2014, 08-19 Study Session MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley,Washington
August 19,2014 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager
Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Bill Bates, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Chuck Hafner,Councilmember Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director
Ed Pace, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Ben Wick, Councilmember Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Mike Basinger, Senior Planner
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Sean Messner,Traffic Engineer
Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll;all Councilmembers were present.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Bid Award, SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit—Eric Guth
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit
Project to Halme Construction, Inc., in the amount of$704,727.75, and authorize the City Manager to
finalize and execute the construction contract. Speaking for Mr. Guth, Senior Engineer Worley explained
that the bid came in below the engineer's estimate, and staff recommends awarding the bid to Halme
Construction. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:
In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
2. Previously Adopted,TIB Call for Projects,Motion to Amend—Steve Worley, Sean Messner
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded that in accordance with notice given at the last
meeting, to amend the motion adopted at the July 22, 2014 Council meeting to add the language
"University, 16th to Dishman Mica, to remain four lanes." Mr. Worley went over the background of this
issue, including the action that was taken at the July 22 Council meeting, and said the previous proposal
was to resurface University Road and re-stripe to three lanes plus buffered bike lanes along University,
which he explained, would allow people safe access to the Appleway Trail, the park library site, and
elsewhere. Mr. Worley explained staff's estimated application scores for University Road with both the
three lane and four-lane configuration; and said the safety score drops considerably for the four lane as
compared with the three lane; and explained that the numbers circled on the chart are the projects that
were selected last year; he said if this remains four lanes, we would likely not be eligible for this grant
under the safety category. Mr. Worley explained the difference between the three-lane with buffered bike
lanes, and the four lane with bike lanes without a buffer and with the two middle lanes ten-feet wide,
which he said would be narrow; that the outside lane would be twelve feet since the buses tend to be
wider and use that curb lane, which he said would leave a five-foot bike lane with no buffer; or another
idea is to make all travel lanes eleven feet each.There was additional discussion about vehicle width, lane
width, and narrow lanes, which Mr. Messner said are not preferred on arterials. Mr. Messner stated that
Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 1 of 6
Approved by Council:09-09-2014
these changes are being examined from a safety perspective, that the data they examined for Broadway
going from a four to a three lane, showed a 20% reduction in crashes, and said he anticipates similar
results in this case; he said the buffered bike lane also gives more distance from the bikers and the traffic.
Mr. Messner noted this section has the lowest amount of traffic volume of any they have looked at for this
type of configuration; and said there is plenty of capacity with either three or four lanes.
Mr. Messner talked about the three lane type of crashes, and said while there would be an overall
reduction of crashes, the type of crashes would change from angle crashes which are more severe, to the
less severe rear-end crashes. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would rather have a head-on collision than
a rear-end collision;that this is a bus route so we would want to accommodate the bus, adding that the bus
(STA bus)cannot be passed legally on that third lane;he also mentioned snow and ice problems as people
try to get up the hill in winter weather. Mr. Messner said from a maintenance perspective, they have not
had any reports or incidents of sliding on that hill. Councilmember Wick asked about the area north of the
intersection and if we have had any complaints or problems, and Mr. Messner said he has not examined
that area, but has not heard anything in the last eight months; he said the majority of our lanes are twelve
feet wide and that they try not to go less than eleven feet since the bus has wide mirrors and it would be
uncomfortable to have only two feet between the mirrors and the vehicle in the next lane,especially when
traffic travels about 35 to 40 mph. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered.
Councilmember Hafner said in comparing the three lanes to four lanes,that ten feet wide is not very good
while thirteen feet gives ample room for bikes; he said sidewalks are important; and said he is not in favor
of a change since the pros for a three-lane outweigh the pros for a four lane; that this was determined a
few weeks ago and this is a safety factor; which he said is more important, and therefore seems there is no
rationale for going back to the four lanes. Councilmember Pace said we have to balance this with what
people want in that area and that it has been four lanes for a long time;that he has a gut feeling and thinks
people want it to stay as it is not; that he didn't talk to anyone, but this is just based on his own
experience. Councilmember Wick stated that nearly one in three crashes would not have to happen if the
road is switched to a three lane; and said it appears it would score better on the grant application.
