Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2014, 05-27 Regular Formal Format
MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,May 27,2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Bates, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Chuck Hafner,Councilmetnber Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember John Holtman, Community Development Dir. Ed Pace, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec Director Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk,Planner Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor,Mayor Grafos asked for a few moments of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. Due to the possibility of lengthy agenda action items, and as a courtesy, Mayor Grafos said that agenda item #7, admin report from the Spokane Conservation District, will be moved to just prior to the New Business. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: nla COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner: said he attended several Board of Health meetings regarding governance;went to the CarMax celebration; attended several seminars regarding SCOPE; went to the Health Department meeting where they continue the evaluation of the health officer; and attended several others STA (Spokane Transit Authority)meetings. Councilmember Pace: said he also attended the CarMax opening; went to a Department of Ecology meeting regarding in-stream flows and new rules to protect the aquifer; attended the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) course on the basics for elected officials, which he said was not a good use of taxpayer dollars as he could have just read the material instead of wasting taxpayer's money; went to the STA Board meeting, and a meeting about the Plaza remodel project. Councilmember Higgins: reported he attended the CarMax opening; went to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee where the meeting was more focused than several past meetings, and where Michelle Leonard, leader in the Solid Waste Management planning and facilities, sought to gather input regarding the County's solid waste plan. Councilmember Bates:had no report. Councilmember Wick: said lie had no actual meetings but was preparing for the AWC Conference and Joint Legislative Committee; Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he attended a Washington Policy Council health care forum at the Davenport where a Chamber of Commerce representative spoke about some of the challenges of Minutes Regular Council Meeting 05-27--2014 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council:06-10-2014 Chambers and the Affordable Care Act and that so many aspects of that act don't work; said he attended the Lilac Festival Military Lunch; was asked to represent for the Mayor at the Wohelo Awards, which is the Camp Fire's highest youth honor. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos reported that he attended the CarMax opening; was interviewed by Business Talk Radio;presented the outstanding business awards at the Martin Woldson Theater; attended the Council of Mayors' meeting, and the GSI (Greater Spokane,Inc.)Board of Directors meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. L CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of claim vouchers on May 27,2014 Request for Council Action,Totaling: $1,181,216.54 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 15,2014: $312,980.36 c.Approval of May 6,2014 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of May 12, 2014 Special Council Meeting Executive Session Minutes e. Approval of May 13, 2014 Regular Formal Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. 7. Spokane Conservation District—Walt Edelen, Garth Davis Spokane Conservation District Water Resources Program Manager Walt Edelen said they are here to make Council aware of some new programs and associated grants and/or low interest loans, and mentioned the Livestock and Land Program and the Septic System Financial Assistance Program, adding that funding for the project is from the Washington State Department of Ecology; he said almost as soon as they released the information, there was a waiting list of applicants; he said the loans are based on income, and they typically have a five-year term repayment plan, although there is criteria for severe hardship cases all the way up to 100% in some cases. Forestry Program Manager Garth Davis then explained about the Tree City USA requirements and that lie would like to work with us to make Spokane Valley a Tree City USA. The handouts contained in the Council packet were also referenced. NEW BUSINESS: 2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-005, Comprehensive Plan Amendments--Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded, to advance Ordinance No. 14-005 to a second reading. Senior Planner Barlow explained that this is the ninth meeting where these items have been discussed, and that she was not intending to provide a lot of background, but she briefly highlighted the amendments as contained in the Ordinance. Mayor Grafos said before Council votes, he would go through each amendment individually to determine if anyone wants to amend the motion and that otherwise, all issues will continue to move forward as presented last week. Concerning CPA 01-014, Mirabeau Park Trailhead, Councilmember Higgins said he wanted to discuss this proposal as he would like to disapprove the amendment; said he is not certain approving this would permit any flexibility, but that he is convinced "we can do what we need to within the framework of the current zone;" he also noted by not changing the zoning, it would ensure that a 50' building would not be constructed on the area. After brief discussion on this amendment, all other Councilmembers except Mayor Grafos said they would like to see it approved. It was then moved by Canneilmember Higgins and seconded to amend the motion to exclude CPA 01-14 and deny that amendment. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Patty Blakesley, and JoLynn Hill, sisters, individually commented that they would Iike the park to be left as is; that they walk in the park every morning and enjoy the area, and if it were changed, there would be nothing to prevent another council in the future from allowing a building Minutes Regular Council Meeting 05-27--2014 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council:06-10-2014 • there, which they said would ruin the area and add traffic to a currently peaceful area. Dan Allison said he also wants to keep it as is; that he doesn't know why we would propose the change and is not sure where this even came from and asked if staff is pushing to sell or change the area; and suggested leaving it alone. Councilmember Hafiier said this is a small piece of property; that we want the natural habitat and there is a misconception that this Council would do anything other than the best thing for this city. Councilmember Wick added that during the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee meetings, it was noted that the River is a real asset but we are not using it to the fullest, and such things as bike, skate or other rentals could be a positive asset. Vote on whether to amend the motion: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Higgins and Pace. Opposed: Councilnembers Bates, Wick and Hafner. The motion passed to amend the motion. Concerning CPA 02-14, Bradley Road, SCRAPS proposal, there was discussion concerning what uses would be permitted on that parcel if the zone were changed, and Ms. Barlow explained that a range of commercial uses would be permitted including lodging, retail and some light assembly, and she also noted that the County owns the property. Mr. Jackson said a question arose last week about staff researching other alternatives, and City Attorney Driskell explained that most other options would take some time to work through; that a deed restriction is possible as well as amending the current Interlocal agreement for the provision of animal services; said based on where this issue is now, if Council wants to look at implementing conditions for this proposal, that perhaps Council should consider denying this and bring it back in the future, as today's issue is whether it can be approved as it is. Councilmember Pace said there is no need not to trust that this use will occur as SCRAPS indicated, and he encouraged approval. Councilmember Bates noted that there is nothing in writing about the use if this were to proceed and Mr. Jackson concurred that there is nothing specific in the current Interlocal agreement about this parcel. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Nancy Hill summarized the highlights of the proposal and the use of the lot and emphasized that leash dog walking has far less impact than the currently allowed three dogs pre residential; she said there is no outside lighting on the parcel and none will be added, and that this is a fifty-year plan and SCRAPS promises to be a good neighbor. Mark Shollenberger said his biggest fear is the animals escaping and said it will happen and after it happens the first time,this Council will regret it; said his dogs have never escaped from his backyard but with this change, his dogs would have a reason to escape; asked what if someone gets mauled by a dog; said the area needs a 20' beauty zone and a minimum eight foot fence; that he has tried to buy that property for over thirty-five years and it was never for sale. County Commissioner Todd Mielke said they have worked on this issue for a long time; and if that man's dogs have never escaped, he likes to think the SCRAPS dogs won't either; said theirs is a long term goal; and he spoke for having the parcels consistent; said the people who work at SCRAPS are probably the most experienced animal workers in the entire region. There were no further comments and no proposed motion amendments. Mayor Grafos invited public comments concerning CPA 03-14, and no comments were offered. For the record, City Clerk Bainbridge stated that she received an e-mail from Clyde and Zita Smith, Jake Bloomer, Mindy Simonson, and Marc Lippincott, all opposed to this amendment. Mayor Grafos invited public comments on any of the remaining amendments and none were offered. There were also no further proposed motion amendments on any of the remaining proposals. Vote by Acclamation on the amended motion to Advance Ordinance 14-005 to a second reading and to exclude 04-014 and deny that amendment In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed`None. Motion carried. 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-006,Zoning Map—Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance ordinance 14-006 to a second reading and to deny proposed amendment CPA 01- 014 (Mirabeau Park). Planner Barlow explained that this ordinance reflects the changes in the comprehensive plan as noted in the previous ordinance, but ordinance 14-006 only pertains to the zoning map, and would implement the changes to correspond with that previous ordinance. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.None, Motion carried. Minutes Regular Council Meeting 05-27--2014 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council:05-10-2014 4.Motion Consideration:Bid Award Appleway Resurfacing—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the Appleway Boulevard Street Preservation Project CIP #0202 to Spokane Rock Products in the amount of $294,624.45 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Public Works Director Guth explained that this project's bid opening was last Friday, that there were four bidders and Spokane Rock Products was the lowest bid, adding that the bid is within the City's budget. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Dan Allison said that Spokane Rock Products was the company who did the last paving along Sprague and that on the north three lanes, it is very rough for new paving; said he doesn't know if they have faulty operators or equipment, and if they are going to pave again, someone needs to watch what they are doing; and perhaps they shouldn't be doing our paving. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked Mr. Guth about Mr. Allison's concerns, and Mr. Guth said that the project was within the specifications; said that although that we don't have a smoothness requirement, he agreed it rides a little rough and said staff will be meeting with the contractor to talk to them to prevent that from happening again. Mr. Guth said they are looking to add a smoothness criteria into the specifications, but that is a difficult one to measure as it is somewhat qualitative. City Manager Jackson said staff will follow up on the comments; but that there is nothing to cause us to exclude the vendor and it is a responsible low bid. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafnei Higgins, Wick and Bates. Opposed: Councilmember Pace. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: 2015-2020 Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve the 2015-2020 Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan and authorize the City Manager to make application for grants to assist in funding the Plan. Public Works Director Guth briefly explained the plan as noted in his council packet materials. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed;None. Motion carried. Mayor Grafos called for a short recess at 7:22 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. 