The URL can be used to link to this page

2018, 04-10 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday,April 10, 2018 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Matthew Larson,Advent Lutheran Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION: Grant Appreciation PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium,please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. 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 April 10,2018 Request for Council Action Form,Total: $548,695.58 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 31,2018: $455,834.92 c.Approval of March 13,2018 Council Meeting Minutes,Formal Meeting Format d.Approval of March 20,2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session e.Approval of March 27,2018 Council Meeting Minutes,Formal Meeting Format f.Approval of April 3,2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Franchise—Cary Driskell [public comment] 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Franchise—Cary Driskell [public comment] 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-010 Mobilitie Franchise—Cary Driskell [public comment] 5.Motion Consideration: Barker BNSF Grade Separation Consultant Design Agreement—Bill Helbig [public comment] Council Agenda 04-10-18 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium,please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 6. License Agreement with Spokane Airport Board,Dora Road,Felts Field—Cary Driskell 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed):n/a CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 8.EXECUTIVE SESSION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)] Property Acquisition ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2"-1 and 4t1i Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats(the less formal meeting) are generally held the 0.,31 and 51 Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included,comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing,or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 04-10-18 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 SCITYokane roctamation City of Spo4ne Vaffey, Washington Grant Appreciation WHEREAS, The great State of Washington is represented in the United States Congress by Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and 5th District Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers; and WHEREAS, The U.S. Congress, by way of the U.S. Department of Transportation, provides Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grants to increase public safety, create jobs and modernize the country's infrastructure; and WHEREAS, The City of Spokane Valley was recently awarded a$9,020,149 fiscal year 2017 TIGER grant to fund the Barker Road Grade Separation Project, which will replace an existing at-grade rail crossing at Barker Road with an overpass, and construct a roundabout at the intersection of Barker Road and Trent Avenue; and WHEREAS, The 2017 TIGER grant awarded to the City was one of 482 grant applications from across the nation, and only 41 applications received funding. Twenty-four applications were submitted by agencies in Washington State; the City's application was the only one to be funded; and WHEREAS, When completed, the project will improve access to emergency services, reduce traffic congestion and vehicle delays, enhance traffic flow, increase access to nearby industrial property, and eliminate train horns. The project is the first of seven at-grade crossings to be eliminated in Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representative McMorris Rodgers provided significant leadership in securing TIGER discretionary grant funding for the City; and WHEREAS, The City recognizes Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representative McMorris Rodgers for their advocacy and partnership to promote the federal funding of local transportation initiatives. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rod Higgins, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do hereby proclaim appreciation to: U.S. Senator Patty Murray U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers For their resolve and dedication to fund and implement transportation improvements that will strengthen infrastructure and save lives. Dated this 10th day of April 2018. L.R. Higgins, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action. Meeting Date: April 10, 2018 Department Director Approval: 1,2 Check all that apply: ZI consent L old business © new business El public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 03/1+42.018 6222, 6235, 6236; 6233, 6240, 4'l 195 $74,820.94 03/22/2018 7573-7576 $560,00 03/2212018 4419641225 $1413,6415.36 03/23/2018 44226-44255 $89,983.98 03/29/ 018 44256-44267 $7,075.41 03/29/201€1 4426€1-44300 $224.661.69 04/04/2018 44301-44306 $7,944.20 C RAND TOTAL: $548,695.58 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists 4001 - General Fund OtherFunds 001.01 1.00051 1. City Council 171 -Street Fund 001.013.000.513. City Manager 103 Paths & Trails 001.013.015.515. l.ega1 I -lintel/Motel Tax 001.016.000. Public Safely 106 Solid Waste 001,018.013.513. Depuuly City Manager 120 - Cent:rPlaee Operating Reserve 001.018.014.514. Finance 121-Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.018.016.518. Human Resuurocs 122 Winter Weather Reserve 001.032.000_ Public Works 2:11 -Debt Service 001,058.050.558. CED Administration 301 BEET 1 Capital Projects 001,058.051.558. CFD-Eco-rornic Developmcrnt. :302-REPT 2 Capital Projects 001.058.055.558. CED-Development Services-Engineering 303 - Street Capital Projects 001.058.056.558. CED-Development Services-Planning 309-Parks Capital Grants 001.058.057_558 CED-Building 310-Civic Bldg Capital Projects 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rei Administration 311 Pavement Preservation 001,076.300,576, Parks 312-Capital Reserve 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rei.-Recreation 314 - Railroad Grade Separation Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks & Ree,-Aquatics 4172-Stor twaier Management 001.076.30,1.575_ Parks & Ree- Senior Center 403 -Aquifer Protection Area 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rea".-CenterPlace 501 Equipment Rental &Replacement 001,090.000.511 General Gov't-Council related 5012-Risk Nlanagenierit 001.0 90.000.514. General Ciov`t-l-inance related 001.090,000.517. General Go'v't-Employee supply 001.090.000.518_ General Ciov't-Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 001,09{}_000.540_ General C met-Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't- a[ural& Economic (XII.090,000,560. General Gov't-Social Services 001.090.0 00.5 94. General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.090,000.595. General Gov'I-PaveinenI Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 0311612018 9:18:33AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apba^k Vouchor date Vendor Invoice FundtDept DesctiptIon0Accotrnt Amount 6222 312012019 009997 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION 9en79102 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX EASE: PAYMENT 1.844.37 T td: 1,844.37 62:;t5 312012018 006048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS. 4OTA PLAN Ben?G104 001.231.14.00 40TA;PAYMENT 32,268.62 Total: 32.255.92 6236 312012018 0006182 EFTPS Be n74106 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 31,042.75 Total: 31,042.75 623$ 312012018 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS:457 PU Een78105 601.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:PAYI 8,502.39 Tonal: 8,562-3e 8240 3,2012018 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PI Ben79110 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 637.50 Total: 63730 44195 302012018 905469 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COLLECTION Deri79100 101.23120.00 WAGE ASSIGNMENT PAYMENT 469,01 Total : 469.01 6 Vouchers for bank code: apDank Bank total : 74,824.94 6 Vouchers In this report Total vouchers : 74,824.94 NzagC. vchlist Voucher List Page: ° , 03f22f2018 8:57:54Am Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date 'Vendor Invoice Fund!Dept Description/Account Amount 7573 312212018 006512 ASA NORTHWEST PARKS REFUND 001.237,10,99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM/; 446,E00 Total : 246,00 7574 312212018 403255 E itiS VVIRFI FSS SYSTEMS PARKS REFUND 001.237,10.99 RESERVATION REFUND: ROOM 10 $2,00 Total : 52.00 7575 3122/2015 006513 HO R+HATH, Villa PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND ; FIRESIDE LOUI 210.00 Total : 210.00 7576 3/2212018 006514 SWECKER: KARI PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 RESERVATION REFUND 52.00 Total : 52.00 4 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 560.00 4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 560.00 Page: vchllst Voucher List Page: '—t-- 0302/2018 -- - 03f2 12018 12:16:31PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund)Dept Description1Account Amount 44196 3/2212018 004278 ARCHITECTS WEST INC 9501 313.000.215.594 CIP 0215- CONSTRUCTION ADMIN 5,283,88 Total : 5,283.34 441,9 t77/201A 000101 COW-G LXJ430C 107.000.000.5594 PEG BROADCASTING EQUIPMENT 28,30 Total : 28.30 44198 3.12212015 003624 DEHN, SHELLY EXPENSES 001..090_000.517 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 35,18 Total : 35,16 44199 3122/2018 002604 DELL FINANCIA'_ SERVICES LLC 79415940 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE:001-8922`r/7-0IC 1.050.24 Total : 1,050,24 44200 3122.2018 000999 EASTERN VVAATTORNEY SVC INC 113193 001,013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40.00 113253 001,013,01 .515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,00 113291 001.013,015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,00 Total : 130.00 44201 3/22/2018 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 027E-0702 303.000.247.595 0247-PARCEL ACQUISITION/RELOt 1,382.47 Total : 1,382,47 44202 3/22/204.8 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 462198 303.000.201.595 ADVERTISING 74.26 482199 '411.0U(J,24+L_a9b ADVERTISING 67.94 482965 303.000,201.595 ADVERTISING 70.50 482988 311.000,248,595 ADVERTISING 84.50 484158 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 73.47 484158 001.0t3.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 22.9/ Total : 373.58 44203 3/2212018 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 45334 303,000.201,595 CIP 0201 -ADVERTISING 158.40 48335 311.008.248.595 CIP 0248 -ADVERTISING 142.40 45355 001.040.043,558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 97/5 45387 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 28.45 Total : 426.60 44204 3122±2018 004536 GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE TRAINING LLC 21814760 001.018.014.514 TROUBLESHOOTING TCP/IP NFTV% 2,217.00 Total : 2,21 7.00 PagQ: vchllst Voucher List Page: - 03122I2018 12:16;31PM Spokane Valley Bank code apbar:k VauUher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 44205 3/2212018 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 26157 0,01.01'.000.011 MARCH 2018 BUSINESS CONNEC1 45.00 Total : 45.00 44206 3/22/2018 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200103251 314.000.223.595 0223-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 3,537.22 Total: 3,537.22 44207 3/22/2018 001644 LANCER LTD 0468685 001.044.042.556 BUSINESS CARDS 56.C4 Total: 56.04 44208 3/22/2018 004850 NAVA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, HRA PLAN 10124194 001.018.01 6.518 FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION 368.00 Total : 368,00 44209 312212018 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 112076536001 001.090.000.518 COMPUTER HARDWARE NON-CAP 51.87 114234302001 001.013.0010.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE 307.73 115355338001 001.476.000.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES; PARK& REC 186,68 Total : 546,08 44201 3/22/2018 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER FEBRUARY 2018 001.016.000.589 STATE REMITTANCE 42,562.00 Total : 42,.562.00 44211 3/22/2018 005050 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC 80'0438 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32.50 Total ' 32.50 44212 312212018 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 48691 001,033,000.518 NAME DECALS 272.00 Total : 272.00 44213 3122.12018 .002407 RIGHTI SYSTEMS INC S1-156213 n01.090,000.594 CISCO UCS MINI 39,868.04 Total : 39,868.04 44214 3/2212018 002535 SCS DELIVERY INC 11350 001.011,000.511 BROADCASTING 100.00 Total : 100.00 44215 3/22/2018 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY FEBRUARY 2018 001.016.000,589 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 6C8_08 Total : 608.08 44216 3/2212018 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 3550.307 001,013.015.515 FILE COMPLAINT 240.00 Total : 240.00 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: -- 0312212018 12:16:31PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4-4217 3022/2018 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPER"CSR COURT 3550.351 001.013.0115.515 FILING FEE 240.00 Total : 240.00 e-4218. 3/22/20118 CCCC41 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 11006047-1 303.000.251.595 C1P 0251: INSPECTION/TESTING Fl 1,267.54 11006101 303.000.251.595 ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES 4,984.85 110100139 101.143,74.94 2017 ENGINEERINGTRAFALLTRU -9,624.30 110100192 101,042.000.542 JANUARY 20118 ENGINEERING 31,517,21 Total ; 28,145,30 4419 312212018 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW, THE 492765 303,303.166,595 ADVERT/SI NG ACCT 42365 1,630,43 Total ; 1,630.43 44220 3/22/2018 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3371134355 001 090.000 519 SUPPLIES; KITCHEN 76.51 Total : 76.51 442211 3/22/2018 006471 STORMWIND LLC 19524 001 018 014.514 REGISTRATION: G. BINGAMAN 1.485.00 Total : 1,49 5.00 44222 3122/2018 005978 VIKING BUILDERS LLC PARCEL 55074.1357 343.303.123.595 REISSUE-CIP 0123 - PERMANENT 10,638.00 Total : 14,638.00 44223 3/22/2018 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 60144 303.000.249.595 POSTAGE SERVICES 798.77 Total : 796.77 44224 3/2212018 001792 WHITEHEAD, JOHN EXPENSES 001,490.000,517 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 587.38 Total; 587.38 44225 3/22.12018 0+01885 ZAY0 GROUP LLC MARCH 2018 001,090,000,518 NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE ACC 253.25 MARCH 2018 001,090.044.518 INTERNET SERVICE 627.00 Total : 874:.25 30 Vouchers for bank code ; apbank Bank total : 743,545.36 30 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 143,645.36 Mage: vchlist Voucher List Page: 03123/2013 2:47:18PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 44226 3?23i2018 001081 ALSCO LSPO2L 10361 001,016.016.521 PRECINCT FLOOR MAT SERVICE 24.12 LSPO2015505 001.015.016.521 FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC 24.12 LSPO2020663 001,016.016_.521 FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC 24.12 Total : 72.36 44227 2/23/2018 006442 ARAMARK UNIFORM&CAREER 1990507077 001,076,305.575 -SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 445,21 1090618300 001,076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 445.21 Total : 890.42 44228 3/23/2018 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC '.NV02550 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY HALL, PRE 9,115.45 Total : 9,115.45 44229 3/23/2018 000030 AVISTA Feb-2018 101,042,000.542 UTILITIES: CFW MASTER.AVISTA F 27,821.49 FES 2.018 001_{)76.300.576 UTIL IT I ES; PARKS MASTER AVISTA 8,609.51 Total : 36,431.00 44237 3/23/2018 000030 AVISTA ROW-2018-0068 001.040.041.322 FERMI REFUND: ROW-2018-0068 210.00 Total : 210.00 44231 3123/2018 004277 BUTCHER: DAN Expanses 101.000.000.542 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 252.00 Total : 262.00 44232 3/23/2018 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY March 2018 001.040,042.558 PETTY CASH: 16609, 18613 6.00 Total : 6,00 4-4233 3/23/2018 006515 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, PERMIT CEI RGR-2018-0003 309.000,270.594 CENTERPLACE WEST LAWN PER! 49.00 RGR-2018-0004 300..000.270.594 CENTERPLACE WEST LAWN PERK 70.00 Total : 11.9.00 44234 3/23/2018 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 357485 001,075.305.575 RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CP 27.50 Total : 27.50 44235 3/23/2018 002.308 FINKE, MELISSA Feb 2018 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 112.50 March 2018 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 67.50 Total : 180.00 44236 3/23/2018 003188 GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERV 72068 001.016.016.521 FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE AT 83.23 Page; vch fist Voucher List Page: 0312312418 2:47:18PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description1Account Amount 44236 3123/2018 003188 003188 GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER SEF (Continued) Total : 83.23 44237 3/23/2018 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 1st QTR 2018 001,090.000.550 1ST QTR 2018 ECO DEV GRANT 4,429.50 Total : 4,423.50 442:1I3 3123/2018 0002632 HAYDEN HOMES .larch 2018 001.237.10.96 SURETY` DEPOSIT REFUND 17,724.54 Total : 17,724.53 44239 3/23/2018 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 1269340 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 94.82 1269341 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 62.68 1270213 001,078.305,575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 89.55 Total : 237.05 44240 3123/2018 004926 LE CATERING CO E00621 001.076.306.575 E00621: INLAND EMPIRE GARDEN! 204.48 E00557 001.078.305.575 E0Q667: INLAND EMPIRE GARDEN; 1,495.90 Total : 1,700.38 44241 3123/2018 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 19446838 309,400.227,595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 39.83 19445839 309.000.227.595 UTILITIES;APPLE WAY TRAIL 54.05 1.9466894 101.042.000.542 FINAL BILLING; ACCOUNT 775002 1722 Total : 111.10 44242 3/23/2018 005366 NIMRl, AIMEE Expn$ 001,476.305,575 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 21.88 Total : 21.88 44243 3123/2018 000283 NRPA 93303 001.076.000.576 NRPA MEMBERSHIP ANNUAL DUE` 425.00 Total : 425,00 44244 3123/2018 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY P809185 001,076,305,575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 26.58 P821838 001,076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 214.30 Total : 240,88 44245 3123/2018 000709 SENSKE LAWN &TREE CARE INC. 8273239 001,016,016,521 DEICING AT PRECINCT 707.20 8273309 001.033.000.518 CITY HALL WINTER SVCS 1,555,84 8276931 001.016.016.521 VEGETATION MGMT AT PRECINCT 347.07 8281969 001.016.016.521 DEICING AT PRECINCT 380.80 8282008 001.033.000.518 CITY HALL WINTER SVCS 859.52 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: - 03/2312018 2;47:18PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept DescriptinntAccount Amount 44245 312312018 000709 000709 SENSKE LAWN &TREE CARE INC. (Continued) Total : 3,850.43 44246 3/2312018 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL March 2016 001.076 302.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: MA 1,801.09 Total : 1,807.{19 44247 312312018 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 March 2018 402.44.2,000.5.11 WATER CHARGES FOR MARCH 20 79.43 Total : 79.4-8 44248 3/23/2018 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLLIT 8010763421 001,076.305.575 ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENT! 39,44 Tota/ : 39.44 44249 3/23/2018 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1270020 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION: CPW FEB 20 591.09 Total : 591.99 44250 3/23/2018 001206 SWANSON'S REFRIGERATION & RESTA 154103 001.076.305.575 WORK ORDER FOR OVEN AT CEN- 746.80 Total : 746.80 44251 3123/2018 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MBC 3141 309,000.270,594 0270-ANOIARCHIPROJ MGMT 1,307.00 3158 309,000,270,594 0270 ENG/ARCH/PROJ MGMT 2,533.50 Total . 3.840.50 44252 312312018 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 005338-007 309.000.227.595 UTILITIES:APPLE WAY TRAIL 26.00 028004-440 309.000,27.595 UTILITIES_APPLE WAY TRAIL 75,75 Total : 101.76 44253 3/2312018 003175 VISIT SPOKANE Feb 2018 105.000.000.557 2018 LODGING TALC GRANT REIM'S 5,833.34 Total : 5,833.34 44254 312312018 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0611938-2681-1 402.402.000.531 WASTE MGMT: r 1AINT SHOP FEB 2 194.84 Total : 194.84 44255 312312018 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 10558198 001.016 016.521 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 623.03 Total : 623.03 30 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 89,983,98 30 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 89,983.98 Page: vchlrst _ Voucher List Page: 9 ,--1.-- 03/29/2018 2:15:16PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbanl Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundiDept Description/Account Amount 44256 3/29/2018 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 209446 309.000.270.594 SUPPLIES WEST LAWN PROJECT 95.25 209450 309.000.270.594 SUPPLIES WEST LAWN PROJECT 143.94 209757 309_.004.270.594 SUPPLIES FOR WEST LAWN PRO,; 92.39 Total : 334.58 44257 3/29/2018 003524 DENN, SHELLY Expenses 001,018.016,518 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 337.45 Total : 337.45 44258 3/29/2018 001993 FISCH, PETE Expenses 101.043.000.542 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 415.56 Total : 415.56 44259 3/29/2018 001296 H.Q. FOWLER CO INC 14760434 309.000.270.594 SUPPLIES FOR WEST LAWN PRO, 732.12 Total : 732.12 44280 /29/2018 001296 H.Q. FOWLER CO INC 1476'9'.7 309.000.270.594 SUPPLIES FOR WEST LAWN SRO., 24/8 Total : 24:78 44261 3129/2018 005472 JOHNSON, JOHN Expenses 001,040041,543 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 13.77 Total : 13.77 44262 3/29/2018 006518 NEW HERITAGE FARMS LLC CSV Refund 001.000.000.321 CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND 13.00 Tutu! : 13,00 44263 329/2018 006475 FEETZ, BRANDI Expenses 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 275,73 Total : 276,73 44264 3/29/2018 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY P869292 001.016.076.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 374.38 Total : 374.38 44265 3/29/2018 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 March 2018 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR MARCH 20 110.02 Total : 110.02 44266 3/29/2018 000167 VERA WATER & POWER March 2018 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: MARCH 2018 3.590.80 Total ; 3,590.80 44267 3/29/2018 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO IN000805579 308.000.270.594 TRACTOR RENTAL 853.22 ~ Page: .-4-- . vch list Voucher List Page, 03f29/2018 2:15:16PM Spokane Valley Bark code : ; bank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescrrptionfAccount Amount 44267 3129./2018 002:63 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO {Continued) Total : 853.22 12 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 7,075.41 12 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 7,075.41 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished.the services rendered,air the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist Voucher List Pagel - 03/2912018 3:52:39PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 44268 3/2912018 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 60760 402.402-000.531 STREET SWEEPING 730.04 Total : 730.04 +1269 31.2912016 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION Sl IPPI Y INf. 7{I9695 101,042.000.542 SUPPLIES; STREET DEPT 1.0,77 Total : 10.77 44270 3120/2018 000168 BLACK BOX NE-MORK SVC SPC-169998 001,090,000-518 IT SUPPORT 2,058-69 Total : 2,058.69 44211 3129/2018 002562 CD"A METALS 301781 101-000.000-542 SUPPLIES; SNOWPLOWS 116.82 Total : 116.82 44272 312912018 000322 CENTURYLIf K, MARCH 2018 001-090.000,518 CITY HALL PHONES 239.09 MARCH 2018 001.076,000,575 2018 PHONE SVCS;ACCT 509 Z14- 538,79 Total : 777.88 44273 3/2912016 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 59439 001.013-000.513 ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE 563.04 Total : 563.04 44274 3.12912018 001888 COMCAST Mar 15-Apr 17 2018 001.490.000.516 INTERNET CITY HALL 106.17 Total : 106-17 44275 3/29/2018 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 010569 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL 212.33 Total : 212.33 44275 3129/2018 000686 DEPT OF L'CENSING 23201 0050491 402.402.000-531 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICEN 118.00 Total : 116.00 44277 3129/2018 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB80313034 101-042.000-542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS 5.095-54 RE-313-ATB80313041 101.042,000,542 REIMBURSE ROAD MAINT-1TRAFFI 14,956-80 Total : 20,053.43 44278 312912018 002920 DIRECTV INC 33691194935 101.€142.000.543 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENAN 75.24 Total : 75.24 44279 3/29/2018 000869 EVCD SOUND 8 ELECTRONICS 30440 001.040.000.516 SERVICE AND LABOR 428,57 Page: -- vchlist Voucher List Page! —2-- 03/29/2018 3:52:39PM Spokane VaI[ey Bank code ; apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 44279 3/29/2018 000889 000869 EVCO SOUND & ELECTRONICS (Continued) Total ' 428.67 44280 3{29/2018 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 484157 402 402.000 531 ADVERTISING 67.94 484786 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 69,75 484787 001.013.000 513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.28 484788 001.0 0.'043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 76.63 484789 001.040,043,558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 79.00 484791 001,040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 81.37 484794 001 040.043 558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 62.41 Total : 462.38 44281 3/29/2018 001232 FASTENAL CO IDLEW128314 101 042,000.542 SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT. 45.39 Total : 45,39 44282 3129/2018 003261 FEHR & PEERS 120957 001 040.042.558 NE INDUSTRIAL AREA SRTC 3.504.80 Total ' 3.504.80 44283 3.'2912018 005474 FREIGI-ITLINER NORTHWEST PC001407483:01 101,000,000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 68.54 Total : 88.54 44284 3129/2018 005994 HENKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 6111028 101,000,000.542 SUPPLIES; SNDWPLOWS 961.80 Total : 961.80 44285 3129/2018 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPO2N2733508 101 000 000.542 SUPPLIES SNOWPLOWS 90.31 Total : 90.31 44286 3/2912018 004632 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 59417138 001 076 305.575 TELECOM SERVICES 1,350.13 Total : 11,380.13 44287 3/29/2018 001548 NORCO INC 274492454-411-4390 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: ORDER 57770256-00 693.40 Total : 693.40 44283 3/29/2018 002941 NORTHSTAR CLEAN CONCEPTS 30003 101.000.000.542 SUPP_IES: SNOWPLOWS 2T7.45 Total : 277.45 44239 3/29120113 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 117538755001 001.018.014.514 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 36.76 Total : 36.76 Page: v vchlist Voucher List Page: / — O3/2' I2018 3:52:39PIMI Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank. Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptlonfAccount Amount 44290 3/2912018 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER 188104 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES: COPY PAPER 118.59 Total ; 118.59 44291 3.129/2018 006475 PEETZ, BRANDI EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIN1BURSEMENT 449,00 Total : 449.00 44292 3/29/2018 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 45643 101.000.000.542 WINTER RESPONSE 2018 44,176.58 Total : 44,178.58 44293 3/29/2018 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 46732 00'.011,000,511 SIGNS 348.16 Total : 348.16 44294 3/29/2018 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS fti79270 001,040.043.558 MARCH MS COPIER COSTS 1,440.20 Total : 1,440.20 44295 3/29/2018 002520 RWC GROUP 168731 101.000.000.542 REPAIRS: SNOWPLOW#218 78$.80 69422N 1101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES; SNOWPLOWS 96.08 89440N 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES; SNOWPLOWS 36.89 Total : 921.77 44296 3/29/2018 004131 SPOKANE CO SOLID WASTE MGMT 20180307-5491-37224 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CHARGES: CI 109.92 Total : 109.92 44297 3/29/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51504208 001.016.000.523 MARCH 2018 HOUSING 134,244.81 51504224 101.042.000.542 WORK CREW INVOICE FEBR1JARI' 4,284.70 Total : 138,529,51 44298 3/2912018 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 655041 101,0100.000,542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 61.69 Total : 51.69 44299 312912018 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8040084021 101.000,000,542 DISMOUNT/MOUNT TIRES 35.46 Total : 35.46 44300 3/29/2018 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO IN000604943 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR BACKHOE 30.16 IN000607255 101.000.440.542 SUPPLIES FOR BACKHOE 86.50 I N 000609126 101.000.0130.542 ROAD GRADER RENTAL 20118-3 5,614.11 Total : 5,730.77 Page_ vchlist Voucher LFst Page: 03/2912018 3:52:39PM Spokane Valley Bank code _ pbar k Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Descriptior!Account Amount 33 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 224,661.69 33 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 224;661.69 I,the undersigned. do certify under penalty of perjury. that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered, or the labor performed as descr,bed herein and that the claim es Just,due and an unpaid e ligation POoin0.tha City of finnkanP Va1IPy and that I arrr authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council rner finer reviewed: mayor Date COU n7.I7u1vmber Date Page: �~ 5. /. vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 0410412018 11:46:51AM Spokane Valley Bank code : ar. bank Voucher Date Vender Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 44301 41412018 001506 BANNER BANK 8559 MAR 2018 001.0751.305.575 PROAUDIO 495,40 8599 MAR2018 001.076,305,575 KRUEGER SHEET METAL 929.30 8599MAR 2018 001.076.305.575 WASHINGTON AIR REPS 21.91 R5PP MAR 71118 001 1176 Cls 575 AMA7C)N C:C7r.+I 215 116 8599 MAR 2018 001.076.305.575 DOLLAR TREE STORES 16,32 8599 MAR 2018 001.076.305.575 ROSAUERS- CANDY 16.94 Total : 1,696.03 44302 41412018 0001545 BANNER BANK 9713 MAR,2013 001.033.000.518 ETSY.COM 232,16 9713 MAR 2018 001.033.000.518 LOWE'S STORE 45.50 9713 MAR 2018 001.040.043.558 AMAZON.COM 48,95 9713 MAR.2018 001.033.000,518 LOWE'S STORE 42.32 9713 MAR 2018 001.040,043,558 ULINE, SHIP SUPPLIES 904.74 9713 MAR 2018 001.033.000.518 HOME DEPOT 30.40 9713 MAR 2018 001.033.000.518 LOWE'S STORE 7.59 9713 MAR 2018 001.040.043.558 EVENT BRITE 30.04 9713 MAR 2018 001.033.000,518 LOWE'S STORES 65.28 9713 MAR 2018 001.040.043.558 WAYPAIR LLC 435.19 9713 MAR 2018 001.040.043.558 AMAZON,COM 9.79 9713 MAR 2018 001.033.000.518 HARBOR FREIGHT 568.32 9713 MAR 2018 001.040,043,558 GREAT LAKES POWER TOOLS 38.77 9713 MAR 2018 001.040.043,558 VALLEY AUTO GLASS 179.17 9713 MAR 2018 001.033.000.518 DEPT OF LABOR& INDUSTRIES 84.40 9713 MAR 2018 001.033.000.518 DEPT OF LABOR& INDUSTRIES 3.95 Total : 2,7 26.53 44303 4/4/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 5214 MAR 2018 041.011,000.511 DELTA AIRLINES 580.00 Total : 580.00 44304 4/4/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 8573 MAR 2018 101.000.000.542 AMAZON,COM 312.59 8573 MAR 2018 001.040.041.543 GRAB WIRELESS 259.97 8573 MAR 2018 001.040,041.543 LIQUIDATEDTECH 259,97 8573 MAR 2018 001.040.041.543 CEDANO248 239.94 8573 MAR 2018 001.040.042.558 EVENTERITE 50.00 8573 MAR 2018 001,018.015.518 ASW 320,00 8573 MAR 2018 001.011.000.511 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC 120.00 Page; vchlIstuhr List /: -'Page: .-2- -04/04/2018 11:46:51AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 44304 4/412018 OO1606 BANNER BANK (Continued) 8573 MAR 2018 001.090.000.517 VALLEY BOWL 375.35 8573 MAR 2018 001.090.000.517 ROSAUERS 11.86 8573 MAR 2018 001,090.000.517 VALLEY BOWL 137.06 Total ' 2 r 117.74 44305 414/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 6368 MAR 2018 D01.018.016.518 SHOPKD STORES 30.00 6368 MAR 2018 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSUST.ORG 25.00 6358 MAR 2018 001.013.015.515 WSAMA 235.00 Total : 290.00 44306 41412018 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 MAR 2018 001.011.000.511 YOKES FRESH MARKET 30.76 8557 MAR 2018 001.011.000.511 SAFEWAY 57.74 8557 MAR 2018 001.011°000.511 JIMMY JOHNS 125,00 8557 MAR 2018 001.011.000,511 WAKE UP CALL 47,44 8557 MAR 2018 001.011.000.511 GONZAGA UNIVERSITY 48.9E 8557 MAR 2018 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE INC 160.00 8557 MAR 2016 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAh 70,00 Total : 533.90 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total ; 7,944.20 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers ; 7,944.26 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 10, 2018 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 31, 2018 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 272,469.10 $ 5,475.00 $ 277,944.10 Benefits: $ 167,522.24 $ 10,368.58 $ 177,890.82 Total payroll $ 439,991.34 $ 15,843.58 $ 455,834.92 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,March 13,2018 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun,City Manager Pam Haley,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Linda Thompson,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick,Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Sam Wood, Councilmember Bill Helbig, City Engineer Arne Woodard, Councilmember Gloria Mantz,Engineering Manager Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Admin.Analyst Mike Basinger,Eco.Develop.Manager Colin Quinn-Hurst, Sr. Trans. Planner Ray Wright, Sr.Traffic Engineer Lesli Brassfield,Eco. Develop. Specialist Adam Jackson,Planning Grants Engineer Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning of Fountain Ministries gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, staff,and the audience stood 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 Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Wood and Councilmember Peetz had no report. Councilmember Woodard reported that he attended a HCDAC (Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee)meeting where they had a public hearing and then ratified the results of that;that two of our projects were up for CDBG(Community Development Block)grants and due to a calculation error, there were more funds than projects so both of our projects were funded at 100%; said he went to the open house last week at CenterPlace and he encouraged people to visit that facility. Councilmember Thompson reported that the Spokane Valley Youth voice event was held last night and it went well with about 45 kids attending;they discussed things they would like to see and fun things they'd like to do; she said it was a very positive and anxious group. Councilmember Wick: said that he attended an SRTC(Spokane Regional Transportation Council)meeting where the Washington State Secretary of Transportation talked about various projects; said he talked a lot about road/rail conflicts,and state and federal grant opportunities and suggested instead of having a call for projects that to perhaps just fund the top projects and open it up for applications. Councilmember Wick also explained some of the history and origin of the TIGER grant and that our city receiving $9 million is a huge win for not only our city but our state. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Deputy Mayor Haley: said she attended the groundbreaking of the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) new bus garage for their new fleet and that the garage will be set up so they will be able to charge their electric buses. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Higgins reported that he attended a groundbreaking this morning for a new project in the Bigelow Gulch area to make a new turn which will eventually join with Sullivan, and which when complete will be a major thoroughfare. PROCLAMATION:Honoring Nancy Hill, Retiring SCRAPS Director After Mayor Higgins read the proclamation,it was accepted with thanks from Ms.Nancy Hill. PUBLIC COMMENTS: After Mayor Higgins explained the process,he invited general public comments. Mr. Alyx Christophe, Spokane Valley: said the City did a wonderful job on the bypass south of Sprague and requested to have a connection and bike paths to the Centennial trail; said he has noticed that people from other counties use that Trail and it would be great to include that nice connection.There were no other public comments. 1.PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendment 2018 Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) -Colin Quinn-Hurst Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 6:18 p.m. Senior Transportation Planner Quinn-Hurst went through the PowerPoint explaining the proposed amendments to the 2018 Transportation Improvement Program, including the updated projects, carryover projects, and new projects; he also noted the revised figures for the 8th Avenue sidewalk project. Mayor Higgins opened the floor for comment; no comments were offered. Mayor Higgins noted that following this is the proposed Resolution amending the TIP, and there will be no comments on that resolution since that is the topic of this public hearing; and he again invited public comments. No comments were offered and Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 6:22 p.m. 2. Proposed Resolution 18-002 Amending 2018 TIP—Colin Quinn-Hurst It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Resolution 18-002 amending the 2018 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment#1. In response to Councilmember Woodard's question about the change in the 8th Avenue sidewalk project,Ms.Mantz said there were several failing drywells so additional funds were added. Vote by Acclamation:In favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: 3.Barker BNSF Grade Separation Alternatives—John Hohman Mayor Higgins explained that once this presentation is complete, there will be opportunity for public comments;he said he has asked our legislators to comment at the beginning of the public comment period, followed by the comments from the public,with closing comments by our legislators.Mayor Higgins said comments will be limited to three minutes,with an overall public comment time limit of forty-five minutes. Deputy City Manager Hohman said that tonight they will give a presentation which was mostly presented on March 2,but tonight will include more details. In anticipation of Council having questions concerning the different alternatives,Mr.Hohman said he is accompanied tonight by the team which has been working on this project, and he introduced City Engineer Bill Helbig, Project Manager Debra Seeman of David Evans and Associates, Jake Minar bridge designer with David Evans and Associates, Scott Marshall of HDR Engineering,and City Senior Traffic Engineer Ray Wright.Mr.Hohman said the team will go through the presentation talking about different aspects of the project, and he encouraged Council to ask questions and engage the team in dialogue.Mr.Hohman stated that the Barker Road/BNSF grade separation project replaces an existing at-grade crossing with an overpass of the railroad tracks,and that the team also looked at improvements to the intersection of Barker Road and State Route 290,which is Trent Avenue.He showed Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT an aerial map of the project which is located in the northeast edge of our City; he mentioned the Flora crossing,as well as the location of the Pines BNSF crossing,which he said is another large project they are currently working on. Mr. Hohman noted that the existing intersection conditions are challenging as once you cross the tracks,there is a lot going on in that area with Wellesley and Trent splitting off with a northerly circular route;there is a housing development to the north located on a steep hillside, and there is not a lot of room between Trent and the tracks. Mr. Hohman further explained that this project is important because it is the anchor piece of the infrastructure leading into our northwest industrial area, which is our growth area for manufacturing and industry;the area has 848 acres, 575 of which are currently undeveloped. Per slide #6,Mr.Hohman listed the various local and regional benefits, including the traffic and crash data listed in the box on that slide; and he noted the failing level (F) of service, adding that it is difficult to navigate and is unsafe, again as shown in the data on the slide.Mr.Hohman explained about the economic development benefits and efforts of the area, stressing that if we do not resolve the issues with this intersection,we cannot approve further development. He mentioned the strong partnerships, including with the Department of Commerce, who a few years ago granted us $114,500 to study traffic and environmental issues to help permitting run smoother; in addition,he noted that the City also invested some of its own funds to rebuild Euclid Avenue and to provide a project for the County to extend sewer into this area; said we started working to recruit companies,and he mentioned some of those successes; and again stressed that fixing this intersection is the backbone of our economic development program.Members of the team then discussed some of the history of the project including the original concept, which originated in 2004 as part of the Bridging The Valley Project, and which was revisited as part of the City's 2017 alternative evaluation, i.e., the Diamond Interchange Evaluation, which was noted as not the most cost-effective option at an approximate cost of $41 million, and which was also not warranted through the traffic analysis.Mr.Hohman explained that the City hired Fehr & Peers, notable traffic engineers in the Pacific Northwest, who helped us with the past update of our comp plan, and explained that it is therefore cost effective to continue using that firm; that they looked at this area and based on 2040 projections and what would happen beyond that if the area went to full built out, what kind of traffic generation would that be, and what kind of infrastructure would be needed at that time;and even at full build out of this area,the traffic loading does not warrant an interchange; so we knew that we could then look at the option of a traffic signal or a roundabout. Mayor Higgins asked if the $45 million cost includes taking a road all the way into that housing development, and a member of the team explained that it would include providing an improvement from the north side of the interchange up into that area, and that cost just for that road into that area is estimated at$1.5 million. Mr.Hohman noted past Council actions as shown on the PowerPoint,and that we did receive some funding, including a Federal Earmark of$720,000 to initiate the project design; but the project and scope and design didn't change very much; he said we started really getting concerned about the economic development vitality in that area so we determined we needed to advance the project and get that moving; he stated that there was a lot of discussion in 2016 regarding the concept and a lot of work to determine how to move that forward and at what cost for the design as the city was considering funding the design portion to get this moving forward. Mr. Hohman explained that at that point, there were many questions about the design, how far had it progressed,and did we need to start over from the beginning; and that ultimately we decided there had not been a lot of work done and we would essentially be starting from scratch; that in 2016 we were looking at$36 million,and although we had applied for several TIGER grants,we were not successful. Mr. Hohman explained that after many discussions, this contract for DEA/HDR came before Council in January,2017,but because of the discomfort with the project price and design effort,the motion to approve the contract failed,and the project stalled. He noted that staff and Council discussed this again in February of 2017, at which time staff was directed to pursue alternative designs. Mr. Hohman continued going through the previous City Council actions as noted on the PowerPoint slide;said of those numerous Council actions/presentations, was a notable presentation to Council from WSDOT on roundabouts. Mr. Hohman stressed that while discussing the options and alternatives, staff wasn't set on any one solution,but instead examined all possible solutions based on what was then known. Mr. Hohman said that another meeting Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT with Council held in October 2017 including discussion about the TIGER 9 application,which application showed our progression into the design including a roundabout concept,and which ultimately with Council approval was included in the grant application packet, and also which ultimately led to our award of$9 million to assist in the construction of this project. Project Manager Debra Seeman then went over the design considerations based on the alternatives analysis and need of the project, which focused on safety and mobility incorporating the economic development drivers to the south; she explained there was much strategizing on how to solve this "puzzle" with the physical constraints of the hillside,the tracks,and the existing location of the roadways,and how to be most efficient in traffic operation and not have vehicles go out of their way unnecessarily;she said the team came up with five alternatives initially,and worked with WSDOT to evaluate those;and in meeting with members of WSDOT,they helped us develop a sixth alternative;but all the alternatives looked at the same objective; that the goal was to accommodate practical design,which she said is WSDOT terminology for looking at the purpose and need and finding a solution specific to that, and not adding anything extraneous; she mentioned some of the differences in the alternatives, and noted that a consistent factor in each of the six options was the inclusion of a roundabout. Ms. Seeman stated that as we move forward into the design stage, they will prepare an intersection analysis report that confirms the operation of the roundabout; and said that they have "buy-in"from WSDOT on their state facility for a roundabout. As shown on the slide, Ms. Seeman explained that the original Bridging the Valley concept assumed BNSF and UP collated in the same track right-of-way, and that there would be six railroad tracks in that concept; she noted that UP and BNSF have now diverged and decided not to collate the tracks in the same right-of-way, but that BNSF plans to install a second track in 2019 or 2020. She noted that in all the alternatives,the team has allowed for two tracks,but there is potential for a third track in some of the bridge width and span lengths, and that as this moves forward, that will be coordinated with BNSF. Councilmember Wick said he is encouraged there is opportunity for a third track and he hasn't given up the hope that we could still get the corridors aligned. Ms. Seeman noted the six alternatives costs are in the 2020 construction year, and that includes a 30% contingency on the construction, right-of-way costs, and design costs, so those amounts are the "loaded" rate, and as the project progresses,that 30% contingency will decrease significantly as we move closer to construction. Mr.Hohman noted that although each alternative includes a roundabout,they were included as a worst case scenario, and the team did not have a preconceived notion that that was how these alternatives would work out;for drawing purposes,a roundabout sometimes takes up more property,so the team wanted to make sure that was covered. Ms. Seeman also noted that except for alternative 4, all the alternatives assume that the Flora and the 290 intersection,the south leg would be closed.Ms. Seeman then explained each alternative as shown in the PowerPoint slides. Concerning public outreach, Mr. Hohman went over the list of various and numerous meetings, and said there will be perhaps two or three more public meetings once we get into phase 2 as we want to make sure the public concerns are addressed.Mr.Hohman noted that during those public meetings,most members of the public preferred alternatives 1 and 5,and most did not like alternative 4 since it would require traffic to go far toward the east just to head west.Ms. Seeman said that preferred alterative 5 has been evaluated by the city staff,presented to Council,and that WSDOT is currently reviewing a document which is the basis of design,and is their vehicle for providing approval for a facility that they will ultimately have ownership of;that the team is currently waiting on WSDOT's approval on the basis of design,which will signify their approval of preferred alternative 5, which does include a roundabout. Concerning the geometry of the intersection,Ms. Seeman noted that because this layout does not impact the existing Del Rey access to the north,we are not including a connection to the north as part of this project,it is not part of the purpose and need so it would not qualify for the federally funded grants because it is not driven by project impacts, or the need of safety improvements; but could be added in the future by the County or others, and said the roundabout allows for that future access to add the fourth leg to the north. Team members also explained about the project specific safety analysis,and the difference between a roundabout and a signal, as well as Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT how the public opinion and perception of roundabouts shifts more positively,or at least neutrally,after the construction of the roundabout. City Engineer Helbig went over the project funding, followed by an explanation of concurrency,what it is,and how it applies to local traffic. In summary,Mr.Hohman noted that the Bridging the Valley interchange concept is not a practical solution and through their evaluation which was done in a proper and defensible engineering manner, have determined that it is not warranted; and for the cost of the one interchange project, we could build this project and Pines, and as a practical reason, that is a very strong argument; that they had a full suite of alternatives developed and evaluated, that they coordinated their efforts with WSDOT, stakeholders, and the public,and came up with a fiscally responsible and attainable project solution which ensures adequate infrastructure for anticipated growth; and again stressed that our existing and future development efforts require that this intersection be fixed;adding that our recent grant awards are validations over the last years and the awards, including the $6 million in the freight, as well as the $9 million TIGER are not based on the interchange project,but rather are based on the more practical solution;he mentioned that we previously tried four times for the TIGER grant which is a difficult program to receive money from; and we came up with the right and practical solution at the right time and were awarded the grant funds. Moving forward, Mr. Hohman noted we will complete the conceptual work, conduct additional public outreach including this Friday's 7:30 a.m.meeting to talk about this with the business community; said there will be additional discussion on the alternative solution at the March 27 Council meeting, and that we will shortly thereafter seek Council approval for a phase 2 consultant contract,which will include the specific building plans and right-of-way services; and he noted that the preferred alternative minimizes the amount of needed right-of- way purchases compared to the some of the other alternatives. Mr. Hohman noted we want to complete these elements between 2018 and 2020,with construction taking place between 2020 and 2021,and project closeout in 2022. Mayor Higgins opened the floor at 7:30 p.m., and noted that we would continue taking comments for forty-five minutes. 