Councilmember Bates stated he agreed with Councilmember Wick and thinks the decision made July 22
was the correct one as safety must be the highest priority and that there is some proven data indicating
three lanes are safer. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he asked about having four lanes with bike lanes three
weeks ago and was told staff didn't think it was feasible; which he said is what prompted him to start his
questioning of the decision; and said he should have visited the site prior to the July 22 meeting; he said
he is not being critical and doesn't have an engineering degree, but that doesn't mean common sense can't
come into play; that he doesn't see that it is "all that broke" and doesn't see the problem, and feels a
change to three lanes will not see that much accident reduction. Councilmember Higgins said that we
seem to be dealing with some statistical"what-ifs"and that he doesn't see convincing evidence that it will
be significantly different. Mayor Grafos added that he feels it won't gain a lot to change it to three lanes.
Councilmember Hafner called for the question, which resulted in a unanimous vote in favor of stopping
discussion and voting on the motion.
Vote by Acclamation on the motion to amend the motion adopted at the July 22, 2014 Council meeting to
add the language "University, 16117 to Dishman Mica, to remain four lanes" resulted in Mayor Grafos,
Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Higgins and Pace voting for the motion; with
Councilmembers Hafner, Wick and Bates voting against the motion. The motion passed.
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
3. Shoreline Development Regulations—Lori Barlow
Community Development Director Hohman reported that staff worked diligently to "scrub" this
document's verbiage;that his staff as well as legal counsel spent many hours going over the development
regulations word by word, and said he feels that effort has resulted with a clear document that staff can
Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council:09-09-2014
implement and developers can understand; he said they tried to accommodate the many comments and
suggestions given over the years, and he feels this is ready for Council's review. Mr. Hohman said that
special Counsel Tadas Kisielius is here tonight;that this program has minimal impact on the development
community as there are not a lot of vacant parcels; he said everyone worked hard to include the most
unique portion, which is our variable buffers, and said that has not been done elsewhere in the state yet;
that they worked with the Department of Ecology (DOE) to prove that this could be implemented in the
field; that staff spent the last four months going over this in detail with the Planning Commission; and he
encouraged Council to ask questions throughout the report.
Senior Planner Barlow said that tonight's report is to give Council an overview of the document, and
demonstrate how the document is likely to be used by the public; said she will highlight some of the
issues discussed by the Planning Commission, and as required by Washington State law, these final draft
regulations will be presented to Council for adoption by resolution; and eventually the entire document
will come back to Council for adoption consideration by Ordinance. Ms. Barlow said that this is the final
piece to be developed, that once complete it will be taken through the public review process, and then it
goes to the Department of Ecology for their final review and process. Ms. Barlow also noted that this
draft document is the Planning Commission's recommended final draft, and is in track-change format so
Council see easily see the Commission's recommended changes. Ms. Barlow explained that the
regulations are the"how to"proponent of the Shoreline Master Plan and identify what is allowed without
a permit, and what activities require a permit, all of which is in compliance with the DOE rules; she said
this also identifies the process to make sure it meets the intent of all regulations, including regulations
found in our City Code.
Mr. Kisielius reviewed some of the specific regulations and how the Planning Commission resolved some
of their concerns; he mentioned that the"no net loss"standard is the cornerstone and the regulations must
assure this, which he said could be accomplished through various means, including mitigation if needed.
Mr. Kisielius noted that they went out and mapped the riparian area; and he went over several sections
and draft changes including 21.50.210, 150(4) and 21.50.250; and noted that section "e" is a large, added
section which sets the standards for paths within the buffer, and sets out more clearly the parameters when
a path can be built, and that part of that section addresses docks and where they can be allowed; he said
the Planning Commission options considered included keeping the status quo, or drawing the division
between the"lake-like"conditions and the "free flowing" part of the river; that they identified the middle
ground as the transition area, and an applicant will be required to demonstrate whether they fall in that
parameter of free flowing or lake-like; said the problem in that area is public health and safety as we do
not want docks built in an area where they would be at risk of falling down or have an ecological impact
on the shoreline; he said the Planning Commission chose more robust reporting requirements for those
who want to build docks in those areas, and he referenced subsection 8 on page 39. Mr. Kisielius noted
that west of Millwood is the lake-like area with not much habitat, and the free-flowing area is east of
Millwood. Ms. Barlow said they don't know the number of properties in that area, but there are only a
handful of properties still vacated, adding that Coyote Rock contains about 31 lots. Mr. Hohman added
that of those 31 lots, there are three existing homes on those water front lots, and to the east is part of a
proposed subdivision, and Ms. Barlow said that the property east doesn't have waterfront. Mr. Hohman
explained that these regulations don't materially change the environment we have now; that the topic of
docks has been very controversial, and that it won't be any more difficult to get a dock constructed after
these regulations are approved, then it would be today. Ms. Barlow mentioned that there is also no push
in that area, and there are no property owners seeking dock approval; she said they reached out to the
community but have received no responses. Mayor Grafos said he recognizes that a lot of work has been
done on this, and he feels Mr. Kisielius has provided a good service to the citizens, and that with a simple
survey, a developer could immediately see what can or can't be done. Mr. Kisielius reminded everyone
that this is mandated by the state, of what triggers an exemption, what is and is not exempt, but that
Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council:09-09-2014
overall the goal is to assure there is no net loss; and that they sought opportunities to streamline the
process while still accomplishing that objective.
Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 7:39 p.m., and he reconvened the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
4. Historic Preservation—Mike Basinger
After Senior Planner Basinger went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the steps to become a
Certified Local Government (CLG), which is a means to maintain historic preservation that aids in
tourism and economic development, and which generally includes formation of a commission, Council
indicated their preference for staff to pursue this further; and agreed with Mr. Basinger's idea of inviting
the SHPO(State Historic Preservation Officer)to speak to Council in greater detail on forming a CLG.
5. Commercial Vehicles(trucks,etc.)Parking in Residential Areas—Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell explained that tonight's agenda item is in response to Council's desire to have a
more detailed discussion about commercial vehicles parking in residential neighborhoods, adding that
several discussion points are covered in his August 19, 2014 Request for Council Action form; or that
Council could determine not to regulate this issue. Councilmember Hafner said he doesn't want anything
too complex yet does want it accommodating; said Council has the right to regulate public streets and
large vehicles can obstruct and restrict travel, especially emergency vehicle travel; said that it appears
some people are using public roads as private land for their private property; that some think of this as a
convenience and that for some, it is just easier to park on the street; he said if people purchase a large
vehicle, like a boat,they need to make arrangements for parking,and said that includes people who live in
apartments; he said we should be consistent in addressing the problem;that previously Council held about
eight meetings on this topic, but the issue still exists; and said perhaps parking could be prohibited for
vehicles over 10,000 pounds or prohibited from parking in residential areas; he said if recreational
vehicles (RVs) are located in garages, carports, or other areas where they do not obscure the sight of
vision of neighbors, that would not be an issue; he said it appears that pick-up trucks are getting bigger
and longer, and perhaps there should be a regulation to limit where they can park, whether in a garage or
driveway; adding that some garages are not big enough to handle such vehicles; and lastly, he said if we
enact regulations, we need to give the truckers the opportunity to make accommodations prior to the
effectiveness of any ordinance, perhaps by giving them anywhere from three to twelve months' notice
prior to the ordinance becoming effective; and said he does not want 18-wheelers parking in residential
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Pace said he agreed with Councilmember Hafner; that it is important to honor property
rights and not restrict what people do inside their own property; and that the cost of parking a commercial
vehicle is part of the cost of doing business, and said that same idea can be applied to those owning an RV
or boat; and that the focus should be on safety and eliminating the obstruction of view. Councilmember
Higgins asked if we have had any accidents concerning our existing ordinance, and Mr. Driskell
explained that the existing focus is on idling vehicles and about existing signs for local delivery only.
Councilmember Higgins asked if there have been any accidents or citations under the existing ordinance
and Mr. Driskell said he is not aware of any accidents, but is aware of a situation about a month ago
where the Police Department was going to cite someone for the idling violation, but due to a technical
issue, did not; and said he is also not aware of the number of truckers this would adversely affect or how
many people in businesses would be affected.
Councilmember Bates said he feels the ordinance needs some changes; and he would like to discuss this
issue as two separate issues, and separate the problem of 18-wheelers from the other categories like RV's
or boats; and said the ultimate goal is to give the streets back to the neighborhood;that he realizes placing
an RV in storage involves cost, but that is something for the individual to consider when making such a
purchase. Councilmember Wick said the first time this was addressed, the focus was on noise and
Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council:09-09-2014
pollution; now perhaps issues to consider are length of vehicle, multiple vehicles, and crowding streets;
he said he does not want to tell people what they can or can't park on their own property, but now people
can park cars on streets; he said that often small business owners are truck owners and this would affect
their livelihood and he asked what other options they would have; adding that he could not support the
idea of going after trucks on a city-wide basis.