6.Motion Consideration: Solid Waste Selection of Provider—Mike Jackson, Erik Lamb It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize a contract with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc., and that finalizing the contract contemplates that remaining contingencies would be removed to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Final award of the contract would be done by motion at the Council meeting on June 3, after which the City Manager will execute the contract. City Manager Jackson clarified concerning the second part of the motion, that there would be very few remaining contingencies with either contract and that the final contract will be brought to Council at the next meeting. Mr. Jackson stressed that we are not talking about the collections or about the Waste Management or Sunshine trucks that collect the waste; and the intent of tonight's motion is to open discussion on the issue. Mr. Jackson noted that Mr. Erik Lamb, Mr. Eric Guth, Mr. Mark Calhoun, and Mr. Morgan Koudelka, worked on the numerous aspects of this issue. Previous to the start of this discussion, Councihnembers were given a copy of a four-page letter from Spokane County, dated May 27, 2014, with a six-page Comparison of Private vs. County Options; and concerning that handout, Councilmember Pace asked if the County has given a rate. Mr. Jackson replied that the County's rate in the letter is an estimate, and that they will do a rate study later, and said the rate is also not included in the Interlocal Agreement proposed by Spokane County. In response to a question from Councilmember Pace, Mr. Jackson confirmed that the rate included in the Sunshine contract is the actual rate and not an estimate. Mr. Jackson also confirmed, in response to a question from Deputy Mayor Woodard, that to- date there has been no rate adjustment to cover landfill closure;that those costs have either come from the initial bond issues or from insurance settlements, and that the County currently does not have a landfill closure fee as part of their rate; but that is not included in our rate nor to his knowledge,the County's rate. Mr. Jackson said there is a county fund of about $8 million dollars that they can draw from for landfill closure, but that rate was not included based on the fact that there was not a County rate for the landfill closure. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Minutes Regular Council Meeting 05-27--2014 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council:06-10-2014 Mr, Steve Wolf, Sunshine Disposal and Recycling Region Manager, and resident of Spokane Valley, said. he appreciates Council's willingness to enter into a contract; said they have included the major issues the City wanted to see such as identical services; cost savings of overall savings of $4.8 million which includes road wear, administrative rate and the difference in rate structure based on 45,000 tons; rate predictability, with 90% of the CPI included in the contract, which is based on the rate of transportation and disposal at $92; and control. He went over some of his company's expertise in transfer stations; said they have operated the University Road transfer station in Spokane Valley since 1993, said they do about 115,000 tons at peak time, and handled traffic counts of 75,000 annually; said they operate four other transfer stations in Stevens County, and have operating contracts in Pend Oreille County, Kootenai County, and Adams County, and were involved in modifications of the Wenatchee Transfer Station. Mr, Kevin Cooke, Spokane County Utilities Director, said Mr. Jackson did a very thorough job last week in giving Council an overview of the private contract versus the County interlocal; he explained that the landfill closure costs are included in the County's best estimate of$104.59 per ton; that it has less to do with the current rate and more to do with what the County is looking at after November 17 when they take over the transfer stations and systems; said the two rates are $1.79 per ton apart which equals 60 a month for a 35-gallon curb-side customer; the difference in the organic waste is $47 per ton from the County, and $50.00 per ton from the private contractor; between the minimum charge of$10 for yard waste as compared to the County's $5.00 for self-haul, and said the commercial rate equates to about $93,000 a year in additional charges to citizens. He said that the level of service is completely different from the standpoint that the regional system has transfer stations with three scales and two scale houses with the middle scale being able to be used in either direction; the site size is more than four times the size of the private transfer station, and said there are three transfer stations, including the Waste to Energy plant; all of which means more flexibility. Spokane County Regional Solid Waste Coordinator Bill Wedlake stated that he, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Guth have been working on this project for several years and all were on the HDR Study Team; he said lie just invited Mr. Jackson to have a representative on the evaluation committee to go through the operations contracts if Spokane Valley decides to join the County; he said Spokane Valley citizens would incur increases of more than 27% in self-haul yard waste, and commercial haul of yard waste would go up over $33,000 a year which will get passed on to Spokane Valley citizens. He also questioned how one looks at the system over a forty or fifty year span; and asked if Council is looking at the economic benefits of keeping all the tons together; he said the City of Spokane is taking over the Waste-to-Energy Plant with the intent of not having to pay the profit to Wheelabrator and said the City of Spokane potentially can be just as efficient as going out for competitive bidding for long-haul; he said the County listened to Council's concerns and agreed to the three-year opt out option; said the Council can't possibly be complaining about the County giving them what was asked for as that three year time allows the Council to change if not happy, or stay with the County if happy and combine all the tons for all the citizens of the community; he said the County sees the economies of scale if you're talking about 350,000 tons of waste, which is a lot better than dealing with 55,000 tons. He reiterated that the County is not in this to make a profit; that their rates will be set based on their needs and that everything is transparent while the contract may not be. County Commissioner Shelly O'Quinn said everyone is interested in what is in the best interests of the Spokane Valley citizens since the Council and the Commissioners serve the same citizens; she said the issue is having a conversation about what are the accurate details and information provided to Council to enable Council to make a decision for its jurisdiction; said she is obviously an advocate for a regional system and said she believes it provides a more cost effective system while also providing a higher quality of regional customer service. Concerning cost, Commissioner O'Quinn said the comment in the newspaper that the City of Spokane Valley will save about a quarter of a million dollars a year by going with the alternative option, is inaccurate and misleading to the citizens; and said the alternative option would cost Spokane Valley residents more while receiving less service and at the same time put the City's Minutes Regular Council Meeting 05-27--2014 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council:06-10-2014 general fund at risk. Regarding customer service, Ms. O'Quinn stated that the regional system has three transfer stations that provide citizens free recycling and moderate risk household hazardous waste drop- off; said there are several scales at the regional system, and it's not uncommon for the Valley transfer station to handle 700 to 800 daily transactions during summer; said there are over 16 acres at the valley station compared with 3.6 acres at the alternative site. From the citizen's perspective, Ms. O'Quinn said the system won't change on November 16 although behind the scenes will have changed, but the citizens will still have the same great award winning nationally recognized service they have been receiving for twenty years. Concerning the impact to the general fund, she said that we have $125,000 to cover administrative costs and other costs like education, but said she would like to see how Spokane Valley would be able to accommodate that with the estimated budget; she said Spokane Valley hasn't taken into consideration the comprehensive plan which could cost up to $100,000, nor the cost of enforcement which is covered under the county's proposal and not the alternative option. In speaking for the regional system, County Commissioner Todd Mielke said we have the same objective of having elected officials trying to solve the issues confronting citizens; he said they are hoping for a seamless transition from the current twenty-year agreement to the next one; he said people are accustomed to the process of how they get rid of their solid waste and the County is working to have as little disruption as possible in this process. Mr. Mielke said they want the lowest cost, responsible way of disposing solid waste and that as indicated previously,they will meet or beat the current rate, and said he believes they will beat them by coming all together; he said they have committed to contracting out the operations, and under Washington State law,the contract is awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. He said one of their priorities was to protect the general funds of each jurisdiction and avoid those add-on hard to predict costs, and said they are creating an enterprise fund to protect those general funds. He said they moved to a shorter term contract as a means of providing maximum flexibility, and said they also want consistency across the region. Concerning cost, Mr. Mielke said the information that was provided to Council was mischaracterized; he said the recent reports have projected a savings of$250,000 a year by going with the alternative proposal; however, he said the rate the County currently operates under is $104.59 opposed to the proposed rate of$98.15, and he said the $4.65 for landfill disclosure is already included in their rates and has been part of the rates up until the time the bonds were paid, so the tipping fees didn't change once the bonds were paid,that money was still being collected but the regional system no longer cuts that check to Spokane County. He reiterated that the rate doesn't change, as it already built in an amount to go for landfill closure. He said we are talking about a difference between the current system rate of$104.59 as opposed to $102.80, and said we are down to $1.79; lie said when you look at the $250,000 in savings, about $195,000 is just for the landfill closure; we said we have Greenacres Landfill and said they want to monitor that landfill to make sure it is not contaminating groundwater. He said we are now down to a difference of approximately $55,000 between the proposals; he said the minimum cost for disposing of green waste will increase from $5.00 to $10.00 per load, and that represents a 27% increase to Valley residents and Spokane Valley would be paying about $60,000 more plus another $33,000 for commercial users; and that is not taking into consideration flow control enforcement,comp planning costs, audited financial, and additional administrative and education costs. Mr. Tim Crosby, of Mill Creek Washington (distributed four pages of a Waste Management handout to Council); asked Council to strongly consider the Sunshine proposal; said his company has partnered with Sunshine to provide the disposal sites and background including pollution control; said he realizes this is a difficult task but heard the City wants to control its own destiny and this is an opportunity to do that; he asks Council to put their faith in a company that has been in the valley for many years. Mr. Marc Torre, business address of 2405 N University Road, Spokane Valley; said lie is not trying to negotiate any changes in the terms of the agreement; that that task was given to staff and said he feels City Manager Jackson and staff have done a good job; said in choosing his business' proposal, Council will have control, will establish a rate that hasn't been in the government since 1996, which is a base rate of$92.00 per ton of which$1.00 will be returned to Spokane Valley in a road wear fee; the said Mr. Steve Wolf had mentioned a total benefit of nearly $5 million; said they selected a landfill partner of Waste Minutes Regular Council Meeting 05-27--2014 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council;06-10-2014 Management which has several regional landfills to provide for environmentally sound cost effective disposal. Mr. Torre said that as noted in his proposal, they will have four scales, two inbound and two outbound; he said the current facility has operated at a peak tonnage of 115,000 tons a year, and said they can handle the volume of our city as well as other smaller regional cities; said they will have a free drop- off service of household moderate risk waste and recyclables and said the services are identical including hours of service. He said there would be a higher minimum for the green waste which means people will collect it longer and then bring it, and said that was demonstrated from SWAC when they raised the minimum from $7.00 to $15.00. Mr. Torre said that the $250,000 in savings to the ratepayer is real, and said he looks forward to a strong, long-term successful partnership. There were no further public comments. Deputy Mayor Woodard disclosed that he received campaign contributions from almost everyone in the room, including Sunshine Recyclers Steve Wolf and Commissioner Todd Mielke, and that he can make a decision on this matter based on the widespread support from everyone to make the best decision for the City. Concerning the garbage matter, Councilmember Pace said that 6¢ does matter; concerning yard waste, he said customers can control that by making fewer trips, or even composting it; concerning the acreage of the facility, he said size doesn't matter but performance does; and said he supports Sunshine because it is the people having trust in government and said we need to re-earn that trust, and we can't earn their trust if we sign a contract where we don't really know what the exact rate is; he said our core values state we are a contract city and said it is important that the contracts be with private business instead of other government agencies; and said another core value is local economic development, and said Sunshine is a long time local business. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he has been working on this topic long before he became a Councilmember; said he went through the HDR Study as well as a mass of other information to make sure he understood the facts and that they were accurate; after going over some of the cost comparison, he said the HDR report indicates the minimum operations and maintenance of the transfer stations is about$3.651 million annually; he said he understands that the RFP has come between six and seven million;he said the$3.651 million equates to $23.65 per ton plus other costs; he said Council has been asking for a rate for three years and still doesn't have it; adding all costs he said would be a minimum of$105.87, with a 2.5% cost of living increase for the following year; lie asked what happens if it does cost six to eight million to run those transfer stations; he said he wants to make the best decision from a cost and service standpoint; that there hasn't been any choice for solid waste for years; he said there is no 3.5% landfill cost in the County's proposal; and he suggested there would be a landfill tax at some point. He said a regional concept ended long ago; that Spokane Valley has never and will never be a partner with the City of Spokane because they don't see us as an entity to deal with; however,he said he feels Spokane Valley is a partner in a number of things with the County, and he expressed his appreciation to the County Commissioners and staff coming tonight to give their input. Mayor Grafos added his thanks to the County Commissioners for their hand work in presenting Spokane Valley with what they felt was the best agreement possible considering their available options; he said we currently have over fourteen interlocal agreements with Spokane County, and that all total those contracts account for approximately 70% of our general fund; he said Council understands the benefits of working together in a regional format; however, he said the County's proposed agreement doesn't provide lower costs or certainty or control over future rates; he said the HDR study clearly pointed to a substantially long term cost to all county ratepayers if a long haul option for waste disposal were implemented in lieu of the vendor of choice, and he mentioned the waste burner owned and operated by Spokane City; lie said this choice by Spokane County ensures that Spokane's Waste-to-Energy plant, which is an aging 30-year old technology would continue to add noxious chemicals as well as 200,000 metric tons of Co2 emissions to our area;he said a comparison of just the first year contract rate presented by Sunshine compared to the rate now being charged results in a savings to Valley residents of approximately $250,000 annually; he said with Sunshine there is certainty of a ten-year contract with future rate increases limited to 90% of CPI, along with the ability of our city to manage the performance of the vendor; but signing with the Minutes Regular Council Meeting 05-27--2014 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council:06-10-2014 County would mean a contract signed with only an estimated rate as actual charges wouldn't be provided until after the contract were signed. Mayor Grafos said there would also be no control over County future transfer station hours; and that the CPI increases with the County are unknown; all of which he said makes his choice clear for the private vendor. Mayor Grafos also disclosed that during the 2011 election, along with his over one hundred contributors, he received a $300 campaign contribution from Sunshine, and said that will have no influence on his vote. Councilmember Wick said he recognizes the difference in clean green and self-hauling rates; that we don't have any guarantees of cost from the County, and that we all strive to keep costs as low as possible; said we have done a great job of being a contract city; lie said we made some offers earlier such as offering to buy out the transfer stations or align contracts together, and each time we thought we had a solution, it never came to fruition; he said building the West Plains transfer station would also increase cost greatly. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor; Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 8. Advance Agenda Councilmember Pace asked about adding the item of trucks parking in residential areas, and Mr. Jackson said we can add that to the June 10 Council meeting. There were no objections. Mr. Jackson also mentioned that the agreement with Mr. Travis Lumpkin has been completed and he hopes to have it executed tomorrow, and that Mr. Lumpkin will start in June. Mr. Jackson brought Council's attention to the draft letter before Council concerning the Composition of the Law and Justice Council, suggesting Spokane Valley have a representative on that Council; he said the letter also states that we pay more than $20 million dollars of our budget to Public Safety, which is quite different from most other jurisdictions. Mr. Jackson asked if there was Council consensus to submit the letter with the Mayor's signature. Council concurred. INFORMATION ONLY The (9) Department Monthly Reports; and (10) Browns Park Master Plan were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS n/a It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. y ATTR Tie Dean afos,MAI. 11616r1 a .,0'...- , pristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting 05-27--2014 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council:06-10-2014 GENERAL PUBLIC CGMMENrI SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 2014 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS \\\\\ YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE Please sign in if you wish to make public comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ABOUT , 1116 k. it. 1 i €</ le_R ,1 k:ea.0 eeziyhQ 1°06 n Va (lei V. ,,)0)— 10', 401 1,11& te c ,po. o kts-Ac..- itti-i..-tt bioi- AU-45010 li f 1 (5. 1441l) , �I II T" C 1 ,d, !\/L f "---17:4, c43 b 1 —i R,As to - ,l RV-,\---slAt v c4 t' a AC 1/4\ JkM cCIFOS T...4.20v\k- I Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 27, 2014 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE Please sign in if you wish to make public comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ABOUT S vtLeAlizrt,- FVe 3 V(?)I,1 VICCI t: . t., -Srri, Cirn Please mole that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure, 542/div , . i,. :- S P O K A N E 33 COUNTY ''s'.���I�?,�k$IdRl.4�,,.te iH r OHRt;(,I.OH ATV C,Wl1ILssm,vrays .14(1111)A1-11±I.Itii°., 1tiI.DISTRICT•S1IFI,IN(1'(.I11NN,2N1)DISTRICT• .11.I'III+.N(:II,31u)1)Isrl(1(�C May 27, 2014 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA. 99206 Subject: Comments Regarding Solid Waste System Alternatives Dear Mayor Grafos and Councihnembers: We are writing this letter to provide several observations with regard to the May 20th presentation to the City Council on solid waste. We understand that you intend to select an option for your solid waste system on May 27th. One option you are considering is to join the County's Regional Solid Waste System. The other option is to enter into a contract with a private company. Both options were presented/discussed at your May 20111 meeting. Additionally, the Council will be taking testimony at its May 27th meeting from the public on these options. This correspondence is intended to act as the County's public comment at your May 27th hearing on your options and hopefully to draw to your attention some substantial differences between the two options. The substantial differences include: (1) Term of Agreement: The proposed private contract with the City of Spokane Valley is for a term of 10 years, committing the City to a long-term contract. The County has agreed to a term of 3 to 7 years in the Interlocal Agreement for the Regional System. (Note - We do not understand the assertions that the City would need to start work immediately in order for a new option to be in place in 3 years. For example, the City was able to negotiate and assemble a draft contract with a private company within a few months.) Spokane County has included language in the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Spokane that we will continue to pursue low cost, long-term transport and disposal options. The City of Spokane is taking over operation of the WTE with the intent of reducing the cost of operations. The Regional System is structured to take advantage of these potential future reductions in cost. 1 1 16 WFST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509)477-2265 Mayor and City Council May 27,2014 Page 2 Additionally, in order for there to be a truly competitive bid for long-haul disposal options, there must be additional rail access. The Regional System will also be in a position to take advantage of the expanded options for rail access. (2) Organics: The proposed private contract stipulates a minimum Fee of$10 for yard waste. We are planning to hold the minimum fee for yard waste material at$5 for the Regional System. The 2013 average cost per load of yard waste for City of Spokane Valley residents was $7.88. A $10 minimum charge would be the equivalent of imposing a 27% increase on Spokane Valley residents for an average load of yard waste. In 2013 there were 27,186 City of Spokane Valley yard waste customers. A $10 minimum fee for yard waste would have increased the total cost to City of Spokane Valley customers by$60,000 in 2013. (3) Landfill Closure Costs: Landfill closure costs have been a point of discussion in all of the meetings concerning the Regional System. The Gate Fee for the Regional System needs to include a Landfill Closure Cost component to cover the substantial ongoing costs (currently about $700,000 per year) associated with monitoring and managing the County's legacy landfills. This equates to $4.65 per ton. It is not currently included in the Gate Fee rate in the proposed private contract. Inclusion of these costs in the Gate Fee is a reasonable approach to equitable sharing of the costs by all citizens of Spokane County. In the event that the City does not include the Landfill Closure Costs in a private contract for solid waste, the County will need to determine another method for the fair and equitable distribution of these costs. For rate comparison purposes, it is reasonable to add $4.65 per ton to the Gate Fee included in the private contract. This results in a total Gate Fee of $102.80. With this adjustment, the difference between the private contract rate and the County's estimated rate ($104.59) is $1.79 per ton, which equates to six cents per month to a residential customer with curbside collection. (4) Annual Adjustments: The proposed private contract allows for annual adjustments based on 90% of the "Average CPI". However, the particular CPI to be used is not specified. There are many Consumer Price Indices available, and they can vary substantially for the same time period. For example, the CPI specified in the County's agreement with the City of Spokane is the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, West Size-Class B/C,Consumer Price Index,All Items for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Mayor and City Council May 27,2014 Page 3 (5) Customer Service Considerations: • The proposed private contract would provide one transfer station to the City's residents. There are three transfer stations available to users within the Regional System: the Valley, Colbert,and Waste-to-Energy transfer stations. • For the Regional System, the Moderate Risk Waste and Recycling facilities at the transfer stations are open when the transfer stations are open. The proposed private contract does not stipulate that these facilities are to be open whenever the transfer stations are open. • There is one scale serving the private transfer station. The entrances to the Regional System transfer stations are equipped with three scales and two scale houses. The middle scale can be used to service either inbound or outbound customers. This scale system allows for shorter lines and good customer service levels during peak periods of usage. It is common that there are 700 to 800 transactions per day at the Valley Transfer Station during the summer season, and it is important that lines and congestion be minimized. • The Valley Transfer Station is located on a 16.7 acre parcel, and was designed to accommodate large volumes of traffic. The private transfer station is located on a 3.6 acre parcel. (6) Cost of Programs: Spokane Valley has estimated expenditures of $125,000 per year for Administration, Contract Management, Public Education and Outreach, Comprehensive Plan updates,and other solid waste related services. This budget does not appear to be adequate for all of the work required. Additionally, has the City considered the cost of a Recycling Hotline, Business Waste Reduction Program, Master Composter Program, Public Event Staffing (e.g. Valley Fest), and School Programs? In closing, Spokane County realizes that the City of Spokane Valley wants flexibility with regard to future solid waste management options. Spokane County has offered the City the ability to change direction without penalty through the early termination clause language that is included in the Interlocal Agreement. The County sees the long-term value in the economies of scale and hopes to keep the solid waste system unified for everyone's benefit. In the event that the City decides to leave the Regional System, the County will need to consider cost- saving measures in the operation of the transfer stations. One approach under consideration is the closure of self-haul, MRW, and recycling services at the Valley Transfer Station. If these services are continued at the Valley Transfer Station, there will need to be a substantial surcharge on the self-haul MSW loads, and a charge for use of the MRW and recycling facilities for City of Spokane Valley residents. There is simply no fair and equitable way that we can continue to subsidize those services for non-participating jurisdictions. Mayor and City Council May 27,2014 Page 4 We hope that you will carefully consider all of these points as you select the best option for your residents. We believe that the Regional System is clearly the option of greatest value when all factors are considered. We have attached a copy of the Comparison of Options table that was a part of the May 20`h presentation to the City Council. We have added clarifications to the table, outlining the significant differences between the two options for your consideration. Very tnily yours, I / ---77 :4"-1-14t- it I 1 AL F' r CH, Chair TODD MIELKE, Vice Chair S ELLY O'�8UINN, Commissioner Enclosure cc: Honorable Mike Jackson, City Manager Eric Guth, P.E.,City Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY Factor Sunshine Recyclers Inc. Contract County Interlocal Agreement County Clarifications Services Transfer,transport& disposal of Transfer,transport& disposal trash,organics/green waste, of trash, organics/green waste, construction/demolition waste, construction/demolition waste, recyclables,moderate risk-household recyclables,moderate risk— hazardous waste, &white goods. Self- household hazardous waste, & haul. white. Self-haul. Transfer Station 2405 N University Rd, Spokane Spokane Valley Transfer County Regional System has three Locations Valley, WA 99206 Station, 3941 N Sullivan Rd, transfer stations. The Transfer Station at Spokane Valley, WA 99216 the Waste to Energy Plant is also available_ Spokane North Transfer Station, 22123 N Elk Chattaroy Rd, Colbert, WA 99005 Hours Seven days per week, Seven days per week, 7:30 AM - 5:00 P.M. 