The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 12-18-2006 . City of Federal Way Ci ty Council Land Use/Transportation Committee December 18, 2006 5 :30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES: December 4, 2006 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Transportation Level of Service Standard Information I hr/Perez B. Amendment to the Sound Transit Agreement Action 10 minlRichardson C. Pacific Highway Phase II - Project Acceptance Action 5 minIRoberts D. South 320111 Street at 1 sl A venue South Intersection Action 5 min//Salloum Improvements Project - 100% Design Status Report E. 21 Sl A venue SW Extension - SW 356111 Street to 22nd A venue Action 5 min/Salloum SW Improvements Project - Bid Award F. Lakehaven Utility District Interlocal Agreement: 21 st A venue Action 5 min/Salloum SW Extension Project G. Acceptance of Grant Funding for Transportation Action 5 min/Salloum Improvement Projects 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison Dean McColgan City Staff CO/y'M. Roe, P.E.. Public Works Director Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas (/1/(/ Summaries J006\J 3-/8-06 LUTe Agcm/lI.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation' Committee December 4, 2006 5:30 pm City Hall City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey and Committee Member Dean McColgan; Committee Member Eric Faison was excused; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; Management Services Director Iwen Wang; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Street Systems Engineer John Mulkey; Contract Planner Janet Shull; Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall; Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. and excused Council Member Faison. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The November 20, 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Setting Public Hearing Date for the Street Vacation Request for a Portion of 35th Avenue South John Mulkey was available to provide the background on this item. There was no discussion. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the December 19, 2006, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. B. Flag Lots Code Amendment Janet Shull provided the background on this item. Currently, the city allows flag lots, also known as panhandle lots. This amendment will clarify how existing setback requirements are applied and how lot area and lot coverage requirements are applied. The benefit of this amendment will be increased predictability for future development proposals. Staff proposes a change in addition to the change to the Planning Commission recommendation noted in the staff report. This change is for Section 22-667 to cross reference note 8 for attached or staked dwelling units under the column for Required Sideyard. Note 8 refers to the Landscaping section of the FWCC, which presently requires a minimum lO-foot landscaping buffer for multi-family uses, which would supersede any setback requirements. Council Member McColgan asked what is the purpose of a setback. Ms. Shull replied that setbacks allow for access and are a separation between the building and the property line. In addition, there are life and safety reasons for setbacks. Council Member Kochmar asked how many such lots are in the city. Ms. McClung replied that it is difficult to determine how many. The city is seeing more flag lots as smaller lots are being subdivided. This is likely to increase even more as the city becomes denser and if the city annexes the potential annexation area. Council Member Kochmar asked if driveways have to be paved. Ms. McClung replied that driveways must be paved for all new construction. Council Member Burbidge asked if a certain percentage of a lot is considered for lot coverage. Ms. Shull responded yes and it depends upon the zoning. She stated that the proposed amendment clarifies that the driveway will not be included as lot area for the purpose of determining lot coverage. G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\12-04-06 LUTC Minutes.doc Land Useffransportation Committee Page 2 December 4, 2006 Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED the staff recommendation of approval of the recommended amendments to the FWCC on to the December 19, 2006, City Council Agenda for first reading. C. Stakeholder Report Kathy McClung provided the background information on this item. She gave the committee a handout of the stakeholder's recommendations with staff comments and proposed actions. This is the fourth year city staff has met with stakeholders. This time, the focus of the meeting was on the stakeholders experience and perceptions of the city's permit process, which was mostly favorable. Mr. Roe commented that he felt the meeting was very productive, with generalIy positive comments. In regards to bonding, the staff was asked why bonds are r.equired for private improvements on private property, as opposed to just the public aspects of the project. Mr. Roe informed the LUTC that staff is researching this issue. Public Works will survey other jurisdictions to find out how they handle bonding issues. Staff wants to make the bonding process more user friendly and less costly to the applicant. Ms. McClung commented that for landscaping, bonds are required only for wetland mitigation. Staff will be researching landscaping bond requirements to determine if any changes are needed. In regards to Lakehaven and the city, the stakeholders would like permits from Lakehaven and the city to be ready at the same time. Staff is working with Lakehaven staff on this issue. Lakehaven is willing to consider having a staff person at City Hall. In regards to surveys, the city sends out survey cards with each completed permit. There is a low return rate fo.r the surveys. Staff will review them and make changes in hopes of improving the return rate. Mr. Roe commented that his staff is researching a process used by another jurisdiction calIed a zoom process. Under this process, the city commits to responding to comments within five days, and the developer also comments to responding to comments and resubmittal requests within five days. 5. FUTURE MEETING The next scheduled meeting will be December 18, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\12-04-06 LUTC Minutes.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 2,2007 ITEM #: ...........................................-.-----............................--.....--....................---...--.......---................................. .............................................--.----..........-. .................................. .....-.---....-...---....-...................- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD POLICY QUESTION: Should the City pursue revision of the level of service standardfor transportation? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: December 18,2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing D City Council Business D Resolution D Other _~!~!:!.~~Q~!_!JY: ~i~~_!'-~E~.~!.._~!!Y-!!:.l:1.f!!~ En.:g!!!:~~!__Jlt_.._.._____.__..__..___.____E..~~T: Publi_~_~or~~. The City Council requested additional information regarding the level of service standard for transportation to consider the impacts of its revision. Attachments: Memo to Land Use / Transportation Committee dated December 18,2006. Options Considered: NA ......--.........--...-.--.-.-..---.--.---..-................---.--.-...........---....-....-..--.--.--.......----.-....--....--....--.--........--.---...-------...-...........-....-...-----.--..--.--- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Council direction. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: to Council DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ to Committee To Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the Committee recommendation to full Council on January 2,2007 for approval. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move approval of ... (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02106/2006 COUNCIL BILL # I ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: December 18th, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beets, City Manager Rick Perez, PE, City Traffic Engineer . f?O' Transportation Level of Service Standard BACKGROUND: City Council requested that staff examine the appropriateness of the current level of service (LOS) . standard for transportation. Particular concerns expressed include the impact of large intersection improvements on pedestrian comfort and the aesthetics of the public environment, a perception that large arterials were being favored over providing improved connectivity, and budgetary impacts of concurrency to meet the current LOS standard. This memo outlines how level of service is measured, how it has been used since the City's incorporation, and its impacts on economic development, public safety, and capital budget needs. Options for revising the currently-adopted standard are also reviewed. LOS Defined: LOS is an attempt to grade the transportation system user's experience through quantifiable means. Procedures used almost universally withm the Untied States are provided in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board. Transportation facilities are graded A through F based on ranges of values established in the HeM. For urban streets, the predominant measures are delay and volume/capacity ratios, but the HCM uses different measures for different types of facilities. The ranges for a given grade also reflect the typical user expectation. For instance, the delay equated with a LOS F for unsignalized intersections is less than that for signalized intersections. In general, LOS A refers to free-flow conditions with minimal user delay, wherein the traveler is virtually unimpeded by conflicting traffic. By comparison, LOS F represents conditions where the traveler has limited mobility with stop-and-go, forced flowconditions. Value thresholds used for Urban arterial intersections are shown in the table below LOS A B C D E F Sig.p,~lized Intersections _J~~conds delay "el'vehicle :s 10 > 10 - 20 > 20 - 35 > 35 - 55 > 55 - 80 >80 I~, Unsig.p,~li~d In. t..e r.sec~ons -- r-. - ~~l~e/€ . . .acity Ratio (Seconds delaY' pen vehic~e) . __, an.. _, _ < 10 <0.60 > 10-15 > 0.60-0.70 > 15-25 >0.70-0.80 > 25 - 35 > 0.80 - 0.90 > 35 -.50 > 0.90 - 1.00 > 50 > 1.00 I I I I j December 18, 2006 , Land Use and Transportation Conunittee Transportation Level of Service Standard . Page 2 City's Historical Use of LOS The 1995 Comprehensive Plan adopted a policy TP16 using strictly volume/capacity ratios ofless than 0.90. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan revised this policy to raise the v/c ratio threshold to 1.00, added a LOS thrshold ofE, and required the use of 120-second cycle lengths at signalized intersections. In addition, language was added to TP60, establishing a policy where intersections failing this LOS standard may then be measured using delay per person rather than per vehicle, essentially giving greater . weight to high-occupancy vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians. In practice, this clause ofTP60 has be<en difficult to implement, due to the resource needs to determine occupancy of each vehicle entering im intersection. In addition, the migration to HOV usage has been slow in the region, . compounded by system continuity issues. Purpose of LOS Standards Agencies adopt LOS standards to plan for growth, prioritize transportation projects, and to determine appropriate mitigation of the impacts of development. In Washington, adoption of a LOS standard for transportation is required under the Growth Management Act. (GMA) In addition, GMA requires adoption of a concurrency process, whereby the City would certify that adequate capacity will exist within six years to accommodate the development. If capacity to accept the traffic generated by the development does not-exist or cannot be created within six years, state law requires the City to not approve the development. . ~roject Prioritization Projects are identified in the Comprehensive Plan in order to meet long-range goals for accommodating growth and development of a transportation system that supports all modes of travel. In addition, each year the City develops a Transportation Improvement Plan, adopting projects that the City intends to construct within a six-year timeframe. Every project in the Comprehensive Plan is prioritized annually. This requires staff to develop land use forecasts for a 6-year time frame, run the City's travel demand model to develop traffic volume forecasts, analyze each major intersection to determine which intersections would not meet the LOS standard, and identify which projects would correct the LOS failure. Staff considers two strategies for correcting LOS failures: one is to improve the intersection where the failure occurs, and the 'other is to provide alternative routes to allow traffic to bypass the failing intersection. Historically, correcting the failing intersection has been more cost-effective most of the time. However, as we reach limits of what is feasible to construct at an intersection without resorting to grade separation, providing new connections will become more cost-competitive. One option favoring the latter approach may be to set limits on the maximum number oflanes to favor other approathes. One clause of TP60 already does this: "When arterials require more than four through lanes to maintain the adopted LOS, additional travel lanes will be for HOV's." We could adopt similar limits for the number of left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes, which would encourage the provision of new connections. However, it could also create locations where there are no viable means to maintain a LOS standard. December 18, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Transportation Level of Service Standard Pi,lge 3 Project prioritization criteria include: · Concurrency Requirement · LOS Improvement · Collision Rate Improvement · Collision Severity Improvement · HOV Supportive · Non-Motorized Supportive · Community Support .' Air Quality Improvement . Ease of Implementation · Benefit/Cost Ratio Essentially, three of the 10 criteria are based on LOS, two on safety, two on support for non-SOY users, two on cost, and one on public support. These criteria have been in use since 1996, except that a second safety criterion was added in 2000. However, this change had little effect as most locations experiencing high collision rates issues were also concurrency problems, Based on the project prioritization, staff proposes and Council adopts the TIP annually. The relationship between the TIP and concurrency is not accidental; GMA requires that for development to be considered concurrent, the capacity to absorb the impacts of the development must be dependent on a fmancially viable plan to provide the capacity within the same six-year timeframe. Other Types of LOS Standards Due to GM1\ requirements, among others, a number of different strategies have been employed by differen~ !lgep.cies to develop a LOS standard that attempts to balance competing priorities for funding, congestion, safety, land use goals, economic development, and support for other modes of transportation. Locally, many agencies rely on v/c ratios for its simplicity. Rather than measure only the evening peak hour, many average the top two peak hours. Because some intersections may have intractable problems, but alternate routes are available, some agencies create zones and average LOS values within each zone. Similarly, a few agencies adopt screenlines at strategic locations and average v/c ratios on corridors that traverse the screenline. Some agencies use a travel time standard on predefined arterial segments. Any of these approaches allow the use of differing LOS standards for different areas. Impacts of Revising the LOS Standard The City incorporated the same year as the passage of GMA. Both efforts were fueled in part by frustration over inadequate mitigation of the impacts of development. Hence a key component of GMA was the requirement for transportation concurrency. Frustration over traffic congestion has continued to fuel efforts to improve tran~portation funding. Citizen surveys in previous budget cycles identified . transportation and public safety as the two highest priorities for increased funding. More recent regional surveys for the Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound Transit have shown that transportation is by far the most critical regional problem. Below is a summary of the non-enterprise fund capital needs identified in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan as needs between 1998 and 2020 and what projects have been funded: December 18, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee . Transportation Level of S~rllfde Standard Page 4 Service Cdentifi~d Needs AmoUJtt l"unded ." .Percent Funckd I i 1998~2020 1998-2006 J Public Safety $4.5 Million $4.5 Million 100% Parks $38.7 Million $30.3 Million 78% Transportation $543.1 Million $106.3 Million 20% Transportation funding, although having the highest total cost, has lagged other City-funded capital programs in terms of meeting identified needs. Compounding this effect is that roughly half of the transportation funding has been from grants, and the Parks project list on which the amounts in the previous table are based did not include the Community Center, currently budgeted at $21.7 million. GMA explicitly addresses' options for reconciling LOS standards With budgetary shortfalls: · Increase the level of funding .. Revise the land use assumptions to lower travel demand . · Revise the capital project prioritization process to fully fund capacity needs · Lower the LOS standard to meet available funding The Comprehensive Plan responds to each of these concepts in supporting text as follows: "Modifying the LOS standard cannot be recommended because safety problems usually result from increased congestion and adversely impact air quality and transit operations where HOV facilities do not exist. The adopted LOS standard accounts for HOV's and transit by basing it on average delay per person rather than delay per vehicle. "Reprioritizing improvements to address capacity would result in a lack of funding for safety and non-motorized transportation. This would be inconsistent with adopted goals and policies to encourage non-moto.rized transportation and maintain roadway safety. "Lowering transportation demand to match available capacity would restrict the City's ability to function as an urban center consistent with county and regional plans. Furthermore, the City has little ability to reduce traffic through the City caused by growth in neighboring jurisdictions or overflow from congested freeways. "Therefore, improvement in funding for transportation appears to be the most realistic alternative." LOS and Transportation Safety Some advocates of "Smart Growth" strategies suggest that congestion is not something to be avoided, but should be accepted as a reasonable accommodation to encourage use of alternative modes of . transportation. These advocates ignore the impacts of two major issues with respect to ramifications of acceptance of greater levels of congestion. One of these is safety, the other is freight movement. The following table outlines the safety improvements achieved in the City by improving LOS on a . project-level basis: . December 18, 2006 . _ L -:)va Land Use and Transportation Committee ~ . ~ . e-! ()f &'.:,.{lnll-l'rimsportation Level of Service Standard Page 5 Proiect Year Completed 6th Ave SW ca SW Campus Dr 35th Ave SW ( ~ SW 340th St 21st Ave SW ~ SW 325thpI 21 st Ave sW ~ SW Dash Point Rd Military Rd S (iiJ S 304th St S 312th St: SR 99 to 23T<I Ave S SW 336th St: 21st Ave SW to 2~ 1'1 SW Hoyt Rd SW (iiJ SW 340th St S 336tb St: 13th 1'1 S to 18th Ave S S 320th St @ SR 99 8IIl Ave SW Cii2 SR 509 8th Ave S @ S 312th St 23"1 Ave S: S 316th St - S 324th St 14th Ave S Cii2 S 312th St SR 99: S 312thSt to S 324tJ1 St S 288th St @ SR 99 Weyerhaeuser Way S @ S 336th St TOTAL 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2003 2003' 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 Annual Collisions B~tbre 1?r@;!