Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 01/14/2013 (3)
I Public Works Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Dana Ralph+Dennis Higgins+Elizabeth Albertson, Chair • KENT WAsI,I I4�roN January 14, 2013 4:00 p.m. Special Meeting Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 01. Approval of Minutes Dated January 7, 2013 YES None 03 03 02. Local Hazardous Waste Management Program YES Gina Hungerford 05 07 - Grant 03. Contract/Olympic Environmental Resources - YES Gina Hungerford 05 23 Recycling 04. Contract/AMEC Consultants - 641h Ave S YES Ken Langholz 05 41 Channel Improvements 05. Contract/GEI - Briscoe Desimone Levee YES Ken Langholz 05 51 06. Proposed SE 2561h Street Local Improvement YES Mark Howlett 20 78 District 364 - Resolution of Intent 07. Coal Trains - Impacts to the City of Kent YES Steve Mullen 15 92 08. Information Only/Public Works Department NO Tim LaPorte 10 98 Managerial Review Unless otherwise noted, the Public Works Committee meets at 4:00 p.m. on the 1"& 3rd Mondays of each month. Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, 98032-5895. For information please contact Public Works Administration (253) 856-5500. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at (253) 856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. z This page intentionally left blank. 3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, January 7, 2013 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Committee members Dana Ralph and Dennis Higgins were present. The meeting was called to order at 4:11pm. Item 1 — Approval of Meeting Minutes Dated December 3, 2012: Higgins MOVED to approve the minutes of December 3, 2012. The motion was SECONDED by Ralph and PASSED 3-0. Item 2 — Information Only/King County Solid Waste — Interlocal Agreement• Gina Hungerford Conservation Coordinator introduced Kevin Kiernan, King County Assistant Public Works Director. Kiernan provided an informative PowerPoint presentation outlining the Solid Waste — Interlocal Agreement (SW—ILA) that will be between King County and Cities that contract with King County to dispose of waste at Cedar Hills Landfill. Kiernan stated the new ILA includes several significant enhancements over the original ILA. Listed below are some of the enhancements: • Liability - Establish a protocol for payment of Environmental Liabilities, if and when they arise, including insurance and reserves. The intent is to protect both City and County general funds from Environmental Liabilities. • Extend the ILA thru the year 2040 • Long term solid waste planning • Dispute resolution Staff will bring this item back for action at a later date. Information Only/No Motion Required Item 3 — James Street Stormwater Outfall Retrofit Acceptance of Statewide Stormwater Grant: Kelly Casteel, Design Engineering Supervisor noted that the Public Works Department was successful in obtaining a $75,000 Grant from the State Stormwater Grant Program for this project. Casteel noted that James Street is very steep east of Central Avenue and that it is a Priority Level-1 for sanding during icy conditions. The area also has recurring localized flooding. This project would reduce potential impacts to Mill Creek by installing a large vault to catch sediment, preventing it from entering Mill Creek. The vault structure will be monitored after storms to identify when maintenance is needed, ensuring sand and sediment do not enter Mill Creek. 4 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, January 7, 2013 The Public Works Department anticipates construction of this project in spring of 2013 in conjunction with the James Street Pump Station Project. The State grant funds cannot be billed until they have been accepted by the City Council. Ralph MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to accept the FY2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant in the amount of $75,000 for the James Street Stormwater Outfall Retrofit Project and direct staff to establish a budget for the funds, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Higgins and PASSED 3-0. Item 4 — Right-of-Way Dedication/Pacific Highway S. at South 242"d Street: Mark Howlett, Design Engineering Manager noted that the City of Kent owns a small (864 square foot) parcel remnant that was once S. 242nd Street, adjacent to Pacific Highway South. To the west of this remnant S. 242nd Street is unopened City of Kent public right-of-way. Further to the west, S. 242nd Street is improved and connects to City of Des-Moines. The adjacent property owners have submitted plans to the City to construct a new development on their property. As part of that development they would like to upgrade S. 242nd Street and use it as their access to and from Pacific Highway South and connect this street to the open portion of S. 242nd to the west. The city must convert this property to Public Right-of-Way. Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Quit Claim Deed dedicating Right-of-Way for South 242"d Street at Pacific Highway South, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Ralph and PASSED 3-0. Item 5 — Contract/Columbia Basin Water Works — Large Meter Testing & Calibration: Kevin Swinford, Interim Water Superintendent presented a PowerPoint presentation on Large Water Meter Testing and Calibration. Swinford explained that testing the City's large water meters is important to ensure accuracy in measuring water use. Water revenue generated from large meters is approximately 50% of annual water revenues. It is important that we test the accuracy for water customers to guarantee correct billing. Testing ensures we meet the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards. This contract is for a two year period 2013-2014 and will include testing and calibration of over one hundred large meters. Repairs will be made as needed. 5 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, January 7, 2013 Ralph MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Columbia Basin Water Works for testing and calibration of large distribution water meters, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Higgins and PASSED 3-0. Item 6 — Amendment to the Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement — McSorley Creek Wetland Acquisition Grant: Matt Knox, Environmental Ecologist noted that this grant will reimburse the city for the purchase of 40.58 acres of land within an area generally known as the McSorley Wetland, a large, high quality wetland in the southwest corner of the city. This agreement provides for transfer of $300,000 of King County Conservation Futures Levy funds to pay for this purchase. The remaining $26,000 will come from the storm drainage fund. Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Amendment to The Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County to reimburse the City $300,000 for purchase of 40.58 acres of property known as the McSorley Creek Wetland acquisition, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Ralph and PASSED 3-0. Item 7 — Contract/Boeing — Pacific Gateway Easement Releases: Chad Bieren, City Engineer noted that about 10 years ago Boeing platted a number of large parcels near its facility on 212th Street, in anticipation of developing the area into warehouse/ industrial spaces. Several easements were granted to the city for utilities that would have served these properties. Due to the slow economy utilities and infrastructure were never constructed and the associated property was not developed. Boeing plans to sell the property to a developer who has proposed warehouse/industrial development in a different configuration than the original plan. Therefore, the existing easements are not needed and they need to be cleared from the property title in order for the new development to move forward. Ralph MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign easement releases for the Pacific Gateway property, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Higgins and PASSED 3-0. 6 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, January 7, 2013 Item 8 — Information Only/2012 Construction Proiect Review: Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director introduced Paul Kuehne, Construction Supervisor and three Owner Representatives; Jason Barry, Jason Bryant and Phil McConnell. Kuehne noted that Barry is the project coordinator for all the construction projects that will be highlighted. Barry was speaking on behalf of Dave Devine who is also an Owners Representative but was unable to attend the meeting. Jason Barry briefed the committee on the various projects each of the Owners Representatives was responsible for. Barry stated that between the three Owners Representatives they saved the city $100,000 Committee members thanked each of them for their hard work and cost saving ideas. Information Only/No Motion Required The meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m. Cheryl Viseth Council Committee Recorder 7 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Timothy J LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 8, 2013 To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members Special PW Committee Meeting Date: January 14, 2013 From: Gina Hungerford, Conservation Coordinator Through: Kelly Peterson, AICP, Environmental Conservation Supervisor Mike Mactutis, P.E. Environmental Engineering Manager Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer Subject: Seattle-King County Health Department Local Hazardous Waste Management Program (LHWMP) Item - 2 Motion: Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to accept the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant in the amount of $31,442.22 for 2013, and establish a budget accordingly, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Summary: The Seattle/King County Health Department's Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant is an annual grant to help cities protect public health and the environment from toxics and hazardous products and wastes. The grant covers collection of hazardous waste at three special recycling collection events for residents and local businesses, as described in the attached Grant Agreement's Scope of Work. In the past, these events have successfully diverted hazardous materials from landfills and/or removed them from residents homes and property. Hazardous items collected at the events include: Refrigerators and freezers, used oil, antifreeze and other petroleum products, as well as batteries. In addition, the grant pays for some staffing and printing and mailing cost. Budget Impact: The City will receive $31,442.22. No match is required. The Local Hazardous Waste Management Program grant fully funds the collection of hazardous waste collected at the four events the City hosts. 8 This page intentionally left blank. 9 Public Health Seattle & King County LIQ King County Contract No. EHS2851 Federal Taxpayer ID No. 91-1355875 This form is available in alternate formats for people with disabilities upon request. KING COUNTY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTION, OR JURISDICTION — 2013 Department Seattle-King County Dept. of Public Health (a.k.a. Public Health — Seattle & King Division County)/EHS Contractor City of Kent Project Title Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Contract Amount Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Forty Two Dollars and Twenty Two Cents Contract Period Start date: 01/01/2013 End date: 12/31/2013 THIS CONTRACT is entered into by KING COUNTY (the "County"), and City of Kent (the "Contractor"), whose address is 220 4th Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032-5895. WHEREAS, the County has been advised that the following are the current funding sources, funding levels and effective dates: FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING LEVELS EFFECTIVE DATES COUNTY $31,442.22 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013 TOTAL $31,442.22 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013 and WHEREAS, the County desires to have certain services performed by the Contractor as described in this Contract, and as authorized by the 2013 Annual Budget. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the parties hereto, the parties covenant and do mutually agree as follows: I Incorporation of Exhibits The Contractor shall provide services and comply with the requirements set forth in the following attached exhibits, which are incorporated herein by reference: A Program Exhibits and Requirements • Exhibit A: Scope of Work • Exhibit B: Budget • Exhibit C: Invoice B King County Required Forms • Exhibit D: Certificate of Insurance and Additional Insured Endorsement II Term and Termination A This Contract shall commence on 01/01/2013, and shall terminate on 12/31/2013, unless extended or terminated earlier, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract. Contract# EHS2851 Page # 1 of 9 10 B This Contract may be terminated by the either party without cause, in whole or in part, prior to the date specified in Subsection II.A. above, by providing the other party thirty (30) days advance written notice of the termination. C The County may terminate this Contract, in whole or in part, upon seven (7) days advance written notice in the event: (1) the Contractor materially breaches any duty, obligation, or service required pursuant to this Contract, or (2) the duties, obligations, or services required herein become impossible, illegal, or not feasible. If the Contract is terminated by the County pursuant to this Subsection II.C. (1), the Contractor shall be liable for damages, including any additional costs of procurement of similar services from another source. If the termination results from acts or omissions of the Contractor, including but not limited to misappropriation, nonperformance of required services, or fiscal mismanagement, the Contractor shall return to the County immediately any funds, misappropriated or unexpended, which have been paid to the Contractor by the County. D If County or other expected or actual funding is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way prior to the termination date set forth above in Subsection II.A., the County may, upon written notification to the Contractor, terminate this Contract in whole or in part. If the Contract is terminated as provided in this Subsection: (1) the County will be liable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this Contract for services rendered prior to the effective date of termination; and (2) the Contractor shall be released from any obligation to provide such further services pursuant to the Contract as are affected by the termination. Funding or obligation under this Contract beyond the current appropriation year is conditional upon appropriation by the County Council of sufficient funds to support the activities described in the Contract. Should such appropriation not be approved, this Contract will terminate at the close of the current appropriation year. E Nothing herein shall limit, waive, or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Contract or law that either party may have in the event that the obligations, terms, and conditions set forth in this Contract are breached by the other party. III Compensation and Method of Payment A The County shall reimburse the Contractor for satisfactory completion of the services and requirements specified in this Contract, payable in the following manner: Upon receipt and approval by the County of a signed invoice as set forth in Exhibit C that complies with the budget in Exhibit B. B The Contractor shall submit an invoice and all accompanying reports as specified in the attached exhibits not more than 60 working days after the close of each indicated reporting period. The County will initiate authorization for payment after approval of corrected invoices and reports. The County shall make payment to the Contractor not more than 30 days after a complete and accurate invoice is received. C The Contractor shall submit its final invoice and all outstanding reports within 90 days of the date this Contract terminates. If the Contractor's final invoice and reports are not submitted by the day specified in this subsection, the County will be relieved of all liability for payment to the Contractor of the amounts set forth in said invoice or any subsequent invoice. D When a budget is attached hereto as an exhibit, the Contractor shall apply the funds received from the County under this Contract in accordance with said budget. The contract may contain separate budgets for separate program components. The Contractor shall request prior approval from the County for an amendment to this Contract when the cumulative amount of transfers among the budget categories is expected to exceed 10% of the Contract amount in any Contract Contract# EHS2851 Page # 2 of 9 11 budget. Supporting documents necessary to explain fully the nature and purpose of the amendment must accompany each request for an amendment. E If travel costs are contained in the attached budget, reimbursement of Contractor travel, lodging, and meal expenses are limited to the eligible costs based on the following rates and criteria. 1 The mileage rate allowed by King County shall not exceed the current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rates per mile as allowed for business related travel. The IRS mileage rate shall be paid for the operation, maintenance and depreciation of individually owned vehicles for that time which the vehicle is used during work hours. Parking shall be the actual cost. When rental vehicles are authorized, government rates shall be requested. If the Contractor does not request government rates, the Contractor shall be personally responsible for the difference. Please reference the federal web site for current rates: http://www.gsa.gov. 2 Reimbursement for meals shall be limited to the per diem rates established by federal travel requisitions for the host city in the Code of Federal Regulations, 41 CFR § 301, App.A. Please reference http://www.gsa.gov for the current host city per diem rates. 3 Accommodation rates shall not exceed the federal lodging limit plus host city taxes. The Contractor shall always request government rates. 4 Air travel shall be by coach class at the lowest possible price available at the time the County requests a particular trip. In general, a trip is associated with a particular work activity of limited duration and only one round-trip ticket, per person, shall be billed per trip. Any air travel occurring as part of federal grant must be in accordance with the Fly America Act. IV Internal Control and Accounting System The Contractor shall establish and maintain a system of accounting and internal controls which complies with applicable, generally accepted government accounting standards (GAGAS). V Debarment and Suspension Certification Agencies receiving federal funds that are debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment are excluded from contracting with the County. The Contractor, by signature to this Contract, certifies that the Contractor is not presently debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment by any Federal department or agency. The Contractor also agrees that it will not enter into a subcontract with a contractor that is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment. The Contractor agrees to notify King County in the event it, or a subcontractor, is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment by any Federal department or agency. For more information on suspension and debarment, see Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.4. VI Maintenance of Records/Evaluations and Inspections A The Contractor shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial, and programmatic records and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the County to ensure proper accounting for all Contract funds and compliance with this Contract. B In accordance with the nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity requirements set forth in Section XIV. below, the Contractor shall maintain the following: 1 Records of employment, employment advertisements, application forms, and other pertinent data, records and information related to employment, applications for employment or the administration or delivery of services or any other benefits under this Contract; and 2 Records, including written quotes, bids, estimates or proposals submitted to the Contractor by all businesses seeking to participate on this Contract, and any other information necessary to document the actual use of and payments to subcontractors and suppliers in this Contract, including employment records. The County may visit, at any mutually agreeable time, the site of the work and the Contractor's office to review the foregoing records. The Contractor shall provide every assistance requested by Contract# EHS2851 Page # 3 of 9 12 the County during such visits. In all other respects, the Contractor shall make the foregoing records available to the County for inspection and copying upon request. If this Contract involves federal funds, the Contractor shall comply with all record keeping requirements set forth in any federal rules, regulations or statutes included or referenced in the contract documents. C Except as provided in Section VII of this Contract, the records listed in A and B above shall be maintained for a period of six (6) years after termination hereof unless permission to destroy them is granted by the Office of the Archivist in accordance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 40.14. D Medical records shall be maintained and preserved by the Contractor in accordance with state and federal medical records statutes, including but not limited to RCW 70.41.190, 70.02.160, and standard medical records practice. If the Contractor ceases operations under this Contract, the Contractor shall be responsible for the disposition and maintenance of such medical records. E The Contractor agrees to cooperate with the County or its agent in the evaluation of the Contractor's performance under this Contract and to make available all information reasonably required by any such evaluation process. The results and records of said evaluations shall be maintained and disclosed in accordance with RCW Chapter 42.56. F The Contractor agrees that all information, records, and data collected in connection with this Contract shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with applicable state and federal law. VII Compliance with the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) The Contractor shall not use protected health information created or shared under this Contract in any manner that would constitute a violation of HIPAA and any regulations enacted pursuant to its provisions. Contractor shall read and certify compliance with all HIPAA requirements at http://wwvv.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/partnerships/contracts VIII Audits A If the Contractor or subcontractor is a municipal entity or other government institution or jurisdiction, or is a non-profit organization as defined in OMB Circular A-133, and expends a total of$500,000 or more in federal financial assistance and has received federal financial assistance from the County during its fiscal year, then the Contractor or subcontractor shall meet the respective A-133 requirements described in subsections VIII.B. and VIII.C. B If the Contractor is a non-profit organization, it shall have an independent audit conducted of its financial statement and condition, which shall comply with the requirements of GAAS (generally accepted auditing standards); GAO's Standards for Audits of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities, and Functions; and OMB Circular A-133, as amended, and as applicable. The Contractor shall provide a copy of the audit report to each County division providing financial assistance to the Contractor no later than six (6) months subsequent to the end of the Contractor's fiscal year. The Contractor shall provide to the County its response and corrective action plan for all findings and reportable conditions contained in its audit. When reference is made in its audit to a "Management Letter" or other correspondence made by the auditor, the Contractor shall provide copies of those communications and the Contractor's response and corrective action plan. Submittal of these documents shall constitute compliance with subsection VIII.A. C If the Contractor is a municipal entity or other government institution or jurisdiction, it shall submit to the County a copy of its annual report of examination/audit, conducted by the Washington State Auditor, within thirty (30) days of receipt, which submittal shall constitute compliance with subsection VIII.A. D If the Contractor, for-profit or non-profit, receives in excess of$100,000 in funds during its fiscal year from the County, it shall provide a fiscal year financial statement prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant or Accounting Firm within six (6) months subsequent to the close of the Contractor's fiscal year. Contract# EHS2851 Page # 4 of 9 13 E Additional audit or review requirements which may be imposed on the County will be passed on to the Contractor and the Contractor will be required to comply with any such requirements. IX Corrective Action If the County determines that a breach of contract has occurred, that is, the Contractor has failed to comply with any terms or conditions of this Contract or the Contractor has failed to provide in any manner the work or services agreed to herein, and if the County deems said breach to warrant corrective action, the following sequential procedure will apply: A The County will notify the Contractor in writing of the nature of the breach; The Contractor shall respond in writing within three (3) working days of its receipt of such notification, which response shall indicate the steps being taken to correct the specified deficiencies. The corrective action plan shall specify the proposed completion date for bringing the Contract into compliance, which date shall not be more than ten (10) days from the date of the Contractor's response, unless the County, at its sole discretion, specifies in writing an extension in the number of days to complete the corrective actions; B The County will notify the Contractor in writing of the County's determination as to the sufficiency of the Contractor's corrective action plan. The determination of sufficiency of the Contractor's corrective action plan shall be at the sole discretion of the County; C In the event that the Contractor does not respond within the appropriate time with a corrective action plan, or the Contractor's corrective action plan is determined by the County to be insufficient, the County may commence termination of this Contract in whole or in part pursuant to Section II.C.; D In addition, the County may withhold any payment owed the Contractor or prohibit the Contractor from incurring additional obligations of funds until the County is satisfied that corrective action has been taken or completed; and E Nothing herein shall be deemed to affect or waive any rights the parties may have pursuant to Section II. Subsections B, C, D, and E. X Dispute Resolution The parties shall use their best, good-faith efforts to cooperatively resolve disputes and problems that arise in connection with this Contract. Both parties will make a good faith effort to continue without delay to carry out their respective responsibilities under this Contract while attempting to resolve the dispute under this section. XI Hold Harmless and Indemnification A In providing services under this Contract, the Contractor is an independent Contractor, and neither it nor its officers, agents, employees, or subcontractors are employees of the County for any purpose. The Contractor shall be responsible for all federal and/or state tax, industrial insurance, and Social Security liability that may result from the performance of and compensation for these services and shall make no claim of career service or civil service rights which may accrue to a County employee under state or local law. The County assumes no responsibility for the payment of any compensation, wages, benefits, or taxes by, or on behalf of the Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and/or others by reason of this Contract. The Contractor shall protect, indemnify, and save harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, and/or losses whatsoever occurring or resulting from (1) the Contractor's failure to pay any such compensation, wages, benefits, or taxes, and/or (2) the supplying to the Contractor of work, services, materials, or supplies by Contractor employees or other suppliers in connection with or support of the performance of this Contract. B The Contractor further agrees that it is financially responsible for and will repay the County all indicated amounts following an audit exception which occurs due to the negligence, intentional act, Contract# EHS2851 Page # 5 of 9 14 and/or failure, for any reason, to comply with the terms of this Contract by the Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors. This duty to repay the County shall not be diminished or extinguished by the prior termination of the Contract pursuant to the Term and Termination section. C The Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages, arising out of, or in anyway resulting from, the negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor, its officers, employees, subcontractors and/or agents in its performance or non-performance of its obligations under this Contract In the event the County incurs any judgment, award, and/or cost arising therefrom including attorneys' fees to enforce the provisions of this article, all such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the Contractor. D The County shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contractor, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages, arise out of, or in any way result from, the negligent acts or omissions of the County, its officers, employees, or agents in its performance or non-performance of its obligations under this Contract. In the event the Contractor incurs any judgment, award, and/or cost arising therefrom including attorneys' fees to enforce the provisions of this article, all such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the County. E Claims shall include, but not be limited to, assertions that use or transfer of software, book, document, report, film, tape, or sound reproduction or material of any kind, delivered hereunder, constitutes an infringement of any copyright, patent, trademark, trade name, and/or otherwise results in unfair trade practice. F Nothing contained within this provision shall affect and/or alter the application of any other provision contained within this Contract. G The indemnification, protection, defense and save harmless obligations contained herein shall survive the expiration, abandonment or termination of this Agreement. XII Insurance Requirements By the date of execution of this Contract, the Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with, the performance of work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors. The costs of such insurance shall be paid by the Contractor or subcontractor. The Contractor may furnish separate certificates of insurance and policy endorsements for each subcontractor as evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this Contract. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring compliance with all of the insurance requirements stated herein. Failure by the Contractor, its agents, employees, officers, subcontractors, providers, and/or provider subcontractors to comply with the insurance requirements stated herein shall constitute a material breach of this Contract. Specific coverages and requirements are at http://wwvv.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/partnerships/contracts; contractors shall read and certify compliance. XIII Assignment/Subcontracting A The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract any portion of this Contract or transfer or assign any claim arising pursuant to this Contract without the written consent of the County. Said consent must be sought in writing by the Contractor not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. B "Subcontract" shall mean any agreement between the Contractor and a subcontractor or between subcontractors that is based on this Contract, provided that the term "subcontract" does not include the purchase of (1) support services not related to the subject matter of this Contract, or (2) supplies. Contract# EHS2851 Page # 6 of 9 15 C The Contractor shall include Sections III.D., III.E., IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XI, XII, XIV, XV, XXI, and XXV, in every subcontract or purchase agreement for services that relate to the subject matter of this Contract. D The Contractor agrees to include the following language verbatim in every subcontract, provider agreement, or purchase agreement for services which relate to the subject matter of this Contract: "Subcontractor shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless King County, its officers, employees and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from the negligent act or omissions of subcontractor, its officers, employees, and/or agents in connection with or in support of this Contract. Subcontractor expressly agrees and understands that King County is a third party beneficiary to this Contract and shall have the right to bring an action against subcontractor to enforce the provisions of this paragraph." XIV Nondiscrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws regarding discrimination, including those set forth in this Section. During performance of the Contract, the Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of the employee or applicant's sex, race, color, marital status, national origin, religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age except by minimum age and retirement provisions, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. The Contractor will make equal employment opportunity efforts to ensure that applicants and employees are treated, without regard to their sex, race, color, marital status, national origin, religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age. Additional requirements are at http://vwvw.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/partnerships/contracts; contractors shall read and certify compliance. XV Conflict of Interest A The Contractor agrees to comply with applicable provisions of K.C.C. 3.04. Failure to comply with such requirements shall be a material breach of this contract, and may result in termination of this Contract pursuant to Section II and subject the Contractor to the remedies stated therein, or otherwise available to the County at law or in equity. B The Contractor agrees, pursuant to KCC 3.04.060, that it will not willfully attempt to secure preferential treatment in its dealings with the County by offering any valuable consideration, thing of value or gift, whether in the form of services, loan, thing or promise, in any form to any county official or employee. The Contractor acknowledges that if it is found to have violated the prohibition found in this paragraph, its current contracts with the county will be cancelled and it shall not be able to bid on any county contract for a period of two years. C The Contractor acknowledges that for one year after leaving County employment, a former County employee may not have a financial or beneficial interest in a contract or grant that was planned, authorized, or funded by a County action in which the former County employee participated during County employment. Contractor shall identify at the time of offer current or former County employees involved in the preparation of proposals or the anticipated performance of Work if awarded the Contract. Failure to identify current or former County employees involved in this transaction may result in the County's denying or terminating this Contract. After Contract award, the Contractor is responsible for notifying the County's Project Manager of current or former County employees who may become involved in the Contract any time during the term of the Contract. XVI Equipment Purchase, Maintenance, and Ownership A The Contractor agrees that any equipment purchased, in whole or in part, with Contract funds at a cost of$5,000 per item or more, when the purchase of such equipment is reimbursable as a Contract budget item, is upon its purchase or receipt the property of the County and/or Contract# EHS2851 Page # 7 of 9 16 federal/state government. The Contractor shall be responsible for all such property, including the proper care and maintenance of the equipment. B The Contractor shall ensure that all such equipment will be returned to the County or federal/state government upon termination of this Contract unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. XVII Proprietary Rights The parties to this Contract hereby mutually agree that if any patentable or copyrightable material or article should result from the work described herein, all rights accruing from such material or article shall be the sole property of the party that produces such material or article. If any patentable or copyrightable material or article should result from the work described herein and is jointly produced by both parties, all rights accruing from such material or article shall be owned in accordance with US Patent Law. Each party agrees to and does hereby grant to the other party, irrevocable, nonexclusive, and royalty-free license to use, according to law, any material or article and use any method that may be developed as part of the work under this Contract. The foregoing products license shall not apply to existing training materials, consulting aids, checklists, and other materials and documents of the Contractor which are modified for use in the performance of this Contract. The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to existing training materials, consulting aids, checklists, and other materials and documents of the Contractor that are not modified for use in the performance of this Contract. XVIII Political Activity Prohibited None of the funds, materials, property, or services provided directly or indirectly under this Contract shall be used for any partisan political activity or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office. XIX King County Recycled Product Procurement Policy In accordance with King County Code 10.16, the Contractor shall use recycled paper for the production of all printed and photocopied documents related to the fulfillment of this Contract. In addition, the Contractor shall use both sides of paper sheets for copying and printing and shall use recycled/recyclable products wherever practical in the fulfillment of this Contract. XX Future Support The County makes no commitment to support the services contracted for herein and assumes no obligation for future support of the activity contracted herein except as expressly set forth in this Contract. XXI Entire ContractMaiver of Default The parties agree that this Contract is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Both parties recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Contract. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of the Contract shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of the Contract unless stated to be such through written approval by the County, which shall be attached to the original Contract. XXII Contract Amendments Either party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Contract. XXIII Notices Whenever this Contract provides for notice to be provided by one party to another, such notice shall be in writing and directed to the chief executive office of the Contractor and the project representative of the Contract# EHS2851 Page # 8 of 9 17 County department specified on page one of this Contract. Any time within which a party must take some action shall be computed from the date that the notice is received by said party. XXIV Services Provided in Accordance with Law and Rule and Regulation The Contractor and any subcontractor agree to abide by the laws of the state of Washington, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and regulations of the state and federal governments, as applicable, which control disposition of funds granted under this Contract, all of which are incorporated herein by reference. In the event that there is a conflict between any of the language contained in any exhibit or attachment to this Contract, the language in the Contract shall have control over the language contained in the exhibit or the attachment, unless the parties affirmatively agree in writing to the contrary. XXV Applicable Law This Contract shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue for any action hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for King County, Washington. XXVI No Third Party Beneficiaries Except for the parties to whom this Contract is assigned in compliance with the terms of this Contract, there are no third party beneficiaries to this Contract, and this Contract shall not impart any rights enforceable by any person or entity that is not a party hereto. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this Contract: KING COUNTY City of Kent FOR King County Executive Signature Date NAME (Please type or print) Date Approved as to Form: OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Contract#EHS2851 - Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Contract# EHS2851 Page # 9 of 9 18 EHS2851 EXHIBIT A CITY OF KENT 2013 SCOPE OF WORK 1/1/2013-12/31/2013 The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Plan") as updated in 1997 and 2010, was adopted by the partner agencies (King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle Public Utilities, King County Water and Land Resources Division and the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health) and cities located in King County. The Washington State Department of Ecology in accordance with RCW 70.105.220 subsequently approved the Plan. The City is an active and valued partner in the regional Local Hazardous Waste Management Program (hereafter referred to as the "Program"). The purpose of this Exhibit is to define the relationship associated with the Program's funding of City activities performed under the auspices of the Plan and as approved by the Program's Management Coordination Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "MCC"). This Agreement further defines the responsibilities of the City and Seattle-King County Department of Public Health with respect to the transfer of Program monies. Scope of Work The City of Kent will organize three citywide household hazardous waste collection and recycling events. At these events the following materials will be collected and recycled: motor oil, motor oil filters, petroleum based products, antifreeze, batteries, CFCs and other materials if determined to be cost effective. Responsibilities of the Parties The responsibilities of the parties to this Contract shall be as follows: A. The City 1. The City shall develop and submit project proposals and budget requests to the Program's Contract Administrator. Funds provided to the City by the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program pursuant to this Contract shall be used to implement hazardous waste programs and/or services as approved by the MCC. 2. For reimbursement the City shall submit the following to the Fund Manager: a) An invoice (see Exhibit C). Invoices should be sent to the Fund Manager for approval and payment. b) A brief description of activity accomplished and funds expended in accordance with the scope of work. c) Copies of invoices for expenditures or afinancial statement prepared by the City's finance department. The financial statements should include vendor EHS2851 —City of Kent 1 19 names, a description of services provided, date paid and a check or warrant number. 3. The City shall notify the Fund Manager no later than December 15a' regarding the amount of outstanding expenditures for which the City has not yet submitted a reimbursement request. 4. It is the responsibility of the City to comply with all applicable county, state and/or federal reporting requirements with respect to the collection and transfer of moderate risk wastes. The City shall report to the Contract Administrator the quantity, by type, of moderate risk waste collected using Program funds. The City shall also provide the Contract Administrator with copies of EPA's Non-Hazardous Waste Manifest or similar form, associated with the transport of moderate risk waste collected through Program-funded events. 5. The City is solely responsible for any and all spills, leaks or other emergencies arising at the facilities associated with the City's events or in any other way associated with activities conducted within the scope of this Contract. In the event of a spill or other emergency,the City is responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations. 6. The City agrees to appropriately acknowledge the Program in all media produced—in part or in whole—with Program funds. The intent of this provision is to further strengthen this regional partnership in the public's mind. 7. The City agrees to provide the Program with copies of all media material produced for local hazardous waste management events or activities that have been funded by the Program. The City also agrees to allow the Program to reproduce media materials created with Program money provided that the Program credits the City as the originator of that material. 8. This project shall be administered by Gina Hungerford at the City of Kent, 220 Fourth Ave. S, Kent, at(253) 856-5549, (ghungerford(okentwa.gov) or her designee. 9. Questions or concerns regarding any issue associated with this Exhibit that cannot be handled by the Contract Administrator or Fund Manager should be referred to the LHWMP Program Director for resolution. B. Seattle-King County Department of Public Health 1. Seattle-King County Department of Public Health shall administer, via the attached Contract, the transfer of Program funds to the City for hazardous waste management events and activities. 2. Within ten (10)working days of receiving a request for reimbursement from the City, the Fund Manager shall either notify the City of any exceptions to the request which have been identified or shall process the request for payment. If any exceptions to the request are made,this shall be done by written notification to the City providing the reason for such exception. The Fund Manager will not authorize payment for activities and/or expenditures that are not included in the scope of work, unless the scope has been amended. The Fund Manager retains the right to withhold all or partial payment if the City's invoices are incomplete (e.g. they do not include proper documentation of expenditures for which reimbursement is being requested) or are not consistent with the submitted scope of work. EHS2851 —City of Kent 2 20 C. Program Contacts Lauren Cole Madelaine Yun Acting LHWMP Program Director LHWMP Fund Manager 150 Nickerson Street, Suite 100 150 Nickerson Street, Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 Seattle WA 98109 206-240-5977 206-352-7128 Lauren.coleAkingcounty.gov madelaine.yunAkingcounty.gov Paul Shallow LHWMP Contract Administrator Seattle, WA 98104 206-263-8487 Paul.shallowAkingcounty,.gov EHS2851 —City of Kent 3 21 EXHIBIT B 2013 BUDGET LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave. S Kent, WA 98032 Component Description Budget Household Hazardous Waste Education Household Hazardous Waste Collection $31,442.22 TOTAL $31,442.22 EHS2851 —City of Kent zz EXHIBIT C 2013 INVOICE LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM From: The City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave. S Kent, WA 98032 To: Madelaine Yun,Fund Manager Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County Seattle-King County Department of Public Health 150 Nickerson St., Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98109 Contract#EHS2851 Period of time: , 2013 to 12013. In performance of a signed Contract between King County and the City of Kent,I hereby certify that the following expenses were incurred during the above-mentioned period of time. Signature Date Component Budget Current Expenses Previous Charges Balance Description Household Hazardous Waste Education Household Hazardous $31,442.22 Waste Collection TOTAL $31,442.22 For Health Department Use Only FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Oracle Purchase Order# Invoice Date T Invoice# Amount to be paid Oracle Requisition# Oracle Receipt# Oracle CPA# Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Approval: Madelaine Yun Date EHS2851 —City of Kent 23 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Timothy J LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 4, 2013 To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members Special PW Committee Meeting Date: January 14, 2013 From: Gina Hungerford, Conservation Coordinator Through: Kelly Peterson, AICP, Environmental Conservation Supervisor Michael Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer Subject: Consultant Contract with Olympic Environmental Resources - Recycling Item - 3 Motion: Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Olympic Environmental Resources for Waste Reduction and Recycling Activities and Programs for 2013 in an amount not to exceed $93,392.25, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Summary: Olympic Environmental Resources will provide assistance with the implementation of the City of Kent's Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs, including the spring, summer, and fall special recycling and collection events, outreach for business and multi-family waste reduction and recycling programs, rain barrel and compost bin sales and education to benefit the citizens and businesses of Kent. These programs provide a cost savings to Kent's customers. Kent staff will continue to concentrate on the residential sector. Budget Impact: This Consultant Contract will be funded 100% through the following grants: Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant, Seattle-King County Health Department Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant, and King County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant. 24 This page intentionally left blank. 25 wilder EMEW Ol Mt wcEnmronmenbJResanrces po box 46188 seattle, wa 98146 4715 SW Wallcer Street Seattle WA 98116 206.949.1787 (206)938-8262 Fax(206)938-9873 wilderenvironmental.com pauldeune@msn.com swilder@wilderenvironmental.com November 15, 2012 Ms. Gina Hungerford, Conservation Specialist City of Kent 220 4th Ave South Kent, WA 98032 RE: City of Kent 2013 Recycling Program Request for Proposal Dear Gina: Olympic Environmental Resources (OER) and Wilder Environmental Consulting (WEC) are pleased to submit qualifications to the City of Kent for management and implementation of the City's recycling programs in 2013. OER has a long history working with the City of Kent. WEC and OER successfully partnered for the City for the past two years. Our team has assisted many cities in implementing resource conservation programs and increasing recycling participation in the residential and commercial sectors. Our team has strong knowledge of City specific and regional solid waste and hazardous waste activities and is very familiar with the City's solid waste program including reuse and recycling options available in the Kent area. OER and WEC are committed to being efficient, responsive, cost effective, flexible and professional. We have an extensive history working on resource conservation projects and we have vendors/contacts in place to provide seamless, continuous and immediate management of the City's projects. Our team is prepared to commence work immediately. In responding to the City request, our team proposes to once again work on different parts of the Kent program. OER and WEC have each submitted a proposal specific to each aspect of work. This model has been used successfully by many other Cities in King County. The proposal is presented in two parts: • OER's proposal for Collection and Recycling Events, Compost Bin/Rain Barrel Sale and Grant Administration with qualifications. OER will organize, promote, staff and track results for the three City- wide collection and recycling events, the compost bin/rain barrel sale, the summer business recycling event (if requested), and assist with grant administration. • WEC's proposal for business, multifamily and school outreach materials, Website and recognition program with qualifications. WEC will provide business recycling newsletters, the business tool kit, business recognition and updates for the KentRecycles.com website. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. Please contact Paul Devine at (206) 938-8262 or email at pauldevine@msn.com or Sam Wilder at (206) 949-1787 or email at swilder@wilderenvironmental.com if you have any questions. We look forward to discussing our proposal with you in greater detail. Sincerely, Paul M. Devine Samantha R. Wilder General Manager, Olympic Environmental Resources President, Wilder Environmental Consulting Enclosures 26 City of Kent 2013 RecyclingProposal Part 1 : Collection and Recycling Events, Compost Bin/Rain BarrelBin/Rai Sale and Grant Administration Prepared by Olympic Environmental Resources Olympic Environmental Resources (OER) specializes in solid waste and recycling services and provides service for many City recycling programs in the Puget Sound area. For many years, OER General Manager Paul Devine has coordinated the Kent spring and fall residential recycling collection events, overseen the City compost bin and rain barrel distribution events, managed the City business recycling event and provided recycling grant administration and reporting. OER has a clear understanding of City of Kent needs, programs and grant administration and reporting functions and has spent years fostering relationships with the City's staff and program subcontractors. These relationships will support seamless management and implementation of Kent programs in 2013. In 2013, OER has the project staff and vendors in place to carry on immediate management and implementation of the following Kent programs: • Two Spring and One Fall Residential Recycling Collection Events • Compost Bin Distribution Event • Rain Barrel Distribution Event • Business Recycling Collection Event (if requested) • Grant Procurement and Project Administration • Other Program Management and Implementation as Needed Residential Recycling Collection Events Since 1993, OER staff has successfully managed forty-one (41) recycling collection events in the City of Kent. Kent residents now expect and rely on these events to dispose of recyclables not collected in the curb-side program. Through 2012, these events have provided recycling options to over 34,200 Kent residents and resulted in the proper recycling of 7,807,751 pounds of material diverted from the Kent waste stream. The types and volume of materials collected at these events have increased steadily over the years. Below is a complete list of materials and total amounts of materials collected in the City of Kent from 1993-2012. Material Collected Totals Total Tons Total Pounds Scrap Metal/Appliances/Electronics -tons 1629.08 1629.08 3,258,160 Wood/Bulky Yard Debris -tons 525 525 1,050,000 Computer Monitors - number 2366 47.32 94,640 TV Sets- number 1955 48.88 97,750 Propane Tanks - number 1470 36.75 73,500 Cardboard —tons 143.57 143.57 287,140 Household Goods -tons 186.53 186.53 373,060 Tires - number 20,339 254.24 508,475 Used Oil - gallons 32,605 120.64 241,277 Used Oil Filters - number 7,988 11.2 22,366 Lead Acid Batteries - number 5,622 101.2 202,392 Antifreeze - gallons 4,240 17 33,920 Household Batteries - number 201,973 10.1 20,197 Toilets and Sinks - number 1,264 47.4 94,800 Concrete -tons 654.98 654.98 1,309,960 Fluorescent Lights - number 1297 0.65 1,297 Shredded Paper -tons 62.7 62.7 125,390 Mattresses- number 330 4.95 9,900 Styrofoam —pounds 2,022 1.01 2,022 Plastics- pounds 1025 0.51 1,025 Car Seats—number 62 0.24 480 Total 3,904 7,807,751 Number of Participants 34,213 OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 2 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 27 I r �ti �us��Iuv�oinrc, �d��l�'141���tlili�i�l �I I^;ll)�Illlil����W�IC� �,S�Gi�)��I)� .�'dull'v1i���V,�V1,If�9t111�IINUIIIt1111111101111 i r./ d i , Kent Residential Recycling Events Compost Bin and Rain Barrel Distribution Events Compost bins and rain barrels are very popular in Kent and thousands of each has been distributed to Kent residents. OER has overseen coordination and implementation of these events for many years. OER has the event staff and educational staff in place to conduct the 2013 events on schedule and within budget. For many years OER has worked with a variety of compost bin and rain barrel vendors and has the opportunity to purchase in bulk to lower City costs. In addition, OER coordinates grant administration, evaluation and reporting to assure reimbursement of bin and barrel costs. %i y �u rya 4q „p N ljJ w T y a Rain Barrel Compost Bin OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 3 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 2s Grant Administration and Program Reporting OER staff has overseen the management and administration of City of Kent grant-funded programs for many years. In that time, the City has applied for and received approximately thirty-five individual recycling program- related grants. Each grant has unique program goals, timelines and fund matching requirements that require close administration and oversight. In 2013, OER will continue to provide the City with experienced staff to oversee the grants and ensure that full reimbursement is received for all recycling-program activities. With a clear and specific understanding of the grant administration activities and requirements, OER can maximize City grant funds by matching grants where applicable and avoiding overlap of service. Qualifications of Project Staff In responding to the City request our team proposes to work on different parts of the Kent program. OER will organize, promote, staff and track results for the three City-wide collection and recycling events, the compost bin/rain barrel sale, the summer business recycling event (if requested) and assist with grant administration. By working with the City of Kent and other King County cities, many for over twenty years, OER staff has demonstrated the ability to deliver successful recycling services on schedule and within budget. OER services shall include scheduling events, organizing OER project staff, coordinating projects with OER subcontractors and providing project reporting and grant administration. OER staff shall meet with City staff at the City's discretion to ensure proper implementation of project activities. Paul Devine will act as the Project Manager on the Kent Project. Paul is the General Manager of OER and has managed City of Kent Recycling Programs since 1993. Paul has extensive experience in solid waste and recycling in both the public and private sectors. As Suburban City Recycling Coordinator, he designed and implemented a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the City of Normandy Park. Through his work in the recycling industry he has developed good working relationships with area haulers, local recyclers and state and local government officials. Paul has a clear understanding of the City of Kent programs. He has maintained all grant administration functions for all project work and has the vendors and contacts in place to implement programs without interruption. Paul graduated from Whitman College in 1984 and received a Master's of Public Administration from Seattle University in 1990. Recycling and Bin/Barrel Event Protect Staffing and Management OER shall provide adequately-trained staff for all Kent Recycling Collection Events and Bin/Barrel Distribution Events. OER staff is experienced and familiar with these events and very customer-service oriented. A sufficient number of OER staff shall be present to prevent traffic delays and to address participants' needs and questions. OER will provide each Kent event with the following staff: Project Manager to work with the City of Kent, provide contract management, supervise staff and oversee operations of the entire contract. The Project Manager shall ensure the contract is completed on schedule and within budget. The Project Manager will also work at events as necessary. Paul Devine will act as the Project Manager. Paul has successfully managed Kent Recycling Collection Events for the past seventeen years. Paul is experienced in all aspects of collection event management and has acted in every working capacity at events. Paul's experience in managing Kent recycling programs makes him uniquely qualified to manage Kent Recycling Collection Events. Event Coordinator to supervise staff and oversee operations of the entire event. The Event Coordinator shall ensure that Site Entrance Greeters, Traffic Directors, Exit Staff and Fee Collectors are supervised throughout the day. Tom Sharp, Tim Greenan, Mike Smyth and Jay Brewer will work for OER as Event Coordinators on OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 4 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 29 Kent events. Tom, Tim, Mike and Jay have all worked at Kent events over the past seventeen years on both residential and business events. Tom is a Master Recycle r/Co mposte r and former King County Suburban City Recycling Coordinator for the City of Normandy Park. All Event Coordinators are experienced working with event subcontractors and implementing events. All are experienced and skilled in assisting the event participants and providing information on reducing waste, reusing materials and recycling. Site Entrance Greeters to screen vehicles for proper materials, answer questions about event procedures and direct participants to materials collection stations. Greeters shall distribute educational materials and promotional items as requested by the City. Treloar Nyquist, Spencer Orman, Mike Brawley, and Marilyn Frank have worked with OER for many years. All are experienced at greeting event participants, directing event traffic, providing educational materials, passing out promotional items and tallying the number of participants that attend the events. All are experienced and skilled at making participants feel welcome to events while giving event directions and relaying important safety information Material Collection Staff to offload materials or help with bins/barrels. Mat Vlasak, Jeff Vedvick, Ruben Moreno, Karl Ruediger, Rich Arzberger, and Seth Epperson will work as material collection staff for OER. All are experienced in working events and collecting different recyclable materials and have worked with OER for a number of years. Event Educational Staff at City Bin/Barrel sales. Treloar Nyquist, Tom Sharp, and Marilyn Frank will work as greeters/cashiers staff for OER. Spencer Orman will work as educational staff. Both are experienced in working sales and have worked with OER for a number of years. Spencer is a Master Recycle r/Composter, a former King County Suburban City Recycling Coordinator for the City of Renton, current City of Olympia employee, as well as a well-known local educator on organics recycling. In addition to OER staff, event subcontractors provide staff to collect other materials such as motor oil, batteries, tires, household goods, scrap metal and electronics. Hourly Rates for Event Management and Staff Project Manager $70.00 Recycling Specialist $55.00 Recycling Event Staff $55.00 Recycling-related Projects Completed for Other Agencies Olympic Environmental Resources specialize in solid waste and recycling services, recycling collection event management, environmental education programs and compost bin and rain barrel sale management. In 2012, OER staff implemented forty-one (41) residential recycling collection and storm clean-up events, eight business collection events, and thirteen compost bin and rain barrel sales. OER staff has two decades of recycling collection event and recycling project management experience. OER is ready and able to provide Kent with professional program management, implementation and administration of all aspects of the City of Kent's recycling assistance programs. OER offers unmatched experience and expertise to complete City of Kent recycling project on schedule and within budget. That experience is necessary to manage Kent projects so that they will be implemented without delays or problems and Kent staff can feel comfortable that they will be done right. OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 5 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 30 Recently OER has provided recycling collection event management services for: • City of Algona: Diana Quinn, (253) 833-2897 • City of Bellevue: Tom Spille, (425) 452-6964 • City of Black Diamond: Aaron Nix, (253) 631-0361 • City of Covington: Shellie Bates, (253) 638-1110, ext. 2238 • City of Des Moines: Laura Techico, (206) 870-6696 • City of Enumclaw: Vickie Forler, (360) 825-3693 • City of Kenmore: Jennifer Gordon, (425) 398-8900 • City of Kent: Gina Hungerford, (253) 866-6649 • City of Kirkland: John MacGillivray, (425) 687-3804 • City of Mercer Island: Glenn Boettcher, (206) 276-7802 • City of Maple Valley: Diana Pistol, (425) 413-8800 • City of Newcastle: Brian Smith, (425) 649-4444, ext. 136 • City of Normandy Park/Burien: Janise Goucher, (206) 248-7603 • City of Pacific: Jim Schunke, (253) 929-1116 • City of Sammamish: Mike Sauerwein, (425) 296-0610 • City of Tukwila: Nick Olivas, (206) 675-4407 • City of Woodinville: Amy Ensminger, (425) 489-2700, ext 2240 • King County Solid Waste Division: Karen May, (206) 296-4363 • Snoqualmie Tribe: Cindy Spiry, (425) 292-0249, Ext 3 • Town of Skykomish: Deborah Allegri, (360) 677-2388 Client References Mr. Thomas Spille Solid Waste Program Administrator Utilities Department City of Bellevue PO Box 90012 Bellevue, WA 98009-9012 (425) 452-6964 tspille@bellevuewa.gov Ms. Diana Pistoll Programs Coordinator City of Maple Valley PO Box 320 Maple Valley, WA 98038 (425) 413-8800 Diana.pistoll@ci.maple-valley.wa.us Ms. Vicki Forler Public Works Department City of Enumclaw 2041 Railroad Street Enumclaw, WA 98022 (360) 825-3252 vickieforler@ci.enumclaw.wa.us OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 6 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 31 City of Kent 2013 RecyclingProposal PartBusiness Outreach Materials Newsletters, Business Tool Kit, Business Recognition, KentRecycles.com /�(Ii,glu itll wmd �e(iA, {tl � i 9 ; ,m„ .,.. Prepared by Wilder Environmental Consulting OER and WEC propose to work on different parts of the Kent recycling program - as we did in 2011 and 2012. WEC will work on business and multifamily outreach components including newsletters, resource conservation tool kits, business recognition (Green Business of the Year award), multifamily and updates to the KentRecycles.com website. Wilder Environmental Consulting (WEC) is a woman-owned Seattle based environmental consulting firm in operation since 2002. WEC specializes in public outreach and program implementation for resource conservation, recycling, organics recovery and sustainability. The City and Kent businesses will be well-served by our experience working for other City business and residential recycling assistance programs, such as Burien, Bellevue, Federal Way, Issaquah and Tukwila. WEC's familiarity with local recycling contracts, technical knowledge regarding recycling and resource conservation, experience working with haulers and comfort in conducting outreach allow for providing a comprehensive combination of technical solutions and effective outreach to Kent's commercial and residential sectors. During the past ten years WEC has developed efficient and effective techniques in responding to business and residential needs in a way that offers the City of Kent excellent value. Project Approach The outreach program for Kent that is outlined in the RFP has several components: Newsletters for the business community, a business recycling tool kit, business recognition program and updates to the KentRecycles.com website. The following pages outline the contractor's recommended approach. Business Newsletters The contractor developed articles for Kent newsletters in 2011 and 2012. WEC has also developed business recycling newsletters for the City of Tukwila, the City of Burien and the City of Kirkland. Past newsletters have included articles on programs available to assist businesses with conserving resources, web resources, recognition programs, what's recyclable, how to reduce waste, how to compost, where to recycle unusual items and hot topics. Included in this proposal are samples of past newsletters. WEC has developed informational postcards for businesses. In 2011 and 2012, these were used in the City of Kent. These have also been used in Redmond, Burien, Federal Way, Tukwila and Kirkland and have gotten a great response. Included in this proposal are samples of these postcards. Business Recycling Tool Kit The contractor assisted the City of Kent in creating the current City of Kent Business Recycling Tool Kit (BRK). WEC has also created BRK's for the City of Burien, City of Federal Way, City of Kirkland, Kitsap County and City of Tukwila. Contents of this kit have included a combination of materials including the Business Resource Guide a GBOY application, takitbacknetwork.org brochures and recyclables stickers to place on recycling containers. The contractor proposes continuing work with the City to evaluate current materials and to determine if additional handouts or tools should be developed to help promote business recycling/resource OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 7 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 32 conservation participation. In other Cities, a combination of the following items has been used (depending on the City and depending on the target sector): • waste prevention checklist, or recycling percentage calculation worksheet • recognition program application • city specific business recycling option guide • recycling bin stickers • recycling containers (if budget allows) • flyers on computer recycling and printer cartridge recycling and continued promotion for Washington e-cycles program • information on non-computer electronics recycling, including 'Take it Back" Network information • buy recycled guide • fluorescent bulb and CFL recycling brochures • materials exchange information (IMEX) • hazardous materials information (King County) • composting information • King County recycling database links and additional local resources Business, School and Multifamily Assistance WEC worked with Kent businesses and schools for the past two years to evaluate current recycling and waste reduction practices and to make improvements. Businesses assisted received onsite assistance, a business recycling tool kit and follow up. Schools assisted received containers, signs, handouts for students and teachers and onsite assistance. Results from school cafeteria recycling were very successful. For example, at Meridian Middle school results included: reduction of garbage by 24 bags per day, which is the same as 758 cubic yards per year! This is a reduction by 70%. Multifamily property assistance was a main focus in 2012. During 2012, the contractor met onsite with property managers, assisted with increasing or adding recycling service and distributed multifamily bags to 750 units. The contractor also developed a handout to include in each bag with instructions and resource information for hard to recycle items. We recommend continuing to offer this type of in-depth assistance that can dovetail with other local programs. Included in this proposal are samples of materials that were developed in 2011 and 2012 to help schools, businesses and multifamily properties add recycling and to reduce waste. r OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 8 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 33 Business Recognition Program WEC worked with the City of Kent to continue their successful Green Business of the Year Recognition program. In 2012 Applus was chosen as the winner. Applus was selected due to their recycling and composting participation and high priority for purchasing recycled content products. They also participate in a variety of strong waste reduction activities. In 2013, Torklift Central was chosen as a winner. They were chosen due to their high recycling rate of over 75%. WEC has also worked with the City of Bellevue, City of Issaquah, City of Tukwila, City of Kirkland and City of Federal Way to create and implement business or school recognition programs. Award packages for other Cities have included an application, recognition certificates and an award to a top business or school each year. The City of Tukwila's program has been in existence the longest. This program presents annual awards to a chosen business each year at a Tukwila City Council meeting. µ II I �M WEC recommends broadening this program to include multiple categories such as small businesses, schools and/or apartment or condo complexes. We have already collaborated with the City to develop these ideas to consider for 2013. Kentrecycles.com Website Updates The contractor worked with the City of Kent to update their kentrecycles.com website in 2011 and 2012. WEC has worked closely with other Cities to develop content, format and provide graphics for the City recycling website section. This has always been tailored to help businesses find local recycling options. The contractor would continue to work with the City to evaluate the existing site, compare to other sites and make updates. Client References • Mary Joe deBeck, City of Issaquah- Resource Conservation Office, 425-837-3417, maryjoed@ci.issaquah.wa.us, 1775 12`h Ave. NW, Issaquah, WA 98027 • Jennifer Goodhart, City of Bellevue _Conservation and Outreach Program Administrator, 425-702-3200, joodhart@bellevuewa.gov, 450 110th Ave. NE., Bellevue, WA 98009 • Elaine Borieson, City of Bellevue - Conservation and Outreach Program Administrator, and formerly for City of Kirkland, 425-452-7103, eborjeson@bellevuewa.gov, 450 110th Ave. NE., Bellevue, WA 98009 • Stacey Auer, City of Redmond- Recycling Program Administrator 425-556-2832, slauer@redmond.gov, PO Box 97010 Redmond, WA 98073 OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 9 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 34 Qualifications of Project Staff I Name: Sam Wilder, President, Wilder Environmental Consulting Hourly Rate: $78.50/hour • Qualifications: For the past fifteen years, Ms Wilder has been in the waste reduction/recycling/composting and resource conservation field. She has been involved with projects at all levels from project management, education and outreach and program implementation. She has worked with residents, businesses, property managers and schools to evaluate their waste producing activities and to develop waste reduction/recycling/organics solutions. She effectively tailors outreach for different sectors and provides an approach to problem solving that minimizes time required by businesses or schools while maximizing their benefits with increased recycling and waste reduction. Ms. Wilder believes in not "reinventing the wheel" for City outreach, but rather utilizing strong partnerships to build on work done by local jurisdictions and to customize materials to fit the client's needs. This approach gets the most out of City budgets. Ms. Wilder's public outreach experience includes creating and distributing materials (promotional and educational), conducting on-site waste evaluations and presentations. She has given over 1,000 presentations to school classes, school assemblies, neighborhood associations, conferences and businesses and conducted outreach to 1,200+ businesses. Ms. Wilder has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Environmental Resource Management from Penn State University. She has completed both the introductory and advanced community based social marketing training sessions from Doug McKenzie-Mohr. She is certified as a Building Analyst Professional by the Building Performance Institute. She has achieved Level 1 and Level 2 Building Operator Certification through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council. She has completed 2 semesters of 20 hour/week training in commercial energy auditing. OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 10 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 35 ms samantha r wilder, president wildIRI'� po box 46188, seattle wa 98146 206-949-1787 •'� +� dl � swilder@wilderenvironmental.com www.wilderenvironmentaL c om STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS / RELATED EXPERIENCE Business Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program, City of Kent • Worked with City to update outreach materials including the website and the business toolkit items. • Wrote newsletter articles for City's waste reduction and recycling newsletter. • Developed and mailed outreach postcard for all businesses. • Assisted with GBOY program by conducting onsite evaluations of all applicants, working with OER to determine a recommendation and submitting the recommendation to the City. Coordinated creation of glass award and press release materials. • Developed a School Assistance program for City of Kent schools to start cafeteria recycling. Assistance included working closely with the school district to meet with City schools, develop a list of recommendations, plot out a roll out plan, implement a new program and follow up with schools. Supplementary materials were developed which included: Kent Schools Guide to Cafeteria Recycling, signage for cafeteria and classroom recycling containers (specific to the District's recycler), Conservation Promotion guide, morning announcements, newsletter articles and staff emails. Part of this year's contract included procurement of 42 large recycling containers and lids for distribution to schools to implement cafeteria recycling. • Promoted multifamily recycling and assisted 16 properties. Distributed bags to 752 units for collecting recyclables. Recycling and Organics Assistance, City of Issaquah • Worked with City on in-house recycling and organics campaign. • Worked with Schools in Issaquah School District to boost recycling and add food composting to cafeteria. Worked with approximately 10 schools. • Created the "Zero Waste Cafeteria Challenge"to recognize strong elementary school recyclers. • Recognized Issaquah Valley Elementary for reducing lunch waste to 5 gallons per day through aggressive waste reduction and recycling. Recognition included an award and a visit by the City's Mayor to present it. • Developed materials for schools including signage, newsletter articles for outreach. • Worked with area businesses on resource conservation, recycling and composting. • Assisted with introducing and continuing organics collection at Issaquah Salmon Days festival in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Recruited and trained volunteers to provide education onsite, assisted with logistics of collection, conducted vendor education and recognition, helped gather results and developed signage. In 2010, achieved a 60% recycling rate. Redmond Organics Collection Program, City of Redmond • Recruited over 130 businesses to participate in the commercial organics recycling program. Ten businesses were schools which implemented cafeteria-wide collection programs. Also added Redmond Town Center restaurants to the program. • Worked with Microsoft campus to start food collection and to assist in phasing out Styrofoam. • Responsible for all aspects of the program including outreach, educational material development, staff training, collection system implementation, coordination with Waste Management, Waste Management driver training, Waste Management call center training and route review"ride alongs." OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 11 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 36 Commercial Recycling Outreach Program, City of Burien • Operated hotline during hauler transition. • Worked with multifamily properties with low recycling rates to increase participation. • Developed outreach materials for businesses including: newsletter articles for City newsletter, web page for City, newsletter for businesses, stickers for recycling bins, printer cartridge recycling guide and recycler guide. "Packaged" these items in a Business Recycling Kit. • Started the City of Burien Recycling Recognition Program. • Conducted outreach to approximately 300 businesses conducting waste assessments, presentations, providing recycling containers and business recycling kits. Distributed approximately 600 recycling containers to assist in boosting recycling. Federal Way Recycling Education, City of Federal Way • Since 2003, conducted outreach to approximately 400 Federal Way businesses, property managers and schools (36 schools) to promote resource conservation. • Worked closely with Federal Way Commons to add commingled recycling. Conducted outreach to all tenants and coordinated new hauler for collection. • Developed the Federal Way Business Recycling Kit to distribute to businesses during onsite assistance. Developed other materials including the Business Recycler of the Year application, the Federal Way Business Recycling Guide and other handouts and postcards. • Assisted businesses in setting up recycling programs. Distributed over 1,500 recycling containers and stickers to assist with setting up successful interior recycling programs. Bellevue Commercial Recycling Outreach, City of Bellevue • Since 2002, conducted outreach to Bellevue businesses, schools and property managers to promote resource conservation. • Assisted businesses in setting up recycling programs and getting staff on board. • Implemented recycling programs for Bellevue Square Mall, Lincoln Square Mall and Factoria Mall. Canvassed mall tenants and coordinated education efforts and communication between recycler, mall management and mall tenants. • Coordinated and attended meetings with Property Managers to improve their conservation programs. • Made presentations to businesses regarding resource conservation. Kirkland Commercial Recycling and Organics Outreach Program, City of Kirkland • Conducted outreach to Kirkland businesses, schools and property managers to promote resource conservation. • Worked with multifamily properties with low recycling rates to increase participation. • Assisted businesses in setting up recycling programs and getting staff on board. • Made presentations to businesses regarding resource conservation. • Worked with approximately 200 businesses per year and distributed over 3500 recycling containers to businesses to help set up internal collection programs. • Recruited almost 200 businesses to participate in the commercial organics recycling program- including schools, hospitals, restaurants, day care centers, fire stations and a technical college. • Responsible for all aspects of the program including outreach, educational material development (including newsletters, postcards and handouts), staff training for food recycling, collection system implementation, coordination with Waste Management, Waste Management driver training, Waste Management call center training and route review"ride alongs." OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 12 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 37 City of Tukwila Business Resource Conservation Program, City of Tukwila • Conducted outreach to businesses, property managers and schools. • Developed promotional postcards, signs, business cards and flyers to promote the program. Coordinated and wrote a bi-annual newsletter for Tukwila businesses. Created business recycling stickers and the Tukwila Green Works program, which includes recognizing a Business Recycler of the Year each year. Created resource conservation posters and handouts. • Created the Tukwila Business Recycling Kit and distributed during onsite assistance visits. • Distributed materials to and/or met with over 600 businesses, offering resource conservation technical assistance. • Evaluated business practices on-site and assisted businesses with implementing changes. • Conducted outreach to property managers of large commercial properties to encourage environmental improvements. • Developed and presented promotional events (including onsite booths) to encourage employee participation in waste reduction and recycling. • Created new City of Tukwila Business Recycling Website • Implemented a recycling program for Southcenter Mall. Canvassed mall tenants and coordinated education efforts and communication between recycler, mall management, logistics company and mall tenants. Business and Multifamily Outreach Program, Earth Smart Fair City of Lake Forest Park • Coordinated and managed 2008 Earth Smart Fair including recruiting vendors, advertising and setting up event • Conducted business recycling outreach • Conducted multi-family recycling outreach • Developed business recycling outreach materials and a business recycling kit. A complete Statement of Qualificaitons is available per request. This listing provides projects that are relevant to the Kent Recycling RFP. EDUCATION Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 1996 • Bachelor of Science Degree in Environmental Resource Management, Minor in Education. • Has completed both the introductory and advanced community based social marketing training sessions from Doug McKenzie-Mohr. • Has completed training to become a Building Performance/Home Energy Auditor through home energy auditing course (130 hours) , Certified by the Building Performance Institute, Building Analyst Professional Certification, 2009 • Has completed training in commercial energy auditing through course (240 hours), 2012 • Certified Building Operator, Level 1 from the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, 2009 • Certified Building Operator, Level 2 from the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, 2012 • Member of the Washington State Recycling Association OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 13 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 38 PRESENTATIONS Washington State Recycling Association, 2011 Conference • Communication and Outreach strategies for local governments to work with residents, businesses and schools Complete Office Green Buying Convention, June 2010 • Recycled products, energy conservation tools and water conservation tools presentation for businesses Washington State Recycling Association, 2008 Conference • Commercial recycling and school outreach strategies presentation Washington State Recycling Association, 2006 Conference • Presented on Bite of Seattle and Bumbershoot compost collection and food recycling for City of Seattle Biocycle West Coast Conference, 2006 • Commercial compost recruitment and festival recycling Washington State Recycling Association, 2005 Conference • Presented on rural recycling and social marketing to share results of project in Island County EPA's Wastewise, 2005 • Presented 10 Steps for Success" on starting or improving an office recycling program Seattle and King County BOMA Workshop, 2004 • Presented at "Make Recycling Work for You" on successful tenant recycling for property managers Washington State Recycling Association, 2004 Conference • Presented at "Rural Recycling" session to share implementation steps and results of the Island County social marketing program Washington State Recycling Association, 2003 Conference • Presented at "Educate, Activate and Motivate" session on mall and business recycling For more information on publications, please refer to wilderenvironmental.com OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 14 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 39 City of Kent 2013 Recycling Proposal: Work Samples Samples are posted online temporarily for download at http://www.wilderenvironmental.com/kentsampies Olympic Environmental Resources • Kent Recycling Collection Event Flyers: spring, summer, fall and business (OER managed these projects) Wilder Environmental Consulting • City of Burien Business Recycling Postcard (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Federal Way Business Recycling Guide (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Kent Recycling Outreach Postcard (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Kent School Cafeteria Recycling Guide (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Kent Conservation Promotion Guide for Schools (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Kent School Recycling Signs/Guides (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Kirkland Business Recycling Guide (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Kirkland Business Recycling Newsletter (responsible for content) • City of Redmond Composting Outreach Postcard (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Tukwila Business Recycling Newsletter (responsible for design and content) • City of Tukwila Business Recycling Sticker (responsible for design and content) • City of Tukwila Business Recycler of the Year Handout (responsible for production, design and content) • City of Tukwila Environmental Preferable Purchasing Handout (responsible for production, design and content) OER&WEC Kent Recycling Proposal 15 Printed on recycled content paper,November 15, 2012 40 O G C o e n = 00 C O p O G 1� 4 O O r C N C O e N T = N r rvR1. � O OO G O M a ry 0 d a o� 0 4 - � o w C U r G GC V y a -ry- �tl J J° w"vS W wd�F.i G . u S u 'C 4 5 ocm >• :o��'' �:: a`'mea• _ (N=�`e7 au4 1-n>c ez z 6o 4k0. p 'C>c- T `7 y '3 y 4 i4 5 p' 41 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 9, 2013 To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members Special PW Committee Meeting Date: January 14, 2013 From: Alex Murillo, P.E., Environmental Engineering Supervisor Through: Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager Subject: Consultant Services Contract with AMEC Consultants/ 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements - Geotechnical Engineering Services Item - 4 Motion: Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Consultant Services Contract Agreement with AMEC in an amount not to exceed $19,096.15 to provide geotechnical engineering services for the 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements Project, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Summary: Next summer, the Public Works Department will be installing two box culverts within the 64th Avenue South drainage channel. This is phase II of the project, which will help reduce flooding by increasing flow capacity and improving storm water conveyance along 64th Avenue South from South 228th Street to the Green River Natural Resources Area. The culverts are located underneath a Union Pacific Railroad spur track that crosses the 64th Avenue South channel. As such, the design and construction of the new culvert foundation must meet federal railroad standards. As this is specialized engineering work, AMEC consultants will be preparing the geotechnical engineering designs and providing construction support for the culvert foundation. Budget Impact: This project will be paid for from the storm drainage fund, with no unbudgeted fiscal impacts. 42 This page intentionally left blank. 4 , ame January 9, 2013 AMEC Project 3-917-17292-B City of Kent Public Works Engineering 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Alex Murillo, P.E. Subject: Proposal for 2013 Design and Construction Support Services 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements Final Design and Specifications for Aggregate Piers at the UPR Spur Track Kent, Washington Dear Alex: At your request, AMEC is pleased to submit this scope and budget estimate to provide geotechnical services during final design and construction, for the above-referenced project. The contents of this proposal are based on correspondence with you regarding the project, and our experience on similar projects. Based on discussions with you, the scope of services is to provide stamped final designs and specifications for the compacted aggregate piers on the 64th Ave S Culvert Replacement project at the UPRR Spur track, to provide support during bidding and submittal review, and to provide construction support services. These are described as follows: TASK 1 — FINAL DESIGN Provide Design for Aggregate Piers: While a general design concept was provided, you have requested AMEC prepare a final design for the aggregate piers. AMEC will perform an analysis of aggregate pier dimensions and spacing to support loading at the UPRR crossing, which satisfies the criteria for bearing capacity and settlement tolerances. This analysis will be performed based on the available subsurface information, using the design software provided to us by Geopier. A layout for the aggregate piers and typical details will be provided to the City of Kent (City). We understand the City will prepare the construction drawings. A registered professional engineer from AMEC will stamp and sign the plan sheet(s) pertaining to the aggregate pier design. AMEC will also prepare a AMEC Environment&Infrastructure, Inc. 11810 North Creek Parkway N Bothell,Washington 98011 (425)368-1000 Phone (425)368-1001 Facsimile www.amec.com P:\nz9z-B_04th Ave s_uPPP final Design and CMwMeC Proposal rorsoNices_l 9_2013door 4 ; ame technical specification for aggregate piers to accompany the plans. A cost estimate will be provided for the aggregate piers, based on the quantities and our experience on previous projects. TASK 2 — BID SUPPORT Provide Support During Bidding: This includes responding to questions from bidders regarding aggregate piers. AMEC will also respond to any other soils-related issues as required. Review Aggregate Pier Submittals and Respond to RFI's: The means and methods for construction of aggregate piers at this site will likely vary between contractors. A work plan describing equipment, means and methods for aggregate pier construction will be required. Each contractor will also need to acknowledge that their equipment, means and methods achieve the intended loading and tolerable settlement criteria. Contractors will be allowed to submit less conservative alternative designs if they can demonstrate that the criteria have been satisfied. AMEC will review these submittals on behalf of the City, and respond to RFI's as requested. Review Other Submittals and Respond to RFI's: AMEC will also be available to respond to other earthwork-related RFI's, and to review geotechnical aspects of other submittals. TASK 3 - CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Provide Construction Monitoring: AMEC will provide geotechnical inspection services during aggregate pier installation and during subgrade preparation for other portions of the culvert replacement. We have assumed 6 full-day visits would be required during aggregate pier installation. We have assumed AMEC would need to be present on a part-time basis for up to two separate site visits, to evaluate the subgrade conditions along other portions of the culvert crossing, prior to placement of a granular fill bearing pad. Density testing services are not included but can be provided at your request. SCHEDULE AMEC design and specifications will be completed by February 28, 2013. We anticipate this task will require about 3 weeks. COST ESTIMATE AMEC services will be performed on a time-and-expenses basis, using a cost plus fixed fee form of contract. Our fee estimate for additional services is presented as Exhibit A, attached. The actual distribution of labor hours per category may vary from the estimate. AMEC Environment& Infrastructure, Inc. Project No. 3-917-17292-B 2 P:\17292-B_64th Ave S_UPRR final Design and CM\AMEC Proposal for services_1 9_2013.docx 4 , ame CLOSURE We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. We understand this scope of work and exhibits would be incorporated into a City of Kent consultant agreement. Please understand that the authorizing organization assumes ultimate responsibility for payment of our services. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, AMEC Environment& Infrastructure, Inc. James S. Dransfield, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Reviewed by: Stephen A. Siebert, P.E. Associate Enclosure: Exhibit A —Summary of Costs (4 pages) AMEC Environment& Infrastructure, Inc. Project No. 3-917-17292-B 3 P:\17292-B_64th Ave S_UPRR final Design and CM\AMEC Proposal for services_1 9_2013.docx 46 ame& EXHIBIT A - SUMMARY OF COSTS (PAGE 1 OF 4) 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements 2013 Design and Construction Support Services Kent, Washington TASK 1 - DESIGN DIRECT SALARY COST(DSC): Task Classification (AMEC Class Code) Hours x Hourly Rate = Cost Task Total Principal (618 to 624) 6 $69.95 $419.70 Associate (617) 9 $49.92 $449.28 Senior Project Engineer(616) 38 $41.62 $1,581.56 Senior Project Geologist(615) 0 $41.89 $0.00 Project Engineer/Geologist(614) 0 $38.03 $0.00 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist(613) 0 $32.10 $0.00 Staff Engineer/Geologist(611 to 612) 0 $31.37 $0.00 CAD Drafting (516) 6 $30.29 $181.74 Word Processing (806) 2 $19.38 $38.76 Clerical (805 to 807) 4 $23.39 $93.56 TOTAL DSC 65 $2,764.60 OVERHEAD COST(OH COST-including salary additives): OH Rate of 1.4983 x DSC 1.4983 x $2,764.60 = $4,142.20 DSC+OH $6,906.80 FIXED FEE(FF): FF Rate of 0.10 x(DSC+OH) 0.1 x $6,906.80 = $690.68 REIMBURSABLES: Field Expenses (mileage, equipment, etc.) $38.60 TOTAL REIMBURSABLES = $38.60 SUBTOTAL TASK 1 $7,636.08 47 ame& EXHIBIT A - SUMMARY OF COSTS (PAGE 2OF 4) 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements 2013 Design and Construction Support Services Kent, Washington TASK 2 - BID SUPPORT DIRECT SALARY COST(DSC): Task Classification (AMEC Class Code) Hours x Hourly Rate = Cost Task Total Principal (618 to 624) 4 $69.95 $279.80 Associate (617) 4 $49.92 $199.68 Senior Project Engineer(616) 10 $41.62 $416.20 Senior Project Geologist(615) 0 $41.89 $0.00 Project Engineer/Geologist(614) 0 $38.03 $0.00 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist(613) 0 $32.10 $0.00 Staff Engineer/Geologist(611 to 612) 0 $31.37 $0.00 CAD Drafting (516) 0 $30.29 $0.00 Word Processing (806) 0 $19.38 $0.00 Clerical (805 to 807) 0 $23.39 $0.00 TOTAL DSC 18 $895.68 OVERHEAD COST(OH COST-including salary additives): OH Rate of 1.4983 x DSC 1.4983 x $895.68 = $1,342.00 DSC+OH $2,237.68 FIXED FEE(FF): FF Rate of 0.10 x(DSC+OH) 0.1 x $2,237.68 = $223.77 REIMBURSABLES: Field Expenses (mileage, equipment, etc.) $38.60 TOTAL REIMBURSABLES = $38.60 SUBTOTAL TASK 2 $2,500.05 48 ame& EXHIBIT A - SUMMARY OF COSTS (PAGE 3OF 4) 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements 2013 Design and Construction Support Services Kent, Washington TASK 3 - CONSTRUCTION MONITORING DIRECT SALARY COST(DSC): Task Classification (AMEC Class Code) Hours x Hourly Rate = Cost Task Total Principal (618 to 624) 0 $69.95 $0.00 Associate (617) 6 $49.92 $299.52 Senior Project Engineer(616) 0 $41.62 $0.00 Senior Project Geologist(615) 68 $41.89 $2,848.52 Project Engineer/Geologist(614) 0 $38.03 $0.00 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist(613) 0 $32.10 $0.00 Staff Engineer/Geologist(611 to 612) 0 $31.37 $0.00 CAD Drafting (516) 0 $30.29 $0.00 Word Processing (806) 0 $19.38 $0.00 Clerical (805 to 807) 0 $23.39 $0.00 TOTAL DSC 74 $3,148.04 OVERHEAD COST(OH COST-including salary additives): OH Rate of 1.4983 x DSC 1.4983 x $3,148.04 = $4,716.71 DSC+OH $7,864.75 FIXED FEE(FF): FF Rate of 0.10 x(DSC+OH) 0.1 x $7,864.75 = $786.47 REIMBURSABLES: Field Expenses (mileage, equipment, etc.) $308.80 TOTAL REIMBURSABLES = $308.80 SUBTOTAL TASK 3 $8,960.02 49 ame& EXHIBIT A - SUMMARY OF COSTS (PAGE 4OF 4) 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements 2013 Design and Construction Support Services Kent, Washington TOTAL TASKS 1 , 2 AND 3 DIRECT SALARY COST(DSC): Task Classification (AMEC Class Code) Hours x Hourly Rate = Cost Task Total Principal (618 to 624) 10 $69.95 $699.50 Associate (617) 19 $49.92 $948.48 Senior Project Engineer(616) 48 $41.62 $1,997.76 Senior Project Geologist(615) 68 $41.89 $2,848.52 Project Engineer/Geologist(614) 0 $38.03 $0.00 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist(613) 0 $32.10 $0.00 Staff Engineer/Geologist(611 to 612) 0 $31.37 $0.00 CAD Drafting (516) 6 $30.29 $181.74 Word Processing (806) 2 $19.38 $38.76 Clerical (805 to 807) 4 $23.39 $93.56 TOTAL DSC 157 $6,808.32 OVERHEAD COST(OH COST-including salary additives): OH Rate of 1.4983 x DSC 1.4983 x $6,808.32 = $10,200.91 DSC+OH $17,009.23 FIXED FEE(FF): FF Rate of 0.10 x(DSC+OH) 0.1 x $17,009.23 = $1,700.92 REIMBURSABLES: Field Expenses (mileage, equipment, etc.) $386.00 TOTAL REIMBURSABLES = $386.00 TOTAL TASKS 1, 2 AND 3 $19,096.15 50 This page intentionally left blank. 51 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 10, 2013 To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members Special PW Committee Meeting Date: January 14, 2013 From: Ken Langholz, Design Engineering Supervisor Through: Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer Subject: Consultant Services Contract with GEI Consultants, Inc/Briscoe/Desimone Levee Item — 5 Motion: Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Contract with GEI Consultants Inc. in an amount not to exceed $736,544 to provide engineering services for final design for the Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Summary: The Briscoe/Desimone Levee is located along the Green River near the north city limits. This levee is partially located within the city limits of Tukwila and provides flood protection for the Cities of Kent, Tukwila and Renton. In 2011, the City, in conjunction with the King County Flood Control District, was successful in obtaining a $7 million grant from the Washington State Legislature to fund reconstruction of the Briscoe/Desimone Levee. The City is continuing to pursue accreditation of the Briscoe/Desimone Levee from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As part of this accreditation effort, the City prepared a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) which identified 4 areas of the levee that do not meet current FEMA standards. These areas will be repaired utilizing sheet piles to construct a secondary floodwall. Under this consultant services agreement GEI will provide final engineering design for sheet pile walls and will prepare plans and specifications for the construction. The contract will only be executed if the flood wall option is chosen as the preferred flood protection method versus a setback levee. We expect the Flood Control District will make a decision on this in the spring. Budget Impact: This contract will be funded out of the $7 million grant. Expenses that cannot be reimbursed through the state grant will be charged to the City's Storm Drainage Utility. We will be working through the King County Flood Control District to program money for these improvements after a decision has been made on a flood wall design or setback levee. 52 This page intentionally left blank. 53 November 29, 2012 E I conauhams Mr. Ken Langholz City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Re: Proposal for Engineering Services Briscoe-Desimone Levee Setback Floodwall Design City of Kent,Washington Dear Mr. Langholz: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide engineering services for the Briscoe- Desimone Setback Floodwall Design Project on the right bank Green River levee between the South 180t' Street bridge (downstream end at River Mile 14.3) and the South 200 th Street bridge (upstream end at River Mile 17.0). Our proposed scope of work is based on our conversations and correspondence with you in October and November 2012. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Kent(City)has initiated an engineering evaluation and certification process for the levees along the right bank of the Green River, with the overall objective of obtaining Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) accreditation of the levee in its Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS)for the area. The City has divided the levees along the right bank into six levee reaches, and accreditation packages have already been prepared and submitted to FEMA. The Briscoe-Desimone Levee has a length of approximately 2.7 miles, of which about 1.2 miles are within the City of Tukwila and 1.5 miles are within the City of Kent. The levee has never been accredited by FEMA. The levee protects land uses mainly consisting of large-scale industrial and commercial properties. A FEMA accreditation package for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee was prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. of Tacoma, WA. Because of the high asset value and critical nature of the facilities protected by this levee,the City retained GEI to prepare an independent evaluation and stand-alone FEMA Accreditation report. Both GeoEngineers and GEI identified four reaches of the levee that should be modified to meet the minimum freeboard requirement and stability factor of safety under rapid drawdown conditions. The reaches are identified as follows: w .geiconsultants.com GEI Consultants,Inc. 180 Grand Avenue,Suite 1410,Oakland,California 94612 510.350.2900 fax 510.350.2901 54 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 • Reach 1 (Sta. 764+25 to Sta. 772+50) • Reach 2 (Sta. 815+50 to Sta. 822+00) • Reach 3 (Sta. 844+00 to Sta. 864+00) • Reach 4 (Sta. 895+00 to Sta. 897+00) Both reports recommended that levee modifications for these reaches involve installing a setback sheetpile wall along the landward toe of the existing levee. The space between the sheet pile wall and the existing embankment would be filled, and the Green River pedestrian and bike trail would be relocated on top of the fill. This approach does not address instability along the existing riverbank. Rather, it is designed to hold back the flood even after a considerable amount of soil is lost riverward of the wall due to sloughing. After significant sloughs, the riverbank would still need to be repaired to prevent future additional sloughing and instability. This approach is consistent with regional objectives of minimizing environmental impacts on the Green River and maintaining the pedestrian and bike trail as a key recreational amenity and access route. The goal of this project is to advance the preliminary design presented in GEI's draft FEMA Accreditation Report and to prepare final construction documents for the setback sheetpile walls. SCOPE OF WORK Based on our understanding of the project objectives, we have structured the proposed scope of work into the following tasks: 1. Site Visit and Kickoff Meeting 2. Review of Existing Information 3. Supplemental Subsurface Explorations 4. Geotechnical Evaluations 5. Groundwater Evaluations 6. Corrosion Evaluation 7. Floodwall Structural Analyses 8. Floodwall-Levee Transition Zones 9. Ramps and Stairways Design 10. Design Memorandum 11. Floodwall Drawings 12. Specifications 13. Project Management and Coordination The task scope, deliverables, and major assumptions are summarized below. 1. Site Visit and Kickoff Meeting— We propose to perform a two-day site visit to observe the existing conditions along the proposed floodwall alignment and to attend a project kickoff 2 55 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 meeting with the City. The purpose of our site visit and meeting with the City includes the following activities: • Identify buildings or other structures that may be impacted by sheet pile installation vibrations. • Identify overhead utilities or other structures along the proposed sheet pile alignment that could interfere with sheet pile installation or other aspects of floodwall construction. • Identify vegetation and landscaping features that could complicate floodwall installation or other construction activities. • Review proposed vehicle access ramp, pedestrian access ramp, and stairway locations to identify potential design or construction constraints. • Review planned locations for transition zones between levee embankment and floodwall sections to identify possible design or construction constraints. • Review and identify locations and site access for additional subsurface explorations. • Meet with the City to discuss our observations, gather data from the City relevant to the project, and identify additional information that may be required to complete the design. During the kickoff meeting we also intend to: • Re-introduce key project personnel and re-establish connections between GEI and City personnel. • Review the scope in detail and confirm or refine the overall project schedule and deliverable expectations. Deliverable: Meeting minutes. 2. Review of Existing Information— Based on the results of our site visit, additional information may be required to develop the floodwall design and construction documents, such as as-built drawings for nearby buildings, utilities, and other structures or information from adjacent commercial building owners regarding equipment or processes that may be sensitive to construction vibrations or noise. As a cost saving measure, we assume that GEI will provide a list of the required information to the City and that the City will collect the information and provide it to GEI for review. We have not included scope or budget for collecting additional information or contacting building owners, but we can provide additional scope and budget for these services if desired by the City. We understand that the buildings along the floodwall alignment are likely to be founded on structural mat foundations and not on individual spread footings or pile foundations. Based on our previous site visits, we understand that the buildings along the alignment are in relatively good condition. We have prepared our scope and budget assuming that structural assessment of individual buildings is not required. If our site visit or review of information for individual buildings indicates that building foundation types or conditions are significantly different than anticipated, we will prepare a scope and budget for further building evaluations if required. Deliverable: List of documents reviewed and relevant findings to be included in the Design Memorandum prepared under Task 10 below. 3 56 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 3. Supplemental Subsurface Explorations— We will perform a supplemental subsurface exploration program to refine the characterization of the levee and foundation materials and groundwater conditions to aid in the engineering evaluations. In the preparation of our scope, we have assumed that the City will facilitate the work by performing the following activities: • Facilitate timely entry to all areas of the project for site visit and exploration purposes. Our current scope does not include establishing right-of-entry agreements or other right- of-way services. • Obtain City and/or County permits (if any are needed)for explorations. • Obtain any permits for the explorations performed in Tukwila. • Obtain all necessary environmental clearances (if any are needed)for the proposed exploration sites and activities. Soil Borings USACE Engineering Circular(EC) 1110-2-6066,Design ofI-Walls prescribes a number of closely spaced borings with an extensive laboratory testing program to provide a high level of confidence in the geotechnical parameters for design and constructability of I-walls. To date, the borings performed along the levee alignment were performed for the purposes of evaluating the existing levee embankment for accreditation. For typical sheet pile design projects, the data collected from these borings may be considered suitable for design, but the sampling and laboratory performed for accreditation do not meet the minimum requirements established by USACE specifically for I-wall design. Given the prescribed boring depths and the extensive laboratory testing requirements in the EC, the borings performed to date would be used primarily for defining the soil stratigraphy, and additional borings are required to collect the minimum data required specifically for I-wall design. The spacing and depth requirements are provided in Table 5-1 (Chapter 5) of the EC. To satisfy the boring spacing requirements in Table 5-1, we propose a maximum spacing between the new borings of 500 feet or less, and we propose locating the new borings so that the average spacing between all borings, including the previously drilled borings, is about 300 feet or less. As result, we propose drilling 13 new borings to satisfy the spacing requirements. Based on the minimum depth requirements provided in Table 5-1, the minimum depth required for the borings would be 50 feet. However, from the 35% design,the sheet piles for the floodwall segment near West Valley Highway are expected to have a toe embedment depth greater than 50 feet, and we recommend that borings be advanced to a depth of 60 to 70 feet below the existing landside grade to ensure that borings extend an adequate distance below the sheet piles for wall design. Also, we understand that the City is considering modifying the floodwall design for an extreme design case where the entire riverbank riverward of the wall is scoured away to the maximum predicted scour depth to address the County's concern that long term maintenance of the riverbank will be required. We have performed a preliminary evaluation of the floodwall for this case, and the sheet pile toe for all segments would need to be deeper than estimated for 35% design. To accommodate this potential design case, we recommend that all borings be extended to a depth of at least 70 feet below the existing grade at the toe of the levee embankment. This task will begin with the preparation of a Field Exploration Work Plan which will outline 4 57 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 exploration locations, depths, types of samples, methods for geotechnical test borings, and laboratory index testing of collected soil samples. A draft work plan will be issued to the City for review. Review comments will be incorporated into a final work plan. We assume we will drill up to thirteen conventional borings at depths up to 70 feet each to supplement the existing information. We have assumed that drill cuttings can be dispersed over the ground next to the drill hole and raked in with the surficial soil. Off-site disposal of cuttings is not included. We will transport soil samples to a laboratory for testing on selected samples. The number, depths, and technique for the borings may change based on observations made during our site visit and in the course of the drilling program. Laboratory Testing and In-situ Testing Table 5-2 of the EC includes mandatory requirements for soil strength, consolidation, permeability, and index testing. Our proposed program will comply with the laboratory testing requirements in the EC except for the requirement for laboratory permeability testing of granular soils. In our opinion, in-situ permeability testing using borehole permeability testing or slug tests in piezometers is more appropriate for determining the soil permeability for design in the variable alluvial deposits that exist along the floodwall alignment. Laboratory permeability testing only represents the permeability of the discrete sample collected and may not be representative of the soil layer being considered for design. In-situ testing of granular materials is supported by the text in Chapter 5 of the EC. The EC acknowledges that"because of the difficulty in obtaining undisturbed samples of coarse-grained soils"permeability is difficult to accurately determine in the laboratory and states "in situ tests such as pump tests or lag tests can give more accurate estimates of the permeability of granular soils." The number and type of required laboratory tests to be performed varies depending on the type and thickness of soil layers encountered in each boring. For budgeting purposes, we assumed the following laboratory tests will be performed on samples collected from each boring: • Two consolidated undrained (CU)triaxial tests • Two unconsolidated undrained(UU)triaxial tests. • Four specific gravity tests. • Four Atterberg limits. • Two consolidation tests. • Four sieve analyses. In addition, we assumed that the laboratory permeability tests would be replaced with two borehole permeability tests or slug tests per boring. Piezometer Installation and Monitoring During our subsurface exploration program we will install piezometers to record ground water levels over time. Further discussion of the proposed piezometers is included under Task 5 below. Geotechnical Data Report Addendum 5 58 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 Upon completion of the subsurface explorations and laboratory testing, we will prepare a memorandum summarizing the data collected during the subsurface investigation program. The memorandum will be prepared as an addendum to the Geotechnical Data Report previously prepared by GEI in support of the levee accreditation. Information in this memorandum will include: • Updated geotechnical exploration location plans and profiles, • New boring logs • Piezometer installation logs • Field testing results, and • Laboratory testing results. Deliverables: Field Exploration Work Plan Geotechnical Data Report Addendum 4. Geotechnical Evaluations—We will perform the following geotechnical evaluations: • Global stability, seepage, and settlement analyses on one cross section at each of the four proposed floodwall locations. • Global stability and settlement analyses on cross sections for up to two vehicle access ramps to be constructed landward of the floodwall. We assume that pedestrian access will consist of timber- or steel-framed structures that will not provide significant loading for global stability. • Sheet pile embedment analyses using soil-structure interaction models on up to two cross sections at each of the four proposed floodwall locations to refine the sheet pile embedment depths from the 35% design. The sheet pile analyses will be performed using the commercial software program WALLAP by GeoSolve. The analyses will be used to estimate the required sheet pile embedment and stiffness for stability. • Floodwall deflections at the cross-sections evaluated to estimate the required embedment. • Pile drivability evaluation using published correlations with SPT N-values to determine the minimum stiffness needed for sheet pile installation. In addition we will contact a sheet pile contractor to assess the sheet pile drivability. We will prepare documentation that will explain our methodology, document selection of geotechnical parameters, document calculations performed, and summarize the results of our evaluations. Deliverable: The documentation for this task will be part of the overall Design Memorandum prepared under Task 10. 5. Groundwater Evaluations—The City has expressed concern that the sheet pile floodwall could cut off groundwater flow to the river and elevate the groundwater table behind the wall, creating wet areas on adjacent properties. The 35% design included leaving the bottom of every third sheet pile pair higher than the rest of the wall to create windows in the wall for the groundwater to pass through. Based on the required embedment depths from 35% design,the shorter sheet piles are expected to penetrate a layer of low-permeability silt and organic soils 6 59 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 beneath a layer of upper sandy soils along the floodwall alignment, and the windows in the sheets will generally be below the low-permeability soils. If the low-permeability soils are laterally continuous, they may act as a barrier, impeding water in the upper sandy soils from reaching the windows in the sheets. As a result, the 35% design approach of leaving windows in the wall may not be fully effective in keeping the groundwater table from rising. We envision two alternative approaches to address potential groundwater impacts, for the City's consideration. One approach would consist of developing a comprehensive understanding of the groundwater conditions along the floodwall alignments by characterizing groundwater levels and their variability over time and developing a groundwater model to assess the likely long-term impacts of the floodwalls to the groundwater table landward of the floodwalls. Performing a comprehensive groundwater study requires installing piezometers along the levee alignment and at some distance landward of the levee and monitoring the groundwater levels in the piezometers for a period of many months to assess seasonal variability effects. After the groundwater data is collected, additional time would be required to use the data to build and calibrate a groundwater model. We understand that performing a groundwater study could have a significant impact on the floodwall installation schedule. We have not included detailed scope or costs for groundwater modeling in this proposal, but would be pleased to provide a proposal to perform this work if requested by the City. As an alternative approach, we suggest that the City consider pre-emptive mitigation and apply an observational approach to identifying and mitigating future groundwater impacts if they arise. This alternative approach includes: • Mitigation: Final design of the floodwalls would include cutting a series of holes in the sheet piles above the elevation of the low-permeability silt and organic soils to allow groundwater to pass through the wall. The size and spacing of the holes would be designed so that the effective permeability of the sheet pile walls would be similar to the permeability of the surrounding soils. We have used this approach with success on other projects, but given the variability of the alluvial soils landward of the walls there is some risk that this approach may not be fully effective. • Monitoring: For this task, we assumed that we would install piezometers landward of the proposed sheet pile alignment to collect groundwater data that could be used for developing and calibrating a groundwater model if needed, but we assumed that groundwater modeling would not be performed unless required to mitigate groundwater problems should they develop. To reduce the overall cost of installing the piezometers, some of the piezometers will be installed in the additional borings required for final design of the floodwall. After the piezometers are installed, we will install data loggers in the wells to provide continuous monitoring of the groundwater levels. For this proposal, we assumed that the City would download and process the data collected from the wells on a bimonthly basis. Monitoring will begin prior to construction of the floodwall and will continue after the floodwall is completed. For budgeting purposes, we assumed a monitoring time of 12 months. • Reporting: At the end of the 12 months of monitoring, we will provide a memo to the City summarizing the results of the monitoring and recommendations for additional work if required. 7 60 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 This proposal includes costs for performing the pre-emptive mitigation described above, installing the piezometers, and reviewing and assessing the collected data, but does not include the costs for groundwater modeling or designing additional mitigation measures, if required. For budgeting purposes, we have assumed the following: • Nine shallow piezometers and one deep piezometer will be installed in the borings performed for the levee investigation. • Five shallow piezometers and one deep piezometer will be installed in five borings drilled up to 1000 feet from the river. • Monitoring equipment will be installed to monitor all of the piezometers. • GEI will prepare spreadsheets for processing and plotting groundwater data. To reduce cost, we assume that the City will download the data from the piezometers and plot the groundwater data. If the City prefers that GEI collect and process the data, we would be pleased to incorporate this effort in the scope and budget. Deliverable: Observation well and piezometer installation records; Data collection operating procedures. 6. Corrosivity Evaluation—Based on conversations with the City and observations of soil conditions in the borings performed for accreditation, we understand the soils and groundwater at the site are not likely to be highly corrosive. As such, we propose to perform a limited amount of corrosivity testing on soil samples collected during our drilling program to confirm our understanding and to provide data if the soil and groundwater is more corrosive than anticipated. Corrosivity testing will be performed on up to two samples collected from each boring and will consist of: • Resistivity (ASTM G 57) • pH (ASTM G 51) • Sulfates (ASTM D 516) • Chlorides (ASTM D 512) Provided that our current understanding of the soil corrosivity is correct, we anticipate corrosion protection for the sheet piles to likely consist of sacrificial steel added to the sheet pile cross section. Using the results of the soil corrosivity testing, we will use published corrosion rates to estimate the amount of expected steel loss over the design life and design the sheet pile walls with adequate sacrificial steel. If the expected project design life is unusually long or the soil is slightly more corrosive than anticipated, the sacrificial steel thickness could be significant, and additional corrosion protection consisting of applying a protective coating would be considered. If testing indicates significantly higher than expected corrosion potential, we would recommend retaining a corrosion expert to perform a more detailed evaluation and provide specific corrosion protection design recommendations. 8 61 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 Prior to final design, we will provide our corrosion protection recommendations to the City for review and approval. Deliverables: Corrosion Evaluation and Recommendations Memorandum 7. Floodwall Structural Analvses—We propose to perform structural analysis and design for the following structural floodwall elements: • Sheet Pile: For each floodwall section, we will confirm or refine the overall floodwall dimensions (beginning and end stations, and bottom and top elevations). We will estimate the sheet pile size required to resist the loads from our geotechnical analyses, and if required, we will select and evaluate appropriate corner and transition pieces. • Sheet Pile Cap: We will design one typical reinforced concrete sheet pile cap detail to be used for all floodwall sections considering the maximum soil, water, and railing loads. We expect that the concrete cap detail will be similar to the Type A cap detail for the Boeing levee that you provided to us. The connection between the concrete cap and the wall will be designed as recommended in EC 1110-2-6066. • Sheet Pile Wall Concrete Facing: We understand that landside concrete facing will be used for the floodwall sections similar to the Type A facing detail for the Boeing levee floodwall. We will evaluate the details shown on the drawings provided to us for use on the Briscoe-Desimone floodwall and, as requested, we will provide form liner alternatives for the City to select the wall finish. • Railings: We assume that railings will be installed along the top of the concrete cap and will be constructed from galvanized steel tubing. We will perform a structural evaluation of the railing and provide connection details. • Water Stops and Construction Joints: We will provide details and locations for water stops and construction joints as required in the sheet pile cap and the wall facing. Deliverable: The results of the structural evaluations will be documented in the Design Memorandum prepared under Task 10 below. 8. Sheetpile Wall—Levee Embankment Transition Zones—We will evaluate erosion potential at the transition areas between the setback floodwall and levee embankment section assuming the levee embankment is overtopped, and we will design erosion protection for the levee embankment as required. We assume that erosion protection will consist of either buried riprap or vegetated articulated concrete blocks. Prior to final design, we will provide our recommended erosion protection option to the City for review and approval. Deliverable: The results of the transition zone evaluations will be documented in the Design Memorandum prepared under Task 10 below. 9. Ramps and Stairway Design—We understand that the City plans to construct the following access points: • Vehicle access ramps, 9 62 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 0 one in Reach 1 near West Valley Highway 0 one in Reach 4 near the 200t' Street Bridge, • Pedestrian and handicap access ramps. o one in Reach 3 near Sta. 851+00 • Pedestrian stairways 0 one in Reach 1 near Sta. 769+20 0 one in Reach 3 near Sta. 862+20 Assuming that the setback floodwall will be designed as a cantilever wall as shown on the 35% design drawings, ramps and stairways must be designed and constructed so that little or no net lateral loading toward the river is applied to the floodwall. We assume that stairways and pedestrian/handicap access ramps will be constructed with reinforced concrete or steel framing and will not significantly load the floodwall, but vehicle access ramps are typically constructed as earth fills and are likely to apply significant net loading to the floodwall. Options for addressing or minimizing impacts of the vehicle access ramps on the sheetpile wall include: • Providing the floodwall with tiebacks under the ramps in order to resist the applied lateral loading from the ramps. • Providing pile foundations or ground improvement beneath the ramps so that the vertical loading from the ramps is transferred beneath the floodwalls. Our scope and budget includes design of a special floodwall section with a single level of tiebacks at access ramps. We will work closely with the City and our proposed structural subconsultant Shearer Design LLC to select the approach for final design considering the selected ramp locations, right-of-way constraints, ground conditions, cost, and other considerations. For our proposal we have assumed that the City will prepare the geometric design and drawings for the pedestrian stairs and access ramps, with GEI providing recommendations for the foundations and proposed subconsultant Shearer Design providing structural details as required. The scope and budget from Shearer Design is attached. Deliverable: The access ramp and stairway designs will be documented in the Design Memorandum prepared under Task 10 below. 10. Design Memorandum—We will prepare a design memorandum providing a brief overview of the floodwall design and documenting our design criteria, assumptions and decisions. The design memorandum will be initially issued with the 60% design submittal to present the floodwall design criteria(water surface elevations, scour assumptions, loading cases, methods of analysis and required safety factors, soil profiles and engineering properties for analysis, etc.). Our design calculations will be included as attachments to the 90% design submittal. Comments will be incorporated into our Issued-for-Approval submission. Deliverables: 60% Design Memorandum; 90% Design Memorandum; Issued-for-Approval Design Memorandum. 10 63 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 11. Floodwall Drawings —We understand that the City would like to use their CAD resources to perform a portion of the drafting. We propose that GEI prepare drawings showing design details and that the City prepares title sheets, note sheets, plan and elevation drawings, geometric arrangement drawings, and other drawings required. GEI will work with the City to provide input to the City's drawings. We propose that drawings prepared by GEI include: • Sheet Piling- Typical Sections & Details • Concrete Cap - Typical Sections & Details • Concrete Facing- Typical Sections & Details • Joint& Waterstop Details • Tiebacks and Wales —Typical Sections and Details, and Other Structural Steel Details for Setback Floodwall • Transition Erosion Protection - Typical Sections & Details • Setback Floodwall Architectural Facing& Finish Details Deliverable: 60% Design Drawings; 90% Design Drawings; Issued-for-Approval Design Drawings. 12. Specifications—We understand that the City intends to base the project specifications on the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. We will assist the City in developing Special Provisions as required to modify the W SDOT specifications. We will prepare Special Provisions for: • Preconstruction and post-construction building surveys, • Steel sheet piling • Pile driving equipment • Construction induced vibrations and monitoring • Structural concrete and concrete for wall facing • Structural steel • Tie-backs We will also review and provide input to other Special Provisions prepared by the City as necessary. Deliverable: 60% Special Provisions; 90% Special Provisions; Issued-for-Approval Special Provisions. 13. Proiect Management and Coordination -Project management and coordination are essential to ensure the successful preparation of the levee accreditation documentation. Successful implementation will require effective oral and written communications and coordination. The project management task will include the following activities: • Coordination of project activities with City staff • Management and supervision of the engineering team • Management, coordination and evaluation of subconsultant services 11 64 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 • Project progress and coordination meetings • Documentation of key meetings • Meetings and reviews with King County if appropriate • Preparation of monthly summaries of current financial information and schedule We expect that several meetings will be required during design development to discuss and address City and County comments on design. We have budgeted three face-to-face meetings after the initial kick off meeting. We anticipate one meeting for each design phase. Management of Quality Control (QC) activities will also be included in this task, including the review, coordination and checking of work products at each step of their development. Work products include the key deliverables and support documentation, such as work plans, technical memoranda, drawings, and special provisions. Our QC team will review technical approaches and verify that deliverables and supporting documents prepared for the City are complete, conform to standards, and meet or exceed the expectations of the City and GEI's management. The project manager will be responsible for the assurance that our QC procedures are being implemented. Deliverables: Monthly progress reports ASSUMPTIONS We made the following assumptions in preparing the scope and cost estimate: 1. Design Submittals - We assume that design of the floodwall will include three design submittals which will include: • 60% Design • 90% Design • Issue for Approval We assume that the City and King County will review the drawings, specifications, and design memorandum developed at each phase of design. As a result of these reviews, we assume that one round of comments will be provided to us from the City and from the County at each phase of design, and we will provide formal responses as required to address these comments. 2. Topographic Information to be provided by the City - For preparation of the design, accurate topographic information will be necessary for the existing levee and adjacent land surfaces (river bank and land east of the levee). We understand that either the survey data already in our files is adequate for the design or additional survey data will be provided to us by the City. Accordingly, our scope does not include mapping and survey services. We anticipate the following information will be used in the design and will be provided by the City in a timely manner: • Topographic map with 1-foot contours of the Green River channel, levee and ground surface in the area behind the levee. • Representative cross-sections showing river channel (including below water bathymetry), river bank, levee, and land surface landside of the levee to a distance of at least 100 feet beyond the landside levee toe. 12 65 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 • Selected additional cross-sections as needed to identify critical (steepest) slopes of river bank and levee. • A survey of levee crest elevations at a spacing of 500 feet or closer. • As-drilled locations of all subsurface explorations completed by GEI. 3. Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Information to Be Provided by the City - Preparation of the design will require confirmation or updating of information on water surface profiles, scour, velocities, and appropriate bank protection for the floodwall reaches: • Green River water surface profiles for final design (to include 100-year, 500- year, and mean water profiles) • General, local, and bend scour evaluation -thalweg profiles and cross-sections over time including recent bathymetric data, stability of thalweg location and channel shape, calculation of estimated bend scour depths at approach and exit sections, and scour recommendations. • Distribution of water velocities along the right bank for use in design We assume the City will work with NHC to assemble available data and provide it to us. Our scope does not include H&H services. We assume our review will be limited to documents provided to us by the City. 4. Right of Way Support - In the preparation of our scope, we have assumed that the City will facilitate the field work and our evaluation of adjacent structures by performing the following activities: • Facilitating timely entry to all areas of the project for site visit and exploration purposes. Our current scope does not include right-of-way services. • Obtaining City and/or County permits for explorations. • Obtaining all necessary environmental clearances (if any are needed)for the proposed exploration sites and activities. • Coordinating with owners of adjacent structures and obtaining as-built drawings and other building and foundation information needed for the design. S. Existing Buildings and Improvements - We assume that the City will collect any required information such as drawings, details, documentation of existing buildings and improvements for our review. We assume that structural assessment of individual buildings is not required. 6. Interior Drainage - We have assumed that installation of the floodwalls will not significantly impact the interior drainage conditions landward of the levee. Our scope and budget do not include interior drainage evaluations. 7. Groundwater Data- We have assumed that the City will download and process the data collected from the proposed observation wells on a bimonthly basis. Monitoring will begin prior to construction of the floodwall and will continue after the floodwall is completed. For budgeting purposes, we assumed that the total monitoring time will be 12 months. 13 66 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 8. Corrosion Potential - We have assumed that the soil and groundwater conditions at the locations of the proposed floodwalls are not aggressively corrosive. A nominal evaluation of these conditions is proposed. 9. Pedestrian Stairs and Ramps - We have assumed that the City will prepare the geometric design, drawings and special provisions for the pedestrian stairs and access ramps, with GEI providing foundation recommendations and structural details as required. 10. For cost estimating purposes, the project schedule assumes a duration of approximately six months for this project. COST ESTIMATE We will perform the above scope of services on a time and materials basis based on the terms of our current agreement with the City of Kent for the Briscoe-Desimone levee. Based on the information known to us, we estimate that the cost of performing the services outlined above will be approximately $736,544. A breakdown of the estimated costs is included in the attached table. Invoices will be submitted monthly based on the services performed as of the end of each billing period. Payment will be due within 45 days per the terms of the City of Kent agreement as negotiated by the City of Kent and GEI Consultants. This estimate does not include any contingency. We understand that additional budget to address changes and unforeseen complications that require additional effort would be added by contract modification subject to our presentation of written justification. SCHEDULE We are prepared to begin work upon receiving a Notice to Proceed (NTP). Assuming a NTP in late December 2012 or early January 2013, we anticipate completing the scope outlined above within the following schedule: Task Anticipated Schedule Project Kickoff Meetingand Site Visit January 2013 Subsurface Explorations February - April 2013 Engineering Evaluations February - May 2013 60% Design Submission Issued April 26, 2013 90% Design Submission Issued June 21, 2013 Issued for Approval Submission Issued July 19, 2013 Project Management Jan 2013 —July 2013 Notes: (1) Design submissions assume a 2 week review period by the City. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Please call me at 510-350-2908 or Jim Nickerson at 781-721-4023 with any questions. 14 67 Mr. Ken Langholz November 29, 2012 Sincerely, GEI CONSULTANTS, INC. P&gr Alberto Pujol, P.E. Vice President, Project Manager Attachments: Cost Estimate Shearer Design Letter of Scope 15 o o o 00 o o o { Q= o o ( ; \\ \ ( G\j{ j\\ « : » . : r� G ©� : a g§ - ! { { EQoM \\\\ j«\. \ >om 12 - eg262apa: egs: 2«g\Jb\E CO} 2 2 \/A» 2952E o \\ \ \\\ \ \ \\\\ \\\\ o o o lo Im o Im Im o mm o o o \ g; „ \ \} E. U w lu o u | ;;) ! [ / [(>! !{} `mm B E\ p{ %j /\) \ \\\\// / _ \\ \ \ � \ \ / / \ | 70 SHEARER DESIGN LLD. SHEARER DESIGN ale 00100 Bridge Design, Construction Engineering and Infrastructure Aesthetics 3613 Phinney Ave N#3 Seattle,WA 98103 (206)781-7830 November 26, 2012 GEI Consultants, Inc. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Kent Briscoe-Desimone Flood Wall Project Attn: Alberto Pujol, P.E., G.E. and Jim Nickerson P.E. Dear Alberto; We are happy to provide engineering services for the Kent Briscoe-Desimone Flood Wall Project. As discussed I believe the best way we can support the project at this phase, is in the following areas: Task 1 Levee Walls This task will cover the review and engineering related to the levee flood walls. It is assumed that our design review will be based on the following: • Two different sheet pile sections. • A single one-size-fits-all concrete cap design. • A single one-size-fits-all concrete facing design. • A single one-size-fits-all railing design. Itemized task details to include: • Perform detailed checking of the structural calculations prepared by GEI, and provide review comments to GEI for incorporation into the design. Structural calculations are expected to include sheet pile design, concrete cap design, concrete facing design, railings, and tiebacks and wales (if tiebacks are required at earth fill ramp sections). • Review design detail drawings drafted by GEI and provide comments. Based on the current project scope, we anticipate 5 to 7 detail drawings. • Review general notes, plan, and elevation drawings prepared by the City. Based on the 35% design, we anticipate 13 to 15 sheets. • Review and comment on draft special provisions prepared by GEI and Kent. Based on our current scope of work, we anticipate 6 to 8 special provision sections. • Review design memorandum and comment on structural aspects. • Review and stamp the drawings, calculations, and specifications as appropriate. (Structural Sheets only) • Review the City and County comments and our responses for 3 levels of design (60%, 90%, Issue for Approval). \\SHEAR ERSERVER\Jobs\0219 Kent Levee\Contract\0219 Scope.docx 71 SHEARER DESIGN LLD. SHEARER DESIGN ale 00100 Bridge Design, Construction Engineering and Infrastructure Aesthetics 3613 Phinney Ave N#3 Seattle,WA 98103 (206)781-7830 Note that under this task the review of the levee walls will be based only on the structural design and analysis of the wall system. The wall analysis will be based on the prescribed loads and soil design parameters provided by GEI. The configuration of the flood wall and levee system and ground profiles after any flood event erosion shall be the sole responsibility of GEI. Task 2 Access Points Under this task we will prepare the design and details for pedestrian access and vehicular access over the flood wall system to the trail and levee top. Included would be all engineering, drafting and estimates for the following five access points. Vehicle access ramps: • One in Reach 1 near West Valley Highway • One in Reach 4 near the 200th Street Bridge Pedestrian and handicap access ramp: • One in Reach 3 near Sta. 851+00 Stairways: • One in Reach 1 near Sta. 769+20 • One in Reach 3 near Sta. 862+20 Task 3 General project administration This task will cover the general project coordination and project meeting points. Included will be: • Attend a project kickoff meeting and site visit with GEI and the City of Kent • Attend a conference calls with GEI to discuss the approach to the structural analyses and detailing to establish concurrence • Communicate periodically through the advancement of the design to discuss any interim results, challenges and directions Items furnished or prepared by the GEI: Site Survey of all reaches (AutoCAD 2008 base map file.) Geotechnical Foundations report Project AutoCAD border and title All work will be in conformance with the current edition of AASHTO Design Manual. All CAD work will be prepared using the project border and title sheets in Auto CAD 2012. Please see the enclosed spreadsheet for a summary of our estimated cost & hours for this section of the project. We look forward to working with you on this exciting project. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Sincerely, David R. Shearer S.E. Principal SHEARER DESIGN \\SHEAR ERSERVER\Jobs\0219 Kent Levee\Contract\0219 Scope.docx 72 SHEARER DESIGN LLD. SHEARER DESIGN ale 00100 Bridge Design, Construction Engineering and Infrastructure Aesthetics 3613 Phinney Ave N#3 Seattle,WA 98103 (206)781-7830 Exhibit A Levee Walls Deliverables: • Design review comments • Drawing review comments • Stamped sheet pile wall drawings • Responses to City & County comments Access points Deliverables: Vehicle access ramps: Reach 1 near West Valley Highway Reach 4 near the 200th Street Bridge Pedestrian and handicap access ramp: Reach 3 near Sta. 851+00 Stairways: Reach 1 near Sta. 769+20 Reach 3 near Sta. 862+20 For each location: • 30%,60% 90% review drawings. • 100% Bid set drawings • Project Bid Items • Project Special provision • Project Engineers Estimate \\SHEAR ERSERVER\Jobs\0219 Kent Levee\Contract\0219 Scope.docx M n w o a m M O m om I� N � O N a N r (D N O O � a � m � U � C N Y� � C J N � C Y O � U W Y N W Y N f6 F f6 Z O_ O m ~ 00 a N LL m Z W W X 2 O W O E U y 0 0 0 0 0 (D V N N O O T m N V J m cl fA fA fA fA .N G1 0 G1 f6 G1 t N 0 'c E aA a climi I I I I I Q 0 1 1 1 f m � oco N M d o C f f f U) a w O a N m o m Wh O M r M 0 v O O a N N N ¢ N C m N W 0 U � C N V� L � 7 N � C y O R U E W � v a _ R F 'n w r m U R v U m 0 0 00 r w z O O ILL m c0 w 0 owN � z o w0 m Z N M O W A N X 2 w o A W O N a N N O N w M N 1010 O O 0 w 0 H d N N N 0 U m � y .y N 0 N R N L v v � L = N � 3 � v v v m v 5 3 a C@ L N m U Q W u m 3 v E E m m y 'a N O v v 0 a U ow O R T LU O-N W N W_ N 6] N O v O i E O Vi O a F W 0 U w m R U ao ' v m v m m ma v ° U ¢ Ti R v B `v o m v 2 v n v D m = 'v v E m in 0 C7 0 0 U 0 0 al s 2E LEw U v v ow `v Y R 0 N v F L W fn a Ln ol � 7 § \§ , ) j ! -o \ \ / / o / ) /jG )2/ ( ))2}S {\ ) { ° R \! \ \ E - « _ w R ) w ma —T000 ] q- — / k § _ ! § - § § � , 000 d ; § § 2 - R 2 y ) { ke _ } \ c > f§ f \ \ \ ) « ! / \/ ) \ 0k ( : : ` - \\ 77 This page intentionally left blank. 78 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION Tim LaPorte, P.E. Public Works Director KENT 400 West Gowe WASH NGroN Kent, WA 98032 Fax: 253-856-6500 Phone: 253-856-5500 Date: November 21, 2012 To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members Special PW Committee Meeting Date: January 14, 2013 From: Mark Howlett, P.E., Design Engineering Manager Through: Chad Bieren, P.E. City Engineer Subject: Proposed SE 256th Street Local Improvement District 364 - (Kent-Kangley Road to 116th Ave SE) Resolution of Intent Item - 6 Motion: Move to recommend the Council adopt the Resolution of Intent setting a Public Hearing date for March 5, 2013 on the formation of Local Improvement District 364. Summary: The City was successful in obtaining a $2 million grant from the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board for the repair, widening and upgrading of SE 2561h Street between Kent-Kangley Road and 1161h Ave. SE. The grant was awarded in 2006 and is in jeopardy of being rescinded if the project does not break ground before July 1, 2013. The City has been aware of traffic congestion on this section of SE 2561h Street and has been on our 6-year TIP for over a decade awaiting funding. The project will construct sidewalks; bike lanes and a center left turn lane. Also included are construction of curb and gutter, storm drainage and storm detention, street lighting, undergrounding of electrical facilities and landscaping. Traffic signals will also be modified and upgraded as necessary. A Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) is being proposed to help fund the project with the benefiting properties being assessed a share of the project cost. See the attached L.I.D. boundary map and Attachment 'A' for more details. The project cost estimate is approximately $7.0 million. We hope to form an L.I.D. for approximately $2 million. With the $2 million grant, the City share would be approximately $3 million, which would be funded using $1-million from Transportation Impact Fee Collections, $1-million of drainage funds to deal with stormwater, and $1-million from the newly adopted B&O fees to pay for new pavement. As shown on the L.I.D. boundary map, there are 307 properties included. Many of these are condo and single family properties. In addition, there are a few commercial, office and apartment properties. In 2009 we mailed information to all of the property owners and held 3 informational open houses. Two more open houses were held in the spring of 2012. We also answered various questions on the phone and by email. The City delayed the L.I.D. formation process in order to pursue additional funding sources, however, sources of revenue are scarce and very competitive and the City could not find additional funding for this project. We are now ready to move forward with the L.I.D. formation. For additional information and details about the project and the L.I.D., see Attachment 'A'. 79 ATTACHMENT 'A' Background/History: The City was successful in obtaining a $2 million grant for the repair, widening and upgrading of SE 256th Street. The project has been on our 6-year TIP for some time. The project will: • Provide needed east-west capacity to the existing traffic system along SE 256th Street. • Improve ingress and egress for the adjacent properties. • Provide a safer route for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. • Will add replace existing roadway pavement. • Will bring the roadway up to City standards. • Will provide visual improvements. Most of the proposed improvements are considered a special benefit to the local properties, therefore there is a potential for LID funding. Benefited properties are those with direct frontage on SE 256th St, and those who have access to SE 256th Street. See attached L.I.D. boundary map. Forming a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) would allow the city to assess specially benefited properties a share of the project cost. Local improvement districts have been used to help fund many arterial improvement projects within the City. Recent successful LID projects include the 196th/200th Street Corridor, the S. 228th Street Corridor west leg, the S.272nd/277th Corridor, Washington Avenue and Meeker Street, 116th Ave. SE and East Valley Highway, and the upcoming S. 224th Street Extension. In the past 26 years the City has formed 25 street L.I.D.s totaling approximately $80,000,000. Proposed Improvements: The overall project limits for SE 256th Street are Kent-Kangley Road to the west at the 'Y' intersection and 116th Ave. SE to the east. The roadway improvements include: • Widening to 3 lanes with a center turn lane. Right of way for the road widening will be acquired. • Installation of cement concrete sidewalks and driveways. • Bicycle lanes in both directions • New roadway pavement • Curbs and gutters • Planter Strips • Storm drainage system with detention and treatment • Purchase of property for stormwater detention • Existing utilities and other improvements such as fire hydrants, manholes, valve boxes, water meters, j-boxes, monument cases, mailboxes, fences and signs will be relocated or adjusted as necessary • Channelization • Traffic signs • Street trees • Street lighting • Erosion control 80 • Retaining walls where necessary • Undergrounding of electrical facilities • Wheel chair ramps in the curb and sidewalk at the intersections • Traffic signal revisions as necessary at both ends of the project Need for the Improvements: SE 256th Street is an arterial that has an average traffic volume of 11,500 vehicles per day. This volume is expected to continue to increase in the future. SE 256th Street is a substandard, two-lane roadway with no curbs, gutters or sidewalks and a limited street light system. During peak hours, the roadway cannot accommodate the traffic volumes in part due to the large number of vehicles blocking the roadway while waiting to turn left into driveways. The project is needed to increase the capacity and improve both vehicle and pedestrian safety of this roadway by adding a new center left turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks. These improvements are also needed to bring the roadway up to current city standards, meeting both functional and visual requirements and to complete SE 256th Street between the existing widened sections at each end of the project. Widening of the roadway to provide a center continuous left turn lane is required to provide increased safety and convenience for drivers making turns. In addition, through traffic will not suffer extra delay or congestion due to left turning traffic. Vehicles waiting to make left turns will be able to stand completely out of the through traffic lanes. Pedestrian improvements are needed to provide increased pedestrian safety. The project will provide sidewalks separated from the road by curbing and a planter strip to provide a safe place to walk. Bike lanes are also included. Drainage, detention and water quality treatment are non-existent for much of this portion of SE 256th Street. Localized flooding and ponding of storm water can occur. A complete and adequate drainage system for the area is needed to provide for collection, detention, treatment and disposal of storm water. Because of this need, this project is included in the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. A complete road improvement in accordance with City standards is needed. Proposed Funding: T.I.B. Grant $2,000,000.00 L.I.D. $2,040,273.71 Mitigation Fees $_58;9AA 99 City funds $2 959 726.29 Total Project $7,000,000.00 There is no City owned property within the L.I.D. boundary. 81 Method of Assessment: To determine the assessment amounts and the distribution, we consulted a real estate appraiser. The information received from the appraiser regarding potential benefits to the properties is being used to evaluate the assessments. The assessments are based on in increase to property value that results from the project. Support for The L.I.D.: In the past, developers signed 8 L.I.D. no protest covenants covering 27 parcels. Three have expired. These parcels are shown on the table below and are indicated on the attached map. The proposed project will meet the requirements of the outstanding covenants. L.I.D. Covenants Recording # of Assmt. # Original Development Parcels Expires Tax Lot No. 9412291765 East Hill Self Storage 1 expired 202205 9185 3 202205 9273- 8411080050 Sunrise Point Short Plat 2 none 9274 88, 89,92 8603040124 Discovery Word Day Care &Preschool 1 none 880100 0010 181 637900 0010- 0140 637920 0030- 8102130291 Olympic Estates Plat 18 none 0060 199-216 Allen Homes Inc. residential bldg 9402250022 permit 1 1 expired 1 216140 0010 1300 8502050035 Teter Professional Building 1 none 292205 9087 301 8506140126 Kent Kangley Center 1 none 292205 9069 305 9107100569 Stratford Arms Apts. Phase II 1 expired 202205 9281 132 Notes: 1. Expiration date is 16 years after signing 2. Older covenants do not have an expiration date. 3. Property #87 paid a mitigation fee of $58,000 at the time of development in lieu of signing a covenant. N co IF a - 1� Lul ✓ L�� -������p b pp UW z z w ® W SO � wx wIa �'sanmxaLLL .- = - ohm R Din W � Q ~ O W � m o a _._. 83 This page intentionally left blank. 84 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, declaring its intention to order the construction or installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, a two-way left turn lane, bike lanes, street lighting, landscaping, erosion control, undergrounding of overhead electrical facilities, storm water management facilities, utility adjustments and relocations and necessary appurtenances all relating to the overall project of widening to 3 lanes on SE 256th Street from Kent- Kangley Road to 116th Ave SE; and to create a local improvement district to assess a part of the cost and expense of carrying out those improvements against the properties specially benefited thereby, and notifying all persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear and present their objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held on March 5, 2013. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, to order the improvement of the properties within the area described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, by the construction or installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, a two-way left turn lane, bike lanes, street lighting, landscaping, 1 Resolution of Intent — LID No. 364 85 erosion control, undergrounding of overhead electrical facilities, storm water management facilities, utility adjustments and relocations and necessary appurtenances all relating to the overall project of widening to 3 lanes on SE 256th Street from Kent-Kangley Road to 116th Ave SE, as more fully described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. All of the foregoing improvements shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by the Public Works Director of the City and may be modified by the City as long as that modification does not affect the purpose of the improvements. SECTION 2. The total estimated cost and expense of the improvements is declared to be $7,000,000.00, approximately $2,959,726 of that cost and expense shall be paid by the City, approximately $2,000,000 of that cost and expense shall be paid by grants, and the balance thereof (an estimated $2,040,274) shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by the improvements to be included in a local improvement district to be established embracing as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the improvements. Actual assessments may vary from estimated assessments as long as they do not exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the improvements add to the property. 2 Resolution of Intent— LID No. 364 86 SECTION 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of this resolution and of the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing to each owner or reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed local improvement district by mailing such notice at least fifteen days before the date fixed for public hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the King County Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law. This resolution also shall be published in its entirety in at least two consecutive issues of the official newspaper of the City, the date of the first publication to be at least 15 days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing. SECTION 4. All persons who may desire to comment in support of or object to the improvements are notified to appear and present those comments or objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall in Kent, Washington, at 7:00 p.m. on March 5, 2013, which time and place are fixed for hearing all matters relating to the improvements and all comments thereon and objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the improvements. All persons who may desire to object thereto should appear and present their objections at that hearing. Any person who may desire to file a written protest with the City Council may do so within 30 days after the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the improvements in the event 3 Resolution of Intent— LID No. 364 87 the local improvement district is formed. The written protest should be signed by the property owner and should include the legal description of the property for which the protest is filed and that protest should be delivered to the City Clerk. SECTIONS. The City's Public Works Director is directed to submit to the City Council on or prior to March 5, 2013, all data and information required by law to be submitted. SECTION 6, Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this 5th day of February, 2013. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of February, 2013. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: RONALD MOORE, CITY CLERK TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 4 Resolution of Intent— LID No. 364 88 Exhibit A L.I.D. Boundary Description L.I.D 364 — SE 256th Street Improvements That portion of the northwest quarter and the northeast quarter of Section 29, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of said Section 29; thence S00056'50"W, along the east line of said northeast quarter, 660.22 feet to the south line of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 29; thence N88003'59"W, along said south line, 655.95 feet to the west line of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 29; thence N00035'11"E, along said west line, 68.95 feet to the northeast corner of that certain tract of land described in that certain Record of Survey described under King County Recording Number 8005309003; thence along the north line of said tract the following courses and distances; thence N87052'46"W 14.85 feet; thence N02055124"E 7.85 feet; thence S86039'29"W 82.45 feet; thence N87052'46"W 559.63 feet to the west line of the east half of the northeast quarter of said Section 29; thence S00013'42"W, along said west line, 690.48 feet to the northeasterly right of way margin of the Kent Kangley Road, said point being 50.00 feet northeasterly of, when measured at right angles to, the centerline of said road; thence N61035'47"W, along said northeasterly margin 113.39 feet to a point on the east line of a tract of land conveyed to Ronald S. Jones and Madeline Jones, his wife, by deed recorded under King County Recording Number 5032080; thence N00015'56"E, along said east line, 196.84 feet to the northeast corner thereof; thence N89044'04"W, along the north line thereof, 130.00 feet to the northwest corner thereof; thence S00015'56"W, along the west line thereof, 127.31 feet to the northeasterly right of way margin of said Kent Kangley Road; thence N61035'47"W, along said margin, 68.30 feet; thence N00018'17"W 246.25 feet; thence N87052159"W 59.30 feet; thence N00018'17"W 22.69 feet; thence N87052'59"W 162.00 feet to the east line of the west 10.00 acres of that portion of the east three quarters of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 29 lying northerly of the Kent Kangley Road; thence S00018'17"E, along said east line, 157.20 feet to the northeasterly right of way margin of said Road; thence N61035'47"W, along said margin, 319.55 feet to the southeast corner of City of Kent Short Plat SP-94-2 as recorded under King County Recording Number 9502210896; thence N00°00'16"E, along the east line thereof, 418.86 feet to the northeast corner thereof; thence N87053'43"W, along the north line thereof, 189.81 feet to the east line of the plat of East Hill Gardens, as recorded in Volume 51 of Plats, page 77, records of King County; thence S00018'17"E, along the east line of said plat, 8.78 feet; thence N88045'19"W, along the south line of said plat, 328.43 feet to the north-south center of section line of said Section 29; thence N00028'52"W, along said center of section line, 130.49 feet to the northeast corner of City of Kent Lot Line Adjustment LL-2002-20 under King County Recording Number 20021211002416; thence N65036'52"W, along the northeast line of said adjustment, 216.33 feet to the most northerly corner thereof; thence S25033'08"W, 1 Exhibit A to Resolution of Intent For LID No. 364 89 along the northwesterly line of said adjustment, 193.40 feet to the northeasterly right of way margin of the Kent Kangley Road; thence N53013'47"W, along said margin 611.13 feet to the most southerly corner of a tract of land conveyed to the City of Kent by deed recorded under Auditor's File Number 6428940; thence N18041'32"E, along the east line thereof, 49.65 feet to the southerly margin of SE 256th Street; thence N00036'51"E 30.00 feet to the north line of the northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence S89023'09"E, along said north line, 750.87 feet to the north quarter corner of said Section 29; thence S87052'59"E, along the north line of the northeast quarter of said Section 29, a distance of 2640.65 feet to the northeast corner of said section and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Except those portions of the above described tract conveyed for public road purposes; Together with that portion of the southwest quarter and the southeast quarter of Section 20, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at the southeast corner of said Section 20; thence N87052'59"W, along the south line of the southeast quarter of said Section 20, a distance of 2640.65 feet to the south quarter corner of said Section 20; thence N89023'09"W, along the south line of the southwest quarter of said Section 20, a distance of 745.94 feet to the east line of the west 495.00 feet of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 20; thence NO1029'23"E, along said east line, 1304.47 feet to the north line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 20; thence S89003'03"E, along said north line, 755.01 feet to the north south center of section line of said Section 20; thence S88017'55"E, along the north line of the south half of the southeast quarter of said Section 20, a distance of 2619.62 feet to the east line of said southeast quarter; thence S00058'43"W, along said east line, 1319.47 feet to the southeast corner of said section and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Except those portions of the above described tract conveyed for public road purposes. Resolution of Intent— LID No. 362 A - 2 90 Exhibit B Description of Improvements L.I.D 364 — SE 256th Street Improvements The overall project limits for SE 256th Street are Kent-Kangley Road to the west at the 'Y' intersection and 116th Ave. SE to the east. The roadway improvements include but are not limited to: • Widening to 3 lanes with a center left turn lane • Bicycle lanes in both directions • Installation of cement concrete sidewalks and driveways • New roadway pavement section • Curb and gutters • Storm drainage system with detention and treatment facilities • Relocation and adjustment of existing utilities and other improvements such as fire hydrants, manholes, water meters, valve boxes, monuments, utility poles, street light poles, mailboxes, fences and signs as necessary • Channelization • Traffic signs • Street trees • Planter strips between the curb and sidewalk • Street lighting • Erosion control both temporary and permanent • Retaining walls where necessary • Undergrounding of electrical facilities • Wheel chair ramps in the curb and sidewalk at the intersections • Traffic signal revisions as necessary at both ends of the project • Utility stubs and extensions as necessary • Removal of existing improvements as necessary 1 Exhibit B to Resolution of Intent For LID No. 364 91 CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Kent, Washington (the "City"), hereby certify as follows: 1. The attached copy of Resolution No. (the "Resolution") is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on February 5, 2013, as that Resolution appears on the minute book of the City; and the Resolution will be in full force and effect immediately following its adoption; and 2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of those members present voted in the proper manner for the adoption of the Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of February, 2013. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON RONALD MOORE, CITY CLERK P:\CiviD solution\LID 364 Resolution Of Intent.Doc 92 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Timothy J LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 3, 2013 To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members Special Public Works Committee Meeting Date: January 14, 2013 From: Cathy Mooney, Senior Transportation Planner Through: Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director Subject: Coal Trains — Impact to City of Kent Item - 7 MOTION: Move to approve and endorse the Coal Export Facility Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Letter and authorize the Mayor and council members to sign the document. Summary: Staff will present information on a proposed coal export facility in northwest Washington that could negatively impact the City. Committee members will be provided an opportunity to co-sign a comment letter on the Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. Background: Pacific International Terminals has submitted applications to develop the largest coal export facility in North America at Cherry Point in northwest Washington. The "Gateway Pacific Terminal"would be operated by SSA Marine who is a global leader in maritime services. Coal mined by Peabody Energy from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming would be hauled by trains along Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail lines. The coal train corridor extends from mines in Montana and Wyoming through Sandpoint, Idaho, to Spokane, down through the Columbia River Gorge, then up along the Puget Sound coast, passing through Longview, Tacoma, Kent, Seattle, Edmonds, Everett, Mt. Vernon, Bellingham, Ferndale, and all points in between. There is evidence to support that the coal trains would create significant adverse impacts on local jobs and businesses, property values, human health and quality of life. The trains are expected to haul up to 54 million tons of coal per year. Initially 18 coal trains per day, each up to one-and-a-half miles in length, are expected to move along the corridor (9 full and 9 returning empty). Substantial taxpayer investment may be required to support infrastructure to mitigate some of the potential adverse impacts created by the project. It is questionable whether damages to local businesses, regional identity, communities and fisheries could ever be adequately mitigated. The global impacts of coal export and coal combustion are significant, particularly when the future is considered.' 1 Background paragraphs are paraphrased from information found at"coaltrains.org" 93 The Public's Opportunity to Participate: Agencies and individuals can express concerns about the proposal during a period called "Scoping". Comments submitted will help inform the type and geographic scope of impacts to be studied in the EIS. The EIS is the key document for agencies involved with approving or denying permits, permissions or leases for the project. The Scoping period lasts for 120 days and ends on Monday, January 21, 2013. Scoping comments should address which of the project's potential impacts should be studied, measured and considered. They should list the specific impacts to the affected party, the significance of those impacts, the direct and indirect costs of those impacts, and who will bear those costs, and what forms of direct mitigation should be studied. Online comments can be submitted to: commentsCa)eisgatewaypacificwa.gov City of Kent Comments: Staff has prepared a draft letter outlining the major concerns to residents and businesses within the City of Kent regarding the impacts this proposal would create. The City's comments are primarily asking the agencies involved in the EIS to require analysis of local impacts on Transportation, Congestion & Safety, Public Health, Noise & Vibrations, and the Environment. A copy of the draft letter is attached here for your review. Many other cities and elected officials, individually, have already commented, demanding a comprehensive review for local communities. This issue also is being discussed at the Public Works Committee meeting of January 14, 2013. Budget Impact: None 94 January 14, 2013 GPT/Custer Spur EIS C/O CH21M HILL 1100 112" Avenue NE, Suite 400 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Combined NEPA and SEPA Scalping for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and Custer Spur Dear EIS Co-Leaders: The City of Kent offers the following comments on the combined NEPA and SEPA scoping for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) and associated Custer Spur. The City is particularly concerned about the economic and environmental impacts from the increased train activity through the heart of the City. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) track runs through and bisects the City of Kent running north/south. These impacts are significant and require that the study area be expanded to include communities along the travel path as well as at the terminus at Cherry Point. The City of Kent is the sixth largest city in the State of Washington with over 119,000 residents. The City holds the fifth largest Industrial and Warehouse Distribution Center in the nation and is the second largest on the west coast. Kent is located in South King County which has been identified as home to some of the most fragile health populations in the county. A King County Health Department study found that 31%of the population in South King County suffers from obesity and associated chronic illness including diabetes and pulmonary disease. This percentage is double that found in the rest of the county. South King County has the highest percentage of diversity and multicultural ethnicity in the region and impacts to these communities should be analyzed under the Environmental Justice umbrella. These quick facts about the City of Kent will help set the stage for understanding the following concerns and comments related to Scalping the project. Transportation,Congestion, Safety There is uncertainty regarding the number of additional trains that will be added to existing rail facilities but estimates indicate an initial complement of nine round-trip or 18 total daily trains, each up to a mile and a half long. The impacts to local traffic congestion and the level of service on the local road network should be examined. Future traffic congestion impacts need to be evaluated based on a realistic expectation of future coal train traffic and not just this initial minimum number of proposed trips at start-up. The City of Kent has eight at-grade crossings on the BNSF line, most of which are in the downtown urban center.The combined daily traffic on these eight cross streets is roughly 100,000 vehicles. A study of crossing delay estimated a range of one to two and a half hours of additional delay every day from these 18 new coal trains. (Total time of delay varies with speed of the train.) As the number of trains increases,the potential for accidents and fatalities increases. The mobility and safety impacts from this increased train traffic need to be evaluated in the EIS. 95 Increased traffic congestion and crossing delays will increase tailpipe emissions from stopped and idling vehicles and increased diesel emissions from train engines. These impacts to traffic congestion and air quality need to be evaluated in the EIS. The addition of this significant street closure time due to 18 or more long trains per day increases delay to Fire Department and Police personnel responding to emergency calls and to medical transport vehicles moving patients to area hospitals. It increases daily delay to school buses which puts increased burden on financially strapped school districts to increase their fleets and transportation budgets to restore the transit times they originally planned for picking up children and transporting them to local schools. It increases delay to workers trying to access jobs and negatively impacts the city's major employment sector moving freight in and out of the Kent Manufacturing/industrial Center. It increases delay of shipping valuable commodities to the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma as well as short-haul distribution of imported goods to local businesses. How would this addition of 18 coal trains affect other rail capacity? Residents and businesses in Kent rely on Sound Transit Commuter Rail as a preferred mode of transportation for commuters. Will this traffic supplant or preclude additional Sounder Rail service? The EIS should look at how this project will affect competition for future rail capacity and opportunities for more favorable or higher uses of the track time. Kent has spent considerable time and local financial investment in bicycle facilities and new transit facilities. Bus schedules are timed to meet commuter rail schedules at the Sound Transit Kent Station. The City's signal timing and corridor progression are coordinated to assist bus routes in reaching the Kent Transit Center on schedule for transfers to Commuter Rail or Express commuter bus service. The BNSF tracks separate the majority of Kent residential neighborhoods from the Commuter Rail and Transit Center. The EIS should examine to what extent the additional hour to two and half hour delay every day at crossings would affect bicycle, pedestrian and transit users throughout the coal train corridor. According to the 2012 Washington State Congestion Report,the cost of congestion is$21.90 per hour. Considering 18 trains per day imposing anywhere from one to two and a half hours of delay and around 100,000 vehicles being affected, many with more than one occupant, the cost of delay could be estimated to be in the millions of dollars to Kent residents and businesses alone. The EIS should examine the magnitude of this economic cost to communities along the corridor. The EIS should consider the impacts to the existing 900 households and 3,700 jobs in the downtown, as well as impacts to planned future growth in households and jobs in this existing regionally-designated urban center where most significant increases in jobs and housing are expected to occur. • Public Health Proximity to rail lines provides significant exposure to toxic diesel exhaust. The proposed coal 96 trains would be powered by four engines each spewing diesel engine particulate emissions from 72 engines per day. The Environmental Justice impacts to low-income communities from this toxin need to be examined in the EIS. Studies on coal dust from the transport of these commodities indicate anywhere from 500 to 2,000 pounds of coal dust will escape from each and every car on every coal train. The cumulative effects of coal dust from over 400,000 loaded coal cars per year and another potential 400,000 unloaded coal cars need to be examined in the EIS. How would this affect levels of asthma attacks, pulmonary inflammation, bronchitis,emphysema and cancer in our local community? Noise, diesel emissions, and toxic coal dust from the increased rail traffic will negatively impact the livability of Kent's neighborhoods and the health of our population. The EIS should examine the degree to which these negative externalities affect people and property in residential communities and business districts along the travel corridor. • Noise and Vibrations The City of Kent is in the process of pursuing a Quiet Zone for its downtown area. The EIS should study what effect the addition of 18 or more trains that are up to a mile and a half long will have on this community and others in the pursuit of noise abatement and future Quiet Zone implementation. In January 2012 a hillside on the east side of the BNSF tracks slid - propelling mud, trees and utilities into the East Valley Highway. The soils in the Kent Valley are great transmitters of vibrations and could make future development in the downtown core problematic if there is an additional one to two hours of new ground-transmitted vibrations from coal trains. The effect of vibrations on hillsides and the extra costs associated with projected household and job growth along the train corridor should be studied in the EIS. • Environmental The Kent Valley is part of the Green River/Duwamish watershed and host to many species of fish and wildlife. Salmonid species present in the watershed include Chinook,chum,coho, sockeye, and pink salmon, bull trout and cutthroat trout. Coal dust from these additional trains will settle on environmentally sensitive wetlands in the Kent Valley. The EIS should study the effect of coal dust on wetlands and floodplains, and its transmission to streams and rivers. The EIS should consider impacts on the Green River and Mill Creek which provide designated critical habitat for listed species. In the Green River this includes three listed salmon species, namely: Chinook, Bull Trout and Steelhead. Coal dust particles from the proposed GRT trains would deposit heavy metals and other toxic chemicals that settle in soils and water. The EIS should evaluate the magnitude of the impacts to aquatic life, wildlife and people. 97 The EIS needs to examine and mitigate the full impacts to the health, environment, and economic viability of local communities along the entire proposed coal train corridor. Although it's questionable whether the above impacts could be adequately mitigated, the EIS should consider mitigation measures such as, covering and securing the coal in the rail cars, both for dust control and securing cargo in the event of derailment; construction of overpasses/underpasses to address impacts to the local transportation system; monetary assistance for commercial, industrial and retail construction enhancements to mitigate noise and vibration; control of air emissions from train engines; and track improvements and equipment to mitigate noise from the trains. The City of Kent wishes to become a Party of Record regarding the Gateway Pacific Terminal and Custer Spur and be included in any further elements of the EIS. Sincerely, Suzette Cooke, Mayor City of Kent Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember 98 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Timothy J LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: January 10, 2013 To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members Special PW Committee Meeting Date: January 14, 2013 From: Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director Subject: Information Only/Public Works Department Managerial Review Item - 8 Motion: No Motion Required/Information Only Summary: Marci Hollingsworth with the Federal Aviation Administration has been on a developmental assignment for the Executive Potential Program at the City of Kent. Marci will summarize her findings during her time with the Public Works Department with the Committee. Budget Impact: None