HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-2012_Council Workshop
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA
coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
WORKSHOP ITEMS ~ NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN
1. (30 min) Fire / EMS Funding Overview ATTACHMENT A
2. (5 min) Ordinance Amending AMC 3.32 regarding Gambling taxes ATTACHMENT B
3. (30 min) WASA Form-Based Code Draft ATTACHMENT C
4. (10 min) FAA grant & Property Purchase and Sales Agreement ATTACHMENT D
5. (10 min) Perteet, Inc. – Supplement #2 to the 173rd St NE Design
Contract
ATTACHMENT E
6. (10 min) Design Contract with Murray Smith Associates (MSA) for
Prairie Creek Storm Drainage, Phase I
ATTACHMENT F
7. (5 min) Resolution - Rejection of StripeRite Bid for street line
painting
ATTACHMENT G
8. Miscellaneous Council Items
PUBLIC COMMENT
For members of the public to speak to the Council regarding matters on the Council Workshop agenda.
Please limit your remarks to three minutes.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Consideration of real estate lease or purchase or price [RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)-(c)]
ADJOURNMENT
To open all attachments, click here
Arlington City Council Workshop
July 9, 2012 – 7 PM
City Council Chambers ~ 110 E. Third
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #1
Attachment
A
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
July 9, 2012
SUBJECT:
Fire / EMS Funding Overview
ATTACHMENTS:
Fire / EMS Budgets from 2011 and 2012
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Finance; Contact: Jim Chase – 360-403-3422
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Staff will review the funding for Fire and EMS with Council.
HISTORY:
ALTERNATIVES
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action.
Fire Department - General Fund
Actual Budget
2011 2012
Revenues
Taxes - amount needed to cover expenditures 1,948,426 2,034,537
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant 88,858 43,340
Fire District #21 Service Agreement 48,879 51,323
Transfer from Airport - Fire Service 242,325 242,350
General Fund Revenues and Transfers for Fire Dept.2,328,488$ 2,371,550$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries 1,623,362 1,575,650
Benefits 447,463 534,000
Supplies 35,108 31,500
Charges for Services 73,856 68,900
Intergovernmental - Dispatch 60,574 50,175
Capital Outlays 5,555 5,400
Interfund Equipment Rental Fees 82,570 105,925
Total Fire Department Expenditures 2,328,488$ 2,371,550$
Other Revenues needed to cover Expenditures - -
To show the amount of revenue needed using property taxes, the following is provided.
Assessed Value (AV) - City of Arlington 2,018,675,444$ 1,822,509,261$
Taxes needed from above - Levy Rate per $1,000 AV 0.97$ 1.12$
Levy Rate w/o Transfer from Airport- Another District would not receive 1.09$ 1.25$
EMS Levy 0.47$ 0.50$
Total Levy 1.56$ 1.75$
Included in recent presentation by the Fire Chief 1.76$
Arlington's General levy rate per $1,000 or AV for each year 1.17$ 1.31$
Emergency Medical Services Fund
Actual Budget
2011 2012
Revenues
Property Taxes-Arlington 952,517 915,000
Property Taxes-Fie Dist 21 552,157 385,000
Property Taxes-Fire Dist 24 97,979 100,000
Property Taxes-Fire Dist 25 55,650 46,000
Dept of Health Grant 1,738 1,600
Stilly Tribe 3,300 -
Transport Fees 813,570 840,000
Transfer from Airport - EMS Service 120,120 120,120
Investment Interest 1,170 1,000
Total EMS Fund Revenues 2,598,201 2,408,720
EXPENDITURES
Salaries 1,452,144 1,478,575
Benefits 392,722 504,125
Supplies 53,826 68,800
Charges for Services 213,340 264,350
Intergovernmental - EMS Council 42,314 9,600
Non-Expenditures - Refunds - 3,000
Capital Outlays 39,190 32,500
Debt Service 27,479 -
Interfund Equipment Rental 217,600 146,800
Accounting & Administrative Services to Gen Fund 125,400 118,200
Total Emergency Medical Services Fund Expenditures 2,564,015 2,625,950
Fund Profit/(Loss)34,186 (217,230)
Assessed Value (AV) - City of Arlington for each year -2,018,675,444$ 1,822,509,261$
Levy Rate per $1,000 AV needed 0.47 0.50
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #2
Attachment
B
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
July 9, 2012
SUBJECT:
Update of AMC Chapter 3.32
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Ordinance updating AMC Chapter 3.32
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Executive, Contact: Kristin Banfield, 360-403-3444
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
As part of the review of gambling establishments recently completed, the Planning
Commission recommends adopting a stratified taxation system, similar to the one in
place in Tukwila. The taxes levied on gambling establishments would increase if
additional card rooms were to locate within the city limits.
HISTORY:
The owners of Ace’s Casino requested a change to the Land Use Code regarding the
locations allowed to have gambling establishments within the City limits of Arlington.
Through this process, the Planning Commission also recommended that the City
review and consider an update to the tax structure on gambling establishments.
ALTERNATIVES
Approve
Deny
Remand to staff for further analysis
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action at this time.
ORDINANCE NO. 1474 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2012--XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON
AMENDING ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 3.32 REGARDING GAMBLING TAXES
WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to enact laws to tax
certain activities occurring within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the gambling tax rates within the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is in the best interests of its citizens to modify
the gambling tax provisions of the City code;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Arlington Municipal Code section 3.32.050 shall be amended to read as
follows:
3.32.050 - Tax on social card games.
(a) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (b), below, there is levied upon and shall be
collected from and paid as hereinafter provided by every person, association, or organization
conducting social card games, as authorized pursuant to RCW Chapter 9.46 and this chapter, a
tax on the gross revenue received from the conducting of such social card games, as follows:
(1) Seven percent for the period beginning on the effective date of this section
through December 31, 2012;
(2) Eight percent for the period beginning January 1, 2013 through December
31, 2013;
(3) Nine percent for the period beginning January 1, 2014 through December
31, 2014;
(4) Ten percent for the period beginning January 1, 2015 through December
31, 2015;
(5) Eleven percent for the period beginning January 1, 2016 through
December 31, 2016; and
(6) Twelve percent for all periods beginning January 1, 2017;
provided, however, that subject to the requirements of RCW 9.46.113, any such funds collected
shall be used for public safety capital and equipment expenses.
(b) When the number of operating social card game establishments exceeds one, then the tax
on the gross revenue received from social card games shall be established at fifteen percent
Formatted: Font color: Custom
Color(RGB(34,24,168))
Formatted: Font color: Custom
Color(RGB(34,24,168))
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-XXX 2
(15.0%) when there are two social card game establishments, and twenty percent (20.0%) when
there are more than two social card game establishments.
For purposes of this provision, an operating social card game establishment is defined as: a social
card game establishment open to the public and engaged in the business of operating a social
card game for a period of thirty (30) days. For purposes of this section, the thirty (30) days are
not required to be consecutive days. After the first thirty (30) days of operations, which will
trigger the increased tax rate, the Finance Director or his or her designee, shall notify the social
card game establishments of the increased rate and that rate shall be paid thereafter by all card
rooms in this tax category, starting the fiscal quarter after notification.
Section 2. Arlington Municipal Code section 3.32.110 shall be amended to read as
follows:
(a) Whenever, upon petition by a taxpayer for a refund or otherwise, the finance director
determines that a sum paid under this chapter was in excess of the amount properly due
within a threeone-year period preceding the determination or written petition for a refund,
and a refund is payable, the finance director credits the overpayment to the taxpayer's
account or refunds it at the taxpayer's option. The finance director's decisions may be
appealed as provided in Section 3.32.130
Section 3. Arlington Municipal Code section 3.32.130 shall be amended to read as
follows:
3.32.130 - Appeals.