Deputy Mayor Woodard said that neighborhood problems do not make for good public policy, nor does
making public policy due to the vocalness of some neighborhoods or neighbors, and said such regulations
could have unintended consequences; said there are two different issues, one is the eighteen wheelers and
the other all the larger vehicles such as motor homes, RVs, or boats; and he questioned who would notify
all the dealers of motor homes, boats, etc., if such regulations were in place; he asked how big is the
problem; he said public property is also the citizen's property and we allow curbside parking of cars; said
that 18-wheelers might be a different issue and agreed with the idea of having more time prior to any
ordinance becoming effective; said there are safety issues as well to consider, and agreed with the idea of
separating 18-wheelers from the RVs and other vehicles. Mayor Grafos stated that he feels more than
80% of the vehicles in question are less than 22' long, and that the larger vehicles represent a small
percentage; he asked if we talked with the towing association about their wrecker trucks; said he also does
not want to see adverse impacts to neighbors, and proposed if vehicles are longer than 22' long,they must
be parked on the individual's private lot and not be permitted to park on the public right-of-way; and said
he realizes trucks are running a business but it should not impact property owners.
Attorney Driskell said it appears there are three member of council who don't want regulations;three who
favor some consideration of an ordinance dealing with vehicles longer than 22'; and one member of
council who wants regulations for semi-trucks but not RVs. Councilmember Bates clarified that his stance
is, this wouldn't mean it would be permissible to park RVs on streets, but rather than he wants the issue
separate from 18-wheelers. Mr. Driskell said he will work on draft language, keep away from regulating
private property, consider some reasonable implementation time, and that such draft would be a"work in
progress"and that there will be further future discussions.
At 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the
meeting for forty-five minutes.
6. Goals and Priorities for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee(LTAC)—Mark Calhoun, Erik Lamb
Finance Director Calhoun gave a summary of what was discussed last week as noted on his August 19,
2014 Request for Council Action form, and said that tonight's focus is the goals and priorities,which will
ultimately be given to the LTAC when the meet later this fall. Mr. Calhoun said he is looking for
consensus as to what to include in the application that goes out in two weeks. Councilmember Wick, as
the LTAC Committee chair, briefly explained the rationale for how they came up with the goals and that
he was trying to represent what Council was looking for: that#1 was a decision about the $30,000, which
he said is not really a goal but is a decision about the funds; #2 was geared to trying to spread the funds
through multiple aspects of tourism and not just use the funds for marketing;#3 is to include other aspects
of tourism and not just focus on overnight stays, but to include restaurants, shopping, and to take into
consideration if tourists travel more than fifty miles or come from out of town; #4 was to use funds to
develop tourism destination facilities within our City; and #5 goal is that Council would like funding
recipients to be self-sustaining in the future. There was brief discussion about putting a time limit on
entities becoming self-sustaining with no eventual change in the goal, but there was Council consensus to
add a sixth goal of dedicating 5% of the funds toward funding new projects, activities and/or events. Mr.
Calhoun said he will revise the list and bring this information back to Council next week for further
discussion.
Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council:09-09-2014
7. Draft Council Goals—Mike Jackson
In order to be clear on Council's goals in adopting the upcoming budget, City Manager Jackson said
tonight is an opportunity to discuss goals for any changes or refinements; regarding the last goal of the
Comprehensive Plan review, he said that staff is developing a scope of work, but that it could not be
completed by 2015, that the scope of work would take the process through 2016, and while it is not
legally due until 2017, it is likely not able to be done in a year based on the number of public hearings and
time spent by the Planning Commission in review, which all occurs prior to Council's review; and said he
will look at the aspects of this review to see what kind of timeline staff needs. After discussion of the
second goal of pursuing the bridging the valley concept, Mr. Jackson said he would add the words
"corridor consolidation"to that goal.
8. Tourism Promotion Agency(TPA)—Mark Calhoun, Erik Lamb
Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that this item is to provide information about the TPA as a separate
funding mechanism, as sometimes it gets confused with the LTAC, and he went over the four main
purposes of the TPA as shown on page 2 of his Request for Council Action form.
