The URL can be used to link to this page

2008, 08-26 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 143rd meeting. Attendance: Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Absent: Rose Dempsey, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 26, 2008 City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Ken Thompson, Finance Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Greg McCormick; Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Bill Miller, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Councilmember Wilhite gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Deputy Mayor Denenny led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Dempsey. It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Dempsey from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Wilhite: reported she attended a United Way Board Meeting. Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he attended a meeting of SNAP and said that the group is changing its name to S.N.A.P.: Spokane Neighborhood Action something (Mr. Gothmann couldn't recall what the P stood for); that the group is working on producing low income housing at Riverwalk II; that he also attended the Lodging Advisory Committee meeting today and he mentioned the pending funding requests; and said that he accompanied one of the Deputy Sheriffs to visit some of the areas affected by local panhandling, and that it was disturbing to see how trashed those areas were; and that he will be making a presentation at the end of next month on this issue. Deputy Mayor Denenny: said that most of the boards he is associated with did not meet during August; and that the Solid Waste Advisory Board meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. Councilmember Taylor: no report Councilmember Schimmels: no report Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 1 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Munson reported that he met today with the Emergency Communication Committee where they discussed bylaws and implementation of 911, and mentioned that Crime Check is scheduled to re- emerge in January; and said he requested the committee to monitor the public education program associated with the new crime check, and added that one of the reasons this system previously failed was because people were not using it for the purpose intended; e.g. to report non - emergency crimes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comment. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: mentioned she is concerned that when issues on land use go to public hearings, that we continue to ignore adjacent jurisdiction's traffic, and that the public doesn't know if Barker Bridge is out, which information is not coming out in staff's report; and failed intersections are not taken into consideration as well; and she said we can no longer characterize this as a "temporary inconvenience" because this will be five years of such; and said that some homeowners don't even stay longer than five years in any area. She also mentioned that builder developers are destroying current roads as they put their heavy equipment on it; and she suggested we reconsider how they put their pavement on: if they have adjacent development next to them, they put their first coat on to get rid of the dust, and she suggested not coming back for the second coat until all the developers are finished with their heavy equipment; so that the finished project won't necessitate re- fixing the roads several years out; and that she also mentioned panhandling, such as on Pines, and said there are problems as the areas look undesirable. Jack Riley, 8122 E Sprague: concerning roads, he said that realtors always stress location; and he said if Sprague and Appleway Couplet were to return to two -way, there will be a lot of commercial businesses being built on the property, which will bring in more tax revenue to the City; and that he got a bid from the County engineer in 1991 that it would cost about $1.5 million to turn Sprague back to two -way; since the couplet has been installed; he said he's not sure if there is a bid on turning both the couplet and Sprague back to two -way, but he feels it would be more than desirable for the community and we would see new business being built without having to spend millions of dollars to build a new gateway center. Gary Austin, property owner of 15906 E Sprague: said he has been a property owner since 1971; and he reviewed the plan on this and that everything he sees addresses east and west traffic and nothing addressing north and south; and no expansion north and south onto Sprague Avenue; he said he realizes a decision will be made soon, and he feels this might be something to consider, how this will be done; will we use round - abouts, or stop lights; and he said there is a sewer trunk line involved in this which is a primary line about 13' deep which would be able to handle traffic, especially if we are considering light rail; and he also mentioned the power lines and said something has to be done with those lines by moving them underground or to a different location, will be very costly. Mr. Austin said he checked his zoning, and he was a B2, which is the highest and best; and when he purchased his property it was slightly more than five acres; and after the UIDs and he RIDs he's down to about 4.5 acres, in granting easements for road or sewer improvements; and he said now he is community commercial and does not know what that zone entails; and he hasn't had time to research that but he will; and he said he got an assessment from the County Assessor and he assumes community commercial is lower than B -2 but his taxes went up. 1. CLOSED RECORD PUBLIC HEARING: Appeals APP 02 -08 and APP 03 -08 — Mike Connelly Mayor Munson announced that we are now moving to the closed record public hearing, and he invited City Attorney Connelly to comment. a. Rules of Procedure Mr. Connelly explained that this is a closed record appeal, appeal number 02 -08 and 03 -08; that two separate appeals were filed on the same matter; that the procedures to be followed are not included in the Uniform Development Code (UDC), which was an error in omission in compiling the UDC, and he said Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 that he recommends that Council adopt the procedures set forth in attachment two to the RCA; which are the identical procedures that Council has followed prior to the adoption of the UDC. Mr. Connelly said there were two letters in response to his proposal to adopt the attached procedures, which copies Council has; and said that the parties; e.g., the Austins, Pollards, the developer and the City, should be allowed to comment if they choose. Mr. Connelly also recommended that Council accept any document submitted through this hearing, simply because there are not adopted rules prescribing deadlines for filing documents. MOTION: It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to adopt the rules of procedure proposed by the City Attorney and attached to the RCA as attachment two, in this matter. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue: said she also speaks for Janice Austin; and said without adopted rules there is no legally prescribed process that meets the 14`" Amendment in the Constitution regarding due process; and that this provides a "murky legal environment from this point forward," and in the case where the developer does not get what he wants, and he wants to go to Superior Court, he has no procedures to address; and she said this isn't a good process; and that we are denying people equal protection of law because at one point early in the City's history, they could not do quasi-judicial hearings as there were no rules so citizens were forced to go to Superior Court; and said by the time they realized there were no rules this year, the timelines didn't fit: they couldn't go to Superior Court because they were barred from LUPA, and they couldn't' have a quasi - judicial hearing under the old rules; and she said she feels we are not acting on legal grounds; and said that the Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC) put out a paper on this topic stating that "public bodies must have guidelines to ensure that their public hearings follow legally adopted procedures so they are not overturned by the courts on procedural grounds." Mr. Connelly added that all letters have been submitted to Council. Councilmember Gothmann said rules can be changed and adopted at any time, and feels it is proper to adopt the rules now and continue. VOTE by Acclamation on motion to adopt the rules as stated above: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Attorney Connelly asked that the record accept any documents submitted by the parties through this date and this hearing, and Mayor Munson agreed. b. Objection to Lewrad Development Material (pages 5 -8) Attorney Connelly then explained the request from Mary Pollard, party of record, who has objected to the four pages in the record book pages five through eight, that were attached to the appeal by Lewrad Development, LLC, and he said that Ms. Pollard feels they constitute additional evidence which was not a part of the record before the hearing examiner; and Council needs to determine by motion, whether that material should be admitted. Mr. Connelly said he has reviewed the materials and looked at the criteria set forth in the rules just adopted and they do not appear to meet any of the criteria for admission. To clarify, Mr. Connelly said Council can accept argument but not new facts. MOTION: It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to exclude the information on pages five through eight of the document. Mayor Munson said each party has five minutes to present argument; and that these preliminary motions do not count toward the allocated twenty minutes for each party speak to the appeal. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue: stated that the hearing examiner Mike Dempsey must make a decision based on the record that is given to him; including all the evidence, and then the matter is closed; so if there were matters he could not have known, or kept out on purpose for some terrible reason, in that case new evidence would be admitted, or through some error, but otherwise, it makes a mockery of the system for him; and she asked how he could make a decision if new evidence continued to be presented; Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 3 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 and she added that this is supposition; that what the applicant is trying to add now is not relevant to the facts as it is speculation; and there are no grounds to disqualify the hearing examiner, that nothing was improperly excluded; she said in a very length discussion at the time, the Hearing Examiner specifically asked the applicant and the City Planner Karen Kendall if they had any further comments, and they stated they had nothing to add; and the applicant asked if the Hearing Examiner was asking him a question, and he replied no but asked if he would like to state anything further and he said no; she said therefore there is no reason to have this accepted and she does not want the record supplemented by them. Tim Lewis, Lewrad Development, 1204 N Division #369: he said that the information referenced by Ms. Pollard is no different then referencing case law that the Hearing Examiner used in response to the decision rendered, and the request for reconsideration made thereafter; and that the reason this information is not in the original proposal is because at the time, Mr. Lewis said they were recommended for approval, so there was nothing to respond to; he said by throwing out the response it would be stating that the Hearing Examiner decision is not appealable and has no responsibility to respond, and Mr. Lewis said he couldn't understand why this information would not be included that would substantiate a reasonable argument in response to the Hearing Examiner; and he recommends that it be accepted. VOTE by Acclamation on motion to exclude the information contained on pages five through eight: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Gothmann, and Wilhite. Opposed: Mayor Munson and Councilmember Taylor; Abstentions: None. Motion carried. c. Mary Pollard Request to Consider New Information Concerning Barker Bridge and its Closure Attorney Connelly stated that he reviewed this information with the same criteria as that done with the previous information, and said he feels it does not meet the requirements set forth in the adopted rules. MOTION: It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to exclude the information contained in the correspondence by Mary Pollard concerning the Barker Bridge. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue: she mentioned that the Barker Road Bridge has been out for two years; and that it may have been overlooked, and she said the planning department should have realized it was out for two years; and there are only three "doors" into the area; and she said she mentioned in public record about the death of that young man near the corner of Boone and Flora; and she said that when traffic increases through an area on limited roads for a prolonged length of time, that has a pertinent bearing on adding more houses to the area; and she said that fact should have come before the Hearing Examiner; and she said if she was at fault in not adding it, she would probably say "yes" that she probably should have brought it up but she wasn't aware at the time; but that she is certainly aware now because she can't drive that way; and said there is a long turn around going back. VOTE by acclamation on motion to exclude the information contained in Mary Pollard correspondence regarding Barker Bridge. In Favor: Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Gothmann, Taylor and Wilhite. Opposed: Mayor Munson. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. d. Body of the Hearing: Mayor Munson said Council will now enter into the body of the hearing and he invited Attorney Connelly to explain the rules. Attorney Connelly said this is the time for the appellants and respondents to present their arguments to Council; their testimony should be limited to stating why the Hearing Examiner decision was in error or lawful or not; that this is not a time to introduce any new facts or testimony; that the appellants and respondents will each have a total of twenty minutes; and if the appellants wish to reserve time for rebuttal, he suggested they make such announcements at the beginning of their presentation. Mr. Connelly said that once both parties have presented arguments, the matter will be Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 4 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 closed until Council deliberates; and said that the appellants are Lewrad and the City of Spokane Valley. At 6:32 p.m., Mayor Munson invited the City of Spokane Valley to the podium. Kathy McClung, City of Spokane Valley Community Development Director: she explained the location of the property, which is north of Boone and east of Flora; said it consists of slightly over five acres, and in addition to the plat, the applicant requested that the property be re -zoned from R -3 to R -4; which would result in an increase in five lots; she explained that the R -4 zoning, the proposed plat would have thirty lots from 6,000 to 8,540 square feet; the properties surrounding the plat are R -4 to the north; R -4 and R -3 on the east; R -3 on the south, and mixed use center across Flora road to the west; she said there are eight criteria under Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 18.30.30, which the Hearing Examiner must review to grant a re -zone; she said the Hearing Examiner found that all of the criteria was met except one, which was that circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the requested map amendment; she said that the Hearing Examiner interpreted this to mean that the zoning the city placed on the property last October when city -wide name changes to change the county -named zones to city -named zones was the establishment of the current zoning district. Ms. McClung said that staff interprets the establishment of the current zoning district to be that which was placed when the property was zoned for three units per acre, and that the city changed in October in name only; she added that the names weren't exactly the same but were the closest zoning the City had to match what the County had; and that within the record there are several references to changes in circumstances. She cited pages 136 and 154, where the applicant states there is a need for smaller building lots to provide affordable housing; page 142 the applicant sates the proposed project will accommodate the existing residential market condition; page 545 the Austin letter states it will be surrounded by plats recently re- zoned to UR -7.5; and page 547, the Austin comment references the property is surrounded by recently re- zoned UR -7.5 plats; page 558 has a chart showing surrounding zoning, much of which has changed; page 559 criteria #7: the property to the north and east of the proposed site has been recently site - specific re- zoned to UR -7* and the equivalent of R -4 zoning which became effective October 28, 2007. Ms. McClung further stated that in the transcript on pages 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, changed circumstances are also discussed; and she said even if those changed circumstances weren't met, the Supreme Court has found that proof of a substantial change of circumstances is not required if the re -zone implements the comprehensive plan of the local government; and that the property is designated low - density residential in the comprehensive plan; and said that the R -4 zone designation is within the range of zones that implement that low density designation. Ms. McClung said this condition could be construed as repetitious, and staff will be proposing a code amendment to strike this particular condition; but she continued, that in the meantime, there is concern that this decision does not set a precedent for other plats; and she recommended that this plat be approved for the R -4 zoning because it meets all of the criteria. Tim Lewis, Lewrad Development, 1204 N Division #369: he stated that one of the things that often get overlooked when reviewing code language, is the common sense approach; he said that if the Hearing Examiner's interpretation is found to be correct, there would be no reason for the City to have had any language in the Uniform Development Code for rezoning, as it would never come into play; which obviously was not the intent; he also noted that the people who requested the reconsideration are those who helped to create and implement the development code, which is a new code, and he said that part of any new code is interpretation; and he added that the interpretation clearly violates the development code as well as the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and is contrary to promoting affordable housing; he said that the hearing examiner's interpretation is to create lower density then the adjoining properties, where the Code was designed to create a "common area" density; so there are R -4 and mixed used properties, and this would be the lowest density of those higher density properties around it and would be in complete violation of that Municipal Code. Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 5 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 City Attorney Connelly stated that Mary Pollard will be speaking on behalf of Janice Austin, and that staff received an e -mail from Ms. Austin granting such authorization. Mary Pollard: stated that she received a written statement from Janice Austin, which Ms. Pollard handed to the City clerk. Ms. Pollard then read her six page statement dated August 26, 2008, asking Council to uphold the decision of the hearing examiner, and to oppose the claim of the applicant and Spokane Valley's Ms. McClung, that there has been a substantial change in circumstances; she said that the condition that must be met is circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the requested map amendment; and she stated that Ms. McClung and the applicant ignore adopted criteria; there is no legal merit for appeal since planning refuses to recognize the consistency with the comprehensive plan as it has been adopted and the UDC 19.30.030, and all criteria that must be met from October 28, 2007; she stated that Washington Case Law requires the proponent of a rezone, a preponderance of evidence that substantial change of circumstances have occurred in the area; and if consistent with the comprehensive plan, and this was all that was required when we were under the interim zone, as shown on page 55 of the record; she said we are no longer under that interim zoning code. She continued by stating that the facts regarding the two -parts of the rezone application states that under the original UR 3.5 there is substantial change in circumstances since the enactment of that code, which goes back many years. She further stated that the new zoning that was adopted October 28, 2007, began with the new zoning map and marks the timeline that begins from this point forward. She said that from that point there are no changes in circumstances; Summerset Estates represents the first horse out of the gate. She continued reading her statement: Fact: the 1.04 acre property that was not purchased until after the new zoning code became effective, is also the revised application which was not received until December 2007; that the Hearing Examiner could have denied the revised application as a whole, but instead ruled on the original application prior to October 28 and separated the new parcel after that date and ruled this portion consisting of 1.04 acres under the new rules, so she said this was a gracious Solomon -type decision by the Hearing Examiner as he could have denied the whole revised application, which would have meant back to the drawing board; but she stated the Hearing Examiner was fair and careful with the facts. She said the Hearing Examiner correctly denied the 1.04 part of the rezone as we are no longer under the interim zoning code. She said that Spokane Valley adopted 19.03.030: new zoning code stating all criteria must be met and it was adopted to implement the comprehensive plan and the zoning code as of October 28, 2007; that City Council thoroughly intended staff to meet adopted criteria in order to rezone at a higher density since none were provided prior to October 28. She said zoning laws are not based on speculation but on planning; and said that unlike the years prior to October 28, 2007, all of the criteria must be met as stated in the Ordinance. She stated that the City Council and staff worked hard to ensure that the ordinances were implementing the comprehensive plan; so that had to be consistent. She explained that we can't just say we don't like the criteria; the applicant's one acre added to the revised application could not be considered under the new rules and was vested in the R -3 zoning; this 1.04 parcel was purchased and added in the revised application after October 28; that the Comprehensive Plan can't be used as the only criteria to be met because that was only in the interim zoning; and she said this is what the hearing examiner was noting in his decision. She said that city ordinances must be followed to prevent an arbitrary and capricious decision and so due process is consistent and fair; that law requires unless there is written clarification of an ordinance, it means what it says; and it is not appropriate for the planning department to provide their own interpretation of an ordinance. She stated that neither the applicant nor planning can show any substantial changes in circumstances; she said that the Hearing Examiner gave the greatest latitude by granting 20 lots under the old rules, and denying an upzone to R -4 with the remaining acres, so he got what he asked originally on the first application. She said that the Planning Department represented by Karen Kendall in three places states there were no changes in circumstances or substantial changes in the area since October 28,; and this does not hinge on that day but on that day going forward, as found on pages 791, 792, and 793; she said these statements are made under oath and this should not be treated lightly. She said that the City has not made a connection from the Flora Bridge with the sidewalk to Boone, and she added that this is the Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 6 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 stretch of road where the teen was killed last year on Flora as noted in her testimony dated April 9, 2008; and she said as spot zoning this provides a discretionary benefit only to the developer, (Anderson vs. Island Cy 81 Wash 2d 312, 325, 501 P.2d 594). She also mentioned that Central Valley School District provided a letter stating that unless the development was finished by this fall 2008 and those homes not occupied they asked Spokane Valley to postpone approval according to state law (RCW 58.17.110 (1 &2); as busing students to other schools adds to the burden borne by the community at large; and she said that considering this was the very corner near where the teen was killed, this is not a time to upzone it. She said there is no evidence in facts or oral testimony to support the rezone; no evidence by the planning department or the applicant of any substantial change in circumstances; she said Mike Dempsey provided a detailed legal explanation; and Ms. McClung's argument was to dispense with the criteria and meet the comprehensive plan but Ms. Pollard said this is not legally possible. She further stated that the Supreme Court case referenced by Mr. Dempsey shows the consistency with the Comp plan and the criteria were all utilized by the Supreme Court decision, "save our Rural Environment FSORE1 v. Snohomish County referenced on page 100; she said the details of that case showed the public process of the County Commissioners ; she said in that case it was a rural zoning environment, and shortly after it was zoned rural, Hewlett Packet wanted to build a business park; so their planning commission looked at the process, and after hearings, denied it; that the Commissioners looked at it again and changed their comp plan so they could provide for a business park for Hewlett Packet within the zoning and they adopted criteria that would implement the zoning; and all those criteria in that case, had to be met. She said she has great faith in Mike Dempsey as the Hearing Examiner; that the Supreme Court was answering a question regarding changing the Comp Plan and was not ignoring implementing criteria; that the Hearing Examiner correctly evaluated the area for any changes since October 28, from that date forward none were given; facts support there were no changes; he legally upheld 19.30.030 and enforced the Code by his denial of R -4 since Planning and the applicant failed to provide anything to support their request; this condition must be met; she said that all the criteria must be met. She gave concluding remarks stating there are no substantial changes in circumstances to Summerset Estates; the hearing examiner clarified that changes must be present from October 28, 2007 on; testimony does not supply substantial evidence of change in sworn testimony by staff; evidence does not support the argument; the Supreme Court supports that criteria must be consistent with the comp plan and cannot be ignored in lieu of only the comp plan as shown in Mr. Dempsey's response to Ms. McClung's letter of reconsideration; and site specific rezone is not supported by substantial evidence and is an erroneous interpretation of the law; and she asked Council to uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner; and said she understands the applicant's desire to appeal, but she is concerned about the frivolous nature of the Planning Director's appeal; and said that people wanted zoning that would stay; and wanted a consistent zoning and a change should be because of something substantial and horrendous. She also asked Council to provide criteria that departments must meet in the future, so as to avoid an abuse of public funds for petty appeals; that it is an unfair use of position, public time and money, and it burdens citizens to expend time and resources to reiterate what Council already adopted by ordinance. She said there are no changes in circumstances and this would constitute spot zoning that is prohibited and illegal. Mayor Munson mentioned that there were several court cases referred tonight and in the packets, and he asked Mr. Connelly for a summary of those cases from an objective viewpoint. Mr. Connelly said he would research those cases, summarize them, and give Council the pertinent info from those. That procedure was concurred by Councilmembers. Councilmember Wilhite asked Mr. Connelly to also define "substantial change" and Mr. Connelly said he would give Council the excerpts from the cases where that is discussed. Mayor Munson said the adjudication for this appeal is scheduled for September 2, and said council may or may not reach a decision that date. Mayor Munson closed the hearing at 6:50 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 7 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 a. Approval of Claim Vouchers 15207 — 15259 totaling $503,593.82 b. Payroll for pay period ending August 15, 2008: $253,404.05 c. Resolution 08 -017 Setting Planning Commission Hearing for Street Vacation STV 03 -08 d. Stormwater Vactoring Change Order e. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2008 f. Approval of Council Study Session Minutes of August 19, 2008 It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -016 for Street Vacation STV 01 -08 — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to adopt Ordinance 08 -016. Assistant Planner Janssen explained that since the first reading, the amount due by the applicant is $1300 less than that originally noted; and she explained Resolution 07 -009 which computes how this figures is derived. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to amend the ordinance to change the amount listed from $2,654.40 to $1,354.50. Vote by Acclamation to adopt Ordinance 08 -016 as amended: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -017 Amending Height Requirement — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny and seconded to suspend the rules and adopt ordinance 08 -017. Assistant Planner Janssen explained this proposed code amendment as noted in her August 26, 2008 Request for Council Action. Mayor Munson invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Sprague /Bowdish PCC Intersection — Steve Worley Councilmember Schimmels said he has relatives involved in this contract as well as the next agenda item contract, and he recused himself from these two agenda items. After having copies of the bid tabulation sheet distributed to Council, Senior Engineer Worley explained that the lowest responsible bidder was Acme Concrete Pavement in the amount of $760,380,75. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny and seconded to award the Sprague /Bowdish PCCP Intersection Project bid to the lowest responsible bidder, Acme Concrete payment, in the amount of $760,380.75. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Mr. Worley also mentioned that this work will occur about the same time as the Valleyfest parade, so they have coordinated the project so as to prevent any conflict. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None [although Councilmember Schimmels recused himselffrom this agenda item]. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: Broadway Rehabilitation Project Bid I -90 to Park — Steve Worley After having copies of the bid tabulation sheet distributed to Council, Senior Engineer Worley explained that the lowest responsible bidder was Red Diamond Construction in the amount of $491,948.24, it was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to award the Broadway Rehabilitation Project Phase 1 to the lowest responsible bidder, Red Diamond construction in the amount of $491,948.24. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None [although Councilmember Schimmels recused himself from this agenda item]. Motion carried. [ Councilmember Schimmels returned to the dais.] Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 8 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 7. Motion Consideration: WSDOT Agreements — Steve Worley It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to approve the execution of both Local Agency Participating Agreements related to the WSDOT Urban Ramp Project. Engineer Worley explained the proposal as per his August 26, 2008 Request for Council Action; and said if we want to participate with WSDOT, the agreements must be approved; that they are for the preliminary engineer phase and the construction phase and cover our reimbursement to WSDOT for cost incurred in our city rights -of -way. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 8. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funding for Outside Agencies — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson gave a short synopsis on the previous weeks' presentations and of the individual Councilmember's recommended amounts, including mention of the suggested $500 award to the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse so that we could continue our support and they would not have to alter their billboard. After brief discussion on the overall budgeted allocation, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to increase the total allocation to $156,000. Mayor Munson invited public comment. Tony Lazanis, 10626 E Empire: asked about the $60,000 and what is the city's benefit on that money; and Mayor Munson replied it is part of the EDC; and also explained that those businesses made a presentation previously to council, and all the outside agencies are in Spokane Valley. Vote by Acclamation to increase the total allocation to $156,000: In Favor: Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmember Schimmels, Gothmann, and Taylor. Opposed: Councilmember Wilhite. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. After further brief discussion concerning the social service agencies and whether to grant any funds to the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse agency, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to grant a total of $41,000 for social service agencies. Mayor Munson asked for public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmember Schimmels, Gothmann, and Taylor. Opposed: Councilmember Wilhite. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. It was moved by Mayor Munson, seconded, and unanimously agreed to grant the following allocations: Aging /Long Term Care $ -0- Arts Council: $5,000 Big Brothers /Big Sisters: $4,000 Coalition of Responsible Disabled $ -0- Greater Spokane Substance Abuse $500 Hearth Homes $ -0- Meals on Wheels $5,500 Project Access $15,000 Spokane Valley Partners $11, ($41,000 total for social service agencies) Greater Spokane, Inc. $64,000 International Trade Alliance (ITA) $26,000 Spokane Neighborhood Economic $3,000 Site Selector $16,500 Spokane Valley Chamber $5,500 GRAND TOTAL $156,000 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comment; no comments were offered. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 7:56 p.m., and convened the meeting at 8:05 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 9. Graffiti Update — Rick Scott and Rick VanLeuven Police Chief VanLeuven stated that over the last several months, staff has been attempting to identify potential approaches to deal with graffiti; that there have been a wide array of people involved in this effort as graffiti was identified and reported, and he added that most of the graffiti is not gang - related. Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 9 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 Chief VanLeuven then introduced Rick Scott, SCOPE Director. Mr. Scott explained that SCOPE's role in graffiti management as it works in coordination with the Gang Enforcement Team, is to monitor the graffiti hot line, and receive information from citizens who call in locations where graffiti has been observed; that SCOPE volunteers are then sent out to identify, report and evaluate the community impact of the graffiti; with the next step to advise the home /property owner of their options in how to address the graffiti problem. Mr. Scott explained that as part of the education process, they stress to property owners the need to remove the graffiti as soon as possible; and he added that due to the SCOPE volunteer's age and other factors, he does not want to put volunteers in jeopardy by asking them to scale over objects or climb ladders; and he mentioned the Neighborhood Accountability Board (NAB) abatement program, which is a juvenile justice diversion program, and that if the property owner cannot abate the graffiti, the SCOPE volunteer would ask the property owner to sign a release /waiver form authorizing NAB to enter the property and paint over the graffiti. Mr. Scott mentioned that if the property owner and /or NAB cannot abate the problem, then it would be referred to the city's Code Compliance Officers, at which time it would be treated as a nuisance violation. Councilmember Gothmann asked about the draft ordinance; and Attorney Connelly responded that the ordinance will be routed through the Planning Commission along with a number of other proposed changes to the nuisance code; and ultimately brought back for council action. 10. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan /Subarea Plan Overview — Scott Kuhta Mayor Munson reminded everyone that there would be no adjudicating tonight as Council waits until the end of the written public comment period, which is 5:00 p.m. August 29, 2008. Mayor Munson invited Mr. Kuhta to discuss the deliberation schedule. Senior Planner Kuhta brought Council attention to the August 19, 2008 Memorandum explaining the deliberation process; and mentioned that the process has (or will) changed since the determination of the cut -off date for written public comment, and said that tonight's meeting would not include deliberation, and that deliberation and discussion of Book I Community Intent would be moved to the September 2 meeting. Mr. Kuhta gave a brief review of the Plan's process since it was initiated during the summer of 2006; said that staff has assembled all testimony in previous meeting minutes; and all other written documents are at Council's disposal; and that staff will be prepared to provide answers to questions raised during those comments; that staff has been updating the website with all public testimony, and he asked if Council receives comments, to please deliver them to staff. Mr. Kuhta said he will update a schedule with the hope of forwarding that to Council prior to the end of this week; and added that it could prove challenging to complete this process by October and said Council may want to consider additional meetings, other than the Tuesday night, just as Council did with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. Mayor Munson said Council is prepared for the possibility of holding additional meetings, and will leave that discussion until Council can determine what kind of progress is being made. Councilmember Taylor mentioned he will be unavailable September 9, and again Sept 18 and 19. Councilmember Gothmann asked if the written comments could be coupled with the appropriate Plan section. Mr. Kuhta said staff plans to start addressing the open -ended questions, and they are preparing responses to the specific questions; he said they can organize the testimony by topic, that there is a lot of documentation, and they will try to organize it as best as possible; and noted that many questions dealt with roads and with traffic direction. Regarding the insurance question of if a business is nonconforming and burns down will there will be difficulty with insurance, Planner Kuhta explained that there is a possibility of moving into negotiated settlement; and said that he called his State Farm agent and gave the example if a restaurant burned down and cannot be rebuilt because of zoning, his agent informed him the insurance company would pay out based on the coverage and would not enter into negotiation; he said that most policies have a 10% allowance if their insured has trouble meeting building codes, or there are riders to cover any unforeseen issues regarding codes. Mr. Kuhta said he spoke with another agent in Atlanta who gave the same basic information; e.g. the base policy would pay the value of the building, and the insured can pay extra if there is a concern about building to current codes; that some policies require it to be rebuilt or the insured Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 would only get 80% of the building's value, which is an incentive not to just burn down a building; and according to our Code, if the building is more than 80% destroyed, the new building would need to conform to the current code; adding that if the owner needed to re- build in another location, the insurance company would make a cash payoff based on coverage, and the owner would have to move it elsewhere. City Attorney Connelly said staff will provide information showing the differences between existing non - confirming regulations and those in the subarea plan, including what the consequences would be for nonconforming. Councilmember Taylor asked if one might lose their insurance if the building were nonconforming; and Mr. Kuhta said he would need to research that; and said it could be that an insurance company would choose not provide coverage. Regarding financing, Mr. Kuhta said he conducted some research on getting loans but further research is needed, as there are different scenarios depending on different appraisers and different financers; and it appears there is not a "one- size -fits -all" answer. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned there appears to be a tremendous amount of misinformation by the public, such as the City spending $41 million on roads; and on street direction changing. Mayor Munson said those issues need to be addressed; adding that other concerns were not in the plan, such as financing the project; but Council will be addressing these issues at upcoming meetings. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned several citizens commented on pre - located streets, and he said staff will have a pre- located street map, and he is working with Neil Kersten and Inga Note in that regard. In response to Mayor Munson's question about what would happen if the Appleway right -of -way question with the County is not resolved; Mr. Kuhta said there would be no reason to acquire the additional land; that it would affect the Plan as a major component is increased capacity; if Council adopted the Plan and it later appears we never could build the road, that would have to be re- evaluated and the plan adjusted. Council discussion continued with comment on revitalization; strategies to use zoning to help focus growth; sequencing of allowed uses; incentives versus restrictions; whether there are incentives available to help property owners accept the risk of something new, which Mr. Kuhta said he and Attorney Connelly can research, that he feels we would need an architect to do a cost comparison; the need for further discussion of tax increment financing; Mr. Kuhta stated that loosening zoning restrictions and searching for more incentives is not an either /or proposition, and he feels there is a need to research incentives to focus developments where policy suggests; that there is a lot of public speculation on cost to upgrade architectural facades and the false assumption we will make people move existing buildings; and mention again of the 20% rule. Mayor Munson added it would be helpful to see the Chamber's presentation; that Council wants the public to understand their livelihood is not at the greater risk some people think it is; and that Council wants people to understand options. INFORMATION ONLY: The following items were for information only and not reported or discussed: WRIA (Watershed Planning) Memorandum of Authority; Barker Road Bridge Project Department of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation; Letter of Compliment; and Department Reports It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. -- - ATTEST: o 4G Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Richard lmn; ayor Council Regular Meeting: 08 -26 -08 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: 9 -09 -2008 NAME PLEASE P ' 1 T TOPIC OF CONCERN.YOU 0 ADDRESS TELEPHONE WILL SPEAK ABOUT /f/ / /IJ.L4 / _ / / / ��J L � ` "" LL B — ■,Aird. • /.. T i , Ley R i ?I 2 416'KoSo tkiLd / ze._s/kki o „,,,,f,„. 1 , , , -.6,,,,.