(a) The finance director's determination of tax owing, including penalties and interest, may
be appealed by filing, in proper form, an appeal with the finance director within twenty
days of the date of determination. Copies are also to be provided by the appealing party
in such time to the city attorney. The date of determination is the date reflected therein or,
if mailed, three days from the date of mailing, whichever is later. "Filing" requires actual
receipt. As a further condition of appeal, a taxpayer must tender to the city treasurer,
pending the outcome of the appeal, the full amount of all taxes, fees, penalties and
delinquencies assessed by the city. The taxpayer must further pay a filing fee in an
amount to be established by city resolution.
(b) To be accepted, in proper form, as timely, appeals must show:
(1) The taxpayer's name, telephone number and business address;
(2) The tax period and taxpayer's gross revenue from business activity in the city for
that period with which the appeal is concerned;
ORDINANCE NO. 1474 3
(3) A receipt or other proof from the city treasurer showing payment of the amount
determined owing by the department;
(4) The amount of tax, interest and penalty the taxpayer contends is due and method
of calculation; and
(5) Reasons why a correction should be granted.
The appeal must be signed, verified under oath and dated by an authorized representative
of the taxpayer.
(c) Appeals hearings shall be held before the city councilhearing examiner. At the hearing,
the determination appealed from is regarded as prima facie correct. The city
councilhearing examiner, by subpoena, may require any person to attend the hearing and
may also require any person to testify under oath and upon personal knowledge and to
produce documents or records deemed relevant or necessary. It shall be unlawful for any
person with such subpoena to fail to appear at the time and place stated, to fail to produce
the books and records requested, if any, or to fail to testify truthfully.
(d) The city councilhearing examiner shall preserve a record or the hearing in such form and
manner as is deemed proper. The city councilhearing examiner may reverse or modify the
finance director's decision and may assess the correct amount of tax, penalty, or interest
due if the council hearing examiner determines the assessment violates the provisions of
this chapter or is contrary to law. The decision of the city councilhearing examiner is
final, subject to review by either party under the provisions of RCW 7.16.040, so long as
the appealing party files and serves upon all necessary parties the petition for granting a
writ of review within twenty days of the date of issuance of the council's decision.
Section 4. Arlington Municipal Code section 3.32.170 shall be amended to read as
follows:
3.32.170 - Tax constitutes debt—Right of recovery.
Any tax due and unpaid under this chapter and all penalties thereon shall constitute a debt
to Arlington, a municipal corporation, and may be collected by court proceedings in the
same manner as any other debt in like amount, which remedy shall be in addition to all
other existing remedies. The right of recovery by the city from the taxpayer for any tax
provided hereunder shall be outlawed after the expiration of three five years pursuant to
RCW 9.46.350, and the right of recovery against the city because of overpayment of tax
by any taxpayer shall be outlawed after the expiration of tree yearsone year, after which
time the taxpayer shall have no right of recovery against the city of Arlington.
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-XXX 4
Section 5. Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five days from its adoption
and publication as required by law.
PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this _____ day of
_______________, 2012.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
Attest:
Kristin Banfield, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Steven J. Peiffle
City Attorney
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #3
Attachment
C
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
July 9, 2012
SUBJECT:
West Arlington Form-Based Code/Transfer of Development Rights Project – Draft Code
Amendments
ATTACHMENTS
1. Presentation Slides
2. June 12, 2012 DRAFT (available on project website)
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Community Development – Todd Hall, David Kuhl
EXPENDITURES N/A
BUDGET CATEGORY N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Presentation regarding key concepts and plans for future code amendments in the West
Arlington Sub Area. The regulations address land use, site planning, building design, and
related infrastructure improvements necessary for the eventual transformation of the sub area
into a mixed-use center with a range of residential densities and non-residential retail, service,
industrial and institutional uses. The proposed regulations provide incentives for well-
designed and sustainable development through a flexible process of project-level planning and
design. The City’s existing transfer of development rights program will be expanded to
provide further incentives in the sub area increasing the economic potential of project
development.
HISTORY:
Community Development and Public Works staff, and consultants from MAKERS Architecture
and Urban Design, have been developing new form-based code for the West Arlington Sub
Area. The process began after the adoption of the West Arlington Sub Area Plan was adopted
in February 2011. Since then, two public workshops, several subcommittee meetings and
informational meetings at Planning Commission and City Council have been held to discuss
the draft regulations and comprehensive plan amendments. It is expected that the new code
and comp plan amendments will be adopted in October.
ALTERNATIVES
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
None at this time. Staff will recommend that public hearings be held at both Planning
Commission and City Council later this summer prior to anticipated adoption in October.
6/27/2012
1
WEST ARLINGTON SUBAREA
FORM-BASED CODE & TDR
COMPONENTS
July 9, 2012 City Council Workshop
Project Background & Purpose
Implement Subarea Plan
Protect Stilly Valley
6/27/2012
2
Code Organization
New Chapter 20.42
Part I – Intent & Administration
Part II – Regulating Plan
Part III – Street Design & Amenities
Part IV – Development Frontages & Site Design
Part V – Building Design
Part VI – General Design Provisions
Part VII – Housing Type Standards
Minor changes to other code sections
How the Code is Applied
Intent
Standards
Guidelines
Departures
6/27/2012
3
Design Review
Currently – All projects >$100,000 construction
value must go through design review
Public meeting (not hearing)
Review board recommendation
Director decision
Proposed – design review process required for:
Commercial buildings >15,000sf floor area
Multifamily buildings >10 dwelling units
Applications requesting design “departures”
Page 6
What about Building Additions?
Determine how to apply additions and remodels to
design standards: Three levels of improvements
Level I: up to 50% increase in building footprint:
only improvements meet standards
Level II: up to 100% increase in building footprint: All
standards that do not involve repositioning building or
site improvements
Level III:> than 100% increase in footprint:
All standards
Page 7
6/27/2012
4
Current
Zoning
Draft
Regulating
Map
Page 11
6/27/2012
5
Current Use Chart
Proposed Use Chart
6/27/2012
6
Special District 1 Uses
Broad mix of retail
General service uses
(not personal services)
No office or medical
(some disagreement)
No residential
Pages 13-17
Special District 2 Uses
Mix of small to medium
scaled retail
General & personal
service uses
Small scale offices OK
Multifamily OK on east
side in mixed-use
development OR WITH
TDR
Pages 13-17
6/27/2012
7
Special District 3 Uses
Broad mix of retail
General & personal service
uses
Offices, medical
Multifamily OK on east side in
mixed-use development OR
WITH TDR
Pages 13-17
Special District 4 Uses
See 20.42.250
Pages 13-17 & 23-29
6/27/2012
8
Special District 4 Uses
Most new uses/development subject to master plan:
See 20.42.250:
Intent & applicability
Review process & application requirements
Master plan elements & design principles
Criteria for approval
Outcome of the master plan – final products
Modifications to the plan (in the future if needed)
Pages 14-18 & 26-34
However……
One possibility is that the City could initiate the
master planning process – including a detailed
environmental review……….
Relieves property owners from requirement
Provides direction for infrastructure & development
City would need to secure funding for project
6/27/2012
9
Area 3 (Smokey Point Southeast)
Master Plan Design “Concept”
6/27/2012
10
6/27/2012
11
Master Plan Outcome
Development Agreement per AMC 20.39
ID land use/
Infrastructure
Phasing plan
6/27/2012
12
Street Design & Amenities
Improvement standards for the various street types
– (existing and new)
Page 35
Smokey Point Boulevard
(between 174th and 188th)
Currently just two or three lanes
6/27/2012
13
Smokey Point Boulevard
(between 174th and 188th)
Current transportation plans and studies call for the
future expansion to five lanes…..
