2012, 08-21 Study Session Minutes MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley,Washington
August 21,2012 6:00 p.m.
Attendance;
Councilmembers Staff
Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager
Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director
Chuck Haffner, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir
Ben Wick, Councilmember Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Arne Woodard, Councilmember Christina Janssen,Assistant Planner
Karen Kendall,Assistant Planner
Ryan Broadwater, Stormwater Technician
Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief
Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Inga Note,Traffic Engineer
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all
Councilmembers were present.
ACTION ITEM:
1. Sprague Swale Upgrade Project Bid Award—Steve Worley
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to mvard the Sprague Avenue UIC Elimination
(Swale Upgrade) Project, Thierman Road to Park Road to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder,
Inland Asphalt Co., in the amount of $1,272,772.00. Senior Engineer Worley explained that last
November Council approved staffs submission of a Washington State Department of Ecology grant
application for this project; that the project was advertised for bids August 3 and 10, and at the August 10
bid opening, three bids were submitted, with hiland Asphalt Company as the apparent lowest responsible
bidder. Mr. Worley added that the bids are a little late in getting out and the hope is to get the project done
this year, but depending on weather, that might not occur. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no
comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried.
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. Zoning Use Matrix—Christina Janssen
Assistant Planner Janssen explained that on February 7, 2012, staff presented Council an overview of the
Corridor Mixed Use and Garden Office zones, as Council had requested staff to conduct a review of the
Permitted and Accessory Use Matrix to propose additional uses which would be appropriate in those
zones. Ms. Janssen said that as a result of that review, staff identified several appropriate updates which
were presented to the Planning Commission at a study session and which were the topic of a public
hearing before them in July. Ms. Janssen also noted that in addition to the staff proposed changes, the
Planning Commission voted to allow crematoriums in the Corridor Mixed Use zones, and formalized the
staff recommendation to allow indoor entertainment facilities as a Conditional Use in the Heavy Industrial
Council Study Session Minutes 08-21-12 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council:09-11-12
zone. Ms. Janssen said tonight's review will include other recommended changes of a general
housekeeping nature, as well as miscellaneous updates not specific to corridor mixed use or garden office
that staff felt should also be addressed. Planner Janssen went through the proposed changes on the
accompanying use matrix and explained that one of the changes was to take all twenty-nine
manufacturing uses and consolidate them into a general heading of manufacturing.
After Ms. Janssen's presentation, Councilmeinber Grafos had the following proposed changes:
Page 11: Building Supply&Home Improvement: to allow that in the Community Commercial Zone, and
he gave examples of Ace Hardware and Ziggy's.
Page 12: Convalescent home,nursing home: to allow that in the Corridor Mixed Use.
Page 13: Dwelling, caretakers residence: to allow in the Corridor Mixed Use and Community
Commercial; and he noted that SVMC 19.60.060 states that a caretaker dwelling unit is limited to
custodial, maintenance, management or security of a commercial property. Planning Manager Kuhta said
under the corridor mixed use, that would fall under a single family which is already permitted, but said he
would look at adding that in the other two zones.
Page 14: golf driving range, training center, permitted in mixed use center; he said it would be more
appropriate if it were also allowed in the corridor mixed and community commercial zones.
Page 16: under medical, dental and hospital equipment supply and sales; that it is not permitted in
community commercial but said there are existing businesses with those uses.
Page 17: recreational vehicle sales and service;to add that use to community commercial.
Planning Manager Kuhta recommended that staff research these proposals as some areas should definitely
be modified, but said he would like to do an analysis to make sure everything would be consistent with
the Comprehensive PIan. Councilmeinber Grassel asked about parks and open spaces, and of the idea of
adding such things as small restaurants or bike rental shops, and Mr. Kuhta agreed those uses are not
uncommon, and said staff will research that as well,and said perhaps some definitions might be added.
Councilmember Wick asked about the City Center category; said he feels this is a very valuable concept,
and although we currently don't have a city center, he would like to keep the category and be able to
implement such when ready; that he likes the idea of looking into the future, adding that the Economic
Development Committee is also examining such ideas. Councilmeinber Woodard said he wouldn't mind
keeping the header, but prefers to take out the other matrix information until such time as it is needed. Mr.
Kuhta said staff can remove all the uses and keep the heading, or just add an asterisk with a note or
explanation that items could be added later. Councilmember Wick again said that he does not want the
concept lost, with Mayor Towey adding that having it in the matrix will be a visual reminder. Mayor
Towey asked if there were any objections from Council to move this forward for a first reading. No
objections were raised.