1. Senator Padden: said he feels this is a great project for this area as well as the expanded area; that the legislative delegation is supportive of this project and of the need for additional industrial land that is usable, and that he is aware the industrial park is about full; that it is difficult to ship products by train or truck without enough equipment to handle the demand; said he does have some concerns with the roundabout as the information presented was concerning the safety of a single lane being safer than the intersection;which he agrees is true, but added that a two-lane is not as safe as a one-lane; said he is not saying those issues can't be fixed over time,and tonight he is mainly here to listen;he noted the legislation has some concerns about the roundabouts, and that he appreciates the additional public input and he will continue working with us;said there was a little miscommunication from what they said when they had the legislative briefing in December, and where the project was; and while they were still open for public input,he said it seems like the dye is pretty much cast on this roundabout; said they suggested an alternative of a roundabout on the north side of the intersection and have the bridge go over Trent,that there has been some preliminary talk on that but the timing was such; and he extended thanks to Council. 2. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she lives by the first Spokane Valley roundabout; said many semi- trucks use that very well as do the school buses and she said if schools still offer driver's education,perhaps they could teach them how to use a roundabout; said she prefers roundabouts and doesn't want the signal as she doesn't want to get T-boned. 3. Lani DeLong, Spokane Valley: said she has been attending meetings since last fall and staff has done a wonderful job with clear and well-presented information; said maybe senators didn't talk to everyone in the valley but people she knows have been very approving; and said she wish our senators would reach out to all constituents and not make a decision based on a few people's input. 4. Erik Poulsen, Greater Spokane, Inc.: he thanked Senator Padden; said he served with him on the legislature many years ago; said difficult decisions are needed to keep this project on track as it is important Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT for the entire region; that $9 million is nearly impossible to achieve and he extended his compliments to staff and others who worked in that regard; said only 41 such grants were awarded nationwide; said he is proud of the partnership with our City and realizes this is a key economic development opportunity; there are over 600 acres of developable property, and it is important to bring jobs to the area. 5. Angela Lalonde, Spokane Valley: asked to please include the roundabout; said there have been many proven research benefits including saving lives and reducing costs associated with traffic accidents. 6.Brian Lalonde,Spokane Valley:said he is excited about the choice of the roundabout for this intersection; said we are just as good as any other community that has mastered these; signals have limitations,including people engaging in distracted behavior while waiting for the red light to change. 7. Diana Wilhite, Spokane Valley: said she appreciates the hard work that went into getting that TIGER grant;that since we did get that she would like Council to reconsider adding Wellesley back into the project; said she likes project#5,but the combination of 1 and 5 shows Wellesley coming down into Barker instead of taking it up over the bridge; said she doesn't recall the condition of the bridge but thinks it has been there for a long time and it might be getting towards the end of its life, so while we have the extra money we should look at taking Wellesley further down; said she likes the idea of having a third track under the overpass, and doubts the UP and BNSF will come together, but BNSF is beginning a heavy campaign in Sandpoint,Idaho to build a bridge across the Pend Oreille River,which would mean more train traffic and said she thinks they will want to put in a third track so we should have it set up so we can accommodate that. 8.Bryan Collins,Spokane Valley Fire Chief: said the fire trucks navigate roundabouts pretty well;that they typically don't drive as fast as people think and 25 mph doesn't cause any concern and is not an issue; said Liberty Lake has a couple they use and the crews navigate just fine and he agrees they appear to be safer than signals. 9. Al Merkel, Spokane Valley: said although he has been a critic on some past Council actions,this isn't one of them; said that a lot of time and focus went into this, a lot of engineering detail,and we heard a lot of great information tonight;this is an engineering project and there's not a lot of leeway in terms of what people would like; said it's great to have public input and that people are behind the project,but ultimately safety,cost,modern technology and expansion,those are the some of the things we have city engineers for, and said he is a little disappointed that after such a robust process which included so many public comments, that we have come to focus on this issue again in what he feels is negative; said we had a special Council meeting and it seems we will have another one on Friday about this issue; and said that is really a result of some brinkmanship that came from our representatives at a higher level, and said he doesn't understand why that should happen; and said we should focus on communications in the future so that kind of brinkmanship and head-butting doesn't occur, especially on an engineering project, which is science-fact- based rather than on a matter of opinion. 10.Jack Kastel,Spokane,said he is the developer of the Highland Estates Neighborhood just north of Trent where this roundabout is proposed: said he has some serious concerns about the north leg coming into the neighborhood, and said that project should not be built without if for several reasons; said he thinks there are some traffic movements that will be impacted where Del Rey Drive currently accesses Trent, which may restrict movements at that intersection; said at staff's direction,he met with Shawn Messner, Spokane County Engineer today,and said Mr.Messner told him to go talk to the City of Spokane Valley because it is really their project; so he is not sure who to talk to,but said he intends to have a meeting with Greg Figg [of WSDOT] and try to work with all the agencies; said this particular location is right in the middle of a 120-unit apartment site that's approved; so it is fairly valuable property, said he doesn't know if we can take it out of the mix altogether or if we can move the zoning slightly so we can have that kind of use;he said in any event, it will take some of his property; said that over the last number of years at the City of Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Spokane Valley's request, he has provided written documentation and letters of support for the TIGER grant applications and every grant application that has gone out and said the reason is because he needs a second access into that neighborhood for concurrency purposes,and he asked if Katerra or any of the other land owners or developers on Barker were charged some kind of a fee to help support this project; and if not, and of course the railroad paying $300,000 is just a drop in the bucket; said he would think that based on safety and welfare for the people who live in this neighborhood, and for what we are trying to do; he said he is trying to work as good neighbors and friends and has been in support of this fully, and hopes Council would reconsider and take a harder look at that, and said he will be working with the City, state and County to do whatever we can do to get this thing figured out;and said ultimately the City will have to acquire some right-of-way from him. 11. Darey VanDeusen, Spokane Valley: said he is impressed by what has happened this evening, and said he has been at the mentioned intersections today; said at Carnahan and 8th he can't see past that big rock; mentioned how wonderful it was when Liberty Lake got a roundabout instead of those horrible stop signs; said that he goes to Highland Estates every week and he is fearful when at Barker heading north to turn left on Trent that someone will rear-end him as he attempts the turn;and coming back down from Del Rey said he can't see very well because of the height change heading to the east; and said he wants to see that very dangerous intersection improved and done now,perhaps a flashing sign,or sign to slow down or something to help that area now. 12. John Harding, Spokane Valley: complimented the engineers who have been trying to calm our traffic for some time; said there are some issues of concern about the over-pass concept, and he thinks one of the engineers spoke about an extended vehicle that had the ability to go straight through that intersection and in trying to visualize that, said he doesn't see how that will work when you have other points of access and are we going to trust that they will see that vehicle and stop when they are looking left first to make sure there is no vehicle in the roundabout; and then multiply that by two lanes, and what if you are walking or riding a bike trying to cross one of these; said he has seen people appear very confused; said this is a"done- deal"and he understands the traffic flow on Barker versus Pines is six times worse on Pines; said the state's priorities on how they prioritize these intersections,that he would like to know as a citizen,just what that process entails and who decides the priority; said he heard we were twelfth on the state priority, and said he would be curious what those eleven above us are; and said the $300,000 from the rail system is a joke and we should have some ability as a citizen to address this at the federal level, and that he will contact his representative tomorrow, and won't waste his time with the senators, and see what she says. 13. Laura Rentz, Spokane: said she never thought of intersections as being dangerous,but in 2012 she was in a near-fatal accident; the problem is, she explained, other people don't pay attention there and what happened to her will happen to others; said she is happy to hear about this project and looks forward to seeing improvements. 14. Brian Beyer, Spokane Valley: said he lives in the area north of Trent and east of Evergreen; and he is interested in noise pollution as it increases out there; said that area is kind of like a "box canyon" and the noises have a tendency to magnify in a closed area and that area will be affected on both sides by the development that is proposed by the City, and a new thoroughfare that is going to be coming in from the north and tie into Sullivan as well as the discussion of increasing the number of railroad tracks to the north; said he heard that part of the proposal is to close the crossing at Flora and he would like to propose closing a different crossing,perhaps the one at Evergreen because as Evergreen travels to the south it goes into a parking lot on the west end of the aluminum plant and said that is as far as it goes; said he has been in that area two or three times and noticed that the average parking in that parking lot is about 25 cars; said he thinks that would be a no brainer for a crossing to close because there is a road just on the south side of the railroad crossing that belongs to the aluminum plant that goes east,and that he thinks that could be tied into the cul-de-sac at the end of the road past the transfer station that goes farther east to a stop light on Sullivan; so for the few employees that use that parking lot,to travel down Trent to the next intersection,go over the Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT bridge and come back up that road to get into their parking lot, wouldn't be a very large concession for them and it would eliminate another whistle stop. 15. James Johnson, Spokane Valley: said he is also a member of the City's Planning Commission; said a few meetings ago they had an interesting presentation by staff about annexation, and one of the options is for private entities to start the paperwork; said that might be something for the individual who spoke earlier, to consider; said from a planning perspective,he isn't sure the closure of the Flora crossing in exchange for $300,000 is quite worth it; and speaking personally, said that traffic flow is about movement, and roundabouts are about movements, and stop signs and stop lights are about stopping traffic flow, and said he feels roundabouts are the only answer; and that the comments of making sure we are planning for the future sounds like a good idea. City Clerk Bainbridge read an e-mail from (1) Doug Yost, Vice President of Centennial Real Estate Investments, urging Council to move forward to perform the improvements; (2) Tonyia and Brad Pinney, of CAD of Spokane, Inc., stating their support of the roundabout; and (3) Joe White, of White Trucking, voicing his support of Alternative 5. (See attached for complete e-mails.) To close this agenda item,Mayor Higgins invited Senator Padden to speak. Senator Padden: expressed his thanks for the meeting and said he was glad he stayed to hear all the comments; he re-emphasized that the legislative delegation has worked closely with the City throughout this; said that someone had remarked about brinksmanship,but he said that at all times they were in contact with the City's Government Affairs representatives in Olympia; said he thinks it was a case of just needing more time and that he felt a little "jammed time-wise" and said he isn't saying that is anyone's fault; at the time they felt the City took in some of the legislator's concerns,and at the end the legislators were able to talk,adding that there was very little legislative time-schedule; he said that safety is a huge thing that everyone is concerned with, as well as economic development and he hopes we can find a way to satisfy both; he re-emphasize that the legislators were not in favor of the stop light in the intersection, but wanted to explore the idea of a roundabout on the north side so as not to impede the flow of traffic on Trent; which he said might be too expensive, but that he doesn't know and said he still has some questions on that. Senator Padden said they did find out some things on the roundabout,and if you can have that apron in and some other things for the big trucks and school buses,and we were very much concerned about the school buses;he said maybe some of those things could be worked out; said the legislators want to continue working with the City as they have done before; said that $1.4 million that goes with this project had to and was re-authorized in the transportation budget, and said they are also working with the City on some other transportation projects, and mentioned the Bigelow Gulch project which will also impact the City; said the City has so many infrastructure needs, like a new Sullivan Bridge there to deal with at some point when the Bigelow Gulch connection is made; said there is a lot out there including the Bridging the Valley; said the legislators want to continue the working relationship, that they are always available, and he hopes to keep the lines of communication going. Mayor Higgins thanked Senator Padden, and said the City works closely with our legislative delegation,and that it is a fine fit and has been very successful and it will continue to be so. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 8:10 p.m.;he reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. 4. 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 March 13,2018 Request for Council Action Form,Total: $701,696.57 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending February 28,2018: $441,670.18 c.Approval of February 13,2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting,Workshop d.Approval of February 20,2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session e.Approval of February 27,2018 Council Meeting Minutes,Formal Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT NEW BUSINESS: 5. Second Reading Ordinance 18-006 False Alarm Code Amendment—Morgan Koudelka After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Ordinance 18-006 amending the False Alarm Code. Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka briefly explained that this amendment would modify the section of the Municipal Code regarding appeals and mitigations. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 6.First Reading Ordinance 18-007, Small Cell—Erik Lamb After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 18-007 adopting small cell deployment regulations, to a second reading. In going through his PowerPoint presentation,Mr. Lamb noted revisions to slide 6 and of an old draft of the permitted use matrix; said the ordinance included the current draft; he noted that Council can amend the Planning Commission's proposal,but if there are substantial changes,we can request a public hearing. Mr. Lamb also noted that there are various bills at the state level but ultimately no small cell state law has passed so far this year,but it is likely to come back again next year. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr. Joel Aro, with Lynk Consulting in Woodinville, Wa and speaking on behalf of Verizon Wireless: he extended thanks to staff and to the Planning Commission for working with him to come up with a workable service; said he thinks buried equipment is technically not feasible and would be a considerable expense when there are outages,or if excess water is present requiring deploying multiple technicians.Mr.John Harding, Spokane Valley: said he has a lot of question including why we need this,and what isn't working to make it so we need this new system;he asked about the number of contracts we'll be doing;whether these entities send and transmit;how many government agencies might be involved or is this strictly private; he asked who collects the information being broadcast and if the information is recorded or kept like data;said he will do research himself;he asked who would have access to those poles, and said this doesn't make sense to him. Mr. Steven Burke, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, works for Mobility: said his company is currently in negotiations for a franchise agreement with Spokane Valley; said he attended several Planning Commission meetings and that he has no objections to the new ordinances being proposed;said they have joint use agreements with Century Link and Avista;they place their facilities in a canister on the top of the pole and it blends in with the pole and extends 7' above the pole; said they have built about 25 of these in Spokane either on Avista or Century Link poles and he hasn't heard any public outcry; said the small cells are used to transport data over a wireless network;that this is a big boom for Spokane Valley and would bring in business as a connected city; said that Mobility is in each state,that they don't own any bandwidth and Sprint is their client who would be sending out the signal. There were no further public comments. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 7.Motion Consideration: CRAVE Contract—Lesli Brassfield It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a Letter of Renewal in substantially the form provided, related to Crave! in 2018. Concerning the event, Ms.Brassfield briefly discussed attendance and lodging,local chefs and eateries,advertising,transportation options, and of our City Sponsorship. At 8:56 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting for thirty minutes. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 8.Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunities(FMSIB)—Adam Jackson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to apply for FMSIB grants for the Argonne Road-Indiana to Montgomery Concrete Reconstruction project and the Barker Road Widening-Spokane River to SR 290 project. Mr.Jackson briefly went through the PowerPoint and said there is no new information since his last report. There was brief Council discussion about total cost, and Mr. Jackson stated that awarded funds must be used for the construction phase. Mayor Higgins Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 9. Potential Grant Opportunities(SRTC, SRTS,PBP,CSP) —Adam Jackson Planning and Grants Engineer Jackson explained about various upcoming grant opportunities, all as noted in his PowerPoint and Request for Council Action form,including potential grants from Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality(CMAQ), Surface Transportation Block Grant(STBG),the City Safety Program (CSP), and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program (PBP) and Safe Routes to School (SRTS). Mr. Jackson brought Council's attention to the Table listing the projects, total cost, secured funds,funding request and source,city match, and additional comments. At 9:27 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting ten minutes, until 9:37 p.m.There was brief discussion about some of the aspects of these projects; and Councilmember Wick said he noted the future grade separation projects are not included, and asked if that is because Mr. Jackson feels they would not score well. Mr. Jackson said he does not have a specific answer for that, and would need to research that question.Councilmember Wick said he encouraged the consideration of adding Pines or doing a combination of Pines and Park. 10.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed):n/a CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Calhoun said that there will be a special meeting here this Friday morning, 7:30 a.m., concerning the Barker Grade Separation Project; that our Mayor will gavel the meeting in, Council will move to the galley, Mr. Hohman will make a presentation, then the Chamber's Transportation Chair Mr. Tombari will facilitate questions and comments.Mr. Calhoun said the meeting is scheduled to end at 8:30 a.m. On another topic,Mr.Calhoun said that we are going through a series of employee appreciation events and that he wanted to make sure Council is aware they are invited to tomorrow's luncheon. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-13-2018 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington March 20,2018 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun City Manager Brandi Peetz, Councilmember John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Linda Thompson, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Sam Wood,Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Mark Werner,Police Chief Bill Helbing, City Engineer Gloria Mantz,Engineering Manager Absent: Erica Amsden, Senior Engineer Pam Haley,Deputy Mayor Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Henry Allen, Senior Engineer Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Carrie Koudelka,Deputy City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll, all Councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Haley. It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Haley from the meeting. 1. 8th and Carnahan Right of Way Acquisition Remediation—Gloria Mantz Engineering Manager Mantz began her presentation stating that in late November, 2016,the City issued a purchase and sale agreement for the property at 8th and Carnahan,which closed in January, 2017. She said the City did not follow the Federal Acquisition Act, which requires we follow the Uniform Relocation Act(URA)whenever any phase of a project is funded by federal dollars. She said under the Act, we are required to pay fair compensation for the purchase of the property, moving expenses, relocation and closing costs to make the seller "whole" and the City will not be able to pursue federal funds for a project involving the property unless we meet those requirements. She said the seller has found a property they are interested in and they are entitled to full replacement cost. The price differential for housing replacement and incidentals is approximately $56,761.46. She said the total cost of the house and the remediation costs exceed the City Manager's authority, so staff is looking for consensus to bring this back to Council next week for a motion consideration. Councilmember Wick asked if we purchased any other properties without following the Act and City Manager Calhoun said this is the only one. It was the consensus of Council to move forward for a motion consideration. 2. 8th Avenue Sidewalk: Thierman to Dickey-Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz Senior Engineer Amsden said the project is located on 8th Avenue between Dickey and Thierman and currently there is a gravel shoulder, no sidewalks, numerous residential entrances and failing stormwater structures. She said the project will put a sidewalk on the north side of 8th, a paved Council Study Session:03-20-2018 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT shoulder lane for shared use and parking, and new drywells for sediment control. She said staff is meeting with residents and sending project mailers to all residents in the surrounding area. She explained that 8th will be closed to through traffic and there will be temporary driveway closures, and a temporary pedestrian detour directing them to the south side of 8th Avenue. Bus stops will be relocated and she said staff is working with STA. Westbound traffic will be routed onto Thierman to 6th Avenue and eastbound traffic will be routed onto Dickey to 11th Avenue, then to Theirman. She said the estimated cost for the project is just under $600,000; it is scheduled to advertise this Friday for a bid opening on April 6, 2018, Council bid award on April 17, 2018, and construction in mid-May for a target completion date in mid-June. Mayor Higgins asked if staff has had a discussion with Central Park folks because he thinks that road is not public, and Councilmember Wood said it looks like we are going through the Central Park condominiums and that is not a City street. Ms. Amsden said staff will look into that. Councilmember Thompson asked if we have talked to the schools about getting kids where they need to go and Ms. Amsden said the buses and the kids will be able to get through. 3. Floodplain FEMA Process —Henry Allen Senior Engineer Allen said during his presentation he will discuss the process for floodplain revisions. He said under certain conditions, floodplain boundaries can be modified and in certain conditions, people can build in a floodplain. Mr. Allen said Spokane Valley has six 100-year floodplains: Forker Draw, Spokane River, Shelley Lake fed by Saltese Creek, Chester Creek, Central Park and Glenrose watershed. He said in 1968 the National Flood Insurance Act was started, creating the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce flood loss and provide protection against potential losses. Two additional acts mandated that federally regulated institutions require flood insurance for buildings located in a participating NFIP. He said to receive flood insurance, a community must adopt ordinances meeting certain minimum requirements intended to reduce future flood losses. Mr. Allen said flood hazard maps have been developed all over the country through engineering analysis to show boundaries of flooding. He said during the engineering analysis, they look at the channel, put a 100-year flood through the channel and then determine the base flood elevation of the 100-year flood. Mr.Allen said there are several reasons to revise floodplains:to provide an accurate risk awareness for insurance coverage; to correct incorrect flood boundaries; and to reflect changes in land use and development, new bridges or culverts, and updated topography and hydrology. He said revisions can be initiated by FEMA or by the public. He said there are four steps to revisions initiated by FEMA and the whole process takes more than five years: a mapping needs assessment, project scoping, data development, and processing with a ninety-day appeal period. Mr. Allen added that revisions to Chester Creek took ten years. He said community initiated map revisions are broken into "small" and "big" and are either based on a current condition or due to a proposed condition. Small revisions usually have a process time of two to three months. Councilmember Woodard asked if a single house or 600-lot project would be considered a small revision;Mr.Allen said a 600-lot project would not fall into the small category, but up to a couple lots could. Councilmember Woodard asked how long it would take to go through the process if a developer were to put forty houses on Barker and used fill. Mr. Allen said that type of project would be multiple parcels, often involving substantial changes. He said it would follow the same process but because of the scale it would take longer; up to several years. He said FEMA does a lot of in- depth review and it is a long process,and he added that they are very detailed because of the hazard to properties and property owners. Councilmember Woodard pointed out that the Painted Hills update is the next agenda item and asked if that project falls into category number 4 revision due Council Study Session:03-20-2018 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT to proposed condition.Mr.Allen said that it does.Mr.Woodard asked if that is a project that would take many years and Mr. Allen responded that it could, but it is hard to tell. He said the City is involved in the review process and as a jurisdiction, we need to sign off that we are comfortable with the project analysis, that the project includes measures that will reduce floodplain risk and meet other requirements and then we send it on to FEMA. 4. Painted Hills Update—John Hohman, Lori Barlow, Cary Driskell Deputy City Manager Hohman said he is here to update Council with the latest steps in the process relating to the Painted Hills proposed development; he thanked Mr. Allen and Ms. Horton for the FEMA presentation as it set the stage for this update and the impacts and analysis for moving forward with the project. Senior Planner Barlow said the project area was a golf course from 1989 —2012,went bankrupt and was purchased by Black Realty,now NAI Black. She said prior to 1985 it was zoned agricultural; in 1991 the County rezoned the property to Multi-Family, and in 2007 the City rezoned it to Single-Family Residential. She said the City has developed a webpage containing all information available to date. The project is a Planned Residential Development (PRD),proposes 580 units on approximately 99 acres, and is bordered on the east by Madison, on the south by Thorpe, and on the west by Dishman Mica. She said as proposed,the project contains several areas with different development including mixed and retail use,and either natural or active open space. She said the north portion of the proposal will have cottages on approximately five acres with 52 lots and narrow lot frontages; 206 lots with single family residences will be located internally on approximately forty acres. She said the project was proposed in 2015 under prior development regulations and in December 2016, new development regulations were adopted and the current proposal lot sizes are too large to meet those standards. Continuing, she said in the south portion of the proposal there will be 42 estate lots on just under twelve acres,uniform in size and bordering a common space area. She said adjacent to Dishman Mica will be 270 units for multi-family and mixed use. Currently active and zoned commercial is a tap house and restaurant on the south end of the proposal. She said zoning has been R3 since 2007 and there have been changes to the zoning adjacent to the site but not the proposal property. Ms. Barlow said PRDs have a special set of regulations and are allowed in any residential zone so long as they meet the minimum standard, initially a five-acre piece of property. She said all types of residential developments are allowed and PRDs allow neighborhood commercial use if the project is ten or more acres; they allow greater flexibility for design and can eliminate rear- and side-yard setbacks to allow the developer options in exchange for providing open space. She said the underlying zoning regulations dictate the PRD density and the Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on the project; therefore, it does not go to Planning Commission or Council for any approvals. Since 2015, the project has received traffic concurrency and in April 2017, some improvements to intersections were identified and would be required as part of the proposal. She said that in August 2017, the SEPA determination was issued indicating a determination of significance (DS). She said after review of the project it was determined it would have an adverse impact on the environment and need further analysis. The DS was issued and that started the review of the impact statement. She said the floodplain has been an ongoing issue since 2015 and discussed between the developer and City staff as they move through the process. Next, she said, a scoping meeting was conducted in September 2017; a final scoping notice was issued that identified what was to be discussed in the environmental impact statement (EIS); the developer was given the draft EIS and the City has not yet received the draft EIS back. She said from there, the City sends comments, then issues a final EIS, then moves the project forward to the Hearing Examiner. Council Study Session:03-20-2018 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Hohman showed a map of the project and an overlay of the 100-year floodplain and pointed out that almost the entire project is located within the 100-year floodplain and he said the impacts of the development on the floodplain need to be studied in more detail. He said project proponents are looking at ways to handle this, mitigation and other options, and he said he is expecting a supplemental application or a new application and if there is a significant change, they may have to start again from scratch. He said another important aspect is that the FEMA floodplain process is a separate and significant process that they will have to follow and it is a timely process. City Attorney Driskell said the reason the decision goes through the Hearing Examiner is to ensure it is decided objectively by someone with specific and proper training and it also takes politics out of the scenario. He said the approach of Council is to develop regulations appropriate for the community and the application is processed pursuant to those regulations. He said he has heard from citizens that the City should have tried to buy the property and he said the City did try. In 2013, he said the item went before Council seeking authorization to go to the foreclosure sale to bid on the property,however,we received comments from the public indicating someone else was interested in purchasing the property, they had a good plan for its use and asked Council to stand down and not make a bid. He said Council voted 4-3 or 4-2 to not bid on the property. He said he has received further questions as to why the City does not try to buy the property now and he said as a reviewing agent, we can't put ourselves in a position where it looks like we have an ulterior motive to purchase the land. If the developer were to come to the City and ask if we are interested in purchasing the property,he said we would take that information to Council. Councilmember Woodard said that during that discussion, it came back that the private market wanted to pursue the property and by a Council vote of 4-2, it was determined that the City would stand down because the public asked Council not to bid. He said there was a lot of discussion on that topic and he said he thinks we tried to do our due diligence and stay informed. Councilmember Wick asked who would be responsible for maintaining the mitigating factors put into the plan.Mr. Hohman said we would need to look at the features put in and the level of oversight needed; he said this floodplain flows every year and would need to be properly managed and nothing has been resolved on that. He said in looking at what the legal requirements would be, there is a lot of risk that would fall on the City or the homeowners association and discussion of any mitigation measures would likely go before Council. Mr. Hohman said this is a very complicated floodplain and will take very detailed analysis to make sure flood solutions are looked at appropriately. 5. Cell Carrier Franchise Agreements —Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell said generally speaking, cities have broad authority to manage right-of- way, sidewalks and streets through adoption of our City code. He said a franchise is an agreement that gets adopted pursuant to ordinance by Council and the franchise grants the permission for an agency to operate in the corridors and rights-of-way of the City. He said the philosophy of the City is not to charge a franchise fee, those fees related to drafting, negotiating and managing the franchise, and that is reflective of our business-friendly community. He said the proposed franchises coming forward are for ten-year periods due to frequent changes in technology. It was the consensus of Council to advance the proposed franchise ordinances for first readings. 6. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Peetz said she would like to discuss recognition of citizens with a key to the city or something similar, either quarterly or twice a year. City Manager Calhoun said this topic is on Council Study Session:03-20-2018 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT our advance agenda and staff can bring an administrative report forward fairly soon. He said with regard to recognition of Katherine Morgan from the Valley Chamber, we can do a proclamation in a timely manner. 7. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Thompson said she appreciates the City accomplishments and the report that was provided to Council and would like that information to get out to the citizens to recognize the staff and their teamwork. She said she also appreciates all the background information that was provided tonight. Councilmember Woodard said the roundabout at Airway Heights was well-designed and works well and he commented that the Appleway Trail is very nice, the HAWK lights work well and the landscaping is starting to grow. 8. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun said he received an email from Briahna Murray that the Governor is considering vetoing Section 1 of HB-2057, the foreclosure bill regarding abandoned nuisance properties. He said Mr. Driskell will outline the details and ask if Council would like to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter, drafted by Mr. Driskell, on behalf of the Council asking the Governor to sign the bill as it was adopted by the legislature. City Attorney Driskell said the most concerning parts of the bill are new sections 10 and 11 that provide requirements for mortgage companies to care for the property and if they do not, the City is authorized to care for the property. He said Section 1 primarily deals with situations involving deceased people, which becomes difficult to deal with because it can be difficult to locate their heirs. Providing for an expedited judicial process would help the City because the cases we have the most difficulty with are code compliance cases in which somebody has died and family members are living in the house that has not gone through probate and it becomes convoluted to work through. He said there are also notice provisions contained in the language relative to what the City needs to do and he said he thinks it would be appropriate for Council to send a letter to the Governor asking that he sign the bill as it is. He said it was negotiated over a couple of years with all of the interest groups,including housing advocates. He said it is his understanding the housing advocates are now trying to get that part of the bill vetoed, but he said he thinks the bill works best the way it was written. It was the consensus of Council that Mr. Driskell draft a letter on behalf of the Council asking the Governor to sign the bill as it was adopted by the legislature. It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session:03-20-2018 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,March 27,2018 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun,City Manager Pam Haley,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Sam Wood,Councilmember Bill Helbig,City Engineer Arne Woodard, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Gloria Mantz,Engineering Manager Adam Jackson,Planning Grants Engineer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Mayor Higgins announced that the pastor scheduled to give tonight's invocation is down with the flu,so Mayor Higgins asked for a moment of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council,staff, and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda; after which Mayor Higgins announced we have a special Proclamation honoring Katherine Morgan. Mayor Higgins and Liberty Lake Mayor Peterson met at the podium,and after Mayor Higgins read the proclamation and it was handed to Ms.Morgan by the City Clerk; and Council, staff, and the audience gave Ms.Morgan a round of applause. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n.a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Wood: reported that he attended the STA(Spokane Transit Authority)board and planning and development meeting and he mentioned the passage of SB 6414 concerning population-based representation on the governing body of public transportation benefit areas, which he said results in increases to the number of board members so the City of Spokane will have four members,but we remain at two. Councilmember Wood also noted that service animals,but not pets,can now be on buses; and that there will be more buses going to Cheney to assist with the Eastern Washington University population. Councilmember Peetz: said she attended a transportation committee meeting which included a presentation from Go Rail concerning transportation issues, and information about the Bigelow Gulch/Forker construction project. Councilmember Woodard: said he attended several Chamber events; went to Nancy Hill's retirement/farewell at SCRAPS and hopes to meet her replacement soon; attended a SAJV meeting at Modern Electric, which is a joint board meeting on water issues; went to an SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council)meeting at CenterPlace sponsoring the legislators,which he said was an interesting meeting with mostly transportation people in attendance. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-27-2018 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Thompson: reported that she attended the Health Board Operations and Budget meeting and learned how their budget works and how grants come in; went to a training session today concerning the Liquor Cannabis Board where they discussed changes in marijuana advertising to make sure those ads are not appealing to youth; and that she participated in a ride-along with Meals on Wheels. Councilmember Wick: said he wasn't able to meet with the SRTC and legislators, but did attend several other meetings; spoke again about SRTC's grant call for projects and of the processing for taking some projects off the top and that they allocated funds to do a study called Division Street Re-envisioned,which looks at Division and what will happen with the North/South corridor once completed;that they set aside money to do the TMC,or Transportation Management Center,which deals with how we can use that center to better use our transportation network,including dispatching initial response and signal coordination; and set aside funds to do a study on the interchange of I-90 and Colfax/Pullman Highway as that major intersection is having some challenges and if the lanes were expanded, it could be very expensive, so they are looking at alternatives; and did a set aside for street preservation projects so instead of having to project preservation projects for five years out, you can actually do it in two-year increments; said he met with representatives from Burlington Northern where they talked about Barker and double tracking; and he met with Brian Raines, who is the Eastern Washington Outreach Director from Maria Cantwell's office, and thanked them for the TIGER grant and mentioned that he started laying the foundation for the Pines project. Deputy Mayor Haley: also mentioned the STA meeting where they re-defined service animals so only dogs and miniature horses are permitted on the buses; said she also did a ride along with Meals on Wheels and said they do much more than deliver meals; said she was in Washington,D.C. last week with the STA and had an opportunity to thank Cathy McMorris Rodgers for the TIGER grant; and said we have not yet celebrated receiving that award,but said this represents a huge amount of work and the reward is amazing. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Higgins reported that he addressed the Japanese American Citizens League; attended the Gonzaga— Whitworth Military Ball;went to the West Valley Robotics Fair; and also participated in a ride along with Meals on Wheels. PROCLAMATION:Honoring Katherine Morgan, CEO, Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce This item was moved to immediately after the approval of the amended agenda(see above). PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins explained the process,and then invited general public comments. Kim Helm, Spokane Valley: said last year she worked with local parents to get 2018 legislative agenda item for parental rights which was ultimately approved by Council to be added to Council's legislative agenda; said she was under the impression our City lobbyist would be pulling for any bills on the Council's legislative agenda,that there was plenty of time but it wasn't heard,and she asked if perhaps that would be addressed so she can know what happened in Olympia with that issue. 1. 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 March 27,2018 Request for Council Action Form,Total: $2,311,111.05 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 15,2018: $337,292.64 c.Approval of March 2,2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting d.Approval of March 6,2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session e.Approval of March 16,2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-27-2018 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 11. Motion Consideration: Barker BNSF Grade Separation Alternative Selection Design Contract — John Hohman It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize City Staff to utilize Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative in moving the Barker Road Grade Separation Project forward. [Alternative 5 includes a 3-leg roundabout,with an estimated total project cost of$19 million in 2020 construction costs.] Deputy City Manager Hohman mentioned that this is the fourth discussion on this topic since Council gave consensus in January of this year to move forward with alternative 5; said there have been a lot of comments, and tonight's presentation will be a shortened version; he noted that Mr. Jake Minard from David Evans is in the audience if there are technical questions. City Engineer Helbig went through the bulk of the PowerPoint explaining the project description, location,benefits,the original diamond interchange proposal,design considerations,2017 alternatives evaluation, and the preferred alternative 5.Mr.Hohman mentioned the numerous public outreach opportunities,and as noted previously, said we need to celebrate awarding of the TIGER grant; that nationwide there were 482 project applications for a total of$6.5 trillion, and only 41 projects were granted; he said we were the only award in Washington State although there were 24 other Washington state grant applications; he said this is rare,but we did our homework,applied several times for the larger project;went back and came up with the project that works just as well if not better,for half the cost. There was brief Council discussion concerning anticipated growth and how this project will accommodate that; after which Mr. Hohman said the design contract approval is now set for April 10th, and it will not include the design effort to lay out that 4th leg nor do the actual construction as part of this project; he said that could change depending on the outcome of our discussions with Spokane County,the developer, and WSDOT; he said at this point we have done the modeling to make sure this will handle future growth and that the roundabout will function well now and far into the future;he said we need to progress through those discussions to see how far our effort encompasses that work, so we are looking at making sure that our design effort leaves space,that the geometry will work, and depending on that discussion we can include portions of the fourth leg in this particular design or the whole construction of the remaining road up to the neighborhood, but that is yet to be determined because there is cost sharing that would have to be brought forward from potentially Spokane County,and the developer; and said he is not sure where WSDOT is in that mix. Mr. Hohman said we have been following the prescribed path of WSDOT and what they really want is the County and the developer to discuss this with them,and he said this will happen in the near future, and that we will be there as well. Mr. Hohman said again at this stage,that leg will not be included but can be easily amended into the effort depending on how those discussions go. Councilmember Wick asked if there will be options at the end of the main bid for this project as well, similar to other bids we have done, and that way we won't slow down the design process, and maybe have some figure if they were to come back and amend it; maybe some interlocal between the jurisdictions, or include for example an option A for a fourth leg. Mr.Hohman replied that having alternate bids could easily be done;however,if this is done as part of the City as our public project, the cost for that connection will be substantially higher than if the developer did it himself as we are held to prevailing wage rates and there are many other factors associated with that;but we can get the design effort going with getting the surveyors out there,and getting the geotechnical engineering to do the foundation work, get the design moving, and then this component could be easily added once we are moving on the project. Mayor Higgins opened the floor for public comment. Sherry Robinson: said she has attended multiple meetings and she thanks the representatives,city staff and everyone who has gone through this project; said traffic lights are expensive and sometimes people run into them; there is a safety concern and with a roundabout, there is the reduction of fatalities making the roundabout so worth it.Darey VanDeusen,Liberty Lake: said when he picks up a friend at the Del Rey and Trent intersection, the line of sight there is terrible, and he hopes someone in the valley would go to bat; and said he is thrilled about this intersection, and he extended his thanks. Bob West, Spokane Valley: he thanked the staff for the tremendous amount of work; said he lives in that area and drives that all the time and it is a dangerous spot;that there was expert work from the staff on this and the input was overwhelming from the community, and he hopes Council takes that into consideration and moves forward as Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-27-2018 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT expeditiously as possible. There were no further comments. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: 2. Legislative Update—Briahna Murray& Chelsea Hager of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Lobbyists Briahna Murray and Chelsea Hager of Gordon Thomas Honeywell went through their PowerPoint presentation giving an overview of the 2018 Legislative Session; they discussed our City's legislative priorities,and they discussed our successes including the Appleway Trail Park Amenities which included$540,000 in the 2017-2019 Capital Budget;the $1.5 million in 2017-2019 Transportation Budget left unchanged in 2018 Supplemental Transportation Budget; said there was an additional $500,000 appropriated in 2017-2019 for the I-90 Barker/Henry Harvard project; they mentioned House Bill 2057 which passed so now if a home is abandoned and if a nuisance, the financial institution may access the home to abate the nuisance and secure the property. They spoke about the many attempts to fund the indigent defense and about the marijuana legislation,both of which were defeated;they explained that the parental rights legislation bills did not advance even though there was broad support in Olympia for the bill (SB 5598). In wrapping up their report,they mentioned several of the AWC (Association of Washington Cities)priorities, and that they will begin reaching out to legislators this fall for the 2019 session. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Ordinance 18-007, Small Cell—Erik Lamb After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Ordinance 18-007 adopting small cell deployment regulations. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said Council has seen this information several times now, and that this will amend certain code provisions as well as adopt two new chapters dealing with small cells, as noted in the ordinance title and body of the ordinance. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr. Steve Burke, Coeur d'Alene and representing Mobility, said he is also in favor of these amendments. There were no further public comments. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-008,MClmetro Franchise Agreement—Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Haley and seconded to advance proposed Ordinance 18-008 regarding granting a telecommunications franchise to MClmetro to a second reading. In his explanation, City Attorney Driskell added that this is our standard franchise ordinance format, and there is nothing new since our discussion last week. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: unanimous. Opposed:none. Motion carried. 5.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-009,Verizon Franchise Agreement— Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance proposed Ordinance 18-009 regarding granting a telecommunications franchise to Verizon Wireless to a second reading. City Attorney Driskell went over the information contained in his March 27, 2018 Request for Council Action, and said staff and Verizon Wireless have agreed on the proposed terms. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 6.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-010,Mobilitie Franchise Agreement—Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance proposed Ordinance 18-010 regarding granting a telecommunications franchise to Mobilitie to a second reading. City Attorney Driskell said there have been no changes on this since his March 20,2018 administrative report.Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr. Steve Burke, of Coeur d'Alene and on behalf of Mobilitie, said he appreciates Mr. Driskell's efforts in working with their legal department, and Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-27-2018 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT that Mobilitie is ready to execute this as written. There were no further public comments. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 7.Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sprague Ave. Sullivan to Corbin—Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to award the Sprague Avenue Street Preservation Project, Sullivan to Corbin, CIP 0248, to Inland Asphalt Company in the amount of$1,458,803.00 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Ms. Mantz explained the project and the bid process as noted in her Request for Council Action form. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor:unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 8.Motion Consideration: Bid Award,ITS Infill Phase 1 Project-Gloria Mantz,Craig Aldworth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to award the ITS Infill,Phase 1 Project, CIP 0201 to Power City Electric, Inc., in the amount of$378,216.28 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Ms. Mantz gave some background of the project and the results of the bids, and said Power City Electric come in as low bidder. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 9.Motion Consideration: 8th and Carnahan Right-of-Way Acquisition Remediation— Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager to issue final payment in an amount not to exceed$60,000 for the price differential and incidental costs. Engineering Manager Mantz explained the situation requiring this motion, all as stated in her Request for Council Action form. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Councilmember Wick said it hurts to spend this kind of money for something we already purchased, and that this is government spending at its worst. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 10.Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunities: (a) SRTC,(b) SRTS, (c) PBP, and(d) CSP— Adam Jackson,Colin Quinn-Hurst It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to apply for SRTC, CSP, PBP, and SRTS grants as listed in Table 1. Table 1 Secured Funding Fund City # Project Total Cost Funds Request Source Match Comment (13.5%) 1 Pines/BNSF GSP $3,000,000 $0 $2,595,000 STBG $405,000 City-funded PE phase in (RW Only) 2018-19 Barker—Euclid to STBG +$500,000 FMSIB. 2 Garland $2,500,000 $106,500 $1,730,000 STBG-SA $270,000 CSP/PBP Apps Barker— STBG +$760,000 FMSIB. 3 River to Euclid $3,800,000 $0 $2,629,600 STBG-SA $410,400 CSP/PBP Apps 4 Barker — Garland $2,100,000 $0 $1,453,200 STBG $226,800 +$420,000 FMSIB. to Trent STBG-SA CSP/PBP Apps 5 Sprague&Barker $1,600,000 $140,220 $1,384,000 CMAQ $216,000 CSP/PBP/SRTS Apps Intersection 6 Pines & Mission $1,400,000 $0 $1,211,000 CMAQ $189,000 CSP Apps Intersection 7 Mullan Road $1,150,000 $0 $994,750 STBG $155,250 8 Argonne $5,800,000 $0 $2,900,000 STBG $391,500 20% FMSIB + Reconstruction $1,348,500 Need Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-27-2018 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Park Road 2010 PE funded by 9 (RW Only) $310,000 $0 $268,150 All $41,850 SRTC. 10 Wilbur Road $645,000* $0 $557,925 STBG-SA $87,075 *SRTS may fund up to Sidewalk 75%($483,750) 11 Citywide Signal $180,000 $0 $162,000 CSP $18,000* *Indicates a 10%match, Backplates not 13.5% 12 Citywide Sign $78 000 $0 $70,200 CSP $7,800* *Indicates a 10%match, Post Reflectors not 13.5% TOTAL $22,563,000 15,955,82 $2,418,675 As he was going through the projects and information listed on the PowerPoint slides,Mr. Jackson noted that the right-of-way phase for the Pines Road BNSF Grade Separation project(#1),the right-of-way phase for the Park Road widening reconstruction project(#9),the Mullan Road preservation project(#7), and the city-wide sign post reflectors(#12)were added since this was last discussed with Council two weeks ago. Mayor Higgins invited public comments.Darey VanDeusen,Liberty Lake said that on Mission and Conklin is a very strange intersection, one lane turns right but the other goes straight but it doesn't go straight; said he is talking about going east;said if he were from out of town and it was the middle of the night,he would wonder what happened to the lane; said maybe that needs something very simple or minor, even an arrow indicating the road moves over a few inches. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Woodard said he likes all the projects and is glad the stop sign posts qualify for grants. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Diana Wilhite, Spokane Valley: said there were a number of times when she would get chided by the Board of County Commissioners; said she wanted to compliment the City Council for having Gordon Thomas Honey expend funds to lobby for over $.5 million to improve County property, and said she is sure the County will be delighted to hear all the great improvements our Council will be doing on the County's land; said when the City of Spokane was founded and in talking to the citizens,that we wanted to provide public safety,have great infrastructure and take great care of our parks,so perhaps the City Council might look at that with Gordon Thomas Honeywell when they go to the legislature to help us find funding for some of these wonderful projects that we hear,the transportation needs instead of parental rights; said she doesn't ever recall anyone saying that they wanted her to advocate for parental rights, so she would like to see us expend our funds on getting money that will go to us get things that will be of a benefit to our City. Lani DeLong, Spokane Valley: said with all the construction projects, it is really important for signage, including speed limit signs on the road; and it is also important to be able to read the street names. John Harding, Spokane Valley: spoke concerning accountability and the oversight in the voting process; said for that many months the feds have been trying to get confirmation from the states that they can show receipts or confirm that a person's vote actually counted; said states that have complied showed dramatic differences in how the vote was decided; said there are counties in the Midwest where they had 100% participation for one individual; said they are finding this happening throughout the country; there are different entities that have looked into this; people with some authority say it is likely that in the state of Washington that we have senators and state representatives who were illegally voted into office; he said our state is not complying with procedure, and said he would like to know why we are not through our representatives and senators; said it seems to him we should demand they comply, and if they don't why can't Spokane County do a process so we know as county citizens that our vote counts; said he heard from several sources who were involved in being present when votes were being tabulated, of an awful lot of Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-27-2018 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT impropriety that occurred, and apparently this doesn't just happen once; said he would like Council to consider coming up with some proclamation, or something else, so the residents of Spokane County and especially Spokane Valley,know that our votes were properly tabulated,and maybe send something to the Governor that we feel the right and legal thing to do is to comply with the federal request for this information,;he said the vote is the underpinning of our republic and it seems to him that if we can't rely on our vote to be properly tabulated,we are in a very precarious situation in this country. Sherry Robinson, Spokane Valley: she extended thanks to Council for working on issues that impact the lives of the citizens,with the road projects,school safety,and she suggested that in the future when looking at projects,that perhaps the bicycle pathway and the street from University,32nd to 16th where University Elementary is,that it can be reduced to meet the full south and north of the school to two lanes with a bike lane; said there is no bike lane in front of University Elementary. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 12.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 13. Department Reports These reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Calhoun said that with Council's approval of alternative 5 on the grade separation project, that would be the largest project we have ever had at $19 million,with other lesser but still large projects including the Sullivan Road West Replacement, City Hall, and the Barker Bridge Replacement, and he noted this is a monumental move forward. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:03-27-2018 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington April 3,2018 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun City Manager Pam Haley,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Werner,Police Chief Bill Helbig, City Engineer Absent: Mike Basinger,Eco.Dev.Manager Sam Wood, Councilmember Chad Bates,Eco.Dev Specialist Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll, all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Wood. It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Wood from tonight's meeting. 1. 32nd Avenue Sidewalk Project—Bill Helbig City Engineer Helbig went through the PowerPoint presentation explaining about the project location, existing conditions,project design,public outreach,temporary traffic control,and project cost and funding; and he noted that this project is scheduled to come before Council at the April 17,2018 meeting for a bid award consideration. 2. Outside Agency,Allocation History—Chelsie Taylor After Finance Director Taylor went over the information contained in her April 3,2018 Request for Council Action form concerning the history and background of awarding funds to outside agencies,she then focused on three items for Council consensus consideration: (1) whether to increase the awarded total amount by $50,000 for a new total of$200,000; (2)whether to split the funding so as to dedicate a certain percentage of funding to economic development agencies, and a certain percentage of funding to social service agencies; and (3)whether to establish goals for the award process. Council considered each item, and after discussion came to the following consensus: (1) Four Councilmembers agreed to increase the allocation to $200,000; and Ms. Taylor said this will be built into the budget for the June budget workshop,and Council can discuss that further at that time.There was some question and discussion about whether this would be for 2018 or 2019,and Mr.Calhoun said the budget for 2018 is completed,so this would be for 2019 and if not spent in 2019,it would not be accessible. (2)After much discussion,the question came down to either standardize or leave it is as. Councilmember Wick suggested doing away with the distinction and Councilmembers appeared to agree. Ms. Taylor said staff will change the application to reflect that there are no longer two distinct categories and that applicants will be applying for a distinct pool of money. (3) On the question of whether to establish goals, specific or overarching, for the outside agency award process; after this was debated among Councilmembers, Mayor Higgins asked which Councilmembers Council Study Session:04-03-2018 Page 1 of 2 Approved by Council: DRAFT were in favor of having goals and which were not, and there was a tie with three Councilmembers in favor and three against; and Mayor Higgins announced that a tie makes it a dead issue. 3. Greater Spokane,Inc. Contract—Mike Basinger, Chaz Bates Mr. Basinger and Mr. Bates went through the PowerPoint slides giving some background on the GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) contract, as well as GSI as the designated Associate Development Organization (ADO)for Spokane County,per the appointment from the Spokane County Board of Commissioners;they mentioned the GSI membership distribution,funding,our contract with them and the cost; and the various components of GSI including base investment, economic development partnership service, EDPS (Economic Development Partnership Services)regional coordination,workforce,advocacy, and retention, expansion and recruitment. Councilmember Woodard stated that the goal of$.50 per person is GSI's target and not ours, and GSI has no way to enforce that amount under our current contract, and Mr. Basinger concurred. Councilmember Wick asked how they came up with that figure and Mr. Basinger said he was not sure. Mr. Bates said the population numbers come from the Office of Financial Management, and in response to Mayor Higgins' question about when the next population figures might be available,Mr.Bates said that number is usually available April 1.Mr. Basinger said he thinks we might have already received our population numbers and was thinking it might be 94,000.Mr.Calhoun said he thinks on April 1 of 2017 it was 94,890,so probably on Monday of this week a new preliminary number would have been issued,and he asked Mr.Basinger and Bates if they could look up those figures tomorrow and e-mail Council with the figure.Mr.Basinger said the OFM usually sends that information directly to him,so as soon as he receives that,he will share that with Council and staff 4.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Peetz said she has had several conversations about Spokane Valley's addressing standards, and said it appears we are currently the only one of the surrounding areas that does not use the standards; said having the correct standards in place could mean seconds or minutes if emergency services are trying to find a specific address; and said she would like to have that on the advance agenda. Mayor Higgins said he and Councilmember Peetz have discussed this as well as he and Mr.Hohman; and Mr.Calhoun said that Mr. Hohman will be speaking with Chief Werner and will bring Council an administrative report in the near future. Councilmember Woodard stated that the Central Valley Girls Basketball team just won their tournament, and that he is not sure how best to recognize that, perhaps a key and a proclamation, but he feels that accomplishment needs to be acknowledged. Mr. Calhoun said that staff will draft a proclamation and contact the team to let them know this and to schedule this for a future Council meeting so that they can be present. Councilmember Thompson said the Youth Voices would like to address the Council for a few minutes,perhaps at the May 22 meeting.Mr. Calhoun said staff will build that into the agenda. 5. Police Department Monthly Report This was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 6. Council Check in-Mayor Higgins There were no Council comments. 7. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun had no comments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Study Session:04-03-2018 Page 2 of 2 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 10, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading - Proposed Ordinance 18-008 — MClmetro — Telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, proposed Ordinance 18-007 regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report March 20, 2018; first reading March 27, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by MClmetro, as well as other telecommunication companies, regarding new facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of MClmetro. We used the normal franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and MClmetro have agreed on the proposed terms, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-008. OPTIONS: (1) approve Ordinance 18-008; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve Ordinance 18-008 granting a telecommunications franchise to MClmetro. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-008 — MClmetro telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES Corp. d/b/a VERIZON ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES TO CONSTRUCT,MAINTAIN AND OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels,for water,sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;"and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter,nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney,nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body,nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;"and WHEREAS,this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS,the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions,is in the best interests of the public,and protects the health, safety,and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager"means the City Manager or designee. "construction"or"construct"shall mean constructing,digging,excavating,laying,testing, operating,extending,upgrading,renewing,removing,replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 1 of 14 DRAFT "maintenance,maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities,including constructing,relaying,repairing,replacing,examining, testing, inspecting,removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "overbuilding" shall mean adding additional fiber capacity to an existing conduit housing fiber optic cable. "overlashing"shall mean the act of lashing new fiber optic cable to an existing aerial fiber optic cable. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item, thing or use provided by the Grantee. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the City. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way,including Grantor's facilities. "right-of-way"shall refer to the surface of and the space along,above,and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" or "highways" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public,to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean any of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services (hereinafter"Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance,to install,construct,operate,maintain,replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below the public rights-of-way and public places located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 2 of 14 DRAFT franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff). Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any,between the parties. Section 4. City Use. The following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) City may request that Grantee provide one or more strands (two pair) of dark fiber for City to use solely for City government administration purposes. Upon receipt of such request, City and Grantee shall meet as soon as practicable to determine whether Grantee has dark fiber available in the locations requested by City, and if Grantee has dark fiber available, City and Grantee will engage in good faith discussions to develop mutually agreeable terms for provision of such dark fiber. B) Consistent with and subject to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal, non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2)This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3)Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non-Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way. This and other franchises shall,in no way,prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non-Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues,thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee,unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 and Grantee has not Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 3 of 14 DRAFT experienced a force majeure or event beyond its control, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities,public or private,installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use,or with any other pipes,wires,conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities,Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations,laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision,condition,and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty,obligation,or responsibility for the competent design,construction,maintenance,and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision,condition,and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required,or plan,to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches,provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro-rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. Grantee shall, within 30 days' of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel,and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One-Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible for becoming familiar with,and understanding,the provisions of Washington's One-Call statutes. Grantee shall comply with the Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 4 of 14 DRAFT terms and conditions set forth in the One-Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation,operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided,that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public,adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare;and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal,state and local laws, statutes,regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims,costs,and expenses, of any kind,whether direct or indirect,incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 5 of 14 DRAFT legal expenses)which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee,whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then-existing telecommunications facilities,the City shall: A)At least 60 days'prior to the commencement of such improvement project,provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. C)After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications,Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060(2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City,where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned,operated or maintained facilities,provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee,then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays,except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Grantee shall not be responsible for delay damages if Grantee's delay is the result of a force majeure or event beyond Grantee's control. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City,which consent shall not be Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 6 of 14 DRAFT unreasonably withheld. The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre-removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c)the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights-of-way; or(d)the abandoned facility has collapsed, broke,or otherwise failed. Grantee may,upon written approval by the City,delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or(d) above applies. When (b) or (d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of-way as soon as weather conditions allow,unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above,then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs,including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City,at no cost to the City: A)A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types,number of fibers or cables,electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System("GIS")program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1,annually. B)In connection with the construction of any City project,Grantee shall provide to the City,upon the City's reasonable request,copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area;provided,however,any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only,and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1,annually. D) In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section,the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request,provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E) Public Disclosure Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Disclosure Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 7 of 14 DRAFT thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non-disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then-adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities consistent with applicable federal and Washington state law. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City Manager that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed,would interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein,the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public.The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee,and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations,unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise,the Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. Any relocation of telecommunications facilities resulting from a street vacation shall require a minimum of 180 days' notice as provided in section 37. In the event of a street vacation,the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments,awards or liability to any person arising from injury,sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 8 of 14 DRAFT 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2)By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights-of-ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control,pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation,construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or 6) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from Grantee's equipment located upon the facility, regardless of whether Grantee's equipment complies with applicable federal statutes and/or FCC regulations related thereto. B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties,and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only,Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. C)Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction(or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter),to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E)Grantee's duty to defend,indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of(a)City or City's agents,employees,or contractors,and(b)Grantee Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 9 of 14 DRAFT or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F)Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section,Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City-owned property from activities conducted by the City,its officers,agents,employees and contractors,except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City,its officers, agents,employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City,its officers,agents,employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights,privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee,its agents,representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A)Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than$1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned,non-owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary,the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01,or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City,and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured-State or Political Subdivisions-Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and$2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground(XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain,the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 10 of 14 DRAFT A)Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B)Grantee's insurance carrier or Grantee shall provide 30 days' prior written notice to the City of insurance cancellation. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City,its officers,officials,employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City,not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets,or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration,amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise,or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise,and an adequate opportunity to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee,then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee.The City may elect,in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee,by merger, sale,consolidation or otherwise. Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 11 of 14 DRAFT Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall,after the expiration of the 60-day period,absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions,regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges,as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs,successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend,repeal,add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise,or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified,in writing: The City: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Grantee: MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Attn: Franchise Manager 600 Hidden Ridge Irving,TX 75038 With Copies to: Verizon 1320 North Courthouse Road, Suite 900 Arlington,VA 22201 Attn: General Counsel,Network&Technology Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts,in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 12 of 14 DRAFT Section 39. Non-Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance,nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings,written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of April,2018. L.R.Higgins,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 13 of 14 DRAFT Accepted by MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services: By: Robert J.Mcgee Executive Director The Grantee,MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. STATE OF TEXAS ) ) ss COUNTY OF DALLAS ) Before me, ,on this day personally appeared Robert F.Mcgee,known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and known to me to be the Executive Director of MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp., a Delaware Corporation, and acknowledged to me that he executed the said instrument for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, on behalf of said Corporation. Given under my hand and seal of office this day of ,2018. Notary Public Printed Name: My Commission Expires: [SEAL] Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp.Telecom.Franchise Page 14 of 14 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 10, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading - Proposed Ordinance 18-009 — Verizon Wireless — Telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, proposed Ordinance 18-007 regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report March 20, 2018; first reading march 27, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by Verizon Wireless, as well as other telecommunication companies, regarding new facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of Verizon Wireless. We used the normal franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and Verizon Wireless have agreed on the proposed terms, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-009. OPTIONS: (1) approve Ordinance 18-009; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve Ordinance 18-009 granting a telecommunications franchise to Verizon Wireless. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-009 — Verizon Wireless telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels,for water,sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;"and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter,nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney,nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body,nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;"and WHEREAS,this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS,the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions,is in the best interests of the public,and protects the health, safety,and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager"means the City Manager or designee. "Common costs" shall include necessary costs not specifically attributable to the undergrounding of any particular facility, such as costs for common trenching and utility vaults. "construction"or"construct"shall mean constructing,digging,excavating,laying,testing, operating,extending,upgrading,renewing,removing,replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 1 of 16 DRAFT "Fair share" shall be determined for a project on the basis of the number of conduits of Grantee's facilities being undergrounded in comparison to the total number of conduits of all other utility facilities being undergrounded. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). "maintenance,maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities with new facilities that are substantially identical to those being replaced or repaired, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting,removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item,thing,or use provided by the Grantee. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation, or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way,including Grantor's facilities. "rights-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets"shall mean the surface of,and the space above and below,any public street,road, alley,or highway,within the City used or intended to be used by the general public,to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean, collectively or individually, any and all equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, receivers, equipment boxes, backup power supplies, power transfer switches, cut-off switches, electric meters, coaxial cables, fiber optic cables,telcom demarcation boxes and related materials and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services,including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless(hereinafter"Grantee"),a franchise for a period of 10 years,beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, repair, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 2 of 16 DRAFT facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the public rights-of-way located in the City of Spokane Valley,as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This franchise does not include the right to install or maintain facilities on, over, or above that portion of the rights-of-way utilized for vehicular travel and parking. This franchise does not convey any right to Grantee to install its facilities on, under, over, or across any facility or structure owned by a third-party without such written approval of the third-party. No substantive expansions, additions to or modifications (excluding modifications necessitated by replacement or repair) or relocation of any of the facilities shall be allowed without first having received prior authorization from the City through an amendment to this franchise,or pursuant to a permit issued by the City. Placement of all telecommunication facilities in the rights-of-way shall be pursuant to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, including applicable zoning requirements. Grantee shall be permitted to install, operate, maintain,upgrade,remove,replace,repair and/or restore its telecommunications facilities within the rights- of-way in order to provide telecommunication services to its customers. A) Grantee shall be permitted to erect or replace poles within the rights-of-way only as permitted and pursuant to applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("City Code") sections. Grantee shall be responsible for providing an alternate site analysis together with Grantee's initial request for approvals. Such report shall be paid for by Grantee, and may be prepared either by a third party consultant/engineer agreed to by the Parties. B)The maximum height of any structure placed within the rights-of-way shall be 90 feet. C) Any cabinet, cabling, or other accessory equipment which can be placed underground shall be undergrounded as provided in Section 14. Other cabling or electrical equipment shall either be placed within the supporting pole or structure, or concealed from view in accordance with applicable sections from the City Code. D)Any above-ground electrical equipment placed upon a utility pole or structure shall be operated in a manner which permits it to be deactivated during maintenance,construction,or reconstruction of other utility equipment located on the utility pole or structure. Any above-ground telecommunications facilities,including any electrical facilities necessary to the operation of the telecommunications facilities, shall be co-located with the facilities of another utility provider whenever commercially reasonable. E) To the extent that such facilities are personal wireless services, Grantee and the City will subsequently enter into a site-specific agreement, including the payment of a site specific charge, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.21.860,in a form to be mutually agreed upon. F) The facilities shall not be used for cable interne services or Cable Services as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522(6). G) Grantee shall have the right, without prior City approval, to offer or provide capacity or bandwidth to its customers consistent with this franchise provided: (a) Grantee retains exclusive control over its telecommunications system, facilities, and services,and remains responsible for constructing,installing,and maintaining its facilities pursuant to the terms and conditions of this franchise; Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 3 of 16 DRAFT (b)Grantee may not grant rights to any customer or lessee that are materially greater than any rights franchisee has pursuant to this franchise; (c)Such customer or lessee or Grantee shall not be construed to be a third-party beneficiary under this franchise; and (d)No such customer or lessee may use Grantee's telecommunications system or services for any purpose not authorized by this franchise,nor to sell or offer for sale any service to the citizens of the City without all required federal approvals Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any,between the parties. Section 4. City Use. To the extent applicable to Grantee's use of the rights-of-way, the following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands(two pair)along the route as mutually approved by both parties at a later date,within the boundaries of the City,for sole and exclusive municipal, non-commercial use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers"). City agrees that it shall not use the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public. B) The City has the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits;provided that all splicing shall be the sole responsibility of Grantee, except cost,pursuant to Section 4(D),below. The City shall provide at least 30 days' written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of $20.00 per fiber pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the parties in writing and shall negotiate and enter into a"Fiber License Agreement"which shall govern the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers,except cost,which is set forth herein. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City. C)In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle,then the following shall apply: 1) If the City is using the fibers,then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate. 2) If the City is not using the fibers,the City shall have the option of abandoning the City Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate. If Grantee installs additional fiber capacity,the City's right to use four dark fiber strands as set forth in subsections 1 and 2,immediately above, shall again be in effect. D) All access, interconnection and maintenance to and on the City Reserved Fibers shall be performed by Grantee. The City shall pay all costs associated with such work to the City Reserved Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 4 of 16 DRAFT Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this franchise Ordinance. E) Pursuant to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way,the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal,non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2)This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of a summary of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise,contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non-Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way, so long as any subsequent franchise or permit does not unreasonably interfere with Grantee's use of the right-of- way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights- of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non-Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues,thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee,unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities,public or private,installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to unreasonably interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes,wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or unreasonably interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 5 of 16 DRAFT shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws, and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. Application of said federal, state,and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty,obligation,or responsibility for the competent design,construction,maintenance,and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision,condition,and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns,or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required,or plan,to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches,provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro-rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. Grantee shall, within 30 days' of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel,and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One-Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee shall comply with Washington's One- Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation,operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. If the City does not require the undergrounding of Grantee's facilities at the time of a permit application,the City may, at any time in the future,require the conversion of Grantee's aerial facilities to underground installation at Grantee's expense at such time as the City requires all other utilities,except electrical utilities,with aerial facilities in the area to convert them to underground installation. Unless otherwise permitted by the City, Grantee shall underground its facilities in all new developments and subdivisions where other utilities are to be constructed underground, and any development or subdivision where utilities are currently underground. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 6 of 16 DRAFT Section 14 shall not apply to facilities that are required to remain above ground in order to be functional; provided, however, all other facilities and equipment capable of being installed underground shall be undergrounded by Grantee. In the event the City requires the undergrounding of the aerial utilities in any area of the City,Grantee shall underground its aerial facilities concurrently with and in the area of the other affected utilities. The location of any relocated and underground utilities shall be approved by the City. Where other utilities are present and involved in the undergrounding project,Grantee shall only be required to pay its fair share of common costs borne by all utilities, in addition to the costs specifically attributable to the undergrounding of Grantee's own facilities. Grantee shall be entitled to reasonable access to open utility trenches, provided that such access does not interfere with the City's placement of utilities or increase the City's costs. Grantee shall pay the City the City's actual additional cost to the City resulting from providing Grantee access to an open trench,including without limitation the pro rata share of the costs of access to an open trench and any costs associated with the delay of the completion of a public works project. Nothing in Section 14 shall be construed as requiring the City to pay any costs of undergrounding any of Grantee's facilities,except as may otherwise be required by Washington State law. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure,upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, Grantee shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof;provided,that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities,as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee,the City may require more than 14 days' notice by the third party to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities,the City may direct Grantee,at Grantee's sole expense,to take reasonable actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public,adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare;and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent the emergency condition was caused by Grantee's use of the right-of-way. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 7 of 16 DRAFT Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes,regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims,costs,and expenses, of any kind,whether direct or indirect,incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses)which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee,whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then-existing telecommunications facilities,the City shall: A)At least 60 days'prior to the commencement of such improvement project,provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation, and Grantor will make reasonable efforts to provide at least 90 days' advance notice; and B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. C)After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications,Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060(2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. hi the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section or may terminate the site-specific agreement associated with the affected installation. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 8 of 16 DRAFT The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City,where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated, or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee,then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays,except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City,which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. A. Underground facilities: The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre-removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility;(b)the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights- of-way; or(d)the abandoned facility has collapsed,broke,or otherwise failed. Grantee may,upon written approval by the City,delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or(d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of- way as soon as weather conditions allow,unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. B.Aboveground facilities: Grantee shall remove any facilities which have not been used to provide telecommunications services for a period of at least 180 days. C. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above,then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs,including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City,at no cost to the City: A)A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types,number of fibers or cables,electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System("GIS")program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1,annually. B)In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City,upon the City's reasonable request,copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 9 of 16 DRAFT of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area;provided,however,any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only,and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. D) In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section,the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request,provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E)Public Record Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Record Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL"prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame,consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non-disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then-adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety,or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein,the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof,and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public, including but not limited to the currently adopted Spokane Regional Pavement Cut Policy. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 10 of 16 DRAFT any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations,unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise,the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. In the event of a street vacation,the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments,awards or liability to any person arising from injury,sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2)By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights-of-ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control,pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation,construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only,Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 11 of 16 DRAFT C)Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction(or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter),to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E)Grantee's duty to defend,indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of(a)City or City's agents,employees,or contractors,and(b)Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F)Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section,Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City-owned property from activities conducted by the City,its officers,agents,employees and contractors,except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City,its officers, agents,employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City,its officers,agents,employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights,privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee,its agents,representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A)Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than$1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned,non-owned, Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 12 of 16 DRAFT hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary,the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01,or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City,and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured-State or Political Subdivisions-Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and$2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground(XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain,the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: A) Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B) Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City,its officers,officials,employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City,not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants,terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets,or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. In the event the City draws on the surety for purposes set forth in this franchise such that the remaining value of the surety falls below $10,000, the City may request that the surety be renewed to the full value of$25,000 as a condition of doing any additional work in the rights-of-way. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 13 of 16 DRAFT Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration,amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise,then the City shall notify Grantee in writing,stating with reasonable specificity the nature of the alleged default. Grantee shall cure any alleged default within 30 days after receipt of the notice. If Grantee fails to cure the default within such 30-day period, and the City and Grantee do not otherwise reach an agreement with regard to such default, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies,to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee,by merger, sale,consolidation or otherwise. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall,after the expiration of the 60-day period,absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by a subsequent ordinance passed expressly for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,27,28,29,37,38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute,by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions,regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges,as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs,successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend,repeal,add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise,or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified,in writing: Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 14 of 16 DRAFT The City: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Grantee: Verizon Wireless(VAW)LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless 180 Washington Valley Road Bedminster,New Jersey 07921 Attention: Network Real Estate Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts,in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non-Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance,nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings,written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of April,2018. L. R. Higgins,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 15 of 16 DRAFT Accepted by Verizon Wireless(VAW)LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless: By: Name and official capacity The Grantee,Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for itself, and for its successors and assigns,does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of_ ,2018. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of ,2018. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 10, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading - Proposed Ordinance 18-010 — Mobilitie — Telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, proposed Ordinance 18-007 regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report March 20, 2018; first reading March 27, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by Mobilitie, as well as other telecommunication companies, regarding new facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of Mobilitie. We used the normal franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and Mobilitie have agreed on the proposed terms, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-010. OPTIONS: (1) approve Ordinance 18-010; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve Ordinance 18-010 granting a telecommunications franchise to Mobilitie. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-010 — Mobilitie telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO MOBILITIE, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels,for water,sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;"and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter,nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney,nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body,nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;"and WHEREAS,this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS,the Council finds that the grant of the franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions,is in the best interests of the public,and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance,the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager"means the City Manager or designee. "construction"or"construct"shall mean constructing,digging,excavating,laying,testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility the telecommunications facilities. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 1 of 15 DRAFT "maintenance,maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities with new facilities that are substantially identical to those being replaced or repaired, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting,removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "overbuilding" shall mean adding additional fiber capacity to an existing conduit housing fiber optic cable. "overlashing"shall mean the act of lashing new fiber optic cable to an existing aerial fiber optic cable. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item,thing,or use provided by the Grantee. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation, or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way,including Grantor's facilities. "right-of-way"shall refer to the surface of and the space along,above,and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets"shall mean the surface of,and the space above and below,any public street,road, alley,or highway,within the City used or intended to be used by the general public,to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean any of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas,radios,transmitters,and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms,wires,lines,conduits,cables,communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, control boxes, power sources, meters, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto Mobilitie, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company (hereinafter"Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance,to install,construct,operate,maintain,replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in,under,on,across,over,through,along,or below the public rights- of-way located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 2 of 15 DRAFT This franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff). This franchise does not include the right to install or maintain telecommunications facilities on,over,or above that portion of the rights-of-way utilized for vehicular travel and parking. This franchise does not convey any right to Grantee to install its telecommunications facilities on,under, over, or across any facility or structure owned by a third-party without such written approval of the third-party. No substantive expansions, additions to or modifications or relocation of any of the telecommunications facilities shall be allowed without first having received prior authorization from the City through an amendment to this franchise or an applicable permit. Placement of all telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall comply with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code,including applicable zoning requirements. Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any,between the parties. Section 4. City Use. To the extent applicable to this franchise, and only as it relates to fiber facilities owned by Grantee,the following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands(two pair)along the route as mutually approved by both parties at a later date,within the boundaries of the City,for sole and exclusive municipal, non-commercial use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers"). City agrees that it shall not use the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public. B) The City has the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits;provided that all splicing shall be the sole responsibility of Grantee, except cost,pursuant to Section 4(D),below. The City shall provide at least 30 days' written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of $20.00 per fiber pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the parties in writing and shall negotiate and enter into a"Fiber License Agreement"which shall govern the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers,except cost,which is set forth herein. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City. C)In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle,then the following shall apply: 1) If the City is using the fibers,then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate. 2) If the City is not using the fibers,the City shall have the option of abandoning the City Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate. If Grantee installs additional fiber capacity,the City's right to use four dark fiber strands as set forth in subsections 1 and 2,immediately above, shall again be in effect. D) All access, interconnection and maintenance to and on the City Reserved Fibers shall be performed by Grantee. The City shall pay all costs associated with such work to the City Reserved Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this franchise Ordinance. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 3 of 15 DRAFT E) Pursuant to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way,the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal,non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2)This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of a summary of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise,contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non-Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way. This and other franchises shall,in no way,prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non-Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues,thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee,unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation,and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities,public or private,installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use,or with any other pipes,wires,conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 4 of 15 DRAFT state regulations, laws, and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty,obligation,or responsibility for the competent design,construction,maintenance,and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision,condition,and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns,or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required,or plan,to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches,provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro-rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. A. Level One Contact: In the event of an emergency or disconnect notice, the City may contact Grantee's Network Operations Center,as follows: Network Operations Center Phone: (877)244-7889 Email: mnoc@mobilitie.com B.Level Two Contact: In the event Grantee's network operations center cannot be reached,or the network operations center staff cannot address the emergency situation,the City may contact: Gail Allen,Manager,Network Operations Phone: (702) 777-4508 Email: GAllen@mobilitie.com Or Nam Kang, Sr. Director,Network Operations Phone: (312) 638-5409 Email: nam@mobilitie.com C.Level Three Contact: In the event the emergency situation calls for a coordinated effort between the City's and Grantee's management team,the City may contact: Scott Holt,VP,Network Operations Phone: (206) 510-4658 Email: scott.holt@mobilitie.com After being notified of an emergency as provided above,Grantee shall cooperate with the City to promptly respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 5 of 15 DRAFT In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its actual, out-of-pocket costs and expenses for such actions. Section 12. One-Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee shall comply with Washington's One- Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation,operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure,Grantee shall move,at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof;provided that the City shall give notice to Grantee of the need to move any such facility immediately following the City's decision to grant permission to such third party to use such right-of-way,but not less than 14 days prior to the date that the City requires Grantee to move its telecommunication facilities; and provided further that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities,as determined by the City in its reasonable discretion. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such telecommunications facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time,provided such time is reasonable to complete such action. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public,adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare;and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all actual,out-of-pocket costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes,regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims,costs,and expenses, of any kind,whether direct or indirect,incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 6 of 15 DRAFT hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional,but only to the extent of such failure by Grantee. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses,costs,and expenses(including legal expenses)which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused by Grantee,whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then-existing telecommunications facilities,the City shall: A)At least 60 days'prior to the commencement of such improvement project,provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project; and C)After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications,Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060(2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines in its reasonable discretion that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City,where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned,operated or maintained facilities,provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 7 of 15 DRAFT If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee,then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays,except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. A.Underground facilities: Grantee shall remove any telecommunications facilities which have not been used to provide telecommunications services for a period of at least 90 days when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility;(b)the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights-of-way; or(d)the abandoned facility has collapsed,broke, or otherwise failed 180 days. Grantee may,upon written approval by the City,delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or(d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of- way as soon as weather conditions allow,unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. B.Aboveground facilities: Grantee shall remove any facilities which have not been used to provide telecommunications services for a period of at least 180 days. C. The expense of the removal and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the telecommunications facilities or by the removal process shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned telecommunications facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned telecommunications facilities and restore the rights-of-way,and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for the actual, out-of-pocket costs of such removal and restoration, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City,at no cost to the City: A)A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers, cables, or control boxes, electronic equipment,meters,power sources,and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aeriaUunderground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System("GIS")program.The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1,annually. B)In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City,upon the City's reasonable request,copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area;provided,however,any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 8 of 15 DRAFT informational purposes only,and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. D)In addition to the requirements of subsection(A)of Section 21,the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request,provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E)Public Record Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Record Act codified in chapter42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL"prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame,consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non-disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. To the extent applicable to this franchise, in the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then-adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety,or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein,the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof,and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public.The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee,and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations,unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise,the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. In the event of a street Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 9 of 15 DRAFT vacation,the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments,awards or liability to any person arising from injury,sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever to the extent relating to or arising out of Grantee's acts or omissions under this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages to the extent caused solely by the negligence or misconduct of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2)By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights-of-ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control,pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation,construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise;or 6) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from Grantee's equipment located upon the facility, regardless of whether Grantee's equipment complies with applicable federal statutes and/or FCC regulations related thereto. B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in this franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only,Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. C)Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 10 of 15 DRAFT institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction(or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter),to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee,then Grantee shall pay all of the City's actual,out- of-pocket costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees,reasonable attorney fees,the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E)Grantee's duty to defend,indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of(a)City or City's agents,employees,or contractors,and(b)Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that this franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115,the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F)Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City-owned property from activities conducted by the City,its officers,agents,employees and contractors,except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City,its officers, agents,employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City,its officers,agents,employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights,privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee,its agents,representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A)Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than$1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned,non-owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary,the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01,or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 11 of 15 DRAFT to the City,and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured-State or Political Subdivisions-Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and$2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage, provided that Grantee may satisfy the coverage limits required under this Section 28(B)through a combination of primary and umbrella or excess liability coverage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain,the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: A)Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B)Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled,except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City,its officers,officials,employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City,not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets,or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. In the event the City draws on the surety for purposes set forth in this franchise such that the remaining value of the surety falls below $10,000, the City may request that the surety be renewed to the full value of$25,000 as a condition of doing any additional work in the rights-of-way. Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration,amendment or modification. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 12 of 15 DRAFT Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with at least 15 days' notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity of at least 15 days to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect,in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies,to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply with the provisions of this franchise. Grantee may terminate this Agreement by giving at least 30 days' written notice. Company shall not be subject to any penalty or fee for terminating this Agreement prior to the end of the term of the Agreement. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent,affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee,or any person,firm,or corporation that shall control,be under the control of, or be under common control with Grantee, or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee,by merger, sale,consolidation or otherwise. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance,Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall,after the expiration of the 60-day period,absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by a subsequent ordinance passed expressly for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute,by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions,regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges,as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs,successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend,repeal,add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise,or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being further renewed by the City,the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise(except with respect to notices given to Grantee in the event of emergency,in which case the notice information and procedure provided in Section 11 shall apply)may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified,in writing: Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 13 of 15 DRAFT The City: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Grantee: MOBILITIE,LLC Attn: Legal Depaitment 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach,CA 92660 legal@mobilitie.com (877)999-7070 With a copy to: MOBILITIE,LLC Attn: Asset Management 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 WestAssetMgmt@mobilitie.com (877)999-7070 Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts,in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non-Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance,nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings,written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of April,2018. ATTEST: L. R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Date of Publication: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 14 of 15 DRAFT Accepted by Mobilitie,LLC: By: Name and official capacity The Grantee,Mobilitie,LLC,for itself, and for its successors and assigns,does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of_ ,2018. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of ,2018. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise-Mobilitie Page 15 of 15 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 10, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Barker Road/BSNF Grade Separation Project (Barker Road GSP) Consultant Design Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual Advanced Six-Year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • May 7, 2013 —Administrative Report, Bridging the Valley • June 23, 2015 — Passed Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which included both the Barker Road and the Pines Road Grade Separation Projects (GSP) • April 5, 2016 —Admin Report for use of federal earmark funds • November 8, 2016 — Information Report on the status of the Barker GSP • November 15, 2016 —Administrative Report on the Barker GSP status • November 22, 2016 — Informational RCA • December 6, 2016 —Administrative Report • December 20, 2016—Administrative Report • January 10, 2017 — Motion failed to contract with DEA for project design services • February 21, 2017—Administrative Report • February 28, 2017— Passed Resolution 17-006, amending the 2017 TIP • May 23, 2017 — Passed Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2018-2023 Six-Year TIP, which included the Grade Separation Project • August 22, 2017— Passed motion to enter into contract with DEA for the project's Phase 1 • October 24, 2017—Administrative Report to discuss alternatives • January 30, 2018 —Administrative Report to discuss alternatives with Council consensus to move the project forward with Alternative 5 • March 2, 2018 —Administrative Report to discuss alternatives • March 13, 2018 —Administrative Report to discuss history and alternatives • March 16, 2018 —Administrative Report for Council and Chamber of Commerce • March 27, 2018 — Passed motion to select preferred alternative for advancing project. BACKGROUND: The City previously received a federal earmark grant of $719,921 and a $1.5M state legislative appropriation for the Barker Road GSP. These grant funds can be used for the design, right-of way and construction phases of the project. The City has also received a grant from the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Fund (FMSIB) for up to 20 percent of total project cost, not to exceed $10M, which can be used in the construction phase only. In October 2017, the City applied for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant. The City applied for the National Significant Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA) program in November 2017. In December 2017, the City was notified that it has been awarded $6.0M from the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP). This award requires the state legislature to appropriate the funds in the 2019-2020 biennium. The City must advertise bids no later than September of 2020 to qualify for the NHFP funds. On March 6, 2018, the City received preliminary confirmation that it has been awarded $9,020,149 from the TIGER 2017 program. A diamond interchange was originally proposed for the Barker GSP by SRTC's 2004 Bridging the Valley Evaluation and Study. The high cost of this concept, estimated at $36 million in 2016, made it difficult to obtain support from our regional funding partners. The current cost estimate for the interchange project is $45 million. Staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for engineering design services for the Barker Road GSP in 2016 using the diamond interchange concept design. A consultant was selected and a scope of work was developed to design the facility. On January 10, 2017, Council did not pass the motion to award the contract to the Consultant. Since then, other Barker GSP alignments and configurations have been identified that will cost less to implement than the originally proposed diamond interchange. Throughout 2017, City staff worked closely with the Washington State Department of Transportation to develop alternatives to the interchange design in order to implement a practical solution for the intersection. An RFQ was issued for planning and design of the Barker Road GSP in March 2017. David Evans & Associates (DEA) was selected as the most highly qualified firm. Council passed a motion on August 22, 2017 to move forward with the project design in two phases, and awarded the contract to DEA. In the first phase of the project, the Consultant analyzed and compared six alternatives in terms of cost, right-of-way needs, impacts to existing properties, constructability, safety, and other pertinent project elements, so the City could select the preferred alternative. The alternatives evaluation, which resulted in a WSDOT required Basis of Design and Alternatives Report for 6 alternatives, the preferred alternative was identified as Alternative 5. On March 27, 2018, the City Council passed a formal motion identifying Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative for advancing the project into design and construction. To continue the project into preliminary engineering, environmental review, right of way acquisition, and construction document preparation, the City's consultant, DEA has developed a scope and fee for the next phase of project services. Staff has worked with DEA in finalizing the scope and fee for completing these services with the following task summary. Project Task Estimated Fee Preliminary Engineering $ 1,124,000 Environmental Review (Permitting) $ 75,700 Right of Way Services $ 334,000 Construction Documents $ 659,000 Management Reserve Fund $ 109,600 Total Fee $ 2,302,300 OPTIONS: Staff is recommending the Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Supplemental Agreement with DEA for the next project phase. Council can concur with staff or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a Supplemental Agreement with DEA in an amount not to exceed $2,302,300 for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project Phase 2. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: To date, the City has secured funding in excess of $24,000,000 for the project from seven sources. The DEA contract and this supplement will be funded from the project. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Supplemental Agreement Conceptual Plan —Alternative 5 AW filWashington State Department of Transportation Supplemental Agreement Organization and Address Number 03 City of Spokane Valley Original Agreement Number 11707 E.Sprague Ave.,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 17-108 Phone: 509-720-5102 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date 0143 August 24,2017 January 31, 2020 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Phase 1 $2,496,891.04 Description of Work Phase 2 work includes surveying,environmental planning,geotechnical engineering,right of way plans and acquisition,public outreach support,BNSF railroad coordination,and preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate(PS&E)package. The Local Agency of City of Spokane Valley desires to supplement the agreement entered in to with David Evans and Associates,Inc. and executed on August 24, 2017 and identified as Agreement No. 17-108 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: I Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: See attached Exhibit B,Scope of Services; II Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: contract end date is revised to January 31,2020. III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: See attached Exhibit A.This supplement adds$2,302,275.61 to the previous contract amount of$194,615.43 for a total amount authorized of$2,496,891.04.The fixed fee amount is increased by$105,727.64,for a total of$125,235.39. as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the Appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: Debra Seeman, Sr. Associate By; nj, ., ". .0 . „--,u, 7) ►,n leant Si alure Approving AuthoritySignature I pp 9 9 ichael Clark, Vice President Date DOT Form 140-063 Revised 09/2005 Exhibit "A" Summary of Payments City of Spokane Valley, WA Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Phase I (Project No. 0143) Basic Supplement 1 Supplement 2 Supplement 3 Total Agreement Direct Salary Cost $ 57,223.00 $ 2,555.00 $ 3,120.62 $ 337,787.99 $ 400,686.61 Overhead(including Payroll Additives) $ 95,508.00 $ 4,090.00 $ 5,470.13 $ 592,108.56 $ 697,176.69 Direct Non-Salary Cost(Incl.Subs) $ 2,064.00 $ 20.00 $ 5,056.93 $ 1,157,019.26 $ 1,164,160.19 Fixed Fee(Prime) $ 17,740.00 $ 791.00 $ 976.75 $ 105,727.64 $ 125,235.39 Management Reserve Fund $ 109,632.17 $ 109,632.17 Subtotal: $ 172,535.00 $ 7,456.00 $ 14,624.43 $ 2,302,275.61 $ 2,496,891.04 Cumulative Total: $179,991.00 $ 194,615.43 $ 2,496,891.04 Exhibit A Summary of Payments-supplmt-03.xlsx 4/4/2018 EXHIBIT A City of Spokane Valley, WA Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Design, Right-of-Way, and PS&E Services David Evans and Associates, Inc. Direct Classification Hrs. x Rate = Cost Project Manager 709 $ 71.00 $ 50,339.00 DEA Transportation QC/WSDOT Expert 168 $ 74.30 $ 12,482.40 Senior Engineer 1 260 $ 57.68 $ 14,996.80 Senior Engineer 2 100 $ 60.00 $ 6,000.00 Senior Transportation Engineer 68 $ 61.50 $ 4,182.00 Transportation Engineer 18 $ 42.00 $ 756.00 Transportation Designer 1 26 $ 45.00 $ 1,170.00 Transportation Designer 2 359 $ 37.60 $ 13,498.40 Traffic Engineer Lead 318 $ 50.00 $ 15,900.00 Traffic Engineer 1 65 $ 51.16 $ 3,325.40 Traffic Engineer 2 44 $ 49.00 $ 2,156.00 Traffic Engineer 3 0 $ 42.24 $ - Traffic Analyst 585 $ 40.26 $ 23,552.10 Project Coordinator/GIS-Graphics Expert 128 $ 40.00 $ 5,120.00 Bridge Task Lead 309 $ 68.78 $ 21,253.02 Bridge Engineer 1 492 $ 52.94 $ 26,046.48 Bridge Engineer 2 558 $ 31.80 $ 17,744.40 Bridge EIT 577 $ 26.26 $ 15,152.02 Cadd Manager 313 $ 43.50 $ 13,615.50 Environmental Planning Lead 18 $ 50.00 $ 900.00 Environmental Planner 0 $ 43.50 $ - Landscape Architect 54 $ 52.00 $ 2,808.00 Survey Lead 136 $ 55.50 $ 7,548.00 Project Surveyor 493 $ 43.00 $ 21,199.00 Party Chief 314 $ 33.00 $ 10,362.00 Field Technician 310 $ 33.00 $ 10,230.00 Mapping Technician 677 $ 34.00 $ 23,018.00 Project Assistant 87 $ 25.76 $ 2,241.12 Project Accountant 1 0 $ 33.48 $ - Project Accountant 2 25 $ 36.76 $ 919.00 Project Administrator 37 $ 38.78 $ 1,434.86 $ - 7248 Salary Cost $ 327,949.50 Salary Escalation Cost(estimated) 2018 Escalation-% of Labor Cost 3.0% per year @ 1.00 year(s) $ 9,838.49 Total Salary Cost $ 337,787.99 Overhead Cost @ 175.29% of Direct Labor $ 592,108.56 Net Fee @ 31.3% of Direct Labor $ 105,727.64 Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost $ 697,836.20 Salary Total $ 1,035,624.18 2018-04-02 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Estimate-DEAS edits.xlsx Page 1 of 14 $DEA-Summ Printed: 4/3/2018, 2:03 PM EXHIBIT A Direct Expenses No. Unit Each Cost Mileage 3576 Miles @ $ 0.545 /mile $ 1,948.92 Airfare(SEA to SPK) 18 Each @ $ 250.00 /each $ 4,500.00 Lodging 27 Day(s)@ $ 120.00 /day $ 3,240.00 Car Rental/Taxi 18 Each @ $ 70.000 /each $ 1,260.00 Title Report 12 Each @ $ 300 /each $ 3,600.00 Record of Survey 2 Each @ $ 250 /each $ 500.00 Set Property Corner 24 Each @ $ 10.00 /each $ 240.00 UAV Fees 25 Day(s)@ $ 600 /day $ 15,000.00 BNSF Flagger(Survey&Geotech) 6 Day(s)@ $ 1,500 /day $ 9,000.00 BNSF Insurance 1 lump sum $ 10,000.00 Utilities Plus 1 Each @ $ 1,840 /each $ 1,840.00 Registered Mailings 36 Each @ $ 6.00 /each $ 216.00 Basic Mail Service 0 Each @ $ 0.50 /each $ - Vendor Print/Mount Exhibit 7 Each @ $ 50.00 /each $ 350.00 Direct Expenses Total $ 52,249.00 David Evans and Associates Total $ 1,087,873.18 Subconsultants HDR Engineering, Inc. $ 982,251.66 Budinger And Associates $ 60,801.00 Widener and Associates $ 61,717.60 Subconsultant Total $ 1,104,770.26 Direct Expenses Sub-Total (DEA Expenses+ Subconsultants) $ 1,157,019.26 DEA and Subconsultants Total: $ 2,192,643.44 Management Reserve Fund(MRF) of 5%: $ 109,632.17 Total with Management Reserve Fund: $ 2,302,275.61 2018-04-02 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Estimate-DEAS edits.xlsx Page 2 of 14 $DEA-Summ Printed: 4/3/2018, 2:03 PM EXHIBIT A City of Spokane Valley,WA Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Design,Right-of-Way,and PS&E Services David Evans and Associates,Inc. i 2 8 a s s 7 8 s m 11 18 14 is 16 In 18 19 20 22 28 24 25 26 27 28 80 81 e i - E L':: i Work 1,,,g - - -- - - - - 2 Z _ a Element Work Element - D DEA DEA Direct Rates $7300 $774301$568 $60001$6650 $4200 $4500 $37601$i= i= $500 $4026 $4000($6578$5294I$3180I$26261$4350 $50001$5200$55 50 $3300 $3300 $3400 $5761$36761$3378 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total$w/ hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs Escalation $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $0.00 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $000 $000 $000 1.0 Project Administration 1.1 Project Management 21 months 252 252 $55903.82 12 Project Setup 21 months 8 2 4 4 4 22 $332056 13 Subconsultant Coordination 21 months 42 8 8 8 66 $1198126 14 Quality Assurance Plan 21 months 6 2 2 10 $192739 15 Project Schedule 21 months 21 48 33 $6,07623 1.6 Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices 21 months 42 21 21 21 105 $16,10158 $0.00 Work Element 1 Total 371 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 25 33 488 $95,310.84 $0.00 2.0 Coordination and Meetings $0.00 2.1 Kickoff Meeting-DEA&HER 3 3 3 3 3 15 $3,001.83 22 City Coordination-DEA 40 mtgs 40 40 $8,873.62 23 Consultant Team Coordination and Meetings-DEA&HER 40 mtgs 20 10 10 20 10 10 10 90 $16,189.08 24 City Council Meetings-DEA&HDR 4 mtgs 20 4 4 16 12 56 $10,15357 25 Project Design Team Meetings(WDOT,City,BNSF)-DEA&HDR 20 mtgs 40 8 12 12 8 40 120 $24,40655 2.6 Stakeholder Coordination-DEA&HER 10 mtgs 20 20 40 $873750 Work Element 2 Total A_ 80 8 12 0 0 0 0 4 16 0 0 0 24 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 $43,297.62 $0.00 3.0 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Review 2 34 12 6 18 72 $14,366 60 $0.00 Work Element 3 Total 2 34 0 12 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 $14,366.60 $0.00 4.0 Utilities and Data Collection $0.00 $0.00 4.1 Utility Coordination&Verification(HER) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 4.1.1 Highland Estates/Spokane County WWTP 0 $0.00 4.1.2 Pioneer Water Company 0 $0.00 4.1.3 Consolidated Irrigation District 0 $0.00 4.1.4 Telecommunications 0 $0.00 4.1.5 Avista Utilities(Power and Natural Gas) 0 $0.00 4.1.6 Yellowstone Pipeline Company 0 $0.00 4.3 Ut�il ty Matrix(HDR)te Visits(DEA&HER) 1 5 visits 3 3 3 3 I 3 05 $2580 02 $0.00 Work Element 4 Total 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 M. 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 $2,580.02 $0.00 5.0 Geotechnical Engineering $0.00 5.1 Evaluate Geotechnical Data and Needs 0 $0.00 52 Geotechnical Engineering Services 0 $0.00 Work Element 5 Total 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 $4,255.78 $0.00 6.0 Public Involvement Program 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $0.00 6.1 Public Open Houses 25 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 $2133897 6.1.1 Attend open houses 3 mtgs 18 18 18 54 $11,121.80 6.1.2 Prepare Graphics 7 each 7 63 70 $10,21717 62 Property Owner Contact Meetings 24 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 $1136052 6.21Initial Owner Contact Meetings-DEA and HDR 12 owners 12 12 6 30 $5,680.26 6.22 Final Owner Contact Meetings-DEA and HDR 12 owners 12 12 6 30 $5,680 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $0.00 Work Element 6 Total 49 0 18 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 18 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 184 $32,699.49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $0.00 2018-04-02 Barker RDSNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Flnat_Budget EsnmataDEAB edits xlsx Page 3 of14 DEA Hrs Printed'.4/3/2018,2'.03 PM EXHIBIT A IDavid Evans and Associates,Inc. t 2 8 a 5 6 7 8 s m 11 is 10 is is in 18 19 20 22 23 20 25 26 2/ 28 30 31 z 2 8 E Work Q G E E E- _ _ _ _ - Z - Element N Work Element � o O eo %b � oe � � � ao a - 3 23 23 23 DEA DEA Direot Ratesa7DD I ala so $tae ecDD 6r D a4aDD Woo aBi cD Iao.DD I aci6 aasoD a4oes 44o D I ac�B$52 94 laaeD aee6 aasD ecDD IacaDD a666D IaaaDD aaDD assa DD I aBa oD a25 76 I aa6 76 I aae78 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total$w/ his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his his hrs Escalation 7.0 NEPA Compliance(Widener) $0.00 7.1 Design Assistance and Early Agency Coordination 8 4 8 20 $3320.82 T 2 Section 106 Report(Cultural and Historic Resources) 1 1 $221.84 T3 Noise Study 1 1 $221.84 T 4 Land Use Assessment 1 1 $221.84 T 5 Environmental Justice Survey 1 1 $221.84 7.6 Hazardous Materials Memorandum 1 1 $221.84 77 NEPA DCE 1 1 $221.84 7.8 SEPA 4 4 8 $1,419.08 $0 00 Work Element 7 Total 18. 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 $6,070.95 $0.00 8.0 Topographic Surveying&Basemapping-DEA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $0.00 8.1 Develop Control Network 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 24 54 50 64 4 0 0 226 $25,86336 8.i.1 Properly Owner Notification Letters 2 20 0 4 0 4 30 $3,856.17 8.1.2 Control Network Planning,Research,and Office Preparation 2 4 4 10 $1,326.23 8.1.3 Development of GPS Control Network 2 8 30 30 20 90 $9,924.83 8.1.4 Vertical Control 2 4 20 20 10 56 $6,190.10 8.1.5 Control Diagram 2 4 4 30 40 $4,56603 82 Topograppping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 49 140 140 149 4 0 0 506 $56,44594 8.21 Topographic Surveying 2 18 80 80 40 220 $23,986.47 8.22 Supplemental Topographic Surveying 2 3 10 10 5 30 $3,40536 8.23 Railroad Survey and Coordination 8 2 4 10 10 4 4 42 $4,779.89 8.24 Utilities 4 8 40 40 10 102 $11,296.17 8.25 Process RTK GPS and linework 2 8 10 20 $2,520 62 8.26 Feature extraction 2 4 40 46 $5,22871 8.27 Develop Topographic Survey Map with Digital Terrain Model(DTM) 2 4 40 46 $5,22871 83 Boundary/Right-of-Way Surveying 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 178 50 50 118 8 0 0 430 $52729.69 8.3.1 Research 12 40 30 8 90 $11,44883 8.3.2 Field Survey 2 4 40 40 4 90 $9,753.14 8.3.3 Develop Right-of-Way Determination 2 50 20 72 $9,316.45 8.3.4 Prepare and File Retracement Record of Survey(10 sheets) 8 80 60 148 $18,77832 8.3.5 Set Monuments for Retracement Survey 2 4 10 10 4 30 $3,432.96 84 Final Basemapp ng I II I 4 10 30 18 52 $5,97441 $0 00 Work Element 8 Total 2 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2$' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 261 244 240 361 24 0 0 1214 $141,013.41 $0 00 9.0 BNSF Coordination and Submittals-DEA&HDR $0.00 9.1 BNSF Design Phase A Package(Concept Railroad Submittal)-DEA&HDR 6 8 24 6 6 50 $8379.81 92 BNSF Design Phase B Package(30%Railroad Submittal) 14 4 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 $14369.07 9.21 Bridge Plans-DEA 8 8 16 8 8 48 $7,936.13 9.22 Hydraulics Summery-HDR 0 $0.00 9.23 Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams-DEA&HDR 2 24 2 2 30 $4,61774 9.24 Quality Control(30%Radioed Submittal Package)(by HDR/DEA) 4 4 8 $1,81519 93 BNSF Design Phase C Package(100%Railroad Submittal) 10 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 40 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 $13587.19 9.3.1 Bridge Plans-DEA 6 8 40 8 8 70 $11,48774 9.3.2 Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams-DEA&HDR 2 2 $284.25 9.3.3 Final Hydraulics Summery Report-HDR 0 $0.00 9.3.4 Quality Control-DEA&HDR 4 4 8 $1,815.19 94 Railroad Agreement-DEA&HDR 14 10 12 36 $725376 0 $000 0 $000 Work Element 9 Total 44 8 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 94 0 22 22 '0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 '0 0 0' 252 $43,589.82 $0 00 10.0 Bridge Preliminary Plans-DEA $0.00 Preliminary Bridge Plans and Estimate 2 8 8 32 16 32 98 $1250441 Work Element 10 Total 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 32 16 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 $12,504.41 • $0 00 11.0 Intersection Control Analysis-HDR&DEA $0.00 111 WSDOT Peer Review Meeting 4 4 8 $1 74750 112 Final ICA 4 4 $88736 $0 00 Work Element 11 Total 0 0, 0 0;,. 4 0 0. 0 0 0- Q 0 $' f; 4 0. 4 -0 4 4 4 0- 4 4 .0 0, 0- 12 $2,634.86 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $0 00 2018-04-02 Barker RDSNSF Grade Sep Prase 2_Flnat_Buoget EsSmaIDDEA8 etlitsxlsx Page of 14 DEA Hrs Printed:4/3/2018,2:03 PM EXHIBIT A David Evans and Associates,Inc. i 2 8 a s s 7 8 s io 11 is 14 is is in 18 is 20 22 28 24 25 26 2/ 28 80 01 I c7) '2 .7, ; ; g E, 8 E ?? i - _ - ¢" i i Work Q G E E E- _ _ _ _ - Z - Element 0 Work Element � o O b � oe � � � ao 6 a - sseDEA DEA Dreot Ratesa7DD I a74 aD setae ecoDD %6r D a4aDD a46DD aBi cDI ao.DDI aci6 a4soD a4oes �D D I ac�B aes4laaeD aee6 a4sD ecDD I acaDD a66DI a4aDD aaDD aaaDD aBoD a2�6 aa76 aa78 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total$w/ hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs Escalation 12.0 60%Design-DEA&HDR $0.00 121 Title and lndexMcinity Map-DEA 1 2 4 T $1,10845 122 Roadway Typical Sections-HDR 0 $0.00 123 Intersection/Channelization Plan Coordination-DEA&HDR 6 8 4 18 $391072 124 RoadwayAlignment,Paving Plan and Profile Sheets-HDR 0 $0.00 125 Drainage Plans-HDR 0 $0.00 126 Hydraulic Report-HDR&DEA 8 8 $150493 127 Channel¢ation,Pavement Marking,Sgning,and Sign Structure Plans-DEA 55 22 11 44 132 $17,41854 128 Intersection Plans-HDR 0 $0.00 129 Maintenance of Traffic Plans-DEA 66 22 132 220 $32252 75 12.10 Ste Preparation Plans-HDR T shts 0 $0.00 12.11 Illumination Design and Plans-DEA 32 48 48 32 160 $23,191.65 12.12 Preliminary Utility Plans-HDR 0 $0.00 12.13 Bridge Design and Plans-DEA 32 80 180 180 80 552 $6474031 12.14 Detail Sheets-DEA&HDR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 $3,840.02 1214.1Industrial/Residential Access Detail Sheets-HDR 0 $0.00 1214.2 Drainage Detail Sheets-HDR0 $0.00 1214.3 Roundabout Detail Sheets-DEA&HDR 2 12 12 26 $3,840.02 12.15 Preliminary Special Provisions-DEA&HDR 8 16 8 16 4 8 12 72 $12,626.03 12.16 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost-DEA&HDR 4 6 2 10 2 8 2 2 8 8 2 54 $823372 12.17 Basis of Estim ate-DEA 2 2 2 2 8 16 $2,483.86 12.18 Preliminary Design Submittal QC-DEA&HDR 6 18 18 4 40 86 $16,494.10 12.19 Submit 600/0 Design Package-DEA&HDR 2 2 2 2 8 8 24 $3,695.69 1220 Design Approval-DEA 8 4 4 12 28 $4948.14 1221 600/0 Design Review Meeting-DEA&HDR 8 6 4 4 22 $435071 . Wo rk Element 12 Total 39 38 84 10 18 10 0 101 98 59 0 220 12 46 132 204 180 88 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1353 $188,173.57 $0 00 13.0 Right-of-Way Documents-DEA $0.00 131 Collect Title Information-DEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 74 0 0 60 20 0 0 170 $21,019.69 13.i.1 Obtain and Review Supporting Title Information 10 60 30 100 $13,154.98 13.1.2 Title Company Coordination 4 10 10 20 44 $4,804.04 13.1.3 Revise Working Total Ownership Map 2 4 20 26 $3,060.67 132 Develop RIghtof--Way Plans-DEA 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 56 0 0 130 0 0 0 221 $2828442 13.21 Incorporate Parcel Lines 4 20 24 $2,865.32 13.22 Parcel Alignment Files(up to 12 parcels) 1 4 20 25 $2,886.35 13.23 Total Ownership Map(2 sheets) 2 16 20 38 $4,692.61 13.24 Right-of-Way Plans(12 sheets) 4 10 20 50 84 $10,770.57 13.25 Attend Right-of-Way Plans Review Meeting 4 6 6 16 $2,749.25 13.26 Revise and Submit TO Map and ROW Plans 2 2 10 20 34 $4,320.32 133 Legal Descriptions-DEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 46 30 30 68 0 0 0 199 $2430530 13.3.1 LegalDescriptions/Exhibit Maps(up to 12 parcels) 12 24 30 66 $8,607.79 13.3.2 Revise Legal Descriptions 2 8 20 30 $3,604.65 13.3.3 Calculate Acquisition Parcel Coordinates(for up to 12) 2 4 10 16 $1,976.64 13.3.4 Stake ROW Acquisition Areas 1 2 30 30 4 67 $7,200.10 13.3.5 Coordinate 8 8 4 20 $2,916.13 134 Monuments and Record of Survey-DEA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 48 40 40 54 0 0 0 198 $23,69256 13.4.1 Set Monuments for Final Record of Survey(10 sheets) 4 8 40 40 4 96 $10,645.76 13.4.2 Prepare and File Final Record of Survey(10 sheets) 2 10 40 50 102 $13,046.80 Work Element 13 Total 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 224 70 70 31220 0 0 788 $97,301.97 $0 00 14.0 Appraise and Acquire Right-of-Way-HDR&DEA $000 141 Real Estate Services Management-HDR 0 $000 142 Appraisal and Appraisal Review-HDR 0 $000 143 Acquisition and Negotiation Services-HDR&DEA 2 4 6 $98766 144 Relocation and Negotiation Services-HDR 0 $000 Work Element 14 Total 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $987.66 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $0 00 2018-04-02 Barker RDSNSF Brace Sep Prase 2-FlnaLeudget Esnmate-DEAB etlitsxlsx Page 5 of 14 DEA Hrs Printed:4/3/2018,2:03 PM EXHIBIT A David Evans and Associates,Inc. i 2 8 4 s s 7 e e io 11 is 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 x z - ?? om g ±1 u5 - E 21 - Q 2 Q , - Work 0 Q 2 2 2- _ _ _ _ - Z O Element 6 Work Element � o El � � - sseDEA DEA Dreer Rates I I a7oo I a74 ao I$57 68 I aco0o I%er o�aaoo I a400 I$ �I 850 oo Iac�e I a400 I raw I 0 o Iac�e I as4lsaeoI s �e I a4so I ac0o Iaczoo I a5s�o Ia4.00 I$a.00 I$33 00 I s�oo�sz�e I$a�e I$a7e Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total$w/ hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs Escalation 15.0 100%DESIGN-DEA&HDR $0.00 151 Title,Index and Vicinity Map-DEA 1 23 $436.19 152 Survey Control and Found Monuments-DEA 2 4 4 10 $132623 153 Roadway Typical Sections-HDR 8 shts 0 $0.00 154 Alignment Plan/ROW Sheets-HDR 6 shts 0 $0.00 155 Ste Preparation Plans-HDR T shts 0 $0.00 150 Roadway Paving Plan and Profile Sheets-HDR 22 shts 0 $0.00 157 Paving and other Roadway/RAB Details-HDR 23 shts 1 6 6 13 $1920.01 158 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control(TESC)Plans-HDR 11 shts 0 $0.00 159 TESL Narrative-HDR 0 $0.00 15.10 Drainage Plans-HDR 6 shts 0 $0.00 15.11 Utility Plans-HDR 11 shts 0 $0.00 15.12 Utility Hearing Waivers-HDR 4 shts 0 $0.00 15.13 Landscape Plans-DEA 4 shts 40 24 64 $8,70370 15.14 BNSF Bridge Contour Plans-DEA 2 shts 16 16 $1911.03 15.15 Illumination Plans and Details-DEA 11 shts 40 50 35 125 $17,11623 15.16 Intersection Plans and Details-HDR 1 shts 0 $0.00 15.17 ChannelEation,Pavement Marking,Signing,and Sgn Structure Plans-DEA 29 shts 116 73 44 73 8 40 60 414 $52323.83 15.18 Bridge Design-DEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 200 228 244 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 822 $101,63651 15.181 Barker Road over BNSF Bridge(by DEA)(38 sheets) 40 120 200 200 80 640 $76,845.99 15.182 Structures Quality Control/Quality Assurance Documentation 8 80 20 20 20 148 $21,515.06 15.183 Preliminary Bridge Load Ratings 2 8 24 34 $3,275.46 15.19 Maintenance of Traffic(MOT)Plans-DEA 21 shts 88 36 215 339 $49,02957 1520 Project Speafications and Proposal-DEA&HDR 8 8 12 30 12 4 74 $14,51853 1521 Contract Time Determination-DEA&HDR 4 8 4 16 $3,25242 1522 Opinion of Probable Cost-DEA&HDR 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 8 6 8 2 64 $9,83907 1523 Update Basis of Estimate-DEA 2 2 4 8 $1,55987 1524 QC Review of the Final Design Submittal-DEA&HDR 30 30 60 $12,74018 1525 Submit Final Design for Review-DEA&HDR 2 2 2 2 8 8 24 $3,69509 1526 Project Development Approval-DEA 8 4 4 16 32 $5,45533 1527 Final Design Review Meeting-DEA&HDR 8 8 8 4 4 32 $6,56838 $0 00 Work Element 15 Total 39 56 119 38 30 0 0 226 169 0 44 333 16 86 220. 