HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-2013 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AGENDA PACKET
Public Works Committee
November 4, 2013 - 3:30 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes*
B. Public Works Project No. CP1307* (Wickstrom)
Award Limited Public Works Contract No. 13-17 to RW Scott Construction
Company on Their Low Bid of $33,260.00 plus Washington State Sales Tax of
$3,153.20 for a Total Contract Amount of $36,413.20 for Project No. CP1307,
Control Structure Installation Project
C. Public Works Consultant Agreement No. AG-C-417* (Elwell/Fenhaus)
Permission to Enter into Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Agreement No. AG-C-
417 with Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. for Professional Services Related to the
Water Facilities Evaluation Study
III.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Ordinance No. 6475* (Coleman)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, Establishing
the Levy for Regular Property Taxes by the City of Auburn for Collection in 2014
for General City Operational Purposes in the Amount of $15,792,046.00
B. Agreement for Services – Comprehensive Plan Update* (Chamberlain)
C. Comprehensive Sewer Plan* (Elwell)
D. Chipseal Progress Report (Carter)
E. Fulmer Wellfield Feasibility Costs & Schedule (Repp)
F. City Speed Cushion Standard Practices* (Para)
G. Capital Project Status Report* (Vondrak)
H. Significant Infrastructure Projects by Others - Public Works Status Report*
(Gaub)
I. Action Tracking Matrix* (Dowdy/Selle)
Page 1 of 80
IV.ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for
review at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 2 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Approval of Minutes
Date:
October 30, 2013
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
October 21. 2013 Draft Minutes
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Public Works Committee to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2013 Public Works
Committee meeting.
Background Summary:
See attached draft minutes.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Public Works
Councilmember:Wagner Staff:
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:CA.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 3 of 80
Public Works Committee
October 21, 2013 - 3:30 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Rich Wagner called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in Conference Room #2, located on the second floor of Auburn City Hall, One East Main Street, Auburn, Washington.
A. Roll Call
Chairman Wagner, Vice-Chair Bill Peloza, and Member Osborne were present. Also present during the meeting were: Public Works Director Dennis Dowdy, City Engineer/Assistant Director Dennis Selle, Utilities Engineer Dan Repp, Transportation Manager Pablo Para, Project Engineer Robert Lee, Sanitary Sewer Engineer Bob Elwell, Senior Project Engineer Jacob Sweeting, Maintenance and Operations Manager Randy Bailey, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Storm Drainage Engineer Tim Carlaw, IT Customer Support Manager Reba Stowe, Project/Construction Manager Bill Thomas, and Public Works Secretary Jennifer Cusmir.
B. Announcements
There were no announcements.
C. Agenda Modifications
There was one agenda modification transmitting a corrected agenda bill for Discussion Item A.
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Vice-Chair Peloza, seconded by Member Osborne, that the Committee approve the Public Works Committee Meeting minutes for date, October 7, 2013. Motion carried 3-0.
B. Public Works Projct No. C0915 (Lee) Well 1 Transmission Main
Project Engineer Lee explained that the work schedule was coordinated with the work being done on the M Street SE
Page 1 of 13
CA.A Page 4 of 80
Underpass. Project Engineer Lee explained that the overall cost of the project is within the project’s contingency and well under the amount budgeted, in response to a question asked by Vice-Chair Peloza. It was moved by Vice-Chair Peloza, seconded by Member Osborne, that the Committee approve the Public Works Committee recommend City Council approve Final Pay Estimate No. 8 to Contract No. 12-04 in the amount of $0.00 and accept construction of Project No. CP0915, Well 1 Transmission Main. Motion carried 3-0.
III. RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 4996 (Elwell) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Payback Agreement Between the City of Auburn and SFGVI Properties LLC for Developer's Sanitary Sewer Extension
Using a map of the development area, Sanitary Sewer Engineer Elwell identified the location of the sewer facility extension for the SFGVI Properties. Elwell explained that adoption of Resolution No. 4996 would authorize a Payback Agreement with SFGVI Properties, LLC. Property owners of properties that benefit from the extension will be assessed charges if and when they receive a permit to connect to the sewer system. Sanitary Sewer Engineer Elwell identified the properties, adjacent to the extension that would pay a frontage charge equal to half the cost of the adjacent pipe located along their property frontage. Elwell then identified the properties that would pay an Area Charge based on the number of Residential Customer Equivalents (RCEs) they have at the time they connect to the system. Chairman Wagner asked if the agreement is a 20-year Payback Agreement. Sanitary Sewer Engineer Elwell stated that in the past the agreements have been for 15 years, but the state law was changed and it is now 20 years. Sanitary Sewer Engineer Elwell answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner regarding administration fees. Member Osborne asked if the lots by the cemetery will be developed soon since they are so close to the sewer extension. Sanitary Sewer Engineer Elwell stated that the properties were purchased by the City
Page 2 of 13
CA.A Page 5 of 80
for the Cemetery. Sanitary Sewer Engineer Elwell stated that the total amount of assessments that may be collected is $562,000.00 if all properties were to develop, as anticipated, within the 20-year time frame, in response to a question asked by Chairman Wagner. Sanitary Sewer Engineer Elwell spoke about the experience City staff has with administering Payback Agreements, following a question asked by Vice-Chair Peloza. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle explained how the agreements are tracked and administered by staff. The Committee and staff discussed the motivation for developers to enter into Payback Agreements and possible risks involved. It was moved by Vice-Chair Peloza, seconded by Member Osborne, that the Committee approve the Public Works Committee recommend City Council adopt Resolution No. 4996. Motion carried 3-0.
B. Resolution No. 4998 (Bailey) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute a Contract Between the City of Auburn and the City of Algona for Decant Facilities Usage and Street Sweeping Services
Chairman Wagner asked if there were any risks to the City by entering into the contract. Maintenance and Operations Manager Bailey answered that there are no risks and contract is a renewal of a contract entered into three years ago and the renewal includes the ability to renew for an additional three years. Bailey stated that some of the costs were also changed from the original contract. Maintenance and Operations Manager Bailey explained that any additional cost of disposal of any hazardous waste materials may be charged to the City of Algona, in response to questions asked by Chairman Wagner. Maintenance and Operations Manager Bailey stated that the contract also allows for the City of Auburn to stop taking material from the City of Algona in the future. Vice-Chair Peloza noted that the agenda bill did not identify that the contract is a renewal and not a new contract. Maintenance and Operations Manager Bailey explained the cost for services charged to the City of Algona, in response to questions
Page 3 of 13
CA.A Page 6 of 80
asked by Member Osborne and Vice-Chair Peloza. Vice-Chair Peloza asked that the language of Exhibit A, Item 4B, be more specific and include the phrase, “per Item 4A.” Chairman Wagner recommended making an amendment on the floor of the City Council Meeting to make the language consistent between Items 4A and 4B by including the word “handling” in Item 4A and the word “testing” and phrase “reference Item 4A for the fees” in Item 4B. The Committee agreed. It was moved by Vice-Chair Peloza, seconded by Member Osborne, that the Committee approve the Public Works Committee recommend City Council adopt Resolution No. 4998, as amended. Motion carried 3-0.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Ordinance No. 6474 (Coleman) An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, Amending Ordinance No. 6432, the 2013-2014 Biennial Budget Ordinance, as Amended by Ordinance No. 6456 Ordinance No. 6462, Ordinance No. 6472, Ordinance No. 6473, Ordinance No. 6481, and Authorizing Amendment to the City of Auburn 2013-2014 Budget as Set Forth in Schedule “A” and Schedule “B”
Chairman Wagner asked if the downtown property sales in the amount of $1,045,300.00 were included on the budget amendment spreadsheet. Finance Director Coleman answered that the amount is shown in Schedule A, page 67 of 172, of the agenda packet, Mitigation Fee Fund. Finance Director Coleman explained that the amount of the Traffic Impact Fees listed on Schedule A is being driven by the estimated number of multi-family units included in the Teutsch development, in response to questions asked by Chairman Wagner. Chairman Wagner and the Committee discussed past Council conversations regarding the impact of the incentive to the General Fund. Finance Director Coleman and Planning Manager Chamberlain answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner regarding impact on the General Fund for other developer incentives. Finance Director Coleman and IT Customer Support Manager Stowe responded to questions asked by Vice-Chair Peloza regarding the funding being requested by the Innovations and Technology Department (IT) for staff stand-pay for evenings and weekends.
Page 4 of 13
CA.A Page 7 of 80
Member Osborne asked if the Administrative Assistant funding requested by IT is related to recent service agreements. Finance Director Coleman explained that IT is the only department without an Administrative Assistant and currently administrative work is being done by the IT Director and IT staff. Chairman Wagner asked that the program improvement form be included to provide the Committee with additional information regarding the need for additional staff. Finance Director Coleman answered questions asked by Member Osborne regarding the King County District Court Transition line items on Schedule A.
B. August 2013 Financial Report (Coleman)
Finance Director Coleman spoke about the outlook for the Sewer Utility, in response to questions asked by Chairman Wagner. Coleman stated that staff anticipates the net operating cost to move into the positive by the end of 2014. There were no additional questions from the Committee.
C. Online Project Management Software Options (Sweeting)
Senior Project Engineer Sweeting gave a PowerPoint presentation on the online project management software staff is proposing to purchase. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting provided the Committee an overview of the City’s Capital Project Program, explaining how staff manages capital improvement and maintenance projects and describing the varying projects which serve multiple areas and range in complexity and size. Sweeting reviewed the annual capital project investment with the Committee. Historically, between 2008 and 2012, the City averaged an investment of $25M per year. The future average, from 2014 through 2018, is approximately $32M per year. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting noted a sustained growth in citywide capital investments. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting spoke about all of the different tools and processes that are currently used for just one of the project management functions, project budget management. Sweeting emphasized the time it takes staff to ensure accuracy and stated that the project management software will make staff more efficient by streamlining all of the functions of project management.
Page 5 of 13
CA.A Page 8 of 80
Chairman Wagner asked if the new software is compatible with the programs that staff currently uses for project management. Sweeting confirmed that all of the software is compatible. Sweeting explained the tools included in the project management software that will improve the efficiency of staff. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting noted that there are other software programs that the City utilizes for permit processing, maintenance management, and financial accounting. All of the programs do well in the functions that they address and staff believes project management software will do the same. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle clarified that project management software would cover all of the project management activities city-wide, but would not replace or have an impact on the existing programs used by other departments, in response to a question asked by Chairman Wagner. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting explained how the current financial software program will work with the project management software. Following questions from the Committee, Senior Project Engineer Sweeting described the types of reporting functions of which the project management software is capable. Staff evaluated five available software packages and completed a detailed comparison of the top two programs. The E-builder software then underwent a detailed evaluation. Staff attended presentations by E-builder, met with current users, such as the Port of Olympia and attended a webinar with staff from the City of Arlington, Texas, and completed a working review of the system. Finance Director Coleman and IT Customer Support Manager Stowe confirmed that existing City software programs can be integrated to work with E-builder software and the IT Department would provide technical support. Project/Construction Manager Thomas spoke in favor of the City investing in the E-builder software. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting answered questions asked by Member Osborne regarding the amount of staff training time required to bring the software online and provided a general schedule for putting the software into operation. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting said that staff anticipates a start-up time of 6-9 months prior to being fully operational. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle addressed concerns voiced by
Page 6 of 13
CA.A Page 9 of 80
Chairman Wagner regarding time being spent creating specialized reports using the E-builder software. The Committee and staff evaluated the cost benefits of investing in the project management software program, E-builder, and discussed the proposed funding sources. The Committee supported the purchase of the E-builder software program and the inclusion of the software in the 2013-2014 mid biennial budget adjustment. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting stated that he will be discussing E-builder with both the Planning and Community Development Committee and Finance Committee.
D. Resolution No. 4995 (Bailey) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, Declaring Certain Items of Property as Surplus and Authorizing Their Disposal
Maintenance and Operations Manager Bailey was present. There were no questions from the Committee.
E. Fulmer Well-Field Feasibility Study Update (Repp)
Utilities Engineer Repp presented an update on the Fulmer Wellfield Improvement Project to the Committee. Repp summarized the background for the project, explaining that there have been difficulties with the Fulmer Wellfield and the three wells were not producing as originally developed. Utilities Engineer Repp answered questions asked by Chairman Wagner and Member Osborne regarding the design capacity of Wells No. 2, 6 and 7 compared to the water currently available. Repp stated that the City’s consultant has run pumping step tests that estimated the capacity of each of the wells. The consultant has completed physical pump testing at the wells and water quality analysis. Repp reviewed the expected capacity of the wells following recommended well rehabilitation work. The rehabilitation will include physical and chemical cleaning of the wells. Utilities Engineer Repp reminded the Committee that without removing manganese using a treatment system water from Well No. 7 needs to be blended with the water from Wells No. 2 and 6. Director Dowdy explained how the water is blended, in response to a question asked by Vice-Chair Peloza.
Page 7 of 13
CA.A Page 10 of 80
The Committee and staff reviewed an overview of the water quality analysis of the wells. The goals of the project were to determine the causes for the loss of production and equipment failures in the wellfield, determine steps to improve the water quality, and to determine the true production capacity of the wellfield. The consultant, Golder & Associates, have been working with staff to meet the project goals. Utilities Engineer Repp spoke about the consultant’s initial findings and summarized the wellfield condition. The consultant determined that the aquifer is highly production and it does not limit the yield in the wells. The well construction appears to be adequate. The difficulty with the wellfield is what is happening in the wells. The conditions that were noted are substantial encrustation and slime production on all well screens, largely biological in nature and also significant corrosion in the well pump columns and in the well pumps. The Committee and Utilities Engineer Repp discussed the possible causes of the encrustation and corrosion. Repp stated that the consultant is finishing examining potential biological problems and will next start work of the mechanical aspects of the problems with the wellfield. Utilities Engineer Repp answered questions about the consultant contract asked by the Committee. Repp responded to questions asked by Member Osborne regarding the types of materials used in the well construction. Vice-Chair Peloza asked about the consultant work schedule. Repp said that the consultant is expected to complete the first phase of their work, which included a recommendation, in less than two months. As part of the additional work needed, Utilities Engineer Repp explained that the consultant and staff are unable to confirm the actual capacity of any of the wells until a chemical cleaning is conducted. Following the chemical cleaning of the wells the consultant will need to conduct a long term pump test to confirm the well yield and water quality. Staff is recommending to clean Well No. 6, and place the well back into production with a temporary pump and then proceed to work on Well No. 7 improvements, which will include chemical cleaning, manganese treatment, construction of a new pump and column and inclusion of a corrosion control system. The final last effort will be to complete permanent improvements for Well 6 consisting of a new pump, column and corrosion control system for Well No. 6. The Committee and staff discussed the water supply
Page 8 of 13
CA.A Page 11 of 80
summary and cost estimates for the staff recommendations. The Committee asked for more information regarding project scheduling, i.e. when will the work on the wells begin and when will the City start seeing the benefits. Utilities Engineer Repp answered questions asked by Member Osborne regarding how the chemical cleaning of the wells is completed. Chairman Wagner asked for additional clarification on the water purchase cost line included in the cost estimate. Vice-Chair Peloza asked for a schedule showing the project timing and costs.