3. Animal Shelters, Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.120 Proposed Amendment--Karen Kendall
Assistant Planner Kendall explained that John Pederson, on behalf of the Spokane County Building and
Planning Department, submitted an application to modify our City's municipal code to either outright
allow animal shelters in the Corridor Mixed Use Zone, or as a permitted use subject to the following
special conditions: that the shelter is owned and operated by a public entity, no outside dog runs,
soundproof structure to meet requirements of the Washington Administrative Code, and to Comply with
parking, landscaping and signage requirements. Ms. Kendall stated that as a result of the Planning
Commission study session and subsequent public hearing, staff also recommended adding that human
supervision must occur in any outdoor area, and that the facility must be located along an arterial. Ms.
Kendall then showed the potential areas on her accompanying map of the city. Mayor Towey asked why
a shelter would be limited to a public entity. City Attorney Driskell also expressed concern with that
condition and said if challenged under the equal protection clause of treating everyone equally, it would
be a struggle to defend and he advised removing that condition. After brief discussion concerning the
Council Study Session Minutes 08-21-12 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council:09-11-12
requirements of a conditional use permit, there were no objections from Council in moving this forward
for a first reading with the omission of the condition that the shelter be owned and operated by a public
entity.
4. Multi-Family Zone Requirements Review--Scott Kuhta
Planning Manager Kuhta explained that Council requested staff to research potential code revisions to
assist the Planning Commission and Council with new multifamily developments adjacent to residential
use or zoning; and said if we make some changes now, then when we have future proposals similar to the
past recent proposal by Arger Developers, we might not have to consider development agreements to
allow for such things as high density adjacent to single family areas. Per his PowerPoint presentation,Mr.
Kuhta explained the current residential standards as contained in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 19.40.020, the buffers required by type as noted in SVMC 22.70-2, and the screening and
buffering as noted in SVMC 22.70.030. Mr. Kuhta gave some examples of potential SVMC changes,
such as having a relational height limit to single family residential use of zone as a 1:1 height to setback
ratio to abutting single family use or zone, and a ten foot minimum setback from single family residential
use or zone, and he went into further details about a "relational height limit." Councilmember Wick
asked if others are using that method and Mr. Kuhta said that Spokane has some similar regulations.
Councilmember Grafos remarked that using the relational height limit would be a lot cleaner and would
eliminate a lot of confusion, and Councilmember Hafner concurred,
Councilmember Grassel asked about having a multi-family structure with garages near the fence line and
Mr. Kuhta said that would be addressed under the accessory structure; he explained that this proposal
does not address how tall a garage structure could be, and said what we would to examine is, what is a
typical single structure garage. Councilmember Woodard suggested having the regulations to allow for
creativity of steepness or pitch of the roof to break up the long spans of roof, and said the inhabitability
part was a big issue on the former proposal. Mr. Kuhta said there are some exceptions to the way you
measure, and said we could also examine the design features. There was brief discussion about buffers
between different densities, with Councilmember Woodard cautioning against up-zoning areas. Mr.
Kuhta said if Council would like, he will forward these suggestions to the Planning Commission and they
will start working on code text amendments. Council concurred.
5.Animal Control Update—Morgan Koudelka, Mark Calhoun,Mike Jackson
Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka gave a brief history of our City's current animal control services
with SCRAPS of Spokane County, and of Council authorizing the City Manager to issue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for those services. Mr. Koudelka then reviewed the comparisons of the two proposals
received: one from SCRAPS of Spokane County, and the other from SpokAnimal. Mr. Koudelka
explained that tonight is an opportunity for Council to discuss the proposals, and if Council is comfortable
proceeding, staff will return within the next few weeks with a recommendation; after which Council will
provide direction to the City Manager, and said if such direction would be to pursue one of the proposals,
staff will negotiate the terms of a contract. Mr. Koudelka also noted that stated in the RFP is the clause
that Spokane Valley reserves the right to negotiate all elements, and said both respondents said they were
willing to negotiate terms of such a contract. Mayor Toomey invited questions from Council.
Councilmember Grassel asked for discussion on the data contained on page 1 of the comparisons, under
Attachment B, Expenses in Excess of Revenue. Finance Director Calhoun explained that the reason we
look at the financial report, is to try to ascertain their success in covering operating expenses with
revenues; and said things that could skew that picture include proceeds of a County bond measure. The
number of citations was also discussed and it was noted that the seemingly repeated category of 2d
"Number of citations issued" actually shows the first number as citations issued, and the second number
as the number of successful prosecutions of those citations. Mr. Koudelka also explained that in
conducting interviews with representatives from both agencies, that both indicated citations don't always
work, as there is usually a balance between citations and education, and establishing a relationship, and
Council Study Session Minutes 08-21-12 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council:09-11-12
said both entities have similar approaches using education or citation as a tool to protect animals. City
Attorney Driskell added that regarding how we contract with an entity, is during the RFP process we get
to identify service as well as cost; that we have some flexibility, and once we get direction from Council
on a preferred provider, staff negotiates with that provider and if we can't reach agreement, we might
move to the next proposed provider.