~~t 8.7 4.3 2.7 4.0 10.0 55.7 41.0 6.5 24.0 60.5 2.8 3.4 69.0 10.0 99.0 28.8 4.3 434.7 Annual ColIisi-ons After Rrolect 4.4 4.9 1.3 3.1 6.4 37.2 40.3 7.3 15.6 44.8 0.5 4.0 57.0 4.0 68.0 5.0 2.0 305.8 )~.lat; ! ! ')v..._ . ,ei nf .... 1 Percent ' Re<l!lction I 49% -14% 52% 21% 36% 33% 2% -12% 35% 26% 82% -18% 13% 60% 31% 83% 54% 30% Hence these roadway improvements have avoided 129 collisions annually, a societal cost reduction of $1,612,500 annually. It should be noted that two of the three locations where collision rates have increased are located where traffic volumes have increased significantly since project completion and are in need of additional improvements. This finding is consistent with national research, which has found a correlation between high volume/capacity ratios and collision rates. It is also important to note that this has not come at the expense of pedestrians and bicyclists. In 1997, the City averaged 36 reported collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians, whereas since 2000 we are averaging 1 per year. It should also be noted that traffic volumes have increased Citywide on average 20% over the past 10 years. LOS and Freight Mobility Although congestion may encourage use of alternative modes, this is not an option for freight movement in Federal Way. Congestion then influences economic activity, particularly for industrial land uses, but also retail uses. Congestion overall increases costs for the entire population as the cost to ship goods increases with increased travel time. LOS and Economic Development There is no consensus on the relationship between higher levels of service in urban areas and economic development. "Smart Growth" advocates suggest that economic development opportunities will increase as higher densities are achieved. However, it is difficult to achieve the mode splits necessary to actually reducing the vehicle trip generation necessary to reduce congestion from implementation of these strategies. "Smart Growth" critics argue that increased congestion reduces the size and therefore, population of market areas, and increases development costs, housing costs, and labor rates. It may be that the balancing of these factors may be location~ or industry-specific. December 18, 2006 Land Use and TranspOI:tation Committee Transportation Level of Service Standard Page 6. , , . \..'.' ). (.-il v.,-. . I . ,. t1 . ~'! r ~ .-rVH:' . Transportation projects to reduce congestion are funded in part by developer mitigation. If transportation mitigation costs become too high, it could drive development away from areas where it is desired, but if they are too low, increasing congestion could constrain the ability of a development to reach its market potential. How this applies in Federal Way is complicated by the fact that most of the residential area of the City is not directly served by the regional transportation system for either highways or transit. The majority of both commute and shopping trips musftraverse the commercially zoned properties to reach the regional transportation system and are therefore impacted by congestion in the commercially zoned areas. In particular, since access to 1-5 is limited to three interchanges on 1-5, traffic is focused on the corridors that lead to the interchanges, namely S 272nd Street, S 320th Street, and S 348th Street. Although the City is aggressively pursuing access improvements at each of these interchanges, these are expensive and 10ng- term projects, and options are limited by both funding availability and state and federal processes to ensure that the freeways system functions as efficiently as possible, thus reducing the City's options for dispersing traffic throughout the City. . Options One option to revise the LOS standard is a matter of Public Works policy, and the other requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. For the former, the only flexibility is defining the period over which LOS is measured. No specific time period is mentioned in TP16, so it could apply to individual hours or a two-hour average or over a whole day. The drawback to extending beyond the evening peak hour is that it could dramatically increase workload as we currently only use our travel demand model for the evening peak hour. Merely to analyze one more peak period, the morning peak for example, would double the workload for travel demand forecasting and concurrency analyses. By comparison, expanding the evening peak analyses period to two hours would only require minor model calibration issues. However, a cursory analysis suggests that this would drop the traffic volumes used in a capacity analysis les~ than 5%, and thus it would not have a significant impact on number of projects proposed in the TIP. Given' our growth rates in background traffic, staff estimates this would only defer the need for a "borderline" project for up to 3 years. Conversely, one issue that staff would like clarified is whether the Council would want to see the LOS standard applied to other peak hours. Due to our commercial retail base, congestion peaks on weekends in many intersections are worse than the weekday evening peak. Occasionally, cOlnmuters can create congestion in the morning peak hour. Similarly, certain land uses, such as schools, movie theaters, and amusement parks, can create periods of congestion outside of any traditionally measured peak hour. Another issue to consider if the LOS standard is revised is its impact on the City Center Planned Action EIS. A large portion. of this project's scope was the supporting traffic analysis, which would need to be revised to reflect a revised LOS standard. Therefore, staff requests Council direction on the following issues: 1. Should the LOS standard be revised? 2. To which time periods should a LOS standard be subject? 3. .Me there LOS standard measurements that the Council would like to explore further? December 18, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee \ Transportation Level of Service Standard Page 7 -j'.!.,' J.: Staff would propose that any LOS standard revision be analyzed using consultant forces due to workload, and tha,t this could be funded by the year-end balance from the Public Works Department. Work would need to be completed by April in .order to be reflected in the proposed TIP due to be adopted in July. Due to this time constraint, staff anticipates that analysis of each alternative LOS standard would cost approximately $20,000. Given this potential level of analysis and use of consultants, it also may be more cost-effective to increase the scope of work to implement a Traffic Impact Fee system that would replace the system of pro-rata share mitigation currently employed. A Traffic IIllpact Fee system could potentially provide the following advantages: · Ability to accommodate zones with a variety of LOS standards and impact fee rates .. Greater predictability for developers · Greater flexibility to direct revenue to needed projects · Potentially less tracking of fees by eliminating the need to refund mitigation fees within 5 years pursuant to state law. . Ift4e Council wishes to pursue this, staff estimates that the consultant work to develop and implement a Traffic ImpaCt Fee system would cost approximately $50,000. cc: Project File Day File ~-"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,-,,,-,---,,,-,,,,-_.,._.,,,,,,,,-,,,.._-.-.............-...................................----...-.--.........-........-........--........-........-............--.....-......--.........-.-..........----.......-.....--....-............-..............-----......---...---.......--..-.---- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 2, 2007 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement between Sound Transit and City of Federal Way POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way approve amendments to the Agreement between Sound Transit and the City of Federal Way to allow Sound Transit up to seven (7) years for construction to commence on development ofthe eastern TOD site? Currently the Agreement allows five (5) years for construction to commence on development of both the eastern and western TOD sites. COMMITTEE: LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION MEETING DATE: 12/18/06 CA TEGORY: IZI Consent D City Council Business STAFF REpORT By: PATRICK DOHERTY D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other DEPT: CITY MANAGER ....--....................-...---...--,...--....---...--.............-.....................-.-.............--....-.........-..........................................-.-........---......-........--...-....................---........-..............;--..--......-.............--...-..................--....--.........-.-......-.........-----.. Attachments: Proposed draft "First Amendment to the Agreement Between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit-Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center." Summary/Background: The City and Sound Transit entered the "Agreement between Central Puget Sound Regional. Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center" effective October 25,2004, ("Agreement") whereby Sound Transit agreed to design and construct the Federal Way Transit Center Project and pursue development of future Transit Oriented Development ("TOD") opportunities on the TOD Properties located to the immediate east and west of the Transit Center. The Agreement, and that Sound Transit would exert its best efforts, in consultation with the City, to obtain a qualified developer(s) to develop the TOD Properties. The Agreement provides that Sound Transit will secure a commitment from a qualified developer within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the Transit Center, which occurred on February 1, 2006. The Agreement also provides that Sound Transit must secure a commitment from a qualified TOD developer to commence construction on development of the TOD Properties within five (5) years of occupancy of the Project. To date Sound Transit has secured a qualified TOD developer for the East TOD Property (a joint proposal by the Korean Women's AssociationlEaster Seal of Washington/Common Ground), however, the selected TOD developer requires an additional two (2) years, to the five (5) provided in the Agreement, to secure funding for, and commence construction of, its TOD proposal. The proposal is to amend the Agreement to provide Sound Transit an additional two (2) years, for a total of seve.n (7) years, to commence construction on development of the TOD proposal for the East TOD Property. The existing provision allowing for five (5) years to develop the West TOD Property would remain as is. Options Considered: 1. Approve amendment to the Agreement, as proposed in attached draft "First Amendment to the Agreement Between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit-Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center." 2. Reject the proposed amendment. 3. Approve the proposed amendment with the following changes: ~--"-'--'-"'-'-'---"'--"-"----"-----""""--".---..---..---....--............----.....--....-.........----....---......--.........-..--........-.......---..-..-.-.....----...-..--.--.......-.--.-..---..-.--...--- STAFFRECOMMENDATIbN: Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: "I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed amendment to the 'Agreement Between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development afTransit-Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center. '" f'Y'e~" "'J- Gird <p^"S(")'\.-+"J I e-Y1 h/ ~;J 7;;,J<dt .~b:r Committee Member PROPOSED C MOTION: "I move approval of the LUTC recommendation to approve the proposed amendment t the 'Agreement Between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit-Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center. '" (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # First Amendment to AGREEMENT BETWEEN CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AT THE FEDERAL WAY TRANSIT CENTER This FIRST AMENDMENT ("First Amendment") is made and entered into this day of by and between the CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY ("Sound Transit") and THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ("the City"), a municipal corporation, (collectively, the "Parties"), regarding the development of a transit center project ("Project"). RECITALS WHEREAS, The City and Sound Transit entered into an agreement entitled "Agreement between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center" effective October 25, 2004, ("Agreement") whereby Sound Transit agreed to design and construct the Federal Way Transit Center Project aHewincluding development of future Transit Oriented Development ("rOD") opportunities on the TaD Properties identified in the Agreement, and that Sound Transit would exert its best efforts, in consultation with the City, to obtain a qualified developer(s) to develop the TaD Properties; and WHEREAS. the' Citv issued the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project on February 1.2006; and WHEREAS.1he Agreement provides at sections 2.l.C and 2.2 A and 2.2.B that Sound Transit will secure a commihnent from a Qualified developer within eighteen (8) months of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides at sections 2.1.B and 2.2.B. that Sound Transit must secUre a commitment from' a . qualified TOD developer to commence construction develop of the East TaD Property within five (5) years of occupancy of the Project, and WHEREAS, Sound Transit has completed construction of the Project and has secured a qualified TOD developer for the East TaD Property (a joint proposal by the . Korean Women's AssociationlEaster Seal of Washington/Common Ground), however, the selected TaD developer requires an additional two (2) years, to the five (5) provided in the Agreement, to secure funding for and commence construction of its TaD proposal; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is in their mutual best interests to allow an additional two (2) years (to 2013) for the selected TOD developer to develop the East TaD Property; and WHEREAS. the patties also agree that if the proposed development does not proceed as scheduled. Sound Transit will not have secmed the commitment from a qualified develo-per within eighteen (18) months and will. therefore. convey the East TaD Property to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and assurances set forth herein, it is mutually agreed as follows: 2 Section 1. Amend Section 2~1.B of the Agreement Sound Transit and the City agree to amend Section 2.1.B of the Agreement by replacing the Section in its entirety as follows: B.. Sound Transit shall exert its best efforts, in consultation with the City, to obtain a qualified developer(s) who will develop the West TOD Property within five (5) years and the East TOD Property within five (5) seven (7) years of occupancy ofthe Project, consisteI)t with Sound Transit's adopted policies for TaD development. In the event that Sound Transit determines, in its sole judgffient, that a qualified TOD developer cannot be obtained through these good faith efforts, Sound Transit shall prepare and issue a Request for Proposals ("RFP"), at its sole expense and in consultation with the City, for development of the TOD Properties consistent with all applicable federal, stl;lte and local policies and regulations and at lease twelve (12) months prior to the anticipated occupancy ofthe Project. Section 2. Am~nd Section 2.2 of the Agreement. Sound Transit and the City agree to amend Section 2.2.B ofthe Agreement by replacing the Section in its entirety as follows: B. East TaD Property In the event that Sound Transit determines within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project that it is not able to secure a commitment from a qualified developer, who will agree to develop the East TOD Property within five (5)seven ill years of occupancy of the Project on terms and conditions acceptable to Sound Transit in its sole judgffient, or the developer does not commence construction of the TOD on the East TOD Property within five (5)seven 0) years of occupancy of the Project, Sound Transit shall convey the East TOD Property to the City consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations for such conveyances, the'terms of this Agreement, and for valuable consideration in the form of the City's assurance that any future development of the East TOD Property will be consistent with the definition of TOD in this Agreement. The City shall have seven (7) years from the time of the conveyance to de,velop a TOD project on the East TOD Property. The City agrees to consult with Sound Transit's Chief Executive Officer, or designee, when reviewing proposed projects and no City-led project shall proceed unless he Or she concurs with the City that the proposed project is consistent with the definition of TOD in this Agreement which concurrence. shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If the City is unable to develop a TOD project that Sound Transit agrees is consistent with the definition of TaD in this Agreement within seven (7) years of the conveyance to the City, the City shall either (1) retain. ownership of the East TOD Property and pay Sound Transit the full market 3 value of the property as determined by a mutually selected certified appraiser, less the value of permanent utility, access, and signage easements over, across and through. the East TOD Property necessary for Sound Transit's continued use and enjoyment of the Project property as mutually determined by the. Parties, or (2) transfer the East TOD Property back to Sound Transit at no cost to Sound Transit. In the event the City desires to develop the East TOD Property in a manner that is not consistent with the definition of TOD in this Agreement within seven (7) years of conveyance to' the City, the City shall pay Sound Transit the full market value of the property as determined by a mutually selected certified appraiser, less the value of permanent utility, access, and signage easements over, across and through the East TODProperty necessary for Sound Transit's continued use and enjoyment of the Project property as mutually determined by the Parties. . Section 2-d. Other Provisions of the Agreement Unchanged All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain, in their entirety, unchanged. CENTRALPUGETSOuND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY ("SOUND TRANSIT") CITY OF FEDERAL WAY: Joni M. Earl Chief Executive Officer . Neal Beets City Manager Date Date Attest: Laura Hathaway, CMC Approved as to form: Approved as to form: Stephen G. Sheehy Sound Transit Legal Counsel Patricia A. Richardson City Attorney 4 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 2, 2007 ITEM #:_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II (South 324th to 340th Street) Improvement Project - Final Acceptance POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council accept the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II (South 324th to 340th Street) Improvement Project constructed by DPK Inc. as complete? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation MEETING DATE: December18, 2006 CATEGORY: (gI Consent o City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other ~!~~~.!!~:.I.'.~_R.!_~_Y.~~Ei_a.:~_~~~~!:!~1_~~~.:.?_~!r.:~~!m~y.~.!.~~~__!>.~~.~~.g!l:g~I?:~~~ DEP!='m!.>._~~_!.!~~g~~~mo_____..__._m.__.____._.._ Attachments: LUTC memo dated December 18th, 2006 Options Considered: 1. Authorize final acceptance of the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II (South 324th to 340th Street) Improvement Project constructed by DPK Inc., in the amount of $8,076,601.87 as complete. 2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II (South 324th to 340th Street) Improvement Project constructed by DPK Inc. as complete and m____._._..__..J2!:~.~i~~_...~~~~_!i<?~_tom~tafL_____...._.__.._.._______m___om___._..m_.mom_._mom_._____m m_m._om__.._...._om_____.______.._.._ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CUY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: tPfrA. Committee' ~ Council Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the January 2, 2007 Council Consent Agenda for approval J;:'j~ Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member I PR ED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move approval affinal acceptance of the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II (South 324th to 34dh Street) Improvement Project constructed by DPK Inc., in the amount of $8, 076, 601.87 as complete." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # DATE: December 18, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee FROM: Neal Beets, City Manager Brian Roberts, P. E., Street Systems Project Engine~ VIA: SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South HOV Phase 11- Project Acceptance and Retainage Release BACKGROUND: Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The above-referenced contract with DPK Inc. is complete. The final construction contract amount is $8,076,601.87. This is $67,051.38 below the $8,143,653.25 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on June 3,2003. Staff will be present at the December 18th Land Use & Transportation meeting to answer any questions the Committee might have. k:\lulc\2006\12-18-06 Pacific Highway South HOV Phase 11- Project acceplance.doc cc: Projecl File COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 2,2007 ITEM #: _.....__......._.M.M....M.........._._M_._............~._._........Hm....................................__ .............__..__............__....._.....__ ......................................................_....__.................................._._..................... ..........................__................ ........_..__...........__._...___...__..___.._...............___ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: S 320th Street at 1 st A venue S Intersection Improvements Project - Reprioritization of Funds POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to not move forward with the S 320th Street at 1 Sl Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project and return to the Council when funding becomes available for further reports and authorization? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: Dec. 18,2006 CATEGORY: [8J Consent D City Council Business D D Ordinance Resolution D D Public Hearing Other ~T AFF.~_~.~2~!.~x:...M~~m~.~H~_~}:?:?:?_~!I:.t::_t::!.._~ystt::~.~mM.~~~g~!:..___.__mm.._..l.!~~:_!>._~_~y~~9-T-~_~._.._._._._._.__m____m_.._._.._ Attachments: 1. Staff LUTC Memo dated December 18, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to move forward with property acquisition for the S 320th Street at 1 st Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project, and return to the LUTC Committee when additional project funding becomes available for further reports and authorization. 2. Do not authorize staff to acquire the necessary property and return to the LUTC Committee when additional project funding becomes available for further reports and authorization. 3. Provide further direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: t1tIL Committee "" (U(.f\ Council Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee authorizes staff to forward Option 1 to the January 2, 2007 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dean McCol~, Member POSED COUNCIL MOTION: "Authorize staff to move forward with property acquisition for the 320th Street at rt Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project, and return to the LUTC Committee when additional projectfunding becomes available for further reports and authorization" (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # K:\COUNCIL\AGDBILLS\2007\1-02-07 S 320th at 1st Ave S - Reprioritization of Funds.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: December 18,2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal J. Beets, City Manager Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manage SUBJECT: S 320th Street at 1st Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project - 100% Design Status Report BACKGROUND: The 100% Design Status Report was previously presented to LUTC on August 7, 2006. At that meeting LUTC recommendation was "Authorize staff to acquire the necessary property and not move forward with the project until funding become avalible..." At the September 5,2006 Council meeting Council elected not to approve the Committee recommendation and voted to return this item back to LUCT for reprioritization of funds. Attached to this memo are the August 7, 2006 LUTC memo and September 5,2006 Council Agenda Bill. cc: Project File K:\LUTC\2006\12-18-06 S 320th Street at 1st Ave S Intersection Improvements - 100% Design Status Report.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Sept. 5,2006 ITEM #: 5 - i CITY OIi' FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: S 320th Street at 1st Avenue S Intersection Improvements Pro.eet - 00% Design Status Report POLlCY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to SfleWe the 320th Street at 1 s Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project and return to the COWlcil when funding becomes available for further reports and autho023tion? COMMITIEE: Land Use and Transportation Conunittee MEETING DATE: Aug_ 7,2006 . CATEGORY: [g] Consent o City Council Business o o Ordinance Resolution D Public Hearing Other STAFF REpORT By: Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Mana er Attachments: 1. Staff LUTC Memo dated August 7,2006. Options Con$idered: 1. Authorize staff to not move forward with property acquisition, shelve the S 320th Street at 1 51 Avenue S. Intersection Improvements Project, and retuin to the LUTC Committee when additional project funding becomes available for further reports and authorization. 2. Authorize staff to acquire the necessary property and then shelve the project. . 3. Authorize staff to move forward with property acquisition and not shelve this project. Provide further direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: Authorize staff to proceed with Option 2. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR Al'PROV AL: aw.... Commillee CGUllcil COMMITIEERECOMMENDATION: Committee authorizes staff to forward Option 2 to the Sept. 5,2006 City COWlcil Consent Agenda for approval. ClL MOTION: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNOL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (onfinnnces only) REVISED - 0210612006 COUNCIL BILL II 1ST reading Enac:lmtnt reading ORDINANCE II RESOLtmON # K:\COUNOL\AGDBIlL5\2oo6\09-OS-06 S 320lh allst Ave S - 100% design Status Report.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: July 31, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committe Derek MathesOn, Interim City Manager Marwan SaJloum, P .E., Street Systems Manager S 320th Street at j" Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project - J 00% Design Status Report BACKGROUND: This project will add a 2nd left-turn lane in all four directions, northbound, southbound and westbound right-turn lanes and widen 1 .1 Avenue S to five lanes from S 316th Street to S 320th Street. The traffic signal system will be modified to accommodate the added lanes. The existing span-wire emergency signal system at the Federal Way Fire Department will be replaced with a new signal. . The 100% design is complete. The right of way acquisition has not started as of yet PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPEND1TURES: Planning and Design ROW Acquisition (estimate) Construction cost 2006 (estimate) 10% Construction Contingency Construction Management (12%) $450,000 864,000 4,633,000 463,000 579,000 TOTAL PROJEcrCOSTS $6,989,0(1) AVAILABLE FUNDING: REET Fund Utility Tax Transfer in street CIP Fund Mitigation Interest $337,000 603,000 .217,000 169,000 58,000 TOTAL A V AJl.ABLE BUDGET $1,384,000 Given the project currently has a funding shortfall of $5,605,000; staff anticipates applying to the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) for grant funding to construct the project. The TIB grant application would be submitted assuming a 60/40 split of the total project cost or $4,193,400 TIB grant and $2,795,600 as city match. With $1,384,000 of City/mitigation funds currently available, the City would need to provide an additional $1,411,600 to satisfy the City match amount. In 2004 Staff applied and was not successful in obtaining TIB funding for this project as it was scoped in the 2004 TIP. At this time staff does not feel that this project will score high enough to get TIE funding even though it will qualify as a construction-ready project.. . cc: Project File Day File __..._._P_w_._._.....___.....w_...~._..._..._.._... ...._....._.__...._..ww._...__...._____..._._..........._..........._.............._......._P......_......._..__~......... ...__......_......_........_P..__ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 2, 2007 ITEM #:_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CIty COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 21st Avenue SW Extension - SW 356th Street to 22nd Avenue SW Improvements Project POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the 21st Avenue SW Extension Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: December 18, 2006 CATEGORY: [gJ Consent D City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other ~!~!._:g.~!O~1.:~Y._:_M_~~~._~~.~~um, P}~:-!_~!~~_~_(~y.~!~~.~.M~~ger -'--'-- ..._.!?_~tI.:::X~E.J.i.~__~_<2!ks__.____.____.____..______.____ Attachments: LUTC memo dated December 18th, 2006 .Qp!i~!!~.~on~_<.!~!:.~~_~.________.._____.____.__._...__.___.____._____________...__.._.__.__.________ _.________._.._______..__.____._____.__.._ 1. Award the 21st Avenue SW Extension Project to Rodarte Construction Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of $789,179.04 and approve a 10% contingency of $78,918.00, for a total of $868,097.04, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Award of Schedule B (Lakehaven's portion of the project) contingent upon Lakehaven Utility District Board approval to award Schedule B as bid. 2. Reject all bids for the 21st Avenue SW Extension Project and direct staff to rebid the project and return to Committee for further action 3. Do not award the 21st Avenue SW Extension Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. Council DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: M Committee (Wi'\.. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the January 2,2007 Council Consent Agenda for approval Qf- ' nc FaIson, Member Dean McColgan, Member PRO .0 . D COUNCIL MOTION: "Award the 21st Avenue SW Extension Project to Rodarte Construction Inc., the lowes responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of$789,179.04 and approve a 10% contingency of$78,918.00, for a total of $868,097.04, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Award of Schedule B (Lakehaven 's portion of the project) contingent upon Lakehaven Utility District Board approval to award Schedule B as bid" COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enaetment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: December 18, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beat, City Manager Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager' 21st Avenue SW Extension - SW 356th Street to 22 d Avenue SW Improvements Project- Bid award BACKGROUND Four (4) bids were received and opened on December 7,2006 for the 21st Avenue SW Extension Project, See attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Rodarte Construction Inc. with a total bid of $789,179.04. The low bid received was $59,179 (8%) above the engineer estimate. Reference checks on Rodarte Construction Inc. by City staff indicates that the contractor has performed similar work. As a result, City staff believes Rodarte Construction Inc. can successfully complete this project to the City's satisfaction. Therefore the lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Rodarte Construction Inc. in the amount of$789,179.04. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Planning and Design ROW Acquisition Construction cost (Bid amount) 10% Construction Contingency Construction Management TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $153,000 265,000 789,179 78,918 78,918 $1,365,015 AVAILABLE FUNDING: Grant Funding REET Fund Transfer in Street CIP Fund (2007 Budget) Lakehaven Utility District Mitigation Interest $500,000 307,000 238,000 190,508 (New Utility/Adjustment) 106,000 25,000 TOTAL A V AILABLE BUDGET $1,366,508 PROJECT BALANCE $1,493 cc: Project File K:\LUTC\2006\12-18-06 21st Ave SW Extension SW356th ST to 22nd Ave - Bid Award.doc m I- Z W :;; W > o It: lI.. ~ I- W W It: I- m ~ m '" w 0 j 0 Z '" > ,..: <( It: o W Z 1lI "'....:;; "'.-w O~O I-"'W I-~o wow WZI- ~ ~.~ mlt:C) ~ ~ an W .... lI.. :;: 0 m 0 z iii o in Z W I- >< W :;: m W j Z W ~ I- m N ~ ! w ~ ~ ~ o 'c;, o w ~ g ti ~ .. g ...0 in .5? ~ o 0: . .~ o u o o o o o '5 M .s :2 ~ "'8 o o " ~ ~ " ;;; -0 0'" .. OS: N ts ..: ffi ~ ~ 8~ ~ u '0 0. ~ ;;; g -0 .. ti 2 ... ~ iii 0 0 ~ 1: ~ i u '0 ll: 0. '. ::l c , 0 ~ ~ z S 0 ~ .2 ~1i .3 s o .. 00000000000 0000000000000000000000 cicicicicicicicicici~ciciciocidcicicicicicicicicicicicicicici~ciciciciciciciciciciciciciciciciciciciciciciodo OOOOOOOOO~~OO~OO~~O~~OOOOOOOOO~~~~OOOOOOOON~O~OO~OOOOOMOON ~~~~~~:~~~~~i~~~~~~~~:;~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~cim~~~~~~~$~ci6~~~m~m~ ~~~~~~;~~~ ~ M~~~~~~~ ;~~ ~~~ ~W~;~; WM ~~w ~~~~~~ ~ w ~ u '0 0. 000000000000000000000000000000000-00000000000000000000000000 ooooooooooooooooo~oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo00000 cicicicicici~~cim~ciciNci~~~ciN~cici~cicicicicicicici~~cicicicicicicicicicicicicici~ciciciNci~NciM . ~~~~~&~~~~~~~w~~;w~~~~a~~~~~~~~&~~~~&~wa~~~~a~~~~&~~W~W~i~ ~~~~m~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ a~~ ;;; -0 .. ooooooooooooooooooo~oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo00000 OOOOOOOOO~OOO~OOOOO~OOOOOOOOOOO~~OO~OOOOO~OOOOOOOOOOOV~~OOO o~oooocicio~o~o~~o~oo~ci~~N~oci~~N~~cioo~~oci~o~ciNciciciN~m~~ciNci~~o . O~O~OONO~~VOO~~VOO~~NO~NNw~~~m~~NmOW~O~~OV~~~N~~~~W~~~N~om ~~~~~~~~~m~;ii;~~~~~~~i;~i~mm~:m~~i~:~~~~~m~~~~~~:~i:mmm~m ~~~ ~i~~~ ~~ m~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ u .l: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~O~~OOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OO~OO~OOOOOOOOOOOOW~O~ OOOOOO~O~~OOO~OVONO~~V~MOOOOOOOO~~V~OONovmoooooo~ooow~~~NN ci~ciciciciMcim~ci~oN~~~~ci~~~~M~oci~~N~ci~~~~~ci~~~~~N~~ci~N~~~ciNciO~N &~&~qq~~~~~~&~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~m~~~~!~~~~~~ma~~~~~~~~~~~~i~ ~~m m$ ~~~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~; ~~~ ;;; -0 .. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOO~ ocioocicicicici~cicicicicici~~~cicicicicicici~~cicici~cicicicicioci~~cici~cicicicicicicicici~~Ncicici~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVMNmN~M~~N~vom~~~~~NOOO~NOO~O~N~~ooo~m~~~~~~ ~~~~~~6~~~~:q~~~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~;~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~: ~~~ ~m~.~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~m~ ~~~~~~i~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ & ~ u ~ 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000O~OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWOw~OOO ~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~a~gsaai~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~a~~~~~~~~~~gagg~~i ~~~~~~ m~~ t ~~~~~m~~ ~~~ ~ ~~;~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ Z;;w ggggggggggggg~gggggggggggggggggggggggggg~gggggggggggggggggg: cicicicicicicicicicicicici~cici~ci~~cicicicicicicici~ci~~~cicicicicici~~cici~cicicicicicici~~~~~ci~ci,~ OOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOVNNOO~NV~OOO~O~VMoomooo~~o~~OO~OWOO~~N~M~~W ~~~~~~~~~~~~i~6~~~~~:~~~~immri~~mi~i~~~:mimz;;~~~=~~~~~~mm~~~m~ $~WW~~~~~~~z;; ~~m~~~z;;~~~~~ ~~~ ~ z;;~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ 5 N '15 '" C> a. OOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOOOOO~O00000 ooooooOOOOOOONOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooowo~ooooooooooowo~movo gggggg~~~~ggg~g~~~~~~~~~gggg~g~g~g~~gg~~~~~ggggg~gg~g~gg~~~ ~~~~~~ w ~~~i 6~~ w~~~~w~~~m~;~~~~~m~~ ~wwm~~~~~~~~ ~ w ~~~wWi ~~ ~ ~w ~w W ~w ~ ~~~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000'0 ~~~~~~~~~ci~ci~~~ci~~~~~~d~~~dcidd~cidd~d~~~~dcid~~ddddd~~~~~~cidd~ ~&&&&&~~&~&&&i~~~a~~&~~~&~a~~&~~~~&~&~&~~~a~~~~~~&&&~&~~~~l:= ~~~;~5;~~~~~~ aa~ ~~$5~;~~ ~~~~$~~~a;~~~~ ~~~;a~~~m; ~;! . -- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~O~~ooo ooooooooooooooo~o~oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~o~wooo gggggg~g~~ggg~g~~g~~~g~~gggggg~g~~~ggg~~~i~gggggregggg~ggg~i ~;a~~~~w w~ai a~~ ~~~~~ ~~a~a~~~ ~~m~aw ~ wa~~~aWg~; ~ z;; ~ ~ w ~~ - o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~_~~~_,~~~~~~~~_~!~~~~!~~~N~~~m~~!~~~~!~~~~m~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~ N ~ _ N ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ e .~ !~; ~~ ~ :l g ~ ~~ :2:;~ .i~ S m ; 0 .2 ~8. ~~~ ~~ !is ';~~ E g II) ~ co: . :.ii1(i)~ o1il Sc € N Q.a.~ D > ~ ~ I 1il_ ~ ~ ;t ~ g~~ ~ ~~E~~ ~ ~t~~~ ~ E ~ ~ II) ~ ~ 8~ ~ ~~, ~~ 5 ii~ ~ ~;i~~ ~~!~~~~ Ii ~ s ~ ~ ~s~- ~u g OON~W E gEl 3 OmW€~~~O~O~~~ E~ u >0 :;:: 'E C\J .g m e C\J c "5 C\J ~ 0 l":l :u E ~ 'C 0 ~::::!E . .0 C :J ~ 0 II) ~ Cl) ~ 1U S 0 = ~ ~~ 0 ~8~C\JCO U)-C\J5 lI)Q.v~o v 'CD~ 'C EE~o~ui=~C\J~~~~ 0 E Cl) 'C ~~ ~ ~=~~Si ~~~~ ~~~I(i)~~c~~~ ~ ~i.~~~~!;!E!~i~~D~~ ~~ ~ ~!i ~ ~o~~~~ UJS: ,,~~g8.!))~~ ~ ~fi~~E~~~ScO~~~:2ilt~~ ~g~ ~Cl)wC\J 2 W8u~e~ ~~~~~gg~BS~~m~oBg~o W~I~~~1il~~~~::C\J:w~~~~ ~:~. c~c~ oc~~~c~'C ~~~~~ii~oo .ccfifi-ooi~& ~~o~cc~cc~~cc~cg~w~~ I=~ ~~;~;ggm~i@~~D~~~osC\Jwoo~~il)mmr~~~~~~8s~SSISSC\JcSS~Sig~~~~~ee :J02e~~~eb~2~~~E~C\J~o~~~~-~m~ooU~ea=:JDCU cEocE~~EcC\JE~C\JC~~~'C~o ! ~1~f81~~~~~f~~~~t~!~~~~I~~~II~~~tl~~~~t~~~~~I~~~I~~~~~~~i~1 = ~~8~~~~~55S~G~~~&a~a~~~6ti~~~~8~~I~~~~S~~~~~~<<~~~~~~~~~~~:~~ ~~M~~w~oom~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <"''''<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<'''<<<<'''<<<<<<<'''<<<<<<< m I- Z W ::!: W > o iii: Q. ~ I- W W iii: I- m ~ m W ::;) Z ~ ~ c W Z lD :::~~ O"'U I-U>W I-~C wow WZI- ~~~ mlli:C) i!: :!!: U> Z on W .... Q. 3: 0 !!!. C Z iii o iii Z W I- )( W 3: m W ::;) Z ~ I- m ... N m ~ w ~ c .~ w ~ g '8< h ..,.g-ri :'S! 0 g aI.!? E e '" 0/1. '" '" .~ o o o c gc.( .,~~ 'O~~ iii~~ c <Il ~ :; ~ (; 0<( 0;;; ~ ts (l) in ~ E BJ> U> (> (> N u c ~ .~ q: P ffi~s o~ m<( 1: & IX: ^ I ^ m I ~ I Z! o c -g 0 ~~ .3 Jj ~ oooooooooooooooooooonrr 00000000000000000000 dciodocicici~cidddci~cicidcici . ~O~~OO~~ONOOO~O~~~OOO ~q~~~q~~~~~q~~~~~~~qq . M~~~~~re~~~~:~ ~~ ;~ ~ !R6I) U) IR 8 'C 0. 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 'cicidcici~~ci~cicicicici~ciMcicicici ~8~~mg~$~~~am~~~~IR~ggg ~~ e 0 ~ III) 6I)~~~ .. .. ;; o I- gg~$gg~~ggggg~g~gggg~gl ~~~Ngg~~g~Rg~g~~~g~g~~~ N~nO~~~~~MN~OM~~~~~NNM~ :~~i~~~~IR~~~~6I)~~~IR~lRt~i m u Ii. gggSgg~~~ggg~~~~gggg~g ~N~cicici~~N~N ~ci~~~ci~ci~~ re~~~m~~~;m~OM ;~~w~~~~ a~ ~ IRIRIR~ ~ ~IR~~ ;; o I- ggg8ggg8gggggggggggggg~ ggggggggg~~gggg~gg~dgg~ o~~~~~~~m~N_N~~N~~N~~~~ ~~~~~~~~;~ig~~tm~~~~g~= .. ....; m u 'C 0. gggggggggggg8ggg8ggggg dodddci~NN~M~NOd~d.ddcio g~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~g ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~w ;; o I- ggggggggggggggggggggggg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~a~;~~a~~~m~W~~~~~ .. m u 0. gggggg~gggg~~gggg~gggg cici~~cici~~~O~~MOci~ciNd~do g~~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~S g~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~~~~ .. ;; ;; I- ggggggggggg8ggg8gg8ggg~ gg~~g~g~g~~gggggg~gggg~ i:aa~ ;~m2aia~;~2~2maa; b'l 'lit ~iIt . 8 'C 0. ggg8gg8gggggg8ggg~g8gg cici~cid~ci~~~~~NOciodNoodo ~~~~~~~2~~2m~~~m~~~~~~ a~ $ ~ ~ ~~ 'c :> ~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __~~~_oOO~~OO~M~_O_~N~ (1)<0..,. SM""NCO~(I) ~.n g o E '" ~ IE g ~g ~ ~~ ~~ J ~~ ; I ~~ ~ ~ic~~ 0 :~ a ~~~=~ ~ K m ~o E~ ~~E~c ~~ ~ 0 ~ t ~i ~~ 8~~j~ !~ ~ : ~; 1; .~u:o"'EQ.~g.e~lI'I~ Gig E ~J!:o~.~ ::g.~ii~~~E~~~.i~ :g-; ~ iE~w j~;jjO~~~I!~~~~~I&g =~i~ ~w22~~~e~~~~~~~5~~~~<~~ mcg-co~~8w<c~w -o~o~ = ~ 3~u88~~~~~~~oo~g~~~>~i:~ ~~s~~~u~~~K~~~wo~gg~~m~g ~1~~~g~~gg~I~~~~a~~o~~~~ w~o~~o~ooo~<~~~~~u<k<<zo~ O.....C\l(f')<!;fl.O<D""'"CO mO.....C\l ~~~~~~~mmmmmmmmmmmm~~~ <"> ., .. v ,..: .. l'3 ~ ,.; .. ~ ... .. a .., ...... s .iQ ;i ; ... ; .. '2 ,~ ; ~ I~ v .. ~ a :Jl ..