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Term 10 years 7 years Actually, term is 3 to 7 years. Renewal Two 3-year extensions,mutually Four 5-year extensions, agreeable mutually agreeable Early opt-out of No After 3 years (but alternate The ability to terminate the agreement contract option would have to be was requested by the City of Spokane identified, evaluated and Valley. The County added this provision implemented after consideration of the City's request This adds significant flexibility! Improvements Sunshine had indicated it will need to Need for site improvements How long will it take to make the make site improvements in order to not anticipated to existing improvements at the private facility? Will provide the required services transfer station in the near term a process be followed for siting of an Essential Public Facility? Page 1 of 6 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY Factor Sunshine Recyclers Inc. Contract County Interlocal Agreement County Clarifications Municipal Solid Waste Two landfill facilities proposed Waste to Energy Facility-Ash In the event of early termination of the Disposal (Roosevelt Landfill and Wenatchee to landfill (Bypass, if any,to ILA with the City of Spokane, the County Landfill). landfill) Opt-out potential at 3 would finance the balance of the transfer years but County would have stations purchase with a bond sale. to pay outstanding balance on Transfer Stations within 12 months Organics Disposal Accepted-transported for composting Accepted-transported for (Clean Green) composting Contingency Emergency operations plan. Sunshine Two transfer stations. Regional System has three transfer to provide access to back-up transfer stations. station. Under the private contract,the back-up transfer station is in Kootenai County. (No contract with Kootenai County is in place at this time.) Even during an emergency,the private contract will rely on the use of the single transfer station in conjunction with the back-up transfer station. What if the primary transfer station is inaccessible? Insurance Auto - $1,000,000; Commercial- Insurance requested by County The City of Spokane Valley has never $1,000,000/$2,000,000;Umbrella- RFP: requested that they be added as an $5,000,000; Environmental Liability - "Transfer Station Operator "additional insured". This change can $5,000,000 required to provide Worker's easily be made. Compensation; Coverage for the City of Spokane Employer's Liability Valley. ($1,000,000); Auto Liability Insurance ($1,000,000); Commercial General Liability($5,000,000 each occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate); Page 2 of 6 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY Factor Sunshine Recyclers Inc. Contract County Interlocal Agreement County Clarifications Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Liability ($1,000,000); Environmental Pollution ($3,000,000 per claim and $6,000,000 aggregate)" Coverage for Spokane County. City of Spokane Valley not named as additional insured. Surety $1,000,000 performance bond or letter No performance bond or Not correct. Transfer Stations Private of credit. liquidated damages; however, Operations Contract requires $2,000,000 Liquidated damages: $4,000/day for since County would be performance bond. major defaults, $1,000/day for minor responsible for solid waste, defaults. Performance standards management, these would not included in contract necessarily be appropriate, Reporting No audited financial Statements Annual Audit by State; If there are no audited financial Annual bank letter Comprehensive Annual statements,there will be a lack of Debt Service Ratio Financial Report and Financial transparency in the actual costs of Annual reports of tonnage,trips, Records; Statement of Income operations. customer service, inquiries, and and Expenses annually, extraordinary services provided to the SWAC. Records of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund only. Service Fees ($/ton) Trash= $92.00/ton(minimum charge Trash- To Be Determined $98.15 per ton does not include Landfill of$15.20 per visit); (TBD) - County estimates the Closure Costs of$4.65 per ton. County's City administration/education= rate will match current rate; a estimate does include these costs that need $125,000/year(approx. $2.75/ton). minimum charge of$15.23 for to be equitably distributed throughout the State Solid Waste Tax (3.6 %)= first 300 pounds. $104.59/ton County. ($200K out of$250K savings $3.40/ton. Total fee to rate payers= at transfer stations. Services cited.) $98.15/ton (service fee+admin fee+ incorporated in total fee. $125,000 per year for all required services Page 3 of 6 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY Factor Sunshine Recyclers Inc. Contract County Interlocal Agreement County Clarifications State tax). to be provided by the City is a very low Organics—TBD - County estimate for administration, education, Organics= $50.00/ton, minimum estimates the rate will match public outreach, enforcement, etc. charge of$10.00 per visit (organic's current rate of$47/ton Organics rates will result in a 27% fee does not apply to commercial food (minimum charge of$5.00 - increase in cost to the residents of waste loads) 2201 bs. Additional 47 cents Spokane Valley. This will equate to an (Fees paid to contractor not to the for each 20 lbs. above 220) additional $60,000 in charges to City) customers hauling yard waste. Escalation 90 %of CPI (first escalation on Not known. This is known. December 1, 2015) WTE component will increase Transfer station purchase component of at CPI_ Transfer station rate will remain constant. operations may increase based Disposal rate is subject to specific CPI. on CPI and labor index. (First adjustment January 1, 2016) Operations contract is subject to 2 specific Transport costs may increase CSIs. based on CPI and fuel index. The CPI for City's private contract is not specified. County rates will be set to cover costs, and will not include profit. Customer Service Resolution through Sunshine, upward Resolution through the County through management, and then to the City Control over rate Rate increases as specified in contract Not known. City would have a County rates will be set to cover costs, increases and are automatic based on 90%of representative on the SWAC and will not include profit. CPI. committee. SWAC committee will provide comments& recommendations to BoCC. Pricing dependent on No Not known. Pricing may tonnage? depend on number of cities that sign ILA. Page 4 of 6 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY Factor Sunshine Recyclers Inc. Contract County Interlocal Agreement County Clarifications Flow control City to require designated haulers to City to adopt flow control As recently requested by the City of requirements use Sunshine facility in hauling ordinance similar to County's Spokane Valley,the Regional System will contracts. City to enforce hauling ordinance. Enforcement may absorb the cost of enforcement. contract requirement. be City or County-still to be Under the private contract,the City will determined. bear this cost. RFP for long-haul After 10 years. Potentially within 3 years (but County will need to continue Transfer transport&disposal County's contract for transfer Station operations, regardless of any station operations is 10 years) change in disposal option. Ownership of Transfer Sunshine County(Purchased from the Stations City of Spokane- $9.9m) Regional Aspects Cooperative Services provision in Unclear how this is a regional A regional system provides service to two contract allows other municipalities to system. or more jurisdictions. It is not clear why "piggyback" onto City's contract. the City would not consider it a regional Won't impact City's pricing. system. Comprehensive Required to be done by City Required to be done by County Planning but City could develop its own plan. Revenue to City Right-of-way maintenance fee: Sharing of potential utility tax If a new utility tax is imposed on solid $1.00/ton for all waste handled at revenues based on waste by the City of Spokane, all transfer station in excess of 45,500 proportionate tonnage participating jurisdictions with share tons per year. (fee does not apply to delivered by cities/County. proportionately in the net revenues. If a commercial recyclables brought to utility tax is imposed by the City of Sunshine for baling,marketing and/or Spokane Valley on the City's solid waste processing) sent to the transfer stations, the County will collect the tax and remit net revenues to the City of Spokane Valley. Page 5 of 6 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY Factor Sunshine Recyclers Inc. Contract County Interlocal Agreement County Clarifications Solid Waste Education Required to be done by City. Potential Required to be done by for grant funding. County. Grant funding available. Full control and City would manage performance County would be responsible management contract with Sunshine. for control and management of responsibility for solid solid waste. waste I f f � Page 6 of 6 C'f 0 3 __1 Chris Bainbridge From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 8:45 AM To: CLYDE R SMITH; Rod Higgins; Ed Pace; Chuck Hefner; Ben Wick; Bill Bates; Arne Woodard; Dean Grafos; Planning Cc: Lori Barlow; Scott Kuhta; John Hohman; Chris Bainbridge; Sue Passmore Subject: RE: REZONING ISSUE AT BARKER AND SPRAGUE Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I see there is a note on the bottom of this email, This came back to my email as delayed but still doesn't show as mailed so am sending it again to confirm. Sorry if you receive it twice I wanted to let you know that the City was experiencing some difficulties with its email server and we had delayed service with our email for a couple of days. Our email is now working again and we have received both copies of your email. Thank you for your email comments and we appreciate your participation in the City's public process. Sincerely, Deanna Horton From: CLYDE R SMITH [mailto:czsmith39@a msn.com] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:23 PM To: Rod Higgins; Ed Pace; Chuck Hefner; Ben Wick; Bill Bates; Arne Woodard; Dean Grafos; Planning Subject: REZONING ISSUE AT BARKER AND SPRAGUE Hi again—Clyde and Zita here, t just want to let you know we're not giving up. This has so much effect on all of us in this area. I would hope that all of you would drive out and look at our area. I know some of you have driven out here so understand where we are coming from. It's a single family low density neighborhood except for two churches and a post office. The area does not abut Appleway where there are small businesses,no actual shopping exists except for two mini-marts at the service stations. At the meeting on May 13, Lori Barlow told the council that the Planning Department staff would turn over approvals for rezoning on all the amendments in question and it was up to the City Council to give the final decision. The Planning Commission had voted unanimously to reject the rezone to the Barker/Sprague property. So why is the Planning Commission even involved if their decision doesn't have some impact on the Planning Department's decision? We felt good that the City Council members understand our issues with this rezoning. We are the people who will have to live with the decision whether to rezone. Like Councilman Woodard said we are the citizens and Todd Whipple is one of the citizens. However, Viking Construction is an Idaho firm so not citizens of Washington. We are the people of this single family residential neighborhood and if there were large apartment buildings on that lot it would be a complete non-fit. The buildings would stand out like a big sore thumb. We'd hate having to look at them every clay. There is other property available in the valley. Just to mention a couple-- one at Sprague and Flora and another large lot on Sprague west of URM on the north side,but I'm sure they are zoned commercial and would be more expensive. There is another one on Broadway across from Wal-Mart and a big one at about 400 N Long. The apartment buildings being built on Broadway across from Kohl's and Lowe's look huge and out of place as directly in front of them along Broadway are single family residences and I'm sure those citizens aren't too happy about these huge buildings behind them,but that property must have already been zoned commercial so they couldn't even fight it. 1 When Viking Homes bought the subject property at Barker and Sprague they knew it was zoned R-3,single family residences but figured they'd just get it rezoned and they could maximize their profits by building apartment buildings. All our homes in the vicinity would probably lose value from at least$25,000 to$50,000 taking close to a million dollars out of the community so Viking could make a big profit. I know given the choice,I wouldn't want to buy a home right by some big apartment buildings. Thanks for your attention, Clyde and Zita Smith 16 N Harmony Road 509-924-7927 This came back to my email as delayed but still doesn't show as mailed so am sending it again to confirm. Sony if you receive it twice. 