The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutContract 45078-A1 CITY SECRETAW AMENDMENT No. 1 CONTRACT NCO. 4st'gi- TO CITY SECRETARY CONTRACT No. 45078 WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth (CITY) and Freese and Nichols, Inc. , (ENGINEER) made and entered into City Secretary Contract No. 45078, (the CONTRACT) which was authorized by M&C C-26515 on the 22nd day of October, 2013 in the amount of $ 573 , 116; and WHEREAS, the CONTRACT involves engineering services for the following project : Near Southside Regional Detention Feasibility Study; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to execute Amendment No. 1 to the CONTRACT to include an increased scope of work and revised fee. NOW THEREFORE, CITY and ENGINEER, acting herein by and through their duly authorized representatives, enter into the following agreement, which amends the CONTRACT: 1 . Article I of the CONTRACT is amended to include the additional engineering services specified in a proposal dated September 25, 2015, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The cost to City for the additional design services to be performed by Engineer totals $45, 498. (See Attached Funding Breakdown Sheet, Page -3-) 2 . Article II of the CONTRACT is amended to provide for an increase in the fee to be paid to Engineer for all work and services performed under the Contract, as amended, so that the total fee paid by the City for all work and services shall be an amount of $618, 614 . 3 . Article III, of the CONTRACT is hereby amended to extend the termination date by an additional 18 months to allow for completion of the subject matter. 4 . All other provisions of the Contract, which are not expressly amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect . EXECUTED and EFFECTIVE as of the date last written by a signatory, below. v APPROVED: �ZIONS OFFICIAL RECORD Page 1 of 3 OC Wo�� CITY SECRETARY FT. WORTH, TX City of Fort Worth ENGINEER Freese and Nichols, Inc. lw �� — Jay haps Sca ley, P.E. Assistant City Manager Associate DATE: / DATE: APP R VAL RECOMMENDED: 695 0. l_ Douglas . Wiersig, Ph. , P.E. Director, Transportation and Public Works Department APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: M&C: n/a Ozl � Date: n/a Douglas W. Black Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: 0Rr ;, a p�Q 000000000 0 � FaJ�+a °0� Y 2w . ary J. r d�o City Se r tary PQ� O°000000000 d OFFICIAL RECORD City of Fort worth CITY SECRETARY Professional Services Agreement Amendment Template FT. WORTH, TX PMO Official Release 8/1/2012 Page 2 of 3 outstanding serv�ct r M <III C—M-OLS- 4055 International Plaza,Su ib 200 • Fort Worth,Texas 76109 • 817-735-7300 • fax 317-735-7491 www freese com September 25, 2015 Ms.Jennifer Dyke Senior Planner,Stormwater Division Transportation and Public Works Department City of Fort Worth 1000 Throckmorton Fort Worth,TX 76102 Re: Near Southside Regional Detention Feasibility Study Amendment#1 Dear Ms. Dyke: In response to your request, Freese and Nichols, Inc. is pleased to present this proposal for additional services on the above referenced project. As you know,the scope of work was revised in April 2015. At that time, the fee was reallocated amongst the various tasks, but there was no fee increase. Subsequently, in September 2015, the City requested additional services for the development impacts analysis and additional meetings. This proposal includes the complete revised scope and fee, inclusive of the changes from April and September. In particular, the new scope of work includes the following additional services requested in September 2015 that were beyond the original contract amount: Task Fee Development Impacts Analysis $ 37,023 Three (3) additional meetings and project management $ 8,475 Total Fee Increase $ 45,498 A detailed scope of work is included as Attachment A. A revised fee summary is included as Attachment B. In addition, FNI proposes to extend the contract expiration date to November 30, 2016. The City's standard amendment form is also attached. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Fort Worth on this important project. If you have any questions, please call me at(817) 735-7378. Sincerely, 15C Scott Hubley, P.E.,CFM Project Manager L:\Resources\OLCR\FTTW\Fr113462 Near Southside Reg Detent\Amd#1 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 Study Area The Near Southside project area refers to the medical district and urban neighborhood just south of Downtown in Fort Worth, Texas. The Near Southside area generally extends to Evans Avenue to the east, Allen Avenue to the south, the Fort Worth and Western Railroad (FWWR) to the west, and 1-30 to the north. The business and residential communities in this area are firmly established, well organized and motivated for revitalization. They are frequently represented by a non-profit entity called Fort Worth South, Inc. (FWSI) and supported by a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. FWSI is a private, member-funded, non-profit 501(c)(4) development company dedicated to the revitalization of Fort Worth's Near Southside. TIF District #4 is an important redevelopment tool for the Near Southside. It allows tax revenues generated by new investments in the district to be used for funding public improvements within the district. TIF #4 was created in 1997 and will expire in 2022. The boundaries of the Near Southside area include the Fairmount residential neighborhood, a business district and urban village along Magnolia Street, four major hospitals, and numerous other medical businesses. The area is the second largest employment sector in Fort Worth with approximately 30,000 employees. Primary roadways in the watershed include Henderson Street, Rosedale Street, Hemphill Street, Magnolia Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, South Main Street, and 8th Avenue. The area is primarily fully developed and rapidly redeveloping, although some vacant or underutilized parcels exist within the study area. Problems and Opportunities The Near Southside project area encompasses four major storm drain watersheds including the Henderson storm drain system to the north, the Butler place storm drain system to the northeast, the Fairmount storm drain system to the west and south, and the Van Zandt storm drain system to the east. Two smaller subwatersheds draining to Leslie Creek bound the west side of the project area. These areas, representing some of the oldest development within the City of Fort Worth, have a history of known flooding problems including, among others, the following locations: 1)Radiology Associates, overland flow along Lipscomb; 2) the Rosedale/1-35 intersection, and 3) portions of the Fairmount storm drain system and Fairmount neighborhood. Opportunities exist to integrate stormwater management initiatives with the community's broader strategic vision for economic