„ - g'io, • II cr�r. , v: P ..rte NNE° L U1= CCOi�1�I NT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 26, 2008 'GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES Sign in if [ you wish to make public comments. • S�"lcane` jUalley Memorandum From: Mike Con Attorney Date: August 26, 2008 Re: Appeal APR 02 -08, 03 -08 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall ®spokanevalley.org To: Mayor Rich Munson, members of the City Council CC: Dave Mercier, City Manager; Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager The appeal documents and documents submitted to date raise two procedural issues and one substantive issue. The procedural issues are as follows: 1. The Council should adopt rules of procedure prior to beginning the closed record hearing. The procedural rules previously adopted by the Council were inadvertently omitted from the Uniform Development Code adopted in October, 2007. The rules followed should be consistent with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and state law, as well as be fair to all parties. In correspondence to the parties, I have set proposed rules which in large part are identical to those rules previously adopted by the Council. Adoption of these rules for this hearing is at Council discretion, so long as they are not inconsistent with existing code provisions and/or state law. Rules of procedure can be adopted by motion, with all parties given a chance to speak to the motion. [I move to adopt the rules of procedure proposed by the City Attorney and attached to the RCA in this matter (or other rules of procedure preferred by the Council)] Mary Pollard has filed two letters objecting to adoption of the proposed rules. (See Attachment 1 for second letter filed). These comments may be considered by the Council. Janice Austin also submitted a response by email (see Attachment 2). Her response may also be considered by Council. 2. One Party, Mary Pollard, has filed an objection to pages attached to the appeal by Lewrad Development LLC. The general rule is that the hearing should be limited to materials presented to the Dearing Examiner, except where the new materials (1) set forth grounds for disqualification of the hearing examiner, (2) contain information improperly excluded, (3) involve matters outside the jurisdiction of the hearing examiner, or (4) the evidence is newly discovered, i.e. could not have been produced at time of the hearing. There does not appear to be a requisite showing in this case. The inclusion or exclusion of these supplemental materials should be resolved by motion. [I move to (admit) (exclude) the material attached to the appeal of Lewrad Development LLC specifically record pages 5 -8.] 3. Mary Pollard has asked that the Council consider new information relating the Barker Bridge, information not apparently included in the record below. The same rules above should apply. There does not appear to be a requisite showing in this case. The inclusion or exclusion of these supplemental materials should be resolved by motion. [1 move to (admit) (exclude) the information contained in correspondence by Mary Pollard, page 4, concerning the Barker Bridge.] The Community Development Director will present her own appeal, so 1 will not address continents concerning conflicts. The remainder of Mary Pollard's issues go to the substance of the appeal, and may be considered along with the argument presented at time of the closed record hearing. The following substantive issues are before the Council: Did the Hearing Examiner correctly interpret the intent of the Council when adopting SVMC 19.30.030 by concluding that the applicant must show "What circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the requested snap amendment," even if the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and further concluding that the evidence presented at time of hearing does not establish such a substantial change. The ordinance clearly requires that a site - specific rezone must meet "all of the following criteria" including the substantial change requirement above. This differs from the criteria necessary for a Comprehensive Plan change or area wide rezone, which requires one of a number of criteria to be met. SVMC 17.80.140(1-1). Washington case law also clearly concludes that this requirement is generally met when a proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 1- Tearing Examiner determined that the general rule that this requirement is met, when a proposed action is consistent with the comprehensive plan, does not apply because the list of required conditions in SVMC 19.30.030(B) also includes consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The appellants contend that this condition is met when there is a showing of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and the delineation of both elements in SVMC 19.30.030(B) does not change this. The issue then is whether the Council intended to use these words as they have been interpreted by the Courts, or instead, as an additional and separate requirement as ruled by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner further concluded that the record does not contain sufficient evidence of substantially changed conditions since October, 2007 (adoption of the new zoning classification). The appellants respond by asserting that even if the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is insufficient to meet the standard, there is sufficient evidence in the record of changed conditions since the property was zoned at a density of three units per acre. c/o Office of the City Attorney 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 103 Spokane. (alley, WA 99206 Attachment 1 Mrs. Mary ToQard North Greenacres Neighborhood Chairwoman 17216 E. GaldwinAve. Spokane 'valley, WA 99016 509 926 - 8899 magOm.i7216@msn.com 7o: Nonora6Ce Mayor Munson and City CounciCliLembers, RE: Appear ADP- -02 -08 and ADP-03-08 Summerset Estates From: Mrs. Wary (Pollard and 511.s. Janice Austin, (Parties of ckecord RECEIVED AUG 2 5 2008 CITY OF SPOKANE:NALLEY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Action quested Sustain %lotion of (Protest, Cancel t)pho&d the June 6, 2008 Jlearzng Examiner Decision and Supplement Record Barker Bridge under construction — 2 yrs. no access. I have received certified mail receipt of the letter I sent on August 19, 2008. 'You have received my officiatprotest of this hearing, due to the rackof a regally prescribed process for conducting the hearing by the City Council since "Attachment 2" Foes not been adopted by the City Council. There is no legal basis for Spokane Valley Attorney's office to make up rules. This process should not continue and the Nearing E..arniner's Decision of June 6, 2008 stands as the final decision since the Superior Court deadline required by Land vse Tetition Act has been exceeded. 1. In the absence of adopted prescribed rules, timelines have already been exceeded to appeal to Superior Court and the adopted rules that were utilized Cast year do not apply for the same reason: timeline has been exceeded This creates an arbitrary process of procedure. It further creates a murky regal environment from this point forward 1 2. Quasi Jud cialJfearings have constitutional limitations and the participants rights must be upheld. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that every government unit and agency not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of Caw; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal of the Caws." 3. The "due process" requirement mandates that every decision and hearing be based on fair and reasonable written rules for conducting a quasi-judicial hearing adopted legally 6y ordinance. Due 13rocess criteria cannot be met without legally adopted rules of procedure. 4.. 514unicipar search and Services Center of Washington (M125 )produced a paper by 006 Weinig, 945C Legal Consultant advising public bodies of guidelines to ensure that their public hearing follow legally adopted procedures so they are not overturned by the courts on procedural grounds. In the event Spokane Valley City Council chooses to conduct this hearing, my participation in this quasi-judicial hearing is under protest. Conducting a quasi-judicial hearing without a legally prescribed process 6y Spokane ra(Cey City Ordinance does not meet legal standards of procedure. Issue #1: Objection to Carey Driskett representing Ws. WcCCung, Spokane vafey due to Conflict of Interest 2VCief requested #1: Tlanning Department is not given Cega(representation. Fact 1. Mr. !Michaer Connelry phoned and admitted that he cannot represent Ms. 5KcCfung that it creates a conflict of interest. 2-fe suggested that Mr. Tr he erect an invisible wall of silence in the above matter. Spokane valley Attorneys Carey Driske[fancfS Mike Connelly both have a conflict of interest and the suggested artificial watt of silence between the two of them in s-uch a small office is preposterous and improbable, since close proximity makes overhearing conversations a likely possibility. \fo judge would consider this acceptable. 2 Neither can fairly represent nis. W cClung of the Manning Department. Issue #2: Objection to Spokane )alley's frivolous appeal is not substantiated by their own testimony in the record. *lief Requested #2: 'Frivolous Appeal by Spokane valley Manning Department. Ws. Kathleen McClung s appeal should be dropped d ie to inconsistency between reason for appeal and staff testimony. This has been no evidence of fact to support her claim of change. Appeal constitutes an abusive expenditure of public Minds in filing this appeal Facts Spokane valley Tanning Department prepared the Staff deport for the Summerset Estates. The fearing E questioned wren Kendall regarding "substantial changes in circumstances with the establishment of the current zoning district. (pgs. 791, 792 and 793 of the Official 'Under oath, Karen Kendall stated "1 would say that staffs opinion is that there are no substantially changed, that nothing has substantially changed in this area or circumstances." Issue #3: Objection to admission of any new materials from either %Is. JbfcClung or the applicant, Lewrad aDeve(opment LLC. Since afappeafs according to 17.90.070 state that the content of an appeal the City Council shall 6e closed record. Reref Requested #3: There-are no New Facts or evidence outside the verbatim transcript and certified record submitted by the .Tearing rExaminer 0 exclude all and accompanying rationale provided by Lewradl's appeal — none of these were part of the record. Tease exclude any new materials from fills. 7vtcClung if any have been submitted Fact: The Spokane valley Community Development reports are irrelevant to the matter at hand and were not included in the initial hearing. 3 Tact: ' There were no grounds for disqualification of the Tearing EXaminer. Tact: Nothing was irnproperry excruded by the Jfearing Examiner to the contrary — 2ie Tearing Examiner speccarfy askedfor any further Comments from staff and from the applicant, as noted in the record pg.794. Opposition to rules proposed 6y Mr. Connelly — they were not provided in a timely manner and do not represent a reasona6le fair process. The Hiles proposed 6y Wr. Connerry create an unfair advantage of having to ray arguments out for all parties to. read prior to the hearing and extending arguments for re6uttar until the Friday, foliowing the hearing. This does not resem6re last years process that was utirazed for Ws. Austin's appear of V alley Coach Estates. Memorandum to Supplement the cord' Tease admit to the record a fact the 2-fearing Examiner did not know at the time. Tact: This information was not avaira6Ce to the Wearing E at the time of the Summerset Estates public Hearing and is rerevant to the facts. Information forAdmission: Barker c3r4e is out of use for the net two year limiting entrance and exiting this area This limits access to area: the overpass on Barker or the overpass on T ora due to the geographic constraints of the freeway and river. Respectfully submitted, Mrs. Wag bard August 25, 2008 Ws. Janice Austin August 25, 2008 4 Patti McConville From: Janice Austin [greenacresjan @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:58 PM To: Mike Connelly Subject: Summerset Estates Appeal procedure Importance: High City of Spokane Valley Michael F. Connelly, City Attorney 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 103 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 25 Aug. 2008 Attachment 2 rage* of ; RE. the proposed rules of procedurere. Appeal APP -02 -08 and APP -03 -08 (Summerset Estates) Mr Connelly, This is a follow -up to the document that I submitted earlier today, along with Mary Pollard, regardingthe City Council hearing of the Summerset Estates appeal of theHearing Examiner's decision. RE. the proposed rules of procedure re.Appeal APP -02 -08 and APP -03 -08 to be heard before the City Council tomorrow, I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding as to where I stand. I reject that part of your procedure wherein youpropose: In the absence of any specific rulesl would propose that any memorandum or briefs supporting or opposingthe appeal be filed by August 25, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.; that any objection to materials submitted along with either appeal be filed bythe same time; an'- that any responsive memorandum be filed by theFriday following the hearing by 5:00 p.m. Your suggestion that everything be presented ahead of time, then mulled over for a time and then come back again, is preposterous! This is a procedure that has no precedence and I doubt that it can be mandated as such (i.e., setting arbitrary rules of procedure) without goingthrough hearing procedures to codify same. I would, under protest, agre with following the rules proposed in your Attachment 2 (prior rules governing City Council appeal hearings) as this proposal at least have precedence to back it up. These rules provide for all test/mony,forand against, be presented at the hearing, rebuttal there same day, then the Council makes their decision from there, on the same day. In that light, my testimony for opposition will be submitted before 5:00 P.M. Tomorrow,the day of the hearing, or at the hearing itself. Procedures are setin place so that all parties know where they stand and what they are dealing with and keep theplaying field level. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that you allow the developer an extension of time, within reason, for his appeal to be heard before the City Council to allo the City to put the required procedural rules Into place. Sincerely, Janice Austin 926 -8140 See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts. Check It Out! 8/26/2008 City of Spokane ''alley 26 Aug. 2008 To Mayor and Members of the City Council RE: Summerset Estates APP -02-08 and App -03-08 I would like to submit the following as my testimony as a party of record: Oppose — Rescinding Decision of the Hearing Examiner Relief Requested — Uphold Decision of the Hearing Examiner Oppose - Claim of Applicant and Spokane Valley Ms. McClung that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Relief Requested — Uphold Decision of the Hearing Examiner Ms. McClung creates an interpretation of 19.30.030 that goes beyond that was written and adopted by Spokane Valley City Council and disagrees with the Hearing Examiner's enforcement of 19.30.030 which says all criteria must be met, which includes: "Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the requested map amendment. 1. Evidence does not support this argument. 2. Spokane Valley adopted criteria to implement the Comprehensive Plan on October 28, 2007 when considering any rezone 3. These were recommended by the Planning Commission. 4. Mr. Dempsey clarified that changes must be present from October 28, 2007 forward. 5. Testimony does not supply substantial evidence of change in the record and sworn testimony by staff states there are no substantial changes since October 28, 2007. 6. Supreme Court and case law supports that criteria must be applied and cannot be ignored in lieu of only the comprehensive plan as shown in Mr. Dempsey, Hearing Examiner's response to Ms. McClung's letter of reconsideration. 7. Site specific rezone is not supported by substantial evidence and is an erroneous interpretation of the law and clearly an erroneous application of the law to the facts. 8. Zoning laws are not based on speculation but on planning. The planning has been done and unlike the years prior to October 2007 all of the criteria must be met as stated in the ordinance. The City Council and staff worked very hard to ensure that the ordinances were implementing the comprehensive plan. 9. Spokane Valley charts and additions and other claims by Lewrad are purely speculative and are irrelevant to the matter at hand and were not part of the record, so they should be disallowed and not be discussed. • The applicant and Ms. McClung have an erroneous application of the law. The record and decision clarify that from October 28, 2007 forward there are no new circumstances or changes to the area. The Supreme Court case that is referenced by Mr. Dempsey show that consistency with the comprehensive plan and the criteria were all utilized in the S.O.R.E. The Snohomish County Case. In this case, Hewlett Packer came into an area recently zoned rural and wanted to build a business park. After a public process the County Commissioners decided to amend the comprehensive plan to create a business park zone and they also adopted 3 ordinances that had to be complied with to ensure environmental quality. Under these circumstances the county allowed the business park to be bultt but both the comprehensive plan and the criteria that was set for in ordinance were observed. The Supreme Court upheld that the comprehensive plan was appropriately amondad and onto, in tho ordinartoo wore mot. This is not the case here. Clearly the City Council adopted criteria to implement the Comprehensive plan and once the new zoning map was adopted on October 28, 2007, there was a clear intent to provide criteria and frame more guidance of why a property should be zoned at a higher density. Law requires that unless there is written clarification of an ordinance it must mean what it says. It is not appropriate for the Planning Department to provide their own interpretation of an ordinance. That would be arbitrary and capricious and legally its meaning is what it states. The Planning Department stated in the public hearing found in the transcript on pgs. 791, 792 and 793 under oath by Ms. KendeII,in three places she reaffirms that there are no changes in circumstances nor substantial changes in this area. The intention of the Planning Commission and the City Council was set in code in order to be granted a higher zoning. All criteria are to be met. e There are no changes in circumstances. • Consider, however. 1. Central Valley School District provided a letter stating that unless the development was finished by this Fall 2008 and if those homes are not occupied, they ask Spokane Valley to postpone approval according to state law (RCW 58.17.110(1 & 2). Busing students to other schools adds to the burden borne by the community at large. 2. The only substantial change to the area has occurred this summer in the taking out of the Barker bridge and its closure for the next two years. This is a detrimental change for the next two years. It limits our access to the area and precludes being able to travel north or entering from the north without a long delay. 3. Also consider the road construction, etc on the very corner near where the teen was killed (Flora and Boone). I would like to point out the generosity of the Hearing Examiner to make his decision based on the first application prior to October 28, 2007 and and ruling under the new zoning for the additional acre that was in the revised application. The Hearing Examiner could have denied but he considered the first application and gave provided what the law would allow approving 25 lots, when combined with the revised application after October 28, 2007. Ms. McClung has making a mockery of the preservation of the stability of neighborhoods by this appeal — burdening the community to reiterate what the Council has already adopted by ordinance and is placing her opinion above the legally adopted criteria of the Council. I protest the frivolous expenditure of City Staff to add their voice to the appeal of the applicant and ask that the City Council provide criteria that departments must utilize and meet in the future. Planning went beyond presenting the facts and has tried to interpret the facts beyond the intent of the City Council. Please uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner. Respectfully, Janice Austin 926 -8140 8/26/08 Mike Connelly From: Janice Austin (greenacresjan @hotmail.com) Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:42 PM To: Mike Connelly Cc: Pollard, Mary Importance: High City of Spokane Valley Michael F. Connelly, City Attorney 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 103 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 26Aug. 2008 RE. Appeal APP - 02 - 08 and APP - 03 - 08 (Summerset Estates) Mr Connelly, I am a party of record for the closed hearing tonight before the City Council on this matter. I have collaborated with Mary Pollard for our testimony on the opposition side. As I am unable to attend, due to health reasons, Mary will be speaking as proxy for me in the matter and is to be allotted what would have been my speaking time in the matter. She intends to bring by a copy of our testimony for my signature on her way to the meeting, but in case there is a problem meeting deadlines, I wanted to make certain that you are aware that she is thus appointed and does speak also for me, and that I will be counted as giving testimony of record in this matter tonight. Thank you, Janice Austin 926 -8140 Get ideas on sharing photos from people like you. Find new ways to share. Get Ideas Here! 8/26/2008 Page 1 of 1 August 26, 2008 Wrs. Mary ToQard Worth greenacre s Neighborhood Chairwoman 17216 E. BaklivinAve. Spotgne vai ey, W. 99016 509 926 -8899 marjam17216@msn. corn To: Honorable Mayor Munson & Spokane Valley City Council RE: Summerset Estates Quasi Judicial Hearing APP -02 -08 and App -03 -08 Action Request: Uphold Decision of the Hearing Examiner Oppose - Claim of Applicant and Spokane Valley's Ms. McClung that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. The condition that must be met is: "Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the requested map amendment. Ms. McClung of Planning and Applicant ignores adopted criteria. There is no legal merit for appeal since Planning refuses to recognize the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan that has been adopted in the Uniform Development Code 19.30.030 and all criteria that must be met from October 28, 2007. Washington Case law requires proponent of a rezone to show a preponderous of evidence ...that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area, if it was consistent with the Comprehensive plan and this was all that was required when we were under the Interim Zoning Code. (P.55 of Record #20 & 21) 1 Facts Regarding Two parts of Rezone Application The Hearing Examiner states that under the original U.R. 3.5 there was a substantial change in circumstances from the enactment of the U.R. 3.5 zoning of the original application of approximately 4 acres by applicant. He ruled the original application under these rules to grant him the original 20 lots he applied for. The New zoning Adopted on October 28, 2007 began a new zoning world- zoning map and marks a timeline that begins from this point forward. There are no changes in circumstances - Summerset Estates represents the first horse out of the gate. Fact: The 1.04 acre property was not purchased until after the new Zoning Code went into effect and is also the revised application was not Received until December 2007. Hearing Examiner could have denied revised application. Instead he ruled on original application prior to Oct 28, 2007 And separated new parcel after that date and ruled this portion consisting of 1.04 acres under the new rules. It was a gracious Solomon type decision. He could have treated the revised application in whole and denied it all. It would have been back to the drawing board. His careful treatment of facts was fair. Hearing Examiner Dempsey correctly denied the 1.04 part of the rezone. 1. We are no longer under the Interim Zoning Code. 2. Spokane Valley adopted 19.03.030 new Zoning Code stating all criteria must be met and it was adopted to implement Comprehensive Zone October 28, 2007. 3. City Council clearly intended staff to meet adopted criteria in order to rezone at a higher density since none were provided prior to Oct. 28, 2007. Zoning laws are not based on speculation but on planning. Unlike the years prior to October 28, 2007 all of the criteria must be met as stated in the ordinance. The City Council and staff worked very hard to ensure that the ordinances were implementing the comprehensive plan. 2 4. Applicant `s 1 acre added to a revised application could not be considered under the old rules and was vested in the R -3 zoning 5. This 1.04 parcel was purchased and added in a revised application after October 28, 2007 6. Comprehensive Plan no longer can be utilized as only criteria to be met - That was only during the Interim Zoning. 7. October 28, 2007 adopted Ordinances met legal standard of implementing the comprehensive plan as approved by Council. 8. City Ordinances must be followed to prevent an arbitrary and capricious decision and so due process is consistent and fair. 9. Law requires that unless there is written clarification of an ordinance it must mean what it says. It is not appropriate for the Planning Department to provide their own interpretation of an ordinance. 10. Neither Applicant nor Planning can show any substantial changes in circumstances.. Spokane Valley charts and additions by Lewrad, and other claims are purely speculative and are not relevant to the matter at hand, were not part of the record, and are not admissible and should not be considered or discussed. 11. Hearing Examiner decision gave the greatest latitude by granting 20 lots under the old rules and denying upzone to R -4 of the remaining acre added in December of 2004. 12. Hearing Examiner carefully scrutinized and clarified what the legal conditions are that must be met since October 28, 2007. Important 13. The Planning Department, represented by Karen Kendall in three places reiterates that there are no changes in circumstances or substantial changes in the area since October 28, 2007. It is not hinged on the day but on that day going forward in time. (Found on pags. 791, 792 and 793) These statements were made under oath. a?l armin, Department failed to advise o l )s s of access entrance from the north of our neighborhood vvith the Barker i ric:lge out of use aria under new construction for the next Nears. °that is a very relevant Other Notable Facts for Upholding Decision of Hearing Examiner The City has not made a connection from Flora Bridge with a sidewalk to Boone and this is the stretch of road where the teen was killed last year on Flora. (note my testimony dated April 9 2008.) As spot zoning it provides a discriminatory benefit only to the developer. (Anderson v. Island Cy., 81 Wash 2d 312, 325, 501 P.2d 594.) Central Valley School District provided a letter stating that Unless the development was finished by this Fall 2008 and those homes not occupied they ask Spokane Valley to postpone approval according to state law (RCW 58.17.110(1 & 2). Busing students to other schools adds to the burden borne by the community at large. Considering the road construction, etc on the very corner near where the teen was killed. No Evidence in Facts or Oral Testimony to Support Rezone Further, there is no evidence presented by the planning department, the applicant, nor in testimony that supports any substantial change in circumstances. Hearing Examiner Mike Dempsey provided a detailed legal explanation Ms. McClung pivotal argument was to dispense with the criteria and just meet the comprehensive plan. That is not legally possible. The Supreme Court case that is referenced by Mr. Dempsey show that consistency with the comprehensive plan and the criteria were all utilized Supreme Court Decision, Save our Rural Environment (SORE) v. Snohomish County referenced on pg. 100. This details of SORE show Snohomish County Commissioners had a public process and change the zoning in the comprehensive plan to allow Hewlett Packer to build a business park in a previously zoned rural area. In addition they added by ordinance 3 criteria that had to be met. The appellant was upset that the comprehensive plan was changed 4 and the courts agreed that it was sufficient in order to grant the zoning but it also noted that all the criteria that were adopted by the Commissioners were also met and so met all standards. The Supreme Court was answering a question regarding changing the Comprehensive plan and was not ignoring implementing criteria. The only change in circumstances i Barker Bridge is out off' use far the next two years that would make any increased de sit a not yet, due to the limited access f r the next t c years. Hearing Examiner Mike Dempsey correctly evaluated the area for any changes since October 28, 2007; from this date forward. None were given. Facts supports they stated there are no changes. He legally upheld 19.30.030 and enforced the code by his denial of R -4 , since Planning and the applicant failed to provide anything to support their request. This condition must be met. All of the criteria must be met. By any standard the Planning Department and applicant failed to meet this standard. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Conclusion Summerset Estates - there are no substantial changes in circumstance. Mr. Dempsey clarified that changes must be present from October 28, 2007 forward. Testimony does not supply substantial evidence of change in the record and sworn testimony by staff states there are no substantial changes since October 28, 2007. Evidence does not support this argument. Supreme Court and case law supports that criteria must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Supreme Court and case law supports that criteria must be applied and cannot be ignored in lieu of only the comprehensive plan as shown in Mr. Dempsey, Hearing Examiner's response to Ms. McClung's letter of reconsideration. Site specific rezone is not supported by substantial evidence and is an erroneous interpretation of the law and clearly an erroneous application of the law to the facts. 5 The applicant and Ms. McClung have an erroneous application of the law. The record and decision clarify that from October 28, 2007 forward there are no new circumstances or changes to the area. Please uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner While we understand the applicant's desire to appeal we are concerned about the frivolous nature of the appeal by the Planning Director. Planning went beyond presenting the facts and has tried to interpret the facts beyond the intent of the City Council. 