Councilmember Wick asked about "Animals Accepted" shown on page six, and Mr. Koudelka said that
SCRAPS accepts all animals as noted; and that SpokAnimal does the same and they are also a humane
society, so if someone from outside Spokane brought in an animal, they are not necessarily turned away.
Councilmember Woodard said he disagreed with that statement, but Mr. Koudelka said he discussed this
at length with SpokAnimal about when an owner wants to surrender an animal; that SpokAnimal will
interview the owner, and that sometimes the issue is a matter of finances, and if so, SpokAnimal can offer
to list the animal on Craig's list;he said SpokAnimal does not refuse that person. Mr.Koudelka said that
when SCRAPS has a person who surrenders an animal, SCRAPS said they have found that the animal
owner has usually exhausted their resources and options, and so they do not discuss the issue further.
Councilmember Woodard asked if staff received any comments from citizens or veterinarians about
preference, and City Manager Jackson replied that the only veterinarian was in the letter of references to
SCRAPS, which also mentions SpokAnimal; and said he received one other e-mail from a citizen; and
said once this matter conies before Council for a motion consideration, citizens will have the opportunity
to comment.
After a few council comments about a preference, Mr. Koudelka said staff is not asking for a decision
tonight,but is asking Council to consider these issues prior to the matter coming back to council in a few
weeks; that even though we received two proposals, it doesn't mean we have to accept either one as is; he
said if Council is comfortable with one over the other, staff would like to pursue modifying terms, and
after negotiations, come back and let Council know if those negotiations were successful or if there are
other alternatives; with the final step of Council approving a contract; and said if staff has enough
information now, staff can come back with a recommendation, which he said, would also be contingent
upon changes of terms, if any, at that time. Councilmember Hafner stated that things to consider are
quality compared with cost, and which is more important: spend more money and get more quality, or
spend less money for the same quality; adding that he would like to see a comparison of both for either a
ten or twenty year contract, or negotiate the County to a ten year contract; and acknowledged there are
many variables to consider. Finance Director Calhoun said that the analysis of cost included by Mr.
Koudelka suggests $216,000 for SpokAnimal, or $255,000 for SCRAPS, over a twenty-year stretch, plus
including CPI changes (consumer price index)or not. Other issues discussed included license compliance
cases, that both entities are fairly similar, with SCRAPS having a little more success. The issue of
officers investigating as noted on page 2 was discussed, with Mr. Koudelka explained that SpokAnimal
would have to be authorized by the City and be commissioned by the Sheriff's Office in order to provide
that service, and said SpokAnimal said they would be willing to go through the same types of training as
officers handing these issues for SCRAPS. Councilmember Hafner again expressed concern with a
twenty-year contract and asked if the terms can be negotiated, and Mr. Koudelka replied that we would
most likely seek a ten-year term; and said the County chose a twenty-year term because that allows them
to recover the cost for a new facility and meet their goals of annual costs to the participating jurisdictions;
he said the County said they would be willing to negotiate the terms but feel fairly strong about the length
of service; and said if that term was altered, it would most likely shift the other costs forward making our
cost heavier for a ten-year term. Whether the City of Spokane participates was also mentioned, and Mr.
Koudelka said if Spokane City and the City of Spokane Valley don't participate in SCRAPS, he feels it
would be difficult for them to achieve a new facility as their demand would be much less; and said that
the County indicated they do not want to invest any more funds in their current facility; so if SCRAPS
lost both cities,they would likely need to re-evaluate their needs.
Council Study Session Minutes 08-21-12 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council:09-11-12
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:45 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
6. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure—Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell explained the background of the proposed updates, which includes cleaning up
some inconsistencies and minor housekeeping items, then went over the more substantive proposed
changes. One of the proposed changes was the removal of the reference to having a Council liaison at the
Planning Commission meetings, and Mr. Driskell explained that the minutes are the official record of the
meeting as opposed to a Councilmember or Planning Commissioner giving a report of the meeting. The
subject of absences was also discussed, which included how to track unexcused or excused absences,
consequences of missing meetings, and the procedure to remove Commissioners, which is done by the
Mayor with council concurrence. Mr. Driskell said staff will research this further and bring a report back
to Council at a later date.
7. Sprague Property—Mark Calhoun,Inga Note,Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson explained that City and Library staffs have been working together since January on
an Interlocal and other aspects of a joint agreement for potential purchase of property on Sprague, with
the intent to develop a joint library and park site; said he wanted to discuss information he received last
week from the Library for the City to be more flexible on the terms of the Interlocal as the Library seeks
to reduce the size of the original proposal. Mr. Jackson gave a brief history on the process so far and
stated it is difficult to develop language in an Interlocal agreement without having some idea of what the
development could be, which prompted the need for a traffic study. He explained that Council previously
approved a Memorandum of Understanding to move forward with that study; he said that Phase One of
the Environmental Assessment is complete and it shows no environmental concerns with that property.