activity and quality of life in the Near Southside including master plans for multi-modal transportation, parks, green space, and future land use. The exhibit in Attachment E outlines the study boundary. The vision of this study is to support and facilitate sustainable development while mitigating current and future drainage concerns. Pagel Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 Purpose and Need The purpose of this study is to quantify the frequency and magnitude of flooding in the Near Southside project area; to ensure that appropriate provisions are made for future drainage infrastructure needs as the area redevelops; and to identify strategies for locating, sizing, phasing, and funding regional drainage improvements in the study area. In particular, areas of regional detention should be identified that alleviate flooding while promoting redevelopment. This is necessary to prevent the continued damages from flooding and to increase the public safety and welfare in the area. Finally, this study provides an opportunity to partner with community stakeholders to identify affordable, effective and acceptable drainage requirements for redevelopment in the study area. Obiectives • Identify a plan to reduce flood risk (or significantly increase level of flood protection) and frequent flooding in the Study Area. The resultant plan shall be effective, affordable and acceptable. Protection of all properties from flooding in the 5-year storm is the primary minimum target. Maximum reduction of flood risk and identification of acceptable solutions will be determined as part of this study. • Integrate stormwater management with green space planning by incorporating, where possible, features that provide a hybrid function of open space and detention storage through the development of alternatives that utilize storage-based and non-traditional methods to reduce flood risk. These drainage improvement features may be enhanced with urban design, landscape architecture, recreational features, and low-impact features. • Identify and/or create opportunities to blend drainage improvement features with other initiatives and plans, and consider implementation opportunities in conjunction with the Near Southside future land use plan. • Support development and redevelopment in the Project area through development of a variety of storm water strategies offered to redeveloping properties in lieu of on-site detention including, but not limited to, participation in regional detention facilities, stormwater impact fee creation, and a "menu" of Low Impact Development (LID) site design alternatives to address increase in Stormwater runoff from redevelopment. The strategies should be consolidated within a regulatory framework that will support and enhance future development and redevelopment. • Engage the stakeholder community in partnership to identify and embrace affordable, effective and acceptable strategies for improvement. • Identify and avoid unacceptable increases in flood risk elsewhere, including downstream in receiving storm drain systems. Page 2 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 • Provide a conceptual design that demonstrates that the proposed plans are feasible, acceptable, and constructible. Provide a phasing concept that allows implementation of multiple strategies and a range of improvements over time. Definition — "Planning Level" The work described in this Scope of Services is a Planning Level exercise. "Planning Level" refers to a level of detail and related work effort specified within this study scope, and is defined as the "level of detail in investigation, analyses, and preliminary design necessary to support the identification of plans and subsequent decisions regarding selection of alternatives and implementation of projects, including communication with the public." Upon implementation, additional detail will be developed to support engineering design and construction. Stakeholders Previous discussions have identified and engaged key external and internal stakeholders in the community. They include FWSI, affected business owners, the South Main Street project team, and the City of Fort Worth's Planning and Development Department and Stormwater Management Department. This study will have a heightened level of engagement with stakeholders. Unique Elements The proposed plans will include an illustrative plan and a series of sketches to portray that improvement alternatives are compatible with the existing and future adjacent community. Compliance Statement This work in this Scope of Services will be in accordance with the 2012 City of Fort Worth Storm Water Management Design Manual, with the following exceptions: • The resultant 100-year flood may not be contained within the public right-of-way, as required by criteria. In lieu thereof, any projects proposed will strive to reduce the 100- year flood, and will not increase 100-year flood risk at any location. • The geometry of any proposed detention basins may not be in accordance with the specifications in the manual. In such cases, designs will be coordinated with the City to ensure they are sustainable and maintainable. Page 3 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 BASIC SERVICES It is the intent of this Planning Level Study to determine the scope of the existing conditions and project area needs as a first phase of the contract. Upon completion of the first phase, and prior to continuation with the remainder of the scope of services, it is anticipated that a Project Understanding and Problem Definition meeting will be held with the Consultant Project Team, Program Management Team and City Staff. The purpose of the meeting will be to achieve common understanding of the problem definition and agreement of tasks and effort for Alternatives and Recommendations development. After the Problem Definition meeting and before proceeding with Phase 11, the original intent was for a Path Forward to be developed in coordination with the City to affirm or modify the proposed Phase II tasks and schedule. This documents serves as the modified scope as amended by the City and Consultant. This work flow and phasing are described graphically in the attached Workplan. Anticipated Phase I tasks are denoted in the following scope of services as (Phase 1) prior to each task description. Phase I tasks are included in Basic Services Sections Il, III, VI and VII of this contract. The following tasks are to be provided by the Consultant as part of the Basic Services: 1. Study Coordination and Management— Phase I 11. Discovery— Phase I III. Public Involvement and Stakeholder Coordination — Phase I&II IV. Existing Conditions H&H Model Development— Phase I V. Existing Conditions H&H Simulations— Phase I VI. Identification of Potential Features — Phase II VI I. Alternative Development— Phase 11 VIII. Recommended Plans — Phase III IX. Final Report and Deliverables— Phase I II Page 4 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 I. Study Coordination and Management — Activities in support of the study and communi- cation between the Consultant Team, the City, and the Program Management Team. A. Study Meetings — The Consultant team shall attend study meetings with the Program Management Team and City Staff. Specific meetings anticipated during the project are identified in the scope below. The following items apply to the meetings. 