1 ask that the City Council provide criteria that departments must utilize and meet in the future, so as to avoid an abuse of public funds for petty appeals. It is an unfair use of position, public time and money. It burdens citizens to expend time and their resources to reiterate what the Council has already adopted by ordinance and is placing her opinion above the legally adopted criteria of the Council. There are not changes in circumstances and this would constitute spot zoning that is prohibited and illegal. a a„,,E Mary ,° ollard Janice Austin 6 S .,/°Valiey Memorandum To: David Mercier, City Manager; Mayor and Councilmembers Cc: Kathy McClung, Mike Connelly, Mike Jackson From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Date: September 3, 2008 Re: Public Comments, Council Meeting 8 -26 -08 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Attached please find copy of general public comments given by Mary Pollard at the August 26, 2008 Council meeting, regarding traffic impacts from construction. August 26, 2008 To: Spokane Valley City Council North Greenacres Neighborhood Planning RE: Plannings failure to apprise .7fearing Examiner of traffic impacts from construction that require years of disruption, road closure such as Barker Bridge that will6e 2 years out of use and under construction and. Failure to apprise Jfearing Examiner of the cumulative effects of construction and housing outside our city jurisdiction increasing traffic impacts within Spokane valley. Spokane Malley Planning Department fails to describe the Barker Bridge being out for two years when bringing forth development projects at the ./fearing Examiner's public hearing. On several occasions they have ignored Liberty Lake impacts, the present lackof roads andfunding to build them, (unless there is money in hand— it is not there). The additional draw of Kohl's andLowe's on traffic, not to mention Walmart and with Barker and Flora both under sewer construction, etc. it funnels more and more traffic through Mission, Elora and then Broadway since the Freeway would go farther than people would want to drive and Sullivan is a failed intersection during rusIi. I would like the City Council to discuss address this lapse in pertinent information. The prob with ascertaining who owns the Boone Ave Railroad right of way has not been determined but these answers need to 6e addressed with D. 0. 2." due to our close proximity to the freeway. In the meantime, this is an increasing1 unsafe environment ant 1 its irrapacts are ignored 6y Planning. We have one death on Flora and nothing but promisesture sidewalks. The overpass connects to the Cgr'eenacrees Mirlde School' andmany students walk from. events in the winter, in the worst fight, We would like this to 5e given attention and addressed with actions that include the present environment. Future grants, etc. are not a "bird in the hand:' It violates pilft since provisions must 6e in place at the time of the development. 'You cannot continue to treat the existing community as If they are invisi6e. growth to be healthy is not about numbers but the quality of fife yon bring to the families you are serving. ankyou. oryourattention to this matter. t aseprovide a detailed answer of ways this could be addressed now and in the future, Sincerely, Mrs. Wary To i rd North greenacres Xeighborhood Chairwoman 17216 E a vi Ave., Greenacres OKA Spofane adey WA 99016 509 926 -8899 BfD TABULA _ _JfV Broadway Rehabiiitation Protect Project CIP No. 0068 BAD GPENING DATE - August 22, 2008, '10;00 A.M. ��i a� ��'�' us9�� E�Plf�l= ."� � 2olt7 �. _ S�Skane jUalley� Engineer`s Estimate Red Diamond Construction, Inc. Inland Asphal# Company Poe Asphalt Paving tnc. Spokane Rvck Products NUMB R ITEM Unit pUANTITY Unit Price Total Cost Unit Pr'sce Total Cost Unit Prtce Total Cost Un1t Price Tata[ Cost Unit Price Total Cost r r s dC ..rr s r+a ., ,e w. c^� :rr a.... � s._._s », rcr .nc.c v r w -.. S. ._. r XwY... _ W 2 E 'E �.i tea._ _Jt' �i .1^WI.Yd�.. , .L/ .... c. .. W, ,.r r... xri,.. ...... snM1a.• .-�,r _4. w - .�r.l..w _.r_.�. .�Y o -., .rn ... .. .. "ix.ry ._.t. �... _ _ 'Ys2��.. �., _�. _. �_ .... �3. _� � �'Ys.x . � .. 'l . .. ,. ., _.. .s. .. ._ . _ . _.� - ,�. > _.... . ,.. .... _ - .._ fi � <._ ,�:>o..x.�� _.,.� __� _ _ .. ,. r.�". xac .. .M n � ,. ,- - �-�... - ,,. ,--.,, . �s. -. .. +,.. ..�.., -aF. r ._ ,a ,-._ ... '6 ... ...a a..' .s-i , ... _.. r--. - v»=�_. _ �r- .... ..: _ .. . ... .. Ty. _ice ^. Z= 4 ^v'. .. ,..,r .. , a a__ .,� . a .cam �« ..r__ . �.- 0' t! ,..J" .%' v .4. _ ..f =- . (! n �C.. .✓� ..,.. G .v r _. r�4' .. , _ ..n'.EGu�..,^Fv.� m.., -.: -- r. F !n. ✓ .0.-. .. _ �._ a v.. m. ,. vr.L: -. °�'�, -.. "'pro. _ .. - -- - a „�' .. -. . ,. v^.d- .. 1...._ .. -. r .... ,xr.. . , � r ...._._ �-, x-a �. _s__ �,I. .,m. 'C ... , �i' .! r_ .r .,w � .G 4�"_ -..-_ _ � _..,k .�.. =_x__ . _ . J .... ._v+., .w .-. . � "�, .,K" _ ro 1. �. y� n �.c. , � r f .. � � �. _._..i n a -_�.. ... � L. w.,. . .. s '. Y" r � v¢. ..Y. N` � .. r..x �`' ,{ -_�' �} Z �.�. Sx-- ��.- ��_ 1 � .. m...'+.. +.u. T. �t , r .r .,.. � � N' ✓��• T`4 ... .. a ..., V v..,n - r t .�. .f nV _ ... _.0 C © � C .. �r, . ., .. �� n. _ _ ___�•� r ♦ �._Y� ._ F ._ ...� .. ..�.� w.� i .� .4 .w . n.. _ .__ _ . __ _ -�--� ,,./ -� "i?4r- .. _ -• _ _ .__....._ _ a:..� -. L, t +�- � �-__�x /+.: ... _. .. .�. s.'�. � .. _�... -i=. }. _ ".' - - _._� + .. _. _ n�... v r.. ._. r_ .... _. _ .. .-c'?' r `�i GY .rx-7� w r. ___ ...... �-'� .. _ G�.-_ - . _ _..__ _ i -r� � _.«-_ mot' .^r ,-_ c3aaa_ =_ _ .�.�_�c_.ix.axi� -�,. r .. _ _. s . _ _ ,. --�--- . �_ „d i _ . -�..r- "�- sts - -� --- - r._�_T.. ... ., Ate. ✓ .,w!^ir � .,� .. _ .. . -_ _ w .. _ ...4 �., .... K. ... __ ... w.:- ....... ...w.. ____ .. x ,��-- �`.<..e...r.. ,a.._...- _rv-.- .r- .- ie -.4- .c -++., _ __ _ _ . _. _ s- _ .___ .- .na'_. .. -I. *J _ .... ._� __a_ -._.,_ ,r..... _ -r ..v_.a. -G W +v ._s-_ ._. ..- s «_ an...ve.�.._. - ..__.__� .�' .. _....".� .. t� Y. .. _ -,. � � __ +.r.. _ r'� _c. Y yr , x-. -�ri" 3 G.,. _. - Kr- .r. ^, __ _ .�+Y!' ._... ._ _. ._. _ _ #_ • .f ;s: _ ___ � .�' ,rz- .., v _-.� __ __.sv._v._.. �. __v__ � a ... .. . -__. '. .v. _.+. .,. -+.�^ �, "iL��_. _..mac -L- �. � y4 .3w4 ..__ -. _m. v_ _- .4_...wv,.x_- t_._x...__ -_ ..____ -� � w. _ �. -. ...__. ._ __._.._ .._ _...__ _2_ �i:. �___. -"_ _� _ z.,_,.. _ _ � .. .. 6r. ._. _ - rs ._ ,_._..�. _ ._ _. .. -�.. �°' .. �... ...__._ . . __ - _ _ _.._ _ .. _ � __ +a'.___ x__S �.. : -z^l_ �4__s�Y_.._ ... _ _ � � r ,n . _ �F - .- �"�"- �._.__.._ ..._ _._'.RY'a"y£ -. - .. ,X?': mss__.. .r,.. ._!-__ _�.- 1__..__.Sa..6,..�. ___` _.+r�.v, -_ -.� -_z ._ �.- .._.....__._ > ��-S_ -- - �_..- -�v. -�. -_v.: __.�.. r vr+... -'T -�.� � ��._.. . _ ._ '.-. - .. � - �+c. �= � � _ ,.z��.�,... .. _ � x. __.- _ _ _ _._.. �r - � � { _. _t�,r.. � ___. _.. _ a - ._ vv�. _ a... - _.v xZLFia -.. +.vd5:a- vvi.uxxunw�uv Cu .>.... Wit- ,.,h.,,u. _- .... . ___,._ ._ _ .. w. � ..�.:�� - ,��.y -..�r ?S':.v -.... _ -z- u .- �y� a s"-'s' w .. .. �.. .+., :"1+G� r �u .+.-.w __�^`r L1��s. .._... _. _ _ ___.._.!�' �. - .._. -.. .rG- _.��- 2^a.L_ _. _ � Y.. ... _ _.. x . ... .�x +... _ ti_,: -.. .. .. ..--- : - .aa,. z�-,. .. .. ..�5. ,. ...., . , .' i-_: ✓. .4 __ ..4-� ___ ..x._4n _. Jry w t � A ...e .,. .t __ � „� .r'4.:__2'� C v� +w. .r- i- � T - .a. � �. ... ....a ".. ..9 .. r.-._. .n . u_.. .. . .' ._ � . �- M -... cr 5. .ro . s T � .f�J� .. .M ...Cn .. .�x>;..r- _ «�...,- _ LS �� - _y:.�... -v_< ...:. .. ... .. .� ..,.. -..� ._ §ems _ ..w s� .. _ _ x , ,- ...... t . .. n.r' .. - _ Y P �� - .c.w ��. .. _cs ... .y �Y"' _ _ i....�. /.. .. .. ..., G _. .x, ...-,. '.. _.' _ ._:,_ �' y�� r_,.__ .. .. max_ ...P' .-,. .ItwA z. _. ._ .. _ :.. t +a. ,- _ _.�� ,.-. ._ � _T..... -,. �. rE !✓ ,. ._ -_._._ r_. ,c �.cv .. -... .. _ r:..> ,._,. � .,. `+-.. n.n,..,m __ _ .. � - � __ r � _. . _ ': S_vx__._ ri M`�..�F - 3µ r .. _ - R.,. .__r .- LJ�L4-r..i�t �_ _,� _,. t �� -� -' 1 � ?�- - .1�rw- w.,.- .I.�wI.L:V 4e .'z ..._.,, _..._. ... M: _ L ... __ a z. __._,- ma x.-... ,,... a. , .s. i _s_x _vr _ 4 q,�,� .. r .e -W'"e. ... .___.�. �.. tY .. _... t?tm -. -r .._ . - .. r. r,..5.wn.w.r. ...... ... ... ..v �.. .� _ ._ r_ x _ .v-... _ m,+ .,.. .,..... -. _...._5..,... _ e ... _. � . 'i .�. ...�., .. �, _ _gun _ w. .. S:� . -.. .. _- ... _.. -_. .. �. .. H .. : .+ _. .y 3. '4/ r. ,�, .) ,.v- .._ r w a � _ '� ... -.. _ ,. fF�'S� _ ':Fi ., _ _-. ._ .�. w .+: sS w ,. r .:..l.. - -..... u .. - w.... . -. ..,Y.r_>. .r »^�. •,.,_ _ � - $27,000.00 _ .. , :ate � .. s +§'. -.r z. .._ ... � r' ' a ._ -t.` t ,�.. ,. .. �:- ..._.v .. .c __ __ ..r__. ._ ._.. a _- .- ..._�.. - -`. J.T;�.xv- _ �� .v ..,Y- .___ .. ..x__ �.....3W ..__ �_ �. ..!-. um_ sr..^_ � ... - .r._.."._a. ._.. .. _ -. _-_._ F' , ., _ .. �..er r.. ._ -�-- - __ �'c.. _.v� -_ _ ..c.. ::. ' w... ..- ___, , .xr.� ..� 'ta .., ..0 T -.. -- . ._T _.. r^... __ �.. ,,. _._ ! _ -_ _.. .. � � -_� '� _.� mac.,. _ ... . .. ((i ..a ,..-. _ . x:x *ts e . -, - -. -.. .r.- J' .-v.. _�. xu H/ -Cr 'v U 3 I� .z 7+r, M'_. r. ��.r ! '?�i`. _ - ,..,"b. .rn , w 1. _.f''. .7 :� .. r. ,,!/.. `C' ._ �- - <. w�"..= 8�:,�_..,,� ��_. X27,000.00 X5,000.00 ,. � u_.. .,- ..F�,._ _, .F++n?. - eV.. ... ,�. ="� "�'.:... �.. W _.-. ISF:. -�. _,. .. r. ,. .3' - r • _. ,.,e - v._.2 ___. -� 1+"+ -. -._ n ,, _ i� _ � ..eL� .. Jam ,r+n rr3- u, ..':i ' yx_ v. ._ z__ .. �L _. .. .. mow. �. _ ..m .. .. ____ -z_ _x _ -.�i.. �. r.� _x.x .v3' s .v........ r,. s. - .= xl6 k _ S .r� a - - ��Y .+ v TF .,� - - .1. 1.z. r�-4_ }r- uhr__s_ ...F. __.,... .4:�._.. u. ,sy. F�^^.J: X27,000.00 - �S,OOO.fl0 - s. w_x.,_.. _.. ••.� _a.,..... �_. ? ,�. ...w: #. - � - ±wSs.. i#rY� � Gs4 _ . Y.. ..-.-�. .�... .. _.. '., f r -... b.- �..er .. .c.... Esnv� _ .«.c S. __ - v v�S. ..�. �. � ,l_"' .�. _ i- ...- �riL.r __ .. ._ _ ,. rYib," �. �. . E_ ._.. _ .JI..,. � m _. .� r � �f? .n�. <. �.+v. , .v ... _ - • .+4 . �i�� ,�,,� ...- - �_ }- .!'T"'� .... .c� .(' ..._� s, M,- .en v •,�4. r5. _ �' v:' ,Y .,L. Y.� _ .�-� y .. S .c�w� " r �. .. .,_ -..: �.�. � ....,.. .. _ J'C' S- ,v C� - v -`s - 1dIC _.�_ .. .... :�^F:«. �.......:z..: s . ._ 1 , �,n X27,000.00 v�5,000.00 ' " - - _.,.r, _ -_. - .�_ .t�� -- .__.ry ...x,✓. f ,..��. >q+�._ �ir�'fry - - x.- v.a..: +, lJ.:: _ _� v ^ *- .'-,fin _:a..evx - __ =..r a s .: rw :l r _ .M1•: _ E. . - 'S�)N - - - - '�". .-.�_r .er'� __ - xc•r ..... r ..... - :. ._. .r.. X30,525.00 a�7,750.00 ��.+.� - _�1•�� _ .. -� .�',�,.�. ' �'� -__. cam_ _ . ..rLC - � - - '.T � J..6� +:4r- - �l'S O' -, . ^'2'tw _ I 'T'�"'.. ..:D ��' - T....� .�,.•. - � - f .�L wt "_ ..0 -- i =f/ t4 � .T" . ^xt -_'' _ ,�1'.� -+. .� _= 1 =�'SS. . `y�°'. _- ..1.b . - � '�..�'f^ _ �T�i� ...^_ -.^^�. ° 'r:Tr�.-i�'. - -L^ Y Tdh� _ -- ..�" � - ._.'�.. �c.. - ..1: ��n J( - ' 1u � -��.tir ��Tx: t%'v3.. �� - �1... ,. - Sa.S -._ .-�_ $30,525.00 $7,750.00 _ _ v .a' .v - 'Tie+* :. � } -- - _,�- - 't- - - ,°. '. _ _ x I.Yi. Lai... - _ - _ ,.7i - :`a< "'� '_ - vi.e� ^ -_ .v v_...�: 2 �. �. _Et.`.. __ � ✓`:� - - ;2�tlb - - ' �a'r� =+ - .T'. /+�,.�+,�,. .. - .Yh.. :,R . �"_� , -' :,d ��±,e' ' .G': .:?•r.... .. � " � r� •�'T ...... _.._ ..'S_._. $35,132.68 $8,968.00 - _ �' __.;.- ,+.. � ✓' - - im'. � ;��° - .^y� o .-`�' -�',^ - a! � _ �..�+ !4.^.'�. - �'.`�.z � - 4 .Cv ,t-'�,.. - - +[�'_ -r_. 1., �2'`= �,�.•v_N � .3r .. :'�� -' � _ .2..,4 _ - - ,fi"""r. , - _ !"x.�w� _ "4E1� _ _ .� r . __ :>.. _:y�L.H :� a. .iI.9./ '- ._C:raF 3: r_�r -: :3�r�"�' ._ -.. ^'r.. _..., .......... ... .. __. .. .. a�35,132.68 a�8,968.00 - r _ .. _ � tea.._ �n _..t�...r�:: � ..r.... '��F. t ' J __ Jr 3. r�r-. i «. �(� -_ <,.�x.fw _ - "fi:. �"'� _�� :'� _ , .h'�. _ _ _ , "e..3: � � _ , 1 ..1 J�4 . 4 x, - .._.c. .. _.... $40,000.00 X7,000.00 r = :�� `"•.;. ^�� s.iE.� '"e _ - - l�,tiw; - .14� rte' - . - _ r+ �y :W y� � e i...h' - �"� _ ..,..�..r,�_ _ ,J" .s� "c...., "_� x " ,`�'x2 '. , `'�1'`�. -- - -, x v �C✓'' . ri. _ _ !� .. _ - - - ../.K' _ �:c' x_.�`'a w �'-. .T.S' _ - r.'.: , .C ____ _ ,.�'� - .,.n ... ' ^�'- ...,. ..«_.... <- _ 1 _....._... _..___.___.____. __._ -.__ _ ._.__. ..� .T .� .. ,- _ ._ __. .r _...... .. MOB[Ll7ATION - �- - � -- �40,D00.00 $T,000.00 2 CONSTRUCTfON SURVEYING LS 1 $5,000.00 3 ''SPCC PLAN LS 1 $500.00 x500.00 X650.00 X650.00 X585.00 X585.00 , X944.00 $944.00 $236.00 x750.00 $1,000.00 X750.00 , $1,000.00 4 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 X300.00 X300.00 X1,300.00 X1,300.00 _ $236.00 5 SGH. A TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 X10,000.00 �10,0OO.OD X22,000.00 X22,000.00 X39,450.00 X39,450.00 X44,840.00 X44,840.00 X50,000.00 X50,000.00 _ 6 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 9,184 $3.00 X27,552.00 X2.07 - X19,010.88 X2.25 �20,664A0 $7.47 a�68,604.48 X2.75 X25,256.00 7 REMOVE PCC CURB LF 222 X5.00 X1,110.00 56.00 �1,332A0 v3.40 X754.80 X5.31 $1,178.82 X8.40 X1,864.80 8 REMOVE PCC CURB AND GUTTER LF 30 X7,00 X214.00 X7.00 �210.OD X6.00 $180.00 X117.75 $3,532.50 $8.40 X252.00 , 9 REMOVE PCC S[DEWALK SY LF -1N 106 2,463 X3.00 X2.00 $318.00 $4,926.00 �135 X6.00 _ X0.85 , $83.00 X636.00 �2,D93.55 X149,400.00 a�10.65 X0.75 �96A0 $1,128.90 $1,847.25 X172,800.00 $4.96 a�0.32 $82.49 , X525.76 X788.16 X148,482.00 $12.60 _ X0.55 x'120.00 X1,335.60 X1,354.65 X216,040.00 10 SAVIICUT ACP PAVEMENT 11 HMA CL. 1/2" PG 64 -28 TN 1$00 S75.OD 12 AN1T- STRIPPING ADDITIVE CALL � 1 - $1.00, ($1.00) (81.00) 01.00) { 1,00} {�1.D0} { 1.00) (�1.00)� 01.00} 01.00} 13 JOB MIS COMPLIANCE PRICED ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 - 1.00 (�1.OD) 01.00) 01.00) 01.00} 01.00) { 1x00) { 1.00} ($1.00 { 1.00) 14 COMPACTfON PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 9 - 1.00 x25.00 � (51.00) X15,000.00 (�v1.00) a�27.00 , 01.00} X15,200.00 {$1.00) X30.75 { 1.00) X18,450.00 ($1.00} �v33.88 (�v1.00) x24,328.00 { 1.00) X23.00 ($1 .00) X13,800.00 15 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TON 600 16 ACP SOTRMWATER/CONDUIT PATCH SY SQ x20.00_ X1,200.00 x75.00 X4,500.00 558.00 X3,480.00 X92,78 X5,566.