2 epia'3--/// Chris Bainbridge From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 9:05 AM To: Lori Barlow; John Hohman; Cary Driskell Cc: Chris Bainbridge; Sue Passmore Subject: FW: Whipple Engineering - Medium Density Scheme Importance: High From: ] Boomer [mailto:boomernds@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:56 AM To: Rod Higgins; Ed Pace; Chuck Hafner; Ben Wick; Bill Bates; Arne Woodard; Dean Grafos; Planning; czsmith39@msn.com Subject: Whipple Engineering - Medium Density Scheme Importance: High To Spokane Valley City Council Members, I know there have been many emails regarding the Rezoning of Barker and Sprague, but I respectfully request you read this correspondence, as it includes some pertinent information on this matter. It has come to our attention, through multiple respected real-estate professionals, that Whipple Engineering and the builder in question fully intend on building high-density apartment complexes at the corner of Barker and Sprague. With the overwhelming opposition for their current rezoning request, Whipple Engineering doesn't believe they'll receive the high-density zoning. But, they're confident they'll receive a medium-density zoning. With a medium density zoning, Viking will build the same apartment complex they intended for the high- density, but only build one unit to maintain zoning legality. In 2-4 years, when the timing is right, and the neighborhood has already dealt with the negative effects of having an apartment complex, Whipple will then re-apply for a high-density zoning. They believe the second request will be met with less opposition, possibly different City Council members, and will pass. From that point, Viking will build the remaining high-density complex. This tactic is currently being utilized by Whipple Engineering for another builder in the Spokane Valley. The general consensus by many Spokane Valley real-state agencies is the Barker and Sprague Apartment plan, and this "medium-density" tactic, is greedy, self serving and unethical. There is great financial gain in buying and building high-density structures in low density neighborhoods, as the land values are much lower. Unfortunately, the obvious losers in this situation are those who must accept loss in property value and character in their neighborhood. I believe that our Spokane Valley City Council Members hear the voice of their constituents and intend on defending the integrity and character of this neighborhood. Please be mindful of the tactics that are being utilized and deny any rezoning that allows multiple story, multiple density construction. We will see you on May 20th. God Bless, Jake Boomer 208-659-7697 2 (7/4- dff--// / Chris Bainbridge From: Lori Barlow Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 9:18 AM To: Sue Passmore; Chris Bainbridge Subject: FW: Don't build apartment complex Please forward Lori Barlow, AICP City of Spokane Valley (509)720-5335 Original Message From: mhal14687@gmail.com [mailto:mha114687@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 8:03 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Don't build apartment complex Good evening, As a residence of Greenacres, I would appreciate it if there were no apartments built on the corner of Barker and Sprague. Thank you. Mindy Simonson Sent from my iPhone 0P4- 03 -/r Chris Bainbridge From; Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:09 PM To: Lori Barlow; John Hohman Cc: Chris Bainbridge; Sue Passmore Subject: FW: Sprague & Barker rezone From: Lippincott, Marc [mailto:Marc.Lippincott@avistacorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:40 PM To: 'rod.higgins@spokanevalley.org; 'ed.pace@spokanevalley.org'; 'chafner@spokanevalley.org'; "bwick@spokanevalley.org'; 'bill.bates@spokanevalley.org'; 'awoodard@spokanevalley.org'; 'dgrafos@spokanevalley.org'; 'planning@spokanevalley.org' Subject: Sprague & Barker rezone Good Afternoon, Hello, my name is Marc Lippincott and my wife and two children live at 19004 E 2^'Ave. I just wanted to show my opposition to the proposed rezone. While I understand the importance of balancing growth with maintaining neighborhoods, this rezone proposal seems a little underhanded for Viking to try and pull off. For a company to buy a piece of land with the intent to change the zoning to maximize their profits without regard for the existing residents is flat wrong. Viking bought the land knowing what it is intended to be used for, so that's what they need to use it for. I did a short plat on some land a few years back. While the property was zoned for many houses per acre, I left all the lots over a half acre in size. The only reason I did that(even though it meant less money for me), was that I didn't want to do that to the area. I would have never felt right about it, and I don't want to be "that guy" that came in and fundamentally changed the feel of the existing neighborhood. Please listen to the impacted residents and deny this rezone. There are other areas that are better suited to this type of project. Respectfully, Marc Lippincott, P.E. Network Engineer AVIsra Utilities 1411 E. Mission PO Box 3727 Spokane,WA 99220-3727 X63 (509)495-2428 fax (509)777-9397 marc.lippincott@avistacorp.com 1 1 ‘4,11 CIPS o g-/ Chris Bainbridge From: Mark Shollenberger[shollenberger75@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:34 PM To: Cary Driskell; Mike Jackson; Chris Bainbridge Subject: Project Number CPA-02-14 To; Spokane Valley City Council. This letter is more in depth than I could possibly speak to you for three minutes at the city council meeting. I am adamantly opposed to the rezone that is currently proposed to the city council. I have provided signatures of numerous neighbors who I cannot convince to come before the city council because of their work schedules and children. Most all of them don't get off work until after 6:00 pm. Many of my neighbors are elderly and no longer drive. I have offered to drive them to the council meeting, but they have declined. I think it is a horrific conflict of interest that the Spokane County buys a piece of property and then has the city of Spokane Valley rezone it. This was not well planed as this should have been thought through before the property was purchased. My neighbors Brent and Gabby have spoken before the city council on February 27th and in their testimony they have entered that what Diana Hill has previously said to them is not the truth, hence the rezone issue, I have proven Diana Hill to have not told the truth on numerous occasions before the city council those being: she stated on May 6th that the walking area would only be used Monday thru Friday. The existing SCRAPS on Flora Road has a sign on their front gate stating new hours open seven days a week, excluding holidays. She has recanted that on the meeting on May 20th. She stated on May 6th that no dogs would be walked without being on a leash. That is not the case when anyone can go to the existing SCRAPS on Flora and see that dogs do run free in an enclosed area. She stated when asked by the city council if there were any further plans for said rezone area, "not for the next 30, no 50 years."I do not believe that will hold true if the rezone passes. The city planners have clarified to the city council at the February 27th meeting, that all of Diana HiIl's plans can be implemented without a rezone. Why then the rezone? What is she planning? I do not believe any words that come out of her mouth. Also, at the May 6th meeting, a city council member asked her directly"if there was a problem with animal control issues in the neighborhood and SCRAPS could not control it,who would?" Her answer was, "I guess the Spokane Sheriff Department." I contacted the Sheriff's department on May 8th at the public safety building in downtown Spokane and requested to speak with a representative with the Sheriff's department. The two officers behind the counter laughed so hard they nearly fell off their chairs. I told them this was not a joke as the director of SCRAPS quoted this at a city council meeting. They told me, "No, the Sheriff's department will not take over animal control responsibilities. There is no representative you can talk to. If there is an emergency animal situation, the Sheriff department will respond accordingly." The city planner Lori Barlow at the May 2lst meeting suggested that up to three houses could be put on the lot of the rezone in question if the property was later sold. That is ridiculous. Once a road is put in, the three lots would be extremely small.Not a good plan. On the May 2lst meeting one of the council members suggested that "the rezone would be a good idea and act as a buffer for myself and lessen the impact of the problems with Mutual Materials." That is ABSURD. How can adding another problem solve an already horrific problem? I have to smell diesel fumes and dust i constantly. I have to listen to their trucks, their air horns, and forklifts operating 24/7/365. I have to clean up garbage from them that flies onto my property at least once a month. On the May 21st meeting a council member asked "if a dog has ever jumped over the fence at the existing SCRAPS?"Diana Hill said"Yes. I don't know the exact number but I believe it was a very small number." She is the director of SCRAPS. She should know the exact number! A dog escaping from the existing Flora facility poses little risk to the public. However,that would not be the same if a dog escaped from the new SCRAPS. The dogs would run loose and put children, grandchildren, and my pets in eminent danger. I will protect myself, my child, my grandchild, and my pets in an immediate response. I will not wait for the Sheriff to respond! I do not believe a six foot fence is a secure enclosure. Many large breed dogs can easily escape over a six foot fence. I suggest at LEAST an eight foot or ten foot fence. If the rezone passes, I will insist upon a 20ft beauty zone that will be code. I will not tolerate anything less. I also will not tolerate any additional exterior lighting that crosses my property line. I believe the dog walking area will happen with or without the rezone. I oppose both but realize I cannot stop the dog walking area. I request that if the rezone does occur, and a beauty zone must go in, could you see to it that the beauty zone go in first. Then put in an eight foot fence. That would provide a buffer zone, a beauty zone, and a safety zone. An escaping dog would then have a second fence to go over. This buffer would provide some safety for me, my children, my pets, and the neighborhood. Any escaping dogs would then have some time for possible recapture instead of immediate death by my hand. I reiterate, I will protect my world at any cost. I will gladly provide drawings of possible beauty zone landscaping that I think would be acceptable and pleasing to the neighborhood. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I know this is blunt, but this is my world you're moving into. I don't hate dogs. I have my own dogs and wish to protect them as I would my own children. I've lived on Bradley for 58 years and had hoped to live out my remaining years here. As a member of this community, I feel I am entitled to these reasonable requests. Mark R. Shollenberger R.N. 2205 N. Bradley Road Spokane Valley, WA 99212 2 Landfill Group- Waste Management Northwest -Washington, Oregon, Idaho Page 1 of 2 May 27, 2014: From Tim Crosby, Waste Management W 4 Landfill Group Jabs Contact Us I SustainahiSy - 61 ww+se MANAGEMENT Your State Operation Green Fence Our Planet Our Story Other Services Pay My Bill Home v.'nlnor5INeztcam/landfill f chem'ca`rrasleh'm Chemical Waste Management of the Northwest Chemical Waste As part of one of the largest network of landfills in the industry,Chemical Waste Management of the NW utilizes state-of-the-art liners,leachate Columbia Ridge collection,ground water monitoring and gas control systems,along with highly effective operational procedures,to ensure a pristine environment, Waste Management "gives back" Graham Road Designed and operated under highly regulated and prescribed procedures, to Arlington community with a our landfill is engineered to protect surface and ground water through the $20,000 donation to Columbia highest environmental control.We carefully maintain our site to ensure we Hills Manor- Hilislaro meet or exceed all federal,state and local regulations. Site Type and Service ° Riverberid RCRAfF SCA Subtitle C Landfill f s4f� I Valley • Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Tualatin ecove �'�� ��,` { Waste Recovery • Stabilization t ( ; • Solidificationa �, • Spent Potliner Treatment ,!f i 1 + I I Wenatchee • Micro/Macroencapsulation • ,r,•-: }• , """ • Solar Evaporation " • y "•, rM J • Reactive Metals Treatment -.._ - ;mo • PCB Drain and Flush • PCB Storage Gilliam County's largest • PCB Solid Landfill employer recognizes the need • Bulk Storage for affordable senior housing with major gift.Learn more • Drum Storageffransfer • Rail Served Liner System • Composite HD PE liner system I - . ' • Leachate collection and removal system4-.440-:—../; M x ' •—•- Charnital Waste Menagerlteel ' Security Of The thrlfrrtegl • Single point of access,perimeter fencing Permit Information ' • US EPA Part B Permit#ORD 089 452 353 • 251 acres presently used for Waste Management activities Uri ediew• qi) Acceptable Material Z` .cm,,, •Oohloutit+ i • TSCA,RCRA,Non-RCRA,CERCLA "f„ • CAMU Eligible Materials iSTh,Danis *.xrc-,n •r."-r Unacceptable Wastes % IkCe•1r. • Explosives • Radioactive • Infectious `arxr t • Biological • Etiological s,--Pr. • Septic Sludge `-1, c•rr s. .