Mr. Jackson also mentioned that we were reminded that STA (Spokane Transit Authority) owned half of
the existing Balfour Property, and he expressed gratitude to STA for deeding that property to Spokane
Valley. Mr. Jackson said the library conducted a re-evaluation of their needs and since the latest proposal
is a deviation from what was previously discussed with Council, Mr. Jackson felt council's input was
needed prior to moving forward to finalize an Interlocal. Directing Council's attention to page 4 of the
draft Interlocal agreement, Mr. Jackson said the library anticipated that its needs will include 30,000
square feet limited to one floor, as opposed to the previous proposal of a 50,000 square foot, two-story
building. City Manager Jackson said the question to Council is, does the reduction in size impact the
process of the City moving forward.
Councilmember Woodard asked if the 30,000 square feet would be able to be expanded in the future; said
he has no problem with reducing the size to 30,000 square feet, but asked if the Library would have to
revise their Master Plan before making such a change. Mr. Jackson said most likely an Interlocal
agreement could be constructed to accommodate the Library's flexibility, and so far as their Master Plan,
that they can consider their own process, but it would probably be handled in the language of the
Interlocal. Councilmember Hafrrer said he talked to a lot of people who are excited about having a library
and a park, and mentioned possible events such as a picnic in the park, carnival, or flea market.
Councihnember Wick said the justification for a Iibrary is not at issue, but rather, he was focusing on the
partnership and of the idea of a destination as defined from the recent Randall Report, that being
something unique that brings people here. Councilmember Grafos said he also has no problem in moving
ahead and feels the 30,000 square foot building would be a "win/win" situation; that the issue of the
Library electing to partner with us leads to the bottom line that we are deficient in park space; and he said
this would be a centerpiece for the City even without the library, and also mentioned having events such
as car shows, trails, and other events as something that citizens seek. Councilmember Wick agreed we
need more park space, but asked about the priorities; and keeping in mind what the City spent on
Greenacres Park, asked do we want, for example, four parks of a Greenacres size, or a park on Sprague.
Councilmember Grafos suggested this is a one time opportunity for this 8.5 acreage. Councilmember
Wick agreed this would be a good opportunity for park space, but questioned which would touch more
Council Study Session Minutes 08-21-12 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council:09-11-12
citizens: one park or four smaller ones. Councilmember Woodard said most of the City's parks are
around the fringe of the City; he said he hopes the library can do what they plan; he acknowledged that
parks are expensive to build and the Library may also be wondering if the City can build the park; he said
the quality of the park and the location will make the difference.
The differences between the original proposal and the changed proposal were discussed; the main
difference would be a 30,000 square-foot one story building compared with the original 50,000 square-
foot two-story building; and Mr. Jackson said the footprint doesn't really change and the plans show the
building to be an impressive looking civic facility; and said if Council is comfortable with the minimum
size, it'll take a year or so after the finalization of the purchase to finalize the site plan; plus additional
time to go to the ballot. Councilmember Wick said when this was originally proposed by the Library, he
felt it would be a significant, regional concept and a draw for people and would help spur the growth and
development of the area; and he asked if that is still captured with the design change; he said we want to
make sure we have something in this facility to make this a regional based facility, adding that it means a
fairly significant investment by the City; that we are talking years before this comes to fruition, and he
said the thing to consider is if this is the right move for us; which he said, doesn't mean we don't need a
library or a park,just things to consider. Mr. Jackson said we can have that discussion; that the intent is
to make it more of a neighborhood library; the new plan also removes the auditorium and said the idea
was to entice people to hold their meetings in that room which would hold 200 people; but said we could
explore other means of how this could impact the region; he said this is a shift and he wanted to be up-
front with what the library would provide; and said he could work with Ms. Ledeboer on that issue.
Councilmember Hafner said the library is a critical building for us and that it's what we do around that
building with a park that makes it a destination; that he likes the idea of various activities being able to be
accommodated in a room rather than an auditorium with 200 seats; and said he feels it is important to go
ahead with it and work with the library board; and said we won't have many opportunities for 8.5 acres
for this type of project;and that we"have to strike while the iron is not"and make it a destination.
Regarding funding options, Finance Director Calhoun went over the included spreadsheet and Fund 310,
which he explained is the most likely source of funding if we pursue this;he said that the figures are lifted
right out of the 2013 budget materials; and reminded Council of three other projects necessitating a
budget amendment as shown on the information under Fund #310; he said we have just under $3.5
million in the fund for the property acquisition and for a variety of other costs leading to the development
of a park, and mentioned there will also be a need to consider continued operation and maintenance costs.
Traffic Engineer Note went over the highlights of the traffic study and included information on the
number of daily trips, the intersection level of service, and fire and on-street parking concerns; said
concerning the fire trucks; that an idea would be to change the traffic control at Main and Raymond and
work to reconfigure that area so the east/west has the right-of-way and the north/south would have to stop
and she said it would involve changing the stripping. Ms.Note said parking is an issue when people are
visiting the church thereby making it so narrow the fire trucks can't get through, so she said they would
put in a parking restriction on the narrow part of the on-street parking. Ms.Note also stated she checked
with STA(Spokane Transit Authority) about the idea of changing the route closer to the proposed
location, and while STA would not agree to a change in route, said they would work with her on the bus
stop locations. Ms. Note also explained the concept of the idea of a Hawk Signal, which is a pedestrian
signal mounted overhead next to the signal lights; she said the signal cost is about $200,000. At 9:00
p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting
thirty minutes.
Councilmember Grafos suggested that since the City would be buying the land, to include verbiage that
the City would have full custody and control of the site until the passage of the bond issue and the library
begins construction on their portion of the site so that the library would have no objection to us using that
Council Study Session Minutes 08-21-12 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council:09-11-12
portion of the property even before the park is developed. Councilmember Wick added that this also ties
closely to a city hall. City Manager Jackson said if Council wants to consider potential uses, that should
probably be included in the draft Interlocal. Councilmember Woodard asked if we could accept public
donations and Mr. Jackson confirmed we could. Mayor Towey suggested whether the square footage is
50,000 or 30,000, that that would have to be considered in the purchase of the property, adding that the
library will not have control over some future issues like the bond ballot issue; he said there are still a lot
of unknowns and Council has to consider if it is good for Spokane Valley to purchase land in the middle
of our City for a future park; said there are many components to this partnership; and asked if we are
ready to invest taxpayer's money for a future park in the middle of Spokane Valley. Councilmember
Grassel said since this is a joint site development, she suggested adding language that both parties would
have input into the final design. Mr. Jackson replied that he feels the document already states that we
need to agree on a final site plan, but to include some verbiage that ensures both parties would be
comfortable with the final design, that it is compatible and would flow well together; and as an example,
said we would likely not want a farmer's market so close to the building that the noise would have an
adverse impact on the library; and he added that our partnership with the library has been a veiny
workable,collaborative relationship.
8.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey
Councilmember Grassel said she attended the Saturday Night in the Park movie and that she had called
some of her friends to invite them, and no one knew about it. Councilmember Grassel said we need to
find another avenue to connect with our citizens, and suggested marketing Spokane Valley through
notices included in utility bills.
At 9:30 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded, to extend the meeting 20 minutes.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Haf ter,
Grassel, Grafos and Wick. Opposed.' Councilmember Woodard. Motion carried.
9. SRTC Call for Projects was for information only and was not discussed or reviewed,
10. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey. There were no further comments,
11. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson said he has the final schedule for the conclusion of the Sprague Reconstruction,
and that he would put the information in council inboxes; said the truck parking topic has come up in the
past and that Mr. Driskell is working to put some information together; adding that we will also need
some idea of the traffic impact if trucks are forced off residential streets and onto the Argonne Underpass.
There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously
agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
411_7' T omas E. Towey, ayor
!11 J1- ✓'6
hristine Bainbridge, City Cler.
Council Study Session Minutes 08-21-12 Page 7 of 7
Approved by Council:09-11-12
AGENDA ITEM#t
Sprague Ave UIC Elimination Project/40163
Project Funding Summary
Original Project Revenues Proposed Project Revenues
Ecology Grant $ 666,622 Ecology Grant $ 666,622
APA Funds-403 $ 222,208 APA Funds-403 $ 504,789
Total $ 888,830 Preservation Funds-311 $ 340,000
Total $ 1,511,411
(council approved in Feb 2012 a$630,000 budget
amendment using APA Funds for this project.)
Estimated Project Expenditures
PE- HDR Engineering $ 107,777
PE-Survey, Geotech, CE $ 67,223
CN-Swale Project $ 938,560
CN-Street Preservation $ 334,213
CN -Contingency (5%) $ 63,639
Total $ 1,511,411
-6)-1- i .
BID TABULATION
Sprague UIC Elimination Project SpOkanYa��
.0,0*Ualley
BID OPENING DATE -August 20,2012,10:00 A.M.
Engineer's Estimate Inland Asphalt Co. Cameron-Reilly LLC WM Winkler Co.
ITEM ITEM Unit QUANTITY Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost
SCHEDULE A-ROAOWAYWCIVIL ITEMS
1 MOBILIZATION,SCHEDULE A L.S. 1 L.S. $ 34,555.23 L.S. $ 89,550.00 L,S. $ 70,590.00 L.S. $ 48,770.03
2 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 L.S. $ 10,000.00 L.S. $ 20,000.00 L.S. $ 15,000.00 L.S. $ 21,700.00
3 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM LS. 1 L.S. $ 600.00 L.S. $ 515.00 L.S. $ 500.00 L.S. $ 6.90T0D
4 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL,SCHEDULE A L.S. 1 L.S. 9 15,000.00 L.S. $ 53,900.00 L.S. $ 35,200.00 L.S. $ 13,700.03
5 PEDESTRIAN CONTROL AND PROTECTION L.S. 1 L.S. $ 2,000.00 L.S. $ 616.00 L.S. $ 7,500.00 L.S. $ 11,200.00
6 PUBLICLIASON REPRESENTATIVE L.S. 1 L.S. $ 6,000.00 L.S. $ 8,450.00 L.S. $ 1.00 L.S. $ 10,000.00
7 SPCC PLAN L.S. 1 L.S. $ 3,000.00 L.S. $ 488.00 L.S. $ 500.00 L.S. $ 2,400.00
8 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 9,570 $ 3.00 $ - 28,710.00 $ 2.15 $ 20,575.50 $ 6.00 0 57,420.00 $ 1.40 $ 13,398.00
9 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK/DRIVE APPROACH SY 1,820 5 10.00 $ 16,200.00 $ 8.65 $ 14,013.00 $ 6.00 $ 9,720.00 $ 7.20 $ 11,664.00
10 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 5,115 $ 4.50 $ 23,017.50 $ 1.50 $ 7,872.50 $ 3.00 S 15,345.00 $ 4.60 $ 23,529.00
11 SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF-IN 5,460 $ 035 $ 1,911.00 $ 0.30 $ 1,630.00 $ 0.45 5 2,457.00 $ 0.48 $ 2,820.80
12 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 570 $ 8.00 $ 4,660.00 $ 11.60 $ 6,726.00 $ 10.00 5 5,700.00 $ 7.05 $ 4,018.50
13 REMOVE INLET STRUCTURE EA 5 $ 400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 190.00 $ 950.00 $ 400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00
14 ABANDON DRYWELL IN PLACE EA 37 $ 500.00 $ 18,500.00 $ 440.00 $ 16,280.0D $ 1.000.00 0 37,000.00 $ 560.00 $ 20,720.00
15 REMOVE PAVEMENT STRIPING LF 1,060 $ 1.75 $ 1,837.50 $ 1.10 $ 1,155.09 $ 1.25 0 1,312.50 $ 1,35 $ 1,417.50
16 REMOVE PAINTED CROSSWALK LINE SF _ 304 $ 2.00 9 600.00 $ 2.40 $ 729.60 $ 2.00 $ 608.00 $ 1.65 $ 501.60
17 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCLUDING HAUL CY 2,650 9 14.00 $ 37,100.00 $ 17.45 $ 46,242.50 $ 20.00 5 53,000.00 $ 15.00 $ 39,750.00
18 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 1 EA 9 $ 1,200.00 $ 10,800.00 $ 1,475.00_$ 13,275.00 5 500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 750.00 $ 6,750.00
19 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EA 3 $ 1,500.00 $ 4,500.00 9 1,470.00 $ 4,410.00 9 1,200.00 5 3,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 7,200.00
20 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE,12IN.DIAM. LF 200 $ 40.00 9 8,000.00 5 37.00 $ 7,400.00 5 45.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 57.00 $ 11,400.00
21 STORM DRAIN ENCASEMENT LF 200 5 50.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 5.00 0 1,000.00 0 50.00 5 10,000.00 $ 13.00 $ 2,600.00
22 PRECAST DRYWELL TYPE-B WITH SOLID COVER EA 10 $ 3,500.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 4,100.00 $ 41,000.00 $ 2,500.00_9 25,000.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 26,000.00
23 CONCRETE CURBING TYPE A LF 391 $ 20.00 $ 7,820.00 $ 15.00 $ 6,865.00 $ 15.00 5 5,865.00 $ 33.00 $ 12,903.00
24 CONCRETE CURBING TYPE B LF 5,185 5 20.00 $ 103,700.00 $ 10.50 $ 54,442.50 $ 10.00 5 51,850.00 $ 21.00 $ 108,885.00
26 ADJUST EXIST.UTILITY STRUCTURE TO GRADE EA 9 $ 400.00 $ 3,600.00 5 470.00 $ 4,230.00 0 600.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 47700 $ 4,293.00
26 CURB INLET TYPE 1 EA 80 $ 75.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 77.00 $ 8,160.00 $ 125.0D $ 10,000.00 $ 96.50 $ 7,720.00
27 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 1,565 0 30.00 R 46,950.00 $ 38.50 $ 57,122.50 $ 3400 $ 53,210.00 5 55.00 $ 86,075.00
28 DRIVEWAY SY 1,950 $ 50.00 $ 97,600.00 $ 36.00 $ 74,100.00 $ 39.00 $ 76,050.00 $ 60.63 $ 118,22650
26 CEMENT CONC.CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTION A EA 10 9 1,600.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000.00
30 CEMENT CONC.CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTION B EA 2 5 1,500.00 0 3,000.00 $ 850.00 $ 1,700.00 9 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 1,000.00 5 2,000,00
31 CEMENT CONC.CURB RAMP TYPE PERPENDICULAR A EA 3 $ 1,700.00 5 5,100.00 $ 800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,00000 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00
32 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,4 IN.DEPTH SY 580 5 6.00 $ 3,480.00 $ 17.75 $ 10,295.00 $ 5.75 $ 3,335.00 $ 25.75 $ 14,935.00
33 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,8 IN.DEPTH SY 3,600 $ 9.00 $ 32,400.00 $ 12.70 $ 45,720.00 5 11.00 5 39,600.00 $ 16.10 $ 54,380.00
34 HMA CL.112-INCH,PG 70-28,0.50 FT.DEPTH PATCH SY 2,442 0 16.50 9 40,293.00 $ 33.00 0 80,586.00 $ 32.00 $ 76,144.00 $ 31.90 $ 77,899.80
35 HMA CL 3/8-INCH,PG 84-28,MISCELLANEOUS AREAS SY 580 $ 16.00 5 8,700.00 $ 24.00 $ 13,920.00 $ 33.0D $ 19,140.00 $ 24.65 $ 14,297.00
36 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING LF 7,635 $ 0.50 $ 3,817.50 $ 0.30 $ 2,290.50 $ 1.00 $ 7,635.00 $ 0.60 $ 3,817.50
37 PERMANENT SIGNING LS 1 L.S. 0 8,000.00 L.S. $ 5,780.00 L.S. $ 2,500.00 L.S. $ 2,700.00
36 TOPSOIL TYPE A,0.33 FT.DEPTH SY 6,300 $ 8.00 $ 37,800.00 $ 4.00 $ 25,200.00 $ 4.50 $ 28,350.00 $ 3.20 $ 20,160.00
39 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT THIERMAN RD AND SPRAGUE AVE LS 1 L.S. $ 9,000.00 L.S. $ 8,265.00 L.S. $ 9,000.00 L.S. $ 17,00000
40 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT PARK RD AND SPRAGUE AVE LS 1 L.S. $ 14,500.00 L.S. $ 7,226.00 L.S. $ 8,000.00 L.S. $ 15,600.00
41 STAMPED CEMENT CONCRETE SY 25 $ 200.00 5 5,200,00 $ 57.50 $ 1,495.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 250.00 0 6,500.00
Total Schedule A $725,659.73 $ 772,281.60 $ 781,132.50 $869,173.20
Engineer's Estimate Inland Asphalt Co. Cameron-Reilly LLC WM Winkler Co.
ITEM ITEM Unit gUANT TY Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Prico Total Cost
SCHEDULE B.LANDSCAPE ITEMS
42 MOBILIZATION,SCHEDULE B L.S. 1 L.S. $ 0953.26 L.S. S 1,500.00 L.S. $ 5,585.00 L.S. 5 6.200.00
43 TREES--DECIDUOUS 3" EA 74 $ 182.00 $ 13,468.00 $ 255.00 $ 18,870.00 $ 275.00 $ 20,350.00 $ 275.00 $ 20,350.00
44 SOD INSTALLATION SY 4,923 $ 5.50 $ 20538.00 $ 3.80 5 18,707.40 $ 4.50 $ 22,153.50 $ 3.70 $ 18,215.10
45 PERVIOUS CONCRETE SY 279 8 38.00 $ 10,044.00 $ 40.00 $ 11,180.00 $ 60.00 $ 18,740.00 $ 100.00 $ 27,900.00
46 IRRIGATION SYSTEM L.S. 1 $ 38,025.00 $ 35,026.00 L.S. $ 105,000.00 L.S. $ 114,51000 L5. $ 88,600.00
47 IRRIGATION--PVC SLEEVE LF' 3,110 $ 9.00 $ 27,990.00 $ 305 $ 11,040.50 5 4.00 $ 12,440.00 $ 4.80 $ 14,928.00
Total Schedule B $125,018.25 $166,277.90 $191,778.50 $176,193.10
'Addendum 4
Engineer's Estimate Inland Asphalt Co. Cameron-Reilly LLC WM Winkler Co.
ITEM ITEM Unit gUANT TY Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost
SCHEDULE C.ASPHALT OVERLAY ITEMS
48 MOBILIZATION,SCHEDULE C L.S. 1 L.S. 5 13,129.25 L.S. $ 11,000.00 L.S. $ 16,000.00 L.S. $ 17,53000
49 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL,SCHEDULE C L.S. 1 L.S. $ 5,000.00 L.S. $ 22,000.00 L.S. 0 13,552.00 L.S. $ 15,777.00
50 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,0.19'DEPTH SY 18,380 $ 1.00 0 18,380.00 $ 2.45 $ 45,031.00 $ 1.38 $ 25,364.40 2 $ 37,879.00
51 HMA CL.112"PG 70-28,0.19 FT.DEPTH 5Y 18,380 $ 8.00 5 147,040.00 $ 9.40 5 172,772.00 $ 10.50 S 192,990.00 $ 10.20 S 187,47600
52 SAWCUTACP PAVEMENT LF-IN 1,118 $ 0.30 $ 335.40 $ 0.30 $ 335,40 $ 0.50 $ 559.00 $ 0.65 $ 726.70
53 CRACK SEALING` FA EST. ESTIMATE $ 20,000.00 ESTIMATE 5 20,000.00 ESTIMATE $ 20,000.00 ESTIMATE 5 20.000.80
54 JOINT ADHESIVE LF 3,600 $ 1.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 0.80 S 2,880.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,800.00
55 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE EA 7 9 350.00 $ 2,450.00 5 740.0D $ 5,180.00 $ 500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 477.00 9 3,339.00
56 ADJUST VALVE BOX EA 12 $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 540.00 5 6,480.00 9 475.00 $ 5,700.00 $ 420.00 $ 5,040.00
57 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING LF 7,838 $ 0.50 $ 3,819.00 $ 0.30 $ 2,291.40 $ 1.00 $ 7,638.00 $ 0.36 $ 2,749.68
58 ADJUST EXISTING CATCHBASIN OR DRYWELL EA 4 5 350.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 740.00 $ 2,900.00 5 600.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 2,000.00
59 WHITE DURABLE INLAY TAPE,TYPE C-I-WIDE LANE LINE LF 5,090 $ 5.00 $ 25,450.00 $ 4.80 $ 24,432.03 $ 5.85 $ 29,776.50 $ 8.36 $ 32,372.40
60 WHITE PAINT LINE LF 160 $ 2.50 $ 375.00 $ 1.30 $ 195.00 5 1.00 $ 150.00 9 2.00 $ 300.00
61 WHITE DURABLE INLAY TAPE,TYPE C-1-SKIP LINE LF 7,635 $ 2.50 $ 19,087.50 $ 0.74 $ 5,649.90 0 1.10 $ 8,398.50 $ 1.10 $ 8,398.50
62 PAINTED WIDE DOTTED LANE LINE LF 100 $ 3.50 $ 350.00 $ 1.80 9 180.00 $ 1.0D $ 100.00 $ 1.00 9 100.00
63 PLASTIC STOP LINE LF 260 $ 12.00 $ 3,120.00 $ 13.00 $ 3,380.00 $ 16.50 $ 4,030.00 $ 15.95 $ 4,147.00
64 PAINT CROSSWALK LINE SF 336 $ 4.00 $ 1,344.00 $ 2.50 $ 840.00 $ 4.00 $ 1,344.00 $ 3.77 $ 1,266.72
66 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE SF 612 $ 7.00 $ 3,584.00 $ 090 $ 4,556.80 $ 10.00 $ 6,120.00 $ 10.45 $ 5,350.40
66 PLASTIC TRAFFIC LETTER EA 4 $ 350.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 72.50 9 288.00 $ 250.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 300.0D 8 1,200.00
67 PLASTIC BICYCLE LANE SYMBOL EA 5 $ 200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 415.00 5 2,07000 $ 400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 425.00 $ 2,126.00
88 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW TYPE 2SL EA 2 $ 300.00 $ 800.00 $ 113.00 $ 226.00 $ 300.00 $ 600.00 $ 320.00 $ 640.00
69 'PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW TYPE 36L EA 2 5 325.00 $ 650.00 $ 530.00 $ 1,050.00 9 500.00 5 1,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 1,200.00
70 MONUMENT CASE AND COVER EA 1 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 5 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 0 200.00 $ 200.00
Total Schedule C $276,039.15 $334,2.12.50 $344,672.40 $353,217.40
'Addendum 3
Total of COMBINED Extended Amount for Schedules A,B,and C I $1,126,717.13 I $1,272,772.00 I $1,317,583.40 $1,398,583.70
Note:Tabulation Includes Correction of Bidder Extension Error(s)For Bid Items(s)
Addendum$acknowledged Yss Yes Yes
BId deposit surety bond Yes Yes Yes
Subcontractor list Yes Yes Yes
Mobilization%of total 8.02% 7.00% 5.18%
Old tab Includes correction of Bidder extension error(s)for bid item($): N/A NIA Yes