HomeMy WebLinkAboutKing County RES 4517RESOLUTION NO. 4517
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
WITH KING COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPLETING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE
RELOCATION OF A COUNTY SANITARY SEWER LINE
FOR THE M STREET GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
NO. C201A
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that the re-grading of M Street SE at
SR18 and the BNSF Railroad tracks for the M Street Grade Separation Project,
hereinafter referred to as the "Project," is necessary in order to provide an
acceptable level of traffic flow and road safety; and
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency and is responsible for the
planning, review, design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition and construction of
the Project; and
WHEREAS, the County has an 18-inch sanitary sewer line located in the
public right-of-way in the vicinity of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the County is responsible for the relocation of the sanitary
sewer line; and
WHEREAS, a study to evaluate alternatives, hereinafter referred to as
"Feasibility Study," is necessary for the relocation of the sanitary sewer line; and
WHEREAS, there is a mutual benefit to the City and County in having the
City perForm the feasibility study; and
Resolution No. 4517
August 24, 2009
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4517
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
WITH KING COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPLETING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE
RELOCATION OF A COUNTY SANITARY SEWER LINE
FOR THE M STREET GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
NO. C201A
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that the re-grading of M Street SE at
SR18 and the BNSF Railroad tracks for the M Street Grade Separation Project,
hereinafter referred to as the "Project," is necessary in order to provide an
acceptable level of traffic flow and road safety; and
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency and is responsible for the
planning, review, design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition and construction of
the Project; and
WHEREAS, the County has an 18-inch sanitary sewer line located in the
public right-of-way in the vicinity of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the County is responsible for the relocation of the sanitary
sewer line; and
WHEREAS, a study to evaluate alternatives, hereinafter referred to as
"Feasibility Study," is necessary for the relocation of the sanitary sewer line; and
WHEREAS, there is a mutual benefit to the City and County in having the
City perform the feasibility study; and
Resolution No. 4517
August 24, 2009
Page 1
WHEREAS, the County is willing to compensate the City for its cost to
perform the Feasibility Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an Interagency
Agreement with King County for the purpose of completing a feasibility study for
the relocation of a King County Sanitary Sewer line for the M Street Grade
Separation Project, in substantial conformity with the agreement attached
hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such other
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of
this legislation.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force
upon passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this day of 2009.
Resolution No. 4517
August 24, 2009
Page 2
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYO R
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
D iel B. H6id; `
City Attorney
Resolution No. 4517
August 24, 2009
Page 3
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF AUBURN AND
KING COUNTY (WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION)
FOR FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF UTILITY RELOCATION ASSOCIATED WITH
THE M STREET GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between King County, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County," and City of
Auburn, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the
"City." County and City may also be collectively referred to as the "Parties."
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that the re-grading of M Street SE at SR18 and the
BNSF Railroad tracks for the M St Grade Separation Project, hereinafter referred to as the
"Project," is necessary in order to provide an acceptable level of traffic flow and road safety;
and
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency and is responsible for the planning, review, design,
permitting, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the County has an 18-inch sanitary sewer line located in the public right-of-way
in the vicinity of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a study to evaluate alternatives, herinafter referred to as "Feasibility Study," is
necessary for the relocation of the sanitary sewer line; and
WHEREAS, there is a mutual benefit to the City and County in having the City perform the
feasibility study; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to compensate the City for its cost to perform the Feasibility
Study as specified herein.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the mutual rights, responsibilities and
obligations of the County and the City for the accomplishment of the Feasibility Study
described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
No separate legal entity is created by this Agreement.
II. DURATION
This Agreement shall become effective immediately upon execution by all parties and shall
remain in effect until the Project is complete and the County has paid the City in full for the
actual cost of the Feasibility Study, in accordance with the payment provisions of Section V
herein unless terminated sooner, as provided herein. The Parties anticipate the Feasibility
Study will be completed by October 31, 2009.
B - 1
III. THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The City shall act as the lead agency for the Project and shall accomplish the
Feasivility Study described in Exhibits A, B and E, on behalf of the County in connection with
the Project. The City project manager for the Project shall act as the administrator of this
cooperative undertaking.
B. The City shall: (i) retain an engineering consultant to prepare a scope of work for the
Feasibility Study; (ii) provide the scope of work for the feasibility study to the County for
review and approval, including identification of activities, if any, that the County will perform;
(iii) obtain all necessary rights of entry, permits and approvals for the Feasibility Study and
(iv) accomplish the Feasibility Study through the engineering consultant and the
Contractor(s) as appropriate.
C. The City shall bill the County for costs related to the Feasibility Study incurred by the
City, not to exceed $51,498.06 (the Maximum Agreement Ceiling) as set forth in Exhibit B
and E, in accordance with the payment provisions of Section V of this Agreement.
D. Any obligations of the City beyond the current fiscal year are subject to local
legislative appropriation of funds for the specific purpose of funding this Project in
accordance with ordinances of the City and applicable law.
IV. THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Subject to the Maximum Agreement Ceiling, the County shall be responsible for the
actual, specified costs related to the Feasibility Study, and shall reimburse the City for such
costs in accordance with the terms of Section V of this Agreement.
B. The County shall make all reasonable efforts to cooperate with the City in facilitating
the Feasibility Study as set forth in Exhibit A, and make necessary personnel available so as
to not delay the engineering consultant's design schedule.
C. Any obligations of the County beyond the current fiscal year are subject to and
contingent upon the appropriation of funds by the King County Council for the specific
purpose of funding the Feasibility Study in accordance with the King County Charter and
applicable law. Should such an appropriation not be approved, then this Agreement shall
terminate at the close of the current appropriation year. The appropriation year ends on
December 31 of each year.
V. PAYMENT
A. Subject to the Maximum Agreement Ceiling, the County agrees to reimburse the City
for the actual cost of the Feasibility Study without mark-up of any kind. The City's estimate
of costs is shown in Exhibit B, the Preliminary Cost Summary and Exhibit E, the Consultant
Fee Determination, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
B - 1
B. The City shall provide the County monthly with properly executed invoices showing
expenditures during the previous month on the Feasibility Study. Invoices shall be based on
and itemize the engineering consultant's payments applicable to the Feasibility Study.
Invoices shall be documented to the reasonable satisfaction of the County. Properly
documented invoices shall be paid by the County within sixty (60) days of receipt by the
County. Notice of any potential dispute regarding such payment request shall be made in
writing within the same time period. Payment by the County shall not constitute agreement
as to the appropriateness of any item or acceptance of the work so represented. At the time
of completion of the work under this Agreement, all required adjustments related to any
potential dispute for which notice has been timely given shall be made and reflected in a final
payment.
C. Subject to the Maximum Agreement Ceiling, the County shall pay the City as follows:
1. The costs incurred, without mark-up, by the City's engineering consultant to
prepare the scope of work and perform necessary consulting services for the
Feasibility Study, as described in Exhibits A, B, and Ei
2. Actual City review and coordination costs as described in Exhibit B
D. Invoices shall provide a summary of labor, overhead costs, fixed fee, reimburseable
costs, other allowable charges and the total amount due and will include supporting
documentation. If any invoice seeks reimbursement of City employee labor hours, then the
invoice shall state the labor hours expended by individual City employees along with their
applicable labor rates.
VI. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION
A. The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County, its officers, appointed
and elected officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions,
suits, liability, loss, expenses, damages and judgments of any nature whatsoever, including
costs and attorney's fees in defense thereof, for injury, sickness, disability or death to
persons or damage to property or business, caused by or arising out of the Feasablity Study
and/or services performed under this Agreement, whether arising before, during or after
completion of the Project or services and whether suffered by the City, its officials,
employees and/or agents or any other person or entity. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the
City's obligation hereunder shall not extend to injury, sickness, death or damage caused by
or arising out of the sole negligence of the County, its officers, elected and appointed
officials, employees or agents; the City expressly and specifically agrees that its obligations
under this paragraph extend to any claim, action, suit, liability, loss, expense, damage and/or
judgment brought by or on behalf of any of its appointed or elected officials, employees or
agents. For this purpose, the City, hereby expressly and specifically waives, with respect to
the County only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under
the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW.
B. The City will require its engineering consultants, contractors,
subcontractors and suppliers of any tier to defend, indemnify and hold harmless King
County, its officers, officials, and employees from any and all claims, injuries, damages,
losses or suits including attorney's fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the
B - 1
design and development of the Feasibility Study except for injuries and damages caused by
the sole negligence of King County.
VII. TERMINATION
A. The City has the right to terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to the
County if the City determines not to undertake the Project or to discontinue the Project, in
which case the County shall only be responsible for costs authorized under Section V(C)
herein incurred by the City prior to the City's notice of termination.
VIII. EXTRA WORK
Any change in the Feasibility Study, which would cause the Maximum Agreement Ceiling to
exceed the amount shown in Exhibit B will require a binding Letter of Agreement, signed by
both the City Mayor or his designee and the the County Wastewater Treatment Division
Director or his/her designee, describing the changed scope of work and the estimated
change in the Feasibility Study cost.
IX. INSURANCE
For all work, the City represents that it and/or its consultants have, at a minimum, the
following insurance:
A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the STATE.
B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property
damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000).
C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one
million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit.
For work within the BNSF right-of-way, the City represents that it and/or its consultants have,
at a minimum, the following insurance (per BNSF permit requirements):
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance. This insurance shall contain broad form
contractual liability with a combined single limit of a minimum of $2,000,000 each
occurrence and an aggregate limit of at least $4,000,000. Coverage must be purchased
on a post 1998 ISO occurrence or equivalent and include coverage for, but not limited to,
the following:
• Bodily Injury and Property Damage
• Personal Injury and Advertising Injury
• Fire legal liability
• Products and completed operations
B - 1
B. Business Automobile Insurance. This insurance shall contain a combined single limit of
at least $1,000,000 per occurrence, and include coverage for, but not limited to the
following:
• Bodily injury and property damage
• Any and all vehicles owned, used or hired
C. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance. This insurance shall include
coverage for, but not limited to:
• The City's and/or its consultant's statutory liability under fhe worker's compensation
laws of the state(s) in which the work is to be performed. If optional under State law,
the insurance must cover all employees anyway.
• Employers' Liability (Part B) with limits of at least $500,000 each accident, $500,000
by disease policy limit, $500,000 by disease each employee.
D. Railroad Protective Liability Insurance. This insurance shall name only BNSF as the
Insured with coverage of at least $2,000,000 per occurrence and $6,000,000 in the
aggregate. The coverage obtained under this policy shall only be effective during the
initial soil boring and/or testing. If further testing and/or boring is needed at a later date,
an additional Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy shall be required. The policy
shall be issued on a standard ISO form CG 00 35 10 93 and include the following:
• Endorsed to include the Pollution Exclusion Amendment (ISO form CG 28 31 10 93)
• Endorsed to include the Limited Seepage and Pollution Endorsement.
• Endorsed to include Evacuation Expense Coverage Endorsement.
• No other endorsements restricting coverage may be added.
• The original policy must be provided to BNSF prior to performing any work or
services under the BNSF permit.
In lieu of providing a Railroad Protective Liability Policy, the City is participating in
BNSF's Blanket Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy (as allowed by the
BNSF permit).
X. KING COUNTY'S RELATION TO CONTRACTOR
This section has been removed.
XI PROJECT RECORDS
Upon request by the other Party, each Party will provide, within ten (10) calendar days of any
request, or if the request is voluminous or is for documents in several locations then in a
reasonable time, any Project-related documentation in its possession or in the possession of
its agents, Contractors and Consultants (except documents that are not subject to the
Washington State Public Records Act, Ch. 42.56 RCW), including but not limited to
environmental analyses, geo-technical reports, engineer's records and documents, and
contract payment records relating to this Agreement. In addition for a period not less than
six (6) years from the final payment to the City, the City shall keep all records and
accounting pertaining to this Agreement available for inspection and audit by the State and
copies of all records, accounts, documents or other data pertaining to this Agreement shall
B - 1
be furnished upon request. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the records and
accounts along with supporting documentation shall be retained by the City until all litigation,
claim or audit finding has been resolved even though such litigation, claim, or audit may
continue past the six-year retention period.
XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. In the event the City and the County disagree over whether the Consultant has
fulfilled its obligations under the Feasibility Study scope of work, the City reserves the right to
make the final decision as to the acceptability of the work. If a dispute arises between the
County and the City related to this Agreement, the parties agree that they will attempt to
resolve the issue through mutual negotiation. In the event that the Parties are not able to
reach an agreement through such negotiation the Parties agree to engage in mediation in
order to resolve the dispute. Mediation may be requested by either party, and shall be
attempted prior to the institution of any lawsuit arising under this Agreement. Each party
shall designate, in writing, not more than three candidates it proposes to act as a non-
binding mediator within ten days following notification of a dispute. The candidates proposed
shall be from Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) or Judicial Dispute
Resolution (JDR) or shall be a neutral, independent and recognized expert in the field in
which the dispute arises. If the Parties cannot agree on one of the mediators from the
combined list within five days, then the Parties shall promptly meet and select a mediator by
blind draw. Upon selection of the mediator, the Parties shall within 30 days, or as soon
thereafter as possible, meet and engage in a mediation of the dispute with the assistance of
the mediator. The cost for the mediation services shall be borne equally between the
Parties, each party paying one-half of the cost. The mediator shall determine reasonable
procedures. Testimony and briefing, if any, provided to the mediator shall be inadmissible in
any subsequent court proceedings. If inediation fails to resolve the dispute, the Parties may
thereafter seek redress in court. Venue and jurisdiction shall lie with the King County
Superior Court in Seattle, Washington.
B. This Agreement has been made pursuant to, and shall be construed according to,
the laws of the State of Washington.
XIII. PROPERTY
Any real or personal property acquired or used by any party in connection with this
Agreement will be acquired, held, and disposed of by that party in its discretion, and other
parties will have no joint or other interest therein. Upon termination of this Agreement, real
and personal property acquired through this Agreement shall be retained or disposed of in
the manner provided by law.
XIV. CHANGES AND MODIFICATtONS
Either party may request changes, amendments, or additions to any portion of this
Agreement; however, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no such change,
amendment, or addition to any portion of this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either
B - 1
party unless it is in writing and executed by both parties. All such changes shall be made
part of this Agreement.
XV. NOTICES
Unless otherwise directed in writing, notices, reports and payments shall be delivered to
each party as follows:
City of Auburn King County
Public Works Department King County Departmenf of Nafural Resources and Parks
Jacob Sweeting Wastewafer Treatmenf Division
25 West Main Street Susan Hildreth, P.E.
Aubum, WA Mailsfop KSC-NR-0509
98001 201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, Washingfon 98104-3855
Notices mailed by either party shall be deemed effective on the date mailed. Either party
may change its address for receipt of reports, notices, or payments by giving the other
written notice of not less than five (5) days prior to the effective date.
For accounting purposes, the respective Federal Tax Identification Numbers are:
City of Auburn: 91-6001228 King County: 91-6001327
XVI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
These provisions represent the entire and integrated agreement of the parties and may not
be modified or amended except as provided herein. Any understanding, whether oral or
written, which is not incorporated herein is expressly excluded.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, effective on the
latest date shown below. The signatories below represent and warrant that they possess the
authority to execute this Agreement and bind their respective entities.
KING COUNTY
By:
p 82009
Peter Lewis
Mayor
Date
By: Z----- c-1---4 Kx~/
Christie True Date
Division Director
Wastewater Treatment Division
B - 1
EXHIBIT A- SCOPE OF WORK
KING COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF UTILITY RELOCATION ASSOCIATED WITH
THE M STREET GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK
Tasks 1 to 14 are included in the City's scope of work with the City's
Consultant and are not part of the scope of work for the Feasibility Analysis
15.1. Feasibility Study of Joint Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer
Undercrossing of SR 18 and BNSF
The CITY'S CONSULTANT will identify and evaluate three alternatives for a joint
crossing under SR 18 and BNSF via the L Street alley alignment. The considered
alternatives will most likely be an auger-bored 54" casing; twin auger-bored 36"
casings; and 54" staged open cut.The objective of this study is to define these
alternatives, prepare a comparative analysis, and recommend a preferred alternative
that would be acceptable to BNSF, WSDOT, King County and the City; so the project
can move forward into final design. The work will involve establishing criteria,
developing layouts and sections to confirm footprint and right-of-way needs,
geotechnical data collection and analysis, and a comparative analysis of technical,
cost and risk issues to support the selection of recommended alternative. The
primary deliverables for this work will be:
1. A technical memorandum documenting the comparison between the options
for constructing the joint crossing, and a recommended alternative to advance
forward into final design.
2. Exhibits prepared for the alternative identification and analysis, including, at a
minimum, conceptual plan/profile drawings (10% level) for the preferred
alternative.
15.1.1. Alternative ldentification and Analysis
Alternatives will be screened to minimize the cost of the feasibility study. Only viable
alternatives will be given full consideration and continued analysis, as agreed to by
the CITY and King County. The CITY'S CONSULTANT will perform up to the
following analyses for each of up to three (3) alternatives. The sewer pipe diameter
is assumed to be 18" as determined by King County, and no hydraulic analysis will
be performed. If the slope or number of bends changes in the course of the
A-1
feasibility study, King County will be notified of the need to repeat their hydraulic
analysis, and assumed pipe size will be revised if necessary.
• Layout alignment and profile of joint storm drain and sanitary sewer lines
• Determine trench widths, pit sizes and minimum cover
• Determine limits of construction - and temporary and permanent easement
requirements
• Analysis of constructability and risk
• Consider requirements for long term access and maintenance
• Prepare exhibits to support the alternatives analysis, and preliminary drawings for
the preferred alternative including, at a minimum, (plan/profile, sections/details)
for the preferred alternative (10% level).
15.1.2. Geotechnical
The CITY'S CONSULTANT will use the geotechnical data recently gathered under
the M Street SE Grade Separation project. Additionally, up to three additional test
pits to depths of 14 feet will be excavated - one at each of the proposed bypass
pipeline pit entrance/exit locations and one at the toe of the SR 18 embankment.
The test pits will provide information regarding the size and distribution of cobbles
and boulders, which are critical both for evaluating the risk of settlement of the
existing tracks with the trenchless crossing options and to the construction contractor
for defining the subsurface conditions.
The Iocation of the test pits would be determined by measuring with a hand level and
tape to known topographic features. Representative samples from the test pits
would be sent to a subcontracting laboratory for gradation testing. Test pit logs,
laboratory test results, and an updated exploration map would be appended to the
feasibility study and added as an addendum to the Geotechnical Data Report.
It is assumed the test pits can be excavated in one day and that Railroad flaggers
are needed for the test pits and this work can be performed under the current BNSF
Temporary Occupancy permit obtained by the City. The existing geotechnical
understanding of subsurface conditions at the site, supplemented by the new test pit
information, would be used to
• Summarize minimum and desired criteria for pipe cover and separation.
• Identify construction methods, construction tolerances, and geotechnical risks
associated with each alternative.
• Assist with developing a technical memo documenting soils conditions, analysis
and risks for each alternative.
If permanent easements are required for the alley alternatives, a separate sewer
crossing via L Street may be considered. One additional boring of up to 30 foot
depth will be drilled on L Street near the BNSF right of way to support the analysis of
an alternative alignment for the King County sewer via L Street. Test holes will be
A-1
restored to grading and filling similar to the existing conditions. Laboratory testing
will be conducted on soil samples.
15.1.3. Cost Estimate
The CITY'S CONSULTANT will identify the major cost items and prepare a
comparative analysis of costs for the three (3) alternatives to be used in selection of
a preferred alternative. The analysis will be in spreadsheet format.
• Construction costs for the feasible alternatives
• R/W and/or easement costs
• Prepare comparative cost analysis
Assumption
• In providing opinions of cost, financial analysis, economic feasibility projections,
and schedules of the project, the CITY and the CITY'S CONSULTANT will have
no control over the price of labor and materials; unknown or latent conditions of
existing equipment or structures that might affect operation or maintenance costs;
competitive bidding procedures and market conditions; time or quality of
performance by operating personnel or third parties; and other economic and
operational factors that might materially affect the ultimate sanitary sewer
relocation cost or schedule. The CITY and the CITY'S CONSULTANT, therefore,
will not warranty that the actual project costs, financial aspects, economic
feasibility, or schedules will not vary from the CITY and the CITY'S
CONSULTANT'S opinions, analyses, projections, or estimates.
15.1.4. Coordination and Reviews
The CONSULTANT will prepare for and attend meetings and prepare meeting notes
as noted below. Meetings are assumed at two (2) hours each for two (2)
CONSULTANT staff.
• Attend 1 meeting with the City and King County staff to discuss evaluation criteria
and screen alternatives for the feasibility study
• Attend 1 meeting with WSDOT Bridge and Structures to confirm constraints,
criteria and receive comments on alternatives. Meeting to include King County
staff.
• Attend 1 meeting with BNSF to review draft Type, Size &Location (TS&L) of
recommended alternative. Meeting to include King County staff.
• Attend 2 meetings with the CITY and King County Wastewater Treatment
Division staff to review alternatives analysis, and response to King County review
comments.
15.1.5. Project Management
The CITY'S CONSULTANT will prepare a scope of work and budget for review and
approval by the CITY and will provide oversight and manage the scope of work and
budget for this task. The CITY will manage the CONSULTANT'S efforts and provide
review and coordination assistance with King County. The duration of this scope of
work is assumed to be 2 months.
A-1
• Administration and Scoping Costs
• Schedule and Budget Control
Task 15.1 Deliverables
• Scope of Work and Budget defining Task 15.1
• Technical Memorandum (TS&L) summarizing the option issues, risks and costs
with a recommended alternative review.
• Exhibits prepared for the alternative identification and analysis, including, at a
minimum, conceptual plan/profile drawings (10% level) for the preferred
alternative.
• Response to King County review comments
• Addendum to Geotechnical Data Report
• Meeting minutes
A-1
EXHIBIT B - BUDGET
KING COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF UTILITY RELOCATION ASSOCIATED WITH
THE M STREET GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
Work Element
Amount
King
County %
Auburn %
King
County $
Consultant Costs
$49,998.06
100
0
$49,998.06
Cit Review and Coordination
$1,500
100
0
$1,500
Total Estimat
ed Feasibili
t Stud Cost
$51,498.06
B - 1
Exhibit E- DRAFT Consultant Fee Determination
City of Auburn
Project C201 A: M Street SE Grade Separation Addendum 1
Aupust 18, 2009
Summary
AG-C-344 Exhibit E M Street SE Grade Separation
Consultant Fee Determination Page 1 of 3
Exhibit E- DRAFT Consultant Fee Determination
City of Auburn
Project C201 A: !UI Street SE Grade Separatian Addendum 1
CH2MHill
Employee or Category
Hrs. x
Rate =
Cost
Project Manager
52
$
72.95
$
3,793.40
Senior Engineer
12
$
66.92
$
803.04
Senior Engineer
4
$
54.47
$
217.88
Senior Engineer
68
$
54.68
$
3,718.24
Senior Engineer
24
$
50.82
$
1,219.68
Task Engineer
52
$
47.46
$
2,467.92
Lead Engineer
0
$
40.65
$
-
Design Engineer
0
$
32.85
$
-
Designer
40
$
30.58
$
1,223.20
Sr. CAD Technician
16
$
31.45
$
503.20
CAD Tech
0
$
22.91
$
-
Contract Administration
4
$
3626
$
145.04
Project Controls
8
$
28.55
$
228.40
Administrative Assistant
28
$
26.91
$
753.48
Total Hrs. 308
$
15,073.48
Direct Salary Cost $ 15,073.48
Overhead Cost @ 140.27°l0 of Direct Labor
$
21,143.57
Net Fee @ 32.0°,Jo
of Direct Labor
$
4,823.51
Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost
$
25,967.08
Direct Salary Cost
$
41,040.56
Direct Expenses
Reproduction Cost
No.
Each
Cost
Misc. copies
200
$0.05
$10.00
Auto Rental/Gasoline 2
days @
$65 /day
$120.00
Mail/Deliveries/etc.
4
$15
$60.00
Mileage 250
Mi. @
$0.550 /Mile
$137.50
Outside Services
$0.00
APS
$3,500.00
NW Excavating
$3,500.00
Railroad Flagging
days @
$600 /day
$600.00
Soil Technology
$1,000.00
Parking
2
$15
$30.00
Subtotal Direct Expenses
$8,957.50
Total Fee
$49,998.06
AG-C-344 Exhibit E M Street SE Grade Separation
Consultant Fee Determination Page 2 of 3
a
M
N
0
h
a
0
N
E
~
v
d
v
a
c ~
0 0
~ a
c
E a
N N
N ~
0
d ~
LL
W
A ~
7 ~
N
O N
U ~
A c Q
~ N
W Q U
U m
a o d o
L T p °0
wi~am
y'
~
c
m y
~
72
~
4 <
m
Q
"a
N
a
a
E
C)
E ai ~ m
N
m
m
m
~
a
U .
~
C
y
Q
~i ~
y en
z
c
c :
~
m '
A
F ;
v
w
F
u
~
r
a I
.d N
~
~
C
.~...W:p
N
N
V
N
. ~
Go
~
s.
mLa~
e
a
a
' m
s ni
~
1/S W
6 ~ ~
F
O
m
~
~
~
Q
~
`
p
z
F-
0
~
a
.
w
m
3
~i y
w
d
0
¢
9
t E_
Q
~
p
r
N c
y
~t
'4
~
oN
" o
y
Q
v
E t
Y' y r
A o
i
Y
~
E
m
W
~
C
E
w
2
~
N
N
t~
(h
t~
V
N
N
N
~
~
LV
~
U
0
N
a
N
v
~
~
~
M
`o
~
N
a
O
C
E
W m
0
a ~
L y
K LL
W
~ c
«
N
Y~
c
Q U