9. Advance Agenda-Mayor Grafos There were no suggested changes to the advance agenda.
10. Council Comments—Mayor Grafos Council had no additional comments.
11. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson
Concerning the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center, Mr. Jackson said all parties are
moving forward toward a new interlocal agreement or memorandum of understanding, where WSDOT
(Washington State Department of Transportation) would operate the Management Center; and said staff
should have more information in several weeks.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
.411011.1/
ATTEST: an Gr. 'os, Mayor ;dr
ditif ?.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council:09-09-2014
AGENDA ITEM#1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval: lz
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit—Bid Award
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and
Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80; Aquifer Protection Area Fund: RCW 36.36.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance 13-016, Adoption of 2014 Budget on October 22,
2013. An Open House for the project was held on April 23, 2014, of which several council members
attended. Info RCA was presented to Council on August 12, 2014.
BACKGROUND: The SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit is a Department of Ecology stormwater grant
funded project. It will eliminate several direct-injection drywells in the trucktown area by installing a
regional pipe collection system which will direct stormwater to a new grassy swale. Portions of Valleyway
Ave. will also be improved with curbing, widening, and roadside swale construction.
The project design was completed in June, and on July 17, Ecology approved the design for bidding. The
project was advertised for public bidding in local publications on August 1 and 8. Bids are scheduled to be
opened on August 19, 2014 at 10:00 am.
Staff will tabulate the bid results and determine the lowest responsive bidder.
Construction is anticipated to start in September 2014, and be completed by the end of October 2014.
OPTIONS: 1) Award the SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit Project to the lowest responsive and responsible
bidder, 2) not award the contract, or 3) take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I Move to award the SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit Project to
Halme Construction,lnc., in the amount of$704,727.75 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Up to $750,000 from Ecology stormwater grant funding, with an
additional City match of up to $250,000 from Fund 403 (Aquifer Protection Area).
STAFF CONTACTS: Eric Guth — Public Works Director; Ryan Brodwater—Assistant Stormwater
Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulations will be provided at the City Council meeting.
AGENDA ITEM#1
BID TABULATION
SE YARDLEY STORMWATER Sitiokandill'ell 11141%1111144,
CIP PROJECT#0192,BID#14-041
BID OPENING-10:00 a.m.,August 19,2014
T.LaRiviere Equip.& MDM Construction,Inc.
Engineer's Estimate Haime Construction,Inc. L&L Cargile,Inc. Excay.
ITEM ITEM Unit Total Qty. Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost
BASE SCHEDULE A,Pipe System
101 MOBILIZATION LS1 $ 69,648.70 $ 69,648.70 $ 53,000.00_$ 53,000.00 $ 65,312.00 $ 65,312.00 _$ 16,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 95,000.00 $ 95,000.00
102 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL _ LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 20,955.00 $ 20,955.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
103 SPCC PLAN LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500-00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00
104 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00
105 INLE PROTECTION EA 10 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 55.00 $ 550.00 $ 80.00 _$ 800.00 $ 225.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 85.00 $ 850.00
106 SILT FENCE LF 40 $ 4.00 $ 160.00 $ 5.00 $ 200.00 $ 3.00 $ 120.00 $ 3.50 $ 140.00 $ 3.50 $ 140.00
107 SWALE EXCAVATION INCL.HAUL CY 3,500 $ 20.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 13.00 $ 45,500.00 $ 14.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 9.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 14.00 $ 49,000.00
108 GRAVITY BLOCK WALL SF 4,700 $ 30.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 27.00 $ 126,900.00 $ 27.00 $ 126,900.00 $ 29.00 $ 136,300.00 $ 31.50 $ 148,050.00
109 TOPSOIL TYPE C SY 750 $ 10.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 23.00 $ 17,250.00 $ 7.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 15.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 7.90 $ 5,925.00
110 SEEDING,FERTILIZING,AND MULCHING SY 750 $ 5.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 1.10 $ 825.00 $ 1.00 $ 750.00 $ 5.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 2.20 $ 1,650.00
111 SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF-IN 5,000 $ 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 0.25 $ 1,250.00 $ 0.40 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.45 $ 2,250.00 $ 0.30 $ 1,500.00