282 312 100 0 32 2 4 0. 0 4 0 0. 4 2116 $292,032.78 $0 00 16.0 Ad-ready Design-DEA&HDR I $000 16.1 Prepare PS&E Package 14 24 20 12 20 0 0 28 22 6 0 32 0 22 38 40 44 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 $51,51939 16.1.1 Plans 12 4 24 16 6 30 8 20 40 40 8 4 212 $27,361.72 16.1.2 Specifications and Proposal 4 2 4 4 4 4 22 $4,342.24 16.1.3 Opinion of Probable Cost 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 26 $4,195.78 16.1.4 Construction Time Determination CPD 2 4 4 10 $2,056.28 16.1.5 QC rot PS&E 20 20 2 8 50 $10,255.28 16.1.6 Assemble Ad-ready Package and Submit 4 2 4 2 6 18 $3,308.09 162 Resident Engineer Files 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 $329630 16.21 Cross Sections et 50-ft stations(25-ft stations on curves) 0 $0.00 16.22 Grade Books for the project 0 $0.00 16.23 Roadway Quantity Worksheets 0 $0.00 16.2.4 Compiled Project Information 8 12 20 $3,296.30 163 Bid Assistance 8 4 I 4 4 20 $398870 $000 Work Element 16 Total 30 24 24 12 20 0 0 28 26 6 0 32 12 26 38 40 44 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 378 $58,804.39 $0 00 PRIME COMPENSATION FOR SUB.COST 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 $0.00 PROJECT WORK ELEMENTS TOTALS 709 168 260 100 68 18 26 359 318 65 44 585 128 309 492 558 577 313 18 54 136 493 314 310 677 87 25 37 7248 $ 1,035,624.18 EXPENSES I I $52249.00 $1,087,873.18 2018-04-02 Barker RnBIVBF Grade Sep Phase 2_Flnat_Budget EsnmaIDDEAs edits xlsx Page 6 of 14 DEA Hrs Printed'.4/3/2018,2'.03 PM EXHIBIT A City of Spokane Valley, WA Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Design, Right-of-Way, and PS&E Services HDR Engineering, Inc. Direct Classification Hrs. x Rate = Cost Principal In Charge 40 $ 96.83 $3,873.20 Transportation Lead (HDR PM) 463 $ 62.00 $28,675.00 Roadway Lead 453 $ 69.51 $31,488.03 Roadway QA/QC 158 $ 77.29 $12,211.82 Utilities Lead 274 $ 50.75 $13,905.50 Roadway Design Engineer IV 233 $ 50.72 $11,817.76 Roadway Design Engineer III 439 $ 45.39 $19,926.21 Roadway Design Engineer I 562 $ 37.54 $21,097.48 Cadd Technician 1224 $ 36.37 $44,516.88 Roundabout Engineer 62 $ 61.29 $3,799.98 Roundabout Design Engineer 200 $ 31.99 $6,398.00 Civil Designer IV 0 $ 43.00 $0.00 Senior Hydraulic Engineer 1 40 $ 53.63 $2,145.20 Senior Hydraulic Engineer 2 108 $ 64.28 $6,942.24 Hydraulic Engineer 323 $ 33.61 $10,856.03 Senior Traffic Engineer QA/QC 16 $ 69.35 $1,109.60 Senior Traffic Engineer 64 $ 59.85 $3,830.40 Traffic Engineer 60 $ 32.50 $1,950.00 BNSF Lead 119 $ 98.20 $11,685.80 ROW Lead 37 $ 80.53 $2,979.61 ROW PM 688 $ 59.71 $41,080.48 ROW Relocation Agent 590 $ 47.39 $27,960.10 ROW Technician 270 $ 26.45 $7,141.50 Controller 36 $ 42.00 $1,512.00 Project Assistant 12 $ 22.40 $268.80 Total Hrs. 6,471 Salary Cost $317,171.62 Salary Escalation Cost(estimated) Escalation - % of Labor Cost 3.0% per year @ 1.00 year(s) $9,515.15 Total Salary Cost $326,686.77 Overhead Cost @ 156.83% of Direct Labor $512,342.86 Net Fee @ 30.0% of Direct Labor $98,006.03 Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost $610,348.89 Salary Total $ 937,035.66 2018-04-02 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Estimate-DEAS edits.xlsx Page 7 of 14 $HDR Printed: 4/3/2018, 2:03 PM EXHIBIT A Direct Expenses - PS&E No. Unit Each Cost Printing (8.5x11) (B&W) 8000 pages @ $0.05 /page $ 400.00 Printing (11x17) (B&W) 8000 pages @ $0.09 /page $ 720.00 . Printing (11x17) (Color) 1000 pages @ $0.90 /page $ 900.00 . Printing (22x34) (Color on foam boar( 7 pages @ $50.00 /page $ 350.00 M Reports 20 reports @ $15.00 /report $ 300.00 M Plans 80 sets @ $2.00 /set $ 160.00 . Parking 7 @ $40.00 $ 280.00 . Mail/Deliveries/Fed Ex 10 @ $5.00 $ 50.00 . Airfare (Portland to Spokane) 2 trips @ $300.00 $ 600.00 . Airfare (Seattle to Spokane) 0 trips @ $300.00 $ - M Airfare (Tucson to Spokane) 5 trips @ $500.00 $ 2,500.00 M Mileage 615 miles @ $0.545 /mile $ 335.18 M Lodging 21 nights @ $166.00 /night $ 3,486.00 . Car rental 21 days @ $60.00 /day $ 1,260.00 . Direct Expenses - ROW Printing (8.5x11) (B&VV) 2000 pages @ $0.05 /page $ 100.00 Printing (11x17) (B&W) 2000 pages @ $0.09 /page $ 180.00 M Printing (11x17) (Color) 500 pages @ $0.90 /page $ 450.00 M Mileage 185 miles @ $0.545 /mile $ 100.83 M PFE 1 reports @ $12,000 $ 12,000.00 M AOS Reports 10 reports @ $500 $ 5,000.00 M Appraisals 2 reports @ $5,000 $ 10,000.00 M Appraisal Reviews 2 reviews @ $2,500 $ 5,000.00 M Document Recording Fees 12 documents @ $87 $ 1,044.00 . Direct Expenses Total $45,216.00 HDR Engineering, Inc. Total Cost with ROW and Acquisition Services $982,251.66 2018-04-02 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Estimate-DEAS edits.xlsx Page 8 of 14 $HDR Printed: 4/3/2018, 2:03 PM EXHIBIT A City of Spokane Valley,WA Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Design,Right-of-Way,and PS&E Services HDR Engineering,Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 =0 = = m .2 - w - G d - - - - o w - 5 a o = a a g g - 2r .u, Work m m m- m- m- a > >- 'c- 'c- a 'c c Element# Work Element p? c2 f c2w` c2w` c2w` r, c2w` rn w` rn w` i 6'..,3 rn F m 2 2 2 2 v HDR HDR Direct Rates: $96.831$62001$6951 $7729 $50751$5072 $45391$3754 $3637 $61291$3199 $53631$6428 $3361 $69351$59.851$32501$9820 $80531 $5971 $47391$2645 $42001$22.40 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total$w/ hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs separate esc. 1.0 Project Administration 0 1.1 Project Management 32 84 9 125 $25,437.17 1.2 Project Setup 4 6 10 $1,476.33 1.3 Subconsultant Coordination 0 $0.00 1.4 Quality Assurance 0 $0.00 1.5 Project Schedule 0 $0.00 1.6 Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices 21 21 42 $6,441.52 $0.00 Work Element 1 Total ■ 32 109 AI 0 0 0 0 0__JIMMILA: 0 0 A Ag 0. A Q 0 36 0 177 $33,355.02 2.0 Coordination and Meetings-DEA&HDR 0 $0.00 2.1 Kickoff Meeting-DEA&HDR 0 3 3 6 $1,403.81 2.2 City Coordination-DEA 40 mtgs 0 $0.00 2.3 Consultant Team Coordination and Meetings-DEA&H DR 40 mtgs 20 10 15 45 $10,027.93 2.4 City Council Meetings-DEA&HDR mtgs 16 4 20 $3,632.91 2.5 Project Design Team Meetings(WDOT,City,BNSF)-DEA&HDR 20 mtgs 63 10 10 83 $16,680.18 2.6 Stakeholder Coordination-DEA&HDR 10 mtgs 20 20 $3,641.05 T Work Element 2 Total 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 25 0 0 0 0 0 174 $35,385.89 0 $0.00 3.0 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Review 4 6 24 8 42 $7,367.92 0 $0.00 IMMEMMW Work Element 3 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 $7,367.92 0 $0.00 4.0 Utilities and Data Collection 0 $0.00 m $0.00 X 4.1 Utility Coordination&Verification 0 6 0 0 126 13 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 $22,779.50 I 4.1.1 Highland Estates/Spokane County WWTP 1 8 2 8 19 $2,548.03 W 4.1.2 Pioneer Water Company 1 6 1 8 $1,230.46 = 4.1.3 Consolidated Irrigation District 1 16 2 19 $2,878.00 > 4.1.4 Telecommunications 1 40 2 43 $6,472.82 4.1.5 Avista Utilities(Power and Natural Gas) 1 40 4 45 $6,772.21 4.1.6 Yellowstone Pipeline Company 1 16 2 19 $2,878.00 4.2 Utility Verification Site Visits 16 16 $2,396.55 4.3 Utility Matrix 2 16 4 22 $3,266.65 0 $0.00 Work Element 4 Total 0 8 0 0 158 17 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 $28,535.49 0 $0.00 5.0 Geotechnical Engineering 0 $0.00 5.1 Evaluate Geotechnical Data and Needs 0 $0.00 5.2 Geotechnical Engineering Services 0 $0.00 5.3 Geotechnical Coordination 2 8 10 $2,171.38 0 $0.00 Work Element 5 Total 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 $2,171.38 0 $0.00 6.0 Public Involvement Program 0 $0.00 2018-0402 BarkerRd-BNSF Grade sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Esdma[aDEAS.edi6 xis: Page 9 of 14 HDR Hrs Printed:4/3/2018,2:03 PM EXHIBIT A HDR Engineering,Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 ,:t U m m m o w w En Q v ,F g .2 .O o - o r „ - - - > >- c- c- a ' cececececWork pm m m m m a c Element# Work Element ? rr ce 5 ce wce El ce wo E2 wn wn wnd n F m HDR HDR Direct Rates: 1$96.831$62001$6951 1$7729 $50]51$5072 $45391$3]54 $3637 $61291$3199 $53631$6428 $3361 1$69351$59.851$32501$9820 $80531 $59]1 $47391$2645 $42001$22.40 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total$w/ hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs separate esc. 6.1 Public Open Houses 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 $10,114.84 6.1.1 Attend open houses 3.0 mtgs 18 $0.00 6.1.2 Prepare Graphics 7.0 each 63 $0.00 6.2 Property Owner Contact Meetings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 48 $8,423.24 6.2.1 Initial Owner Contact Meetings-DEA and HDR 12.0 wners 24 24 $4,211.62 6.2.2 Final Owner Contact Meetings-DEA and HDR 12.0 wners 24 24 $4,211.62 I I I I I I I 0 $0.00 Work Element 6 Total 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 129 $18,538.08 0 $0.00 7.0 NEPA Compliance(Widener) 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Work Element 7 Total 8 111013131313 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 $4,372.47 0 $0.00 8.0 Topographic Surveying&Basemapping-DEA 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Work Element 8 Total • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MIM 0 $0.00 9.0 BNSF Coordination and Submittals-DEA&HDR 0 $0.00 9.1 BNSF Design Phase A Package(Concept Railroad Submittal)-DEA&HDR 3 12 15 $3,976.78 9.2 BNSF Design Phase B Package(30%Railroad Submittal) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 $5,976.99 9.2.1 Bridge Plans-DEA 2 2 $571.77 9.2.2 Hydraulics Summary-HDR 0.5 4 16 2 22.5 $3,027.11 9.2.3 Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams-DEA&HDR 2 2 $571.77 9.2.4 Quality Control(30%Railroad Submittal Package)(by HDR/DEA) 0.5 6 6.5 $1,806.34 9.3 BNSF Design Phase C Package(100%Railroad Submittal) 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.5 $5,275.57 9.3.1 Bridge Plans-DEA 2 2 $571.77 9.3.2 Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams-DEA&HDR 2 2 $571.77 9.3.3 Final Hydraulics Summary Report-HDR 2 8 2 12 $1,753.93 9.3.4 Quality Control-DEA&HDR 0.5 8 8.5 $2,378.11 9.4 Railroad Agreement-DEA&HDR 10 36 46 $12,112.39 Work Element 9 Total 0 14.5 0 ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 24 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 118.5 $27,341.72 m 0 $0.00 x 10.0 Bridge Preliminary Plans-DEA 0 $0.00 = 0 $0.00 W 0 p 11 t1 U 0 0 0 0 0`; 0 b' R ID 0 0 6 '0 0 p b' 0 0 0 $0.00 =1 0 $0.00 D 11.0 Intersection Control Analysis-HDR&DEA 0 $0.00 11.1 WSDOT Peer Review Meeting 1 4 8 8 21 $3,955.82 11.2 Final ICA 1 16 32 40 60 149 $19,036.74 0 $0.00 Work Element 11 Total 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 32 0 0 0 8 48 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 $22,992.56 0 $0.00 12.0 60%Design-DEA&HDR 0 $0.00 12.1 Title and Index/Vicinity Map-DEA 0 $0.00 12.2 Roadway Typical Sections-HDR 2 4 0 16 16 40 78 $9,460.86 12.3 Intersection/Channelization Plan Coordination-DEA&HDR 10 24 34 $6,706.77 124 RoadwayAlignment,Paving Plan and Profile Sheets-HDR 14 93 70 121 132 208 16 654 $87,106.93 12.5 Drainage Plans-HDR 2 2 72 12 30 118 $13,867.78 12.6 Hydraulic Report-HDR&DEA 2 32 120 154 $18,473.64 12.7 Channelization,Pavement Marking,Signing,and Sign Structure Plans-DEA 0 $0.00 12.8 Intersection Plans-HDR 1 2 4 4 6 8 25 $3,265.34 12.9 Maintenance of Traffic Plans-DEA 0 $0.00 2018-0402 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Esdma[aDEAS edits xlsx Page 10 of 14 HDR Hrs Printed:4/3/2018,2:03 PM EXHIBIT A HDR Engineering,Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 En ri ri QUU m m m o w w °a o . LE, r Work ce m m '8'- m- '8'- a > >- -- 'c- a - c Element# Work Element ? rr ce 5 ce w` ce El ce w` o rr ce w` rn w` rn w` = co d co H m ce ce ce o o ot HDR HDR Direct Rates: 1$96.831$62001$6951 1$7729 $50751$5072 $45391$3754 $3637 $61291$3199 $53631$6428 $3361 1$69351$59.851$32501$9820 $80531 $5971 $47391$2645 $42001$22.40 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total$w/ hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs separate esc. 12.10 Site Preparation Plans-HDR 7 shts 4 14 28 42 70 158 $19,639.21 12.11 Illumination Design and Plans-DEA 2 8 24 48 82 $10,958.58 12.12 Preliminary Utility Plans-HDR 0 $0.00 12.13 Bridge Design and Plans-DEA $0.00 12.14 Detail Sheets-DEA&HDR 0 4 7 0 0 4 6 8 94 24 66 0 6 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 $28,052.57 12.14.1 Industrial/Residential Access Detail Sheets-HDR 2 4 4 6 8 16 40 $5,215.49 12.14.2 Drainage Detail Sheets-HDR 1 2 56 6 16 81 $9,408.87 12.14.3 Roundabout Detail Sheets-DEA&HDR 1 1 22 24 66 114 $13,428.21 12.15 Preliminary Special Provisions-DEA&HDR 16 20 10 8 8 16 16 16 12 122 $21,344.34 12.16 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost-DEA&HDR 5 10 8 12 24 16 8 4 16 103 $14,089.11 12.17 Basis of Estimate-DEA 0 $0.00 12.18 Preliminary Design Submittal QC-DEA&HDR 60 60 $13,554.53 12.19 Submit 60%Design Package-DEA&HDR 1 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 24 $3,223.12 12.20 Design Approval-DEA 1 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 24 $3,223.12 12.21 60%Design Review Meeting-DEA&HDR 4 8 4 2 18 $3,683.10 0 $0.00 Work Element 12 Total 0 68 196 60 50 98 207 268 500 32 98 16 62 188 0 16 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 12 1889 $257,163.59 0 $0.00 13.0 Right-of-Way Documents-DEA 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 I .iiWork Element 13 Total M. 0 0 "DM 0: 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1.11.1.9. 0 0 0 0 JIIIK, 0 0 0 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 14.0 Appraise and Acquire Right-of-Way-HDR&DEA 0 $0.00 14.1 Real Estate Services Management-HDR 2 12 160 174 $31,264.00 14.2 Appraisal and Appraisal Review-HDR 2 50 50 102 $16,145.65 14.3 Acquisition and Negotiation Services-HDR&DEA 2 90 540 270 902 $113,459.71 144 Relocation and Negotiation Services-HDR 2 340 342 $60,028.72 0 $0.00 Work Element 14 Total 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 640 590 270 0 0 1520 $220,898.07 0 $0.00 15.0 100%DESIGN-DEA&HDR 0 $0.00 fTl 15.1 Title,Index and Vicinity Map-DEA 0 0 0 $0.00 x 15.2 Survey Control and Found Monuments-DEA 0 0 0 $0.00 = 15.3 Roadway Typical Sections-HDR 8 shts 2 2 0 4 12 24 2 46 $5,448.52 W 154 Alignment Plan/ROW Sheets-HDR 6 shts 6 8 10 20 24 60 2 130 $16,295.93 =1 15.5 Site Preparation Plans-HDR 7 shts 4 14 14 21 35 88 $11,608.86 D 15.6 Roadway Paving Plan and Profile Sheets-H DR 22 shts 8 66 55 66 88 132 415 $56,171.74 15.7 Paving and other Roadway/RAB Details-HDR 23 shts 12 23 23 46 58 92 32 286 $36,039.75 15.8 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control(TESC)Plans-HDR 11 shts 2 154 12 44 212 $23,769.42 15.9 TESC Narrative-HDR 0 0 1 4 4 24 33 $3,798.91 15.10 Drainage Plans-HDR 6 shts 2 48 8 18 76 $8,893.86 15.11 Utility Plans-HDR 11 shts 4 22 33 59 $7,715.96 15.12 Utility Hearing Waivers-HDR 4 shts 2 16 18 $2,760.65 15.13 Landscape Plans-DEA 4 shts 0 $0.00 15.14 BNSF Bridge Contour Plans-DEA 2 shts 0 $0.00 15.15 Illumination Plans and Details-DEA 11 shts 0 $0.00 15.16 Intersection Plans and Details-HDR 1 shts 1 2 2 4 6 8 23 $2,965.94 15.17 Channelization,Pavement Marking,Signing,and Sign Stmcture Plans-DEA 0 $0.00 15.18 Bridge Design-DEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 15.18.1 Barker Road over BNSF Bridge(by DEA)(38 sheets) 0 $0.00 15.18.2 Structures Quality Control/Quality Assurance Documentation 0 $0.00 15.18.3 Preliminary Bridge Load Ratings 0 $0.00 2018-0402 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Esdma[aDEAS edits xlsx Page 11 of 14 HDR Hrs Printed:4/3/2018,2:03 PM EXHIBIT A HDR Engineering,Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 QwU U m m m c o w v ° :a o : o -2 - - - Work p m m 0' 0' 0' a > >- —- 'c- a — c Element# Work Element .. rr ce 5 ce w` ce El ce w` o rr ce w` rn w` rn w` = O d O F m ce ce ce ce o HDR HDR Direct Rates: $96.831$62001$6951 $7729 $50751$5072 $45391$3754 $3637 $61291$3199 $53631$6428 $3361 $69351$59.851$32501$9820 $80531 $5971 $47391$2645 $42001$22.40 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total$w/ hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs separate esc. 15.2 Maintenance of Traffic(MOT)Plans-DEA 0 $0.00 15.2 Project Specifications and Proposal-DEA&HDR 16 40 8 8 4 76 $14,907.13 15.2 Contract Time Determination-DEA&HDR 8 8 $1,456.42 15.2 Opinion of Probable Cost-DEA&H DR 4 8 2 8 8 8 2 4 44 $6,604.21 15.2 Update Basis of Estimate-DEA 0 $0.00 15.2 QC Review of the Final Design Submittal-DEA&HDR 50 2 52 $11,655.48 15.3 Submit Final Design for Review-DEA&HDR 1 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 24 $3,223.12 15.3 Project Development Approval-DEA 0 $0.00 15.3 Final Design Review Meeting-DEA&H DR 8 16 4 28 $5,468.29 0 $0.00 Work Element 15 Total -1.W-0 81 181 50 52 98 166 254 557 40 0 40 €i5 0 0 0 4 0 -- 0 0 0 1618 $218,784.20 0 $0.00 16.0 Ad-ready Design-DEA&HDR I 0 $0.00 16.1 Prepare PS&E Package 0 17 42 40 12 20 32 40 76 2 18 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 $46,196.84 16.1.1 Plans 4 16 4 16 24 36 72 12 8 192 $24,005.45 16.1.2 Specifications and Proposal 4 20 2 2 28 $5,300.89 16.1.3 Opinion of Probable Cost 2 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 24 $3,455.25 16.1.4 Construction Time Determination CPD 6 6 $1,092.32 16.1.5 QC rof PS&E 40 2 42 $9,396.39 16.1.6 Assemble Ad-ready Package and Submit 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 23 $2,946.55 16.2 Resident Engineer Files 0 3 12 0 2 0 34 0 8 2 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 $10,248.12 16.2.1 Cross Sections at 50-ft stations(25-ft stations on curves) 4 16 4 4 28 $3,782.99 16.2.2 Grade Books for the project 4 8 4 16 $2,273.55 16.2.3 Roadway Quantity Worksheets 1 2 8 2 13 $1,856.47 16.2.4 Compiled Project Information 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 16 $2,335.11 16.3 Bid Assistance 8 10 2 200 $3,684.31 $0.00 Work Element 16 Total 0 28 64 40 14 20 66 40 84 4 30 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 408 $60,129.27 PROJECT WORK ELEMENTS TOTALS 40 462.5 453 158 274 233 439 562 1224 62 200 40 108 323 16 64 60 119 37 688 590 270 36 12 6471 $937,035.66 EXPENSES 0 $45,216.00 Total HDR $982,251.66 m X ICO D 2018-0402 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Esdmate.DEAS edits xlsx Page 12 of 14 HDR Hrs Printed:4/3/2018,2:03 PM EXHIBIT A I I I I I I I I I I Barker-BNSF Grade Separation Geotechnical Services Cost Estimate Engineer Senior Engineer'' Geologist III Geologist II Exploration Exploration Exploration QuaSty Administrator Labor Expenses[ Pnnapal 'Professional IV Technician III Techauoan III',Professional IV III Hank Swift '... Dave Lehn- Jason PrOof ''.. engineering& logging& logging&field :Ethan Hageman deliv s,testm.Jae Hous drill of tasks John Finnegan - testm g -lead drlka i g &test support Tem Ballard Aik&a Andrews Hours Cost Total Hourly Fee: $160.36 $134.29 $77.21 85909 $67.14 $57.74 75774 775.20 160.83 Task 1.1 Evaluate Geotechnical Data and Needs 7 1 8 0 4 0 0 0 8 28 $2,495. $34,980 $37,481 -Task 1 2 Geotechnical Engineering Services 28 10 46 70 75 90 90 4 10 429 i$23,319 $0 $23,319 TOTAL(not to exceed) 35 17 'I 54 70 79 90 90 4 I 18 457 $25,815 134,980 $60,801 -Notes -I.See expense calculations sheet IB B u d i n g e r Barker-BNSF Grade Separation 84 Associates - Geotechnical Services Cost Estimate 2018-51-17 Barker Rd-BitiSF Grade Separaeton Phase z-sudgetEsnoenre-DEAoI Expense calculations Drilling and Sampling Rotosonic earth drill 48 hours $276.20 $13,257.60 -Rotosonic tooling 48 hours $21-79 $1,045-92 -Water trailer for sonic drill 48 hours $14.35 $688.80 -CAT 315 20 hours $72.67 $1,453.40 -Test pit infiltration supplies $1,800.00 -Truck-Kenworth(deliveries) 12 hours $42.05 $504.60 -Flatbed-50k-lbs(deliveries) 12 hours $23.35 $280.20 Vac truck with operator 14 hours $360-00 $5,040-00 -Light duty support truck 95 hours $18.70 $1,776.50 _Traffic Control 73,600-00 -Obstruction Permits $600.00 S30,047.02 -Laboratory Testing -Moisture content 12 each $20.00 $240.00 Sieve analysis 10 each $120.00 $1,200.00 -Atterberg Limits 6 each $150.00 $900.00 _3-point CBR 2 each $400.00 $800.00 -Modified proctor 2 each $120-00 $240-00 -Cation exchange capacity 6 each $40-00 $240-00 -Organic matter 6 each $30.00 $180.00 -pH 4 each $16-00 $64-00 Rock point load test 5 each $95.00 $475.00 Rock unconfined compression 3 each $200.00 $600.00 $4,939.00 $34,986.02 Total Labor and Expenses: $ 60,801.00 2018-04-02 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Estimate-DEAS edits.xlsx Page 13 of 14 Budinger Printed:4/3/2018,2:03 PM EXHIBIT A City of Spokane Valley,WA Barker RoadIBNSF Grade Separation Design, Right-of-Way,and PS&E Services Widener and Associates Project Manager Project Biologist Work Hours Hours Element# Work Element 7.1 Design Assistance and Early Agency 20 10 Coordination 7.2 Section 106 Report(Cultural and Historic Resources) APE 4 6 Coordination and review 4 6 7.3 Noise Study Draft 10 40 Final 6 20 7.4 Land Use Assessment Draft 10 40 Final 10 20 7.5 Environmental Justice Survey Draft 20 40 Final 10 20 7.6 Hazardous Materials Memorandum Draft 20 50 Final 10 25 7.7 NEPA DCE Draft 10 40 Final 10 10 7.8 SEPA Draft 4 10 Final 4 10 Total Labor 152 347 499 Labor Summary Hours Rate(DSC) Cost Project Manager 152 $71.00 $10,792.00 Project Biologist 347 $31.00 $10,757.00 overhead (WSDOT Safe Harbor Rate 1.1%) $23,704 profit(30%) $6,465 Total Labor: $51,717.60 Expenses Cultural Resources Field Work $5,000 Mileage $2,500 Hazmat Testing $2,500 Total Expenses: $10,000 TOTAL LABOR AND DIRECT EXPENSES: $61,717.60 2018-04-02 Barker Rd-BNSF Grade Sep Phase 2_Final_Budget Estimate-DEAS edits.xlsx Page 14 of 14 Widener Printed:4/3/2018,2:03 PM Exhibit B Spokane Walley City of Spokane Valley, WA Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project No. 0143 Phase II — Design, Right-of-Way, and PS&E Services Scope of Services Prepared by: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 908 North Howard Street, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 In association with HDR Engineering, Inc. April 4, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 II. DESIGN CRITERIA 2 III. DESIGN SOFTWARE 3 IV. DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTION 4 TASK 1 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION—DEA&HDR 4 1.1 Project Management 4 1.2 Project Setup 4 1.3 Subconsultant Coordination 4 1.4 Quality Assurance Plan 4 1.5 Project Schedule 4 1.6 Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices 5 TASK 2 COORDINATION AND MEETINGS—DEA&HDR 5 2.1 Kickoff Meeting—DEA& HDR 5 2.2 CITY Coordination - DEA 6 2.3 Consultant Team Coordination and Meetings- DEA& HDR 6 2.4 City Council Meetings - DEA& HDR 6 2.5 Project Design Team Meetings - DEA& HDR 6 2.6 Stakeholder Coordination - DEA& HDR 7 TASK 3 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW-DEA&HDR 7 TASK 4 UTILITIES AND DATA COLLECTION-HDR&DEA 7 4.1 Utility Coordination and Verification - HDR 7 4.1.1. Highland Estates/Spokane County Wastewater Treatment Plant 8 4.1.2. Pioneer Water Company 8 4.1.3. Consolidated Irrigation District 9 4.1.4. Telecommunications 9 4.1.5. Avista Utilities (Power and Natural Gas) 10 4.1.6. Yellowstone Pipeline Company 11 4.2 Utility Verification Site Visits—DEA& HDR 11 4.3 Utility Matrix- HDR 12 TASK 5 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING-BA 12 5.1 Evaluate Geotechnical Data and Needs 12 5.2 Geotechnical Engineering Services 13 5.3 Geotechnical Coordination 16 TASK 6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM-DEA&HDR 16 6.1 Public Open Houses 17 6.2 Property Owner Contact Meetings 17 6.2.1. Initial Owner Contact Meetings—DEA and HDR 18 6.2.2. Final Owner Contact Meetings—DEA and HDR 18 City of Spokane Valley Page i Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B TASK 7 NEPA COMPLIANCE-WIDENER 19 7.1 Design Assistance and Early Agency Coordination 19 7.2 Section 106 Report (Cultural and Historic Resources) 19 7.3 Noise Study 21 7.3.1. Sound Level Measurements 21 7.3.2. Construction Noise Impact Evaluation 21 7.3.3. Traffic Noise Impact Evaluation 21 7.3.4. Mitigation Analysis 21 7.4 Land Use Assessment 22 7.5 Environmental Justice Survey 22 7.6 Hazardous Materials Memorandum 23 7.7 NEPA DCE 23 7.8 SEPA 24 TASK 8 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYING AND BASEMAPPING-DEA 24 8.1 Develop Control Network 24 8.1.1. Property Owner Notification Letters 24 8.1.2. Control Network Planning, Research, and Office Preparation 24 8.1.3. Development of GPS Control Network 25 8.1.4. Vertical Control 25 8.1.5. Control Diagram 25 8.2 Topographic Survey& Mapping 26 8.2.1. Topographic Surveying 26 8.2.2. Supplemental Topographic Surveying 28 8.2.3. Railroad Survey and Coordination 29 8.2.4. Utilities 29 8.2.5. Process RTK GPS and linework 29 8.2.6. Feature extraction 29 8.2.7. Basemapping 30 8.3 Boundary/Right-of-Way Surveying 30 8.3.1. Research 30 8.3.2. Field Survey 31 8.3.3. Develop Right-of-Way Determination 31 8.3.4. Prepare and File Retracement Record of Survey(10 sheets) 31 8.3.5. Set Monuments for Retracement Survey 31 8.4 Final Basemapping 31 TASK 9 BNSF COORDINATION AND SUBMITTALS—DEA&HDR 32 9.1 BNSF Design Phase A Package (Concept Railroad Submittal)—DEA& HDR 32 9.2 BNSF Design Phase B Package (30% Railroad Submittal)—DEA& HDR 32 9.2.1. Bridge Plans—DEA & HDR 32 9.2.2. Hydraulics Summary-HDR 33 9.2.3. Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams—DEA & HDR 33 9.2.4. Quality Control—DEA & HDR 33 9.3 BNSF Design Phase C Package (100% Railroad Submittal)—DEA& HDR 33 9.3.1. Bridge Plans—DEA & HDR 33 9.3.2. Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams—DEA & HDR 34 City of Spokane Valley Page ii Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 9.3.3. Final Hydraulics Summary Report—HDR 34 9.3.4. Quality Control—DEA & HDR 34 9.4 Railroad Agreement—DEA& HDR 34 TASK 10 PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PLANS-DEA 35 TASK 11 INTERSECTION CONTROL ANALYSIS—HDR&DEA 35 11.1 WSDOT Peer Review Meeting— DEA& HDR 36 11.2 Final ICA— HDR & DEA 36 TASK 12 60%DESIGN—DEA&HDR 36 12.1 Title and Index/Vicinity Map— DEA 37 12.2 Roadway Typical Sections - HDR 37 12.3 Intersection/Channelization Plan Coordination—HDR& DEA 37 12.4 Roadway Alignment, Paving Plan and Profile Sheets -HDR 38 12.4.1. Channelization Plan Sheets 38 12.4.2. Alignment Plan Sheets 39 12.4.3. Roadway Paving Plan and Profile Sheets 40 12.5 Drainage Plans - HDR 41 12.6 Hydraulic Report—HDR& DEA 41 12.7 Channelization, Pavement Marking, Signing, and Sign Structure Plans—DEA 42 12.8 Intersection Plans - HDR 42 12.9 Maintenance of Traffic(MOT) Plans -DEA 42 12.10 Site Preparation Plans—HDR 43 12.11 Illumination Design and Plans - DEA 44 12.12 Preliminary Utility Plans- HDR 44 12.13 Bridge Design and Sheets-DEA 45 12.14 Detail Sheets—DEA& HDR 46 12.14.1. Industrial/Residential Access Detail Sheets-HDR 46 12.14.2. Drainage Detail Sheets-HDR 46 12.14.3. Roundabout Detail Sheets—DEA & HDR 46 12.15 Preliminary Special Provisions—DEA& HDR 47 12.16 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost—DEA& HDR 47 12.17 Basis of Estimate - DEA 47 12.18 Preliminary Design Submittal QC—DEA& HDR 48 12.19 Submit 60% Design Package—DEA& HDR 48 12.20 Design Approval - DEA 48 12.21 60% Design Review and Comment/Resolution Meeting—DEA& HDR 49 TASK 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY DOCUMENTS-DEA 50 13.1 Review Title Information and Data Collection 50 13.1.1. Collect Title Information 50 13.1.2. Title Company Coordination 51 13.1.3. Revise Working Total Ownership (TO)Map 51 13.2 Develop Right-of-Way Plans 51 13.2.1. Incorporate Parcel Lines 51 13.2.2. Parcel Alignment Files 51 13.2.3. Prepare Total Ownership Map 51 13.2.4. Prepare Official Right-of-Way Plans 51 City of Spokane Valley Page Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 13.2.5. Attend Right-of-Way Plans Review Meeting 51 13.2.6. Revise and Submit TO Map and ROW Plans 52 13.3 Legal Descriptions 52 13.3.1. Legal Descriptions/Exhibits 52 13.3.2. Revise Legal Descriptions 52 13.3.3. Acquisition Parcel Coordinates 52 13.3.4. Stake ROW Acquisition Areas 52 13.3.5. Design Team Coordination 52 13.4 Monuments and Record of Survey 53 13.4.1. Set Monuments for Final Record of Survey 53 13.4.2. Prepare and File Final Record of Survey 53 TASK 14 APPRAISE AND ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY-HDR&DEA 53 14.1 Real Estate Services Management- HDR 54 14.2 Appraisal and Appraisal Review- HDR 54 14.3 Acquisition and Negotiation Services-HDR& DEA 56 14.4 Relocation and Negotiation Services- HDR 57 TASK 15 100%DESIGN-DEA&HDR 59 15.1 Title, Index and Vicinity Map Sheets- DEA 59 15.2 Survey Control and Found Monuments- DEA 59 15.3 Roadway Typical Sections- HDR 59 15.4 Alignment Plan/ROW Sheets - HDR 59 15.5 Site Preparation Plans- HDR 59 15.6 Roadway Paving Plan/Profile Sheets - HDR 59 15.7 Paving and other Roadway/RAB Details- HDR 60 15.8 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plans - HDR 60 15.9 TESC Narrative - HDR 60 15.10 Drainage Plans- HDR 60 15.11 Utility Plans - HDR 60 15.12 Utility Hearing Waivers- HDR 61 15.13 Landscape Plans - DEA 61 15.14 BNSF Bridge Contour Plans- DEA 61 15.15 Illumination Plans and Details - DEA 61 15.16 Intersection Plans and Details - HDR 61 15.17 Channelization, Pavement Marking, Signing, and Sign Structure Plans- DEA 61 15.18 Bridge Design - DEA 62 15.18.1. Barker Road over BNSF Bridge 62 15.18.2. Structures QC/QA Documentation 63 15.18.3. Preliminary Bridge Load Ratings 63 15.19 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Plans- DEA 64 15.20 Specifications and Proposal- DEA& HDR 64 15.21 Contract Time Determination-DEA& HDR 64 15.22 Opinion of Probable Cost-DEA& HDR 64 15.23 Basis of Estimate - DEA 65 15.24 QC Review of 100% Design Submittal- DEA& HDR 65 15.25 Submit 100% PS&E-DEA& HDR 65 City of Spokane Valley Page iv Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation-Phase II Scope of Services-Exhibit B 15.26 Project Development Approval - DEA 66 15.27 100% Design Review Meeting— DEA& HDR 66 TASK 16 AD-READY DESIGN—DEA&HDR 67 16.1 Prepare PS&E Package—DEA& HDR 67 16.1.1. Plans 67 16.1.2. Specifications and Proposal 67 16.1.3. Opinion of Probable Cost 67 16.1.4. Construction Time Determination CPD 67 16.1.5. QC of PS&E 67 16.1.6. Submit Ad-ready PS&E Package 67 16.2 Resident Engineer Files—DEA and HDR 68 16.2.1. Cross Sections-HDR 68 16.2.2. Grade Books for the project-HDR 68 16.2.3. Roadway Quantity Worksheets-HDR 68 16.2.4. Compiled Project Information—DEA & HDR 68 16.3 Bid Assistance—DEA& HDR 68 V. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 69 VI. DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY CONSULTANT 69 VII. ITEMS AND SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED BY CITY 70 VIII. EXTRA WORK 70 IX. TIME FOR COMPLETION 70 X. MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 71 City of Spokane Valley Page v Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B I. INTRODUCTION David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) and associated subconsultants will provide surveying, environmental planning, right of way plans and acquisition, final Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E), for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation improvements (PROJECT) under the direction of the City of Spokane Valley (CITY). The primary project objective is to improve safety by developing a grade-separated facility at the intersection of N. Barker Road and the BNSF Railway railroad tracks. Additional objectives include development of transportation facilities that allow a direct connection of N. Barker Road with SR 290 (E Trent Avenue). The CITY has selected design Alternative-05 from the Phase 1 alternatives design analysis, which will be moved forward into this scope of services as the preferred alternative. The project goals include: • Grade separate N. Barker Road and the BNSF railroad intersection; • Remove the existing at-grade railroad crossings at N Barker Road and N Flora Road; • Provide improved access to the industrial/commercial properties south of SR 290 and the BNSF Railway corridor; • Provide an appropriately controlled intersection for N Barker Road/SR 290 with a connection to existing E Wellesley Avenue; • Improve safety and intersection level of service (LOS); • Minimize right-of-way impacts; • Improve mobility on SR 290; • Identify and implement strategies that conform to WSDOT Practical Design Solutions, to achieve economical and cost effective solutions; • Obtain City Council and public support; • Build on the relevant portions of the FHWA and WSDOT NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) prepared for the entire suite of Bridging the Valley (BTV) projects and approved in 2006. This scope of services uses the following references for project team members: • CITY = City of Spokane Valley - Project Sponsor and owner of facilities within City of Spokane Valley rights-of-way. • WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation - Project coordination with review authority, and owner of facilities within State rights-of-way (Major Project Stakeholder). • BNSF = BNSF Railway (Major Project Stakeholder) • CONSULTANT or DEA = David Evans and Associates, Inc. (Prime Consultant on the project) • HDR = HDR Engineering, Inc. (Major Transportation subconsultant to DEA) City of Spokane Valley Page 1 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B • BA = Budinger&Associates, Inc. (Geotechnical Engineering subconsultant to DEA) • Widener= Widener&Associates (NEPA & SEPA subconsultant to DEA) • The CITY's Traffic Engineering Consultant is currently Fehr& Peers -contracted directly with the CITY ii. Design Criteria As part of the design effort on this project, design criteria will be developed and approved by the CITY, WSDOT, and BNSF Railway. When developing design criteria, the CITY's standards will govern within CITY's rights-of-way, WSDOT standards will govern within State rights-of-way, and BNSF Railway's requirements will be met for portions of the project within BNSF rights-of- way. The CITY will designate the basic premises and criteria for the design. Reports and plans will be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments (as of the date of signing of this Agreement) of the following documents. Changes in any design standards or requirements after work has begun may result in Extra Work. WSDOT PUBLICATIONS: • Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction • Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction • Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) Manual • Design Manual • Right of Way Manual • Traffic Manual • Highway Runoff Manual • Hydraulic Manual • Bridge Design Manual LRFD • Geotechnical Design Manual • Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Manual • Sign Fabrication Manual AASHTO PUBLICATIONS: • AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" 2011 • AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 2011 • AASHTO Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition 2014 with current Interims • AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd Edition, 2011. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLICATIONS: • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) City of Spokane Valley Page 2 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B OTHER: • Washington State Regulations, Accessibility Design for All (ADA) • AASHTO Geometric Design for Highways and Streets • Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funding design requirements • Standard drawings prepared by the CITY and furnished to the CONSULTANT will be used as a guide in all cases where they fit design conditions. • APWA General Special Provisions • AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering • Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual • Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22 • Union Pacific Railroad - BNSF Railway Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects Design Software Project deliverables will be developed utilizing the following software packages and associated versions: • WSDOT workspace will be utilized but plan sheets will bear the CITY's Title Block • InRoads©Version 8i, SELECTSeries 2 will be utilized as the project's design platform. • Consultant will provide Civil3D 2018 AutoCAD compatible reference files of the survey and design upon completion. • Bentley StormCAD, FlowMaster, CivilStorm, and/or other hydrologic and hydraulic software will be utilized for drainage design. • AG132 software will be used for illumination design • MS Excel will be utilized for spreadsheets. • MS Word will be utilized for word processing. • MS Project will be utilized for scheduling. • MS Power Point will be utilized for presentations. • Plan sets, specifications, estimates, memorandums and other documents will be submitted in an electronic file format (PDF, typically) • AutoTurn for MicroStation©Version 8i will be utilized to evaluate vehicle turning movements. • ESRI ArcGIS products will be used for the processing and presentation of geospatial information. City of Spokane Valley Page 3 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Iv. DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTION TASK 1 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION — DEA & HDR 1.1 Project Management Project management will be on-going during the course of the project. The project manager will maintain communication with the CITY, WSDOT, and BNSF and will monitor the project's scope, schedule, and budget, will coordinate and communicate with the project's subconsultants, and other similar project management tasks. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. The tasks in this section assume that the project will be active from April 2018 to December 2019, or a total of 21 months. 2. For purposes of this scope it is assumed that project management will require 12 hours per month. 3. For purposes of this scope, it is assumed that HDR will require 4 hours of project management per month. 1.2 Project Setup DEA and HDR will set up project files including internal budget tracking spreadsheets, preparing the project's financial files, and the project's electronic and hard copy technical filing system. This will also include maintaining project files on the ProjectWise Server. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. DEA will continue into the Phase 2 contract the ProjectWise Server for the project and provide access to the other consultants, the CITY, WSDOT, and others as needed. 1.3 Subconsultant Coordination DEA will prepare subconsultant agreements for HDR, BA, and WA. This will include developing the draft of the subconsultant agreement, having management from each firm review the agreement, then issuing and executing the final agreements. 1.4 Quality Assurance Plan DEA will develop a project specific Quality Management (QM) Plan to identify quality assurance process for all project deliverables. The QM Plan will identify the Quality Management Team, procedures that will be used for quality assurance and quality control, the schedule of quality management tasks, and quality control protocol that will be followed. The QM Plan will be submitted to the CITY and WSDOT for review and approval. 1.5 Project Schedule DEA will prepare a schedule in Microsoft Project for the project through PS&E delivery. The project team will use the schedule, which will be updated monthly with actual milestone achievements, to check the budget, staffing levels, and where the deliverable schedule might be affected. These tools will be used to adjust staff City of Spokane Valley Page 4 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B assignments so that the schedule and fee commitments are met. Project team meetings will enforce the schedule and hold team members accountable for progress on their components of the project. Schedule updates will be submitted monthly to the CITY as part of the invoice package. DELIVERABLES 1. Project Schedule through PS&E 2. Monthly Project Schedule updates (21 months) 3. Updated Quality Management Plan 1.6 Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices The CONSULTANT Team will provide monthly progress reports and invoices in accordance with the CITY's standard procedures. Each progress report and invoice package will include the CONSULTANT Team's invoice showing all labor and direct expenses included for the period, the monthly progress report, and full documentation of labor hours and direct expenses charged for the period for DEA and each subconsultant. A total of 21 progress report and invoice packages (February 2018 to October 2019) will be submitted as part of this contract. ASSUMPTIONS 1. The invoice format that has been used for the Phase 1 contract will continue to be used for the Phase 2 contract. 2. Progress Report and Invoice packages will be prepared monthly for 21 months. DELIVERABLES 1. Monthly Progress Report and Invoice Packages 2. Monthly Project Schedule update TASK 2 COORDINATION AND MEETINGS - DEA & HDR The CONSULTANT will provide frequent communication throughout the project to facilitate project decisions supported by the CITY. Regular meetings will be scheduled to monitor the progress of the project, to coordinate with team members, and to maintain accountability between all members of the team including the CONSULTANT, subconsultants, the CITY, and WSDOT. 2.1 Kickoff Meeting - DEA & HDR DEA and HDR staff will attend one (1) coordination meeting as scheduled by the CITY, to be held at the CITY's office. The objectives of the meeting are to provide the CONSULTANT team with a clear understanding of project goals and objectives, project schedule, work products, and roles for project participants. The CONSULTANT will prepare a meeting record and distribute to attendees within one week of the meeting. For estimating purposes, meeting attendees will include task leaders and subconsultant leads. City of Spokane Valley Page 5 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 2.2 CITY Coordination - DEA Coordinate with CITY staff for project data, design issues, and project updates. DEA project manager will provide bi-weekly check-in phone and/or video conferences with CITY. 2.3 Consultant Team Coordination and Meetings - DEA & HDR Following the CITY coordination meetings and bi-weekly check-in meetings, DEA will hold internal CONSULTANT Team coordination meetings/phone conferences to plan the work, relay information gathered during the CITY meetings, and discuss project issues that need to be passed along to the CITY for resolution. 2.4 City Council Meetings - DEA & HDR DEA and HDR will attend City Council Meetings at appropriate milestones to report progress to the Council and to support CITY staff representatives. Preparation for the City Council Meeting will include developing graphics to be used by CITY staff to develop Power Point presentations. ASSUMPTIONS 1. For budgetary purposes, DEA will attend up to four (4) council meetings; up to two staff members will attend each meeting. 2. For budgetary purposes, HDR will attend up to two (2) council meetings; up to two (2) staff members will attend each meeting. DELIVERABLES 1. Graphics 2.5 Project Design Team Meetings - DEA & HDR The Project Design Team is made up of representatives from the CITY, WSDOT, BNSF (when available to participate) and the CONSULTANT Team. Project Design Team meetings will be held to effectively communicate the project needs between each of the critical project stakeholders. Items covered at the meetings will include: • Environmental Documentation discussion and review • BNSF Coordination and Processing • Survey, Utilities, Drainage, Roadway, Bridge, etc. development and review • Practical Design opportunities and discussion • Quality Control/Quality Assurance Review • Change Management ASSUMPTIONS 1. Face to face meetings will occur once a month in the CITY's or WSDOT Eastern Region offices; key team members that need to participate but that cannot travel to the meetings will be included by conference call. 2. For budgeting purposes, it is anticipated that there will be 20 meetings lasting about two (2) hours each including travel. DEA's project manager will attend each meeting (in person or by phone). Various DEA and HDR staff will attend meetings as appropriate based on discussion items. City of Spokane Valley Page 6 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B DELIVERABLES 1. Meeting Agenda and Meeting Minutes 2.6 Stakeholder Coordination - DEA & HDR DEA and HDR will provide support to the CITY by attending various critical stakeholder meetings, as necessary. Stakeholders could include Spokane County, the school district, transit agency, and emergency services providers. ASSUMPTIONS 1. For budgeting purposes, assume up to 10 meetings; staff effort will be limited to hours identified in Exhibit D. TASK 3 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW- DEA & HDR Quality Control reviews will be conducted by the Quality Control Team prior to submittal of major deliverables. DEA will perform Quality Control Reviews on the following reports under this Task: • Draft and Final Technical Reports • Draft and Final survey mapping products • Draft and Final Environmental Documents • Draft and Final Geotechnical Reports • Draft and Final Public Involvement Materials HDR will perform Quality Control Reviews on the following reports under this Task: • Draft and Final Drainage Design Report • Draft and Final Intersection Control Analysis Memo ASSUMPTIONS 1. The Quality Control reviews for Design Phase A, B and C Packages for BNSF Review are included in other tasks below. TASK 4 UTILITIES AND DATA COLLECTION - HDR & DEA Data from the Phase I -Concept Development Design Services will be used and coordination with utility companies will be continued. Necessary tasks are detailed below. 4.1 Utility Coordination and Verification - HDR The purpose of this task is to build on the utility contacts that occurred with the Phase I effort, to notify the utility companies of the proposed project, to identify existing or planned major utility lines that may affect design elements, and to develop a protocol of how to best coordinate with the utility companies. Utility transmission, distribution, and service lines will be depicted on project mapping. City of Spokane Valley Page 7 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B The utility coordination and development identified below will be accomplished by HDR. Meetings with each utility purveyor will be held at HDR's office to discuss the project and potential relocations, as outlined in the sub-tasks below. Two (2) HDR staff members will attend each meeting which are estimated to be 2 hours in duration, not including meeting preparation and drafting meeting minutes. 4.1.1. Highland Estates / Spokane County Wastewater Treatment Plant HDR will meet with Spokane County and Highland Estates to determine the current status of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). HDR will research the existing system components by obtaining plans for the WWTP from Spokane County or the Department of Health. ASSUMPTIONS 1. The WWTP is not in operation. 2. The WWTP has been abandoned in-place. 3. Highland Estates is currently served by a sewer service flowing to the west. 4. DEA will locate the current Highland Estates sewer service and display its manholes and pipe locations on the topographic survey (along with manhole dips). 5. Demolition of the WWTP will be included in the Site Preparation plans. 6. The existing facility infrastructure can be removed without remediation of the existing soils and not be hazardous waste. 7. No geotechnical investigations into the soils or system components will performed. 8. DEA will locate all the above ground features of the WWTP and display them on the topographic survey. 9. HDR will draft the WWTP piping and major concrete infrastructure below ground not captured by the DEA topographic survey needed for removal on the Removal Plans. 10. HDR will hold one (1) meeting with a Department of Health and/or Spokane County representatives to obtain the WWTP plans. 11. HDR will hold one (1) meeting with a Highland Estates/County representative to confirm the WWTP is no longer used. DELIVERABLES 1. Meeting Minutes from the meeting regarding the confirmation of the WWTP no longer being used. 2. Copies of information and documents received from County or Highland Estates. 4.1.2. Pioneer Water Company HDR will meet with Pioneer Water Company to determine the current status of the wells and as-built information. ASSUMPTIONS 1. The wells are still in operation and may be impacted by the project. City of Spokane Valley Page 8 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 2. Pioneer Water Company or their engineering representative will design the relocation of any of their facilities. 3. HDR will hold one (1) meeting with Pioneer Water Company to determine the current status of the well and main line(s) leaving the wells. DELIVERABLES 1. Meeting Minutes from the meeting 2. Copies of information and documents received from Pioneer. 4.1.3. Consolidated Irrigation District Based on the 30% design report from December 31, 2004, there are water lines that will require relocation. HDR will meet with Consolidated Irrigation District to determine the current status of their water lines within the project area. ASSUMPTIONS 1. The water line on the east side of N Barker Road will be relocated outside of the proposed construction limits. 2. Consolidated Irrigation District or their engineering representative will design the relocation of any of their facilities. 3. Water pressure calculations will not be required. 4. Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19 will provide required specifications for any proposed improvements. 5. HDR will hold two (2) meetings with a Consolidated Irrigation District representative to determine the current status of their facilities. One meeting will include research into the current system and a second meeting to discuss a proposed relocation or change to the system functionality. DELIVERABLES 1. Meeting Minutes from each meeting 2. Copies of information and documents received from Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19. 4.1.4. Telecommunications Based on the 30% design report from December 31, 2004, there are significant telecommunication lines that will require relocation. On the north side of SR 290, fiber optic lines extend east-west from a vault at the NE corner of the SR 290/N Barker Road intersection. There is also an existing fiber optic line south of the BNSF tracks that may require relocation. The report did not mention the number of companies present. HDR will meet with telecommunication providers to determine the current status of their facilities within the project area. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two telecommunication utility companies are present in the project vicinity. 2. There are fiber optic lines that will require relocation. 3. Telecommunication utility companies or their engineering representative will design the relocation of any of their facilities. City of Spokane Valley Page 9 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 4. HDR will hold three (3) meetings with the utility companies' representative to determine the current status of their facilities. One meeting will include research into the current system and another two (2) meetings to discuss a proposed relocation or change to the system functionality (relocation and conduit needs on the bridge). DELIVERABLES 1. Meeting Minutes from each meeting 2. Copies of information and documents received from utility companies. 4.1.5. Avista Utilities (Power and Natural Gas) Based on the 30% design report from December 31, 2004, there are power and natural gas transmission and distribution lines within the project area: • Power transmission lines cross over Trent Avenue about 500 feet west of N Barker Road. Since 2004, the poles appear to have been replaced. There is a single pole on the north side of SR 290 above a rock cut that the design team will retain and protect, if possible. • Power distribution lines are overhead on the east side of N Barker Road. Several poles are anticipated to require relocation outside the road construction limits. Also vertical clearances will need to be verified for proposed N Barker Grade Separation Overpass. • Natural gas transmission main (12-inch) is on an east-west alignment and may need to be relocated. • Natural gas distribution main lines are adjacent to the Consolidated Irrigation District's water mains. The mains are on the east side of N Barker Road and on the south side of the BNSF tracks, east of N Barker Road. The N Barker Road main is anticipated to be relocated to the east, outside the toe of the new fill slopes. The east-west main is anticipated to be protected in place. HDR will meet with Avista utilities to determine the current status of its services within the project area and power services for the proposed street illumination system(s). ASSUMPTIONS 1. HDR will hold three (3) meetings with an Avista representative to determine the current status of its facilities. One meeting will include research into the current system and another two (2) meetings to discuss a proposed relocation or change to the system's functionality (Transmission line clearances, distribution pole relocation, and gas line relocation). 