the 6th floor. The working copies of all papers in support or opposition must be marked on the upper right corner of the first page with the date of consideration or hearing and the name of the assigned judge. The assigned judge's working copy must be delivered to his/her courtroom or to the judges' mailroom. Do not file working copies with the Motions Coordinator, except those motions to be heard on the Family Law Motions Calendar, in which case the working copies should be filed with the Family Law Motions Coordinator. 1) Original Proposed Order: Each of the parties must include in the_ working copy materials submitted on any motion an original proposed order sustaining his/her side of the argument. Should any party desire a copy of the order as signed and filed by the judge, a preaddressed, stamped envelope shall accompany the proposed order. 2) Presentation of Orders: All orders, agreed or otherwise, must be presented to the assigned judge. If that judge is absent, contact the assigned court for further instructions. If another judge enters an order on the case, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy. Proposed orders finalizing settlement and/or dismissal by agreement of all parties shall be presented to the assigned judge or in the Ex Parte Department. Formal Proof in Family Law cases must be scheduled before the assigned judge by contacting the bailiff, or Formal Proof may be entered in the ExParte Department. If final orders and/or Formal Proof are entered in the Ex Parte Department, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy. C. Form: Memoranda/briefs for matters heard by the assigned judge may not exceed 24 pages for dispositive motions and 12 pages for nondispositive motions, unless the assigned judge permits over -length memoranda/briefs in advance of filing. Over - length memoranda/briefs and motions supported by such memoranda/briefs may be stricken. IT IS SO ORDERED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OR OTHER SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER SHALL FORWARD A COPY OF THIS ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO ANY PARTY WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED THIS ORDER. JUDGE Richard D. Eadis revised 5/29/2002 L: forms/cashiers/iv orders CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP Staff Contact...... Elizabeth Higgins (x6576) Subject: Amendment to the contract with Blumen Consulting Group for the Boeing Comprehensive Plan EIS, CAG#03-048. Exhibits: Contract Recommended Action: Council concur. AI #: j For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information ......... Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... M X Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $103,500.00 (to be Transfer/Amendment....... paid by the Boeing Co.) Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... $103,500.00 Total Project Budget $0 City Share Total Project.. $0 SUMMARY OF ACTION: This amendment to the Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement contract is for Phase 3 of services to be performed by the Blumen Consulting Group. Work consists of coordination of responses to the Draft EIS comments currently being received by EDNSP Department staff. The cost for this work is estimated $103,500.00. The Boeing Company has agreed to reimburse the City of Renton for this cost. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of contract amendment with Blumen Consulting Group in the amount of $103,500.00 and authorization of for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the addendum. RentonneUagnbill/ bh CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 251h day of June 2003, between the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "CITY' and Blumen Consulting Group, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT", to provide services to complete the Draft EIS for the Boeing Renton Plant (over and above what is covered in previous contracts). All information contained within the report shall be provided to the City and made available for use by the City of Renton Staff and City Council. The CITY and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant and their sub-consultant(s) will provide all labor necessary to perform all work, which is described in the attached letter and Scope of Services (Exhibit 1). This Agreement and Exhibit hereto contains the entire agreement of the parties as it relates to the amendment to the main agreement as it relates to a change in scope of required services detailed in Exhibit 1. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of the parties. The scope of work may be amended as provided herein. 2. Changes in Scope of Services. The City, without invalidating the Consultant Agreement, may order changes in the services consisting of additions, deletions or modifications, and adjust the fee accordingly. Such changes in the work shall be authorized by written agreement signed by the City and Consultant. If the project scope requires less time, a lower fee will be charged. If additional work is required, the consultant will not proceed without a written change order from the City. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to serve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. 3. Time of Performance. The Consultant shall complete performance of the Consultant Agreement for the items under Consultant's control in accordance with Exhibit 1. If items not under the Consultant's control impact the time of performance, the Consultant will notify the City. 4. Term of Consultant Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall end at completion of the scope of work identified in Exhibit 1, but no later than July 30, 2003. This Agreement may be extended to accomplish change orders, if required, upon mutual written agreement of the City and the Consultant. 5. Consultant Agreement Sum. The total amount of this Agreement is not to exceed the sum of $103,500. Washington State Sales Tax is not required. The Cost Estimate provided by the Consultant to the City specifies total cost. 6. Method of Payment. Payment by the City for services rendered will be made after a voucher or invoice is submitted in the form specified by the City. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days after receipt of such voucher or invoice. The City shall have the right to withhold payment to the Consultant for any work not completed in a satisfactory manner until such time as the Consultant modifies such work so that the same is satisfactory. 7. Record Maintenance and Work Product. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, which properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and services provided in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide access to any records required by the City. All originals and copies of work product, exclusive of Consultant's proprietary items protected by copyright such as computer programs, methodology, methods, materials, and forms, shall belong to the City, including records, files, computer disks, magnetic media or material which may be produced by Consultant while performing the services. Consultant will grant the City the right to use and copy Consultant copyright materials as an inseparable part of the work product provided. 8. Review of Work. All memorandums, reports, draft and final versions and other written documents shall be submitted to the City for review prior to provision to Boeing Realty Company/Heartland. City shall authorize the release of any documents to Boeing/Heartland. 9. Assignment Agreement. The Consultant shall not assign any portion of this consultant Agreement without express written consent of the City of Renton. However, use of the sub - consultants identified in Exhibit 1 is authorized by the City. 10. Hold Harmless. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury or death to persons, including injuries, sickness, disease or death of Consultant's own employees, or damage to property caused by a negligent act or omission of the Consultant, except for those acts caused by or resulting from a negligent act or omission by the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. It is specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the consultant's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 11. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain commercial liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 in full force throughout the duration of this Consultant Agreement. A certificate of insurance shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The certificate shall name the City as an additional insured. Please note: The cancellation language should read "Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will endeavor to mail 45 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left. 12. Independent Contractor. Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under this agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City. The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant's employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided'to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant. 13. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant and all of the Consultant's employees shall perform the services in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws, codes and ordinances. This agreement is entered into as of the day and year written above. CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON Michael J. Blumen, President Jesse Tanner Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. Mayor 600 108'h Ave NE # 1002 Bellevue, WA 98004 EXHIBIT 1 June 12, 2003 Mr. Alex Pietsch, Administrator Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Scope of Work and Budget Agreement for Phase 3- Completion and Issuance of the Draft EIS — Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS Dear Alex: Per our April 101h Consultant Agreement, our current scope of work pertaining to the above EIS technically concluded with the submittal of the Preliminary Draft EIS to the City on May 29th. We have initiated work on the next phase of the EIS process - Completion and Issuance of the Draft EIS. Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. is pleased to submit this Scope of Work and Budget Agreement to the City of Renton to provide services related to this next phase of the Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS. We and our team welcome the opportunity to continue to assist the City of Renton with the SEPA process on this project. Our scope of work for this phase is dependent upon the comments received from the City and Boeing; we have received the full set of initial comments, as of June 10th. We understand that there will be two additional rounds of review and comments prior to the issuance of the Draft EIS in July. The last round is expected to result in only very minor, editorial comments. We have estimated a Scope of Work and Budget to cover services over the next approximately one plus months (through issuance of the Draft EIS, scheduled for July 15th). This scope and budget are somewhat speculative, as ultimately the scope is directly tied to comments received. We have built in some flexibility to deal with the next rounds of review. However, in the event that the timeline is extended for reasons beyond our control, or if major changes to the DEIS or technical reports are required by the City, as a result of additional review, our Scope of Work may need to be amended to reflect additional services. Similarly, if new elements are added to the DEIS scope (i.e., air quality), an adjustment in scope and budget would be necessary. The following Scope of Work identifies a list of tasks associated with completing the Draft EIS, and the accompanying deliverables to the City by the Blumen Consulting Group team. As you know, we propose to continue to use the services of the following technical firms during this and subsequent EIS phases: Transportation Engineering Northwest (transportation), AC Kindig & Company (water quality, shoreline and fisheries), KPFF (infrastructure, stormwater drainage and utilities), Associated Earth Sciences (soils/groundwater and hazardous waste issues) and BRC Acoustics (noise). SCOPE OF WORK As indicated above, our Scope of Work assumes that the Blumen Consulting Group team will continue to assist the City of Renton in the completion of various steps related to the EIS process over the next several months; this next phase of work will include services related to the completion and issuance of the Draft EIS. As part of this phase, we will respond to comments received from the City of Renton. Two additional rounds of review will be required prior to DEIS issuance, including review by staff, the ERC, Planning Commission and City Council. During the completion and issuance of the Draft EIS, the following specific tasks will be completed: • Task 1: Review comments on the initial PDEIS (submitted 5/29) received from the City and Boeing, and coordinate with the EIS team regarding distribution of comments and approach to revisions, as applicable (already completed). • Task 2: Prepare necessary revisions to the PDEIS; review changes made by the technical team; incorporate technical changes as warranted; and produce a second version of the document for submittal to the City of Renton. • Task 3: Coordinate with City staff to obtain all necessary remaining policy and zoning information (i.e., airport policy issue); (it is assumed that any major analysis relative to the airport (risk assessment) would be completed by a separate consultant at a later point); review information and incorporate into the document, as warranted. • Task 4: Coordinate with Heartland and other team members to revise EIS graphics, as warranted. • Task 5: Attend the EIS briefings before the Planning Commission, PD&C committee and COW committee. It is assumed that only BCG staff will attend (no technical team members). It is further assumed that City staff will make presentations to these bodies; BCG's role will be to monitor comments, issues and questions raised, and to respond to questions, if applicable. • Task 6: Based on the second round of comments from the City (to be received on 6/27), review comments, coordinate with the technical team as necessary, prepare revisions to the second PDEIS and produce a third version for submittal to the City on 7/17. • Task 7: Coordinate with City staff regarding final comments on the DEIS; make necessary revisions; and prepare the document for final production and issuance. • Task 8: Attend up to ten (10) additional meetings through completion and issuance of the Draft EIS (this is in addition to the three briefings identified above). Three meetings have already been held on June 5tn, June 9m and June 11 to • Task 9: Prepare for and attend the public hearing on the Draft EIS, scheduled for July 30tn (BCG only). Prepare for presentation to be made on the DEIS (assumed to Scope and Budget Agreement for DEIS Completion Services 2 Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment E15 Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. be a brief summary presentation of the DEIS process). It is assumed that the City or other members of the team will prepare the necessary graphics and displays for the hearing presentation. • Task 10: Coordinate production of the revised document and print copies for review by the City, Boeing and the team. It is assumed that up to forty (40) copies of the second PDEIS will be required, at a cost of $100 per copy (assumes two volumes). It is assumed that up to ten (10) copies of the third PDEIS will be required at the same cost per copy. Task 11: Coordinate with our printing vendor regarding the final printing of the Draft EIS. It is assumed that 120 copies of the DEIS (Volume 1) and 100 copies of the Technical Appendix (Volume 2) will be required for public distribution and availability, at a cost of $50 per volume. (Printing of additional copies will be subject to a change order under this scope.) It is assumed that we will deliver copies to the City, prior to the issuance date, and the City will be responsible for distribution and mailing. • Task 12: EIS project management: including, coordination with the City, Boeing and the team, via telephone and e-mail, regarding overall DEIS progress, outstanding issues, information to respond to comments and schedule. Also included in this task are subcontract management, accounting, and invoicing, related to management of the EIS team. At the end of this phase, the Draft EIS will be issued by the City. This scope and budget cover our services through completion and issuance of the Draft EIS (targeted for July 15, 2003) and attendance/presentation at the public hearing on the DEIS. A scope of work and budget for the next phase of the process, Phase 4- Preparation of the Preliminary Final EIS, will be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City upon receipt of pubic and agency comments on the DEIS. Deliverables The following deliverables will be produced by the Blumen. Consulting Group team during this phase of work: • Preparation of the second revised version of the PDEIS for submittal to the City. This document will respond to comments received from the City on the first DPDEIS. • Preparation of the third revised PDEIS for submittal to the City. • Production of the Draft EIS for issuance and public distribution (up to 120 copies). SCHEDULE The Blumen Consulting Group (BCG) team is prepared to complete work on the Draft EIS according to the agreed -upon schedule. Based on the agreed -upon schedule at our June 5th meeting, the second revised PDEIS will be submitted to the City on June 19th. If Scope and Budget Agreement for DEIS Completion Services Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. comments are received from the City on June 271h, the third revised PDEIS will be submitted on July 71h. Finally, copies of the Draft EIS will be delivered to the City on July 141h for issuance of the document on July 151h, assuming comments are received by July 9th and are very limited in nature. If the schedule is delayed for reasons beyond our control, an adjustment in scope and budget may be warranted. BUDGET As of June 9th, we have approximately $43,400 remaining from our Phase 2 budget (total budget of $557,800 plus $58,850 executed in the May 21, 2003 amendment). We will continue to use the budget remaining for work on this phase. However, additional budget will be needed to complete the Draft EIS. For Phase 3 of the EIS process - Completion and Issuance of the Draft EIS, we propose to establish a not -to -exceed amount of $103,500. Again, this additional budget allows certain flexibility to respond to comments as part of the next rounds of review, as noted earlier in this letter. A breakdown of estimated costs among the various firms is provided as Attachment A to this letter. This budget includes all team labor and reimbursable expenses. It covers services through issuance of the Draft EIS (targeted for July 15th, 2003) and BCG attendance at the Draft EIS hearing. Our team's costs will be billed on an hourly basis, consistent with our current Fee Schedules, attached to this letter (Attachment B). At the conclusion of this phase of work and receipt of public comments on the DEIS, we will be able to define a scope of work and not -to -exceed budget for Phase 4, preparation of the Preliminary Final EIS. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to be part of the City's team, and we look forward to successfully completing the Draft and Final EIS. If this proposed Scope of Work and Budget Agreement are acceptable to the City of Renton, we assume that you will incorporate this letter in an addendum to our current Contract. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, BLUMEN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Michael J. Blumen, President Attachments Scope and Budget Agreement for DEIS Completion Services Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. 4 Attachment A BLUMEN CONSULTING GROUP TEAM Phase 3- Completion and Issuance of the Draft EIS Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS Estimated Budget Blumen Consulting Group Professional Labor Hours Hourly Rate Total President 180 130 23,400 Senior Associate 230 90 20,700 Associate 100 80 8,000 Admin. Support 60 50 3,000 Subtotal 55,100 Reimbursable Expenses (including mileage, parking, delivery, printing, etc.) Printing of the Issued Draft EIS" Transportation Engineering Northwest AC Kindig & Company KPFF Associated Earth Sciences BRC Acoustics 3,300 11,000 TOTAL (BCG) $69,400 16,500 7,700 9,900 Sasaki Associates - TOTAL $ *Assumes printing of up to 120 copies of the Draft EIS (Volume 1) and up to 100 copies of the Technical Appendix (Volume 2) at a cost of $50 per volume. Scope and Budget Agreement for DENS Completion Services Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. E Attachment B BLUMEN CONSULTING GROUP TEAM 2003 Billing Rates Blumen Consulting Group President $130 Vice President 100 Senior Associate 90 Associate 80 Office Manager 50 Other Rates Auto mileage, per mile- $0.36 In-house photo copies, per page- 0.15 Handling charge on subcontractors and expenses-10% Transportation Engineering Northwest Director $125 Principal 110 Project Manager 95 Project Engineer 80 AC Kindig & Company A. Kindig $130 T. Shugrue 89 D. Zlateff 79 KPFF S. Kingsley $127 B. O'Neill 90 M.Kozak 80 Associated Earth Sciences Principal $140 Project Geologist 86 Clerical Support 38 BRC Acoustics Principal and Senior Acoustical $130 Senior Acoustical Consultant 105 Acoustical Consultant 95 Clerical 40 Note: Rates are valid through 2003 Scope and Budget Agreement for DEIS Completion Services 6 Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS Blumen Consulting Group, Inc. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (X-6581) Subject: Carlo Annexation Public Meeting Exhibits: Issue Paper Recommended Action: Council Concur Al #: For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Approvals: Legal Dept ......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to initiate a direct petition method of annexation for approximately 37 acres located at the City limits south of NE 4th Street beginning at the eastern edge of the Tydico Annexation boundary along Bremerton Avenue NE/136th Avenue E approximately 610 feet to and including the 1381h Avenue SE right-of-way between SE 135th Court on the south and the north side of SE 132nd Street on the north. Then east approximately 610 feet south of SE 132nd Street to and including the right-of-way of 140th Avenue SE, if extended. The site is bounded by the City boundary (NE 3rd, if extended) on the north. The southern boundary of the annexation site is approximately SE 135ih Street, if extended. Approximately 25% of the annexation site currently abuts the City boundary and upon annexation of the Tydico site this will increase to approximately 40%. State law requires that the Council hold a meeting within 60 days of filing the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation to consider the proposed annexation and decide whether it will accept, modify, or reject it. If Council accepts the annexation, a resolution authorizing the circulation of the 50% petition to annex shall be considered. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set a Public Meeting date for August 41h, 2003. X Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President City Council Members VIA: J, Mayor Jesse Tanner /M& -1i-t RP FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X-6581) SUBJECT: Proposed Carlo Annexation 10% Notice of Intent ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intent to annex about 37 acres to the City of Renton by direct petition (Figure 1, Vicinity Map). State law requires that the Council hold a Public Meeting with annexation proponents to decide whether to accept, reject or geographically modify the proposal, whether to require the assumption of bonded indebtedness and whether to require the simultaneous adoption of zoning. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent. If Council concurs with this recommendation, the Administration recommends that Council take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): • Authorize the circulation of the 50% Petition to Annex for the proposed area; • Require the adoption of City zoning on the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, • Require that property owners assume a proportional share of the City's outstanding indebtedness. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The "L" shaped Carlo Annexation site has not previously been considered for annexation to Renton. It is located immediately east of the proposed Tydico Site Annexation, which will be considered by voters with that annexation on September 16, 2003. This annexation cannot be approved until after the Tydico annexation is completed since to do so would create an island in violation of state law. July 16, 2003 Page 2 Location: The proposed 37-acre "L" shaped Carlo Annexation is located between 1361' Avenue SE on the west, 140`h Avenue SE on the east, NE P Street, if extended on the north, and, SE 135`h Street, if extended on the south. It is immediately east of the proposed Tydico Site Annexation. 2. Assessed value: The assessed value at current development is $3,756,000. 3. Natural features: The site generally slopes north to south at about a 3% slope. (Figure 2, Topography) The northeast corner of the western half of the site retains a portion of a mapped wetland to the northeast. 4. Existing land uses: Existing development includes medium- to large -lot single family and vacant parcels. (Figure 3, Existing Structures) 5. Existing zoning_ King County zoning is R-4. R-4 allows up to a base density of four units per gross acre, and up to six units per acre with incentives and transfer of density credits. 6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcel Residential Single Family (RS). Potential zoning under the RS designation includes R-8, 8 units per net acre, and RMH, Residential Manufactured Housing. 7. Public services: All responding departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Water Utility. The subject area is within the water service area of Water District #90 by agreement under the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan. A certificate of water availability from the District will be required prior to the issuance of development permits within the subject area, following annexation to the City. Hydrant flow test and hydraulic analysis of the District's system will also be required for new development in the annexed area. The District must provide adequate water supply and pressure for new development within the City and must meet Renton's standards for fire protection and domestic water service. The City should verify that adequate water supply is available from the District's system for fire protection of new development. Sewers. The area is not currently served by sewer. Sewer exists in the Fernwood East Subdivision abutting the site to the west. Sewers would be extended by a combination of developer extension, local improvement districts and City capital improvement projects. Parks. The City has a shortfall of both neighborhood and community parkland in this area. King County owns about 39 acres of parkland, primarily undeveloped, about 3/10's of a mile to the southeast of the proposed annexation. In the past, the County has expressed an interest in conveying these properties to the City, with their annexation. Development of the parkland would occur at the City's expense. Park's staff recommends re -initiating negotiations for the transfer of these park properties to the City to offset the growing local shortfall. Increased staffing levels, supplies and materials to maintain and operate these facilities would also be required. The projected cost of developing and maintaining parkland to a level consistent with the service levels in the City's Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan will be included in the fiscal impact analysis, should the Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition. Fire. The area is currently served by the City under the contract with Fire District #25. July 16, 2003 Page 3 Public Works Maintenance. Maintenance staff noted that the only organized drainage is roadside ditches. All abutting street right-of-ways are intended to be included in the annexation. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The annexation policies generally support the proposed annexation. The subject properties are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and are subject to development pressure. (Policies LU-378 and LU-380) The area is available for urbanization under the King County Comprehensive Plan, zoning and subdivision regulations. (Policy LU-380) Renton is the logical provider of urban infrastructure and services to the area. (Policy LU-383) Policy LU- 388 states that, in general, the greater the contiguity with the city limits, the more favorable the annexation. The area proposed for annexation is adjacent to the city limits along approximately 25% of its boundaries. After the inclusion of the Tydico Site to the west this would increase to approximately 40%. Proposed boundaries also are generally identifiable in the field. (Policy LU-388). They will be more so after the Tydico Site to the west, comes into the City. 2. Consistency with the Boundary Review Board Objectives: (from RCW 36.93.180) a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; The proposed annexation would cause no disruption to the larger community. b. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; Except for a small area, boundaries follow physical features. C. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; Not applicable. d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; The boundaries are somewhat irregular but not abnormally irregular. e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess often thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; Not applicable. f. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; Not applicable. g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; Neither the existing nor the proposed boundaries are impractical. h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and, King County has designated this area for urban development. July 16, 2003 Page 4 Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed Annexation area are rural or designated for long term productive agricultural use in the King County Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: The proposal is essentially consistent with City policies and Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. No impediments to the provision of City services to the area have been identified. A full fiscal analysis will be conducted following receipt of a certified 50% Petition to annex, if it is the Council's intent that the annexation proceed. Attachments e® ^E�co it Devenop L Neig& S—ge Re 9 GMlpune] 0]m URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY City of Renton CITY LIMITS Current Annexations - ELECTION ANNEXATIONS PETITION ANNEXATIONS Wfoposed Carlo Annexation 0 400 800 ure 2: Topography Map 1 : 4800 Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning --- 1m Interval Countour ♦ Alex Pietsch, Administrator s-- G. Del Rosario Renton City Limits ��NTO$ 18 July 2003 O Proposed Annexation Area 0000 q Q I M MIE LJ nd SE 1 Gb ky— Q \_✓ (B O ✓ � �✓V �� \/J�� This document Is o graph{c representation, not guaranteed to curve accurac intended for cit u oses only and yy pp P O O based on the best info motion awiloble os of thnydote shown. This map Is for display purposes only. Wuroposed Carlo Annexation0 400 800 e 3: Existing Structures Map 1 . 4800 Gti:Y 0� Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Existing Structure * Alex Pietsch, Administrator --® Renton City Limits ,A — $ G. Del Rosario � O 18 July 2003 � Proposed Annexation Area NT Rl 0� � c Eb t I =0ENCE] 101OC4JDl o�v�►q� d i� a _ -4CO ❑ w Q EIZ3 ! D CD d- � d � i Q Cl ❑ q ] ED CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA B Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (X-6581) Subject: Merritt Annexation Public Meeting Exhibits: Issue Paper Recommended Action: Council Concur Al #: 11 , For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Approvals: Legal Dept ......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to initiate a direct petition method of annexation for approximately 4.8 acres located at the City limits immediately northwest of the Stonegate Subdivision at the intersection of SE 100th Street and Lyons Avenue NE. The subject single parcel site would access off Lyons Avenue NE. It abuts the City along its southern and eastern boundaries. State law requires that the Council hold a meeting within 60 days of filing the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation to consider the proposed annexation and decide whether it will accept, modify, or reject it. If Council accepts the annexation, a resolution authorizing the circulation of the 50% petition to annex shall be considered. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set a Public Meeting date for August 41h, 2003. X RentonneUagnbilU bh CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President City Council Members VIA: J' Mayor Jesse Tanner FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (Ext. 6581) SUBJECT: Proposed Merritt Annexation 10% Notice of Intent ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intent to annex about 4.8 acres to the City of Renton by direct petition. (Figure 1, Vicinity Map) State law requires that the Council hold a Public Meeting with annexation proponents to decide whether to accept, reject or geographically modify the proposal, whether to require the assumption of bonded indebtedness and whether to require the simultaneous adoption of zoning. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent. If Council concurs with this recommendation, the Administration recommends that Council take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): 0 Authorize the circulation of the 50% Petition to Annex for the proposed area; • Require the adoption of City zoning on the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, • Require that property owners assume a proportional share of the City's bonded indebtedness. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The annexation is comprised of a single property whose owner wishes to become a part of the City of Renton in order to obtain sewer service and subdivide his property. Sewer is currently located nearby in the Stonegate Subdivision immediately to the east and south of the subject annexation site. The site was prezoned R-1 as part of the May Valley Prezone — Phase II, in 1997. July 16, 2003 Page 2 Location: The subject area is located south of SE May Valley Road and west of Lyons Avenue NE. It is bordered by SE 100 Street, if extended, on the south and NE 26"' Street, if extended, on the north. 2. Assessed value: The assessed value at current development is $590,000. Natural features: The site generally slopes north at about a 5% slope. A slight ridge exists along its western half (Figure 2, Topography). The Cedar River Basin Plan maps a tributary to Maplewood Creek near the western boundary, north of SE 132"d Street. 4. Existing land uses: Existing development includes a single family dwelling on the 4.8-acre site. (Figure 3, Existing Structures) Existingzoning: oning_ King County zoning is R-1. R-1 allows up to a base density of one unit per gross acre, and up to six units per acre with incentives and transfer of density credits. 6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcel Residential Rural (RR). The site was prezoned to R-1 pursuant to RCW 35.A.14.330 and 340, in 1997. This zoning allows one unit per net acre and would be applied at the time of annexation. 7. Public services: All responding departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Water Utility. The subject area is within the water service area of Water District #90 by agreement under the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan. A certificate of water availability from the District will be required prior to the issuance of development permits within the subject area, following annexation to the City. Hydrant flow tests and hydraulic analysis of the District's system will also be required for new development in the annexed area. The District must provide adequate water supply and pressure for new development within the City and must meet Renton's standards for fire protection and domestic water service. Prior to development, the City should verify that adequate water supply is available from the District's system for fire protection for new development. Sewers. The area is not currently served by sewer. Sewers would most likely be extended by a developer extension from near the intersection of SE 100d' Street and Lyons Avenue NE. Parks. The City has a shortfall of both neighborhood and community parkland in this area. King County owns about 45 acres of parkland, primarily undeveloped, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed annexation. In the past, the County has expressed an interest in conveying these properties to the City, with their annexation. Development of the parkland would occur at the City's expense. Park's staff recommends re -initiating negotiations for the transfer of these park properties to the City to offset the growing local shortfall. Increased staffing levels, supplies and materials to maintain and operate these facilities would also be required. The projected cost of developing and maintaining parkland to a level consistent with the service levels in the City's Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan will be included in the fiscal impact analysis, should the Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition. Fire. The area is currently served by the City under the contract with Fire District #25. Public Works Maintenance. Maintenance staff noted that the only organized drainage is roadside ditches. The Division also noted that 140 Avenue SE is the only roadway within the proposed boundaries that meets City standards. July 16, 2003 Page 3 ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: (Pursuant to City Council Resolution 2429) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The annexation policies generally support the proposed annexation. The subject properties are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and are subject to development pressure. (Policies LU-378 and LU-380) The area is available for urbanization under the King County Comprehensive Plan, zoning and subdivision regulations. (Policy LU-380) Renton is the logical provider of urban infrastructure and services to the area. (Policy LU-383) Policy LU- 388 states that, in general, the greater the contiguity with the city limits, the more favorable the annexation. The area proposed for annexation is adjacent to the city limits along 50% of its boundaries. Proposed boundaries are generally identifiable in the field. (Policy LU-3-88) 2. Consistency with the Boundary Review Board Objectives: (from RCW 36.93.180) a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; The proposed annexation would cause no disruption to the larger community. b. Use ofphysical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; Except for a small area, boundaries follow physical features. C. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; Not applicable. d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; The boundaries are not irregular. e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations ofsmall cities and encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; Not applicable. f Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; Not applicable. g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; Neither the existing nor the proposed boundaries are impractical. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and, King County has designated this area for urban development. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. July 16, 2003 Page 4 Not applicable. No portions of the proposed Annexation area are rural or designated for long term productive agricultural use in the King County Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: The proposal is essentially consistent with City policies and Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. No impediments to the provision of City services to the area have been identified. A full fiscal analysis will be conducted following receipt of a certified 60% Petition to annex, if it is the Council's intent that the annexation proceed. Attachments --- --------- -- --- -------- -------- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .......................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ............. - ---- - - -------- -------------- - ------ ---- -- ---------- -- ----------------- ............. ------------ ------ -------------------- -------- -- ----- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Merritt --------------------------- -------------------------- ----- --- --- ----- -- --- -- ----- ------ 4.8 ac. A J: j!i ?K Falk aC. .4 ------------ -7 ------------- City of Renton G M3 Current Annexations N URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CITY LIMITS ELECTION ANNEXATIONS PETITION ANNEXATIONS 94.77 x 94.7b X 94.1 X X 95.eS i/ I� \/I , 1\ 9E.63 94.64 x 94.78 4.JB / /^ x '-_ --" '\ x 94.94 9..67 x , 96.52 97.31 95.61 X 94.62 x \ X •\\ 96.67 X 94.67 i \ x e5.70 \ X 94.63 X Fr•` \\\ 45. X i \ \ x 650 \\ `! `, 96.70 \ x 94,69 X94.81 95.62 x 957 4.79 \ 197.49 I 98. 2 .\ \.\�� x x / `•� X96.87 \ 05.56 x95 99.47 '-I_._\ X 98.50 I 95. 97.6a X --_ r I\X. �L�\,�X \ xo].30 98 2 - -x 7.95 nB.7X \9E.'8 (, �` 97."'\ `J\� ``+`` `'-� �• `�`�V tOC.61 99.57 (� 96.94 x -- ,00 ]o x xpot.3�ez.bs��11 ' ��1t\\5 / .94 .94 02.58 - / \ �(i 04.3 �, V 4 .6 \ l�� Xl ---9 �, G 99. -_--_ - 101.4x x _-_� \` `•\\\\\ \\ \\ t` \ \ ;�fjl' - ��` `.\ `•. - _ •'� X 99.7E �^�./ 98.?4 �\\\ \1 "•_�\`�\. ---_.-� 2.7X �: 1.57 V x 97.91 \ .1 �� 1ol.88 x 99.62 \` ` \ \♦ ;\ t 124.84 \\'i \ j \\\`\ ` �• ` ,\\\\--\\\�\\`\\\ ____ x104.63, 70 36 X x99.63 X `\i \ \� \\ - 9.75 / 94.49 x99.51 104.59 • iii ./ X` r I / x 100.4 lo 105.82 X j� 99.88 , l \\ \\ \\ `\ 1 1 ,• 11 oiVo 1M48 J \ 25.15 l 1 , j `, t / / I I . 112.56 - x - 10 .47<- I / 100.49�� I 102.55 I X 1 t x1.29 V ,\ 03.27 ,1oX7a 1 % xj x x _ t05.68 . r \ \ 125.71 ,I \` � _ \ \ \ \ \ '\ \ .\ \ \ X i X ' =i '\- t 3183 \\ \` 12 51\ tl l\\\\ \\\ \`\\ \\ \ \'\ \\ \\ \\ ^ \ �__ �St9, 03.SB 102.8, I- 101.47 1 \' \\ x ! - �\ \\ \\ \.\ \\•, \, \It t\\ \.\ 4\\\ - -_1 / X Il0o 77 i X o101.46 / x 04. \ , �104.58 \ \ i _ X128.57 X ( \ \ 11 1 \ I ` v !\, \ 105.57 ,27.61 32 X t // /l .SX 1\ I '1 .I i 1 I .` \ ! I- I l " '/ l X \ �\ 1\\ \' i ; / 1 .6yy5 103.8 128.44 \\ \ \�\ t \, 1 1 1 \\ t-\ `` �. x '\ 104.5G , .3• x \ ,22.9(6��;� -� -- X 1 k I1107 `" ; I I �,+• ♦ � `\\ 1 1 .54 I /- 11 i , \ t a. ` 126.81 `'�_�� \' I , it \ ``\ `\ ' i I ' X ,I i I 1 r 1 ` t 26.69 t 0- 4 V1,\`` . `\\\\\\ \\ \ t 1 / 104.59 x 09.46 12 1 125.30 _- li , \ `\\\ \ \\\ \, '\ \\ 't i I X e \ \ \\ \\ \'\ \ IJ j li \\ \ �` \ \` 32.30 l \ I\ \` \, \\ \ j \\ \\� 1\ \\I I I .\ 709 .\ . o .92 x x 29.21 \ ll 1 x �-^ 13 .58 X ob � I , , .65 8.7 •I r , �, . , , �, I I X I , r r G5.51 , ; ,, 132.68X 0 1 I I X x 133.54 \` ♦ \` \, \\ \i \\ \\ '\, \\ \ \ \ \ �` \ 1 08.41 r 1 1 \`\ \\\ J� �, `\ \ 107 95' x 33. 131.5 `\ \, ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ `, `, \ \\ i ! 11GV.7 52 i ! t\ \ \ t t I I! ! ! 1X3. 3 , X \`\ \ \ \ \\ \\'\ ' \\ , \•\ i 1 r 1 \ 104.'S l I \\\ 1 \ \\ \ 1 r 1 I 110 40 1 'i1 III f l X-44 This document Is o ro hIc re resentation, not ucranteed 9 D p 9 84 x 133.25 132 33 ,32 7 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \\ \, \ \ , 1 \ \ I , to survey accuracy intended fir city purposes only and 1 x - x \ \ \ \ \ ! , , , \ \ based on the best information avoilabpe os of fhe date shown. X X 1 \` \\ \ \ \\\ \\ `\ \\ \\ •,. 11 !. 1` \ \\ \\ ' 1 1 , ; \ This mop Is for display purposes only. ipposed Merritt Annexation 0 200 400 Figure 2: Topography Map 1 : 2400 Gti�Y o{ Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 1m Interval Countour ♦ Alex Pietsch, Administrator G. Del Rosario -Renton City Limits 18 July 2003 0 Proposed Annexation Area X El tFj-'J L LA 0 zv � p I � � This document is a graphic representation. not guaranteed to survey accuracy, intended fpsr city purposes only and based on the best information available as of the dote shown. This map is for display purposes only. toposed Merritt Annexation 0 200 400 Figure 3: Existing Structures Map 1 : 2400 Ol�y �� Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Existing Structure ♦ ♦ Alex Pietsch, Administrator — — — Renton City Limits "�� G. Del Rosario ��1VT0$ 18 July 2003 Proposed Annexation Area High i- 10 I I Z 2 Ldk�� V ment is o yrtophlc representotion, not guaronteed accurocy, mended fir city purposes only and the best i fonnotion owiloble os of the dote shown. VIh- Is for dlsploy purposes only. oposed Merritt Annexation 200 400 Figure 4: Sensitive Areas Map High Erosion 1 : 2400 Hazzard Boundary Uti�Y o{ Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ® > 40% Slope * ♦ Alex Pietsch, Administrator Renton City Limits G. Del Rosario �L'NTO� 18 July 2003 0 Proposed Annexation Area CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (X-6581) Subject: Mossier Annexation Public Meeting Exhibits: Issue Paper Recommended Action: Council Concur Al #: For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Approvals: Legal Dept ......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City is in receipt of a 10% Notice of Intent petition to initiate a direct petition method of annexation for approximately 31 acres located at the City limits south of NE 41h Street beginning at the western edge of 142nd Avenue SE, if extended, on the west and including the area to east (approximately 602 feet) to the 144th Avenue SE and including this right-of-way where it abuts the proposed annexation site. The portion of the annexation site north of SE 132nd Street abuts the City boundary along its west, north and eastern edges. The southern boundary of the annexation site is SE 136th Street. State law requires that the Council hold a meeting within 60 days of filing the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation to consider the proposed annexation and decide whether it will accept, modify, or reject it. If Council accepts the annexation, a resolution authorizing the circulation of the 50% petition to annex shall be considered. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set a Public Meeting date for August 41h, 2003. 9i Rentonnedagnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President City Council Members VIA: JC- Mayor Jesse Tanner 1C. FROM: 4 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X-6581) SUBJECT: Proposed Mossier Annexation 10% Notice of Intent ISSUE: The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intent to annex about 31.24 acres to the City of Renton by direct petition. (Figure 1, Vicinity Map) State law requires that the Council hold a Public Meeting with annexation proponents to decide whether to accept, reject or geographically modify the proposal, whether to require the assumption of bonded indebtedness and whether to require the simultaneous adoption of zoning. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent. If Council concurs with this recommendation, the Administration recommends that Council take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120): • Authorize the circulation of the 50 % Petition to Annex for the proposed area; • Require the adoption of City zoning on the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, 0 Require that property owners assume a proportional share of the City's bonded indebtedness. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The annexation is largely comprised of properties whose owners previously wished to be included in the Wofford Annexation. Due to the State Supreme Court's decision invalidating the "60 percent petition" process based upon assessed value, in March 2002, the City was forced to stop a number of annexations under this process, including the Wofford and Maplewood Heights Annexations.. The Mossier Annexation represents about 70% of the former Wofford Annexation area. July 16, 2003 Page 2 1. Location: The subject area is located between 142nd and 144' Avenues SE (Hoquiam and Jericho Avenues NE), the existing City limits on the north, and SE 136`b Street on the south. 2. Assessed value: The assessed value at current development is $5,448,000. Natural features: The site generally slopes north to south at about a 3% slope. (Figure 2, Topography) The Cedar River Basin Plan maps a tributary to Maplewood Creek near the western boundary, north of SE 136th Street that parallels the western property line to about SE 134d' before crossing the annexation site going east. 4. Existing land uses: Existing development includes medium- to large -lot single family and vacant parcels. (Figure 3, Existing Structures) 5. Existingzoning: King County zoning is R-4. R-4 allows up to a base density of four units per gross acre, and up to six units per acre with incentives and transfer of density credits. 6. Comprehensive Plan: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcel Residential Rural (RR). Potential zoning under the RR designation includes Resource Conservation (RC), R-1 and R-5. 