112 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 1,300 $ 8.0D $ 10,400.00 $ 8.00 $ 10,400.00 $ 4.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 12.00 $ 15,600.00 $ 2.30 $ 2,990.00
113 ABANDON DRYWELL EA 18 $ 500.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 225.00 $ 4,050.00 $ 325.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 550.00 $ 9,900.00 $ 464.00 $ 8,352.00
114 REMOVE EXISTING CATCHBASIN EA 2 $ 300.00 $ 600.00 $ 240.00 $ 480.00 $ 225.00 $ 450.00 $ 450.00 $ 900.00 $ 220.00 $ 440.00
115 REMOVE FENCE LF 500 $ 5.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3.40 $ 1,700.00 $ 2.50 $ 1,250.00 $ 9.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2.90 $ 1,450.00
116 REMOVE GATE EA 2 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 210.00 $ 420.00 $ 75.00 $ 150.00 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 $ 315.00 $ 630.00
117 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM LS 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
118 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE B WITH TYPE 4 GRATE EA 3 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 6,900.00 $ 4,125.00 $ 12,375.00
119 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2,48 IN.DIAM.WSDOT EA 10 $ 3,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 27,500.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 2,075.00 $ 20,750.00
120 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EA 40 $ 2,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 46,000.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 4.4,800.00
121 ADS N-12 HP PIPE 24 IN.DIA. LF 863 $ 50.00 $ 43,150.00 $ 60.00 $ 51,780.00 $ 80.00 $ 69,040.00 $ 80.00 $ 69,040.00 $ 88.50 $ 76,375.50
122 ADS N-12 HP PIPE 18 IN.DIA. LF 287 $ 30.00 $ 8,610.00 $ 43.00 $ 12,341.00 $ 56.00 $ 16,072.00 $ 56.00 $ 16,072.00 $ 71.00 $ 20,377.00
123 ADS N-12 PIPE 24 IN.DIAM.END GRATE EA 1 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 1,135.00 $ 1,135.00
124 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE,10 IN.DIAM. LF 3,150 $ 40.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 28.00 $ 88,200.00 $ 35.00 $ 110,250.00 $ 38.00 $ 119,700.00 $ 42.50 $ 133,875.00
125 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE,12 IN.DIAM. LF 685 $ 45.00 $ 30,825.00 $ 29.00 $ 19,865.00 $ 27.00 $ 18,495.00 $ 45.00 $ 30,825.00 $ 27.50 $ 18,837.50
126 DUCTILE IRON STORM SEWER PIPE,10 IN.DIAM. LF 100 $ 60.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 48.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 40.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 55.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 41.00 $ 4,100.00
127 STORM DRAIN ENCASEMENT LF 40 $ 50.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 49.00 $ 1,960.00 $ 60.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 50.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 38.00 $ 1,520.00
128 QUARRY SPALLS SY 40 $ 50.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 76.00 $ 3,040.00 $ 15.00 $ 600.00 $ 125.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 320.00 $ 12,800.00
129 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,6 IN.DEPTH SY 1,600 $ 12.00 $ 19,200.00 $ 10.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 12.00 $ 19,200.00 $ 8.75 $ 14,000.00 $ 16.00 $ 25,600.00
130 HMA CL.1/2-INCH,PG 64-28,0.17 FT.DEPTH SY 700 $ 25.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 25.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 23.80 $ 16,660.00 $ 27.00 $ 18,900.00 $ 25.00 $ 17,500.00
131 HMA CL.1/2-INCH,PG 64-28,0.25 FT.DEPTH SY 300 $ 30.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 34.00 $ 10,200.00 $ 31.00 $ 9,300.00 _$ 34.00 $ 10,200.00 $ 33.50 $ 10,050.00
132 HMA CL.1/2-INCH,PG 64-28,0.33 FT.DEPTH SY 300 $ 40.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 58.00 $ 17,400.00 $ 50.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 57.50 $ 17,250.00
133 HMA INLET APRON EA 34 $ 400.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 390.00 $ 13,260.00 $ 165.00 $ 5,610.00 $ 200.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 275.00 $ 9,350.00
134 CHAIN LINK FENCE TYPE 3 LF 200 $ 20.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 19.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 20.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 21.50 $ 4,300.00
135 CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL(FS-2)WITH 3 STRAND BARB WIF LF 200 $ 30.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 26.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 35.00_$ 7,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 24.50 $ 4,900.00
136 DOUBLE 14 FT.CHAIN LINK GATE EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00
137 END,GATE,CORNER,AND PULL POST FOR CHAIN LINK FENC EA 8 $ 100.00 $ 800.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 260.00 $ 2,080.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 275.00 $ 2,200.00
138 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00
139 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00
Schedule A Total $ 766,845.70 $ 619,924.00 $ 685,346.00 $ 680,779.00 $ 781,124.00
1 of 2
BID TABULATION
SE YARDLEY STORMWATER RETROFITS Swim!.