•i • Animal Carcasses a If you have questions or need more information,please e-mail us at Chemical Waste Management Iandfitl@wmnorihwest.com. of the Northwest http://wmnorthwest.conn/landfill/chemicalwaste.htm 5/26/2014 Landfill Group - Waste Management Northwest - Washington, Oregon, Idaho Page 2 of 2 17629 Cedar Springs Lane Arlington,OR 97812 541 454-2030 FAX 541 454-3247 Operation Hours Monday thru Friday 7:00 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. Saturday&Sunday Closed (subject to change) Home ISita'ioDe ICcr.:zct4,s'Copyr!Olt IPaw cy?ollcy • http://wmnorthwest.comllandfill/chemicalwaste.htm 5/26/2014 Columbia Ridge Recycling and Landfill- Landfill Group -Waste Management Northwest.. Page 1 of 2 Jobs Contact Us 'I Suslainabily - lid { Landfill rroup WAS It MANAO[NaJaT9 1 Your State Operation Green Fence Our Planet Our Story Other Services Pay My Bill flame Chemical Waste I I l " 1 r.. < t 1 Columbia Ridge r �Iw' :S. r - ll . �rrt. r I wt i..' 3 4 I t <. � + t III 3 •1. ill"".. Graham Road l13 •• !l r H01sboro vrmnorthmastcom!landfill!c©,'urrbiaridge.htm Columbia Ridge Recycling and Landfill RI"erbend Columbia Ridge Landfill provides safe and professional disposal services for Tualatin Valley communities,businesses and industries primarily from Oregon and Waste Recovery Washington.Located in north central Oregon,the site provides convenient truck access from Portland and rail access from Seattle.In addition,the site's dry climate and unique geology support superior environmental performance, Wenatchee while the rural locale allows for a 10,000-acre buffer managed for agriculture and wildlife.Columbia Ridge is also a platform for wind power and green technologies that use waste to generate renewable energy and clean fuels. YEAR OPENED Columbia Ridge is a modern Subtitle D landfill that accepts primarily municipal 1990 solid waste(MSW or household waste)as well as industrial and special PROJECTED LIFE REMAINING wastes.It is engineered with overlapping environmental protection systems tau years that meet or exceed rigorous state and federal regulations and are subject to Waste Management highly regulated monitoring and reporting requirements.Columbia Ridge uses "gives back" FACILITY ACREAGE sophisticated monitoring protocols to verify that its environmental protection to Arlington community with a 12,000acres systems are operating properly.Monitoring data gathered by company and 520,000 donation to Columbia PERMITTED FOOTPRINT independent professionals is submitted to the Oregon Department of Hills Manor. zoo sees Environmental Quality(DEQ)and the US Environmental Protection Agency. - REMAINING PERw.IITTEocAPACITY S: 330 ni-ron tans Acceptable Material ,- -- '- - - - fonts PROCESSED ANNUALLY 2 m:Ion tons • Abrasive Blast Media • Auto Shredder Residue OWNERSHIP • Filter Cake • Municipal Solid Waste(MSW) waste hfanagementolspasaieentcea • Agricultural Wastes • Biosolids Petroleum t of Oregon t • Incinerator Ash • Contaminated Soil 4t ll & PERMIT TYPE 8. r-.'�, 1 � .k * DEO So'dWastePernvt#391 • Animal Carcasses • Construction&Demolition(C&D) • Industrial&Special Wastes • Debris Sludge NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES '' 70 • Asbestos-Containing Material • CERCLA Wastes ,Y , .i- y • Treated Wood • ? ' ' 41 (Friable&Non Friable) • Dredged Wet Sediments . 'Jr_• Medical Waste(Treated) Unacceptable Wastes Gilliam County's largest employer recognizes the need for affordable senior housing • Appliances with major gift.Learn more • Loose Sharps • Batteries • Tires • Discarded Vehicles N.ltg @ r l • Used Oil ! %�31 rq• Hazardous Wastes A).– 'T-- _, t� 11 Additional Services Provided -_— la� _– .t'tdui —z- Iii3p' etfl1l,I" • Electronic Waste Recycling ' and ltcycl'alCmiel, • • Transportation Services ` _ 1. ,. • Household Recycling Drop-off ' _,,.: � • White Goods Recycling • On-site Rail Spur For Information about Hazardous Waste Disposal Click Here. If you have questions or need more information,please e-mail us at http://wmnorthwest.com/landfill/columbiaridge.htm 5/26/2014 Columbia Ridge Recycling and Landfill-Landfill Group -Waste Management Northwest... Page 2 of 2 landfill@wrimorthwest.com. Containment Design "°rr"="`R "' Columbia Ridge has a multi-layer composite liner system that includes an engineered clay barrier and a 60-mil high-density polyethylene(HOPE) •tatdtedate lir �1 membrane to ensure that waste and wastewater(loachate)are contained and isolated from soil and groundwater. *TheDetIie aa. sa„t Groundwater Monitoring •n', 0 .��. .rte,.,. The site's geology and hydrogeology provide unique natural protections because the groundwater is approximately 200-feet deep and separated from -- the waste by low permeability soils.Groundwater is monitored at seven wells, both upgradient and downgradient of the waste disposal footprint. ,r,��_} V Landfill Gas Management Columbia Ridge manages landfill gas to generate renewable energy,reduce °� C°'' ' emissions,and prevent odor.The system collects 4,700 cubic feet per minute I of landfill gas through more than 80 wells.A,portion of the gas is sent to anon- 11,Pail Creel site energy plant,with the remaining gas managed by flares per federal requirements. Leachate Collection&Treatment Columbia Ridge Recycling and Landfill The leachate collection and treatment system consists of a highly permeable 18177 Cedar Springs Lane gravel drainage layer covering the entire landfill base,with perforated pipes at Arlington,OR 97812 low points to collect and route teachate to a double composite lined 647 464.2034 evaporation pond.It also includes a recirculation process that pumps leachate FAX 541 454-3312 from the pond back in to the landfill,to accelerate waste decomposition and enhance landfill gas production. Operation Hours Renewable Energy Monday-Friday 6:00am—4:30pm • The energy plant at Columbia Ridge uses landfill gas to generate Saturday and Sunday Closed renewable energy as part of Waste Management's Increasing focus on (Subject to change) extracting value from waste.Gas collected from the landfill powers eight engines which produce 6.4 MW of electricity.The electricity currently Communities Served powers 5,000 homes in Seattle through an agreement with the City of Seattle. Oregon,Washington Idaho,Alaska,Canada • Columbia Ridge also hosts a demonstration project to process household waste and convert it into a clean fuel,using a patented plasma gasification technology.The plant is owned and operated by InEnTec. . • In addition,Columbia Ridge is home to 67 wind turbines with the • capacity to generate 100 MW.Future plans include 25 more wind Sri r turbines capable of producing another 50 MW. - - - _ Community Partnerships and Involvement Columbia Ridge is proud to be an active supporter of community events and programs that make Gilliam County a strong and healthy place to live,work and play. .` - • Our most significant contributions focus on youth and education,including a _ _ college scholarship program for high school seniors from Arlington and Condon : •• - as well as strong support for 4-H and FFA.We also support early learning w! --- programs for preschool children in Arlington and Condon,the development of life skills through the Missoula Children's Theater performing arts program, Download the brochure local service organizations and the Arlington and Condon chambers of commerce. Home I Site Homs I Contact Us I Copyright I Privacy Policy http:/lwmnorthwest,com/landfill/columbiaridge.htm 5/26/2014 Graham Road Recycling and Disposal - Landfill Group - Waste Management Northwest -... Page 1 of 2 1ab8 Contact Us Susta i bl0y' - - ---- --..- _- It J V ^ Landfill Group WASI£14.9.1 aoa£rlf Your State Operation Green Fence Our Planet Our Story Other Services Pay My Bill Home a.a9 CitemicA Waste 1 . a y r• • r• rs".:.. Columbia Ridge r -4, 4.0•,a 3a' • C �. l �+h•ak •rt , x , ,,1 ' . '3 ,-- -j- I »6 t' ,, Graham Road =N ij Hillsboro ei or hlestcom/landi,l/grahamraad,Mfrs Graham Road Recycling and Disposal Riverberfd Serving Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho,Graham Road Recycling and Tualatin Valley Disposal provides area businesses,industries,and the public with professionalWaste Recovery disposal services that are safe and convenient.This site is engineered with �' .,r„�..a1 overlapping environmental protection systems that meet or exceed rigorous r government regulations and are subject to highly regulated monitoring and -"•-•'• X11 Wenatchee reporting requirements.This"limited purpose"facility accepts primarily '` construction and demolition debris,industrial waste,and special waste;it does ; 1if s ' r.'. 1 not accept municipal solid waste(MSW or household waste)or hazardous -' -,f• r r 1 ,t, r waste. Y 7 '-i:+° r .- ,� ' Year Opered ��ctryxy�} ;: 4991 Acceptable Material `•i :st^N ia1. a, P%acted Li`e Rerm rerrg __ iii 103 years • Asbestos-Friable/Non-Friableac_r (273c ��r Fani'dy Acreage • Industrial&Special Waste «- 254 acres • CERCLA - caara,l, Graham!bad Remitted Footprint • Tires tretL'e41'0 'S�cl:acs 94 acres •u,;(•i Gtr • Construction&Demolition(C&D)Debris rte a CAcner Remarn'ng Permitted Capacity 13,052,229 tons Unacceptable Material .- ;= /CI Tans Processed Annually Tr) (!.1) Sprague Lake. �- 122,000 tons • Batteries Oomiershlp • NORM Waste f.lanagement of 47ash'ng:on, • Explosives Waste Containing Free Liquid Inc. • Hazardous Waste Remit Type&Perma/ • Yard Waste Limited Purpose Fac Sty and SRHD • Medical Waste(Untreated) c�.,r s sad-cRAHAn1RD-oG1 Graha�flpld' 0 e ,,„'t •'- prr4Regulatory Agencies �,�;! a,. ' Spokane Regional Health Piotritt and Information about Hazardous Waste Disposal �- Washington State Department of Ecology If you have questions or need more information,please a-mall v,(rr.t r.:.' ;Jumper of Employees landfiltl wmnorthwest.com. s Containment Design Graham Road Recycling& Our system protects the environment by ensuring that all waste is contained Disposal and isolated from soil and groundwater.The site's multi-layer composite liner system is built to strict engineering standards,using a 2-foot clay bottom and 1820 S.Graham Road 60-mil high-density polyethylene(HDPE)liner.The final cap includes a soil Medical Lake,WA 99022 foundation,40-mil HDPE liner,drainage and soil layers,with a vegetative cover. 509 244-0151 Groundwater Monitoring Operation Hours Groundwater is monitored by 14 monitoring wells—four upgradient and ten 7 am—4 pm downgradient.Monitoring results are submitted to the Spokane Regional Monday—Friday Health District and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Saturday&Sunday Closed Leachate Collection&Treatment Contact All waste cells have a leachate collection and removal system,which includes Technical Support an automated pumping system that maintains sump levels below regulatory TSC Portland standards.Leachate is collected and managed in double-lined evaporation 800 685 8001 or ponds. http://wmnorthwest.com/landfill/grahamroad.htm 5/26/2014 Graham Road Recycling and Disposal - Landfill Group - Waste Management Northwest -... Page 2 of 2 Additional Services Provided 800 963 4776 TSCPortland@wm.com Recycling services for asphalt,cardboard,concrete,heavy plastics,metal and wood. Community Relations Waste Approval Process Dave Lowe 509 244 0157 or Waste Management has a defined waste screening protocol for each of its dlaeve@vrm.com non-hazardous waste facilities,which protects both our employees and the Communities Served environment.For all industrial and special waste streams,the generator or agent must complete a Generator's Non-Hazardous Waste Profile(available Airway Heights,Cheney, online at wmsolutions.com)for review by our technical staff. Medical Lake,Spokane, Spokane County,Spokane Community Partnerships and Involvement Valley, Parts of Eastern Washington and Waste Management is proud to be an active supporter of community events Idaho and programs that make our area a cleaner and healthier place to live,work and play. Graham Road Recycling and Disposal has made 25 acres available to the West Plains Little League Association for the future development of a six-field t ` baseball complex to serve young athletes and their families.This facility also ••-- supports the following events,charities,schools and service groups: Cheney High School Al Night Graduation Party ' •. Cheney High School Baseball - Heart Walk Medica!Lake Athletics .- - Rebuilding Together Second Harvest Food Bank •- West Plains Chamber of Commerce 1✓J — Download the brochure Harm I Site Horne I Contact Us I Copyright I Privacy Policy http://wmnorthwest.com/landfill/grahamroad.htm 5/26/2014 Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill and Recycling Center-Landfill Group -•Waste Ma... Page 1 of 2 WJobsLandfill Gr©tap I Coated Us I SusleinabStyr - WASTE MANP4JIMTAET Your State Operation Green Fence Our Planet Our Story Other Services Pay My Bill Home Chemical Waste Columbia Ridge t s.,4 aq ,. Graham Road - Hillsboro wreoorth,eest-corn 1landi i l Wenatchee htm Greater Wenatchee Landfill and Recycling Riverhend Center Tualatin Valley Waste Recovery Serving Central Washington,the Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill and Recycling Center provides communities and businesses with professional disposal services that are safe and convenient.The landfill is engineered with Wenatchee overlapping environmental protection systems that meet or exceed rigorous -- government regulations and are subject 10 highly regulated monitoring and reporting requirements.Systems include engineered liners and covers, leachate collection and removal,and landfill gas collection and control.This site - Year Opened accepts primarily municipal solid waste(MSW or household waste), kyr ^ 1960 construction and demolition debris,industrial waste,and special waste;it does Protected Lite Rema'n'ng not accept hazardous waste.This facility is not open to the public. 