1. Agenda —Two days prior to the meeting, the Consultant will submit a draft agenda to the Program Manager. 2. Conduct of Meeting —The consultant will chair the study meetings and will ensure the meeting follows the agenda. 3. Action Items—At the conclusion of the meeting, a list of Action Items will be reviewed. 4. Meeting minutes — The Consultant shall prepare meeting minutes to capture key decisions and action items. Issues discussed should be noted. The meeting minutes shall be submitted to the Program Manager for review and approval within two days of the meeting. B. Schedule — The Consultant shall maintain a study schedule in Microsoft Project. This schedule shall be submitted monthly with invoice, along with a Schedule Risk report that identified items behind schedule and other schedule risks. A recovery plan will be provided. If it is necessary to revise the schedule, the Consultant shall submit a Schedule Change Control form to the Program Manager. C. Monthly Summary — The Consultant shall prepare a monthly progress summary report using the City's Monthly Summary Form. The Monthly Summary shall include a summary of work completed, description of work in the upcoming month, and should note any key issues related to the study scope and budget. D. Invoice — The Consultant shall invoice the City monthly, and provide the necessary MWBE report to the City. E. Meetings —Task I 1. Up to thirteen (13) coordination meetings as requested to coordinate with the City, FWSI and the development community regarding pending property sales and/or site planning during the life of the project. II. Discovery (Phase 1): The Consultant will perform reconnaissance, acquire and organize data, review existing plans and data, and conduct an initial needs assessment as detailed below. A. Kickoff Meeting: Consultant shall attend one kickoff meeting with City staff and the program management team. Discussion should include introduction of study team, Page 5 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 review of study history, understanding of problems, identification of key stakeholders, recognition of any unique elements, review of objectives, and review of the study scope. B. Context and Background Information: The Consultant will acquire relevant data, complete a detailed site assessment, and review existing plans and studies in the Study Area. 1. Data Acquisition - City to provide relevant previous studies, models, GIS data, elevation data, as-built plans, flooding complaints, and other relevant information to the Consultant. Consultant shall acquire additional necessary data and information from available data sources. 2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Models — City to provide the most current versions of the hydrologic and hydraulic models used to simulate and quantify flooding in the Henderson and Magnolia watersheds. This includes the InfoWorks SD model prepared by Halff as part of their Henderson Storm Drain Planning Study, along with the accompanying drainage area maps, schematics, and hydrologic models. This also includes the Infoworks SD model prepared by the City of Fort Worth internal staff. 3. Data Ingestion — Client shall provide and consultant shall document and organize data, and review data as necessary to gain necessary understanding of the problem area, previous studies, and potential solutions. Previous plans shall be thoroughly reviewed and understood. Consultant will review existing plans that provide background and may have impact on the study, including but not limited to: previous feasibility studies, Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan, parks, trails, and open space plans, flood maps, and storm sewer maps. 4. Field Reconnaissance — Consultant shall visit the locations pertinent to the study. Consultant shall take pertinent photographs and organize a digest of photographs. Include a GIS Shapefile showing location of photographs. 5. The consultant shall compile the collected data to develop GIS depictions of key elements that are relevant to the study: a. Study area, drainage area delineation, existing drainage system, parcels, land use, zoning, streets, rail, utilities (if available), and pipelines (if available). The consultant may identify additional shapefiles to include. b. Raster data sets, including: Aerial photographs, LiDAR based contours and LiDAR based digital elevation maps. C. Field Surveys: Consultant will collect limited field survey to supplement GIS data for hydraulic modeling purposes. Features to be surveyed may include (but are not limited to) storm drain curb inlets, grate inlets, manholes, pipe inverts for all pipes entering or exiting a junction, curb and gutter elevations, culvert crossings, or any other storm drain Page 6 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 appurtenances. In addition, the ENGINEER may survey the finished floor elevations and lowest adjacent grades of buildings and residential homes within identified flood prone areas. D. Condition Assessments: Portions of the stormwater features analyzed in the study shall be assessed for structural conditions. Priority will be given to trunk lines that have not been inspected in the past. Pipe features shall be documented with either photographic evidence or CCTV inspection. Pipe condition shall be ranked as good, fair, or poor. Inlets and manholes shall also be documented and noted as good, fair, or poor. An exhibit indicating location and condition of all features, associated photos or video, and any field notes shall be submitted to the City. This scope assumes that the City will clean the lines as required for the camera to pass through. No effort for cleaning is included in this scope. E. Deliverables 1. Assembled GIS data 2. Photographs from field Investigation 3. Field Surveys — Summary of field survey efforts including datums and benchmarks used, coordinate system used, grid to surface conversion factors. ■ Project Control Exhibit showing location of all control points, benchmarks, and elevation reference marks. ■ Data sheets for benchmarks ■ Overall survey exhibit showing locations of all surveyed elements. 4. Finished Floor Elevations — Summary of finished floor elevation survey efforts including homes and structures surveyed, finished floor elevations, and lowest adjacent grade. ■ Exhibit indicating which buildings were surveyed and where shots were taken. ■ Table indicating finished floor elevation and lowest adjacent grade for each building surveyed. 