2. Avista or their engineering representative will design the relocation of any of their facilities. 3. Avista will relocate their facilities prior to construction and provide the location and depth of their proposed facilities to HDR so they can be depicted on the City of Spokane Valley Page 10 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B plans. 4. Plan location will be provided from Avista in a CAD format along with a profile showing elevations in the same horizontal and vertical datum as the project survey mapping. DELIVERABLES 1. Meeting Minutes from each meeting 2. Copies of information and documents received from Avista. 4.1.6. Yellowstone Pipeline Company Based on the BTV 30% design report from December 31, 2004, there is a 10- inch petroleum pipe line along the south side of the tracks. Depending on the final bridge configuration, the pipeline could be impacted. HDR will meet with Yellowstone Pipeline Company to determine the current status of its services within the project area. ASSUMPTIONS 1. HDR will hold two (2) meetings with the Yellowstone Pipeline representative to determine the current status of their facilities. One meeting will include research into the current system and another one (1) meeting to discuss a proposed relocation or change to the system's functionality. 2. Yellowstone Pipeline or their engineering representative will design the relocation of any of their facilities. 3. Yellowstone Pipeline will relocate their facility prior to construction and provide the location and depth of their proposed facility to the HDR so they can be depicted on the plans. 4. Plan location will be provided from Yellowstone Pipeline in a CAD format along with a profile showing elevations in the same horizontal and vertical datum as the project survey mapping. DELIVERABLES 1. Meeting Minutes from each meeting 2. Copies of information and documents received from Yellowstone Pipeline Company. 4.2 Utility Verification Site Visits - DEA & HDR Technical staff from the CONSULTANT team will perform site visits to obtain additional project information. This may include confirming or reviewing existing surface features, topographical, utility, boundary, environmental and other constraints. ASSUMPTIONS 1. A total of five (5) site visits will be required by DEA and three (3) site visits will be required by HDR during the course of the Phase II Design, ROW, and PS&E Effort. City of Spokane Valley Page 11 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B DELIVERABLES 1. Field Record from each site visit 4.3 Utility Matrix - HDR HDR will expand the existing utility matrix that will be used in identifying utility contacts and constraints for the preferred alternative. The matrix will be updated to include changes to the utility company contact information, likelihood of a conflict, any compensable property rights an existing Utility may possess, and a preliminary determination of relocation reimbursement with associated costs. DELIVERABLES 1. Final Utility Matrix TASK 5 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING - BA Budinger and Associates (BA) is DEA's Geotechnical Subconsultant for this project. The services that BA will provide include geotechnical explorations, testing, and recommendations in forms of geotechnical design reports required for the project. Geotechncial reports will include geotechnical design recommendations for the design and construction of the BNSF overpass (Baker Rd. bridge), sign bridge foundations, pavement design and stormwater management facilities. 5.1 Evaluate Geotechnical Data and Needs BA will perform the following work: Previous explorations, including borings and subcontracted geophysical testing were completed by Budinger&Associates, Inc. (BA) in 2003 for preliminary feasibility and conceptual design purposes. In order to meet WSDOT and American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) guidelines for subsurface exploration programs for projects of this scope, BA proposes to supplement the existing subsurface data with additional explorations. BA's research of the existing data and experience in the project vicinity indicates natural soil conditions underlying most of the site could include outburst flood gravel deposits. The outburst flood gravels deposited in the site vicinity also typically contain varying amounts of cobbles and boulders. However, the previous geophysical data also indicates a possible softer zone located about 40 feet below site grade in the project vicinity. For this reason, we propose completing deeper borings to support bridge foundation design by air-rotary drilling methods to reduce the chance of drilling refusal caused by cobbles or boulders and to evaluate the softer soil zone possibly located beneath the bridge foundations. BA proposes completing the remaining shallower soil borings at the stormwater pond locations using hollow-stem auger drilling methods. A portion of the site near the proposed realignment of SR 290 possibly west and north of its proposed intersection with Barker is underlain by gneiss rock. Grade lowering (cutting) at the north end and north of the proposed intersection location will require some excavation of the gneiss. BA proposes to evaluate the surface condition of the rock through geologic mapping. BA will supplement the geologic City of Spokane Valley Page 12 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B mapping and evaluate rock strength by completing a series of wireline rock cores. The results of the geologic mapping and rock cores will be used to evaluate the level of effort required by the contractor to excavate rock in this vicinity. Additional shallow explorations along proposed roadways will be completed by backhoe test pits. To the extent possible, BA will restore the site around each exploration to a level condition. However, full restoration of the site is considered Extra Work. 5.2 Geotechnical Engineering Services BA will perform the following work: The purpose of the geotechnical engineering services is to provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, and foundation design and construction based on site exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Specific scope of services will include: • Contact the one-call utility notification system and assisting in coordinating with BNSF, WSDOT and private land owners during siting of the explorations relative to underground utilities. • Support DEA in obtaining street obstruction permits for explorations within public rights-of-way. • Complete a geologic reconnaissance of the site, including evaluating and mapping the existing rock cut along the north side of SR 290 and possibly west of the proposed intersection. • Explore soil, rock and groundwater conditions underlying the proposed N Barker Road overpass site by drilling 13 borings, and excavating eight (8) test pits using a CAT Excavator. Specifically, explorations will be distributed across the site as follows: ➢ Three (3) air-rotary borings at proposed bridge bent and abutment locations, drilled to depths in the range of about 50 to 70 feet below existing site grade. If rock is encountered a depth of less than about 50 feet below existing site grade, BA will obtain up to 10 feet of rock core. If rock is encountered below about 50 feet, BA will advance the air-rotary borings about 5 feet into apparent rock. ➢ Five (5) air rotary borings at proposed storm water management facility locations drilled to depths in the range of about 25 to 30 feet. ➢ Five (5) air rotary test borings with rock coring for the proposed SR 290 roundabout and related approach improvements. This location is understood to be underlain by gneiss rock. Advance to depths in the range of about 20 feet below existing site grade (depending on grading plans relative to existing site grades). ➢ Eight (8) test pits excavated to depths in the range of about 8 to 12 feet below existing site grade at the locations along proposed alignments approaching the roundabout. City of Spokane Valley Page 13 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B • Each boring and test pit will be monitored by an experienced engineer or geologist from BA. Soil samples will be collected from the borings at approximate 2%2- to 5-foot-depth intervals. Continuous rock core will be collected from the rock core borings. Grab and bulk samples of site soil will be obtained from the test pits. Relatively undisturbed (Shelby tube) samples might be collected if fine-grained (silt or clay) soil is encountered during drilling. Soil and rock samples will be returned to BA's laboratory for subsequent evaluation. Each boring, following its completion, will be backfilled in accordance with state regulations. Borings completed in public roadways will be patched with like material. Each test pit, upon completion, will be backfilled with excavation spoils, tamped into place, and the ground surface smoothed with the excavator bucket. • Provide potholing of existing utilities at locations selected by DEA, approximately as follows: two for the oil pipeline; two for other gas utilities; and two for waterlines. The anticipated depth is 5 feet for normal gas and water, but up to 14 feet for gas pipeline. • Perform laboratory testing to assess pertinent physical, chemical, and engineering parameters of soil encountered relative to the proposed construction. For budget estimating purposes, the assumed testing program includes: 2 R-Value/CBR tests; 2 modified Proctor tests; 10 gradation analyses; 4 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve tests; 12 moisture content determinations; 6 cation exchange capacity and organic matter tests for swale bottoms; 5 rock point load index tests; and 3 rock unconfined compression tests. Laboratory testing will be completed in general accordance with applicable ASTM International (ASTM) standards. • Provide recommendations for site preparation and fill placement including: criteria for clearing, stripping and grubbing; an evaluation of the suitability of on-site soil for use as structural fill; gradation criteria for imported fill; guidance for preparation of subgrade soil, which will support pavements; and criteria for structural fill placement and compaction. Recommendations for allowable cut and fill slope inclinations will be provided as well as anticipated shrink and swell percentages. • Provide recommendations for design of drilled shafts, where shallow foundations are not feasible, at select bridge bent locations including: capacity versus shaft depth (penetration) for downward and uplift load conditions; estimates of single shaft settlement; and group reduction factors, if appropriate. • Prepare geotechnical seismic design criteria based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) procedures. • Conduct pavement layer thickness design based on vehicle type and traffic volumes provided by the CITY, and recommendations for hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement construction including: criteria for base course thickness, gradation and required degree of compaction; and thickness and compaction criteria for HMA surfacing. Recommendations will be made for SR 290, N City of Spokane Valley Page 14 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Barker Road, N Flora Road cul-de-sac, the Private Road that connects to N Barker Road and runs east, E Wellesley Avenue, and driveway approaches. • Provide recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage, as appropriate, including an evaluation of the feasibility of subsurface disposal of stormwater, and design parameters; if appropriate. Ksat will be evaluated by both test pit infiltration tests and correlations of soil grain-size analyses to permeability found in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM) and the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual. Four of the test pits will be prepared and infiltration tested. • Prepare a Draft and Final written report containing findings, conclusions and recommendations. One round of comments to the draft report from DEA, HDR, the CITY, WSDOT and BNSF is assumed. The final report will address the comments. ASSUMPTIONS 1. No retaining walls are anticipated and are not scoped in this agreement. Geotechnical borings and reporting for any retaining walls that become necessary will be included in a supplemental agreement. 2. The exploration locations are accessible to truck-mounted drilling equipment. 3. Fieldwork will be performed during normal daytime hours (Monday through Friday). Street obstruction permits for explorations in public streets and private land access agreements will allow for 8 am to 6 pm work. 4. Access permission will be obtained by DEA prior to accessing private property. 5. BNSF will provide permission to access and drill and/or excavate test pits at proposed boring and test pit locations on BNSF ROW in a timely manner that allow for all drilling services to be completed under a single mobilization of equipment. 6. A BNSF-approved lookout or flagger, for two days as requested by BA, will be scheduled and provided by others. 7. Private underground utilities located on private property will be located by the current property owner. If this is not possible or acceptable, a private utility locator may need to be subcontracted at additional cost. 8. Temporary road building is not anticipated for truck-equipment access. Hydro- seeding, re-vegetation or other improvements are not included in this scope of work. 9. Cultural resources and environmental permitting required for exploration work will be coordinated under other tasks. BA will assist with preparing exploration plans, upon request. 10. It is assumed that contaminated soil will not be encountered during drilling of geotechnical borings or excavation of test pits. As such, BA will not provide field screening, which is used to assess possible presence of volatile and semi- volatile compounds in soil. If obvious contaminated materials (based on coloration or odor) are encountered, drilling will be stopped, the drill crew will be put on stand-by and BA will notify DEA. City of Spokane Valley Page 15 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 11. Drill cuttings (non-contaminated) will be evenly distributed near the borings in undeveloped areas. If on-site disposal is not acceptable to BNSF, BA will collect the soil in drums on site and transport them to a facility approved by BNSF within 5 miles of the boring locations. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft Geotechnical Report (PDF) 2. Final Geotechnical Report (PDF) 5.3 Geotechnical Coordination DEA and HDR will provide coordination during the geotechnical effort as follows: • Coordination with BA in developing the work plan - DEA • Coordination with BA in developing the stormwater infiltration rates - HDR • Coordinating environmental and cultural clearances to initiate the work- DEA • Coordinating with WSDOT to obtain a General Permit to work within the SR 290 right-of-way - DEA • Coordinating with the CITY to obtain street obstruction permits - DEA • Notify adjacent property owners of pending field work including geotechnical borings/excavations - DEA (This is included in subsequent tasks). • Quality Control Review of both the Draft and Final Geotechnical Reports prior to submittal to the CITY- DEA and HDR. ASSUMPTIONS 1. DEA and HDR will review the Draft and Final Geotechnical Reports. 2. Coordinating with BNSF to obtain a Right of Entry Permit is covered under other tasks. 3. Specific sign structure foundation evaluation is not included and is considered Extra Work. TASK 6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM - DEA & HDR The public involvement process will be performed as described below and will be reviewed by CITY and WSDOT representatives prior to implementation. ASSUMPTIONS 1. A formal Public Participation Plan will not be prepared. 2. The CITY will conduct meetings with stakeholders and citizen action committees such as the Chamber of Commerce, bicycle and pedestrian groups, and other applicable stakeholders. 3. The CITY will send invitations to public meetings and project related events. 4. The CITY will be responsible for any press releases that are issued related to the project. 5. The CITY will be responsible for developing and updating a project website. The CONSULTANT team will provide necessary information to the CITY and the CITY City of Spokane Valley Page 16 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B will maintain the website. The CITY will provide the CONSULTANT team with any feedback from stakeholders/community member use of the website. 6. The CITY will be responsible for developing and distributing Fact Sheets and "Frequently Asked Questions". The CONSULTANT team will provide necessary information to the CITY so the CITY can publish and distribute this information. 7. Launching social media tools as a component of communication between the consultant team and the stakeholders is considered Extra Work. 8. Providing a virtual open house is considered Extra Work. 6.1 Public Open Houses DEA and HDR will prepare for and attend up to three (3) Public Open House meetings. The Public Open House Meetings will be held after Preliminary Design and right-of-way plans are completed, after 60% design, and then again after 100% Design Plans are prepared. CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITIES AND DELIVERABLES-DEA • Provide sign in sheet • Provide project displays (up to seven (7) by each DEA and HDR for each Open House) • Facilitate Public Open Houses • Provide a summary of the Public Open Houses CITY RESPONSIBILITIES • Coordinate logistics for the meetings • Prepare, print, and mail postcards to the public and identified stakeholders. DEA will provide the mailing list developed as part of the Notification of Field Activities. • Provide facility for Public Open House • Advertise the Public Open House in the newspaper • Send open house notifications to local civic organizations • Attend Public Open House • Include Public Open House dates in City newsletter and on City website (if one is developed for the project) ASSUMPTIONS 1. Public Open Houses will last for six (6) hours including set up and take down and travel time. 2. Three (3) staff members from DEA and one (1) staff member from HDR will attend each open house. 6.2 Property Owner Contact Meetings CONSULTANT will support the CITY in conducting coordination meetings with property owners that will be impacted by the project. These meetings will occur at City of Spokane Valley Page 17 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B the owner's location and will conform to FHWA right-of-way requirements and WSDOT's Right-of-Way Manual. 6.2.1. Initial Owner Contact Meetings - DEA and HDR The CONSULTANT along with the CITY will participate in Owner Contact Meetings. The CONSULTANT Team will provide plans prepared under other tasks to support this effort. The purpose of the meetings is to explain design elements that affect the property owners (driveway approaches, fences, right-of- way acquisition, drainage, etc.) and to gather information that enables the design team to develop a more context sensitive design. ASSUMPTIONS 1. One staff member from DEA and one staff member from HDR (ROW PM) will participate in an initial contact meeting with up to 12 landowners accompanied by CITY staff to discuss the project and potential impacts to those property owners. 2. The meetings will be set up by the CONSULTANT and will occur between Preliminary Design and 60% Design phase. 6.2.2. Final Owner Contact Meetings - DEA and HDR The CONSULTANT along with the CITY will participate in Owner Contact Meetings. The CONSULTANT Team will provide plans prepared under other tasks to support this effort. The purpose of the Final Owner Contact meetings is to explain how design elements that affect the property owners that were discussed at the initial meeting were incorporated into the design. The draft right-of-way plans will also be brought to this meeting so that the Design Team can discuss right-of-way impacts of the project on the property owners. ASSUMPTIONS 1. One staff member from DEA and one staff member from HDR (ROW PM) will participate in the final contact meeting with up to 12 landowners accompanied by CITY staff to discuss the project with impacted property owners. 2. Since these meetings will prepare property owners for future right-of-way negotiation meetings, an appropriate right-of-way agent will also participate in the meetings as approved by WSDOT. 3. The meetings will be set up by DEA and will occur between 60% Design and 100% Design phases. DELIVERABLES 1. Notes from initial owner contact meetings (One (1) in-person meeting with up to 12 direct property owners) 2. Notes from Final owner contact meetings (One (1) in-person meeting with up to 12 direct property owners) CITY RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Attending all owner contact meetings City of Spokane Valley Page 18 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B TASK 7 NEPA COMPLIANCE - WIDENER FHWA and WSDOT approved a NEPA Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the entire suite of Bridging the Valley (BTV) projects in 2006, which included the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project. Environmental tasks included in this scope are focused on maintaining NEPA-compliance and developing a stand-alone NEPA document for the N. Barker Road/BNSF Railway Grade Separation Project. Widener and Associates (Widener) is a subconsultant to DEA and will provide all NEPA and SEPA planning work in the tasks below unless stated otherwise. 7.1 Design Assistance and Early Agency Coordination Early input into the formation of project components related to the alternative advanced for design will be provided to ensure pertinent components include provisions to minimize impacts to the surrounding environment. This coordination within the various design elements of the project will identify and incorporate minimization measures early in the design development phase of the project and will ensure that an appropriate range of solutions are developed prior to the agency coordination. Widener will assist the CITY in presenting the design component being evaluated to both the state and federal permitting agencies to identify the regulatory issues associated with one. Potential minimization measures for each design component being evaluated will also be identified during the coordination with agency representatives. Permitting issues and the recommended permitting process for design component being evaluated will be documented. ASSUMPTIONS 1. This effort will be accomplished with the graphics and design drawings required to complete reports and to conduct the open houses and that no other special presentation materials are required. 2. Widener will prepare meeting minutes and memoranda documenting the coordination activities with state and federal agencies, as required. 7.2 Section 106 Report (Cultural and Historic Resources) This work includes the preparation of the Section 106 report in accordance with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) standards and guidelines. The work will include the subtasks included below. • Review pertinent literature on the archaeology, ethnography, and history of the project area to determine the existence of archaeological sites and to refine the probability of archaeological resources and traditional cultural places in the project areas. • Maintain contact with the local tribes for any information on historic Indian use of the project area. • Conduct a systematic field reconnaissance to identify previously recorded and/or unrecorded archaeological sites for the proposed project where ground- City of Spokane Valley Page 19 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B disturbing activities are expected to take place. Field reconnaissance will consist of the traverse of pedestrian transects at varying intervals, depending on terrain throughout the proposed project area. Shovel probes (digging a hole with a shovel) will be excavated, as deep as feasible, and in areas expected to have a high probability for cultural resources. Shovel probes will be augmented through auger probes to explore the deepest possible deposits. Shovel probes will be screened in highly probable areas and in soil matrixes too dense to identify small chipping debris. • Documentation of all new sites will include mapping, photographing, and recording on Washington State Archeological Inventory forms and submitting to the state Office of Archeological and Historic Preservation (OAHP) for Smithsonian numbers. Every effort will be made to include Tribal cultural resources personnel in assisting the field effort. • Prepare Draft and Final Section 106 Report describing cultural resources identified in the project area to meet state and federal standards for reporting as outlined in the guidelines provided by the OAHP. The report will include summary background information appropriate to a cultural resources assessment of the project area, including environment, previous cultural resources studies, ethnography/ethno history, and history. A discussion of agency and Tribal consultation, methodology, the results of the investigation, and a map of located archaeological sites will be provided. Recommendations will also be extended to any cultural resources that may be significant. Monitoring of construction excavation recommendations may also be included. The historic structures inventory form and/or archaeological site inventory form will be attached to the report as an appendix. ASSUMPTIONS 1. No historical structures are anticipated and an historical survey will not need to be performed. 2. Rights-of-entry will be provided by the City and coordinated by DEA. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft Section 106 Report (PDF) 2. Revised draft Section 106 report incorporating CITY comments (PDF). 3. Final Section 106 report incorporating WSDOT comments (Three hard copies and one PDF) City of Spokane Valley Page 20 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 7.3 Noise Study The purpose of the Traffic Noise Report is to evaluate traffic noise levels at sensitive receptors near the project that would be potentially affected by traffic noise and to identify potential mitigation measures. The Traffic Noise Report will be developed in accordance with the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual. 7.3.1. Sound Level Measurements After review of the proposed project alternatives Widener will visit the project area to identify potentially sensitive noise receivers and to take measurements of existing sound levels. The Consultant will measure existing noise levels during the peak hours to be used in calibrating the noise model. Measurements will be undertaken in accordance with WSDOT and FHWA guidelines and will be made with a Type 1 sound level meter. During these measurements, sources of existing noise and topographical features will be noted, and traffic speeds and vehicle numbers and mix will be noted. 7.3.2. Construction Noise Impact Evaluation The noise analysis will evaluate potential short-term impacts of noise from construction activities. Construction noise on nearby sensitive receptors will be evaluated based on estimates published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of maximum noise levels of typical construction equipment in conjunction with simple distance attenuation. Computer modeling of construction noise levels will not be performed. 7.3.3. Traffic Noise Impact Evaluation The Consultant will evaluate traffic noise impacts using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) to estimate future traffic noise levels for the alternative being advanced to design. The noise modeling will predict PM peak-hour Leq noise levels from traffic at a maximum of fifteen (15) receptor locations that could be affected by the proposed project and will consider existing conditions and design year conditions. Modeling to calculate noise contour lines is not included. 7.3.4. Mitigation Analysis The Consultant will identify mitigation measures to reduce noise levels during construction. If predicted long-term traffic noise levels from operation of the project would cause noise impacts, mitigation measures will be developed in cooperation with the lead agency and design engineers. Mitigation analysis, if required, will include evaluation of the effectiveness and general size and location of natural and man-made noise barriers using the TNM model. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft Traffic Noise Analysis Report for review by CITY with accompanying draft special provisions if required (PDF) 2. Draft Traffic Noise Analysis Report, incorporating the CITY's comments, for submittal to WSDOT/FHWA(PDF) 3. Revised draft Traffic Noise Analysis Report, incorporating comments by WSDOT/FHWA, for submittal for approval (three hard copies and PDF) City of Spokane Valley Page 21 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 7.4 Land Use Assessment Widener will perform the following services to complete the land use evaluation: • Evaluate existing land uses along both sides of the project corridor. Direct and indirect impacts resulting from road improvements under the proposed widening will be evaluated. Existing and proposed land uses and current zoning in the project area will be identified. Generally, this includes a site visit to the project area to verify existing land uses, and written analysis of potential project impacts and mitigation measures. This includes impacts related to residential or business displacements or relocations, access disruptions, and right-of-way needs. Coordination with the CITY and adjacent jurisdictions in identifying future (proposed) land uses in or near the project area will be needed. A zoning map and/or existing land use map shall be prepared. • Review local plans and policies to determine the proposed project's consistency with comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, sensitive areas ordinance, and other relevant regulations. This requires coordination with the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County to identify appropriate plans and policies to be analyzed. This analysis may be summarized within the Land Use discussion under separate heading of"Relationship to Plans and Policies." DELIVERABLES 1. Draft Land Use documentation (PDF) 2. Final Land Use documentation will be provided incorporating City comments (PDF) 3. Final land use documentation will be provided incorporating WSDOT/FHWA comments if required (PDF). It is assumed that WSDOT/FHWA comments will not alter the basic conclusion of the documentation or require further alternative studies. 7.5 Environmental Justice Survey Widener will perform the following services to complete an environmental justice (EJ) analysis: • Collect demographic data for the project area using local data sources and the US Census Data. • Identify any environmental justice populations in the area (minority or low-income populations). • Review public outreach activities to ensure potential EJ populations are offered an opportunity to participate in project planning and decision-making. • Identify any potential disproportionate effects to EJ populations from project activities and identifying how impacts could not be avoided or minimized and what mitigation measures could be implemented. City of Spokane Valley Page 22 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B DELIVERABLES 1. draft EJ documentation (PDF) 2. Final EJ documentation will be provided incorporating CITY comments (PDF). 3. Final EJ documentation will be provided incorporating WSDOT/FHWA comments if required (PDF). It is assumed that WSDOT/FHWA comments will not alter the basic conclusion of the documentation or require further alternative studies. 7.6 Hazardous Materials Memorandum A Hazardous Materials Memo will be prepared to evaluate the presence, or likely presence, of potential hazardous substances within the physical limits of the project that would have an effect on the overcrossing project. Sites with potential for environmental issues/impacts include those that indicate current or past uses as service stations, battery shops, dry cleaners, chemical storage, or manufacturing facilities; sites with fuel or chemical storage tanks or drums present; or those with strong pungent or noxious odors. The scope of services for this study will include: • A review of the results of a federal, state, and local environmental database search provided by an outside environmental data service for listings of known or suspected environmental problems at the sites or nearby properties within the search distances specified by WSDOT. • A review of historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, city directories, chain-of-title reports, and tax assessor records, as available and appropriate, to identify past development history on the parcels relative to the possible use, generation, storage, release, or disposal of hazardous substances. An attempt to identify uses of the sites from the present to the time that records show no apparent development of the site, or to 1940, whichever is earlier. • Conduct a visual reconnaissance of the parcels and adjacent properties to identify visible evidence of potential sources of contamination. • A letter report that will summarize the results of this study. The letter report will briefly discuss the project activities and include a table ranking the parcels (low, moderate, high) by their potential for contamination from either on-site or off-site sources. A draft letter report will be provided for review and comment. Upon receiving comments, the letter will be modified as appropriate and made final. DELIVERABLES 1. draft Hazardous Materials Memorandum (PDF) 2. Hazardous Material Memorandum will be provided incorporating City comments (PDF) 3. Final Hazardous Material Memorandum will be provided incorporating WSDOT/FHWA comments if required (PDF). It is assumed that WSDOT/FHWA comments will not alter the basic conclusion of the documentation or require further alternative studies. 7.7 NEPA DCE A NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form (CED) with supporting documentation will be prepared, as required by WSDOT for projects that City of Spokane Valley Page 23 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B receive federal funding through WSDOT (Environmental Procedures Manual, Section 300.04). The CED will include the recommended NEPA determination (assumed to be a Class II, Documented Categorical Exclusion). ASSUMPTIONS 1. The project will be determined to be a Class II Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) and neither a NEPA Environmental Impact Statement nor an Environmental Assessment will be required. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft CED Form (PDF) 2. Final CED Form will be provided incorporating County comments (PDF) 3. Final CED Form incorporating WSDOT/FHWA comments if required (PDF). It is assumed that WSDOT/FHWA comments will not alter the basic conclusion of the documentation or require further alternative studies. 7.8 SEPA This work includes completing appropriate documentation including all needed studies, modeling, and analysis in accordance with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SEPA Rules. This work includes coordinating with the CITY and DEA to address comments on the SEPA Checklist and provide support for the SEPA process. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft SEPA Checklist (MS Word) 2. Final SEPA Checklist (MS Word) TASK 8 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYING AND BASEMAPPING - DEA All work described below will be completed by DEA unless specified otherwise. 8.1 Develop Control Network 8.1.1. Property Owner Notification Letters DEA will create right-of-entry letters that will be approved by the CITY and mailed out in advance of any field work to adjacent land owners within the project limits. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Written permission (as opposed to notifying the property owner of intended access) to access private property (including BNSF and WSDOT right-of-way will be obtained by the CONSULTANT team with assistance from the CITY. 8.1.2. Control Network Planning, Research, and Office Preparation DEA will develop a control network plan before performing any field work per WSDOT standards (Section 13-03 of Highway Surveying Manual). Meetings will be held with the survey team and project manager. Following these meetings, a control plan will be developed. The project surveyor will research CITY, previous project control, FEMA Benchmarks, NGS datasheets and WSDOT records to determine the City of Spokane Valley Page 24 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B availability of existing control in the project area. The project surveyor will then conduct a meeting with the party chief to develop a plan to recover necessary existing control. 8.1.3. Development of GPS Control Network DEA will utilize Static GPS surveying and continuously operating Washington High- Precision Geodetic Network (HPGN) stations in post processing methods to establish a primary control network throughout the project corridor. DEA will carefully develop a localized projection so that ground distances are maintained throughout the project. WSDOT standard vertical and horizontal datum, NAD83 2011 and NAVD88 Geoid 12B will be utilized. Control coordinates will be reported in Washington State Plane North Zone and a conversion factor will be provided for future translations. Distances will be reported in ground distances. Primary control points will be used to develop the overall static control network placed within the project limits, previously defined, +1- 1000 foot intervals through the entire project site. These points will be monumented with aluminum caps and set in concrete and stamped with corresponding control point number. Up to eight (8) points are anticipated and will be set in locations beyond the anticipated disturbance area to the extent feasible. 8.1.4. Vertical Control DEA will establish vertical elevations from a local NGS Monument with a published NAVD88 elevation on multiple monuments throughout the project corridor using digital levels on horizontal control monuments established during the GPS Control Network effort (previous task) and project this elevation across the previously established control network. 8.1.5. Control Diagram DEA will develop a control diagram per WSDOT standards (Chapter 13-06.1). Included, but not limited to, in this control diagram as specified in Chapter 13-06.01, are established horizontal and vertical monument locations, HPGN stations used to establish horizontal project control, a coordinate list in state plane and local datum, and descriptions of each established control point. The project Control Diagram will also be used in the Project Control Report. ASSUMPTIONS 1. DEA will create a local datum plane for this project which will keep project measurements nearest ground distances using one combined scale factor that will be referenced to the Washington State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, NAD 83 horizontal datum and NAVD 88 vertical datum. 2. DEA will search for and make ties on at least two nearest, and any other NGS published monuments within the project limits to verify vertical and horizontal accuracies are attained. 3. DEA will set or utilize existing monumentation on up to eight (8) points throughout the site for establishing primary control. DELIVERABLES 1. A control diagram and a project control report per WSDOT standards. City of Spokane Valley Page 25 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 8.2 Topographic Survey & Mapping Barker Road Survey Limits (• ;r+ .. ' F �''- w ' .e a' Jr d r , , •• • - ��elSW 290 - • Icenti le' _ • _ . , ' • Wellesley Ave rthern Santa Fe Railroa' No Private Road .r lingtan - v - --' a (L' tit . M Flora Road Survey Limits lg.. -r,+ , fri r■ e ir• 4 tP, ' •,_, ... el . . ' ve1S1 Tre nt A 2 , _,-" Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ra :- --_ r. 8.2.1. Topographic Surveying DEA will perform the topographic surveying for the project as shown in the images above. This will include approximately 5,300 linear feet of State Route 290 (Trent Avenue) at N. Barker Road, 1,800 linear feet of N Barker Road, 2,300 linear feet of E Wellesley Avenue, 600 linear feet of N Flora Road and 1,000 linear feet along Private Road (connection to Barker). The mapping will encompass the area shown in the survey limit exhibits, utilizing conventional surveying methodology in some locations, while deploying small Unmanned City of Spokane Valley Page 26 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Aerial System (sUAS) technology on others. Any positional differences between data sets will be vetted and confirmed through quality control checks throughout the processing and map development as well as independent checks taken with conventional equipment within the limits of the project. • Conventional Survey Methodology - DEA will utilize conventional GPS-RTK surveying methodology to make one (1) cross section at each tie-in location, extending 25 feet beyond each edge of pavement at the locations where the design will tie back into existing roadways. Utility information will be collected with conventional methods for areas as specified under the utility section below. DEA will coordinate rail protection through BNSF in order to collect sufficient and accurate data with conventional surveying methods as specified under railroad collection section below on the rail and associated drainage courses. For conventional survey data, accuracies will be +/- 0.15'. • Small Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS) Methodology- DEA will utilize the benefits of photogrammetry from a sUAS to efficiently and safely collect the remaining field data, including surface features such as pavement and gravel edges, drainage courses, culverts, fences, curbs, guardrail, signs, sidewalks, buildings, and tree limits. The mapping based on sUAS data will be no greater than +/- 0.5 foot and the surface will only include breaklines for edge of pavement. For areas collected with sUAS, additional topographic or breakline features will not be included in this scope or estimate. To obtain imagery of the site to be used to develop photogrammetry derived ground points the field survey will be performed using a multi-rotor unmanned aircraft using photogrammetric equipment and structure from motion (SfM) processing methodology. This will be an oblique collect limited to 120m AGL (Above Ground Level). Passes will be collected relative to the wind conditions of the day at 30 - 120m AGL. GSD is estimated to be 1.5-4cm/pixel at 400' AGL. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Scope items will be shown to the extent allowable by the resultant data captured by the sUAS. 2. sUAS operations will be conducted within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) of the Pilot In Command (PIC) and/or visual observer(s) (VOs). 3. sUAS operations will be limited to a maximum altitude of 400' above ground level (AGL). 4. sUAS operations will be performed under the oversight of a FAA certified Part 107 remote pilot. 5. DEA has insurance covering sUAS operations. 6. sUAS operations will be performed during daylight hours (30 minutes before sunrise and 30 minutes after official sunset, local time, with appropriate anti- collision lighting). 7. DEA will not operate over any persons not directly participating in or aware of the operation, who is not under a covered structure, and not inside a non-moving covered vehicle. City of Spokane Valley Page 27 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 8. DEA will report an accident to the FAA within 10 days if the sUAS operation results in serious property damage. 9. DEA will not operate if visibility becomes too limiting. Under 14 CFR Part 107, a three-mile minimum visibility is required from the remote pilot and crew at or near the ground station to the aircraft at all times. 10. DEA will not operate if wind becomes too strong to operate safely. Typically, this threshold is when sustained winds exceed 20-25 mph but varies with site conditions, visibility and other considerations. 11. sUAS operations are subject to acceptable late AM early PM sunlight windows. 12. DEA will check for temporary flight restrictions (TFR's) and any Notice to Airman (NOTAM's) affecting the flight the morning of operation. If required, DEA will file a NOTAM for this project's operation. 13. DEA assumes the site will accommodate the placing of discrete permanent survey marks, temporary aerial targets and have appropriate areas for vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) locations for the sUAS. VTOL locations will be within the CLIENT's project site unless arrangements are made with the impacted or adjacent landowners. 14. DEA requires all participants in the operation wear personal protection equipment (PPE) when in close proximity to the VTOL area, regardless of project site PPE requirements. PPE is not required by the sUAS operation when outside this area, however this waiver of PPE would be still subject to the site occupancy safety requirements (i.e. active construction, etc). 15. DEA will conduct an onsite safety meeting prior to the mobilization of the sUAS. DEA requires all participants of the operation to be present at this meeting to understand identified site hazards and assigned role requirements. 16. DEA will conduct the operation per our Flight Operations Manual and the Site Safety Plan specifically written for this effort. 17. sUAS will bear the appropriate aircraft marking required by the FAA during this operation. 18. DEA assumes they will not need a permit from WSDOT or the CITY to perform this survey to support this project. 8.2.2. Supplemental Topographic Surveying DEA will provide supplemental topographic surveying when needs arise during the design process. This may be adding on to existing topographic information, providing topographic information for additional surface features, etc. ASSUMPTION 1. It is assumed that time for one (1) day of a two-man crew and one day of a survey office technician will be necessary for Supplemental Topographic surveying. 2. DEA will locate the current Highland Estates sewer service and display its manholes and pipe locations on the topographic survey (along with manhole City of Spokane Valley Page 28 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B dips). 8.2.3. Railroad Survey and Coordination As part of the field topographic survey DEA will require access to an approximately 2,000 linear foot section of railroad near the N Barker Road and BNSF railroad intersection for a top of rail survey. DEA will coordinate schedules with BNSF. Railroad varying peak traffic times throughout the day can significantly impact survey production. This will also include the effort necessary to collect the top of rail topographic information (the top of each rail will be shot during the survey (left and right) along with approximately 1,000 feet of the south siding track east of N Barker Road). ASSUMPTIONS 1. A BNSF-approved flagger or lookout will be scheduled during DEA topographic surveying activities within the BNSF right of way. 2. DEA will be responsible for BNSF flagging costs. 8.2.4. Utilities Utility locations will be based on above ground evidence and as located by the utility purveyor. One Call Underground Locates will be called prior to the execution of the field work. It is assumed that the utility providers will mark their lines within the project area and that these lines can be recovered by DEA survey crews. DEA will also subcontract with Utilities Plus, a private locator, to attempt additional searches to recover additional utilities inside and outside the public right-of-way. These lines will be shown on the topographic map and identified. DEA will only obtain survey point data on the paint marks provided by the public one-call locator service and the private locates provided by Utilities Plus. DEA will obtain rim elevations and dip manholes in the project area to determine pipe inverts. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Up to six (6) manholes will be evaluated for elevation measure-downs. 8.2.5. Process RTK GPS and linework DEA will process RTK GPS from the primary control network and perform quality control and assurance checks on RTK data. DEA will process mapping data and prepare data to be imported into MicroStation/ Inroads. DEA will process GPS linework to WSDOT standards using MicroStation/Inroads. Quality checks will be performed on the linework for accuracy and conformance to WSDOT standards. 8.2.6. Feature extraction DEA will extract from the UAV Photogrammetry point cloud additional features from the areas defined above including ONLY paint stripping, buildings, edge of pavement, and edge of roads. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Sign information will be placed in the base map on a level that can be turned City of Spokane Valley Page 29 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B off 2. Finished floor elevations and building footprints will be obtained for nearby buildings, including those recently or currently under construction 8.2.7. Basemapping DEA will compile acquired mapping data and developed in the preceding tasks into a topographic map. The topographic map will be developed in MicroStation© in accordance with the WSDOT standards. One foot contours will be developed as needed for design plans from the mapping data. In addition, DEA will obtain the Google imagery for the project area for inclusion in the project base map. The CITY may have access to more recent higher resolution mapping and may provide it to DEA for use in the mapping product if available. The following scope of work will be accomplished for this task: • Develop an electronic base map in MicroStation©. • Obtain Google imagery and incorporate into base map. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Limits of mapping area as described above. DELIVERABLES 1. Topographic field measurements of project area 8.3 Boundary/Right-of-Way Surveying 8.3.1. Research DEA will develop names and parcel information and order up to 12 title reports. DEA will research and analyze the following to determine the locations of the existing City, Spokane County, WSDOT and BNSF railroad rights of way boundaries within the project limits: • Transfer Deeds • Right-of-Way Plans • Records of Survey • Subdivision plats • Unrecorded maps • Land Corner Records • Railroad Right-of-Way • Deeds of Record • Title Reports DEA will consult with the CITY regarding any determined gaps and overlaps on the right-of-way. Research will be sufficient enough to re-establish the right-of- way of BNSF, N Barker Road, SR 290, E Wellesley Avenue, along N Flora Avenue, along the project corridor and up to 12 adjacent parcel boundary sidelines. City of Spokane Valley Page 30 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B ASSUMPTIONS 1. DEA will provide up to 12 title reports. 8.3.2. Field Survey DEA will travel to the project site and search for and make field ties on right-of- way monuments within the project corridor along the BNSF right-of-way, SR 290, and the other roadways listed above. DEA will also make field ties on adjacent monumentation used to define the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and significant monuments that are shown by record to exist along the right-of-way and boundary, (i.e. subdivision corners) to verify harmony along the boundary and identify if any conflicts exist. The intent of this field survey will be to identify field evidence sufficient enough to determine the right-of-way of BNSF, N Barker Road, E Wellesley Avenue, and N Flora Avenue along the project corridor and up to 12 adjacent parcel boundary sidelines. 