149 years Acceptable Material F t om ;Ijy i-! }i+ _•': FacttityAcreage fb., 257 acres • Asbestos--Friable/Non-Friable • Construction&Demolition Pe-milted Footprint -1 135 acres • Medical Waste(Treated) (C&D)Debris �. k Remain ng Perri-Med Capacity • Auto Shredder Residue • Tires 31,437,255 tons • Municipal Solid Waste(MSW) • Industrial and Special Waste u Yard Waste Greater Wenatchee Landfill and Tons ProcessedAnnua`ly Unacceptable Wastes Recycling Center 175.000 tons Ovmersh'p 191 Webb Road tvastelaanag meat of Washington, • Batteries • E&P Wastes East Wenatchee,WA 98802 Inc. • Hazardous Waste • NORM Perma Type&Pernit# • Biosolids Medical Waste • Explosives 509884.2802 subtrteeorAsw (Untreated) • Waste Containing Free L€quidsRegulatory Agencies Operation Hours Chetan-Dougias Hea';h Plsiricts and washngtan State Department of For Information about Hazardous Waste Disposal Click Hero. 7:00 am—4:00 pm Ecoogy Monday—Friday Number of Employees If you have questions or need more information,please e-mail us at Saturday and Sunday Closed a landfill@wmnorthwest.com. Technical Support Containment Design TSC Portland The Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill uses a geo-synthetic clay liner(GCL) 800 685 8001 or plus a high-density polyethylene(HOPE)liner,built to strict engineering 800 963 4776 standards.Our double-liner system protects the environment by ensuring that TSCPortland@wm.com waste is contained and isolated from soil and groundwater.All construction is monitored and documented by independent third-party engineering firms and Community Relations subject to review and approval by the Chelan-Douglas Health District and the Washington Department of Ecology. Dave Lowe 509 884 2802 or Groundwater Monitoring dlowe@wm.com Groundwater is monitored by eight monitoring wells—one upgradient and Communities Served seven downgradient.Monitoring results are submitted to the Chelan-Douglas Cashmere,Chelan, Health District and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Douglas County,East Landfill Gas Management Wenatchee, g Leauenwoworih,Mansfield, Rack Island,Waterville, This site has an active gas extraction system,which is managed by flare.A Wenatchee renewable energy plant is planned for the future.The energy plant will use landfill gas to generate renewable electricity as part of broader Waste http://winnorthwest.comilandfill/wenatehee.htm 5/26/2014 Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill and Recycling Center- Landfill Group - Waste Ma... Page 2 oft Management initiatives to extract value from waste. Leachate Collection&Treatment All waste cells have an automated leachate collection and removal system, which maintains sump levels in accordance with regulatory standards. Leachate is then managed in a double-lined evaporation pond. Additional Services Provided Recycling services for asphalt,concrete,heavy plastic,metal and wood. .n Waste Approval Process Waste Management has a defined waste screening protocol for each of its Subtitle D non-hazardous waste facilities,which protects both our employees and the environment.For all industrial and special waste streams,the generator or agent must complete a Generator's Non-Hazardous Waste Profile —— (available online at wmsolutions.com)for review by our technical staff. Download the brochure Community Partnerships and involvement The Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill and Recycling Center is proud to be an active supporter of local school groups and community programs including the Boy Scouts of America,Rebuilding Together,and Washington State University (WSU)Extension Outreach. Our most significant contribution to the community Is our work to improve biodiversity and share 80 acres of endangered `shrub-steppe"habitat as an outdoor learning lab for local high school students.Our work with students earned national recognition in 2010,when the WSU 4-H Eco-Stewardship Program won a top conservation award from the US Forest Service.With support from Waste Management and other community partners,the 4-H Eco-Stewardship Program has served 18,000 teens from Chelan and Douglas counties in the last 10 years. As a result of our hands-on environmental education and biodiversity work,this site has earned prestigious certification from the Wildlife Habitat Council.Biodiversity projects currently underway include: • Water for mule deer and native birds:Water is an especially important resource here because of our location in the'rain shadow'of the Cascade Mountains.By installing wildlife water guzzlers to provide a constant water supply,we are supporting native wildlife and bird populations. • Natural controls for invasive species:We use natural methods to manage unwelcome plants and wildlife.We use the lesser knapweed flower weevil to discourage knapweed.To control starling populations,we have installed nest boxes for American kestrel falcons. The Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill hosts tours for local students,businesses and organizations.To schedule a tour,please call 509 884 2802. Home I Site Home I Contact Us I Copyright I Privacy Policy http://winnorthwest.coni/landfill/wenatchee.htrn 5/26/2014 'tA '''''' • . ,o7 2 -,y S k O K 2`'7, ill g d' AI- 111- '-"&'-' COUNTY; . OFFICE of jOHNDICKroN l r' E [V F E CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER MAY 1 9 ZOlio May 14,2014 City of pokane Valley y Mr.Dean Grafos,Mayor Mr.Patrick Rushing,Mayor City of Spokane Valley City of Airway Heights 11707 E.Sprague,Suite 106 1208 S.Lundstrom • Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Airway Heights,WA 99001 Mr.Tom Truelove,Mayor Mr,Robert Wittman,Mayor City of Cheney City of Deer Park 609 Second Street E.316 Crawford Cheney,WA 99004 Deer Park,WA 99006 Mr.Steve Peterson,Mayor Mr.John Higgins,Mayor City of Liberty Lake City of Medical Lake 22710 E. Country Vista Dr. 124 S.Lefevre Liberty Lake,WA 99019 Medical Lake,WA 99022 Mr.Kevin Freeman,Mayor Mr.Steve Meyer,Mayor Town of Millwood Town of Rockford 9103 E.Frederick Ave. P.O.Box 49 Spokane,WA 99206 Rockford,WA 99030 Ms.KayDee Gilkey,Mayor Mr.Douglas Arnold,Mayor Town of Fairfield Town of Latah 218 E.Main P.O.Box 130 . Fairfield,WA 99012 Latah,WA 99018 Mr.Don Mangis,Mayor Mr.William Tensfeld,Mayor Town of Spangle Town of Waverly P.O.Box 147 - . P.O.Box 37 Spangle,WA 99031 Waverly,WA 99039 Re: Re-establishment ofSpokane County Law and Justice Council Dear Mayors: The Board of County Commissioners formally re-established the Spokane County Law and Justice Council on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, under Spokane County Resolution No. 14-0392. I have enclosed a copy of that Resolution. Under Resolution No. 14-0392, "a representative of the City Legislative Authorities, other than the City of Spokane"is a member of the Law and Justice Council. • 1116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509)477-5770 As the Mayors of the Cities within Spokane County, other than the City of Spokane, I would ask that you take the appropriate steps and advise me of a designated representative of the City Legislative Authorities to serve on the Spokane County Law and Justice Council, I would very much appreciate if possible receiving the name of your representative on or before June 2,2014. The Board of County Commissioners will be setting the time, place, and date for an initial meeting.of the Law and Justice Council in the near future. Your designated representative will be notified of the meeting time,place and date. If you have any question with regard to the enclosed Resolution,please feel free to contact me at(509)477- 5770. V 'uly}our , f9m Dickson Chief Operations Officer .Enclosure NO. 14D3q BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OP RE- ) ESTABLISHING THE SPOKANE ) COUNTY LAW AND JUSTICE ) COUNCIL ORIGINALLY ) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHED UNDER SPOKANE ) COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 92-0769 ) AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED ) THERETO ) WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Board" or "Board of County Commissioners") has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.48.020, the Board of County Commissioners passed and adopted Spokane County Resolution No. 91-0235 wherein the Board established a Confined Population Management and Review Board and clothed the Confined Population Management and ReviewBoard with certain powers and duties; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 72.09.300, the Board of County Commissioners passed and adopted Spokane County Resolution No. 92-0769 wherein-the Board re-designated the Confined Population Management and Review Board as the Spokane County Law and Justice Council(the"Council") and provided for other matters related thereto; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and City of Spokane formed the Spokane Regional Criminal Justice Commission (the "Commission") with a mission of conducting a comprehensive review of the entire Spokane regional criminal justice system by examining the entire spectrum from pre-arrest (prevention programs),.arrest, prosecuting and defense, sentencing, incarceration (including alternatives to incarceration), re-entry and recidivism. The goal of the Commission was to make specific recommendations to the City of Spokane and County which would -address the reduction of crime, the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, the effective use of detention and alternatives to detention, the effectiveness of re-entry programs, and ultimately to put in place a criminal justice system which is efficient, effective and guarantees strict adherence to the mandates of the Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington. Recommendation 5,1(2) of the Commission's "A Blueprint for Reform" is to "Re-establish the Law and Justice Coordinating Committee& Supporting Workgroups"; and WHEREAS,as provided in RCW 72.09.300 and recommended by the Spokane Regional Criminal Justice Commission, the Board of County Commissioners desires to re-establish the Law and Justice Council, clothe it with certain responsibilities, and provide for other matters Page 1 of 6 • related thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6) and RCW 72.09.300, that the Board of County Commissioners does hereby modify Spokane County Resolution No. 92-0769 as more particularly set forth in Attachment "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and is so doing does re-establish the Law and Justice Council and provide for other matters related thereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 47 /day of /,/,, , ,2014. r '�of co ous`�rp`i14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �i' �� . o �;.O, 1+ OF SP . • E COUNTY; WASHINGTON 4tk "11„sEp • 4' , AL FRENCH, chair • •ATTEST: r`'<.�� ti� TODD MIELKE, Vice-Chair 6i6(-01J1j) 1 Daniela Erickson 1f77 SIL Y O' a UINN Coninfssioner Q Clerk of the Board • • Page 2 of 6 ATTACHMENT "A" Section 1: ESTABLISHMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY LAW AND JUSTICE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE There is created a board, to be known as the Spokane County Law and Justice Council, hereinafter referred to as the "Council",-which shall supersede and repeal all prior measures regarding bodies established pursuant to RCW 72.09.300. The Council shall have the following composition (the 13 italicized members are required by RCW 72.09.300): a, Two (2) members of the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners selected by the Board of County Commissioners; b. Spokane County Sheriff c. A representative of Municipal Police Departments to be selected by the Municipal Police Departments; d. Spokane County Prosecutor; e. A representative of Municipal Prosecutors to be selected by the Municipal Prosecutors; f. City of Spokane Council President; g. A representative of the City Legislative Authorities, other than the City of Spokane, to be selected by the City Legislative Authorities; h. A representative of Spokane County Superior Court to be'selected by the,Spokane-County Superior Count; i. A representative of Spokane County Juvenile Court to be selected by the Spokane County Superior Court; j. A representative of Spokane County District Court to be selected by the Spokane County District Court; k. A representative of Municipal Courts to be selected by the Municipal Courts; 1. Spokane County Jail Administrator(Detention'Services Director); m. Spokane County Superior Court Clerk; n. Spokane County Risk Manager; o. Secretary of Corrections; p. Spokane County Public Defender; q. City of Spokane Mayor; r. Spokane County Pre-Trial Services Director; and s. Such other member(s), including at-large member(s), as the Board of County Commissioners may hereinafter determine to be beneficial. • Any member of the Council may in writing appoint a designee. All designees shall be speaking representatives on behalf of the member and a voting member on any matter coming before the Council, Page 3 of 6 • . ' There is also created a Spokane County Law and Justice Administrative Committee,herein after referred to as the "Administrative Committee", which will have up to a maximum of seven (7) members. The Administrative Committee shall be members of the Council and have the following composition: a. The two (2)members of the Spokane County Board of County Commissioner; b. City of Spokane Mayor; c. City of Spokane Council President; d. A representative of Spokane County Superior Court; and e. Up to two (2) additional members with agreement from the majority of the Administrative Committee. • The role of the Administrative Committee is to (1)receive the process,policy,administrative and budgetary recommendations of the Council members, (2) analyze, authorize and implement resource allocations in alignment with those priorities, and (3) advocate for priority reforms recommended by the Council members and the community at large. Section 2: PURPOSE The purpose of the Council is to provide a permanent on going forum and structure to coordinate and enhance the administration of justice in Spokane County. Section 3: TERMS The terms of the members of the Council and Administrative Committee who are elected shall run as long as such individual retains the prerequisite elected position, The terms of members of the Council and Administrative Committee who are designated by a selecting authority shall be renewed by the selecting authority every four(4) years. The selecting authority has the ability to designate a different representative provided that the underlying qualifications for the position are satisfied. Members may be removed by their selecting authority. Except in the case of removal, each member shall continue to serve until a successor has been appointed. Any non- elected official member shall have a four year term. Section 4: COMPENSATION Members of the Council and Administrative Committee shall serve without compensation and/or per diem of any kind or nature whatsoever, including compensation for travel to and from the usual places of business to the place of a regular or special meeting of the Council or Administrative Committee. Page 4 of 6 • Section 5: MEETINGS,RULES AND REGULATIONS The Council and Administrative Committee shall hold meetings as deemed necessary by the Chairperson or a majority of the Council or Administrative Committee, respectively. The Council and Administrative Committee may adopt rules and regulations governing the transaction of business. The Council and Administrative Committee shall keep public records of all actions as may be required by applicable laws. 'All meetings of the Council and Administrative Committee shall be open and accessible to the public as provided by law. A quorum for doing business by the Council or Administrative Committee shall be established by the presence of at least 50% of the members or their authorized designees. Section 6: OFFICERS The chairperson of the Council and Administrative Committee shall be a Spokane County Board of County Commissioner member. The vice-chairperson of the Council and Administrative Committee shall be a Spokane County Board of County Commissioner member. The. chairperson(s) shall preside over all meetings, and in the absence of such chairperson, the vice- chairperson shall preside. Section 7: MISSION STATEMENT • The mission of the Council is to coordinate the criminal justice system through the collaboration and shared responsibility of criminal justice and•elected officials by (1) reviewing significant information relative to immediate and future needs, and by (2) identifying and recommending alternatives to total incarceration which are consistent with the law and community objectives of public safety, accountability, punishment, treatment and public awareness so as to reduce recidivism in the community. Section 8: POWERS AND DUTIES The Council, in conjunction with carrying out the above mission statement, shall make recommendations to the appropriate elected officials and the Administrative Committee on the, following issues: (a) Maximizing local resources including personnel and facilities, reducing duplication of services, and sharing resources between local and state government in order to accomplish local efficiencies without diminishing effectiveness; (b) Reviewing data and reports with a goal of ensuring that departments are reducing recidivism, increasing program completion, engaged in more efficient practices, generating cost savings, expediting cases when appropriate, and contributing to a reduction in crime; (c) Jail management; • (d) Mechanisms for communication of information about offenders,including the feasibility of shared access to databases; Page 5 of 6 • • (e) Partnerships between the department and local community policing and supervision programs to facilitate supervision of offenders under the respective jurisdictions of each and timely responding to an offender's failure to comply with the terms of supervision; and (f) Developing a Local Law and Justice Plan for Spokane County. The Council shall design the elements and scope of the Plan, subject to fmal approval by the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners. The general intent of the Plan shall include seeking means to maximize local resources, reduce duplication of services, and share resources between local and state government. The Council may establish work groups and/or subcommittees to assist in carrying out its powers and duties. The Council has no authority to appropriate/expend any moneys or execute any agreements. Section 9: STAFF SUPPORT Spokane County shall provide staff support for the Council and Administrative Committee as is deemed necessary. • Page 6 of 6 • SCITY OF pokane Valley- 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ! cityhall@spokanevalley.org May 21, 2014 Commissioner Al French, Chair Spokane County Commissioners Spokane County Courthouse 1116 West Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Composition of the Law and Justice Council Dear Commissioner French: I am pleased to hear that the County has formally reestablished the Law and Justice Council by Resolution at the Commissioner's meeting on May 6, 2014. I understand from Chief Operations Officer John Dickson, in his letter to the cities dated May 14, that"the City Legislative Authorities, other than the City of Spokane" are to select amongst themselves a single representative on the Law and Justice Council as outlined in section 1(g)of the Resolution. I appreciate the opportunity to allow Spokane Valley to participate on the Council. When setting the membership of the Law and Justice Council, I ask that you consider the uniqueness of Spokane Valley compared to the other cities that would be represented by the City Legislative Authorities position. The City of Spokane Valley is more than eight times larger than any other City that would be represented by this single representative, and with a Public Safety Budget of more than $20 million dollars, the scope of Spokane Valley's services is quite different than most of the other jurisdictions. Additionally, Spokane Valley relies entirely upon Spokane County to provide all Criminal Justice services for the City and we would be greatly affected by any Law and Justice Council recommendations that would subsequently be implemented by the County. Due to this potential impact to our services and associated material financial impact, I ask that you consider appointing a dedicated City of Spokane Valley representative to the Law and Justice Council. This could be accomplished by utilizing Section 1(s)of the County's resolution. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this role for the City of Spokane Valley. Sincerely, Dean Grafos,Mayor, City of Spokane Valley cc: City Council Mike Jackson, City Manager John Dickson, Spokane County Chief Operations Officer V Sib ne lley, ApplewayBlvd Street PreservatlonProject Incorporates Add 1,2&3 aidOpening:10:00AMPDT,11707ESprague Ave,Spokane Valley,WA,St206 Project CIP No.0202 C.Aldworth Engineers Estimate Spokane Rock Products Shamrock Paving,Inc, Poe ASphaltPasing Inland Asphalt Co - Item It Description Units quantity Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price I Total Cost , Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost 100 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $3660000 $36,600.00 LS .:i $27,000.00 LS $30,000.00 L5 $31,017.39 LS $40,000.00 _ ` ' '•a 101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING LS. 1 $1000.00 $1,000.00 LS $5,100.00 LS $5,500.00 LS $5,355.00 LS $5,400.00 v�.ALQ�`_: 102 SPCC PLAN IS, 5 $500.00 $500.00 15 $700.00 LS $500.00 LS $500.00 L5 $600.00 , P\S' of WAsry7N Q,p'- 103 PROJECTTEMPORARYTRAFFIC CONTROL LS. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 LS 526,000.00 LS $25,000.00 IS $19,635.00 LS $31,000.00 Q , �K_ C� }s`. 104 SAWCUTASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF-IN 2108 $2.00 $4,216.00 $0.30 $602.40 $0.30 $632.40 $0.72 $1,517.76 $0.30 $632.40 s V { % $.' 105 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 365 $8.00 $2,920.00 $9.00 $3,285.00 $11.00 $4,015.00 $4.73 $1,726.45 $5.25 $1,916.25 f 4 K-Ar- •- i- 106 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY APPROACH $.Y, 178 $10.00 $1,780.00 $9.00 $1,602.00 $13.00 $2,314.00 $12.60 $2,242.80 $15.50 $2,403.00 ,,' - - ' -44. •107 REMOVE PAVEMENTMARKING L.F. 4450 $1.00 $4,450.00 $0.87 $3,87150 $OS0 54,00500 $0.74 $3,293.00 $0.88 $3,916.00 7....11 ' 108 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,21N.DEPTH SY. 60 $15.00 $1,200.00 $30.00 $2,40000 $6.00 $460.00 $4.97 $397.60 $7.40 $592.00 :() 275785'.Z3,...-rz 109 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,41N.DEPTH S.Y. 193 $20.00 $3,860.00 $15.00 $2,89500 $13.00 $2,509.00 $11.72 $2,261.96 $11.40 $2,200.20 c '9,9A 9F60 0/$1.5 c> ' 110 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,TAPER GRIND S.Y. 5036 $2.00 $10,076.00 $1.75 $5,61650 $2.65 $13,350.70 $3.61 $18,187.18 $1.50 $7,557.00 -ANAL' -` 111 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,3/8 IN,DEPTH S-Y. 8117 $1.50 $12,175.50 $1.20 $9,740.40 $2.20 $17,857.40 $234 $18,993.78 $1.00 $8,117.00 , , ,, 112 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,218.DEPTH SY. 339 $1.50 $508.50 $5.00 $1,695.00 $8.35 $2,830.65 $18.55 $6,281.67 $950 $116.50 113 6MACl.1/2"P670-280.17 FT.DEPTH &Y. 15578 $10.00 $555,780.00 $8.35 $113,376.30 $7.80 $105,908.40 $8.48 .$115,141.44 $9.50 $128,991.00 114 HMA CL.1/2"P67028 MISCELLANEOUS AREAS SST. 15 $50.00 $750.00 $225.00 $3,375.00 $40.00 $600.00 $205.80 $3,087.00 $50.00 $750.00 115 CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT WEDGE C:Y. 5 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $350.00 $1,750,00_ $400.00 $2,000.00 $367.53 $1,837.50 $375.00 $1,875.00 116 EPDXY-COATED TIEBAR WITH DRILL HOLE EACH 119 $50.00 $5,950.00 $8.56 $1,011.50 $10.00 $1,I90.00 $8.93 $1,062.67 $15.00 $1785.00 117 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETECOMPLIANCEADJUSTMENT CALL 1 $1.00 $1,00 $1.00 $100 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 113 JOINTADHESNE L.F. 2755 $1.00 $2,75500 $1.50 $4,132.50 $9.90 $2,479.50 $0.65 $1,515.25 $0.80 '$2,204.00' 119 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC I $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $100 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 120 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1,00 $110 $100 $1.00 121 EROSION CONTROL 1.5. 1 $500.00 $500.00 LS $50010 LS $1,000.00 LS $2,100.00 LS $3,00006 122 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CUBB AND GUTTER I.F. 254 $25.00 $8,350.00 $22.00 55,58810 $23.00 $5,842.00 $23.10 $5,867.40 $22.65 $5,753.10 123 CEMENT CONCRETESIDEWALK S.Y. 50 $40.00 $2,000.00 $26.00 $1,300.00 $27.00 $1,350.00 $27.30 $1,365.00 $3700 $1,850.00 124 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL EACH 6 $1,200.00 $7,200.00 $950.00 $5,700.00 51,00000 $6,000.00 $99750 $5,985.00 $700.00 $4,209.00 125 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAM PTYPE CUSTOM SOA EACH 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $450.00 $65010 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $472.50 $472.50 $700.00 $70010 126 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE CUSTOM PA EACH 2 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $450.00 $90010 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $472.50 $945.00 $600.00 $1,200.09 127 CEM ENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB L.F. 109 $20.00 $2,180.00 $11.50 $1,253.56 $13.00 $1,417.00 $12.08 $1,316.72 $1000 $1,798.50 128 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE RETROFIT S.F. 105 $25.00 $2,525.00 $25.00 $2,523.00 $26.00 $2,626.00 $26.25 $2,651.25 $2510 $2,525.00 129 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 12 $500.00 56000.00 $500.00 $6,000.00 $440.00 $5,280.00 $315.00 $3,780.00 $32510 $5,000.60 130 ADJUST EXISTING CATCH BASIN OR DRYWELL EACH 8 $500.00 $4,000.00 $500.00 $4,00010 $440.00 $3,520.00 $355.0 $2,520.00 $325:00 $2,600.00 131 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE EACH 8 $350.00 $2,800.00 $200.00 $1,600.00 $290.00 $2,32000 $157.50 $1,200.00 $250.00 $2,000.00 •4132 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING,TAPE IF. 8805 $0.50 $4,402,50 $0.15 91,320.75 $0.20 $1,761.00 $0.11 $96855 $0.15 $1,320.75 133 PLASTIC ONE L.F- 6617 $2.00 $13,234.00 $0.50 $3,306.50 $0.50 $3,308.50 $0.84 $5,558.28 $0.49 $3,242.33 134 PLASTIC WIDE LANE UNE LP. 3502 $6.00 $21,012.00 $2.30 $8,054.60 $2.30 $8,054.60 $2.94 $10,295.88 $230 58,054.00 155 PLASTIC BICYCLE LANE SYMBOL EACH 3 $300.00 $900.0 $100.00 $300.00 $100.00 $300.00 $630.00 $1,890.011 $90.00 $270.00 156 SEEDING,FERTILIZING AND MULCHING S-Y. 60 $30.00 $1,800.00 $15.00 V $900.00 $15.50 $930.00 $1950 $650.00 $15.50 $930.00 137 SOD INSTALLATION S.Y. 5 $30.00 $150.00 $100.00 $500.00 $55.00 $275.00 $84.00 $410.00 $31.50 $257.50 138 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EACH 1 $500.00 $500.00 $350.00 $350.00 $1,200.00 $8,200.00 $1,050.00 $1,050.00 $360.00 $56000 TotalSchedulaA.- _.' :- ?.,. .:. g___ :': :$328.577.50 .,s --. .5260,06645 .: = ,..- .$269559.15 $283,152.03 $265,990,13 S4hedB Sf4rmwaterWorR :. .. .WAe..:O .:. W,: -: ._ E ._ _ 2. _.,, O ,_-Y ;� .... 200 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM L.5. 1 $500.00 $500.00 LS $500.00 LS $450.00 LI $157500 I5 $2,000.00 [2(10/5D111HMA PATCH REMOVAL S.Y. 188 $15.00 $2,820.00 $1.60 $564.00 $14.50 $2,726.00 $2310 $4,342.80 $2310 $4,524.00 CRUSHEDSURFACING TOP COURSE,8IN.DEPTH 5.0. 152 $15.00 $3,280.00 $20.00 $3,040.00 $21.25 $3,130.00 $20.12 $3,058.24 $22.00 $3,144.00 203 HMA CL,1/2°PG 70-280.50 FT,DEPTH,PATCH 5.0. 188 $30.00 $5,640.00 $50.50 $9,494.00 $52.00 $9,776.00 $71.46 $13,434.48 $60.00 $11,280.00 204 CONDUIT PIPE 2 IN.DIA, S.F. 340 $15.00 $5,000.00 Max $5100.00 $10.00 $3,400.00 $9.45 $3,213.00 $15:00 $5,100.00 205 GALV.STEEL CASINO PIPE,6 IN.DIA. L.F. 340 560.00 520,400.00 $41.00 513,94010 $60.00 $20,400.00 $28.35 $9639.00 $28.00 $9,520.00 Total Schedule8 ,„ .: ..:_3 .-:,., ;$36,740,03 - ;..::$32,63800 _ -$39982;00 .,.$3500250 - $55560.00 TOTAL(All s`cheddles) - , _ 5163,717501 5294,624451_ O.. ,-.I.-:,$309,841151 :•','::::4:,-i*:W,,'',:•.''.. $318,394551 .. ., $320,658.13 All,M,m 1,00 drP.5 pas aChecleredbN Rens.•a+dw,es/ddardumr,S104e,ilMkates Odde.Wam3 shanaa ad Proposal CheoNlct X X x x Proposal Fore X % X X ConSactars A3,nlnlstr,Na lnfarmaoon X X X X OldderOuahiEw0on Statement X x x x Bid0eposx Fan X . X x x 1113 0rposit Surd),form X x xx r6R Representa0ans and Cecatlons X X x x =5')-2-Zd/`/