CIP PROJECT#0192, BID#14-041 .�
BID OPENING-10:00 a.m.,August 19,2014
ADDITIVE SCHEDULE B,Valleyway Storm Improvements
201 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 9,767.20 $ 9,767.20_$ 4,200.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 11,000.00_$ 11,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
202 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00
203 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
204 INLET PROTECTION EA 7 $ 100.00 $ 700.00 $ 57.00 $ 399.00 $ 80.00 $ 560.00 $ 225.00 $ 1,575.00 $ 85.00 $ 595.00
205 SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF-IN 1,600 $ 1.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 0.25 $ 400.00 $ 0.30 $ 480.00 $ 0.45 $ 720.00 $ 0.30 $ 480.00
206 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 400 $ 8.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 8.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 3.80 $ 1,520.00 $ 12.00_$ 4,800.00 $ 2.30 $ 920.00
207 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00
208 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL,TYPE A WITH TYPE 4 GRATE EA 2 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,400.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,975.00 $ 5,950.00
209 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EA 4 $ 2,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 1,075.00 $ 4,300.00
210 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE,10 IN.DIAM. LF 80 $ 40.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 29.00 $ 2,320.00 $ 30.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 38.00 $ 3,040.00 $ 60.00 $ 4,800.00
211 CONNECTION TO EXISTING DRYWELL EA 3 $ 300.00 $ 900.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 200.00 $ 600.00 $ 485.00 $ 1,455.00
212 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR EA 4 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 450.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 240.00 $ 960.00 $ 225.00 $ 900.00 $ 250.00 $ 1,000.00
213 REPLACE FRAME&GRATE INCL.ADJUST. EA 3 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,200.00_$ 3,600.00 $ 750.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 700.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 820.00 $ 2,460.00
214 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 750 $ 20.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 13.50 $ 10,125.00 $ 24.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 16.00 $ 12,000.00
215 CURB INLET TYPE 1 EA _ 2 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 60.00 $ 120.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 65.00 $ 130.00
216 CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH SY 110 $ 50.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 59.00 $ 6,490.00 $ 55.00 $ 6,050.00 $ 40.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 87.50 $ 9,625.00
217 SWALE EXCAV.INCL.HAUL SY 50 $ 30.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 21.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 14.00 $ 700.00 $ 9.00 $ 450.00 $ 8.60 $ 430.00
218 TOPSOIL TYPE C SY 67 $ 5.00 $ 335.00 $ 23.00 $ 1,541.00 $ 7.00 $ 469.00 $ 20.00 $ 1,340.00 $ 9.30 $ 623.10
219 SEEDING,FERTILIZING,AND MULCHING SY 67 $ 5.00 $ 335.00 $ 2.25 $ 150.75 $ 1.00_$ 67.00 $ 5.00 $ 335.00 $ 2.20 $ 147.40
220 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,6 IN.DEPTH SY 1,000 $ 12.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 10.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 8.75 $ 8,750.00 $ 10.00 $ 10,000.00
221 HMA CL.112-INCH,PG 64-28,0.17 FT.DEPTH SY 1,000 $ 25.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 20,000.00
222 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00_$ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00
223 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00
Schedule B Total $ 107,439.20 $ 84,803.75 $ 71,703.00 $ 112,812.00 $ 103,017.50
SCHEDULE A+SCHEDULE B $874,284.90 $704,727.75 $757,049.00 $793,591.00 $884,141.50
Addition error at Total,diff.of$1,634.00 Bid Opening Checklist • Halme Construction,Inc. L&L Cargile,Inc. T.LaRiviere Equip.and Excay. MDM Construction,Inc.
Bid Proposal Checklist YES YES YES YES
Proposal Form&Receipt of Addenda YES YES YES YES
Contractor's Administrative Information YES YES YES YES
Bidder Qualification Statement YES YES YES YES
Bidder Surety Bond Form YES YES YES YES
Representations and Certifications YES YES YES YES
Non-Collusion Declaration YES YES YES YES
•
2 oft