Smokey Point Boulevard
(between 174th and 188th)
6/27/2012
14
Proposed design
options for new local
streets
Page 37
Neighborhood
Center Streets
Page 41
6/27/2012
15
Neighborhood Center Streets
Page 41
Page 41
6/27/2012
16
Commercial
Arterial Streets
Similar to Neighborhood
Center Streets except:
Greater flexibility on
parking lot location
Storefronts only allowed
with wider
sidewalks/planting strips
Departures – parking
location
Page 45
6/27/2012
17
Commercial
Arterial Streets
Pages 45
Commercial
Arterial Streets
Bad
Example
6/27/2012
18
Gateway
Streets
Emphasis on landscaped frontages
20’ minimum landscaped strip along
frontage
No restrictions on parking location
Transparency provisions only on
façade with building entry
Page 49
6/27/2012
19
All Other Streets
Landscaped setbacks for
residential
Storefront or landscaped
setback for commercial
50/50 rule for parking,
greater departure
opportunities
Transparency standards
Page 50
Illustrated Vision
6/27/2012
20
6/27/2012
21
6/27/2012
22
6/27/2012
23
6/27/2012
24
6/27/2012
25
Internal Circulation
Page 51
Internal Open Space - Commercial
Page 57
6/27/2012
26
Internal Open Space - Residential
Provide internal open space = at least 10% of
living area (for 1,000sf unit = 100sf open space)
Page 60
6/27/2012
27
Building Materials
Page 82
Building Materials
Page 82
6/27/2012
28
Building Materials
Page 82
General Design Provisions
Page 86
Service element location and design
Fences
Site lighting
Landscaping
6/27/2012
29
Housing Types: Single Family
Page 89
Housing Types: Cottage Housing
Page 106
Small homes (up to 1,200sf max)organized around a
common open space
6/27/2012
30
Housing Types: Townhouses
Standards unique to townhouse needs
Page 111
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #4
Attachment
D
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
July 9, 2012
SUBJECT:
FAA Grant and Sales & Purchase Agreement
ATTACHMENTS:
Site Map
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Airport
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED:
BUDGET CATEGORY:
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
The airport had submitted a FAA grant application that included engineering /
construction of an emergency generator for the airfield lighting and the purchasing of 1
acre of property.
HISTORY:
Installation of an emergency generator has been on the airport CIP list for several years.
Last year the airport submitted a grant for the generator and revised that application
when the owners of the Opal property express interest in selling. The owners originally
were going to sell us the property in 2009 along with the Grow’s property but changed
their mind. The environmental and appraisal has already been completed. The
appraisal is being reviewed and updated by an independent appraisal firm (not the
original firm). The independent review is a FAA requirement. The grant should be
awarded in August 2012.
ALTERNATIVES
Approve staff recommendation with modifications
Table
Deny
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
This item is for discussion only at this time.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #5
Attachment
E
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
July 9, 2012
SUBJECT:
Amendment #2 to the Perteet contract for design of 173rd Street
ATTACHMENTS:
DRAFT - Proposal for Amendment #2 to the 173rd Street design contract
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Public Works
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: In discussion
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Public Works is seeking to amend the City of Arlington-Perteet contract to extend the
173rd design from 43rd Ave to Airport Blvd (approx. 2,700 lf).
HISTORY:
In 2011 the City of Arlington began moving forward with the installation of a new road,
173rd St, in the alignment identified in the City adopted Transportation Element of the
General Comprehensive Plan. The initial work entailed procurement of Right-of-way
(ROW) and contracting with Perteet Engineers for design services. The Airport is ready
to extend 173rd St on to the Airport and this amendment allows for that extra design
work and air analysis for new signal at 173rd/Smokey Point Blvd.
Original Contract $ 117,104.58
Amendment #1 $ 0.00 (schedule only)
Amendment #2 $ Pending (est $52K)
TOTAL CONTRACT $ Pending
ALTERNATIVES
- Remand to staff for further discussion
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action, discussion only. At next Council Meeting staff will recommend Council:
“move to accept Amendment #2 to the Perteet contract for design of 173rd Street and
authorize the mayor to sign the contract, pending final approval by the City Attorney.“
City of Arlington
Scope of Work (Supplement)
173rd Place NE Extension
(Smokey Point Boulevard to 51st Avenue NE)
July 2, 2012
2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900
Everett, WA 98201
1.800.615.9900 / 425.252.7700
173rd Place NE Extension (Smokey Point Boulevard to 51st Avenue NE)
Agreement with Perteet Inc.
City of Arlington Page 1 July 2, 2012
File location: X:\Arlington, City of\Projects\20110044 - 173rd Pl Extension\Project Management\Contract\Scope and Fee\Arlington_173rd Pl
Extension Scope of Services_V7.doc
Introduction
The original 173rd Place NE Extension design contract included a new roadway design from Smokey
Point Boulevard to 43rd Avenue NE. This supplement to that contract will design an additional 2,700
linear feet of roadway from 43rd Avenue to 51st Avenue NE. The entire 173rd Place NE Extension
project from Smokey Point Boulevard to 51st Avenue NE will be designed as one bid package.
1 – Project Management (Supplemented)
The Consultant will provide project management and oversight of the scope of work, including the
traffic, roadway, and stormwater design; managing to the agreed schedule and budget; and preparing
monthly invoices and progress reports.
Deliverables:
· Monthly project reports and invoices
13 – Roadway and Intersection PS&E
Perteet will prepare a 60% and 100% roadway plan submittal for 173rd Place NE. The roadway shall be
approximately 2,700 linear feet in length stretching from 43rd Avenue NE to 51st Avenue NE. The
plans will be initially developed as 11” x 17” plan sheets with a scale of 1” to 40’. Once approved by the
City, a final set shall be printed on 22” x 34” bond paper and stamped by the design professional
engineer. The roadway characteristics will generally consist of a two lane road with the potential of
turn pockets at intersections and a roadway section that slopes into a rain garden and underlying
stormwater infiltration system. This roadway section will also include 5’ sidewalks along both sides of
the street. An all way stop warrant review will be performed for two intersections. Traffic data
previously collected will support that effort.
The following plan sheets will be prepared for both the 60% and the 100% PS&E:
Sheet Name Sheet # Sheet Size
11” x 17” 22” x 34”
Roadway Typical Sections RS2 (1 sheet) N/A N/A
Site Preparations & TESC Details SP2 (1 sheet) 1”=80’ 1”=40’
Paving & Channelization Plans P4 – P6 (3 sheets) 1”=40’ 1”=20’
Roadway Profile RP1 – 2 (2 sheets) 1”=80’ 1”=40’
Drainage Details DD2 (4 sheets) N/A N/A
Landscaping Typical Details LS2 (1 sheet) N/A N/A
Intersection Details I1 - 2 (2 sheets) 1”=20’ 1”=40’
This plan set shall have a maximum of 14 plan sheets.
173rd Place NE Extension (Smokey Point Boulevard to 51st Avenue NE)
Agreement with Perteet Inc.
City of Arlington Page 2 July 2, 2012
File location: X:\Arlington, City of\Projects\20110044 - 173rd Pl Extension\Project Management\Contract\Scope and Fee\Arlington_173rd Pl
Extension Scope of Services_V7.doc
Plan sheets that are excluded from this scope of work and budget that can be added as a supplement are
as follows:
· Traffic Analysis & Traffic Counts
· Wall Plans & Details
· Landscaping Plans
· Irrigation Plans
· Traffic Control Plans
· Right-of-Way Plans
· Construction Phasing Plans
· Separate Set of Drainage Plan & Profile Sheets
· Signal or Roundabout Design Plans
· Survey (we assume this information will be provided to the consultant, including a DTM file)
· Geotechnical Investigation (we assume this information will be provided to the consultant)
· Mylars will not be produced
Only technical special provisions in 2012 WSDOT / APWA format will be prepared for this project.