$0 $75.00 x4,500.00 17 STORMDRAIN TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM CATCHBASIN TYPE 1L LF EA 50 5 $3.33 X2,000,00 X166.50 v10,000.00 _ _ X0.25 X2,000,00 x12.50 x'(0,000.00 x2.30 X1,650.00 5115.00 X8,250.00 � ai2.63 X1,519.33 v�631.50 $7,596.65 $1.00 $1,890A0 . X50.00 X9,450.00 18 19 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR REPLACE DRYWELL GRATE EA EA 5 5 5 50 � $500.00 X200.00 X9,000.00 X35.04 $2,500.00 X1,000.00 X5,000.00 X1,750.00 5120.00 x400.00 X850.00 x50.00 � X600.00 �2 ,00a.oa X4,250.00 $2,500.00 X300.00 a�624.93 $770x00 $44,00 X1,500.00 a�3,124.65 X3,850.00 $2,200.00 $64.90 X483.80 v50.50 $47.20 y�324.50 $2,419.00 X252.50 x2,360.00 X275.00 a�385.00 X525.00 �55.OD $1,375.00 X1,925.00 $2,625,OD X2,750,00 20 21 EXISTING DRYWELL CONNECTION EA LF 22 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEINER PIPE, 12 [N. DIAM. 23 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB LF LF 222 34 X20.00 x25.00 X4,440.00 X750.00 �1SA0 , X20,00 v�3,552.00 X600.00 � X12.85 X23.00 $2,852.70 X690.00 � X18.88 X22.42 X4,191.36 X672.60 $20.00 $28.00 $4,440.00 X840.00 24 � CEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 25 PEDESTR)AN CURB LF � 154 �20A0 �v3,080.00 � X15.00 X2,310.00 x11.2$ X1,732.50 X16.52 X2,544.08 $20.00 $3,080.00 26 • ■ � r. • r r r • a r r . r r $3,816.00 X32.00 X3,392.00 X37.17 X3,940.02 $40.00 X4,240.00 27 • r j : � - - • r r • . r r r r X360.00 X8,400.00 x36.00 X1,050.00 X288.00 X7,350.00 v�29.50 X1,209,50 X236.00 $8,4fi6.50 X30.00 $900.00 X240.00 X6,300.00 28 • r <- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 29 • � r r r r r r r r r r . r t r+r �60D.00 5480.00 $480.00 X1,180.00 $1,180.00 a�1,050.00 $1,050.00 30 � - • .: r r r : r r : r r X2,944.00 $8.00 X2,944.00 X10.33 53,801.44 �v9.00 X3,312.00 31 • < < .: • r r < .: • i r r X1,639.40 $0.30 $9,405.20 X0.83 $3,887.72 X0.50 X2,342.00 32 • r : • - ■ � .. -. • .. - - . r e r r r r r r r a a � r r r r r r r r r r r r • r X2,000.00 $672.00 X18,898.50 $415.00 x10.50 $2.75 X1,660.00 X588.00 $4,028.75 X466.10 X26.00 X3,13 $1,864.40 $1,456.00 54,585.45 � X525.00 a�10.50 x3.00 X2,100.00 X588.00 v�4,395.00 33 s • 34 • r - • ■ � � 35 • ■ ■ � •:• - r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r . r r r r X650.00 X640.00 57.85 X370.00 5510.25 5370.00 89.03 $424.80 $586.95 X424.84 X8.00 X400.00 $520.00 v�400,00 36 37 •:• ► r r r r r r r r r • r r r r X5,700.00 51,450.00 X4,350.00 X1,652.00 �v4,956.04 _ a�1,500.00 X4,500.00 38 s • • • • - r ■ r r r : f r r i r r r r r S5 600A0 a�440.00 X3,520.00 X501.50 X4,012.00 X450.00 X3,600.00 39 MINOR CHANGE EXTSTfI�G DALVE 6�X -Added Addendum 2 CALC EA 1 11 X1.00 a�250.00 X1.00 X2,750.00 v�1.00 X200.00 X1.00 52,200.00 51.00 X300.00 $1.04 �3,300A0 X1.00 �a147.50 51.00 X1,622.50 $1.00 , v�320.00 X1.00 $3,520.00 40 ADJUST ✓J w.. _ __ _-w .a .. �- ., ..`.._ .. .._ � ,.._s .,,. .. .� _. ._.. _.. .. _.. .. /�?..ir_<,i.l ...T ....._. . 4 _ _ r _ . s . . _. - ..._ r 4 ,,+w. L 1.� .. __ x_.- ... -<:.._ ,., ._ .- T. v r_ _.a. ' x� .. ... r r. ... _ .. Lu - .� ._.,�= .... w _ .. '�` . rr _ _.... -.. -w_ a.. 2^- N M fr`-- c.Y _ _. a__ w .. ..s..1,+ - .TC„ w�xa mss_ 4 c A �FJ r N r� J? �4.. ..e rt:�vrx. .v.� T �. r +Y. c.....eL _ ._. •i .. `�I' i... I C _.J.'rL+.i.. aJF 4 ... `S a ..- .:...,ru ..Lx _ . D3�a ... w _. _,-. ,. ,,..,�. ....N. w y� .uw '-, 3. �a.._awr..uw__.� eJ L ,-e .9. . _ a.z� .._ :..,_.��= 5..�� +.. , _ .S ". ,! 1 .a,...:. -. ce�r. 5Jk ...g��4... ... i _ ..umir � d _. , .._ �'} -. C9f p f � ,��, a- a-_ ,K W x .3-� - _. .r w w _ .. .. n ..., .r.... -. r �.ro?V - �:a. .i. w..nJ�-.:. . ..i. .u+. ,.. .'.. .. ...x. .. -. . -. .: �. 13.. �., .,. 1 -.. -.... _ _ :W_x .'4 .........._ .,�. .._. .Y, .. - v..^:+r sr '� Sr` S� _..� vZ'.. �]'. s .r... r.,,.. >. -.._.. .�_- ....s.s :. .+ � _ 'Y ... .,,.,..,mm............�.�..,w,., ..., _ - .. .- ..�.a :,` t" �^:'_„ �. �^`...,..._...._. _..._.._...�...._.rs�...,a,.._. ..,e �. r..,�� .. �.._..p, r e' - - '�� ,Y =o. ::;� -,T, �. �� _ ... .. t ...._. c _ �_ _ _ . _..• � ..-___ �S r.. _z� �. '�C`.u. . e. -. _ r .. .u.u..... s/:. .__. ..5rsfi>s..a!!4a. -��" ^`_ - .N- 1/' .. v,[? +. � +• / � ..- r' _ ....c. :x5 .. �t • ,rt r y �� -�.+: - � -_._ :, .��.._ -r.- _ .-+. _r i - ✓ �w .a. . _ _..., ,_. .. LM _ j� r './ �]� .. 1 . . ��j -. e5 V.:'�.�' V{f . -. � x• ++... �fY: .. ten._. -.w .w. `iii �, , + 'r -1: .n _ �.. _. T . . _.n t� ,. a.-_. 1c. _i -.A _ . , is+.tr'S! � Q ,�' •. i .a. _. �,,�.�. _ r .�-... , rx. yc ..- Y'. __ _ "•-r• ,.._..M�l .: -,.'�, .... _a- 3 .. =`F�._ '�'aJ. u.tr ^.Y- _ __.i^�y ,. ....ii -. � � �JY L "`- r _ _.... �. .r: .,' / . _ {� . ...i:.f. . c.- ._man_ - `1� - "C..w .7 �7_� .. w. .- »_.- .�_a`r.. _. �..- .- ...,.- .,x -... � n- ..�.,...x ,. - ,-- .ti.,........ � _ _ .'.te _ ..'�i"; .` z.. '. �{ _ _ y - '. =��.:. '� -.-' .�$c. t� - - � � yr { - �lt:G :. '�. �. 5 .._- ...1"a' _ _. _ _.. +!i: %aiM1vu -- - � �y{-/j, j � T uxi ',.,n'q�'a _ .'sE..' � _^l^fti4•• _ �:�" �!r d . l,. �E Y -. l": - .� _ _ ""'.L''xk�..1�4� y .Y s �C ? . f� � �.1/.. BfD TABULA _ _JfV Broadway Rehabiiitation Protect Project CIP No. 0068 BAD GPENING DATE - August 22, 2008, '10;00 A.M. ��i a� ��'�' us9�� E�Plf�l= ."� � 2olt7 �. _ S�Skane jUalley� Total Schedule A -Base Bid Road Work �timate � Red D €amond Construction, ir��, Inland Asphalt Company Poe Asphalt Paving [nc. S� .le Rock Products ITEM iTEM NUMBER Unit TOTAL QUANT[TY Uni 'otal Cost -. - .._ -_-•. - n _' '. '. .. r q� _. .. ..__.._. -. t ... �`'. .wn ... -nY ,. � lnx ....._[3 i F. ..__.... .. !Ai .. _ �.. .t___._v. .. .. _t. e..... - _ _ . _ /'• _._.- .,..... v-,. .. ... __ �.r.�.t�' :v r r ..,,.h .Jr .E.N.. -u - �..,,:,.. - .� - -- -- . �._ � ., - -- ... _ . _ .. _ .. 5 . 'V F _Z._.__.. _.,Fa - w_ v. L'.. xr_c._ _ .. �. 4 ' I ----- �"?��an__. - .____.�,�- .. ,n r_ r�<,�_ ,.- _. .. ... ,_.. r- :��_ u- ... ..._,�... � _ro .._ _. __. 3 ._.._ ..- w. rcvr_ � . ��?� w.vuwen•_ev- .ti.�n.�i�- �._- x -:=. -. - •�'"Y � ..� .""_,." /...... �____ � tY_ F- r�...�. �,- Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost . ti .. ,• _�i'r... __ _ ____ a " aJ_ .... _ _ m. : � ,+.. ___ a - i a'ai . _ ..o- .__.__.. __J_ .. r_ S'.'+' _� -s +�,. ..c__...x.. - '- � ..rte =- .�s ..�_s. - _ - . '{. nil _ - _ _ _ � � _, ,. .....:' __ _- �,� �_..'. -.. � 3: _. � _...__.._.rT ..s_. ._3...c` _ a- . d.� ____._i .. .. .._ - �.._._x ..... .�r,F r ._._. _w:�.r- b v�Y /_ '��` - - _ _ �� i= -- �J' { : w.w... .u.., ...� y d .L •. A-tr - �_3a .r. .. .� !SNryr!w.n.- _ _z'�"'� .. ."� � �r ^.;° - _ .. . __: s... .%�^i'_^_ ..n. ,r' ..1./.,. _ .- �.._. s .n _ _ 1?.i3 :Tin � .. / -��. .. .. .._ .. Si. � - �- - ...`..... _r- +v..�..� �-�_ .�+:� ... . _.__ .�.- „ii':�. _ Y.° _ _ - /"�'� : r�_,v___a a 7 n� � _ _ ,r . - .}`<'' >y'.?M,+� 1 - _F -- .. -_... .,. ten.- ._:s,.... .. ._. ..c .- _e. ,_......;:: ; . J .-� .��v�,_ -� - - - � -- ,--- � - _ x.�. _ _ -- - __• = �ug_.v _,�... - : TJ _ _ - -- '�3'r � __ _ =_• __ a ___ ... ". __. r _� 1;� nom_•_ � __ _ _ _� cam.:__ 3-.. - p�� .:_��" __.. - 'x- ...fi'�'.- _...._.._�_. �- .. ,. ._ � _ -... w � - ;.0 - - - .'�. - �. ....y. y_ _ +-' � - � � m '_ !� _ - ^' µ{ .v � - iT�i i..> - = r ^5fi.'S -:S �Y - ._ ' ��^ ' +��'�r� ..^•,A' Y�n� ...qt.'X'.. � .��'_r!_. _. r.r ri.,.. _. - Wm1.T -m:.. t- ._- .n"= kM_- :'�?sr i _. Win.... _. _ � _ - _ Unit Price I Total Cost Ill___ _ _ _ _ i'.!J�' _ �. �K" Yom• _ _ _ _ Y'. _ -- _ �!��q -0.i'f ' . _ c ?' .u'� ��.v- _ ,.e .,, �.;.- .e.r - ` ^�•nA'9Fa: �- `� W � \l'I'.' � �� afi .,. .,,.,} C'� f _ _ _ 4� .G. z�r5?•>,:'r X:. �,?� - ` - . w'K't: �...r'+'G ,.- - - =.i-�: ''�n.3 f.��. _ _ �vu ._f. = .=�Y`� =7� - � _C,�_ ^" � `�.{�'�-` . � _ �.J^ ��- ,- , - -�-- if' +>'� - An' �. v .� 'a z - - ^':r . ._r. cam. :..4� ' - 'K � : } -___._ �a ..r _ ^ _ �c _ __ :r . =.�_r :�.:: :..v ,. ,tti...>,' ._..� = � Unit Price Total Gost _. m....dM,- ,�...�... ��._.+y� _ �.,. _.._n._.x.�rzT_ .x- .�� -- -- - - - -_� .._ ,.._ �.._ � - � .._v. �r __� r .'.__ t _.. '6 .�_ .. _ . . _ . r _ ......._._ ��.._ __.........0 .. Y �-a,�_ __ .._ _ . .. -�.. -. -."�'. r . ._.._.F n. ._._.r. _... _ _. - -__ r_.. x_ s..v �. _.s s� . . 'Y_ _ .. __. ._ .. x. _.. . _ e- ._ .......... ... ... .en. -� �.-r -v �e_.__.__.T .r.� .. _ .�,v J. u.i.... -ate .vv .__...._ .. _ ..n .^ r ,T^_i t .e - -- ..._... >�i-a t.. .. _ ._.r_. s � rFvW I ..._.__. r_- - .. v .. ._ __ __._. __. er - -.... ._.� - �..�_ ._. s -- - _.._. d.�i. � _ 1�� _. �W.:1 i.._. ... et nu .... .. ... rl� .T .. -_.. _ >.+�. � .._ - _ _ �?S�z1 nL n-w. ___�. _�],__K._,_ .c r fii' ... ,..vu�n.mun..r�_.wnw. . ..�__. x. _. ..... .. _. ._ - _...._. _.. _. st_ ___ _ _.._ .. _ - ,.,- _ . r ...f .. ._ . _ -.� sv. . - ,iw.v__ .'i..h.. _ t r. ...._r.�.�3.� r� i. A_ _ .� �. _+sue -�.st .. _. z.._... .. r ..3 �. _- _,�..._.... _.... _. _.- ...ter_. _._. _.. _. ,.�.r ., .. - �_ _.._'.. ___ .._,_, �+� _ _. .. �_._ Mr -.. ____ _._. ____ . ...r ._ . _ _.__ e.. _ �_ _ ._. x .'�x_.n. _ -. .__.G._. - .. L._ -- •__. :- _ _ v_,_. i.__�= t r _. - __ _. � •.. , .iv w r�x._ -. _.._�.w ._ �_- __...�.^:___._. .... -.z ___. x _ _ _ __.. n. �S ...... ... o .._ _. .. __ .. .. ... .__ _ - --r .• n. " ..n.,w � � _ -.. _ � .r i R w,.......z .a.�...".n .. ,r �i....3•ir1 . � . _ w �m..�.+. .....w.n. _ _.. a_.. _ ._ � 5+ +WV T..,.,.Ln_ s.. . _ .. �-n_. _ -__ .. _.. _. w_ _. ,e N _t._ sec._.. � _+._..._._ w?E. ... _ �� ... v . .._._...c,v .lr .. s.. r' i� _ -.. .._ w J'� _ _ _..__ .._ .. _.._ � ... _ , ... S .w. /n.. ez..,..,.,, ,�. __ _ ___ r. ,t.. ,�,/ . �.�.L^S_. .�•u.. - uaLu �. r w��. '�.. .. .c - -.. .. ice.: ... rv�n r x -_ - .� .. .. ..._ . ' ... .v ..___ _xr. ,�.r��.,.. v -.-- .. �.- _,r_- ,_.- ,.._- :.�r.v.. �.iJL .. `v. -.�. �- im��a-. . .� � - _._. _.__.. .ter, . ._ . .. _ _ _.__.. _ ... _..._ A �RLtNf= �lftl!RK _ .�� - -- - � .._, _.__ ._ _ �. yI, 4 � - -_ - -. ..._,� .� n .,�,_,,,,.� __._ _._ ._ .. - -- .. - -- - -._ .. a�� . :___s:4,._ ..� _._. �... ... J_�#. r S :._. x_-vr J. •_ _ i�� _'zv ��i-.- .._ova -_�L. ..w1 i .x _ v.. _. _ ____. _ .... ..S '.iii:. , _, _+ .__..._.. .._ .r. }. _ _v. -r_ ...._c_ax -'�-' _ .. .A._ .1!.y ..YF ... ._ .. a. -_ .r ..v _ Y ..._. h .3'�i �.•.Sv. � �'T _. - __.r _. ._.._.. 4 � '3a' .:v_t_- ..... .:. _ _ -. _ _ .._,.n ._ ,.. .. ,. _ --- ..._..r �.. _.. _. - 'S'.:T.E,s�...,,..:n .. ....,.. .. - -- .. ... .�- .. ..r. ._,... ---._ � _ emu. ..� _ s -sue-. _... .e. . -..,.� .._ .. -_ . .... _.. .. _ .___._ ,F ._ _ . .J..�i .` . FY .. ... .,...�..:�.... .- w ... ._: . i_v...._._ .... ... __ . ._.__ .. __..� �_ti.. __..__ .. .. _ _ • _. _ ......... ... �« -.r.._ rte._ � _ _.. .... ... _ �c_vra. �r1.. w __ �_,._� _.. a.. r .. �i� �'�2' = 1._ .. . _ _ _.�_.. .. ....�..ra... ._ _ ._.... .__.. _ .. .. -. �� .v�..._ _ ...,._.c...., -... h ,k_- rRZ,., .w'..- s..n....,:.,,ro.. S .. r.. .nr.. a __.� _ .__... . , .__ �. .. �,C� _ ___ a . .. .'fir ..... .. �._. . .. • . �i _ .. _ _ _ �...,.. ._ r .:. �.._.._. r.. _. ' x:s_::c_.... _ _� fs°.. �„��= ... -._. s ... .ti _G =w�u._ r Tv _.__.._.: .I.�� _ . s i . r `4 __ -,r.. ._ i �a�-c .+�+. v �f�`" _ -" "P__ -. � a_�. �.,._:e_ ✓ _ ... _. ... r. _ _.. .r '' Taw. n... _ 3r.�._ ....;•.. � ^'.n. .c"a,. . _ _ __. .� _ _ � . ___._.- - ,... _ __._. __ r ... .c..._ .... _ � .... t J'z r _ _ v r +ec.vmr �. .„- _...a Y. . ,. -- �..- ..- ._�.... _ -... ... - �� ..._..__ R aa.T .... .. r �Kv .n . ... c _ .�= __�Y _ � ___... r..• 3. - - ..z x v_�.�c , a,r�2.11 �. _ _ .... .._ v .w �. -.rn .. ..._. �..,.... 'a _ - _.. r ..r. �,i.. L. ..Xe.Y^�Y�'J•' ..�} . � .....�.a. ._ • _..u._._ .. . -!._ _. . �C _ -S u�" iv � ..a.. r� ._ .'f « J _.. .. -.. 1._._. _. I .___� .L'. .a,.... r. m. .. ._ .T � _ t!.. rc.e..... _.. ..___. Ln '2 ^W .. _. � __,..._ ,- .__ . r � _ .+ _. .__....a..�� .__ .r...w.n.+.0 ,. ��- . �i.'�^ �1 .. ,. ,, .� _- ._ti....., _. ,. .. .... ....,. / .. _. � �:.._.... Y .1^' ._. .�� ''T .,... _, _. r. w .. ..�. . -. _. �- _ _ "- -- _ _ _ {': - �, �. _ - �y _ :.:1' � %.'v'�'§t/ �. =.r-.� _. Z°tr .P.' 2 � a�( Y.� �� l � - _ - all �i- _ _ ..�+. e"e.+v �» � _ _ _ '�,, a`_. �' .' `vim _ ...n� - 'r:.. �^ .}- ___ � - - 3 4r_ :+bp = - - �� m.. _ _ _ e . _ - _ G` ��=' vv�.� -'�u.� '�' _ _ _ � _ -. ..�.- - .•.- � w a ..= ��.r,,..,��... - __ - -- '�nn��'S+`+i _ -_ - S a = J�e�4+4?'Y - .-s.. -.. .� .. ... _ _ __ v r- _ rte..+.__ � .: .,? Y ,2�.._v_. .,.: . _ _ __.._ .h. z _ __. _ . _u _ . a. x .. __ r �.. xvr___:.+ _. Y. .wu.u.:.6d. _ ___. _.. __. .. _ ?: 3• __ ___ __ ___ _ .. � �` _ .... _, �+ �Fc r. _aw..� � t �- v___._ -_ y. _ _.... _i _�.... - - --'" .. _._._�..,.0 -,_. _rte_ _. _._,..._.....�.. � ._ _ _. r = �� t c.. - r..e....... • _ r .... ^ r 2� _xx :. . n - __. _t. W riu 1 MOBlLiZAT#ON LS 1 X94,200.00 $14,200.00 I X7,500.00 v�20,800.00 $20,800.00 511,104.44 311,104.44 X15,000.00 Si5,000.00 2 WATERLINE TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM LF 1500 _ X3.33 $4,995.00 $0.25 _ $375.00 x0.50 X750.00 X1.20 a�1,800.00 $1.05 X1,575.00 3 TRAFFIC CONTROL - SCHEDULE B LS 1 X7,100.00 X7,100.00 �4,500A0 X4,500.00 $26,600.00 X28,600.00 _ x12,980.00 X12,980.00 �15 X15,000.00 4 DUCTILE IRON PIPE FOR WATER MAIN 12" DIAM. LF 1500 X70.68 �106,a2a.00 $55.31 X82,965.00 X60.00 $90,000.00 X80.25 X120,375.00 371.00 �a106,500.00 5 GATE VALVE - 6 1N. (FL x MJ) EA 3 X600.00 X1,800.00 X724.00 X2,172.00 X780.00 X2,340.00 51,035.67 X3,107.09 $875.00 X2,625.00 6 GATE VALVE - 12 IN. (FL x MJ) EA 7 v1,800.00 X12,600.00 �1,97fi.00 X13,832.00 X1,900.00 X13,300.00 � X2,340.00 X16,380.00 X2,440.00 X16,$00.00 7 GATE VALVE -12 (N. (MJ x MJ) EA 1 $1,875.00 $1,875.00 X2,187.00 $2,187.00 X2,000.00 $2,000.00 X2,532.00 X2,532.00 X2,500.00 $2,500.00 8 12 "FL x 12 "FL x 12 "FL D.I. TEE EA 2 X900.00 X1,800.00 $939.00 X1,878.00 $1,060.00 X2,120.00 $772.00 X1,544,00 $1,200.00 X2,400.00 9 12 "MJ x 12 "MJ x 6 "FL D.I. TEE EA 3 X550.00 X1,650.00 X900.00 X2,700.00 $1,050.00 X3,150.00. X390.95 X1,172.85 X1,000.00 �3 ,aoo.00 14 12 "MJ x i2 "MJ x 12 "FL D.I. TEE EA 1 $600.00 $800.00 X1,094.00 � $1,094.00 $1,000.00 X1,000.40 $551.70 a�551.70 , X1,300.00 X1,300.00 11 �12: - 22.5 DEGREE BEND EA 2 X375.00 $750.00 X667.00 X1,334.00 X780.00 X1,520.00 X482.89 X965.78 $735.00 X1,470.00 12 12" - 45 DEGREE BEND EA 1 X350.00 $350.00 X667.00 X667.00 X715.00 5715.00 X483.53 $483.53 X735.00 X735.00 13 ,2: ACP SURFACE RESTORATION L1= 1500 X12.68 �a19,020.00 x11.33 v�16,995.00 X21.40 $32,100.00 X13.19 X19,785.00. X26.00 X39,000.00 14 PARK ROAD PATCH -Added Addendum 1 SY 120 X25.00 X3,000.00 _ X57.00 $6,840.00 X55.00 $6,600.00 $56.25 $6,750.00 X50.00 x6,000.00 15 BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 2 X1,850.40 X3,700,00 a�1,000.00 _ $2 X1,130.00 X2,260.00 X795.58 X1,591.16 X1,900.00 a�3,800.40 16 �1 °SERVICE CONNECTION EA 3 $250.00 $750.00 X450.00 $1,350.00 5375.00 X1,125.00 $1,035.20 53,105.60 X840.00 X2,520.00 17 2" SERVICE CONNECTION EA 1 $550.00 $550.00 X750.00 X750.00 X700.00 $700.00 X1,116.82 v1,116.82 X1,800.00 $1 18 DRIVEWAY APPROACH CURB LF 10 $20.04 X200.00 X31.00 � X310.00 x29.00 $290.00 x1$.90 X189.00 X40.00 X400.00 19 DRIVEWAY APPROACH SY 6 X40.00 x240.00 X50.00 $300.00 �v47.00 X282.00 X53.10 X318.60 X70.00 X420.00 w 20 ADJUST EXISTING VALVE BOX EA 5 $250.00 x1,250.00 �200.D0 X1,000.00 X300.00 X1,500.00 x147.50 X737.50 X300.00 X1,500.00 SUBTOTAL SALES TAX (8.6 °l0} X182,450.00 X15,690.70 X150,749.00 X209,152.00 Corrected X12,984.41 X17,987.07 X206,589.99 $17,766.74 X224,345.00 X19,293.67 Ewa �. �.. _s. , '�._ ,�-_ _ 'f .... ...._._. �.r . _ t .. ., .. .- -- >, ... .. �{ 9w .. .... - ..... ._ .. a . �..r _., .._ .. .. .. _. _ -.._. ,. .. _<...-'- -- -'- � - - -._s_ iw. .: .- _. .. .. .. _... _.v.. -. ._. r __._F. _ �_�T. _ ,. .'��ar .. T _ a . .. .... _ _ _ _... _ _- _ .... . _. to . f IEx _... , r _ e .Am chedu a �,._� _ �_.__._.. � -�.� .. .ct t� � - - - -- _� .. __ _u...r ..,! ..____ ._.�_..�...- . vrr.�',.nr � .. .._.. r. N ...__ _ _.. .... ._. n...... .. .. ....._ _ .. _... it ^ ..... _ .. v_m ... _ .._ ... .., ....,..0 .,. .. .. .. ++i� .. ... ...- �.._..... .. _:::.__. r + '��',n� el.,...n.,m. ...u,,.s„ __.... .�!�3 -�.. a y w- .. _ ,- .. � j► .n. ....... ... �.. t .� K .. ,... e.� __.�. •fir. -. - -- - - -..., .. _, x - .�_._ � � .-�.,. ._..... z. ......... ._.C, s -A.._ � . � = " __ - .r -� -,_. _. Fr ate- _ ,. - ..... _' .;r-..^ � �.,.r � ,,.�1� ... _._ ...... .. .. ;... ,.. �.�__........,. ..,.,..�_.,. �/ _.._... r... v ti T_ '�a' _ ._ _. _.... . t ... .. ... .. �.. .� _. ..1...._.. .. a. L... a _ -_ .. .,_... ,. .�. ...- ��. . :,.. .: .. �- _ _ . _. _ ��- ,:._. ,., -.�� -- - ��r_..2 _ � -- S'.� . +�� ,7' _�.. . �,d,_._.� . r,a.`"�� _ ..7......a .-r ..<..F._�. ..1�:..... _. ._.ter- ..+__.... i..... __,_.«R =. �� a;.� -,.. ' � e � ;.. � ? r n r - + ..: �.... .,-rz - � .. ...F ,_kF�°4,. .,x.J 1 F- s1 �._ r .., .�..:^ - �,,`. �J" S:.. .. _... :�Fn .. .�.S:s�.��*� l .r%� --'_-. ,,;mow, =r � - - ,�q�' war .,c '�.'''° �qp, a �} ' ..3Lb".• mss:= .�:v'.... �. �`� r3 =T+ (; rr f...�£"z «....- _ :.�J..xm�a�iR -.. _ ....Jai Total Schedule A -Base Bid Road Work X328 ,234.83 X357,414.00 Corrected X409,137.17 Corrected $426,753.05 Total Schedule B - Base Bid Waterline Work Including Tax X163,713.41 X227 ,139.07 $224,358.73 $243,638.67 Base Bid Schedule Total (Including sales tax} � $495 ,489.24 $491,948.24 X584,553.07 Corrrected �62v,493.90 Corrrected $670 �XPtf��S�f ��la BID TABULAT- J SpraguelBowdish PCC Intersection Project CtP No, OOS2 BID QPENING DATE - August 22, 2008, 1'i :00 A.M. �SCIiEpULE A TOTAL ��alley� 5815,770 j $760,380.75 $854,457.54 $90x,067.85 $941,298.83 $943,758.00 Engineer's Es #imate Anne Concrete Paving, Inc. Spokane Rock Products Cameron- - Unit Price err_• h.��r.:.. .+ ^:fC:a -/ � .t- ...r.''. .ir..! • ^:`.n.. �, _ l✓ .::.✓ {. � -.,, t ✓ ......✓': _ ,r 1, 3=' .1Lt. , � .-.. � . r'° a ''iz' s.�- -,fi � r ,� : r� . "w�.: f'�.. •U. n .c... _ - rJ'• .. 544,423.00 �'t " Reitly, v �J �,� � Totat `•�, t� ..•'%i.l,✓ "u'"`". /�'- �.i.�..'..(.Li.' "`- ecru - �� J .l'w .�_�.. y �� rte' C'.. - .. G' � u�+'� �r .. .a...'.i.�c.. °.%`: ::1;.... .Y, a �.:�; =.` ..� i' +i - .d „ -�: .'.J. ^.WH O' ^wGti. _... $44,423.00 ��CI No ��C - �4 �• ;�? ,1Q / _ a � =� I .r • -- ......Y ' �` r ��'T�' . .' :W". =-• m`• �{ r f r - �.. �4. 'ter• .r' i :a =% C , �Y�� ,„,�•�^��r+ '`;.'Wtr `+i.,y' ^' = $99,950.00 � r Hap Taylor &Sons, Inc. dha Knife }� = ,Inc. River 7 Total Cost Unit Pfice To #al Cast ITEM i ITEM Un t NUMBER TOTAL Q UANTITY . _ ...._ _ . _ .. _ .t .. .0 _ .. _ r - c't::- ::` - -.,. a u• C :'�" -.� ..+1« � - ^R .r. .�`Z/ .?.::r;M.�sor. '`fie.; a - +;Y Nf..... 1. t : /- _r •` .. m • c 1 Untt Price _,. . u ... . ++. ...� .�C,:�+.. _.� ..'N�J ..TL.. � ✓ •F r. .J� .�:1:`- 'w•t.`v^ . `�: -.-, `G ..1'..s ....� - :ba- 75,000.00 Total Cos# Unit Price Totat Cost Unit Price Total Cost ,� .. .. � .. ,. ..., , : K` ^;. .+ ^ ..t fir^. :,,., .{� w ✓/_ r'es: -^- '..Wrr ..r.r'^...L"- -.d'ti•..'. :� }� ;� �.1'arr:r� ::� •:i��•.. �... ..•. v -mow.." .rc': 4 1�.s - v �" F✓ .. . .. 1 w _ -- � . , - .v ...- ....._ .._... . w. ..M -c �{r _ _ .. _ � _.. ... .-:. r ,. ^ _ .d> � 1 . !_. .. v . ,. ..- � .c . .. . .,r '.. ...... � ... _ � _ - .r Y . r r e.. 1 ... ..> .. _. r �.,�,�,, . ., tl." '..`,,� v. lam' .% :-l� G . �:..aw.. �' _ . v e - G :/�.. .::�; _ �� Y� �.r .[":r •.�U.. - `Y i�w' : _4:'.v: n. '��.••, r� °.�- f.:'r/'� G - +,�w",.' r-F+•- 'uJ '6�X %,u•.- � r; r.'.^ .v/- G..�w "=•=.� _ r G ..ter..- ,•�: ^. :...,r�.,. -.• n� r•. G. .. t.. i..: .� �....••,. ..,;r ^.,!;.+. . v. -•r"r .. ✓i<. �� !�,�..�� f. "�i. mil" -G V G - vJw:�^ o:uJe r l�' I � �15�. ^. ...� �i�f%'.� :.�,'. ,-L^ ...�1, � /... .1✓ •r". _ ./- �`si.... :..�r -, - vi':.. ..C' ... C•..e =J q-:.. :/•. _ '�3�u - " _ .-"� . .7 °%-;�c ^... r� - =•s mss. c: -1�_ o �� ,�.r -� -1 , vim: - N'.✓rrC". ✓ S. '.��:�' - ,r. _ r�- �'c•�:' :Si" %�.. r,� ,�.... : fly°- s ,.c' r, 1. ^' =r•^c- '^ :'r.`:�, - - ..., - -r r .1 ,. �,`� -^ J+.:"- c �`r - ! • ='LrJ. 7 � r . r' � ..r J _ W- +r -�."V' _.. �...1 .. ..� r oc �.`,. "u d " ;. �5• :z - 'a.' ,vim i.:r !'�. ✓.r ^•�tri:. j .I...^'^"N' rr. � / � -.rte �'J s ".lG'�' -�. ..;. -✓`��,�N _. '�." .-� � n, u'•.v✓i:r.../M - fir, :r... 4 f' r.•�� v•ti.. .. ....c. i. ,.._ - .. ra}..> ^L _ ° ..- ' �1�' MOBILE7ATION LS -. .,._ .. 1 . r' .. _ _ � ..,.. -. r .. '.. _ . .+: ^ . ,. �M a : •s'wM.w s;/^r �/ �.\ rte. .��: -/.�:. .. . ;:r. -.. �a�a r {.. ry « ^ •.• e �.. . r'a. - -. +ice•.. - l " . "'I�: "Yi ^••- ....::N' � ry ,4" ., :•orF1 " "s ...r�»?. _"`. c �"r J.:' - �.:�. _ �w .. 1 ✓ �u%�`:.., Cl'�vF . -.%%.d '� .'Y.".T .��_ :'cam c ¢.. �=� ='�F ., /. _ • -•cr_ .rte, •<;Y S. .t. _.. - :(?.. � .,,.,... ��.�, .K,�. • ��;; =. ;: '�^r` -C '' ,r.'•,. rC'�`�'% ^ ':u:: °';mow uo r:{�..c�•;.. -.._ ..� -`.'. "'fir �"� : �::rM �^ % <"^` - .. � �� 1.....0 �� y Y(f ../ "'30%:. l. v"' .. - '�;.. ,. � .:.;° X ��-� �r •..-.i ^ ��.. " -`^r' =.i` � �p,�� C '';vr -�'i i' <�.t ..%r % ✓` +- . '.:H'� =.:�.".... ..0 +�.:/ m. -:'iY. wr"c'...:.'... -. -.T /•ri:.':^ . J c./= � .c.Nc .,�. v'�c...•�.._ ... L.::� J^.,A..• a .. �v.�.... _ rw^�. .^�'cw• U�� W S75,aaa.00 $70,000,00 S70,Oa4.00 :i ..^^' �> .4'> i ...J M+ L.r".•v ...•... r- :rte'..•; : ��•�,,; ..v ..:.'SGT': - '" ".:� .%"� e..z✓.: 4; _ryr.�. r. . lw ••k .r;.rr__ c... ✓-r. .=r� � J' t,..� y � ..-S.. •fiv^l'.' ��/ ,,](�� " J .,<y �� - .rT •1^��r: i. •r' r. -. :7'� "= rt';fm: =. � N., ,.✓ o- .1 rti.�•.:..�_ _ . . -.c :. .<.�- " r +.'�... ...fir... -...�. �� .r.U' i%:.. .i'�" y ^�F ...sC+. w ..^,dG- .aG�^�''.' .v...�'Y..^ r " ^ .•,rte,.'.' . 'Y� .-�, -.i. ..^�Yy;,v .r � r.' % - I � 'Ln� : ✓L:t�l �':lrFr� .✓•r G "' . -'�'" .lam-/- :.� °.r <..~^ .. . -. ^:C-. -�4 -A ....! ..... -. .. S40,000AO ~ $40,000.00 _ �. ��b ` �: r. r /- ..�' r. l s o ,Cr.: .. J' ../// �u Yen- -".V vJ :.;:/. % :a::... ..:crr .. .G""re.. �..r G'cr...•,C. ..(= ».=P r.-wr: -,.:;. ... J. ,x e c% y.l. "'.k �:-'r / J i. M/.: ° w .:1. '� r.l.;,. �i.r coo.:,:. ^_::: ?; v /• ✓.:,. .r _ .rte ^�. . �. � '•.f. / vnS`' ✓./. ;..• <C ��.�'.. _.f - -n- .� _ 4'G w -r-. .xN ,* ,/ - S '�.,- :•i �uY. 1 %S2C's ' a� ', ^ ;J •- ..u'3:- .^:-'• F-. - ,,/ "� �,,,r - G r -Y `z'5;::: 'S .. � o-r�.. p ..! ✓'�`. ^'Ya ��. V�� W � +� �._ _ V.. � irofr:•••" .�.�-�• r3 ri =Y- �.i - �....tt .- - /, ti;.,7rz` :.C.: wd i y . :•G'." ec� r. ..-:. ...J . ,� r" :2@''�. � � w '^..:.� - �' .•GW..rt.'....•' ~ :�F'•- %: w•�.`.i4.. ��,�,y d f� ,J^ ,i' .�• �.,d'".rc •�S< a �ia�.- ••.w�c!r. -, r' G -�.,.. .. .. .. �-'�' -,r � .... .n .. �F"" ...�7 ..•�..,.. `- 599,950.00 $185,800.00 5185,800.x0 2 CONSTRUGTiON SURVEYING LS 1 5,000.44 $S,OOa.4a S4,5a0.00 $4,540.00 510,500,00 $10,540.00 S10,504.a0 $10,500.00 $15,875.00 515,875.00 S15,a00.00 Si5,Q00.a0 3 SPCC PLAN LS 1 500.00 5500.40 S270.00 $270.00 5750.00 5750.00 $750.00 5750.00 $555.00 $555.Oa $500.Oa SSaa,o4 4 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 2,000.00 52,x00.00 51,300.00 $1,300.00 u1,004.00 $1,004.00 5500.04 5500.00 $550.00 5550.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 5 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LS l 30,404.00 $30,440.00 $8,000.40 $8,000.40 $38,283.00 538,283.Oa S2fi3O00.00 $26,000.x0 528,200.Oa $28,200.00 $12,000,00 $12,000.00 6 SAWCUT AC OR PCC PAVEMENT LF -IN 9,200 0.50 $4,600.aa Sa,80 $7,364.00 51.31 512,052.4a 51.00 $9,200,41? 50.98 $9,416.00 $0,75 S6,900.00 7 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 5,600 2,40 511,200,44 S3.00 516,800.00 $4.20 523,520.Oa $6.00 $33,604.00 52.65 514,840.00 $2,90 516,240.00 8 REMOVE PCG PAVEMENT SY 1,900 10.00 $19,000.00 $6.00 $11 ,aoo.00 56.30 $11,974.00 57.40 513,300,00 $4.73 58,987.00 $7.00 513,300.00 9 REMOVE PCG CURB LF 160 5.00 5800.00 $5,50 1880A0 S10.50 51,680.00 $8.00 $1,28x.00 $10.80 $1,728,40 $10.00 $1,600.00 10 REMOVE PCC CURB AND GUTTER LF 10 7.5a $75.00 56.50 565.04 S10.50 $10 &.00 520.04 5200.00 $21.44 S2i4.00 $55.00 5554.Oa 11 REMOVE PCG SIDEWALK SY 95 5.40 $475.40 56.00 5570.00 $15.75 51,496.25 $20.00 51,900.00 510.40 5950.00 19.00 $855,40 12 REMOVE PC DRNEWAYAPPROACH SY 8 7,40 $56.40 511.00 $88.00 $52.50 $420.00 S25.00 5200.04 S28,80 $230.40 $19.00 $152.G0 13 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND ISLAND SY 630 5.00 $3,159.00 $5.00_ S3,150.00 515.75 $9,922,50 $24.00 $12,600,00 $7,21 54,542.30 S12.00 57,560,00 14 ROADWAY EXCAV, fNCL. HAUL CY 2,050 14.00 520,500.00 $28,00 557,400.00 $26.25 $53,812.50 $22.56 $46,248.00 $20.07 541,143.50 $23.00 $47,150.00 15 CRUSHED SURFAC[NG BASE COURSE TN 1,700 $25.00 $42,540.00 521.40 535,700.00 $27.Oa 545,940,00 $36.40 $61,204.00 532,56 555,352.04 $22.40 $37,444.00 16 HMA CL. 3/8" PG 5428 TN i5 120.04 51,800.00 5165.00 52,475.4a 5312,25 $4,683.75 5236.50 x3,547.50 $236.47 53,547.05 $149.40 52,235.00 17 HMACL. 112" PG 64 -28 TN 1,160 100.00 $116,000.00 $93.00 $107,880.00 5118.92 $137,947.20 1132.55 S153,758.00 $132.04 $153,166.40 $83.2b 596,570.00 18 ANTI - STRIPPING ADDITfVE CALC 1 1.00 51.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 51,00 $1,40 51.00 51,00 51.00 19 JOS M[X COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CAtG 1 1.00 $1.00 x1.00 $1,00 $1.00 $1.4a $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 51,00 51,00 20 COMPACTfON PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 1.40 51.00 $1.00 S1,{}0 51.00 51.00 S1.00 51.00 $1.00 $1.00 S1.a0 S1.00 2i CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 10 IN. TIiICK INCL. DOWELS 5Y 3,404 35,00 5119,000.QO $29.00 598,600,00 $33.60 $114,240.00 536,00 5122,400,00 $34.32 S116,688,00 a�35.40 5119,000,00 22 FURNISHING CONCRETE FOR CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CY 1,0x0 130.00 $130,000.00 $105.00 $105,00x.00 5109.20 $109,244.00 Si25.40 $125,000.00 5116.64 $116,64x.00 $104.00 $104,Oa0.a0 23 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE COMPt.lANCE ADJUSTMENT GALC 1 1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.Oa $1,x0 $1.40 S1.00 51.00 51.00 S1.00 51.44 24 TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEM LS 1 2,000.00 S2,440.00 5325,Da 5325.00 S1,050.00 $1,050.aa 5600.00 $600.Oa S'1,110.44 51,11x.00 $500.00 $500.00 25 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE, CATCHBAS]N OR DRYWELL EA 8 500.00 54,000.00 $650.40 $5,200.00 5682.50 $5,460.40 $300.00 $2,400,00 $1,538.00 $12,304.00 5470.00 x3,760.00 26 ADJUST VALVE BOX EA 4 500,00 $2,000.44 $550.00 52,200,00 $525.00 $2,100.Oa $25x.00 $1,000.00 $3x9.20 $1,236,80 $400,40 $1,600.00 27 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 IN. DiAM. LF 22 40.00 $880.00 538.00 $836.04 $262.50 55,775.00 $50,00 S1,1a0.00 $25.75 $566.50 $75.00 $1,650.x0 28 CATCHBASlN TYPE 1L EA 2 2,500.00 S5 52,440.00 $4,x00.00 S3,150,00 $6,34x.00 $2,500.00 $5,00x.00 $1,753.00 53,506.00 S1,900.00 53,800,40 29 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR EA 2 500.00 1 500.00 $1,400.00 $550.00 $1,100.00 $262.50 5525.00 5945.00 $945.00 5200.Oa $750.00 5400.00 $750,00 S364A0 $4,510.04 $728.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $4,510.00 $1,450.00 51,450.00 34 EXISTING DRYWELL CONNECTEON F�4 $500.Oa $520.00 $520.00 31 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL, TYPE B EA 1 3,000.04 $3,000,00 53,400.40 53,400,00 $3,675.00 $3,675.00 52,500.00 52,50o.aa 54,110.00 $4,110.00 54,500.40 $4,5x0.00 32 CONCRETE TRAFFIC ISLAND 121N, WIDE 1.F 640 25.00 S16,000.a4 $13.00 $8,320.44 $12.60 $8,064.40 $10.00 56,400,44 S10.25 $6,560.Oa 515.50 a9,920.OD 33 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB LF 170 24.00 $3,400.00 517.00 u�2,890.04 $18.90 - S3 $25.00 54,250.00 514.38 $2,444,60 $22.00 53,740.40 34 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY - 105 35.00 $3,675.00 $34.00 $3,570.00 $36.75 53,858.75 545.Oq $4,725.00 524.71 52,594.55 $60.00 56,300.00 35 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK RAMP, TYPE 2 EA 4 1,000.flO $4,004.00 51,100.00 54,400.00 5861,40 $3,444.00 $1,540.44 $6,000.00 51,017.15 $4,068.60 $1,x85.00 54,340.00 36 PEDESTRIAN CURt3 LF 82 - 10.00 $820.40 $15.40 $1,230.40 S1 , $600.00 5550.00 �a16.80 51,377.60 $105,00 � $2,100,00 , $145.00 52,100.Ofl $i 51,050,44 $15.40 520,04 $20A0 $1,500.00 $1,230.00 5440,00 - S400.00 S1,500.Oa 512.95 $76.34 � $27.69 $320.35 51,061.90 $18,00 S1,476.00 51,526.80 - S28.a0 5560.00 $553,80 $32.00 $640.00 $320.35 $900.00 $900.Oa 37 SOD INSTALLATION SY 20 1x.00 $20o.aa $50.00 38 BARK MULCH SY SURVEY MONUMENT i� 20 10.00 1 1,000.00 $200.00 $30.00 51,00x.00 $554.00 39 40 REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING GII.US /SPRAGUE ENTERSECT[ON SIGNAL SYSTE LS 1 10,000.x0 $10,000.00 $11,200.Qa Si 1,200.00 $11,077.50 $11,077.50 $11,605.00 $11,605.00 $11,560.15 511,580.15 S8,OOfl.00 58,000,00 41 REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING BOWDESH /SPRAGUE INi'ERSECTION SIGNAL SY LS 1 15,000.40 $15,000.40 $15,600.40 S15,600.00 515,225.40 $15,225.00 $15,950.00 $15,950.00 515,888.36 $15,888.36 $10,440,00 $10,00x.00 42 INSTALL 80W1}[SH /SPRAGUE SIGNAL SYSTEM LS i 140,000.00 5100,000.40 S118,000.40 $118,000.00 5114,975.40 $114,975.00 $120,450.00 $120,450.00 $119,984.47 5119,984.47 5145,400.00 $145,400.00 43 JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 7 EA 1 2,000.00 $2,000,00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,470.00 $1,470.00 $1,540.00 51,540.00 51,584.45 �v1,534.05 $1,600,Oa $1,600.00 44 JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 2 F�1 5 � 1,0x0.00 55,40x.00 $404.00 S2 ,oaa.oa $378.Oa $1,890.00 5396,00 11,980,00 5394,47 $1,972.35 5385,00 Si,92b.4a 45 INDUCTION LOOP VEHICLE DETECTOR EA 44 800,00 $35,240,00 5450.00 519,800.00 $420.00 518,480,Oa S440.00 519,380.04 5438.30 $19,2$5.20 $700.00 $30,800,00 46 REMOVING PAINT LINE LF 4,OOa 1.00 $4,000.44 $1.20 $4,800.00 50.95 $3,800,40 S1.23 54,920.00 51.24 $4,960.00 $1.00 54,000.00 47 REMOVING PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE SF 710 2.50 $1,775.00 52.50 S1,775.00 �a3.94 52,797,40 $2.62 $1,860.20 $2.64 $1,874.40 54.00 52,840.00 48 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING LF 7,000 4.50 $3,500A0 SO.A5 $3,15x.00 Sa,53 $3,710.00 $O.fiS $4,554.00 50.44 53,x80.00 $0.45 53,150.00 49 PLASTIC CROSS WALK LINE SF 768 6.00 S4,6a8.00 $7.00 $5,376,04 58,66 $6,650.88 58.00 $6,144,00 $7.73 $5,936.64 59.00 $6,912.04 50 PAWT LINE LF 5,030 0.64 53,018.00 50.32 51,609.60 S0,42 $2,112.64 $0.35 51,760.54 50.33 51,659.90 50.50 52,515A0 51 PAINTED WIDE LINE LF 633 1.00 5633.00 $0.55 5348.15 50.79 $500.07 $0.65 S411.45 $0.60 $379.80 51.00 $633.00 52 PAINTED TRAFFIC ARROW EA 8 50.00 $400.00 $35,40 $288.00 $57.75 5462.x0 $40,00 $320.04 537,37 5298.96 S64,00 $480.00 53 PLASTIC STOP LINE LF 150 2.00 5300.00 $11.x0 51,650.00 $10.50 51,575,00 $13.00 $1,950.04 511.86 $1,749.00 S11.Oa $1,654.00 54 PERMANI =NT SIG1ViNG LS 1 1,000.00 $1,000.00 51,740,00 51,700.40 51,207,50 51,207,50 S2,4aa.00 52,040.00 51,752.00 $1,752,00 51,300.x0 51,300.00 55 MINOR CHANGE CALC 1 S1.a0 •..., .. ,�,�,,�° �.» ...� • :�'"`- _ . _'�r ...� „k= z• .' .,..•'/ .,...,�.' 51.00 51.00 S1.4a 51.00 51.00 r, o .r r '';m• pE�j}� �� -,'c. ''�' �' .a. aa,.,.,.....�.., .. c..c . ,lr�': •� `�.�i ... .. .�Mf. _Y.,. .. 51.00 r.».' _•F_,. •� C _. _,.r•.,.; • ✓- _ 51.00 Y ,.�, -.:.,r ! Q �y �{Q�j�dF . _ . �RS� -,. 5/�1�- cY...R�.Ld.♦fi.• $1.Oa -rc `c`a�f- .` -^hw. _ .... ._ . _ S1.Oa S1,00 $i.4a � ' .� ..1 .f p �f� Y ��y: .�,u - ,..oat": oily a� - >•^. , Mac.. ... _ ��. �.. -..2 �^v- ...v:... .. :::c� -. .. . 1.F . .J J,. .. ,�y�» s .. �.t... r .Q ,�j� .. .... .. �t� .c"r�„ `r"-- ��uh'- r_' C .r�r. -r C�r�.,�.+^. .�T �' = ,. ... ...- •'IMF "<� Y .. ,- .,.- .�..•.- .n .•o-.. ..�:,•�c:• .•+Kx ......,._ - ._.. ,.� .. ......�.c'�:.. ...- c,r ... � •...,,_..,... r .,� ._ _ .� . �.. .... ..... ..........� ,. � .-- .. . _, �c^}„ _ .. _� -. .,..., .. .. ......�., ...... �c� •ate'' 'MG / �{� r � :�,;?lc` a� ...�`� ; : -• t; �;.,» ,,'�^�- ...r•,.< u. : .- . - � .iY, �!li ... .. .. .. ... .. .:�f�� Y � BID TABULAT- J SpraguelBowdish PCC Intersection Project CtP No, OOS2 BID QPENING DATE - August 22, 2008, 1'i :00 A.M. �SCIiEpULE A TOTAL ��alley� 5815,770 j $760,380.75 $854,457.54 $90x,067.85 $941,298.83 $943,758.00