7. Public services: All responding departments and divisions noted that the annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services and systems. Water Utility. The subject area is within the water service area of Water District #90 by agreement under the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan. A certificate of water availability from the District will be required prior to the issuance of development permits within the subject area, following annexation to the City. Hydrant flow test and hydraulic analysis of the District's system will also be required for new development in the annexed area. The District must provide adequate water supply and pressure for new development within the City and must meet Renton's standards for fire protection and domestic water service. Water District 90 currently provides water service within the city limits. However, the District does not have a utility franchise to construct, maintain and operate its utility system within Renton's rights -of -way. The City is currently working on an agreement with the District. The City should verify that adequate water supply is available from the District's system for fire protection for new development. Sewers. The area is not currently served by sewer. Sewers would be extended by a combination of developer extension, local improvement districts and City capital improvement projects. Parks. The City has a shortfall of both neighborhood and community parkland in this area. King County owns about 45 acres of parkland, primarily undeveloped, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed annexation. In the past, the County has expressed an interest in conveying these properties to the City, with their annexation. Development of the parkland would occur at the City's expense. Park's staff recommends re -initiating negotiations for the transfer of these park properties to the City to offset the growing local shortfall. Increased staffing levels, supplies and materials to maintain and operate these facilities would also be required. The projected cost of developing and maintaining parkland to a level consistent with the service levels in the City's Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan will be included in the fiscal impact analysis, should the Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition. July 16, 2003 Page 3 Fire. The area is currently served by the City under the contract with Fire District #25. Public Works Maintenance. Maintenance staff noted that the only organized drainage is roadside ditches. The Division also noted that 144`h Avenue SE is the only roadway within the proposed boundaries that meets City standards. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: (Pursuant to City Council Resolution 2429) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The annexation policies generally support the proposed annexation. The subject properties are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and are subject to development pressure. (Policies LU-378 and LU-380) The area is available for urbanization under the King County Comprehensive Plan, zoning and subdivision regulations. (Policy LU-380) Renton is the logical provider of urban infrastructure and services to the area. (Policy LU-383) Policy LU- 388 states that, in general, the greater the contiguity with the city limits, the more favorable the annexation. The area proposed for annexation is adjacent to the city limits along approximately 40% of its boundaries. Proposed boundaries also are generally identifiable in the field. (Policy LU-388) 2. Consistency with the Boundary Review Board Objectives: (from RCW 36,93.180) a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; The proposed annexation would cause no disruption to the larger community. b. Use ofphysical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies ofwater, highways, and land contours; Except for a small area, boundaries follow physical features. C. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; Not applicable. d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; The boundaries are not irregular. e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess often thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; Not applicable. f. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; Not applicable. g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; Neither the existing nor the proposed boundaries are impractical. July 16, 2003 Page 4 h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and, King County has designated this area for urban development. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed Annexation area are rural or designated for long term productive agricultural use in the King County Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: The proposal is essentially consistent with City policies and Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation. No impediments to the provision of City services to the area have been identified. A full fiscal analysis will be conducted following receipt of a certified 50% Petition to annex, if it is the Council's intent that the annexation proceed. Attachments __-:_ __ - _ -__ ` -------------------------------- _ ____ __ . - 4 j ---------------- ---- - .,. . .-._ .._ __�_ r __ :_:: __:::_ _ _ _ ::. -_ Merritt x. ------ - ------ -- - :-__ - _________; _- - - _ -----=------- :-- --:__-_:::---:::: _ ---------------- ___ ._: _ _:: __ _� - - - - r - { ?., - - - :---- Hone Creek East >: -::.:::.::::::.:: .:: :---- :::::-_ _ r ----- 27.5 ac. - _ Mosier _ t ' 33.3 ac. Tyclico .f.. - ® _ 9.8 ac. Carlo Bales 36.9 ac. 1 t 9.0 ac. 41 i R _ r I , Tr - 4 Falk - -- 6.4 ac. r -- .... --.__ _- i i URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ® City of Renton CITY LIMITS E9oromic Development. NeigftDortwodsb Svalegic Flaring ELECTION ANNEXATIONS Current Annexations PET771ON ANNEXATIONS i 'V posed Mossier Annexation 0 400 800 re 2: Topography Map RMNIMMM 1 : 4800 Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning — -- 1 m Interval Countour O Alex Pietsch, Administrator G. Del Rosario --� Renton City Limits 18 July 2003 O Proposed Annexation Area 0 0 4>r (Do 3 4 t hPI ni L 0 INNIN o a E rat} ° p00 EF ❑ 0 a C Q � —� U) S E 1I36ti o 0 Cl a This document is a oraphic re resentotim not guoronteed to survey accuracy, ntmded for city ppurposes only and based on the best information awlable as of the date shown. This map is for display purposes only. proposed Mossier Annexation 0 400 800 Fiyure 3: Existing Structures Map 1 : 4800 Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Existing Structure Alex Pietsch, Administrator—� G. Del Rosario Renton City Limits �NTo 18 July 2003 Proposed Annexation Area Ll Y-^ r-% ^ n n C�. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: / Submitting Data: Fire For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Dept/Div/Board.. Fire Department Administration Agenda Status Starr Contact...... Mary Weirich, Admin Sec. II x7051 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: King County Basic Life Support-2003 through 2007 Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ X Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: King County #D331 OOD Contract Study Sessions...... Resolution authorizing signature of the contract Information......... 2003 BLS Funding Allocations memo and attachments Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept:.... Other .... HR&RM X Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... Revenue Generated......... $449,081.00 Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The attached contract, King County Basic Life Support (BLS) Services Contract, is from King County EMS (Emergency Medical Services) and provides a subsidy for City of Renton EMS services. This multi -year contract is effective from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007. The annual contract amount is $449,081 and will be adjusted by King County each year based on the 2003 BLS funding formula (calculations include unincorporated ratios, assessed valuation (AV) amounts, and call volume amounts). Payment to Renton is our entitlement of the 2003 King County Levy funded from Real Property Taxes. The city budgeted revenue for 2003 at $435,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City of Renton Council approve the resolution authorizing administration to sign and execute the King County Basic Life Support Services Contract #D33100D. I:\AContracts\BLS\2003\03AGENDA BILL.doc/ King County Contract No. D33100D Federal Taxpayer ID No. 91-6001271 Department/Division Seattle -King County Department of Public Health/Emergency Medical Services Division Agency Renton Fire Department Project Title Basic Life Support Services Fund Code Real Property Taxes Contract Period From: January 1, 2003 TO December 31, 2007 KING COUNTY AGENCY SERVICES CONTRACT — EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES THIS CONTRACT is entered into by KING COUNTY (the "County"), and Renton Fire Department, whose address is 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington '98055-2760 (the "Agency"). WHEREAS, the County has been advised that the following is the current funding source and the effective dates of such funding source: FUNDING SOURCE EFFECTIVE DATES Real Property Taxes 1/1/02—12/31/07 and WHEREAS, the County desires to have certain services performed by the Agency as described in this Contract, and as authorized by Ordinance No. 14576. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the parties hereto, the parties covenant and do mutually agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Agency shall provide services and comply with the requirements set forth in this Contract; in accordance with the Proposed. Budget Form (Exhibit I) as approved annually by the Health Department, and in accordance with Basic Life Support Standards (Exhibit II). The following attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference: ® Scope of Services (Program Plan and Budget) ® Basic Life Support Standards ® Invoice M Mission, Method, and Expectations M Certificate of Insurance D33100D: Renton FD Basic Life Support Services Contract 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit I Attached hereto as Exhibit II Attached hereto as Exhibit III Attached hereto as Exhibit IV Attached hereto as Exhibit V H. DURATION OF CONTRACT This Contract shall commence on the 1st day of January 2003 and shall terminate on the 31st day of December 2007, unless extended or terminated earlier, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract. III. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The Agency shall submit Exhibit I annually to the Health Department for its review and approval for determining funds to be distributed to the Agency. The County shall reimburse the Agency for satisfactory completion of the services and requirements specified in this Contract, and in accordance with the Proposed Budget Form (Exhibit I), as approved by the Health Department. Payment to the Agency shall be made: Upon receipt of the invoice as set forth in Exhibit III, which complies with the budget set forth in Exhibit I. B. The Agency shall submit an invoice and all accompanying reports as specified in the attached exhibits not more than 15 working days after the close of each indicated reporting period. The County will initiate authorization for payment after approval of corrected invoices and reports. The County shall make payment to the Agency not more than forty-five (45) days after the appropriate invoice is received. C. The Agency shall submit its final invoice and all outstanding reports within 30 days of the date this Contract terminates. If the Agency's final invoice and reports are not submitted by the day specified in this subsection, the County will be relieved of all liability for payment to the Agency of the amounts set forth in said invoice or any subsequent invoice. IV. OPERATING BUDGET The Agency shall apply the funds received from the County under this Contract in accordance with the Proposed Budget Form, as approved by the Health Department. The Proposed Budget may contain line items for personnel salaries and benefits, per -shift payments, per -call payments, supplies, support services, and total EMS funds allocated, consistent with RCW 84.52.069. The Agency shall request prior approval from the County for amendment to the Proposed Budget when the cumulative amount of transfers among the line items within each funding source's. program budget is expected, by the end of the budget period, to exceed 10% of the Contract amount for that program budget. "Cumulative transfers" shall be defined as the total amount of over -expenditures of individual line items within a specific program budget; the total amount for said specific program budget remaining unchanged. Supporting documents necessary to explain fully the nature and purpose of the amendment must accompany each request for an amendment. D33I OOD: Renton FD Basic Life Support Services Contract V. INTERNAL CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM The Agency shall establish and maintain a system of accounting and internal controls which complies with applicable, generally accepted accounting principles, and governmental accounting and financial reporting standards. VI. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS. A. The Agency shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial, and programmatic records and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the County to ensure proper accounting for all Contract funds and compliance with this Contract. B. These records shall be maintained for a period of six (6) years after termination hereof.unless permission to destroy them is granted by the Office of the.Archivist in accordance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 40.14. C. The Agency shall inform the County in writing of the location, if different from the Agency address listed on page one of this Contract, of the aforesaid books, records, documents, and other evidence and shall notify the County in writing of any changes in location within ten (10) working days of any such relocation. VII. EVALUATIONS AND INSPECTIONS A. The Agency shall provide right of access to its facilities, including those of any subcontractor to the County, the state, and/or federal agencies or officials at all reasonable times in order to monitor and evaluate the services provided under this Contract. The County will give advance notice to the Agency in the case of fiscal audits to be conducted by the County. B. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Contract shall be subject at all times to inspection, review, or audit by the County and/or federal/state officials so authorized by law during the performance of this Contract and six (6) years after termination hereof, unless a longer retention period is required by law. C. The Agency agrees to cooperate with the County or its agent in the evaluation of the Agency's performance under this Contract and to make available all information reasonably required by any such evaluation process. The results and records of said evaluations shall be maintained and disclosed in accordance with RCW Chapter 42.17. VIII. CORRECTIVE ACTION If the County determines that a breach of Contract has occurred, that is, the Agency has failed to comply with any terms or conditions of this Contract or the Agency has failed to provide in any manner the work or services agreed to herein, and if the County deems said breach to warrant corrective action, the following sequential procedure will apply: A. The County will notify the Agency in writing of the nature of the breach; B. The Agency shall respond in writing within three (3) working days of its receipt of such notification, which response shall indicate the steps being taken to correct the specified deficiencies. The corrective action plan shall specify the proposed completion date for bringing the Contract into compliance, which date shall not be more than ten (10) days from the date of the D33100D: Renton FD Basic Life Support Services Contract XIX. NOTICES Whenever this Contract provides for notice to be provided by one party to another, such notice shall be: A. In writing; and B. Directed to the chief executive officer of the Agency and the director/manager of the County department/division specified on page 1 of this Contract. Any time within which a party must take some action shall be computed from the date that the notice is received by said party. XX. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS The parties to this Contract hereby mutually agree that if any patentable or copyrightable material or article should result from the work described herein, all rights accruing from such material or article shall be the sole property of the Agency. The Agency agrees to and does hereby grant to the County, irrevocable, nonexclusive, and royalty -free license to use, according to law, any material or article and use any method that may be developed as part of the work under this Contract. The foregoing license shall not apply to existing training materials, consulting aids, checklists, and other materials and documents of the Agency which are modified for use in the performance of this Contract. . XXI. CONTRACT AMENDMENTS Either party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Contract. XXII. KING COUNTY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROCUREMENT POLICY The Agency shall use recycled paper for the production of all printed and photocopied documents related to the fulfillment of this Contract and shall ensure that, whenever possible, the cover page of each document printed on recycled paper bears an imprint identifying it as recycled paper. If the cost of recycled paper is more than 15% higher than the cost of non -recycled paper, the Agency may notify the Contract Administrator, who may waive the recycled paper requirement. The Agency shall use both sides of paper sheets for copying and printing and shall use recycled/recyclable products wherever practical in the fulfillment of this Contract. XXIII. ENTIRE CONTRACTIWAIVER OF DEFAULT The parties agree that this Contract is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded.. Both parties recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Contract. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of beach of any provision of the Contract shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of the Contract unless stated to be such through written approval by the County, which shall be attached to the original Contract. D33100D: Renton FD Basic Life Support Services Contract 12 XXIV. SERVICES PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND RULE AND REGULATION The Agency and any subcontractor agree, when applicable, to abide by the terms of Washington State law and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; the Basic Interagency Contract between the Department of Social and Health Services and King County, as amended, and- regulations of the state and federal governments,. as applicable, which control disposition of funds granted under this Contract, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.. In the event that there is a conflict between any of the language contained in any exhibit or attachment to this Contract, the language in the Contract shall have control over the language contained in the exhibit or the attachment,. unless the parties affirmatively agree in writing to the contrary. KING COUNTY FOR King County Executive Date Approved as to Form: OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY February 25, 2003 RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT Signature Name (Please type or print) Date D33100D: Renton FD Basic Life Support Services Contract 13 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUNDS 2003 PROPOSED BUDGET FORM - BASIC LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES Applicant Agency Renton Fire Department/King County FD #25 Agency Service Area(s) City of Renton, King County District #25 Contact Person A. Lee Wheeler Title Address: 1055 S Grady Way Phone: Renton WA 98055-2760 Budget Category: A. Personnel 1. Salaries & Benefits 2. Per Shift Payments (list rate per shift) 3. Per Call Payments (list rate per call) B. Supplies. (itemized on separate sheet) C.. Equipment (itemized on separate sheet) D. Support Service (itemized on separate sheet). E. Total EMS Funds Allocated in 2003 * ** Chief 425-430-7000 Amount Requested in 2003* $ 1,613,934. $ 449,081 Please list only total amount of requested funds by category on this page. Attach itemized list of proposed expenditures if you are requesting funds for supplies, equipment, or support services. Attach explanation of how requested funds for salary and benefits were calculated and how they will be used in accordance with the expenditure guidelines. An agency may request BLSS funding for that portion of salaries and benefits that can be attributed to EMS M aid calls out of total fire and aid calls) up to the BLSS allocation for that agency. Show %'s and total salary/benefit budget used to derive BLSS request. 20 EMT's Salary and Benefits - 2003 1 Year 70E 12 month @ $ 4,944 + $ 198.00 longevity $ 61,704 Deferred Compensation (3% base salary) . 1,780 Sub -total 631484 Benefits Rate Retirement (salary and longevity) 0.0439 $ 2,787 Medicare (salary and deferred comp) 0.0145 921 Medical.(per month -family) $ 814.32 9,772 Industrial Insurance (per hour) 0.7637 874 Dental (per month -family) $ 188.88 2,267 Uniform Allowance (1 % base) $ 593.00 593 Total $ 17,213 Cost of one Firefighter/EMT $ 80,697 20 Firefighters/EMT's - salary and benefits $ 1,613,934 EXHIBIT 1 2003 PROGRAM PLAN AND PROPOSED BUDGET I. Identification Information " A. Name and number of Fire Protection District or Fire Department: Renton Fire Department/King County Fire District #25 B. Name of Chief: A. Lee Wheeler Mailing Address 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 C. Name of EMS Coordinator (and Training Coordinator if different): Lt. Gary Ryser Telephone No. 425430-7103 Capt. Bill Flora Telephone No. 425-430-7102 D. Location: manned or unmanned status of all fires stations in your department or district: location of aid vehicles. Include the address of each station (use other side if necessary). Defib No. EMS Response No. & Type Fire Address Unit Status Vehicles at Location Vehicles at: 1. Station # 11 3 Full Time 11 1 1 Pumper, 1 Ladder 211 Mill Ave S PartTime/ 0 1 Hazmat, Renton WA 98055 Volunteer 1 Command 2. Station # 12 2 Full Time 7 1 2 Pumpers, 1 Dive 901 Harrington Ave PartTimel 0 NE Rig/Boat/Trailer Renton WA 98056 Volunteer 3. Station # 13 2 Full Time 5 1 2 Pumpers 17040 108th Ave SE PartTime/ 0 Renton WA 98058 Volunteer 4. Station # 14 2 Full Time 5 1 2 Pumpers 1900 Lind Ave SW Part Time/ 0 Renton WA 98055 Volunteer 5. Station # 16 2 Full Time 5 1 3 Pumpers 12923 156th Ave SE Part Time/ 0 Renton WA 98059 Volunteer Include aid units as well as fire apparatus, command cars, rescue units, etc. STATIONS PLANNED FOR CONSTRUCTION 2003 Address: Status: Vehicles: Exhibit 1 2003 Program Plan and Proposed Budget Page 2 E. Agency Response Information Number of fire suppression responses in 2002 2,270 Number of EMS aid responses in 2002 5,963 Total number of responses in 2002 8,233 Percent aid responses of total responses 72.5% II. Relationships with other EMS Agencies A. Specify location of transfer points with paramedic provider groups if applicable: Exhibit 1 2003 Program Plan and Proposed Budget Page 3 III. Personnel A. Number of full-time paid firefighters: 97, of which 97 are EMT's and 0 are First Responders* B. Number of volunteer firefighters: 0, of which 0 are EMT's and 0 are First Responders.* C. Number of personnel currently trained in defibrillation: 98. Automated External Defibrillator Certified: 3 Manual Defibrillator Certified: 94. * Certified as First Responders by State of Washington IV. EMT Defibrillation Program A. Number and type of defibrillator units: LP 300 —11 units, both manual & auto capabilities. B. Location of defibrillation equipment (address): see page 2. C. Unit numbers of aid vehicle(s) usually carrying defibrillation equipment (use number(s) recorded when completing EMS Medical Incident Reporting Form). AID11 (01), ENG 11 (10), LAD 11 (66), AID 12 (02), ENG 12 (20), AID 13 (03), ENG 13 (30), AID 14 (04), ENG 14 (40), AID 16 (06), ENG 16 (60). V. Budget The EMS Division is seeking to collect information that documents total fire department expenditures for emergency medical services. We are also requesting that each fire department reportits total operating budget for the year. In order that the information be consistent, please exclude from these totals major capital expenditures including vehicles and buildings, and monies earmarked for bond payments, etc. A. Estimated total EMS budget for 2003: $2,199,081 of which $ 449,081 is provided by EMS funds. B. Total fire department or fire district $11,542,200 budget for 2003 Exhibit 1 . 2003 Program Plan and Proposed Budget Page 4 VI. Fees for services A. Does your department charge for providing emergency services? Yes No XX B. If yes, please provide a list of charges below. VII. Service Improvements/Changes Please describe how EMS funds will be used by your department in 2003 to improve services to the citizens of King County. Provide salaries and benefits for 20 EMT/Defib personnel with aid service to the City of Renton and King County FD #25. V D� BLS Pr i er Date Alonzo Plough, Director & Health Officer Date Department of Public Health EXHIBIT II Contract 4 D33100D KING COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Basic Life Support Standards Agencies shall comply with the following standards in order to be eligible for basic life support services funding from King County. Failure to comply with the standards adopted by King County pursuant to Chapter 2.26 of the King County Code or by the County Medical Program Director pursuant to Chapter 18.73 RCW, shall be sufficient grounds for notification, remediation, and possible termination of funding. Review and modifications of BLS standards may be conducted on an annual basis. Proposed changes will be submitted to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee and local provider agencies for advisory comment prior to implementation. I. Personnel: All emergency medical services personnel supported directly by King County funds must be certified as Emergency Medical Technicians ad defined by RCW 18.73. Basic EMT training standards have been established by King County Emergency Medical Services. II. Continuinp, Medical Education: EMTs will remain certified as required by WAC 246- 976. Continuing Education and proficiency standards will be set by King County Emergency Medical Services and the Medical Program Director. Agencies must report completion of education and skill proficiency updates to King County Emergency Medical Services in an agree upon summary format. III. Medical Standards: Each agency providing emergency medical services shall adhere to standards of medical care for the triage, treatment and transport of patient as authorized by the Medical Program Director pursuant to RCW 18.73 and 18.71, and Chapter 2.26 of the King County Code. Standards of medical care are delineated in the King County EMS training curriculum approved by the Washington State Department of Health, "Patient Care Guidelines for Basic Life Support", and in the 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 Competency Based Training (CBT) modules. Additional CBT modules will continue to be issued annually. CBT modules may also be offered by the EMS Division electronically via Internet access. a. Scope of Practice: Evaluation and treatment activities by EMTs from provider agencies not described in the standards of medical care are deemed outside the scope of practice. Changes or additions to this scope of practice will be issued periodically by the Medical Program Director. b. Record Keeping and Record Submission: The Medical Incident Report Form (MIRF) must be completed as soon as possible following an incident. These reports should them be submitted to King County Emergency Medical Services, either electronically or by mail, within 30 days from the date the incident occurred. Agencies will be responsible for retention of copies of the reports. c. Transportation Policy: Each provider will be responsible for developing a policy for the transport of patients from the incident scene tot he treatment scene. Such policy should provide for transportation based upon determinants of transport need, including medical necessity, mitigating circumstances, and provider budget. The decision to transport a patient seen by BLS personnel will be determined by the patient's medical condition as described in the Basic EMT core curriculum and any mitigating circumstances. The mode of transport will be consistent with the patient's. medical condition and provide humane, efficient and expedient care. Transport destinations should be consistent with the State Trauma System Activation Guidelines. d. King County Medical Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement Programs: Each BLS provider will agree to participate in a King County Medical Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement program. This program will be developed by King County EMS Division, with the assistance of the EMS Advisory Committee and BLS providers. Elements of this program include: 1) run review by clerical and provider personnel to ensure completeness, 2) run review by a reviewer (local paramedic or personnel from within the organization for medical appropriateness and compliance with King County Emergency Medical Services standards, 3) case follow up and discussion conducted by the run review personnel, and 4) paramedic involvement in CBT Training. e. Patient Confidentiality: Information concerning the evaluation and treatment of a patient by BLS personnel in the performance of their duties is to be handled as confidential material, including patient name, medical history, incident location, or any other confidential information. Confidential medical information may not be released unless the patient or his/her court -appointed representative completes and signs an Authorization for Release of Information form. IV. Equipment a. All vehicles used to deliver emergency medical services must meet vehicle standards as established by the Washington State Department of Health pursuant to RCW 18.73, unless waived by the State Department of Health Office of EMS Trauma Prevention Licensing. b. Medical equipment used by personnel supported funds must meet appropriate federal or state standards or county protocols. V. Mutual Aid Agreements: Each public agency providing basic life support services shall have written mutual aid agreement or similar arrangements is effect. VI. Proposed Research and Evaluation Activities: Any proposed clinical research. or evaluation activities involving personnel, equipment or data supported directly or indirectly by King County funds must receive prior review and written approval by the Medical Program Director and the King County Emergency Medical Services Division Manager and must be in compliance with State, County and local regulations and laws. Basic Life Support Services Contract VII. Performance Indicators and Oversight: In accordance with findings of the EMS Financial Planning Task Force, the EMS Division — with the assistance of the EMS Advisory Committee and the Financial Staff Team — shall develop mechanisms for improved performance oversight by the EMS system and elected officials. Performance indicators will be established and reviewed by King County EMS and reported by the EMS Division to each BLS agency and in public presentations. Mitigation activities will be initiated with local providers if needed. Reports will be distributed to provider agencies. on a regular basis. Standards for each provider will be monitored in the following major areas: total call volume, average response time for code red calls, percent of response times greater than or equal to 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes, out -of -service times, number of transports and mode of transport. Additional performance indicators may be added, with the assistance of the EMS Advisory Committee and the Financial Staff Team. VIII. Financial Indicators and Oversight: In accordance with findings of the EMS Financial Planning Task Force, indicators shall be developed which improve financial oversight by the EMS system and elected officials. The EMS Division, in .conjunction with the EMS Advisory Committee and the Financial Staff Team, shall develop reporting financial reporting measures that will include, but may not be limited to:. a. Selection, development, and tracking of system costs. b. A standard costing system for reporting dollar expenditures for BLS activities. c. Funding allocation mechanism. F Basic Life Support Services Contract Exhibit III Basic Life Support Services Invoice Fire District/Dept. or City Contract # D33100D ,Invoice Date Address City Zip Code Budget Category * Item Expenditures Expenditures To Date Budget for Period Balance Unexpended Grand Total I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the County of King, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Signature Title * Indicate supplies, equipment, salaries and support services. Date Basic Life Support Services Contract EXHIBIT IV Contract # D33100D Mission, Method, and Expectations Public Health Program Activities Provided by Community Partners A. Mission The overall mission of Public Health — Seattle & King County is to provide public health services that promote health and prevent disease to King County residents, in order to achieve and sustain healthy people and healthy communities. B. Method One of the key methods that Public Health — Seattle & King County uses to support this mission and extend the reach of public health program activities is to engage in contractual partnerships with community based organizations. This partnering activity increases access to needed and mandated health services, and enables community partner agencies and the people they serve to benefit from service models that are informed by sound public health principles and practices. Community partner organizations, with the support of funds provided through this contractual relationship, extend Public Health's activities to promote population health, according to goals and outcomes determined under state and national performance standards. C. Expectations Public Health expects that its community based contracting partners will perform contracted health services in accordance with the goals, performance measures, and accountability methods that are outlined in the program -specific exhibits that accompany this contract. ■ Public Health will provide professional and technical assistance to community partner organization program staff in order to support the development and maintenance of strong and effective program services. Public Health and community partner organizations will collaborate in developing and performing program evaluation activities that will measure the effectiveness of program efforts, including efforts to measure the impact of program activities on the health status of residents of King County. Basic Life Support Services Contract CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE 2003 KING COUNTY AGENCY SERVICES CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. WHEREAS, the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health/Emergency Medical Services Division provides Basic Life Support Services, through an annual contract with the Renton Fire Department, to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the County desires to have certain services performed by the Renton Fire Department, and for the Department to comply with Basic Life Support Standards; and WHEREAS, the current funding source for the contract is real property taxes from the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy in the amount of $449,081; and WHEREAS, the Basic Life Support Services contract has been renewed for 2003; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions of contracts between the City and the County; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City Council does hereby authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the King County Agency Services Contract for Emergency Medical Services — 2003. 1 2003. , 2003. • Public Health . Seattle & King County HEALTHY PEOPLE. HEALTHY COMMUNITIES. Alonzo L. Plough, Ph.D., MPH, Director Memorandum Date: December 3, 2002 To: King County BLS Providers From: Tom Hearne RE: 2003 BLS Funding Allocations EC�EGC�« D E ' 6 2002 Lui CITY OF RENTON FIRE DEPARTP: ENT Enclosed is a listing of the 2003 Basic Life Support funding amounts and a copy of the BLS Program Plan and Operating Budget for January 1- December 31, 2003. Please complete, sign, and return the 2003 Program Plan and Operating Budget as soon as possible to: King County Emergency Medical Services 999 3rd Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Felisa Azpitarte The Support Services Section of Public Health - Seattle & King County processes all contracts for King County Emergency Medical Services. Support Services requires submission and approval of the Program Plan and Operating Budget by EMS prior to processing the BLS contracts. Background: Calculations for the 2003 BLS funding allocations were completed using the newly revised funding formula. Changes to the BLS funding formula were implemented following six months of intensive review and development. We attained consensus on the criteria for the new formula that provides a reasonable, fair, and equitable solution to most of the issues that have emerged from useexfethe/W6fumkMiformula, particularly the hold harmless concept. 999 3rd Avenue, Suite 700 -Seattle, WA 98104-4039 , City of Seattle King County T(206) 296-4693 F(206) 296-4866 • www.metrokc.gov/health Paul Schell, Mayor O Ron Sims, Executive Panted on R—led Pacer. A key element of the revised formula is the continued review and evaluation of the formula on an annual basis to ensure that the formula is working as needed. The EMS Division is strongly committed to continuing that review with your department as we see how the funding formula works. I am keenly aware that changes to an old funding formula can be challenging. It is clear that we need to revise the hold harmless approach if fire departments are going to see sustained increases in BLS funding in the future. The review and development process for the revised formula has been extensive, and the EMS Division has tried to achieve a universal consensus around the formula changes. In addition to the BLS working group that first developed the formula, separate presentations have been made at zone meetings, the EMS Advisory Committee, the King County Fire Chiefs Association, and at individual meetings with fire departments when necessary. We will be tracking these changes with you via the annual review meetings we are planning, beginning early in 2003. Enclosed you will find a summary sheet heet briefly describing the limitations of the previous BLS funding formula, the objectives of the revised formula, and a description of the revised 2003 BLS funding formula. Also enclosed are copies of the detailed funding formula spreadsheet, along with the unincorporated ratios, assessed valuation (AV) amounts, and call volume amounts used in the calculations. I would like to thank all the agencies that participated in the difficult and demanding process of reviewing and revising the BLS funding formula. This required a significant investment of time and patience. I deeply appreciate your efforts in helping solve the regional problems we all face with the BLS funding formula. If you have any questions regarding the process, or require any additional forms, please contact Felisa Azpitarte, Assistant Manager, at (206) 296-4693 or myself at (206) 296-4555. Thank you! 2003 BLS Funding Allocation Agency Amount Auburn $331,066 Bellevue $1,009,470 Bothell $148,542 Eastside Fire $949,850 Enumclaw $230,549 Kent $728,557 Kirkland $444,966 Mercer I. $195,756 Pacific $29,233 Redmond $444,996 Renton $449,081 Sea Tac $196,918 Snoqualmie Fire $46,055 Tukwila $212,602 FD 2 $202,682 FD 4 - Shoreline $361,000 FD 11 $258,693 FD 13 - Vashon $129,619 FD 16 - Northshore $186,848 FD 17 - Black Diamond $46,359 FD 20 $92,096 FD 26 $151,670 FD 27 $63,160 FD 36 - Woodinville $271,885 FD 39 - Federal Way $600,108 FD 40 $210,667 FD 43 - Maple Valley $304,293 FD 44 $252,271 FD 45 - Duvall $110,372 FD 47 $17,780 FD 49 (51) - Snoqualmie Pass $17,166 FD 50 - Skykomish $30,749 Sub -Total $81725,059 Milton $12,931 I Pierce County $1,500 Total Allocation $8,739,490� EXIHIBIT 2 KING COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Basic Life Support Standards Agencies shall comply with the following standards in order to be eligible for basic life support services funding from King County. Failure to comply with the standards adopted by King County pursuant to Chapter 2.26 of the King County Code or by the County Medical Program Director pursuant to Chapter 18.73 RCW, shall be sufficient grounds for notification, remediation, and possible termination of funding. Review and modifications of BLS standards may be conducted on an annual basis. Proposed changes will be submitted to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee and local provider agencies for advisory comment prior to implementation. I. Personnel: All emergency medical services personnel supported directly by King County funds must be certified as Emergency Medical Technicians ad defined by RCW 18.73. Basic EMT training standards have been established by King County Emergency Medical Services. II. Continuing Medical Education: EMTs will remain certified as required by WAC 246-976. Continuing Education and proficiency standards will be set by King County Emergency Medical Services and the Medical Program Director. Agencies must report completion -of education and skill proficiency updates to King County Emergency Medical Services in an agree upon summary. format. III. Medical Standards: Each agency providing emergency medical services shall adhere to standards of medical care for the triage, treatment and transport of patient as authorized by the Medical Program Director pursuant to RCW 18.73 and 18.71, and Chapter 2.26 of the King County Code. Standards of medical care are delineated in the King County EMS training curriculum approved by the Washington State Department of Health, "Patient Care Guidelines for Basic Life Support", and in the 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 Competency Based Training (CBT) modules. Additional CBT modules will continue to be issued annually. CBT modules may also be offered by the EMS Division electronically via Internet access. a. Scope of Practice: Evaluation and treatment activities by EMTs from provider agencies not described in the standards of medical care are deemed outside the scope of practice. Changes or additions to this scope of practice will be issued periodically by the Medical Program Director. b. Record Keepinp, and Record Submission: The Medical Incident Report Form (MIRF) must be completed as soon as possible following an incident. These reports should them be submitted to King County Emergency Medical Services, either electronically or by mail, within 30 days from the date the incident occurred. Agencies will be responsible for retention of copies of the reports. c. Transportation Policy: Each provider will be responsible for developing a policy for the transport of patients from the incident scene tot he treatment scene. Such policy should provide for transportation based upon determinants of transport need, including medical necessity, mitigating circumstances, and provider budget. The decision to transport a patient seen by BLS personnel will be determined by the patient's medical condition as described in the Basic EMT core curriculum and any mitigating circumstances. The mode of transport will be consistent with the patient's medical condition and provide humane, efficient and expedient care. Transport destinations should be consistent with the State Trauma System Activation Guidelines. d. King County Medical Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement Prop -rams: Each BLS provider will agree to participate in a King County Medical Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement program. This program will be developed by King County EMS Division, with the assistance of the EMS Advisory Committee and BLS providers. Elements of this program include: 1) run review by clerical and provider personnel to ensure completeness, 2) pin review by a reviewer (local paramedic or personnel from within the organization for medical appropriateness and compliance with King County Emergency Medical Services standards, 3) case follow up and discussion conducted by the run review personnel, and 4) paramedic involvement in CBT Training. Patient Confidentiality: Information concerning the evaluation and treatment of a patient by BLS -personnel in the performance of their duties is to be handled as confidential material, including patient name, medical history, incident location, or any other confidential information. Confidential medical information may not be released unless the patient or his/her court - appointed representative completes and signs an Authorization for Release of Information form. IV. Equipment a. All vehicles used to deliver emergency medical services must meet vehicle standards as established by the Washington State Department of Health pursuant to RCW 18.73, unless waived by the State Department of Health Office of EMS Trauma Prevention Licensing. b. Medical equipment used by personnel supported funds must meet appropriate federal or state standards or county protocols. V. Mutual Aid Agreements: Each public agency providing basic life support services shall have written mutual aid agreement or similar arrangements is effect. VI. Proposed Research and Evaluation Activities: Any proposed clinical research or evaluation activities involving personnel, equipment or data supported directly or indirectly by King County funds must receive prior review and written approval by the Medical Program Director and the King County Emergency Medical Services Division Manager and must be in compliance with State, County and local regulations and laws. VII. Performance Indicators and Oversight: In accordance with findings of the EMS Financial Planning Task Force, the EMS Division — with the assistance of the EMS Advisory Committee and the Financial Staff Team — shall develop mechanisms for improved performance oversight by the EMS system and elected officials. Performance indicators will be established and reviewed by King County EMS and reported by the EMS Division to each BLS agency and in public presentations. Mitigation activities will be initiated with local providers if needed. Reports will be distributed to provider agencies on a regular basis. Standards for each provider will be monitored in the following major areas: total call volume, average response time for code red calls, percent of response times greater than or equal to 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes, out -of -service times, number of transports and mode of transport. Additional performance indicators may be added, with the assistance of the EMS Advisory Committee and the Financial Staff Team. VIII. Financial Indicators and Oversight: In accordance with findings of the EMS Financial Planning Task Force, indicators shall be developed which improve financial oversight by the EMS system and elected officials. The EMS Division, in conjunction with the EMS Advisory Committee and the Financial Staff Team, shall develop reporting financial reporting measures that will include, but may not be limited to: a. Selection, development, and. tracking of system costs. b. A standard costing system -for reporting dollar expenditures for BLS activities. c. Funding allocation mechanism. :ire District/Dept. or City \ddress EXHIBIT 3 Basic Life Support Services Invoice Form Contract # City Invoice Date Zip Code Budget Cate o Item Expenditures Expenditures To Date Budget for Period Balance Unexpended Grand Total , the undersigned, do hereby certify that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein, and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the County of King, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Signature Title Date Indicate supplies, equipment, salaries and support services. BLS Funding Formula Summary Sheet Issues with the Previous BLS Funding Formula ■ Does not define urban, transitional, rural categories and when to move agencies from one category to another. ■ Does not limit hold harmless coverage. ■ Continuation with the formula will eventually hold every agency harmless with no ability to reflect growth. ■ Does not provide a standardized methodology, including population estimates. Objectives for Formula Revisions ■ Address limitations of previous formula. ■ Protect smaller agencies. Groups like agencies together. ■ BLS funds are allocated proportionally. ■ Incorporate other factors (allowance for growth, large unincorporated areas, etc.). 11 /14/2002 2003 BLS Funding Formula ■ $342,598" Allocating Agencies to Categories: ■ Step 1: Rank agencies by AV. The bottom 25th percentile is designated as the protected 'small' group. Small group allocation equals agencies previous year's allocation plus CPI-U. ■ Step 2: Remaining agencies are evaluated for the ratio of unincorporated to incorporated area in each jurisdiction. The'middle group' is comprised of agencies with a >80 ratio. Middle group allocation equals the proportion of AV to the remaining total. The remaining agencies constitute the 'large' group and receive the remainder of the funds. Allocating Funds to A eg ncies: ■ Step 3: Agencies in each group are allocated BLS funds based on % of total AV and Call Volume. Applying Hold Harmless: ■ Step 4: Hold harmless is applied such that no agency receives less than the previous year. The difference is covered proportionately amongst agencies receiving funding increases. * indicates pre -hold harmless amounts Formula takes original 2003 amount subtracts hold Amount greater Amount less Amount of surplus Absolute value of Duplicate of Duplicate of Distribution of harmless owed and Duplicate of Final comparison Duplicate of than previous than previous as a % of total surplus Total amount of 2003 BLS Hold Harmless $ hold harmless adds hold harmless 2001 BLS of 2003-2002 Revised 2003 year year hold harmless $ subtotal (Column Ref R) amounts needed to get a subtotal BLS Total multiplied by hold (Column Ref J) - revised 2003 Total (Column Ref K) (Column Ref V) harmless %. (S - T + U = V) Surplus I Hold Harmless I -HOLD- •HOLD' 2 --3 LE55 HOLD ADD HOLD 2003 2002 Revised 2003 AGENCY Total Total HARMLESS HARMLESS SUBTOTAL HARMLESS HARMLESS REVISED TOTAL BL55 Totals DR 02-01 REVISED TOTAL I AGENCY Bellevue $278.870 $0 29.3584% $224.953 $1,234,424 $224.953 $0 $]444,996 $425.669 $19,327 $$444,996 Bellevue Redmond $99.968 $0 10.5243% $80,641 $525,637 $80,641 $0 $728.557 $714,898 $13,659 $728,557 Redmond Kent $70,647 $0 7.4375 % 556,988 5785,545 b56,988 $0 � $728.557 E714,898 $12.658 $444,966 Kent Kirkland $65.471 $0 6.8926% $52.813 $497,779 $52,813 $600.108 $600,108 $12.6$0 $600,108 Kirkland Federal Way $0 ($13,698) 0.0000% $0 $586.410 $0 $13,698 $600.108 $600,108 SO $600,108 federal Way Renton $62,262 $0 6.5548% $50.225 $499,306 $50,225 $0 $449.081 $437,044 $12,037 $449,081 Renton Mercer Island $72.394 $0 7.6214% $58.398 $254,154 $58,398 $0 $361.000 $181,139 $1$861 $361,000 Mercer Island FD 4 $4,451 $0 0.4685 % 53,590 $364,590 53,590 $0 $361.000 j360,139 5861 $361,000 FD4 Auburn $63,321 $0 6.6662% $51.079 $382.145 $51,079 $0 $212,602 $205,825 $$6,777 $212,602 Auburn Tukwila $35,049 $0 3.6898% $28,272 $240.874 $28,272 $O $212.602 E205,825 $6,777 $212.602 Tukwila FD 16 $15.142 $0 1.5941% $12,215 $199.063 $12.215 $0 $186,848 $183,921 $2,927 $186,848 FD 16 FD 2 $37,589 $0 3.9572% $30,321 $233,003 $30,321 $0- $202,682 $195,414 17,268 $202,682 FD T Sea Tac $20,379 $0 2.1454% $16.439 $213,357 $16,439 $0 $196,918 $192,978 $3.940 $196,918 Sea Tac Bothell $72,669 $0 7.6504% $58,620 $207,162 $58.620 $0 $148,542 $134.493 $14,049 $148,542 Bothell FD 26 $0 (E6 056) 0.0000% $0 i E145 614 $0 E6 O56 1151,670 E151 670 EO 5151.670 FD 26 TOTAL $890 2160 1 t$17 /6411 9a.p6% 1 $72. 66a I ;6 369 062 1 5724 554 I 319 753 I SS 664 262 SS 490.1 1 5173 657 $5 664 262 TOTAL Eastside Fire $0 ($251,813) 0.0000% $0 $698.037 $0 $251,813 $949.850 $949.850 $0 $949.850 Eastside Fire Woodinville $51,669 $0 5.4395% $41,679 $313.565 $41,679 $0 $271,885 $261,896 $9.989 $271,885 Woodinville Maple Valley $0 ($114,050) 0.0000% $0 $190,243 $0 $114,050 E304,293 E304,293 EO $304,293 Maple Valley FO 40 $0 ($46,532) 0.0000% $0 $164.135 $0 $46.532 $210,667 $210.667 $0 $210,667 FD 40 FD 44 $0 ($118.637) 0.0000% $0 $133.634 $0 $118.637 $252,271 E252,271 $0 $252,273 FD 44 FD 11 $0 ($16,728) 0.0000% $0 $241.965 $0 $16,728 $258,693 $258.693 $0 $258,693 FD 11 Vashon $0 ($36,505) 0.0000% $0 $93,114 $0 $36,505 E129,619 $129.619 j0 $129,619 Vashon Enumclaw E0 ($119,875) 0.0000% $0 $110.674 $0 $119,875 $230.549 $230,549 $0 $230,549 Enumclaw iD 45 EO (E42 338) i 0.00002 $0 i $68 034 $0 $42 338 $110 372 110,372 EO 5110, 372 118 FD 45 t �c i aol 669 1 (;ra6 a7a)I D.aa/ I ;aa 6791 ;z 013 400 1 S41 6791 b746 476 I $2 718199 1 $2 708 210 59 980 52 199 TOTAL FD 20 $25.844 $0 52.3355% $2I.470 $113.567 $21.470 $0 $92,096 $87.723 $4,373 $92,096 FD 20 FD 27 $0 ($12.222) 0.0000% $0 $50.938 $0 $12.222 $63.160 $63,160 EO 563,160 FD 27 Snoqualmie Fire $16.980 $0 34.3852% $14.106 $60.162 $14,106 $0 $46,055 $43A82 $2.873 $46,055 Snoqualmie Fire FO 17 $0 ($5.872) 0.0000% $0 $40,487 EO $5.872 $46,359 $46.359 $0 $46,359 FD 17 Pacific $6,557 $0 13.2794% $5 448 $34.680 $5.448 $0 $29,233 $28. 123 E1,110 $29.233 Pacific FD 47 $0 ($8,411) 0.0000% $0 $9.369 $0 $8.411 $17.780 $17.780 j0 $17,780 FD 47 FD 50(Skykomish) $0 ($9.258) 0.0000% $0 $21.491 $0 $9.258 E30.7a9 $30.749 $0 $30,749 FD 50 (Skykomish) FD 51 (Sno4 I ie Pass) --�_ $0 ($5 262) r 0 0000% - $0 $1 l 904 $0 ES 262 $17 166 $17 166 $0 E17.166 FD 51 (Snooulmie Pass) t ie� I bag 381 1 (bat OZS)1 100%I $41 025 I b342 598 I S41 025 $41 025 $342 598 $334 242 18 356 $3,11 2 598 $999,260 ($807,257) $807.257 $8.725.060 $807,257 $807,257 $8,725.059 $8,533.057 $192.002 $8,725,059 $8,725.060 ($1) ($766.232) $766.233 2003 BLS Funding: $8,739,491 CPI Increase Percentage: 2.50% 8 725 060 = less Milton/Pierce 27 PM AREA SHARE 96.0734% $8,382,462 $6,369,062 $3,284,531 Large Initial amount RURAL AREA SHARE $2,013,400 $1,006,700 Medium based on 3 Prior year 1st comparison 3.9266% $342,598 $171,299 Small part formula BLS of 2003 2002 2001 Budget $8,526,333 Increase $213,158 1 This spreadsheet categorizes agencies as Small if they contribute AV at Total 18,739,491 Milton share 12,931 less than the 25th percentile. yierce Co 27 1,500 Bellevue $24,796,089,570 18.38% 24.76% $788,473 9,624 10,59% 14.00% $445.950 $1,234,424 $955,554 $278,870 Bellevue Redmond $10.777,222.021 7.99% 10.76% $342,697 _ ._ 3,948 4.34% 5.74% $182.940 $525.637 $425,669 $99.968 Redmond Kent $10,399,874.478 7,71% 10.38% $330.698 _ _9,816 10.80% 14.28% $454,847 $785,545 $714,898 $70,647 Kent Kirkland $9,166.694,471 6.80% 9.15% $291,485 4,452 4.90% 6.48% $206,294 $497,779 $432,308 $65,471 Kirkland Federal Way $7,832.958,277 5.81% 7.82% $249.075 _.._ 7,280 8.01% 10.59% $337.336 $586.410 $600,108 ($13.698) Federal Way Renton $6.443,080.998 4.78% 6 43% $204,879 6,354 6.99% 9.25% $294,427 $499,306 $437,044 $62,262 Renton Mercer Island $5.717,953.783 4.24% 5.71% $181,821 _ ..„_ , .1,561 1.72% 2.27% $72.333 $254.154 $181,760 $72,394 Mercer Island FD 4 $4,594,874,521 3.41% 4.59% $146,109 4,715 5.19% 6.86% $218.480 $364.590 $360,139 $4,451 FD 4 Auburn $4,255,127.557 3.15% 4.25% $135,306 _. ,. .-.5,327 5.86% 7.75% $246,839 $382,145 $318,824 $63,321 Auburn Tukwila $3,352.018,141 2.49% 3.35% $106.588 _ 2,898 3.19% 4.22% $134,285 $240.874 $205.825 $35,049 Tukwila FD 16 $3.277.232,325 2.43% 3,27% $104.210 .2,047 2.25% 2.98% $94,852 $199.063 $183,921- $15.142 FD 16 FD 2 $3,207,956.217 2.38% 3.20% $102.008 _. 2,827 3.11% 4.11% $130,996 $233,003 $195.414 $37,589 FD 2 Sea Tac $3,066.627,215 2.27% 3.06% $97,514 _ 2,500 2.75% 3.64% $115,843 $213,357 $192,978 $20,379 Sea Tac Bothell $1,834,271,872 1.36% 1.83% $58,327 3.212 3.53% 4.67% $148,835 $207,162 $134,493 $72.669 Uothell FD 26 $! a25 873 578 1.06%� 1.a2% $a5,3a0 2.16a 2.38% 3 15% $!00 27a $1a5 61a $151 670 ($6,056) FD 26 I TOTAL I $300147,855 OZ4 1 74.Z5%I 100.01.1 $3,184,531 1 68,7Z5 1 75.63%I 300.00%1 $3 184 531 1 $6 369 062 SS 490 605 $878 457 TOTAL MEDIUM AGENCY 2002 of 2001 Total 2003 2002 Difference SERVICE AREA - Taxable AV Total AV AV AV Aid Calls Aid Calls AID Calls AID CALL SUBTOTAL"BLSS Totals 03-02 AGENCY Eastside Fire $13.276,887.387 9.84% 41.94% $422,182 5,094 5,61% 27.40% $275,854. $698.037 $949,850 ($251,813) Eastside Fire Woodinville $5.632,478,132 4.18% 17.79% $179,103 _ 2,483 2.73% 13.36% $134.461 $313,565 $261,896 $51,669 Woodinville Maple Valley $2,924,193.801 2.17% 9.24% $92.984 1,796 1.98% 9.66% $97.258 $190,243 $304,293 ($114,050) Maple Valley FO 40 $2,367,129.508 1.75% 7.48% $75.271 _ 1.641 1.81% 8.83% $88.865 $164.135 $210.667 ($46.532) FD 40 FD 44 $1.837,060,418 1.36% 5.80% $58.415 _ 1,389 1.53% 7.47% $75,218 $133,634 $252,271 ($118.637) FD 44 FD 11 $1,633,514.743 1.21% 5,16% $51,943 _ 3,509 3.86% 18.88% $190.022 $241,965 $258,693 ($16,728) FD 11 Vashon $1,577.783,853 1.17% 4.98% $50.171 793 0.87% 4,27% $42.943 $93.114 $129,619 ($36,505) Vashon Enumclaw $1,326,187,577 0.98% 4A9% $42,171 1.265 1.39% 6.80% $68,503 $110,674 $230,549 ($119,875) Enumclaw FD 45 1 083 696 816 0.80 3.42 3a 460 620 0.68 3.34 33 575 68 034 110 372 42 338 FD 45 TOTAL 31 658 932 235 23.47 100.0 1 006 700 18 590 20.46 100.0 1 006 700 2 013 6f, 2 708 210 694 810 70TAL SMALL AGENCY 2002 of 2001 Total 2003 2002 Difference SERVICE AREA Taxable AV Total AV AV AY Aid Calls Aid Calls AID Calls AID CALLS SUBTOTAL " BLSS Totals 03-02 AGENCY FD 20 $919,069,553 0.68% 29.83% $51.096 1,295 1.43% 36.47% $62 470 $113.567 $87,723 $25.844 FD 20 FD 27 $603.856,810 0.45% 19.60% $33,572 360 0,40% 10.14% $17.366 $50.938 $63.160 ($12,222) FD 27 Snoqualmie Fire $584.943,365 0.43% 18.98% $32.520 573 0.63% 16.14% $27,641 $60.162 $43,182 $16,980 Snoaualmie Fire FD 17 $454,920,736 0.34% 14.76% $25.292 315 0.35% 8.87% $15.195 $40.487 $46,359 ($5,872) FD 17 Pacific $255,898,202 0.19% 8.31% $14,227 424 0.47% 11,94% $20,454 $34,680 $28,123 $6.557 Pacific FD 47 $115,587,039 0.09% 3.75% $6.426 61 0.07% 1.72% $2,943 $9.369 $17,780 ($8.411) FD 47 ^FD 50 (Skykomish) $100,227,133 0.07% 3.25% $5,572 330 0.36% 9.29% $15.919 $21.491 $30.749 ($9,258) FD 50 (Skykomish) Totals $134,887,947,857 100% $3,355,830 90,866 100.00% $3,355,830 $8,725,060 $8,533,057 BLS Agency Unincorporated/Incorporated Ratio Ranking FD Unincorporated Incorporated Percent KCFD #47 KCFD #51 Vashon/Maury F&R KCFD #27 KCFD #40 KCFD #50 KCFD #20 KCFD #44 North Highline FD Duvall FD Enumclaw FD Maple Valley FD Woodinville FD Eastside F&R Black Diamond FD Redmond FD Kirkland FD Federal Way FD Kent FD Renton FD SeaTac FD Northshore FD Snoqualmie FD Bellevue FD Shoreline FD Tukwila FD Auburn FD Mercer Island FD KCFD #2 Bothell FD Seattle FD KCFD #26 Pacific FD Port of Seattle FD 736610600.000000 240126500.000000 1020947000.000000 677525300.000000 320873200.000000 3260455000.000000 83902443.200000 1340399884.650000 171118000.000000 1329237900.000000 1346797647.200000 1141920202.000000 708514029.090000 4311694818.472700 362295440.000000 786554379.411000 187729096.580000 359196490.589361 5022738281.924202 154138671.201094 15930880:390000 16044674.990854 5647798.960724 37836478.297517 5016489.779000 3811410.150766 9018606.012024 2253809.757678 3504628.436342 1131301.286469 16178689.758448 392571.384043 64083.150586 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 207917.334300 268108.373565 9323068.000000 573180.661985 12667630.923042 2261390.750433 61528173.400000 105679626.061000 174139713 ' 798500 157892113.657652 979675771.158347 1715.42629.683000 472329089.849985 293132298.489338 601492536.038180 950335721.859196 471192443.574024 222176387.878191 272040030.468089 136311667.275800 1079292110.570570 322669334.479825 250599253.533431 628859632.381555 173901000.000000 278158145.545910 157513014.517806 2402234523.389530 178740630.658545 53828015.026330 63022880.000000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.7 % 99.3% 99.1 % 98.7% 95.6% 92.7% 86.8% 81.8% 81.5% 67.9% 62.5% 39.0% 37.4% 34.6% 24.6% 6.7% 5.6% 4.0% 3.4 % 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% BLS Agency 2002 Assessed Valuation (AV) Ranking Agency AV Bellevue Fire Department $24,796,089,570 Eastside Fire & Life Safety $13,276,887,387 Redmond Fire Department $10,777,222,021 Kent Fire & Life. Safety $10,399,874,478 Kirkland Fire Department $9,166,694,471 Federal Way Fire Department $7,832,958,277 Renton Fire Department $6,443,080,998 Mercer Island Fire Department $5,717,953,783 Woodinville Fire & Life Safety $5,632,478,132 Shoreline Fire Department $4,594,874,521 Auburn Fire Department $4,255,127,557 Tukwila Fire Department $3,352,018,141 Fire District #16 - Northshore $3,277,232,325 Fire District #2 $3,207,956,217 SeaTac Fire Department $3,066,627,215 Fire District #43 - Maple Valley $2,924,193,801 Fire District #40 - Spring Glen $2,367,129,508 Fire District #44 - Mountain View $1,837,060,418 Bothell Fire Department $1,834,271,872 Fire District #11 - North Highline $1,633,514,743 Fire District #13 - Vashon7Maury $1,577,783,853 Fire District #26 - Des MoinQs $1,425,873,578 Enumclaw Fire Department $1,326,187,577 Fire District #45 - Duvall $1,083,696,816 Fire District #20 $919,069,553 Fire District #27 - Fall City $603,856,810 Snoqualmie Fire Department $584,943,365 Fire District #17 - Black Diamond $454,920,736 Pacific Fire Department $255,898,202 Fire District #47 $115,587,039 Fire District #50 - Skykomish $100,227,133 Fire District #51 - Snoqualmie Pass $46,657,760 BLS Agency 2001 Call Volumes Agency Amount Auburn 5,327 Bellevue 9,624 Bothell 3,212 Eastside Fire 5,094 Enumclaw . 1,265 Kent 9,816 Kirkland 4,452 Mercer I. 1,561 Pacific 424 Redmond 3,948 Renton 6,354 Sea Tac 2,500 Snoqualmie Fire 573 Tukwila 2,898 FD 2 2,827 FD 4 - Shoreline 4,715 FD 11 3,509 FD 13 - Vashon 793 FD 16 - Northshore 2,047 FD 17 - Black Diamond 315 FD 20 1,295 FD 26 2,164 FD 27 360 FD 36 - Woodinville 2,483 FD 39 - Federal Way 7,280 FD 40 1,641 FD 43 - Maple Valley 1,796 FD 44 1,389 FD 45 - Duvall 620 FD 47 61 FD 49 (51) - Snoqualmie Pass 193 FD 50 - Skykomish 330 Total 90,866. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: V t L71 . Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Ryan Plut, x7372 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Renton Municipal Airport Security Gate Replacement Correspondence.. Project Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Notice of Completion Study Sessions...... Final Pay Estimate Information......... Recommended Action: Council Concur Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Expenditure Required... $326,362.98 Final Pay Estimate Transfer/Amendment. $ 17,177.00 Retainage $ 30,231.53 Taxes $373,771.51 Total Revenue Generated.. Amount Budgeted....... $505,000.00 City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: The project started on November 4, 2002, and was completed on June 11, 2003. The original contract amount was $346,941.44 with the final contract being $373,771.51. The increase is due to the addition of two (2) change orders requiring the Contractor to hand dig all fence post holes to avoid utilities, and hand excavate rock encountered under the Cedar River dike road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation Division recommends Council approve completion of the project and release retainage for the full project in the amount of $17,177.00 after sixty (60) days, subject to the required authorization. H:Trans/Adniin/Agenda2o03/Airport Security Gate Replacement Project CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 10, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: �' Jesse Tanner, Mayor k Gib FROM: Gregg Zimmerman4ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Plut, x 7372 SUBJECT: Renton Municipal Airport Security Gate Replacement ISSUE: The Transportation Systems Division desires to release retainage to the Contractor to close out the subject project. RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation Division recommends Council approve completion of the project and payment of the retainage amount of $17,177.00 after sixty (60) days, subject to the required authorization. BACKGROUND: The amount budgeted for this project is $505,000.00. The project started on November 4, 2002, and was completed on June 11, 2003. The original contract amount was $346,941.44 with the final contract being $373,771.51. The increase is due to the addition of 325 feet of chain link fence, and two change orders requiring the Contractor to hand dig all fence post holes and hand excavate rock encountered under the Cedar River dike road. The performance of the work occurred during the winter. STAT State of Washington 04 Department of Revenue 7 Q s Audit Procedures & Administration PO Box 47474 �'t 7889 CEO Olympia, Washington 98504-7474 Reg. No.: Date: July 10, 2003 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT From: DEPARTMENT USE ONLY City of Renton Assigned To 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Date Assigned Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below. Description of Contract Renton Municipal Airport Security Gate Replacement Project CAG-02-115 Contractor's Name C. A. Carey Corporation Telephone No. (425) 392-8016 Contractor's Address P.O. Box 1006 Issaquah, WA 98027 Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted November 4, 2002 June 11, 2003 June 11, 2003 Surety or Bonding Co. US Fidelity and Guaranty Company Agent's Address John C. Beeson 6100 — 219 Street SW, Suite 300 P.O.BOX 248 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Contract Amount: $318,880.00 Additions or Reductions: $ 24,659.98 Sales Tax: $ 30,231.53 Total $373,771.51 By Phone No: Amount Disbursed: $326,362.98 Amount Retained: $ 17,177.00 Sales Tax: $ 30,231.53 Total: $373,771.51 (Disbursing Officer) The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia, Washington 98504-7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUND until receipt of Department's certificate, and then only in accordance with said certificate. FORM REV 31 0020 (12-92) H:forms/notcomplt/ TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR CONTRACTOR: C. A. Carey Corporation CONTRACT NO.: CAG 02-115 ESTIMATE NO, 005 PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport Security Gate Replacement 1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE $ 9,154.06 2. SALES TAX AT 8.8% $ 805.56 3. TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE $9,959.62 4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR 5. EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE (95% x LINE 1) 6. SUBTOTAL - CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS 8. RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE (RETAINAGE: 5% x LINE 1) 9• SUBTOTAL - RETAINAGE 10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID 11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE 12. SUBTOTAL - SALES TAX $317,666.62 $8,696.36 $16,719.30 $457.70 $29,425.97 $ 805.56 $326,362.98 $17,177.00 $30,231.53 GRAND TOTAL: $373,771.51 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION: PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR (Lines 5 & 11): ACCOUNT # 402.012033.016.5960.0046.63.000000 25060/5460 RETAINED AMOUNT (Line 8): ACCOUNT # 402.012033.016.5960.0046.63.000000 25060/5460 CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST, DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OF RENTON, AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO AUTHENTIC ND CERTIFY TO SAID CLAIM SIGNED: Leslie L. Lahndt, P.E. $9,501.92 #5 $9,501.92 $457.70 #5 $457.70 $9,959.62 Printed On: 4/22/2003 City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT' SECURITY GATE REPLACEMENT CAG 02-115 Pay Estimate 5 Pay Estimate 5 ITEM NO. ITEMu M UNITS BID OUANIT1Tl' UNIT PRICE BIDAMOUNT 3lZ74/4 4/6.4113 4/134l19 4304/26 ADJ Previo ant'sAmountua PfeV10U5 Amount This i This Amount Total uanti tv TotalAmount % Complete 1 Mobilization L.S. 1 30,000.00 E 30,000,00 1.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 30,000.00 100.0% 2 Contractor Su lied Surveying L.S. 1 5,000.00 $ 5.000.00 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 100.0% 3 Traffic Control Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control L.S. L.S. 1 1 5,000.00 2,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,000.00 0.50 1.00 $ 2,500.00 E 2,000.00 E $ 0.50 1.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,000.0" 50.0°/, 100.0 4 5 Remove Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Incl. Haul S.Y. 266 30.00 $ 7,980.00 301.78 $ 9,053.33 $ 301.78 E 9.053.33 113.5 6 Removal of Structure and Obstruction L.S. 1 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 100.0 7 Crushed Surtacin To Course Ton 82 55.00 $ 4,510.00 195.65 $ 10,760.75 $ 195.65 8 10,760.75 238.6 8 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Cl. B. Incl. Haul Ton 60 150.00 $ 9,000.00 22.66 58.91 $ 8,836.60 22.66 $ 3,399.00 81.57 $ 12,235.60 136.0% 9 Concrete Curb L.F. 17 70.00 $ 1,190.00 27.00 $ 1,890.00 $ 27.00 $ 1,890.00 158.8% 10 Adjust Existing Utility FA. 1 500.00 E 500.00 1.00 $ 500.00 $ 1.00 $ 500.00 100.0 11 Minor Change Est. 1 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 0.41 $ 412.12 $ - 0.41 $ 412.12 41.2% 12 NW Seaplanes Gate She L.S. 1 36,000.00 $ 36,000.00 1.00 $ 36,000,00 $ 1.00 $ 3,000.00 100.0% 13 B-Ram Gate She L.S. 1 32,000.00 $ 32,000.00 1.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 1.00 E 366,000.00 100.0% 14 Southwest Gate Site L.S. 1 44,000.00 $ 44,000.00 1.00 $ 44 000,00 $ 1.00 $ 44,000.00 100.0% 15 South Bridge Gate Srle L.S. 1 36,000.00 $ 36,000.00 1.00 $ 36,000.00 E 1.00 $ 36,000.00 100.0 16 Relocate/Retrofit South Vehicle Gate L.S. 1 33,000.00 $ 33,000.00 1.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 1.00 8 33,000.00 100.0 17 Chain Link Vehicle Gate. 7 ft. EA. 1 2.250.00 $ 2,250.00 1,001 $ 2,250.00 $ 1.00 $ 2,250.00 100.0% 18 Induction Loo Vehicle Detector EA. 8 600.00 $ 4,800.00 8.00 $ 4,800.00 b 8.00 $ 4,800.00 100.0% 19 Chain Link Fence, 7 ft L.F. 1975 31.00 $ 61,225.00 185.65 1996.23 $ 61,883.13 185.65 $ 5,755.06 21$1.88 $ 67,638.19 110.5% 20 I Clearing and Grubbing L.S. 1 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 100.0 Subtotal: - $ 328,955.00 $ 334,385.93 E 9,154.06 $ 343,539.99 Sales Tax 8.80% $ 28,948.04 $ 29,425.96 $ 805.56 $ 30,231.52 TOTAL= $ 357,903.04 $ 363.811.89 $ 9,959.62 $ 373.771.51 104.4% GRAND TOTAL: $ 357,903.04 $ 363,811.89 $ 9,959.62 $ 373,771 51 104 4% VV 4=003 CACPay_est5..ls, Pay Estimate CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al N: �? Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems Staff Contact...... James Wilhoit, x7319 Subject: Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. Contract for Design Services on Duvall Avenue NE Intersection Improvements Exhibits: Issue Paper 2004-2009 TIP Project #12 Consultant Agreement For Agenda of: 21.2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Correspondence. . Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept......... X Refer to Transportation Committee Finance Dept...... Risk Management.... X Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $59,000 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... $59,000 Revenue Generated......... $396,000 Total Project Budget $440,000 City Share Total Project.. $44,000 SUMMARY OF ACTION: On October 14, 2002, the City was selected to receive a Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) grant funding for design and construction for the Duvall Avenue NE/SR-900 (NE Sunset Blvd.) Intersection Improvements Project. Improvements this project provides will reduce congestion and accident frequency at this intersection, which is currently a High Accident Location (HAL). The Transportation Division has selected Berger/Abam to design the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation Systems staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the agreement with Berger/Abam for design services for the Duvall Avenue NE Intersection Improvements Project. H:Trans/Admin/AgendaB ill 2003/Dtrva1lSDesign Contract for BergerAbam CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: IJuly 21, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: %� Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman(Administrator STAFF CONTACT: James P. Wilhoit, x7319 SUBJECT: Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. Contract for Design Services on Duvall Avenue NE Intersection Improvements ISSUE: Council approval is needed to enter into an agreement with Berger/Abam to proceed with design on the Duvall Avenue NE Intersection Improvements Project. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the agreement with Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc. for design services for the Duvall Avenue NE Intersection Improvements Project. BACKGROUND: On October 14, 2002, the City was selected to receive a Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) grant funding for design and construction for the Duvall Avenue NE/SR-900 (NE Sunset Blvd.) Intersection Improvements Project. Improvements this project provides will reduce congestion and accident frequency at this intersection, which is currently a High Accident Location (HAL). Design is programmed for 2003 and 2004 and construction is scheduled to begin in 2005 and be completed in 2006. The approved TIP 2004-2009 sheet for Duvall Avenue NE, SR-900 to North City limits includes the improvements to the intersection of Sunset and Duvall Avenue NE. This project is being separated out and tracked financially due to Federal funding. KTrans/Admin/AgendaBill 2003/Duval]SDesign Contract for BergerAbam CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 5 -12 DRAFT M&700' ° °° Standard Consultant CONSULTANIYADDRESS/TELEPHONE Agreement BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300 AGREEMENT NUMBER FEDERAL AID NO. Federal Way, WA 98003 206/431-2300 A ❑ LUMP SUM PROJECT TITLE AND WORK G Lump -Sum Amount $ DESCRIPTION R Duvall AvenueNE and SR 900 Intersection E Q COST PLUS FDMD FEE DBE Participation E Overhead Progress Payment ❑ Yes Q No M Rate $ MBE Participation E Overhead Cost Method ❑ Yes Q No N ❑ Actual Cost Not To Exceed: _% Federal ID No. Do you require a 1099 T Q Fixed Rate: 158.00% or SSN for IRS? Fixed Fee: $6,248 91-1422812 ❑ Yes Q No C ❑ SPECIFIC RATES OF PAY Completion Date Maximum Amount E C ❑ Negotiated Hourly Rate Payable K ❑ Provisional Hourly Rate July 31, 2004 $59,000 N ❑ COST PER UNIT OF WORK E THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , , between the Local Agency of City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works, Washington, hereinafter called the "AGENCY", and the above organization hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT'. WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the above referenced project, and WHEREAS, the AGENCY does not have sufficient staff to meet the required cormitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provide the necessary services for the PROJECT; and _ WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that he/she is in compliance with the Washington State Statutes relating to professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish Consulting services to the AGENCY, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performance contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows: FA PWT 03 156 1 8 April 2003 I GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above described work and services as herein defined and necessary to accomplish the completed work for this PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall furnish all services, labor and related equipment necessary to conduct and complete the work as designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work and project level of effort for this project is detailed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. III GENERAL REQUIREMENTS All aspects of coordination of the work of this AGREEMENT, with outside agencies, groups or individuals shall receive advance approval by the AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies, groups or individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, progress and presentation meetings with the AGENCY or such Federal, Community, State, City or County officials, groups or individuals as may be requested by the AGENCY. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior to meetings requiring CONSULTANT participation. The minimum number of hours or days notice required shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made part of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly progress report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, that will outline in written and graphical form the various phases and the order of performance of the work in sufficient detail so that the progress of the work can easily be evaluated. Goals for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and Women Owned Business Enterprises (WBE) if required shall be shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. All reports, PS&E materials, and other data, furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be returned. All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, and other work products prepared by the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are instruments of service for this PROJECT and are property of the AGENCY. Reuse by the AGENCY or by others acting through or on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service, not occurring as a part of this PROJECT, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT. Iv TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in writing by the AGENCY. All work under this AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under completion date. The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the CONSULTANT, but may be extended by the AGENCY, in the event of a delay attributable to the AGENCY, or because of unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD or governmental actions or other conditions beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. A prior supplemental agreement issued by the AGENCY is required to extend the established completion time. FA PWT 03 156 2 8 April 2003 ' ;"at a The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided in Exhibit "C' attached hereto, and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work specified in Section 11, "Scope of Work". The CONSULTANT shall conform with all applicable portions of 48 CFR 31. VI SUBCONTRACTING The AGENCY permits subcontracts for those items of work as shown in Exhibit G to this Agreement. Compensation for this subconsultant work shall be based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit G, attached hereto and by this reference made apart of this AGREEMENT. The work of the subconsultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable unless a prior written approval has been issued by the AGENCY. All reimbursable direct labor, overhead, direct non -salary costs and fined fee costs for the subconsultant shall be substantiated in the same manner as outlined in Section V. All subcontracts exceeding $10,000 in cost shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall not subcontract for the performance of any work under this AGREEMENT without prior written permission of the AGENCY. No permission for subcontracting shall create, between the AGENCY and subcontractor, any contract or any other relationship. VII EMPLOYMENT The CONSULTANT warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the AGENCY shall have the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability, or in its discretion, to deduct from the AGREEMENT price or consideration or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall be considered employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY, and any and all claims that may or might arise under any Workmen's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT's employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the CONSULTANT. FA PWT 03 156 3 8 April 2003 The CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full or part time basis, or other basis, during the period of the contract, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the period of the contract, in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation, the STATE, or the AGENCY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the public employer of such person. VIII NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee or applicant for employment or for services because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, age or handicap except for a bona fide occupational qualification with regard to, but not limited to the following: employment upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or any recruitment advertising, a layoff or terminations, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, selection for training, rendition of services. The CONSULTANT understands and agrees that if it violates this provision, this AGREEMENT may be terminated by the AGENCY and further that the CONSULTANT shall be barred from performing any services for the AGENCY now or in the future unless a showing is made satisfactory to the AGENCY that discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely. During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest agrees as follows: A. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS: The CONSULTANT shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in the same manner as in Federal -assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this AGREEMENT. The consultant shall comply with the American Disabilities Act of 1992, as amended. B. NONDISCRIMINATION: The CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed by it during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, creed color, sex, age, marital status, national origin or handicap except for a bona fide occupational qualification in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix II of the Regulations. C. SOLICITATIONS FOR SUBCONSULTANTS, INCLUDING PROCUREMENTS OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential subconsultant or supplier shall be notified by the CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANT's obligations under this AGREEMENT and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, creed, color, sex, age, marital status, national origin and handicap. D. INFORMATION AND REPORTS: The CONSULTANT shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the AGENCY to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives. Where any information required of the CONSULTANT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information the CONSULTANT FA PWT 03 156 4 8 April 2003 shall so certify to the AGENCY, or the United States Department of Transportation as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. E. SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE: In the event of the CONSULTANT's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall impose such sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: Withholding of payments to the CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT until the CONSULTANT complies, and/or 2. Cancellation, termination or suspension of the AGREEMENT, in whole or in part. F. INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS: The CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of paragraphs (A) through (G) in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. The CONSULTANT shall take such action with respect to any subconsultant or procurement as the AGENCY or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that, in the event a CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subconsultant or supplier as a result of such direction, the CONSULTANT may request the AGENCY to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the AGENCY, and in addition, the CONSULTANT may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. G. UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES: The CONSULTANT shall comply with RCW 49.60.180 and Executive Order Number E.O. 77-13 of the Governor of the State of Washington which prohibits unfair employment practices. IK TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time upon ten days written notice to the CONSULTANT. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY other than for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT as shown in Exhibit F for the type of AGREEMENT used. No payment shall be made for any work completed after ten days following receipt by the CONSULTANT of the Notice to Terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due computed as set forth herein above, then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall' -immediately reimburse the AGENCY for any excess paid. If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, the above formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event, the amount to be paid shall be determined by the AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULTANT in performing the work to the date of termination, the amount of work originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether that work is in a form or a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination; the cost to the AGENCY of employing another firm to complete the work required and the time which maybe required to do so, and other factors which affect the value to the AGENCY of the work performed at the time of FA PWT 03 156 5 8 April 2003 termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount which would have been made using the formula set forth in the previous paragraph. If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT's failure to perform is without it or it's employee's fault or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY in accordance with the provision of this AGREEMENT. In the event of the death of any member, partner or officer of the, CONSULTANT or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project, or, dissolution of the partnership, termination other corporation, or disaffiliation of the principally involved employee, the surviving members of the CONSULTANT hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this AGREEMENT, if requested to do so by the AGENCY. The subsection shall not be a bar to renegotiation of the AGREEMENT between the surviving members of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, if the AGENCY so chooses. In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the surviving members of the CONSULTANT, with the AGENCY's concurrence, desire to terminate this AGREEMENT, payment shall be made as set forth in the second paragraph of this section. Payment for any part of the work by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT, or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform work required of it by the AGENCY. Forbearance of any rights under the AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the CONSULTANT. X CHANGES OF WORK The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the complete work of this AGREEMENT as necessary to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the AGENCY, without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof changed or revised, the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed by the AGENCY. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under Section XIV. XI DISPUTES Any dispute concerning questions of fact in connection with the work not disposed of by AGREEMENT between the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY shall be referred for determination to the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer, whose decision in the matter shaff-be final and binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT, provided however, that if an action is brought challenging the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer's decision, that decision shall be subject to de novo judicial review. XII VENUE, APPLICABLE LAW AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated in the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county the AGENCY is FA PWT 03 156 6 8 April 2003 located in. The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington law and that the parties to such action shall have the right of appeal from such decisions of the Superior court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located in. XIII LEGAL RELATIONS AND INSURANCE The CONSULTANT shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be down under this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in accord with the laws of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold the AGENCY and the STATE, and their officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the CONSULTANT's negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this AGREEMENT; provided that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT to indemnify the AGENCY and the STATE against and hold harmless the AGENCY and the STATE from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the AGENCY and the STATE, their agents, officers and employees and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the CONSULTANT's agents or employees and (b) the AGENCY and the STATE, their agents, officers and employees, this indemnity provision with respect to (1) claims or suits, based upon such negligence, (2) the costs to the AGENCY and the STATE of defending such claims and suits, etc. shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CONSULTANT's negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT's agents or employees. The CONSULTANT's relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor. The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT's own employees against the AGENCY and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. The CONSULTANT recognizes that this waiver was specifically entered into pursuant to the provisions of RCW 4.25.115 and was the subject of mutual negotiation. Unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT, the 'AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of construction contracts, if any, on the project. Subject to the processing of an acceptable, supplemental agreement, the CONSULTANT shall provide on -call assistance to the AGENCY during contract administration. By providing such assistance, the CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for: proper construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the contract documents. The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the AGREEMENT, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to RCW 48. Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the STATE. B. Regular public liability and property damage insurance in an amount not less than a single limit of one million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for bodily injury, including death and property damage per occurrence. FA PWT 03 156 7 8 April 2003 Excepting the Worker's Compensation insurance and any professional liability insurance secured by the CONSULTANT, the AGENCY will be named on all certificates of insurance as an additional insured. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with verification of insurance and endorsements required by this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within 14 days of the execution of this AGREEMENT to the AGENCY. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT's professional liability to the AGENCY shall be limited to the amount payable under this AGREEMENT or one million dollars, whichever is the greater unless modified by Exhibit H. In no case shall the CONSULTANT's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under Section V until the CONSULTANT has fully complied with this section. This remedy is riot exclusive; and the AGENCY and the STATE may take such other action as is available to them under other provisions of this AGREEMENT, or otherwise in law. FA PWT.03 156 8 8 April 2003 XIV EXTRA WORK A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of the AGREEMENT in the services to be performed. B. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this AGREEMENT, whether or not changed by the order, or otherwise affects any other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment in the (1) maximum amount payable; (2) delivery or completion schedule, or both; and (3) other affected terms and shall modify the AGREEMENT accordingly. C. The CONSULTANT must submit its "request for equitable adjustment" (hereafter to as claim) under this clause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the AGENCY decides that the facts justify it, the AGENCY may receive and act upon a claim submitted before final payment of the AGREEMENT. D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the AGREEMENT as changed. E. Notwithstanding the terms and condition of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the maximum amount payable for this AGREEMENT, shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written supplement to this AGREEMENT. XV ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS The CONSULTANT shall place his endorsement on all plans, estimates or any other engineering data furnished by him. XVI FEDERAL AND STATE REVIEW The Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation shall have the right to participate in the review or examination of the work in progress. XVII CERTIFICATION OF THE CONSULTANT AND THE AGENCY Attached hereto as Exhibit "A -I", are the Certifications of the Consultant and the Agency, Exhibit "A-2" Certification regarding debarment, suspension and other responsibility matters - primary covered transactions, Exhibit "A-3" Certification regarding the restrictions of the use of Federal funds for lobbying, and Exhibit "A-4" Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibits "A-3 " and "A-4" are only required in Agreements over $100,000. FA PWT 03 156 9 8 April 2003 XVIII COMPLETE AGREEMENT This document and referenced attachments contains all covenants, stipulations and provisions agreed upon by the parties. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this AGREEMENT. XIX EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the proposal, and the supporting materials submitted by the CONSULTANT, and does hereby accept the AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written. By By Consultant BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. Agency City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works FA PWT 03 156 10 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT A-1 CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTANT Project No. Local Agency City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works I hereby certify that I am James S. Guarre and duly authorized representative of the firm of BERGERMBAM Engineers Inc. whose address is 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300, Federal Way, WA 98003 and that neither I nor the above firm I here represent has: (a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) to solicit or secure this contract. (b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the contract. (c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) any fee, contribution, donation or consideration 'of any kind for, or in connection with procuring or carrying out the contract; except as here expressly stated (if any): I further certify that the firm I hereby represent is authorized to do business in the State of Washington and that the firm is in full compliance with the requirements of the Board of Professional Registration. I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this contract involving participation of Federal aid funds and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. Date Si ture CERTIFICATION OF AGENCY OFFICIAL I hereby certify that I am the AGENCY Official of the Local Agency of City of Renton, Washington, and that the above consulting firm or his representative has not been required, directly or indirectly as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this contract to: (a) Employ or retain, or agree to employ or retain, any firm or person, or (b) Pay or agree to pay to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation or consideration of any kind, except as here expressly stated (if any). I acknowledged that this certificate is to be available to the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this contract involving participation of Federal aid highway funds and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. Date Signature FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-1 8 April 2003 1. K EXHIBIT A-2 CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS -PRIMARY COVERED TRANSACTIONS The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals: (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; (b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission or fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph Lb. of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. Consultant (Firm): Date BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. re ident or Authorized Official of Consultant Sighature FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-2 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT A-3 CERTIFICATION REGARDING THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR LOBBYING The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, 'Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 3 1, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the retired certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts which exceed $100,000 and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Consultant (Firm): E--P�- -o-a- Date BERGERIABAM gineer Inc. SrvP r ident or Authorized Official of Consultant ature r, FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-3 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT A-4 CERTIFICATE OF CURRENT COST OR PRICING DATA This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as defined in section 15.801 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and required under FAR subsection 15.804-2) submitted, either actually or by specific identification in writing, to the contracting officer or to the contracting officer's representative in support of the proposal (Exhibit D) are accurate, complete, and current as of 5 June 2003. This certification includes the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal. Firm: BERGER/ABAM ngineers Inc. Name: James S. Guarre Ajjlk�u�� Title: Senior Vice Presi t Date of Execution & " S " o 3 FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-4 8 April 2003 Duvall Avenue NE SR900 Intersection EXHIBIT "B" SCOPE OF WORK TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I --PROJECT PURPOSE................................................................................................ 1 ARTICLE II --EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND ............................. 2 ARTICLE III --CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS................................................................... 2 ARTICLE IV --PROJECT PHASES............................................................................................... 2 1. PREDESIGN PHASE................................................................................................... 3 2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN PHASE ........................... 3 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PHASE .................................................. 3 4. FINAL PLANS PHASE................................................................................................ 3 ARTICLE V--PROJECT WORK TASKS...................................................................................... 3 1. FIELD SURVEYS........................................................................................................ 3 2. GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS........................................................ 4 3. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTS ............................. 4 4. BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION (TS&L) STUDY ...................................... 4 5. CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (ESA) ................. 4 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PERMITTING ............................. 4 7. SENSITIVE AREA STUDIES AND PLAN................................................................ 5 8. SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT...........................................................................5 9. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 5 10. TRAFFIC NOISE.......................................................................................................... 5 11. CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................................... 5 12. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.................................................................................... 5 13. PROJECT DESIGN AND PLANS............................................................................... 5 14. FINAL DESIGN REPORT..............................................................................:............ 7 15. RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN.......................................................................... 8 16. MEETINGS................................................................................. ......... 8 17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SIGNING, AND CHANNELIZATION PLANS ...................... 9 18. CONSTRUCTION PLANS...........................................................................................9 19. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISIONS.......................................................10 20. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE.........................................................................................10 21. COORDINATION...................................................................................................... 10 22. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QA/QC............................................................... I I ARTICLE VI --SERVICES AND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY .............................. 13 Exhibit "B" i June 5, 2003 Duvall Avenue NE SR 900 Intersection EXHIBIT "B" SCOPE OF WORK ARTICLE I PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to widen and reconfigure the Duvall Avenue NE and SR 900 arterial roadway intersection. Funding for design and construction will come from a variety of public and private sources including federal grants. At this time, the City has acquired funding for the project. With the available funding, the City intends to complete the project's environmental review, complete preliminary design to approximately 30% plans stage and complete final design. Among other items described in Article V, project deliverables for this Scope of Work will include the following: A. Preliminary Opinion of Costs. B. Draft and Final Design Report including various technical tests, analyses, evaluations, and documentation as necessary to support items A through F above and as detailed within this Scope of Work. C. Preliminary plan set (approximately 30% design level). D. Final Contract Documents including Plans, Project Manual, Engineer's Estimate Plans for the deliverables outlined in B, C, and D above shall be provided in half-size sheets (11"x17" bond paper) and in electronic CAD files in a form compatible for use in AutoCAD software (version currently in use by the City). Plans shall be prepared in accordance with WSDOT's Plans Preparation Manual and City's drafting standards and symbols. The Consultant agrees to furnish engineering services needed to prepare design documents for this project. These services include conducting field reviews and analysis; preparing reports, plans, maps, evaluations, designs, technical specifications, and estimates for the prT' ct. ARTICLE II EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND The proposed action involves improvements to Duvall Avenue NE and SR 900 intersection. Curb, gutter and sidewalks with an enclosed drainage system currently exist within the limits of the intersection improvements. The intersection at SR 900 is signalized. The proposed improvements would provide four travel lanes, accommodation for bicycles, with cubs, gutters, and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway, channelization, a TWLTL or Exhibit "B" June, 5, 2(X)3 median, as appropriate, drainage and water quality facilities, retaining walls. Landscaping, illumination, and signal reconstruction. The project would be constructed as one construction project with phasing. Upgrades of water and sewer facilities will be included as appropriate. The existing land uses along the project are characterized by commercial businesses. The project supports regional plans to provide improved traffic flow and circulation, relieve peak hour traffic congestion, improve safety and reduce the number and types of accidents, accommodate project traffic volumes, and provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access through the intersection. ARTICLE III CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS Work described herein will be accomplished under a consultant contract between the City of Renton and the Consultant. All work shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the latest version of the WSDOT LAG manual. Unless otherwise noted, any documents or written information to be given by the Consultant to the County, or by the County to the Consultant, shall be transmitted via the City project manager. Any written or electronic correspondence or communication between these parties shall be through the City project manager. ARTICLE IV PROJECT PHASES For management, scheduling, and accounting purposes, the scope of work described herein is one project. The following provides approximate definitions for the various project phases: 1. PREDESIGN PHASE This phase covers the predesign work needed to define the major elements of the project including such elements as alignment, intersection signal relocation, SR-900 intersection impact and WSDOT coordination, and local agency coordination. The Predesign Phase will be considered complete upon City's approval of the Final Design Report. The Predesign process will be developed so that the following items are addressed by the Consultant: a. Review and refine the recommended alignment. b. Review the recommended roadway cross-section and configuration. C. Coordinate with WSDOT to develop an intersection plan depicting the changes to SR-900 as a result of this project. d. Prepare a storm drainage analysis to determine the types, sizes, and locations of proposed storm water quantity/quality facilities and conveyance systems upgrades, if necessary. C. Prepare a preliminary engineer's opinion of cost for the project. f. It is anticipated the work will be a collaborative effort between the City of Renton, WSDOT, and FHWA. g. At the conclusion of the predesign process, a Draft Design Report for Duvall Avenue/SR 900 Intersection will be prepared and submitted to the City of Renton for Exhibit "B" June 5, 2003 review (five bound copies). Following one round of review by the City, submit the Final Design Report (five bound copies). The Design Report will document studies, analyses, and summarize the final alignment and design elements. The Design Report will be the basis for continuing work into the Preliminary and Final Design. 2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN PHASE This phase covers the preliminary design needed to produce preliminary plans based on results of the Predesign Phase. All engineering reports, analyses, and plans (when submitted in final form) will be stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer licensed by the State of Washington. Any preliminary reports, analyses, and plans submitted for review or editing will be marked "Preliminary, Subject to Change," or with similar words or stamp. The Preliminary Design and Right of Way Plan Phase will be considered complete upon City and County acceptance of the preliminary design. No additional Right -of -Way is assumed to be needed for these intersection improvements. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PHASE This phase includes the development of a permit matrix and preparing an Environmental Recommendations Technical Memorandum. This phase also covers the preparation of appropriate NEPA documentation. Discussions with WSDOT and FHWA indicate a NEPA DCE may be the form of this documentation. The work in this phase shall be complete in accordance with the recommendations contained in the City -approved Technical Memorandum identified above. The Environmental Documentation Phase will be considered complete upon completion of the NEPA DCE, SEPA Checklist, if necessary and permitting processes. 4. FINAL PLANS PHASE This phase covers the development of the final plans, technical special provisions, and final engineer's estimate. The Final Plans Phase will be considered complete upon City's advertisement of the construction contract(s). ARTICLE V � PROTECT WORK TASKS FIELD SURVEYS The City will complete the surveying and base mapping for this project. The City will prepare and provide to the Consultant an electronic copy of the completed base map with all topographic features and known surface utility features shown. The City will provide to the Consultant the stamped and certified existing right-of-way plan. The City will provide title reports for properties along the project. Exhibit "B" June 5. 2003 The base map will be at a scale of 1" = 20' with contours at 2' intervals. The City will derive underground utility information from records provided by the utility companies. This information will be collected, reviewed, and correlated with surveyed surface features and a utility composite drawing prepared by the City's Survey Consultant. The following utilities are expected along this route: power, gas, telephone, cable TV, sanitary sewer, and water. The City will forward the utility composite drawing to the various utility companies for verification. The City will provide a complete topographic survey for any drainage features, wetland mitigation sites, or other areas that will be part of the project and will provide the resultant base mapping to the Consultant. The Consultant will review the information contained on the composite base maps and update the base maps as appropriate during the course of the project as new or additional information becomes available. 2. GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS No geotechnical investigations are included in this scope of work. 3. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTS Normally, all property owner contacts will be done by City staff. In some cases, the Consultant will accomplish the following: a. Property owners may be contacted, primarily through possible public open house meeting. Provisions will be made at the meeting by the Consultant to record any input received. b. The Consultant will prepare a display required for the Public Outreach meeting. For budget purposes, assume a project aerial graphic at 100 scale will be prepared 4. BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION (TS&L) STUDY There are no bridges within this segment of the project corridor. 5. CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (ESA) No Corridor -level Environmental Site Assessments are included in this scope of work. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PERMITTING e' The Consultant shall prepare a matrix to show all required permits, the timeframes necessary to complete each permit process, and any inter -relations between the various permits. The -Consultant shall review past environmental documentation and prepare recommendations (documented in a Technical Memorandum) for completing the project specific NEPA and SEPA documentation. The Consultant shall prepare the NEPA DCE and SEPA Checklist documentation The Consultant shall complete appropriate SEPA documentation including all needed studies, modeling, and analysis in accordance with State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C) and SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11). The Consultant shall complete NEPA Exhibit "B" June 5, 2003 environmental documentation in accordance with Chapter 24 of the Local Agency Guidelines Manual and other appropriate WSDOT and FHWA guidance documents. The Consultant shall develop the initial budget proposal for this task using these assumptions, but environmental documentation shall be completed in accordance with the approved recommendations contained in the Technical Memorandum identified above. If necessary, a Supplement to the Contract will be negotiated to cover extra work not currently anticipated for this task. The Consultant will prepare and coordinate all permit submittals. 7. SENSITIVE AREAS STUDIES AND PLAN No Sensitive areas studies or plan are included in this scope of work. 8. SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT No Socioeconomic Assessment is included in this scope of work. 9. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS No Air Quality Analysis is included in this Scope of Work. 10. TRAFFIC NOISE No Traffic Noise Analysis is included in this Scope of Work. 11. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Cultural Resource investigation is included in this Scope of Work. 12. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT No Biological Assessment is included in this Scope of Work. 13. PROJECT DESIGN AND PLANS This task initiates work on what will ultimately become construction plans for the project. These plans will be the basis for the final construction plans for the project. Plans developed in the Predesign Phase shall be refined as necessary during the subsequent Preliminary Design Phase and the Final Plans Phase. Plans shall be prepared in accordance with WSDOT's Plans Preparation Manual except as modified by the City of Renton drafting standards and symbols. The Consultant shall coordinate with WSDOT to develop an intersection plan depicting the changes to SR-900 as a result of this project. The Consultant shall initially address each of the following items in the Design Report plans and continue more detailed development in the Preliminary Design Phase: a. Plans/Roadway Sections • Prepare 1" = 20' preliminary plans and lay out the project with stationing increasing from west to east and from south to north. Exhibit "B" June 5. 2003 Develop basic roadway sections including the number of lanes, lane widths, curbs, sidewalks, and cut and fill slopes. Provide grading limits for the roadway. Analyze clear zone safety requirements per WSDOT Design Manual to determine warrants for guardrail placement. Provide widening for guardrail, if applicable. Prepare cover sheet and vicinity map for project. b. Profile Grade: Shall be developed to account for: • Stopping sight distance for all applicable criteria. • Elevation of other roadway and driveway intersections. • Entering sight distance at all locations along route. • Drainage system(s) and patterns. • Pipe cover at all cross culverts and driveway culverts. • Retaining wall considerations. • Slopes/guardrail. • Any other engineering considerations. • Following review by the City, develop the final Profile Grade and depict it on plans at 1" = 5' vertical scale. Cross -Sections • Compute earthwork quantity, plot cross -sections, and plot catch points on the plan. d. Storm Drainage This task involves preparing the storm drainage plan for the roadway. The WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington shall be used. • Complete or compile topographic mapping necessary to determine contributing runoff areas and produce a Drainage Area Map showing all contributing areas, no smaller than V = 200'. Design the storm drainage system for the project as follows: i. Calculate required pipe sizes, slopes, inlet and outlet details, and riprap requirements to convey roadway runoff. ii. Size necessary ditches and channels and design accordingly for conveyance of roadway and cut slope runoff. iii. Design water quality and quantity facilities for roadway Aoff only. If additional Consultant services are required to develop a joint facility to accommodate both roadway and offsite runoff, a separate scope of work and budget will be negotiated and a Supplement to the Contract will be executed. iv. Analyze downstream impacts as needed. A Surface Water Technical Information Report (TIR) for the drainage analysis will be prepared for the roadway improvements. The TIR will address the existing conditions for the onsite, off -site and downstream effects of the project. The Consultant will assemble this material into a Draft TIR. Provide eight copies of the Exhibit "B" June 5. 2003 draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final TIR. C. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) following the requirements of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington to address roadway runoff. d. Traffic Analysis / Signal Warrant Analysis The City will provide basic traffic modeling services as currently exists from the City's Transportation Model. The Consultant shall evaluate traffic conditions for the project for current year, opening year, and a 20 year design period. The Consultant shall develop construction staging along the proposed roadway alignment in enough detail to determine what, if any traffic control measures will be necessary during construction. Traffic control measures will consist of lane closures, lane narrowing, temporary roadway construction, road closures, and detours. The staging plans will be adequate to show an approximate extent and duration of the most significant traffic impacts during construction for local residents and businesses as well as through traffic. Simple graphics will be prepared and included in the preliminary plans e. Pavement Design Develop a pavement section for the project to include subgrade requirements, roadway surfacing type, base and paving depths. The Consultant will compile and review Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and growth -rate data provided by the City. The Consultant will contact King County DOT about possible bus service and future growth. If bus route growth cannot be determined, the growth of bus traffic will be assumed to be the same as that of the general traffic. Retaining Structures No retaining structures are anticipated. j. Value Engineering No formal value engineering study is included in this scope of work. 14. FINAL DESIGN REPORT (30% Submittal) In the Final Design Report, the Consultant shall: r, a. Review -all work, geometric design, and design criteria developed to date to assure that it still complies with current design standards and the design criteria established in the internal Scope of Work. b. Complete any incomplete plans. C. Document the full project scope. d. Document the design principles/standards used. Applicable City Road Standards shall be the basis of the design. Exhibit " B" June 5. 2003 e. Identify environmental documentation and permits required in consultation with City staff. f. Identify any criteria that cannot be met or would involve excessive costs. g. Prepare request for variance for any design criteria that cannot be met. h. Assemble this material into a Draft Final Design Report. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the Design Report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Design Report. This will constitute the 30% Review, and each copy shall include a complete set of 11 "x 17" preliminary plans. 15. RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN No additional right-of-way is anticipated for this project. 16. MEETINGS Throughout all phases of the project, various meetings are anticipated. These will include regular meetings between the Consultant and City staff. The following is a summary estimate of the number of these meetings: Exhibit " B" June 5. 2003 MEETING FREQUENCY DURATION Estimated NOTES Total No. Project startup Once 4 hours 1 With City Project Guidance Monthly 2 hours 0 Less frequent in Team design stage Design Team/City Approximately 2 hours 2 once per month Public meeting Twice 3 hours 0 Probably evening Miscellaneous 1 to 2 hours 0 meetings/property owner meetings City Council Once 2 hour 0 With Design Team/City meetings WSDOT 2 hours 2 Agencies Twice each 2 hours 0 Value Engineer Team 3 hours 0 Start and end of team work 17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SIGNING, AND CHANNELIZATION PLANS This task involves the planning and design of the roadway regulatory signing, signal systems, channelization, and other traffic -related appurtenances for the project. a. Review traffic information provided by City, and reconfirm or modify based on material developed to date. b. Develop channelization plan and intersection layouts. C. Develop regulatory signing plan. d. Develop signal system plans The Consultant will assemble eight sets of the traffic signal, signing and Channelization plans for review by the City. 18. CONSTRUCTION PLANS (60% and 90% Submittals) r_1 This task involves the finalization of the Preliminary Project Plans into plans appropriate for contract advertisement and construction. a. Review project files and Final Design Report to be sure all comments received to date have been incorporated into the plans. b. Finalize all horizontal and vertical alignment with all grades, vertical curve, and horizontal curve data determined. C. Make final check on all stopping and entering sight distances for project. 9 June 5, 2003 Exhibit " B" d. Review environmental documentation completed to determine if the project plans need to be modified or revised to accommodate the requirements of these documents. e. Prepare all design detail sheets, intersection plan sheets, channelization plan sheets, signal plan sheets, road approach profiles, drainage detail sheets, and summary of quantities. f. Prepare final Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Measures may include silt fence, hay bales, berms, ditches, hydroseeding, and similar features. g. Assemble and submit 60% plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate including a set of half-size plans on 11"x17" bond paper sheets and applicable backup data. The plans shall be considered "In Progress"; the specifications in outline form as envisioned to date; and the engineer's estimate an estimate at this snapshot in time. h. Assemble and submit 90% PS&E including a complete set of half-size plans on 11 "x 17" bond paper sheets and all applicable backup data. Combine this submittal with the City Contract Provisions and reproduce and distribute for internal review. The Consultant shall respond to the City's 90% review comments and prepare a final set of PS&E. One original set of 22"04" stamped, final, reproducible plans shall be submitted to the City. i. Post PS&E Submittal Assistance --Once the package is finalized, the Consultant shall remain "on call" until the construction contract has been awarded to the successful bidder. This normally occurs within three months of the advertisement of the contract. This work element shall be limited to the costs shown in the fee estimate. 19. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISIONS This task involves the preparation of the Technical Special Provisions for the project. APWA and WSDOT Standards as amended by the City of Renton will be used as the basis for the Contract Provisions. a. Review all data, reports, right-of-way commitments, and decisions made to date on the project. b. Review construction plans and the summary of quantities sheets to assure that all special situations are covered by the contract Special Provisions; determine all non- standard bid items and prepare technical specifications for them. 20. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE This task involves the preparation of an engineer's estimate for the project using estimated quantities derived from preparation of the plans and unit costs based on recent City contracts and unit cost information provided by WSDOT. The engineer's estimate is confidential and is not to be released to the public. 11-1 a. Prepare and tabulate estimate of quantities. Provide backup calculations for each bid item. b. Review current costs from recent City, County and WSDOT contracts and select appropriate costs for the project. C. Prepare and tabulate engineer's estimate using the format provided by the City. 21. COORDINATION It is the intent of this Agreement that the Consultant shall, notwithstanding the Consultant's position as that of an independent contractor, act as an extension of City staff. The EON( "B" 10 June 5.2003 Consultant shall coordinate all his activities through the City's assigned Project Engineer. All correspondence to property owners, public/private utilities, other public agencies, or any other entity outside of the City of Renton's Transportation Design Services will be done by the City. Specific coordination tasks are listed below: a. Permits Coordination Complete Permits Coordination Determine what permits will be necessary for the project and what outside agencies need to be contacted with specific project information b. Utility Coordination Provide reduced size copies of the preliminary construction plans for printing and transmittal by the City to all affected utilities. This should be done as soon as the preliminary plans are completed to the point where the utility can ascertain the impact on their facilities. The Consultant will perform the coordination with PSE and other utilities for location, relocation, and underground installation of utilities and show the existing utilities and improvements on the plans. C. Utility Coordination Meeting • Attend the utility coordination meetings to discuss project and go over details that will impact the various utilities within the project limits. • Incorporate identified utility impacts and improvements into the contract documents. Detailed design of utility modifications will be performed by others. • Assume four utility coordination meetings (90 minutes each) for budget development purposes. 22. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QA/QC a. Project Management The Consultant's assigned Project Manager shall provide appropriate dirsgtion and guidance for the consultant's staff working on this project. Thorough oversight and review shall be provided over the entire course of the project. The Project Manager shall prepare and submit Monthly Progress Reports and maintain the detailed Project Schedule. Monthly progress reports shall describe the work underway or completed in the subject month, the status of individual tasks, meetings attended, key milestones, critical path, monthly burden rate, i.e. percent project expenditures versus percent project completion, and project issues of an emergent or critical nature. Monthly Progress Reports shall provide information to Exhibit "B" June 5, 2003 allow the City to monitor the Consultant's project budget. The project budget will be monitored and reported in the Monthly Progress Reports to reflect the costs. Monthly Progress Reports shall accompany monthly invoices. This task provides for the preparation of, attendance at, follow-up to, and documentation of various meetings over the course of the project. These meetings will be the forum for the City to provide input and guidance for the direction of the project. They will also be used to discuss project issues, approve submittals, and develop potential solutions to design issues. For budget development purposes, assume two meetings a month at the City, of two-hour duration, from project kickoff through completion of the Final PS&E package. This task provides for the Consultant's development and maintenance of a system for the filing of drawings and documents (hardcopy and electronic) generated over the course of the project. This information will be filed in a manner that enables ready and selective retrieval. This task provides for the development of a work plan that defines the proposed project expenditures on a month by month basis. This will be summarized on a task by task basis, as well as an overall total. b. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) This task shall be necessary in order to provide the City a set of final deliverables with the maximum level of accuracy. This task will involve Consultant staff to review and control the outgoing documents through a process of Quality Assurance and Quality Control. The QA/QC and peer review program has particular emphasis on technical aspects resting with the various technical disciplines (e.g., roadway, structural, drainage, traffic, etc.). The overriding strategy of the program is to eliminate major defects in project work products and limit minor defects so as not to impact client acceptance or contractor progress, and to minimize liability exposure. The program entails the periodic review of study criteria, design, assumptions, and concepts and presentation of product format. This helps assure that the overall project objectives are being fulfilled. QA/QC includes technical discipline review, lead designer review, and senior review. Discipline reviews will be performed while the detailed technical work is in progress (i.e., when computations are completed, when sketches and preliminary drawings have been prepared but not yet submitted for drafting, and when specifications and special provisions are ready for typing). Lead designers will review specific products such as plans, reports, specifications, and other documents, at which time these products are completed. Senior reviews will be performed for an overall task when and as defined in the QA/QC program. Such reviews will be performed after project packages are assembled and before they are submitted for the review to the City and affected agencies. QA/QC efforts and reviews shall include the work performed by the Consultant and their subconsultants. Exhibit "B" 12 June 5, 2003 Scheduled senior reviews will be documented in a memorandum format to the Project Manager. The Consultant's Project Manager will be responsible for adjudication of comments/responses with respect to the project scope, budget, and schedule. ARTICLE VI SERVICES AND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY The City will provide periodic review of the Consultant's work, respond promptly to requests for information, negotiate any requests for extra work, and provide required approvals in a timely manner. The City of Renton will provide copies of project files, the following data, and services: a. Preliminary Utility Coordination. b. Parcel ownership and parcel number information. C. All rights of entry. d. Traffic information. e. Traffic modeling results. f. All surveying work and resulting base mapping in hardcopy and electronic. a 13 Exhibit "B" June 5.2003 EXHIBIT C PAYMENT (COST PLUS FIXED FEE) The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for all work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work specified in Section 11, "Scope of Work." The CONSULTANT shall conform with the applicable portion of 48 CFR 3 1. A. Actual Costs Payment for all consulting services for this project shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT's actual cost plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, overhead, and direct nonsalary cost. 1. Direct Salary Costs The direct salary cost is the direct salary paid to principals, professional, technical, and clerical personnel for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT. 2. Overhead Costs Overhead costs are those costs other than direct costs which are included as such on the books of the CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payments sham be made at the rate shown in the heading of this AG, under "Overhead Progress Payment Rate." Total over -head payment shall be based on the method shown in the heading of the AGREEMENT. The three options are explained as follows: a. Actual Cost Not To Exceed Maximum Percent: If this method is indicated in the heading of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT at the actual overhead rate verified by audit up to the maximum percentage shown in the space provided. Final overhead payment when accumulated with all other actual costs shall not exceed the total maximum amount payable shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. b. Fixed Rate: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT for ovh.head at the percentage rate shown. This rate shall not change during the life of the AGREEMENT. A summary of the CONSULTANT's cost estimate and the overhead computation are attached hereto as Exhibit D and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. When an Actual Cost method, or the Actual Cost Not To Exceed method is used, the CONSULTANT (prime and all subconsultants) will submit to the AGENCY within three months after the end of each firm's fiscal year, an overhead schedule in the format required by the AGENCY (cost category, dollar expenditures, etc.) for the purpose of adjusting the overhead rate for billing purposes. It shall be used for the computation of progress payments during the following FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit C-1 8 April 2003 year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year's overhead cost to reflect the actual rate. Failure to supply this information by either the prime consultant or any of the subconsultants shall cause the agency to withhold payment of the billed overhead costs until such time as the required information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved. The STATE and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the CONSULTANT's books and records at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual overhead rate, if they so desire. Direct Nonsalary Costs Direct nonsalary costs will be reimbursed at the actual cost to the CONSULTANT. These charges may include, but are not limited to the following items: travel, printing, long distance telephone, supplies, computer charges, and fees of subconsultants. Air or train travel will only be reimbursed to economy class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. Automobile mileage for travel will be reimbursed at the current rate approved for AGENCY employees and shall be supported by the date and time of each trip with origin and destination of such trips. Subsistence and lodging expenses will be reimbursed at the same rate as for AGENCY employees. The billing for nonsalary cost, directly identifiable with the Project, shall be an itemized listing of the charges supported by copies of original bills, invoices, expense accounts, and miscellaneous supporting data retained by the CONSULTANT. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be provided to the AGENCY upon request. All of the above charges must be necessary for the services to be provided under this AGREEMENT. 4. Fixed Fee The fixed fee, which represents the CONSULTANT's profit, is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under Fixed Fee. This amount does not include any additional fixed fee which could be authorized from the Management Reserve Fund. This fee is based on the scope of work defined in this AGREEMENT and the estimated man -months required to perform the stated scope of work. In the event a supplemental agreement is entered into for additional work by the CONSULTANT, the supplemental agreement may include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The fined fee will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the CONSULTANT and reported in the monthly progress reports accompanying the invoices. Any portion of the fixed fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the final payment, subject to the provisions of Section IX, Termination of Agreement Management Reserve Fund The AGENCY may desire to establish a Management Reserve Fund to provide the Agreement Administrator the flexibility of authorizing additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond that already defined in this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser of $50,000 or 10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount included for the Management Reserve Fund is shown in the heading of this agreement. This fund may be replenished in a subsequent supplemental agreement. Any changes requiring additional costs in excess of the "Management Reserve Fund" shall be made in accordance with Section XIV, "Extra Work." FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit C-2 8 April 2003 6. Maximum Total Amount Payable The maximum total amount payable, by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, which includes the Fixed Fee and the Management Reserve Fund. The Maximum Total Amount Payable does not include payment for extra work as stipulated in Section XIV, "Extra Work." B. Monthly Progress Payments The CONSULTANT may submit invoices to the AGENCY for reimbursement of actual costs plus the calculated overhead and fee not more often than once per month during the progress of the work. Such invoices shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports required under Section III, including direct salary, direct nonsalary, and allowable overhead costs to which win be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for CONSULTANT employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of recording the names, titles, and present duties of those employees performing work on the PROJECT at the time of the interview. C. Final Payment Final payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT, contingent upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, and other related documents which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such final payment by the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment which the CONSULTANT may have against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and submitted to the AGENCY by the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not, however, be a bar to any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and that at the time of final audit, all required adjustments win be made and reflected in a final payment. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within ninety (90) days of notice of the overpayment Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment. D. Inspection of Cost Records The CONSULTANT and the subconsultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives of the AGENCY and the United States, for a period of three years after final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and are items related to or bearing upon these records with the following exception: if any litigation, claim, or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this contract is initiated before the expiration of the three-year period, the cost records and accounts shall be retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed. FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit C-3 8 April 2003 CITY OF RENTON EXHIBIT D-1 Analysis of Costs - BERGER/ABAM Inc. Direct Salary Cost (DSC) PERSONNEL Hours Pay Rate Cost Project Executive 7 $ 62.50 $ 438 Project Manager 63 47.90 3,018 Project Engineer 144 36.50 5,256 Senior Engineer 88 30.30 2,666 Planner 19 35.50 675 Engineer/Technician 115 20.80 2,392 Graphics/CADD 146 25.20 3,679 Project Coordinator 12 20.30 244 Clerical 22 20.60 453 Direct Salary Cost Total Salary Escalation @ 5% Overhead Cost Net Fee Reimbursables Travel/Parking Computer/CADD Reproduction/Postage Project Notebook Public Meeting Graphics ROW Services BERGER/ABAM SUBTOTAL Subconsultants: (See Exhibit G) GeoEngineers Widener & Associates Marai Associates JGM Landscape Architects CTS Engineers F _ -.. ei�a 616 $ 18,820 $ 706 158.00% of DSC $ 30,851 32.00% of DSC $ 6,248 SUBTOTAL $ 56,625 1,314 SUBTOTAL 1,314 $ 57,939 0.0% Participation $ - 0.0% Participation - 2.1% Participation 1,269 0.0% Participation - 0.0% Participation - SUBCONSULTANTS SUBTOTAL $ 1,269 GRAND TOTAL $ 59,208 SAY $ 59,000 6-S-a3 Date EXHIBIT D-2 Reimbursables Travel: Mileage to County, Subconsultant Offices, and Miscellaneous 15 months at 125 miles per month at $.365/mile Computer: CADD Design and Drafting Approx 90% of CADD Hours Q $10/hr Reproduction Design Reports, Special Study Reports Plan Review Sets Project Notebooks Public Meeting Graphics ROW Services Meetings with Property Owners Meeting No. 1: 21 Parcels @ 1-1/2 hours EA Cam? $100/HR Meeting No. 2: 15 Parcels Cam? 1-1/2 hours EA Q $100/HR Project Funding Estimates: 21 Parcels Q $2000 per parcel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT D-3 THIS SHEET LEFT BLANK Exnibit D-4 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) Project Name: Duvall Avenue NE - City Of Renton Project No: FA PWT 03 156 Prepared By: GLP PROJECT DESIGN. PRELIMINARY & FINAL DESIGN. RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION Date: 5-Jun-03 PROJECT I PROJECT PROJECT SENIOR ENGR/ GRAPHIC11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXEC MGR ENGR ENGR PLANNER TECH ADD COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASKI FIELl2:$URVJiYS::: .:;:: ;.:::: Work.Ta.Be:Perfarmed• 1.1. Review Base Mapping Supplied By County 0 Tech Memo (8) 1.2. Base Mapping Review Tech Memo 0 1.3. Base Mapping Updates 0 1A. Site Visits 2 2 2 2 2 10 TOTAL FIELD SURVEYS HOURS 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 10 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 1 Cost Subtotals $ S 288 $ 220 $ 182 $ 214 $ 125 $ S $ - $ 1,029 Task 1 Total. $ 1,000 TASK 2: GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS 2.1. Review of Existin information: ... 0 CiEO 2.2. Develo ..Work lan' 0 GEO 2.3::Coordinate FleldMork and Field Labor::` 0 OEO .2.4. Engineering Ana ses/Develo . Aecommendations ..- .... .. ..._.... 0 G1E0 2.&: Meetings ,. . 0 GEO 2.6. Project:Management o ;aEa: 2.7. Draft Report O . GEO Report 8 2.8. Final. Re ort . :. 0 OEO _ Report 8 2.9. Coordinate Geotechnical Work 0 2.10. Review and Comment on Reports 0 TOTAL ABAM GEOTECH TESTING & ANALYSIS HOUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ABAM Hourl Rates $ 188.05 $ 144:12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 2 Cost Subtotals $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S TOTAL GEO GEOTECH TESTfNb:ANb ANALYSIS HOUR 0 mo9.0 QEO,. QEO Hourl :Rates $ :> 14T 36,6t: , 75.82 $ :: 62.22: ;:$ 81 Ar $ ..:<50 94 : $ 55.67 OEO GEO Task 2 Cost Subtows .. 5:: :; $ $ ;::> _ :;5 - S ;: $ s`: $ . S S> ask 2 Total= $ Exhibit D-5 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) DESCRIPTION PROJECT IXEC I PROJECT MOR PROJECT ENQR SENIOR ENQR PLANNER I ENQR/ TECH GRAPHIC11 ADD PROJECT COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASK 3: PUBLIC OUTREACH & PROP. OWNER CONTACTS 3.1. Property Owner Meetings Assume 50 See Task 22.5 p 3.2. Public Open Houses Assume 2 See Task 22.4 p ...; .::.:::..:.:....>:..:::..:... .:::.::........:.:: . ....:..:.:;:... 3.4. Newsletters/Mailings Assume 3 0 3.5. Project Notebook 0 Letters 3 3.6. Public Meeting Graphics 1 2 8 11 Notebooks 16 Boards11 TOTAL PUBLIC OUTREACH & PROP OWNER CONTACTS HR 0 1 2 0 0 0 8 0 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 3 Cost Subtotals $ - S 144 $ 220 $ - S - $ - $ 607 $ - $ - $ 970 Task 3 Total- $ 1,000 TASK 4: BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION STUDY 4.1. Coordination W/ Cityof Newcastle 0 0 0 p TOTAL BRIDGE TYPE SIZE AND LOCATION STUDY HOUREE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 4 Cost Subtotals $ - $ S S $ $ $ S S $ Task 4 Total= S TASK 5: CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENVIRON. SITE ASSESSMENT 5..1; Site Assessments :Per ASTM:E.1527-94' U QEO".'::: Re ort 8 5.2. Coordinate ESA Work 5.3. Review and Comment on Reports 0 TOTAL ABAM CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENV. SITE ASSESSMENT HR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 5 Cost Subtotals $ $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ S S - TOTAL dtQCORRID'OR LEVEL:ENY.SIT:EASSES$MENTAk 0 .:: 0 0 0: 0 D: :; 0 ' 00 0 t3E0:. QFO:k Rates .,$ 14736 : $: 130 98> $ 1:14.61 $ 108 06 . $ 7532 $ ;>'.8272 5 . 81 87 $ :: .58 94 $ 55.67 GEO:Task5 Cost :Subtotafs S S S S - QEd'. Task 5 Total= txnibit D-6 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) Exhibit D-7 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT SENIOR ENGR/ GRAPHIC/C PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXEC MGR ENGR ENGR PLANNER TECH ADD COORD CLERICAL TOTAL I SUB I DELIVERABLE TASK 8: SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 8.7. Coordinate Socioeconomic Assessment 0 8.8. Review and Comment 0 TOTAL ABAM SENSITIVE AREA STUDIES AND PLAN HOURS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 ARAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 8 Cost Subtotals $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ $ S - $ . >TOTAUVIA�Jf S1T1.YE q.R,.EA&Tf3t7(ESAPiQ;ALAN.:H.OUii ::. ;:.::::....0..: .:::.: < :::.>.... . ;>:z<' :..>;» :'.�:.:.: ::::::::.:. ;:.,..,.::;>:;;:..;•.' :;. #t . D ' ./ `: Rat .: •.;:; :.::: �::>:: ::;' '' :` ' : ?:" <::: ::::. ':<:i:.>i;... s .::::.::.::.;:;.:.::.::.;:..: ..:::.;:.;<<:::.:: . ::.:.... ......... _...+... VVA.Ta�k.B;Cost.�iat �. uf�to ... Task 8 Total= $ TASK 9: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS Reveri::" '< >>>< :> ><»::<:::>>:' TraEi;e:li i::::»>:'>:>i>��'s:'•>:<::<`:�:zz::4<>::>z>»::> «'•:<•:::<:>:`:<:>'>z:::>:>::::g:t>:»>::>:<::�:i%r>:>z`:»:2i:;:<>::>:<>:>: 9.5. Coordinate Air Quality Ana sis 0 9.6. Review and Comment 0 TOTAL ABAM AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOURS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 9 Cost Subtotals= $ $ - S $ - $ - $ - $ S $ S WA................................. tn%hT..�sk 9..iL�t15i.Sgbt4t.:. $..:................ .....................:...:::.:.::: �:.:.:. :.::::.:::..: «::.. ............:... ...:......:...:.:: :.::::.:.:....:.: :........ ..... ..........:. ..:. .:::....::::..:::. ........ ... .:..:.........:...<:.............. TOTAL MA AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS HOUR >0 0 U MA MA: Mour! Rates $ - 5: 141.4i S 132 93 ': 106.34: S$ !NA Ma Task 9 Cost Subtotals $ q Mq . Task 9 Total= $ Exhibit D-8 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) Exhibit D-9 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) txnibit D-10 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) DESCRIPTION PROJECT EXEC PROJECT MGR PROJECT ENGR SENIOR ENGR PLANNER ENGR/ TECH GRAPHIC/C ADD PROJECT COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASK 14: FINAL DESIGN REPORT 14.1 Executive Summary 1 1 1 3 14.2 Introduction (Purpose and Need 1 1 2 14.3 Existing Conditions 1 1 1 3 14.4 Design Criteria and Constraints 1 1 1 3 14.5 Proposed Im rovements& Requested Variances/Deviations Roadway 1 3 3 1 8 Intersections 1 3 71 0 MA Driveways and Access 1 2 3 1 7 2 Sheets Drainage inct. SWPPP 2 2 1 5 Structures 0 14.6 Right -of -Way 0 14.7 Environmental Considerations and Permits 1 1 14.8 Utilities 14.10 Schedule, Construction Staging, and Traffic Control 1 1 1 4 1 2 4 1 4 1 12 14.11 Public Involvement 0 14.12 Project Costs 2 Z 1 5 14.13 Draft Final Design Report 1 1 4 6 Report 8 14.14 Final Design Reoort 9 TOTAL FINAL DESIGN REPORT HOURS 0 7 211 10 0 161 10 0 a 72 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 S 109.82 S 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 14 Cost Subtotals $ - $ 1,009 $ 2,306 S 912 $ - $ 1,001 $ 758 $ - $ 496 $ 6,482 TOTAL FINAL DESIGNREPO�tTHOUit 0 0 0.'.' 0 .MA MA Hourl :Rates $ ` $ #41:47 $ .,;:: 182 99 i:S 10&;3d $ 80 48 . S. S: MA .:-MAT k 14 Cost Subtotals $:: �'; S S ::' " $ : <: 5`. •; $ S S $-----------------MA EM Task 14 Exhibit D-11 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT SENIOR ENGR/ GRAPHIC/C PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXEC MGR ENOR ENGR PLANNER TECH ADD COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASK 15: RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN 15.1. Right -of -Way Base Maps 15.2. Compute ROW/Easement Takes/Remainders 0 8 Sheets 15.3. Compute Distances/Bearings for Legal Descriptions 0 15.4. Legal Descriptions 0 15.5. Delineate Construction Permit Requirements 0 15.5. Draft Right -of -Way Plans 0 15.7. Final Riqht-of-Way Plans 0 9 Sheets Assumption: 45 parcels to address 0 9 Sheets TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS HOURS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ . 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 15 Cost Subtotals $ $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $low n S - 77 � .Herr k.'1.5 O osl.9utt Ali:` :>%'•>:!:�>:!> � :;<:>:'• :'•»:<:>:'>3?iE:z'•:�s »: «'>:'•>:<::>:�:»:<:'::!: �s»:»:::�»»»>?>:: <;?»!>:#s!?::;»>:::;;::>:>:»<:::>::;«<:::::::;<a:<:::>:::::»:::;::::.>:•>:•>::».;.;.;;;: ;< :•>:>: »>:<::.:.:.;<'.;:..::::.:::.:.:::::.::.:;:;;;;;;;;:: ;;;;;;:. Task 15 Total= S TASK 16: MEETINGS 16.1. Project Startup 1 1 16.2. Project Guidance Team 1 3 16.3. Design Team/City 4 4 0 16.4. Public Meeting 10 16.5. Miscellaneous/PropertyMiscelfaneous/Property Owner 0 0 16.6. City Council 0 16.7. WSDOT 0 16.8. Agencies 0 16.9. Value Engineering Team 0 TOTAL MEETINGS HOURS 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 13 ABAM Hourl Rafes $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 16 Cost Subtotals $ - $ 721 $ 549 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 186 $ 1 456 Task 16 Total= $ 1,500 f, t.-.dbit D-12 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) DESCRIPTION PROJECT EXEC PROJECT MGR PROJECT ENGR SENIOR ENGR PLANNER ENGR/ TECH GRAPHIC/C ADD PROJECT COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASK 17: TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SIGNING, & CHAN PLANS 17.1 Review Traffic Information 0 0 'MA 17.2 Develop Channelization Plan/Intersection Layout 2 4 3 9 10 Sheets 17.3 Develop Regulatory Signing Plan 2 2 10 Sheets 17.4 Develop Signal System Plans 6 12 18 8 Sheets TOTAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SIGNING, & CHAN PLANS HOURE 0 01 8 0 0 6 15 0 29 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.581 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 17 Cost Subtotals $ S $ 879 ` S $ - S 375 $ 11137 $ $ - $ 2,391 TOTAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS SIGNING, & CHAN PLANS HOUR <;' 0 < 0 0 0 .. :': 0 :: 0 . 0 0 . . 0 : MA MA Hourly;Rates :$; = :.. $ 141.41 :$:'.: 132.93:: $60A8: ':$ S .: • . .. $ :: ` $ MA MA Task l7Cost tub Wtals= $:: $ S".: S $'.:. $. S. $, $ $ MA Task 17 Total= S 2,400 TASK 18: CONSTRUCTION PLANS, SPECS, & ESTIMATE 18.1 Review Project Files/Comments 1 1 18.2 Finalize H&V and Geometry 1 1 2 4 10 Sheets 18.3 Finalize Stopping/Entering Sight Distances 1 1 18.4 Review Environmental Doc/Revise Plans Accordingly 1 1 18.5 Roadway Design Details 1 1 2 4 3 Sheets 18.6 Intersection Plan Sheets 1 1 2 4 4 Sheets 18.8 Signal Plan Sheets 1 2 3 8 Sheets 18.9 Road Approach Profiles 1 1 2 4 3 Sheets 18.10 Drainage Details 1 1 2 4 16 Sheets 18.11 Summary of Quantities 11 2 2 5 1 Sheet 18.12 Retaining Wall Layout and Design 0 3 Sheets 18.13 Finalize SWPPP 2osion Controls MMMME 18.15 Assemble 90 % Plans with Contract Provisions 1 3 1 2 4 10 Sheets 3 3 9 18.16 Post PS&E Submittal Assistance 1 4 4 9 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATE HOURE 0 1 16 01 01 17 191 0 0 53 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.811 $ 62.58 $ 75.821 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 18 Gast Subtotals $ - $ 144 S 1,757 $ - 1 $ $ 1,064 S 1,441 $ - $ S 4,406 Task 18 T EA,abit D-14 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) DESCRIPTION PROJECT EXEC PROJECT MGR PROJECT ENOR SENIOR ENOR PLANNER ENGR/ TECH GRAPHIC(C ADD PROJECT COORD CLERICAL I TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASK 22: PROJECT MANAGEMENT & QA/QC 22.1. Monthly Progress Reports 6 3 2 11 22.2 Monthly Invoices 61 3 101 19 22.3. Monthty Progress Meetings 0 22.4. Project Schedule/Updates 12 12 24 22.5. QA/QC Program 1 6 4 4 1 16 22.6. QA/QC Review Memos 3 6 9 9 9. 6 42 22.7. QA/QC Review Response Memo 3 6 41 4 4 1 22 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & QA/QC HOURc 7 42 18;4 13 17 0 0 12 134 ARAM Hourl Rates $ 188.05 144.12 10 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 S 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 22 Cost Subtotals $ 1,316 $ 6 053 $ $ 1,1851 $ 1,8161 $ - $ . S 733 $ 496 $ 15,443 Task 22 Total- $ 15,400 .r Exhibit D-15 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT SENIOR ENOR/ GRAPHIC/C PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXEC MOR ENOR ENOR PLANNER TECH ADD COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE SUMMARY OF LABOR HOURS BY CONSULTANT TOTAL THIS PHASE BEROER/ARAM Engineers 7 63 144 88 19 115 146 12 ABAM Hour! Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 S 22 61.98 616 BA BA ABAM Cost Subtotals $ 1,316 $ 9,080 $ 15,814 $ 8,023 S 2,029 S 7197 $ 11,070 $ 733 $ 1,364 $ 56,625 BA Oeo 0 0 OEO.;. GEONaUr! RA{es 1479d $ 73098 1:l461 $' 70806: 7392 $ 62Z2 S: B1.B7' S8;94 QEO GostSubtotalsa $ S S. $ $ S S $ $ Wfdener614ssotl3aCgs.; ;:. .... ... ..... .....:: :. •...:.:::....:.:.:.::::::::::. •:::.:::..:::::::.. Q . •..::...:.::::::...... ...::...... .:.:.:.::....... .... .......... ..::::..:....... ...........::.::::. S c3E0 i/J .R :; :::i:ii:^: ::.: :::i: :>ii:<:;::;;•:;:::::::.:::::<:i i::%::%: :.;::;>i::;::::::::>i::'::i'r:;:::iir::i::i:::: ...........S!� .................. ............. ............... ......................... .. ... ....... ...::. �7�k Subkvfzrfii ::.::.:::::::.:......................:.:.:::::.:::::::.:..........,.......:...::::..::::..................:....::.::::::::::::............:...:..:::.:::::::.:...............:..::::..:: ::::r::..::: �:.: r.::.:>• •.>:.:>::;::.::.:::.::.:: :<.:::: �:.:>S::i::::::<::: ":::i:::;:>::r::;:;:i::ii: ' :•`.<.::::.::.::::.>:.:;.>:;:.;<:::::::::::::..:. S ::::.:::.:::::::::.::.................. ..::....................:.:::.:. Maral:Associates' U i 0 MA Hour! Rates $ $ f41 4} $ 132 93 $ : 106 39:: $ 50 48 $ S S MA SEEN= MACost.SUl?ltftel'sn ..5...::.. .:. $, 665 x. S 605.:.$ iggiggj :: $: ^!> .MA :......:,.::::....... .................:::>:::::;t::;:i>:e:::::. ;>::>::>:::t:>•<:>:�:. :�:EiE:�?:#?�:'•:z<:3:`:2•..isEE�i�::i�:�isi::>i:>::>ii»i:::>:>:::?>#::> X,....................... ..................... .................... 'Gf$iLts:..,;..:;•<:.:;.::::;,; <;::;:;:?:;:<:i<[;><E::::> > TOTAL ALL LABOR HOURS 71 631 1491 88 2_Ql 116 146 121 22 631 T.OTAI $ 57,900 p EXHIBIT E BREAKDOWN OF OVERHEAD COST In this section, the following document is as follows. ■ WSDOT's Audited Overhead Cost Breakdown FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit E-1 8 April 2003 BERGER / ABAM ENGINEERS INC. WSDOT FY 2002 AUDITED HOME OFFICE INDIRECT COST RATE (2080 Basis) In 000s FY 2002 Allocation Base Total Direct Labor $5,274 Indirect Costs Indirect Labor (Admin, Proposal, Negot) $2,756 Vacation, Holiday, Sick, Other Labor 835 Fringe Benefits 1,467 Administration Expense 590 Proposal Expense 191 Facilities 841 Furniture, Equipment, and Supplies 322 Communication and Reproduction 211 Computer Services 421 Miscellaneous Taxes and Insurance 25 E & O Insurance 332 B & O Taxes 354 $ 8,345 $8,345/$5,274 Indirect Cost Rate = 158.23% EXHIBIT F PAYMENT UPON TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT BY THE AGENCY OTHER THAN FOR FAULT OF THE CONSULTANT (Refer to Agreement, Section IX) Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made, shall total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fixed fee as the work completed at the time. of termination is to the total work required for the Project. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra work completed. FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit E-1 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT G SUBCONTRACTED WORK The AGENCY permits subcontracts for the following portions of the work of this AGREEMENT. ■ GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154`h Avenue NE Redmond, Wa. 98052 ■ Widener Associates 9908 Airport Way Building 12 Unit 1 Snohomish, WA 98296 ■ Marai Associates 19110 Bothell way NE, Suite 202 Bothell, WA 98011 ■ JGM Landscape Architects 204- 1110'Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit G-1 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT G-2 Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - GeoEngineers Direct Salary Cost (DSC PERSONNEL Hours Pay Rate Cost Project Executive 0 $ 45.00 $ - Associate 0 40.00 - Senior Environmental Geologist 0 35.00 - Project Engineer/Senior Engineer 0 33.00 - Engineer/Scientist 2 0 23.00 - Engineer/Scientist 1 0 19.00 - Senior Technican 0 25.00 - Project Coordinator 0 18.00 - Clerical 0 17.00 - Direct Salary Cost Total 0 $ - Overhead Cost 197.46% of DSC $ - Net Fee 30.00% of DSC - Reimbursables Travel/Parking (411 miles Q $0.365/mile) Database Searches Aerial Photography Review Fee 2 visits Q$130/visit) City Directories Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Env. Miscellaneous Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Drilling Backhoe Traffic Control Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing Private Utility Locate Computer/CADD Reproduction/Postage SUBTOTAL $ - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $ - TOTAL $ - EXHIBIT G-3 Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - Widener Associates Direct Salary Cost (DSC PERSONNEL Project Executive Project Manager Project Engineer Senior Engineer Planner Engineer/Technician Graphics/CADD Project Coordinator Clerical Direct Salary Cost Total Overhead Net Fee Reimbursables Travel/Parking (200 miles @0.365/mile) Reproduction/Postage Communications Miscellaneous Hours Pay Rate Cost 0 $ 0 45.00 - 0 25.75 0 - - 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 $ _ 150.00% of DSC $ 30.00% of DSC $ - SUBTOTAL $ - SUBTOTAL TOTAL $ - dq EXHIBIT G-4 Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - Marai Associates Direct Salary Cost (DSC PERSONNEL Hours Pay Rate Cost Project Executive 0 $ _ $ _ Project Manager 0 56.16 - Project Engineer 5 52.79 264 Senior Engineer 0 42.23 - Planner 10 24.02 240 Engineer/Technician 0 _ _ Graphics/CADD 0 Project Coordinator 0 Clerical 0 Direct Salary Cost Total 15 $ 504 Overhead 121.80% of DSC $ 614 Net Fee 30.00% of DSC $ 151 SUBTOTAL $ 1,269 Reimbursables Travel/Parking $ _ Computer _ Reproduction/Postage _ Communications _ SUBTOTAL $ - TOTAL $ 1,269 dq EXHIBIT G-5 Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - JGM Landscape Architects Direct Salary Cost (DSC) PERSONNEL Hours Pay Rate Cost Project Executive 0 $ 42.00 $ - Project Manager 0 35.00 - Project Engineer 0 21.00 - Senior Engineer 0 - - Planner 0 - - Engineer/Technician 0 - - Landscape Designer/CADD 0 19.00 - Project Coordinator 0 - - Clerical 0 17.50 - Direct Salary Cost Total 0 $ - Overhead 188.00% Net Fee 30.00% Reimbursables Travel/Parking Computer Reproduction/Postage Communications of DSC $ of DSC $ - SUBTOTAL $ - SUBTOTAL $ . - TOTAL $ - I CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CONCURRENCE DATE: Ju9jeK, 2003 � / TO: Mike Webby vj FROM: James Wilhoit �P CONTACT PERSON: SUBJECT: Berger/Abam Engineering, Inc. Contracts Duvall Avenue NE Widening & Duvall Avenue NE/SR-900 Intersection Please review the two (2) attached contracts with insurance to verify it covers what the City of Renton requests. Thank you. REVIEWER #1 CONCURRENCE Name 0 S A� Date � 3�� H3ransTorms/Concurrence Request 06/09/2003 10:38 FAX 206431LL50 ABAN Accont111g 1j01 ACORD, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE ATE(- p"yy) PRODUCER USI Northwest of Washington 10415 72ND Avenue South Suite 300 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Kent, WA 98032 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURED Berger/Abam Engineers 33301 9TN Avenue S INSURER A: Hartford Fire Insurance Company INSURER B: INSURER a Federal Way, WA 98003 - 6395 INSURER D., INSURER E: THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUEJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LINSRI TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NumnE t OPO,.ICI' EFFEGTME 05101/03 POLICY E7CPIRAnONDATE LIMB A GENERAL LIABILITY 52UUNUS2723 05101/04 EACH OCCURRENCE 11,000,000 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY DAMAGE TO RENTED iZOO OOO CLAIMS MADE ® OCCUR MED EXP (Any wis pomm) S10 000 PERSONAL AADV INJURY $1 000 000 GENERAL AGGREGATE s2 000 000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGO $2 00O 000 .. POLICY X LOC A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 52UUNUS2723 05/01/03 05/01/04 X ANY AUTO COMBINED SINGLE UMIT (Eaamdmq $1,000,000 ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY S SCHEDuLED AUTOS P- P—) X HIRED AMOS N AUTOS `O I IO BODILY >� LURY S PROPERTY DAMAGE (Par eaJdenJ) S J awe W [T ! `- GARAGE LIAtaMY ALrto ONLY- r'w AcaaENr S OTHER THAN EAACC s ANYAUTO O �, 3 � (CJ S ALTO ONLY: AG,G EXCESWWORCUAUAROM EACH OCCURRENCE S AGGREGATE $ OCCUR FICLAJMS WADE $ S DEDUCTIBLE s RETENTION S A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND S2UUNUS2723 05/01/03 O5/01/04 vvc STATU. X OT11. NPLOYERIi' L.IABILTr ANY PROPfLETOJLPARTNERJEXECUI7VE A (WA STOP GAP) E.L. EACHACODErtT $1 00O 000 OFRCER/MEMBEREXCLUDED? EL DISEASE -EAEMPL 51,000,000 Hy ' Ccalbeul0Q E.L. DISEASE - POLICYLIMFr S1 000,000 SPECIAL PROVISIONS below OTHER r DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS Re. Duval Ave. Ne 81 Newcastle Road The City of Renton, its officers and employees are named as additional insured on the General Liability policy. FPPWT03156 City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES OF CANCP1 I F!b REFORM THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE "DING INSURER VALLRMOMM MAIL A_ DAYS WRTTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, RE RES� ACORD 25 (2001/08) 1 of 2 #S88843/10165733 6DL ® ACORD CORPORATION 1988 t 06/09/2003 10:.38 FAX 2064312250 ABAM Acconting [a02 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed_ A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s)_ If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of insurance on the reverse side of this form does not oonstitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded bythe _policies fisted thereon_ r_ 4.1,VKv c1-4 (4UU1IUD) 2 of 2 #SBB843/M85733 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Staff Contact...... James Wilhoit, x7319 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Correspondence.. Berger/Abaco Engineers, Inc. Contract for Ordinance ............. Design Services for Duvall Avenue N.E. Widening Resolution............ Project Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... 2004-2009 TIP Project #11 Information......... Consultant Agreement Recommended Action: Refer to Transportation Committee Expenditure Required for PE Phase $744, 500 ($269,695 for 2003 & $474,825 will be asked for in 2004) Amount Budgeted for PE Phase $570,900 in 2003 Total Project Budget $3,618,425 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Approvals: Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... Risk Management.... X Previously Spent. Revenue Generated... City Share Total Proj $123,625 (Based on previous year allocation) $2,744,117 $750,683 June 10, 2002, the City entered into an agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) to accept grant funding for design and construction for the Duvall Avenue N.E. Widening Project. The project will widen Duvall Avenue N.E. from two lanes to five lanes, from SR-900 (NE Sunset Blvd) to the north City limits. This project along with other improvements should reduce congestion and accident frequency, raising levels of service (LOS) towards the service standards adopted by the City to achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Transportation Division has selected Berger/Abam to design the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation Systems staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the agreement with Berger/Abam for design services for the Duvall Avenue N.E. Widening Project. H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADMIN\Agenda_2003\Duva)RNTNDesign Contract for BergerAbam.doc CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the City of Renton Council VIA: —f�1 Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: James P. Wilhoit, x7319 SUBJECT: Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. Contract for Design Services for Duvall Avenue N.E. Widening Project ISSUE: Council approval is needed to enter into an agreement with Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. in order to proceed with design on the Duvall Avenue N.E. Widening Project so construction can begin in 2005 and be completed in 2006. RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the agreement with Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc. for design services and partial right-of-way purchase for the Duvall Avenue N.E. Widening Project. BACKGROUND: On June 10, 2002, the Council authorized the City to enter into an agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) to accept grant funding for design and all consecutive phases and subsequent elements up to and including construction of roadway for the Duvall Avenue N.E. Widening Project. This project, along with other improvements, will widen Duvall Avenue N.E. from two lanes to five lanes, from SR-900 (N.E. Sunset Boulevard) to the north City limits and make other improvements, which should reduce congestion and accident frequency, raising levels of service (LOS) towards the service standards adopted by the City to achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). Under this authorization the City contracted to survey this roadway and produce base maps (earlier appropriation). Design is programmed for 2003 (to spend $269,675) and 2004 (recently approved 2004- 2009 TIP). Construction is scheduled to begin in 2005 and completed in 2006. This project has the allocation of $570,900 for 2003. However, $59,000 of these funds is proposed to be allocated to the design of the intersection of Sunset Blvd./Duvall Avenue. Therefore, the remaining allocation for this project ($570,900 minus $59,000 equals $511,900) is still more than what is needed for 2003. The attached spreadsheet provides more detailed information. H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADMIN\Agenda_2003\Duva1RNTNDesign Contract for BergerAbam.doc July 21, 2003 Duvall Avenue NE Widening Issue Paper Page 2 of 2 The approved TIP 2004-2009 sheet for Duvall Avenue N.E., SR-900 to North City limits includes the City portion from SR-900 to N.E. 23rd Street. The main reason for separating the City portion indicated in a separate contract is to keep track of the TIB grant expenditures. H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADMIN\Agenda_2003\Duva]RNTNDe sign Contract for BergerAbam.doc Duvall Avenue NE Widening Berger/Abam Engineers, Inc. Contract Expenditures over 2-year period (2003 and 2004) Spending Year Plan 2003 269,675 2004 534,825 $804,500 $570,900 2003 Budget Detail Book (page 19 of 23) -59,000 Reserved for HES project 2003 spending 511,900 Remaining -269,675 Estimated 2003 spending plan 242,225 Remaining 534,825 Estimated 2004 spending plan per 2004 TIP 777,050 -$744,500 Agenda Bill Consultant Contract 32,550 Remaining (Staff time) Revenue 123,625 Previous allocations' 2,744,117 Revenue generated 750,683 City share 3,618,425 Total project Note: * $123,625 previously spent used previous allocations. 7/10/03 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2004 - 2009 SIX -YEAR TIP Duvall Ave NE - SR-900 to North City Limits Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Fund: 317 Type: 1 -INFRASTRUCTURE Pro]. Length: 1.67 miles Pro]: 12123 RANK: ' 11 CONTACT: James Wilhoit 425.430.7319 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Widening roadway to 5 lanes, includes: curbs, sidewalks, storm drainage, street lighting, channelization, Received a TIB grant in partnership with King County; the City of Newcastle also received and bikeway from SR-900 to the North City limits, a TIB grant for their section of Coal Creek Parkway. The City of Renton's grant award is $3,095,640. Split away Renton's project from joint management of TIB project with King County, JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Growing residential areas use this route which is also becoming s major through route between Renton In the process of hiring a consultant to design the project rather than use in-house staff. and Bellevue, as well as freight traffic. Split HES intersection project away; TIB grant funding reflects reduced amount. Staff time to be adjusted as necessary (potentially contributing to the intersection project). The consultant, once on board, will provide a detailed construction cost estimate. Previous costs may include King County survey work to be paid by King County. recon es Admi rogrammed Pre-2004 Ix- ear 5 -11 DRAFT odaV2003 80e— Standard Consultant CONSULTANT/ADDRESS/TELEPHONE Agreement BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300 AGREEMENT NUMBER FEDERAL AID NO. Federal Way, WA 98003 206/431-2300 A ❑ Lam, SUM PROJECT TITLE AND WORK G Lump -Sum Amount $ DESCRIPTION R Duvall AvenueNE SR 900 to Renton CityLimits E Lr J COST PLUS FIXED FEE DBE Participation E Overhead Progress Payment ❑ Yes Q No 11.5% M Rate$ MBE Participation E Overhead Cost Method ❑ Yes Q No N ❑ Actual Cost Not To Exceed: _% Federal ID No. Do you require a 1099 T Q Fixed Rate: 158.00% or SSN for IRS? Fixed Fee: $48,090 91-1422812 ❑ Yes Q No x ❑ SPECIFIC RATES OF PAY Completion Date Maximum Amount C ❑ Negotiated Hourly Rate payable K ❑ Provisional Hourly Rate October 31, 2004 $744,500 0 N ❑ COST PER UNIT OF WORK E I . THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , between the Local Agency of City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works, Washington, hereinafter called the "AGENCY", and the above organization hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT'. WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the above referenced project, and WHEREAS, the AGENCY does not have sufficient staff to meet the required commitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provide the necessary services for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that he/she is in compliance with the Washington State Statutes relating to professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish Consulting services to the AGENCY, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performance contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows: FA PWT 03 156 1 8 April 2003 I GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK The work. under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above described work and services as herein defined and necessary to accomplish the completed work for this PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall furnish all services, labor and related equipment necessary to conduct and complete the work as designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. I SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work and project level of effort for this project is detailed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. III GENERAL REQUIREMENTS All aspects of coordination of the work of this AGREEMENT, with outside agencies, groups or individuals shall receive advance approval by the AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies, groups or individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, progress and presentation meetings with the AGENCY or such Federal, Community, State, City or County officials, groups or individuals as may be requested by the AGENCY. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior to meetings requiring CONSULTANT participation. The minimum number of hours or days notice required shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made part of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly progress report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, that will outline in written and graphical form the various phases and the order of performance of the work in sufficient detail so that the progress of the work can easily be evaluated. Goals for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and Women Owned Business Enterprises (WBE) if required shall be shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. All reports, PS&E materials, and other data, furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be returned. All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, and other work products prepared by the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are instruments of service for this PROJECT and are property of the AGENCY. Reuse by the AGENCY or by others acting through or on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service, not occurring as a part of this PROJECT, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT. IV TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION G The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in writing by the AGENCY. All work under this AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under completion date. The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the CONSULTANT, but may be extended by the AGENCY, in the event of a delay attributable to the AGENCY, or because of unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD or governmental actions or other conditions beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. A prior supplemental agreement issued by the AGENCY is required to extend the established completion time. FA PWT 03 156 2 8 April 2003 V PAYMENT The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided in Exhibit "C' attached hereto, and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work specified in Section 11, "Scope of Work". The CONSULTANT shall conform with all applicable portions of 48 CFR 31. VI SUBCONTRACTING The AGENCY permits subcontracts for those items of work as shown in Exhibit G to this Agreement. Compensation for this subconsultant work shall be based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit G, attached hereto and by this reference made apart of this AGREEMENT. The work of the subconsultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable unless a prior written approval has been issued by the AGENCY. All reimbursable direct labor, overhead, direct non -salary costs and fixed fee costs for the subconsultant shall be substantiated in the same manner as outlined in Section V. All subcontracts exceeding $10,000 in cost shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall not subcontract for the performance of any work under this AGREEMENT without prior written permission of the AGENCY. No permission for subcontracting shall create, between the AGENCY and subcontractor, any contract or any other relationship. The CONSULTANT warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, _commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the AGENCY shall.have the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability, or in its discretion, to deduct from the AGREEMENT price or consideration or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall be considered employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY, and any and all claims that may or might arise under any Workmen's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT's employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the. sole obligation and responsibility of the CONSULTANT. FA PWT 03 156 3 8 April 2003 The CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full or part time basis, or other basis, during the period of the contract, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the period of the contract, in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation, the STATE, or the AGENCY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the public employer of such person. VIII NONDISCRINIINATION The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee or applicant for employment or for services because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, age or handicap except for a bona fide occupational qualification with regard to, but not limited to the following: employment upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or any recruitment advertising, a layoff or terminations, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, selection for training, rendition of services. The CONSULTANT understands and agrees that if it violates this provision, this AGREEMENT may be terminated by the AGENCY and further that the CONSULTANT shall be barred from performing any services for the AGENCY now or in the future unless a showing is made satisfactory to the AGENCY that discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely. During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest agrees as follows: A. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS: The CONSULTANT shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in the same manner as in Federal -assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this AGREEMENT. The consultant shall comply with the American Disabilities Act of 1992, as amended. B. NONDISCRIMINATION: The CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed by it during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, creed color, sex, age, marital status, national origin or handicap except for a bona fide occupational qualification in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5. of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix II of the Regulations. C. SOLICITATIONS FOR SUBCONSULTANTS, INCLUDING PROCUREMENTS OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sukconsultant or supplier shall be notified by the CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANT's obligations under this AGREEMENT and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, creed, color, sex, age, marital status, national origin and handicap. D. INFORMATION AND REPORTS: The CONSULTANT shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the AGENCY to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives. Where any information required of the CONSULTANT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information the CONSULTANT FA PWT 03 156 4 8 April 2003 shall so certify to the AGENCY, or the United States Department of Transportation as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. E. SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE: In the event of the CONSULTANT's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall impose such sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: 1. Withholding of payments to the CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT until the CONSULTANT complies, and/or 2. Cancellation, termination or suspension of the AGREEMENT, in whole or in part F. INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS: The CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of paragraphs (A) through (G) in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. The CONSULTANT shall take such action with respect to any subconsultant or procurement as the AGENCY or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that, in the event a CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subconsultant or supplier as a result of such direction, the CONSULTANT may request the AGENCY to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the AGENCY, and in addition, the CONSULTANT may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. G. UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES: The CONSULTANT shall comply with RCW 49.60.180 and Executive Order Number E.O. 77-13 of the Governor of the State of Washington which prohibits unfair employment practices. IK TERNHNATION OF AGREEMENT The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time upon ten days written notice to the CONSULTANT. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY other than for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT as shown in Exhibit F for the type of AGREEMENT used. No payment shall be made for any work completed after ten days following receipt by the CONSULTANT of the Notice to Terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due computed as set forth herein above, then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall immediately reimburse the AGENCY for any excess paid. If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, the above formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event, the amount to be paid shall be determined by the AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULTANT in performing the work to the date of termination, the amount of work originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether that work is in a form or a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination; the cost to the AGENCY of employing another firm to complete the work required and the time which maybe required to do so, and other factors which affect the value to the AGENCY of the work performed at the time of FA PWT 03 156 5 8 April 2003 termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount which would have been made using the formula set forth in the previous paragraph. If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT's failure to perform is without it or it's employee's fault or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY in accordance with the provision of this AGREEMENT. In the event of the death of any member, partner or officer of the CONSULTANT or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project, or, dissolution of the partnership, termination other corporation, or disaffiliation of the principally involved employee, the surviving members of the CONSULTANT hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this AGREEMENT, if requested to do so by the AGENCY. The subsection shall not be a bar to renegotiation of the AGREEMENT between the surviving members of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, if the AGENCY so chooses. In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the surviving members of the CONSULTANT, with the AGENCY's concurrence, desire to terminate this AGREEMENT, payment shall be made as set forth in the second paragraph of this section. Payment for any part of the work by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT, or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform work required of it by the AGENCY. Forbearance of any rights under the AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the CONSULTANT. X CHANGES OF WORK The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the complete work of this AGREEMENT as necessary to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the AGENCY, without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof changed or revised, the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed by the AGENCY. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under Section XIV. XI DISPUTES Any dispute concerning questions of fact in connection with the work not disposed of by AGREEMENT between the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY shall be referred for detiermination to the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer, whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT, provided however, that if an action is brought challenging the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer's decision, that decision shall be subject to de novo judicial review. XII VENUE, APPLICABLE LAW AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated in the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county the AGENCY is FA PWT 03 156 6 8 April 2003 located in. The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington law and that the parties to such action shall have the right of appeal from such decisions of the Superior court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located in. XIII LEGAL RELATIONS AND INSURANCE The CONSULTANT shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be down under this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in accord with the laws of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold the AGENCY and the STATE, and their officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the CONSULTANT's negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this AGREEMENT; provided that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT to indemnify the AGENCY and the STATE against and hold harmless the AGENCY and the STATE from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the AGENCY and the STATE, their agents, officers and employees and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the CONSULTANT's agents or employees and (b) the AGENCY and the STATE, their agents, officers and employees, this indemnity provision with respect to (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence, (2) the costs to the AGENCY and the STATE of defending such claims and suits, etc. shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CONSULTANT's negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT's agents or employees. The CONSULTANT's relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor. The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT's own employees against the AGENCY and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. The CONSULTANT recognizes that this waiver was specifically entered into pursuant to the provisions of RCW 4.25.115 and was the subject of mutual negotiation. Unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of construction contracts, if any, on the project. Subject to the processing of an acceptable, supplemental agreement, the CONSULTANT shall provide on -call assistance to the AGENCY during contract administration. By providing such assistance, the CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for: proper construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the contract documents. c. The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the AGREEMENT, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to RCW 48. Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the STATE. B. Regular public liability and property damage insurance in an amount not less than a single limit of one million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for bodily injury, including death and property damage per occurrence. FA PWT 03 156 7 8 April 2003 Excepting the Worker's Compensation insurance and any professional liability insurance secured by the CONSULTANT, the AGENCY will be named on all certificates of insurance as an additional insured. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with verification of insurance and endorsements required by this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within 14 days of the execution of this AGREEMENT to the AGENCY. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT's professional liability to the AGENCY shall be limited to the amount payable under this AGREEMENT or one million dollars, whichever is the greater unless modified by Exhibit H. In no case shall the CONSULTANT's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under Section V until the CONSULTANT has fully complied with this section. This remedy is not exclusive; and the AGENCY and the STATE may take such other action as is available to them under other provisions of this AGREEMENT, or otherwise in law. c, FA PWT 03 156 8 8 April 2003 XIV EXTRA WORK A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of the AGREEMENT in the services to be performed. B. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this AGREEMENT, whether or not changed by the order, or otherwise affects any other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment in the (1) maximum amount payable; (2) delivery or completion schedule, or both; and (3) other affected terms and shall modify the AGREEMENT accordingly. C. The CONSULTANT must submit its "request for equitable adjustment" (hereafter to as claim) under this clause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the AGENCY decides that the facts justify it, the AGENCY may receive and act upon a claim submitted before final payment of the AGREEMENT. D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the AGREEMENT as changed. E. Notwithstanding the terms and condition of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the maximum amount payable for this AGREEMENT, shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written supplement to this AGREEMENT. XV ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS The CONSULTANT shall place his endorsement on all plans, estimates or any other engineering data furnished by him. XVI FEDERAL AND STATE REVIEW The Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation shall have the right to participate in the review or examination of the work in progress. XVII CERTIFICATION OF THE CONSULTANT AND THE AGENCY Attached hereto as Exhibit "A -I", are the Certifications of the Consultant and the Agency, Exhibit "A-2" Certification regarding debarment, suspension and other responsibility matters - primary covered transactions, Exhibit "A-3" Certification regarding the restrictions of the use of Federal funds for lobbying, and Exhibit "A-4" Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibits "A-3 " and "A-4" are only required in Agreements over $100,000. FA PWT 03 156 9 8 April 2003 XVIII COMPLETE AGREEMENT This document and referenced attachments contains all covenants, stipulations and provisions agreed upon by the parties. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this AGREEMENT. XIX EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the proposal, and the supporting materials submitted by the CONSULTANT, and does hereby accept the AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written. By By Consultant BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. Agency City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works FA PWT 03 156 10 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT A-1 CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTANT Project No. Local Agency City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works I hereby certify that I am James S. Guarre and duly authorized representative of the firm of BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc, whose address is 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300, Federal Way, WA 98003 and that neither I nor the above firm I here represent has: (a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) to solicit or secure this contract. (b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the contract. (c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) any fee, contribution, donation or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with procuring or carrying out the contract; except as here expressly stated (if any): I further certify that the firm I hereby represent is authorized to do business in the State of Washington and that the firm is in full compliance with the requirements of the Board of Professional Registration. I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this contract involving participation of Federal aid funds and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. Date idnature CERTIFICATION OF AGENCY OFFICIAL I hereby certify that I am the AGENCY Official of the Local Agency of City of Renton, Washington, and that the above consulting firm or his representative has not been required, directly or indirectly as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this contract to: (a) Employ or retain, or agree to employ or retain, any firm or person, or r-1 (b) Pay or agree to pay to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation or consideration of any kind, except as here expressly stated (if any). I acknowledged that this certificate is to be available to the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this contract involving participation of Federal aid highway funds and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. Date Signature FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-1 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT A-2 CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS-PRMARY COVERED TRANSACTIONS 1. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals: (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; (b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission or fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph Lb. of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default. 2. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. Consultant (Firm): - S -- 0 3 Date BERGER/ABAM ngineers Inc. sident or Authorized Official of Consultant i ature FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-2 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT A-3 CERTIFICATION REGARDING THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR LOBBYING The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 3 1, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the retired certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts which exceed $100,000 and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Consultant (Firm): - -,� --03 Date Inc. Sr \,V e lent or Authorized Official of Consloltant ture FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-3 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT A-4 CERTIFICATE OF CURRENT COST OR PRICING DATA This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as defined in section 15.801 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and required under FAR, subsection 15.804-2) submitted, either actually or by specific identification in writing, to the contracting officer or to the contracting officer's representative in support of the proposal (Exhibit D) are accurate, complete, and current as of 5 June 2003. This certification includes the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal. Firm: BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. Name: James S. Guarre Title: Senior Vice Presi nt Date of Execution 6 -'sa3 a FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit A-4 8 April 2003 Duvall Avenue NE SR900 to Renton Citv Limits EXHIBIT "B" SCOPE OF WORK TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I --PROJECT PURPOSE................................................................................................ 1 ARTICLE II --EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND ............................. 2 ARTICLE III --CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS................................................................... 2 ARTICLE IV --PROJECT PHASES............................................................................................... 3 I. PREDESIGN PHASE................................................................................................... 3 2. PRELR IINARY DESIGN AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN PHASE ........................... 3 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PHASE .................................................. 4 4. FINAL PLANS PHASE................................................................................................4 ARTICLE V--PROJECT WORK TASKS......................................................................................4 1. FIELD SURVEYS........................................................................................................4 2. GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS........................................................ 5 3. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTS ............................. 6 4. BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION (TS&L) STUDY ...................................... 7 5. CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (ESA) ................. 7 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PERMITTING ............................. 8 7. SENSITIVE AREA STUDIES AND PLAN................................................................ 8 8. SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT........................................................................... 8 9. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 12 10. TRAFFIC NOISE........................................................................................................12 11. CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................14 12. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT..................................................................................14 13. PROJECT DESIGN AND PLANS.............................................................................15 14. FINAL DESIGN REPORT .......................... ...18 15. RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN.........................................................................................18 16. MEETINGS................................................................................................................. 19 17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SIGNING, AND CHANNELIZATION PLANS .................... 20 18. CONSTRUCTION PLANS........................................................................................ 20 19. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISIONS....................................................... 21 20. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE......................................................................................... 21 21. COORDINATION...................................................................................................... 22 22. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QA/QC............................................................... 23 ARTICLE VI --SERVICES AND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY .............................. 24 Exhibit "B" June S. 2003 Duvall Avenue NE/Newcastle Road SR 900 to Renton City Limits EXHIBIT "B" SCOPE OF WORK ARTICLE I PROTECT PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to reconstruct an arterial roadway. The roadway will begin near the SR900 intersection and proceed approximately 0.5 mile northerly to the Renton City Limits. The roadway is proposed to be a four -lane facility with new or revised signals at two intersections, storm water conveyance, water quality/quantity facilities, and wetland mitigation. Funding for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction will come from a variety of public and private sources including federal grants. At this time, the City has acquired funding for the project. With the available funding, the City intends to complete project specific SEPA and NEPA environmental documentation, complete preliminary design of the entire alignment to approximately 30% plans stage (up through right-of-way plans completion) and complete final design. Among other items described in Article V, project deliverables for this Scope of Work will include the following: A. Geotechnical Report with recommendations. B. Preliminary Opinion of Costs. C. Draft and Final Design Report including various technical tests, analyses, evaluations, and documentation as necessary to support items A through F above and as detailed within this Scope of Work. D. Preliminary plan set (approximately 30% design level). E. Final Contract Documents including Plans, Project Manual, Engineer's Estimate F. Right-of-way plans for all right-of-way required from properties. G. Permit matrix, Environmental Recommendations Technical Memorandum, and completed SEPA and NEPA environmental documentation (including Flood Plain analysis, Biological Assessment, Archeological/Cultural Resources Report, and Noise Analysis. Plans for the deliverables outlined in D, E, F and G above shall be provided in half-size sheets (11"x17" bond paper) and in electronic CAD files in a form compatible for use in AutoCAD software (version currently in use by the City). Plans shall be prepared in accordance with WSDOT's Plans Preparation Manual and City's drafting standards and symbols. The Consultant agrees to furnish engineering services needed to prepare environmental and design documents for this project. These services include conducting field tests and analysis; preparing reports, plans, maps, evaluations, designs, technical specifications, and estimates for the project. Exhibit "B" June 5. 2001 ARTICLE II EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND The proposed action involves improvements to a 0.5 mile segment of Duvall Avenue NE between SR 900 and Renton City Limits. The roadside elements consist of variable width gravel shoulders and variable depth drainage ditches along the northern portion. There are several stretches of curb, gutter and sidewalks with an enclosed drainage system along the southern end. The intersection at SR 900 is signalized. All other intersections along the project are currently stop -sign controlled. The proposed improvements would provide four travel lanes, accommodation for bicycles, with cubs, gutters, and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway, channelization, a TWLTL or median, as appropriate, drainage and water quality facilities, retaining walls. Landscaping, illumination, signal and signal reconstruction. The project would be constructed as one construction project with phasing. Upgrades and/or new water and sewer facilities will be included as appropriate. The existing land uses along the project are characterized by residential and commercial businesses. The project supports regional plans to provide improved traffic flow and circulation, relieve peak hour traffic congestion, improve safety and reduce the number and types of accidents, accommodate project traffic volumes, and provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access along the corridor. ARTICLE III CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS Work described herein will be accomplished under a consultant contract between the City of Renton and the Consultant. All work shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the latest version of the WSDOT LAG manual. Unless otherwise noted, any documents or written information to be given by the Consultant to the County, or by the County to the Consultant, shall be transmitted via the City project manager. Any written or electronic correspondence or communication between these parties shall be through the City project manager. ARTICLE IV PROJECT PHASES For management, scheduling, and accounting purposes, the scope of work described herein is one project. The following provides approximate definitions for the various project phases: PREDESIGN PHASE This phase covers the predesign work needed to define the major elements of the project including such elements as alignment, intersection signal location, SR-900 intersection impact and WSDOT coordination, and local agency coordination. The Predesign Phase will be considered complete upon City's approval of the Final Design Report. The Exhibit "B" June 6, 2003 Predesign process will be developed so that the following items are addressed by the Consultant: a. Review and refine the recommended alignment. b. Review the recommended roadway cross-section and configuration. C. Coordinate with WSDOT to develop an intersection plan depicting the changes to SR-900 as a result of this project. d. Prepare a Geotechnical Report with recommendations. e. Prepare a corridor -level environmental site assessment. f. Prepare a traffic analysis and signal warrant analysis to determine the appropriate design parameters for the traffic control at all intersections along the route. g. Prepare a storm drainage analysis to determine the types, sizes, and locations of proposed storm water quantity/quality facilities and conveyance systems. h. Prepare a preliminary engineer's opinion of cost for the project as well as any opinions of cost needed for comparing various alternatives. i. It is anticipated the work in all Phases, including the Predesign Phase, will be a collaborative effort between the City of Renton, WSDOT, FHWA, and the TIB. This coordination will be facilitated by the formation of a Project Guidance Team to be staffed by representatives of each of these organizations and the Consultant. j. At the conclusion of the predesign process, a Draft Design Reportfor Duvall Avenue will be prepared and submitted to the City of Renton for review (five bound copies). Following one round of review by the City, submit the Final Design Report (five bound copies). The Design Report will document all reports, studies, analyses, and summarize the final alignment and design elements as selected by the Project Guidance Team. The Design Report will be the basis for continuing work into the Preliminary Design and Right -of -Way process. 2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN PHASE This phase covers the preliminary design needed to produce preliminary plans based on results of the Predesign Phase as well as produce stamped and signed right-of-way plans for the project from the vicinity of SR 900 to the Renton City Limits including right-of- way plans needed for storm drainage conveyance facilities, water quality/quantity facilities, and wetland mitigation. It is anticipated a Value Engineering Study will be required during this phase of the project. The Consultant will participate in the Value Engineering Study for the project by staffing the initial VE Team project briefing, responding to questions during the studyland attending the final VE Team presentation. All engineering reports, analyses, and plans (when submitted in final form) will be stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer licensed by the State of Washington. Any preliminary reports, analyses, and plans submitted for review or editing will be marked "Preliminary, Subject to Change," or with similar words or stamp. The Preliminary Design and Right of Way Plan Phase will be considered complete upon City and County acceptance of the stamped and signed right of way plans. Exhibit "B" June 5. 2001 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PHASE This phase includes the development of a permit matrix, reviewing past environmental documentation for the project, and preparing an Environmental Recommendations Technical Memorandum. This phase also covers the preparation of appropriate SEPA documentation including all needed studies, modeling, and analysis in accordance with State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C) and SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11. It is anticipated that an Addendum to the Coal Creek Parkway SE FEIS (published October 1995) may be the form of this document. This phase also covers the preparation of appropriate NEPA documentation. Discussions with WSDOT and FHWA indicate a NEPA EA may be the form of this documentation. The work in this phase shall be complete in accordance with the recommendations contained in the City -approved Technical Memorandum identified above. The Consultant's staff will delineate all wetlands and coordinate all permit submittals. The Consultant will incorporate this work into the environmental documents. The Environmental Documentation Phase will be considered complete upon completion of the NEPA, SEPA and permitting processes. 4. FINAL PLANS PHASE This phase covers the development of the final plans, technical special provisions, and final engineer's estimate. The Final Plans Phase will be considered complete upon City's advertisement of the construction contract(s). ARTICLE V PROJECT WORK TASKS 1. FIELD SURVEYS The City will complete the surveying and base mapping for this project. The City will prepare and provide to the Consultant an electronic copy of the completed base map with all topographic features and known surface utility features shown. The City will provide to the Consultant the stamped and certified existing right-of-way plan. The City will provide title reports for properties along the project. The base map will be at a scale of 1" = 20' with contours at 2' intervals. The City will derive underground utility information from records provided by the utility companies. This information will be collected, reviewed, and correlated with surveyed surface features and a utility composite drawing prepared by the City's Survey Consultant. The following utilities are expected along this route: power, gas, telephone, cable TV, sanitary sewer, and water. The City will forward the utility composite drawing to the various utility companies for verification. Exhibit "B" June 5. 2003 The City will provide a complete topographic survey for any drainage features, wetland mitigation sites, or other areas that will be part of the project and will provide the resultant base mapping to the Consultant. The Consultant will review the information contained on the composite base maps and update the base maps as appropriate during the course of the project as new or additional information becomes available. 2. GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS The Consultant will complete all geotechnical testing and analysis for this project. The Consultant will initially prepare a Geotechnical Recommendations Technical Memorandum and submit it for City approval prior to commencing any geotechnical work. The Technical Memorandum shall detail the proposed type and extent of field geotechnical investigations and laboratory testing needed to develop information to accomplish the items below. Once the geotechnical recommendations are approved by the City, the Consultant shall prepare a plan for implementing the required work. The Consultant shall coordinate all geotechnical work including borings and associated utility coordination. The results of the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, analyses, and geotechnical design recommendations will be presented in a Draft Geotechnical Report for one round of City review (eight copies). The Consultant will respond to City review comments and submit a Final Geotechnical Report to the City (eight copies). The Geotechnical work shall include the following: a. Review geologic maps, topographical maps, and geotechnical studies of the site and vicinity, as available and appropriate. b. Determine appropriate pavement design parameters (subgrade resilient .modulus, California Bearing Ratio, etc.) for use in pavement design. C. Analyze and make recommendations for roadway pavement sections. Observe and document existing conditions of the pavement surface along the project alignment. Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing will be considered to assist in evaluating the existing pavement section for overlay design purposes. d. Make recommendation for acceptable cuts and fill slopes and investigate for the presence of unsuitable materials. e. Evaluate the stability of proposed cut slopes and fill slopes associated with the new roadway. f. Make recommendations for embankment fill and analyze for settlement of the embankment. g. For any retaining structures, determine lateral earth pressures and friction, coefficients; evaluate different retaining wall types and their advantages, disadvantages and suitability for each location; develop cost estimates and wall type recommendations; and provide test pits or borings at appropriate locations. h. Develop geotechnical design criteria and recommendations for traffic signal and light pole foundations. i. Evaluate soil parameters needed in the design of any water quality/quantity facilities and evaluate the suitability of proposed sites for such facilities. j. Provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork including clearing criteria, suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill including any constraints for wet weather construction, gradation criteria for any structural fill material which Exhibit "B" June 5. 2003 may have to be imported, and fill placement and compaction requirements. k. Develop preliminary recommendations for excavations, including temporary cut slopes, and geotechnical considerations for trench support and dewatering. I. Discuss seismicity at the site and provide seismic design parameters including peak ground acceleration and UBC site coefficient. m. Provide recommendations for sedimentation and erosion control during and following construction, and permanent site drainage. n. Discuss geotechnical considerations related to groundwater conditions including anticipated seasonal fluctuations. o. Address City of Renton and King County sensitive areas ordinance issues as they pertain to geotechnical and geological considerations. p. Comment on any anticipated construction difficulties identified from the results of our site studies and from our experience on projects at similar sites. q. Provide test pits or borings at selected locations to obtain soil samples for laboratory analysis. The initial plan for borings includes: • Two borings at NE 21" Street where new traffic signals are anticipated. • Four to six borings throughout the remaining length of the road improvement segment to establish subsurface conditions for preliminary pavement design evaluations and luminaire pole foundations Existing pavement sections and materials will be evaluated at each boring location For purposes of this Scope of Work it is assumed that: a. Access to test boring locations may require some clearing of minor brush. b. Some of the borings may be drilled with a truck -mounted rig while others may require the use of a track -mounted rig. C. Traffic control may be necessary ,at some boring locations. d. Right -of -entry permits will be obtained by the City from property owners as necessary. e. Restoration of private property will be provided. f. Roadway alignment and configuration has been established prior to beginning field work. 3. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTS Normally, all property owner contacts will be done by City staff. In some cases, the Consultant will accomplish the following: a. Property owners may be contacted, primarily through possible public open house meeting(s). Provisions will be made at the meeting(s) by the Consultant to record any input received. As required, the Consultant will arrange one-on-one meetings with certain property owners to review individual concerns, interests, or requirements. City staff will also attend these meetings. b. The Consultant will prepare the necessary mailings for public meeting(s) that may be in the form of newsletters, notices, or other informative handouts. The City will be responsible for addressing and actual mailing. Exhibit ..8,. June 5. 2003 C. Project newsletters will be used periodically to inform and update the public about the project. Newsletters may be timed to announce public meetings or other significant milestones. The Consultant will prepare the newsletters with City direction on format and content. The Consultant will provide the final newsletters in electronic format for printing and distributing by the City. The City will maintain the newsletter distribution lists. d. For budget preparation purposes, assume 3 newsletters. e. The Consultant will prepare the displays required for the Public Outreach meetings. For budget purposes, assume a project aerial graphic at 100 scale will be prepared and 10 graphic boards (foam core) will be prepared (approximate size 30"X40"). 4. BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION (TS&L) STUDY There are no bridges within this segment of the project corridor. 5. CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (ESA) The Consultant will conduct a corridor -level ESA reconnaissance study to evaluate the presence or likely presence of potential hazardous substances that would have an effect on the right-of-way or roadway work. Sites likely to be candidates may be those that indicate current or past uses as service stations, battery shops, chemical establishments; those with storage tanks or drums present; or those with strong pungent or noxious odors. The Consultant will prepare a report to describe the work completed and make recommendations for follow-on site -specific site assessments that will be in accordance with ASTM 1527-00 as a Phase 1 ESA. Follow-on site -specific assessments (Phase 1 ESA) will require a Supplement to the Contract. The scope of services for this study will include: a. A review of the results of a federal, state and local environmental database search provided by an outside environmental data service for listings of known or suspected environmental problems at the sites or nearby properties within the search distances specified by ASTM. For this work, The Consultant.will assume four database searches with an expanded radius. b. A review of historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, city directories, chain - of -title reports and tax assessor records, as available and appropriate, to identify past development history on the parcels relative to the possible use, generation, storage, release or disposal of hazardous substances. The Consultant will attempt to identify uses of the sites from the present to the time that records show no apparent development of the site, or to 1940, whichever- is earlier. C. Conducting a visual reconnaissance of the parcels and adjacent properties to identify visible evidence of potential sources of contamination. The Consultant will perform one site visit per potentially affected parcel. There are estimated to be 45 affected parcels. d. Providing a letter report (eight copies) that will summarize the results of this study. The letter report will briefly discuss the project activities and include a table ranking the parcels (low, moderate, high) by their potential for contamination from either onsite or offsite sources. The letter report will be provided as a draft for review and comment. Upon receiving comments, the letter will be modified as appropriate and made final. Exhibit "13' 3unc 5 2001 Not included at this time are an environmental compliance audit, or an evaluation for the presence of lead -based paint, polychlorinated biphenals (PCBs) in light ballasts, radon, mold, lead in drinking water, asbestos -containing building materials or urea -formaldehyde in onsite structures. Soil, surface water, or groundwater sampling and chemical analysis are not included as a part of the Consultant services. The City will provide basic information on each property (owner name and address) and a "Recorded Document Guarantee" for each such parcel upon request from the Consultant. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PERMITTING Initial project environmental documentation was completed in the Coal Creek Parkway SEPA Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS published February 1995). The Consultant shall prepare a matrix to show all required permits, the timeframes necessary to complete each permit process, and any inter -relations between the various permits. The Consultant shall review past environmental documentation and prepare recommendations (documented in a Technical Memorandum) for completing the project specific NEPA and SEPA documentation. The Consultant shall prepare the NEPA and SEPA documentation and other necessary studies such as a flood plain analysis to determine impacts to the May Creek, a Biological Assessment for all special status species, an Archeological/Cultural Resources Report, and a Noise Analysis. The City presently anticipates a SEPA Addendum to the Coal Creek Parkway EIS and a NEPA EA. The Consultant shall complete appropriate SEPA documentation including all needed studies, modeling, and analysis in accordance with State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C) and SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11). The Consultant shall complete NEPA environmental documentation in accordance with Chapter 24 of the Local Agency Guidelines Manual and other appropriate WSDOT and FHWA guidance documents. The Consultant shall develop the initial budget proposal for this task using these assumptions, but environmental documentation shall be completed in accordance with the approved recommendations contained in the Technical Memorandum identified above. The budget proposal shall include separate subtasks and amounts for each individual study, report or other documentation. If necessary, a Supplement to the Contract will be negotiated to cover extra work not currently anticipated for this task. The Consultant will prepare and coordinate all permit submittals. 7. SENSITIVE AREAS STUDIES AND PLAN The CONSULTANT shall prepare a sensitive area analysis report for the City selected design alternative. The analysis should include consideration of potential changes to applicable regulatory requirements that may occur prior to anticipated permitting and construction phases. The following potential topics will be addressed, as necessary: Exhibit "B" June 5.2003 • Wetlands • Streams • Erosion hazard areas • Landslide hazard areas • Steep slope hazard areas • Seismic hazard areas • Identify, delineate, and characterize all sensitive areas within a minimum of 200 feet of the project limits • Establish required buffer and setback areas • Identify and assess the hazard(s) to the project due to the sensitive area • Identify and assess the impacts of any proposed alteration to the sensitive areas • Identify and assess other impacts by the project on the sensitive areas • Propose mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring measures The Consultant will complete all tasks involved in delineating, surveying, and classifying sensitive areas and developing sensitive area mitigation plans, as appropriate. The Consultant will be responsible for coordinating with City staff on the general development of these plans and incorporating these plans into the draft and final Design Report, environmental documentation, and follow-on PS&E packages. Assemble this material into a Draft Sensitive Areas Report. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the Sensitive Areas Report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Sensitive Areas Report. 8. SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Socioeconomic analyses shall follow the guidelines for respective elements outlined in the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual M31-11 (2002). The scope of analysis presented below is likely to require adjustments to address additional input from the public and relevant resource agencies. The Consultant shall work with the City to focus each element of the socioeconomic analysis as additional information regarding the alternatives and baseline conditions are being developed. c, a. Land Use: Evaluate existing land uses along both sides of the project corridor. Direct and indirect impacts resulting from road improvements under each alternative would be evaluated. Existing and proposed land uses and current zoning in the project area would be identified. Generally, this includes a site visit to the project area to verify existing land uses, and written analysis of potential project impacts and mitigation measures. This would also include impacts related to residential or business displacements or relocations, access disruptions, and right-of-way needs. Coordination with the City and adjacent jurisdictions in identifying future (proposed) land uses in or near the project area would be needed. A zoning map and/or existing land use map shall be prepared. June 5. 2003 Exhibit "B" Review local plans and policies to determine the proposed project's consistency with comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, sensitive areas ordinance, and other relevant regulations. This requires coordination with the City to identify appropriate plans and policies to be analyzed. This analysis may be summarized within the Land Use discussion under separate heading of "Relationship to Plans and Policies." b. Social Elements: Community Impacts Evaluation of potential changes in neighborhood cohesion and community character as a result of possible splitting of neighborhoods, isolation of a portion of an existing neighborhood, and the appearance of incompatible development within a neighborhood. Identify mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potentially significant short and long-term impacts. 2. Regional and Community Growth (Population) Local population and growth patterns will be described, including review of current and projected population data. A qualitative discussion of population changes anticipated or accommodated as a result of the proposed roadway improvements would be provided. 3. Environmental Justice and Title VI Population Groups Identification of local populations which conform to U. S. Department of Transportation definitions for "minority" and "low-income" would be provided. Methods for identification include examination of current census information and discussion with local agencies (for example: planners, social service providers, school district officials), but would not include door-to-door visits in the project area. This review also would include a comparison of demographic information of the people within the study area to larger City populations to determine if any special populations reside within the project limits that exceed the characteristics of the City as a whole. Based on this research, the absence or presence of special population groups shall be documented. If such groups are present in the project area, potential impacts, including the possibility for disproportionate adverse impacts, on these populations would be evaluated consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mitigation measures for such impacts would be identified. c 4. Public Services and Utilities A description of public services and utilities in the project area would be provided. Services may include identification of schools, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, and transit, religious institutions, hospitals, cemeteries, and /or government offices. A discussion of impacts both during construction and operation of the proposed improvements including disruptions of service, access modifications, and changes in service travel times would be provided. Changes in service areas, travel times, and new or additional services that may be needed as a result of growth after construction would be identified. Exhibit 10 June 5. 2003 Utilities would include identification of electrical power, telephone, cable television, natural gas, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and solid waste routes would be made. Existing information on route locations as provided by the lead agency would be used as much as possible. Potential impacts including temporary service disruptions during construction would be identified and mitigation measures proposed. 5. Recreation Recreational facilities including parks and trails, within the project area would be identified. Special consideration would be given to resources that qualify as Section 4(f) facilities. Potential impacts to recreational facilities during and after construction would be evaluated, including access to, and the usability and integrity of, existing and proposed facilities. Mitigation measures would be identified. 6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Identification of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project area. This would include determination of whether the project area is part of a designated or planned bicycle route or trail or if such routes or trails cross the project corridor. The relative amount of use of these facilities would be generally described, however, this would not include pedestrian and bicycle counts unless specifically required by the lead agency. Mitigation measures would be identified. Visual Quality: Analysis of potential visual impacts of the proposed project will be provided. A general assessment of project impacts on viewers in the project area will be made. One field visit will be made to define the visual environment and identify sensitive viewer groups based on a representative number, location, and duration of visually sensitive viewpoints. Photographs of key views from these viewpoints will be provided. A general, qualitative discussion of visual impacts both during construction and operation of the proposed project will be provided. This assessment would relate to impacts at key view locations and to specific viewer groups, and may include generalized discussion of how headlight light and glare, highway lighting or other lighting, could affect local views and viewers. Proposed mitigation measures, including potential landscape treatments would be discussed. d. Economics: Existing economic conditions in the project area would be described using current applicable information and data (such as number and type of businesses, employment, property values, tax base). Impacts of the proposed project would be described, including construction -period economic impacts, temporary an4long-term changes in traffic associated with shopping patterns, loss of businesses and jobs as a result of right-of-way acquisition, construction and long-term employment, and business growth. Existing information would be used as much as possible and a qualitative discussion of potential impacts would be provided to the extent that such a description would be adequate. Measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts on economic activity or employment would be proposed. Assemble this material into a Draft Socioeconomic Assessment Report. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Socioeconomic Assessment Report. Exhibit ' B" June 5. 2W 9. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS The purposes of the Air Quality Report is to identify any significant impacts and necessary mitigation measures, and to determine conformity with pertinent air quality rules. The air quality modeling assessment will meet the requirements of federal and state conformity regulations and the procedures in EPA's Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (1992), and will provide a project -level conformity determination for the project. a. After review of the proposed project alternatives and the results of the traffic analysis, the Consultant will select intersections for project -level air quality modeling. The Consultant shall visit the project area to assess the presence of potentially sensitive receivers and to measure the physical parameters of the selected intersections. b. Traffic Impact Evaluation: The Consultant will conduct an air quality impact analysis using approved regulatory models and modeling techniques. This analysis will include use of the latest MOBILE series emission factor prediction model and version 2 of the CAL3QHC dispersion model. In this process the Consultant will coordinate as necessary with the appropriate regulatory agencies. The modeling will calculate carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations near each intersection for the -following scenarios: (1) existing conditions; (2) opening and design year No Action; and (3) opening and design year with a single worst -case selected from the four (4) build alternatives. The scenario to be considered with modeling will be selected after review of predicted traffic conditions, and in consultation with the City. Note that even a comprehensive analysis of only one configuration alternative may not provide definitive findings regarding the air quality conformity of the other alternatives. c. Mitigation Analysis: In the event the impact analysis modeling indicates the project would cause significant air quality impacts, it will be necessary to quantitatively consider mitigation measures for each of the intersections where impacts are expected. For purposes of estimating a budget, the Consultant shall assume it will be necessary to model mitigation measures at all four affected intersections for the worst -case of the build alternatives, and will allow one (1) day for the iterative process of CAL3QHC and Synchro modeling. d. Air Quality Technical Study: The Consultant will prepare a draft technical air quality report to document the methods and the results of the impact and mitigation analyses and to provide a conformity statement for the project. City will review the draft report and prepare consolidated comments. The Consultant will incorporate the City's comments into a final technical report Assemble this material into a Draft Air Conformity Analysis Report. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Air Conformity Analysis Report. 10. TRAFFIC NOISE The purposes of the Traffic Noise Report are to evaluate traffic noise levels at sensitive receptors near the project that would be potentially affected by traffic noise, and to identify potential mitigation measures. The Traffic Noise Report will be developed in accordance with the Washington State Department of Transportation's Environmental Procedures Manual. 12 June 5. 2003 Exhibit "B" a. Existing Conditions/Sound Level Measurements: After review of the proposed project alternatives the Consultant shall visit the project area to identify potentially sensitive noise receivers and to take measurements of existing sound levels. The Consultant will measure existing noise levels at five to ten receptor sites between approximately 6 AM and 6 PM. Each measurement of existing noise will last at least 15 minutes. The Consultant will measure the Leq, minimum, maximum, and other pertinent statistical measures of noise with Type 1 sound level equipment. During these measurements, sources of existing noise and topographical features will be noted and traffic speeds and vehicle numbers and mix will be estimated where possible. b. Construction Noise Impact Evaluation: The noise analysis will evaluate potential short-term impacts of noise from construction activities. Construction noise on nearby sensitive receptors will be evaluated based on estimates published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of maximum noise levels of typical construction equipment in conjunction with simple distance attenuation. Computer modeling of construction noise levels will not be performed. c. Traffic Noise Impact Evaluation: The Consultant will evaluate traffic noise impacts using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TTVIvI) to estimate future traffic noise levels for the worst -case build alternative. The worst -case scenario will be selected from among the build alternatives, and will be chosen based on expected future traffic volumes and the location of the alignment relative to sensitive receivers. The noise modeling will predict PM peak -hour Leq noise levels from traffic at a maximum of thirty (30) receptor locations that could be affected by the proposed project, and will consider existing conditions and design year conditions. Modeling to calculate noise contour lines is not included. d. Mitigation Analysis: The Consultant will identify mitigation measures to reduce noise levels during construction. If predicted long-term traffic noise levels from operation of the project would cause noise impacts, mitigation measures will be developed in cooperation with the lead agency and design engineers. Mitigation analysis, if required, will include evaluation of the effectiveness and general size and location of natural and man-made noise barriers using the TNM model. Noise level Technical Study: The Consultant will prepare a draft technical noise report to document the methods and the results of the impact and mitigation analyses. City will review the draft report and prepare consolidated comments. The Consultant will incorporate the City's comments into a final technical report Assemble this material into a Draft Traffic Noise Report. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Traffic Noise Analysis Report. 13 June 5. 200? Exhibit "B" 11. CULTURAL RESOURCES Review available information and perform a site reconnaissance to identify possible impacts to historic and archaeological resources and possible associated mitigation requirements for each design alternative being considered. The Consultant shall perform all of the following: Conduct a historic resource inventory and prepare a technical report in accordance with applicable Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) and U.S. Secretary of Interior standards. The inventory and report shall cover study area defined by the City based on their preliminary delineation of a proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE). As additional project details are defined, the City may make adjustments to finalize the proposed APE. The inventory and report shall be used in partial fulfillment of Section 106, SEPA, and other regulatory requirements. Assemble this material into a Draft Cultural Resources Report. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Cultural Resources Report. 12. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT The Consultant shall coordinate with the City to address potential project impacts to sensitive species, particularly with respect to applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federal permits will be needed and therefore this project will require ESA Section 7 concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The consultant will confirm which species are federally listed by NWS and USFWS. The CONSULTANT will also provide the with priority species and habitat information from (1) the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitats and Species Program, (2) the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Washington Natural Heritage Program, and (3) the City GIS. The Consultant shall review this information, as well as other appropriate sources of information from existing literature and data resources, in conjunction with any necessary field reconnaissance. In conjunction with other sensitive areas site reconnaissance activities, the Consultant shall verify the presence and availability of potential habitat for species of concern in the project action area. These may require confirmation of potential habitat for bald eagles and other federally listed species beyond the immediate project area. The Consultant will prepare required documentation for ESA compliance. Documentation for consistency with the ESA will consist of a Biological Assessment pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that a biological assessment will be required. If a Biological Assessment is required, the report will be prepared consistent with the Exhibit "B" 14 June 5 2003 WSDOT Guidelines. Assemble this material into a Draft Biological Assessment. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Biological Assessment Report. 13. PROJECT DESIGN AND PLANS This task initiates work on what will ultimately become construction plans for the project. These plans will be the basis for both the right-of-way plans and final construction plans for the project. Plans developed in the Predesign Phase shall be refined as necessary during the subsequent Preliminary Design and Right of Way Plan Phase and the Final Plans Phase. Plans shall be prepared in accordance with WSDOT's Plans Preparation Manual except as modified by the City of Renton drafting standards and symbols. During the Predesign Phase, the Consultant shall review and refine the recommended alignment based on the Coal Creek Parkway SE EIS preferred alternative. In particular, revisions to the north terminus shall be reviewed to minimize wetland and property impacts. The Consultant shall review the recommended roadway cross-section and configuration. And the Consultant shall coordinate with WSDOT to develop an intersection plan depicting the changes to SR-900 as a result of this project. The Consultant shall initially address each of the following items in the Design Report plans and continue more detailed development in the Preliminary Design and Right of Way Plan Phase: a. Plans/Roadway Sections • Prepare 1" = 20' preliminary plans and lay out the project with stationing increasing from west to east and from south to north. • Develop basic roadway sections including the number of lanes, lane and shoulder widths, curbs, sidewalks, roadway ditch section, and cut and fill slopes. Provide grading limits for the roadways. • Analyze clear zone safety requirements per WSDOT Design Manual to determine warrants for guardrail placement. Provide widening for guardrail, if applicable. • Provide slope treatment for all cut and fill areas and terraces for cut slopes as required or as specified by the Geotechnical Report. • Prepare cover sheet and vicinity map for project. b. Profile Grade: Shall be developed to account for: • Stopping sight distance for all applicable criteria. • Elevation of other roadway and driveway intersections. • Entering sight distance at all locations along route. • Drainage systems) and patterns. • Pipe cover at all cross culverts and driveway culverts. • Retaining wall considerations. • Slopes/guardrail. • Any other engineering considerations. 15 June 5, 2003 Exhibit "B" Following review by the City, develop the final Profile Grade and depict it on plans at 1" = 5' vertical scale. C. Cross -Sections • Compute earthwork quantity, plot cross -sections, and plot catch points on the plan. • Determine right-of-way or slope easements that are needed. d. Storm Drainage This task involves preparing the storm drainage plan for the roadway. The WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington shall be used. • Complete or compile topographic mapping necessary to determine contributing runoff areas and produce a Drainage Area Map showing all contributing areas, no smaller than 1" = 200'. • Design the storm drainage system for the project as follows: i. Calculate required pipe sizes, slopes, inlet and outlet details, and riprap requirements to convey roadway runoff. ii. Size necessary ditches and channels and design accordingly for conveyance of roadway and cut slope runoff. iii. Design water quality and quantity facilities for roadway runoff only. If additional Consultant services are required to develop a joint facility to accommodate both roadway and offsite runoff, a separate scope of work and budget will be negotiated and a Supplement to the Contract will be executed. iv. Analyze downstream impacts as needed. A Surface Water Technical Information Report (TIR) for the drainage analysis will be prepared for both sections of the roadway improvements; that section within the County and that section within the City. The TIR will address the existing conditions for the onsite, off -site and downstream effects of the project. The Consultant will assemble this material into a Draft TIR. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City and County for review. Finalize the report based on one round of City and County reviews and submit eight copies of the Final TIR. f. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) following the requirements of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washingm to address roadway runoff. g. Traffic Analysis / Signal Warrant Analysis Prepare a traffic analysis and signal warrant analysis to determine the appropriate design parameters for the traffic control at intersections and number of lanes along the route. The City will provide basic traffic modeling services as currently exists from the City's Transportation Model. The Consultant shall provide any additional traffic modeling services. The Consultant shall evaluate traffic conditions at appropriate locations along the project for current year, opening year, and a 20 year design period. Exhibit "B" 16 June 5, 2003 17 The Consultant shall develop construction staging along the proposed roadway alignment in enough detail to determine what, if any traffic control measures will be necessary during construction. Traffic control measures will consist of lane closures, lane narrowing, temporary roadway construction, road closures, and detours. The staging plans will be adequate to show an approximate extent and duration of the most significant traffic impacts during construction for local residents and businesses as well as through traffic. Simple graphics will be prepared and included in the preliminary plans h. Pavement Design Develop a pavement section for the project to include subgrade requirements, roadway surfacing type, base and paving depths. This is to be done in conjunction with the Geotechnical Testing and Analysis task. • The Consultant will compile and review Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and growth -rate data provided by the City. The Consultant will contact King County DOT about possible bus service and future growth. If bus route growth cannot be determined, the growth of bus traffic will be assumed to be the same as that of the general traffic. • The Consultant will use ADT traffic and growth -rate data to determine appropriate Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) and use soil design parameters determined previously in the Geotechnical Report to design a pavement section suitable for the site. The pavement will be designed using the "1995 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures" methodology. The design will consider both ACP and PCC full -depth alternative sections -- each designed for a 20-year life. i. Retaining Structures Review the roadway plan, profile, cross sections, and geotechnical data to determine needed retaining wall types and locations. These will be assembled into a retaining wall preliminary report with clear presentation as to type, approximate length and height, and approximate cost data. A definite recommendation for final selection shall be given with the analysis. The City will review the report and return recommendations for final design selection. This is to be done in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report task. j. Value Engineering e, The Consultant will provide support to the City in the Value Engineering Study. The Consultant will be expected to attend parts of the first and last days of the Value Engineering Team week. On the first day, the Consultant will provide the Team with plans and a briefing describing the evolution of the project, the design parameters considered and selected, together with the current plans and expected future development of the project. The Consultant will attend the last day of the Team week to attend the out -briefing. Following receipt of the Value Engineering Report, the Consultant will assist the City in evaluating all recommendations of the Report and will provide input to the City for each recommendation. For those recommendations selected, the Consultant will make changes and updates to the Preliminary Plans as appropriate. Exhibit "B" June 5_ 200 14. FINAL DESIGN REPORT (30% Submittal) In the Final Design Report, the Consultant shall: a. Review all work, geometric design, and design criteria developed to date to assure that it still complies with current design standards and the design criteria established in the internal Scope of Work. b. Complete any incomplete plans. C. Document the full project scope. d. Document the design principles/standards used. For the City's portion, applicable City Road Standards shall be the basis of the design. e. Identify environmental documentation and permits required in consultation with City staff. f. Identify any criteria that cannot be met or would involve excessive costs. g. Prepare request for variance for any design criteria that cannot be met. h. Assemble this material into a Draft Final Design Report. Provide eight copies of the draft document to the City for review. Finalize the Design Report based on one round of City reviews and submit eight copies of the Final Design Report. This will constitute the 30% Review, and each copy shall include a complete set of 11 "x 17" preliminary plans. 15. RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN This task develops the right-of-way plan for the project including right-of-way needed for drainage facilities, water quality/quantity facilities, and wetland mitigation sites- building off of the Design Report plans. Title reports for all properties in the project vicinity will be provided by the City. a.: Prepare a right-of-way plan with a cover sheet and plan -profile sheets using the preliminary project plans as base maps. The Consultant shall prepare the draft right-of-way plan for review by the City. Following review of the draft plan, only those items shown in item f. below will be shown on the final right-of-way plan. b. Compute right-of-way and easement takes and remainders in square feet and tabulate on each plan sheet. C. Compute all distances and bearings to allow legal descriptions to be written. Legal descriptions shall be prepared by the Consultant. Right-of-way and easegients shall be referenced to roadway centerline stationing. d. Show all construction permits that will be necessary for driveways. e. Show distances from the new right-of-way line to the closest part of houses, garages, barns, pump houses, and other such significant structures within 40 feet from the new right-of-way line. Exhibit "B" 18 June 5. 2003 f. Show the following items on the draft and final right-of-way plans: • All structures affected by proposed right-of-way. • Major landscaping, hedges, and ornamental trees 6 inches in diameter and larger. • Fences. • Driveways. • Rock walls. • Signs. • Proposed roadway section (on cover sheet). • Vicinity map (cover sheet). • All aboveground utilities, poles, and structures. • Property lines and right-of-way lines. • Ties to section corners and 1/4 section comers to show ties to the right-of-way centerline. • Centerline of roadway including stationing, curve data, bearings, and distances. • Existing ground and proposed profile. • Legend. • Property ownerships and parcel numbers (provided by the City). Draft and final right-of-way submittals shall be submitted to the City. Eight sets of each submittal will be assembled by the Consultant. g. The Consultant will conduct the Right-of-way negotiations in coordination with the City. There are 34 parcels along the existing alignment that have less than 50 feet of ROW width from the existing centerline. For the purposes of this scope, the Consultant assumes that 30 parcels will require a partial take of property. A meeting will be held with each of these parcel property owners to present an offer. It is assumed that 20 of the parcels will require a second meeting. Each of the 30 parcels identified as requiring a partial parcel take will require a project funding estimate be prepared. 