F. Comprehensive Water Plan (Fenhaus)
Utilities Engineer Repp presented the scope of service and budget estimate for the Comprehensive Water Plan update to the Committee. Chairman Wagner and staff discussed how the consultant should build a schedule that outlines the Committee review timeline and completion dates for the scope of work tasks and suggested the Committee to focus their review on Task 300 – Policies and Criteria and Task 200 – Planning Considerations. Utilities Engineer Repp responded to questions asked by Chairman Wagner Member Osborne regarding the review of the retail water service area and the consideration of providing service for the Bonney Lake and Lakehaven areas. Utilities Engineer Repp spoke about review of water rights and the relationship between Comprehensive Water Plan, the current water rights, and the Coordinated Regional Water System Plan, in response to an inquire made by Vice-Chair Peloza. Chairman Wagner spoke about the importance of Task 800 – Water Use Efficiency. Member Osborne asked when the City’s Water Quality Monitoring Plan was updated. Repp stated that the plan is updated every time the Department of Health requires the City to do so. The Committee requested that a project review or “lessons learned” activity be included in Task 1000 – Capital Improvements Plan.
G. Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan (Carlaw)
Page 9 of 13
CA.A Page 12 of 80
Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw presented the scope of service and budget estimate for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan update to the Committee. Chairman Wagner requested that more research be done to determine how much fee reduction can be justified by Low Impact Development type mitigation and natural geographic land features during either the update of the Comprehensive Plan or the Fee Rate Study. Chairman Wagner also asked that the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe’s (MIT) influence and cooperation be incorporated into the plan statements. Utilities Engineer Repp clarified that Task 7 – Financial Program is also included in both the Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plans, following an inquiry made by Member Osborne. Repp explained that Finance Department staff will be developing the financial projection for all three plans. Repp noted that the Water Comprehensive Plan has slightly different language that the other plans in order to meet the requirements of the Health Department. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle and Utilities Engineer Repp stated that the Golf Course was not designed to be a stormwater retention facility, in response to a question asked by Member Osborne. Chairman Wagner said review of design and natural geographic land features that benefit the stormwater utility should also be part of Task 7. Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw noted that the update budget is not much more than the cost of the 2009 plan.
H. Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Elwell)
Chairman Wagner deferred the Comprehensive Sewer Plan discussion until the next meeting.
I. Capital Project Status Report (Sweeting)
Item 3 – C201A – M Street Underpass: Senior Project Engineer Sweeting said that the additional parts for the pump station have arrived but the contractor is still waiting for the parts that would allow for the station to be tied into the SCADA System. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle stated that the project should be completed by the projected finish date, November 2013, in response to a question asked by Chairman Wagner. Item 7 – EM1302 – Hidden Valley Vista Emergency Storm
Page 10 of 13
CA.A Page 13 of 80
Repair: Vice-Chair Peloza reported that he received a citizen comment about the efficiency of the contractor and the amount of communication. Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle explained how the energy from the stormwater will be dissipated, following a question asked by Member Osborne. Item 15 – CP1222 – Citywide Traffic Signal Improvements: Vice-Chair Peloza noted that there is no indication in the project status that the project has been delayed. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting said that the reason the project was delayed was because staff was waiting for a Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approval, following the update of the State Transportation Improvement Plan. Item 16 – CP1118 – Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements – Dogwood to Fir Street: Assistant Director/City Engineer Selle stated Director Dowdy is asking MIT Staff to schedule a meeting with the MIT Council to describe the project in more detail to help address any potential issues. Chairman Wagner suggested that staff provided the MIT with a 3D rendering or photos of the project instead of or in addition to a map. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting stated that staff is preparing for the presentation to the MIT and will speak with the consultant to provide appropriate visual aides. Senior Project Engineer Sweeting said that the median between Fir and Hemlock Streets that was included in the last design iteration seen by the committee for project CP1119t was removed, in response to a question asked by Member Osborne. Item 29 – CP1218 – Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Intersection Improvements: Chairman Wagner stated that the City needs to consider initiating a project that constructs a sidewalk down Riverwalk Drive. Chairman Wagner requested that development of a project plan be included on the Action Tracking Matrix.
J. Significant Infrastructure Projects by Others - Public Works Status Report (Gaub)
Vice-Chair Peloza made note of the information that he had provided to the Committee about Item 2 – 17th Street SE, K Street SE to C Street SW Trunk Sewer Main Installation.
K. Action Tracking Matrix (Dowdy)
Item A – Capital Projects Map: Chairman Wagner asked for a map showing both the active and completed projects for the Council
Page 11 of 13
CA.A Page 14 of 80
Offices. Item C – System Development Charges: Utilities Engineer Repp stated that he will check with the consultant about the estimated completion date for the SDCs study, following an inquiry about the schedule asked by Chairman Wagner. Chairman Wagner suggested the Committee review the SDCs before the Cost of Service Analysis. Utilities Engineer Repp agreed that the Cost of Service Analysis should be scheduled for discussion in 2014. Item E – LED Lighting Standards: Chairman Wagner asked about the status of the subjective analysis he had requested. Transportation Manager Para distributed a list of local LED lighting installations for Council to examine. Transportation Manager Para noted that the Downtown area is a retrofit and are not consistent with the typical standard staff is proposing for new roadways. Chairman Wagner asked for more specific instruction for the Council, asking them to note not only their opinion on the glare, color, and brightness, but instructing them to also comment on their subjective thoughts about lighting (i.e. can they see their feet, can they read the nearby signage, does the landscape surrounding the lights appear lively). Vice-Chair Peloza recommended a checklist. Item F – Auburn Way South & 17th Street SE: Transportation Manager Para said that the Committee had requested staff look at closing off and not allowing right turns from 17th Street SE at M Street onto Auburn Way, in response to a question asked by Chairman Wagner. Item J – Transportation Impact Fee Structure Analyses: Staff has a meeting scheduled with the Mayor to clarify the information requested. Chairman Wagner asked that the plan for the Riverwalk sidewalks be presented to the Committee in February 2014. Vice-Chair Peloza requested an item be added, requesting staff to investigate odor complaints at Amberview Apartments. Vice-Chair Peloza requested an item be added for staff to follow up with a citizen who had contacted the City regarding installation of speed humps.
Page 12 of 13
CA.A Page 15 of 80
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Public Works Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:22 p.m. Approved this 4th day of November, 2013.
Page 13 of 13
CA.A Page 16 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Public Works Project No. CP1307
Date:
October 28, 2013
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Budget Status Sheet
Bid Tabulation
Vicinity Map
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Public Works Committee recommend City Council award Limited Public Works Contract
No. 13-17, to RW Scott Construction Company on their low bid of $33,260.00 plus
Washington State sales tax of $3,153.20 for a total contract amount of $36,413.20 for
Project No. CP1307, Control Structure Installation Project.
Background Summary:
The purpose of this project is to install storm water control structures in five existing
storm water manholes shown on the attached maps as required for compliance with the
City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The purpose of
the control structures is to control the rate of storm water flow going out of the storm
ponds located at A St SW, C St SW and Lake Tapps Parkway SE during rain events.
Construction of this project is anticipated to start mid-November and be complete by the
end of 2013.
The lowest responsive and responsible quote exceeded the Engineer’s estimate. Staff
recommends award of this project for the following reasons:
1.Responsive and responsible quotes were received from two contractors and were
approximately $1,836 apart indicating competitive bids were received for the work.
2.Re-soliciting quotes for this project may increase the total cost of the work since
construction would be delayed to next year, and it is important to get this work
constructed as soon as possible to remain in compliance with the City’s NPDES
permit.
3.Due to the custom fabrication required to retrofit each control structure and install
them within the existing manholes, the costs were difficult to estimate as it is very
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.B Page 17 of 80
dependant on the Contractor’s means and methods.
A project budget contingency of $2,945 remains in the 432 (Storm) Fund.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Public Works
Councilmember:Wagner Staff:Wickstrom
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:CA.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.B Page 18 of 80
H:\PW COMMITTEE\Agenda Bills and Attachments\11.04.13\CP1307\Budget Status Sheet.xlsx 1 of 1
Project No: CP1307 Project Title:
Project Manager: Seth Wickstrom
Project Initiation
Initiation Date: _November 4, 2013______ Permision to Advertise
Advertisement Date: _October 10, 2013 Contract Award
Award Date: ________________________ Change Order Approval
Contract Final Acceptance
Funding Prior Years 2013 2014 Future Years Total
432 Fund - Storm R&R Program**50,000 50,000
Total 0 50,000 0 0 50,000
Activity Prior Years 2013 2014 Future Years Total
Design Engineering - City Costs 4,000 4,000
Construction Estimate 36,413 36,413
Project Contingency (10%)3,641 3,641
Construction Engineering - City Costs 3,000 3,000
Total 0 47,055 0 0 47,055
Prior Years 2013 2014 Future Years Total
*432 Funds Budgeted ( )0 (50,000)0 0 (50,000)
432 Funds Needed 0 47,055 0 0 47,055
*432 Fund Project Contingency ( )0 (2,945)0 0 (2,945)
432 Funds Required 0 0 0 0 0
* ( # ) in the Budget Status Sections indicates Money the City has available.
** This is a portion of the 2013 annual budget for the Storm Repair & Replacement Program.
Funds Budgeted (Funds Available)
Estimated Cost (Funds Needed)
BUDGET STATUS SHEET
Control Structure Installation Project
Date: October 28, 2013
The "Future Years" column indicates the projected amount to be requested in future budgets.
432 Storm Budget Status
CA.B Page 19 of 80
QU
O
T
E
T
O
T
A
L
S
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
:
C
P
1
3
0
7
,
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
u
b
u
r
n
Bi
d
D
a
t
e
:
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
:
22
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
AV
E
R
A
G
E
B
A
S
I
C
B
I
D
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
3
4
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
BA
S
I
C
B
I
D
S
P
R
E
A
D
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
1
,
6
8
0
.
0
0
$
B
a
s
i
c
B
I
D
A
m
o
u
n
t
S
p
r
e
a
d
$
S
p
r
e
a
d
%
LO
W
B
I
D
D
E
R
:
R
W
S
c
o
t
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
C
o
.
3
3
,
2
6
0
.
0
0
$
$
1
0
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
4
7
.
1
7
%
Se
c
o
n
d
B
i
d
d
e
r
:
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
C
a
s
c
a
d
e
,
I
n
c
.
3
4
,
9
4
0
.
0
0
$
$
1
2
,
3
4
0
.
0
0
5
4
.
6
0
%
Ba
s
i
c
B
I
D
(
T
a
x
n
o
t
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
)
T
o
t
a
l
B
I
D
(
T
a
x
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
)
RW
S
c
o
t
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
C
o
.
33
,
2
6
0
.
0
0
$
36
,
4
1
3
.
2
0
$
No
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
C
a
s
c
a
d
e
,
I
n
c
.
34
,
9
4
0
.
0
0
$
38
,
2
5
6
.
1
0
$
10
/
2
4
/
1
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
3
(
1
1
:
3
9
A
M
)
h:
\
p
r
o
j
\
b
i
d
t
a
b
s
\
C
P
1
3
0
7
B
T
.
x
l
s
1
CA
.
B
Pa
g
e
2
0
o
f
8
0
CA.B Page 21 of 80
CA.B Page 22 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Public Works Consultant Agreement No. AG-C-417
Date:
October 30, 2013
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Scope of Work
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Public Works Committee recommend Council grant permission to enter into Amendment
No. 1 to Consultant Agreement No. AG-C-417 with Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. for
Professional Services related to the Water Facilities Evaluation Study.
Background Summary:
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc.’s (MSA) scope of work for the Water Facility Evaluation
Study included performing initial assessments and inspections of portions of the City’s
water system, including pump stations, treatment facilities, reservoirs, pressure reducing
stations, and several major water transmission mains. Their scope also included
submitting recommendations for additional “Second Tier” inspections where more
detailed information or investigation was needed to assess their condition. One of the
recommendations was to conduct a more extensive investigation into the condition of
several of the larger transmission mains (see the attached map), primarily based on
their age and their critical role in the provision of the City’s water supply. Because
physical access to the large transmission mains is limited, MSA researched several
options for non-destructively assessing the condition of the pipelines. The inspection
technique included in this proposal to complete the second tier inspections uses
acoustic signals to detect leaks and assess pipe wall thickness of water pipes. From that
data, an estimate of the remaining useful life of the pipe will be calculated. The City will
use this information to plan for future monitoring, inspection, and possible repair or
replacement of these transmission mains.
The anticipated cost for this amendment is $98,552.00, increasing the agreement total
to $274,952.00.
Sufficient funds are available in the Water Fund’s Professional Services budget to fund
this amendment.
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.C Page 23 of 80
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Public Works
Councilmember:Wagner Staff:Elwell/Fenhaus
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:CA.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.C Page 24 of 80
Transmission Main Inspection
Printed Date:
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
10/30/2013
CA.C Page 25 of 80
City of Auburn 1 Transmission Mains Condition Assessment
October 2013 Scope of Work
G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Auburn, City of, WA\Facilities Evaluation Study 3-15-12\Scope and Fee\Amendment 1\City of Auburn-Echologics Scope of Work.docx
“EXHIBIT A”
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1 – Scope of Work
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA) will manage specialty subconsultant work by
Echologics to perform acoustic leak detection and condition assessment along up to 3 miles
of transmission mains, as specified by the City of Auburn (City). These mains are
constructed of Ductile Iron and Wire Wrapped Concrete material, and range from 14 inches
to 24 inches in diameter. The project execution steps and deliverables are as follows:
1.1 Project Planning, Site Visit and Mobilization – MSA will provide Echologics with
the locations of the mains to be surveyed, as well as any existing locations at which
the pipe can be accessed for testing. Echologics shall review this information, and
shall work with MSA and the City to select appropriate pipeline access sites for the
testing. A joint site visit shall be conducted, at which point the viability of the access
points selected shall be assessed. Once a survey plan has been agreed to, the City
shall undertake any required preparations of the access points to allow the surveys to
proceed, including any excavation work required.
Upon confirmation from MSA that a sufficient number of access points have been
prepared, Echologics shall mobilize the required crew and equipment to the job site.
1.2 Field Testing, analysis and Reporting – Echologics shall attach vibration sensors to
appropriate fittings (valves, hydrants or the surface of the main), and shall record and
analyze acoustic signals using Echologics’ proprietary software. The City shall
provide safe access to the main at the required access points, including traffic control,
security, and rendering confined spaces safe for entry, as required. For each pipe
integrity testing interval, acoustic waves of the required frequency must be induced in
the main, from a location outside of that assessment interval. Acceptable sources of
sound, in order of preference, are:
1. Existing sound from pumps or pressure reducing valves.
2. Flowing a hydrant or other valve outside of the testing interval.
3. Attaching one of Echologics’ Modal Excitation Units at a site outside of the
testing interval.
Testing will be performed in real time, allowing most leak locations to be reported on
site at the time of the field testing. For further details of the methods employed, see
assumptions.