The City of Arlington will prepare Division 1 of the special provisions, prepare the boiler plate contract
forms, the bid proposal form, and assemble the overall Contract Provisions Manual. Perteet will also
prepare an opinion of probable construction cost in Excel per Perteet standard format. The items
identified in the opinion of probable construction costs will be the basis of the bid proposal form.
It is assumed that geotechnical data and a topographic survey will be supplied by the City to support the
roadway design, drainage, and signal design work.
It is assumed that water and sanitary sewer will be depicted on the paving plans. Sanitary sewer profiles
will be drawn on the Roadway Profile plans. Water main and stormwater will not be drawn in in profile
view.
The City will be responsible for preparing all related drainage analysis, documentation, and preparing
schematic drainage layout. Perteet will incorporate this information into the plan set.
Traffic volumes are low along this portion of 173rd and intersecting streets, therefore, traffic signals
and/or roundabouts will not be required or designed.
The City and WSDOT Standard Plans will be referenced on related plan sheets and added to the back
of the Contract Specifications.
Deliverables:
· Review all-way stop warrants (2 intersections)
· Roadway Section Recommendations
· 60% Plans (14 plan sheets)
· 60% Technical Special Provisions
· 60% Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
173rd Place NE Extension (Smokey Point Boulevard to 51st Avenue NE)
Agreement with Perteet Inc.
City of Arlington Page 3 July 2, 2012
File location: X:\Arlington, City of\Projects\20110044 - 173rd Pl Extension\Project Management\Contract\Scope and Fee\Arlington_173rd Pl
Extension Scope of Services_V7.doc
· 100% Plans (14 plan sheets)
· 100% Technical Special Provisions
· 100% Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Items to be Furnished by City of Arlington
· AutoCAD base map of the site including a dtm file
· Initial roadway profile
· Bid set reproduction costs
· Bid support
· Geotechnical Report
· Stormwater Technical Memorandum and Proposed Infiltration Design
Anticipated Future Assignments (presently not included in this proposal)
· Construction Administration Assistance
Time for Completion
Task 13 will be completed in 120 calendar days from issuance of the notice to proceed and the City
supplying the consultant with a project survey and geotechnical report.
The contract will be extended until December 31, 2012.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #6
Attachment
F
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
July 9, 2012
SUBJECT:
Proposal from consultant Murray, Smith and Associates (MSA) for completion of Phase
1 of the Prairie Creek Drainage Improvements
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposal for Prairie Creek Drainage Improvements Design – Phase 1
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Public Works
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $0.00
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
The City is seeking to engage the design services of MSA to perform analysis of the Prairie
Cree drainage system passing through Jensen Business Park in order to reduce/eliminate
flooding impacts.
HISTORY:
Development and stream routing in the headwaters of Prairie Creek has increased the
amount of stormwater runoff and subsequent stream flow in Prairie Creek. This
increased stream flow has caused impacts to businesses along 204th Street and in the
Jensen Business Park due to undersized culverts at 71st Ave, 74th Ave, 204th Ave, BNSF,
and 69th Ave. Public Works is seeking to contract with MSA to prepare a preliminary
design memorandum which will include potential interim flood mitigation solutions, a
proposed approach and phasing of the Prairie Creek Culvert Replacements, and steps
necessary to complete Phase 2 – preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PSE).
ALTERNATIVES
- Remand to staff for further discussion
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action, discussion only. At next Council Meeting staff will recommend Council:
“move to accept the MSA proposal for Phase 1 of the Prairie Creek Drainage Improvements
and authorize the mayor to sign the contract, pending final approval by the City Attorney.”
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 1
Scope of Work & Fee Estimate
Engineering Services
for
Prairie Creek Culvert Replacement
for
City of Arlington, Washington
Project Description
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA) has developed the following scope of work and fee
estimate for engineering services for the Prairie Creek Culvert Replacement project. The
scope of work and associated fee estimate has been developed based on our discussions with
City of Arlington (City) staff, project understanding, and project approach.
The City’s Comprehensive Stormwater Plan (Stormwater Plan), dated October 2010,
identified the following undersized culverts in five problem areas in the Prairie Creek 5th
Tier Basin, which consists of a total of six culverts:
• 67th Avenue (Problem 29): Culvert replacement design completed under a separate
contract
• Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad and 69th Avenue (Problem 30): Two
existing culverts
• 204th Street (Problem 31)
• 71st Avenue (Problem 33)
• 74th Avenue (Problem 35)
Problem 29 will be resolved upon construction of a new culvert as part of the 67th Ave NE
roadway improvement project scheduled for completion within the next year. The City
desires to replace the five remaining undersized culverts (assumed to be four project areas) in
the Prairie Creek Basin in a phased approach that will meet their construction schedule and
budget requirements.
Proposed Project Approach
Phasing the engineering work into two major distinct elements is recommended due to the
number of unknowns that can be better defined during the initial preliminary design tasks.
The proposed scope of work is divided into the following two major phases of work.
Phase 1 - Preliminary Design is the first phase of work that is required to better define the
project and final design tasks. A thorough understanding of the impacts of replacing one or a
combination of culverts and the sequencing of the culvert replacements is important to more
accurately define and scope the final design engineering and permitting for the culvert
EXHIBIT A
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 2
replacement projects. The preliminary engineering phase will also ensure the project meets
the City’s objectives of reducing the local flooding impacts of nearby businesses and
increasing the function of Prairie Creek. Phase 1 will commence immediately and conclude
with the development of a preliminary design memorandum, which will include potential
interim flood mitigation solutions, and the City’s concurrence on the recommended approach
and phasing of the Prairie Creek Culvert Replacements (this would include the number of
culverts to be replaced, the sizing of the culverts, and the proposed implementation
schedule).
Phase 2 – Final Design and Permitting is the second phase of work that includes all permit
and environmental reviews and final design engineering tasks to produce construction
drawings. Phase 2 will commence following the City’s concurrence on the recommended
approach to implementing the Prairie Creek Culvert Replacements. The scope and estimated
engineering fee are preliminary at this time and assumes that all culverts with the exception
of the BNSF and 69th Avenue culverts (Problem 30) will be replaced under one construction
contract. The scope and fee estimate for Phase 2 work can be better defined upon
completion of Phase 1 work.
• Phase 1 – Preliminary Design
o Task 1 – Project Management and Coordination
o Task 2 – Site Investigations
o Task 3 – Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
o Task 4 – Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Design
• Phase 2 – Final Design and Permitting (Preliminary - TBD)
o Task 5 – Final Design
o Task 6 – Permits and Environmental Reviews
o Task 7 – Bidding and Award
o Task 8 – Construction Phase Services
• Optional Tasks
o Right of Entry and Easement Negotiations (Optional)
The above two phases of work are more specifically described as follows:
Scope of Work
Phase 1 – Preliminary Design
Task 1 - Project Management and Coordination
This task provides for management of the project through the completion of the preliminary
design phase for the culvert replacement project. The detailed subtasks are
as follows:
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 3
1.1 Correspondence and Coordination with City -- Protocol for the coordination of all
communication with the City’s primary contact will be established. Specific elements
for communication include:
A. Follow-up all decision-making and phone conversations with an immediate recap
via email.
B. Submit minutes of all meetings within one week.
C. Copy all key team members on correspondence, emails, meeting minutes, etc.
D. This subtask includes a kick-off meeting with the City, key design team members,
and project stake holders.
1.2 Staff and Subconsultant Management -- MSA’s Project Manager will manage
project staff and subconsultants to ensure compliance with project schedule and
budget as well as scheduled deliverables. This management effort will involve:
A. Prepare and submit monthly activity reports showing current project status and
identifying key issues or elements of the project that will need to be addressed in
the proceeding weeks.
B. Preparation and submission of monthly billing statements that clearly document
the names, rates and tasks for each team member who provided services for that
period.
Task 1 Deliverables
A. Meeting Minutes
B. Monthly invoices
Task 2 – Site Investigations
Under this task, MSA will work with their design team and specialty subconsultants to
perform surveying and geotechnical investigations, and develop the basic information
necessary to guide final designs. Anticipated subtasks are outlined as follows:
2.1 Information Gathering -- Compile and review available City, utility, and other
entities’ plans, record drawings, tax lot maps (from County GIS) and other GIS,
mapping, data, and information available from others relevant to the proposed work.
Notify utilities for locates that will be located by the design survey and identified on
the drawings. Fee estimates assume that any potholing required for additional utility
locating purposes will be provided by the City.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 4
2.2 Field Survey -- Conduct field surveys to develop the hydraulic model and base
mapping for design purposes. Design survey will be provided by MSA’s survey
subconsultant, Metron and Associates, Inc.
2.2.1 Stream Survey for Hydraulic Model - The survey to further develop the
hydraulic model will include cross-sections for Prairie Creek starting south of
Stormwater Plan Problem 38a (where the Prairie Creek forks in the upper basin
converge) and finishing north of Stormwater Plan Problem 29 (Prairie Creek and
Portage Creek Confluence). Cross sections will begin and end approximately 25 feet
outside the top of bank and be surveyed at 100-foot increments. The total length of
creek to be surveyed for this purpose will be approximately 5,400 feet.
2.2.2 Survey for Design Base Mapping - The survey for design base mapping will
include:
A. 5 culverts including inverts, size (diameter or rise and span and length), shape
(circular, pipe arch, etc) and material
B. Survey limits extending 50 feet upstream and downstream of each culvert (for
stream restoration) and spanning 100 feet on each side of the culvert centerline
(for roadway restoration)
C. Prairie Creek cross-sections, beginning and ending approximately 25 feet
outside the top of bank, at 5 feet increments or less
D. Prairie Creek natural channel slope or flow line elevations within the survey
limits
E. 1-foot contours
F. Other typical survey data extending 100 feet on each side of the culvert
centerline: surface features (landscaping, mailboxes, poles, sidewalk, etc),
utility locates, roadway elements (curb line, edge of pavement, centerline,
pavement markings, etc)
The surveys will be based upon the North Zone of the Washington State Coordinate
System, which is based on NAD 83/91. The vertical datum will be in accordance
with NAVD 88 benchmarks.
2.3 Geotechnical Investigation -- A geotechnical investigation will determine the
anticipated subsurface conditions relative to the required construction. These services
will be provided through MSA’s geotechnical engineering subconsultant,
GeoEngineers. Anticipated subtasks are outlined as follows:
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 5
A. Explore existing paving, subsurface soil, and groundwater conditions at each culvert
location by drilling a total of six borings to depths of about 25 feet each using truck
mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment.
a. The subconsultant will perform utility locates, submit any required traffic control
plans, and obtain street use permits prior to drilling. It is assumed that the City
will pay any required permitting fees.
b. The borings will be backfilled pursuant to the procedures of Washington
Department of Ecology. Where the borings are drilled through existing pavement,
the pavement will be patched with concrete to conform to the level of the
surrounding pavement.
B. Perform laboratory tests on samples obtained from the borings. The laboratory tests
may include moisture content, Atterberg Limits, and grain size analyses, as
appropriate.
C. Describe site conditions including detailed subsurface soil conditions encountered
based on results of the field explorations and geotechnical laboratory analysis.
D. Provide recommendations for temporary excavations, including geotechnical
considerations for allowable temporary cut slopes, temporary shoring and
dewatering.
E. Provide recommendations for the design of the new culverts including foundation
support and lateral soil pressures. Comment on any anticipated construction
difficulties identified from the results of our site studies and from our experience
on projects at similar sites.
F. Discuss trenchless pipeline installation issues and alternatives (pipe jacking and
boring, microtunneling, HDD, etc). Preliminary considerations for trenchless
construction will be provided.
G. Provide recommendations for earthwork and site preparation including suitability
of on-site soils for reuse in trench backfill, placement and compaction of trench
backfill, and mitigation of unsuitable soil conditions. This will include an
evaluation of the effects of weather and/or construction equipment on site soils.
H. Comment on any anticipated construction difficulties identified from the results of
site studies and from experience on projects at similar sites.
I. Discuss geotechnical considerations related to groundwater conditions including
anticipated seasonal fluctuations.
J. Address City of Arlington sensitive areas ordinance issues as they pertain to
geotechnical and geological considerations.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 6
This scope of work assumes that the geotechnical investigation for the 69th Avenue and
BNSF crossing can be done outside the BNSF ROW and therefore a Temporary Occupancy
Permit is not required.
A summary of the geotechnical investigation will be presented in a written report with
supporting site plan, boring logs, and other applicable figures.
Task 2 Deliverables
A. One full size (22”x34”) stamped hard copy and one electronic copy of the completed
survey in AutoCAD and PDF formats.
B. Three hard copies of the final geotechnical investigation summary report.
Task 3 – Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
This task will include reassessment of the City’s existing hydrologic model and development
of a hydraulic model to route flows within the Prairie Creek Basin. The main purposes of the
hydrologic model are to confirm culvert sizing and hydraulic criteria so that the flood
reduction and fish passage criteria for the project will be met, while minimizing construction
costs to the extent possible.
The Stormwater Plan developed peak flows for the entire Prairie Creek Basin and
recommended a culvert size that could pass this flow for all locations where undersized
culverts were identified. The Stormwater Plan recommends that a detailed analysis should
be performed prior to final design of the culvert replacements. This type of detailed analysis
is important for the following reasons:
A. The culvert sizes recommended in the 2010 Stormwater Plan are based on
conservative assumptions. The detailed analysis will include analysis of sub-basins
and routing between the sub-basins, which could potentially result in lower predicted
peak flows at each culvert and, therefore, downsizing of the recommended culvert
sizes.
B. The City may need to phase the culvert replacement project over several years due to
budget restrictions. The detailed analysis will be used to define the best sequence for
culvert replacement without exacerbating existing flooding conditions within the
Prairie Creek Basin.
C. Confirm hydraulic performance of proposed culverts.
a. Backwater and headwater conditions were not included in the 2010 analysis.
However, these types of conditions affect the hydraulic performance of the
system and they must be included in the analysis in order to more accurately
simulate real world conditions.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 7
b. A preliminary review of existing conditions show that installation of the
recommended 8-foot diameter culverts is not possible in some of the locations
due to limited distance between the creek invert and existing surface elevation.
In these cases, an arch- or box culvert would be used, and a hydraulic model is
required to confirm the sizing of these types of culverts.
c. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) fish passage criteria
limit the velocity during the fish passage design storm. A hydraulic model is
required to confirm the velocity through the proposed culverts during the fish
passage design storm.
MSA proposes to use the City's existing XPSWMM model to develop a hydrologic model
for different sub-basins within the Prairie Creek Basin, and HEC-RAS to perform the open
channel routing of Prairie Creek. The following models will be developed:
A. Hydrologic model sub-basins for build-out conditions.
B. Hydraulic model routing flows developed from the hydrologic model. Separate
scenarios with the following assumptions will be developed:
a. All culverts will be replaced
b. Only the 204th Street, 71st Avenue, and 74th Avenue culverts will be replaced
c. Identify critical locations where culverts must be replaced prior to others in
order to minimize flooding throughout the basin.
d. Identify potential interim flood mitigation solutions prior to culvert
replacements.
A detailed survey will be used to provide creek cross sections for the hydraulic model for
routing within the lower Prairie Creek Basin downstream of the confluence of the upper
Prairie Creek forks. Upstream of that location, aerial topography will be used to approximate
creek cross section in order to route flows.
Model results will be compared to the results of the existing model as well as anecdotal data
in order to verify model accuracy. Field measurements will be performed to confirm base
flow depths at various elevations in lower Prairie Creek.
The scope of work assumes one (1) meeting with City staff and one (1) site visit during the
development of the hydrologic and hydraulic model.
Task 3 Deliverables
The results of the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling will be summarized in Task 4 -
Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Design.
Task 4 – Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Design
A preliminary design memorandum will be prepared to summarize the work, conclusions and
recommendations associated with Tasks 1-4. This memorandum will include:
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 8
A. Recommendations for potential interim flood mitigation solutions to be implemented
in 2012.
B. A recommendation for the preferred culvert replacements to be carried forward into
the final design phase.
C. Geotechnical conclusions and recommendations
D. Analysis of trenchless construction techniques and alternatives
E. Identification of all permitting and approval requirements
F. Design requirements for fish passage
G. Proposed pavement sections for pavement restoration
H. Recommendations for project phasing
I. Reassessment of design and permitting schedule
J. Proposed construction schedule
K. Conceptual level cost estimate
L. Conceptual level plans
This task assumes up to three (3) meetings and/or site visits with City staff and regulatory
agencies during the development of the alternatives analysis and preliminary design.
The memorandum will be a stand-alone document that will define the project and provide
sufficient information and detail to proceed with final design. The draft technical
memorandum will be submitted to the City, and MSA will meet with the City to review
comments. MSA will draft a final technical memorandum based on the comments discussed
at the review meeting and the City’s decision on a preferred alternative. This document will
be the basis for beginning Phase 2 of the proposed work program.
Task 4 Deliverables
A. Three hard copies of the draft preliminary design memorandum.
B. Three hard copies of the final preliminary design memorandum.
Phase 2 – Final Design and Permitting (Preliminary)
The following provides a preliminary scope of work and fee estimate for the Phase 2 work,
which will be better defined upon completion of Phase 1 work.
Task 5 – Final Design
This task will advance the project through the final design stage creating documents suitable
for bidding. With City and other agency input on preliminary designs, the final designs and
construction contract documents will be completed. Final designs will incorporate the
requirements of various permits and agency plan reviews. Plans will be presented at the
30%, 60%, 95%, and the final draft level for City and other agency review, comment and
approval. The preliminary scope of work and fee estimate are based on the following
assumptions:
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 9
A. Design will be under one contract for all improvements to resolve the four identified
problem areas.
B. Projects will be constructed under two contracts.
C. One construction project will include replacing the two existing culverts that cross the
BNSF Railroad and 69th Avenue. The other construction contract will include
replacing the existing culverts that cross 71st Avenue, 74th Avenue and 204th Street.
D. Precast box or arch culverts with open bottoms will be used at all the crossings.
E. Trenchless technologies will be required for BNSF crossing, and adequate capacity
will be provided with one culvert (i.e. parallel culverts will not be required).
F. All other crossings can be accomplished with open cut construction, with construction
limited to the extents of the existing road prism.
G. Preparation of stormwater site plans which will include temporary and permanent
stormwater BMPs per DOE requirements.
H. Stream restoration and on-site mitigation plans including plant schedules and plant
quantities. This scope of work does not include any off-site mitigation.
I. In stream structures (e.g. log weirs) as required to meet fish passage criteria.
J. Design will use the Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal
Construction 2012 edition prepared by the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) as modified or supplemented by the Amendments, and City
Construction Standards and Specifications.
K. Structural design of culvert foundations and wing wall extensions.
L. Pavement section requirements will be based on City Standards (i.e. pavement design
is not included in this scope of work).
Anticipated subtasks include the following:
5.1 Preliminary Design (30%)
A. Using the project information developed in the previous tasks, preliminary
drawings will be developed to the 30% complete level. Plans will be
developed at 1” = 20’ scale in AutoCAD electronic format according to City
standards. Preliminary drawings will show plan and profile views and major
project elements. A preliminary construction cost estimate will be developed
and will include a schedule of estimated quantities, unit prices, and total cost
for the project.
B. Meet with City to discuss review comments. Record meeting minutes to
document items discussed.
5.2 Final Design Plans and Specifications (60%)
A. The preliminary design drawings will be revised and further developed to
incorporate comments from the Preliminary Design Memorandum review.
Technical specifications will be developed to support the preliminary design.
Develop plans and specifications that are approximately 60% complete.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 10
B. Three copies of the 60% complete plans and specifications will be prepared
and submitted to the City for review and comment. Submittal will include an
updated cost estimate.
C. Meet with City to review 60% submittal and discuss review comments.
Record meeting minutes to document items discussed.
5.3 Final Design Plans and Specifications (95%)
A. The 60% complete plan and specifications will be revised and further
developed to incorporate comments from the previous review. Plans and
specifications will be developed to near complete, 95%.
B. Three copies of the 95% complete plans and specifications will be prepared
and submitted to the City for review and comment. Submittal will include an
updated cost estimate.
C. Meet with City to review 95% submittal and discuss review comments.
Record meeting minutes to document items discussed.
5.4 Final Plans and Specifications -- Prepare final plans and specifications incorporating
prior City review comments. Preparation of the final documents will include:
A. Submission of the deliverables including:
1. Three full size (22”x34”) stamped hard copy plans sets,
2. An electronic copy of the final construction drawings on CD,
3. Three hard copies and one electronic copy of the technical
specifications in Microsoft Word format.
B. Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program. A QA/QC program
shall be implemented throughout the design process and will be accelerated
during the final design stage. This accelerated program will include:
1. In-house reviews and final document inspection,
2. Cross-checking of documents to provide seamless coordination
between plans and specifications.
C. Preparation of a bid tabulation that will include an updated engineer’s estimate
of quantities, unit prices and total construction cost.
Task 5 Deliverables
Task 5 deliverables are listed in the design phases described above.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 11
Task 6 – Permits and Environmental Reviews
This task will include preparing applications for the necessary permits and environmental
reviews from the agencies as noted below. MSA will coordinate with the City’s natural
resources manager in the preparing all these materials. The City will submit all materials to
the appropriate agencies and monitor and respond to agency inquiries. MSA will support the
City in providing follow-up information and data as needed by the natural resources
manager. For the purpose of developing the fee estimate, it is assumed that all agency
application and permit fees will be paid by the City.
6.1 BNSF Railroad Crossing Permit -- MSA will perform the following work in
assisting the City in obtaining permits from BNSF:
A. Informal Preliminary Consultation -- Review preliminary concepts with BNSF
permitting staff/consultant, noting all interests and input.
B. Application Preparation and Submittal -- Complete required permit applications
and submit for BNSF approval. It is anticipated that only a Pipeline Crossing
Permit for the culvert is required for this project. The application will need to be
accompanied by the plans and geotechnical report. It is assumed that the
application fee will be remitted directly by the City. This scope of work assumes
that the geotechnical investigation for the 69th Avenue and BNSF crossings can be
done outside the BNSF right-of-way and therefore a Temporary Occupancy
Permit is not required.
C. Conditions Review -- Review BNSF permit conditions relative to final design
requirements and other special provisions to be included in construction contract
documents.
6.2 Environmental Permitting -- A summary of the environmental review,
documentation and permitting that is anticipated for this project is included below.
These services will be provided through MSA’s subconsultant, Environmental
Science Associates (ESA).
Table 5.1
Anticipated Environmental Permits
Lead
Agency
Permits/
Approvals/
Reviews
Application/
Documentation
Anticipated for (Y/N)
Comment Rail-
road
204
th
71
st
74
th
Corps of
Engineers
Section
404/401/10
JARPA (60%) Y N N N To be complete
following acceptance
of 60% Design
404(b)(1)
Alternatives
Analysis
n/a N N N N Not anticipated.
Assumes nationwide
permit will be
authorized.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 12
NEPA n/a N N N N Not anticipated.
Assumes nationwide
permit will be
authorized.
Endangered
Species Act
Section 7
Review
Biological
Evaluation
Y N N N Submitted with 60%
JARPA. Assumes
informal consultation.
Section 106
Review
APE Letter and
Cultural
Resources
Report
Y N N N Submitted with 60%
JARPA.
WDFW HPA JARPA (60%) Y Y Y Y Assumes minor
revisions to 60%
JARPA.
USFWS/
NMFS
Section 7
Consultation/
MS Act
Consultation
Final BE Y N N N Assumes informal
consultation.
WA Dept
of Ecology
Section 401
Water Quality
Certification
JARPA (60%) Y N N N Assumes an individual
water quality
certification will not
be required
City of
Arlington
SEPA Environmental
Checklist
Y Y Y Y Must be completed
prior to JARPA
submittals.
City of
Arlington
18 Critical
Areas Review
Critical Areas
Study
Y Y Y Y Critical Areas Study
must be completed
prior to JARPA
submittals.
Land Use
Permit
Application
Land Use Permit
Application
Y Y Y Y
Shoreline
Master
Program
Shoreline
Management
Permit
Application and
Checklist
N N N N
A. State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Checklist and Land Use Permit
Application – The SEPA Environmental Checklist is a form that includes
information used by the City to support the issuance of a SEPA Determination. A
SEPA Determination is required prior to issuance of many local and state permits.
This task includes preparation of a draft Environmental Checklist by the
Consultant that will be submitted by the City to be finalized and issued in support
of the City’s SEPA Determination Notice. For the purposes of determining level
of effort for this task, the Consultant assumes the project can be designed to meet
the requirements of SEPA Determination of Non Significance. The Consultant
will prepare one SEPA Environmental Checklist for both culvert replacement
construction projects (assumes one will include the 71st Avenue, 74th Avenue, and
204th Street crossings and the other will include the BNSF and 69th Avenue
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 13
crossings) following City acceptance of the 30% design submittal. If the City
elects to further separate the culvert construction projects and prepare separate
checklists, additional work will be required.
B. Corps of Engineers Section 404/401/10 – The JARPA form is a joint application
form that is used to apply for several environmental permits and approvals. This
task includes preparation of a draft JARPA by the Consultant that will be finalized
and submitted by the City to the Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology
to meet the requirements for a Pre-Construction Notification under the Corps
General (Nationwide) Permit program. For the purposes of determining level of
effort for this task, the Consultant assumes the project can be designed to meet the
requirements of a Nationwide Permit 3 or 14. The Consultant will prepare the
JARPA for the Section 404/401/10 permit following City acceptance of the 60%
design submittal based on project information available at this time. The level of
effort for this task assumes that the City will issue a SEPA determination prior to
submittal of the JARPA for the Section 404/401/10 permit. Work to support an
individual Section 404/401/10 permit is not included in this task. The Consultant
will prepare one JARPA for submittal to the Corps for the Railroad Culvert
project only. At this time, the Consultant assumes the other culverts can be
designed and constructed to avoid triggering the pre-construction notice
requirement for a Corps Permit. If the City to elects to design and construct other
projects in a manner that triggers the requirement for a Corps permit, additional
work will be required.
C. Biological Evaluation – Prepare a Biological Evaluation (BE), also termed
Biological Assessment (BA) for the project based on the completed 60% design
for the Railroad Culvert. The BE will be prepared to support consultation efforts
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) among the federal
lead agency and services. This task includes one on-site visit to document
existing conditions. The BE will be submitted to the Federal Lead Agency and
will include a narrative of the project based on the 60% design and project
description from the SEPA environmental checklist. Based on the information
available to the Consultant prior to the development of this Scope of Work, it is
assumed that the project can be designed and constructed in such a manner that
the project will qualify for a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
determination. The Consultant also assumed that the project can be designed to
meet current water quality standards and National Marine Fisheries Service
guidelines in terms of water quality treatment and load limits for nutrients, metals,
and organics and intake screening requirements. Work to support formal
consultation with the Services is not included in this task. If the City elects to
design and construct a culvert in a manner that triggers the formal consultation or
triggers inclusion of the other culverts as part of the BA, additional work will be
required.
D. Section 106 APE /Cultural Resources Memorandum – Conduct a preliminary
review and prepare an Area of Potential Effect (APE) letter for the proposed
project to support review of the project by the Corps of Engineers. The proposed
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 14
culvert replacements are anticipated to occur entirely within previously disturbed
road rights of way with the majority of work limited to within the road prism. The
Cultural Resource Memorandum will include a review and brief summary of data
from publically available databases and documented sources. The Cultural
Resources Memorandum will not be submitted with the JARPA. It will be used to
identify the extents of the APE and support completion of the SEPA document
and other permit submittals. No site specific field investigation is anticipated to
be needed relative to cultural resources. If the results of the review indicate that
the project could have and an impact on cultural resources, or if the Corps of
Engineers or other permitting agency request a physical survey, additional work
will be required.
E. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) –This task includes the preparation of a 60%
design-level JARPA for both culvert replacement construction contracts (assumes
one will include the 71st Avenue, 74th Avenue, and 204th Street crossings and the
other will include the BNSF and 69th Avenue crossings). We assume the
submittal will reflect 60% level design of the formal PSE package. The
Consultant will prepare a draft revised JARPA to be finalized and submitted by
the City to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. For the purposes of determining
level of effort for this task, the Consultant assumes each of the culverts can be
designed to meet the WDFW requirements for in-water construction projects and
fish passage required by the State Hydraulic Code and associated WDFW culvert
design guidelines. The Consultant will prepare the JARPA for the HPA following
City acceptance of the 60% design submittal based on project information
available at this time. The level of effort for this task assumes that the City will
have issued a SEPA determination prior to submittal of the JARPA for HPA
permit.
F. Critical Areas Study – The Consultant will conduct a field review of each culvert
site; delineate wetlands and the ordinary high water mark of Prairie Creek as
required by City of Arlington Critical Areas Code. This work will also be
completed in a manner consistent with Corps of Engineers and Washington
Department of Ecology wetland determination guidance. The Consultant will
prepare two Critical Areas Studies for the project. One will include only the
Railroad Corridor Project Area and will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers.
The other will include all three culvert project areas and will be submitted in
support of local Critical Areas review. The scope of work for this task assumes
that critical areas field work will be limited to rights of way adjacent to each
culvert and generally within the extents of the currently proposed civil survey
limits. The Critical Areas Study will include a conceptual mitigation/restoration
plan, if warranted. The mitigation/restoration plan will be based on the 30%-level
PSE.
Task 6 Deliverables
A. Draft and Final BNSF Pipeline Crossing Permit.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 15
B. Preliminary Draft and Final Draft SEPA Environmental Checklist for both culvert
replacement construction projects.
C. Preliminary Draft and Final Draft 60% Corps of Engineers JARPA for the BNSF and
69th Avenue culverts only.
D. Draft and Final Biological Evaluation for the BNSF and 69th Avenue culverts only.
E. Draft and Final APE for the BNSF and 69th Avenue culverts only.
F. Draft and Final Cultural Resource Technical Memorandum including 3 culverts as
one project.
G. Preliminary Draft and Final Draft 60% WDFW JARPA including 3 culverts as one
project.
H. Preliminary Draft and Final Critical Areas Study for the BNSF and 69th Avenue
culverts only.
I. Preliminary Draft and Final Critical Areas Study including 3 culverts as one project.
Task 7 - Bidding and Award
Under this task, assistance will be provided to the City during the project bidding and award
process. MSA will provide typical services as outlined below:
7.1 Advertisement -- Prepare a draft advertisement for the City to review and submit for
publication in the appropriate media. City will coordinate placement and payment of
all advertisement costs.
7.2 Bidder Inquiries -- With direction from City, respond to questions from bidders,
subcontractors, equipment suppliers and other vendors regarding the project and plans
and specifications. Maintain a written record of communications during bidding
process.
