HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-2332 - Agreement for Street & Highway Improvement on Pacific Coast HighwayRECORDING REQUESTED BY AN[
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
92-080803
ftwo .. .e
Governftwt Code 6103
=EXEMPT
-H!o AM MA' 9'82
Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only
MAR � icy �� PERMIT AGREEMENT
OK
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this , _ day of
3 T 1982, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal
Corporation, fiereinafter referred to as "CITY", and HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
hereinafter referred to as "PERMITTEE", is made with reference to the following
facts:
A. CITY controls certain public street rights-of-way (hereinafter
"streets"), located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of
California, which streets are known as Hospital Road, Placentia Avenue, and
Flagship Road.
B. PERMITTEE is a private company providing communications services
to private customers.
C. PEKMITI EE desires to construct two conduits (hereinafter also
called improvements), each four inches in diameter in said streets in order to
connect a microwave antenna located on top of a tower at the Hoag Memorial
Hospital, Presbyterian, with a private office building located at 500 Superior
Avenue in said City of Newport Beach; the location of said conduit as shown on
the drawing which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by reference. PERMITTEE acknowledges and agrees that other permits and
permit requirements may be imposed by CITY as a condition precedent to what is
contemplated by this Agreement.
D. The design of the improvements is in accord with currently accepted
engineering standards.
E. CITY desires to condition its approval of the construction of the
improvements as set forth in Exhibit "A", and the parties agree that an Agreement
providing for the fulfillment of these conditions, imposed by CITY on PERMITTEE,
w
is appropriate to guarantee performance of those conditions.
Y3
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1 of 4
1. RIGHTS OF PERMITTEE
CITY hereby grants to PERMITTEE the right to construct, reconstruct,
install, maintain, use, operate, repair and replace the improvements, all in
substantial conformance with plans and specifications therefor on file in the
Public Works Department of the City of Newport Beach, in, over and across those
certain easements described in paragraph A above.
2. PERMITTEE'S DUTIES
PERMITTEE shall properly and regularly maintain the improvements
and shall timely pay all costs and expenses incurred during said maintenance.
In the event that PERMITTEE fails to properly and/or regularly maintain the
improvements, CITY may, at its option, remove the improvements or assume the
maintenance of the improvements, and PERMITTEE agrees to.pay all costs incurred
by CITY in removing or maintaining said improvements, should CITY assume its
right to do so, pursuant to this paragraph.
3. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
Rights granted under this Agreement shall terminate twenty (20)
years from the date of this Agreement unless earlier terminated as provided herein.
In the event that CITY desires to use the easement for street or public purposes,
CITY may terminate this Agreement by giving sixty (60) days' notice of its in-
tention to so do, specifying in said notice the date of termination. CITY shall
incur no liability whatsoever in the event of any early termination of this
Agreement and the consequent removal of improvements by the CITY.
4. REPAIRS
CITY has the right to make such repairs to the improvements as it
deems necessary for the protection of the general public, health, safety and
welfare. PERMITTEE hereby grants to CITY the right to make repairs as provided
herein, or to remove improvements in the event of an early termination of this
Agreement, because of the need of the CITY to use the easements for street or..
public purposes.
5. INDEMNIFICATION
PERMITTEE agrees to indemnify and defend CITY and its officers and
employees, and to hold the CITY harmless from, any and all demands, claims,
losses, or liability that arises out of or is in any way related to, the con-
struction, use, maintenance or repair of said improvements.
2of4
6. BREACH
In the event PERMITTEE breaches any provision of this Agreement,
CITY may, in addition to other legal remedies available to it, terminate this
Agreement. CITY may enter upon the easement and remove all or part of the im-
provements installed by PERMITTEE pursuant to this Agreement. Termination
because of breach shall be upon a minimum of ten (10) days' Notice, with the
Notice specifying the date of termination.
7. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Agreement are independent and severable
and the invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforceability of any one provision
or portion thereof shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other
provision hereof.
