Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes2020-036 Sponsored by: Meszaros L... CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA RESOLUTION 2020-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A MUNICIPAL HARBOR FACILITY GRANT APPLICATION TO THE STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (ADOT) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,730,000 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF C, K AND L FLOATS IN THE SEWARD HARBOR WHEREAS, the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT) administers the Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward owns and maintains the Seward Harbor and is eligible for a Municipal Harbor Facility grant; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward hired R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M) to inspect G, K and L Floats in November, 2019; and L WHEREAS, the report written by R&M in December, 2019 found that the docks that were constructed in the 1970s were beyond their service life; and WHEREAS, the report also recommended that the replacement of G, K and L Floats should be the harbor's top priority; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward has the required 50% in local matching funds for construction of the G, K, and L Floats Replacement Project, per the Harbor Facility Grant program requirements; and WHEREAS, the City of Seward is capable of completing the G, K, and L Floats Replacement Project within eighteen (18) months after award of a Harbor Facility Grant; and WHEREAS, the Seward Boat Harbor is critical to the City of Seward. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA that: Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to submit a Harbor Facility Grant application to the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the replacement of G, K and L Floats in the amount of$1,730,000. L Section 2. The City of Seward supports the project entitled G, K and L Floats Replacement Project. CITY OF SEWARD,ALASKA RESOLUTION 2020-036 Section 3. Subject to available Alaska Legislature funding, and selection bythe � g� Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the City of Seward will enter into a grant agreement with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for a FY 2022 Municipal Harbor Facility Grant. Section 4. The Seward City Council confirms its intent to utilize internal funds towards the 50%match required for this project. Section 5.This resolution shall take effect immediately upon u adoption. p PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 26th day of May, 2020. TH T 0 EWARD,ALASKA risty Ter , yorI AYES: Osenga, Seese, Baclaan, Crites, McClure,Terry r NOES: None —� ABSENT: Butts ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: renda J. Ballo , MMC City Clerk (City Seal,).y of SF{7#4 SEAL 1 :,�'Jq'••.!�1.•y�:� Pam. ti,TF OF AV.' Agenda Statement Meeting Date: May 26, 2020 To: City Council Through: Scott Meszaros, City Manager From: Norm Regis, Harbormaster — Agenda Item: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A MUNICIPAL HARBOR FACILITY GRANT APPLICATION TO THE STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF$1,730,000 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF G, K, AND L FLOATS IN THE SEWARD BOAT HARBOR BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION: Project Summary The City of Seward Boat Harbor is poised to replace the remaining docks in the northwesterly corner of the Seward Boat Harbor. The administrations recommendations are based on the detailed 2019 and 2020 engineering report as modified by experience and funding limitations. On or before August 1,2020 a grant application will be submitted to the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities(DOT&PF)MunicipaI Harbor Facility Grant program. If successful,the state funds for construction would be available in the middle of 2022. In order to be awarded a grant,the City must identify the local matching funds now. Per the attached engineers drawing, the scope of the project is proposed as follows: 1) Replace G-Dock in place. 2) Replace K-Dock in place and lengthen, remove the fingers on the north side to create more transient space. 3) Replace L-Dock in Place and lengthen. 4) Drive new piling G, K and L Dock. DOT Grant Program The Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Program is managed by DOT&PF. The program provides 50/50 matching funds to eligible applicants. The program was created in 2006, but not funded until 2007. The legislature supplied funding in subsequent years (but not in 2009). The money can only be used for construction ready projects, not for planning or engineering. This grant program is funded on an annual basis at the discretion of the Alaska Legislature and consists of two tiers, Tier I and II. This application will be submitted in the Tier 11 category. With State revenues projected to decline over the next few years, funding for the municipal Harbor Facility Grant Program will be a bigger challenge for the Legislature, therefore the Administration recommends quickly submitting our application before the fund is depleted. 28 The City of Seward has applied three times for these facility grants before and was successful only twice with Tier I and Tier IL This program paid for one-half of the D Float Replacement Project and one-half of the A, B,C and S-float replacement Project. Project Need Statement This project will replace docks that are almost 50 years old. This project has been included in the City's Capital Improvement PIan since 2009(see attached Harbor Five Year CIP), Also attached is PACAB resolution 2020-002 recommending council authorize the city manager to submit the 2022 Harbor Facility grant application.Also attached is the 2019—2020 engineering report that recommends G, K and L Dock be replaced. G, K and L dock are the last remaining docks when the State transferred the Seward boat harbor to the City of Seward. These docks are unsafe. The floating docks are slowly sinking -- freeboard distance from the water to the deck,averages about half of a new dock(approximately 22 inches). The current docks do not float evenly-- they are twisted and rock back and forth while walking down the main dock,the corner of G and L dock sinks and leans outboard as you walk around the corner.The deck height above the water varies from 12 to 12.5 inches. With the exception of dock L,docks G and K do not have bull rails installed which is a safety hazard. The wooden pilings are beyond their service life of forty years, many are worn flat and the creosote has been scraped off,allowing marine borers to enter the wood. This project will replace the old creosote treated piling with stronger galvanized steel pilings. G dock does not have any light poles, and there are only two light poles on K dock and two light poles on L dock. The lack of light is a safety issue. Replacing the old docks is the best way to solve these safety and environmental issues and improve the economic viability of the Seward Boat Harbor. Plan to Fund, Construct, and Maintain the New Docks The City has selected and hired R&M Engineering in Resolution 2020-016 to engineer the replacement of G, K and L-Float. The city is currently at 95%design ready for construction prior to the state receiving the grant application,permitting is still in the process. In the fall of 2021, after the grant application has been evaluated and it appears that state funding is likely to be secured, the city will go out to bid for the construction phase of this project, R&M engineering will assist with the bid process.After bidding,the City needs to acquire R&M engineering utilizing the on-call engineering contract for construction support on this project; this will come before council as a resolution after a construction company has been selected per SCC. The next step will be to execute a construction contract with the winning bidder for installing the new docks no later than April 15, 2023. The City will be regularly evaluating progress to ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget. Keeping the nearly fifty-year old docks functional is getting to be a greater and greater challenge. Replacing the docks will reduce maintenance costs(estimated at$20,000 per year)and minimize the possibility of an injury claim caused by an unsafe condition(estimated cost factor of$10,000 per year). This project's successful completion will mean that within the last twelve years,every section of the harbor will have had new infrastructure installed. INTENT: To authorize the City Manager to submit a grant application to the state Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Program in the amount of$1,730,000. 29 CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A 2020 Seward Comprehensive Plan (page 23): Create a thriving port of 1. Seward through harbor improvements, infrastructure expansion,and X im,:1ementation of management plans. 2 City of Seward Strategic Plan (page 7): Complete the renovation of the X Seward Boat Harbor 3. ..I Other: FISCAL NOTE: The administration's goal is to purchase and install new docks without raising moorage rates(beyond the annual cost of living adjustments). The Harbor Enterprise Fund currently has more than three million dollars in long-term debt. Annual harbor debt service is approximately $813,965. The harbor reserve currently has about six million dollars for this type of harbor related project. There is no fiscal impact with this resolution, but upon award of the grant, the City will need to appropriate the 50%required match through a separate resolution. Approved by Finance Department: . ATTORNEY REVIEW: Yes No X RECOMMENDATION: Council approve Resolution 2020-036,authorizing the City Manager to submit a Facility Harbor Grant application to the state with the engineers estimate of$1,730,000. 30 FINAL INSPECTION REPORT Seward Small Boat Harbor Floats K, and L Seward, Alaska I., N -.,.^.rr•-s.�."m®�.�r.,.n.,,,�•,.—,.—.ter... December 27, 2019 Prepared for: Norm Regis, Harbormaster aF City of Seward ,,, e P.O. Box 167 A�~ Seward, Alaska 99664 *:,'• :,�Tlj Prepared by: �`• R&M Consultants �l ,• 9101 Vanguard f°sr•, c 141 Ale Anchorage, Alaska 99507 ��� �'••.' /�Q79••'w° �1k 31 Table of Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................2 ExistingStructure....................................................................................................................2 Tides..........................................................................................................................................5 InspectionProgram.................................................................................................................5 Condition Assessment: Rating System Description..........................................................5 2. FINDINGS........................................................................................................................8 General.....................................................................................................................................8 PotableWater System...........................................................................................................11 FireSuppression System......................................................................................................11 Electrical and Lighting System............................................................................................12 Level of Service and Service Life........................................................................................14 ConditionSummary.............................................................................................................15 3. RECOMMENDATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES...............................................16 Recommendations-Replacement: .....................................................................................16 Replacement Cost Estimate: ................................................................................................16 APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................17 Appendix A: Drawings Appendix B: Cost Estimate 32 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The November 2019 inspection of the Seward Small Boat Harbor included a visual inspection of the City of Seward (City) floating docks in the northwest harbor including K, L, and a portion of G Floats. It did not include an electrical or underwater inspection. The following is a summary of the findings: • The floating docks in this section of the harbor were constructed in the 1970s and are at or beyond their service life and should be replaced. They were generally found to be in Serious Condition. All floats have low freeboard and insufficient reserve floatation to support normal design loads. • The potable water and piped fire suppression utilities are in Poor Condition. The piping and risers have been heavily modified over the years and contain numerous fittings of differing materials. Some of the fittings are steel and are corroding. • The pilings are in Poor Condition. The majority of the pilings in this area of the harbor are timber and have been in service since the 1970s. Many of the pilings are worn and have flat surfaces where they have been scraped down over the years by the act of tides and the pile collars. • The main floats have metal grating fire breaks that do not meet ADA standards for pedestrian access. It is recommended that G, K and L floats be replaced. A preliminary replacement layout is outlined in the drawings attached to this report. The option preferred by the harbormaster includes: • All new timber floats with polyethylene encased floatation tubs. • 10 foot wide main floats. • 14 each 4'x 32' fingers (27 slips) on the south side of K float. • 460 feet of linear moorage on the north side of K float. • 400 feet of linear moorage on L float. • 245 feet of linear moorage on the west side of G float. The preliminary cost estimate for replacement is approximately $4.9 million. 1 33 1 . INTRODUCTION Existing Structure The Northwestern portion of the Seward Small Boat Harbor was constructed in the 1970s. There are five main floats; F, H, J, K and L Floats along with G float or the head walk float that connects F through L. There have been several extensions, modifications, and renovations over the years. In 2002 floats F, H and J were replaced with new concrete floating docks. At that time K float was moved to its current location and the old L float was removed. In 2005 several of the new concrete floats were extended. K, L, and a section of G are remaining from original construction in the 1970s. The existing harbor is illustrated in the below figure. CITY OF SEWARH y e SEWARH BOAT HARBOR f---AREA OF FOCUS L FLOAT I 1 _ K FLOAT .tea '"o o41 ILam I' ti. no a ON O �.Cn OG [d 6'6 tS Exisitng site K and L floats are constructed of timber and were designed by the State of Alaska DOT. They consist of uncoated polystyrene floatation modules, timber stringers and sills, and timber decking. The pilings are also timber. There are 4 light poles on K and L docks and no power pedestals. 2 34 G-Float (the remaining section) is 8 feet wide and about 250 feet long. There are no fingers on this section. It is restrained by 7 exterior timber piling. There are no bullrails on this section of float. « p t - 5 t 1 yet aWi_r G Float K-Float is 8 feet wide and about 358 feet long. There are 11 each 3.5' x 31' fingers on each side. This results in 22 fingers and 46 slips. It is restrained by 12 exterior timber piling. There is one pile in the center of each slip on the south side. There are no bullrails on this section of float. There are 2 light poles on this section of float. 3 35 u , K Float L-Float is 10 feet wide and about 125 feet long. There are no fingers on this section. It is restrained by 4 each interior timber piling. There are 2 light poles on this section of float. �w 6 16 �yl .p 3 L Float 4 36 Tides NOAA publishes the following tidal statistics for Seward: Highest observed water 15.09 feet MHHW 10.58 feet MHW 9.67 feet MTL 5.52 feet MLLW 0.0 feet Lowest observed water - 4.15 feet inspection Program The scope of work for the 2019 inspection program included: • A visual inspection of floats and fingers including measurements of freeboard. • A visual inspection of the above water portion of piped fire and potable water systems. • A schematic drawing of the general dimensions and features of the current infrastructure in this area of the harbor. No underwater inspection was done. No detailed inspection of the electrical and lighting systems was done. The fieldwork was done November 18, 2019 by John C. Daley, P.E., project engineer. Condition Assessment: Rating System Description A condition assessment rating system was chosen for the evaluation of the structure. The purpose of a rating system is to provide a uniform and repeatable method of tracking the condition of structures throughout their service life. The correct rating assignment requires professional engineering judgment and considers: • the scope of damage, • severity of damage, • distribution of damage, • types of components affected and their structural sensitivity, and • location of defect on the component relative to the point of maximum stress. Therefore, the qualifications of the individuals assigning ratings are important to ensure that the ratings are assigned consistently and in accordance with sound engineering principles and the selected guidelines. The damage assessment and rating system used in this report generally follows that recommended by the "Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment" Manual of 5 37 Practice 130 published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE, 2015). Damage assessments are done on an element level. For example the deck boards. Condition ratings are done on an overall structure level. For example K float. Ratings are assigned to each structure to facilitate establishing the priority of maintenance, repair or replacement actions. A numerical scale is used for routine condition assessments and should remain associated with the structural unit until the structure is re-rated after a quantitative engineering evaluation of repairs, or on completion of the next scheduled routine inspection. The ASCE rating system, summarized in Table 1.1, uses a scale of 1 to 6 with 6 corresponding to a structure in good condition, and a rating of 1 corresponding to a structure in critical condition. These ratings are used to describe the existing in-place structure relative to its condition when newly constructed. The fact that the structure was designed for loads that are lower than the current standards for design have no influence on the ratings. Table 1: Damage Ratings for Timber Elements RATING Existing Damage NI Not • Not inspected, inaccessible, or passed by. Inspected ND No Defects • Sound surface material. • Checks splits and gouges less than 0.5 in. wide. MN Minor Evidence of marine borers or fungal decay. • Remaining dimeter loss up to 15%. • Checks and splits wider than 0.5 in. MD Moderate • Cross-section area loss up to 25%. • Corroded hardware • Evidence of marine borers or fungal decay, with loss of section. • Remaining dimeter loss up to 15 to 30%. • Checks and splits through full depth of cross section. MJ Major . Cross-section area loss up to 25 to 50%; heavily corroded hardware • Displacement and misalignment of connections. • Remaining diameter loss more than 30%. • Cross-section area loss more than 50%. SV Severe . Loss of connections and/or fully nonbearing condition. • Partial or complete breakage. Source: Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment Standard Practice Manual 130(ASCE,2015). 6 38 Table 2: Rating System for Overall Condition of Structures RATING I DESCRIPTION 6 Good No visible damage or only minor damage noted. Structural elements may show very minor deterioration, but no overstressing observed. No repairs are required. 5 Satisfactory Limited minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed, but no overstressing observed. No repairs are required. All primary structural elements are sound; but minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed. Localized areas of moderate to advanced deterioration 4 Fair may be present, but do not significantly reduce the load bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs are recommended, but the priority of the recommended repairs is low. Advanced deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the 3 Poor structure, but does not significantly reduce the load bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency. Advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage may have significantly affected 2 Serious the load bearing capacity of primary structural components. Local failures are possible and loading restrictions may be necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a high priority basis with urgency. Very advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage has resulted in localized failure(s) of primary structural components. More widespread failures are 1 Critical possible or likely to occur and load restrictions should be implemented as necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a very high priority basis with strong urgency. Source: Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment Standard Practice Manual 130(ASCE,2015). 7 39 2. FINDINGS General The floating docks are in Serious Condition due to low freeboard and the inability to carry published design loads safely. The floating docks have reached the end of their normal service life and should be replaced. They are over 45 years old. The timber is rotting and deteriorating in places. There is moss and grass growing on areas of the floats. The timber decking has Minor Damage due to fungal decay. The timber framing and timber piling have Moderate Damage due to section loss and corroded hardware. r• r ZI 1 w. A!, Moss and grass on decking at K Float The floatation foam has absorbed water and lost buoyancy. The existing polystyrene floatation billets are uncoated. (Modern billets are typically coated or encased in a plastic shell for protection.) Many of the existing billets have deteriorated due to the effects of 8 40 minor amounts fuel or solvents in the water and under the effects of ice. This combined with added weight of marine growth below the water surface has resulted in a loss of freeboard. The freeboard or distance from the waterline to the deck was found to be typically 12 to 12.5 inches. This indicates that the primary structural members including the transverse timber sills are at the water surface. It is generally advisable to have these members above the water surface. Low freeboard makes for a taller step from the float into the vessels. Current design codes require an allowance for 10" — 12" of freeboard reduction when fully loaded. Most modern harbors have float system with 18 to 22 inches of freeboard. On the existing floats there is typically less than 6 inches of floatation foam above water. This results in little reserve buoyancy and the floats are in danger of sinking under significant snow loads or even if a group of people were to congregate in one place. . zin AIL ""Myy ir 4 J. Polystyrene floatation visible on K Float. (Note less than 6" reserve above the waterline.) ASCE Manual of Practice 30, Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors lists the following live load design criteria for floating docks. Table 3: Design Live Loads Condition Uniform live load Restricted access - pedestrian use only 30 pounds per square foot Unrestricted access - pedestrian use only 40 pounds per square foot Unrestricted access - golf carts 50 pounds per square foot 9 41 Preliminary calculations show that the existing floats will be approximately awash at 30 pounds per square foot live load and will be submerged at 40 pounds per square foot or larger live loads. (It should be noted that Seward has a code specified 80 pounds per square foot ground snow load, which would sink the existing floats.) The hinge connections between the main float G and K and L floats are in poor shape. The connection pins are very loose from wear and the hinges make a loud clanking sound when someone walks by. The timber pilings are in Poor Condition. They have exceeded their normal design service life of about 40 years. As mentioned previously they have Moderate Damage due to section loss and suspected marine borers. Many are worn flat on the sides and the creosote has been scraped free. This combined with checks and cracks could allow marine borers to enter the wood. A previous project in the north harbor about 15 years ago involved pulling timber piling and cutting them with a chain saw. A number of those piling showed signs of marine borers. This was in the form of worm holes in the wood. Although no timber pilings were cut for this inspection, it is anticipated that the piling in this area of the harbor are in similar condition. r r M Worn timber piling on K Float 10 42 Potable Water System The Potable Water system is in Poor Condition. It has been patched and modified numerous times over the years. This results in a number of differing materials being used in the system including galvanized steel pipe and fittings, brass fittings, HDPE pipe and fitting, and others. Several user installed connections were observed. These often include field installed Tees and valves. Each time a new material and new fitting is introduced results in a new location for a potential leak to form. The below deck fittings are corroding and it is doubtful that the system can function at design pressures with an adequate factor of safety. It 7 r w Potable water riser on K Float Fire Suppression System Similar to the potable water system, the fire suppression system is in Poor Condition. It has been patched and modified numerous times over the years. This results in a number of differing materials being used in the system including galvanized steel pipe and fittings, brass fittings, HDPE pipe and fitting, and others. Each time a new material and new fitting is introduced results in a new location for a potential leak to form. The below 11 43 deck fittings are corroding and it is doubtful that the system can function at design pressures with an adequate factor of safety. Ilk. Fire system riser on K Float Electrical and Lighting System The electrical and lighting system was not inspected by an electrical engineer for this project. There is no shore power on K or L floats. There are 4 light poles. Some of the wiring to the light poles run through household junction boxes on the deck. In general the level of service for electrical and lighting on this section of the harbor is below modern standards. 12 44 ` / . � \ <� y» ©mom 2 �r . %- . Light Pole on K Float 13 45 �v z Household electrical connection on L Float Level of Service and Service Life A service life of 40 to 50 years is normal for modern waterfront facilities. One can expect increasing maintenance costs and decreasing level of service as the end of the service life is approached. At some point the owner must weigh the maintenance cost and the level of service with the cost of replacement. An analogy can be made to the service life of an automobile. It is easy to understand that one expects a high level of service and reliability from a new automobile. When the vehicle gets 10 or so years old, and has over 100,000 miles on it, one can expect increased maintenance costs and a lower level of service. Perhaps not every item on the vehicle still works like new. Perhaps the maintenance now includes larger and more costly items. Although it is possible to keep a vehicle running indefinitely, it is reasonable to expect increased maintenance and costs. In this regard the K and L Float area of the Seward Small Boat Harbor infrastructure could be compared to a 20 year old vehicle with 200,000 miles on it. It is still functioning, but there are serious issues with maintenance and functionality. Under high load scenarios there could be safety concerns. This area of the harbor does not provide a level of service in line with modern standards. The City would need to invest significant funds to bring this float system up to modern standards. 14 46 Condition Summary The table below summarized the condition rating of each primary element in the harbor. Table 4: Condition Summary ITEM RATING DESCRIPTION G-Float 2 Serious Lack of reserve floatation. Lack of bullrails. K-Float 2 Serious Lack of reserve floatation L-Float 2 Serious Lack of reserve floatation Piling 3 Poor Worn timber piling Water System 3 Poor Corroded fittings,heavily field modified system Fire Suppression System 3 Poor Corroded fittings,heavily field modified system 15 47 3. RECOMMENDATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES Recommendations - Replacement: The facilities included in this condition assessment are generally in Poor to Serious condition. Repairing these facilities would include providing new floatation, new timber decking, new galvanized steel piling, new pile collars, and new utilities. The cost to repair / upgrade these floating docks to modern standards is likely similar to or greater than the cost to replace them. Based on the above the floating docks have reached the end of their normal service life and should be replaced. A preliminary layout and cost estimate are provided in the appendix. The recommended layout follows the existing one with a few modifications and minor extensions. Main floats K and L are each extended and the slips are removed from the north side of K float to provide lineal moorage. The following table provides a summary comparison of moorage between existing and proposed. Table 5: Moorage Comparison Existing and Proposed Float Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Linear 32' Slips Linear 32' Slips G 250 0 250 0 K 0 46 460 129 L 250 0 400 0 Total 500 46 1110 29 As can be seen from Table 4 the proposed layout provides fewer 32 foot slips but significantly more lineal moorage. Replacement Cost Estimate: The preliminary cost estimate is approximately $4.9 million. It is based on floating docks furnished and installed for $110 per square foot. The cost estimate includes a 25% contingency and an allowance for engineering and non-controversial permitting. It does not include engineering field investigation such as survey or geotechnical. It is also based on providing details, utilities, and appurtenances similar to the recently installed B, C, and S float project. A cost estimate is provided in Appendix B. 16 48 APPENDICES 17 49 Appendix A: Drawings 50 Il looav aagNnN NouVZIaOHinvaivaodaoo 103roNd 1N3W30V1d3N)1000 1'8)1 - �*ercocrezr�o6:-.0 UOSUVH IVOS llVWS O21HM3S aos66„61Qeb�o4,•d 4dVM3S 30 A--11 ,O Wen AtOl6 , J � a♦ 'w �•�xl'swriinsxo�wga I� w � V m i oy a�- w U \RYA\ oil� F I 1 o \ t t 4Z W EEl�`OC 20lT 1 -017 a W tO S;.,ax; V Dtls c +{ I IGgsry -I P'Igl611 �f 4 Wl - PI P F p 1y 36 12 11 F1. 2 a�j �M 13 12 2 x"C III II III. w C=1 L C N C=1 I C ��ds L C Lu CO co y 0 N J J LL a W � J o w ^ , Io x o „I.-,SZZ 9- @7 S3oV7 -il — J {• ter'__ ———— —— — a S310H 09£2J0921VH �oLL e^+P'yid aes b�nstxF td-Po'rocaVarwVl^loA1��H rn�hv rv�»��I., J., I—j soar dq wd t,t otoa/tiz/zt vaawid mooav aagNnN NouvzlaoHinvaivaodaoo 103roNd 1N3W30V'ld3U)1000 l'8)1 - �*QrcocrezrLos�-oya UOSUVH IVOS lltlWS O2 VAA=l LO566 eyse�tl a6etoy�utl y d p�en6uep�6�6 G d VM3 S 3 0 All � a N �•�xi'sunnnsNo�w+aa wo 8 m Q LI Z W CD W J �o d zd re �„ ao � wJ �n 8> e F , , G3'N.l"",rAY'AYG&W,kYlQJAIY tl"iN(fAYf.l% a0 bl. �ci' S+r a C µ z� LU 3 a z z 0 Q 0 U F � W Q t t �ODZ=O-Ot dD s3ovdS 0 mom L K i r - �310H OOE 2J0921VH �'i 10 G a loa....dd-50'..Ld 6u3 II.J 1-3 u r d9 wd Z,[ 6lOd/bZ/ZL Pad4old mooav aagNnN NouVZIaOHinvaivaodaoo 103roNd 1N3W30V'ld3U)1000 l'8)1 - �*ercocrezr�os�a�o4a UOSUVH 1tl08 lltlWS O2 VAA=l passe eysem'.a�ow�y _ o 42i`dM3s J0 Jlll;' w a g ' U�•�xi'sunnnsNo�w+aa I,� w = m a i a o 10 LL�> ap. Ww� aW LLX 0 O X Q d All �Q Q �O W Zro - W o F � Q <0 G W J W o d0 Z oo a wQ� o a x o aQd o J } — dni os=oNiovds adVNIN 0 � H — w W w LL > LL LL W aMr F�awo;�o3 a�urv..n o',reo'.... a., J.o pl-,o soar dq wd p,1.1d mooav aagNnN NouVZIaOHinvaivaodaoo 1O3roNd 1N3W30V'ld3N)1000 l'8)1 - �*QrcocrezrLos�-.0 UOSUVH IVO8 llVWS O2 VAA=l LO566 eyse�y a6etoy�uy , _ y Q a�,a p�en6uep�6�6 yy 421dN13 S �0 J1-11;' � �•�xi'sunnnsNo�w+aa I,� w 30 _ m I I � I I _ I I _ o> H �soo o Boa LL 0 0 0 010 0 — o u II 0 - ma IQ II �< _ Im 110 o — z O 8¢ w CO g z_ a z wolO ILLI � J z g - W aW CO F- a a —iIQ O J LL o z IIIIIIw � � �� - � � �C) a IIIIII II zV z � "'' z� N M o II II .0 mo �o ry y oQF II xffII _ � �o 0 0 0 0 aR.o'.s—e..... 6., J.o toiw,o soar dq wd S,[ vaawid mooav aagNnN NouVZIaOHinvaivaodaoo 103roNd 1N3W30V'ld3U)1000 l'8)1 - �*ercocrezr�os�a�o4a UOSUVH IVOS lltlWS O2 VAA=l o r o=�=„6,pabe,o4,d 4dVM3S 30 All: an,,0 Pie^ A 4046 J w a 'JNI'S1Ntl11115NOJ W9tl I�� w d Ou n� IQ m U Im w= Q 0 O LL LL _ Y Y Z z O U a CO LL J LL lu CO ol I CO N 5 - J H oz J Q o Qo Q -ou m z ~ } ryl Y o� � Z � N x< O m <I *10 W co 01 w wLL F— >� Q o a LL J co o - � U H aR.o'.s-e..... I., J., toiw,o soar dq wd 9,[ rloa/tiz/al vaawid �3r w&3wo��a�o„m - � ` ^ aa+IVo TlVWsa__ O GdVM]S QO All� CN _ Lu E} ol ^ j >: }j A}k }} /\\ §2 /\\\/ o/ \ §11 0 \) \ -0 -Q, � k Q E w %7 , }( ® �( \\\\ \ \� _ \}\ }(\ QQ \j - _z: \(\ \\ ` `� @ \\j\ 2< 8< (� 1 \ /:d /6 <d u , ,waz: z = aaZ,[ w. ppld Appendix B: Cost Estimate 57 City of Seward Small Boat Harbor K&L Dock Replacement Project Estimate 12/27/19 Base Bid Items: I Engineer's Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended Price 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000 2 Construction Survey 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 3 Protected Species Observer 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 4 Demolition of Existing Float 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 5 F&I 10'X245' Main Floats at G Float 1 LS $ 269,500 $ 269,500 6 F&I 10'X460' Main Floats at K Float 1 LS $ 506,000 $ 506,000 7 F&I 10'X200' Main Floats at L Float 1 LS $ 220,000 $ 220,000 8 F&I 4'X32'Stall Floats 14 EA $ 14,080 $ 197,120 9 16" Dia x 70' long Galv Steel Piles Furnished 33 EA $ 7,500 $ 247,500 10 16" Dia Galv Steel Piles Driven 33 EA $ 2,500 $ 82,500 11 F&I Potable Water System 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000 12 F&I Dry Standpipe Fire Suppression System 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 200,000 13 Leveling Flotation Furnished 30 EA $ 400 $ 12,000 14 Leveling Flotation Installed 30 EA $ 400 $ 12,000 15 F&I Fire Extinguisher and Cabinet 7 EA $ 1,500 $ 10,500 16 F&I Life Ring and Cabinet 7 EA $ 1,500 $ 10,500 17 F&I Safety Ladders 15 EA $ 750 $ 11,250 18 F&I Anodes 33 EA $ 1,200 $ 39,600 19 Power and Lighting Systems 1 LS $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Subtotal Base Bid Items: $ 3,398,470 Contingency 25% $ 849,618 Construction Total $ 4,248,088 Engineering and Permitting @7.5% $318,607 Construction Support @7.5% $318,607 Project Total $4,885,300.63 58 Page 1 of 1 12/27/2019 City of Seward Small Boat Harbor G, K, & L Dock Replacement Project Estimate 4/3/20 Base Bid Items: I Engineer's Estimate Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Extended Price 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000 2 Construction Survey 1 LS $ 35,000 $ 35,000 3 Protected Species Observer 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 4 Demolition of Existing Float 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 5 F&I 10'X245' Main Floats at G Float 1 LS $ 274,400 $ 274,400 6 F&I 10'X460' Main Floats at K Float 1 LS $ 515,200 $ 515,200 7 F&I 10'X200' Main Floats at L Float 1 LS $ 220,000 $ 220,000 8 F&I 4'X32'Stall Floats 14 EA $ 14,720 $ 206,080 9 16" Dia x 70' long Galv Steel Piles Furnished 33 EA $ 7,500 $ 247,500 10 16" Dia Galv Steel Piles Driven 33 EA $ 2,800 $ 92,400 11 F&I Potable Water System 1 LS $ 225,000 $ 225,000 12 F&I Dry Standpipe Fire Suppression System 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 200,000 13 Leveling Flotation Furnished 30 EA $ 200 $ 6,000 14 Leveling Flotation Installed 30 EA $ 500 $ 15,000 15 F&I Fire Extinguisher and Cabinet 8 EA $ 1,200 $ 9,600 16 F&I Life Ring and Cabinet 8 EA $ 1,200 $ 9,600 17 F&I Retractable Ladders 14 EA $ 500 $ 7,000 18 F&I Heavy Duty Ladder 4 EA $ 1,400 $ 5,600 18 F&I Anodes 33 EA $ 1,200 $ 39,600 19 Power and Lighting Systems 1 LS $ 130,000 $ 130,000 Subtotal Base Bid Items: $ 2,767,980 Contingency 25% $ 691,995 Subtotal Base Bid Items: $ 3,459,975 Construction Administration @10% $345,998 Total Construction Costs: $ 3,806,000 59 Seward Harbor Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Application Document in Support of Block#4