5. Condition Assessments — CCTV video files, written report with still images of areas of concern, and exhibit ranking features as good, fair, or poor. 6. DVD with electronic files of each deliverable F. Meetings —Task II 1. One (1) Kickoff Meeting 2. One (1) Site Visit Page 7 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 III. Public Involvement and Stakeholder Coordination: The Consultant will conduct public involvement and stakeholder coordination activities as detailed in the tasks below. It is understood that the nature of this project creates the possibility that the character and scope of these meetings may change as the project develops. Should the effort required to accommodate needed and/or requested meetings, significantly exceed the estimated budget for these tasks, Consultant will notify City in writing. Prior to planning or execution of the first public meeting, and following the data acquisition phase of this project, Consultant will facilitate a Problem Definition Meeting with the City and the City's Program Manager to confirm a more complete understanding of the project and the anticipated tasks and schedule for the remainder of the project. As part of the first phase of the project the Consultant will attempt to notify and engage the stakeholder community regarding this Planning Level study. Phase I stakeholder engagement will utilize multiple media sources to attempt to make contact with all stakeholders wishing to engage in the planning process. This phased approach is depicted graphically in the attached Workplan and is included as part of this Attachment A. A. Creation of a Stakeholder Steering Committee (Phase /) — Work in coordination with CoFW Stormwater Management Team, COFW Planning Department and FWSI to create a Stakeholder Steering Committee. The purpose of the Committee will be to identify impacted stakeholders and to provide a framework for disseminating and receiving information to/from the Community. B. Stakeholder Meetings — Develop and attend up to six (6) meetings with Stakeholder Steering Committee and/or smaller Stakeholder Groups to identify stakeholder needs and concerns. The anticipated meetings are listed below: 1. Steering Committee Meeting #1 (Phase /) — This meeting will serve as a project kickoff for the stakeholder steering committee to communicate the project objectives and schedule. It will also serve as an opportunity for the project team to get input and perform data collection activities related to history of flooding in the project area. Goal of this meeting is to develop an understanding of the community. 2. Steering Committee Meeting #2—The results of the existing conditions modeling and planning possibilities will be presented to the stakeholder meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be to effectively communicate the magnitude of the flooding problem to the stakeholder committee and discuss realm of possibilities from a planning perspective to determine appropriateness. 3. Steering Committee Meeting #3 —Present alternatives analysis results, the 100-year master plan concept, the targeted 5 year concept, and obtain feedback. This meeting will be a combined steering committee and public meeting. Page 8 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 4. Steering Committee Meeting #4 — This meeting will be to present the final master plan for the study area. This meeting will be a combined steering committee and public meeting. 5. Smaller stakeholder/ landowner group meetings — Up to three (3) meetings are included within the scope for smaller stakeholder groups if needed to further investigate or develop improvement alternatives. C. FWSI Coordination (Phases I and 11) — As the primary representative of project stakeholders, FWSI will play a key role in this project. The following activities specifically related to FWSI are anticipated: 1. Review FWSI Master Plan, Park Planning Analysis, TIF financing models, TIF Project and Finance Plan, TIF funding requirements, and any other relevant information to be provided by FWSI. 2. Identify and discuss regional improvement alternatives with FWSI Stakeholder Steering Committee. 3. Meet with FWSI and Stakeholder Steering committee to identify strategic funding and partnership alternatives for regional drainage improvements. 4. Coordinate with FWSI to facilitate meetings with impacted property owners regarding property acquisition, park creation and multi-function partnerships for drainage improvement mitigation. 5. Attend meetings with selected property owners to discuss multi-use alternatives. 6. Coordinate with FWSI and design consultant for South Main street project to identify opportunities for incorporating drainage improvements into the active project. Final design of any recommended improvements is not included in this scope and will be considered an additional service. 7. Up to eight (8) meetings with FWSI are included in this contract. D. Meetings—Task III 1. Two (2) Stakeholder Committee Meetings 2. Two (2) Combined Public/Stakeholder Committee Meetings 3. Three (3) landowner meetings 4. Eight (8) FWSI Meetings IV. Existing Condition Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Model Development (Phase 1) - The consultant will be provided Infoworks SD models for the Henderson and Fairmount watersheds. The consultant will perform a technical review of the existing models and make Page 9 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 adjustments as necessary. The Van Zandt and Butler Place watersheds will require development of H&H models. The purpose of this task is to establish a baseline of H&H models to be used for the study. A. Review and Adjustment of Existing InfoWorks SD (IWSD) Models — Consultant will simulate the storm drain systems using the IWSD models. Consultant will evaluate the models and make any minor refinements necessary to improve performance or address any identified modeling concerns. This task only applies to the Henderson and Magnolia/Fairmount IWSD models. Consultant will convert IWSD models to ICM. The entire Henderson model will be converted to ICM, but only the portion upstream of 1-30 will be reviewed and adjusted. B. Development of new IWSD models — Consultant will prepare an IWSD model for the Van Zandt system as follows: 1. Model Extents —The downstream limits of the model will be the outfall at New York Avenue to Stream SC-2. The model will include all of the storm drain trunk lines including the primary branches along Rosedale Street, South Calhoun Street, and St Louis Avenue. It is expected that the drainage from 1-35 will be added as a single basin contributing to the storm drain; the 1-35 storm drain system will not be explicitly modeled. 2. Data Sources — The IWSD model will be constructed primarily from GIS, as-built records, and LIDAR information. Limited field survey will be collected to verify critical areas. Data inputs to the model will be flagged appropriately based on the data source. 3. Hydrology — Consultant will perform hydrologic calculations for the storm drain system as follows: a. Consultant will delineate contributing watershed sub-basins to the storm drain system in sufficient detail to describe the behavior of the system b. All existing inlet capacity will be accounted for in the model although each inlet may not be individually modeled. It may be necessary to group or lump inlets at intersections to limit the detail in the model. c. Calculations will be based on future land use conditions using the SCS Curve Number method and SWMM routing d. Precipitation inputs will be based on hypothetical frequency events e. All hydrologic calculations will be performed within IWSD model 4. Hydraulics — Consultant will perform hydraulic calculations for the storm drain system as follows: Page 10 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 a. Storm drain network will be constructed from GIS, as-built record data, and limited field survey b. Some laterals may be omitted for simplicity c. 2D overland flow calculations will be conducted where necessary. Portions of the model may be modeled using 1 D overland flow links. d. The best available information will be used for the tailwater conditions for stream SC-2. A backwater model will be used if available from the City, otherwise normal depth conditions will be assumed. 5. Model Execution and Analysis — Consultant will execute the model, analyze the results and debug as necessary to address any identified instability concerns. C. Development of Traditional H&H Models — Consultant will prepare traditional H&H analyses for the Butler place system and Leslie Creek subwatersheds to establish the existing conditions discharges at the outlet of each watershed from the Study area. Consultant will utilize results of "rain on mesh" analysis prepared by Program Manager for Butler watershed to evaluate areas without existing drainage infrastructure. D. Development Impacts Analysis — FNI Methodology — Consultant will create model for existing land use conditions and evaluate potential impacts of development within the watershed. 1. Define existing land use conditions by delineating existing open space areas. 2. Identify the areas available to be developed from open space condition and evaluate the differential in impervious cover for each watershed. 3. Execute the model under both conditions and document the potential impacts from development including increases in inundation depth and impacts to structures. 4. Document the analysis in a memorandum. E. Development Impacts Analysis — City Methodology — Consultant will identify the impact of development (residential and non-residential) within the Study Area through a comparison of scenarios using current percent imperviousness and scenarios for future conditions. All work will be performed according to "Near Southside Impervious Cover" technical guidance document provided by the City. 1. Scenario 1 — Existing Conditions: Define existing land use conditions using the City's GIS impervious cover layer. 2. Scenario 2 — Existing NSFR, Fully Developed SFR: Assume single family residential are developed to represent full build out condition of currently zoned residential properties. The non-single family residential properties will remain constant. Page 11 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 3. Scenario 3 — Fully Developed SFR and Fully Developed NSFR: Assume all land will completely develop according to its current zoning classification. 4. Execute the model under each scenario and document the potential impacts from development including increases in inundation depth and impacts to structures. 5. Document the analysis in a memorandum. V. Existing Condition Hydrology and Hydraulic Simulations (Phase 1) — The consultant will utilize the IWSD models developed in Task IV to demonstrate the performance of the system under existing conditions. This task only applies to the Henderson, Van Zandt, and Fairmount watersheds. A. Hydrology — Consultant will utilize hydrographs for a range of events and durations, including the 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour rainfall for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 100-year events. B. Existing Condition IWSD Simulations — Consultant will develop simulations of the storm drain systems using the 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour duration hydrographs for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 100-year events. C. Existing Condition Inundation Maps — Consultant will prepare inundation maps for the 24-hour, 100-year and 3-hour, 5-year storm events. D. Deliverables 1. Interim document describing modeling. 2. Inundation maps for 3-hour, 5-year, and 24-hour, 100-year events. VI. Identification of Potential Drainage Improvements — The consultant will identify and size potential stormwater improvements using the existing conditions models. A. Volume Evaluation — The Consultant will review the results of the IWSD simulation, and determine the volume necessary to reflect the target improvements to the performance of the system. 1. This assessment will consider two scenarios: i. Detention volume necessary to improve existing flooding conditions to a target 5-year level of protection. ii. Detention volume necessary to improve existing flooding conditions to a target 100-year level of protection assuming fully developed watershed conditions. 2. The volume required to mitigate each of the modeled events will be identified by comparison of runoff hydrographs for respective events. Page 12 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 3. Engineer will evaluate a range of balanced frequency storms for use during volume assessment. B. Concept Development — The Consultant will identify potential stormwater improvement locations within the study area for each watershed. For each concept, the consultant will identify, at a planning level, the potential storage volume that may be acquired and necessary modifications to the drainage network. Engineer will distribute the total required storage volume into individual sites throughout the watershed for two (2) scenarios: 1. 100-year Fully Developed Scenario — Engineer will identify the improvements necessary to provide flooding protection for the 100-year fully developed condition. Locations of detention volume (defined by area and average depth) will be identified from a purely hydrologic perspective without consideration of existing developments or landuse. 2. 5-year Fully Developed (or other feasible event) Scenario — Engineer will identify the improvements necessary to provide flooding protection for the 5-year event (or other feasible event). Locations of detention volume (defined by area and average depth) will be based on locations developed by the consultant in conjunction with City and stakeholder feedback. These locations have been identified on the "Opportunities Identified to Reduce Flooding Map." 3. A working meeting with City staff will be held to evaluate concepts and discuss recommendations from the consultant. 4. Consultant will revise concept maps including up to one (1) round of revisions based on City feedback. C. Deliverables 1. Target detention volumes 2. Preliminary concept map for 100-year event for entire project area 3. Preliminary concept map for 5-year event for entire project area 4. Preliminary concept map for 100-year event for Henderson watershed to support case study 5. Preliminary concept map for 5-year event for Henderson watershed to support case study D. Meetings —Task VI 1. One (1) Concept Work Session Page 13 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 VII. Regional Drainage Improvements Alternative Development — The Consultant will refine alternatives with hydraulic modeling. Preferred alternatives will include architectural features and will be presented to the stakeholders and community. A. Hydraulic Analysis — The Consultant will develop hydraulic models of the concept alternatives to evaluate the hydraulic benefit. The modeling will focus on the 5-year (or feasible event) alternatives. 1. Consultant will develop approximately five (5) alternatives each for Fairmount, Henderson, and Van Zandt watersheds, and two (2) alternatives each for Butler and Leslie Creek watersheds. Up to twenty (20) total alternatives will be analyzed. 2. Consultant will developed proposed IWSD models for each concept. In some cases, the concept may be developed to meet a certain criteria (e.g. required pipe size to not cause a constriction, or volume needed to meet target volume). In other cases, the concept may be developed based on individual site constraints and then evaluated to determine the potential benefits. 3. Benefits will be documented in terms of flood reduction depths and inundation removed from structures. Detailed benefit cost analyses is not included in this scope of work and will be considered an additional service. 4. Conceptual Opinions of Probable Costs— Develop planning level cost estimates. 5. Consultant will prepare GIS exhibits to depict each concept. B. Architectural Concepts—The Consultant will develop initial architectural concepts for up to two (2) locations. City staff will comment on the plans and will provide direction to the consultant in the finalization of the concepts. The scope of work includes up to one (1) round of revisions based on City feedback. 1. The concepts will consider the connectivity with the surrounding environment, compatibility with plans by others, potential to create green infrastructure or other linkages within and through the study area, and constructability. 2. The concepts will be presented in the form of a rough sketch overlay on the GIS- based map base, and will be presented to the City staff in a work session. 3. Affected Properties — The Consultant will develop a listing of the properties affected in each alternative concept. 4. Update Opinions of Probable Costs if necessary. 5. Preparation of Alternatives — Preparation of concepts at a scale necessary to illustrate to the City and to the public. Presentation will include plan view and cross section, including architectural renderings that illustrate how the features fit into the surrounding environment. Page 14 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 C. Constructability Review—The consultant will perform a constructability review of each of the alternative concepts. This review shall identify and assess implementation risks associated with each alternative concept. The consultant will consider cost and funding, coordination with other agencies, construction disruption, right-of-way acquisition, community acceptance, utilities, and other items necessary to consider implementation risk. If necessary, the consultant will identify areas of additional study required to mitigate uncertainty. D. Deliverables 1. IWSD runs of individual alternatives. 2. Table of benefits 3. Alternative concept drawings. 4. Interim document describing constructability review. 5. Affected Property list. 6. Opinion of Probable Costs. VIII. Recommended Plans —The consultant will prepare final recommended plans. A. Recommendation to City — The consultant will recommend specific alternative plans to City staff in a work session. This recommendation will be based upon the studies conducted, the architectural concept, the public sentiment, the overall cost and performance, and the risk of implementation. The consultant and City staff will jointly agree upon the selection of recommended alternatives. B. Final Alternative Plans — The consultant will develop final recommended alternative plans. 1. Additional Study — if the consultant recommended additional study for the selected alternative (Subsection A), the City may authorize Additional Services to investigate the feasibility. Plans and recommendations may be revised based upon this study. 2. Performance — the consultant will model the combined proposed plan (all recommended alternatives) in IWSD, and will develop resultant inundation maps, hydrographs, and flood depths of for the various events studied. 3. Implementation Plan —the Consultant will identify key elements of implementation, and will identify pertinent implementation strategies. a. These strategies involve potential partnership with other agencies or City Departments, mixed use development provisions, and Transit-Oriented Development/Form Based Code opportunities. Page 15 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 b. Any construction sequencing and phasing requirements shall be identified. 4. Final Presentation of Alternatives —The consultant will refine previous schematics, sketches, sections, and plans and will supplement as necessary for final presentation. 5. Final Affected Property List — if necessary, the consultant will update the right-of- way acquisition data. 6. Final Opinions of Probable Costs — If necessary, the consultant will update cost projections for the recommended plan. C. Deliverables 1. IWSD models, with inundation mapping and depths for studied events. 2. Final sketches, sections, and plans 3. Cost estimates. 4. Property acquisition list. D. Meetings—Task VIII 1. One (1) Final Presentation IX. Final Report and Deliverables —The Consultant shall compile a final report documenting and describing the analysis. The report shall include clear recommendations. A. Executive Summary—The report shall include an Executive Summary that provides a high level summary of the analysis. The emphasis of the Executive Summary shall be the identification of the problem, the formulation of the alternative concepts, and the recommended concept. B. Body of Text — The character and extent of the conceptual design shall be summarized. Much of the body of the report shall be developed by incorporating the Interim Memoranda. C. Address Comments — City staff will provide reviews of the Internal Memoranda prepared during the course of the study. Unless requested by City staff, the Internal Memoranda do not require resubmittal, and comments will be addressed in the final report. The final report will be subject to one review by City staff, and the Consultant will appropriately address comments. D. Digital Media—The Consultant shall provide all models, associated GIS files, exhibits, and narrative on a digital media in addition to the hardcopy text of the report. Summary of Meetings: Task I — 13 meetings (8 complete, 5 remaining as of 4/20/15) Page 16 Attachment "A" Scope of Services for 2013 Stormwater Feasibility Planning Studies NEAR SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL DETENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY SWS-056 Task II —2 meetings (2 complete, 0 remaining as of 4/20/15) Task III — 15 meetings (6 complete, 9 remaining as of 4/20/15) Task VI — 1 meeting (0 complete, 1 remaining as of 4/20/15) Task VIII — 1 meeting (0 complete, 1 remaining as of 4/20/15) Total: 32 Meetings (16 complete, 16 remaining as of 4/20/15) End of Attachment A Page 17 ai E C N Oto 75_,N ca O O _ N U c N CD 3 O O_ E m U m E a U U LL m O Oo (D 3 Ecx m c .O+ O_ N N O Z N � a) > t nO O 8 fO �a Q. c U 'U U a) U U m vi m 'D rn ar ma n o 0 o n c c U .0 C Q Q Q 7 a) v 8 N 7 in a) C O O a) Y a) O (00 a) a) cc O a) a) cc a) k a) a )� ami c 0 0 0 o t z r o t .� U U .O U E U o L- CaW W W W li Z Z li Z w Z 0 O) � I• M CO N — -V CO ? IL N co � CQ N ' ' CO LQ aac m LO co O N ' CO d CA a0 a0 CO I- In - 0) CO a) N LO r COQ M N LO r. Cq r r r CO d � 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 69 69 69 69 N yCO LO w O CO N N I- co w y I� — CA I• LO CO co N CO a0 LL N LQ CC) CO LQ a0 N V "It - CO N a0 CA f` Lo - O — M R r (O r N O O N M L C r r lA .` O wi wi wi 69 wi wi EA 69 69 EA 69 69 40 T 7 d CL _ O 0 d) a) LL O CL 0 C U o O N > rn c C E °) c °n O a) o �, rn t y m :3 H CL c Y v 3 m m c 0 m m E Ii m m O O) > mc m a) > m = °� m E y O C C c O O m O an d m LL E > o c m mG C: 'D > c c c Q 'n m ZT °o Z. > U U > m n E O m o U E E a) O N CV T p> U m m c� c E m )[) "O O _p N N C a) ca 7 N a3 c azinrn c71 o a w w ¢ ii Y m N M CO Il- a0 0) H Near Southside Impervious Cover Technical Guidance Document-Sept. 25, 2015 Purpose Identify the impact of development(residential and non-residential) within the Study Area through a comparison of scenarios using current percent imperviousness and scenarios for future conditions. Task#-Impacts of Development The ENGINEER shall utilize the current hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the existing storm drainage system in the study area. The ENGINEER will develop the following described hydrologic scenarios and reflect in the InfoWorks ICM model to calculate system performance. All analysis will match the extents of the analyses performed previously during the study. For example, hydrology will not be updated for basins north of Interstate 30. Scenario 1-Existing Conditions Utilizing the latest InfoWorks ICM models for the study area, utilizing the city's imperviousness layer in GIS,to determine the following: Existing Conditions hydrology is to be based on the GIS generated impervious cover polygon layer contained within the City's GIS. Impervious cover is identified in GIS as the following surfaces that exist on the ground today: • SFR homes • NSFR apartments, businesses and industrial sites • Streets, sidewalks, patios, driveways, rooftops, etc. The consultant is to clip this layer to each individual model subbasin using GIS.The consultant should utilize File Geodatabases to house each of these datasets, as it will track the Shape Area (in square feet, if the data is in State Plane) automatically.Then the impervious cover polygon area within each individual subbasin divided by each subbasin's area equals the% impervious for each subbasin. Consultant will review the impervious cover polygon layer in comparison with available aerial photos provided by the City, and agree that it fairly represents the impervious cover on the ground today,or adjust it for any major existing development change that may significantly impact the impervious cover not reflected in the GIS layer. Any adjustments are to be reported to the city and the updated GIS shapefile provided back for future City use. To identify areas of potential impact as depicted in model simulation results(depth, spatially,or elevation)two (2) scenarios of future development are to be considered. This is to be accomplished through the use of hydrology scenarios and hydraulics results comparisons. The definition of"impact" relates to the criteria of 0.1-foot increase or more in calculated water surface elevations at a point of interest as described in Fort Worth criteria or iSWM manual. Scenario 2-Existing NSFR, Fully Developed SFR Page 1 of 7 Near Southside Impervious Cover Technical Guidance Document-Sept.25,2015 The hydrology model for this scenario will be developed to represent the full build out condition of current zoned residential properties.The Scenario 2 model hydrology is based on the existing conditions GIS impervious cover layer in all areas that are NOT SFR, and based on the Zoning layer impervious cover values within areas that are SFR.This represents holding NSFR impervious constant(same as existing condition Scenario 1)while increasing the SFR from existing conditions up to the full build out condition impervious conditions.The SFR "average" percent impervious cover values in Table 1 are to be used. To produce this model,the consultant needs to: 1) Export all "A"zoned residential areas into a new feature class called "SFR".Select by attributes"Zoning=A-5 OR Zoning=A-10 OR Zoning=...". This represents all the SFR within the basin. 2) Invert the selection.This should then select everything in the zoning layer that is NOT SFR. Export this to a new feature class. Call it NSFR. 3) Clip the Impervious Cover data to the NSFR layer. Make sure nothing is selected.This will then clip down the impervious cover layer to only shapes within the NSFR polygons.Call this layer NSFR_IMP_Clip 4) Divide the total area of NSFR_IMP_Clip by the total area of NSFR to get the EXISTING percent impervious cover within the NSFR only area. 5) Dissolve the SFR feature class by the"Zoning"field.This will produce a feature class with 1 feature per zoning classification.Call it SFR_Diss 6) Assign the corresponding"Average% Impervious"values to all Zone A areas in SFR_Diss. 7) Calculate the area weighted average of NSFR%impervious and all Zone A SFR Diss%. , pmt. ¢ �� —`� �• , .b Page 2 of 7 Near Southside Impervious Cover Technical Guidance Document-Sept. 25,2015 Area ID Area(SF) %Impery A x%Imp NSFR 4443009.21 74.7 332073740 A-10 16207.75 49 794179.51 A-5 268912.43 61 16403658 Total 4728129.39 73.9 349271578 Scenario 3-Fully Developed SFR and Fully Developed NSFR The hydrology model for this scenario is based on the assumption that all land (both SFR and NSFR)will be fully built out to contain facilities consistent with its current zoning classification. It assumes that currently vacant land or semi-developed land will ultimately be constructed on or finished constructing and will leave no vacant/open/undeveloped land areas. Review land use to ensure that existing park land remains in park land category under full build-out scenario.This model will use only the zoning layer and the associated Avg. Percent Impervious values from Table 1(The Scenario 1 model based on the existing impervious cover GIS layer will not be used at all). This hydrology for this scenario will be accomplished by: 1) Clip ADM_Zoning layer to subbasin. 2) Dissolve the clip by zoning classification. 3) Apply Avg.%impervious cover values from Table 1 to each distinct classification. 4) Calculate the total subbasin%impervious cover. 4 r lll� Page 3 of 7 Near Southside Impervious Cover Technical Guidance Document-Sept. 25, 2015 fID• " "' 1 Polygon A-10 651.778 16207.75 49 7941.79505 _ 2 Polygon A-5 6259.561 268912.4 61 164036.5849 _ 3 Polygon 8 11078.55 982037 65 638324.0466 4 Polygon C 13074.33 1331355 55 732245.1473 _ 5 Polygon CF 2849.303 225294.5 85 191500.3486 6 Polygon D 2063.732 123333.4 65 80166.73784 7 Polygon E 4670.12 234999.3 96 225599.3469 8 Polygon F 568.5796 19534.09 96 18752.73102 9 Polygon NS-T4 4283.112 312850.3 96 300336.2966 Not in Table 1 10 Polygon NS-T51 4338.558 1088436 96 1044898.795 Not in Table 2 11 Polygon PD 3135.237 125169.5 85 106394.0448 Total 4728129 74.2 3510195.874 Hydraulic Analysis: Execute the hydraulic model under each scenario above and document the potential impacts from development including increases in inundation depth potentially impacting structures. Analysis for each scenario shall include a comparison of water surface elevations at points of interest between existing conditions and future conditions. Comparisons would potentially include: (1) In areas with only a 1D model of the storm system, the following shall be considered: (a) Profile plots comparing existing and proposed/Future conditions system HGL for a range of storm events and durations (b) Compare HGL's at inlets or other points of interest (c) Estimate inundation extents by projecting HGL on study terrain/surface (d) Note flood risk to any structures/roadways by comparing existing system and proposed/Future depths adjacent to flooded or threatened structures. (2) In areas modelled with a 1D/2D model that includes both confined (1D) and unconfined (21)) flows or only unconfined (21))flows,the following shall be considered: (a) Profile plots comparing existing and proposed/Future conditions system HGL for a range of storm events and durations. (b) Utilize terrain data and surface model to execute 2D surface flood mapping for existing and proposed/Future conditions. (c) Compare HGL and 2D flood elevations at points of interest; (d) Compare 2D inundation mapping for existing Scenario 1 and future build out conditions(Scenarios 2 and 3); (e) Estimate inundation extents from 1D/2D model on terrain/surface; (f) Use inundation maps to illustrate flood risk to any structures/roadways by comparing existing system and proposed/future development condition depths adjacent to flooded or threatened structures. (Note-This is not a detailed Flood Hazard Assessment. Rather it is development and review of inundation mapping for the development scenarios in comparison with existing conditions for the City's use to characterize the potential impact of future development). The hydrologic calculations of each scenario and subsequent hydraulic simulation outcome for development impacts shall be evaluated based on review of inundation mapping. Consultant will utilize the ICM models and the existing condition Scenario 1 results for the comparisons. The future condition Page 4 of 7 Near Southside Impervious Cover Technical Guidance Document-Sept. 25,2015 scenarios described in the following sections will be developed as the basis for the comparisons.A meeting will be held with city staff prior to proceeding with this Task and afterwards to discuss the results.The Consultant shall prepare comparison tables, map exhibits,flood extents delineation and prepare a summary Technical Memorandum to document the analysis. The Consultant will update the data after one review by the City. Technical Memorandum Document and summarize the analysis in a technical memorandum. Memorandum should present study findings and summarize discussions with City on how it may be applied during the Stormwater Management(SWM)Development Review process, including evaluation of the differential in impervious cover for each watershed, identification of the areas available to be developed from open space condition,and definition of zones in which the SWM review process could be simplified. Deliverables: Technical Memorandum summarizing analysis for City's use. Consultant will update memo after one round of City review. Table 1. City of Fort Worth Suburban Existing Land Use Impervious Cover Land-use Code Land-use Description Average Percent Impervious AG Agricultural 35 CF Community Facilities 85 DD Demolition Delay 85 HC Historic and Cultural 85 HSE Highly Sig. Endange. 85 MH Manufactured Housing 65 PD Planned Development 85 A-2.5A One Family(min 2.5 acre) 35 A-43 One Family(min 1 acre) 35 A-21 One Family(min 0.5 acre) 37 A-10 One Family(min 10,000 sq. ft.) 49 Page 5 of 7 Near Southside Impervious Cover Technical Guidance Document-Sept.25,2015 A-7.5 One Family(min 7,500 sq. ft.) 55 A-5 One Family(min 5,000 sq. ft.) 61 AR One Family Restricted (min 3,500 sq.ft.) 65 B Two Family 65 R1 Zero Lot Line/Cluster 65 R2 Townhouse/Cluster 65 CR Low Density Multifamily 40 C Medium Density Multifamily 55 D High Density Multifamily 65 MU-1, MU-1G Low Intensity Mixed-Use 96 MU-2, MU-2G High Intensity Mixed-Use 96 NS-T4 Near Southside General Urban Zone 96 Near Southside General Urban Zone, NS-T4N Neighborhood Zone 96 Near Southside General Urban Zone, NS-T4NR Neighborhood Zone, Restricted Zone 96 Near Southside General Urban Zone,Restricted NS-T4R Zone 96 NS-TS Near Southside Urban Center Zone 96 Near Southside Urban Center Zone, NS-T51 Institutional/Industrial Zone 96 TU Trinity Uptown 96 ER Neighborhood Commercial Restricted 96 E Neighborhood Commercial 96 FR General Commercial Restricted 96 F General Commercial 96 G Intensive Commercial 96 Page 6 of 7 Near Southside Impervious Cover Technical Guidance Document-Sept. 25,2015 H Central Business 96 1 Light Industrial 96 J Medium Industrial 96 K Heavy Industrial 96 Page 7 of 7