8.3.3. Develop Right-of-Way Determination DEA will perform a preliminary determination of the researched documents to calculate and prepare search coordinates and maps for the right-of-way field survey. After the field survey and existing monuments are located and tied in the field, a final boundary determination of the right-of-way and centerline alignment of BNSF, N Barker Road, SR 290, E Wellesley Ave/ SR 290 eastbound ramp, N Flora Avenue and Private Road will be performed by careful analysis of the researched documents and their relation to the monuments recovered in the field. In addition, up to 12 adjacent parcel boundary sidelines will be determined. 8.3.4. Prepare and File Retracement Record of Survey (10 sheets) DEA will prepare, set missing monuments and file a retracement Record of Survey with initial findings and existing boundary calculations and determinations for existing right-of-way and property lines. The Record of Survey will be reviewed by the CITY before filing with Spokane County. 8.3.5. Set Monuments for Retracement Survey DEA will set up to ten (10) missing and required monumentation used to calculate and create a determination on the existing right-of-way within the project site area. ASSUMPTIONS 1. It is assumed that right-of-way monuments will be set and a record of survey will be filed for right-of-way establishment following the retracement survey prior to finalizing right-of-way plans and legal descriptions. Up to ten (10) monuments will be set. 8.4 Final Basemapping DEA will import the right-of-way lines, parcel sidelines, centerline alignments, and tied monuments into the project's existing basemapping. ASSUMPTIONS 1. DEA will incorporate the above stated features and elements into the base map. City of Spokane Valley Page 31 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B DELIVERABLES 1. MicroStation DGN and Civil3D 2018 AutoCAD DWG file (of the DGN reference files) with the completed base map with 1-foot contour mapping, a DTM, tied monumentation, and boundary linework for design purposes. TASK 9 BNSF COORDINATION AND SUBMITTALS - DEA & HDR The CONSULTANT will prepare submittals for BNSF Railway review in accordance with `Section 5 Overhead Structures of the Union Pacific Railroad - BNSF Railway Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects'. These submittals will utilize the bridge plans developed under the preliminary and final design tasks and modify them as needed to meet the BNSF submittal requirements. This work will be performed by DEA and HDR staff. ASSUMPTIONS 1. BNSF Temporary Occupancy Application and approval was submitted and granted under the Phase I Design Contract. 9.1 BNSF Design Phase A Package (Concept Railroad Submittal) - DEA & HDR The CONSULTANT will prepare the Concept Plans and Site Pictures in accordance with Table 3-1 of the `Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects'. DEA and HDR will conduct a one-day meeting and site visit with BNSF, CITY, WSDOT, and WUTC representatives. The concept will be submitted to BNSF for review. This meeting will also include displays and a discussion about any proposed design exceptions that the CONSULTANT team is proposing as part of the design package. This task includes HDR communication with BNSF to facilitate a meaningful and timely review and acceptance of the Design Phase A Package. ASSUMPTIONS 1. DEA will compile the BNSF Design Phase A Package. 2. Two (2) DEA staff (PM and Bridge Lead) and two (2) HDR staff (Transportation Lead and BNSF Coordination Lead) will attend the meeting; assume up to 2 hours duration. 3. The office portion of the meeting will be held at the CITY's office. 4. The CITY PM will attend the meeting. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft and Final BNSF Railway Design Phase A Package (Concept Railroad Submittal) - PDF 9.2 BNSF Design Phase B Package (30% Railroad Submittal) - DEA & HDR The following items will be developed for the 30% submittal: 9.2.1. Bridge Plans - DEA & HDR • DEA will prepare the 30% submittal bridge plans and will include responses to BNSF review comments from the concept submittal. The 30% Bridge Plans will show Plan View, Elevation View, and Typical City of Spokane Valley Page 32 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Sections and the CONSULTANT's response to BNSF's comments on the Concept Railroad Submittal. Construction Phasing Plans and anticipated construction methods will also be included. Plans will depict top of rail profile for 1,000 feet from the bridge each direction. The plans will include General Bridge Notes, a summary of bridge design criteria, and Crossing Exhibit for crossings that will be closed. This submittal package will also include related Specifications and railroad coordination requirements in draft form. • HDR will review BNSF submittal requirements for the 30% Railroad Submittal Package for Bridge Plans at the start of this subtask. 9.2.2. Hydraulics Summary - HDR The 30% Railroad Submittal will include a Hydraulics Summary Report for culverts and drainage as it relates to the railroad. The report will document the existing and proposed drainage conditions to show existing drainage patterns are maintained. 9.2.3. Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams - DEA & HDR • DEA will prepare Railroad Profile Grade Track Diagrams for submittal with the 30% Design Package. • HDR will review BNSF submittal requirements for the 30% Railroad Submittal Package regarding Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams at the start of this subtask. 9.2.4. Quality Control - DEA & HDR • DEA will develop the majority of the 30% Railroad Submittal Package as discussed above. • HDR will provide a quality control review along with comments on the package that will be addressed by DEA prior to submittal to BNSF. • DEA will review those portions as detailed above developed by HDR. • HDR will review the entire submittal package. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft and Final BNSF Railway Design Phase B Package (30% Submittal Package) - PDF 9.3 BNSF Design Phase C Package (100% Railroad Submittal) - DEA & HDR The 100% submittal will be prepared and submitted to BNSF for review and approval, and will include responses to BNSF review comments from the 30% submittal. 9.3.1. Bridge Plans - DEA & HDR • DEA will revise the bridge plans to reflect the 30% design review comments. City of Spokane Valley Page 33 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B • DEA will finalize the railroad special provisions and railroad coordination requirements. • DEA will prepare 100% Bridge Plans which include Plan View, Elevation View, and Typical Sections. Finalized Construction Phasing Plans and anticipated construction methods along with the other sheets from the 30% submittal will be included. • DEA will prepare the 100% Specifications. • HDR will review BNSF submittal requirements for the 100% Railroad Submittal Package regarding Bridge Plans at the start of this subtask. 9.3.2. Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams - DEA & HDR • DEA will finalize the Railroad Profile Grade Track Diagrams as part of the 100% Design Package. The package will also include responses to BNSF review comments on the 30% submittal. • HDR will review BNSF submittal requirements for the 100% Railroad Submittal Package regarding Railroad Profile Grade Diagrams at the start of this subtask. 9.3.3. Final Hydraulics Summary Report - HDR The 100% Railroad Submittal will include a Final Hydraulics Summary Report for culverts and drainage as it relates to the railroad. It will also include responses to BNSF review comments on the 30% submittal. 9.3.4. Quality Control - DEA & HDR • DEA will develop the 100% Railroad Submittal Package as discussed above. • HDR will provide a quality control review along with comments on the package that will be addressed by DEA prior to submittal to BNSF. • DEA will review those portions as detailed above developed by HDR. • HDR will review the entire submittal package. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft and Final BNSF Railway Design Phase C Package (100% Railroad Submittal) - PDF 9.4 Railroad Agreement - DEA & HDR HDR will assist in the development of the railroad agreement between the CITY and BNSF for this Project. This task includes facilitating three meetings (DEA and HDR staff to participate) between the CITY, WSDOT, WUTC, and BNSF in addition to the meeting noted above at the concept stage. HDR will write the draft agreement, submit the draft agreement to the CITY, and make revisions based on input from the CITY. DEA will assist HDR in preparing the figures to accompany the Agreement. City of Spokane Valley Page 34 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B ASSUMPTIONS: 1. DEA and HDR staff will attend up to three (3) BNSF coordination meetings; each lasting two (hours), with two (2) DEA staff (PM and Bridge Lead) and two (2) HDR staff (Transportation Lead and BNSF Coordination Lead) attending the meetings. 2. Shoofly and track design will not be required. 3. WSDOT standard specifications will be used as the template for the railroad special provisions. 4. BNSF does not require an agreement with CITY or payment to go through the Preliminary Engineering Agreement process (Phase A, B, and C Design Packages). The exception would be if BNSF needs to hire a 3rd party structural review which is not anticipated or included in this agreement. 5. BNSF will provide timely approval of the Railroad Construction Maintenance Agreement. Otherwise additional contract time, scope of work and fees may be required. 6. Final Railroad Agreement to be prepared by BNSF and CITY. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft Railroad Agreement- PDF TASK 10 PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PLANS - DEA DEA will advance the preferred bridge type identified in Alternative 5 of the Phase I Alternatives Report, for the BNSF bridge, to the 30% design level. This plan set will be used for the BNSF Phase B Submittal Package. A conceptual level construction cost estimate will be prepared. ASSUMPTIONS 1. One three-span bridge carrying Barker Rd. over BNSF will be included. 2. No retaining walls are required for the project; cut and fill slopes are utilized. Design of retaining walls is considered Extra Work. 3. Bridge Sheets Include Bridge Layout, Construction Openings and Geometric Data and Bridge Typical Section; plans will be 11"x17" plan sheets. 4. Bridge 30% Cost Estimate will be based on cost per square foot of structure per the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual. DELIVERABLES 1. 30% Bridge Cost Estimate - MS Excel and PDF 2. 30% Bridge Plans - 11"x17" PDF TASK 11 INTERSECTION CONTROL ANALYSIS - HDR & DEA This work includes updating and finalizing the Intersection Control Analysis (ICA) report for submittal to WSDOT for approval of the preferred intersection control method. The ICA will follow the guidelines of Section 1300.05(1) Intersection Control Analysis of the WSDOT Design Manual. City of Spokane Valley Page 35 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 11.1 WSDOT Peer Review Meeting - DEA & HDR HDR, DEA, and the CITY's traffic engineering consultant will meet with CITY and WSDOT representatives to discuss the 2D layout of the roundabout (geometric review) to gather feedback and recommendations on the design. As part of this meeting, the Design Team will determine what is necessary to complete the roundabout Channelization Plan. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Prior to the Peer Review Meeting, the CITY's Traffic Engineering Consultant will prepare a weaving analysis of SR-290 from the roundabout to the east. 11.2 Final ICA- HDR & DEA HDR will prepare the Final ICA and update previous traffic analysis work completed in Phase I. This work includes the following: • Roundabout performance checks (including speed curves and speed differentials, sight distance triangles, and truck turning movements) • Conducting AutoTurn vehicle swept path analysis through the project area • Incorporating intersection design plan(s) • Incorporating cost estimates • Developing benefit/cost analysis • Preparing a Draft and Final ICA Report DEA will provide quality control review of the deliverables prior to submittal. ASSUMPTIONS 1. The CITY's Traffic Engineering Consultant will perform all the traffic analysis portion of the ICA including but not limited to: traffic volumes, Synchro and Sidra analysis, the no-action scenario, add opening year analysis, design year analysis, Safety analysis, speed consistency along SR 290, and speed data results. 2. One revision will be performed after WSDOT and CITY review. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft ICA Report- PDF 2. Final ICA Report- PDF TASK 12 60% DESIGN - DEA & HDR The following tasks will be accomplished in preparing the 60% Design Documents. The sheet count for this task is included in the table at the end of this section (11"x17" sheets will be used). As part of this task, the following discipline submittals will be reviewed by WSDOT Eastern Region prior to completing this design phase: • Intersection Plans • Channelization Plans • Roundabout Geometric Design (per Chapter 1320 of the WSDOT Design Manual) City of Spokane Valley Page 36 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B • Hydraulic Report • Illumination Plans 12.1 Title and Index/Vicinity Map - DEA DEA will develop an Index/Vicinity Map showing the project location and a list of sheets included in the 60% design plans. This will also include pertinent General Notes, Legends, and appropriate abbreviations. 12.2 Roadway Typical Sections - HDR HDR will prepare typical sections for the project with two typical sections on each sheet. The Design Typical Sections will be adjusted as necessary for this task. Roadway typical sections are estimated as follows: • Four for SR 290 - One for existing SR 290 at the westerly tie in, one for proposed SR 290 west of its intersection with Barker, one of SR east of its intersection with Barker, and one at the existing SR 290 easterly tie in. • Three for Wellesley Avenue -One west of the intersection, one after the EB Ramp, and one at the easterly tie in • Two for the EB SR 290 Ramp • Three for Barker Road-one for existing Barker Road, one of proposed Barker with turn lanes, one of proposed Barker without turn lanes • One for the Flora Road cul-de-sac • One for the Private Road connection to Barker Road • Two more for other miscellaneous roads as necessary ASSUMPTIONS 1. Intersections will be Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA); PCC Pavement intersections will not be included in the design. 12.3 Intersection/Channelization Plan Coordination - HDR & DEA HDR will prepare Channelization Plans for submittal to WSDOT for approval under task 11.4. This task is for coordination between the CONSULTANT and WSDOT. Prior to the first submittal and review, HDR and DEA will attend one 2-hour meeting with WSDOT to discuss the channelization plans. HDR will provide a PDF copy of the Draft Channelization Plans for review and comment by WSDOT. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that WSDOT will review the Channelization Plans up to three times and WSDOT will provide one consolidated set of comments for each review into a comment resolution matrix. Upon receipt of each written set of review comments from WSDOT, HDR will finalize the previous draft Channelization Plans, incorporating the review comments where appropriate HDR will prepare a list of required design variances needed on the project. Preparation of the design variance documentation will be scoped through a separate amendment. City of Spokane Valley Page 37 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B ASSUMPTIONS 1. Plan sheets will be at 1" = 40' scale. 2. WSDOT will compile review comments into one comment resolution matrix document. 3. Up to three (3) submittals will be provided to WSDOT for approval. 4. Design Variance documentation is not included in this scope of work and is considered Extra Work. 5. Additional submittals and compiling review comments from multiple reviewers is not included in this scope of work and is considered Extra Work. 12.4 Roadway Alignment, Paving Plan and Profile Sheets - HDR The scope of work outlined under this task includes the following: • Development of Intersection/Channelization Plans (15 sheets to WSDOT only) • Development of Alignment Plan Sheets (6 sheets) • Development of Roadway Paving Plan and Profile Sheets (22 sheets) • Development of Intersection/Channelization Plans 12.4.1. Channelization Plan Sheets HDR will prepare Channelization Plans for submittal to WSDOT for approval. The channelization plans will be developed for SR 290, EB SR 290 Ramp and the section of E Wellesley Avenue that ties into WB SR 290, including the new vertical profiles. Plan sheets will show the level of detail outlined in WSDOT's Intersection/Channelization plan for Approval Checklist. WSDOT has authorized the CONSULTANT to develop the plans at a scale of 1"=40'. Plan sheets that show the horizontal and vertical alignment for the roadway segments outside of WSDOT ROW will be provided for information only. This scope assumes that the "information only" sheets will not include the level of detail outlined in WSDOT's Intersection/ Channelization plan for Approval Checklist. HDR will provide a PDF copy of a Draft Channelization Plans for review and comment by WSDOT. Scope for coordination with WSDOT is identified under Task 12.3. DELIVERABLES 1. Summary of required Design Variances - PDF 2. Draft Channelization plans - 11"x17" PDF 3. Final Channelization Plans -22"x34" mylars and a PDF copy of the after the final review comment cycle 4. Channelization Plan estimated as follows: City of Spokane Valley Page 38 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Alignment Plan Profile SR 290 -HDR 2 2 EB SR 290 Ramp -HDR 2 2 E Wellesley Avenue -HDR 1 1 Detail Sheets 2 Barker Road-HDR(information 1 1 only) Typical Sections (information only) 1 TOTAL 9 6 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Plan sheets will be 1"=40' scale. 2. WSDOT will compile review comments into one comment resolution matrix document. 3. Provide up to three (3) submittals to WSDOT for approval. 4. Design Variance documentation is not included in this scope of work. 5. WSDOT-submittal Channelization Plans will not be included in the final PS&E bid Package. 12.4.2. Alignment Plan Sheets HDR will develop alignment plan sheets showing the geometric layout of the construction centerlines, including stationing, curve data and ties to survey control provided by DEA (SR 290, Barker Road, Wellesley Ave, EB SR 290 Ramp, Flora Road, and the Private Road connection to Barker Road). Alignment plan sheets will also include the geometric layout for the proposed Roundabout at the SR290/Barker Road intersection. Alignment Plan SR 290 -HDR 2 Barker Road-HDR 1 Wellesley Avenue -HDR 1 EB SR 290 Ramp -HDR 1 N. Flora Road -HDR 1 TOTAL 6 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Plan sheets will be 1"=100' scale. A total of 6 sheets are estimated. 2. DEA will provide the existing centerline alignments for SR 290, Barker Road, Wellesley Avenue, Flora Road at the proposed cul-de-sac location and the Private Road connection to Barker Road. City of Spokane Valley Page 39 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation-Phase II Scope of Services-Exhibit B 12.4.3. Roadway Paving Plan and Profile Sheets HDR will prepare roadway paving plan and profile sheets that will also depict drainage elements designed for the project, proposed right-of-way and easements limits, and existing utilities. Separate sheets will be generated for the paving plan and profile views rather than having plan and profile shown on the same sheet. The plan sheets used for the intersection/channelization plans (mentioned above) will be the basis for the roadway plan and profile sheets; however, new sheets will be created so the plans are produced on 11"x17" sheets at 1"=40' scale. The CONSULTANT will not develop the roadway paving plan and profile sheets until WSDOT has granted approval on the intersection/channelization plans. The CONSULTANT team will develop the proposed vertical alignment within the proposed grade separation project limits. This task also includes developing the preliminary roadway section templates required for the project in InRoads and establishing roadway cross sections. Superelevation data (shown as super- elevation diagrams on the profile sheets) will be included to meet current WSDOT and AASHTO Standards. This task also includes developing a grading model to optimize earthwork to balance as close as possible or to reduce import or export of material, providing roadside design services, and providing the level of effort to determine right-of-way need lines. DELIVERABLES 1. Roadway paving plan sheets and profile sheets estimated as follows: Alignment Plan Profile SR 290 -HDR 4 4 Barker Road-HDR 2 2 Wellesley Avenue -HDR 2 2 EB SR 290 Ramp -HDR 2 2 N. Flora Road -HDR 1 1 TOTAL 11 11 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Plan sheets will be at 1"=40' on 11"x17" plan sheets. The Consultant will not begin work on the plan sheets until WSDOT approves the intersection/channelization plans. 2. An existing access road (within BNSF ROVV) extends east from Barker Road, just south of the BNSF tracks. Maps identify this access road as N. Flora Road. Record of survey for the parcels does not identify this access road. Therefore, design of this access road to match the proposed improvements is not included in this scope of work. If the City determines that access is needed, the design will be considered Extra Work. 3. Plan sheets for side streets and local access roads will be performed under City of Spokane Valley Page 40 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B subsequent tasks in this scope of services. 12.5 Drainage Plans - HDR HDR will develop drainage design depicting existing and proposed drainage courses, storm sewer systems, stormwater treatment facilities, ponds, catch basins, and other facilities. Drainage facilities will be designed so their conceptual limits are established and required right-of-way needs can be factored in to project cost estimates. The final design elements and specifics of the drainage facilities will be detailed under 100% Design task. ASSUMPTION 1. Drainage facilities (other than grass swales and drywells) will be shown on stand-alone drainage sheets. Swales and drywell layouts will be shown on Paving Plans and detail sheets. 2. These sheets will include plan and profile sheets of storm sewers, culverts, and other proposed storm drain facilities 3. Since most of the drainage facilities are going to be grass swales and drywells (which are included in Drainage Detail Sheets), only six (6) Drainage Plan and Profile Sheets are anticipated.A storm sewer is anticipated for the roundabout. 12.6 Hydraulic Report- HDR & DEA HDR will prepare a drainage report in conformance with the WSDOT Hydraulic & Highway Runoff Manuals and the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. DEA will perform a quality control review of the draft and final report prior to submittal. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Swales with drywells will be the typical treatment and flow control method of stormwater. 2. Detention facilities are not required for the project. 3. Storm sewer may be needed to intercept runoff on the bridge and within the proposed roundabout to limit spread width. 4. Storm sewer system will not be required on EB SR 290 Ramp or the Wellesley Avenue realignment. Runoff will enter the roadside swales. No closed pipe system will be required. 5. Existing runoff from the north appears to be conveyed to the south to the existing BNSF right-of-way. This existing condition can be perpetuated by extending culverts under the proposed SR-290 improvements east of the SR 290/Barker Road intersection or new pipes can be installed to maintain existing drainage pathways. 6. New stormwater facilities for the project will be included in existing rights-of- way as much as possible. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft Hydraulic Report formatted consistent with WSDOT Hydraulics Report outline - PDF City of Spokane Valley Page 41 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 2. Final Hydraulic Report documenting the final configuration and drainage facilities with responses to comments on the Draft Hydraulic Report- PDF 12.7 Channelization, Pavement Marking, Signing, and Sign Structure Plans - DEA DEA will prepare channelization pavement marking plans indicating locations for channelization and pavement markings. These plans will be created from the paving plan sheets and at the same scale so that the same match lines are carried through the plan set for clarity and efficiency. DEA will include on the plans signing and sign structure design indicating locations for proposed signs, instructions for existing signs (remove, relocate or protect), and locations for sign structures. The signing and sign structure plans will be developed in sufficient detail to depict sign legends and sign structure locations. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Signing and Sign Structure Details will not be included in the 60% Design set of plans but will be developed for the 100% Design Submittal. 2. Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) will be not be utilized for this project. 3. This work will be shown on 11 plan sheets. DELIVERABLES 1. Plan sheets 12.8 Intersection Plans - HDR HDR will prepare plan and profile sheets for the Barker Road/Private Road intersection. Driveways/access to residential or businesses will be detailed as described in a subsequent section of this scope of work. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Plan sheets will be at a scale of 1" = 20'. 2. Stop Control is assumed on the side streets for the intersection. DELIVERABLES 1. Plan sheets 12.9 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Plans - DEA DEA will prepare preliminary Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plans, which include Traffic Control Plans and Stage Construction Plans, in accordance with MUTCD and WSDOT standards, as appropriate. The plans will depict construction stages, construction signing and other traffic control devices required during construction. Stage Construction plans will be developed for each stage so that sequential construction of the project can be understood. MOT construction drawings shall include all needed cross-sections, stationing, profile grades, and off-sets to build each phase. Permanent or existing drainage facilities will either be incorporated in the new alignment or temporary stormwater facilities will be designed as needed for City of Spokane Valley Page 42 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B each MOT phase. It is assumed that there will be three major stages as detailed below. • Stage I: Relocate utilities and construct most of the new SR 290/Barker intersection and SR 290 approach lanes. Construct a portion of the EB lane of SR 290 between Wellesley Avenue and the tie-in location east of Barker. Also, construct a temporary by-pass lane for WB SR 290 north of the existing alignment and east of Barker Road to provide adequate space for construction of the Wellesley Avenue connection. • Stage II: Shift WB SR 290 traffic onto the temporary by-pass lane and temporarily close Wellesley Avenue, allowing for the construction of the new connections of Wellesley Avenue and the EB &WB lanes of SR 290. The MOT plans will include detour signing for the closure of Wellesley Avenue. Reduce EB &WB SR 290 west of Barker to one lane in each direction to allow for completion of the tie-ins of the new alignment. • Stage III: Shift SR 290 onto new alignment, remove temporary by-pass lane, and reopen Wellesley Avenue. Barker Road/BNSF bridge would be built and the existing Barker Road/SR 290 intersection and the Barker/BNSF at-grade intersection would be closed. This stage would build remaining utility adjustments and Barker Road from south of the private road to its northerly terminus. The MOT plans will include detour signing for the closure of Barker Road. Upon opening of Barker Road, close the BNSF/Flora Road at-grade crossing and completely open the new facility to traffic. Based on the phasing detailed above, the following sheets are anticipated: Sheet Name No. MOT Index/Overview Sheet 1 MOT-Generic Signing for shoulder work operation (Stage 1) 1 MOT—Temporary By-pass Lane Plan and Profile 1 MOT— Stage I Detailed Construction Limits and Terminations 3 MOT— Stage I Temporary Barrier Wall 1 MOT— SR 290 Lane Shift/Closure for west end tie-in 1 MOT- SR 290 Lane Shift/Closure for east end tie-ins 2 MOT -Typical Advanced Warning and Detour Sheets (Wellesley closure) 3 MOT—Temporary Improvement Removal 1 MOT -Typical Advanced Warning and Detour Sheets (Barker closure) 3 MOT—Typical Barker Lane Closure for single lane operation 2 MOT—Detail Sheets 2 MOT/Staging Sheet Total 21 12.10 Site Preparation Plans — HDR HDR will prepare preliminary Site Preparation plans to identify removal and demolition work. City of Spokane Valley Page 43 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B ASSUMPTIONS 1. Site Preparation Plans will be at a scale of 1" = 40' to match the roadway plans and will require 7 plan sheets. 12.11 Illumination Design and Plans - DEA DEA will conduct illumination modeling and develop Illumination Plans. It is anticipated that illumination will be required at the SR 290/Barker intersection and east of the intersection where Wellesley exits from SR 290. Barker Road south of the intersection and through the extents of the project will additionally be illuminated. Roadway, full intersection and Wellesley exit illumination design modeling will be completed. It is expected that there will be two new illumination systems, one for Trent that will be owned and maintained by WSDOT; and one for N Barker Road and associated local roadway intersections with N Barker Road that will be owned and maintained by the CITY. Each system will have its own service and will tie into the power source independently. Lighting levels will be established for both pedestrian and roadway lighting. The design effort will include modeling the project's illumination needs with AGI illumination modeling software and showing necessary luminaire locations on the preliminary Illumination Design sheets. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Coordination with Utility Company for power sources and associated locations will occur under subsequent tasks. 2. Illumination Fixtures will be LED. DELIVERABLES 1. Illumination plan model calculations and contours in AG132 software -electronic file and PDF 2. Illumination Report- PDF 3. Luminaire locations will be shown on separate plans and will be refined and completed during 100% Design. 12.12 Preliminary Utility Plans - HDR HDR will coordinate with utility companies and develop Preliminary Utility Plans. Utility contacts will be confirmed, requests for any remaining utility company maps of existing utilities will be requested and an explanation of the project provided. The preliminary utility plans will be provided to the utility companies for their verification of location and to plan the relocation of any facilities necessary to the project. The utility packages will be provided to the utility companies to initiate the verification process and begin the coordination effort of confirming utility location and depth and confirming potholing/monitoring requirements. Found utilities will be included on the utility plans. These plans will show the locations of each existing utility based on plans provided by the utility companies, the CITY, WSDOT, and/or field verification. ASSUMPTIONS 4. Utility Plans will be at a scale of 1" = 40' to match the roadway plans. 5. Utility facilities to be potentially relocated will be identified and a preliminary determination of whether utility relocations will be at project or company expense City of Spokane Valley Page 44 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B will be made. 6. Development of utility relocation plans is not included in this scope of work. 7. Assemble information received from utilities and update existing utility base file. 8. Preliminary Utility Plans will include a reference to each element of proposed utility work: either at project expense or at company expense. Work at project expense will be obtained and incorporated into the 60% Design cost estimate. 9. Proposed utility adjustments and relocation design will be recommended at 60% Design and refined and finalized during 100% design. 10. Coordination for illumination power service location will be accomplished under subsequent tasks. DELIVERABLES 1. Utility Plan sheets 2. Copies of utility submittal letters. 3. Existing utility base file for found utilities within the project limits. 4. Utility contact/conflict spreadsheet upkeep and completion as the utility coordination effort evolves. Ongoing documentation of coordination effort will be contained within the spreadsheet. 5. Preliminary costs for utility relocations at project expense will be obtained and incorporated into the cost estimate. 12.13 Bridge Design and Sheets - DEA DEA will develop structural design to the 60% completion level. This will include incorporating and addressing Preliminary Bridge Plan submittal review comments and developing the gross sizes of the main structural elements. In general, concrete reinforcing and other details will not be developed during this task and will be completed under subsequent tasks. The following sheets will be included: Sheet Title: Number of Sheets: Layout 1 General Notes and Geometric Data 1 Construction Sequence 1 Foundation Layout 1 Pier Abutment Plan and Elevation 4 Bearing Details 1 Framing Plan 2 Typical Section 1 Precast Girder Schedule and Notes 1 Girder Details 2 Intermediate Diaphragm Details 1 End Diaphragm Details 1 City of Spokane Valley Page 45 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Expansion Joint Details 1 Traffic Barrier Details 3 Bridge Railing Type BP Details 2 Approach Slab Details 2 Total: 25 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Deck drains will not be necessary and the bridge will drain to catch basins located outside of the bridge structure in the approaches to the bridge. DELIVERABLES 1. 60% Bridge Plans 12.14 Detail Sheets - DEA & HDR DEA and HDR will develop the following miscellaneous details for the project. 12.14.1. Industrial/Residential Access Detail Sheets - HDR HDR will prepare approach plan and profile sheets 1"=40' (with plan and profile design on the same sheet) for industrial/residential properties whose access will be modified. Two approaches will be depicted on each sheet for up to four (4) approaches. 12.14.2. Drainage Detail Sheets - HDR HDR will prepare drainage detail sheets for each proposed drainage swale/facility. Swale details, drywell details, structure details, etc. will be included on the sheets. A stand-alone detail sheet will be prepared for each of the three (3) anticipated drainage swales. ASSUMPTION 1. Standard drawings for drywells and drainage structures will be referred to on the plans, but the actual detail will not be reproduced within the plan set. 12.14.3. Roundabout Detail Sheets - DEA & HDR HDR will prepare roundabout detail sheets. These will include: • 6 detail sheets for top back of curb plan and profiles • 2 detail sheets for curb and pedestrian crossing details • 1 detail sheet for the truck apron (geometry and apron cross section) • 1 detail sheet for the roundabout design data DEA will prepare one (1) center island landscaping detail sheet. ASSUMPTION 1. Through coordination with WSDOT Eastern Region, it is assumed that the roundabout will consist of HMA for the circulating roadways and intersection City of Spokane Valley Page 46 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B connections and the truck apron will be PCCP. It is anticipated that one sheet will depict the truck apron geometry and that the contractor will follow standard jointing pattern on a radial pattern and based on PCCP thickness. 2. If truck apron jointing is requested to be designed based on truck movements, a supplemental agreement will be needed to prepare the detail. 3. A staging detail of the RAB is not required since the RAB will be built offline from traffic. 4. It is assumed that this HMA pavement recommendation would be confirmed by the geotechnical report. 5. The CITY will provide direction to DEA on the landscaping/hardscaping to be constructed within the roundabout center island. 12.15 Preliminary Special Provisions - DEA & HDR DEA will develop a specifications package and utilize the WSDOT Standard Specifications format. When applicable, WSDOT General Special Provisions (GSPs) will be utilized, or if necessary, project specific special provisions will be developed. WSDOT Amendments will be included. CITY special provisions will be incorporated into the package, as applicable. WSDOT PSE Program will be utilized to develop a specifications run list and populate the specifications package. DEA will lead this effort with support by HDR and BA. DELIVERABLES 1. Preliminary Specification - MS Word and PDF 12.16 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost - DEA & HDR Quantity takeoffs for the multiple design tasks will be developed for each design discipline and a preliminary cost estimate for the project will be developed. The cost estimate will take into account recent construction project bid prices in the project vicinity. The opinion of probable cost will also include right-of-way costs, construction contingencies, construction engineering, and contractor mobilization. DELIVERABLES 1. Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost- MS Excel and PDF 12.17 Basis of Estimate - DEA DEA will prepare documentation to enable reviewers to easily track changes to project scope, cost, and schedule. The Basis of Estimate documents assumptions used and can eliminate overlap of future estimate assumptions. This allows project "knowns" as well as "unknowns" to be clearly identified. This document will be prepared in accordance with WSDOT's Design Manual Section 300.06(3), Basis of Estimate. DELIVERABLES 1. Basis of Estimate - PDF City of Spokane Valley Page 47 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 12.18 Preliminary Design Submittal QC — DEA & HDR A detailed review of the 100% Design Review Package will be completed by senior DEA and HDR staff not involved in developing the project design prior to Submittal. QC Review comments will be addressed prior to submittal to the CITY and WSDOT. 12.19 Submit 60% Design Package— DEA & HDR The CONSULTANT team will prepare the 60% Design Submittal package based on the CITY's requirements and WSDOT's Design Manual and submit the package for review and comment. The submittal package for 60% Design Review will be compiled by DEA and will be submitted for CITY and WSDOT review. DELIVERABLES: 1. 60% Design plans —22"x34" PDF Plan Sheet Section DEA HDR TOTAL Title and Index/Vicinity Map 2 2 Roadway Typical Sections 8 8 Intersection/Channelization Plans (Not Included in 15 15 PS&E Set) Roadway Alignment, Paving Plan and Profile Sheets 28 28 Site Preparation Plans 7 7 Drainage Plans for SR 290 and Local Roadways 6 6 Channelization, Pavement Marking, Signing, and Sign 11 11 Structure Plans Intersection Control Plans 1 1 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT)Plans 21 21 Illumination Design and Plans 8 8 Preliminary Utility Plans 11 11 Bridge Sheets 25 25 Detail Sheets 1 16 17 Right-of-way Plans 12 12 Total 80 92 172 2. 60% Design cost estimate — PDF 3. Preliminary Special Provisions — MS Word and PDF 12.20 Design Approval - DEA DEA will prepare the Design Approval Memorandum following the outline shown in WSDOT's Design Manual Section 300.04(1) (July 2017). The following items will be included in the Memorandum: • Stamped Cover Sheet (project description) • A reader-friendly memo that describes the project City of Spokane Valley Page 48 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B • Project summary documents • Basis of Design • Alternatives Comparison Table • Design Parameters worksheets • Crash Analysis Report • Design Analysis (If Needed) • List of known Variances (If Required) • Channelization Plans and intersection plans • SR 290 alignment plans and profile • Current cost estimate with a Basis of Estimate • Completed Environmental Review Summary ASSUMPTIONS 1. The Design Approval Memorandum will follow the outline shown in WSDOT's Design Manual Section 300.04(1) (July 2017). DELIVERABLES 1. Draft Design Approval Memorandum - PDF 2. Final Design Approval Memorandum - PDF 12.21 60% Design Review and Comment/Resolution Meeting - DEA & HDR DEA and HDR will attend the 60% Design Review meeting with the CITY and WSDOT staff. DEA will prepare meeting minutes and distribute to the appropriate recipients by email. Prior to the meeting, DEA will assemble the comments received from the CITY and WSDOT in a comment response form. HDR and DEA will address the comments and identify comments that require further discussion at the 60% Design Review meeting. The compiled comment form will be provided to attendees at the 60% Design Review meeting and the comment form will be included in the 100% Design Review submittal. ASSUMPTIONS 1. There will be one 60% Design Review Meeting lasting two (2) hours. 2. Four (4) DEA staff will attend (Project Manager, Bridge Lead, Traffic Control Plan Lead, and Traffic Design Lead). 3. Four (4) HDR staff will attend (Transportation Lead, Roadway Lead, Railroad Lead (via phone), Drainage Lead). 4. The CITY will prepare a comment form with comments collected from CITY and WSDOT staff and will resolve difference between comments from different reviewers. The comment form will be provided to the CONSULTANT team prior City of Spokane Valley Page 49 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B to the review meeting so the CONSULTANT can prepare to only address necessary comments at the meeting. DELIVERABLES 1. 60% Design Review Package TASK 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY DOCUMENTS - DEA 13.1 Review Title Information and Data Collection The project team will use County Assessor's information to supplement ownership boundary information. DEA will prepare a list of property owners in the project vicinity and review title reports and obtain and review supporting information. 13.1.1. Collect Title Information DEA will identify supporting title documents that will need to be obtained based on a review of the title reports. This could include items such as easement documents, quit claim deeds, or other items that affect land title. The following 12 Spokane County Tax Lot parcels are the properties to which our right-of-way scope of services apply: Parcel County APN Listed Property Owner 1 55061.9004 Jovi, LLC 2 55052.9029 Meadowhill Corp/ Baker Properties, LLC 3 55052.9028 Hart & Hart Enterprises, LLC (LC Eagle, LLC) 4 55061.9048 Cassell, Bradley 5 55061.9047 Cassell, Bradley 6 56314.9026 High-Est, LLC 7 55052.9021 Terrie Guthrie 8 55052.9022 High-Est, LLC 9 56323.9092 High-Est, LLC 10 55323.9162 High-Est, LLC 11 45011.9114 Inland Empire Distribution Systems 12 55065.0105 Centennial Properties, Inc. ASSUMPTIONS 1. All title reports and title report updates (assumed at 12) will be provided by the CONSULTANT (DEA). 2. Each title report will be ordered with a $10,000 liability insurance rating. If additional insurance is required, then a scope of work and fee change will be required. City of Spokane Valley Page 50 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 3. DEA will coordinate obtaining supporting documents through the CITY or directly with the title company. 13.1.2. Title Company Coordination Many times title information and supporting documentation disclose conflicts with each other or with title documents on adjoining parcels. DEA will identify these conflicts and coordinate with the CITY or title company to get them resolved. 13.1.3. Revise Working Total Ownership (TO) Map The findings from the tasks above will be added to, revised, or result in the removal of information from the Working Total Ownership Map. ASSUMPTIONS 1. It is assumed that a maximum of 12 supporting title documents will be reviewed and used in right-of-way resolution. 13.2 Develop Right-of-Way Plans DEA will develop the Official Total Ownership (TO) Map and Right-of-Way (ROW)/Limited Access Plans based on the right-of-way need lines and proposed access control objectives. The project team has tentatively identified 12 acquisition parcels affected by the project from 12 property ownerships. The project team will prepare the TO Map and ROW/Limited Access Plans in accordance with WSDOT Right-of-Way Manual (Section 1.8) and Plans Preparation Manual (Division 1, Right- of-Way Plans). 13.2.1. Incorporate Parcel Lines DEA will add surveyed cadastral data into the Working Total Ownership Map. 13.2.2. Parcel Alignment Files DEA will create an InRoads alignment file for each acquisition parcel. This will assist in determination of parcel area, closure checks, and in writing legal descriptions. Assume up to 12 parcels required. 13.2.3. Prepare Total Ownership Map DEA will revise the Working Total Ownership Map into an electronic Total Ownership Map that will be part of the Official Right-of-Way Plans. Assume two sheets. 13.2.4. Prepare Official Right-of-Way Plans DEA will prepare Official Right-of-Way Plans to support project acquisition activities. DEA will prepare a package consisting of the TO Map and the ROW plans discussed in the tasks above and submit it for review. Assume 12 sheets. 13.2.5. Attend Right-of-Way Plans Review Meeting DEA will participate in ROW plans review meeting that will include representatives from the CITY and the WSDOT. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss comments on the submittal and to clarify how best to address review City of Spokane Valley Page 51 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B comments. The meeting will last for two (2) hours and will be attended by three (3) DEA staff members and one (1) HDR staff member. 13.2.6. Revise and Submit TO Map and ROW Plans DEA will address review comments obtained from the review meeting on the ROW package and updated WSDOT Plan Preparation Manual Checklists will be prepared. A final submittal package consisting of the revised TO Map and ROW plans will be submitted to the CITY and WSDOT for approval. DELIVERABLES 1. Draft and Final Total Ownership Map - 3 hard copy sets and PDF 2. Draft and Final Right-of-Way and Limited Access Plans - 3 hard copy sets and PDF 13.3 Legal Descriptions DEA will develop and submit stamped legal descriptions for each acquisition parcel. The descriptions will conform to the WSDOT Right-of-Way Manual (Section 1.8) and Plans Preparation Manual (Division 1, Right-of-Way Plans). 13.3.1. Legal Descriptions/Exhibits DEA will use the MicroStation alignment files prepared in previous tasks to assist in preparing legal descriptions. Legal descriptions for up to 12 acquisition parcels will be prepared. DEA will provide review copies of the legal descriptions and exhibit maps for each acquisition parcel to the CITY and WSDOT for review 13.3.2. Revise Legal Descriptions DEA will revise the legal descriptions to address review comments. DEA will resubmit the legal descriptions and exhibit maps for each acquisition parcel to the CITY and WSDOT for final review and approval. 13.3.3. Acquisition Parcel Coordinates DEA will prepare a survey for field-staking the parcels. This will include right-of- way angle points and sufficient points along the right-of-way lines to define acquisition areas. 13.3.4. Stake ROW Acquisition Areas DEA will set inter-visible lath along proposed right-of-way lines and proposed permanent easement lines (for up to 12 acquisition parcels) to support negotiation activities. 13.3.5. Design Team Coordination DEA will coordinate with the acquisition team and answer questions and clarify information related to the survey stakes as necessary during acquisition activities. City of Spokane Valley Page 52 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 13.4 Monuments and Record of Survey 13.4.1. Set Monuments for Final Record of Survey DEA will set missing and required monumentation used to create new parcels created from the right-of-way plans. Assume up to 20 monuments will be set as part of this task and 10 sheets required. 13.4.2. Prepare and File Final Record of Survey DEA will prepare and file a Record of Survey with initial retracement survey and new right-of-way parcels and right-of-way lines. The Record of Survey will be reviewed by the CITY before filing with Spokane County. This will be verified, filed and finalized post acquisition. Assume up to 10 sheets required. TASK 14 APPRAISE AND ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY - HDR & DEA The following scope of work details the necessary effort to acquire right-of-way for the project. HDR will accomplish this task unless specified otherwise. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. This scope encompasses services to complete right-of-way (ROVV) acquisition and relocation for the Project. It is anticipated that the following elements of these services will be completed in late 2018 through 2019. Scope of services includes the following: 2. Ongoing management and administration of the ROW process. 3. Initiate and negotiate a maximum of 12 acquisition offers and up to two (2) relocation (commercial and residential) offers. 4. HDR shall coordinate with the CITY, as necessary, and in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act (URA), WSDOT LAG Manual guidelines, applicable State and local laws, and CITY administrative rules, to facilitate the acquisition of identified properties. 5. CITY shall provide HDR with available project information such as, but not limited to, the CITY's State approved ROW and limited access procedures, approved environmental documentation, and any pre-approved CITY ROW forms, including legal documents. 6. HDR and CITY agree to maintain clear lines of communication, determine and document the appropriate decision making process to achieve project goals and to provide open access to available data that is pertinent to the project. 7. HDR shall prepare for and attend the pre-project right-of-way meeting and up to three (3) project meetings, along with a project close-out meeting. 8. HDR shall order all appraisals and review appraisals for the project. 9. DEA shall order and provide HDR with all title commitments, or updated title commitments if they have been previously ordered. 10. HDR shall confer with CITY on proposed settlements over the approved offering price to determine whether to either increase or alter terms of the settlement. 11. HDR shall work directly with title and escrow to handle all closings. 12. All deliverables will be produced in accordance with the approved quality City of Spokane Valley Page 53 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B control/quality assurance (QC/QA) process established by the CITY and the CONSULTANT team. 13. All deliverables prepared by HDR shall be provided to the CITY- one (1) electronic version and one (1) hard copy. DELIVERABLES: 1. HDR will provide the CITY a complete Right-of-Way package, including the Right-of- Way Certification letter that will be signed by the CITY and then submitted to WSDOT Local Programs for final right-of-way certification. 14.1 Real Estate Services Management - HDR HDR will provide general ongoing coordination, administration direction, and guidance for the HDR staff working on this project. HDR will provide monthly project updates on progress of work. HDR will also perform project management and administration for the following real estate services tasks as follows: • Prepare for and attend pre-project ROW and limited access meeting with the CITY. • Prepare and provide monthly updates of a landowner list, preliminary ROW and limited access cost estimate by parcel, and ROW schedule for the overall project. • Prepare and update ROW and limited access delivery schedule. • Prepare and submit invoices, including a tabulation of hours expended for each item. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. HDR will attend up to five (5) project team meetings to review the landowner list, preliminary ROW and limited access cost estimate by parcel, and schedule for the overall ROW project. 2. HDR will attend one (1) initial contact meeting with up to 12 individual land owners. 3. HDR will attend one (1) final contact meeting with up to 12 individual land owners. DELIVERABLES: 1. Landowner list- PDF 2. Preliminary ROW and limited access cost estimate- MS Excel and PDF 3. ROW Schedule - PDF 4. Meeting notes from meetings with individual land owners - PDF 14.2 Appraisal and Appraisal Review - HDR HDR will manage the appraisal process for up to 12 parcels. As part of the appraisal process, HDR's appraiser shall complete a project funding estimate (PFE). Administrative Offer Summary (AOS) reports will be prepared where appropriate in lieu of appraisals. HDR's appraiser and review appraiser shall meet all requirements set forth in 49 CFR 24.103. HDR will perform the following work: City of Spokane Valley Page 54 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B • Prepare an appraisal schedule for each group of appraisals assigned by CITY. • Prepare one (1) PFE including worksheets. • Develop AOS reports for eligible acquisition parcels. • Assemble all needed appraisal data and appraisal scope for each assigned parcel. • Send out landowner contact letters to all affected parcels in advance of the appraisal. • Prepare Before and After appraisal reports, as needed, for all assigned parcels and supply all completed reports to the appraisal reviewer selected by HDR. • Develop appraisal reviews for all parcels that are appraised CITY RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Review and approve appraisal schedule. 2. Review and approve the PFE. 3. Approve Appraisal Reviews via signed Determination of Values. 4. Review and approve by signature all AOS ASSUMPTIONS: 1. HDR will manage their appraisal staff to develop the most expeditious schedule for delivery of all valuation deliverables. 2. CITY shall provide any available information to HDR that is needed to complete the assigned appraisals. 3. One draft and one final PFE shall be prepared. 4. There will be a maximum of 12 parcels appraised: a. There will be up to ten (10) partial acquisitions and two (2) full acquisitions. b. All will be before and after short form narrative reports or in AOS form where appropriate. c. It is anticipated there will be two (2) complex parcels. d. It is anticipated there will be ten (10) non-complex parcels. e. Comparable sales will be researched for four land use types, commercial, SFR, multifamily and industrial. f. The estimated delivery time is 60-90 days from assignment date. 5. There will be a maximum of 12 PFE associated worksheets. DELIVERABLES: 1. Appraisal schedule for each assignment 2. Appraisal management 3. PFE spreadsheets and worksheets 4. Administrative Offer Summaries City of Spokane Valley Page 55 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 5. Landowner Contact letters 6. Appraisal Reports 7. Appraisal Reviews 14.3 Acquisition and Negotiation Services - HDR & DEA HDR will perform the following work: • Track and update acquisition ROW schedule milestones. • Prepare and maintain electronic and hard copy parcel files. • Review title report(s) and title report updates supplied by DEA. • Review ROW plans or exhibits and legal descriptions. • Prepare documents and deeds required for up to 12 acquisition parcels. • Maintain current negotiator diaries. • Act as the agent of the CITY in negotiations. • Make up to three (3) contacts with each of the impacted landowners in an effort to negotiate a fair settlement. • If an impasse is reached during negotiations, the entire parcel file shall be turned over to the CITY for further action, including determination to eliminate acquisition of property. • Acquire Right of entry, easement, and fee acquisitions, as approved by the CITY. • Provide a justification memorandum for settlements above the approved offering price, for approval by the CITY. • Provide a condemnation cover memorandum and parcel file, as approved by the CITY. • Process all landowner payments through the CITY, clear all encumbrances, and manage escrow or in-house closing for all acquisitions. • Transmit completed parcel files to the CITY. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Provide or approve all real estate documents and forms that HDR will use consistent with CITY acquisition practice. 2. Approve all administrative settlements. 3. Approve all landowner payments, and approveall encumbrances to be cleared. 4. Make prompt payment to the owner or Escrow Company for all approved acquisitions. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. H DR's title review responsibilities shall be limited to identifying the correct vesting from the title report and inputting that information into the appropriate acquisition documents. 2. HDR shall make a maximum of three(3)good-faith attempts at negotiations for each parcel assigned,with those attempts being defined as an in-person visit with landowner, a detailed phone conversation, or a substantive correspondence or City of Spokane Valley Page 56 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B email exchange. 3. The initial acquisition schedule will be 45 days for each of the estimated 12 acquisitions. If no settlement can be reached within 45 days, CONSULTANT shall seek a paid possession and use (P&U) agreement. Should the landowner reject the paid P&U the CITY will determine what further action is appropriate under the circumstances. 4. HDR's acquisition duties shall be deemed complete if any of the following occur: A negotiated settlement approved by the CITY is reached and the necessary documents are executed; a paid P&U is secured and the acquisition file is transmitted to CITY; an impasse in negotiations is reached or; the offer to purchase is rescinded. 5. HDR will manage the closing process in house or contract directly with the escrow company for closing and title reports (DEA will provide title report updates). When the CITY receives acceptable documents from HDR, they will be signed by the CITY and returned to HDR for processing, recording and closing. HDR will be responsible for managing the preparation and receipt of all signatures for all documents such as Waivers of Compensation, Requests for Partial Re-conveyance, and satisfaction of all liens and encumbrances for each acquisition. DELIVERABLES: 1. Negotiation services 2. Right of Entry Packages 3. Offer packages 4. Administrative settlement memos 5. Paid Possession and Use Agreements 6. Executed acquisition documents or transfers to condemnation proceedings 7. Completed parcel files 14.4 Relocation and Negotiation Services - HDR HDR will perform the following work: • Prepare and maintain electronic and hard copy relocation files. • Track and update relocation right-of-way and limited access schedule milestones. • Interview potential displacees and estimate relocation costs. • Prepare a relocation plan. • Prepare and present all relocation documents. • Act as extension of the CITY's staff while serving as the CITY's relocation agent for affected parcels. Associated responsibilities include: o Preparation of Commercial Move Bids solicitation. o Obtaining and analyzing move estimates. o Computing residential relocation entitlements and obtaining the CITY approvals. City of Spokane Valley Page 57 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B o Monitor actual relocation of displacee from displacement sites. o Assist displaced persons and/or businesses with filing claims o Provide advisory assistance as required by law o Process relocation payments through the CITY. o Transmit completed relocation files to the CITY. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. HDR shall submit one (1) draft and one (1) final relocation plan to the CITY with up to four (4) updates to the plan. 2. The CITY will review and approve the relocation plan prepared by HDR within ten (10) working days. 3. There will be one (1) residential relocation and one (1) business relocation, for a total of two (2) parcels requiring relocation services. 4. The two residential properties that have access between North Del Rey Drive and the proposed SR 290/Barker Road intersection will continue to access off of SR 290. 5. CITY will provide approved relocation forms for HDR's use. 6. HDR's participation in any relocation appeal will be limited to supplying supporting documentation and attending two (2) meetings. 7. Relocation services will be deemed complete if any of the following occur: a. The Notice of Eligibility or offer to purchase is rescinded. b. Relocation payments are made and the site is cleared. c. The CITY allows displacee to maintain tenancy on the site after an approved replacement site has been identified and or relocation payments made. 8. The CITY will be responsible for claims monitoring or additional relocation services after vacation of the site, and relocation payments have been made to any diplacee. 9. At the end of the project (properties vacated and relocation payments made) all relocation files will be transmitted by HDR to the CITY with all original documents. DELIVERABLES: 1. Status reports, Meeting Agendas and Notes 2. Relocation files 3. Relocation plan 4. Relocation documents 5. Executed relocation forms City of Spokane Valley Page 58 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B TASK 15 100% DESIGN — DEA & HDR DEA and HDR will incorporate 60% review comments and further develop the project design. This task includes preparing 100% plans, specifications and estimate. The plans will be organized in accordance with CITY and WSDOT Design Guidelines. The sheet count for this task in included in the table at the end of this document. 15.1 Title, Index and Vicinity Map Sheets - DEA DEA will develop the Title Sheet for the 100% Design Package and include the Index and Vicinity Map Information from the 60% Design Package. 15.2 Survey Control and Found Monuments - DEA DEA will finalize the survey control and found monuments prepared as part of other tasks, format them to become part of the 100% Design Plan set, and include them in the 100% Design Package. 15.3 Roadway Typical Sections - HDR HDR will finalize the typical sections that were developed as part of the Preliminary Design tasks. HDR will make adjustments to the typical sections based on review comments. 15.4 Alignment Plan/ROW Sheets - HDR HDR will finalize the alignment plan sheets, developed as part of the 60% design package. Plans will include the ultimate right of way limits. Comments from the 60% review will be incorporated. 15.5 Site Preparation Plans - HDR HDR will finalize the Site Preparation plans which identify the location where existing asphalt, surface features and structures are to be removed within the project limits. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Plan sheets will be 1"=40' scale 2. One plan sheet will indicate demolition of the WWTP (no special detail or sheet will be created for this removal/demolition) 3. The existing at-grade railroad crossings at Barker Road and Flora Road will be closed. BNSF will remove the infrastructure at each crossing location, including the crossing panels, gates, and controllers. Demolition plans will not include removal of any items associated with BNSF facilities. 15.6 Roadway Paving Plan/Profile Sheets - HDR The Roadway Paving Plan and Profile Sheets that were developed as part of the 60% Design Package will be finalized. This will include calling out final roadside design elements including guardrail and bid items, finalizing modeling and earthwork design with an attempt to balance earthwork, and preparing the plans for construction. This task also includes preparing cross sections of the roadway at 50-ft stations (25-ft stations on curves). The plan will also include proposed paving limits for the roadways. City of Spokane Valley Page 59 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B ASSUMPTIONS: 1. HDR will prepare cross sections for: • SR 290 Roadway • Barker Road • E Wellesley Avenue • EB SR 290 Ramp • Private Road (Connection to Barker) • No sections are needed for the Flora cul-de-sac 15.7 Paving and other Roadway/RAB Details - HDR HDR and DEA will prepare Special Detail Sheets when standard details cannot be used. It is assumed that HDR will develop 5 special detail sheets and DEA will develop 1 special detail sheet. HDR and DEA will finalize the 17 60% Roadway Design Details prepared for Private Road tying into Barker Road and the industrial/residential access approach plan and profile sheets defined above in the 60% Design Tasks. HDR will finalize roundabout details and will complete the coordinate tables. DEA will finalize one landscape detail. 15.8 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plans - HDR HDR will prepare temporary TESC plans to control stormwater runoff and offsite siltation or damage resulting from construction activities. The plan will outline Best Management Practices (BMP's) which may include silt fencing, wattles, seeding, mulching and other items and also show pertinent details. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. All standard details will be used for the temporary BMPs. 15.9 TESC Narrative - HDR HDR will prepare a TESC narrative that provides specific information about site conditions, analyzes risks, outlines management strategies, and contingency plans in conformance with the requirements set forth in the WSDOT TESC Manual. 15.10 Drainage Plans - HDR HDR will finalize the drainage design depicting existing and proposed drainage courses, catch basins, roadside drywells, etc. Storm sewer systems, along with plan and profiles of storm sewers and culverts will be finalized under this task. 15.11 Utility Plans - HDR HDR will prepare Final Utility Plans based on decisions made with CITY, WSDOT, and the utility companies. The Utility Plans will be modified to depict agreed upon utility revisions and relocations. The new utility locations will be based on information provided by each utility company and will be routed to the utility companies for review and comment. Final Utility Plans will be prepared in color. City of Spokane Valley Page 60 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 15.12 Utility Hearing Waivers - HDR HDR will prepare Utility Hearing Waivers (six (6) anticipated) and coordinate execution of the waivers with the utility companies. No utility company agreements are anticipated. 15.13 Landscape Plans - DEA DEA will prepare Landscape plans in close coordination and consultation with the CITY and WSDOT. The plans will be simple and will be designed so no irrigation is needed. Potential sleeve locations for future irrigation facilities will be considered and incorporated into the plans if requested by the CITY. 15.14 BNSF Bridge Contour Plans - DEA DEA will develop plans depicting final Contour Plans around the proposed BNSF bridge. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. DEA will prepare a MicroStation DGN with one-foot contours displayed. 2. A DTM with finished grade surface will NOT be prepared or provided. 15.15 Illumination Plans and Details - DEA DEA will finalize the 60% Design Illumination Plan sheets. Additional adjustments to the plans will be made based on comments received at the 60% Design Review Meeting. This will also include coordination with the power company to determine power source and appropriate layout. Supporting documentation will be provided including voltage drop calculations. Illumination Detail sheets will also be added. 15.16 Intersection Plans and Details - HDR HDR will finalize the Intersection Control Plans and Details. Intersection Plans will be prepared for the Barker Road/Private Road intersection. 15.17 Channelization, Pavement Marking, Signing, and Sign Structure Plans - DEA DEA will finalize the channelization pavement marking plans indicating locations for channelization and pavement markings. DEA will also finalize signing and sign structure design and complete the plans for construction. Additional adjustments to the plans will be made based on comments received at the 60% Design Review Meeting. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Sign Specification Sheets = 4 2. Channelization, Pavement Marking and Signing Sheets = 11 3. Sign Details = 4 4. Cantilever Sign Structure Details = 4 5. Sign Legend Details= 6 City of Spokane Valley Page 61 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 15.18 Bridge Design - DEA DEA will prepare 100% Design Structural Plans for the BNSF bridge in accordance with Preliminary Bridge reviews that have already been obtained and as discussed below. During the course of this activity, DEA will participate in structural review conference calls as required with WSDOT Structural Reviewers. The structure plans will be issued at what DEA consider to be a 100% level of completion. The following items are intended to be completed at the 100% Design Phase: • All clearance envelopes are shown and have been checked • Foundation type and layout is determined and shown correctly • Minor and major details are shown on the plans • Utility considerations have been identified and resolved • Right-of-Way needs have been established and depicted as appropriate on the plans • Fill slopes, drainage and guardrails considerations have been identified and resolved • An Independent Design Check has been completed for each bridge • Seismic Design will be in accordance with the LRFD GuideSpec The structure design group will prepare detail drawings in accordance with the WSDOT Bridge Detailing Manual, WSDOT Bridge Design Manual, and WSDOT Drafting guidelines. The following drawings will be included: 15.18.1. Barker Road over BNSF Bridge Sheet Title: Number of Sheets: Layout 1 General Notes and Geometric Data 1 Construction Sequence 1 Foundation Layout 1 Pier Abutment Plan and Elevation 4 Pier Details 2 Bearing Details 1 Framing Plan 2 Typical Section 1 Precast Girder Schedule and Notes 1 Girder Details 2 Intermediate Diaphragm Details 1 Deck Reinforcing Plan 1 Deck Reinforcing Section 1 End Diaphragm Details 1 City of Spokane Valley Page 62 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Expansion Joint Details 1 Traffic Barrier Details 3 Bridge Railing Type BP Details 2 Approach Slab Details 2 Utility Hanger Details 1 Miscellaneous Details 1 Bar List 3 Total: 34 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Deck drains will not be necessary and the bridge will drain to catch basins located outside of the bridge structure in the approaches to the bridge. 2. Bridge foundations are spread footings. DELIVERABLES 1. 100% Bridge Plans 15.18.2. Structures QC/QA Documentation DEA will perform structural QC/QA efforts. DEA will submit checklists, comment forms, and a copy of the independent design calculation check for the bridge that was developed as part of the 100% Design effort. The CONSULTANT team will not submit items of lesser importance such as intermediate backchecks, redlines, etc. ASSUMPTIONS 1. One hard color copy and one pdf electronic copy of each of the QC/QA documentation items listed below will be submitted as part of the 100% Design Package. DELIVERABLES 1. Independent Design Calculation check 2. Copy of Drawing Review Checklists for 100% Design Submittal 3. Copy of Engineer's Cost Estimate senior review documentation 15.18.3. Preliminary Bridge Load Ratings DEA will prepare design load rating calculations for the bridge in accordance with WSDOT Bridge Design procedures. Draft design load rating calculations and a Draft Summary Report will be prepared and appropriate QA/QC documentation will be prepared. WSDOT's Bridge Engineer will review the draft design load rating calculations and report and provide comments. DEA will revise the draft design load rating to address WSDOT's comments. Following construction, DEA will enter into a supplemental agreement (the future Engineer of Record agreement) to revise the draft design load ratings to reflect pertinent changes City of Spokane Valley Page 63 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B during construction. The final design load rating calculations and report will be submitted as part of this future agreement. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Load ratings for the bridge will be completed using PG Super software in accordance with the latest version of the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) and Chapter 13 of the WSDOT BDM. 2. DEA will enter into a supplemental agreement (the future Engineer of Record agreement) to revise the draft load ratings to reflect pertinent changes during construction. The final load rating calculations and report will be submitted as part of this future agreement. DELIVERABLES 1. Three (3) copies of the draft and final preliminary load rating calculations and summary report- PDF 15.19 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Plans - DEA DEA will finalize the Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Plans and staging overview plans in accordance with MUTCD and WSDOT standards. Additional adjustments to the plans will be made based on comments received at the 60% Design Review Meeting. 15.20 Specifications and Proposal - DEA & HDR The CONSULTANT team will update the special provisions based on 60% design comments and expand on level of detail of specifications. DEA will lead this effort with support by HDR and BA. 15.21 Contract Time Determination - DEA & HDR DEA will determine the contract construction time in accordance with CITY and WSDOT standards. A Microsoft Project construction schedule will be included in this task and be submitted with the 100% Design Review package. HDR will review and comment on the Contract Time Determination schedule. ASSUMPTIONS 1. The electronic construction schedule will be subject to change based on information provided by the successful bidder. The schedule is provided for planning purposes only. 15.22 Opinion of Probable Cost- DEA & HDR The CONSULTANT team will prepare a construction cost estimate for bid items using cost estimating software and current WSDOT average unit price data. Cost estimates at 100 percent plan development will be completed and submitted for CITY and WSDOT review. The cost estimate will have an appropriate contingency for a 100% Design Cost Estimate. DEA will lead this effort with support from HDR and BA. City of Spokane Valley Page 64 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 15.23 Basis of Estimate - DEA DEA will update the Basis of Estimate document prepared during Preliminary Design. The update will documents new assumptions or changed conditions that might affect the cost estimate. This document will be updated and prepared in accordance with WSDOT's Design Manual Section 300.06(3), Basis of Estimate. 15.24 QC Review of 100% Design Submittal — DEA & HDR A detailed review of the 100% Design Review Package will be completed by DEA and HDR Senior Transportation and Bridge Engineers not involved in developing the project design prior to Submittal. QC Review comments will be addressed prior to submittal to the CITY and WSDOT. 15.25 Submit 100% PS&E— DEA & HDR The CONSULTANT team will prepare the 100% design plans, special provisions, and estimate and submit to the CITY and WSDOT for review. The submittal package for review will include: • Project Specifications and Proposal • Construction Time Determination • Opinion of Probable Cost • Project cross sections at 50 foot intervals (25 foot intervals on curves) • Electronic base files via ProjectWise for review • The 100% Design Plans as described above and as included in the table below. ASSUMPTIONS 1. Quantities will be included in the project cost estimate. Q-Tab sheets and detailed project quantities will not be included in the project plan set. Plan Sheet Section DEA HDR TOTAL Title, Index and Vicinity Map 2 2 Survey Control and Found Monuments 5 5 Roadway Typical Sections 8 8 Alignment Plan sheets 6 6 Site Preparation Plans 7 7 Roadway Paving Plan and Profile Sheets 22 22 Paving and other Roadway/RAB Details 2 21 23 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plans 11 11 Drainage Plans for SR 290 and Local Roadways 6 6 Utility Plans 11 11 Landscape Plans 4 4 BNSF Bridge Contour Plans 2 2 Illumination Plans and Details 11 11 Intersection Control Plans and Details 1 1 City of Spokane Valley Page 65 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Plan Sheet Section DEA HDR TOTAL Channelization, Pavement Marking, Signing, and Sign 29 29 Structure Plans Bridge Sheets 38 38 Maintenance of Traffic (MOT)Plans 21 21 Total 114 93 207 15.26 Project Development Approval - DEA DEA will prepare the Project Development Approval Memorandum following the outline shown in WSDOT's Design Manual Section 300.04(2) (July 2017). The following items will be included in the Memorandum: • Stamped Cover Sheet (project description) • Required environmental documentation • Design Approval documents • Updated Basis of Design • Updated List of known Variances (if applicable) • Updated cost estimate • Completed Environmental Review Summary ASSUMPTIONS 1. Project Development Approval will be valid for three (3) years will follow the outline shown in WSDOT's Design Manual Section 300.04(2) (July 2017). DELIVERABLES 1. Draft Project Development Approval Memorandum 2. Final Project Development Approval Memorandum 15.27 100% Design Review Meeting — DEA & HDR DEA and HDR will attend the 100% Design Review meeting with the CITY and WSDOT staff. DEA will also prepare meeting minutes and distribute to the appropriate recipients by email. Prior to the meeting, DEA will assemble the comments received from the CITY and WSDOT in a comment response form. The team will address the comments and identify comments that require further discussion at the 100% Design Review meeting. The compiled comment form will be provided to attendees at the 100% Design Review meeting and the 100% design review comment form will be included in the PS&E submittal. ASSUMPTIONS 1. There will be one Design Review Meeting lasting four (4) hours. 2. Four (4) DEA staff will attend (Project Manager, Bridge Lead, Traffic Control Lead, and Traffic Design Lead) 3. Three (3) HDR staff will attend (Transportation Lead, Roadway Lead, Drainage Lead) City of Spokane Valley Page 66 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B 4. The CITY will prepare a comment form with comments collected from CITY and WSDOT staff and will resolve difference between comments from different reviewers. The comment form will be provided to the CONSULTANT team prior to the review meeting so the CONSULTANT can prepare to only address necessary comments at the meeting. DELIVERABLES 1. 100% Design Review Package TASK 16 AD-READY DESIGN - DEA & HDR 16.1 Prepare PS&E Package- DEA & HDR DEA and HDR will revise the 100% Design plans, special provisions, cost estimate, and associated materials to address review comments. 16.1.1. Plans 100% Design Review comments will be addressed by DEA and HDR, details will be revised, and coordination as required between roadway and bridge designers on geometrics, traffic control, drainage, fencing, barrier and guardrail details, etc. will be accomplished. Required revisions, received by e-mail or phone, from the CITY or WSDOT two weeks prior to the PS&E Submittal will be incorporated. 16.1.2. Specifications and Proposal Referring to the latest WSDOT Standards, Specifications, and current Supplemental Specifications, DEA and HDR will make revisions to the Special Provisions and other elements of the project's Proposal. 16.1.3. Opinion of Probable Cost Final revisions will be made to the project's construction cost estimate to reflect comments obtained during 100% Design Review. 16.1.4. Construction Time Determination CPD Final revisions will be made to the project's Construction Time Determination CPD to reflect comments obtained during 100% Design Review. 16.1.5. QC of PS&E A detailed review of the PS&E Submittal Package will be completed by DEA and HDR senior-level Engineers not involved in developing the project design prior to the PS&E Submittal. QC Review comments will be addressed prior to submittal to the CITY and WSDOT. 16.1.6. Submit Ad-ready PS&E Package DEA will assemble the above described 100% Plans, Specifications, Estimate, Cost Estimate, and Construction Time Determination CPD estimate components. The Ad-ready PS&E Package will be submitted to the CITY and WSDOT for review. CITY and WSDOT will review the submittal concurrently. The Ad-ready PS&E documents will be reviewed and approved and then issued for bid advertisement. City of Spokane Valley Page 67 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B ASSUMPTIONS 1. Required revisions, received by e-mail or phone, from the CITY and WSDOT prior to the PS&E Submittal will be incorporated. 2. The Ad-ready stamped bridge plans from this submittal will be used for the BNSF Phase C Submittal Package. DELIVERABLES 1. Opinion of Probable Cost (signed/stamped) - PDF 2. CPM Schedule for Construction Duration - PDF 3. Specifications and Special Provisions - MS Word 4. signed and sealed project plans for the CITY- 1 hard copy, bond paper, 22x34 5. signed and sealed project plans for the CITY- PDF, 22x34 6. Electronic deliverables will be provided to the CITY. 16.2 Resident Engineer Files - DEA and HDR DEA and HDR will prepare and transmit the Resident Engineer package to the CITY (one (1) electronic file and one hard copy). The package will be prepared in an easy to reference notebook and will include the following: 16.2.1. Cross Sections - HDR HDR will create a MicroStation DGN and a Civil3D 2018 AutoCAD DWG file (of the DGN reference files) with cross sections at 50-ft stations (25-ft stations on curves). 16.2.2. Grade Books for the project - HDR 16.2.3. Roadway Quantity Worksheets - HDR This includes worksheets demonstrating how roadway quantities were developed. 16.2.4. Compiled Project Information - DEA & HDR This includes compiling Design Approval signature sheets, field survey data and information, environmental permits and approvals, project contact information, utility waivers and/or agreements, Public Involvement Summary, and project CADD Files. 16.3 Bid Assistance - DEA & HDR DEA and HDR will be available to answer questions and to assist the CITY during the advertising and bidding process. This task assumes that up to 40 hours (20 hours for DEA and 20 hours for HDR) will be required for bidding assistance. DELIVERABLES 1. 100% PS&E package (hard copy and electronic) 2. Resident Engineer File Package (hard copy and electronic versions) City of Spokane Valley Page 68 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B v. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS This Scope of Services is based upon certain assumptions and exclusions, identified below and under specific tasks. The following assumptions were used in the development of this scope of services 1. The project management budget for the Scope of Services is based on a project duration from April 2018 to December 2019, for a total of 21 months. 2. The level of effort for a given work task is limited to the amount of labor and expenses indicated in Exhibit D. Out-of-scope services beyond these limits will be provided as Extra Work. The CONSULTANT reserves the opportunity to shift budget between work tasks and between labor and expenses. 3. WSDOT LAG agreement for cost plus fixed fee with a not to exceed maximum will be utilized. If the scope of services increases or decreases as it relates to this original scope of services, then an adjustment to the associated fees and delivery schedule will be executed once the CITY and the CONSULTANT mutually agree on the terms of the change. 4. CITY will provide all traffic engineering analysis services for this contract through a separate agreement with a third party/Traffic Engineering Consultant. 5. Alternative 5 from the Phase 1 contract is the alternative that will be advanced to Final Design and PS&E preparation. 6. WSDOT will review and approve project elements that could impact SR 290. 7. WSDOT Bridge and Structures will not review and approve bridge plans outside of WSDOT Right-of-Way. 8. CITY will submit reimbursement requests/coordinate with the respective funding and approval agencies involved in the project. 9. No retaining walls are anticipated with the project. If it is determined that retaining walls are necessary, their evaluation and design will be considered Extra Work. 10. All signs within the project limits will be replaced. 11. WSDOT Design and Local Agency Guideline (LAG) Manuals will be consulted for specifications and general special provisions. CITY Special Provisions will also be utilized where pertinent. 12. Opinion of Probable Costs are estimated values. Therefore, CONSULTANT makes no warranty that actual project costs, financial aspects, economic feasibility, or schedules will not vary from CONSULTANT's opinions, analyses, projections or estimates. 13. WSDOT standard bid items will be used for all items on the project unless unavailable for items specified by special provisions. 14. CITY will prepare the contract bid package and insert the CONSULTANT-prepared Special Provisions and bid proposal sheet. VI. DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY CONSULTANT The documents, exhibits, or other presentations as described as Deliverables under SCOPE OF SERVICES ("Documents") will be furnished by CONSULTANT to CITY upon completion of the various tasks. Whether the Documents are submitted in electronic media or in tangible format, any use of the Documents on another project or on extensions of this project beyond the use for which they were intended, or any modification of the Documents, or conversion of the City of Spokane Valley Page 69 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B Documents to an alternate system or format will be without liability or legal exposure to CONSULTANT. CITY will assume all risks associated with such use, modifications, or conversions. CONSULTANT may remove from the electronic Documents delivered to CITY all references to CONSULTANT's involvement and will retain a tangible copy of the Documents delivered to CITY which will govern the interpretation of the Documents and the information recorded. vii. ITEMS AND SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED BY CITY The CITY will provide the following items and services to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT is entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of the items and services furnished by the CITY. CITY PROVIDED ITEMS: 1. All traffic analysis needs and analyzes required as part of this project. This includes traffic data, conclusions, and recommendations developed by the CITY from previous work or through current contracts with others. This would include the current study being developed for the Spokane Valley Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). This would also include five-year crash data. 2. Any NEPA Environmental research and mapping developed during Phase 1 of the project. 3. Printing and mounting displays for Public Meetings. 4. Site plans for proposed, future, or recently constructed buildings or developments in the project area. 5. Available record drawings and information on the current project and on public works and/or private projects in the immediate vicinity. 6. Aerial photograph of Project limits (electronic file). 7. The CITY will, through a separate agreement with another consultant, provide the necessary Capacity Justification Report as required by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) Congestion Management Process VIII. EXTRA WORK All work not described above will be considered Extra Work. At the request of the CITY, the CONSULTANT will perform Extra Work as a supplement to this Agreement. This work may include: 1. Retaining Wall Design; 2. Design services for northerly extension of Barker Road; IX. TIME FOR COMPLETION After the PROJECT kickoff meeting is held, a schedule will be prepared based on CITY and CONSULTANT feedback. Following is an estimated PROJECT schedule: Task Timeframe Project management and Quality Control April 2018 to January 2020 CITY and WSDOT Coordination April 2018-January 2020 BNSF Temporary Occupancy April 2018 City of Spokane Valley Page 70 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation-Phase II Scope of Services-Exhibit B Timeframe Design, Cadastral,and ROW Surveying April 2018 -June 2018 Geotechnical Borings April 2018 -June 2018 BNSF ROE, Design Exception Meeting April 2018 - May 2018 NEPA Document and Approval May 2018 -December 2018 BNSF Design Phase A Preparation/Approval April 2018 -August 2018 Preliminary Design Package May 2018 - September 2018 Open House #1 T.B.D. Preliminary Bridge Plans for Approval August 2018 -October 2018 Channelization Plans for WSDOT Approval August 2018 -October 2018 BNSF Design Phase B Preparation/Approval October 2018—January 2019 60%PS&E T.B.D. Right of Way and Relocation Plans preparation October 2018 -January 2019 Open House #2 T.B.D. Right of-way Acquisition October 2018 -August 2019 100%PS&E October 2018 -March 2019 Open House #3 T.B.D. Ad-ready PS&E Package for Bid April 2019 -October 2019 BNSF Design Phase C Preparation/Approval June 2019 - September 2019 Right-of-Way Certification October 2019 Construction Fund Obligation November 2019 Bid Advertisement December 2019 x. MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND A Management Reserve Fund (MRF) will be created in accordance with LAG Manual to account for any unanticipated needs outside of the above listed Scope of Services. This fund can only be utilized with advance written authorization by the CITY. End of Scope of Services City of Spokane Valley Page 71 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation—Phase II Scope of Services—Exhibit B +__ °� 118+12 07 POE.- --" t 0 200 100 1ST- , �Nt R N SCALE IN FEET is - � , (TRENT 3 i � q qI HIGH-EST LLC I EB rRENT z 8 k (1.18 AC.) k.','). Q"?" N pv� 9V ss;.;. by 01.4 C ''53+56.61 P.T. - - TRENT AVE.STA.109+19.22 = c BARKER RD.STA.19+88.55 �,° M`'S EB TRENT 1 0 0, 050+88.86 P.C. - CASSELL oA/ • ;.` - BRADLEY 50+00.00 P.0.B. - - - 0.75 AC. 1 fll{LF // • HIGH-EST LLC _' " ry . , • (0.53 AC.) , — w �� GUTHRIE, e t sTpSPz. RII (0.OAC.). r`.GUZ �° ..s5;'`./ - BARKER 1 ' TRENT 1 � t JS i t7+4646 PCS'_. ' • • EXISTINGBNSF" .` I Y..-' .... .: ..,. _ - e - - I TRACK r' �I��. # I 1 - a iii777 4I .`�� 1 DeItaVE6 48E15T 1 Delta=15°°50'26' I. BARKER 1 a:% # HART & HART ...15 °Y'" ' `, i II i .`" R= 2024.00' R= 400' T= 120.32' T= 55.65' CC (0.53 AC.) ;�. -• I 1' I �) L= 240.36 Ft. L= 110.59 Ft. O' ENTERPRISES,LLC 3 OC e%= 4.4% *(50MPH) e= NC (30MPH) CURVE TRENT CURVEEB TRENT 1 a " 2N — - -- -- -I' Delta= 14°27'41" Delta= 38°21'09" 00 • 1 R= 700.00' R= 400' PRIVATE RaA_�——— t• II T= 88.81' T= 139.11' 'I L= 176.68 Ft. L= 267.75 Ft. c e%= 8.0% `(45MPH) a%= 2.0% (30MPH) t1 O t Y CURVE TRENT 3 CURVE EB TRENT 2 IIS 1 JOVI,LLC MEADOWHILL CORP/ Delta= 15°24'34" Delta= 25°56'59" P BARKER PROPERTIES,LLC R= 1580' R= 812' (2 29 AC.) (0.27 AC.) rtr�rt r- T= 213.76' T= 187.09' L= 424.94 Ft. L= 367.76 Ft. 1 z nmr.g. e%= 6.0% '(50MPH) a%= 5.8% `(45MPH) I. — "SUPERELEVATION RATES BASED ON P.n I e, I Ill' OPEN ROADWAY DESIGN (ane " '1" iNOTE:AREAS LISTED ARE Im)� Dalley P.o. u,. BARKER &TRENT ALTERNATIVE 5 PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS •�LI;NoASSOLEAAESINc• CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 10, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: License Agreement with Spokane Airport Board GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: When Spokane Valley incorporated, it received from Spokane County the existing rights-of-way (ROW) throughout the City. One such ROW is Dora Road adjacent to Felts Field Airport. At some point in the years prior to our incorporation, a portion of Dora Road was inadvertently fenced so that it appeared to be part of the airport. The area of ROW at issue is located at the intersection of Rutter Parkway and Dora Road, and measures approximately 10 feet by 557.25 feet. An aerial photo is included for reference as Attachment 1. The Spokane Airport Board (SAB), the entity which manages Felts Field and the Spokane International Airport, notified the City recently of this situation, and asked staff how we would like to address this issue. SAB is a collaborative ownership by Spokane County and the City of Spokane, and is quasi-municipal in nature. After discussion with legal counsel for the SAB, City staff is proposing the grant of a 30-year License Agreement for the continued use of this area. Additionally, upon mutual written agreement of the parties, an additional 30-year license may be granted, however in the renewal period if it is invoked, the City would have the option of cancelling the license with at least six months prior notice. A copy of the proposed License Agreement is attached as Attachment 2. The City would not receive any financial compensation for the continued use of this land. Our Community and Public Works Department identified that it has no immediate need for the property for ROW purposes, but prefers not to transfer permanent ownership of the property. Staff would be happy to answer any questions you may have. OPTIONS: (1) Consensus to place on a future agenda for motion consideration; (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on a future agenda for motion consideration. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA. STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: (1) Aerial photos of subject area; (2) Proposed License Agreement. iPad ^ 9:28 AM @ $ 100%. 1. cp.spokanecounty.org C, , + H - . Measure ' More Info •v ,- 1T–i— os • -- „, , 1 k:I., , ., k • - • t47'• 1 :1., ,,...,:i,,,, .,.a114.004. 11;111110f 1111' • i `I -' c.. Vgr ismi� .. `,- ,,,, giAve -_'41112 10►1 ... .i't Ig:'' I 'r"..--. .1r.' i Itimmatf 1, S f h 1 C 1 t:. 1-4 . 14,:i1.11::',',.11..*-7 ,r;i:,:;':'''::,re:71'-.1,1_1-1:—.4-' , OP 1 al InTir..40-kt :„.,. , i- . 0 hi .03i. 1,, - - .v. 1 i 61 : 71,:_, , . .111$ _...A,... v til . 0,—.. * .:14$114:1011F'..”' . '..;.,-;;-.,,...1-1'.......ITV*: - poi b1- _ . . 1iii 1 .0 r. .,a f y_ • ., ti ., 111 Tax Parcels I1 Districts II Permits 11 Zoning 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Spokane Valley 10210 East Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99206 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDING ONLY Document Title: License Agreement Grantor(s): City of Spokane Valley, a Municipal Corporation Grantee: Spokane Airport Board 9000 West Airport Drive, #201 Spokane, WA 99224 Legal Description: Attachment A Additional Legal Description: Industrial Assessor's Tax Parcel Number: ROW east of north of 55053.0113 and 55053.0118 Reference Number: LICENSE AGREEMENT For mutually valuable consideration accruing to both parties, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") hereby grants to the Spokane Airport Board and its successors, a License to use the City property("Premises") described in SECTION 1, below. SECTION 1 —DESCRIPTION The Premises subject to this License is right-of-way comprised of a portion of Dora Road lying north of its intersection with East Rutter Avenue, and which lies immediately east of the western property line of parcels 35121.3005 and 35121.2803, measuring approximately 10 feet by 557.25 feet. Page 1 of 3 The legal description for the subject property is as follows: A 10 foot by 557.25 foot wide strip of land which forms part of Dora Road as more specifically set forth in Attachment A, Records of Spokane County, Washington. SECTION 2 - PURPOSE The City hereby grants to the Spokane Airport Board a License to use the Premises for general aviation purposes associated with the operation of Felts Field Airport, and purposes related thereto. SECTION 3 - TERM This License shall commence at 12:01 a.m. on March 31, 2018, and shall expire at 12:01 on March 31, 2048. The parties may mutually agree in writing to extend this time period to March 31, 2078, however during this renewal period, the City may revoke this License upon at least six months prior written notice. This License is subject to the rights of any other person or entity with any pre-existing interest in the subject property, including utility providers. SECTION 4 - CONDITIONS Spokane Airport Board shall use the Premises in a manner that does not violate any applicable laws and regulations of any state, federal, or municipal entity. SECTION 5—LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION The Spokane Airport Board shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, orders, decrees or judgments for injuries, death or damage to any person or property arising or resulting from a negligent act or omission on the part of the Spokane Airport Board or its agents, employees or volunteers in the use of this License. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against its officers, agents or employees, the Spokane Airport Board shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; and if final judgment is rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees,then the Spokane Airport Board shall satisfy the same. SECTION 6—MODIFICATION No modification of the License can be made without prior written approval of the City. Upon such an event, Spokane Airport Board will be given reasonable notice of the modification and a reasonable time to comply with the new terms and/or provide the City with written notice of termination pursuant to SECTION 7, below. SECTION 7—TERMINATION The Parties may agree to terminate this License upon mutually agreeable terms. Page 2 of 3 DATED this day of , 2018. GRANTOR: City of Spokane Valley By: Mark Calhoun, City Manager GRANTEE: ACCEPTANCE OF LICENSE AGREEMENT Spokane Airport Board Signature Name and title: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Spokane ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the individual who appeared before me, and said individual acknowledged that he signed this instrument, and acknowledged it as his free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED this day of , 2018. Notary Public for the State of Washington Residing at My commission expires Page 3 of 3 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of April 5,2018; 9:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress;items are tentative To: Council& Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings April 17,2018,Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 101 ACTION ITEMS: 1.Motion Consideration: Bid Award: 8th Ave. Sidewalk, Thierman to Dickey-E.Amsden, G.Mantz (10 mins) 2.Motion Consideration: Bid Award, 32nd Avenue Sidewalk—Gloria Mantz,Rob Lochmiller (10 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3. Waste Management Transition Report—Erik Lamb,Tami Yager (20 minutes) 4. Legislative Update Concerning Service Animals—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 5.Broadway/Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersection—Gloria Mantz,Rob Lochmiller (10 minutes) 6. Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection Design Alternatives—Gloria Mantz (20 minutes) 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 mins] April 24,2018,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 171 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Brdway/Argonne/Mullan Con. Int. Bid Award—G.Mantz,R.Lochmiller(10 min) 3.Motion Consideration: Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection Design Selection—Gloria Mantz (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: License Agreement w/Spokane Airport Bd(Dora Rd,Felts Field)—C.Driskell(10 min) 5.Admin Report: Quarterly Police Department Report—Chief Werner (10 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Economic Analysis of Tourism Related Venues&Events— Chelsie Taylor (45 minutes) 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 8. Info Item: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 95 mins] May 1,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 241 ACTION ITEMS: 1.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Pines/Grace Intersection Safety Proj ect-C.Aldworth, G.Mantz(10 min) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Spokane Regional Health District Opioid Epidemic—Dr. Lutz (25 minutes) 3.Mission Avenue Improvement Project—Craig Aldworth,Gloria Mantz (10 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 mins] May 8,2018,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 11 Proclamations:Lemonade Day, May 19, 2018;Lupus Awareness Month 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. 2018 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) May 15,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 81 1. Proposed 2019-2024 Six-Year TIP—Colin Quinn-Hurst (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda -Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) May 22,2018,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 151 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2018 Budget Amendment— Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2.First Reading Ordinance Amending 2018 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Mission Ave Improv. Project-C.Aldworth.G.Mantz (10 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 6. Info Item: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 50 mins] Draft Advance Agenda 4/5/2018 9:04:40 AM Page 1 of 3 May 29,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. fdue Tue May 221 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) June 5,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. fdue Tue May 291 ACTION ITEM: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2019-2024 TIP—Colin Quinn-Hurst (10 minutes) 2. Resolution 18- Adopting 2019-2024, Six-Year TIP— Colin Quinn-Hurst (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance Amending 2018 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 4. Retail Recruitment Plan—Chaz Bates (20 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 mins] June 12,2018, Formal 6 pm Meeting cancelled June 12,2018, Special Meeting,Budget Workshop (8:30 a.m.—3:30 p.m.) [due Tue June 51 June 19,2018, Study Session,with action items 6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 12 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports(normally due for the June 26 meeting) June 26,2018,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. meeting will possibly be cancelled due to Councilmembers attending the AWC Conference June 26-29,2018:AWC Annual Conference, Yakima, WA July 3,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 261 July 10,2018,Formal meeting Format,6:00 p.m. fdue MON July 31 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) July 17,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 101 1. Council Goals/Priorities for Lodging Tax—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda -Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) July 24,2018,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 171 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Quarterly Police Department Report—Chief Werner (10 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 4. Info Item: Department Reports July 31,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 241 1.Motion Consideration: Council Goals/Priorities For Lodging Tax—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) August 7,2018 Meeting Cancelled—National Night Out August 14,2018,Formal meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 71 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 4/5/2018 9:04:40 AM Page 2 of 3 August 21,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. fdue Tue Aug 141 1. Estimated Revenues&Expenditures 2019 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) August 28,2018,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 211 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3. Info Item: Department Reports Sept 4,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 281 Sept 11,2018,Formal meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 41 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Sept 18,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 111 1.Advance Agenda -Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Sept 25,2018,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 181 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3. Info Item: Department Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Animal Control Regulations(SVMC 7.30) BNSF 2nd Rail Camping in RVs Citizen Recognition(city keys) City Hall Generator Donation Recognition Duplex/Single Family Dwellings Definition Governance Manual ITS/SRTMC Discussion Legislative Remote Testimony(Chambers) LTAC/Council Jt Mtg(Aug?) Naming City Facilities Protocol Neighborhood Restoration Program Police Dept. Quarterly Rpt(April,July,Oct,Jan) Police Precinct Lease Renewal (Nov '18) Sign Ordinance Street Addressing Standard St. Illumination(ownership,cost,location) St.O&M Pavement Preservation Street Construction Tobacco 21 Resolution SV Youth Voices Utility Facilities in ROW Draft Advance Agenda 4/5/2018 9:04:40 AM Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 10, 2018 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Land Acquisition GOVERNING LEGISLATION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)] PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I Move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss land acquisition, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell ATTACHMENTS: