HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP273539 (2)RECEIVED
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM
` i ` M E M O R A N D U
DATE: May 5, 2009
TO: Gregg Zimme ni trator
FROM: Dave Christe s tewater Utility Supervisor
MAY 0 5 2009
CITY OF RENTON
BLIC WORKS ADMIN
SUBJECT: Heather Dowdi-110rceptor Upgrade — Pre -Design Report
Consultant Contract Addendum No. 2
Attached for your signature are two originals of Addendum No. 2 to CAG-07-029. This
consultant contract between the City and Roth Hill Engineering is for Pre -design work on
the Heather Downs Interceptor project. The consultant is very near completion, as part of
the review of the draft report the City and Consultant both noted a weakness in our plan
that requires some minor additional survey and design analysis.
The additional $12,000 is within your signature authority and the Wastewater Utility has
sufficient budget to cover this minor additional cost. In addition, I checked with the City
Clerk to be assured that you could sign this addendum as it is the second addendum.
Since the first addendum was for time extension only, we are not requesting any
additional time, and the amount is within your authority, the City Clerk did confirm that
by policy you are authorized to sign the addendum without Council approval.
Please return the signed documents to me and I will forward to the City Clerk for their
records and will return an original to the consultant. Please let em know if you need any
additional information.
Attachments
h:\file sys\wwp - wastewater\wwp-03-0000 correspondence - wastewater\davec\2009 correspondence\roth hill
addenum 2 memo hd int.doc
RothHill
RECEIVEd oth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
2600 116`t' Avenue NE, Suite 100
AUG 1.5 2007 Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel. 425.869.9448
CITY OF RENTON 800.835.0292
LETTER OF T RAN S M I TTAL UTILITY SYSTEMS Fax 425.869.1190
To: Dave Christensen
Planning/Building/Public Works
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Please find: I I Herewith
via:
Date: August 14, 2007
Client: City of Renton
Contract No:
Project No: 0015.00016.000
Subject: Heather Downs Interceptor Upgrade
Pre -Design Report
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
Model Results — color coded maps
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ As requested ❑ For your file ❑ Approved as noted
❑ For review and comment ❑ For your information ❑ Returned for corrections
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies
REMARKS: The enclosed figures represent the model runs for the Heather Downs Interceptor based on
surveyed manhole locations and inverts. The Ultimate Model with Mini -Basin U3A (similar to Scenario #3
in Sewer System Analysis Report) was used. The first results are of the system as it currently exists in
the model. The other two results are based on increasing the pipe sizes of the Heather Downs Interceptor
and diverting the flow down the steep slope as described in the Sewer System Analysis Report. The
surveyed data yielded model results that were in general slightly more severe than previously, mostly
based on longer pipe runs that resulted in flatter pipe slopes. The model runs with the potential
improvements yielded similar results to those in the Sewer System Analysis Report.
Please review the attached figures and let me know if you have any questions. I am also available to meet to
discuss the results if you so desire.
COPIES: SIGNED:
F:\0015\00016.001\Models\DC_081407_TF_Transmtl_Ult Model Results.doc Tony Fisher, P.E.
[feet]
181000.0
180500.0
180000.0
179500.0
179000.0
178500.0
178000.0
177500.0
177000.0
fi 41611I1Z7
176000.0
I
■ 1.20
<
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
M 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
1307000.0
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ultimate-surveyed.PRF
1308000.0 1309000.0
w x Q Q
®t-,
0
".'b
1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0
1314000.0
[feet]
'�P!c Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ultimate-surveyed.PRF
Discharge 1 1 0.000 10.0001 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 1 1 0.000 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 cfs
O O 1
00� 00 00 00' Off' 00' 00' 00' Off' 00' 00' O^ O� ON
[feet] Q-c5 4 5 e h`5 4`1 O`5 O` 1�5 �`5 00 �O h0 h0 h0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0
Ground Lev. ":t
N
CO
LO
Invert lev. 1P
Length
Diameter
Slope o/oo
Cfl 'IT
CV
7 Un
c9
M N
N
co cfl
cc
O CAD
CA
O �
N
LO cfl
co
U') LO
LO
229.91
1.25 1.25
0.83 0.56
391.38
1.25
1.23
O
cM
co
O
C�
2000.0 2500.0
1:0 [feet]
N � C.O N CO Cfl CV Lq [m]
J
Cfl O CO CO CO O CO co
r Cn O M CD O M CO
f� CA N C*? ,I: In O
I,- co 00 00 co a)
Wn ►n Un U') LO LO U') u')
337.82 184.50 262.59 231.86 294.66
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
1.15 1.73 0.85 0.91 0.17 0.25 1.38 1.05
[m]
[m]
[m]
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ultimate-surveyed.PRF
Discharge
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.0001
0.000
cfs
NCO
[feet]
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
-/
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
_-
CV
Ground Lev. "
It
CO
N
Invert lev. v
M
LO
Length
Diameter
Slope o/oo
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0 500.0
1:0
CO
o
o
rn
�
Co
M
C0
rn
00
ai
�
o
m
216.78
229.49
201.52
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.08
2.35
2.68
1111111C
r-- co
N Cfl
U-) Uri
co CO
o ch
r-
00 c0
4.94
:11 1
219.87
0.83
3.87
900.0
[feet]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ultimate-surveyed.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
[feet]
350.0
330.0
320.0
310.0
300.0
0.0 200.0
0
Ground Lev. o
0
CY)
CY)
Invert lev. a0
v
rn
N
Length
Diameter
Slope o/oo
250.76
0.83
43.71
400.0 600.0
N �
o co
(0 Cl)
M M
1� ('M
rn �
0 0
M (M
119.98
0.83
4.17
Cfl
0
LO
co
LO
0
M
800.0
1000.0 1200.0
1400.0
1:0
(V
M
N
(9
00
N
co
co
co
tf)
cM
co
M
LO
(O
(V
V
N
Cl?
00
o
0
N
r-
N
M
co
cM
256.04
190.69
354.78
251.87
178.10
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
4.34
4.20
33.18
26.28
172.38
1600.0
[feet]
[mJ
[m]
[m]
[m]
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ultimate-surveyed.PRF
Discharge 10.000 10.000 0.0001 0.000 10.000 10.000 10.000Poolo.000l 0.000I I I I I I0.000 0.0001 cfs
ON O� O"� ^D, �� �` , �'� �rL �"� �� �'� try "� bb �"� �p '\ 0 �,
��� ��� ��� ��� ��� NCO ��� Nlo N<3 ��� �4P �<, � ����4P �, P����� ���� ����
[feet] <`5 4`5 4P �`5 4`5 4P 11` h`, 4P 1 �5 hP h� h h h� h h� h� h`5 4P
395.0
R•11
385.0
380.0
375.0
370.0
365.0
360.0
0.0 500.0
rn
Cl?v
0')
0')Ground
Lev.
v
v
CO
(M
fl-
CO
fl-
M
Invert lev.
N
O
N
-
ao
Ln
of
Ln
o
CD
M
M
M
Length
300.35
Diameter
0.83
0.83
0.83
Slope o/oo
2.83
4.33
3.15
1 ---7-- ' I ,
1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0
1:0
N (D M M 0) CO op N fl-
O O0 CM O O cM Vi O � O
O O 1-1 N N e- 'I CO O 0')
00 00 O � ti 00 ti r- I- r-
CM M cM CM CO CO CO CO (M M CO
fl- qt CY) r- (O U') (D M (0 (V
CO Ln (q O CM Lq fl
04 M v Ln (p r` ao of o
(O O (O (D (O (O (D (D (O ti r-
CO CO M CO CO M CO CO (M CO M
478.04 450.24 345.20 291.02 358.15
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
3.08 2.00 1.10 4.47 1.80 5.00 3.49
� 11i
fl- (M
CO CO
� O
U? LQ
cri v
M M
4500.0
[feet]
[m]
279.45
0.67 0.67
3.44 5.57
[m]
[m]
[m]
[feet] Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Alternative A-surveyed.PRF
181000.0
180500.0
179500.0
179000.0
178500.0
178000.0
177500.0
177000.0
176500.0
176000.0
■ 1.20
<
1.00
1.20
0 0.80
1.00
i 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0
1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0
1314000.0
[feet]
Lir�P.Nater Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Alternative A-surveyed.PRF
Discharge Q 0.000 P.000l0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
C`
G` ON & O`� `V Oro `l� `1,� �O `l`L ti� `10 +�� ,�� N1
�q0 NQ Ord N1b �00 �00 N00 �00 ^00 ^00 ^00 ^00 �00
[feet] 2-c�`� 4`, �P �P �P �`� �`� 4P
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
V'
Ground Lev.
N
(0
U)
Invert lev. cq
Length
Diameter
Slope o/oo
(O V N
W W m
a) 00 0)
U) LO
229.91
1.75 1.75
0.83 0.56
391.38
1.75
1.23
00
Cl?
ri
(O
d?
CD
2500.0
1:0 [feet]
N t` CO N (D (D N U?
v ri ri I ri ri (o [m]
(O (0 (0 (0 (O (O (D (0
U7 O co (O O M to
r` 0� N M 114: U) O
ti fl- co 00 co 00 0)
337.82 184.50 262.59 231.86 294.66
1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
1.15 1.73 0.85 0.91 0.17 0.25 1.38 1.05
[m]
[m]
[m]
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Alternative A-surveyed.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.0001 0.000 cfs
[feet] �`5 �,`� h`5 �� 15
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0 500.0 600.0
1:0
Ground Lev.
N
C`
CD
o
O
rn
v
CO
v
co
CO
co
Invert lev.
N
00
�
rn
in
0)
�n
o
co
Length
216.78
229.49
201.52
Diameter
1.50
1.50
1.50
Slope o/oo
2.08
2.35
2.68
700.0
800.0
900.0
[feet]
fl- CO
cv (q
[m]
Li Uri
(0 cn
o
[ml
ca co
48.62
219.87
[m]
1.50
1.50
[m]
4.94
3.87
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Alternative A-surveyed.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
[feet]
mn n
350.0
340.0
330.0
320.0
310.0
300.0
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
o
M
[m]
O
c(o
M
L
•-
CY)
cNYi
CO
CY)
CO
M
CO
M
M
Invert lev.
CR
C°
`*
°'
[rn]
N
u'i
O
(0
O
r;
O
ao
O
O
N
CO
CO
CO
CY)
ACV
O
CO
Length
250.76
119.98
256.04
190.69
354.78
251.87
178.10 [m]
Diameter
0.83
1.00
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83 [m]
Slope o/oo
43.71
4.17
4.34
4.20
33.18
26.28
172.38
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Alternative A-surveyed.PRF
Discharge 10.000 10.000 10.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 .00010.0001 0.000 0.000 10.0001 cfs
�OQ BOO �O� ��Ntx ��N ��^ri- 4: � 4§� ��� ��� 4O� � Cr ���,P(�� �� �� <
feet `5N �^ �^ '�� '�'� �'� 5N �� �'� �'� N , ^"'*^ '��" N ��h 'N �N
[feet] h h � � h h � h � � h h�hh�h �-� � � �
.cMM11
390.0
385.0
380.0 -
375.0 -7
370.0
365.0
360.0
0.0 500.0
rn
Cl?7
rn
M
7
Ground Lev.
'T
ti
�
M
M
co
Invert lev.
N
N
M
o
co
M
M
lM
Length
300.35
Diameter
1.00
0.83
0.83
Slope o/oo
2.83
4.33
3.15
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
1
1
3500.0
4000.0
4500.0
1:0
[feet]
R
O
N
00
co
M
M
O
M
O O
O
(M
00
In
00
O
N
r�
rl-
O
O
Ln
f`
Ln
O
00
O
co
'IT
00
't
r`
N N
rl- r`
co
Nr
r`
co
rl-
O
r-
O
ti
ti
r-
M
00
[m]
m
M
co
M
M co
M
M
M
M
('M
co
Cl)
P
0)
1-
O O
D
(D (
r
M
(M
(D
Ln
N
�
UA
O
Un
N
co
U') (D
ti
Co
O
O
co
cr
Im]
(D
M
(D
CM
(D
(M
(D
M
(D (D
M co
(D
M
CD
co
(.0
co
rl-
m
P.-
(M
M
CO
478.04
450.24
345.20 291.02
358.15
279.45
[m]
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
0.67
0.67
[m]
3.08
2.00
1.10 4.47
1.80 5.00
3.49
3.44
5.57
lA C'rl A'\1�--j-C
Ll 3 A SN v �(
MH/.,
F(,w v� ru r� o(•�.�
[feet] Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult Alt B-Surveyed.PRF
181000.0
180500.0
180000.0
179500.0
179000.0
178500.0
178000.0
177500.0
177000.0
176500.0
176000.0
175500.0
175000.0
[l
■ 1.20
<
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
0.60
0.80
<
0.60
a'
1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 1315000.0
[feet]
W-I-k Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt B-Surveyed.PRF
Discharge 0.000 P.0001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
00 `lV `lrO `L� �,�` `LO A, , �,� `P
G*� �00 bz �00 �00 N00 ^00 -00 Nq3 V, �qj �03 �00
[feet] Q c�`5 O`5 O`5 O`5 1`5 4P 4P
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
'IT
CO
N
U? CO
00
M
N
N
N N
� co
N N N
N Co Co
C0
N
00
U�
[m]
N
CO
M
CO
N N
CO CO
M
c0
I*
CO
CO M
CO CO
'C CO CO
CO CO CO
Cn
(0
C0
C0
Invert lev.
U')
C°
0)
rn
00 0)
- N
rn
In O
On
Cr) CO O
N M v
CO
Lq
CO
o
[m]
U')
�n
LO
�n
Co Co
Vn Un
Co
U')
ti
U')
ti r;
U') LO
00 CO 00
U*) U') U')
00
U-)
0)
LO
Length
229.91
391.38
337.82
184.50
262.59
231.86
294.66
[m]
Diameter
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
1.25
[m]
Slope o/oo
0.83
0.56 1.23
1.15
1.73
0.85 0.91
0.17 0.25
1.38
1.05
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt B-Surveyed.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.0001 0.000 cfs
[feet] 4P 4P
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
No
N
Ground Lev.
v
c0
CV
Invert lev. v
rn
100.0
200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
1:0
CO O
o rn
CO
c0 c0
00
rn v
of O
Ln (0
Length 216.78 229.49
Diameter 1.00 1.00
Slope o/oo 2.08 2.35
201.52
1.00
2.68
�iI0Ii1
U1I1181
I- CC)
CV c0
Un Uti
c0 c0
O M
CO (0
48.62
0.83
4.94
:11 1,
219.87
0.83
3.87
900.0
[feet]
[m]
[►mil
[m]
[m]
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt B-Surveyed.PRF
Discharge
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
cfs
2§1
1
�
h
[feet]
�COO�tk
350.0
345.0
340.0
335.0
330.0
1
325.0
I
320.0
i
315.0
- ^
-
310.0
305.0
300.0
j
295.0
- -,-
,--ter
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
O
o
N
U")
C0
N
N
�
[m]
O
M
M
Cr)
CO
CY)
CY)
CO
CO
Invert lev.
OR
°)
")
r'
C0
`r
m
[ ]
v
LO
O
co
CD
r;
CD
co
CD
o
N
N
Length
250.76
119.98
256.04
190.69
354.78
251.87
[m]
Diameter
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
[m]
Slope o/oo
43.71
4.17
4.34
4.20
33.18
26.28
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt B-Surveyed.PRF
Discharge 10.000 10.000 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 10.00010.0007 0.0001 1 11 1 1 1 10-000 10.0001 cfs
�p �p pp pp �pNr5 �p �p pp`L pp`L pp`L pptx �pb ��p �p�`4p 4ppo kph
[feet] �`5� �`5� c�`5� �`�� �'S� �p� pp� ppN �'3N gyp^ �pN h� h h� hpN�� N hp� �pN �pN
395.0
390.0
385.0
380.0
375.0
370.0
365.0
360.0
0.0
500.0
rn
rn
rn
Ground Lev.
M
CO
CO
Invert lev.
N
O
N
Cl?
CO
U")
ai
U')
o
CO
CM
CO
CO
Length
300.35
Diameter
1.00
0.83 0.83
Slope o/oo
2.83
4.33 3.15
II
n
f
1000.0
1500.0
4500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3' 0 .0
4000.0
1:0
[feet]
0A
N
00
CO
M
CO
O
It M
O O
a)
M
00
U�
CO
O
N
�
ti
O
a)
U?
r-
U?
O
a)
�
�
N N
e-
qT
00
O
a)
1-
M
[m]
CD
CY)
00
M
CD
CO
rl-
CO
r- rl-
M CO
CO
CO
rl-
CO
r-
C'M
ti
CO
r-
M
ti
M
00
CO
1�
r
't
CO
O
Ui
M
rl-
17
v
C0 to
CO O
CO
e-
�
M
M
CD
U7
o
N
11�
1�
Uq
O
U7
v
Im]
(0
c.i
CO
(0
C0
U") co
CD C0
rl-
CO
oo
CD
ai
CO
I-
r-
Il-
CO
Il-
r-
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO M
M
CO
M
M
cM
CO
Cr)
478.04
450.24
345.20 291.02
358.15
279.45
[m]
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
0.67
0.67
[m]
3.08
2.00
1.10 4.47
1.80 5.00
3.49
3.44
5.57
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt B-Surveyed.PRF
Discharge 0.000 cfs
[feet]
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
0.0
Ground Lev.
N
0
Invert lev.
C?
v
rn
Length
Diameter
Slope o/oo
200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0
1:0 [feet]
[m]
[m]
1369.90 [m]
0.87 [m]
192.47
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.. PBPW/Utilities System Division
Staff Contact...... Dave Christensen (ext. 7212)
Subject:
Consultant Agreement for the Pre -Design Report for the
Replacement of the Heather Downs Interceptor
Exhibits:
Consultant Agreement
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
AI #:
For Agenda of: March 5, 2007
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... $189,900 Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... $200,000 Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget $300,000 City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Wastewater Utility, as part of its adopted 2007 Capital Improvement Program, has identified
the need to perform a pre -design report for the replacement of the Heather Downs Interceptor.
Roth Hill Engineering Partners was selected to perform the work from the 2007 Utilities Systems
Annual Consultant Engineering Roster.
X
The proposed contract, in the amount of $189,900, is within the established budget for the project,
including sufficient funding to complete final design upon completion of the pre -design and
determination of a preferred alternative for construction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the contract with Roth Hill Engineering Partners, in the amount of $189,900, for the Pre -
design Report for the Replacement of the Heather Downs Interceptor, and authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the contract.
HAFile Sys\WWP - WasteWater\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence - Wastewater\davec\Heather Downs Agnbill.doc\DMCtp
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board.. PBPW/Utilities System Division
Staff Contact...... Dave Christensen (ext. 7212)
Subject:
Consultant Agreement for the Pre -Design Report for the
Replacement of the Heather Downs Interceptor
Exhibits:
Consultant Agreement
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Al #:
For Agenda of. March 5, 2007
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... $189,900 Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... $200,000 Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget $300,000 City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Wastewater Utility, as part of its adopted 2007 Capital Improvement Program, has identified
the need to perform a pre -design report for the replacement of the Heather Downs Interceptor.
Roth Hill Engineering Partners was selected to perform the work from the 2007 Utilities Systems
Annual Consultant Engineering Roster.
The proposed contract, in the amount of $189,900, is within the established budget for the project,
including sufficient funding to complete final design upon completion of the pre -design and
determination of a preferred alternative for construction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the contract with Roth Hill Engineering Partners, in the amount of $189,900, for the Pre -
design Report for the Replacement of the Heather Downs Interceptor, and authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the contract.
H:\File Sys\WWP - WasteWater\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence - Wastewater\davec\Heather Downs Agnbill.doc\DMCtp
/0
RothH111
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To: Dave Christensen
Planning/Building/Public Works
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Please find: ❑ Herewith
via:
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
2600 1161h Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel. 425.869.9448
800.835.0292
Fax 425.869.1190
Date: July 14, 2006
RECEIVED
Client: City of Renton 2006
Contract No: t" Y OF RENTON
UTILITY svqTEMS
Project No: 0015.00016.000
Subject: Heatherdowns/Maplewood
Sewer System Analysis
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
Model Results — color coded maps
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ As requested ❑ For your file ❑ Approved as noted
❑ For review and comment ❑ For your information ❑ Returned for corrections
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies
REMARKS: The enclosed figures represent the model runs for the Heatherdowns/Maplewood Sewer
System. We have enclosed the current model as well as runs for the Ultimate Model under the following
scenarios: Ultimate Conditions without increasing the population in the basins by 25% and holding I&I
constant (no 28% increase); Ultimate Conditions with the population in the basins increased by 25% while
holding I&I constant (no 28% increase); Ultimate Conditions with the population in the basins increasing
by 25% and increasing I&I by 28%. The figures also identify potential flow monitoring locations that could
provide a better idea of the I&I within the various segments of the interceptors. The additional monitoring
would allow the City to better define the pipes with capacity issues.
Please review the attached figures and let me know if you have any questions. I am also available to meet to
discuss the results if you so desire.
COPIES: SIGNED:
F10015\00016\Model\DC_081406_TF_Transmtl_Ult Model Results.doc Tony Fisher, P.E.
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
■ 1.20 <
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
■ 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
179600.0
179400.0
179200.0
179000.0
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0
178200.0
178000.0
177800.0
177600.0
177400.0
177200.0
177000.0
176800.0
176600.0
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0
175800.0
1306000.0
1307000.0 1308000.0
LI171lv\ATg MODEL WIT/t
�NCRff-gSA^1 D
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs UIt.PRF
j Iles -To
fW pP-0PvT$2/NG LtJc/lT�u.als
1309000.0
1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0
1314000.0
[feet]
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
179600.0
179400.0
179200.0
179000.0
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0
178200.0
178000.0
177800.0
177600.0
177400.0
177200.0
177000.0
176800.0
176600.0
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0
175800.0
■ 1.20 <
V-
1.00
1.20
■
0.80
1.00
0
0.60
0.80
<
0.60
1306000.0
U.L-TI M/1 l_g L W I?P -PS/ PoPuL.1'Tr04
/Al C21ASg pH i j,7Mc�T �S' l E I lNCRG4-sL
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Reduced I & I.PRF
� I 1>6 s 7-0 F. E Rf PL^l�t D
J P R0 Pos f u M 67 ik 114 G LoCAl,0NJ'
I "t, 4,1*�
1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0
1310000.0
! I ,
131 1000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0
131400&0
[feet]
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
179600.0
179400.0
179200.0
179000.0
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0
178200.0
178000.0
177800.0
177600.0
177400.0
177200.0
177000.0
176800.0
176600.0
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0
175800.0
■ 1.20 <
FA
1.00
1.20
■
0.80
1.00
■
0.60
0.80
<
0.60
i 111--1iI1If ull
LtLTIMATIZ w1-1iF�`�'T . Pu1�clVA7/arl / /V r "fA rk
Pul p vw i T M T :2 1 IAtC/Zjf14 .�,C
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ex Pop &Red I & I.PRF
P , p-en �, P-, P I A C-C
ppJ> s;r�. *,J rjg, q6 LCie n-?1o1
n
o
J
1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0
[feet]
C u Q►29N7 MOD4C
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
179600.0
179400.0
179200.0
179000.0
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0
178200.0
178000.0
177800.0
177600.0
177400.0
177200.0
177000.0
176800.0
176600.0
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0
175800.0
■ 1.20 <
6
1.00
1.20
■
0.80
1.00
■
0.60
0.80
<
0.60
1306000.0
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs 2001.PRF
pIPi-s -re) at RfPL. -cID
}P►20POs4Ft> METil2/N6 LOC47104-f
1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0
[feet]
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
179600.0
179400.0
179200.0
179000.0
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0
178200.0
178000.0
177800.0
177600.0
177400.0
177200.0
177000.0
176800.0
176600.0
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0
175800.0
■ 1.20 <
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
R 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
LILT/ ,AA7,E �naD*L W17M AL71QAl ATrulli 491 /M�2ou�H�n/zt
1�cLuo�s Po PaLA-rlurr i1\rCAe�s�
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult Alt 1A.PRF
1-ITU IP,Pf-
LA ? S ►- F-D To ►'I,>E
1306000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0
A 47
� v
M 34
v
�1 -, h hV t? • p ..� is ,
3 •� o 'fit z
c`
000000, 1 '
N OT I S
:N f s N S31So�
I. c X, I r7. Q Ti nl M I
AA S31So 4Z IS PP97TY F«T
(0,0olb -01.rf -6 0.00S5 4Pf/f
W H t t H MAY 51 A B 1 66 4 /Z Cinl 1-4 1Z
'Tu S"RcNhR611V6 Thh-AN I
o?, EX, DI~?wEf,I MH �'311vo
8 MH S11L o 34 1 5 PPI-rT y FtAT
(0,0023 �u o 060401 LAdk+t C H Mi1'r'f
13L A 8166te_ e-cr4T1Zt6NTu1Z
Sh2tHr'�R6�N6 7HA/V lE I j
I
1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0
[feet]
[feet]
181000.0
180500.0
180000.0
179500.0
179000.0
178500.0
178000.0
177500.0
177000.0
176500.0
176000.0
175500.0
175000.0
■ 1.20 <
,.
1.00
1.20
■
0.80
1.00
■t
0.60
0.80
<
0.60
(AI-T/M476 MvD,fL 1-4j'7'" AtTeRA/AIIIJf- y 2 iu�►2UVf0ifA174
)�,�s �s`/. J l.rcr�sE
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Alt 2A.PRF
UD 7-0
t
' o
4 i
it
r
P
1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0
1311000.0
1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0
W
1315000.0 1316000.0
[feet]
City of Renton
Heather Downs/Maplewood Interceptor
Job: 15-0016
Date: 8/2/2006
Prepared by:
BW
Edited by:
BAF 8/14/06
Alternative 1
Item #
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
21-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW
2620
LF
$145.00
$379,900 All open -trench pipe costs include cost of
2
18-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (Under 10' Depth)
950
LF
$105.00
$99,750 mobilization, materials, excavation, shoring, TESC, surface
3
18-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, Easement (Under 10' Depth)
235
LF
$105.00
$24,675 restoration, and trench patching. Depths are bsed on
4
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (Under 10' Depth)
735
LF
$110.00
$80,850 review of proposed pipe sections to be replaced, based on
5
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (15-20' depth)
360
LF
$125.00
$45,000 best available information.
6
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, Easement (Under 10' Depth)
475
LF
$85.00
$40,375
7
48-Inch Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manhole
16
EA
$4,000.00
$64,000 Depths determined by review of existing manhole depths based on best available information. Price of extra depth manholes assumed in cost.
8
6-Inch Diameter PVC Side Sewer
187
EA
$1,100.00
$205,700 Assumed 4 connections every 100' in public ROW, 15LF of 6" PVC at 10' average depth per connection
9
1 1/2 "Deep Asphalt Overlay Class 'B'
15550
SY
$25.00
$388,750 Assumed 30' Width Overlay for all Sewer Replacement in ROW. Overlay costs based on old pay estimates
Subtotal
$1,329,000
Contingency
20%
$266,000
Subtotal
$1,595,000
Sales Tax
8.8%
$140,000
Total
$1,735,000
Alternative 2
Item #
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (Under 10' Depth)
735
LF
$110.00
$80,850 All open trench pipe costs include cost of mobiIization,materials, excavation, shoring, TESC,
2
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (1 5-20'depth)
360
LF
$125.00
$45,000 surface restoration, and trench patching. Depths are bsed on review of proposed pipe
3
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, Easement (Under 10' Depth)
475
LF
$85.00
$40,375 sections to be replaced, based on best available information.
4
10-Inch Diameter HDPE Sewer Pipe, Directional Drill
1370
LF
$300.00
$411,000 Based on national survey conducted by Trenchless Technologies (from S&W)
5
48-Inch Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manhole
9
EA
$4,000.00
$36,000 Depths determined by review of existing manhole depths based on best available information. No extra Depth manholes anticipated
6
6-Inch Diameter PVC Side Sewer
44
EA
$1,000.00
$43,800 Assumed 4 connections every 100' in public ROW, 15LF of 6" PVC at 10' average depth per connection
7
1 1/2 " Deep Asphalt Overlay Class 'B'
3650
SY
$25.00
$91,250 Assumed 30' Width Overlay for all Sewer Replacement in ROW. Overlay costs based on old pay estimates
Subtotal
$748,000
Contingency
20%
$150,000
Subtotal
$898,000
Sales Tax
8.8%
$79,000
Total
$977,000
Additional Piping
Item #
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (10-15' Depth)
310
LF
$125.00
$38,750 All open -trench pipe costs include cost of mobiIization,materials, excavation, shoring, TESC,
2
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (20-25' depth)
925
LF
$270.00
$249,750 surface restoration, and trench patching. Depths are bsed on review of proposed pipe
3
12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, Easement (Under 10' Depth)
135
LF
$85.00
$11,475 sections to be replaced, based on best available information.
4
48-Inch Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manhole
6
EA
$4,000.00
$24,000 Depths determined by review of existing manhole depths based on best available information. Price of extra depth manholes assumed in cost.
5
6-Inch Diameter PVC Side Sewer
49
EA
$1,000.00
$49,400 Assumed 4 connections every 100' in public ROW, 15LF of 6" PVC at 10' average depth per connection
6
1 1/2 " Deep Asphalt Overlay Class 'B'
4120
SY
$25.00
$103,000 Assumed 30' Width Overlay for all Sewer Replacement in ROW. Overlay costs based on old pay estimates
Subtotal
$476,000
Contingency
20%
$95,000
Subtotal
$571,000
Sales Tax
8.8%
$50,000
Total
$621,000
F:\0015\00016\Planning Costs_080306_BPW.xis
O) PLANNING/BUILDING/
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
I � Z�� rc0V M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: [Click here and type Date]
TO: Erik Brodahl
Lara Kammerick
Tony Fisher
FROM: Dave Christensen
SUBJECT: Draft of Heather Downs/Maplewood Basin Analysis
I have reviewed the report submitted to me on July 131h and have the following
comments:
• Throughout the report please change references to the Heather Downs Analysis to
Heather Downs/Maplewood Analysis. The study area is two of our interceptor
areas, one known as the Heather Downs Interceptor, which runs from MH 5315-
192 to 5316-039. The other interceptor is our Maplewood Interceptor, which has
two feeds; the one for this study is from MH R10-26A to 5316-039. The report
breaks down the improvements to two areas, these areas also correspond to the
two different interceptors, and as such, please refer to the correct basin for those
interceptors.
• One additional analysis I would like performed would be to remove the 25%
additional density number for this service area since it is already mostly built out
and the remaining area to be built is anticipated to be built over the next few years
and we have a good number with current zoning. I would like to see if this
reduces the impacted areas or not.
• An additional analysis for future work that needs to be included in the report is
the concept of removing I&I in order to eliminate need for parts, if not all of the
interceptor improvements.
• On Figure 1, please show Maplewood Interceptor as well as Heather Downs
Interceptor.
• On Page 3, Analysis Results, I would add a hyphen after "to" in the first sentence
to clarify that the next item is in fact one of the attached mapping products.
• For Alternative 1, I am wondering why the upsizing sections do not include the
run from MH 5316-037 to 036, MH 5315-014 to 012, and MH 5315-001 to 002?
Even if these sections may not cause overflows, by exceeding their pipe capacity
they do become a maintenance issue for future cleaning, and higher potential for
plugging at manholes. Would like to see these sections added, separately from
the other sections, so that we can get a cost for what the improvement would be
versus our increased maintenance costs.
w:\wwp-03-0000 correspondence - wastewater\davec\roth hill heather downs memo.doc
Addressee Name
Page 2 of 2
Date of Memo Here
• For Alternative 2, same question as for Alternative 1 for similar runs. Also please
label the future proposed U7 Basin line on drawing.
For this review, I am assuming this report is intended to meet what was described for
Task 2A. With that I would like to be sure as we proceed to the next steps, that the
following is addressed:
• The flow monitoring proposal should attack two distinct items, first would be
to better identify flows to fine tune model to verify impacts to the interceptor.
Second, the flow monitoring needs to isolate areas in order to better identify
where the I&I source may be to help us determine where we would attack I&I
and what sources we would go after.
• The flow monitoring will also obviously need to further refine the flows to be
sure we are only potentially replacing portions of the system with true
capacity issues.
• Will want to cost estimate repair of upstream system versus interceptor
replacement.
• I believe that the further flow monitoring we do should be coordinated with
King County Folks to see if we can get them to perform additional monitoring
on the Cedar River Trunkline at the same time to better understand the
potential of their system surcharging back into Renton's system.
I think the scope calls for a team meeting once this report is finished. Not sure if that
includes Renton, but would suggest that these comments be reviewed and then we sit
down and go over report to date to ensure that we stay on track with what the final result
will be and to start the process of defining the monitoring task and how we get that work
on board.
Thanks, Dave C.
w:\wwp-03-0000 correspondence - wastewater\davec\roth hill heather downs memo.doc
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
RothHill
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To: Dave Christensen
City of Renton
Public Works Department
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Please find: ® Herewith
via: Courier
2600 116"' Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel. 425.869.9448
800.835.0292
Fax 425.869.1190
Date: 07/13/2006
Client: City of Renton
Project No: 0015.00016
Subject: Heather Downs Analysis
Report - DRAFT
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
07/12/06
1
Draft of Heather Downs Analysis
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
® As requested
® For review and comment
❑ For approval
REMARKS:
Dave,
❑ For your file ❑ Approved as noted
® For your information ❑ Returned for corrections
❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies
Please review the attached report, and let us know what revisions you would like to see incorporated. The
figures are pretty rough at this stage, with hand-written labels in some locations, as we discussed. If you
would like to see additional scenarios analyzed, we will incorporate these, and provide cost estimates for
all of the scenarios you would for us to evaluate. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you!
COPIES: File, TF, LRK
F:\0015\00016\Model\DC-061306-elb-trmtl-Heather Downs Draft Memo.doc
SIGNE
Erik Brodahl
�, i
MU
e I-Aww
0117
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
RothHill
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Christensen
FROM: Erikk Brodahl/Brian Wolf
RE: Analysis of Ultimate Heather Downs Area - DRAFT
2600 1161h Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel. 425.869.9448
800.835.0292
Fax 425.869.1190
COPIES: Lara Kammereck, Tony Fisher, File Project No: 0015.00016
DATE: July 12, 2006 Page 1 of 5
The City of Renton requested that Roth Hill Engineering evaluate projected "Ultimate" design
flows from the portion of the City known as the "Heather Downs" area. Specifically, the City has
requested a capacity analysis of the piping within the Heather Downs area, to identify any
additional capacity problems created by the increased population density, infiltration and inflow,
and added upstream flows associated with the Ultimate Model. It is our understanding that the
City will use the analysis to assist with planning any necessary sewer system improvements
associated with the area.
The main branch of piping analyzed for Heather Downs includes the following route: from the
upstream end (Manhole 5315060) heading generally south, the route follows Bremerton Avenue,
SE 2nd Place, Chelan Avenue, west on SE 4th Street, south on Union Avenue SE, and west,
parallel to Madrona Drive to a location (Manhole 5316036) where it travels south to SE 51h Street.
It follows SE 5th Street, Pierce Avenue SE, SE 6"' Street, and SE 5th Street to the intersection of
Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), where it drains to the King County Trunkline (Manhole
RE*CEDAR2.R10-26a). The primary sewer mini -basins that comprise and are tributary to the
Heather Downs area include Mini -Basin 25, a portion of Mini -Basin 46, and Mini -Basin U3A. A
vicinity map of the area is shown in Figure 1, with the Heather Downs Trunkline highlighted in
blue.
Mini -Basins 25, U3A, and the portion of Mini -Basin 46 which drains to the King County Trunkline
at the intersection of SE 5th Street and SR 169 were separated from the overall model for this
analysis since they do not have any upstream mini -basins or tributary boundary flows. As was
done with the Highlands Re -zone Area Analysis (which was summarized in a memo to the City
dated April 27, 2006), we simulated an outlet from the system in the King County Trunkline one
section downstream of the junction with the Heather Downs system. Backwater effects were
assumed from the downstream main, based on the tailwater elevation established by the hydraulic
model of the overall system. The study area is shown in Figure 2.
The analysis was performed using the City's hydraulic sewer model, with the MOUSE software
program by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI). The analysis was performed using a simulated
rainfall event from November 24, 1990, corresponding to the second ranked flow event for the
area (Model Basin Cedar 02A), which should generate approximate 30-year design flows within
the system, based on data obtained from King County. Two years of rainfall prior to the storm
F:\0015\00016\Model\DC_071206_elb_memo_Heather Downs Ult Analysis.doc
w
z
a
0
C
O
m
NE 2nd St
J
s
sR -
�
■ I(DISNWTON CREST
LIFT STATION
L-33
SANITARY SEWER MAIN
HEATHER DOWNS TRUNKLINE
KING COUNTY TRUNKLINE
CITY OF RENTON SEWER SYSTEM
HEATHER DOWNS ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
tE 4th St
II NE 3Td Gt
a 'Q
• I
Lr L
SE 1st PI _.
�U[E,ergreenDr
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC.
A 2600116th Avewe NE #100
el�9a�� `RothHiII ;
Fax 425.869.1190
SE 2nd PI
NTS
as A - _
IN b
"e\.titi� w O Or s § 44A a I r INr� r § r �o t IN O
i
a �w § �
x4'
a i ash
as a< IN U 3A
s �A ♦ ■ ■ r § �••W
44w
w s Za $ x w r w 910
4 aS i � i as � � w1 A r aI •�
Nl
av w an r NA
Al A♦ ♦ 0
w w O r a a i> .
r go � w 10• t ! �! d r � w
tp ■ m S4 a
NI ul i ■
�. i ` 1M• A
fA i! 74 t m w u A A A ■ : r
01 r a � r T
a� M � 6• � � i a w r i U 3 NTS
� � as ee " � s a.
o 4e 1046
r
O O 6 F--♦x S a or r a i • wJ
aT d IN• Nix w ■ ■ » o r o •■ U 3 B
• o °t
0 46r • • r a m s^ of r.
7° . M ■ ■ ■
at
as a• w ,� ee 0 r $ g •a r r a r 7:81@c
o 0
L7--L
IN
Nor i re is m n o4 + a O tt '0
o
i ■1 ! p0 a • + w O w ~ r O! eo m [TJ f- 'a S p a 'r J J m
d i ■l al ip O wl py p ■ ! p N c my rn
e (L)
a w !i w1 f!• a 0 !� me, i K wl + i a p �j N Q m m ai
s r at s r r e •• N
: •a� 41 a a O m
a< o � � y •T/
u-r •
as tv '� 4
30 aFb �,■ 1M * w IV r M i 1000,
. 4 a N •�
O ac �� 61[ IY S a mr S 7 f r • S a ♦d v� 5 A C
NETREJ Ra■� • oA
v a
IL_
��■ a ' w
mc
e q& . ti 54 25 B
arm p
46AK•` .•
� a
U 7
• ♦ • .. E"NGTON CREST a» 7
►� r ♦ UFT STATION r2 6
L-33 ri a, 4 j-•S In
• i
a ♦ D� IK 4 br pF,a 2
El�
O S W J
- Q/Qfull GREATER THAN 1.2 r ! s } ZQ
Nc
�a r w .e ■rsr 1= Of �
Q/Qfull BETWEEN 1.0 AND 1.2 � mv r w
b
No r 0. -♦w I � � LLJ
Q/Qfull BETWEEN 0.8 AND 1.0 r Orn Z
O cn (D
R•11 1- Z LL
LLJ
a Z
Q/Qfull BETWEEN 0.6 AND 0.8 r 65A 4 O a O
• �� , ••
LL 0
LU
Q/Qfull LESS THAN 0.6 er '
s n ac � s U LU
� 2
0 FLOW MONITOR LOCATIONS 9Vwe u m 14 �!o
• • � itwz a►a
•6L mlem
wre
�f a
Dave Christensen
July 12, 2006
Page 2
event were simulated to develop appropriate antecedent conditions. The model analysis was
performed for the following main scenarios: the Heather Downs 2001 Model, the Heather Downs
Ultimate Model without tributary flows from Mini -Basin U3A, the Heather Downs Ultimate Model
including Mini -Basin U3A, and two alternatives for system improvements to resolve capacity
issues.
FLOW ASSIGNMENTS
Populations, flow assignments, and infiltration and inflow assigned to the 2001 Heather Downs
Model were consistent with the Renton 2001 Model, which is described in the Capacity Analysis
for 2001 Sewer Model memorandum to the City, dated March 24, 2006.
The populations assigned to the Ultimate Heather Downs Model for Mini -Basins 25 and 46
included the projected ultimate growth based on RTAZ data, which was then increased by a
factor of 25 percent. Infiltration and inflow simulated for these Mini -Basins in the Ultimate
Heather Downs Model was increased by 28 percent from the 2001 model to represent
degradation of the system in accordance with King County's methodology. For flow assignment
to Mini -Basin U3A, 100 gallons per person per day was assumed for residential population, with
a peaking factor of 2.0, which is consistent with the City's standard for planning. Infiltration and
inflow within Mini -Basin U3A was assigned at 1500 gallons per acre per day. Flow assignments
to the Ultimate Heather Downs Model were consistent with the assignments to the overall
Ultimate Model, as described in the Ultimate Model report.
2001 AND ULTIMATE SCENARIOS
The Heather Downs areaass� previously been modeled as part of the Renton 2001 Model.
However, it had be6n run using the January 9, 1990 storm, which represents approximately the
60-year event for the area. Therefore, the Heather Downs 2001 Model was broken off from the
Renton 2001 Model and ran using the November 24, 1990 storm to examine existing capacity
issues, and to use as a benchmark against which the Ultimate Models were compared.
The Ultimate Heather Downs model was run without Mini -Basin U3A to determine the impact of
Ultimate conditions due to increased population density and I&I only within the existing basins.
Mini -Basin U3A was then added to examine the magnitude of impact due to the additional flows
resulting from the basin expansion.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
Two configurations of the sewer system were analyzed to determine the most feasible solution to
meet the current and future capacity needs. Alternative 1 investigated the minimum piping
improvements necessary to alleviate the moderate to severe problems in the existing system. The
minor capacity issues were deemed acceptable. Improvements modeled in Alternative 1 include
upsizing the existing 15-inch pipe to 21-inch diameter from the intersection of SE 6th Street and
Pierce Avenue SE (Manhole 5316017) to the connection to the King County trunk line in SR 169
and upsizing the existing 10-inch and 12-inch pipes to 18" in Pierce Avenue SE and SE 51h Street
(between Manholes 6316039 and 5316017. Existing 8-inch and 10-inch pipes from east of
Bremerton Ave to SE 4th St (between Manholes 5315046 and 5315012) were upsized to 12-inch
FA0015\00016\Modet\DC_071206_elb_memo_Heather Downs Ult Analysis.doc
Dave Christensen
July 12, 2006
Page 3
diameter.
Alternative 2 focused on upsizing the pipes in the northeast portion of Heather Downs, and
redirecting flows from the eastern portion of Mini -Basin 25 and U3A to another part of Mini -Basin
46. Rerouting the flows will require construction of a new main down a steep slope.
Improvements modeled in Alternative 2 included the removal of a pipe section southwest of the
intersection of Union Avenue SE and NE 4th St (west of Manhole 5315001). Flows entering this
manhole were diverted to a new 10° pipe which drains south down a steep slope and connects to
an existing 15" pipe at Manhole 5322007, east of Maplewood Creek Additional flows from
Ultimate Mini -Basin U7 would also flow separately across a steep slope and enter the system at
this manhole. These flows would drain to the existing King County Trunkline upstream of the point
where flows from Heather Downs currently drain. Existing 8-inch and 10-inch pipes from east of
Bremerton Avenue to SE 4th St (between Manholes 5315046 and 5315012) were upsized to 12-
inch diameter.
l
ANALYSIS RESULTS 'L
r
We have created five maps of the study corresponding to the Heather Downs 2001 Model, the
Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Mini -Bak A, the Heather Downs Ultimate Model
including the Mini -Basin U3A, Alternative A, and Alternative B (See attachments A thro66 E).
The maps of the modeled system inc►u-fie-pipes color -coded by peak flows divided by maximum
capacity (Q/Qfu„) based on Manning's equation for the model analysis period. The map has been
color -coded consistently with the previous results from the various analyses we have provided, as
listed below:
Peak Q/Qf,„
Color
0.0 to 0.6
Gray
0.6 to 0.8
Blue
0.8 to 1.0
Green
1.0 to 1.2
Orange
Greater than 1.2
Red
All pipes with ratios greater than 0.8 are considered to be exceeding their capacity. Pipes colored
blue indicate pipes that are close to but not exceeding this capacity standard. Although the
color -coding identifies most of the problem areas, there are some locations where adjacent mains
upstream from problem areas are surcharging due to backwater effects, but are not color -coded.
These mains are surcharging as a result of the backwater effects created by the increased
densities even though the local flows within these pipes are insufficient to create surcharging in
the absence of the backwater effects. This occurrence is more prevalent in the Ultimate Model.
Resolving the downstream capacity issues appears to eliminate surcharging at these locations, as
expected. Profiles have been provided for each of the problem areas. The profiles are useful in
analyzing the severity of the peak surcharging.
Heather Downs 2001 Model
The Heather Downs 2001 Model results show moderate surcharging in the manholes along the
western portion of SE 6`h Street, Pierce Ave SE and SE 5th Street. Surcharging also occurs in the
pipe parallel to Madrona Drive between Manholes 5306038 and 5316034 caused by constriction
due to the significant change in pipe grade west of this section, as the pipe travels down a steep
F:\0015500016\Model\DC_071206_elb_memo_Heather Downs Ult Analysis.doc
Dave Christensen
July 12, 2006
Page 4
slope for approximately 400 feet before returning to a shallow grade. The map and profile for
these results are found in Attachment A.
The Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Mini -Basin U3A
The Heather Downs Ultimate Model (not including Mini -Basin U3A) results indicate increased
capacity problem areas compared to the 2001 Model. The problems areas were extended slightly
and the severity increased. Results show manholes overtopping on SE 5th Street west of Pierce
Avenue SE. The map and profile for these results are shown on Attachment B.
The Heather Downs Ultimate Model with Mini -Basin U3A
The Heather Downs Ultimate Model with Mini -Basin U3A demonstrates increased capacity
problem areas along the Heather Downs Trunkline, as seen on Attachment C. Based on the
model results, the peak flow from Mini -Basin U3A is approximately 0.25 cubic feet per second
(112 gpm), which increases the magnitude of the capacity issues. These issues are even more
evident on the upstream end of the Heather Downs Trunk. Moderate to severe surcharging is
shown in the pipes from SE 4th Street to the north end of Bremerton Place NE (between Manholes
5315012 and 5315058). The capacity problems in this scenario correspond to Problems Areas
25A, 25B, 25C, and 46A as shown in figure 2 and as described in the Ultimate Model Peak Flow
Analysis Report.
Alternative 1
The improvements modeled in Alternative 1 minimize the surcharging in the manholes along the
western portion of SE 6th Street, Pierce Avenue SE and SE 5th Street by increasing the diameter
of the conveyance pipes. Surcharging caused by backwater effects in the King County Trunkline
was not eliminated. Surcharging in the manholes upstream of the intersection of SE 4th Street and
Chelan Avenue SE was eliminated, and surcharging in the manholes parallel to Madrona Drive
and on SE 4th Street was reduced to a minimal level above the crown of the pipes. The map and
profile for these results are found in Attachment D.
Alternative 2
The improvements modeled in Alternative 2 reduce the surcharging in the lower portion of the
Heather Downs system by increasing the diameter of those pipes in a similar way to Alternative 1.
In addition, flows from upstream of Manhole 5315001 were diverted to the steep slope to Manhole
5322007, thus removing most of the flows in the pipe south of Madrona Drive and eliminating the
surcharging. Surcharging on SE 4th Street was reduced to a minimal level above the crown of the
pipes and eliminated in all sections upstream of this section. Diversion of the flows through the
new 10" pipe did not cause any adverse effects to the system downstream of Manhole 5322007.
The map and profile for these results are found in Attachment D.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Due to the assumptions and limitations in the accuracy of the model to predict future flows, we
recommend additional flow monitoring and/or verification prior to proceeding with any
improvements to the Heather Downs system. Although the model demonstrates moderate
surcharging from the King County Trunkline, the surcharging results from conservative
assumptions for the Kink County peak flows, so the actual surcharging problem may not be as
pronounced as shown in the model results. Alternative 2 would help avoid some of the costs and
inconvenience relating to upsizing the main in existing streets. The drawbacks with Alternative 2
F:\0015\00016\Model\DC_071206_elb_memo_Heather Downs Ult Analysis.doc
Dave Christensen
July 12, 2006
Page 5
are the complexity and challenges associated with steep slope pipe construction in an area
outside the right of way without current sewer easements. Although not modeled, there may be
potential to combine the piping in Alternative 2 with the future piping draining Mini -Basin U7
across a portion of the steep slope. This would avoid two completely separate sewage mains on
the steep slope.
Please let us know if you would like us to further evaluate these or other alternative solutions to
the capacity issues in the Heather Downs area. If you agree with these alternatives, we can
procet✓d :Kith preparation of cost estimates.
F:\0015\00016\Model\DC_071206_elb_memo_Heather Downs Ult Analysis.doc
Attachment A
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
■ 1.20 <
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
8 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs 2001.PRF
0
179600.0 >v 5315060
Q
179400.0
o o
o c U
17 200.0 0
o p
179000.0 oD'
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0 r
178200.0
r� r
178000.0 5315011
177800.0 J
177600.0
177400.0'
55t 6 o 3 G Madonna
177200.0 '
177000.0 0 0 ov�� 5315001
176800.0 S o
176600.0
J` 5*314011
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0 531601}
175800.0
r _7 -r- r r T
-1F-T-F-ZTF-T-T- - I r-- - . �-.-T-...
1306000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0
1314000.0
[feet]
0P Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs 2001.PRF
I Discharge 1 40.000 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 P.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 cfs�
GAO O`1' o`b �'1 fro `L`� `L�` DLO DLO' `L� do NC) '��b N\
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
feet *,� `b1 1NoN O� o� o� o�. ,b'. o� o�
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
d
(V
(O
N N
(q (q
N
`°
N
`q
N N
(O (q
N (V
(O (q
N N
(O (q
N
(O
[m]
N
Cfl
U7
(.0
U") U
(O (O
U7
(O
U7
co
U) U)
CO (O
LO U')
(O (O
LO U')
(O (O
LO
(O
Invert lev.
LO
c°
0)
O7
M (O
M U
(O
CO
(V N
a�
(O (V
11� CP
r` N
r-� O�
U-)
cl�
[m]
U)
U')
U)
LO
(o (0
U) U-)
LO
r-
U-)
r- co
U") U')
ao co
U*) LO
ao 0o
U") U')
of
U-)
Length
218.01
409.81
349.87
182.72
242.48
206.68
281.63
[m]
Diameter
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
[m]
Slope o/oo
1.56
2.05 1.49
1.40
1.42
1.58 1.40
1.44
1.23 2.08
1.78
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs 2001.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
[feet]
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
0.0 100.0 200.0
N N
Ground Lev. co
U-) U-)
In N
Invert lev. 00
am o
U') c0
Length 220.50
Diameter 1.00
Slope o/oo 1.22
300.0 400.0
219.87
1.00
2.00
N
IR
LO
co
c0
Uf
0
(0
500.0
1:0
209.91
1.00
4.43
600.0 700.0 800.0
t61[- I
1.51
235.29
0.83
3.78
900.0
[feet]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs 2001.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
[feet] 4p 4P 4P
�6n n
350.0
340.0
330.0
320.0
310.0
300.0
0.0
- --
200.0
400.0
600.0
T _- 7--r-
800.0
1000.0
_--
1200.0
1 -,-r---.-,-
1400.0
.
1600.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
O
0
Il-
°;
0)
N
CO
°Mq
N
CO
o
1`
m
[ml
O
C)
(M
CV
M
CO
CO
CO
cM
M
Invert lev.
°p
O'
O'
ti
CO
v
M
m
[ l
v
Sri
O
co
O
O
00
O
O
�
N
cN
M
Length
202.37 136.77
322.32
193.93
398.34
204.40
192.65
[m]
Diameter
0.83 0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
[m]
Slope o/oo
54.90 7.31
2.30
4.80
29.70
33.46
160.91
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00.00:00 Heather Downs 2001.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 10-00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 cfs
�O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O'�O
` N '� � `�'� �'� ,�'� ,�'� `�N '� '� `5N � "� "�N
[feet]
h h h h h h h h h
390.0
385.0
380.0
rr
r�
375.0
370.0
j l
365.0
1
1
360.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
1.-0
[feet]
d7
00
V
00
CO
U')
CO
rl-
CO
Ln
CO
CD`
(0
r
M
U)
'T
r-
NCOU
00
CO
U)
CO
V
M
)
CDGround
Lr)
Lev.
o
v
o
o
ai
v
0i
c\i
.4
c6
a�
0�
ti
[m]
M
r`
M
ti
Cl)
00
M
CO
CO
CO
M
r`
CO
r`
CO
r;
CO
C
CO
rl-
M
r`
CO
(I-
M
rl-
M
ti
M
N
M
M
CO
It
M
a)
N
a)
T
(V
W
U)
N
M
TT
O
a)
L9
IT
00
M
�
M
N
Invert lev.
CO
aj
p
r
N
M
V
6
6
00
c0
(:6
M
m
[]
M
M
co
M
co
M
co
M
co
M
co
CO
CD
M
(0
M
co
CO
co
CO
W
M
LO
M
r`
M
rl-
M
Length
309.95
274.90
459.29
465.55
359.46 286.26
352.99
289.15
[m]
Diameter
0.83
0.83 0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83 0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
[m]
Slope o/oo
3.26
3.67 3.85
2.61
2.43
1.75 4.12
2.15
5.47
3.54
3.84
Attachment B
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
179600.0
179400.0
179200.0
179000.0
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0
178200.0
178000.0
177800.0
177600.0
177400.0
177200.0
177000.0
176800.0
176600.0
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0
175800.0
■ 1.20 <
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
■ 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
i[c 11-9I11111C
o
9
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs No U3.PRF
53%601
531(oO3L Madconp��'
5315001
v
5315oc,o
QJ
IF
v
ro
5315ot 1
-T-r -i. ,- , i I t-_T_ -T T T-T -T -.T
1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0
[feet]
bP Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00.00 Heather Downs No U3.PRF
Discharge
I
c0.000
0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
P.0001
0.000
1
I
1
I 0.000
1 0.000
1 cfsl
G` O� & Q51 r11
�L`O
��
00 00 00 00
�.
00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00
[feet]
G* �� ,5�
�N
�� �� 0�
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0�_
-- - �
61.0
60.0
_-
59.0
Wow
58.0
57.0
56.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
Ground Lev. v
N
(D
LO
Invert lev. CO
Length
Diameter
Slope o/oo
N (V (V
(.0 M
CO CD CO
M CD
M LO
LO LO
218.01
1.25 1.25
1.56 2.05
409.81
1.25
1.49
2500.0
1:0 [feet]
N N N N N N N CV
cfl co (D co cD co co cfl [m]
(0 CO M (O (D (0 (0 cfl
(D N N (D N Il- N LO
CD V CD rl- M M
r; C6 C6 C6 M C6 6
U') U') U-) LO U') U') U') V)
349.87 182.72 242.48 206.68 281.63
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 1.44 1.23 2.08 1.78
[m]
[m]
[m]
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs No U3.PRF
Discharge
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
cfs
N
[feet]
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
--�
60.0
-
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0 500.0 600.0
700.0
800.0 900.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
19
(P
��"
Iq
[m]
U*)
c0
LO
(0
CO
C0
ui
C0
Invert lev.
U')
OR
N
17
CO
U�
07
?
C9
[m]
CD
LO
o
CO
o
(0
r-
(0
c0
Length
220.50
219.87
209.91
79.38
235.29
[m]
Diameter
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.83
0.83
[m]
Slope o/oo
1.22
2.00
4.43
1.51
3.78
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs No U3.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
�rOO��b �rOO�1 �`OO�rO ^cOO,�� �`Oo,SD �rOO,�� ^qo2ti ��0Fl
[feet]
��n n
350.0
340.0
330.0
320.0 '
310.0
300.0
0.0
200.0
Ground Lev.
rn
CO
r` M
o0 CV
0)
0)
LO N
c-
N
CO CO
Invert lev.
rl-
0O
00 00
O' O'
It
rn
� Co
o 0
CV
M M
Length
202.37 136.77
Diameter
0.83 0.83
Slope o/oo
54.90 7.31
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1:0
[feet]
00
CV
CO
rl-
[m]
M
ct
O
M
CO
CO
M
M
C)
cM
N
rll�
In
CD
00
I:
N
M
[m]
�
C)
00
O
CD
N
r;
N
CO
M
CO
CM
322.32
193.93
398.34
204.40
192.65
[m]
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
[m]
2.30
4.80
29.70
33.46
160.91
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs No U3.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 1 cfs
N � D
�00 h00 �00 00�ON �ON
�`
[feet] (�� �`�� y�� ��� 5N 4N 4;)N r�N N � ^�``�n�h"j� tP'`� N�`�,��
395.0
390.0 -
385.0
380.0
375.0
370.0
365.0
360.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0
1:0 [feet]
'7) 'IT co 00 CC) M CO M N 00 co 00 � U-) co
a0 M I ti LO O rl- � r to V co CD- r-_
Ground Lev. CDItCD6 6 v ri c\i 4 ao 6 6 r- - [m]
co r` r` 00 co oo rl- rl_ r- co ti rl- rl- r-- rl- co
M Cl) M co t'M M Cl) Cl) M M Cl) M M M M M
N co It 0) O') N U-) M O r9 - N ct co 'IT
co M Cl) N c0 N 'IT M V co M ti N M
Invert lev. o6 6 O N cyi 6 6 00 06 6 ch [m]
in in cO co co co co (D co co co co co r-- rl- r`
M co co M co co co M M M M Cl) M Cl) M M
Length 309.95 274.90 459.29 465.55 359.46 286.26 352.99 289.15 [m]
Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 [m]
Slope o/oo 3.26 3.67 3.85 2.61 2.43 1.75 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 3.84
Attachment C
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
179600.0
179400.0
179200.0
179000.0
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0
178200.0
178000.0
177800.0
177600.0
177400.0
177200.0
177000.0
176800.0
176600.0
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0
175800.0
■ 1.20 <
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
i 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
1306000.0 1307000.0
1308000.0
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs UIt.PRF
531603 b Modwna��
5315001
5314O1
¢ 5315ot.o
0 o C
O
O C
C O
� o
0
5315011
E akh 5h
5
1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0
[feet]
�P Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult.PRF
Discharge
�0.000
0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
P.0001
0.000
1
1
1
1 0.000
1 0.000
1 cfs�
�O NA
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00 ro 00 00 ro
[feet]
�G�O� �`5^
�O� c�`5^
�`�^ �`5^
c�`�� c,`5N
� 00� ^ �
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
-�
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
.Rt
c
N
c0
N N
c0 (0
fV
10
N
C°
N N
Iq Iq
N N
cO CO
N N
c° c°
(V
cD
[m]
(V
CO
Ln
(0
Ln In
(0 c0
L[)
(0
In
(0
Ln Ln
(0 (0
Ln Ln
C0 c0
Ln Ln
(0 c0
Ln
CO
Invert lev.
(0
�
M L(°n
CD
C)
(0
1� �
M
[m]
Ln
V)
Ln
(0 (0
Ln Ln
Ln
r-
Ln
� o6
Ln Ln
00 00
Ln Ln
co 00
Ln Ln
a;
Ln
Length
218.01
409.81
349.87
182.72
242.48
206.68
281.63
[m]
Diameter
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
[m]
Slope o/oo
1.56
2.05 1.49
1.40
1.42
1.58 1.40
1.44
1.23 2.08
1.78
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
[feet] 4P- e c�`5 �`5 4P" c�`5
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
0.0
100.0
Ground Lev.
N
(9
LO
co
Invert lev.
00
rn
LO
Length
220.50
Diameter
1.00
Slope o/oo
1.22
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0 600.0
700.0
800.0 900.0
1:0
[feet]
N
CO
N
CD
N
I�
(D
l J
[m]
U')
co
U')
co
U")
cD
m
U?
v
co
[m]
0
co
0
co
co
co
219.87
209.91
79.38
235.29 [m]
1.00
1.00
0.83
0.83 [m]
2.00
4.43
1.51
3.78
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
[feet]
,iFn n
350.0
340.0
330.0
320.0
310.0
300.0
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
�
N
00
CO
CO
(6
[ml
,
o
CM
M
N
M
CO
cM
CO
cM
(M
Invert lev.
00
rn
O'
�
ti
c°
0
Cl?[m]
Uri
O
c0
O
O
00
O
M
N
CO
CO
CO
CO
Length
202.37 136.77
322.32
193.93
398.34
204.40
192.65
[m]
Diameter
0.83 0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
[m]
Slope o/oo
54.90 7.31
2.30
4.80
29.70
33.46
160.91
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult.PRF
Discharge 10.000 10.000 10.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 10.00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.000 1 1 cfs
'� 0, D1 r�, � `L "� D� 1 F r F � O O
�00 �00 �00 �O� �O� �O� �O� �O`L �O`L �Oti !�,�D� b �.� �.� Off` c� Oh Oh Oh Oro
feet 5N O� 3� P^ O� �� O� O� O� ���� O�h 4p�h P�h O<� O��
395.0
390.0
385.0
380.0
375.0
370.0
365.0
- -
360.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
1:0
[feet]
O
a0
O0
00
U�
00
Il-
CO
U?
00
O
C0
f�
O
lf) I�
N
CO
U)
00
00
Cl?O
U)
U')
00
11
Ground Lev.
o
v
CD
CD
m
v
Ci
N
v
0o
0)
0)
7
t-
[ml
cD
M
ti
cM
ti
M
CO
M
0o
M
Oo
M
M
ti ti
M M
00
M
Il-
M
ti
CO
I-
CO
Il-
CO
Il-
CO
00
CO
CV
M
CM
CM
t7
clM
0)
N
O
N
UJ
U)
N
CM O
� �
CO
T
O0
N
�
�
CO
N
Nt
M
Invert lev.
00
0)
O
-
CV
M
v
U) U')
I-
CO
CO
0
M
I-
[ml
U*)
M
U)
M
CO
M
c0
M
CO
M
CD
M
CD
M
c0 CD
M M
(0
M
(0
M
CD
M
CD
M
Il-
CO
Il-
CO
r-
CY)
Length
309.95
274.90
459.29
465.55
359.46 286.26
352.99
289.15
[m]
Diameter
0.83
0.83 0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83 0.67
0.67 0.67
0.67
0.67
[m]
Slope o/oo
3.26
3.67 3.85
2.61
2.43
1.75 4.12
2.15 5.47
3.54
3.84
Attachment D
[feet]
181000.0
180800.0
180600.0
180400.0
180200.0
180000.0
179800.0
179600.0
179400.0
179200.0
179000.0
178800.0
178600.0
178400.0
178200.0
178000.0
177800.0
177600.0
177400.0
177200.0
177000.0
176800.0
176600.0
176400.0
176200.0
176000.0
175800.0
■ 1.20 <
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
■ 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
1306000.0 1307000.0
�sq , I,, e"�
'C9 Sic
Upsized Ao
21-Inch p:pf-
1308000.0
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF
UPS',ze.a AO
12- itnch d;amekX pipe
5011
531603 Madrona
Ups;zed +0 %v inch
&omiker p;pc.
1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0
[feet]
,bP Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF
Discharge
�0.000
0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
P.0001
0.000
1
1 1
1 0.000 1
0.000
1 cfsl
pip p�h p�rx
NA
c� pp pp`L
ppp p�1
p�^,
'��O '�(Z
p�ti pNJ pNb
'�q '��O '��O '�q§
G* �p �p
[feet] �(�`3 �`�
NR Nb
c�`5 �`�
�p NZ
�`� �`� �`� 4P
4P �4P 4P
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
It
N
(D
N CV
(D (D
N
(D
N
C0
N CV
C0 (D
N N
(D (D
N N
(P (D
N
cD
[m]
N
CD
Ui
(0
U) U)
(0 (0
U*)
(D
U)
(0
U) U)
Cfl (0
M U)
CD (D
U') U)
(D (D
U-)
(0
Invert lev.
U)
(o
Cn
(n
M (0
M LQ
r
(0
(D
N N
°? 7
CD N
v (0
1- N
11- rn
LO
M
[m]
LO
U-)
U)
(n
(o (o
LO U)
M
rl-
Ua
rl- co
LO U')
00 00
►n LO
00 00
U') U')
0)
U)
Length
218.01
409.81
349.87
182.72
242.48
206.68
281.63
[m]
Diameter
1.75
1.75 1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75 1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
[m]
Slope o/oo
1.56
2.05 1.49
1.40
1.42
1.58 1.40
1.44
1.23
2.08
1.78
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF
Discharge
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
cfs
e��
[feet]
^�1z,
��0�^D
�.�0�^`L
�rO^�� .�0�N�
<P
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
-------
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0 500.0 600.0
700.0 800.0 900.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
(9
1P
CN
m
N �
[m]
Ln
(o
ir)
(o
Sri
(o
ui (ri
(o co
Invert lev.
LO
a0
N
(0
`?
O
�
[m]
O
ifi
O
c0
O
(O
r
(O (fl
Length
220.50
219.87
209.91
79.38 235.29
[m]
Diameter
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50 1.50
[m]
Slope o/oo
1.22
2.00
4.43
1.51 3.78
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF
Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs
N`OO�� NcOO�1 �O ^`OO,�h NrOO,�D�`OR, �cOQ, ��o��
[feet] 4 5 �`� �`� �`� 4`5 4P `5 4P
qRn n
350.0
340.0
330.0
320.0
310.0
300.0
0.0 200.0
O rl- O
Ground Lev. 00 00 N
O N
O
N (M cM
O M
Invert lev. a0 O'
v Uri c0
O O O
N CM M
Length 202.37 136.77
Diameter 0.83 0.83
Slope o/oo 54.90 7.31
400.0 600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1:0
[feet]
CO
CO
N
�
M
Cl?
1�
Im]
M
(00
M
CO
CO
M
M
N
In
00
O
N
P-
Im]
O
0O0
O
N
N
CO
CM
CO
CO
322.32
193.93
398.34
204.40
192.65
[m]
1.25
1.25
0.83
0.83
0.83
[m]
2.30
4.80
29.70
33.46
160.91
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF
Discharge 10.000 10.000 10.0001 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 10.00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.000 1 1 1 cfs
h�0 h�0 h�0 hh�11 ^ h�N h�� �111 Z hZIL �p� ��� �b Cr Cr �0 � �� O0 O� �F ^0
feet `�� '�'� � n0� n0^ �� n�'� n�N n�N �� '�^ n,�` P- "N r�N N r�jN ��� �r�� �n ���
[feet) 4 4 h h h h 4 � h h h h hhh hth h h 4-h
395.0
390.0
385.0
380.0
375.0
370.0
365.0
360.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
1:0
Ground Lev.
O
CO
'IT
OR
CO
Cn
CO
~
00
Cn
CO
O
CD
�
(A 'IT
Cn 1
N
r
CO
"'
O
(D
V
r�
O
r`
O
00
0)
00
qY
CO
M
r\
N
r- r`
•-
00
�7
r-
CO
M
M
M
M
M
M
M cM
M
M
Invert lev.
N
M
M
CM
�
M
O
N
O
N
(9
U)
N
M O
v O
CD
v
00
LO
O)
U)
O
Co
Cfl
N
(D
CO
CD
It
CD
Cn Cn
CD (O
r`
CD
CO
CD
M
M
M
cM
M
CO
CO
M CO
M
M
Length
309.95
274.90
459.29
465.55
359.46 286.26
352.99
Diameter
0.83
0.83 0.83
0.83
0.83
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
Slope o/oo
3.26
3.67 3.85
2.61
2.43
1.75 4.12
2.15 5.47
3.54
3500.0
4000.0
4500.0
[feet]
CO CO
O C'
Ul)
O
T7
CO
1�
Im ]
00 O
rl- 00
0)r`
rl-
t`
00
(A
CM M
CO
CM
M
M
.- s-
Cn C
CO
N
Irr
C?
O
M
Im]
0) O
CD t`
t`
ti
Uri
ti
M M
M
M
CO
CO
289.15
[m]
0.67
[m]
3.84
Attachment E
[feet]
181000.0
180500.0
180000.0
179500.0
179000.0
178500.0
178000.0
177500.0
177000.0
176500.0
176000.0
175500.0
175000.0
■ 1.20 <
1.00
1.20
■ 0.80
1.00
! 0.60
0.80
<
0.60
Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF
t 5jl(io 1
53l Lot*
1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0
o v �
0 0
o
Madrono �
Removed
'Pape
1310000.0
5322im-f
1311000.0
v
53150&0
Up5i2ed +o 12-inch
d�c>.nn��cx p.pe
d'CI"/Uv'
i- 7T- i -_r T -7 -r 7 r -I r T F- T-'-t-r'-r-r 7 i_ 1. I.
1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 1315000.0 1316000.0
[feet]
�P Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF
I Discharge I I I c9.000 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 p.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 cfsl
c�
O '\ O h tx 1
�G 00 00 00 Off' Off' 00' Off' Off' Off' Off' 00' O� O� ON
[feet] 4�1 c� h`� �`5 4`5 4` h`N hO hO hO hO hO
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
0.0
Ground Lev.
N
(O
Invert lev. C°
Length
Diameter
Slope o/oo
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
1:0
[feet]
N
(O
N CV
(0 C0
N
(O
N
(9
N N
c0 10
N N
(0 (0
N
(O
N
(0
N
(0
[m]
LO
(0
(r) (r)
(0 (0
(ri
(0
ui
(0
ui LO
(0 (0
(ri Ln
c0 c0
LO
(0
U-)
(0
U)
(0
0)
O�
M (D
Cl? U?
(0
(O
N N
C� -
(0 N
� (fl
I-
I�
N
O�
LO
CM
[m]
LO
LO
(0 (0
u") U')
U-)
�
U")
ti 06
U') U-)
00 00
U') U-)
00
a
00
LO
0')1
LO
218.01
409.81
349.87
182.72
242.48
206.68
281.63
[m]
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25 1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
[m]
1.56
2.05 1.49
1.40
1.42
1.58 1.40
1.44
1.23
2.08
1.78
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF
Discharge
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
cfs
N
N
�
�
[feet]
NQ0��
��0���
^�oti
���� �roo�
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
-
62.0
�-
61.0
-
60.0
-
--'
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0 500.0 600.0
700.0 800.0 900.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
(
c9
N C°
[m]
U*)
c0
Uci
c0
LO
(0
Sri Uri
cD CO
Invert lev.
U')
�
N
o
(0
o
C9
[m]
�n
c0
co
c0 c0
Length
220.50
219.87
209.91
79.38 235.29
[m]
Diameter
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.83 0.83
[m]
Slope o/oo
1.22
2.00
4.43
1.51 3.78
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF
Discharge
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
cfs
`Oo��
[feet]
NcOo�1
Nq§1
^�o�h
Nd
�IbP
335.0
330.0
325.0
320.0
315.0
310.0
_---
1
305.0
300.0 1
n
I 1
295.0 J
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0 800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
a
M
[m]
0)
N
C)
M
N
cM
CO
(M
M
C)
Invert lev.
00
O'
O'
�
ti
C°
v,
[m]
v
Uri
O
c0
CDO
00
O
0
N
CON
Length
202.37
136.77
322.32
193.93
398.34
204.40
[m]
Diameter
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
[m]
Slope o/oo
54.90
7.31
2.30
4.80
29.70
33.46
Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF
Discharge 10.000 10.000 10.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 10.00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.000 1 1 cfs
D
�O�
feet n�� n�� �� O� '�^ '�� PN �^ �^ � ON �'� K r>r ONh � �N: ��� ONE O�h
395.0
390.0
385.0
380.0
375.0
370.0
365.0
360.0��
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
1:0
O
00
V
°0
00
(n
00
r-
00
`?
CO
O
(O
�
0')O14
U?r�
00
Lq
00
,I:
CO
Cl?
Ground Lev.
O
'T
O
O
O
ZT
M
N
r
CO
0)
CO
eM
rl-
M
r`
M
00
CO
CO
cM
CO
CO
ti
M
rl- I-
M CO
CO
M
I-
CM
fl-
CM
r`
M
Invert lev.
N
M
CO
cM
'IT
M
O
N
O
N
(D
(A
N
CO O
O
CO
11�
00
N
O
00
U')
O
in
O
(0
(0
N
(O
M
(0
"I
(0
Ct) U')
(O (0
P--�
(.0
CO
(0
CO
(0
O
O
cM
cM
CM
M
CO
M
M
CY) CO
M
M
CO
M
Length
309.95
274.90
459.29
465.55
359.46 286.26
352.99
Diameter
0.83
0.83 0.83
0.83
0.83
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
Slope o/oo
3.26
3.67 3.85
2.61
2.43
1.75 4.12
2.15 5.47
3.54
4000.0
[feet]
Cn
O
(n
-
CO
r
0)r`
e-
[m]
rl-
CO
r-
CO
CO
M
cf
M
'IT
[m]
CO
v
M
cM
CO
289.15
[m]
0.67
[m]
3.84
b Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF
I Discharge l 0.000 JN0 0.000 l 0.000 l 0.000 1 0.000 l 0.001 l cfsl
Q-
[feet]
100.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0 _:
75.0
70.0
65.0
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0 400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
1000.0
1100.0
1:0
[feet]
Ground Lev.
co
?
co
U'
r'
N
U')
I,-
00
[m]
I�
M
rl-
O
00
M
co
00
N
M
Invert lev.
I-
I-
O
C°
U-)
rn
V
o
0'
00
[m]
CV
CO
Lf)
cc
r'
L
M
00
Length
87.64
262.67
275.37
183.58
170.71
185.76
[m]
Diameter
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
[m]
Slope o/oo
5.02
24.18
11.22
15.63
34.74
56.58
O
>9
&No wow OR EQUIPMENT cz ` �3a
SHALL 5ED.-OUTSIDE . 4
OF THESE-f�
PRO�SSTUB
PLUG /
,J IE 72.5b (MATCH CROWNS) fts/ S /V ?�,'•_
J J ; *C s,
FUTY(ZE SEWER E
----R1F1 -� Rk UGC ..
Q /
--F-- 90 /
8" 5URFACE CO.
M N 4--,,A0STa 9 1- 81., Ri. I 5.5 "
sr
--
INN Ff:e 7ae s I �-
0
7 00 I Too
9 00 10 00 II 00 WW 12
74-3�CHr OUT) III r�
----- - - - 90---- - - — --- -- - - - - - - - --- - - I - -- ----- -- ---- — — -- -- - -
&'k�LWE
C `) SEPTIC
\ _TANK
d' 5URFACE
CLEANOUT
SEPTIC TANK
`- F�L�*fo9.3 RT.'11.5,
-TO BE AS-ODILT ON
A FUTURE "T TO am
Aamo&
RIM 99.
RIM 85.57 --
-
Icy'' P`1
�
q,i5• Lf
851
---�
Oak 9�0 8
25 LP 20 DIAM.
STEEL CASING :2
_
-
I—
i
!
I CITY OF R E N T O N
_ __ - — _
---
-- ---
- --
----------
7e�(e)
- - --- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AS BUILT MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE
=
I
I
f
IP
1
so.2eco�T� 8-8-88 GOLF COURSE SEWER EXTENSION
FUdIKI 8 ASSOCIATE A, INC. RMsCo AS-MUILTS Mu to-�r-00 oesieNso oA APKIC�i9B6- FI�cNa
O11^�
140. 0(o
F 15" PVC 0ila
DESIGNED fay ADDED ALTER AIATES CSD M6 5.14-B1 oaAw
4-5d.19� .. _..,- ., cab"'+
.__
E
rucrucn�aA
VA
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING/BUILDING/
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N
February 13, 2006
Mayor Kathy Keolker
Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility SuperPistw;(e. 2)
Consultant Contract for Sewer System Capacity Analysis,
Heather Downs/Maplewood Basins
Attached for your signature are two original contracts for consultant engineering services
for a capacity analysis of two of Wastewater's sub -basins by Roth Hill Engineering
Partners, LLC. Both the Heather Downs and Maplewood basins have seen significant
development over the past two years with more planned over the next 3-5 years. This
capacity analysis will utilize the City's hydraulic sewer model to determine what the
anticipated peak capacity will be, section by section. Through modeling the flows, we
will be able to determine where improvements may be needed and the timing for those
improvements.
This capacity analysis project is included in our 2006 CIP projects under Sanitary Sewer
Replacement and Rehabilitation, with a total budget of $100,000. The contract amount is
for $31,100. Roth Hill Engineering Partners, Inc., is listed on the Utility System's 2006
Annual Consultant Roster.
Attachments
cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
H:\File Sys\WWP - WasteWater\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence - Wastewater\davec\Heather Maplewood Basin
Cover Memo.doc\DMCtp
is=
MAPL.EWOOD PL.. II>I
77=-g"
6.00.:..:..
0
O yy
D
I I
6.41
ja DEEP,31E_6"',
nV
p pl,
n�
❑ �0
HN
8.44:;ai4s C&CwN
m0
m
La . p .r?
'a
... .:4�. DEEP 32C-G", Ar76.
❑ .i A
pN
r� w
LP
r f
6,
4L DEEP:
32E -6':
9400
rr•ttII
1P'
�
4E DEEP:
J}E • 6';
10.50:
L
e sE DLEP;
10.95:
m �
r N
OD❑ s0
N
]t OLCP:
J2t 7711 •77 :
�Ln
D v0
p @�
a- Delp
32, - 6"
12.30 .
' ' SE DEEP, 32E-4", Ix •51 L:
J,q n
u
W
Lo
fp
O fE J
m
z
n n
51 DEEP, 32E •6^, IS.
S
Z
J'OCEP, 3}L; 6", Int71
D
m
m C
p
n
ms
m�
G)�
N
—_
A�
c0
to m m
J DEEP,
— -
O
v
D z
n W
A
O
C3
�H
0
mo
�s
N
m Z
z
N _—
I
n
/
-91
N
v
J (
O
G,EI C,j,71
s1�
IoAr
.... ..... 0.84, 0�37'-CB: CONN
S66. SNT. h
a".
ICI. :• F.C-L,Y 9.E0 nl _
�f DLLP
s.]m.
M
4 q• DEE
f2L . P
9 •`J6
A I Ill
11 r+
IO•JI � A
I,
_10S'
sp
0
S p O (l
51 DEEP i\
i zzs - m•
�N ❑
1
IIf-�'I
F�
1
(12.J1 rN nn
cx
s- veep
zzt -a^.
a
—
Den,
zzE - e.
zzt
o i
,
:I2. 87. tt
n
❑
N J
J
6D—
J'
."t
SE DELP
1s
13-S6
Page 1 of 2
David Christensen - Heatherdowns/Maplewood Drainage Basin Analysis
From: "Fisher, Tony" <TFisher@rothhill.com>
To: "David Christensen" <Dchristen@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 03/28/2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Heatherdowns/Maplewood Drainage Basin Analysis
CC: "Kammereck, Lara" <lkammereck@rothhill.com>, "Brodahl, Erik"
<EBrodahl@rothhill.com>, "Fisher, Tony" <TFisher@rothhill.com>
Hi --Dave,
We have reviewed the 2001 model results for the Heatherdowns/Maplewood drainage basin. Some of the pipes
in the basin are surcharging when we route the 1990 storm through the model, although none of the surcharging
is considered severe. Some of the surcharging may be resulting from how we have the City's system entering
King County's system near MH 5316001 (King County MH R10-26A?). The model has the City's 15-inch pipe
matching inverts with the County's 36-inch pipe. This results in a backwater situation within the City's system
even though no surcharging is occuring in the County's pipe. If the City's pipe matches crowns with the County's
pipe, then the backwater effect would probably go away. Thus said though, the City's pipes in the area
downstream of the steep slope are pretty flat with slopes ranging from 0.0012 ft/ft to 0.0044 ft/ft. This flat slope is
contributing to the surcharging. There is also some fairly flat pipe upstream of the steep slopes (0.0023 ft/ft to
0.0048 ft/ft) that is also experiencing some surcharging.
Because the pipes showed some surcharging, we reviewed the storm event that was being used and determined
that the 1990 storm, which was used for the entire model, actually represents the 60-year flow conditions for
these basins. This spawns a question. When we split the model out to input ultimate data, do you want us route
a different storm (one closer to a 20 year flow conditions) through the basin or continue to use the 1990 storm?
The surcharging is moderate enough given that it is due to a 60 year flow event that analyzing the ultimate
conditions is warranted. With that thought in mind, we need to know how you want us to distribute the ultimate
population and employment data and let us know which ultimate basins you envision contributing flow to Basins
25 and 46 (basically, how far east do you want us to go ... U3, etc?). We have some thoughts on how to do this
that may be better discussed in a meeting or over the phone (v. trying to describe in an email). We could have
this discussion separately, or as part of the discussion that needs to occur on how ultimate development will occur
for the entire model. We are ready to have that meeting at your earliest convenience.
To summarize, our questions are as follows:
1. Does the City's system connect to the County's system by matchin inverts rowns or springline, or other?
2. Do you want to use a different storm that results in flows closer to a 2 ar flow event or continue to use the
1990 storm for this analysis? *041,
3. What ultimate basins will contribute flow to Basins 25 and 46, i.e. how far east shall we go? � r4A� �aa a
4. How do you want us to spread the ultimate population and employment data? MOLE—
q%l�ajlt�f
look forward to discussing these questions with you so that we can wrap up the analysis of these basins. Please
let me know if you need any additional information.
Thanks,
Tony Fisher I Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
2600 116th Avenue N.E., Suite 100 1 Bellevue, WA 98004
Tel. 425.869.9448 / 206.682.7426 1 Fax 425.869.1190
www.rothhill.com
This e-mail message is a privileged and confidential communication and is iransmitted for the exclusive use of the addressee. This communication
may not be copied or disseminated except as directed by the sender or addressee. If you think that you have received this email message in error,
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dchristensen\Loc al%20Settings\Temp\GW 10000... 03/30/2006
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055
UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION
425.430 7234
Fax:
425-430.7241
/�-
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION
425.430.7321
Fax:
425.430.7376
WE ARE SENDING YOU ATTACHED
❑
Under Separate Cover via
the following items:
❑ SHOP DRAWING PRINTS
❑
REPRODUCABLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS
❑ ORIGINALS
❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑
•�DESCRIPTION
/ REMARKS
MESSAGE:
These are transmitted as checked below:
FOR SIGNATURE APPROVAL
❑
FOR YOUR USE
9
❑
AS REQUESTED
❑
❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT
❑
Copies to:
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL
APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION
RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS
❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
From:
�`7 Vl.li
A
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
PBPW5001 09/99 bh
CONTRACT CHECKLIST
LME & EXTENSION NUMBER:
(DEPARTMENT:
CONTRACT NUMBER:
Dave Christensen X7212
PBPW/ Utility Systems
TASK ORDER NUMBER (if applicable): N/A
CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT/AGENCY: Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: Sewer System Analysis, Heather
Downs/Maplewood basins
1. LEGAL REVIEW: (Attach letter from City Attorney) N/A Standard Contract
2. RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INSURANCE: (Attach letter).�d114
3. RESPONSE TO LEGAL OR RISK MGMT CONCERNS: (Explain in writing how concerns have been met.) None
4. INSURANCE CERTIFICATE AND/OR POLICY: (Attach original) ettadie&
5. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER: 25987
6. ATTACHED CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED BY CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT: Yes
A. Contracts under $20,000 also signed by Dept. Administrator:fy C�11
(if not, provide explanation)
7. FISCAL IMPACT:
A. AMOUNT BUDGETED: (LINE ITEM) (See 8.b)* $100,000
B. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
8. COUNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED: (Prepare Agenda Bill):
9. DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL (if applicable):
10. RESOLUTION NUMBER (If applicable):
11. KEYWORDS FOR CITY CLERK'S INDEX:
A. Sewer System Analysis, Heather F.
Downs/Maplewood basins
B. Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC G.
C. Heather Downs Sub Basin H.
D. Maplewood Sub Basin J.
E. K.
H:/forms/contract/CKLIST.DOC 7/12/93
421/000400/018/.5960/0035/65/45010
$31,100
N/A
N/A
CONY
Y O PLANNING/BUILDING/
, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
T�'o� MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 13, 2006
TO: Mayor Kathy Keolke
-- FROM.- - - Gregg Zimmerm �� inistrator
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility Supervisor (ext. 7212)
SUBJECT: Consultant Contract for Sewer System Capacity Analysis,
Heather Downs/Maplewood Basins
Attached, for your signature, are two original contracts for consultant engineering
services for a capacity analysis of two of Wastewater's sub -basins by Roth Hill
Engineering Partners, LLC. Both of the Heather Downs and Maplewood basins have
seen significant development over the past two years with more planned over the next
3-5 years. This capacity analysis will utilize the City's hydraulic sewer model to
determine what the anticipated peak capacity will be, section by section. Through
modeling the flows, we will be able to determine where improvements may be needed
and the timing for those improvements.
This capacity analysis project is included in our 2006 CIP projects under Sanitary Sewer
Replacement and Rehabilitation, with a total budget of $100,000. The contract amount is
for $31,100. Roth Hill Engineering Partners, Inc., is listed on the Utility System's 2006
Annual Consultant Roster.
Attachments
cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
H:\File Sys\WWP - Waste Water\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence - Wastewater\davec\Heather Maplewood Basin
Cover Memo.doc\DMCtp
r
PLANNINGBUILDING/
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
\�NTTM E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 10, 2006
TO: Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk �i' ,
FROM: Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility Supervi or , '
SUBJECT: Sewer System Analysis, Heather Downs/Maplewood Basins
Execution of Consultant Services Contract
Attached please find two original consultant contracts for Roth Hill Engineering Partners,
LLC to perform an engineering study of capacity for our Heather Downs/Maplewood
Basins. Also attached is the Contract Checklist and appropriate supporting data. This
project is on our current 2006 CIP for the Wastewater Utility.
Please execute the two contracts and return one original to me for return to the consultant.
If you have questions, please contact me at 425.430.7212.
document2
CONTRACT CHECKLIST
STAFF NAME & EXTENSION NUMBER: Dave Christensen X7212
DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: PBPW/ Utility Systems
CONTRACT NUMBER: TBA
TASK ORDER NUMBER (if applicable): N/A
CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT/AGENCY: Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: Sewer System Analysis, Heather
Downs/Maplewood basins
1. LEGAL REVIEW: (Attach letter from City Attorney) N/A Standard Contract
2. RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INSURANCE: (Attach letter) Attached
3. RESPONSE TO LEGAL OR RISK MGMT CONCERNS: (Explain in writing how concerns have been met.) None
4. INSURANCE CERTIFICATE AND/OR POLICY: (Attach original) attached
5. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER: 25987
6. ATTACHED CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED BY CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT: Yes
The State, as the contracting agency, will execute after the City.
A. Contracts under $20,000 also signed by Dept. Administrator:
(if not, provide explanation)
7. FISCAL IMPACT:
A. AMOUNT BUDGETED: (LINE ITEM) (See 8.b)* $100,000
421/000400/018/.5960/0035/65/45010
B. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
8. COUNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED: (Prepare Agenda Bill):
9. DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL (if applicable):
10. RESOLUTION NUMBER (If applicable):
11. KEY WORDS FOR CITY CLERK'S INDEX:
A. Sewer System Analysis, Heather
Downs/Maplewood basins
B. Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
C. Heather Downs Sub Basin
D. Maplewood Sub Basin
H:/forms/contract/CKLIST.DOC 7/12/93
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
$31,100
N/A
N/A
iy GIFT OF RENTON
.rt Office of the City Attomey
Jesse Tanner, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren
F
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregg Zimmerman
From: Lawrence J. 'Warren, City Attorney
Staff Contact: David Christensen
Date: December 13, 1999
Subject: Utility Systems Division Annual Consultant Contract
I have reviewed the above -referenced document and.the same" is approved as to legal -form
IaVtrreinc J. Warren
LJW:as.
cc: Jay Covington
A8:169.
Post Office Box 626 - 100 S. 2nd Street - Renton. Washington 98057 - (425)255-8678
RECE
�y EE8 6 f ico.s
ti O HUMAN RESOURCES/
F�1 11
RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMET4-�O ;_ .�
�1VT4� M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 2, 2006
TO: D vid�hristensen, WW Utility Supervisor, PBPW/Utilities
FROM: 1. Webby, Administrator
SUBJECT: Insurance Review/Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
Heather Downs/Maplewood Basins
Sewer System Analysis
I have reviewed the certificate of insurance and supporting policy documents for the above -
mentioned contract. The insurance coverage, provided for this contract, meets the City's risk
management requirements.
"Please remember to forward all originals to the City Clerk's office, if on file there"
iArisk documents\contract okay.doc
Client#: 22064
onTuuu
ACORDTM CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
""""
oti01/06
PRODUCER
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
USI Northwest of Washington
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1800
HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
Seattle, WA 98154
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
206 695-3100
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
NAIC #
INSURED
Roth Hill Engineering Partners,
INSURER A: Hartford Casualty Insurance Company
29424
INSURER B: Hartford Underwriters Insurance Comp
30104
116th Avenue NE, Suite 100
INSURER C: US Specialty Insurance Company
29599
Bell
Bellevue, WA 98004
INSURER D:
INSURER E:
COVERAGES
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 SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
INSR
LTR
D
NSR
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFFECTIVE
DA E MM/DD/YY
POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE MWDD/YY
LIMITS
A
GENERAL LIABILITY
52SBAPM9250
07/12/05
07/12/06
EACH OCCURRENCE
$1,000,000
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CLAIMS MADEEx OCCUR
DAMAGE TO RENTED
$300OOO
MED EXP (Any one person)
$1 O 000
X Business Liab.
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
$1,000,000
GENERAL AGGREGATE
s2,000,000
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
POLICY X PRO-LOC
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
s2,000,000
B
AUTOMOBILE
X
LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
52UECUS5676
07/12M5
07/12/06
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea accident)
$1,000,000
BODILY INJURY
(Per person)
$
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
HIRED AUTOS
X
NON -OWNED AUTOS
BODILY INJURY
(Per accident)
$
X
PROPERTY DAMAGE
(Per accident)
$
t
GARAGE LIABILITY
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT
$
OTHER THAN EA ACC
$
ANY AUTO
$
AUTO ONLY: AGG
EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY
OCCUR CLAIMS MADE
EACH OCCURRENCE
$
AGGREGATE
$
$
DEDUCTIBLE
$
RETENTION $
A
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
52SBAPM9250
(E/L WA Stop Gap)
07/12/05
07/12/06
WC STATUS IMITS X OFR
TORY
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT 1
$1,000,000
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
$1,000,000
OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED?
If yes, describe under
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
$1 OOO 000
SPECIAL PROVISIONS below
C
OTHER Professional
US051088301
05/10/05
05/10/06
$1,000,000 per claim
Liability
$2,000,000 annl aggr.
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Re:Maplewood/Heather Downs Contract.
The City of Renton, their elected or appointed officers,
officials, employees, subconsultants, and volunteers are named as
additional insureds on the General Liability, with respects to all
(See Attached Descriptions)
City of Renton - Utility Systems Division
Attn: David Christensen
Municipal Building, 5th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
LD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 45— DAYS WRITTEN
:E TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL
IE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
AUTHORIZED I
—w. _-
^��^� oT 3 995176964/M759898 6MT O ACORD CORPORATION 1988
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 constitute 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 -by the policies listed thereon.
ACORD 25-S (2001108) 2 of 3 #S176964/M159898
AMU 25.3 (2001/U8) 3 of 3 #S176964/Ml59898
Tx>✓
HAit
RTFORD
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
ADDITIONAL INSURED - DESIGNATED PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following 52 SBA PM9250
BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM
C. Who is an insured in the BUSINESS LIABILITY or losses covered under the BUSINESS
C. Who is an insured in the BUSINESS LIABILITY
COVERAGE FORM is amended to include as an
insured the person or organization shown in the
Declarations but only with respect to liability arising
out of the operations of the named insured.
For losses covered under the BUSINESS
LIABILITY COVERAGE of this policy this insurance is
primarily to other valid and collective insurance which is
available to the person or organization
shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured.
City of Renton, their elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, subconsultants, and volunteers
Form SS 04 49 05 93 Printed in U.S.A. (NS)
Copyright, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 1993
Excluded Parties List System
Page 1 of 1.
ssN/TIN Search Results for Parties Excluded
1 CT Code
'View Cause and
Treatment Code
Descriptions
1 Reciprocal Codes
1 Procurement
Codes
1 Nonprocurement
Codes
'*`Agency & Acronym
Info
►Agency Contacts
►Agency Descriptions
►State/Country Code
Descriptions
'*' Related Links
1 Debar Maintenance
/ Administration
1 Upload Login
by Partial Name : roth hill
engineering partners
As of 10-Feb-2006
No records were found matching your
search request.
1`4",
E•GOV
I1C3PiltlV'�
�s
Resources
Public User's Manual
FAO
*Reports Menu
1 Lists Report
1 Supplemental Report
/ Agency Report
1 Supplemental Agency
Report
1 State/Country Report
1 Lists Data Report
1 Supplemental Data Report
1 Cause and
Treatment Code
'*` Archive Menu -
Past Exclusions
/ Name
/ Multiple Names
*Contact Information
1
Email: support@epls.gov
10 1-866-GSA-EPLS
Phone: 1 -866-472-3757
1
Email: ep[scomments@epls.gov
http://epls.amet.gov/epls/servlet/EPLSGetInputSearch
2/ 10/2006
ENGINEERING
ANNUAL CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this , day of , 2006, by and between
the CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
"CITY," and ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC whose address is 2600 1161h Avenue NE, #100,
Bellevue, WA 98004, at which services will be available for inspection, hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT."
PROJECT NAME: Sewer System Analysis, Heather Downs/Maplewood Drainage Basins
WHEREAS, the City has not sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide the engineering within a
reasonable time and the City deems it advisable and is desirous of engaging the professional services and assistance
of a qualified professional consulting firm to do the necessary engineering services for the project, and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has represented and by entering into this Agreement now represents, that it is in full
compliance with the statutes of the state of Washington for registration of professional engineers, has a current valid
corporate certificate from the state of Washington or has a valid assumed name filing with the Secretary of State and
that all personnel to be assigned to the services required under this Agreement are fully qualified to perform the
services to which they will be assigned in a competent and professional manner, and that sufficient qualified
personnel are on staff or readily available to Consultant to staff this Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Consultant has indicated that it desires to perform the services set forth in the Agreement upon the
terms and conditions set forth below.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained herein below,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Consultant shall furnish, and hereby warrants that it has, the necessary equipment, materials, and professionally .
trained and experienced personnel to facilitate completion of the services described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services,
which is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
The Consultant shall perform all services described in this Agreement in accordance with the latest edition and
amendments to local and state regulations, guidelines and policies.
The Consultant shall prepare such information and studies as it may deem pertinent and necessary, in order to pass
judgment in a sound engineering manner on the features of the services. The Consultant shall make such minor
changes, amendments, or revisions in the detail of the services as may be required by the City. This item does not
constitute an "Extra Services" item as related in Section VIII of the Agreement.
The services deliverables shall be verified for accuracy by a complete check by the Consultant. The Consultant will
be held responsible for the accuracy of the services deliverables, even though accepted by the City.
H
DESIGN CRITERIA
The City will designate the basic premises and criteria for the services needed. Reports and plans, to the extent
feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments of local and State regulations,
guidelines, and specifications, including, but not limited to the following:
FA00l5\Docs\Annua1 Consultant Agree nt_Heather Downs.doc
Washington State Department of Transportation/American Public Works Association (WSDOT/APWA),
"Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction," as amended by Renton
Standard Specification.
2. WSDOT/APWA, "Standard Plans for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction."
Washington State Department of Transportation, "Highway Design Manual."
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges."
Washington State Department of Transportation, "Bridge Design Manual, Volumes 1 and 2."
6. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Manual of Highways Hydraulics," except hydrologic
analysis as described in item 14.
7. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Materials Laboratory Outline."
Transportation Research Board, "Highway Capacity Manual."
9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways."
10. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Construction Manual."
11. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Local Agency Guidelines."
12. Standardf drawings prepared by the City and furnished to the Consultant shall be used as a guide in all
cases where they fit design conditions. Renton Design Standards, and Renton Specifications shall be
used as they pertain.
13. Metro Transit, design criteria.
14. King County Surface Water Design Manual, Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of Chapter 1, and Chapters 3, 4,
and 5.
15. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets."
III
ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CONSULTANT
BY THE CITY
The City will furnish the Consultant copies of documents which are available to the City that will facilitate the
preparation of the plans, studies, specifications, and estimates within the limits of the assigned services.
All other records needed for the study must be obtained by the Consultant. The Consultant will coordinate with
other available sources to obtain data or records available to those agencies. The Consultant shall be responsible for
this and any other data collection to the extent provided for in the Scope of Services. City will provide to Consultant
all data in City's possession relating to Consultants services on the project. Consultant will reasonably rely upon the
accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of the information provided by the City. Should field studies be needed, the
Consultant will perform such services to the extent provided for in the Scope of Services. The City will not be
obligated to perform any such field studies.
F:\0015\DocMitnual Consultant Agrernxnt_Heather Dmns.doc
IV
OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTS AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT
Documents, exhibits or other presentations for the services covered by this Agreement shall be furnished by the
Consultant to the City upon completion of the various phases of the project. All such material, including working
documents, notes, maps, drawings, photo, photographic negatives, etc. used in the project, shall become and remain
the property of the City and may be used by it without restriction. Any use of such documents by the City not
directly related to the project pursuant to which the documents were prepared by the Consultant shall be without any
liability whatsoever to the Consultant.
All written documents and products shall be printed on recycled paper when practicable. Use of the chasing -arrow
symbol identifying the recycled content of the paper shall be used whenever practicable. All documents will be
printed on both sides of the recycled paper, as feasible.
V
TIME OF BEGINNING AND COMPLETION
The services detailed in the Scope of Services will be performed according to Exhibit B, Time Schedule of
Completion, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. It is agreed that all the Consultant's
services are to be completed and all products shall be delivered by the Consultant unless there are delays due to
factors that are beyond the control of the Consultant. The Consultant shall not begin services under the terms of this
Agreement until authorized in writing by the City. If, after receiving Notice to Proceed, the Consultant is delayed in
the performance of its services by factors that are beyond its control, the Consultant shall notify the City of the delay
and shall prepare a revised estimate of the time and cost needed to complete the Project and submit the revision to
the City for its approval. Time schedules are subject to mutual agreement for any revision unless specifically
described as otherwise herein.
Delays attributable to or caused by one of the parties hereto amounting to 30 days or more affecting the completion
of the services may be considered a cause for renegotiation or termination of this Agreement by the other party.
VI
PAYMENT
The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed services rendered under this Agreement as provided
hereinafter as specified in Exhibit C, Schedule of Hourly Rates. Such payment shall be full compensation for
services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the
services. All billings for compensation for services performed under this Agreement will list actual time (days
and/or hours) and dates during which the services were performed. Payment for these services shall not exceed
$31,100 without a written amendment.to this contract, agreed to and signed by both parties.
1. Payment.
a. Billing Rates. Payment for the CONSULTANT's services shall be at the
CONSULTANT's stated billing rate, which includes base compensation and indirect overhead
costs. The standard billing rate of individual personnel assigned to CITY projects shall be
calculated as a direct multiplication of the assignee's base compensation rate or hourly
equivalent, factored by the CONSULTANT's standard fee multiplier. The CONSULTANT
may review and modify the fee multiplier once per year. The CONSULTANT may review and
modify the base compensation rate of individuals in employment of the CONSULTANT once
Per year. The schedule of billing rates is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C.
F:\00I 5\Dm\Amual Comuhant Agreem t_Heather Downs.doc
b. Reimbursable Expenses. Direct Expenses such as mileage, computer station time and certain
equipment shall be charged according to the standard schedule of direct reimbursable expenses
attached to this Agreement as part of Exhibit C. The CONSULTANT may update the expense
schedule two (2) times per year.
Invoice Format. The CONSULTANT's invoices shall itemize the hours and fees in a format
mutually agreed upon.
d. Payment Due. Invoices shall be submitted by the CONSULTANT monthly, are due upon
presentation and shall be considered past due if not paid within thirty (30) calendar days of the
due date. The CITY will inform the CONSULTANT of the standard monthly invoice submittal
schedule that will facilitate the CITY's timely payment of invoices.
Interest. If payment in full is not received by the CONSULTANT within thirty (30) calendar
days of the due date, invoices shall bear interest at one -and -one-half (1.5) percent of the PAST
DUE amount per month, which shall be calculated from the invoice due date. Payment
thereafter shall be first applied to accrued interest and then to the unpaid principal.
Payment for extra services performed under this Agreement shall be paid as agreed to by the parties hereto in writing
at the time extra services are authorized.. (Section VIII "EXTRA SERVICES").
A short narrative progress report shall accompany each voucher for progress payment. The report shall include
discussion of any problems and potential causes for delay.
To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for consultant employees, the City may conduct employee
interviews.
Acceptance of such final payment by the Consultant shall constitute a release of all claims of any nature, related to
this Agreement, which the Consultant may have against the City unless such claims are specifically reserved in
writing and transmitted to the City by the Consultant prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not, however,
be a bar to any claims that the City may have against the Consultant or to any remedies the City may pursue with
respect to such claims.
The Consultant and its subconsultants shall keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of three years
after final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement and all items related to, or bearing
upon, these records. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year retention
period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been
resolved. The three-year retention period starts when the Consultant receives final payment.
VII
CHANGES IN SERVICES
The Consultant shall make all such revisions and changes in the completed service deliverables of this Agreement as
are necessary to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the City, without additional
compensation.
Should the City find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed services or parts
thereof revised, the Consultant shall make such revisions, if requested and as directed by the City in writing. These
services shall be considered as Extra Services and will be paid for as provided in Section VIE.
F:\0015\Docs\A mual Consultant Agre nt_Heather Downs.doc
VIII
EXTRA SERVICES
The City may desire to have the Consultant render services in connection with the Project in addition to or other than
services provided for by the expressed intent of the Scope of Services. Such services will be considered as Extra
Services and will be specified in a written supplement which will set forth the nature and scope thereof. Services
under a supplement shall not proceed until authorized in writing by the City. Any dispute as to whether services are
Extra Services or services already covered under this Agreement shall be resolved before the services are
undertaken. Performance of the services by the Consultant prior to resolution of any such dispute shall waive any
claim by the Consultant for compensation as Extra Services.
IX
EMPLOYMENT
The Consultant warrants that it 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 he 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, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award
or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City 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, while engaged in the performance of any services required by the
Consultant under this Agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City and 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 services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the
sole, obligation and responsibility of the Consultant.
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 this contract, in the
employ of the City except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the City.
If during the time period of this Agreement, the Consultant finds it necessary to increase its professional, technical,
or clerical staff as a result of this project, the .Consultant will actively solicit minorities through their advertisement
and interview process.
X
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; 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 Non=
Discrimination provision, this Agreement may be terminated by the City and further that the Consultant shall be
barred from performing any services for the City now or in the future, unless a showing is made satisfactory to the
City that discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely.
FA00150=\Annual Consultant Agreernent_Heather Dow .do
XI
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon not less than ten (10) days
written notice to the Consultant, subject to the City's obligation to pay Consultant in accordance with
subparagraphs C and D below.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its supervisory
personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant hereby agree to complete the
services under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a
bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the
City 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 City's concurrence, desire to terminate this Agreement, payment
shall be made as set forth in Subsection C of this section.
C. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City, other than for fault on the part of the Consultant,
the CONSULTANT shall be compensated for all services performed and reimbursable expenses incurred
prior to the receipt of notice of suspension. In addition, upon resumption of services, the CITY shall
compensate the CONSULTANT for expenses incurred as a result of the suspension and resumption of its
services, and the CONSULTANT's schedule and fees for the remainder of the services may be equitably
adjusted upon mutual agreement.
D. In the event the services of the Consultant are terminated by the City for fault on the part of the
Consultant, the above stated formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event the amount to be paid
shall be determined by the City with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the Consultant in
performing the services to the date of termination, the extent of services originally required which was
satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether those services are in a form or of a type which is
usable to the City at the time of termination, the cost to the City of employing another firm to complete
the services required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the
value to the City of the services performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall
payment made under this subsection exceed the amount which would have been made if the formula set
forth in subsection C above had been applied.
E. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the services, the original copies of all
Engineering plans, reports and documents prepared by the Consultant prior to termination shall become
the property of the City for its use without restriction. Such unrestricted use not occurring as a part of
this project, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant:
F. Payment for any part of the services by the City shall not constitute a waiver by the City 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 services required of it by the City. 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.
XII
DISPUTES
Any dispute concerning questions of facts in connection with services not disposed of by agreement between the
Consultant and the City shall be referred for determination to the Director of Planning/Building/Public Works or
his/her successors and delegates, whose decision in the matter shall be final and conclusive on the parties to this
Agreement.
FA0015\DoeMnnual Consultant Agreement_Heather Dow .dm
In the event that either party is required to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any of its rights in this
Agreement, both parties agree that any such action shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, situated in King County.
XIII
LEGAL RELATIONS
The Consultant shall comply with all Federal Government, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the
services to be performed under this Agreement. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with
the laws of Washington.
The Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City and its 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 part
from the Consultant's errors, omissions, or negligent acts under this Agreement provided that nothing herein shall
require the Consultant to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims, demands or suits based
upon the conduct of the City, its officers or 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 City, its agents,
officers and employees, this provision with respect to claims or suits based upon such concurrent negligence shall be
valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence or the negligence of the Consultant's agents or
employees except as limited below.
The Consultant shall secure general liability, property damage, auto liability, and professional liability coverage in
the amount of $1.0 million, with a General Aggregate in the amount of $2 million, unless waived or reduced by the
City. The Consultant shall submit a completed City of Renton Insurance Information Form, and the Standard
Accord Certification Form prior to the execution of the contract. The City of Renton shall be named as an
"additional insured" on all contracts/projects. The Consultant shall also submit copies of the declarations pages of
relevant insurance policies to the City within 30 days of contract acceptance if requested. The Certification and
Declaration page(s) shall be in a form as approved by the City. If the City's Risk Manager has the Declaration
page(s) on file from a previous contract and no changes in insurance coverage has occurred, only the Certification
Form will be required.
The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of Consultant hereunder.
All coverages provided by the Consultant shall be in a form, and underwritten by a company acceptable to the City.
The City will normally require carriers to have minimum A.M. Best rating of A XII. The Consultant shall keep all
required coverages in full force and effect during the life of this project, and a minimum of forty-five days notice
shall be given to the City prior to the cancellation of any policy.
The Consultant shall verify, when submitting first payment invoice and annually thereafter, possession of a current
City of Renton business license while conducting services for the City. The Consultant shall require, and provide
verification upon request, that all subconsultants participating in a City project possess a current City of Renton
business license. The Consultant shall provide, and obtain City approval of, a traffic control plan prior to
conducting activities in City right-of-way.
The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor
V\OOI SDocs\Annual Consultant Agr a t_Hcathu Downs.doc 7
XIV
SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING OF CONTRACTS
The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this Agreement without the express consent
of the City.
XV
ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS
The Consultant shall place their certification on all plans, specifications, estimates or any other engineering data
furnished by them in accordance with RCW 18.43.070.
XVI
COMPLETE AGREEMENT
This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the
parties. Any supplements to this Agreement will be in writing and executed and will become part of this. Agreement.
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.
The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision in this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof,
and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted.
XVII
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 Request for Qualifications, 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.
J
Ce"WZ01013Q►U�1 IH
Kathy Keolker, Mayor Date
ATTEST:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
FA00I ADocs\Annual Consuhant Agrec c t_Heatha Dow .doc
RESOLUTION NO. 3229
CITY OF RENTON
SUMMARY OF FAIR PRACTICES POLICY
ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 3 2 2 9
It is the policy of the City of Renton to promote and provide equal treatment and service to all citizens and to
ensure equal employment opportunity to all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, ethnic
background, gender, marital status, religion, age or disability, when the City of Renton can reasonably
accommodate the disability, of employees and applicants for employment and fair, non-discriminatory
treatment to all citizens. All departments of the City of Renton shall adhere to the following guidelines:
(1) EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES - The City of Renton will ensure all employment related
activities included recruitment, selection, promotion, demotion, training, retention and
separation are conducted in a manner which is based on job -related criteria which does not
discriminate against women, minorities and other protected classes. Human resources
decisions will be in accordance with individual performance, staffing requirements, governing
civil service rules, and labor contract agreements.
(2) COOPERATION WITH HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS - The City of Renton will
cooperate fully with all organizations and commissions organized to promote fair practices
and equal opportunity in employment.
(3) AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN - The City of Renton Affirmative Action Plan and Equal
Employment Program will be maintained and administered to facilitate equitable
representation with the City work force and to assure equal employment opportunity to all. It
shall be the responsibility of elected officials, the Mayor, the Affirmative Action Officer,
department administrators, managers, supervisors, Contract Compliance Officers and all
employees to carry out the policies, guidelines and corrective measures set forth in the
Affirmative Action Plan and Equal Employment Program.
(4) CONTRACTORS' OBLIGATIONS - Contractors, sub -contractors, consultants and
suppliers conducting business with the City of Renton shall affirm and subscribe to the Fair
Practices and Non-discrimination policies set forth by the law and in the City's Affirmative
Action Plan and Equal Employment Program.
Copies of this policy shall be distributed to all City employees, shall appear in all operational documentation
of the City, including bid calls, and shall be prominently displayed in appropriate city facilities.
CONCURRED IN by the City Council of the City of RENTON, Washington, this 7thday of October, 1996.
CITY OF RENTON:
(Mayor
,Attest:
City Clerl
RENTON CITY COUNCIL:
Council President
FA0015\13 c \Annual Consultant Agreernent_Heather Downs.doc 10
c;
r�ylv.l'o,�
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE
ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS. LLC hereby confirms and declares that
( Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier)
I. It is ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC's policy to offer equal
( Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier)
opportunity to all qualified employees and applicants for employment without regard to
the race, creed, color, sex, national origin, age, disability or veteran status.
H. ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC complies with all applicable federal,
( Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier)
state and local laws governing non-discrimination in employment.
11. When applicable, ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC will seek out and
( Name of contractor/subcontractor/consultant/supplier)
negotiate with minority and women contractors for the award of
subcontracts.
'Gregory G. Hill — President
Print Agent/Representative's Name and Title
Instructions: This document MUST be completed by each contractor, subcontractor, consultant and/or supplier.
Include or attach this document(s) with the contract.
FA00I SDocs\Annual Consultant Agreement_Heather Downs, doc ] t
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
City of Renton
Heather Downs/Maplewood Sewer System Analysis
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
The purpose of this project is to analyze the sewer system within the Heather Downs/
Maplewood drainage basins to determine if the system has sufficient capacity to convey current
and future flows. The analysis will utilize the sewer model currently being prepared by Roth Hill
for the City to analyze the existing system for any capacity restrictions. The City will provide
detailed information to Roth Hill regarding anticipated development within the basins, which will
be incorporated into future model flows already developed by Roth Hill as part of modeling
effort. Roth Hill will then incorporate this information into the model to project future flow
scenarios and to determine if the conveyance system has adequate capacity to handle the
future flows.
Any restrictions in the conveyance system will be determined and additional analysis performed
to determine the cause of the restrictions. The data from the model analysis and the information
gleaned from investigation any restrictions will then be used to develop a flow monitoring plan.
Finally, the report will investigate options for reducing or eliminating the restrictions.
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND TASKS
Roth Hill will complete the following scope of services for an estimated cost of $31,100.
Task 1: Develop 2005 and future hydraulic models for the Heather Downs and
Maplewood Basins. (53 hours, $4,900)
Roth Hill will use the City's sewer model as a starting point to analyze flow conditions within
these two drainage basins. The model is currently calibrated for 2001 flows. This task will
include checking and updating information within the model to develop a baseline of 2005 flows
conditions. Information on development scenarios will then be obtained from the City and input
into the model to develop a future model. The future model will reflect maximum anticipated
development conditions within each basin. Recalibration of the 2005 and future models is
assumed to be unnecessary. Specific tasks for this effort are as follows:
Task 1A — Develop 2005 model
• Update the 2001 model to reflect end of 2005 model conditions. Efforts will include
inputting current sewer system characteristics and assigning updated population and
employment growth information.
• Run 2005 model to identify areas with predicted flows exceeding 6.0, 70, and 80 plus
percent of the pipe's maximum capacity and high infiltration and inflow (W) values.
Color code results on a map for easy visual reference.
Task 1 B — Develop Future model.
• Update the 2005 model to reflect future conditions. The future conditions are defined as
F:\0015\Docs\S0S_Heather Downs Study_011706.doc I l Printed: 1/25r2006
EXHIBIT A
the anticipated maximum development conditions based on information provided by the
City in conjunction with model assumptions for growth developed by the model. Efforts
will include inputting future sewer system characteristics and assigning future population
and employment growth projections.
Run future model to identify areas with predicted flows exceeding 60, 70, and 80 plus
percent of the pipe's maximum capacity and high I&I values. Color code results on a
map for easy visual reference.
Milestone 1: Development of 2005 and future models
Task Lead: Erik Brodahl, P.E.
Task 2: System Evaluation. (204 hours, $21,000)
The purpose of this task is to use the 2005 and future models to analyze any areas with
restrictions or high I&I as identified in Task 1. The nature of each capacity issue will be
analyzed to determine its magnitude and the contributing factors to the issue. Alternatives for
alleviating the capacity issue will then be determined. In addition, a flow monitoring program will
be developed whose purpose is to verify flows within the system, especially in the trouble areas.
This information will then be reviewed with the City to determine the preferred solutions.
Planning level cost projections will be developed for the agreed upon solutions. The model will
be modified to reflect the agreed upon solutions and re -ran to ensure that the restrictions have
been adequately addressed and the corrections don't cause additional conflicts downstream.
This scope of services anticipates one cycle of such corrections. Specific tasks for this effort
are as follows:
Task 2A — Analyze Problem Areas
• Evaluate severity of capacity issue, i.e. is the capacity issue caused by a local
constriction or a system wide issue. Determine the extent of the capacity issue.
• Evaluate model results to determine cause(s) of capacity issues, i.e. is the capacity
caused by growth, excessive 1/I, or pipe characteristics such as flat slopes.
• Evaluate impacts of pipe surcharging in order to determine the magnitude of issue.
➢ If surcharging is minor and won't cause any damage, then consider monitoring
flows in pipe before making any capital improvements.
➢ If the surcharging is excessive or minor surcharging results in harmful impacts,
then evaluate alternatives for alleviating the capacity issue.
• Prioritize problem areas as High, Medium, and Low priority depending on the timing and
magnitude of the problems.
• Identify alternatives for alleviating capacity issues such as 1/1 reduction measures,
replacing pipes, or rerouting contributing flows.
• Meet with City to discuss results of analysis and reach agreement on proposed solutions
as wells as locations to monitor flows.
• Modify model to reflect preferred solutions and then re -run model to verify capacity
issues have been resolved.
• Develop planning level cost projections for feasible solution(s).
• Summarize results in a technical memorandum to the City.
Milestone 2: Team Meeting to discuss model results with draft tabular and graphical
summaries for both the 2005 and Future scenarios.
Milestone 3: Final tabular and graphical summary of model results for both the 2005 and
F:\0015\Docs\SOS_Heather Downs Study_011706.doc 2 Printed: 1/252006
EXHIBIT A
Future scenarios.
Task 2B — Establish Flow Monitoring Program for Interceptors
• Use model results to determine which high priority areas need further flow monitoring to
verify excessive 1/1 and pipe capacity issues.
• Develop map that identifies flow monitoring areas and tabular/graphical materials that
identify pipes to be monitored.
• Prioritize/classify problem areas by extent of issue, i.e. minor surcharging, excessive
surcharging, etc.
• Identify existing precipitation gauges that can be used to monitor rainfall for future model
input, in conjunction with flow monitoring data recorded from strategically placed long-
term and temporary flow meters. Provide recommendations for additional rain gauges
as necessary to provide adequate coverage.
• Establish timing of when capacity will be exceeded.
• Meet with City to discuss proposed flow monitoring recommendations and program.
• Prepare summary technical memorandum documenting above task
elements/procedures.
Milestone 4: Team meeting with City to discuss proposed flow monitoring
recommendations and program for interceptors.
Milestone 5: Technical memorandum summarizing the flow monitoring program.
Task Lead: Tony Fisher, P.E.
TASK 3: Project Management (41 hours, $5,200)
Roth Hill will provide project management necessary to keep the project on track and running
smoothly. Specific tasks for this effort are as follows:
• Manage consultant's staff and tasks and general project administration.
• Monitor progress against projected schedule, scope of services, and budget and
administer monthly invoicing to the City.
• Report to the District on progress, technical issues, and other issues which may impact
the scope of the project, and project budget.
Task Lead: Lara Kammereck, P.E.
Summary of Milestones
Task 1: Develop 2005 and future hydraulic models for the Heather Downs and
Maplewood Basins.
Milestone 1: Development of 2005 and future models
Task 2: System Evaluation.
Milestone 2: Team Meeting to discuss model results with draft tabular and graphical
summaries for both the 2005 and Future scenarios.
F:t001 SDocs%SOS_Heather Downs Study_011706.doc 3 Printed: 1/2512006
EXHIBIT A
Milestone 3: Final tabular and graphical summary of model results for both the 2005 and
Future scenarios.
Milestone 4: Team meeting with City to discuss proposed flow monitoring
recommendations and program for interceptors.
Milestone 5: Technical memorandum summarizing the flow monitoring program.
TASK 3: Project Management
No Milestones
FA001S\Docs\SOS_Heather Downs Study_011706.doc 4 Printed: 1/2WO06
Exhibit B
City of Renton
Heather Downs/Maplewood Sewer System Analysis
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Task
Begin Project
Develop Hydraulic Model
System Analysis
Project Complete
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
Begin
February 1, 2006
February 1, 2006
March 1, 2006
End
February 28, 2006
April 15, 2006
April 15, 2006
F:\0015\0ocs\Schedule_Heather Downs Study_012506.doc I Printed: 1I25/2006
Exhibit C
Schedule of Hourly Rates
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC, fee schedule by staff and reimbursable expense
classification as of January 1, 2006. Rates are subject to modification.
Staff Time
Classification
Hourly Billing Rate Range
Clerical
$27.00 -
$59.00
Administrative
$45.00 -
$72.00
Government Affairs
$60.00 -
$87.00
Technician
$50.00 -
$76.00
CADD/Drafter
$45.00 -
$67.00
CADD/Technician
$65.00 -
$86.00
Project Coordinator
$60.00 -
$88.00
EIT/Designer
$55.00 -
$88.00
Engineer
$80.00 -
$114.00
Construction Representative
$68.00 -
$105.00
Project Surveyor, PLS / Senior PLS
$89.00 -
$113.00
Asst. Survey Party Chief / Party Chief
$60.00 -
$85.00
Survey Technician
$45.00 -
$60.00
Survey Assistant
$56.00 -
$62.00
Computer Systems
$75.00 -
$103.00
Project Administrator/Specialist
$79.00 -
$119.00
Project / Services Manager
$96.00 -
$138.00
Director / Principal
$135.00 -
$154.00
Reimbursable Expenses
Travel
Vehicle mileage IRS standard rate
(currently $0.445)
Prints
Black & White Laser CADD plots (up to 11 x17) $1.25/sheet
Color Laser Prints (up to 11 x17) $1.50/sheet
Ink Jet CADD plots (large format) $7.50/sheet
Computer -Station $10.00/hour
Field Eauiument
Flo -Tote (flow monitoring)
$30.00/day
Turbidimeter (water quality monitoring)
$5.00/day
Conventional Surveying Instruments
$5.00/hour
Standard Surveying Total Station
$10.00/hour
Robotic Surveying Total Station
$15.00/hour
G PS/RTK
$20.00/hour
No charges are billed for the following items:
1. Long distance phone calls
2. Fax services
3. Postage
4. Photocopy paper or stationery for in-house production
5. In-house Photocopy - no "per copy" charge, but related labor is billed
F:LlntemaMacountlnpWete SheMftte Sheet Jan 1, 2006 Standard.doc
�`SY O� PLANNING/BUILDING/
}= , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
�� To% M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 10, 2006
TO: Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk ,
FROM: Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility Supervi or '
SUBJECT: Sewer System Analysis, Heather Downs/Maplewood Basins
Execution of Consultant Services Contract
Attached please find two original consultant contracts for Roth Hill Engineering Partners,
LLC to perform an engineering study of capacity for our Heather Downs/Maplewood
Basins. Also attached is the Contract Checklist and appropriate supporting data. This
project is on our current 2006 CIP for the Wastewater Utility.
Please execute the two contracts and return one original to me for return to the consultant.
If you have questions, please contact me at 425.430.7212.
document2
CONTRACT CHECKLIST
STAFF NAME & EXTENSION NUMBER: Dave Christensen X7212
DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: PBPW/ Utility Systems
CONTRACT NUMBER: TBA
TASK ORDER NUMBER (if applicable):
CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT/AGENCY
PURPOSE OF CONTRACT:
N/A
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
Sewer System Analysis, Heather
Downs/Maplewood basins
1. LEGAL REVIEW: (Attach letter from City Attorney) N/A Standard Contract
2. RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INSURANCE: (Attach letter) Attached
3. RESPONSE TO LEGAL OR RISK MGMT CONCERNS: (Explain in writing how concerns have been met.) None
4. INSURANCE CERTIFICATE AND/OR POLICY: (Attach original) attached
5. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER: 25987
6. ATTACHED CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED BY CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT: Yes
The State, as the contracting agency, will execute after the City.
A. Contracts under $20,000 also signed by Dept. Administrator:
(if not, provide explanation)
7. FISCAL IMPACT:
A. AMOUNT BUDGETED: (LINE ITEM) (See 8.b)* $100,000
421/000400/018/.5960/0035/65/45010
B. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $31,100
8. COUNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED: (Prepare Agenda Bill):
9. DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL (if applicable): N/A
10. RESOLUTION NUMBER (If applicable):
11. KEY WORDS FOR CITY CLERK'S INDEX:
A. Sewer System Analysis, Heather
Downs/Maplewood basins
B. Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
C. Heather Downs Sub Basin
D. Maplewood Sub Basin
E.
R/forms/contract/CKLIST.DOC 7/12/93
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
N/A
EIw
FEB 0
ti
O HUMAN RESOURCES/
, RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMET� °r`R`NTOP`
+ No
OJ M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 2, 2006
TO: W
stensen, WW Utility Supervisor, PBPW/Utilities
FROM: Webby, Administrator
SUBJECT: Insurance Review/Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
Heather Downs/Maplewood Basins
Sewer System Analysis
I have reviewed the certificate of insurance and supporting policy documents for the above -
mentioned contract. The insurance coverage, provided for this contract, meets the City's risk
management requirements.
"Please remember to forward all originals to the City Clerk's office, if on file there"
iArisk documents\contract okay.doc