16. MEETINGS Throughout all phases of the project, a number of various meetings are anticipated. These will include regular meetings between the Consultant and City staff; Project Guidance Team meetings; as -needed meetings with various agencies, partners, property owners/tenants and other interested parties; Washington State Department of Transportation, city councils; and one or more public meetings. The following is a summary estimate of the number of these meetings: 19 June 5. 2003 Exhibit "B" MEETING FREQUENCY DURATION Estimated Total No. NOTES Project startup Once 4 hours 1 With City Project Guidance Team Monthly 2 hours 8 Less frequent in design stage Design Team/City approximately every 2 weeks 2 hours 24 Public meeting Twice 3 hours 2 Probably evening Miscellaneous meetings/property owner meetings 1 to 2 hours 25 City Council Once 2 hour 1 WSDOT 2 hours 3 Agencies Twice each 2 hours 18 Value Engineer Team 3 hours 2 Start and end of team work 17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, SIGNING, AND CHANNELIZATION PLANS This task involves the planning and design of the roadway regulatory signing, signal systems, channelization, and other traffic -related appurtenances for the project. a. Review traffic information provided by City and County, and reconfirm or modify based on material developed to date. b. Develop channelization plan and intersection layouts. C. Develop regulatory signing plan. d. Develop signal system plans The Consultant will assemble eight sets of the traffic signal, signing and Channelization plans for review by the City and County. 18. CONSTRUCTION PLANS (60% and 90% Submittals) c- 20 This task involves the finalization of the Preliminary Project Plans into plans appropriate for contract advertisement and construction. a. Review project files and Final Design Report to be sure all comments received to date have been incorporated into the plans. b. Finalize all horizontal and vertical alignment with all grades, vertical curve, and horizontal curve data determined. C. Make final check on all stopping and entering sight distances for project. d. Review environmental documentation completed to determine if the project plans need to be modified or revised to accommodate the requirements of these documents. Exhibit "B" June 5. 2003 e. Prepare all design detail sheets, intersection plan sheets, channelization plan sheets, signal plan sheets, road approach profiles, drainage detail sheets, and summary of quantities. f. Perform the appropriate structural analyses and design on the retaining wall(s) and prepare plans and special provisions in accordance with the Geotechnical Study, AASHTO 15th edition, applicable WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications. As a minimum, retaining wall plans shall show the geometric layout, elevations, typical section(s), and pertinent details. g. Prepare final Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Measures may include silt fence, hay bales, berms, ditches, hydroseeding, and similar features. h. Prepare wetland mitigation plans into plan package. i. Assemble and submit 60% plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate including a set of half-size plans on 11 "x 17" bond paper sheets and applicable backup data. The plans shall be considered "In Progress"; the specifications in outline form as envisioned to date; and the engineer's estimate an estimate at this snapshot in time. j. Assemble and submit 90% PS&E including a complete set of half-size plans on 11 "x 17" bond paper sheets and all applicable backup data. Combine this submittal with the City Contract Provisions and reproduce and distribute for internal review. The Consultant shall respond to the City's 90% review comments and prepare a final set of PS&E. One original set of 22"04" stamped, final, reproducible plans shall be submitted to the City. k. Post PS&E Submittal Assistance --Once the package is finalized, the Consultant shall remain "on call" until the construction contract has been awarded to the successful bidder. This normally occurs within three months of the advertisement of the contract. This work element shall be limited to the costs shown in the fee estimate. 19. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISIONS This task involves the preparation of the Technical Special Provisions for the project. APWA and WSDOT Standards as amended by the City of Renton will be used as the basis for the Contract Provisions. a. Review all data, reports, right-of-way commitments, and decisions made to date on the project. b. Review construction plans and the summary of quantities sheets to assure that all special situations are covered by the contract Special Provisions; determine all non- standard bid items and prepare technical specifications for them. 20. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE f._ This task involves the preparation of an engineer's estimate for the project using estimated quantities derived from preparation of the plans and unit costs based on recent City contracts and unit cost information provided by WSDOT. The engineer's estimate is confidential and is not to be released to the public. a. Prepare and tabulate estimate of quantities. Provide backup calculations for each bid item. b. Review current costs from recent City, County and WSDOT contracts and select appropriate costs for the project. C. Prepare and tabulate engineer's estimate using the format provided by the City. 21 Exhibit ' B" June 5. 2003 21. COORDINATION It is the intent of this Agreement that the Consultant shall, notwithstanding the Consultant's position as that of an independent contractor, act as an extension of City staff. The Consultant shall coordinate all his activities through the City's assigned Project Engineer. All correspondence to property owners, public/private utilities, other public agencies, or any other entity outside of the City of Renton's Transportation Design Services will be done by the City. Specific coordination tasks are listed below: a. Permits Coordination Complete Permits Coordination Determine what permits will be necessary for the project and what outside agencies need to be contacted with specific project information. Those permits necessary through DDES will be coordinated by the County, with the documentation provided by the Consultant. (This work will performed in conjunction with Task 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PERMITTING above.) b. Utility Coordination Provide reduced size copies of the preliminary construction plans for printing and transmittal by the City to all affected utilities. This should be done as soon as the preliminary plans are completed to the point where the utility can ascertain the impact on their facilities. The Consultant will perform the coordination with PSE and other utilities for location, relocation, and underground installation of utilities and show the existing utilities and improvements on the plans. C. Utility Coordination Meeting • Attend the utility coordination meetings to discuss project and go over details that will impact the various utilities within the project limits. • Incorporate identified utility impacts and improvements into the contract documents. Detailed design of utility modifications will be performed by others. • Assume four utility coordination meetings (90 minutes each) for budget development purposes. d. Interagency Agreement The Consultant will develop a supplement to the interagency agreement between the City and the County to be used as the basis for negotiating the sharing of costs associated with the development and construction of this project. Exhibit "B" 22 June 5, 2003 22. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QA/QC a. Project Management The Consultant's assigned Project Manager shall provide appropriate direction and guidance for the consultant's staff working on this project. Thorough oversight and review shall be provided over the entire course of the project. The Project Manager shall prepare and submit Monthly Progress Reports and maintain the detailed Project Schedule. Monthly progress reports shall describe the work underway or completed in the subject month, the status of individual tasks, meetings attended, key milestones, critical path, monthly burden rate, i.e. percent project expenditures versus percent project completion, and project issues of an emergent or critical nature. Monthly Progress Reports shall provide information to allow the City to monitor the Consultant's project budget. The project budget will be monitored and reported in the Monthly Progress Reports to reflect the costs incurred by the County and those costs incurred by the City. Furthermore, the project budget will be monitored and reported to reflect that portion of the project that is federally funded, specifically, the intersection of SR 900 and Duvall Avenue NE. Current task status as well as projections of costs to complete shall be shown. This is intended to help monitor costs and budget increases or scope modifications or reductions. Monthly Progress Reports shall accompany monthly invoices. This task provides for the preparation of, attendance at, follow-up to, and documentation of various meetings over the course of the project. These meetings will be the forum for the City to provide input and guidance for the direction of the project. They will also be used to discuss project issues, approve submittals, and develop potential solutions to design issues. For budget development purposes, assume two meetings a month at the City, of two-hour duration, from project kickoff through completion of the Final PS&E package. This task provides for the Consultant's development and maintenance of a system for the filing of drawings and documents (hardcopy and electronic) generated over the course of the project. This information will be filed in a manner that enables ready and selective retrieval. This task provides for the development of a work plan that defines the proposed project expenditures on a month by month basis. This will be summarized on a task by task basis, as well as an overall total. b. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) This task shall be necessary in order to provide the City a set of final deliverables with the maximum level of accuracy. This task will involve Consultant staff to review and control the outgoing documents through a process of Quality Assurance and Quality Control. The QA/QC and peer review program has particular emphasis on technical aspects resting with the various technical disciplines (e.g., roadway, structural, drainage, traffic, etc.). The overriding strategy of the program is to eliminate major defects in 23 Exhibit "B" June S. 2001 project work products and limit minor defects so as not to impact client acceptance or contractor progress, and to minimize liability exposure. The program entails the periodic review of study criteria, design, assumptions, and concepts and presentation of product format. This helps assure that the overall project objectives are being fulfilled. QA/QC includes technical discipline review, lead designer review, and senior review. Discipline reviews will be performed while the detailed technical work is in progress (i.e., when computations are completed, when sketches and preliminary drawings have been prepared but not yet submitted for drafting, and when specifications and special provisions are ready for typing). Lead designers will review specific products such as plans, reports, specifications, and other documents, at which time these products are completed. Senior reviews will be performed for an overall task when and as defined in the QA/QC program. Such reviews will be performed after project packages are assembled and before they are submitted for the review to the City and affected agencies. QA/QC efforts and reviews shall include the work performed by the Consultant and their subconsultants. Scheduled senior reviews will be documented in a memorandum format to the Project Manager. The Consultant's Project Manager will be responsible for adjudication of comments/responses with respect to the project scope, budget, and schedule. ARTICLE VI SERVICES AND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY The City will provide periodic review of the Consultant's work, respond promptly to requests for information, negotiate any requests for extra work, and provide required approvals in a timely manner. The City of Renton will provide copies of project files, the following data, and services: a. Preliminary Utility Coordination b. Parcel ownership and parcel number information. C. All rights of entry, easement and land acquisitions. d. Title Reports. e. Traffic information f. SEPA Draft EIS (September 1995), and Final EIS (October 1995). g. Preliminary plans EIS process. h. Traffic modeling results. i. All surveying work and resulting base mapping in hardcopy and electronic format together with the certified existing right-of-way map. J. Organize and administer the Value Engineering Study. Exhibit "B" 24 lune S. 2003 EXHIBIT C PAYMENT (COST PLUS FIXED FEE) The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for all work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work specified in Section 11, "Scope of Work." The CONSULTANT shall conform with the applicable portion of 48 CFR 3 1. A. Actual Costs Payment for all consulting services for this project shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT's actual cost plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, overhead, and direct nonsalary cost. 1. Direct Salary Costs The direct salary cost is the direct salary paid to principals, professional, technical, and clerical personnel for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT. 2. Overhead Costs Overhead costs are those costs other than direct costs which are included as such on the books of the CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payments sham be made at the rate shown in the heading of this AG, under Overhead Progress Payment Rate." Total over -head payment shall be based on the method shown in the heading of the AGREEMENT. The three options are explained as follows: a. Actual Cost Not To Exceed Maximum Percent: If this method is indicated in the heading of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT at the actual overhead rate verified by audit upto the maximum percentage shown in the space provided. Final overhead payment when accumulated with all other actual costs shall not exceed the total maximum amount payable shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. b. Fixed Rate: If this method is indicated in the heading of the REEMENT, the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT for ovhead at the percentage rate shown. This rate shall not change during the life of the AGREEMENT. A summary of the CONSULTANT's cost estimate and the overhead computation are attached hereto as Exhibit D and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. When an Actual Cost method, or the Actual Cost Not To Exceed method is used, the CONSULTANT (prime and all subconsultants) will submit to the AGENCY within three months after the end of each firm's fiscal year, an overhead schedule in the format required by the AGENCY (cost category, dollar expenditures, etc.) for the purpose of adjusting the overhead rate for billing purposes. It shall be used for the computation of progress payments during the following FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit C-1 8 April 2003 year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year's overhead cost to reflect the actual rate. Failure to supply this information by either the prime consultant or any of the subconsultants shall cause the agency to withhold payment of the billed overhead costs until such time as the required information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved. The STATE and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the CONSULTANT's books and records at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual overhead rate, if they so desire. Direct Nonsalary Costs Direct nonsalary costs will be reimbursed at the actual cost to the CONSULTANT. These charges may include, but are not limited to the following items: travel, printing, long distance telephone, supplies, computer charges, and fees of subconsultants. Air or train travel will only be reimbursed to economy class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. Automobile mileage for travel will be reimbursed at the current rate approved for AGENCY employees and shall be supported by the date and time of each trip with origin and destination of such trips. Subsistence and lodging expenses will be reimbursed at the same rate as for AGENCY employees. The billing for nonsalary cost, directly identifiable with the Project, shall be an itemized listing of the charges supported by copies of original bills, invoices, expense accounts, and miscellaneous supporting data retained by the CONSULTANT. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be provided to the AGENCY upon request. All of the above charges must be necessary for the services to be provided under this AGREEMENT. Fixed Fee The fixed fee, which represents the CONSULTANT's profit, is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under Fixed Fee. This amount does not include any additional fixed fee which could be authorized from the Management Reserve Fund. This fee is based on the scope of work defined in this AGREEMENT and the estimated man -months required to perform the stated scope of work. In the event a supplemental agreement is entered into for additional work by the CONSULTANT, the supplemental agreement may include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The fixed fee will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the CONSULTANT and reported in the monthly progress reports accompanying the invoices. Any portion of the fixed fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the final payment, subject to the provisions of Section IX, Termination of Agreement 5. Management Reserve Fund The AGENCY may desire to establish a Management Reserve Fund to provide the Agreement Administrator the flexibility of authorizing additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond that already defined in this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser of $50,000 or 10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount included for the Management Reserve Fund is shown in the heading of this agreement. This fund may be replenished in a subsequent supplemental agreement. Any changes requiring additional costs in excess of the "Management Reserve Fund" shall be made in accordance with Section XIV, "Extra Work." FA PWT 03 156 F,xhibit C-2 8 April 2003 6. Maximum Total Amount Payable The maximum total amount payable, by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, which includes the Fixed Fee and the Management Reserve Fund. The Maximum Total Amount Payable does not include payment for extra work as stipulated in Section XIV, "Extra Work." B. Monthly Progress Payments The CONSULTANT may submit invoices to the AGENCY for reimbursement of actual costs plus the calculated overhead and fee not more often than once per month during the progress of the work. Such invoices shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports required under Section III, including direct salary, direct nonsalary, and allowable overhead costs to which win be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for CONSULTANT employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of recording the names, titles, and present duties of those employees performing work on the PROJECT at the time of the interview. C. Final Payment Final payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT, contingent upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, and other related documents which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such final payment by the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment which the CONSULTANT may have against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and submitted to the AGENCY by the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not, however, be a bar to any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and that at the time of final audit, all required adjustments win be made and reflected in a final payment. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within ninety (90) days of notice of the overpayment Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment. D. Inspection of Cost Records The CONSULTANT and the subconsultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives of the AGENCY and the United States, for a period of three years after final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and are items related to or bearing upon these records with the following exception: if any litigation, claim, or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this contract is initiated before the expiration of the three-year period, the cost records and accounts shall be retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed. FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit C-3 8 April 2003 Direct Salary Cost (DSC PERSONNEL Project Executive Project Manager Project Engineer Senior Engineer Planner Engineer/Technician Graphics/CADD Project Coordinator Clerical Direct Salary Cost Total Salary Escalation Cam? 5% Overhead Cost Net Fee Reimbursables EXHIBIT D-1 Analysis of Costs - BERGER/ABAM Inc. Travel/Parking Computer/CADD Reproduction/Postage Project Notebook Public Meeting Graphics ROW Services BERGER/ABAM SUBTOTAL Subconsultants: (See Exhibit G) Hours Pay Rate Cost 48 $ 62.50 $ 3,000 636 47.90 30,464 967 36.50 35,296 684 30.30 20,725 249 35.50 8,840 719 20.80 14,955 1037 25.20 26,132 76 20.30 1,543 189 20.60 3,893 4605 $ 144,848 $ 5,432 158.00% of DSC $ 237,443 32.00% of DSC $ 48,090 SUBTOTAL $ 435,813 $ 684 9,333 5,000 2,000 5,000 51,000 SUBTOTAL 73,017 $ 508,830 GeoEngineers 7.5% Participation $ 56,115 Widener & Associates 17.4% Participation 129,484 Marai Associates 1.8% Participation 13,515 JGM Landscape Architects 4.9% Participation 36,594 CTS Engineers 0.0% Participation i r � SUBCONSULTANTS SUBTOTAL $ 235,708 GRAND TOTAL $ 744,538 SAY $ 744,5 01 Date EXHIBIT D-2 Reimbursables Travel: Mileage to County, Subconsultant Offices, and Miscellaneous 15 months at 125 miles per month at $.365/mile Computer: CADD Design and Drafting Approx 90%of CADD Hours QO $10/hr Reproduction Design Reports, Special Study Reports Plan Review Sets Project Notebooks Public Meeting Graphics ROW Services Meetings with Property Owners Meeting No: 1: 25 Parcels U 1-1/2 hours EA @ $100/1-111 Meeting No. 2: 15 Parcels @ 1-1/2 hours EA Q $100/1-113 Project Funding Estimates: 25 Parcels @ $2000 per parcel $684 $9,333 $3,750 $2,250 $45,000 a Exhibit D-4 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) Project Name: Duvall Avenue NE Project No: FA PWT 03 156 Prepared By: GLP PROJECT DESIGN. PRELIMINARY & FINAL DESIGN RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION Date: 5-Jun-03 Exhibit D-5 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) DESCRIPTION PROJECTI EXEC PROJECT MQR PROJECT ENQR SENIOR ENOR PLANNER ENQR/ TECH GRAPHIC/C ADD PROJECT I COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASK 3: PUBLIC OUTREACH & PROP. OWNER CONTACTS 3.1. Property Owner Meetings Assume 50 See Task 22.5 0 3.2. Public Open Houses Assume 2 See Task 22.4 Mfli ::.;::;::1'YQtk:T�>se:>?�rlormed:� ::..:...... .::.::.::.:.: • :.:... ::.:...:::...:... 3.4. Newsletters/Mailings Assume 3 4 16 71 24 14 65 3.5. Project Notebook 3.6. Public Meeting Ora hits TOTAL PUBLIC OUTREACH/PROP OWNER CONTACTS HRc 0 2 2 8 16 24 56 0 7 0 16 64 104 01 14 34 90 lag Letters 3 Notebooks 16 Boards 11 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ ' 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.171 $ 106.81 62.58 S 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 3 Cost Subtotals $ $ 1,153 $ 6150 $ - $ 748 $ $ 7,885 $ - $ 868 $ 16,804 Task 3 Total- $ 16,800 TASK 4: BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION STUDY 4.1. Coordination W/ City of Newcastte 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BRIDGE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION STUDY HOUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 106.81 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 0% ABAM Task 4 Cost Subtotals $ $ S - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ Task 4 Total= $ TASK 5: CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENVIRON. SITE ASSESSMENT 5.1. Site Assessments Per ASTM E 152744 `138 3 21 230 GEO' Report 8 5.2. Coordinate ESA Work 2 3 10 15 5.3. Review and Comment on Reports 3 4 4 11 TOTAL ABAM CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENV. SITE ASSESS HRS 0 5 7 0 14 0 0 0 0 26 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62-58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 S 61.98 ABAM Task 5 Cost Subtotals . $ $ 721 .. $ 769 $ - $ 1,495 S S - $ - $ - $ 2,985 TOTAL GEO CORRIDOR -LEVEL ENV SITE:ASSESSHR 11 27777iT 138 GEO GEO:HwH Rates 14T 36 >S 180 98 S :: 1:34 1 $' : f 08 0b .. $ ".:75:32 6222, f : 8187 $ : 58 94 $ .' "" 55.6T .: ::GEO ' GEO Task 5 Cost Subtotals= S " .:: 1;621 :.:$ :: $ 5,501 501 $ 14,560. GE Exhibit D-6 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) Exhibit D-7 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) Exhibit D-8 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) Exhibit D-9 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) DESCRIPTION PROJECT EXEC PROJECT MGR PROJECT ENOR SENIOR ENGR PLANNER ENGR/ TECH ORAPHIGC ADD PROJECT COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASK 13: PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLANS 13.1. Review Alignment 3 10 13 8 Sheets 13.2. Coordinate SR 900/Duvall Avenue Intersection _.. .. 7 5 5 7 17 ,MA Sheets 10 13.3. Plans/RoadwaySections PreliminaryPlans and Profiles - Duvall Avenue 3 22 60 60 120 265 103 49 12 8 Sheets 5 Sheets 2 Sheets PreliminaryPlans and Profiles - IntersectingRoadways 3 4 24 24 48 Basic RoadwaySections Clear Zone Safe Analysis 1 4 2 12 10 12 20 Slo a Treatment for Cuts/Fills 2 10 4 16 Cover Sheet and VicinityMa 1 5 4 10 1 Sheet 13.4. Profile Grade Stopping Sight Distance 4 4 4 12 Roadway/DrivewayIntersections 4 8 10 EnteringSight Distance Drains e S stem/Patterns 4 4 4 4 5 5 22 13 Pipe Cover Analysis 4 13 -Retaining Retaining Wall Analysis/Locations 4 10 10 4- 4-- Slopes/Guardrails 4 24 Mill Creek Replacement Structure 13.5. Roadway Cross Sections 13.6. Storm Drainage Analysis/Plan Incl. on Plan/Profile 1 4 4 4 4 10 10 4 18 5 18 12 38 Contributing Drainage Area Map Drainage System Design -Pipe/Ditch/Channel Sizing 4 4 4 10 18 12 7 14 18 6 36 27 72 2 Sheets Water Quality/QuantityQuality/Quantity Facilities Downstream Impacts 4 4 18 12 14 10 30 34 66 26 Drainage Report TIR 13.7. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 1 2 4 2 12 18 10 18 20 12 12 12 60 62 Report 8 tO Sheets 13.8. Update Traffic Analysis 1,3.9. S nal Warrant -Ana sis Key intersections . 2 19 2 :: 6' 9 6 63 19 . MA %MA 13.10. Construction Sta in /Traffic Control 8 12 20 40 4 Sheets 13.11. Pavement Design 2 6 8 13.12. RetainingStructures 2 8 16 18 28 72 2 Sheets 13.13. PreliminaryEngineer's Opinion of Costs 2 6 8 20 36 13.14. Value Engineering 2 10 5 5 12 34 TOTAL PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLANS HOUR 0 19 144 325 0 305 368 0 2 1185 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 S 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 13 Cost Subtotals $ $ 2,738 $ 15,814 $ 29,6 29 S $ 19,088 $ 27.902 S - $ 1,488 S 96,658 TOTAL PRELIMINARY PROJECTP.LANS'HOUR 0 - ;4 0 p 97 MA MA Noun Rates S ' ` 141 41 $ 13283 .S f06 34 6046 S $ S MAT!i9l MA Task 13 Cost Subtotals $:.::. -: .S b66 S 3 45fi S 1505:: $ 3;1,45 S S S $ $ 8,Z62 M Task 13 Total= $ 96,700 Exhibit D-10 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) p Exn[bit D-11 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) r Exhibit D-12 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) Exnibit D-13 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT SENIOR ENGR/ GRAPHIC(C PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXEC MOR ENQR ENOR PLANNER I TECH ADD COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB DELIVERABLE TASK 19: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISIONS 19.1 Technical S ecial Provisions 6 36 36 18 2 120 Specials; 8 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISIONS HOURE 0 6 36 36 0 18 0 0 24 120 - ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 19 Cost Subtotals $ $ 865 $ 3,953 S 3,282 $ S 1 126 $ $ - S 1 488 $W-- Task 19 Total. TASK 20: ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 20.1 Prepare & Tabulate Estimate of Quantities 101 10 20 40 20.2 Review Cost Data 10 12 22 20.3 Prepare & Tabulate Engineer's Estimate 3 8 8 19 Estimate 8 TOTAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE HOURS1 01 3 10 28 01 40 01 01 81 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.811 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.081 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 20 Cost Subtotals S $ 432 S 1,0981 S 2,553 $ - 1 $ 2,503 S S - $ - $ 6,586 Task 20 Total= _ S 6.600 TASK 21: COORDINATION 21.1. Permit Coordination 40 401 80 21.2. Utility Coordination 361 36 72 21.3. Utility Coordination Meetings 20 20 40 21.4. Utility Relocations/Reconstructions- Water & Sewer 10 30 60 180 280 22 Sheets TOTAL COORDINATION HOURS 0 50 126 561 0 60 1801 01 Oil 472 ABAM Hourly Rates $ 188.05 $ 144.12 $ 109.82 $ 91.17 $ 106.81 $ 62.58 $ 75.82 $ 61.08 $ 61.98 ABAM Task 21 Cost Subtotals $ - $ 7,206 $ 13,837 S 5,105 $ - $ 3,755, $ 13,648 $ $ 43,551 Task 21 Total= —4-S $ 43,600 Exhibit D-14 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) DESCRIPTION PROJECT EXEC PROJECT MGR PROJECT ENGR SENIOR ENOR PLANNER ENGR/ TECH GRAPMC/C ADD PROJECT COORD CLERICAL TOTAL SUB 1 DELIVERABLE TASK 22: PROJECT MANAGEMENT & QA/QC 22.1. Monthly Progress Reports 32 18 16 22.2 Monthly66 Invoices 32 18 60 166 22.3. MonthlyProgress Meetings 0 22.4. Project ScheduleN dates 70 70 140 22.5.OA/QC Program 8 34 20 20 903 22.6. QA/QC Review Memos 20 34 64 50 50 242 242 22.7. QA/QC Review Response Memo 20 34 30 30 30 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & QA/QC HOURIC 48 236 210 801 100 0 0 76 6c 800 ABAM Hourl Rates 188.05 144.12 109.82 81.17 106.81 62.58 78.82 61.08 61.98 ABAM Task 22 Coat Subtotal Task 22 Total. S 9 026 S 34,012 $ 23.051 $ 7,293 S 10 681 S S $ 4,642 $ 3,099 $ 91 816 S 91,800 ., Exnibit D-15 Labor Hour Estimate (COST EST.) 4:11: BREAKDOWN OF OVERHEAD COST In this section, the following document is as follows. ■ WSDOT's Audited Overhead Cost Breakdown FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit E-1 8 April 2003 BERGER / ABAM ENGINEERS INC. WSDOT FY 2002 AUDITED HOME OFFICE INDIRECT COST RATE (2080 Basis) In 000s Allocation Base Total Direct labor Indirect Costs Indirect Labor (Admin, Proposal, Negot) Vacation, Holiday, Sick, Other Labor Fringe Benefits Administration Expense Proposal Expense Facilities Furniture, Equipment, and Supplies Communication and Reproduction Computer Services Miscellaneous Taxes and Insurance E & O Insurance B & O Taxes Indirect Cost Rate $2,756 835 1,467 590 191 841 322 211 421 25 332 354 FY 2002 $5,274 $ 8,345 $8,345/$5,274 158.23% PAYMENT UPON TERAHNATION OF AGREEMENT BY THE AGENCY OTHER THAN FOR FAULT OF THE CONSULTANT (Refer to Agreement, Section IX) Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made, shall total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fixed fee as the work completed at the time of termination is to the total work required for the Project. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra work completed. r. FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit E-1 8 April 2003 EXIIIBIT G SUBCONTRACTED WORK The AGENCY permits subcontracts for the following portions of the work of this AGREEMENT. ■ GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 1540'Avenue NE Redmond, Wa. 98052 ■ Widener Associates 9908 Airport Way Building 12 Unit 1 Snohomish, WA 98296 ■ Marai Associates 19110 Bothell way NE, Suite 202 Bothell, WA 98011 ■ JGM Landscape Architects 204- 11 Vh Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 a FA PWT 03 156 Exhibit G-1 8 April 2003 EXHIBIT G-2 Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - GeoEnglneers Direct Salary Cost (DSC) PERSONNEL Project Executive Hours Pa Rate Cost Associate 51 $ 45.00 $ 2,295 Senior Environmental Geologist 0 40.00 40.00 Project Engineer/Senior Engineer 48 1,680 Engineer/Scientist 2 86 33.00 2 838 Engineer/Scientist 1 202 23.00 4,646 Senior Technican 0 19.00 1900 Project Coordinator 13 . 325 Clerical 34 612 20. 18.00 340 Direct Salary Cost Total 454 Overhead Cost 197.46% Net Fee 30.00% Reimbursables Travel/Parking (411 miles @ $0.365/mile) Database Searches Aerial Photography Review Fee2 visits @$130/visit) City Directories Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Env. Miscellaneous Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Drilling Backhoe Traffic Control Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing Private Utility Locate Computer/CADD Reproduction/Postage $ 12,736 of DSC $ 25,149 of DSC 3,821 SUBTOTAL $ 41,705 150 $300 $260 $720 $480 $200 $1,500 $4,200 $500 $3,000 $2,600 $200 $200 $100 SUBTOTAL $ 14,410 TOTAL $ t, 56,115 Direct Salary Cost (DSC PERSONNEL Project Executive Project Manager Project Engineer Senior Engineer Planner Engineer/Technician Graphics/CADD Project Coordinator Clerical Direct Salary Cost Total EXHIBIT G-3 Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - Widener Associates Hours Pay Rate Cost 0 $ 353 45.00 15,885 1179 25.75 30,359 0 0 0 - 14 0 0 1546 $ 46,244 Overhead 150.00% of DSC. $ 69,366 Net Fee 30.00% of DSC $ 13,873 SUBTOTAL $ 129,484 Reimbursables Travel/Parking (200 miles Q0.365/mile) $ - Reproduction/Postage _ Communications _ Miscellaneous _ • SUBTOTAL TOTAL $ 129,484 EXHIBIT G-4 Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - Maral Associates Direct Salary Cost (DSC) PERSONNEL Project Executive Hours Pay Rate Cost Project Manager Project Engineer 7 56.16 393 Senior Engineer 42 52.79 2,217 Planner 27 42.23 1,140 Engineer/Technician 64 24.02 1,537 Graphics/CADD 0 0 ' Project Coordinator 0 ' Clerical 0 - Direct Salary Cost Total Overhead Net Fee Reimbursables Travel/Parking Computer R eprod uct io n/Posta g e Communications 140 $ 5,288 121.80% of DSC $ 6,441 30.00% of DSC $ 1,586 SUBTOTAL $ 13,315 $ 200 SUBTOTAL $ 200 TOTAL $ 13,515 EXHIBIT G-5 Sub -Consultant Analysis of Costs - JGM Landscape Architects Direct Salary Cost (DSC, PERSONNEL Hours Pay Rate Cost Project Executive 51 $ 42.00 $ 2,142.00 Project Manager 95 35.00 3,325 Project Engineer 150 21.00 3,150 Senior Engineer 0 _ Planner 0 Engineer/Technician 0 _ Landscape Designer/CADD 127 19.00 2,413 Project Coordinator 0 _ Clerical 13 17.50 228 Direct Salary Cost Total Overhead Net Fee Reimbursables Travel/Parking Computer Reproduction/Postage Communications 436 $ 11,258 188.00% of DSC $ 21,164 30.00% of DSC $ 3,377 SUBTOTAL $ 35,799 $ 200 50 470 75 SUBTOTAL $ 795 TOTAL $ 36,594 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Staff Contact...... James Wilhoit, x7319 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Interagency Agreement with King County Regarding Correspondence.. Improvements to Coal Creek Parkway (King County Ordinance ............. portion of Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project) Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Agreement Information......... Resolution Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept......... X Refer to Transportation Committee Finance Dept ...... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... $4,670,800 Total Project Budget $4,670,800 City Share Total Project.. $0 (King Co.) SUMMARY OF ACTION: June 10, 2002, the City entered into an agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) to accept grant funding for design and construction of the Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project. The project will widen Duvall Avenue NE from two lanes to five lanes from SR-900 (NE Sunset Blvd) to the north City limits. This project should reduce congestion and accident frequency, raising levels of service (LOS) towards the service standards adopted by the City to achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). King County has also entered into an agreement with the TIB to accept grant funding for design and construction for the widening/improvement of Duvall Avenue NE directly north of the City's Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project (between the Renton north city limits and the City of Newcastle south city limits at SE 95`h Way). The City desires to enter into an agreement with King County to combine its project with the County's TIB-funded project under the project management of the City of Renton. The County will fund its share of both design and construction. The Transportation Division has selected Berger/Abam to design the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation Systems staff recommends Council approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the proposed agreement with King County for the Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project in unincorporated King County. CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the Renton City Council �17 VIA: r' Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman? Administrator STAFF CONTACT: James P. Wilhoit, x7319 SUBJECT: Interagency Agreement with King County Regarding Improvements to Coal Creek Parkway (King County portion of Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project) ISSUE: Council approval is needed to enter into an agreement with King County regarding improvements to Coal Creek Parkway (King County portion of Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project) in order to proceed with design on the Duvall Avenue NE project so construction can begin in 2005 and be completed in 2006. RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the proposed agreement with King County for the Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project in unincorporated King County. BACKGROUND: June 10, 2002, the City entered into an agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) to accept grant funding for design and construction of the Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project. The project will widen Duvall Avenue NE from two lanes to five lanes from SR-900 (NE Sunset Blvd) to the north City limits. This project should reduce congestion and accident frequency, raising levels of service (LOS) toward the service standards adopted by the City to achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). King County has also entered into an agreement with the TIB to accept grant funding for design and construction for the widening/improvement of Duvall Avenue NE directly north of the City's Duvall Avenue NE Widening Project (between the Renton north city limits and the City of Newcastle south city limits at SE 95' Way). July 21, 2003 King County Interlocal Issue Paper Page 2 of 2 The City desires to enter into an agreement with King County to combine its project with the County's TIB-funded project under the project management of the City of Renton. Design is programmed for 2003 and 2004 and construction is scheduled to begin in 2005 and be completed in 2006. H:\Division. s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADMIN\Agenda_2003\DuvalKINGCOILA.doc INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO COAL CREEK PARKWAY, FROM THE RENTON CITY LIMITS IN THE VICINITY OF NORTHEAST 23" ST. AND NORTHEAST 24TH ST. TO SOUTHEAST 95TH WAY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("the County"), and the City of Renton ("the City") regarding the improvements to Coal Creek Parkway. The City and the County are collectively referred to as "the parties." RECITALS A. Whereas, the County has a capital improvement project (CIP #200891) on Coal Creek Parkway from the Renton city limits, in the vicinity of Northeast 23rd Street and Northeast 24th Street, to Southeast 951h Way ("the County Project") B. Whereas, the City also has a capital improvement project on Coal Creek Parkway from State Route 900 to its City limits ("the City Project"). The City Project and the County Project are collectively referred to as "the Projects." C. Whereas, the Projects are grant funded by the Transportation Improvement Board ("TIB") and it is in the best interest of the parties to administer their own grant separately. D. Whereas, the City and the County each have franchise agreements with utility companies which govern the relocation of utilities; E. Whereas the City has identified the need for water and sewer utility improvements in the southerly 200 feet of the County Project (the "Utility Improvements") and will include these improvements in the Projects at the City's expense; F. Whereas any Coal Creek Utility District improvements are not a part of this work and will be dealt with separately from this agreement; G. Whereas, the parties agree that the construction of the Projects shall provide an important link in the regional transportation system; H. Whereas, it is in the best interest of the parties to establish a lead agency to manage and to provide for the design, environmental review, permitting and construction of the Projects; I. Whereas this Agreement is limited to "the County Project" and the joint project detention/retention pond. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work includes the design and construction of the Projects which are to be managed by the City. 2 1.1 The County Project includes: design, environmental review and permitting, property acquisition if needed, and improvement of the existing two through -lanes roadway to a roadway geometry which is based on a twenty year traffic model projection. 1.1.1 The County Project also includes a drainage system with a retention/detention pond. The drainage system shall be designed to meet the Washington State Department of Ecology 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE Manual). 1.1.2 All other improvements related to the County Project shall be consistent with the King County Road Standards and all applicable requirements including but not limited to King County Code Titles 16 and 21 A. 1.2 The schedule and budget for the County Project shall be established by the City in coordination with the County and in conjunction with any state grant administrative guidelines, in accordance with Section 2.11. 1.3 The City shall submit progress reports to the County no less than every 30 days. 2. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 The City shall be the lead agency for the County Project with regard to plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E); environmental review and permitting pursuant to Section 4; and construction. This includes coordinating with the City of Newcastle to align the County Project with a 3 City of Newcastle project also on Coal Creek Parkway. 2.2 The City shall provide six copies of 30%, 60%, and 90% PS&E, reports, and all environmental documents to the County for review. The County shall provide written comments on PS&E and reports to the City within four weeks after receiving them. The City shall make any necessary revisions to include the County's comments. 2.3 All new and relocated utilities shall be installed or relocated at the expense of the utility. 2.3.1 The City shall work within the terms and conditions of King County's existing franchise agreements for relocating utilities. 2.3.2 If one of the parties requests enhanced installation of new or relocated utilities, including but not limited to, conversion of utility facilities from above ground to underground, the requesting party shall pay for the enhancement. 2.3.3 In the event that a utility refuses to pay for the relocation, the jurisdiction where that utility is located shall be responsible for installation or relocation of the utility. 2.4 The final design of the County Project shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties. 2.4.1 The City shall notify the County of any variances it may request from King County Road Standards for the design of the County Project. 0 2.4.2 Any variances from the King County Road Standards and the King County Code shall be paid for by the County, except in the case that the City requests the variance independent of requirements placed upon the County Project by third party agencies. In the case that the City is the sole agency requesting the variance, the City shall pay for the variance. 2.5 The City shall develop and arrange for a joint public information and involvement process that includes the following: 2.5.1 There shall be at least two open houses, one in the City and one in unincorporated King County. The City shall arrange both open houses. 2.5.2 Each party shall develop a mailing list for joint notice to its residents and shall mail notices to their respective residents. The notice shall include contact information for each party's residents. 2.5.3 The County shall handle all public information and involvement contacts from members of the public who reside in unincorporated King County. 2.5.4 The City shall handle all public information and involvement contacts from members of the public who reside in the City of Renton. 2.5.5 The County shall handle all public information and involvement contacts from members of the public who do not reside in the City of Renton or in unincorporated King County. 0 E 2.6 The County shall be responsible for the acquisition of all property necessary for the County Project. Title to any property acquired within the County shall be vested in the County. 2.7 The County hereby grants the City right of entry into the jurisdiction of the County for the purpose of performing any and all tasks necessary to implement this Agreement. 2.8 The County shall be given the opportunity to participate in the value engineering study required as part of the TIB grant. 2.9 The parties shall appoint a contact person or persons to act as liaisons for the Projects. These contact persons shall meet on a regular basis to provide guidance for the Projects and serve as a coordination body between the two agencies. 2.9.1 Representing the City of Renton Leslie Lahndt, City Project Mgr. (425) 430-7223 Representing the County: Don Bleasdale (206) 296- 3736 2.10 The City shall submit a project schedule to the County after the execution of this agreement. 2.10.1 This schedule will identify major milestones and timelines, including but not limited to the following: 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% design documents, environmental review, project permitting, property acquisition, public involvement, advertisement for bid 3 and award of bid, construction duration, and final acceptance of the County Project. 2.10.2 Tasks that are the responsibility of each party shall be identified in the project schedule. Each party shall review this schedule, and the schedule may be periodically amended with the approval of both the City and the County. 2.10.3 Should any of the City or the County Road Service Division's tasks not be performed within 30 days of the timeline established by the mutually approved project schedule, the City or the County shall have the right to issue a Notice of Schedule Noncompliance. 2.10.4 If the County Road Services Division or the City fails to accomplish its tasks in a timely manner, resulting in delays of the Projects' schedule, either party may invoke termination under Section 8.4. 3. WATER QUALITY FACILITY AND RETENTION/DETENTION POND 3.1 The parties agree to share the total costs related to the acquisition of property, design, and construction of the water quality facility and the retention/detention pond that shall serve the completed Projects. 3.2 Each party's share of the costs, including property acquisition, shall be proportional to the square footage of impervious surface of roadways constructed within the parties' respective jurisdictions. 3.3 The parties agree to enter into a separate agreement regarding each party's 7 responsibilities on the future maintenance of the retention/detention pond. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PERMITS 4.1 The City shall be the lead agency for environmental review and shall take the responsibility for fulfilling all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements for the work under this Agreement. The County shall review all environmental documents and shall provide comments to the City according to the City's Environmental Review Process. 4.2 The City shall prepare all federal, state and local permit application documents. 4.2.1 The City shall obtain all state and federal permits, licenses, and approvals required to complete the County Project. The County shall support the City in filling out and reviewing all documentation required to secure these approvals. The County shall have four (4) weeks for review and comment on permit application documents. 4.3 The County shall be responsible for obtaining approvals for local permits, construction, licenses, easements, and ROW dedication or any other local approvals required to complete the County Project. 4.4 The County shall process any variances requested from the King County Road Standards related to the County Project. 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BIDDING 5.1 The City shall prepare the contract bid documents for the City and County Projects in such manner as to allow identification of cost allocations between the parties (by use of bid schedules or other mutually acceptable methods). 5.2 The City shall provide the County with twenty copies of the plans and specifications advertised for bid. 5.3 The City shall advertise the contract in the official legal publication for the City and if necessary other newspapers to provide the widest possible coverage commensurate with the size of the project. The City shall also advertise the Projects in compliance with the TIB Administrative Guidelines. 5.4 The City shall open the bids and shall notify the County of the time and date of the bid opening, which is typically three weeks after the project is advertised. The County may attend the opening of the bids. 5.5 The City shall tabulate the bids and shall provide a dated, verified copy of the bid tabulations to the County. The bid tabulations shall identify the estimated construction and contractor overhead cost, based upon the lowest responsible bid. 5.6 The City shall provide the County with inspection and administrative costs based on bid tabulations estimates. 5.7 The City shall award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder for the total City and County Projects subject to applicable laws and regulations. E 5.8 The City shall require that the County is included as an additional insured on the contractor(s) insurance policy(s), and that the County is included in the contract(s) indemnification provisions and receives the same protection as received by the City. 5.9 The City shall be responsible for following all applicable Federal, State and local laws, rules and regulations in the expenditure of the funds to be paid by the County to the City in connection with the County Project. The City assures the County that its procedures are consistent with applicable laws relating to public contract bidding procedures, and the County neither incurs nor assumes any responsibility for the City's bid, award or contracting process. 5.10 In connection with this Agreement, neither the City nor any party contracting or subcontracting in connection with the County Project shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in employment or application for employment or in the administration of the delivery of services or any other benefits under this Agreement. The City shall comply fully with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, executive orders and regulations that prohibit such discrimination. 6. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 6.1 The City shall provide the necessary engineering, administrative, inspection, clerical and other services necessary for the completion of the County Project. 6.2 The County may furnish an inspector (at the County's expense) to insure proper compliance with requirements during the construction of the County Project. The County's inspector shall advise the City of any deficiencies noted. The City shall take any necessary action to resolve the deficiencies noted by the County's inspector. The County's inspector shall not communicate directly with or instruct the contractor directly on any matters regarding contract performance and compliance. 6.3 The City shall at all times keep the County advised as to the progress of the County Project. The City shall not order or approve any changes in the County Project's approved design that constitute a one percent or greater change in the construction budget of the County Project without first consulting and receiving approval from the County. Any changes that are less than one percent of the construction budget shall be included in progress reports in accordance with Section 1.3. 6.3.1 Any changes in the approved County Project design requested by either the City or the County and approved by the County shall be at the County's expense. County approval of change orders shall not be unreasonably withheld. 6.4 The County Road Engineer shall have the final authority to determine whether any changes to the County Project shall be implemented. 6.5 Prior to the County Project completion, both parties shall perform a 11 mutual final inspection of the County Project. The County may provide a written deficiency list to the City within ten working days after the final inspection. The list shall contain only construction deficiencies that are out of compliance with the contract specifications. Final acceptance of the Projects shall be by the City Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator and the County Road Engineer. 7. PAYMENT 7.1 The County shall pay the City for actual costs of the County Project incurred by the City, including, without limitation, construction contractor costs, permit fees, and all costs incurred by the City for engineering, clerical, construction, administrative, inspection and other services attributable to the County Project. 7.1.1 The County shall pay the City for costs of the County Project related to County -approved change orders, unforeseen field conditions, geotechnical testing and services, environmental mitigation conditions, and any utility relocation or installation as provided by Section 2.3.3. 7.2 The City shall bill the County for actual expenses incurred, on no more than a monthly basis. These bills shall reflect actual project costs. All payments shall be due within 30 days of the billing date. 12 8. DURATION/TERMINATION 8.1 This Agreement shall remain in effect until final acceptance of the County Project and payment by the County of all monies due from the County to the City. 8.2 If expected or actual funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or if Federal funding requirements affect the County Project, prior to the completion of the County Project, either party may, with thirty (30) days written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement. 8.3 In the event of termination prior to completion of the County Project, the party requesting termination shall pay all direct and indirect phasing -out costs. Payable termination costs shall not exceed the actual costs incurred as a result of termination of this Agreement. 8.4 Either party may terminate this Agreement for default in the event the other party materially breaches this Agreement. Termination shall be effected by serving a Notice of Termination by certified mail, return receipt requested, on the other party setting forth the manner in which said party is in default and the effective date of termination, which shall not be less than fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the notice; provided, however, such termination shall not take effect if the default has been cured within seven (7) calendar days after the date of the notice of termination. 8.5 The City or County may terminate this agreement on 90 days written notice. 13 9. LIABILITY Washington State law shall govern the respective liabilities of the parties to this Agreement for any loss due to property damage or injury to persons arising out of activities conducted pursuant to this Agreement. 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 10.1 In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding this Agreement, the parties shall attempt to resolve the matter informally. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter informally within 30 days, the matter shall be decided by the Director of the King County Road Services Division and the City Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. 10.2 The King County Executive and the Mayor of Renton may also agree in writing to use an alternative dispute resolution process including mediation and binding arbitration. 10.3 Unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties in writing, both the City and the County shall continue to perform all their respective obligations under this Agreement during the resolution of the dispute. 11. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS 11.1 The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by the County or 14 the City during the term of this Agreement and three years after termination. 11.2 Audits and inspections by the grant agency shall be the responsibility of the City. The County shall support the City in meeting audit and inspection requirements. 12. OTHER PROVISIONS 12.1 The City shall be deemed an independent contractor for all purposes and the employees of the City, or any of its contractors, subcontractors and their employees shall not in any manner be deemed to be employees of the County. 12.2 Nothing contained herein is intended to, nor shall be construed to, create any rights in any party not a signatory to this Agreement, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of the City, the County, or their officials, employees, agents or representatives, to any party not a signatory to this Agreement. 12.3 Waiver of breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement. 12.4 Each party shall retain ownership and usual maintenance responsibility for the road, drainage system, signs, sidewalk and other property within its jurisdiction, subject to Section 3.3 regarding maintenance of the retention/detention pond. 15 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO COAL CREEK PARKWAY, FROM THE RENTON CITY LIMITS IN THE VICINITY OF NE 23" ST. AND NE 24T11 ST. TO SE 95TH WAY. WHEREAS, the County has a capital improvement project on Coal Creek Parkway from the Renton city limits near NE 23rd St. and NE 2e St. to SE 95"' Way; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton also has a capital improvement project on Coal Creek Parkway, from SR 900 to Renton's city limits; and WHEREAS, the County and City agree that the construction of these projects shall provide an important link in the regional transportation system; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the parties to establish a lead agency to manage and provide for the design, environmental review, permitting and construction of these projects; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASIHNGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with King County entitled "Interagency Agreement between King County and the City 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. of Renton Regarding Improvements to Coal Creek Parkway, from the Renton City Limits in the Vicinity of NE 23`a St. and NE 24 h St. to SE 94`h Way." PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 1, 2003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 2003. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.993:6/24/03:ma Jesse Tanner, Mayor 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBMITTING DATA: Dept/Div/Board.. City Clerk Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton SUBJECT: Bid opening on June 25, 2003, for CAG-03-069, 2003 Overlay Project EXHIBITS: Staff Recommendation Bid Tabulation Sheet (five bids) AI #: .7 R AGENDA OF: July 21, 2003 AGENDA STATUS: Consent......... X Public Hearing.. Correspondence - Ordinance ....... Resolution...... Old Business.... New Business.... Study Session... Other........... RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept...... Council concur Finance Dept.... Other........... FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required. Amount Budgeted....... $714,270.26 Transfer/Amendment.. $200,000.00 $523,740.00 (total project) Revenue Generated... (SUMMARY OF ACTION: Engineer's Estimate: $577,269.50 RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following criteria: There was more than one bid, and there were no irregularities. The low bid submitted by Lakeside Industries in the amount of $714,270.26, however, was above the amount budgeted for the project. Since the low bid exceeds the engineer's estimate for the project, staff recommends that funds totaling $200,000 be reallocated to cover the additional costs, bringing the total appropriation for the project to $723,740. Available sources for the funding are: $96,000 from the Oakesdale Phase 2 project, and $104,000 from the City's share of the new signal to be installed by King County at the Benson Rd. S./S. 31st St. intersection. Council procedure requires committee review when the low bid exceeds the budgeted amount for the project; however, in the interest of meeting the tight construction schedule for this project, staff requests that Council waive review of this condition and approve the reallocation of funds as stated above and award the project to Lakeside Industries in the amount of $714,270.26. CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 10, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk STAFF CONTACT: Bill Wressell, x7400 SUBJECT: 2003 Overlay Bids were opened June 25, 2003, with a total of five (5) bids received. The bids have been reviewed for correctness with the tabulation of bids attached. All bids were found to be responsive and responsible, with no irregularities, with the exception of the bid from Western Asphalt, Inc., which had a typing error in the Schedule of Prices, Schedule "A". The written bid for Traffic Control was three thousand dollars, but the number was 3300. Western was the highest bidder of the five bidders, and was $158,253.35 higher than the lowest bidder, and $14,034.52 higher than the fourth highest bidder. The opinion of the Transportation Division staff is that correcting the $300 error in Western's bid would not affect the bid outcome, so this slight irregularity should be disregarded. Schedule "A" is to be funded from utilities sources, and Schedule `B" is to be funded by the TIP 2003 Overlay. The Engineers Estimate for the contract was $577,269.50 ($20,498.95 for Schedule "A" and $556,770.55 for Schedule `B"). The low bid was $714,270.26 ($10,253.91 for Schedule "A" and $704,016.35 for Schedule `B"). The Schedule `B" portion of this bid exceeded the estimate by $147,245.86 and available funds by $180,276.35. The bids exceeded the estimate due to higher than anticipated asphalt, traffic control, mobilization, and finish and clean-up costs. In order to ensure there are adequate funds to cover all programmed overlay work in the contract and any contingencies, $200,000 must be transferred from other projects in the Transportation Division's 2003 appropriation. Available sources for this funding are: $96,000 from Oakesdale Phase 2 (project completed) and $104,000 from the City's share of the new signal to be installed by the County at the intersection of Benson Road South and South 31st Street (payment to the County would be deferred into 2004). While it is normal policy when the low bid exceeds available funds to refer award to the Transportation Committee, the Transportation Division strongly urges that the Council CADocuments and Settings\mpetersenM ocal Settings\Temp\Councilconcuroverlay2003.doc make an exception in this case and waive the policy and go directly to the "Council Concur" step, primarily due to time critical issues. Due to its contracted work schedule, the low bidder, Lakeside Industries, is not available for the Renton work in September. Because of the time it would take for this award to go through Transportation Committee review prior to a Council Concurrence vote, there is a risk of missing much of this construction season if we do not bypass this step. The selected streets for the overlay are in poor shape and an overlay is needed. Delaying this year's program would result in further deterioration. For these reasons, and since projects have been identified from which we can transfer the necessary funding (see above), expediting the process by bypassing the Transportation Committee review should be warranted. Accordingly, the Transportation Division recommends reallocation of funds in the amounts of $96,000 from Oakesdale Phase 2 and $104,000 from the City's share of the new signal to be installed by the County at the Benson Road South/South 31" Street intersection, for a total of $200,000, to the 2003 Overlay, and award the contract to Lakeside Industries for the amount of $714,270.26. Attachment: Bid Tabulation cc: Leslie Lahndt, P.E. CITY OF RENTON BID TABULATION SHEET 3ROJECT: 2003 Overlay; CAG-03-069 DATE: June 25, 2003 FORMS BID BIDDER Bid Triple Includes 8.8 % Sales Tax Bond Form ICON Materials X X $793,165.32 PO Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 William M. Becker Lakeridge Paving Co., LLC X X $858,489.09 PO Box 5430 Kent, WA 98064 Jon Chestham Lakeside Industries X X $714,270.26 26010 180th Ave. SE Kent, WA 98042 Craig Nickel Watson Asphalt Paving Co., Inc. X X $798,879.82 PO Box 845 2edmond, WA 98073-0845 Peter C. Schroeder Western Asphalt, Inc. X X $872,523.61 PO Box 980 Maple Valley, WA 98038-0980 Lance Leeper ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE TOTAL: $577,269.50 LEGEND: Forms: Triple Form: Non -Collusion Affidavit, Anti -Trost Claims, Minimum Wage CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems Division Staff Contact...... Robert Lochmiller, (x-7303) Subject: SR 169 HOV/140t" Way SE to SR 900 Supplemental Agreement with Perteet Engineering, Inc Exhibits: Issue Paper Spreadsheet Approved 2004-2009 TIP Document #4 AI #: 6' U .. For Agenda of: July 21, 2003 Agenda Status Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Correspondence. . Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept......... X Council Concur Finance Dept...... X Other Expenditure Required. $121,884 Transfer/Amendment $122,000 (from Amount Budgeted. $640,440 PE ($250,000 in 2003) Strander Blvd 2003 allocation) ($390,440 previously spent and allocated) Revenue Generated $300,000 PE Project Budget $762,440 (PE) City Share Total Project $462,440 PE SUMMARY OF ACTION: As the preliminary design has progressed, conditions have changed necessitating additional work outside the initial scope of the project. The project limits have increased in the vicinity of I-405 (approximately 900 feet further east), requiring a considerable amount of field surveys, base maps, engineering work, and design plans that were not scoped. The allocation for this project in 2003 is $250,000. $390,000 was previously spent using previous allocations. Therefore, the amount budgeted is $640,000. The transfer of $122,000 from the Strander project allocation in 2003 will cover additional expenditure required for preliminary engineering. The Strander project is estimated to only spend $400,000 in 2003. The 2003 allocation for Strander is $1,610,000. The attached spreadsheet provides more detailed information. A detailed discussion of the supplement was discussed at the Transportation Committee on June 26th. The Committee Members present agreed with staff recommendation for funding and to present the supplement as a Council concur item on the agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation Division staff recommends Council to approve a budget adjustment in the transportation Capital Improvement Fund (317) to transfer $122,000 from the SW 271" Street/Strander Blvd. project into the SR 169 HOV/140t" Way SE to SR 900 project. The Transportation Division staff further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Supplemental Agreement with Perteet Engineering Inc. in the amount of $121,884. H;Trans/Admin/AgendaBill 2003/SR169 Supplemental Agmt with Perteet CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ujwl ►11 lu l DATE: July 21, 2003 TO Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Gregg ZimmermaikRministratoryA STAFF CONTACT: Robert Lochmiller, x 7303 SUBJECT: SR 169 HOV/140t6 Way SE to SR 900 Supplemental Agreement with Perteet Engineering, Inc. ISSUE: Approval of the Supplemental Agreement for additional preliminary engineering services to complete the plans and specifications for the project. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and. City Clerk to execute the Supplemental Agreement with Perteet Engineering, Inc. for additional preliminary engineering services in the amount of $121,884. BACKGROUND: As the preliminary design has progressed, conditions have changed necessitating additional work outside the initial scope of the project. The project limits have increased in the vicinity of I-405 (approximately 900 feet further east), requiring considerable amount of field surveys, base maps, engineering work, and design plans that were not originally scoped.. From the traffic analysis done for the project, it indicated the road tapers needed to be extended at the 1401h Way SE/SR 169 intersection. This created the project to be within 200 feet of the Cedar River and additional environmental work was needed to submit a Shoreline Substantial Development application to King County. The project was not originally scoped to be within the 200 foot buffer area of the Cedar River. The additional work has caused the project timeline to extend one and a half years past what was expected. The Supplement Agreement will amend the basic agreement to include the additional work at a cost of $121,884. The Original and Supplement Agreement will complete the plans and specifications of the project. The current schedule is to have this work completed by August 31, 2003. Supplemental Agreement with Perteet Engineering Inc. July 21, 2003 Page 2 of 2 FUNDING: The allocation for this project in 2003 is $250,000. Allocations previously spent have been $390,000. Therefore, the amount budgeted is $640,000. The revised total budget for Preliminary Engineering (PE) for this project is now estimated to be $762,440. A budget adjustment in the Transportation Capital Improvement Fund (317) to transfer $122,000 from the SW 27`h/Strander project allocation in 2003 will cover additional expenditure required. The Strander project is estimated to spend $400,000 of its $1,610,000 appropriation in 2003. Staff purposes to restore the Strander appropriation in 2004 with 2004 revenues from the per capita business license fee. The attached spreadsheet provides more detail information. Attachment H:Transp/Admin/Agendabill 2003/SR 169 Issue Paper SR 169 HOW140th Way SE to SR 900 7/14/2003 Supplemental Agreement Year Spending Plan 2003 $662,000 121,884 Agenda Bill Consultant Supplemental Agreement 224,242 Remainder to pay for previous contract 25,874 Staff time 372,000 Total 372,000 290,000 Reserve for potential payment for project mitigation to Parks $662,000 Expenditures Revenue 250,000 2003 Budget Detail Book (page 21 of 23) -372,000 Estimated 2003 spending plan per 2004 TIP -122,000 Need $122,000 Transfer from Strander Project 2003 allocation of $1,610,000 (page 19 of 23) 300,000 Revenue generated from WSDOT (Design only) 462,440 City Share (Design only) $762,440 Total Design only Note: $390,440 previously spent used previous allocations. CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2004 - 2009 SIX -YEAR TIP SR 169 HOV -140th Way SE to SR-900 Functional Classification: Principal Fund: 317 Proj. Length: N/A Proj: 12175 Type: 2 - MULTI -MODAL / TDM RANK: 4 CONTACT: Rob Lochmiller 425.430.7303 DESCRIPTION: Construct queue jumps and bypass lanes that provide transit priority traffic signal improvements on the Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) at 140th Way SE and near the 1-405 vicinity. Involves roadway widening at intersection approaches and modifications to channelization and traffic signals. Also includes widening to improve the north -bound on ramp and south -bound off ramp movement at the 1-405/SR 169 interchange. Improve access to Cedar River Park and Stoneway site through traffic JUSTIFICATION: This is a high volume, high congestion corridor where providing travel time benefits for transit and car/van pools can be achieved with high cist effectiveness. Also there are severe congestion and safety problems that can be addressed by adding a right turn lane west -bound on SR-169 and a protected right turn lane from the 1-405 northbound off ramp on to east -bound SR-169. STATUS: WSDOT has committed $300,000 to design and an additional $450,000 to construction. King County committed approximately $275,000 to this project by constructing a holding pond at 140th Way SE for our use. The project is at 60% design. CHANGES: Received TEA-21 Countywide grant of $392,947 for construction. Some of the City money funded in 2007 and 2008 is for match money for proposed grants. 2003 is higher than appropriation, partially due to early payment to Parks. Funded : 11,705,947 JUnFunded : 16,303,053 Project Totals Programmed Pre-2004 Six -Year Program ITEM Programmed Spent Pre-2003 2003 Total 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Project Development Precon Eng/Admin 800,000 390,440 372,000 37,560 37,560 R-O-W (includes Admin) 529,000 529,000 529,000 Construction Contract Fee 5,610,000 5,610,000 2,610,000 3,000,000 Construction Eng/Admin 780,000 780,000 380,000 400,000 Other 290,000 290,000 TOTAL SES 8,009,000 390,440 662,000 6,956,560 37,560 3,519,000 3,400,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1/2 Cent Gas Tax Business License Fee 459,528 81,539 148,889 229,100 6,100 50,000 773,000 Vehicle License Fee Grants In -Hand 392,947 392,947 392,947 Mitigation In -Hand 553,472 197,700 324,312 31,460 31,460 L.I.D.'s Formed Other In -Hand (WSDOT) 300,000 111,201 188,799 Grants Proposed 1,797,000 1,797,000 665,000 1,132,000 Mitigation Proposed L.I.D.'s Proposed Other Proposed (WSDOT) 450,000 450,000 277,000 173,000 Undetermined 4,056,0531 1 4,056,053 2,134,053 1,922,000 TOTALSOURCES 8,009,0001 390,440 662,0001 6,956,560 37,560 3,519,000 3,400,000 St.153 Nov 07/03/2003 12,35 PM 5-4 DRAFT '-_ Washington State Department of Transportation Organization and Address Supplemental Agreement No. 1 Perteet Engineering, Inc. Agreement Number 2707 Colby Ave., #900 OBI I Everett, WA 98201 CAG-01-IW+ Project Number Phone (425) 252-7700 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) 140"' Way S.E. Intersection Improvements & Vicinity of I- 405 Northbound Freeway Ramps $722,202 Description of Work Design and construct high occupancy vehicle (HOV) queue jumps and bypass lanes and provide transit priority traffic signal improvements on the Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) at 140th Way S.E. and east of the 1405 northbound freeway ramps. The Local Agency of _ City of Renton desires to supplement the agreement entered into with Perteet Engineering, Inc. and executed on June 5. 2001 and identified as Agreement No. CAG-01-071 all provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES, is hereby changed to read: The original scope of services is amended to include additional services as described in detail in the attached Exhibit "B" 11 Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: Completion Date — August 31, 2003 III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: The additional services described in Exhibit "B" will cause an increase to the contract of One Hundred Twenty -One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty -Four Dollars ($121,884) as shown in the attached Exhibit "D-1" for a new Maximum Amount Payable of Seven Hundred Twenty -Two Thousand Two Hundred Two Dollars ($722,202). If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: Ric rteet Chairman of TThe Board By: Consultant Signature Supplemental Agreement No. I Prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. Page I Approving Authority Signature Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) )AT— Dcign'210)1 - Maple V.D�y FSgh—y%C v. Le,%pp4--uWpp 1 3-13-01da Exhibit "B" — Supplemental Agreement No. 1 Scope of Services City of Renton Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) 1401h Way SE Intersection Improvements Vicinity of I-405 Northbound Freeway Ramps INTRODUCTION The objective of the project is to design and construct high occupancy vehicle (HOV) queue jumps and bypass lanes and provide transit priority traffic signal improvements on the Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) at 140th Way S.E. and east of the I-405 northbound freeway ramps. The project involves roadway widening at intersection approaches and modifications to channelization and traffic signals and also includes widening to improve the northbound on- and off -ramp movement at the I-405/SR 169 interchange. As originally scoped, the project design efforts were based on preliminary scope of services contained in the February, 1997 report "Arterial HOV Project Pre -Design Report". Specifically, the concepts shown on Figure 12b as Alternative 6 were to be developed in the I-405/SR 169 interchange area. INTENT As the project preliminary design has progressed, conditions have changed necessitating this supplement. • The selected construction alternative for SR 169 has led to the need to design site improvements for the Cedar River Park to replace parking lost due to the construction. • A new access street will be constructed that will provide the primary access into the park along the property line between the park and the adjacent Stoneway site. The Stoneway site will also use this street as their primary access into their property as that property is redeveloped. • The project limits have increased for the project in the vicinity of I405. The project now extends approximately 900 feet further east than originally scoped, requiring additional field surveys, base mapping, as well as additional design plans. • The design tapers at the 140`h Way SE intersection have encroached into the 200-foot zone from the river, and a shoreline permit is required. The scope of services of the basic agreement is amended to include the following scope, f services items. All provisions of the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. CEDAR RIVER PARK SITE WORK 1.1 Assist the City in illustrating how the improvements to SR 169 and the proposed park site work measures are compatible with the development of the swimming pool complex. Prepare Supplemental Agreement No. 1 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) Prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. Page 2 illustrative graphics and handouts using existing project aerial photographs, and information from the swimming pool consultant for use at a single pool project workshop. 1.2 Prepare construction plans for the site redevelopment work Prepare plans ands specifications in sufficient detail to allow the City to meet its mitigation requirements. It is required that all parking needed to be taken out to complete the SR169 Project must be designed and eventually constructed. The supplement allows the design of this parking mitigation. If it is decided to make this part of the pool construction project, a separate agenda bill will be put through for Council approval. 1.21 Parking Lot Civil Site Plan: Prepare a civil site plan for the parking lot showing layout dimensions, radius's, horizontal controls, landscaped areas, details and notes. Prepare a grading plan showing finish grade elevations, top of curb and retaining wail elevations, and catch points where needed. A typical parking lot cross-section will be prepared which clarifies site -grading work. The plans will show the catch basin locations, pipe size, lengths and invert elevations, connections and details. 1.22 Paving and Striping Plan: Prepare a paving plan showing paving limits, typical structural pavement section, parking lot striping, and details. 1.23 Temporary Erosion & Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan: Prepare plans showing TESC measures, such as silt fences, sediment traps and sizes, inlet protection, construction entrance details, and notes. Calculations will be prepared for sizing the sediment traps. 1.24 Parking Lot Landscape Plan: Meet with Parks Department to determine preferred plantings. Prepare plans for planting and irrigation systems. 1.25 Li hting and Electrical: Design parking lot lighting that conforms to existing lighting levels, and that uses identical fixtures to existing fixtures on site. It is assumed that only one or two new luminaries will be needed, and that the existing electrical service will be adequate to support the additional lights. Undergrounding of existing overhead power is not included in this scope of services. Lighting on the access road will conform to lighting levels required by the City for commercial access streets. 2. SURVEYING WSDOT requires that project surveying extend approximately 300 feet beyond the construction limits for work on state highways. Perteet Engineering will supplement the surveying and basemapping work conducted previously, extending the effort approximately 900-feet further east from the I-405/SR169 interchange. This is being conducted in order to accommodate the new combined access point to the existing Stoneway site for both the Cedar River Park and the. Stoneway site, and to implement the concepts shown on the project channelization plan. The supplemental mapping will include storm water, water supply, acid general topographic information. The Consultant will conduct a field survey to acquire this data to create a basemap suitable for both preliminary and final design. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) Prepared by Perteet Engineering, lnc.Page 3 a. Field Survey. Establish permanent benchmarks at the beginning, midpoint and end of the area covered by this supplement. Conduct control survey through the project limits locating: plat monumentation, existing right-of-way and centerline monuments; and establish control points for topographic surveys. Conduct a topographic survey of SR 169 100-feet to either side of the existing centerline, locating above -ground evidence of underground utilities, overhead utilities, pavement limits and elevations, and other visible improvements. • Cross -sections at 25-foot intervals, 200-feet in total width for the 900-feet of additional project length. • Supplemental survey will be collected to include 200-feet of 1401h Way SE at the SR169 intersection to reflect the 140`h Way SE improvements which were completed after the previous design surveys were completed. A width of 150-feet will be surveyed with cross sections taken at 50-foot stations. • An additional profile will be taken at the proposed Cedar River Park/Stoneway intersection for a distance of 300 feet to the south, and for a width of 200 feet. Cross sections will be taken at 50- foot stations. b. Data TransferBasemapping. Transfer field data to single AutoCad basemap, integrate with previous mapping effort and prepare 1-inch = 20-foot base sheets. c. Utility Locates. Contract with an independent utility locate service to horizontally locate existing underground utilities along the corridor for use in preparing the project design. Vertical locations of underground utilities at six locations of potential conflict are also included in this item. 3. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (30%) (SR 169/I-405) The following tasks are being conducted in order to accommodate the additional 900 feet of roadway along SR 169 and the new access street. 3.1 Prepare digital terrain model, cross -sections, and plan and profile drawings for the additional roadway and park site work. 3.2 Include the additional roadway in the project's channelization plan for approval per WSDOT Design Manual. 3.3 Include the additional roadway in the project's preliminary right of way analysis based on available right-of-way mapping. The analysis will identify the location of existing public right-of-way, the approximate location of parcel boundaries, and the approximate amount of take required to construct the alternative. 3.4 Include the additional roadway in the project's traffic control strategy including construction staging. 3.5 Modify transit signal priority as required by the new signal. 3.6 Prepare preliminary design of required retaining walls. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) Prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc.Page 4 3.7 Include the additional roadway drainage requirements into the project design memo. 3.8 Include the additional roadway and park site work in the project's preliminary opinion of cost, including cost for right-of-way acquisition. 4. FINAL DESIGN (SR 169/I-405) 4.1 Prepare 60% contract plans and updated preliminary cost estimate for the additional roadway and park site work. Include those plans in submittals to City staff for review and comment. 4.2 Prepare 90% plans, specifications, and cost estimates for the additional roadway and park site work. Plans shall include complete details for the roadway widening, sidewalk, retaining walls, storm drainage, signals, street lighting, channelization, signing, and landscaping details. Plans shall show existing physical features; surface and subsurface utilities, as determined by field survey or indicated on City or utility company records for the area included in the right-of-way. Plans will be at a scale of 1"=20'. Submit the plans to the City for review and comment. 4.3 Submit final review plans, specifications, and cost estimates for the additional roadway and park site work. Minor adjustments to the final plan set will be made if required prior to printing of the PS&E package and advertisement for bids. Plans anticipated to be prepared under this supplement include the following (some elements may be combined): • Roadway sections (1 additional sheet) • Construction sequence plans (2 additional sheets) • Plan and Profile sheets (2 additional sheets) • Drainage plans (2 additional sheets) • TESC plans (2 additional sheets) • Channelization and signing plans (2 additional sheets) • Utility plans (2 additional sheets) • Traffic signal plans (1 additional plan sheet, 1 additional wiring diagram, 1 additional pole schedule sheet) • Transit signal priority plans (1 additional sheet) • Parking lot and details (2 additional sheets) • Illumination plans (1 additional sheet) • Traffic control plans (2 additional sheets) • Landscaping plans (2 additional sheets) SR 169/140TH WAY SE 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND PERMITTING (SR 169/140TIl WAY SE) Prepare a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application for submittal to King County. This task was not included in our original scope because it was assumed that the roadway construction would stop short of the Cedar River's 200-foot shoreline zone 4. The traffic analysis showed the need to construct a longer taper and holding lane to meet traffic demands, and the construction now encroaches into the 200-foot zone. The following tasks will need to be undertaken: • Preparation of materials and submittal King County for a preapplication meeting Supplemental Agreement No. 1 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) Prepared by Perteet Engineering, lnc.Page 5 • Participation in the preapplication meeting • Preparation of the permit application, including drawings, topographic information, illustrations, and documentation • Follow up coordination with King County TIME FOR COMPLETION The work under Phase 1 of this contract necessary to complete the plans and specifications shall be completed by August 31, 2003. The City may authorize additional time for revisions to the construction contract plans after that date as may be required by project funding and/or construction sequencing. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) Prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc.Page 6 From: Council Via Clerk To: Reed Date: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 8:53 AM Subject: Re: Fireworks Issue Dear Mr. Brott: Thank you for your email to City Council supporting a ban on fireworks. Copy is being forwarded to each Councilmember, Mayor Tanner and the Fire Chief for review and consideration. This issue is currently before the City Council, and has been referred to the Public Safety Committee. The Committee has met and plans to meet again on this subject, Committee meetings are working sessions, however, they are open to the public. You will be notified of the date and time of the next committee meeting on this subject. After the committee has completed its review, it will make a recommendation to the full Council. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Reed" <rbrott@gte.net> 07/17/03 01:33PM >>> live at 2306 Vashon Court N.E. in the highlands. I just read an article in Renton news discussing the issue of a fireworks ban. I, for one, believe Renton should ban the use of any fireworks in the city. Further it should be done before the next July 4th holiday in 2004. 1 am tired of staying home on the 4th to try and make sure some of the other neighbors and friends don't burn my house down. Annually there is a large BBQ gathering, which is great. However at night the people, including some friends/relatives from outside the area, take over the street and start firing everything from sparklers to rockets around & over the houses. Every year I find some remains in my yard front and back. One point in the article was that if there was a ban people just flow to where there is no ban. Well some are flowing currently to Renton, and for this purpose we don't need them. Obviously some of my neighbors don't hold my opinion. However I think fireworks in any residential area is just plain dangerous. I will act on my opinion by not voting for any council member up for election who does not support any immediate ban on fireworks. Reed Brott 2306 Vashon Ct. NE Renton, WA 98059 You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions." -Naguib, Mahfouz hftp://homel.cite-net/rbrottfindex.htm From: Daniel Clawson To: rbrott@gte.net,Council@ci.renton.wa.us Date: Mon, Jul 21, 2003 10:08 AM Subject: Re: Fireworks Issue Dear Mr. Brott, Thank you for your correspondence. The Public Safety Committee is now looking into action to remedy the unacceptable fireworks situation. Simply passing a law banning the fireworks that are now legal would not have much effect. The devices causing over 85% of the complaints, i.e. bottle rockets, M-80's, etc. are already illegal to possess or discharge under state law. Police and Fire have had all available officers on duty this 4th of July,and have confiscated many illegal fireworks and will be issuing citations as well. State law requires a one-year waiting period before any new law restricting the legal fireworks takes effect. A city council cannot override state law. At this time Fire and Police are working to formulate a proposal to the Public Safety Committee. If more funding is required to step up education and enforcement then it must be included to the 2004 budget. Sincerely, Dan Clawson Chair, Public Safety Committee >>> "Reed" <rbrott@gte.net> 07/17/03 13:27 PM >>> I live at 2306 Vashon Court N.E. in the highlands. I just read an article in Renton news discussing the issue of a fireworks ban. I, for one, believe Renton should ban the use of any fireworks in the city. Further it should be done before the next July 4th holiday in 2004. 1 am tired of staying home on the 4th to try and make sure some of the other neighbors and friends don't burn my house down. Annually there is a large BBQ gathering, which is great. However at night the people, including some friends/relatives from outside the area, take over the street and start firing everything from sparklers to rockets around & over the houses. Every year I find some remains in my yard front and back. One point in the article was that if there was a ban people just flow to where there is no ban. Well some are flowing currently to Renton, and for this purpose we don't need them. Obviously some of my neighbors don't hold my opinion. However I think fireworks in any residential area is just plain dangerous. I will act on my opinion by not voting for any council member up for election who does not support any immediate ban on fireworks. Reed Brott You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions." -Naguib, Mahfouz http://homel.gte.net/rbrott/index.htm APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date 7- al R0O3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 21, 2003 Highlands Redevelopment Area Residential -Oriented Code Amendments (May 13, 2002) The Planning & Development Committee met on July 17th to consider the Planning Commission's recommended code amendments to Title 4 that are designed to encourage new residentiail development in the Highlands. The Planning Commission recommendation allows up to 80 dwelling units per net acre and urban parking standards in exchange for higher design standards and on -site open space requirements. The Committee recommends City Council on August 4, 2003`� , King Parker, Member cc: Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Gregg Zimmerman, PB/PW Administrator Neil Watts, Development Services Director, Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Susan Fiala, Senior Planner consider this proposal before the p&d corn rep Highlands Residential.doc\ Rev 01/02 bh UTILITIES COMMITTEE . COMMITTEE REPORT July 21, 2003 APPROVED BY CITV COUNUL 3 Date 7 a/ aoo3 AMENDMENT TO UTILITY FEE CODE (RMC 4-1-180) STREET LIGHT SYSTEM CONNECTION FEE (Referred July 7, 2003) The City of Renton requires developers of plats, short plats and projects with street frontages to install street lighting systems to city _specifications and turn the system over to the city for ownership and maintenance. The Operations Division coordinates and authorizes system. connections and pays the power bills. Under their tariff, Puget Sound Energy began billing the City of Renton a connection charge for ttri e and aterials for the physical hookup of new street light systems at an average `cast of $31'7:00 per pro t , This fee will increase August 1, 2003 to a base fee of $375.00�w` th an ticip'ted average cost, a minimum of $465.00 per project.. Staff proposes amending "the,utility fee code to,,,, drew flat fee of $500.00 per street light system connection,' ble prior to issue of the"co struc on permit. The Utilities Committee Department's recommer system connection fee to street light system and p� The Committee further r first reading. that .i Y0. andy Co hair erri Brier ice Chair X C K-5 4-* Dan Clawson, Member cc: Sandra Meyer Neil Watts Kayren Kittrick Karl Hamilton Building/Public Works to add a street light set at $500.00 per new matter be presented for APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date % 021-19D03 .{ UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 21, 2003 ESTABLISHMENT OF EAST KENNYDALE SANITARY SEWER MILL PHASE H SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Referred July 7, 2003) The Utilities. Committee recommends concurrence in the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation that preliminary approvalwbd'dtV�hrtbe East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Infill Phase 11 Special Assessment Districtg,,,� The Committee further recomm i 'd8 that ,staff ;pzoce..ed with the stablishment of the final Special "IrAssessment District upon co l -tio'n bf th construction of the-itast ,cnnyd_ ale Sanitary Sewer Infill Phase IIl p. ect ro . `x . " r Terri Bri(fre, Vice Chair Dan Clawson, Member "TRI v M » r SAI -A Kathy eolker-Wheeler, Substitute Member cc: Lys Hornsby David Christensen 1:\COMAME\Reports\Utilities\2003\EKennydaleS anSwrinfill S ADII. docUDH\tb CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE 2003 KING COUNTY AGENCY SERVICES CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. WHEREAS, the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health/Emergency Medical Services Division provides Basic Life Support Services, through an annual contract with the Renton Fire Department, to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, the County desires to have certain services performed by the Renton Fire Department, and for the Department to comply with Basic Life Support Standards; and WHEREAS, the current funding source for the contract is real property taxes from the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy in the amount of $449,081; and WHEREAS, the Basic Life Support Services contract has been renewed for 2003; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to document the terms and conditions of contracts between the City and the County; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION H. The City Council does hereby authorize the Mayor and City.Clerk to execute the King County Agency Services Contract for Emergency Medical Services — 2003. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 92003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2003. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.994:7/8/03:ma Jesse Tanner, Mayor 2 CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 1 200:3 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE July 3, 2003 Dear Friends, UL 1 2003 RENTON onycouNcit CTION - WIAT10".-N INC. 840 WEST PERIMETER ROAD RENTON, WA 98055 (206) 255-8800 In mid -March, as most of you know, Action Aviation began negotiations with the Airport Manager and the City of Renton Administration to obtain a new airport -operating permit. This necessitated a new sublease from our landlord, the Boeing Employees Flying Association, and a property assignment from the City. The City Administration gave us their assurances that the process would proceed in a routine manner. However, toward the end of March, to our total surprise and dismay, the City Administration notified our landlord that they were in breach of. their lease, and ordered us to cease all commercial activities on the airport —the sale of fuel in particular. Although the City Administration's action was completely unnecessary, unprecedented, and unjustified, they have been unwilling to reconsider their position. Since being ordered to cease operations, we have worked tirelessly to resolve this situation; however, all our efforts to do so have been unsuccessful. We have been unable to obtain an acceptable or even reasonable sublease from our landlord, nor have we been able to convince the City Administration to relax its position. Because a resolution has become impossible, the fate of Action Aviation has been determined. We have been forced to incur a significant financial burden during our closure, and, although we have made every effort to endure this hardship, we can no longer continue to sustain such a substantial burden. Therefore, effective immediately, Action Aviation is ultimately forced to close its doors after 15 years of faithful service on the Renton Airport. We are extremely disappointed at the way things have transpired, and we sincerely apologize for the inconveniences this situation has and will continue to cause all of you. It is only through your support that we have been able to enjoy the success we have experienced during our tenure here. We are gratefully appreciative and wish to thamk you for your support. We have made so many friends here over the years, and we will cherish each and every one —always! Please know that it has been our pleasure and a privilege to have served you for all these years. From Marilyn, Rich, myself, and all of us at Action Aviation, we wish you enjoyment and success in all your flying endeavors —and hope you find tailwinds everywhere you soar. Sincerely, William O. Wiles President cc: City Council Members King Parker, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Terri Briere, Toni Nelson, Don Persson, Dan Clawson, Randy Corman