Upon completion of the field testing, the recorded data files shall be subject to more
detailed analysis to help refine the on-site findings, and to reveal any leaks that may
CA.C Page 26 of 80
City of Auburn 2 Transmission Mains Condition Assessment
October 2013 Scope of Work
G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Auburn, City of, WA\Facilities Evaluation Study 3-15-12\Scope and Fee\Amendment 1\City of Auburn-Echologics Scope of Work.docx
be masked by ambient noise. A report of findings shall be prepared, indicating the
locations of any leaks identified, along with the average remaining structural wall
thickness (for metallic and asbestos cement mains), or the average hoop stiffness (for
reinforced concrete or plastic mains), over each test interval. If the City is able to
supply the original design parameters of the piping, the percentage loss shall also be
reported, along with a qualitative description of the likely condition of the piping
based on Echologics’ past experience.
The sole deliverable produced as a result of work performed on this project shall be a
report indicating leak locations and/or pipe condition indications, which shall be the
property of the City. All processes, technology, documents, and intermediary data
used to produce this report, including Echologics' existing IP, are and will continue to
be owned by Echologics.
Although not anticipated, during the course of performing the contract, Echologics
may conduct tests on asbestos cement pipe. Any information provided to the City by
Echologics regarding the condition or serviceability of such pipe relates only to its
capacity to hold and transport water. As between the parties, the City is solely
responsible for complying with all laws and regulations related to asbestos and
asbestos cement pipe. Echologics and MSA specifically disclaims any and all liability
for any claims or damages related to asbestos or asbestos cement pipe and its
performance of the contract. For further details of the methods employed, see
assumptions.
Task 1 MSA Deliverables:
1. Field Report: A field report will be submitted on-site if any leaks are positively
identified. Following completion of the on-site work, a final report will be submitted
detailing the methods used and the leak detection results. A draft report shall be
delivered within six weeks of completion of the field testing.
2. Final Report: The results of the pipe integrity including remaining pipe wall
thicknesses will be submitted in a final report along with any confirmed or suspected
leaks discovered in the survey.
Task 1 City Responsibilities:
1. Provide potholes for inspection and access to mains as necessary.
Task 1 Assumptions:
a. AC Pipe: It is assumed that no asbestos-cement pipe will be tested.
b. Academy Transmission Main: Approximately 1 mile of the 14-inch diameter
Academy transmission main will be evaluated.
CA.C Page 27 of 80
City of Auburn 3 Transmission Mains Condition Assessment
October 2013 Scope of Work
G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Auburn, City of, WA\Facilities Evaluation Study 3-15-12\Scope and Fee\Amendment 1\City of Auburn-Echologics Scope of Work.docx
c. Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main: Approximately 1 mile of the 24-inch
diameter Coal Creek Springs transmission main will be evaluated.
d. Lea Hill Transmission Main: Approximately 1,300 linear feet of the 16-inch
diameter Lea Hill transmission main and approximately 3,980 linear feet of the 20-
inch diameter Lea Hill transmission main will be evaluated.
e. Leak Detection Measurements: Leak detection will be performed by bracketing a
section of pipe with two accelerometers (magnetic surface mounted sensors) and
recording a noise file using the LeakFinderRT system. The section of pipe must be
filled with water and under operating pressure. Leak noise data will be collected for
each section of pipe and recorded to a computer for analysis. Analysis will be done
both on-site and back in our offices the day following the measurements.
f. Sensor Spacing: For leak detection, maximum recommended sensor spacing is 2,500
ft for hydrophones, or 300-500 ft for surface mounted sensors. The City shall
provide 12-inch diameter excavations to the crown of the pipe where access is
needed but no main valves or hydrants are accessible.
g. Data analysis: File analysis and digital filtering will be applied to recorded files
collected to filter out intruding noise from traffic and other sources. This will be
done both on site, and in Echologics offices in Toronto.
h. Leak Pinpointing: Where leaks are detected, they will be pinpointed, marked, and
where possible verified using ground sounding and/or different configurations of the
sensors around the suspected leak as the access allows.
i. Pipe Integrity Testing (PIT) Measurements: Following the leak detection of a
section of pipe, a third access point will be used to create an “out-of-bracket” noise,
either by flowing water from a hydrant, tapping on a valve, or using modal excitation
units.
j. Sensor Spacing: For condition assessment, the recommended sensor spacing is 300-
500 ft. If the existing configuration of access fittings (valves, hydrants etc) does not
allow for sensor spacing of this distance, additional 6-inch diameter potholes to the
surface of the pipe may need to be excavated by the City.
k. Velocity: This noise will be recorded and used to measure the acoustic velocity of
sound within each section of pipe.
l. Data Analysis: All of the recorded files will undergo an analysis in Echologics’
Toronto office and will result in average remaining wall thickness of each section of
pipe surveyed.
CA.C Page 28 of 80
City of Auburn 4 Transmission Mains Condition Assessment
October 2013 Scope of Work
G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Auburn, City of, WA\Facilities Evaluation Study 3-15-12\Scope and Fee\Amendment 1\City of Auburn-Echologics Scope of Work.docx
m. Final Report: Upon receipt of the draft Echologics report, MSA shall forward to the
City for review. The City shall have 10 calendar days to review the report, and
present MSA with any requests for correction, modification, or elaboration. MSA
shall forward comments to Echologics. Any comments received by Echologics
during this review period shall be considered when preparing its final report. Any
requests made after the review period expires are excluded from this scope of work,
but can be accommodated at an hourly reporting rate. The final report shall be issued
within two weeks of the end of the review period.
Payment
Payment will be made on a percent complete basis along the following schedule.
Item Rate Units Est. Qty Total
1.1 - Project Planning, Site Visit and
Mobilization $18,150 Lump Sum 1 $18,150
1.2 - Field Tests, Analysis, and Reporting for: $71,443 Lump Sum 1 $71,443
Academy - 14”
Coal Creek Springs - 24”
Lea Hill – 16”
Lea Hill – 20”
Estimated Project Total $89,593
Recommended Contingency (10%) $8,959
Not To Exceed Total $98,552
If Echologics’ staff are unable to work due to any reason within the reasonable control of
City of Auburn a standby rate of $3,000 per day will be billed. All prices are in United
States Dollars, and do not include applicable taxes.
Invoicing shall be as indicated below:
Site Visit: Upon completion of the site visit.
Project Planning and Mobilization: Upon arrival of crew at the job site.
Field Tests, Analysis, and Reporting:
80% of the amount shall be invoiced once monthly, prorated for the estimated
amount of field tests completed
The balance of the amount, including any corrections to the quantities of
service provided, shall be invoiced upon submission of the draft report
CA.C Page 29 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6475
Date:
October 30, 2013
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6475
Budget Impact:
$15,792,046.00
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council to introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6475, establishing the Property Tax
levy for calendar year 2014.
Background Summary:
Attached is proposed Ordinance No. 6475, establishing the 2014 Property Tax
Levy. The 2014 Property Tax Levy is based upon preliminary information from King
County and represents an increase over the 2013 levy, as allowed under State law, and
also includes estimated property taxes on new construction of $239,000. King County
will not finalize the City’s assessed valuation (AV) and new construction until December
therefore the levy will be based upon preliminary information as it is scheduled for
Council adoption on November 18, 2013. The following table summarizes the 2014
Property Tax levy:
2014 Property Tax Levy Calculations
2013 property tax levy $ 14,509,253
Add 1% increase 145,093
Add new construction & improvements 239,000
Add fire pension fund 231,000
Add correction of 2013 levy error 667,700
Total 2014 Property Tax Levy $ 15,792,046
Ordinance No. 6475 will be reviewed by the Council Finance Committee on November 4
(first reading) and on November 18 (final reading) before being referred to the full
Council for adoption on the same night (November 18). Filing of the adopted ordinance
will be made by December 1, as required by the County.
As of this date the County has preliminarily established the 2014 assessed valuation
(including new construction) for the City of Auburn at $7,311,156,400 which is a 5.8%
increase over the 2013 level of $6,909,168,076.
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 30 of 80
The total 2014 Property Tax Levy will be distributed to the General Fund to support
general governmental operations.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Municipal Services, Planning And Community Development, Public Works
Councilmember:Partridge Staff:Coleman
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 31 of 80
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6475
October 30, 2013
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 7 5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE LEVY
FOR REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES BY THE CITY OF
AUBURN FOR COLLECTION IN 2014 FOR GENERAL
CITY OPERATIONAL PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$15,792,046.00
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn has met and
considered its budget for the calendar year 2014; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 the City Council held public
hearings on October 7, 2013 and November 4, 2013, after proper notice was
given, to consider the City of Auburn’s 2014 budget and the regular property
tax levy to support it; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn, after public hearing,
and after duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, has
determined that the City of Auburn requires property tax revenue and any
increase of new construction and improvements to property, any increase in the
value of state-assessed property, annexations, and any refund levies in order
to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the City and in its best
interest; and
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Regular property taxes for collection in the City of Auburn
for the year 2014 are authorized in the amount of $15,792,046.00.
DI.A Page 32 of 80
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6475
October 30, 2013
Page 2 of 3
This amount includes: (a) a correction of the levy base in the amount of
$667,700.00 representing the 4.6% levy reduction that was not required for
2013, (b) $231,000.00 representing 1.6% to fully fund the Fire Pension Fund
which was found to be deficient in the January 2013 actuarial valuation, and (c)
$145,093.00 or 1% in amounts authorized by the levy growth limit factor for a
combined dollar increase of $1,043,793.00 or 7.2% over the amounts actually
levied in 2013. The increases above do not include the addition of new
construction and improvements to property, any increase in the value of state
assessed property, any refund levies available, and any other adjustments as a
result of annexations that have occurred.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of
the remaining portions of the Ordinance, as it being hereby expressly declared
that this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
hereof would have been prepared, proposed, adopted and approved and
ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out
the directives of this legislation.
DI.A Page 33 of 80
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6475
October 30, 2013
Page 3 of 3
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as
provided by law.
INTRODUCED: _______________
PASSED: ____________________
APPROVED: _________________
____________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Danielle E. Daskam
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel B. Heid
City Attorney
PUBLISHED: ________________
DI.A Page 34 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Agreement for Services – Comprehensive Plan Update
Date:
October 29, 2013
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Scope of Work
Budget
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
No recommendation, discussion only.
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn is embarking on its major update to the Comprehensive Plan as
required under RCW 36.70A.130 (Growth Management Act). Auburn is required to have
its update complete by June 30, 2015. In previous discussions with the Planning and
Community Development Committee (PCDC), the Committee is supportive of the
approach to overhaul the comprehensive plan and beginning with an updated vision for
the City. To assist staff with this effort, a consultant is proposed to be brought on
board. The City issued a Request for Qualifications in August 2013 with a submittal
deadline of September 3, 2013. We received six submittals that were reviewed by a
committee of multiple City departments. We interviewed two firms and the committee
selected MIG, Inc.
Attached to this memo is the scope of work for the visioning portion of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. The scope of work has been structured to have MIG
support City staff in creating the tools needed for outreach with staff and electeds as the
face of the outreach, support the City’s social media outlets with information on the
visioning work, provide materials for website updates, and compile all the information
gathered through the various outreach efforts to create an updated vision. The budget
for this project has been allocated in the Planning and Development Department’s 2013-
2014 budget under professional services.
At the October 28, 2013 Planning and Community Development Committee meeting, the
Committee recommended approval of the consultant agreement with MIG, Inc.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 35 of 80
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Chamberlain
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 36 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
MIG, Inc. is pleased to submit the following scope of services in support of the City of
Auburn Visioning process. This scope of work is organized according to four
primary tasks:
Task 1. Background and Process Foundation
Task 2. Marketing and Promotions
Task 3. Engagement Tools and Methods
Task 4. Vision Development
Given the nature and timeline of this project, many work items will be underway
concurrently at any given time. MIG anticipates initiating items under Task 1
immediately following contract execution. Broad community outreach is anticipated
to begin as early as December 2013, with the majority of outreach and engagement
activities beginning in the New Year. While many of the following sub‐tasks identify
the need for specific coordination calls with the City, we anticipate strategic,
ongoing coordination meetings by phone with Planning staff to ensure timely and
effective process implementation.
Task 1. Background and Process Foundation
Task 1.1: Project Initiation
The MIG project team will meet with City project staff in the MIG Portland office for
a 1‐2 hour project initiation meeting. This meeting will focus on identifying key City‐
wide issues for consideration, and clarifying roles and responsibilities for those
involved in the project. We will also begin planning for subsequent activities by
discussing key background documents and data (see Task 1.2), identifying
stakeholders to interview (see Task 1.3), and determining a preliminary schedule
for initial deliverables under Task 1.
Deliverable: 1) Brief notes on next steps; 2) Revised project timeline
Task 1.2: Background Document Review
MIG will review select City documents including goals and policies of the current
Comprehensive Plan. The goal of the background document review is to help
identify the issues and topics to explore during the visioning process. Primary
documents include relevant community and facility master plans, the annual citizen
survey, and key health impact assessment documents. The City will be responsible
DI.B Page 37 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 2 of 10
for identifying the most salient documents and providing the documents for review
in a timely fashion.
Deliverable: None
Task 1.3: Communications and Outreach Plan
MIG will develop a Communications and Outreach Plan to help guide the overall
visioning process. The Plan will be developed based on the four principles outlined
in the City’s original RFQ: it will establish a process that is “inclusive”, “cohesive”,
“accessible” and “City‐driven”. The plan will articulate communications, outreach
and community engagement objectives and will build on the tasks identified in this
scope to establish the strategy and timeline for this project. The Plan will include
key messages, target audiences and participants, and outreach tools and methods.
This task includes one one‐hour call involving the Community Services Division to
gain a greater understanding of our target markets. The focus will be to determine
how to engage low‐income, second language and traditionally underrepresented or
hard to reach populations.
Deliverable: Communications and Outreach Plan
Task 1.4: Stakeholder Interviews
The MIG Team will conduct 12‐15 stakeholder interviews by telephone. Interviews
will be designed to explore community values, key and emerging trends, City
strengths, issues and challenges, and opportunities. Interviews may also be used to
inform the Communications and Outreach Plan as well. Potential interviewees
include City Council members, citizens, chamber of commerce or business
representatives, community leaders or community‐based organizations, and key
regional partners.
The City will be responsible for providing a comprehensive list of potential
interviewees and interviewee contact information, including both phone and email.
MIG will develop the interview instrument and will schedule all interviews.
Deliverable: Interview Questions
Task 1.5: Interview Summary Memo: Trends, Issues and Opportunities
MIG will produce a memo summarizing key findings from the interviews,
documenting key strengths, challenges and opportunities for the City moving
forward. The stakeholder interview summary will provide a substantive foundation
for subsequent discussions with the community.
Deliverable: Interview Summary Memo
DI.B Page 38 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 3 of 10
Task 2. Marketing and Promotions
Task 2.1: Visioning Brand
MIG graphic designers will develop an established graphic “look and feel” for all
project communications and materials. This will include a project logo and/or
banner, color palette and typography for use on printed collateral, as well as a
template for PowerPoint presentations. MIG will finalize the visioning brand based
on no more than two rounds of consolidated City comments.
Deliverables: 1) Project banner (for web and print); 2) PowerPoint template
Task 2.2: Social Media Strategy and Content
MIG staff will hold one telephone meeting with the Mayor’s Office and Planning staff
at the outset of the project to gain greater understanding of shared marketing
objectives and City protocol with respect to use of social media and public relations
overall. Outcomes of this discussion will be reflected in the Communications and
Outreach Plan (see Task 1.3).
The MIG team will provide web content for the City’s visioning webpage at key
milestones throughout the process, as well as web‐ready materials for the City to
post. An effective social media strategy will be a key component of the
Communications and Outreach Plan. MIG will provide the City with the content and
direction required to implement the agreed upon social media strategy using
Auburn’s existing Facebook and Twitter portals.
The following tactics show a few recommended uses of social media channels, based
on our current assumptions of the communications objectives for the visioning
project.
Dedicated content on Auburn’s Facebook news feed
MIG will assist the City in the development of posts related to the visioning
process. Posts will be designed to inform the public of the visioning project;
to promote upcoming events; and to encourage user engagement through
social media channels. Individual posts would use the messaging developed
in the Communications Plan and whenever possible would include
compelling imagery to spark interest (e.g., historical photos, etc.). MIG would
provide the language and imagery for the posts, as well as a recommended
schedule for distribution.
Paid promotion of specific posts on Auburn’s Facebook news feed
In addition to the “organic” postings, MIG recommends dedicating a portion
of the budget to allow for paid promotions of specific posts on the newsfeed.
DI.B Page 39 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 4 of 10
A paid promotion ensures that a specific post achieves a greater number of
impressions, reaches a wider audience, and has greater longevity than it
would if distributed through normal channels. MIG would work with City
staff to identify the post(s) that would warrant additional promotion.
Visioning events promoted on Auburn’s Facebook Events page
MIG will provide language and imagery to ensure that community meetings
and visioning‐oriented events are effectively promoted on Auburn’s existing
Facebook Events page.
Enhanced meeting facilitation using Twitter
MIG will recommend a process using Twitter to enhance community
meetings by providing a dedicated hashtag (e.g., #AuburnVision) allowing
participants to tweet questions or comments. Meeting facilitators could then
view tweets in real time and respond accordingly. This strategy has an
additional benefit in that any tweets made by participants would be seen by
their followers, expanding the reach of the event and creating a potential
“virtual meeting space.”
MIG will coordinate directly with the appropriate City staff during content
development, review and submission based on protocol to be determined by the
team. This task assumes a level of effort for MIG staff of 4 hours per week over a
five‐month period. We propose targeting social media outreach for specific windows
of time to maximize effectiveness and will propose a strategy as part of the
Communications and Outreach Plan.
The City will be responsible for maintaining web pages and links and for managing
all website and social media content (i.e., posting all material and updating when
needed). City staff will also be responsible for coordinating directly with all outside
media and community groups.
Deliverables: 1) Content for City visioning webpage; 2) Facebook and/or Twitter
content; 3) One paid promotion on Facebook
Task 2.3: Press Release and Collateral Development
MIG will provide editorial and design assistance for communications materials that
will provide City staff with the clear, concise and cogent messaging needed to
educate the public about comprehensive planning and to promote the visioning
process. Materials may include a short briefing book with key messages, a set of
project FAQs for the public, visioning workshop flyers or postcards, and press
releases to notify the media of the project.
DI.B Page 40 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 5 of 10
The current budget includes three collateral pieces and five press releases. The City
will be responsible for distributing all promotional and outreach materials and for
providing and proofing any translated copy. For items targeted to the public, MIG
will use City copy to create alternative language versions for up to two languages
per item.
Deliverables: Electronically: 1) Three collateral pieces (e.g., project “FAQs”, visioning
workshop flyers or postcards) in English and up to two other languages (City to
provide translated copy); 2) Five press releases.
Task 3. Engagement Tools and Materials
Task 3.1: City Council Briefing Session/s
MIG will conduct one day of sessions with City Council after the first of the year to
engage returning and new Council members in the Visioning process. The
opportunity will also be used to educate Council members about the Comprehensive
Plan process. The task will likely be accomplished through a combination of one‐on‐
one meetings and a Committee of the Whole meeting.
Deliverables: Session agenda(s)
Task 3.2: Visioning Toolkit and Data Entry Module
The purpose of the visioning toolkit is to create an alternative to the more formal
community workshop. A visioning toolkit includes all the materials needed for
community leaders, partner NGOs, neighborhood associations, and even youth
leaders or high school teachers to hold a visioning workshop in their community or
classroom. Select toolkit components may also be used or adapted for community
intercept events, whereby staff would engage people in places and at events they are
already attending.
The toolkit will include the following items: an agenda, project “FAQs” (developed
under separate task), a facilitator’s guide and key talking points, at least one
interactive activity with supporting materials, and a sign‐in sheet and feedback
form. These kits can be used to meet with citizens in less formal settings in sessions
hosted by trusted community‐based and service organizations. The toolkit could
also be used to help facilitate conversations of a more formal nature, led by
members of the Planning Commission or City Council.
MIG anticipates using stakeholder interviews conducted in Task I to help generate
interest in the toolkit and identify groups that would be interested in using it to hold
their own independent visioning workshops. An outreach strategy for the toolkit
will be included in the Communications and Outreach Plan.
DI.B Page 41 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 6 of 10
The City will be responsible for all coordination and outreach associated with toolkit
distribution and use, and for entering the results of the outreach into the data entry
module provided by MIG. MIG will integrate findings into the draft vision framework
and Vision Summary Report (see Task 4). Findings may also be used to inform
subsequent community outreach and discussions.
Deliverables: Toolkit prototype (2 copies) and electronic files to include 1) Agenda; 2)
facilitation/discussion guide; 3) visioning poster (interactive); 4) individual feedback
form; 5) sign‐in sheet
Task 3.3: Community Questionnaire
MIG will develop a web‐based questionnaire to engage City residents, businesses,
and workers. The questionnaire will also be formatted for hard copy distribution.
The questionnaire will be designed to solicit input related to community values and
desired character, community priorities, and shared goals and aspirations for the
future.
The Communications and Outreach Plan (see Task 1.3) will outline an effective
approach for spreading the word and sharing the questionnaire. The City will be
responsible for all questionnaire‐related outreach. This includes sharing the online
link and distributing and collecting hardcopy questionnaires. The City will also be
responsible for entering all hardcopy results into the online database. MIG will
program and manage the online questionnaire and provide periodic updates
regarding response levels.
It is anticipated that the questionnaire will remain live and available for at least four
weeks. MIG will review and analyze results and develop a summary of questionnaire
findings and responses. The task will include formatting all open‐ended responses
in a separate document for the City’s records.
Deliverables: 1) Questionnaire instrument (introduction, questions, proposed format);
2) Online questionnaire and web link; 3) Hardcopy questionnaire; 4) Brief weekly
updates.
Task 3.4: Neighborhood Workshop Materials
MIG recommends that the City hold a series of neighborhood‐based vision
workshops throughout Auburn to facilitate collaborative, face‐to‐face engagement
of residents. We recommend holding workshops in each of Auburn’s major
neighborhoods, each following the same format.
This task includes two one‐hour planning meetings (by phone) to: a) establish the
agenda and format; and b) review and refine draft materials prior to workshops.
MIG will provide the complete packet of materials needed: an agenda, a sign‐in sheet
DI.B Page 42 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 7 of 10
and comment card, a brief PowerPoint with talking points, a small group discussion
facilitator’s guide, and up to three presentation boards or meeting handouts.
The City will be responsible for planning and coordinating all logistics, facilitating
and staffing each workshop, and thoroughly documenting and summarizing
workshop findings for inclusion in the vision summary report.
Deliverables: Electronic copies of: 1) Agenda; 2) PowerPoint presentation; 3) Display
boards; 4) Small group facilitators guide, if warranted; 5) sign‐in sheet; 6) participant
comment card
Task 4. Vision Development
Task 4.1: Draft Vision Summary Report
Using all community input received over the course of the process, MIG will develop
a vision summary report that clearly describes the visioning process, articulates a
draft community vision statement, and outlines preliminary goals, issues and
opportunities for further exploration during the formal Comprehensive Plan update
process. This draft encompasses the framework for the final vision summary report
and will serve as the platform for discussion at the proposed Vision Open House.
The City will be responsible for providing any photographs for the report. MIG will
format the report using InDesign and will provide one print and web‐ready
document electronically.
Deliverable: Draft Vision Summary Report.
Task 4.2: Vision Open House Materials
The City will present the draft community vision statement at an open house
targeting members of the public. The open house will provide an overview of the
visioning process and presentation and discussion of the draft community vision
and preliminary goals, issues and opportunities for the Comprehensive Plan update.
MIG will provide the complete set of materials needed for the event. MIG will also
create a simple form for the City website to solicit and collect public comment on the
draft vision framework and will solicit input via social media.
Deliverable: Electronic copies of: 1) Agenda; 2) PowerPoint presentation; 3) Display
boards; 4) Sign‐in sheet; 4) Participant comment card; 5) Web link/online comment
and feedback form.
Task 4.3: Final Commission and Council Presentations
MIG will attend and present at up to 2 Commission or Council meetings (2 meetings
total). This task includes all travel and preparation, including a brief PowerPoint
DI.B Page 43 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 8 of 10
presentation and accompanying hand‐outs, if needed. City staff will be responsible
for scheduling the sessions.
Deliverable: PowerPoint presentation(s)
Task 4.4: Final Vision Summary Report
MIG will make any needed revisions to the vision summary document based on
public review, staff direction, and final comments from the Planning Commission
and City Council. This task includes preparation of a revised draft report (following
public review) and the final report.
Deliverable: Final Summary Report (pdf and all graphic files with links).
Optional Tasks
5.1. Toolkit Production
MIG will produce and package the toolkit for the City to distribute. The proposed
budget includes up to 30 copies of the visioning toolkit developed under Task 3.2.
Toolkits will include basic supplies to hold a small workshop (markers, tape, etc.).
Cost of shipping is included in the budget.
Deliverable: 30 visioning toolkits.
5.2. In‐Person Toolkit and Facilitation Training
MIG is available to provide one or more training sessions for groups including
community members, non‐profit groups, Junior City Council members, elected
officials and others planning to utilize the visioning workshop toolkit. The training
will provide opportunities for practicing facilitation techniques and for MIG to share
“tricks of the trade” with workshop leaders. The session(s) can also be designed to
help prepare staff and volunteers for community intercept activities. The City is
responsible for planning/convening training sessions.
Deliverable: Session agenda(s)
5.3. Focus Groups
MIG will design and facilitate focus groups with key stakeholders at one milestone
during the visioning process. Focus groups can be used to test the draft vision
statement and goals, issues and opportunities presented in the draft Community
Vision Report. Focus groups held later in the process to test these core concepts may
be an effective tool to reach traditionally underrepresented or harder to reach
groups, and/or groups who have been underrepresented in the visioning process
and require additional targeted outreach to engage. The City will be responsible for
session logistics (venue, participant outreach and RSVPs, etc.)
DI.B Page 44 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 9 of 10
Deliverable: Focus group questions.
5.4. Facilitation of Community Visioning Workshop
MIG is available to facilitate a neighborhood workshop or the Vision Open House
(Task 4.2) or another event, at the City’s choosing. MIG will provide two staff
members, bring needed supplies (including laptop/projector if needed), facilitate
the session, and take summary notes (i.e., a graphic recording) of meeting
proceedings. Costs include travel and set‐up/tear‐down. The City is responsible for
all other meeting logistics (venue, date, outreach, etc.)
Deliverable: 1) Hardcopies of meeting hand‐outs developed under separate task; 2)
Photo‐reduction of meeting notes.
Scope and Budget Assumptions
The following assumptions were used to develop the budget:
1. City staff will provide a single, consolidated set of substantive edits for each
draft deliverable document prepared for this project. All comments between
commentators must be resolved by the client before providing the comments
to the MIG Team. The consultant team will complete one round of
substantive client comments on each document (i.e. Draft Vision Summary,
Final Vision Summary, etc.). Subsequent edits, such as changes to grammar,
punctuation, word choice, etc., will be consolidated to the degree possible.
Exception: the current budget assumes two rounds of substantive edits for
deliverables under Task 3.
2. The level of effort for each task is specifically identified in the project budget.
During the planning process, MIG will provide a single, digital copy of all
products and materials prepared for the update process with the exception
of the Vision Summary Report. For the Vision Summary Report, the MIG
Team will provide the final report in Adobe PDF format and original/editable
InDesign files (with text and all graphic links).
3. Unless explicitly detailed in this scope, City staff will be responsible for
coordinating directly with outside firms, agencies and departments
otherwise involved in the visioning and Comprehensive Plan update process.
This includes HIA project staff, consultant and media groups, community‐
based organizations and City departments.
4. Except as listed below, the budget assumes that the client will be responsible
for all printing, packaging and mailing costs related to the project, including
materials for community workshops, intercept events, workshop notices and
copies of the Vision Summary Report and other documents for the public.
DI.B Page 45 of 80
Exhibit A
Agreement No. AG-C-437
Page 10 of 10
MIG will invoice the client for internal printing and plotting of proofs and
internal copies of work products.
5. The MIG Team has assumed up to three person trips within this scope of
services (see Tasks 1.4 and 4.4). Trips are each assumed to include one
working day of meetings and one overnight stay if needed. Reimbursable
expenses are estimated at approximately $250 per person trip. This includes
hotel, meals, car rental, and incidental expenses.
6. City staff will provide the consultant with a complete and up‐to‐date GIS
database that includes all of the existing conditions and base map
information necessary for the planning and design process. Our scope and
budget assumes that the information will be up‐to‐date and any cleanup
work will be completed by the client.
7. The MIG Team assumes that all data and information provided by City staff is
accurate and reliable. Time spent to revise work based on inaccurate or
incomplete information is not included in the scope of work or budget. Any
corrections or cleanup work will be completed by the client.
8. City staff will provide MIG with information, data, responses, and review in a
timely manner that does not delay the process.
9. The Auburn Visioning process is assumed to take no more than 6 months
from contract execution through adoption of the final document.
10. City staff will be responsible for all logistics and direct costs related to
meetings, workshops and hearings. This includes but is not limited to:
mailings, meeting organization, finding and renting facilities, food for
meetings and workshops, and translation services and equipment.
DI.B Page 46 of 80
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
4
1
1
1
8
2
5
2
9
1
6
2
3
3
0
5
1
2
1
9
2
6
2
9
1
6
2
3
2
9
1
6
2
3
3
0
6
1
3
2
0
2
7
1
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1.
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
1.
2
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
1.
3
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
P
l
a
n
1.
4
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
(
1
2
-
1
5
)
1.
5
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
2
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
2.
1
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
B
r
a
n
d
2.
2
M
e
d
i
a
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
2.
3
C
o
l
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
3
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3.
1
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
B
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
/
s
3.
2
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
T
o
o
l
k
i
t
a
n
d
D
a
t
a
E
n
t
r
y
M
o
d
u
l
e
3.
3
W
e
b
-
B
a
s
e
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
3.
4
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
4
V
i
s
i
o
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
4.
1
D
r
a
f
t
V
i
s
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
4.
2
V
i
s
i
o
n
O
p
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
4.
4
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
4.
3
F
i
n
a
l
V
i
s
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
5
O
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
s
k
s
5.
1
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
T
o
o
l
k
i
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
5.
2
I
n
-
P
e
r
s
o
n
T
o
o
l
k
i
t
a
n
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
5.
3
T
o
o
l
k
i
t
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
S
y
n
t
h
e
s
i
s
/
D
a
t
a
E
n
t
r
y
5.
4
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
5.
5
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
20
1
3
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
20
1
4
Ma
r
c
h
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
April
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
CITY OF AUBURN VISIONING
DI
.
B
Pa
g
e
4
7
o
f
8
0
Ho
u
r
s
@
$
1
6
5
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
4
5
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
1
0
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
1
3
5
H
o
u
r
s
@
$
8
5
Ta
s
k
1
:
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1.
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
2
$
3
3
0
2
$
2
9
0
2
$
2
2
0
$
0
4
$
3
4
0
10
$
1
,
1
8
0
$1,180
1.
2
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
$0
2
$
2
9
0
4
$
4
4
0
$
0
2
$
1
7
0
8
$
9
0
0
$50$950
1.
3
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
P
l
a
n
1
$
1
6
5
2
$
2
9
0
1
2
$
1
,
3
2
0
$
0
8
$
6
8
0
23
$
2
,
4
5
5
$2,455
1.
4
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
(
1
2
-
1
5
)
$0
1
$
1
4
5
1
5
$
1
,
6
5
0
$
0
5
$
4
2
5
21
$
2
,
2
2
0
$50$2,270
1.
5
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
M
e
m
o
$0
1
$
1
4
5
8
$
8
8
0
$
0
$
0
9
$
1
,
0
2
5
$1,025
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
3
$
4
9
5
8
$
1
,
1
6
0
4
1
$
4
,
5
1
0
0
$
0
1
9
$
1
,
6
1
5
7
1
$
7
,
7
8
0
$
1
0
0
$
7
,
8
8
0
Ta
s
k
2
:
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
2.
1
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
B
r
a
n
d
1
$
1
6
5
1
$
1
4
5
2
$
2
2
0
2
0
$
2
,
7
0
0
$
0
24
$
3
,
2
3
0
$100$3,330
2.
2
M
e
d
i
a
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
$0
2
$
2
9
0
1
6
$
1
,
7
6
0
2
$
2
7
0
6
2
$
5
,
2
7
0
82
$
7
,
5
9
0
$500$8,090
2.
3
C
o
l
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$0
2
$
2
9
0
4
$
4
4
0
2
4
$
3
,
2
4
0
$
0
30
$
3
,
9
7
0
$100$4,070
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
1
$
1
6
5
5
$
7
2
5
2
2
$
2
,
4
2
0
4
6
$
6
,
2
1
0
6
2
$
5
,
2
7
0
1
3
6
$
1
4
,
7
9
0
$
7
0
0
$
1
5
,
4
9
0
Ta
s
k
3
:
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
3.
1
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
B
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
/
s
$0
8
$
1
,
1
6
0
2
$
2
2
0
$
0
1
$
8
5
11
$
1
,
4
6
5
$200$1,665
3.
2
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
T
o
o
l
k
i
t
a
n
d
D
a
t
a
E
n
t
r
y
M
o
d
u
l
e
1
$
1
6
5
2
$
2
9
0
1
6
$
1
,
7
6
0
$
0
1
6
$
1
,
3
6
0
35
$
3
,
5
7
5
$200$3,775
3.
3
W
e
b
-
B
a
s
e
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
$0
4
$
5
8
0
1
6
$
1
,
7
6
0
$
0
2
6
$
2
,
2
1
0
46
$
4
,
5
5
0
$200$4,750
3.
4
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
1
4
$
5
8
0
1
4
$
1
,
5
4
0
$
0
1
6
$
1
,
3
6
0
35
$
3
,
4
8
0
$3,480
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
2
$
1
6
5
1
8
$
2
,
6
1
0
4
8
$
5
,
2
8
0
0
$
0
5
9
$
5
,
0
1
5
1
2
7
$
1
3
,
0
7
0
$
6
0
0
$
1
3
,
6
7
0
Ta
s
k
4
:
V
i
s
i
o
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
4.
1
D
r
a
f
t
V
i
s
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
$
3
3
0
6
$
8
7
0
2
4
$
2
,
6
4
0
4
$
5
4
0
2
4
$
2
,
0
4
0
60
$
6
,
4
2
0
$6,420
4.
2
V
i
s
i
o
n
O
p
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
$0
2
$
2
9
0
1
2
$
1
,
3
2
0
$
0
2
0
$
1
,
7
0
0
34
$
3
,
3
1
0
$50$3,360
4.
4
F
i
n
a
l
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
$
1
6
5
1
$
1
4
5
1
6
$
1
,
7
6
0
$
0
4
$
3
4
0
22
$
2
,
4
1
0
$500$2,910
4.
3
F
i
n
a
l
V
i
s
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
$
1
6
5
2
$
2
9
0
6
$
6
6
0
$
0
1
2
$
1
,
0
2
0
21
$
2
,
1
3
5
$2,135
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
4
$
6
6
0
1
1
$
1
,
5
9
5
5
8
$
6
,
3
8
0
4
$
5
4
0
6
0
$
5
,
1
0
0
1
3
7
$
1
4
,
2
7
5
$
5
5
0
$
1
4
,
8
2
5
10
$
1
,
4
8
5
4
2
$
6
,
0
9
0
1
6
9
$
1
8
,
5
9
0
5
0
$
6
,
7
5
0
2
0
0
$
1
7
,
0
0
0
4
7
1
$
4
9
,
9
1
5
$
1
,
9
5
0
$
5
1
,
8
6
5
10
%
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
M
a
r
k
U
p
$195 $52,060
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
s
k
s
5.
1
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
T
o
o
l
k
i
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
$0
$
0
1
$
1
1
0
$
0
4
$
3
4
0
5
$
4
5
0
$
2
5
0
$
7
0
0
5.
2
I
n
-
P
e
r
s
o
n
T
o
o
l
k
i
t
a
n
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
$0
1
6
$
2
,
3
2
0
$
0
2
$
1
7
0
1
8
$
2
,
4
9
0
$
2
5
0
$
2
,
7
4
0
5.
3
T
o
o
l
k
i
t
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
S
y
n
t
h
e
s
i
s
/
D
a
t
a
E
n
t
r
y
$0
$
0
2
$
2
2
0
$
0
2
4
$
2
,
0
4
0
2
6
$
2
,
2
6
0
$
2
,
2
6
0
5.
4
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
V
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
$0
1
0
$
1
,
4
5
0
1
2
1
3
2
0
$
0
4
$
3
4
0
$
3
,
1
1
0
$
5
0
0
$
3
,
6
1
0
5.
5
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
$0
2
$
2
9
0
1
6
$
1
,
7
6
0
$
0
2
$
1
7
0
$
2
,
2
2
0
$
2
,
2
2
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
0
$
0
2
8
$
4
,
0
6
0
3
1
$
3
,
4
1
0
0
$
0
3
6
$
3
,
0
6
0
4
9
$
1
0
,
5
3
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
3
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
T
i
m
e
a
n
d
C
o
s
t
s
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
La
u
r
e
n
S
c
h
m
i
t
t
J
a
y
R
e
n
k
e
n
s
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
-
i
n
-
C
h
a
r
g
e
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
En
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
Ni
c
o
l
e
L
e
w
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
MI
G
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
MI
G
To
t
a
l
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
Direct CostsProfessional Fees Totals Auburn Visioning
DI
.
B
Pa
g
e
4
8
o
f
8
0
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Date:
October 29, 2013
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Scope of Work
Budget Estimate
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Public Works
Councilmember:Wagner Staff:Elwell
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:DI.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 49 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT AEXHIBIT AEXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICESSCOPE OF SERVICESSCOPE OF SERVICESSCOPE OF SERVICES
CITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN UPDATECITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN UPDATECITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN UPDATECITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN UPDATE
OCTOBEROCTOBEROCTOBEROCTOBER 2013201320132013
Brown and Caldwell (BC) is pleased to present this scope of work (SOW) to the City of Auburn (City) to
update its 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Sewer Comp Plan). The Sewer Comp Plan update will
guide the operation, maintenance, and improvements of the City’s extensive sewer system.
Upon completion of this project, the updated Sewer Comp Plan will meet the requirements of the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as set forth in Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-240-050.
Project Tasks
This project will consist of the following core tasks:
· Task 1. Manage Project
· Task 2. Update System Background Information
· Task 3. Evaluate Sanitary Sewer Utility Policies
· Task 4. Perform Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
· Task 5. Evaluate System
· Task 6. Develop Capital Improvement Program
· Task 7. Plan for Sewer Extensions
· Task 8. Document Existing Maintenance and Operations Program
· Task 9. Financial Analysis Assistance
· Task 10. Prepare Comprehensive Sewer Plan
· Task 11. Prepare Pipe Criticality and CMMS Integration Plan
The activities, deliverables, and assumptions associated with each task are described in detail
below.
Task 1. Manage Project
The BC project manager will manage the staff, budget, and schedule during completion of the Sewer
Comp Plan. The BC project manager will ensure that quality control is performed throughout the
project, including peer and senior review for technical and qualitative aspects of the project.
The project manager will coordinate biweekly conference calls or project status updates with the
City’s Project Manager.
The BC and City project managers will participate in two progress workshops during the course of the
project. These workshops will occur at about 40 percent and 80 percent of project completion. The
workshops may involve more than the BC and City project managers, and will be an opportunity to (a)
summarize the work to date for input and comment, (b) make key project decisions, and (c) plot out
any course corrections, if needed.
An invoice and summary of work by task will be prepared monthly. As necessary, the project
schedule will be updated and distributed.
DI.C Page 50 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 2 of 12
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 1:
· N/A
Assumptions
Task 1 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· The BC project manager will attend two progress workshops with the City Project Manager. The
meetings will be held at BC’s Seattle office.
· Conference calls or status updates will be held on a biweekly basis.
· Assumed project duration is up to 18 months.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 1:
· Monthly project status reports
· Monthly invoices
Task 2. Update System Background Information
Ecology requires system background information as part of the Sewer Comp Plan. This task will focus
on updating the following chapters of the existing Sewer Comp Plan, which summarize the City’s
existing wastewater collection system, system history, service areas, applicable regulations, and
policies:
· Chapter 2: Background
· Chapter 3: Wastewater System Policies
· Chapter 4: Description of Existing System
BC understands that some of this information may not have changed since completion of the 2009
Sewer Comp Plan; therefore, the focus of this task will be to work with City staff to update this
information rather than recreate what the 2009 Sewer Comp Plan included.
Specific work as part of this task includes:
· Document background information on the City’s wastewater system, including history,
ownership, management, geography, neighboring systems, overview of existing facilities,
complaints, service area, and land use.
· Identify and document revisions to existing applicable regulations and policies, including sewer
ordinances, development guidelines, service area policies, conditions of service, relevant
regional programs, and Ecology guidance and requirements. BC will work with the City to update
existing policies (see Task 3).
· Document the City’s agreements and coordinate with King County and other neighboring utilities.
· Discussion of King County treatment and conveyance point(s) such as County owned-pump
stations to County treatment system.
· Describe the City’s Pre-treatment program. Including existing facilities, O&M, future
improvements, recordkeeping, etc. Facilities described will include commercial (grease
interceptors) and industrial pre-treatment facilities.
DI.C Page 51 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 3 of 12
· Document the City’s support of King County’s reclaimed water program. This will include recent
efforts the City has performed since the last Sewer Comp Plan.
· Compilation of design and construction standards, to be included as an appendix.
· Describe nearby water systems per state planning requirements.
· Identify and document existing system problems. This includes reviewing City complaint
records/database and recording anecdotal information from City staff.
Information Provided by City
Changes to the following information since the existing Sewer Comp Plan was completed include:
· Applicable background information (e.g., potential annexation areas, sanitary sewer service area,
etc.)
· Any related planning documents (e.g., neighboring utility plans, City Comprehensive Plan, existing
land use plans, etc.)
· Changes to existing service area agreements and policies, design and performance standards,
and sewer development guidelines
· Existing City ordinances and policies
· Existing and planned zoning
· Agreements with King County and other neighboring jurisdictions.
Assumptions
Task 2 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· Three BC staff members will attend a 1-hour project kickoff meeting in Auburn.
· BC staff will conduct interviews with City staff to identify necessary updates to system
background information.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 2:
· Information generated from this task will be included in the updated Sewer Comp Plan.
Task 3. Evaluate Sanitary Sewer Utility Policies
The 2009 Sewer Comp Plan included Levels of Service (LOS), which are generally defined as the
specific goals or objectives for utility management. The LOS should directly relate to City policies. In
Task 3, BC will work with City staff to review the LOS included in the 2009 Sewer Comp Plan, identify
policy revisions necessary to support City LOS decisions, and identify the potential impact of 3rd
party (e.g. King County) policies on the City’s cost to operate or improve the City’s system to meet
LOS objectives.
In addition, BC and City staff will review City policies with the aim of developing new LOS. For
example, BC understands that the City is interested in establishing an LOS to address sewer
extensions, so this will be reviewed as part of this task.
Evaluation of policies, and establishing LOS, are considered important for use in developing the
Sewer Comp Plan. The policies will be presented to the City’s Public Works Committee (PWC) and city
council members for consideration. BC understands this presentation should occur early in the
Sewer Comp Plan development.
DI.C Page 52 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 4 of 12
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 3:
· Current LOS for the sewer utility
· Current City policies related to potential LOS (e.g., sewer extension policies)
Assumptions
Task 3 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· Two BC staff members will meet with City staff to discuss existing and proposed policies.
· One BC staff member will attend one PWC meeting.
· The City will review the draft policy document once, and will provide a single set of review
comments to BC. All conflicting review comments will be resolved by the City prior to delivery to
BC.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 3:
· Draft policy document for presentation to the PWC
· Final policy document for presentation to the PWC, and inclusion in the Sewer Comp Plan
Task 4. Perform Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
BC will update the City’s DHI MIKE URBAN model using recent information, and perform modeling to
simulate existing and future system flows. The MIKE URBAN model was initially prepared for the
2009 Sewer Comp Plan, but the calibrated model was limited by the small amount of available flow
monitoring data. King County has since conducted flow monitoring at 19 locations within the Auburn
system or within King County pipes within the city limits. These additional monitoring data will allow
for a robust calibration in this task and the calibrated model will be used to (a) update our
understanding of any near-term or future capacity shortfalls and (b) optimize any necessary sewer
capacity improvements.
4.1 Existing Conditions
The 2009 Sewer Comp Plan model was constructed using information available in 2008.
Developments and sewer connections that occurred after this date will be incorporated into the
model update for this project. The City’s most up-to-date GIS will be used to confirm pipe lengths,
slopes, invert elevations, material, and rim elevations in the model. Any discrepancies between the
model and GIS will be resolved by updating the model information. The delineation of model basins
will be revisited during this analysis and adjusted, if necessary, to conform to available data,
coordinate with points of interface with the King County regional system, or fulfill City objectives.
BC understands that King County collected flow monitoring data in its conveyance system near
Auburn as part of its Decennial Monitoring Program. These monitoring data will be used to refine the
calibration of the City’s model, and adjust parameters as necessary.
Calibration involves comparing modeled flows to actual observed flows from the monitoring data.
Model adjustments will be made to achieve a reasonable match between simulated and observed
flows. Adjustments include refining roughness values and infiltration and inflow (I/I), and resolving
connectivity and pipe slope issues. The model will be calibrated first for dry weather conditions and
then for observed (monitored) wet weather events. Calibration will also incorporate SCADA data
collected from City pump stations, as needed.
DI.C Page 53 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 5 of 12
BC will summarize results from the existing-conditions models to prepare the following:
· Current population and wastewater flow characteristics
· I/I rates
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Subtask 4.1:
· Current GIS information including sanitary sewer pipes, manholes, and other structures.
· Data for recent land developments.
· SCADA data for pump stations, including pump on/off times and corresponding wet well levels.
· Known capacity deficiencies in the collection system. Examples include, but are not limited to,
formal complaints from customers or anecdotal observations from City staff. This information will
be used in model calibration.
Assumptions
Subtask 4.1 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· BC has retrieved the King County flow monitoring data.
· Existing populations and employment will be estimated with data from the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC).
· BC will not translate information from as-built/record drawings to GIS or the model.
· BC will not develop any GIS data as part of this task.
· Two BC staff members will attend a workshop with the City to present the modeling findings.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Subtask 4.1:
· BC will provide updated, calibrated existing-conditions model files to the City.
· Tabular listing of flow statistics for existing conditions.
4.2 Future Conditions
Once the existing-conditions model is updated and calibrated, a future-conditions model will be
created. The future-conditions model will be created to estimate flows for the 6-year and 20-year
planning horizons. Changes to the model will include wastewater demands for new population and
employment forecasts, assumed I/I quantities for new development and, if appropriate, changes in
I/I quantities for the existing sewer system (e.g., proactive maintenance programs that reduce I/I
over time).
BC will summarize results from the future-conditions models to prepare the following:
· Future population and wastewater flow characteristics
· Future I/I rates
· 6-year and 20-year future wastewater flow projections
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Subtask 4.2:
DI.C Page 54 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 6 of 12
· Relevant planning projections for the City’s Urban Growth Area (UGA), which will include
anticipated population/employment changes
Assumptions
Subtask 4.2 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· Future populations and employment will be estimated with data from the PSRC.
· Two BC staff members will attend a workshop with the City to present the modeling findings.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Subtask 4.2:
· BC will provide the future-conditions model files to the City.
· Tabular listing of flow statistics for future conditions.
Task 5. Evaluate System Hydraulic Capacity
BC will conduct modeling runs for existing and future conditions to identify capacity shortfalls during
peak dry weather flows and peak wet weather flows at defined LOS. BC will analyze the model results
and will identify the apparent causes of capacity deficiencies.
The model will be used to evaluate proposed improvements for conveying flows in accordance with
the City’s LOS, for existing and future scenarios. If there are capacity shortfalls, BC will work with
Auburn’s Project Manager to identify sewer improvement alternatives. These improvements may
include flow diversions and construction of parallel relief sewers, I/I reduction through sewer
rehabilitation, and the replacement of existing sewers with larger pipes.
Sewer improvement alternatives will be evaluated and proposed facilities will be sized using the
MIKE URBAN model. Sewer age and materials of construction will also be analyzed segment by
segment and will be taken into account to determine and prioritize potential system improvements.
Detailed design and items (e.g., right-of-way issues, utility conflicts, etc.) are not included in this task.
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 5:
· Preferred methods for addressing capacity shortfalls (e.g., increased pipe size, pump stations, I/I
reduction, etc.)
Assumptions
Task 5 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· Two BC staff members will attend a workshop with the City to present deficient locations and
identified correction methods.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 5:
· Tables and figures identifying sewer capacity deficiencies for existing and future planning
scenarios
· Tables and figures identifying recommended sewer capacity improvements to address
deficiencies for existing and future planning scenarios
DI.C Page 55 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 7 of 12
Task 6. Develop Capital Improvement Program
BC will work with City staff to develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consisting of projects
based on the proposed LOS and modeling results. The CIP development will include those projects
included in the existing Sewer Comp Plan, but not yet constructed. The CIP will focus on measures
that the City could implement within the next 6 years given anticipated funding and staff resources.
BC will integrate the information gathered in the previous phases of the project to develop
alternative projects for the City. BC expects that these types of projects will range from spot
improvements that can be addressed by City crews to larger improvements that will require
engineering design and construction.
BC will evaluate the current CIP for relevance to identified problems. Those current CIP projects
deemed unnecessary will be given lower priority and retained only if they remain in the scope of
available funding, and the remainder will be prioritized and updated as needed.
BC will prepare a concise summary and planning-level cost estimates for each CIP. The summary will
include problem ID, name, and priority; a brief assessment of the problem; a brief description of the
proposed solution including sizes for any new facilities (e.g., pipe lengths and diameters, pump
station capacity, etc.); and a GIS-based sketch of the proposed improvements. The assumptions
used to develop the cost estimates will be transparent and well-documented.
Assuming that the CIP is implemented over a period of six years, the level of detail included in the
cost estimates will provide the City with the necessary information to update the unit costs with
current market values as needed in the future. After planning-level cost estimates have been
developed, BC will meet with the City to discuss the results of the alternatives evaluation.
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 6:
· Bid tabulations for recent sewer projects. BC will incorporate the bid tabulation data into its unit
cost estimates for this project.
· Current CIP with constructed projects identified.
· Anticipated City funding and staff resources, for use in determining the project implementation
capacity for the CIP.
Assumptions
Task 6 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· The improvement schedule will be determined based on a specific time frame and flow that
triggers the identified improvements.
· Improvement program cost estimating will be limited to preliminary planning-level cost estimates
based on recent City and BC experience, with appropriate allowances for project contingencies
and unknowns.
· For the existing system, the improvement program is limited to capital projects (will not include
administrative, policy, and operational changes).
· BC’s budget for this project assumes up to 10 projects will be included in the CIP.
· Pump station condition assessment is not included
· Two BC staff members will attend a workshop with the City to present the CIP.
· The City will review the draft CIP once, and will provide a single set of review comments to BC.
The City will resolve all conflicting review comments prior to delivery to BC.
DI.C Page 56 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 8 of 12
· Projects not included in the CIP, because they are not anticipated to be constructed in the next 6
years, will be summarized in tabular form for presentation in the Plan Update.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 6:
· Draft CIP for inclusion within the Sewer Comp Plan
· Final CIP for inclusion within the Sewer Comp Plan
· Draft summary project sheets for each proposed sewer improvement
· Final summary project sheets for each proposed sewer improvement
· Draft planning-level cost estimates for each proposed sewer improvement
· Final planning-level cost estimates for each proposed sewer improvement
Task 7. Plan for Sewer Extensions
BC will review current sewer extension plans and work with the City to identify new areas for possible
sewer extensions. BC will identify possible methods for extension of sewer service to currently un-
served locations using the updated GIS and newly calibrated hydraulic models. Potential extensions
will also be evaluated with respect to the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City’s agreement with
King County for service, or other applicable policies.
This task will be an iterative process between Task 3: Evaluate Sanitary Sewer Utility Policies; Task 4:
Perform Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling; Task 5: Evaluate System; and Task 6: Develop Capital
Improvement Program.
A plan identifying where sewer extensions will occur, and how the City will serve these areas, will be
prepared. The plan will include proposed sewer main locations and size. This plan will describe
potential sewer extensions included in the CIP and those not included in the CIP.
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 7:
· Existing sewer extension policies, plans, and procedures.
Assumptions
Task 7 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· One workshop will be held with the City to identify sewer extension possibilities and constraints
for undeveloped areas.
· The budget assumes 72 hours of engineering effort for planning sewer extensions.
· The City will review the draft sewer extension plan once, and will provide a single set of review
comments to BC. The City will resolve all conflicting review comments prior to delivery to BC.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 7:
· Draft sewer extension plan
· Final sewer extension plan
DI.C Page 57 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 9 of 12
Task 8. Document Existing Maintenance and Operations Program
BC will document the City’s wastewater system maintenance and operations (M&O) programs. The
M&O organization and procedures will be documented for future reference.
The City will provide BC with all available existing documentation detailing its M&O procedures. In
addition, BC will conduct interviews with staff members to understand their procedures.
Items that may be included in this review are:
· Documenting gravity sewer inspections and cleanings
· Documenting work order methods
· Documenting pump station maintenance
· Documenting force main inspections, cleaning, valve maintenance, etc.
· Documenting equipment maintenance
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 8:
· System operation, maintenance, and control, including routine operations, preventive
maintenance, inventories of equipment and supplies, and related information
· O&M budgets and level-of-effort estimates for routine field activities
· Documentation of existing cross-connection control program
Assumptions
Task 8 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· No new M&O procedures will be generated.
· No staffing plans will be generated.
· Work is limited to compiling and memorializing existing procedures.
· Two meetings (interview sessions) will be held with City staff.
· The City will review the draft M&O document once, and will provide a single set of review
comments to BC. All conflicting review comments will be resolved by the City prior to delivery to
BC.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 8:
· Draft M&O document
· Final M&O document, to be included in the final Sewer Comp Plan
Task 9. Financial Analysis Assistance
The purpose of this task is to summarize the City’s total cost of providing wastewater service,
assurances the utility improvement schedule will be implemented, and established fees for service.
The City will lead this task and develop the Financial Chapter of the Sewer Comp Plan. BC will
support the City by incorporating the City’s work into the Sewer Comp Plan. The chapter will include
historical financial performance review, capital facilities charge update, capital financing plan,
operating forecast, revenue needs assessment. This task will update Chapter 8 – Finance of the
existing Sewer Comp Plan.
DI.C Page 58 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 10 of 12
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 9:
· The City will provide the draft and final financial chapter for inclusion in the Sewer Comp Plan.
Assumptions
Task 9 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· The City will perform the financial analysis and develop the update to existing Chapter 8 of the
Sewer Comp Plan.
· The City will submit the draft and final chapters to BC a minimum of 5 working days prior to BC
delivered draft and final Sewer Comp Plan submittals to the City.
· Three BC staff members will attend a workshop with City staff to provide the CIP, implementation
schedule, and other background information necessary for the City to prepare the financial
section of the Sewer Comp Plan.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 9:
· BC has no deliverables under Task 9.
Task 10. Prepare Sewer Comprehensive Plan
BC will use the results of the preceding tasks to prepare a preliminary draft Sewer Comprehensive
Plan document for City staff review. BC proposes that the document consist of the following four
parts:
· Plan Overview: Prepared for general public/stakeholders to present a general understanding of
the Sewer Comp Plan contents.
· Executive Summary: The intended audience is the Mayor, Planning Commissioners, City Council,
and key stakeholders. The executive summary provides policy perspective, general technical
understanding, background (for recommended policies, programs, and projects), and links to
financial policies/strategies.
· Comprehensive Plan: This is the main body of the document, intended for City staff who will be
implementing the Sewer Comp Plan contents. The Comprehensive Plan will consist of a concise
summary of the planning process and focus primarily on the recommended improvements and
policies. The CIP will focus on projects that the City could implement over the next 6 years, given
anticipated funding and staff resources. Project needs identified, but not listed in the 6-year
plan, will be listed as future projects. This proposed implementation of improvements and
policies will update the implementation presented in the existing Sewer Comp Plan.
· Appendices: Supporting information (e.g., model data and cost estimate details) would be
provided in appendices for City staff needing specific detail.
After revising to address staff comments, BC will prepare a public review draft suitable for
presentation to the Planning Commission, City Council, or other stakeholder groups as appropriate.
City staff will present the plan to the Planning Commission and City Council. BC will work with City
staff to help address comments. BC will then prepare the final version of the Sewer Comprehensive
Plan.
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 10:
DI.C Page 59 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 11 of 12
· The City will compile review comments from reviews, resolve any conflicting comments, and
provide to BC a single set of comments.
Assumptions
Task 10 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· One preliminary draft Sewer Comp Plan will be prepared.
· One public review draft Sewer Comp Plan will be prepared.
· The draft Sewer Comp Plans will be submitted to a maximum of three reviewing parties: the City,
stakeholders, and regulator reviewers.
· One workshop will be held with the City to present the draft Sewer Comp Plan. One final Sewer
Comp Plan will be prepared.
· City will complete the formal SEPA process as part of the plan development.
Deliverables
The following deliverables will be developed under Task 10:
· Preliminary Draft Sewer Comprehensive Plan (four hard copies plus PDF)
· Public Review Draft Sewer Comprehensive Plan (six hard copies plus PDF) (Plus 20+/- Exec
Summary w/CD of draft)
· Final Sewer Comprehensive Plan (Eight hard copies plus PDF)
Task 11. Prepare Pipe Criticality and CMMS Integration Plan
BC will provide assistance in defining an approach and requirements for implementing the previously
developed pipe criticality analysis methods in the City’s Cartegraph computerized maintenance
management system (CMMS). BC will perform this in two stages, 1) defining the system
configuration requirements through a workshop, and 2) drafting a System Configuration
Specification detailing the requirements in a form that is actionable for a Cartegraph implementer
while providing traceability for the city to confirm the changes were performed in the expected
manner.
11 a Requirements Definition Workshop
BC will conduct a an initial requirement definition workshop with the City to outline the business and
technical requirements that must be met in order for Cartegraph system to effectively allow City
employees to access and use the Pipe Criticality information.
11 b Draft System Configuration Specification
BC will collect and analyze the information gathered during the initial workshop and draft a System
Configuration Specification that outlines the required system configuration. BC will work with City
staff to review the requirements and tailor them to represent the City’s needs. BC will then provide a
final System Configuration Specification that can be used by the City to facilitate implementation by
a qualified Cartegraph implementer, which could include City staff.
Information Provided by City
The City will provide the following information under Task 11:
· Asset management goals in regards to pipe criticality implementation
DI.C Page 60 of 80
10/29/2013
Page 12 of 12
Assumptions
Task 11 will be performed under the following assumptions:
· The City will arrange for appropriate staff to attend meetings (M&O staff who use the CMMS
and criticality model, planning staff, IT staff who “own” Cartegraph.
· BC is not required to purchase Cartegraph.
· No updates to the existing pipe criticality model are included in this work.
· BC is not responsible for changes to the City’s Cartegraph database or software.
· BC staff will attend one on-site workshop not to exceed 3 hours in length
· A maximum of 3 revisions will be made to the System Requirement Specification
· This work will be summarized in the final Sewer Comp Plan, but the implementation plan will
not be included as an appendix.
Deliverable
The following deliverable will be developed under Task 11:
· A System Configuration Specification detailing the requirements of a pipe criticality analysis
component within the City’s existing CMMS
DI.C Page 61 of 80
PhasePhase Description Total Effort
001Manage Project $38,223
Leave Blank and Protected
002Update System Background Information$20,131
Leave Blank and Protected
003Evaluate Sanitary Sewer Utility Policies$24,202
Leave Blank and Protected
004Perform Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling$56,896
Leave Blank and Protected
005Evaluate System $21,423
Leave Blank and Protected
006Develop Capital Improvement Program$31,490
Leave Blank and Protected
007Plan for Sewer Extensions $18,272
Leave Blank and Protected
008 Document Existing Maintenance and Operations Program $15,270
Leave Blank and Protected
009Financial Analysis Assistance $6,459
Leave Blank and Protected
010Prepare Comprehensive Sewer Plan$49,282
Leave Blank and Protected
011Prepare Pipe Criticality and CMMS Integration Plan$17,031
Leave Blank and Protected
012Other Direct Costs $5,000
Leave Blank and Protected
GRAND TOTAL $303,679
Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update Budget
2013 $75,000
2014 $275,000
TOTAL $350,000
Auburn, City of (WA) -- Auburn Sewer Comp Plan Update
DI.C Page 62 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
City Speed Cushion Standard Practices
Date:
October 29, 2013
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Memo
Speed Cushion Standard Detail
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
See atached memo and standard detail drawing.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Public Works
Councilmember:Wagner Staff:Para
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:DI.F
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.F Page 63 of 80
Page 1 of 2
Memorandum
Engineering Division
To: Public Works Committee, Mayor Lewis
From: Pablo Para
CC: Dennis Dowdy, Dennis Selle, Ingrid Gaub, Rob Roscoe
Date: October 29, 2013
Re: City Speed Cushion Standard Practices
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to provide information to the Public Works Committee regarding
the current Speed Cushion standard practice in the City of Auburn.
Background
There are currently numerous types of vertical deflection speed control devices in use across
the country. The most common are known as “speed bumps,” “speed humps,” and ”speed
tables”. The lengths and widths of these devices in public streets can vary significantly. A more
abrupt transition will more effectively reduce traffic speeds while a more gradual transition will
accommodate higher speeds and may not meet the needs of the neighborhood.
Several years ago, in concert with implementing the City’s Traffic Calming Program, the City
chose to experiment with a modified version of the speed hump called a “Speed Cushion”. This
modified design incorporates wheel gaps to minimize impacts to the wider tracked Emergency
Response Vehicles and includes a shorter vertical transition to more effectively reduce
speeding. Since this standard for speed cushions has been in use it has been effective in
reducing speeds, reducing cut-through traffic, and has been very well received by the
neighborhoods where they have been installed.
This current standard has been implemented in all parts of the City including Lakeland Hills,
West Hill, Lea Hill, on the Plateau, and in the Valley. Complaints received regarding the devices
usually come from individuals living outside the impacted neighborhoods. Most calls received
after new speed cushion installations are requests for more. The current standard has proven to
be very effective in achieving the desired traffic calming goals, is popular with the community
and supports the Council policy of “Safety Over Convenience”.
Installation Requirements & Restrictions
Before speed cushions are recommended for installation an engineering analysis is completed
and alternative methods for mitigating speeding and cut-through are implemented. These
primary speed control methods include;
· Targeted police enforcement
DI.F Page 64 of 80
Page 2 of 2
· Placement of temporary speed radar trailers
· Neighborhood safety meetings.
If speeding and cut through problems persist then the installation of Speed Cushions are
considered and a survey of the neighborhood is completed to determine the level of community
support.
Design Guidelines
Speed Cushions are only permitted on local residential streets with maximum speed limits of 25
MPH. All Speed Cushions in the city are marked and signed per MUTCD requirements which
include chevron pavement markings, warning signs and 15MPH advisory speed placards.
Attached for your reference is a drawing detailing the City’s current Speed Cushion standard.
DI.F Page 65 of 80
SPEED CUSHION DETAIL
CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
PLAN VIEW
B
-
B
-
A
#,#,#
DI.F Page 66 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Capital Project Status Report
Date:
October 30, 2013
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Capital Project Status Report
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
In response to the concerns raised at the Oct. 21st Committee meeting, the format of the attached
report has been revised to increase the text size for better legibility.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Public Works
Councilmember:Wagner Staff:Vondrak
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:DI.G
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.G Page 67 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
Street Water Sewer Storm
(102/105/103) (430) (431) (432)
1
CP
0
9
1
5
Well 1 Improvements - Transmission
Lines:
This project is the first phase of a larger
project and will replace water lines from
the Well 1 Site to the Howard Road
Corrosion Control Facility to
accommodate the replacement of Well
1. This project will also upgrade the
existing storm line on M Street SE to
accommodate the Well 1
Improvements.
- 1,402,755 761,904 2,164,659 2,008,424 100%Oct-12 100%May-13 Lee Project is Complete.
2
CP
1
3
1
0
2013 Arterial and Collector Crack
Sealing:
This project will complete crack sealing
on arterial and collector streets through
out the City.
- 60,000 60,000 60,000 100%Jul-13 100%Oct-13 Carter Final Pay is in process.
3
EM
0
9
0
2
Auburn Valley Drive-In Site Restoration:
This project will complete the last
restoration from the temporary levee
installed at the Drive-in theater site
related to the Howard Hanson Dam
issues in 2009 through 2012.
-
1,091,214
(King
County)
1,091,214 122,016 100%Aug-13 100%Oct-13 Truong Final payment is in process.
4
C2
0
1
A
M Street Underpass (Grade
Separation):
The purpose of this project is to grade
separate ‘M’ Street SE from the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Stampede
Pass Rail line in Phase 1 and completion
of the Auburn Black Diamond Road
Bypass connection is a future phase.
- 5,166,560 150,000
872,372
(Fed Grant)
5,990,000
(FMSIB)
2,630,509
(TIB)
1,106,592
(King
County)
1,542,800
(Ports)
478,000
(BNSF)
1,140,000
(REET2)
3,397,174
(PWTF)
22,474,007 22,474,007 100%Dec-11 99%Nov-13 Vondrak
M Street was opened to traffic on July
22. Punchlist work is all that remains
to be completed.
Total
Estimated
Costs
CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Project Budget ($)Design Construction
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
Priority
Group
(1-3) Other
Total
Budget
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date
Project
Manager Status
Page 1 of 9
DI.G Page 68 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
Street Water Sewer Storm
(102/105/103) (430) (431) (432)
Total
Estimated
Costs
CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Project Budget ($)Design Construction
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
Priority
Group
(1-3) Other
Total
Budget
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date
Project
Manager Status
5
CP
1
1
0
8
2011/12/13 Citywide Storm Pond
Cleaning:
This project will complete the removal
of sediment from storm drainage ponds
located throughout the City and clean
the ditch along A Street SE/East Valley
Highway as the annual budget allows.
- 720,473 720,473 720,261 100%N/A 99%Nov-13 Lee
King County Road Services has
completed 6 ponds. 2 additional
ponds were added in late October and
are not anticipated to be completed
until November, weather permitting,
finished date was adjusted to reflect
this additional work.
6
C4
1
0
A
S. 277th Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring:
This project is an on-going project to
complete the required monitoring and
maintenance of the wetland mitigation
sites for the S. 277th Grade Separation
Project. Sites are located on the North
property and at the corner of 44th St
NW and Frontage Road. Permits require
the City to monitor the sites for 10
years.
- 325,343 325,343 324,606 100%Apr-11 98%May-14 Larson
Construction Work is complete,
however, the project is in the 2-year
plant establishment period and the
finish date reflects this. Budget and
Costs shown is are for years 2006 thru
2013 of this 10 year process. Budget
for 2013 only is $50,000.
7
C5
2
4
A
SCADA System Improvement:
This project will upgrade the City's
SCADA system to meet Public Works
goals.
- 3,096,767 1,908,148 857,820 5,862,735 5,862,735 100%Nov-09 93%Dec-13 Lee
Implementation Contract executed.
Preliminary Design and Final Design
are Complete. Installation of the
Controls at M&O is complete and
conversion of all 3 test sites are
complete. The remaining site
conversions are underway with 32
sites of 38 completed.
8
CP
1
3
0
2
2013 Pavement Patching, Chipseal and
Overlay Project:
This project will complete pavement
patching, chip seal treatments and
overlay work on both arterial/collector
and local roadways for the purpose of
preservation throughout the City.
- 1,878,000 1,878,000 1,848,000 100%Jun-13 93%Nov-13 Wickstrom Work is nearing completion.
9
EM
1
3
0
2
Hidden Valley Vista Emergency Storm
Repair:
This project will replace a deteriorated
storm line under emergency conditions
in the Lea Hill area.
- 300,000 300,000 300,000 100%N/A 92%Nov-13 Larson
This project is an emergency and
therefore public bidding was not held.
The pipe has been installed and
restoration work is underway and is
anticipated to be completed in early
November due to the earlier delays on
pipe materials.
Page 2 of 9
DI.G Page 69 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
Street Water Sewer Storm
(102/105/103) (430) (431) (432)
Total
Estimated
Costs
CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Project Budget ($)Design Construction
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
Priority
Group
(1-3) Other
Total
Budget
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date
Project
Manager Status
10
CP
1
2
2
5
West Valley Highway Preservation -
15th NW to 37th NW:
This project will complete an overlay of
WVH for the purpose of pavement
preservation.
- 560,000 560,000
(Federal) 1,120,000 1,093,525 100%Jul-13 85%Dec-13 Wickstrom
Work is underway with paving
complete and restoration work being
completed.
11
CP
0
9
0
9
Academy Booster Pump Station:
This project will update/replace the
existing pump station in the Academy
water service area in order to meet fire
flow demands.
- 3,526,255 3,526,255 3,168,295 100%Sep-12 84%Apr-14 Vondrak Work is underway.
12
CP
1
1
2
0
Lea Hill Safe Routes to Schools
Improvements:
This project will complete improvements
for safe walking routes to Hazelwood
Elem., Lea Hill elem., and Rainer Middle
School along 116th Ave. SE and SE 312
St.
- 34,000
398,500
(Federal)
21,597
(Police &
ASD In Kind
Services)
454,097 447,600 100%Jun-13 80%Nov-13 Truong
Work is underway at the 124th and
312th intersection; however, the
sidewalks are in place. Improvements
on 116th are complete. Awaiting PSE
relocation of a power pole scheduled
for Mid November, finish date has
been updated to reflect this delay.
13
CP
0
9
1
2
Citywide Guardrail Improvements:
This project will complete guardrail
improvements along Kersey Way, Green
River Road, and Mountain View Drive.
- 50,000 502,275
(Federal) 552,275 483,319 100%Jul-13 50%Dec-13 Larson Work is underway.
14
CP
1
2
0
7
D Street NE Utility Improvements:
This project will complete storm, sewer,
water and street improvements related
to the Port of Seattle mitigation
agreement on D Street NE.
- 296,186 367,377 72,796
42,200
(430 Port)
162,203
(431 Port)
597,204
(432 Port)
1,537,966 1,528,801 100%Aug-13 3%Dec-13 Truong Work is underway.
15
CP
1
2
2
2
Citywide Traffic Signal Improvements:
This project will construct safety
improvements at a number of signals
throughout the City.
1 5,000 400,000
(Federal) 405,000 405,000 100%Oct-13 Mar-14 Lee
Project will advertise 10/29 and open
bids 11/21. Project can not award
until final approvals received from
WSDOT, therefore, the finish date was
pushed out to reflect this.
16
CP
1
1
2
2
30th Street NE Storm Improvements:
This project will replace the 30-inch
storm drainage line along 30th Street NE
from the north end of the Airport to the
Brannon Park Storm Pump Station to
address localized flooding issues.
1 2,974,699 2,974,699 2,822,299 93%Nov-13 Feb-14 Truong Consultant design work is nearing
completion.
Page 3 of 9
DI.G Page 70 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
Street Water Sewer Storm
(102/105/103) (430) (431) (432)
Total
Estimated
Costs
CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Project Budget ($)Design Construction
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
Priority
Group
(1-3) Other
Total
Budget
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date
Project
Manager Status
17
CP
1
1
1
8
Auburn Way South Pedestrian
Improvements - Dogwood to Fir Street:
This project will construct a new street
lighting system, landscaped median
island, a designated mid-0block
crosswalk, relocation of existing utility
poles, and modifications to the existing
signal at Dogwood St. This project also
includes a public education element for
pedestrian safety.
1 219,782 130,039
740,830
(State)
100,000
(Federal)
330,000
(MIT)
1,520,651 1,418,011 92%Feb-14 Mar-15 Sweeting
Consultant design work is underway.
Project Scope is being revised to
incorporate undergrounding of power
lines with MIT funding. Budget
updated to reflect this and other
utility work.
ROW acquisition process has begun.
18
CP
1
1
1
9
Auburn Way South Corridor
Improvements - Fir St. SE to Hemlock
St. SE:
This project will widen AWS between Fir
and Hemlock Streets from 3 lanes to 5
lanes and includes new sidewalks, street
lighting, transit improvements and
install a new signal at Hemlock St.
1 200,849 13,853 40,300
2,425,402
(TIB)
836,601
(MIT)
3,517,005 3,484,703 92%Feb-14 Mar-15 Sweeting
Consultant design work is underway.
Project Scope is being revised to
incorporate undergrounding of power
lines with MIT funding. Budget
updated to reflect this, other utility
work and the additional roadway
taper approved by PWC.
ROW acquisition process has begun.
19
CP
1
1
0
7
Fulmer Wellfield Improvements:
This project will be done in phases. The
first phase 1A will complete
investigation of the Fulmer Wellfield
area to determine the required analysis
and drilling program needed to utilize
the full water rights. Phase 1B will
complete a drilling and testing program
as well as an alternatives analysis.
Phase 2 will complete the physical
improvements.
1 2,200,000 2,200,000 497,364 90%N/A Mar-14 Repp
The estimated costs are for the Phase
1A only and will be revised when this
phase is completed. Consultant work
is underway. Technical findings from
Phase 1A were discussed at the 10/21
PWC meeting.
20
CP
0
9
1
5
Well 1 Improvements - Well
Replacement:
This project will rehabilitate or replace
Well 1 so that it can function at full
capacity and complete modifications to
the Howard Road Corrosion Control
Facility.
1 2,476,568 2,476,568 2,400,000 89%Feb-14 Dec-14 Lee
Consultant design is underway.
Schedule has been revised to allow for
the inclusion of corrosion control
options similar to those being
discussed on Fulmer Wellfield.
Advertisement is also dependant on
DOH approval which is in process.
21
CP
1
3
0
1
2013 Sidewalk Repair Project:
This project will complete repair and
replacement of existing sidewalks at
various locations around Downtown and
Auburn High School.