~ ; ~ .,; I- '" ~ Ol w ..., z:>'- co w a .. ~ ~ :> II> .. = .. ! .. .. ..: ~ ... 1:1 .. <Il"'''' www >->->- ! = ~ lil "''''<Il www >->->- 2 I:; .. li '" '0 '" " C> a. "''''''' www >->->- :,~ f6 "'<Il'" www >>> '0 m 0> '" ~ .l; ~:i !!~ w~&) :g:g:g "'<("' COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 2, 2007 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJ'ECT: Lakehaven Utility District Interlocal Agreement; 21 st Avenue SW Extension Project POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to enter into an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Federal Way and Lakehaven Utility District for 21 st Ave SW Extension Project for the construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer facilities? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: December 18,2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent D City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution o Public Hearing o Other DEPT: Public Works ST AF~.:t.!~~2~!m~X_:_M~~~~~1..!9.!:1.!.!1.?_~~~~l_~)'..~.!~~_.Manag~~__.__..._. Attachments: Memo to Land Use / Transportation Committee dated December 18,2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to enter into an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Federal Way and Lakehaven Utility District for the construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer facilities as part of the 21 st Avenue SW Extension Project 2. Do not authorize staff to proceed and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: to Council DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: t#J<..... to Committee fl41(( To Council lace Option 1 on the January 2, 2007 Council Consent Agenda for approval Dean McColgan, Member ION: "Authorize staff to enter into an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Fede Way and a aven Utility District for the construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer facilities as part of the 21" Avenue SW Extension Project" G::Lf::: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/0612006 COUNCIL BILL # 1ST reading Enaetment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: December 18,2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beat, City Manager .~.--- Marwan Salloum, P .E., Street Systems Manager ~ lnterlocal Agreement with Lakehaven Utility District for the construction of 21'/ Avenue SW extension project BACKGROUND: Lakehaven Utility District requested the City to enter into an interlocal agreement for the construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer facilities as part of the 21 sl Avenue SW extension project in an effort to reduce both cost and extended public disruption of the area. Copy of the proposed agreernent is attached to this memo. The estimated cost of the interlocal agreement is $190,508.43 this includes the cost for bidding document incorporation, construction, construction management and project administration. Actual construction costs incurred will be used to calculate fiNal cost of Lake haven Utility District's reimbursement to the City. . K:\UITC\2006\12-1S.06 LUO lnlet10cal Agreement for 21st Avenue SoN Extension.doc After recording, return to: Federal Way City Attorney's Office 33325 8th Avenue South POBox 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AND LAKEHA VEN UTILITY DISTRICT FOR THE 21 st AVENUE SW EXTENSION (SW 356TH STREET TO 22ND AVENUE SW) STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _ day of , 2006, by and between the City of Federal Way (hereinafter "City") and Lakehaven Utility District (hereinafter "District"), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". WHEREAS, the City proposes to proceed w.ith the 21st Avenue SW Extension (SW 356th Street to 22nd Avenue SW) Street Improvement Project (hereinafter "Project"); and WHEREAS, the District provides water and sewer service in the general area of the Project in accordance' with applicable Washington State and City of Federal Way laws, regulations and franchises; and WHEREAS, in connection with the roadway improvements being undertaken by the City, the District will be required to construct certain water and sanitary sewer facilities within the Project area; and WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other entities to provide services in a manner best serving the needs and development of their local communities; and WHEREAS, the District can achieve cost savings and other benefits in the public's interest by contracting with the City to perform certain services for the District, including allowing a public works construction contract for the installation of the water and sewer improvements in connection with the Project (hereinafter "District Work"), and providing construction management services in support thereof, as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby covenanted and agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: 1. DESIGN. The District shall perform all required design work for the construction of water and sewer facilities within the project limits. District shall reimburse the City for all costs for the City consultant to incorporate the Lakehaven design into the project plans, specifications and cost estimate as outlined in Exhibit A, and other necessary documents, which shall sufficiently detail requirements for the District Work to become a part of the plans and specifications for the Project into Contract documents for this project. K:\LUTC\2006\12-llHl6 WD Inler10cal Agreement for 21st Avenue SoN Extension.doc II. BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION. A. It is the intention of the City and the District that the District plans and specifications shall be incorporated into the Contract Bid Documents for the Project in such manner as to allow, to the extent possible, identification of cost allocations between the Parties. B. Following opening of construction bids on the Project, the District shall be furnished with the bid responses submitted for the District Work for the District's approval. Within twenty days ofreceiving the bid prices, the District shall notify the City in writing that the District either approves or rejects their portion of the bid award. Bid award shall be made to the lowest responsible bidder for the total Project subject to applicable laws and regulations. The City shall not proceed with the District Work until the City has received approval from the District for its portion of the bid award; provided, however: if no bids are received which, in the estimation of the District, are acceptable to the District for the District Work, the District shall so immediately notify the City. The District Work shall be deleted from the project contract and, in this event; the City shall proceed with its portion of the Project. This Interlocal Agreement shall terminate effective the date of the District's notice to the City of the District's rejection of all bids. III. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. A. The City shall provide the necessary administrative, construction observation, and clerical services necessary for the execution of the Project. In providing such services, the City Public Works Director and/or his or her designee may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties vested by law in him or her. The District grants to the City Public Works Director and/or his or her designee authority to act on behalf of the District sufficient to carry out the provisions of this Agreement. B. The District shall notify the City, in writing, of any changes it wishes to make in the plans and specifications which affect the District Work, which changes shall be made, if feasible. The City shall notify the District, in writing, of any changes required of the District Work and shall obtain the District's approval of such changes. The District's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The District shall be responsible for all costs incurred, directly or indirectly, as a result of these or any other changes required or requested by the District. IV. PAYMENT. A. The District shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in performing the District Work, which costs shall include but are not limited to the District Work performed by the Project contractor( s), all District requested changes, and the District's cost of the City services described in Paragraph III (a) herein, and as described in Exhibit B. B. All payments shall be due from the District to the City within thirty (30) days after approval by the District's General Manager or his/her designee of the sums billed to the District. Amounts unpaid after said due date shall accrue interest at a rate of one (1) percent per month. V. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS. A. The City agrees to indemnify and hold the District, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, actions and liabilities (including costs and all attorney fees) to or by any and all. persons or entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or representatives, arising or resulting from, or connected with, this Agreement to the extent caused by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the City, its agents or employees, or by the City's breach of this Agreement. K:\LIJTC\2006\12-11Hl6 LUD Inler10cal Agreement for 21st Avenue SW Extension.doc B. The District agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, actions and liabilities (including costs and all attorney fees) to or by any and all persons or entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or representatives, arising or resulting from, or connected with, this Agreement to the extent caused by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the District, its agents or employees, or by District's breach of this Agreement. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement with respect to any event occurring prior to such expiration or termination. VI. DURATION. This agreement shall become effective immediately upon execution by both parties. This Agreement shall continue in force until either (1) the District rejects all bids or (2) the City Council accepts the completion of the project, whichever is earlier. . VII. OTHER PROVISIONS. A. The City shall retain ownership and usual maintenance responsibility for the roadway, storm drainage system, sidewalks, landscaping, traffic signals and all other appurtenances related thereto. B. Upon completion of the construction and City's acceptance of the Project as fully constructed according to plans, specifications and change orders, the City shall provide a final invoice to the District for any final payment due. The District's payment of this final invoice shall, in effect, transfer ownership of these water and sewer mains and appurtenances to the District and the District shall thereafter be responsible for maintenance of such facilities. C. This Agreement contains the entire written agreement of the Parties and supersedes all prior discussion. This Agreement may be amended only in writing, signed by both Parties. D. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from the date of signature by all Parties to the date the City completes the Final Inspection upon completion of the Project and may be extended for additional periods of time upon mutual written agreement of the City and District. Adherence to deadline dates is essential to the performance of this Interlocal Agreement. E. Any provision of this Agreement, which is declared invalid, void or illegal shall in no way affect, impair, or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. IN CONSIDERATION ofthe mutual benefit accruing herein, the Parties hereto agree that the work, as set forth herein, will be performed by the City under the terms ofthis Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY LAKEHA VEN UTILITY DISTRICT City Manager, Neal Beets General Manager, Donald Perry APPROVED AS TO FORM: K:\UlTC\2006\12.1lHl6 LUD Inter\ocal Agreement for 21st A"""ue SW ExtenSion.doc APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson General Counsel, Steven H. Pritchett ATTEST: City Clerk, Laura Hathaway, C.M.C. k: Istreetslprojectsl2 JS! SW @ SW 356'11\lakehaven\ila-lakehaven 21" Ave SW Extension. doc K:\UJTC\2006\12.18-06 LUD lnlerlocal Agreement for 21st Avenue SoN Extension.doc EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Water and Sewer Design and Construction City of Federal Way 21st Avenue SW Extension (SW 356th Street to 22nd Avenue SW) Introduction The purpose of this supplement is to provide for the addition of water and sewer system mains into the 21 Sl Avenue SW Extension project. Lakehaven Utility District, through a separate agreement, will prepare the water and sewer plans, specifications, and opinion of-cost. Perteet, Inc. will incorporate the Lakehaven work into the plans, specifications and opinion of cost for the roadway improvements. The sewer and water work will be included under a separate bid schedule from that of the roadway extension work. Perteet Inc. assumes no responsibility for the correctness of the design or the compatibility of these sewer and water main systems with the roadway extension improvements. The scope of the project remains the same as under the original contract: design services includes grading; drainage, asphalt concrete pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, illumination, and modification of the traffic signal at 21st Avenue SW and SW 356th Street. The work under this supplement will be accomplished under the following division of work: 1. OProject Administration The consultant shall prepare the needed revisions to contract documents related to this supplement and provide project documentation and administration. 9.0 Final Contract Documents 9.6 Lakehaven Utility District PS&E Additions Revise Plans - A reproducible (camera ready) set of plans will be provided to Perteet, Inc. Plan sheet numbers will be established and place on the sheets prior to being submitted for addition to the current plan set. Perteet, Inc. will modify the following sheets in the current plan set: Title and Index Legend and Abbreviations All sheets will be renumbered to indicate the new total sheet count in the final plan set. Revise Specifications - Specifications and special provisions needed for the Lakehaven Utility District water and sewer mains will be provided to Perteet, Inc. in a state ready to be incorporated into the contract documents. The added specifications and special provisions will be included in a separate section of the provisions appended to the current document. The Special Provisions Table of contents will be modified to include the additional specifications and special provisions. K:\LlITC\200G\t2-Is-aG LUD Interlocal Agreement for 21st Avenue sw Extension.doc Revise Opinion of Cost - Perteet will modify the current Opinion of Cost spreadsheets and incorporate the needed water and sanitary sewer items as provided by Lakehaven Utility District. The Opinion of Cost will be revised to show the water and sewer items in separate Opinion of Cost schedule. Revise Proposal Documents - Opinion of Cost revisions will be the reflected in an update to the bid proposal documents. This section of the bid documents will be updated with any additional requirements needed by Lakehaven Utility District. Package Reassembly - Perteet will revise and arrange the plans, specification and bid proposal documents and prepare an integrated, revised copy, ready for reproduction. Items To Be Modified And Furnished 1. Plans 2. Opinion of Cost 3. Specifications 4. Proposal Documents 5. Integrated PS&E Package K:\LlITC\2006\12-llHl6 LUD lnterlocal Agreement for 21st Avenue SW Extension.doc EXHffiIT "B" Water and Sewer Design and Construction City of Federal Way 21st Avenue SW Extension (SW 356th Street to 22nd A venue SW) ESTIMATED DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT COSTS FOR INCLUDING LAKEHA VEN UTILITY DISTRICT UTILITY WATER AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION ESTIMA TED BIDDING DOCUMENT INCORPORA TION Estimated design costs for Lakehaven utility replacements (PERTEET) $ 3,093.68 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction Costs Subtotal Construction $145,705.00 $145,705.00 Sales Tax @ 8.8% of Construction Cost $ 12,822.04 Subtotal Construction Including Sales Tax $158,527.04 Construction Management (12.5% of Construction cost.) $ 19,815.88 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $178,342.92 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (Design & Construction) $181,436.60 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 9.071.83 $190.508.43 Project Administration (5% of project cost) Note: Costs presented are estimates only. Actual costs incurred will be used to calculate final cost of Lakehaven Utility District's reimbursement to the City. K:\LIJTC\2006\12-11Hl6 LUD Inter10cal Agreement for 21st Avenue SW Extension.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 2, 2007 ITEM #: .....~.._..........._._.._....._......._....._ ............_............_.......__.........._ ....n._............................_ ....___m...................._... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Acceptance of Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council authorize staff to accept TIB grant funding .for S 348t/J Street HOV Lanes improvement projects? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: December 18, 2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent o City Council Business D Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other ST AF_F.:.~~.!'_Q~!_~y.~~l~~!~!.lJ~};;:_~.!1.:~~!_.~J~tems ~!.~j~~t E;!!,gi.!!.~.~!.. _..__._._~~~!...:_.~u~~c..~~_~_~~___________.. Attachments: LUTC Memorandum; Acceptance of Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to accept the 2008 Urban Corridor Program (State Transportation Improvement Board) grant in the amount of $2,739,000 for the S 348th Street HOV Lanes - 9th Ave South to SR 99 2. Do not accept grant funding and provide direction to staff -.--........-..-.......--..-.......-.....---.....--....---.-.-...-....,........--...............-......-------............................_...._....,_._.__...._.._~_.._.__._._..._--_.-.._....._-..-.........--.-........- ......................-...-. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option # 1; Authorize staff to accept the 2008 Urban Corridor Program (State Transportation Improvement Board) grant in the amount of$2,739,000 for the S348th Street HOV Lanes - 9th Ave South to SR 99 CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~ DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Committee ~ Council Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the January 2, 2007 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Authorize staff to accept the 2008 Urban Corridor Program (State Transportation Improvement Board) grant in the amount of $2,739,000 for the S348th Street HOV Lanes - 9th Ave South to SR 99 ;;jj- Eric FaIson, Member Dean McColgan, Member PRO SED COU MOTION: "I move to authorize stajJto accept the 2008 Urban Corridor Program (State Transportation Improvement Board) grant in the amount of $2,739,000 for the S 348th Street HOV Lanes - 9''' Ave South to'SR 99"_ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 . COUNCIL BILL # I ST reading Enaetment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: December 18, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beat, City Manager (),duJ FROM: Al Emter, P.E., Street Systems Project Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Grant Fundingfor Transportation Improvement Projects BACKGROUND: This memorandum provides the Council with the current status of the grant applications submitted in 2006, grant funding received to date, and required match. GRANT FUNDING REQUIRED MATCH S 348th Street BOV Lanes - 9th Ave South to SR 99 (Desi~n, Ri~ht of Way and Construction) 2008 Urban Corridor Program (TIB) $2,739,000 $1,826,000 Pacific Highway At S356th Street Intersection Improvements (Design, Right otWay and Construction) 2008 Urban Corridor Program (TIB) No funding was awarded cc: Project File