8. RECORDATION
Each of the parties hereto specifically consents to the recordation
of this Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder in and for the County of
Orange, State of California, and all the covenants, restrictions and charges
hereunder and all their benefits and burdens shall run with the land, pursuant
to Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California.
9. ASSIGNMENT
The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon
the successors and assigns of PERMITTEE and shall also be binding upon permittees
who take title to the property by reason of foreclosure, trustee's sale or other-
wise.
10. NOTICE
When notice is to be given pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be
addressed as follows:_
CITY
City of Newport Beach
Office of the City Attorney
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
PERMITTEE
Hughes Communications, Inc.
Post Office Box 92424
World Way Postal Center
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Attention: C. T. Whitehead, President
3of4
Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of mailing and notice
shall be addressed as above and mailed first class, postage pre -paid thereon.
Executed the day and year first above written at Newport Beach,
California.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT
M -t
Ci ty Attorney;
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a Municipal Corporation
11/Mayo
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
a Corporation
By
President m c°e re 4sn
R
4of4
T
W
X
W
X
W
J
IL
W
N
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
On this 5th day of March in the year 1982 ,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared Jacqueline E. Heather a-nd Wanda E. Andersen
known to me to be Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Newport
Beach and known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument
on behalf of said governmental agency, and acknowledged to me that such
governmental agency executed the same.
WITNESS my hand,_.,and offici l seal.
Signature
Dcrothy.. . Palen
TO 449 C O
(Corporation)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS.
COUNTY OF oS/ t _.:/
On i J tX00 /9e before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appe ed
known to me to be the President, and
known to me to be Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument,
known to me to be the persons who executed the within
Instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within
instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board
of directors. �
WITNESS my hand and official seal. �,... OFFICIAL SEAL
2: hF, ELEANOR R MC LEMORE
m .A
w cn NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
Signature ��` �`'''LOS ANGELES COUNTY
18 084
✓ �aL, "s- My comm. expires TUN
Name (Typed or Printed)
(This area for official notarial seal)
()FF,jri_AL SEAL
DOIRO I i f r' L. PALEN
C ' IIOR01A
NOTARY PUBi iC -
PWNCiPA Offi c:
ORANGE COUNT -Y
y Carlini Expires Apr115A1 5
TO 449 C O
(Corporation)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS.
COUNTY OF oS/ t _.:/
On i J tX00 /9e before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appe ed
known to me to be the President, and
known to me to be Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument,
known to me to be the persons who executed the within
Instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within
instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board
of directors. �
WITNESS my hand and official seal. �,... OFFICIAL SEAL
2: hF, ELEANOR R MC LEMORE
m .A
w cn NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
Signature ��` �`'''LOS ANGELES COUNTY
18 084
✓ �aL, "s- My comm. expires TUN
Name (Typed or Printed)
(This area for official notarial seal)
I:10
�wm,
ILM
�O iC..L r7�c10c�''d
8
G'/ c'r P, 7/h'
a trod
r'
LAW OFFICES OF
WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART
A PROFESSION L CORnRATIM
RECEIVED
ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM '97 MAY 27 A10:19
TO: Jan Debay, Chair CITY CLERK
William G. Steiner, Director
HE OFFICE OF T John E. Noyes, Director CITY OF td THE C T BEACH
Date
FROM: General Counsel
Copies Sent Ta
DATE: May 22, 1997 ,.Mayor
3 Auncd Member y
RE: Contract No. 5 -37 -3 0 Manager
Pacific Coast Highway Gravity Sewer O Attomey
Contractor Wal -Con Construction Company Q
Claim No. 5- CSD- 96 -L -20 Q
O
On July 17, 1996, Wal -Con Construction Company, (hereinafter "Wal- Con ") filed
a claim with the District for equitable adjustment and breach of contract, due to its' alleged
loss of efficiency of production, for the contract work done between January 30, 1996 and
July 16, 1996 on the Pacific Coast Highway. During the ensuing several months, there
were a great number of meetings and an exchange of several items of correspondence
between District representatives and the Wal -Con representatives, and no resolution of
this claim or the disagreement over the work to be done, was ever reached.
On December 20, 1996, Wal -Con filed a specific claim under the provisions of the
California Tort Claims Act, California Government Code Section 900 et seq. alleging that
they had completed all their work satisfactorily as of July 31, setting forth that they had
encountered numerous unknown and unanticipated difficulties for which they had
submitted a request for adjustment as referenced above. The claim totaled $761,156.00
of which $691,395.00 was supposedly based on labor and equipment inefficiency. My
office and the District's Engineering /Construction staff worked on this matter during all of
the times in question, and again attempted to bring resolution to this dispute. Seeing that
the contractor was unable to set aside the claim or even compromise the claim, the District
engaged an independent consultant who specializes in the area of construction claims.
This consultant, High -Point Rendel prepared a claim analysis that was submitted to this
office as a confidential attorney work product, wherein they very carefully and thoroughly
analyzed each and every assertion set forth by the contractor. In summary, the
consultant's report concluded that the claim of the contractor was totally without merit, that
they had, in fact, been paid 100% of any possible damage that resulted from change
orders, and that the claims were based on unproven theories and were not supported by
any documentary proof.
•
Jan Debay, Chair
John E. Noyes, Director
William G. Steiner, Director
May 22, 1997
Page 2
The District Board is now faced with making a decision relating to this claim.
Specifically, the Director of Engineering is notifying the contractor this week that its' protest
and claim is being denied in its entirety, and that his decision is final. This could
precipitate one of two possible actions by the contractor in the immediate future:
1. Filing a protest with the District which the Board would have to review; or
2. Filing a lawsuit to seek to recover on the claim.
The general provisions of the District's construction contracts, Section 8 -4, sets
forth the procedure to be followed when work is demanded of the contractor by the District
and the contractor objects. Specifically, the contractor, within ten (10) days after a
demand, instruction, ruling or a decision is made by the Director of Engineering (or his
designee), must file a written protest. The references above to the correspondence
regarding claims, etc., clearly satisfy this protest provision.
Section 8-4 further provides that on receipt of the protest from the contractor, the
District Engineer will review the demand and shall promptly advise the contractor in writing
of the final decision. That is the decision that will be served on the contractor this week.
Finally, Section 8 -4 provides:
"The final decision shall be binding, unless within
ten (10) days of its issuance the contractor files a
written formal protest with the District. The Board of
Directors shall consider and render a final decision
of any such formal protest within 45 days of receipt
of same."
It is anticipated that upon receipt from Mr. Ludwin of his decision to deny the protest
and the claim, the contractor, Wal -Con, will file a protest with the District. THE
PROVISIONS DO NOT REQUIRE THE DISTRICT TO CONDUCT A HEARING BEFORE
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO RESOLVE THE PROTEST. The Board, upon receipt
of the protest, will simply be presented with the records upon which the Director of
Engineering based his decision, and at that time, your Board can elect to do any of the
following:
Jan Debay, Chair
John E. Noyes, Director
William G. Steiner, Director
May 22, 1997
Page 3
1. Determine that there is no reasonable basis to have the Board hold a
hearing de novo, in which both the District staff and the contractor would
present detailed facts through documentation and verbal presentation.
2. The Board could order a hearing de novo to review all of the facts of both
parties.
3. The Board could order a hearing, but to be conducted by an independent
hearing officer in lieu of your own Board.
4. Simply order the Director of Engineering to reconsider his decision.
Apart from the tremendous time consumption that a hearing before your Board
would require, it is my opinion that Board review of a protest of this nature, is bad
precedent for the Board to establish. At the same time, it would certainly be appropriate
for the Board to receive a presentation by the District staff setting forth the factual basis
by which the Director of Engineering rendered his final decision. The Board can make its
own evaluation of that decision, and then elect any of the options set forth above.
This memo is sent to you in advance of any formal protest being filed and received
by the District, in order that you may be aware that such an event could occur. At the Joint
Board Meeting of May 28, 1996, 1 will be available to answer any questions which you may
have.
714OMAS L. W ODRUFF
/GE' NERAL COUNSEL - CSDOC
TLW:kir
cc: Mr. D.F. McIntyre
Mr. B.P. Anderson
Ms. J.A. Wilson
Mr. D.A. Ludwin
Mr. J. Linder
. c• a3��-
Pacific Coast Highway Widening
at Bay Bridge Pump Station
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON Q4-' j ) )A , 1912�1
is between the COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 of ORANGE COUNTY,
a public corporation, referred to herein as DISTRICT, and
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a
body politic and a municipal
corporation of the State of
California, referred to herein
as CITY.
=1-
RECITALS
1. CITY made a proposal to DISTRICT to include certain
street and highway improvements on Pacific Coast Highway with
the DISTRICT's modification of the sewage facility at the
Bay Bridge Pump Station.
2. DISTRICT is willing to undertake the construction of
said street improvements on Pacific Coast Highway, hereinafter
referred to as PROJECT, in conjunction with its construction
as per Exhibit A attached hereto, and by this reference made a
part of this agreement.
3. DISTRICT and CITY mutually desire to specify the terms
and conditions under which PROJECT is to be financed.
SECTION I
DISTRICT AGREES:
1. To include CITY's plans and specifications to construct
PROJECT in DISTRICT's contract for relocation of Bay Bridge Force
Main (Contract No. 5 -18R).
2. To construct PROJECT in accordance with the plans and
specifications of CITY. CITY's specifications shall be that of
the State of California, Department of Transportation.
3. To apply for and receive the necessary encroachment
permits for work within the State Highway right -of -way.
4. To retain or cause to retain for audit for a period of
-2-
i
three (3) years from the date of final payment all records and
accounts relating to construction of the project.
5. To award the contract for CITY's project in accordance
with all legal requirements of a public bidding process.
6. To pay the contractor for all work performed in the
construction of PROJECT.
7. Except to the extent that on -site necessities require
immediate action, to submit all proposed change orders for the
PROJECT contractor to CITY, for its approval.
SECTION II
CITY AGREES:
1. To pay DISTRICT an amount not to exceed $3,000 for
revision of DISTRICT's improvement plans, specifications and
construction surveying CITY's improvements within thirty (30)
days of billing.
2. To deposit with DISTRICT, within thirty (30) days of
receipt of billing therefor (which billing will be forwarded
immediately.following DISTRICT's bid advertising date of con-
struction contract No. 5 -18R) the amount of $25,500 which is the
I
estimated total amount as detailed on EXHIBIT B, attached hereto
and made part of this Agreement.
3. To pay DISTRICT, within thirty (30) days of final
audited cost of construction for PROJECT, the total amount of
the contract, including all change orders based upon unit
-3-
prices and actual quantities of items; plus a sum equal to
fifteen percent (15 %) for overhead and administrative costs
incurred by DISTRICT.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT:
1. That neither DISTRICT nor any officer or employee
thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability
occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be due by
CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or juris-
diction not delegated to DISTRICT under this Agreement. It is
also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code
Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify and hold DISTRICT
harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by
Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything
done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with
any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under
this Agreement.
2. That neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof
is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason
of anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated
to DISTRICT under this Agreement. It is also understood and
agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, DISTRICT
shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability
-4-
liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code
Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted
to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this
Agreement.
3. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement,
ownership and title to all materials, equipment and appurtenances
installed will automatically be vested to the CITY and no further
agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the CITY.
4. That this Agreement shall terminate upon completion
and acceptance of,PROJECT.
COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT NO. 5 OF
ORANGE COUNTY
By
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ap ve,d As To Form: Approved As To (Form:
W � /J �
Thoma L. Woodruff ///' Michael Miller
General Counsel City Attorney
-5-
�
{�
� � r
2a• �\ �� �
t §!
(/ \/
I
� � \
�
/ m\~ k \
�
,esn,a§ee^
�§gRwebq�g /i
2j �
RaRx neG�aG!
- - -- / \/)
^
ƒ!w
®
»
¥5$&
!4 9�
� » 7
•
!
-
\
"` •::
CITY'S SHARE
'
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION
ESTIMATED
UNIT
UNIT
TOTAL
ITEM
UANQ TITY
PRICE
COST
A.C. Removal (incl. sawcut)
i
1,330
S.F.
$ .40
$ 532
Concrete Removal (incl. sawcut}
500
S.F.
.75
375
Fence removal
72
L.F.
3.00
216
Earthwork (cut and fill)
100
C.Y.
10.00
1,000
Adjust S.S. M.H.
- --
L.S.
- --
500
Construct M.H. #1
- --
L.S.
- --
1,200
Catch Basin -
- --
L.S.
- --
2,500
Curb and Gutter
105
L.F.
10.00
1,050
Sidewalk (.33')
640
S.F.
2.00
1,280
Drive Approach (.50')
440
S.F.
2.50
1,100
Full Pavement Section
1,080
S.F.
4.00
4,320
Relocate Street Light
- --
L.S.
- --
750
Minor Concrete (Gravity Wall)
4
C.Y.
250.00
1,000
Chain.,Link Railing (Bll -7)
34
L.F.
15.00
510
Chain Link Fence (A78 -A)
37
L.F.
10.00
370
' Gate (12')
- --
L.S.
- --
600
Double Gate (18')
- --
L.S.
- --
1,000
R.C.P. (18 ")
14
L.F.
70.00
980
Clear and Grub
- --
L.S.
- --
200
Adjust Sewer Vaults
- --
L.S.
- --
2,500
Subtotal
$21,983
! District Administration Cost
(15011)
3,297
Total
$25,280
Call
525,500
EXHIBIT B
•
TO: CITY COUNCIL ey ,,ya CiT`I COUNCIL
IIt�Yy aF p?^WPQRT smCK
FROM: Public Works Depar�irhent
40
April 12, 1982
C,OL_ �
CITY COUNCIL AGEND
ITEM NO. �
SUBJECT: COAST HIGHWAY -- WESTBOUND LANE EXTENSION EAST OF BAYSIDE DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an agreement with
Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County to construct certain
street and highway improvements on Coast Highway in conjunction
with the District's modification of the sewage facility at the Bay
Bridge Pump Station.
DISCUSSION:
On February 23, 1981, the City Council authorized the staff to nego-
tiate a change order and supplemental cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
extend the fourth westbound lane on Coast Highway from the easterly Upper
Newport Bay Bridge abutment to Bayside Drive. The cost of this work was esti-
mated to be $127,000, and The Irvine Company advanced.$138,000 to the Circula-
tion Fund to cover the cost of construction and engineering.
The inability to obtain a small portion of right -of -way from The
Irvine Company's lessee, De Anza Corporation (Newport Bay Realty Company),
within the time frame needed to include the change in the bridge construction
project and subsequent plans for the realignment of the Sanitation District
No. 5 sewer main downscoped the original concept for the fourth westbound lane
extension. Caltrans was able to extend the fourth lane by approximately 400
feet to the Sanitation District pump station at a cost of approximately $60,000.
In anticipation of the Sanitation District's project, temporary road-
way improvements were installed in front of the pump station. This was done
with the understanding that the City would participate in the cost of permanent
improvements which allow the fourth lane to be extended across the pump station
frontage. It was necessary to do the work in two phases because the existing
sewer system has two large valve structures that fall in sidewalk area. The
Sanitation District sewer main reconstruction project will relocate and lower
the valve structures to allow the permanent sidewalk to be constructed at its
final location. The estimated cost of the City's share of the Sanitation
District's project is $28,500. This includes engineering, paving, storm drain
modification, curb, gutter and sidewalk construction and the installation of
a street light.
[I
0
April 12, 1982
Subject: Coast Highway -- Westbound Lane Extension East of Bayside Drive
Page 2
The recommended cooperative agreement with the Sanitation District
provides for the replacement of the interim improvements with ultimate improve-
ments across the pump station frontage. The principal features of the agree-
ment are as follows:
1. District No. 5 agrees:
To construct and administer project.
2. City agrees:
(a) To pay District No. 5 for revision of plans, specifications,
and construction surveying not to exceed $3,000.
(b) To deposit with District No. 5 the amount of $25,500 which
is the estimated total for construction and administration.
Funding for the improvements will come from the Circulation and
Transportation Fund.
Construction of the remainder of the westbound fourth lane between
the pump station and Bayside Drive (approximately 250 feet) will be completed
with the City's Coast Highway widening project (1986 -7), or in conjunction with
major redevelopment within De Anza Bayside Village.
A sketch is attached showing the proposed improvements.
Benjamin S. Nolan
Public Works Director
HH:jd
Att.
1�
i
v
o N
o ' a
n `C a 2a °�k
do 0
�o
n
�i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAWN e-6 DATE 4 -6 -$2
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVED
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
LANE EXTENSION R.E. NO.
AT O.C.S.D. PUMP STATION DRAWING NO. SKETCH -*-/
s.
i
xg^
t
S I tr �L
i
I
ij;¢
1II
I An I
al /!tl
!1
ij;¢
1II
I An I
_`
. its
{n
:3� `-��i_._n�s
�'"' t I ��
�' fa •.
-sue
,�_
aa4 :ii�c -< d•�
3
i
it 4y �;:
II
vd
o n
iii
la
�•
ayN
`i�
8
0 2
�
to
9Ny
f U1lr
II
idea
x
ea
>t�jeei
qZ
p.e
its
� ii
f�f
_
'rI
e
11i
r
F1
. its
{n
:3� `-��i_._n�s
�'"' t I ��
�' fa •.
-sue
,�_
aa4 :ii�c -< d•�
3
i
it 4y �;:
vd
o n
iii
la
�•
ayN
`i�
8
0 2
�
to
9Ny
GYl1TT).TT �
1
I
CITY`S SHARE
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION
ESTIMATED
UNIT
UNIT
TOTAL
ITEM
UANQ TITY
PRICE
COST
A.C. Removal (incl. sawcut)
1,330
S.F.
$ .40
$ 532
Concrete Removal (incl. sawcut}
500
S.F.
.75
375
Fence removal
72
L.F.
3.00
216
Earthwork (cut and fill)
100
C.Y.
10.00
1,000
Adjust S.S. M.H.
- --
L.S.
- --
500
Construct M.H. #1
- --
L.S.
- --
1,200
Catch Basin
- --
L.S.
- --
2,500
Curb and Gutter
105
L.F.
10.00
1,050
Sidewalk (.33')
640
S.F.
2.00
1,280
Drive Approach (.50')
440
S.F.
2.50
1,100
Full Pavement Section
- 1,080
S.F.
4.00
4,320
Relocate Street Light
- --
L.S.
- --
750
Minor Concrete (Gravity Wall)
4
C.Y.
250.00
1,000
Chain, .Link Railing (Bll -7)
34
L.F.
15.00
510
Chain Link Fence (A78 -A)
37
L.F.
10.00
370
Gate (12')
- --
L.S.
- --
600
Double Gate (18')
- --
L.S.
- --
1,000
R.C.P. (18 ")
14
L.F.
70.00
980
Clear and Grub
- --
L.S.
- --
200
i
Adjust Sewer Vaults
- --
L.S.
- --
2,500
Subtotal
$21,983
District Administration Cost
(15a)
3,297
Total
$25,280
Call
$25,500
EXHIBIT B
i