1 200,000
(328 Fund) 200,000 200,000 75%Dec-13 Feb-14 Carter
Design is underway, inclusion of the
replacement of curb ramps with trip
hazards have slowed the design and
the schedule has been updated to
reflect this.
Page 4 of 9
DI.G Page 71 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
Street Water Sewer Storm
(102/105/103) (430) (431) (432)
Total
Estimated
Costs
CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Project Budget ($)Design Construction
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
Priority
Group
(1-3) Other
Total
Budget
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date
Project
Manager Status
22
CP
1
0
2
4
AWS and M Street SE Intersection
Improvements:
This project will complete improvements
at the intersection per Option 2 selected
by the Public Works Committee to
address capacity and safety concerns.
1 250,000 450,000
(TIB) 700,000 705,000 70%Apr-14 Sep-14 Sweeting
AWS/M St. SE - Installed protected
left turn for east/west bound traffic
on AWS turning onto M St. SE
(Completed)
17th/M St. SE - restrict left turn
movements from 17th to M.
(Completed)
AWS/M St. SE Intersection - Option 2
was selected by the Committee, June
2012. Design work is underway.
Working with WSDOT on
channelization approvals.
Property acquisition is underway.
23
CP
1
1
0
9
2011 Storm Pipeline Repair and
Replacement, Phase 2:
This project will construct storm
drainage improvements on Hi-Crest
Drive NW.
1 377,740 377,740 411,195 60%Mar-14 Oct-14 Lee
Design work underway. Lakehaven
has requested that the City complete
the relocation of their waterline at
Lakehaven's costs as part of the
project. This work is needed in order
to construct the new storm line and
negotiation of an agreement with
Lakehaven is in progress. The
schedule has been updated to reflect
the delay for the completion of the
waterline relocation work.
24
CP
1
2
0
8
Sewer Pump Station Improvements
(Repair & Replacement Program):
This project will repair and modify
existing sanitary sewer pump station
facilities located at: F St SE, R St NE,
22nd St NE, Rainer Ridge, Valley
Meadows, 8th St NE, Area 19, North
taps, Peasley Ridge, Riverside, and
Terrace View to address access,
corrosion resistance, site security and
new generators where needed.
1 955,000 955,000 955,000 60%Dec-13 May-14 Truong Design is underway.
25
CP
1
3
0
4
37th St & B St NW BNSF Pre-Signal:
This project will complete improvements
to the rail crossing at 37th Street NW
and B Street NW to address safety
concerns.
1 76,900 307,550
(Federal) 384,450 384,450 50%May-14 Dec-14 Sweeting
Consultant design work is underway.
Coordination with BNSF is in process.
Coordination with private utilities for
relocation work is also underway.
26
CP
1
3
0
8
BNSF Utility Crossings Project:
This project will address utility crossings
of the BNSF right-of-way that will be
affected by the 3rd rail line that
BNSF/Sound Transit plan to building in
March 2014.
1 780,000 320,000 500,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 50%Dec-13 May-14 Sweeting
Consultant design work is underway.
Coordination with BNSF for required
permits is underway.
Page 5 of 9
DI.G Page 72 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
Street Water Sewer Storm
(102/105/103) (430) (431) (432)
Total
Estimated
Costs
CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Project Budget ($)Design Construction
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
Priority
Group
(1-3) Other
Total
Budget
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date
Project
Manager Status
27
CP
1
2
1
9
Valley AC Watermain Replacement:
This project will repair or replace
asbestos cement water lines along AWN,
49th and B St NW and at the M&O/Parks
Maintenance area.
1 1,233,574 1,233,574 1,208,722 30%Mar-14 Oct-14 Truong Design is underway.
28
CP
1
1
0
4
104th Street & 8th Street NE
Intersection Improvements:
This project will complete property
acquisition and widening at the
intersection of 104th and 8th Street NE
to complete signal and safety
improvements.
1 326,000 100,000
(Fed. Grant) 426,000 250,000 20%Apr-14 Oct-14 Larson Design is underway.
29
CP
1
2
1
8
Auburn Way South & Riverwalk
Intersection Improvements:
This project will construct improvements
to the intersection of AWS and
Riverwalk Drive and complete minor
widening and add additional capacity
from the MIT Plaza signal to the
Dogwood signal.
1 2,333,108
(Federal) 2,333,108 2,333,108 10%Jul-14 Nov-15 Sweeting Consultant design work is underway.
Coordination with MIT is in process.
30
CP
1
2
0
2
AWS Flooding Phase 2:
This project will construct conveyance
improvements on 17th Street SE from A
Street SE to K Street SE and increase the
capacity of the existing detention pond
located on A Street SE.
1 1,638,000 1,638,000 1,638,000 10%Jun-14 Dec-14 Lee Consultant design work is underway.
31
C2
2
2
A
277th - Auburn Way North to Green
River Bridge:
This project will complete the widening
of S 277th from the intersection of
Auburn Way North to L Street NE,
including the construction of a
pedestrian trail and relocation of the
floodway along S 277th.
1 989,185
1,020,700
(Federal)
2,300,000
(Developer)
4,309,885 8,309,885 5%Nov-14 Sep-15 Vondrak
Consultant design work is underway.
Grant only funds Design and Right-of-
way acquisition.
32
C5
1
2
A
Well 4 Improvements:
This project will construct a new
building to house a standby generator
and disinfection equipment.
2 1,306,288 1,306,288 1,296,820 90%Mar-14 Oct-14 Wickstrom Consultant design work is underway.
33
CP
0
7
6
5
Lakeland Hills Reservoir Improvement:
This project will provide various
improvements at the reservoir, including
painting, seismic upgrades, and facility
modifications.
2 400,000 400,000 400,000 75%Sep-14 Aug-15 Larson
Consultant scoping underway for
completion of design to accommodate
recent improvements at the site.
Page 6 of 9
DI.G Page 73 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
Street Water Sewer Storm
(102/105/103) (430) (431) (432)
Total
Estimated
Costs
CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Project Budget ($)Design Construction
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
Priority
Group
(1-3) Other
Total
Budget
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date
Project
Manager Status
34
C2
2
9
A
BNSF/EVH Pedestrian Undercrossing:
This project will construct a pedestrian
undercrossing of both East Valley
Highway (A St SE) and the BNSF rail
tracks just north of the White River.
3 385,000
(State) 385,000 9,000,000 60%Hold Hold Vondrak
Final design on hold pending BNSF
issues. Additional funds will be
required to complete design,
environmental permitting, and
construction.
35
CP
0
9
0
6
2009 Gateway Project:
This project will construct a new
gateway sign at East Valley Highway and
Lake Tapps Parkway.
3 100,000
(Gen Fund) 100,000 100,000 30%Hold Hold Lee Easement acquisition completed.
Project on hold.
CPS TOTAL 10,141,619 17,012,285 3,590,825 8,203,432 32,561,831 71,509,992 80,261,146
Page 7 of 9
DI.G Page 74 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
Priority
Group
(1-3)
Local Street
Funds
(103)
Water
(430)
Sewer
(431)
Storm
(432) Other
Total
Budget
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date
Project
Manager Status35
36
CP
1
2
2
4
2013 Local Street Reconstruction:
This project will complete the
reconstruction of the following local
roadways:
23rd St SE - M to R St SE
H St NE - 4th to 8th
5th St NE - H to Cul-de-sac
Park Ave - AWN to Park
Also included in this project is the
replacement of waterline on V St SE,
from 2nd to 4th St SE.
- 2,322,250 650,000 200,000 3,172,250 2,454,969 100%May-13 85%Dec-13 Wickstrom
Work is underway with punchlist work
remaining on 23rd Street, Park Ave
and V Street. Sidewalk construction is
underway on H Street NE with final
paving anticipated the week of 11/4,
weather dependant.
Other SOS Projects:
CP1302, 2013 Pavement Patching, Chip
Seals, and Overlays.
N/A 242,000 242,000 212,000 Wickstrom For Status see CP1302
2,564,250 650,000 200,000 - - 3,414,250 2,666,969
2013 TOTAL SOS PROGRAM 2,564,250 650,000 200,000 - - 3,414,250 2,666,969
2013 SOS Program Totals
SOS PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Project Budget ($)
Total
Estimated
Costs
Design Construction
Page 8 of 9DI.G Page 75 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
No.
Proj.
No.Location/Description
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Adv.
Date
%
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Finish
Date Staff Manager
Action
Committee Status
A
CP
1
1
1
5
City Hall NW Plaza Improvements:
This project will renovate the NW entrance to City
Hall similar to the recent improvements on the south
side of City Hall. Work will include new pavement,
updated lighting, ADA Ramp upgrades and new City
Hall signage.
475,977 458,570 99%TBD TBD Chamberlain PCDC
Consultant work is on hold pending scope discussion
with committee on LRF bond funds likely to occur in
late 2013.
B
CP
1
0
1
6
Fenster Levee Project:
This project will complete new levee improvements
on the Fenster Levee along the Green River.
1,266,100 1,265,000 65%N/A Jun-14 Andersen PCDC
Work will be completed by King County. Secured
funding is from 4 Grants and matching storm funds.
The additional 327k in SRFB funding was awarded.
Pre-Design work is complete. The Design by King
County is underway with the review of comments
from SRFB. Environmental approvals are also in
process.
TOTAL OTHER PROJECTS 1,742,077 1,723,570
Total Budget
OTHER PROJECTS - ACTION BY OTHER COMMITTEE
Total Estimated
Costs
Design Construction
Page 9 of 9DI.G Page 76 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Significant Infrastructure Projects by Others - Public Works
Status Report
Date:
October 30, 2013
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Significant Infrastructure Projects by
Others - Public Works Status Report
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Public Works
Councilmember:Wagner Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:DI.H
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.H Page 77 of 80
Date: October 29, 2013
No.
Sponsor/
Applicant Location/Description Length
Permit(s)
Issued Status
1
Green River
Community
College
320th Street Improvements:
This project will widen 320th Street along the frontage of Green River
Community College from 124th Ave Se to the west College Boundary.
1325 Feet Yes Construction work is nearly complete, working on punchlist, clean up,
street light and PSE underground extension.
2 King County
Wastewater
17th Street SE, K St SE to C St SW - Trunk Sewer Main Installation:
This project will install a 42-inch sewer trunk line along 17th Street SE from K
Street SE to C Street SW including crossing the BNSF rail yard.
3050 Feet Yes
Project is under construction. Pavement Restoration work on 17th
Street SE from A St SE to F St SE (southern half street only) is
anticipated for the week of November 4th, weather permitting.
3 Puget Sound
Energy
17th Street SE, K St SE to F St SE - Gas Main Replacement:
This project will replace the existing 2-inch gas main along 17th Street SE from
K Street SE to F Street SE.
1345 Feet Yes Construction is anticipated to begin in the Winter of 2013 and is being
coordinated with King County's work.
4
King County
Flood Control
District
Reddington Levee:
This project will replace the Reddington Levee from approximately 26th St NE to
43rd Street NE.
0.9 Miles KC - Yes
Facility Extension permit and Construction permits have been issued.
Contractor work will be on-going through 2013. Paving of the levee
roadway is underway but is dependant on weather.
5 Auburn School
District
Auburn High School Replacement:
This project will include roadway and utility improvements to support the new
Auburn High School. Improvements include modifications to Storm, Water and
Sanitary Sewer mainlines and roadway improvements on Main Street and 4th
Street NE.
N/A - Multiple
Block
Development
Yes
Work on the Phase 1 portion of the project has begun and is anticipated
to be completed in 2015. Phase 2 plans have been approved. Utility
work is on schedule and their main focus is the building construction at
this time. Winterization of the site is underway.
6 Puget Sound
Energy
2nd Street NE Gas Main Replacement:
This project will replace the 6-inch gas main on 2nd Street NE from Auburn
Avenue to D Street SE, including a crossing of Auburn Way North, then continue
south on D Street NE to Main Street.
1215 Feet No Project is in the permit review phase. Construction is anticipated to
occur in late 2013.
7 Yarrow Bay
Development
124th Ave SE Half Street Road Improvements:
This project will complete half street roadway improvements on 124th Ave SE
from SE 304th St. north to approximately SE 290th St. for the 3rd phase of the
Verdana (Bridges) Plat development that is in Kent.
3,800 Feet Yes
Work is underway and will continue through the end of 2013.
Contractor has started with roadway and utility work. Lane interruptions
are anticipated on 124th Ave. Remaining work is weather dependant.
SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS BY OTHERS - PUBLIC WORKS STATUS REPORT
NOTE: Projects included on this list are those that have a broad public interest, significant impact to the public, involve interlocal agreements, and/or may include the installation of key infrastructure by
others (such as pump stations etc.)
1 of 1DI.H Page 78 of 80
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Action Tracking Matrix
Date:
October 30, 2013
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Public Works Committee Action Tracking
Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dowdy/Selle
Meeting Date:November 4, 2013 Item Number:DI.I
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.I Page 79 of 80
Updated: 10/30/2013 9:12 AM
No.Item Description Staff Lead Next PWC
Review Date
Estimated
Completion
Date
Status
A Track completed project on the Current Year
Active Capital Improvement Projects Map Gaub 1/21/2014 N/A Ongoing - Quarterly updates
B Fulmer Well-Field Feasibility Study Updates Repp 11/4/2013 11/4/2013 Initial study finding are not yet completed.
C System Development Charges Repp 11/18/2013 12/16/2013 Consultant to complete analysis
D Cost of Service Analysis Repp 1/20/2014 1/20/2014 Consultant to complete analysis
E LED Lighting Standards Para TBD TBD
Staff is preparing a detailed matrix for City Council members to
review and provide feedback regarding existing LED street lighting
installations.
F Auburn Way South & 17th St SE Webb 12/2/2013 12/2/2013 Study closing of EB connections between M St SE and AWS via 17th
St SE.
G King County Flood Insurance Mailers - Quality
Check Andersen TBD TBD
Councilmember Peloza contacted Councilmember von Reichbauer
who subsequently has send a letter to Councilmember Dunn (Chair
of the King County Flood Control District) requesting District staff
send more helpful information to citizens located in the District's
Flood Plains.
H Speed Cushion Design Standards Para 11/4/2013 11/4/2013 Review current design standard.
I Green River Watershed/Levee Presentation 2/3/2014 2/3/2014 Review the Levee System within the City of Auburn and how planned
work on the levee's effect the City and the City's finances.
J Transportation Impact Fee Structure
Analyses Planning/Webb TBD TBD Review competitiveness of fee structure vs. regional agencies.
K Chipseal Application Review Carter 11/4/2013 11/4/2013 Review the application process for chip seals on arterial/collector
streets.
L Riverwalk Sidewalk Project Para Feb 2014 TBD Staff will develop scope for future sidewalk improvement project on
Riverwalk for committee review.
M Scenic Drive Speeding Complaint Para 11/4/2013 11/4/2013
Resident was contacted by staff. Speed surveys are programmed to
be conducted and staff will follow up with the neighborhood
accordingly.
N Amberview Apartment Odor Complaint Repp 11/4/2013 11/4/2013 Sewer odor complaint. Staff is investigating
Public Works Committee - Action Tracking Matrix
DI.I Page 80 of 80