7.3 Addenda -- Assist the City in the preparation of any addenda as necessary to clarify
the contract documents. City shall coordinate distribution of addenda.
7.4 Pre-Bid Briefing -- Attend a voluntary or mandatory pre-bid briefing conducted by
the City to review the project with prospective bidders.
7.5 Bid Opening and Award -- Assist the City with the evaluation of the bids and prepare
a written bid summary document.
Tasks 8 – Construction Phase Services
Under this task, engineering services will be provided to the City during construction of the
project. The extent of these services to be provided, if any, and the associated budget will be
determined at a later date and the agreement modified accordingly to provide for these
additional services.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 16
The following is an inventory of construction phase services that MSA typically provides.
These services are provided from the notice of award of a construction contract to the
contractor to the final acceptance of the project. Subtasks include:
• Shop Drawings & Submittals Review
• Monthly Pay Request Processing
• Requests for Information Clarifications
• Process Change Orders
• Monthly Project Status Reports and Project Meetings
• On-Site Construction Observation
• Testing & Start-Up Assistance
• Final Inspection
• Project Close-Out
• Record Drawings Preparation
• Warranty Inspection
Optional Tasks
The following task is work that the City may do with in-house staff. If desired, MSA can
provide these services, as briefly described below.
Right of Entry and Easements
This task includes right-of-way acquisition services for right of entry and temporary
construction easements. This work would be led by MSA's subconsultant, Universal Field
Services (UFS).
Deliverables
A. Right of Entry agreements for applicable parcels.
B. Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) agreements for applicable parcels.
C. Completed parcel files and records for all Right of Way services.
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 17
Engineering Fee Estimate
The following is a summary of the estimated engineering fees based on the assumptions
described in this scope of work. A detailed breakdown of estimated engineering fees by
work task and labor classification is shown on the attached spreadsheet (Exhibit B) for Phase
1 work tasks. Phase 2 work tasks are shown as planning level estimates and will be further
refined upon completion of Phase 1 work. These estimated fees are based upon the proposed
scope of work, basic assumptions and the project schedule, all as outlined in the scope of
work. The work will be billed at the firm’s current standard Schedule of Charges in effect at
the time the work is performed, the 2012 Schedule of Charges is attached as Exhibit C.
Phase 1 Engineering Fee Estimate
Project Task MSA Subconsultant
Fee Total Fee
Phase 1 – Preliminary Design
Task 1 – Project Management $2,575 $0 $2,575
Task 2 – Site Investigations $3,524 $45,968 $49,492
Task 3 – Hydrologic and Hydraulic
Modeling
$17,243 $3,256 $20,499
Task 4 – Alternatives Analysis and
Preliminary Design
$26,934 $7,898 $34,832
Sub-Total Phase 1 $50,276 $57,122 $107,398
Phase 2 Planning Level Preliminary Engineering Fee Estimate
Project Task MSA Subconsultant
Fee Total Fee
Phase 2 – Final Design and
Permitting
Task 5 – Final Design $105,000 $35,000 $140,000
Task 6 – Permits and Environmental
Reviews
$13,000 $42,000 $55,000
Task 7 – Bidding and Award $4,000 $1,000 $5,000
Task 8 – Construction Phase Services (TBD)
Sub-Total Phase 2 $122,000 $78,000 $200,000
Schedule
Based on our assumed approach, it is anticipated that all of the culvert projects with the
exception of the 69th Ave/BNSF culverts can be ready to bid in spring-summer 2013. At this
point, it is anticipated that the BNSF culvert will require a Corps Permit for construction and
with the potential for a longer review period, may not meet the 2013 fish windows for
construction (anticipated to be mid-July and late September).
City of Arlington MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prairie Creek Culvert
June 2012 Engineers/Planners Page 18
Preliminary Project Schedule
Phase/Milestone Date
Notice to Proceed
August 2012
Survey & Geotechnical Investigation
August 2012
Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling August-September 2012
Identify Potential Interim Flooding
Solutions
September 2012
Alternatives Analysis /
Preliminary Design Memorandum
October 2012
Final Design (All projects)
October-April 2013
Preliminary Implementation Schedule
All projects except
69th Ave / BNSF
69th Ave / BNSF
Permitting (BNSF /
WDFW / USACE /
NMFS)
October 2012-
April 2013
October 2012-
July 2013
Bid & Award
May-June 2013 Spring 2014
Construction
June-October 2013 Summer 2014
It is anticipated that the approximate fish work window will be between mid-July to the end
of September.
Planning Level Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
At the City’s request a conservative planning level construction cost estimate was prepared
for the Prairie Creek Culvert Replacement project. Based on available current information,
we estimate that the City should anticipate that the construction cost for replacement of the
five remaining undersized culverts would be approximately $2,500,000. This planning level
estimate includes a 30% contingency. The replacement of BNSF culvert accounts for
approximately half of the estimated construction costs. This is based on the assumption that
the BNSF culvert will be replaced using trenchless construction techniques.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #7
Attachment
G
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
July 9, 2012
SUBJECT:
Reject All Bids for City of Arlington 2012 Painted Traffic Lane Striping Project
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution rejecting all 2012 painted traffic lane striping bids
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Public Works
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Public Works is seeking to reject all bids received for the 2012 Painted Traffic Striping work and
authorize Public Works to contract with Snohomish County directly under existing
maintenance Inter-Local Agreement (ILA) for painted striping.
HISTORY:
Public Works requested and received three quotes for the 2012 Striping Maintenance Project,
these quotes were divided among different work as: 1) Painted Striping, 2) ThermoPlastic
Striping, and 3) Raised Pavement Markings (RPMs) as follows:
Paint Thermo RPMs
SnoCo $ 23,276.16 No Bid No Bid
StripeRite $ 23,030.00 $ 21,896.25 $ 16,950.00
Apply-a-line $ 24,740.00 $ 37,484.05 $ 23,250.00
Based on previous striping work in 2011, the StripeRite painted lines did not appear be durable
and did not last much past 6-7 months. Snohomish County painted lines are durable, last a
long time, and their quoted price is reasonable. In order to maintain a safe roadway system, it is
recommended that the City reject all painted striping bids and contract directly with SnoCo
under the existing ILA.
ALTERNATIVES
- Remand to staff for further discussion
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action, discussion only. At next Council Meeting staff will recommend Council: “move to
reject all bids received for the 2012 Painted Traffic Striping work and authorize Public Works to
contract with Snohomish County directly under existing maintenance Inter-Local Agreement
(ILA) for painted traffic striping.”
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON
REJECTING ALL 2012 PAINTED TRAFFIC LANE STRIPING BIDS
WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has solicited and received bids from three qualified
contractors for the City of Arlington 2012 Traffic Lane Striping Project (hereinafter the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City requested three separate bids for separate work tasks explained as
“Painted Striping”, “ThermoPlastic Striping” and “Raised Pavement Markings”; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has reviewed all submitted bids,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington, Washington do hereby
resolve as follows:
1. The City Council finds as follows:
a. The City of Arlington has sought bids from three qualified contractors to
complete the work detailed in the Project;
b. The City’s Public Works Department has reviewed all submitted bids;
c. The City Council further finds that, while public entities are obligated to
and should normally accept a low bid, in some cases accepting a low bid
from a contractor who has unsatisfactorily completed a previous painted
traffic lane striping project could lead to additional unsatisfactory work
and possible dangerous traffic conditions for the public.
d. That the City does have an Inter-Local Agreement with Snohomish
County for various public works and maintenance projects, including the
application of Painted Traffic Lane Striping.
2. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby rejects all bids
submitted for the Painted Striping portion of the Project and directs the City of
Arlington Public Works Department to contract directly with Snohomish County
per the existing Inter-Local Agreement for the Painted Striping portion of the
Project.
APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington this ______ day of
July, 2012.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
____________________________________
Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kristin Banfield, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney