HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpdate Documents - Public WorkslConstructon
C N.E.
RID
Estimate
96based onSpokane
Z PE
CM
3 Surveying
4 RID Administration
5 Contingencies
6 Interim finance cost
7 Publishing costs
8 Bond attorney fee
lO Bond cost
ll Recording cost
l2SEPA
10.00%
$57,500.59
10.00%
$57,500.59
G%
$34`500.35
396
$17,250.18
1096
$57,500.59
596
$20,750.29
$10,000.00
1.5096
$8,625.09
1.5096
$8,625.09
$3,000.00
$20,000.00
Right of Way costs to be determined
— 0 0
0
au - -RE
C N.E. RID Estimate
SEAL COAT
ROAD NAME LENGTH (ft.l WIDTH (ft.) OIL (gI.) COVER STONE (tn.)
C N.E.
4,224
26
6711.47
C N.E.
4,224
26
4881.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Gal.
11592.53
Ton
49.27
Deliver
$31200
Cost
$34,300.59
213.55
213.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
427.09
$5,568.23
BUILD
WIDTH GRAVEL GRAVEL
RnAn NAMF LENGTH (ft.) (ft.) GRAVEL (cf.) (SM (tn.)
C N.E.
41224
30
41817.60
1548.80
2195.42
$16,816.95
C N.E.
41224
28
29568.00
1095.11
1552.32
$12,108.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
Lost :>Jbp15b.JU
FMPLOYEES HOURS C.P.H. TOTAL
Foreman
200
$62.75
$12,550.00
HEO 5 (1)
200
$60.87
$12,174.00
HEO 4 (3)
480
$58.80
$28,224.00
HEO 3 (1)
300
$56.83
$17,049.00
HEO 2 (5)
900
$55.01
$49,509.DD
�>14Y,. HZ-5U
B.R.
M.R.
T.C.
EQUIPMENT HOURS C.P.H. TOTAL
Road Grader
150
$150.00
$22,500.00
Const. Roller (2)
260
$50.00
$13,000.00
Pneum. Roller (2)
40
$S0.00
$2,000.00
Loader
150
$70.00
$10,500.00
Dump Truck (5)
900
$149.00
$134,100.00
Oil Distributor
20
$112.00
$,240.00
Water Truck
120
$71.00
$8,520.00
Chip Spreader
20
$174.00
$3,480.00
5th wheel + Supply Tank
20
$345.00
$6,900.00
Equip. Trailer (1)
20
$91.00
$1,820.00
Mobile Broom
40
$52.00
$2,080.00
Foreman Pickup
200
$32.00
$6,400.00
Crew Pickups (3)
440
$13.00
$5,720.00
Dozer
120
$75.00
$9,000.00
Trackhoe
120
$80.00
$9,600.00
ICI
5297
,325. 00
HFE-9
$34,300.59
COVER STONE
$41, 724.53
EQUIPMENT
$297,325.00
EMPLOYEES
$149,382.50
SUB TOTAL $522,732.63
ADMIN $52,273.26
TOTAL COST $575,005.89
Juliana Fries
From:
Matt Walters <matt@gcsurveying.com>
Seat:
Thursday, October 30, 2025 1:13 PM
To:
Barbara V. O'Neill
Cc:
Dave Bren; John Brissey; Katherine 1. Bren; Juliana Fries; Jim Anderson -Cook; Ricco
Moreno; Paige Walters; Michelle Kamstra
Subject:
RE: C-N E north of 4-NE
Attachments:
25.079 GCPW Rd C.dwg
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Barb,
I have completed my review of the documents provided and have created a CAD drawing identifying existing road right
of ways, and adjoining properties along the proposed road, based on record data and deeds.
Before I get into my analysis of the Easement document recorded under AFN 1517542 that attempts to establish County
right of way, here is brief summary of what I have found for those without CAD:
1. There is existing County road right of way, 40' in width, 20' on each side of the section line, from Road 4 NE on
the south, then going north approximately 1347 feet. This right of way was dedicated to the County by USBR in
1968 by AFN 537284. This forms the most southerly leg of Road C NE lying north of Road 4 NE, and appears to
be maintained as a County road, despite its substandard width.
2. On the east side of the section line, north of the above section, a strip of land was dedicated to the County for
road purposes by the Rimbey-Butenschoen Short Plat in 2005, AFN 1182090. This strip of land is 30' in width
and approximately another quarter mile long. While there appear to be private easeme'nts across this same strip
of land, the short plat was clear in its dedication of this 30' strip of land for "County Road Easement".
These two strips of land are the only ones dedicated currently as County road.
3. The Assessor has the property owned by Linck 161379000 and Black 161386000 drawn
incorrectly. Based on the
two deeds I reviewed for both properties, the Linck's own a 30' strip of land on the west side of the Black parcel,
J
lying east of the section line. The Assessor's map does not reflect this strip of land. Both deeds are clear in the
ownership, and it is not expressed as an easement, but instead as fee simple property.
Problems errors on AFN 1517542
This document has errors on nearly every page, and in short, I would not recommend accepting,
it as a document
sufficient for road dedication for this project. It is easy to see what they were attemptingto accomplish, but the err p ors
are substantial enough for me to recommend that changes be made and the document re -recorded to correct the err
ors
rs
and omissions present. I will go through the document page by page, but before doing so, it is Wurorth noting that this
document did not attempt to include right of way for the cul-de-sac that would be required for 'emergency vehicle
g Y
turnaroun
d. This fact alone would provide adequate reason not to accept this document, since there is no way to
connect this road to another county road, due to the existing canals surrounding it.
Another few items that are more global in nature regarding this document is:
I. It is labeled and written as ari-r!"tasement"
instead of the standard DedicAron Deed that would normally be
expected.
2. It has no space or area for the County to accept it., which would also be standard for ciddication documents of
this type. Without the County's counter signature for acceptance, the document's attdmpt to dedicate the right
of way is questionable.
3. Depending on where the cul-de-sac would be located, the Black's may have no need to be part of this
document. I note that they did not sign it., anyway, but I will go into the issue with their participation in the
document on each page.
4. 1 believe that the placement of the right of way, and likely the cul-de-sac, should be doHe in a manner that
provides parcel 161382003 (Vega) with access to the County road, if that parcel is going to be part of the RID.
The following items noted are errors or issues with each page., in my opinion:
Page I
As currently written, Debra Black does not have an interest in the right of way being dedicated.; She should be removed
from the Grantor and Assessor's Parcel No(s) lists.
The parcel number for Black is incorrect.
The parcel number for Batdorff is incorrect.
The main body of the document needs to identify Grantors instead of a singular Grantor.
The language of the dedication is poorly written. Starts by granting an easement, but then says: it is in consideration of a
donation, an easement dedicated, etc. Then also states it is a 30 ft strip of land, but in some cages., it will be greater and
not just a strip of land when the cul-de-sac is identified. This main part of the document needs:to be clear that the
grantors dedicate the following described portions of land to the County for County Road
Purp9ses, not just an
easement" which is currently identified as what is being granted. In short., this language is far1frorn standard or what is
normally expected and acceptable for road dedications.
At the end of the main body of the document, it states "the exact location of is described in the attached EXHIBITSA-
F". In addition to the grammar being incorrect,. the attached exhibits are labeled A-G, and the I : 6st one is labeled G again.
I think the intent was A-H. Of course, if Black is removed from the document, this will change
The signature title for Andy Chen needs to be listed not just as "Andy Chen.. Governor". It needy to be revised to "Andy
Chen, Governor, CFML, LLC".
Page 2
An Angela Chen notarized the signature of Andy Chen. It is unknown to me if they are husband and wife or family, or
even related at all. Note that RCW 42.45.020 does not allow a spouse to notarize. Perhaps verifl.y to ensure validity of
the document.
Debra Black may not need to be signer.
Page 3
No issues other than the notary block for Debra Black, who may be removed from the documeh t.
,Page 4 (Exhibit A)
Just after the Exhibit "A", it reads "EASEMENT DRAWING. The wording should indicate road dedication or
nomenclature other than "easement".
Black parcel and easement drawn and noted incorrectly.
Linck parcel and easement drawn and noted incorrectly.
Notation for CFML, LLC easement is noted incorrectly. It currently reads " EAST 30.00 FEET EASEMENT FOR PARCEL 16-
1382-002". In the current way it is written, it would indicate that the easement is FOR parcel 10'-1382-002. Instead, it
should read something like "30' DEDICATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT", or other similar language.
-Page 5-(Exhibit B)
Just after the Exhibit "B" it reads "EASEMENT LEGAL.." The wording should indicate road dedication or nomenclature
other than "easement".
2
Listing the grantor and grantee are ffdf, appropriate on this page. Perhaps the gra'�ifbrs' name co , uld be added in
parentheses after the parcel number above, but including it in the manner it is makes this is page, which should be
reserved only for the legal description, to appear as an instrument of conveyance.
The construction of this legal description is problematic in multiple ways:
I. It contains instrument of conveyance wording which is inappropriate and conflicting with the main body
conveyance language.
2. It begins with "A 30-FOOT INGRESS EGRESS., AND UTILITY EASEMENT", which is also not appropriate for the
legal description. The legal description must describe the limits of the property being c 6riveyed, not the
purpose.
3. The second paragraph notes that the area being granted is "THE EAST 30.00 FEET OF SAID EASEMENT OVER THE
The easement referred to in the first paragraph was undefined. Therefore the description is faulty.
4. The third paragraph begins with "LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY, ." However, no parcel was defined yet.
The description is faulty.
I can see what someone was trying to do here, but this description does not follow the standards of how a legal
description should be written, in my opinion. In short, in needs to be re -written to simply describe the area being
dedicated, devoid of conveyance language. The logical and expected method to describe this area would have been
something like: "The East 30 feet of the following described parcel:" (Then use the original desdrlption).
Eage 61.Exhibit Q
Just after the Exhibit "C", it reads "EASEMENT DRAWING. The wording •should indicate road 4dication or
nomenclature other than "easement".
This page may end up being removed if Black is removed from right of way dedication document.
Black parcel and easement drawn and noted incorrectly.
Linck parcel and easement drawn and noted incorrectly.
Notation for Black easement is noted incorrectly. Black does not own the area •indicated as beit dedicated. Linck owns
it. It currently -reads "WEST 30-00 FEET EASEMENT FOR PARCEL 16-1386-000". In the current wa, y, it is written, it would
i
indicate that the easement is FOR the Black parcel. Instead, it should read something like "'30' DEDICATED BY THIS
INSTRUMENT", or other similar language, but more importantly, it should be noted on the Linckl •Exhibit., not this one.
If this area is dedicated by Linck on their exhibit, it creates a strip of land 30" in •width on the easi, side of the'section line.,
but without the corresponding right of way on the west side. This right of way would be substari!dard and insufficient for
the road.
Page i (Exhibit pl
Just after the Exhibit "D"
,. it reads "EASEMENT LEGAL. The wording should •indicate road dedidation or nomenclature
other than "easement"
The primary issue with this page is that the property being described is owned by Linck, NOT Ma' This page can likely
be eliminated in whole.
Listing the grantor and grantee are not appropriate On this page. Perhaps the grantors-' name could be added in
parentheses after the parcel number above, but including it in the manner it is makes this pageJwhich should be
reserved only for the legal description., to appear as an instrument of conveyance.
The construction of this legal description is problematic in multiple ways:
I. It contains instrument of conveyance wording which is inappropriate and conflicting with the main body
conveyance language.
2. It begins with "A 30-FOOT INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITY EASEMENT /I
which is also not lappropriate for the
legal description. The legal description must describe the limits of the property being Conveyed, not the
purpose.
3. The second paragraph notes that the area being granted Is "THE EAST 30.00 FEET OF SAID EASEMENT OVER THE
! 4
The easement referred to in the first paragraph was undefined. Therefore, the desc�rlption is faulty.
However, if it wasn't, the intent as drawn was to dedicate the WEST 30' of the parcel de§:cribed after it
I
EAST 30, not the
4. The description of the overall parcel excepts the West 30 feet. Therefore, if taken literally, the description would
end up dedicating a strip of land 30 feet in width adjacent to the east side of this propert:V.
along the canal.
3
Again, I can see what someone was tPVffi'g to do here, but this description does ndItTo", Ilow the standards of how a legal
description should be written, and is in error. In short, in needs to be re -written to simply describe the area being
dedicated, devoid of conveyance language. The logical and expected method to describe this area would have been
gornothing like: "The West 30 feet of the following described parcel:" (Then use the original de�;Scription). Of course, this
applies to including this in Linck's description, not Black's.
Page 8 (Exhibit E)
Just after the Exhibit "E", it reads "EASEMENT DRAWING The wording should indicate road dedication or
nomenclature other than "easement".
Black parcel and easement drawn and noted incorrectly.
Linck parcel and easement drawn and noted incorrectly.
Notation for Batdorff easement is noted incorrectly. It currently reads "WEST 30.00 FEET EASE MIENT FOR PARCEL 12-
1240-000". In the current way it is written, it would indicate that the easement is FOR the Bate!:ndorff parcel. instead it
should read something like "30' DEDICATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT", or other similar language.
Page 9 (Exhibit F)
Just after the Exhibit '"T" it reads "EASEMENT LEGAL. The wording should indicate road dedication or no
other than "easement".
Listing the grantor and grantee are not appropriate on this page. Perhaps the grantors' name could be added in
parentheses after the parcel number above, but including it in the manner iti5makes this pagO, which should be
reserved only for the legal description, to appear as an instrument of conveyance.
9
The construction of this legal description is problematic in multiple ways:
1. It contains instrument of conveyance wording which is inappropriate and conflicting with the main body
conveyance language.
2. It begins with "A 30-FOOT INGRESS,, EGRESS, AND UTILITY EASEMENT", which is also not appropriate for the
legal description. The legal description must describe the limits of the property being cbnveyed., not the
purpose.
3. The way in which this description is written, it describes the "EAST 30.00 FEET of SAID BASEMENT OVER THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED.." First, I believe they were trying to convey the WEST 30' of this property, not the EAST
30'. Second, it again refers to "SAID EASEMENT" which was undefined in the first paragraph, so therefore faulty.
I can see what someone was trying to do here, but this description does not follow the standards of how a legal
description should be written, in my opinion. In short, in needs to be re -written to simply describe the area being
dedicated, devoid of conveyance language. The logical and expected method to describe this atea would have been
something like: "The West 30 feet of the following described parcel:" (Then use the original deicription).
Page 10 (Exhibit
Just after the Exhibit "G"., it reads "EASEMENT DRAWING. The wording should indicate road d'edication or
nomenclature other than "easement".
Black parcel and easement drawn and noted incorrectly.
Linck parcel and easement drawn and noted incorrectly.
Same issue noted above in the Black exhibit, that as drawn there would be some right of way orhly 30' in width, instead
of 60'.
No Cul-de-sac dedicated or depicted.
Page 11 (Exhibit H, although labeled on the drawing as "GO
Just after the Exhibit "G" it reads "EASEMENT LEGAL .." The wording should indicate road dedication or nomenclature
other than "easement".
Listing the grantor and grantee are not appropriate on this page. Perhaps the grantors' name could be added in
parentheses after the parcel number above, but including it in the manner it is makes this page, which should be
reserved only for the legal description, to appear as an instrument of conveyance.
The construction of this legal description is problematic in multiple ways:
4
1. It contains instrument of conveyance wording which is inappropriate and�conflici
ngwiththe main body
conveyance language.
2. It begins with "A 30-FOOT INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITY E '� ASEMENT , which is also not appropriate for the
legal description. The legal description must describe the limits
of the property being conveyed, not the
purpose.
3. The way in which this description is written, it describes the "EAST 30.00 FEET of SAID EASEMENT OVER THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED.." It refers to "SAID EASEMENT" which was undefined•
therefore faulty.
�n the first paragraph, so
4. The legal description needs to be re -written in
whole, so that the other 30 strip of land they own is dedicated
partially dedicated, adjacent to the Black property. or
5. The description needs to include sufficient right of wayfor a - -
cul-de-sac for emergency vehicle turn around since
this will be a dead-end road.
Once again, I can see what someone was trying to do her '
y g e, but this description does not follow the standards of h
legal description should be written, in my opinion. In short in ne ow a
eds to be re -written to simply describe the area bein
dedicated, devoid of conveyance language. The io ical and ex g
„ g petted method to describe this area would have been
something like.. The west 30 feet of the following described arse!:" - •
include the other p (Then use the original description), and then
strip being dedicated on the east side of the section line.
Page 12
This page is out of place. it is stated as a letter of interes
t for a Road Improvement District (RID) It names parcels n
included in the dedication document, and is basically a letter of in p of
query. It then states at the bottom that "Our
signatures commit us to nothing more. Signatures on Following Page." This document is not the place for this letter.
Furthermore, the end statement noting that signatures are on the • next page �s confusing. 1 strongly suggest that this
page be omitted in whole.
This concludes my review of the Road C NE for the time being.
SUMMARY:
g
My suggestion is that this document should be gon
e e through thoroughly and perhaps revised from the ground Dedication Deed, not an Easement. Based on the sheer number of ' g and up as a
issues found, please be advised that there may be
more minor items that I didn't find.
To reiterate my stance, I do not recommend acre '
piing this document as it stands. In the manner that it i
written, it would not create a cohesive right of waywith Ode s currently
adequate and sufficient dimensions to support a Public roa
with required turn around, due to omission of that feature an p d
d issues with how the right of ways are
described. Additionally, there are problems with the basic ' construction of the document that need to be addressed
along with incorrect ownership assumptions.
I have prepared a CAD drawing as requested and have at
tached it to this email. Please note that it doesn't sh
other than property boundaries and existin ri htof wa ow much
g g y, since the right of way indicated in the easement do
would not be acceptable. current
Sincerely,
Matt Walters, PLS
Owner
€.b
'^`,
Ji
G P,
U VEYING
PO Box 906 Ephrata, WA 98823
509.754.4376 ..........
grantcountysurvelling.com
Monday — Thursday SAM — 4PM
From: Barbara V. O'Neill <boneill@grantcountywa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10:31 AM
To: Matt Waiters <matt@gcsurveying.com>
Cc: Dave Bren <dbren@grantcountywa.gov>; John Brissey <jbrissey@grantcountywa.gov>; Katherine I. Bren
<kibren@grantcountywa.gov>; Juliana Fries <jfries (. grantcountywa.gov>; Jim Anderson -Cook
<jcook@grantcountywa.gov>; Ricco Moreno <rxmoreno@grantcountywa.gov>; Paige waiters <paige@gcsurveying.com>
Subject: RE: C-N E north of 4-NE
Th an k you, Matt! !!
Theoretical. based on Legal documents, including any you might find, with a summary of steps that the
county shoul.d take, if any.
Barb
From: Matt Walters <matt@gcsurvtMn .corn>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10:26 AM
To: Barbara V. O'Neill <boneill grantcountywa.gov>
Cc: Dave Bren <dbren@grantcountywa.gov>; John Brissey <'brisse rantcount wa. ov>• Katherine 1.
----_. Bren
<lcibren@grantcountywa.gov>; Juliana Fries <ifries rantcountywa.gov>; Jim Anderson -Cook
<cook@grantcountywa.gov>; Ricco Moreno <rxmoreno rraantcountywa.9ov>; Paige walters < al. e U csurve i
-___�__ ng.corn>
Subject: RE: C-N E north of 4-NE
his email Dig-n '
at t a wh m oz. n
Hi Barb!
We would be happy to assist on this project. One point of clarification, so that I can provide an estimated fee for Da
ve
to approve to move forward on: Do you want the CAD drawing based on fieldwork and actual', section breakdown
etc. Or theoretical properties based on record data? I would assume theoretical boundaries for something like this, but
want to make sure.
Sincerely,
Matt Walters, PLS
Owner
Uirams<ftVEYING
6
PO Box 906 1 Ephrata, WA 98823
509.754.4376
grantcountysurveying.com
Monday —Thursday BAM-4PM
From: Barbara V. O'Neill <boneill@grantcountvwa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 9:38 AM
To: Matt Walters <matt @gcsurveying.cgm>
Cc: Dave Bren <�bren@gran%ountvwa.gov>; John Brissey <Lbrisserantcount wa. ov>•
Katherine I. Bren
<1dbren@gran tcou_ntywa.gov>, Juliana Fries <ifries@ gran tcountywa.gov>; Jim Anderson -Cook
<i cook @gra ntco u ntvwa.gov>; Ricco Moreno <rxmoreno0grantcountvwa.gov
Subject: RE: C-NE north of 4-NE
Good Morning,
Grant County is in receipt of an easement for a future road, AFN 1517542, attached:. Also reference Map
C-NE info.
public- Works has a couple questions from our contracted Licensed surveyor before we ta
ke a resoLution
to the Board accepting the easement
Location: Sections 9 & 10 of Township 19 N, Range 27 EWM. C- NE north of 4-NE
Attached are documents as follows: AFN 1517542, Map of the area •C-NE, Rimbey 8utenschoen Short
Plat 1182090, Rimbey easement AFN 1174769, Farm Unit Map for FU 100,, Haase t 6i' Linck, west 30 ft AFN
1480898; Martin exception west 30; Pruneda to Deb Black -Title AFN 1499143
AFN:1426197 Batdorff
title.
Pruneda did not have west 30- it was granted to Linck by Dunmire.
Deb Black does not own any part of the dedication of easements, as the parcel Deb: Black owns has an
exception in her title of the west 30 ft. AFN 1499143, ref 'Excepts west •30., Martin, Title Haase to Linck
west 30 parcel. 16-1386-000. This parcel is land -locked until we accept the easement 15175426
Linck has dedicated rights in several. parcels.
Lot 2 of the Rimbey Butenschoen Short Plat, AFN 1182090 is •a private easement. AFINs 1182090 and note
8 AFN 1174769. Those rights are not secured.
We are looking for some clarity, that is: the opinion of our contracted licensed surveyor, as to what rights
the county owns, will own once the Board accepts, and any pitfaLLs you might see, P�:ackaged with a nice
cad drawing.
Any guidance you can provide to our office is greatly appreciated. Our goal is to facilitate access
mitigate issues, and once al[ rights are obtained, have the Linck developers build the road. I have
i
included Dave Bren as I do not have the particulars of the contract, and you WILL probably need his memo
to proceed.
Thank you,
7
Barb --
Barb O Neill
Data Analyst, Engineer Tech
Right -of -Way Research
GCPW Road Data 4x
Maps and GiS
GCPW Web Pages
8
GRANT COUNTY ESTIMATE R D C NE
11/17/2025
ROAD C NE ROAD EXTENSION R.I.D PROJECT
SEAL COAT '
ROAD NAME
LENGTH (FT)
1 WIDTH (FT)
SQ/YD
(GAL) ' GAL/SQYD
ROAD C NE PRIME COAT
4224!
261
12203
6711 ' 0.55i $ 2.4011$16,107.52
ROAD C NE TACK COAT
42241
261
12203
4881 0.4, $ 2.40~ $11.,714.56
11593 $27, 822.08
COVER STONE
ROAD NAME
, LENGTH (FT)
' WIDTH (FT)
SQ/YD
T
1/2"- LBS/SQYD ± 1/2"- TONS r $/T
ROAD C NE PRIME COAT
ROAD C N E TACK COAT
_ 4224
4224
-P----
30
301
14080'
14080
1
30 211.2 $ 13.04 $ 2, 754.05
3511 246.4 1 $ 13.04 $ 213.06
457.6 $ 59967.10
NOTE:
� �
------------�---- -- -
OIL APPLICATION RATES AND COVERSTONE QUANTITIES PER GRANT COUNTY WA ROAD STANDARDS SECTION 4.2.2.1 '
ROAD BUILD
3
ROAD NAME _ ,. ........e._�_.�,_.
LENGTH (FT)
WIDTH (FT) SQ/YD CCY 'TONS $/T
ROAD C NE CSBC
C NE
ROAD CSTC
4224
4224
__..�...�._.�.._._.�..�.�,�...�___....�.. 7.66 = 17,112.64
30 126720 1596 22341 $ $
� -�------- a-�-----�--�-�-___�.. .__
28; 118272 1095 1533 $ -� 7.66 $11,743.97
3767 $28,856.62
NOTE:
QUANTITIES FOR BASE COURSE BASED ON THICKNESS OF 411t.___.__
QUANTITIES FOR TOP COURSE BASED ON THICKNESS OF2" ` ► �_.�___
LABOR
CRAFT (
HOURS
C.P.H TOTAL
FOREMAN
200
$ 62.75 $ 12,550.00 25 DAYS_
HEO 5 (1) GRADER _
HEO 4 (3)
HEO 3 (1)
HEO 2 (5)
200
480
300
9001
$ 60.87 $ 12,174.00 '25 DAYS
$ 58.80 $ 28,224.00 20 DAYS
$ 56.83 1 $ 17,049.00 37.5 DAYS
$ 55.01 11 $ 49,509.00 22.5 DAYS
2080 .---
- - - _ `_ $ _ 119,506.00
i
f
? i
i
PAGE 1 OF 5
GRANT COUNTY ESTIMATE RD C NE
1/17/2025
EQUIPMENT
ROAD GRADER
� HOURS , C.P.H
1501 $
'TOTAL I
150.00 $ 22,500.00118.75 DAYS
CONST ROLLER (2)
PNEUM ROLLER (2)
LOADER
260 $
7
40' $
150F
` $
50.00 $
50.00 J $
70.00 $
13,000.00 16.25 DAYS
2,000.00 12.5 DAYS
t
10,500.00 118.75 DAYS
IDUMP TRUCK (BELLY DUMP @ 28T
PER LOAD) (5)
900 $
149.00 $
f
134,100.00 22.5 DAYS
OIL DISTRIBUTOR
20 $
112.00 $
2,240.00 12.5 DAYS
WATER TRUCK
120 $
71.00 . $
8,520.00 15 DAYS
CHIP SPREADER
201 $
174.00 $
31480.00 1'2.5 DAYS i !
5TH WH EEL + SUPPLY TANK
20 $
345.00 = $
61900.00 2.5 DAYS
EQUIPMENT TRAILER (1)
j
20 $
g1.00 $
1820.00 2. t
, 5 DAYS , I
BROOM
1
40' $
52.00 1 $
21080.00 5 DAYS
FOREMAN PICKUP
200 $
32.00 } $
6,400.00 125 DAYS s
CREW PICKUPS
440E $
13.00 ' $
51720.00 118.5 DAYS E j
DOZER
�
120 $
75.00 $
3
9,000.00 k 15 DAYS j
EXCAVATOR
120 $
80.00 $
9,600.00 15 DAYS
$
237,860.00
TOTALS
i
t 7
HFE-90/150
$
27,822.08
COVER STONE
CSBC & CSTC
$
$
5,967.10
28,856.62
F
LABOR
; $
1192506.00
f
t
=
EQUIPMENT
{ $
2372860.00
s
SUB -TOTAL
' $
420,011.80
ADMIN
$
42,001.18
TOTAL WITH ADMIN
$
462,012.98 NOTE; THIS EQUALS $32.81 PER SQ YD
E
- -- - - - - - E ------------------
- - - - - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- - - - -
1
�
t
i
1
{
t
s
FF
f
_
PAGE 2 OF 5
GRANT COUNTY ESTIMATE RD C NE
11/17/2025
RID TOTAL COST
% OF TOTAL
DOLLARS
CONSTRUCTION W/ADMIN
00/oTl $
462,012.98 ;
PE (ASSUMING PROJECT ENGINEER)
104F
46,201.30 i
CM (ASSUMING CONST MNGR)
I
10% $
46,201.30 1
SURVEYING
6% $
27,720.78 1
RID ADMIN
3% E $
13,860.39
CONTINGENCIES
10%r $
469201.30
INTERIM FINANCE COST
5%l' $
f
23,100.65
PUBLISHING COST (WHY)
0% $
10,000.00
BOND ATTORNEY FEE
1.5% $
63930.19
BOND COST
1.5% $
6,930.191
RECORDING COST
0% $
3,000.00
SEPA
0% $
20,000.00
t
f
$
712,159.081
3
2
COST PER SO/YD FOF CHIP SEAL
STY
I IN IT (_('1ST FYT 1
i
OIL
11593 $ 2.40
$ 27,822.08
COVER STONE
458 $ 13.04
$ 51967.10
EQUIPMENT
130
$ 149.00
$ 19,370.00
F
LABOR
110
$ 61400
F
$ 6,710.00 f
F
$ 59,869.18 E
COST/SQYD CHIP SEAL if
$ 4.25
F
j1f
3
2
F
€
3
j
I
€
_. .... _. �__._.__.__..___..____.., _____,y______.__,.,___._.-...._______._.,_.._____.___._____.____..._________--------------
€
F
€
! !
1
{
PAGE 3OF5
GRANT COUNTY ESTIMATE RD C NE
11/17/2025
CHIP SEAL CREW
RATE
HOURS
EXT
TEAMSTER
€ $
61.00
=
10 l
$
610.00
'
OPERATOR ROLLER
$
61.00
40 $
2,440.00
OPERATOR OIL SPRAY
$
61.00
201 $
19220.00
OPERATOR CHIP SPREADER
f $
61.00
1
20 $
1,220.00
OPERATOR LOADER
F $
61.00
10 $
610.00
OPERATOR BROOM
$
61.00
:
101i'$
610.00
F
110 $
6,710.00
CHIP SEAL EQUIPMENT
'
= f
� I
DUMP TRUCK
= $
149.00
10 $
1,490.00
PNEUM ROLLER
$
50.00
40 $
5,960.00
OIL SPRAY
i $
112.00
20 $
2,980.00
CHIP SPREADER
$
174.00
20 $
2,980.00 a
LOADER
$
70.00
10 $
1,490.00
F
BROOM
$
52.00
10, $
1,490.00
TENDER
$
345.00
20 $
2,980.00
130 ', $
19,370.00
ROAD BUILD PER SQ YD
MATE
MATERIAL
iQN
JUNIT
COST
i
; EXT
CSBC (1-1/4"- PER WSDOTSPEC)
2234.026667
$
7.66 $
173112.64
CSTC (5/811- PER WSDOT SPEC)
1533
$
71P66
$
11;743.97
$
28,856.62
i
ROAD BUILD CREW
FT
F
RATE
IHOURS
j EXT
MSTER DUMP TRUCK
$
61.00
1
2401 $
14,640.00
LOADER OPERATDOR
$
61.00i
50
$
3,050.00
GRADER OPERATOR
; $
61.00
801 $
4,880,00 I
ROLLER OPERATOR
$
61.00
1601 $
-J
9,760.00 i
WATER TRUCK
$
61.00
80
$
4,880.00 1 1
LOW - . /`TRACTOR -TEAMSTER--------------
$- - - -
- - - 63:0 '
- - - - -
- -2b
- -
-------- ----------- --------- ----- --
11220.00
FOREMAN
$
65.00 i
1201 $
71800.00
750
$
46,230.00
PAGE 4OF5
GRANT COUNTY ESTIMATE R D C NE
11/17/2025
EQUIPMENT ROAD BUILD
EQUIPMENT ROAD BUILD
RATE
HOURS
EXT
BELLY DUMP
j $
149.00
240 ` $
359760.00
LOADER
$
70.00
501 $
3,500.00
ROAD GRADER
$
150.00
80 $
122000.00
'
WATER TRUCK
$
71.00
80 $
5,680.00
`
ROLLER
$
50.00
160 $
89000.00
LOW BOY/TRACTOR
r $
91.00
20 $
1,820.00
;
FOREMAN PICKUP
$
32.00 1
120 $
3,840.00
CREW PICKUP
$
13.00
150 $
1,950.00
i
DOZER
EXCAVATOR
$
$
75.00
80.00
16 1' $
16 $
1,200.00
1,280.00
r
i
9321 $
75,030.00
F
j
t
f
ROAD BUILD
i
z
MATERIAL
RATE
QTY
EXT
CSBC
$
7.66
22341 $
17,112.64
4
CSTC $
7.66 '
15331 $
11,743.97 j
LABOR I $
61.64 =
7501 $
46,230.00
i
EQUIPMENT 1
$
80.50
932 $
75,030.00
$
150,116.62
I �
r
!
t
COST PER SQ/YD ROAD BUILD
$
1.27
r
1
i
s
j(j
NOTE:
TRUCKING OF AGGREGATE BASED ON HAULING FROM THE GRANT COUNTY MAE VALLEY PIT #563
TRUCKING BASED ON 28 TON BELLY DUMPS WITH 2 CYCLES PER HOUR
LOADER BASED ON 3 CY BUCKET
r
f
EQUIPMENT RATES BASED ON ESTMATE BREAKDOWN OF OCTOBER 42025
TH.IS-.ESTIMATE-BASED-ON-THE,-ENTI-RE-LENGTH__OF-ROAD- FROM- RD-4-NE NORTH-TCYTHE-END-OF-THE UNCK PROPERTY -- --------------
THIS INCLUDES THE FIRST 1/4 MILE OF EXISTING GRAVEL COUNTY ROAD WHICH SHOULD NOT REQUIRE A ROAD BUILD BUT ONLY
THE 2 SHOT BST
I I
PAGE 5OF5
ROAD C NE RID EXTENSION PROJECT
W/0 ROAD BUILD ON EXISTING
1
ROAD C NE ROAD EXTENSION R.I.D PROJECT
11/17/2025
SEAL COAT '
rONAME LENGTH (FT) WIDTH (FT) SAND SOIL (GAL) 'GAL/SQYD ' v. �. (a
C NE PRIME COAT 42241301 140801 77441 0.55 $ 2.40 i $18,585.60
ROAD C NE TACK COAT 42241 30' 140801 56321 0.4 $ 2.40 $13,516.80
1 13376 $32,102.40
COVER STONE
{
ROAD NAME LENGTH (FT) = WIDTH (FT) JSQND 1 1/2"- LBS/SQYD 1/2"- TONS /T
ROAD C NE PRIME COAT 1 ag')A: ol Annn
ROAD C NE TACK COAT 4224
- - - .....,. i
301, 14080
WWI L.J..J..f_{ 1�7
351 246.4 $
.1.t>.u�'f { 1� G, / v%r+,Uu
13.04 ' $ 3,213.06
457.61
NOTE.
OIL APPLICATION RATES AND COVERSTONE QUANTITIES PER GRANT COUNTY WA ROAD STANDARDS SECTION 4.2.2.1
$ 5,967.10
ROAD BUILD
TONS , $/T
33831 $
1643 $
I
7.66 $25,916.33
3
7.66 $12,582.83
ROAD NAM!LENGTH E {FT} WIDTH {FT} JSQND CY
ROAD C NE CSBC l 2900 ` 301 870001 2417
ROAD C NE CSTG 4224; 30 126720 1173
NOTE:
50261
t
$38,499.16
QUANTITIES FOR BASE COURSE BASED ON THICKNESS OF 9"
I
i
QUANTITIES FOR TOP COURSE BASED ON THICKNESS OF 3"
f
LABOR
CRAFT HOURS
C. P.H
TOTAL I
r
FOREMAN 80
$
$
65.00 $ 5,200.00
61.00 ' $ 4,880.00 I �
HEO 5 (1) GRADER 80
HEO 4 {3} 260
HEO 3 {1} 80
HEO 2 (5) 280
$
$
$
_ _,. _._..-.-w-......
61.00 $ 15,860.00 ;
61.00 $ 41880.00 i
s
61.00 $ 17,080.007801
_. - -. _.- _ . ._.. �..-.-.- _.....__...--.....-......_..-__--_-------------- .--..--- ...--------------- ..- ..,-......... ..---...----- --- .._.... _..---------------..._'_.--. _ _-_.
i
___.
..-.-..,.-....-.._......___.-_-___..._-_.,._.,..--..........-...-...........__...._`__.' ...
3
E
i
i
PAGE 1 OF 5
ROAD C NE RID EXTENSION PROJECT
W/O ROAD BUILD ON EXISTING
11/17/2025
E �
EQUIPMENT
HOURS C.P.H
TOTAL
ROAD GRADER
80 $
150.00 $
12,000.00 I E
CONST ROLLER
160 $
50.00 $
8,000.00 F
PNEUM ROLLER
401 $
50.00 $
2,000.00
LOADER
50 $
70.00 $
3,500.00
DUMP TRUCK (BELLY DUMP @ 28T
PER LOAD)
160 $
j
149.00 ; $
23- 840.00 1
OIL DISTRIBUTOR
20 $
112.00 $
2,240.00
WATER TRUCK
80 $
71.00 F $
5,680.00
CHIP SPREADER
20 $
174.00 1 $
3,480.00
5TH WHEEL + SUPPLY TANK
20 $
345.00 $
6,900.00
EQUIPMENT TRAILER
20! $
91.00 $
1,820.00
BROOM
20 $
52.00 $
1,040.00
FOREMAN PICKUP
80 ' $
32.00E $
2,560.00
CREW PICKUPS
240 $
13.00 $
3,120.00
DOZER
16, $
75.00 $
1,200.00
EXCAVATOR
16 $
80.00 $
1,280.00
}
3 $
78,660.00
£(
E
TOTALS
H FE-90/150
( $
32,102.40
COVER STONE
Is
5,967.10
f
CSBC & CSTC
` $
383499.16
LABOR
� $
47,900.00
�
f
EQUIPMENT
; $
78,660,00 E
i
SUB -TOTAL
$
203,128.66
ADMIN
, $
20,312.87
TOTAL WITH ADMIN
' $
223,441.53
j
1
- - --- - - ..._..----------------------------------------- - ---- ----
-------------
----------- - ------- --- - --------- ------
- __ - - - ----------.--_---
- - - - -- - - - _ .�„,
--.----_ __.. - --- - ---_------- - - _� --
i
f
PAGE 2OF5
ROAD C NE RID EXTENSION PROJECT
W/O ROAD BUILD ON EXISTING
11/17/2025
RID TOTAL COST
% OF TOTAL
DOLLARS
CONSTRUCTION W/ADMIN
( 0%
$
223,441.53
PE (ASSUMING PROJECT ENGINEER)
10%
$
22$44.15
CM (ASSUMING CONST MNGR)
10%
$
22,344.15
SURVEYING
6%
` $
13,406.49
RID ADMIN
3%"
$
6,703.25 F
CONTINGENCIES
10%
$
22,344.15
INTERIM FINANCE COST it
5%
$
11,172.08
I
PUBLISHING COST (WHY)
0%
$
10,000.00 F
BOND ATTORNEY FEE
1.5%
$
3,351.62
i
�
BOND COST
1.5%
$
3,361.62
RECORDING COST
0% `
$
3,000.00
SEPA
0%
$
20,000.00 3
$
361,459.05
}
f
I
� �
COST PER SQ/YD FOF CHIP SEAL QTY !UNIT COST EXT
i
I
OIL
13376 $
2.40 $
32,102.40 } 3
COVER STONE
457.6 $
13.04 I $
5,967.10 = f }
EQUIPMENT
130 $
149.00 I $
1
199370.00
F
LABOR
110 ll$
61400 $
6,710.00
j $
64,149.50 E
i
COST/SQYD CHIP SEAL
$ 4.561
}
} }
i
i
i
f
}}
}
t
t
}
3i}
111E
3
F
PAGE 3OF5
ROAD C NE RID EXTENSION PROJECT
W/O ROAD BUILD ON EXISTING
11/17/2025
CHIP SEAL CREW
RATE
HOURS
EXT
E
TEAMSTER
$
61.00
10 $
610.00
?
OPERATOR ROLLER
$
61.00
40; $
21440.00
r
OPERATOR OIL SPRAY
E $
61.00
20 $
11220.00
OPERATOR CHIP SPREADER
$
61.00
20 $
1,220.00
{
OPERATOR LOADER
$
61.00
101 $
610.00
OPERATOR BROOM
F $
61.00
10► $
610.00
i
110 $
6,710.00 I
r
t
CHIP SEAL EQUIPMENT
E
DUMP TRUCK
$
149.00
10 $
1,490.00
PNEUM ROLLER
$
50.00 ►
40 $
5,960.00
OIL SPRAY
$
112.00
20' $
21980.00
CHIP SPREADER
$
174.00
20 1 $
21980.00 ,
LOADER
$
70.00
10 $
10 $
1,490,00 1
1,490.00
BROOM ; $ 52.00
TENDER
$
345.00
any
QQn nn E
'
130 $
19,370.00
t €
E
ROAD BUILD PER SQ YD
7
MATERIALIQTY
[UNIT COST
EXT
CSBC (1-1/411- PER WSDOT SPEC)
3383.333333
$
7.66 $
25 916.33
I
CSTC (5/811- PER WSDOT SPEC)
1643
$
7.66 $
s
12582.83
l
E i
�
$
38,499.16
F
ROAD BUILD CREW
CRAFT
RATE
HOURS
; EXT
TEAMSTER DUMP TRUCK
$
61.00
240
$ ,
14,640.00
`
LOADER OPERATDOR
$
61.00 '
50
$
3,050.00
GRADER OPERATOR
$
61.00
80
$
4,880.00
ROLLER OPERATOR
$
61.00
160E
$
9,760.00
WATER TRUCK
' $
61.o0 ,
so
$
4 880.00
r___�_._.-_..-_..__
____-__ .____-------._______ _____ -_ ------- ______________________
----
LOWBOY7TRACTDA TEAMSTER_____________
________._---_.___._.
$
.
61.00
201,
$
1,220.00
FOREMAN
$
65.00
120
$
7,800.00
750
$
46,230.00
r
�
1
PAGE 4OF5
ROAD C NE RID EXTENSION PROJECT
W/O ROAD BUILD ON EXISTING
i
EQUIPMENT ROAD BUILD
11/17/2025
EQUIPMENT ROAD BUILD
RATE
HOURS
EXT
BELLY DUMP
f $
149.00
240, $
353760.00
LOADER
$
70.00
501 $
3,500.00 f
ROAD GRADER
$
150.00
80 $
12,000.00 ; E
1
WATERI
TRUCK
$
71.00
80 $
5,680.00 {
ROLLER
[ $
50.00
160 $
8,000.00
LOW BOY/TRACTOR
$
91.00
20 $
1,820.00
FOREMAN PICK-UP
j
$
32.00
120 $
3,840.00
CREW PICKUP
€ $
13.00 1
150 $
I
1,950.00 I
DOZER
$
75.00
161 $
1,200.00 , �
EXCAVATOR
' $
80.00
16 $
f 1
11280.00
9321 $
75,030.a0. f f
jjj{[ 4f
ROAD BUILD
4
�
i
f
MATERIAL
QTY
EXT
f i �
CSBG
$
7.66
33831 $
25,916.33 1 1
CSTC
$
7.66
1643 ` $
123582.83
bl.b4 1 7501 $ 462230.00 j
EQUIPMENT ----
j $ 80.50 932 $ 75,030.00
1 $ 159,759.16
--
f
�
COST PER SQ/YD ROAD BUILD $ 1.26 j
NOTE: f
TRUCKING OFAGGR EGATE BASED ON HAULING FROM THE GRANT COUNTY MAE VALLEY PIT #563
TRUCKING BASED ON 28 TON BELLY DUMPS WITH 2 CYCLES PER HOUR
LOADER BASED ON 3 CY BUCKET
EQUIPMENT RATES BASED ON ES TMATE BREAKDOWN OF OCTOBER 4 2025
THIS ESTIMATE BASED UN THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF ROAD FROM RD 4 NE NORTH TO THE END OF THE LINCK PROPERTY 1
THIS INCLUDES THE FIRST 114 MILE OF EXISTING GRAVEL COUNTY ROAD WHICH SHOULD NOT REQUIRE A ROAD BUILD BUT ONLY
THE 2 SHOT BST
PAGE 5OF5
16138200` 31'?77000
~`�
low
This parcel was
omitted from
the letter o
interest" 69000
Road construction
161380000 ...........
r t ? and/or improvements
211241000 cannot he imposed for
a uricultural lands.
� _y
g RC W 84.34.300
t ; -
.... ROAD D 4-NE
f
F �