The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board Special Meeting 2011-01-18Prepared 1 /10/11 TOWN OF ESTES P. Mc The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high -value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 11, 2011 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated January 11, 2011. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. BOND PARK PHASE I & III DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. Director Zurn. 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR WATER AND LIGHT & POWER. Deputy Town Administrator/Utilities Director Richardson. 3. ADJOURN. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 11, 2011 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of January, 2011. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: Also Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig Jerry Miller Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administra Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting t' order at TOO, p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. HOLIDAY LIGHTING CONTEST — PRESENTATION,OF AWARDS. Mayor Pinkham stated the'contest was; sponsored by,the Town of Estes Park, the Ambassadors and the Estes Packs News 'Each winner received a certificate and a $50 dinner gift card. Best Commercial Business: Antique Hospital Best, Downtown Business Window Display Rustic Mountain Charm Best Lodging Business Swiftcurrent Lodge Best Theme — "Through the Eyes of a Child" Gloria Rademacher`' Mayor's Trophy McGregor Mountain Lodge Overall Best by - Resident Gary & Beverly Briggs Best First Time Entry - Resident Gregg Rounds ROOFTOP RODEO — SMALL RODEO OF THE YEAR AWARD. Special Events Manager Winslow presented the Town Board with the 2010 Small Rodeo Award for the Rooftop Rodeo and the 2010 Women's Professional Rodeo Association award for Small Rodeo of the Year. Mayor Pinkham stated the Rooftop Rodeo also won the 2010 Medium Rodeo of the Year from Mountain State Circuit, and stated the rodeo has now won Small Rodeo of the Year for three successive years and won the award five out of the last eight years. Mayor Pinkham awarded Ann Taylor volunteer of the year and presented her with a pair of Justin Boots. The Board thanked the Rooftop Rodeo Committee for their dedication and continued effort to make the rodeo a success. PUBLIC COMMENT. Scott Thompson/County resident and President of the Board of Realtor stated condominium sales decreased 60% in 2010 compared to the high in 2007, while single- family homes have only decreased 15%. One of the factors is the change in financing Board of Trustees — January 11, 2011 — Page 2 for condominiums. He requested the Town Board instruct the Planning Commission to review changes to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow freestanding townhomes and bring them in line with condominium regulations. Dave Caddell/County resident and appraiser reiterated comments from Mr. Thompson. He stated the new finance regulations have affected condominium developments that have not been completed, creating lost sales, loss of jobs, and uncompleted projects throughout the valley that may lead to blighted areas. He requested the EVDC regulations allow townhomes within the same zoning districts as condominiums and allow for the creation of smaller lots. Sandy Osterman/Town resident and Ambassador President stated the judging for the lighting contest was organized by Karen Crislip and conducted by the Ambassadors. Johanna Darden/Town citizen reviewed a letter submitted to the Board regarding the funding for the redevelopment of Bond Park with Open Space funds. After reviewing the Help Preserve Open Spaces Initiative, she has concluded=the funds cannot be used for the redevelopment of the park. Jim Tawney/Town resident and local developer seconded the comments from Mr. Thompson and Mr. Caddell. He requested the Town Board reconsider the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries. He stated the Town should not prohibit business opportunities in Estes Park. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the EstesPark Housing Authority meeting would be held on Wednesday, January 12m at 8:30 esti. in Room 203 and the Public Safety, Utilities, and Public Works Committee would„ be held; on Thursday, January 13th at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. A special Tours Board meeting would be held on Tuesday, January 18th at 7:0:0'p.m. to discuss%Bond Park --design and construction and to review the capital improvement plans for'both utilities. Mayor Pro Tem Levine statedthe Estes Park, Pride Award applications are available March 1-31st; however,;, nomination forms are' available currently on the Town website. He urged the community to ,nominate volunteers for "Teacher of the Year", "Volunteer of the Year": and "Business Person of the Year". Trustee Koenig recognized John and Peggy Lynch for their recent donation to Estes Valley Investment in Early: Childhood Success (EVICS). Mayor Pinkham recognized the Boy Scouts attending the meeting to learn about local government. He encouraged the public to attend the 2"d annual Winter Festival on January 14th through the-16th with the main festivities in Bond Park. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated December 14, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated December 14, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Estes Valley Planning Commission (acknowledgement only). Minutes dated November 16, 2010 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated December 7, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission Bylaw Amendments. Board of Trustees — January 11, 2011 — Page 3 6. Resolution #01-11 - Public Posting Area Designation. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANGE OF LOCATION 3.2% OFF -PREMISE BEER LICENSE HELD BY GAEL INC. DBA CASA DEL SOL Y LUNA MINI MARKET, FROM 920 DUNRAVEN STREET TO 841 DUNRAVEN STREET UNITS A & B. Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures. Town Clerk Williamson presented the application and confirmed the Town has not received any communications or evidence in support or opposition to the application. Comments were heard from Ericka Gonzalez/Applicant stating she would like to move her',business to expand the grocery store and include a butcher shop. Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing. Stating that the Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are not met by the,present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are for granting the change of location for the 3.2% Off -Premise beer license, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Elrod) the Change of Location for the 3.2% Off - Premise Beer License held by Gael Inc. dba Casa Del Sol'Y Luna Mini Market be approved, and it passed Unanimously. 3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL UPDATE. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the: third quarter report highlighting sales tax through Octoberis ahead of budget 1.3%, with expenditure at 83% of budget. He stated sales tax year-to-date is 2.2% ahead and targeted to meet the $7 million revised budget. Sales tax rate of change has moved to a positive 1;46%. Estes Park continues, to be one of six Colorado Association of Ski Towns` (CAST) communities reporting positive sales tax for 2010. 2. BOARD LIAISON; UPDATES. Trustee Elrod stated at the December Planning Commission meeting Dave Caddell discussed potential code changes for townhomes and condominiums to help address the lending environment. The Commission requested he present the issue to the Town Board to determine if potential code changes to address the issue were in order. The Commission was concerned the requested changes may only address economic concerns; however, the discussion of potential blight caused by unfinished projects seem to highlight the need for code revisions. Commissioner Klink was appointed chair of the Planning Commission and Commissioner Tucker was elected vice chair. The Commission heard discussion on Planned Unit Development and solar energy. Trustee Ericson commented that SOPA hired an Executive Director that has begun to develop fundraising efforts, which will be presented to the Town Board at an upcoming study session. The Transportation Visioning Committee met and heard a presentation from the 6th grade class on how the school parking lots could be used in conjunction with the Stanley Park transportation hub. Subcommittees were formed including data collection, timeline/schedule and issue committees. The next meeting would be held on February 2nd 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. • Platte River Power Authority will be conducting an annual phone survey with a focus on CFLs. She encouraged citizens to participate. • The first of two sign code forums would be conducted on Wednesday, January 12th and a second forum in the evening on Thursday, January 20th Board of Trustees — January 11, 2011 — Page 4 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. 1. REPORT ITEMS: A. Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code — Amend Section 13.3 definitions for Impervious Surfaces and Lot Coverage. The amendment would clarify that permeable pavement is not exempt from impervious surface and lot coverage standard. Trustee Koenig stated concern with the definition of impervious including the word permeable. She stated the two definitions should be separated and provide a statement as to why permeable pavement and graveled areas are included. She commented the definition could include a percentage of permeable paver or like products that may cover a lot. Trustee Miller stated the inclusion of permeable pavement in the definition discourages the use of the pavers that could be a valuable resource to address water quality and drainage issues impacting the infrastructure of the community. Public Hearing to be held on January 25, 2011. B. Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code - Remove all references to Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA). Public Hearing to be held on January 25, 20't;1.�= 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2011 ROAD CLOSURES FOR EVENTS. Manager Winslow presented the 2011 -road clotsures�for events and parades. • Frost Giant. Race, January 30th --100 block of`MacGregor Avenue • Parade of. the Years, May 15th —100 block of MacGregor Avenue • Art Market, May 26.30th—100block of MacGregor Avenue • Estes' Park Marathon, June '11 th — MacGregor Avenue from Elkhorn to Wonderview • Scandanavian Festival, -June 25 26th —100 block of MacGregor Avenue Coolest Cart`oe, July . th — Park Lane and MacGregor - Wonderviev • Auto Extravaganza,, August 13th —100 block of MacGregor Avenue • Estes Park_ Heritage- Festival, August 20-21 st, 100 block of MacGregor Avenue Labor Day Arts and Crafts Show, September 2 — 5th 100 block of MacGregorAvenue and south side of Park Lane • Fine. Arts Guild, September 17-18th — 100 block of MacGregor Avenue and south side of Park Lane • Elk Fest, October 1-2nd — 100 block of MacGregor Avenue and south side of Park Lane • Halloween, October 31st — Elkhorn Avenue from Riverside Drive to Tregent Park • Longs Peak Scottish -Irish Highland Festival, September 8-12th — Manford Avenue from Community Drive to School intersection and Community Drive from Highway 36 to Manford Avenue • Fairgrounds at Stanley Park, June 11-12th, July 12-17th, September 9th, September 8-12th — close shoulders on Manford Avenue • Parades — closure of parade routes — Rooftop Rodeo — July 12th, Scottish -Irish Festival — September 10th, Homecoming Parade — TBD, Catch the Glow Parade — November 25th Board of Trustees — January 11, 2011 — Page 5 Trustee Miller recommended staff prepare contingency plans for the first couple of events in May because of the proposed redevelopment of Bond Park in the spring. Trustee Koenig questioned the potential of closing East Elkhorn Avenue during the Halloween festivities to provide safety for the children. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to approve the 2011 road closures as presented, and it passed unanimously. 2. 2011 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART. Administrator Halburnt stated the Municipal Code directs the Town Administrator to present an administrative organizational chart to the Board of Trustees for approval annually. She reviewed the chart structure which outlines the Town Administrator as the overall supervisory for all departments. The Deputy Town Administrator has become the Interim Utilities Director as well as indirect supervision of the departments on a day-to-day basis. Trustee Koenig requested a dotted line from. Deputy Town Administrator to the Utilities department to show his oversight of the department!and his position as Interim Director. Trustee Ericson stated concern that, the organizational chart°does not accurately reflect the direct reporting: of the departments to the Town Administrator. The chart shows all departments reporting to the Deputy Town Administrator who then reports to the Town Administrator. After additional discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Levine) to approve the 2011 Organizational Chart; with 'a line from the Deputy Town Administrator to the Utt'llitiesrdepartment to demonstrate his direct supervision`; of the departmeh as Interim Director, and it passed unanimously:'" Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the nyeeting 8:45 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 11, 2011 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of January, 2011. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Director Zurn, Finance Officer McFarland, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. TREE BOARD UPDATE. Scott Roederer/Tree Board member stated the overgrazing by elk has severely degraded the riparian habitat within the Matthew-Resser bird sanctuary along the Lake Estes Trail. The area has become unsightly and has resulted in the loss of a variety of trees reducing essential cover for migratory birds and other wildlife. The Tree Board was charged to study, investigate, develop and administer a plan for the care, preservation, planning, replanting and'removal of -trees and shrubs in public areas of the Town. Therefore, the Tree Board has recommended $6,000 for fencing to protect the riparian area within the sanctuary to help they willows and, other plants within the area recover from the over razing In addition, ffie-Tree Board would like to apply for agrant to create a wildlife wa arboretum within the,area. The Tree Board considers this area to be the worst tree ;area in the valley. Rick Spowart/CDOW stated; the area hat been popular with elk for forage and calving due to the 1rngatton of the�golf course and abundant areas to hide calves. He has been investigating the protection of -the area that is home to over 280 species of birds during migration; however, hat not found funding for the project. He stated a buck -and -rail fence Would need to be *feet high to keep the elk out. The project would be valuable to the area and the other animal species in the area. The Town Bo ard;questioned if the elk would destroy the adjacent wooded area if the fence was constructed; is'the area considered a mapped wildlife area, would the fence be allowed per the Development Code; and in previous wildlife discussions the CDOW did not want to be involved in the decision making process or make recommendations related to wildlife. Mr. Spowart stated the adjacent area consists of mostly pines that are more durable; however, the area would likely be used by the elk. Attorney White stated the Development Code does not apply to federally owned land. Mr. Roederer stated this area is the most important bird area within the entire valley and the Development Code calls to protect a diversity of wildlife. Trustee Miller voiced support for the project. Trustee Koenig would recommend an open-ended fence be placed on the opposite side of the trail to reduce interaction of elk and pedestrians along that section of the trail. Trustee Blackhurst commented on the need to determine the financial input by the other agencies before moving forward, and stated the project should not move forward if it cannot be fully funded. Trustee Elrod questioned what projects would not be completed by the Tree Board if this project is funded. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session —January 11, 2011 — Page 2 Funding for the entire project has not been determined. The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) has approved $4,000 in funding with the anticipation of up to $10,000 in matching funds from the Bureau of Reclamation. The labor would be provided by Eagle Rock students. The Tree Board would like to move forward with the project and complete it in sections if funding is not available to complete the entire project this year. Mr. Spowart intends on seeking State funds for the project as well. Mr. Roederer stated this project would be funded by 2010 funds rolled over to 2011 and would not impact 2011 projects. Mike Richardson/Tree Board member and EVPRD District member stated the Recreation District would own and maintain the fence once completed. Town Administrator Halburnt stated no Town Board action was necessary at the regular meeting since the money was already budgeted. REGIONAL TOURISM PROJECT PROPOSAL. Frank Theis and Todd Jirsa presented a potential Regional Tourism Act (RTA) project on the Elkhorn Lodge property that would consist of tfree elements: restoration and expansion of the historic Elkhorn Lodge, a new '50-acre'�European-style winter recreation area and a cultural arts district. Mr. Theis stated the RTA was passed in 2009 to provide financial support to large-scale,' regional, tourist oriented projects in Colorado through State sales tax funds allocated over the life of a project using tax - increment financing. Applications must be submitted by;"a;local government by March 21, 2011 for a large scale Regional Tourism Project ,that is of an extraordinary and unique nature that is anticipatedpto result in a '"substantial increase in out-of-state Tourism and that generates a significant portion of the sales tax revenue by transactions with nonresidents of the,zone"" Mr. Jirsa reviewed the winter recreation;farea, stating the focus would be. on creating a year-round winter playground with a focus on affordability and education. The area would include 15 winter (skiing, tubing, alpine cart) and 10 summer activities (zip line, mountain biking, downhill skateboarding, hiking trails, horseback riding). There would be one quad chairlift and several; surface lifts to serve over 12,000 feet of groomed trails with a 400-foot vertical drop and ai terrain park. The ski facility works in this location because it" is, sheltered, north -facing slope, and the Town of Estes Park has water rights to take"water from Fall River to make snow. He stated new technology has been developed for snow making "Machines that are significantly quieter. The system would allow the area to open within 48;;hours of cold weather (minimum 27 degrees and optimal :of 17 degrees). It would take approximately 2,000 gallons per minute to run the snow machine; however, a storage facility would be constructed on site. The area would create 350 parking spaces and may include a parking structure to add to the transportation systemas a hub on the west side The project would increase the number of visitors in the winter and spring, improve the riverwalk and streetscape connections to the Elkhorn Lodge area, stimulate redevelopment of commercial and lodging facilities in the adjacent areas, and improve traffic flow from Moraine to Fall River with the use of the Wonderview bypass instead of the construction of a "western bypass". The project would enhance the economy through increased sales tax, thereby creating a balanced year-round economy. There would also be an increase in approximately 250 new jobs and the equivalent of 300 construction jobs over a two or three year period. This would help to maintain young working families in Estes Park. An indirect benefit would be the increase in the quality of life through an increase in services and goods locally. The additional sales tax would help to maintain current property taxes. Board questions and comments are summarized: what are the costs associated with the application and potential economic analysis; does the Town have details on the type of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session — January 11, 2011 — Page 3 visitors that come to Estes Park, i.e. the number of out-of-state versus in -state; before the application were to be considered the Town should establish if water rights exist and if they can be used to make snow; and EPURA could have developed through a public/private partnership that the Town cannot inter into. Mr. Theis stated the LMD has statics showing that a third of visitors come from out-of- state, third from within Colorado and third from the Front Range. An economic analysis would need to be completed and submitted with the application with a cost of $30,000 to $40,000. If the project is accepted by the State, the applicant would have to pay for an independent economic analysis; however, the applicant could make that decision after accessing the competition. If the project was developed, the Town would have to develop a Regional Tourism Authority to collect and remit funds to the State, similar to EPURA; however, the authority would not have the ability to condemn property. The property would be owned by a non-profit corporation that would plat the property into the three Tots. He envisions the Town purchasing the cultural arts lot. Attorney White stated the Town has direct water flow rights for Fall River; however, an augmentation plan would need to be developed in order to_.make snow. He would review the issue and numbers and report to the Board on whether or not the Fall River water rights could be used. He commented the Town could not enter into a private/public partnership; therefore, the Town would-be the applicant and if the project was approved a private entity would have to develop and operate the facility. Mr. Theis stated the next step would be to co[lect public input on the project at a special meeting. The Board discussed the issue and recommended Mr. Theis and Mr. Jirsa facilitate a public forum meeting. There being no further business, Mayor;Pink he meeting at 6:55 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFPM, Public Works Director Date: January 18, 2011 RE: Bond Park Phases I & III Design and Construction Background: In September, 2010, RG Consultants/Winston Associates were hired to design and engineer the construction documents for Bond Park Phases I and III, as identified by the Bond Park Master Plan. Using preferences identified in three stakeholders meetings, the design team created a plan and budget options for your consideration. Attached is a graphic representation of the stakeholder's preferred design; tonight, Paul Kuhn of Winston Associates and Gary Welp of RG Consultants will present, in detail, the design elements and cost estimates to implement Phases I and III of the Bond Park Master Plan. Upon your approval, bids will be solicited to implement one of the options presented tonight. On a related issue, the stakeholder group recommended the addition of a storm drainage system to service Bond Park and the surrounding area, which is outside the scope of the original project. Funding has not yet been identified for this, which is estimated at $120,000. Budget: $500,000 Larimer County Open Space Funds 220-4600-462.35-60 $120,000 Community Reinvestment Fund 204-5400-544.25-24 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends proceeding with the solicitation of bids to implement the preferred option, with a budget not to exceed $500,000. Staff further recommends funding the storm sewer project at a cost of approximately $120,000 to be funded from the 2011 Community Reinvestment Fund. Sample Motion: I move to accept/deny the RG/Winston preferred design option, and to authorize the solicitation of bids to construct this project, with a budget not to exceed $500,000. I further move to approve/deny funding the storm sewer project for a cost of approximately $120,000 from the 2011 Community Reinvestment Fund. 4 d PREFERRED CONCEPT [0" 0 0 z ° 0 w 0 u) 0 0_ fy 0_ 0_ o 0 U-I CC) AVOCET IRRIGATION DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL -ENGINEERING DESIGNING GROUP January 13, 2011 TO: Mayor Bill Pinkham and Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees members: Eric Blackhurst, Mark Elrod, John Erickson, Wendy Koenig, Chuck Levine (Mayor Pro Tem), and Jerry Miller FROM: Johanna Darden, Full -Time Resident at 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Bond Park Master Plan Special Meeting on January 18, 2011 Before approving Phases I and III of the Bond Park Master Plan, it would be a good idea to look at some of the problems which have not yet been resolved. It is important to resolve these problems before beginning the development process, because there may not be enough money to achieve our intended Plan. 1) One of the biggest problems with Bond Park has been drainage. How is the Master Plan going to solve this problem? The plan states: "Standard turf systems (organic soil amendments tilled into the soil prior to seeding or sodding) are cost effective ($0.50 to $1.50/SF). However, they will probably not hold up to the level of use the turf in Bond Park sees — even if the vendor tents and car displays are moved off the turf. A standard turf system may be feasible if the slope for the turf area is increased to at least 2% (2' of fall for every 100') and the grass is given adequate time to establish before being used (sometimes as long as a full growing season)." "A modified turf system is recommended and included in the current opinion of probable cost for Bond Park. This approach includes a careful analysis of the existing soils, creating a consistent slope for the turf areas of at least 1.75%, adding a mix of soil amendments and sand to site soils to improve drainage, and adding subdrains approximately every 12'. At $3.50 TO $4.50/SF, this system is not as expensive as sand - based turf systems like the Broncos or Rockies use, but should resolve the current drainage problems and withstand heavy use. One potential area of concern is that the turf subdrains will need a place to drain and there are no storm drains in the streets near Bond Park. Additional engineering studies will be needed to address this issue." In the Record of Proceedings of the Town Board Study Session — December 14, 2010 Director Zurn stated, "the Bond Park stakeholders have been reviewing the design for phases I and III of the Bond Park Master Plan. There is no storm sewer system within the entire block of Elkhorn Avenue adjacent to the park; therefore, drainage has driven the design that includes a swale in the middle of the park. Staff has discovered a utility easement on Lot 1A, Schwery Amended Plat, adjacent to the park, that runs to the river, which was dedicated to the Town through EPURA during the creation of the riverwalk. The installation of a storm sewer system could address runoff within the entire area, allow for park sod underdrain system and allow the use of porous pavement drainage system. The cost could range from $96,000 to $183,000 including contingency. The Mayor Bill Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees - Bond Park Master Plan p. 2 of 3 Special Meeting on January 18, 2011 consensus of the Board was to address the long term storm water issue in the area through the creation of a sewer system as outlined above and to use the same engineering firm to keep costs down." Let's think about the above paragraph very carefully. The use of this utility easement to my knowledge cannot be changed allowing the creation of a sewer system as outlined. Here we get into some pretty hairy legal issues. I think it is best to assume that this will not be an option, and then we are back to the problem of not having stoiiii drains in the streets near Bond Park. This means we could spend a ton of money and not accomplish our objective, i.e., big problem. At the very least concretely solve this drainage issue BEFORE proceeding to begin redevelopment. Since the Town was paying $20,000/yr to maintain the grass in Bond Park, we could have many years of sod replacement in the Park before spending $2M for a project that might not leave us better off than we are at present. At $20,000/yr we could keep the present grassy area which is larger than that shown in the new Master Plan, we could keep our healthy trees, and we could still have our festivals in the Park. As far as keeping our healthy trees (both young and old), it is stated in the Plan that any trees which interfere with the concept of the Bond Park Master Plan will be eliminated. Healthy trees will definitely be affected by Phase I and Phase III of the Master Plan, because their root systems will not be protected and in some cases they will be removed because they are in the space where planters and the "perhaps" ice skating rink will be placed. Let's decide whether we are to have an ice-skating rink before we tear up the ground and put paving stones or concrete in the Northeast comer of Bond Park, which is where the rink is to be. It is my understanding that the cost of the ice-skating rink has not been figured into the $2M price of the redevelopment. It is also my understanding that the paved area where festival tents will be placed requires tearing up a portion of the grassy area on the East side of Bond Park. This lessens the grassy area of the Park. Although the deciduous trees in the Southeast corner of Bond Park are to remain, what will be done to protect their root systems so they do not die from the stress of the construction? Phase I will take almost all, if not all, of the money from the "Help Preserve Open Spaces Initiative." Where will the money for Phase III come from? When Steve McFarland told the Larimer County Open Space Board that we plan to spend our Open Spaces Initiative money on Phase I, it became apparent at that meeting that there is currently no money from any other source to maintain the Park in the years to come. I don't think it is the intention of the citizens of Estes Park to use all of the "Help Preserve Open Spaces Initiative" funds on Bond Park. That money is also to be used to fund preservation "of wildlife habitat and buffers to Rocky Mountain National Park and to provide trails as described in the Estes Park Hike and Bike Plan and the Estes Valley Trails Plan; and that Mayor Bill Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees - Bond Park Master Plan p. 3 of 3 Special Meeting January 18, 2011 a portion of the revenue shall be used for long-term management and maintenance of those purposes." Since the citizens would not have passed an initiative for the preservation of wildlife habitat unless they wished to protect our wildlife, it is apparent that Mayor Bill Pinkham, the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Estes Valley County Commissioners went against our wishes when they voted not to preserve our calving and fawning habitats or to protect any animal not on the Colorado Endangered Species List.. Please carefully consider my objections to going forth with Phases I and III at this time. Please enter this into the Public Record Xc: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Scott Zurn, Director, Public Works Jacque Williamson, Town Clerk Steve McFarland, Chief Financial Officer Kate Rusch, Public Outreach January 13, 2011 To: Mayor Bill Pinkham and the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees members: Eric Blackhurst, Mark Elrod, John Erickson, Wendy Koenig, Chuck Levine (Mayor Pro Tem), and Jerry Miller From: Johanna Darden 501 Mac Gregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Funding for Bond Park Redevelopment — Special Meeting January 18, 2011 Help Preserve Open Spaces Initiative funds are being used and have been set aside to implement the Bond Park Master Plan, the plan to redevelop Bond Park. I have been told that these funds can be used because there is not a good definition of "Open Spaces." In going over the citizens' initiative document, which is the law, I find it states clearly what open space lands may be funded through the Help Preserve Open Spaces Initiative. On Page 5, Number 16, a) "Open space lands may include: Lands with significant natural resource, scenic and wildlife habitat values: Lands that are buffers maintaining community identity such as the area between Fort Collins and Loveland and the area between Loveland and Berthoud. Lands that are to be used for regional trails and/or wildlife migration routes; Lands that will be preserved for agricultural purposes from willing participants. Lands that provide outdoor recreation, environmental education or nature observation opportunities near population centers, including areas that expand or provide buffers to existing parklands; Lands with other important values such as scenic and historic sites that contribute to Larimer County's natural and cultural heritage. Lands considered highly desirable for preservation using revenue from Larimer County's attributable share and in cooperative partnerships with other entities include: Riparian lands and access to riparian lands along the Big Thompson River and the Cache La Poudre River; Wildlife habitat and scenic open space located in the foothills and upland grasslands in the vicinity of Fort Collins and Loveland; Buffers to maintain community identity which include agricultural uses in the areas between Fort Collins and Loveland and Loveland and Berthoud; Wildlife habitat, scenic open space and buffers to the Rocky Mountain National Park in the Estes Park area including the Meadowdale Ranch conservation easement; Lands for wildlife habitat protection and passive recreation at plains reservoirs including Fossil Creek;" Mayor Pinkham and Estes Park Board of Trustees Page 2 of 2 January 13, 2011 I believe that any funds used for the redevelopment of Bond Park do and will constitute an illegal use of the Help Preserve Open Spaces Initiative monies. Bond Park is a small town park. The only remnants of a historical nature in the Park are concrete foundations for the old post office and the library. Since there is no historical building in Bond Park to preserve, it is unreasonable to use these funds to confine this space and do away with any young or old healthy trees and grass currently in existence. Bond Park does not provide outdoor recreation, environmental education or nature observation opportunities. Other than being a place to relax and enjoy the mountain views, this park is used for festivals approximately a dozen times a year for only a few days at most for each festival. I don't think that approximately 36 days out of 365 days can be considered a primary use of the Park. We have Performance Park, which in my opinion is more suitable for festivals, because there are restroom facilities and plenty of parking available nearby. There already exists a hard surface there where festival tents can be put up without destroying the grass. Some of the festivals would function better at Stanley Park as well.. In addition, many merchants object to people parking for the festivals near where they have their businesses, thereby prohibiting customers from shopping in their stores. Most of the festivals are self-contained sales opportunities. When the Focus Groups met on July 24, 2009, they discussed possible funding for the Bond Park Master Plan renovation. The focus group comprised of the Town representatives mentioned the use of the citizens' initiative funds along with other sources. The other focus groups, i.e., Civic Partners, Community Partners, and downtown Estes Park stakeholders, did not suggest using citizens' initiative funds. Some people have unfairly accused me of taking a late interest in the redevelopment of Bond Park. I should like to point out that on page 21 of the Bond Park Master Plan I am shown in Figure 8: Public Forum #1. Granted my back is to the camera, but I am talking with Connie Phipps and seated next to me is my neighbor, Marjorie Puzin. Many people at that meeting were concerned with the cost of the renovation and they wanted the Park to be kept open with the existing grass and trees. I ask that you not use Help Preserve Open Spaces' Initiative funds for the redevelopment of Bond Park Please enter this statement into the Public Record. I OWN OF STES P R:I Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Date: January 18, 2011 RE: Capital Improvement Program for Water and Light and Power Background: (2010) HDR consulting presented the results of their rate study for Water and Light and Power at the December 14th Town Board study session. During their presentation HDR staff addressed each utility's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as part of the recommended rate increases. For each utility it was stated rate increases are based in part on their CIP's. The HDR report does identify other factors that require increasing the rates as well; they are operation and maintenance expenses, taxes and transfers, debt service obligations and source of supply expenses. HDR identified three components to Capital Improvement Programs; renewal and replacement, regulatory requirements and growth related facilities (L&P pg.18). Historical information provided through Town Board minutes and Utility Committee minutes suggests that rate studies are an important part of the current business model for both utilities. Since bonded debt is based on revenues generated and establishes the Bond rating for each of the utilities, rate studies allow executive management and operational management the opportunity to more effectively plan each utility for the present and future. In 2003, Town Board members iterated the importance of maintaining adequate reserves to meet capital replacement needs and to manage unplanned repairs and replacement costs. This same Board opined gradual annual rate increases are encouraged over sporadic larger one time increases. Long range planning for capital replacement, capital projects and maintenance of capital infrastructure has always been the role of staff. Used as a management tool, staff can plan out funding capital projects dependent on fund balance or financing options. As the infrastructure for each utility ages the price to maintain or replace goes up. Matching the depreciation value of assets each year and maintaining an adequate revenue base to maintain water and electric requires consistent reasonable rate adjustments. For both utilities maintaining redundancy is a critical component to the operations of the Town's utility services for the community. These redundancies directly impact the capital budget and fund balances for each utility to include planning their respective CIPs. Water Traditionally staff develops long range forecasting through the CIP. Based on one of three priority ratings staff presents the Town Board recommend capital projects for the year. According to research (Town Board and Utility Committee minutes) this business practice has been in place for many years. With a combination of debt service obligations and rates failing to adequately fund capital improvements, HDR has recommended a portion of the proposed rate increases fund the Water CIP (Water pg.16 table 3-2). By adopting HDR's recommendations the Water utility would move closer to meeting the replacement of their depreciated value on its capital assets (Water pg. 16-17). As depicted in the table below budget replacement of depreciated value has not been accomplished for Water except when bonding a capital project: WATER 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* 2011* CAPITAL DEPRECIATION NET (40 year useful life) 466,115 (474,175) (8,060) 136,727 (475,325) (338,598) 326,805 (473,394) (146,589) 2,574,344 (467,721) 2,106,623 4,739,754 (584,286) 4,155,468 1,095,817 (600,000) 495,817 486,000 (600,000) (114,000) (* HDR 2010 report depreciation values) Light and Power Traditionally staff has developed the CIP with assistance from outside consulting services. Within the HDR study recommendations for Light and Power address the need at a minimum to meet the annual depreciated value of its assets (L&P pg.19). Since 2005 Light and Power has maintained its budget replacement depreciation ratios with exception of two years. The table below demonstrates Light and Powers capital replacement budget vs. depreciation: L&P CAPITAL DEPRECIATION NET (30 year useful life) 2005 590,348 (521,661) 68,687 2006 623,485 (545,601) 77,884 2007 805,255 (574,398) 230,857 2008 5,254,660 (678,207) 4,576,453 2009 516,863 (783,733) (266,870) 2010* 2,076,204 (800,000) 1,276,204 2011* 724,872 (800,000) (75,128) A combination of bonding capital projects and adequate replacement budgeting of capital assets has met the recommendations for the standard depreciation ratios made by HDR for Light and Power. However, it is important to note replacement values for future replacement capital is assumed to be 1 '/2 to 2 times the value compared to the actual purchase price. Overall the Water utility has not met the standard depreciation replacement ratios as recommended by HDR while Light and Power is achieving those minimum standards but is not meeting actual future value replacement costs. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: N/A economic adjustments to the 2011 budget. By 2015, primarily as a result of assumed inflation over the time period, the 0&M expenses are projected to Increase to approximately $3.07 million. No extraordinary O&M expenses were assumed during the planning period. 3.5 Projection of Capital Improvements Funded Through Rates The Town's water utility has many capital improvement projects and capital expenses planned over the study's time horizon. In total, there is approximately $3.98 million in projected capital projects over the 6-year period. A summary of the capital projects is provided below in Table 3- 2. Table3-2 ; ummary of Capiital Improvement Projects ($000 Protect Description 2010 2011 -2012 2013 2014 2015 Capital Improvement Projects Capital Equipment Water Line System Projects Priority 1 Projects Priority 2 Projects Water System Plan Total Capital Improvements Less: Outside Funding Operating Reserves Capital Reserves New Debt Issue Total outside Funding CIP From Rates $1,063 $251 $49 $49 $49 $49 O 0 0 594 0 425 O 0 202 0 562 111 32 235 150 48 0 116 $1,095 $486 $401 $691 $611 $700 $945 $150 $151 $0 $0 $0 O 161 0 341 11 0 O 0 0 0 150 150 $945 $311 $151 $341 $161 $150 $150 $175.- $250 $350 $450 $550 There are a number of different methods which may be used to fund the capital plan. Among the methods that may be used to finance these capital improvement projects are Tong -term debt, operating reserves, capital reserves, and rates. A general financial guideline states that, at a minimum, a utility should fund an amount equal to or greater than annual depreciation through rates. Annual depreciation expense reflects the current investment in plant being depreciated or "losing" its useful life. Therefore, this portion of plant investment needs to be replaced to maintain the existing level of infrastructure. It must be kept in mind that, in theory, annual depreciation expense reflects an investment in infrastructure an average of 15 years ago, assuming a 30- year useful, depreciable, life. Simply funding an amount equal to annual depreciation expense will not be sufficient to replace the existing or depreciated facility. Therefore, consideration should be given to funding within rates some amount greater than annual depreciation expense for renewals and replacements. Whenever possible, the Town should be funding capital projects from rates in an amount greater than annual depreciation expense. "A general financial guideline states that, at a minimum, a utility should fund an amount equal to or greater than annual depreciation through rates." L ' Development of the Revenue Requirement 1J 1Town of Estes Park — Water Cost of Service Study 16 Page 16 of 110 M 1 In order to minimize the rate impacts the Town is not projected to fund annual depreciation expense of approximately $620,000 in 2011. However, over the five year period the capital funded from rates is increased to move toward the target annual depreciation funding levels. The projected annual depreciation expense of $680,000 in 2015 is not reached, but movement toward that target can continue. As shown in Table 3-2 the funding sources for the Town capital projects are assumed to be from the Town's reserves, rates, and debt. 3.6 Projection of Debt Service The next component of the utility's revenue requirement is debt service. At the present time, the water utility has three outstanding debt obligations. The 1990 bond will be paid in full in 2010; as well as, the 1997 bond will be paid off in 2011. The 2008 bond has a payment of approximately $360,000 annually. Additional debt service of approximately $325,000 in new revenue bonds is projected during the six -year period reviewed to fund future capital projects beginning in 2013. Currently, the surcharge revenue from one customer is approximately $22,000. Starting in 2011, that surcharge revenue is completed, and therefore, revenue will be approximately $22,000 less in future years. With the adjustment in revenue, debt service coverage will be slightly lower in future years, but is maintained above the minimum DSC requirement. Generally, revenue bonds contain covenants requiring rates to meet a specified minimum debt service coverage ratio (DSC). the utility's ability to repay the debt. Typically, the DSC is set at a level such that revenues less operating expenses will be 1.25 times greater than the maximum annual debt service on the outstanding debt. Given a minimum DSC, it is often prudent to plan or set rates at a level which exceeds this minimum. This guarantees meeting the minimum DSC, and at the same time, provides a slight cushion for unexpected changes. This should also strengthen the Town's ability to issue Tong -term debt in the future, if necessary, since bond rating agencies would review the Town's past financial strength and ability to repay the bonds. The 2008 bonds require only a 1.1 coverage ratio. be set at an adequate level to This is a financial measure of "Typically, the DSC is set at a level such that revenues less operating '. expenses will be 1.25 times greater than the maximum annual debt service on the outstandin0 debt." 3.7 Projection of Change in Working Capital The final component of the Town's revenue requirement is working capital. At the present time, the Town is meeting the target minimum reserve balances of 90 days 0&M expense. In 2015, after the proposed rate adjustments, additional revenue will be added to the operating reserve fund. At the end of 2015, the reserve funds will continue to meet the target minimum reserve levels. 3.8 Summary of the Revenue Requirement Given the above projections of revenues and expenses, a summary of the revenue requirement for the Town's water utility can be developed. In developing the final revenue requirement, consideration was given to the financial planning considerations of the Town. In particular, emphasis was placed on attempting to minimize rates, yet still have adequate funds to support the operational activities and capital projects throughout the projected time period. Table 3-3 Development of the Revenue Requirement 17 �� Town of Estes Park — Water Cost of Service Study Page 17 of 110 The operating budget for 2010 and 2011 was used as a starting point for the analysis, and costs were projected into the future years ----- -_- ---- ---- based upon the use of various escalation factors. Future costs were generally $1,608 escalated at a rate of 1% to 4.4% per year, depending upon the specific cost to $676 be escalated. Total other 0&M expenses, excluding purchased power, are anticipated to be approximately $4.2 million in 2010 and increasing to $4.9 million in 2015. Total 0&M expense including purchase power ranges from approximately $9.6 million in 2010 to $11.9 million in 2015. 2010 Budgeted O&M Expenses ($000s) $5,472 $1,921 ie Source and Supply a Distribution e Customer Accounts Administration & General 3.4.3 Projection of Taxes and Transfers The second component of the "cash basis" revenue requirement is any taxes or transfer payment. The utility currently has three different tax or transfer payments; an in -lieu -of tax payment, a franchise fee and a general fund transfer. The in -lieu -of tax payment is equal to 2.5% of urban revenue, while the franchise fee is 3% of urban revenue. Finally, the general fund transfer is calculated as 8.5% of total utility revenue. Total taxes and transfers are $1.36 million in 2010 and projected to be $1.44 in 2015, not including future rate adjustments. Because these taxes and transfer payments are calculated on revenue, they will increase as rate increases are implemented. 3.4.4 Projection of Debt Service Expenses The third component of the "cash basis" revenue requirement analysis is debt service, which includes both principle and interest payments. One method of financing capital projects is to issue long-term debt. When issuing debt the utility will incur a debt service payment. At the current time, the utility has only one outstanding revenue bond, or debt obligation, which has a payment of approximately $448,000 per year. It has also been assumed in this analysis that no new debt issues will be necessary during the five year projected period. Capital projects during the test period will be funded through rates and capital reserves. 3.4,5 Projection of Capital Expenditures The final component of the revenue requirement is the amount of capital expenditures to be funded from rates. As with any utility, the electric utility has an on -going capital improvement program. Within this program, the utility undertakes projects which are of three categories or types. These categories are renewal and replacement, regulatory and growth related facilities. Renewal and replacement projects, which are related to the replacement of existing facilities, are generally funded from current rates. In contrast to this, regulatory -related projects may be funded from a combination of rates and long-term borrowing. Finally, growth or expansion related facilities may be funded from a combination of rates, long-term debt and expansion related fees and charges (e.g. line extension charges). While the above discussion has segregated capital expenditures into three convenient categories, the reality is capital expenditures are often some combination of two or three of Development of the Revenue Requirements Town of Estes Park — Electric Cost of Service Study 18 Page 18 of 104 i these types of capital expenditures. For example, it is not unusual to replace a conductor, and at the same time over -size the new conductor for anticipated growth and capacity needs on the system. A simple guideline that can be used as a means to determine a reasonable amount of funding for renewals and replacements was to consider the level of annual depreciation expense for the utility. At a minimum the Town should fund an amount equal to or greater than the annual depreciation expense for the utility. It should be noted that depreciation expense reflects the average cost of items placed into service over a number of years. Given that the replacement cost may be 1.5 to 2.0 times higher than the depreciation expense, it may be reasonable to fund an amount through rates that is 1.5 to 2.0 times depreciation expense to reflect the actual replacement cost. The current analysis assumed that the Town would fund $600,000 in 2010 increasing to $950,000 in 2015. By 2015, the utility is funding an amount that is roughly equal to the annual depreciation expense and is therefore funding at the suggested minimum level of renewal and replacement funding. While this level is not at replacement level funding, it is certainly a very positive step in the right direction of providing adequate funding. The capital plan through 2015 was provided by utility staff, and modified slightly during review of the study and the 2011 budget process. For the six -year period approximately $5.7 million of capital expenses has been assumed. Provided below in Table 3-2 is a summary of the utility's strategic capital improvement plan. Table 3-2 Summary of the Electric Utility Capital Improvement Plan (000's) 2010. 2011 2012 •2013 2014 Capital Protects - Capital Equipment Overhead Underground Total Capital Protects Less: Funding Sources $43 $73 $58 $58 $58 $58 884 250 625 725 650 350 1.086 120 120 120 120 340 $2,014 $443 $803 $903 $828 $748 Operating Reserves $1,801 $85 $295 $345 $220 $90 Capital Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Debt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Outside Funding Sources $1,801 $85 $295 $345 $220 $90 Capital improv. Funded Through Rates $600 $750 $800 $850 $900 $950 As can be seen at the bottom of Table 3-2, capital improvements funded from rates gradually increases each year to strive to reach the target of funding a minimum of depreciation expense in asset replacement projects. I Da Development of the Revenue Requirements Town of Estes Park - Electric Cost of Service Study 19 Page 19 of 104 Provide summary of direction provided at, Stakeholder review meetings Best ideas from two options" Describe materials and finishes Review preferred concep plan i Review opinion of probable cost and phasin options Best Features= -- Keep ring of: seating boulders'. Eliminate:, metal tree i grates (too'`, urban):; Minimize intrusion into ;:' park Look at -. preserving:! existing trees;:'. Keep ?, curvilinear l< Festival Promenade,:; ,Keepthe 2alignment:for! 3 MacGregor;: • Avenue Keep the river' boulders as bollards Look for options; to enhance:°;t .s :tinted concrete l,Eitmmate ttie 'River b, anding i iin tinted concrfite:,:.iz ,; Best Fe Add planters with rased seat walls (bid: alternate if necessary): ,lain am width ?` for Park Lane -i due to limited `. ROW on north side:` Like exposed -. aggregate concrete ;. walks / tinted [?. accents if -: budget Prefer concrete:,. unitpavers foF MacGregorend: :Park Cane rf,'; „, budgetellows .: antllife cycle :costs favorabis Consotrdate hendtcap spaces at walk to'pubbo; restmom _ iConslder _„ an -.ling back! rtheast Plaza; ure phase) Prefer:;tree wells;with decorative:'; curb over tree grates (saidstone curbs: if possible,) Prefer'rlchness anc� reduced maintenance of`,concrrete pnuers. • Uses pavers to stripe parking''spaces:? "Stroller fneddIV Detail Preferences (cont Tinted andexposed aggregate concrete TOEP Staff advocates permanent event tent tie downs River boulders es parkfhg , bollards Plan for event tents Preferred Concept Plan Preferred Concept Plan -- Detail Views . ildng during id events) ed (Trylcal) Feelivel Promenade WmAccent Paving', Trees to Be Removed Opinion of Probable Cost.Surnrrra IIN — NM EN wriMealiellieleolasnionlionesal C® Discussioni ems Traffic Flow Patternfor Park Lane • One-way Traffic,an MacGregor Avenue • Increased Two wayTrafficen Park Lane Park Lariel.7 ReversedFSuper Elevation • Exist ngCondltian negative ,3 8 percenrcross slope Typical negative croEp ss se 2 percent' storm Sewer Outfal . Uses :Exrstmg Easement to River Helps Mrtrgatm e local and Regrona) Drainage Issues: • Allows for Park Sod Underdram System Allows for Use of Porous Pavement Drainage System; Conceptual Cosh Estrrnate #. EP Traffic How Patterns Super -Elevation — Park Lane GRADING LOW OINTPNPCLNVE WNMOE WOWNE OROP]FN SEWER MMM CPTONB e1M Ellif ORADEILONO PAR ANG DMNNJEVN CURB MOOMER Black Canyon Outfall', Trench Drain: Detail Details — Planter Walls Sandstone Veneer .'.(Bedding Plane) Sandstone Veneer.', (Snapped Edge) CIP and Rates ML ❑ Rate Study Components 1) Revenue Requirements 2) Cost of Service Analysis 3) Rate Design o (2010 HDR) Water and Light and Power o Revenue requirements determine our rates and are based on: • Fund O&M • Fund Capital Infrastructure Notable Quotes iMannT Town Board meeting January 14, 2003 Speaking to the rate study for Light and Power - "Rate increases are not pleasant actions, however its obvious such action must be taken" It would be more appropriate to look at rotes every year with potential increases to occur in smaller increments." "The Electric Fund is an Enterprise Fund and must pay for itself." "As good managers, the Town must have reserves to assist with catastrophic loss." (In utilities) "I appreciate that staff and Rate Consultants are now looking ahead; it behooves the Town Board to re-examine rates on a yearly basis, passing on smaller incremental rate increases." 1 1/18/20T1 Capital Improvement Program ❑ (HDR 2010) The CIP's are comprised of three main components; renewal and replacement, regulatory requirements and growth related facilities. ❑ (2005 GFOA) (2009 CAFR) Capital is defined as anything with a value of $5,000 or more, and a useful life of 1 year or more. CIP Development ❑ Internally maintain CIP program list ❑ Approved annually during budget process ❑ Developed by staff and outside consulting firm(s) ❑ Historically presented in Financial Plans and Rate Studies ❑ Replacement timeline 201 1- 2015 Utility Systems Infrastructure SIMUNIC ❑ 109 miles of water lines ❑ 7 Pressure Reducing Valves (PRV's) ❑ 3 pumping stations ❑ 9 Water tanks ❑ Two Treatment plants ❑ 1 Water dispenser ❑ 1 Raw water pit (ML) ❑ Two substations with system capability of 12,470 volts ❑ 4,522 utility poles ❑ 379 miles of overhead lines ❑ 50 miles underground ❑ 10 distribution circuits ❑ 2,780 Transformers ❑ 69 pieces of switch gear 2 Infrastructure Value 2009 ❑ Land, Consents and Water Rights $4,390,000 ❑ Structures and Improvements $2,164,000 ❑ Distribution Systems $17,580,820 ❑ Meters and Hydrants $718,459 ❑ Equipment $1,282,632 Total $23,560,914 2009 ❑ Hydraulic Production $170,885 ❑ Distribution Plant $20,074,505 ❑ General Plant $3,560,885 Total $23,806,276 Depreciation of Fixed Assets MISESEr ❑ Light and Power ❑ Avg. 40 year useful life ❑Asset Value $23,806,276 ❑Annual depreciation amount ❑$595,157 ❑ Water ❑Avg. 40 year useful life ❑Asset value $23,560,914 DAnnual Depreciation Amount ❑$589,022 Debt Service Requirements ARTCiFAMEM ❑ Each Utility carries debt for past capital projects, whether a loan or bonded debt there are obligations to that debt, affecting the ability to bond in the future and receiving preferable bond ratings: o Debt service ratio o Maintaining revenues through rate increases o Financial management practices (O&M, fund balances etc...) 3 Decision Making Model for Capital Pro cram Planninc ❑ Staff's Knowledge and Experience of system ❑ Computer generated modeling (utility specific) ❑ Professional Engineering Consultants ❑ Age of Capital Assets ❑ Current Conditions of system ❑ Depreciation replacement values ❑ Financial Resources ❑ Prioritization Utility CIP Replacement Schedule ❑ Water System o (2011) Prospect PRV increase and Thunder Mountain Es (2012) Strong Ave PRV o (2013) Stanley Circle o (2013) Bureau Area Mains Phase 1 o (2013) Bureau Area Services Phase 1 o (2014) Park View Lane o (2015) Yellow Zone Tank o (2015) Bureau Area Mains Phase 2 o (2015) Bureau Area Services Phase 2 o (2015) Panorama Circle a (2015) Spruce Drive Utility CIP Replacement Schedule offt ❑ Light and Power System • r (2011-2015) Building remodel • (2011-2015) Station Equipment • (2011-2015) Poles, Towers, Fixtures • (2011-2015) Overhead Conductor upgrades • (20112015) Office Equipment • (2011) Network server (SCADA System) • (2012-2015) Maintenance • (2011-2015) Wireless base/security • (2011-2015) Overhead Service extensions • (2012-2015) Overhead Small projects • (2011-2012) Overhead Switchbacks to Glen Haven • (2012-2013) Overhead Allenspark tree cable phase 1 • (2013-2014) Overhead Allenspark phase 2 • ((2014-2015) Overhead Old Ranger Road to Fish Hatchery • (2011-2015) Overhead Underground Service Extensions • (2011-2015) Overhead Underground Small projects • (2011-2015) Overhead Underground Aber optics • (2011-2015) Line Transformers Future Capital Projects Fuivre Water Capital EioJets' Less Operating and Reserves CIP From Rates,', Capitol Future Light and Power Capita( Projects Less:Operating and';Capkal CIP funded'fhrougk. Recommended Rofes. $311,000 $175,000 $724,872 ^, $85,000 750,000 $151,000 $803,000.. $295,000 341,000 903,000 $345,000 5800,000 $89Qo0o: Overview o CIP and Rates o CIP Development o Infrastructure o Depreciation standards o Debt Service Obligations o CIP Management Tool for Staff ❑ CIP Schedule Planned to 2015 a Questions K Jackie Williamson From: Schoen,Jane C [Jane.Schoen@edwardjones.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:37 PM To: undisclosed.for.privacy@edwardjones.com Subject: Bond Park Remodel Comments Jackie, Could you see that these comments get to the right person. I will not be able to attend Tuesday night's town meeting but have many questions and concerns about details on the proposed design and the impact on the organizers,vendors and town with respect to logistics (layout, electrical, booth spaces, loading/unloading, dumpster location etc.). Deb Combs (Art Center Memorial Weekend event), Kathy Littlejohn (Fine Arts Guild late September event) and I (Sunrise Rotary Labor Day Weekend event) have met briefly and share many of the same questions and concerns. Is it possible to schedule a working session to review some of the details and issues on the plan as it relates to event execution, mapping and logistics with various event organizers given our experience about what works and what doesn't work? Several things on this plan have changed from the conceptual plan or are unclear and now it is more critical to consider some of these issues as we go to the final planning stages. 1. Will the booth layout (mapping) be the same for every event or will any flexibility be permitted? 2. In the current plan we are not able to identify 100 booth locations. How many will there be? Where are they mapped? Is the map to scale? Also we have consistently raised concerns about the booths located on Park Lane as to traffic flow and would like to have a thorough discussion with the planning team again. Although all of us have provided comments in the early stage, a majority of your comments probably came from the general public without an understanding of traffic flow issues at these events. 3. We have heard multiple conversations about electrical and tie downs, but nothing clearly spelling out the mapping relative to the number of outlets and how to effectively run cords. Also, will the outlets be raised or level? 4. It is unclear what is represented in the diagram on the corner of Elkhorn and MacGregor. Is there space for a registration booth? 5. What is the time frame to start and complete? What is the contingency plan if the work is not completed? 6. Where will the dumpsters be located? 7. What areas will be permitted for loading and unloading? Jane Schoen Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary Labor Day Weekend Arts & Crafts Show 612-889-3956 EdwardJones MAKING SENSE OF INVESTING Jane Schoen Financial Advisor 1 Jackie Williamson From: claire ray [ciaireestes@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 4:44 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Phase III of Bond Park Jackie, Pm concerned that phase three will shut me down during the time of the work. If this is done during the month of May, which is one of the few months I can actually show a profit, that is when I will be closed. Also things usually don't run on time meaning it will go longer than expected going into June. Is there any reason not to do this phase first. Closing MacGreagor won't hurt at any time of year, so please consider doing phase III first. Thank you Claire Ray Claire's On The Park i PHASE I atad III; ZF?acGREGOR AVENUE and PARK LANE -- OPINION OE PROBABLE 'OS I Bond Park Cost Estimate Town of Estes Park, Colorado January 18, 2011 1 Full Project Phase t and ltl Complete $709,757 2 Reducfion in ScopS of Park Lane from Elkhorn to Virginia $fi31,818 3 Reduction in Scope of Park Lane from Elkhorn to Mid -Block between in and MacGregor $548,003 ',." 4 Reductioran Scope of Park Lane from Ekhorn to MacGregor $490,589 8 Reduetion'in Costs by Materials Changes . (ranges fram) `($50,680) ' {$112 545) 6 Addition of Two Seat Walls' $25,000 PHASE I and iRl. 1V1acGREGOR AVENUE and PARK LANE _. OPINION OI+ PROIlLE G4B9'R FHII Project Phase 1 and 111 Complete BOod Park Cost Ijstirnwce 7 own of Ustes Pat'k, Colorado January le, 2011 '6RfA7tWIT.' IIMIN =..ua 1 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS, INSURANCE AND FEES (4.0%) i LS $22,989.01''$22,969.07 $22,969 2 MOBILIZATION I DEMOBILIZATION AND TEMPORARY FACILITIES (4.0%) i LS $22,989.01 ` $22989,01 " '$2_2,989 3.... CONSTRUCTIONBURVEY - 1 LS $7;500.00 $7 500.00 ' $7,500 '.. 4 TRAFFIC' CONTROL 1 LS '55000.00 $5,000.00 " $5,000 5 `EROSION CONTROL 1 LS ' $2,500.00 '"$2,500,00 "'$2,500 6 MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITIONICCEARING AND GRUBBING MISCELLANEOUS CLEARING $ GRUBBING 0.00 AC $2,500.00 52,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS (PARK SIGNS, FLAG POLE, DOG STATIONS, ETC) 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500 00 REMOVE TURF 7,000 SF $1.00 $7,000.00 TREE REMOVAL 9 EA 5250.00 $2,250.00 TREE AND RELOCATION 3 EA $750.00 $2,250.00 DEMO ASPHALT PAVING (MACGREGOR AVENUE PAVING) 1,400 SY $7.90 S11,060.00 SAW Cl1T ASPHALT PAVING (MACGREGOR AVENUE PAVING) 75 LF $2.00 $150.00 DEMO ASPHALT PAVING (PARK LANE PAVING) 1,400 5Y $7.90 $11,060.00 SAW CUT ASPHALT PAVING (PARK LANE PAVING) 400 LF $2.00 $800.00 DEMO CONCRETE CURS AND GUTTER 700 LF 55.70 54,503.00 DEMO SIDEWALK 450 SY $11.50 55,175.00 '.. DEMO TIMBER RETAINING WALLS 80 LF $35.00 $2,100.00 DEMO TIMBER' CONCRETE STEPS 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 DEMO! SALVAGE SITE LIGHTING AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL BOXES 8 EA 5550.00 $4.400.00 DEMO, SALVAGE, OR MOVE MJSC. UTILITY APPURTENANCES (ALLOWANCE) 1 LS $1,000,00 $1,000.00 PROTECT EXISTING LARGE COTTONWOOD GROVE TO REMAIN 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 REMOVE EXISTING TRANSFORMER AND ELECTRICAL PANEL SOUTH OF PARK LANE 1 I_S $2,000.00 $2,000 00 '.. SALVAGE IRRIG, EQUIP ! SALVAGE AND RESET HISTORIC MONUMENTS (BY TOWN STAFF) 0 LS $0,00 S0.00 $58,798 7 RELOCATEINFORMATION CABIN, PAYMENT BOX (BY TOWN STAFF=" SITES'TO BE DETERMINED) 1'" L5 -$000 <"$0.00 $0 8 EARTHWORK " OUT ad ROADWAY UNDERCIJT (18' 900 CY $5.50 $4,950.00 FILLwlthin Park 200 CY $5.50 S1 100.00 IMPORTED/EXPORTED MATERIAL 1,150 CY 510.00 $11,50C 00 S17,550 '.. 9 ROADWAY PAVING 95 CONCRETE UNIT PAVING MACGREGOR AVENUE 1,400 SY $92.50 $12950000 '.. PARK LANE 570 SY $92.50 $52,725.00 $182,225 9A TINTED CONCRETE PAVING (MACGREGOR AVENUE) '.. MACGREGOR AVENUE 1,400 SY 562.00 $86,800.00 PARK LANE 570 SY $62.00 $35,340,00 DEDUCT '.. 9C STANDARD CONCRETE MACGREGOR AVENUE 1,400 SY 552.00 $72,800.00 PARK LANE 570 5Y $52.00 129.64000 DEDUCT ($79,785) $102,440.00 10 ASPHALT PATCH BACK (5") 750 SY $21.50 $16,125.00 $16,125 ''.. 11 4' CONCRETE PAN AT NORTH EDGE OF PARK LANE PARKING SPACES so SY $60,00 $5,400.00 55,400 12 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 400 LF $17.25 $6,900.00 $8,900 13 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 1,000 5Y $44.00 $44,000.00 544,000 1A SIDEWALK TREE WELL I TENT AREA 14A CONCRETE UNIT PAVING 525 SY $00,00 $42.000,00 $42,000 '.. DEDUCT ($10,500) 148 TIN TED i STAMPED CONCRETE 525 SY $60.00 $31,500.00 DEDUCT ($2i,090) A4C STANDARD CONCRETE 525 SY $40.00 S21,000.00 15 CONCRETE HANDICAP RAMPS with TRUNCATED DOMES 2 EA $1,250.00 $2,500.00 $2,500 18 SANITARY SEWER STUB 70 LF $40.00 $2,800.00 .$2,800 '.. 17 MODIFY EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 1 EA $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,250 '.. 18 2" WATER LINE TO IRRIGATION PIT (40' SERVICE LINE) 40 LF $30,00 $1,200.00 $1,200 19 MODIFY WATER VALVE 4 EA $225.00 5900.00 $900 20 WATER LINE STUB FROM IRRIGATION PIT (40' SERVICE LINE) 40 LF $30,00 51,200.00 51,200 '.. 21 CONDUIT SLEEVES 700 LF $7.50 $5,250.00 $5,250 22 GAS LINE STUB 1 L5 $2, 500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500 '.. 23 HANDICAP SIGNAGE 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000 24 TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000 25 TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAINTED MARKING 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 51,000 26 CONCRETE STEPS AND HANDRAILS 1 L5 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000 '.. 27 CONCRETE STEP STEM WALLS 24 LF $100.00 $2,400.00 52,400 28 SANDSTONE SEAT BOULDERS AND LANDSCAPE BOULDERS SEAT BOULDERS (SEATING RING AT NORTHEAST CORNER) 0 EA $350,00 $2,800.0C $2,600 SITE LANDSCAPE BOULDERS 7 EA $300.00 52,100.00 $2,100 ''.. Phase I and III PHASE I and IIIa Maa °GREGOR AVENUE and PARK LANE - OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ➢ nil Project Phase ➢ and Ill Complete Bond Pnrk Cost Estlmnte Town of Estes Park, Colorado January 18, 2911 <„"3:. .m:..,m ;, •`:`" •.art t "kr.+"•,;" aa.-, P'." 7`"T.:: .)' 4„-Mah 40; ,..-"r„v5,='r. 20 SPADE DUG EDGE. I%ETNIEEN TURF AND SHRUB BEDS 1,000 '' "$2AD '$2;D0000 "'$2.000 30 TREE WELLS NATURAL SANOSTONF ADD AI TERNATF_ FOR TREE WEI.I EDGE 336 LE $00.00 $20,160.00 $20;160 DEDUCT {$8,720) 348 6" CONCRETE CURS ADD ALTERNATE POR TREE WELL EDGE 936 " LF `$40.00 013;440.00 DEDUCT ($11,760) ?41" TREE WELLS (INCLUDES EXCAVATION OF 4'X 6' PIT AND PLANTER: MIX BACKFILL) ' 14 EA P:3800 017 50400.00 31 PARKING BOLLARDS '.. RIVER BOULDER BOLLARDS TO STREET PARK SPACES Min Till S450 D0 $36,250.00 338250 ADD $10,000 SANDSTONE SLAB BOLLARDS TO STREET PARKING SPACES AOO ALTERNATE ®® 5750.00 56;250 00 EXISTING TURF FINE GRADING AND SOD TO REPLACE TURF DAMAGED BY PHASE I AND Ill WORK 4,350 SF 00 75 53,262 50 $3,263 ®RESTORE FINE GRACING AND SOD FOR RELOCATED WALK IN FRONT OF TOWN HALL 1.200 SF $0 75 0900 00 $900 2.5"SHADE TREES ®® $375.00 57;87500 2°' AND 8' CLUMP ORNAMENTALTREES - ®EI $350'00 02;850 00 ' '$2,450 8' EVERGREEN TREES ®® $400.00 01.20000 01 200 ----- ME 10' EVERGREEN TREES - "' ©®- $500.00 0500.00 0500 EIM - 5GALLON DECIDUOUS SHRU83'(ALLOWANCE) EA $3000 02;82000' -$28lil 20 111 5 GALLON EVERGREEN SHRUBS (ALLOWANCE) ®® $35A0 042000 " 55420 GALLON BROADLEAF EVERGREEN SHRUBS (ALLOWANCE) ®al $3800 $456 00 1111. la5 5 GALLON ORNAMENTAL GRASSES ALLOWANCE =ME® $4005 $1';88000 ' $1880 ---- 1 GALLON ORNAMENTAL GRASSES I PERENNIALS (ALLOWANCE) ® EA $15 00 $T,755.00 SHRUB BED MULCH OVER WEED CONTROL FABRIC SHRUB BEGS (,MACGREGOR AVE PLANTERS AND ALONG PARK LANE FESTIVAL PROMENADE) 4,695 $1,25 $5 868 75 $5 869 IRRIGATION SYSTEM ,. ,.. .. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING IRRIGATION BACKFLOW PREVENTER, METER, AND METER "VAULT" (NEW) 1 LS $2,060,00 $2,000.00 NEW 2" METER, BACKFLOW PREVENTER, ENCLOSURE, FI.OW SENSOR/MASTER VALVE (NEW) 1 LS $9,50000 09,500.00 '.. EXTEND 21/2°' PVC MAINLINE AND WIRE (FOR PHASE I AND III AND FUTURE PHASES) (NEW) 680 LF $5.50 $3,740,00 RELOCATE EXISTING CONTROLLER 1 L5 $1,250.00 $1,200.00 QUICK COUPLING VALVES 5 EA S15Q00 0750.00 MODIFY EXISTING IRRIGATION HEADS IN TURF AREAS TO REMAIN 1 LS $5,00000 $5,000.00 IRRIGATION SLEEVING ALLOWANCE 1 LS $1,000.00 51,000.00 '.. IRRIGATION- TO TREE WELLS 14 EA 5250.00 $3,500.00 IRRIGATION- SHRUB REDS 5,895 SF $2.00 Si1,790.00 $38,530 PRIMARY AND TRANSFORMER (ALLOWANCE) $12:000.00 $12,000.00 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR SITE (ALLOWANCE) $10,000.00 $10000.00 RESET EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES $1,500.00 54,500.00 11 $26,500 '.. 81D ITEM TOTAL (Without GC's, Insurance, Bonds, Fees and Mobilization) $574,725 SUBTOTAL IN( GC's, INSURANCE, BONDS, FEES, AND MOBILIZATION $820,703 Estimating Contingency 3.0°!0 $18,621 �■� CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GRAND TOTAL $B$5,324 '... A8 COSTS OUT SIDE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Construction Contingency (10%) 1 LO 563,332.44 Material Testing During Coostruclion 1 LS $4,000.02 Water Tao 1 Plant Investment Fees 1 LS $0.00 Electrical / Gas Fees 1 LS $0.00 '.. Frinttn0 Specifications and Bid Sets - 1 LS $1,500.00 $69,432 {$112,545) PROJECT TOTAL WITH ALL COSTS S708,757 ($77,3051 2 Phase 1 and III PRASE i and Ill: MacGREGOR AVENUE and PARK LANE -- OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Reduction in Scope of Park Lane from Elkhorn to Virginia L... Bond Park Cost Estimate Town of Estes Park, Colorado Januury 18, 2011 0.,e? F#.i „ , , .. `3 5'O ", E :Y. , 9w 'r , 'R` .. . ... .., k., m,-z x <� -a-, •u, e F..w .. ."�,. ,a` ,.fr.. ,: '"?' i>';� h-:reY}."s as a i*� .n.,. 1 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS, INSURANCE AND FEES (4.0%) $2047393 $20473.93 " $20 474 ®MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION AND TEMPORARY FACILITIES (4.0%) 1 L5 $2047393 $20;47308 520,474 ®CONSTRUCTION SURVEY 08 LS $7;500.00 $8=i00000" 50000 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1,055,00000 $5',00000' -`$5000 EROSION CONTROL $2`250.00 MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITIONJCLEARINO AND GRUBBING MISCELLANEOUS CLEARINGS GRUBBING 0 8 AC 52,500.00 $2,000 00 MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS (PARK SIGNS, FLAG POLE, DOG STATIONS, ETC) 0 R LS $1,500.00 51,200 00 . REMOVE TURF 5,000 SF $100 $5,0000!? TREE REMOVAL 4 EA $250.00 $1,000,00 T D S D SAW CUT ASPHALT PAVING (PARK LANE PAVING) 400 LF $2.00 $800.00 DEMO CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 790 LF 5570 04,503.00 D DEMO TIMBER RETAINING WALLS 0 $35.00 9000 TIMBER (EONCREGH STEPS 0 LS $500.00 $4 00 .DEMO D DEMO / SALVAGE SITE LIGHTING AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL BOXES 8 EA $550.00 $4400.00 DEMO, SALVAGE, OR MOVE MISC. UTILITY APPURTENANCES ALLOWANCE 1 0 LS $L000.00 $1.000.00 EXISTING LARGE COTTONWOOD GROVE TO REMAIN EA® $800.00 5 5800.OD L REMOVE EXISTING TRANSFORMER AND ELECTRICAL PANEL SOUTH OF PARK LANE REMOVE LS LS 000.00 32,000.00 SALVAGE IRRIG. EQUIP' SALVAGE AND RESET HISTORIC MONUMENTS (BY TOWN STAFF) LS 30.00 00.00 $48 228 -�--- RELOCATE INFORMATION CABIN, PAYMENT BOX (BY TOWN STAFF • SITES TO BE DETERMINED) `. 0 $0 D0 ` 00 00 $0 C F within IMPGRTEDIEXPORTED MATERIAL 1,150 CY 310.00 011,500 00 $16 725 ® ROADWAY PAVING" •• UNIT PAVING CONCRETE MACGREGOR AVENUE 1,400 $s92.50 5129 500 D0 PARK LANE 570 592.50 952,72500 $182J_25 T MACGREGOR AVENUE 1,400 $62.00 $86,800.00 P PARK LANE 570 562.00 535,340.00 DEDUCT (060,085) $122,140.00 S STANDARD CONCRETE ® MACGREGOR AVENUE 1,400 $57..00 $72,800.00 570 552.00 529,640.00 O7DUC1 (579;785) 5102,440.00 10 750 521.50 516,125.00 516,125 4' CONCRETE PAN AT NORTH EDGE OF PARK LANE PARKING SPACES 90 ® 560.00 $5,4DO 00 $5,400 '.. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 400 MEM $6,900.00 $6,900 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 750 $44.00 533,000.00 $33,000 SIDEWALK TREE WELL 1 TENT AREA $0.00 '.. CONCRETE UNIT PAVING 37S $50.60 $30A00.00 $30,000 DEDUCT _.,______.. TINTED 'STAMPED CONCRETE 375 $60.00 $22,500.00 (37,500) DEDUCT STANDARD CONCRETE 375 540.00 $10,500.00 (315A001 '.. CONCRETE HANDICAP RAMPS with TRUNCATED DOMES 2 $1,25000 $2,500.00 $2,500 SANITARY SEWER STUB 70 $40.00 $2.600.00 52,800 MODIFY EXISTING SANITARY SEINER MANHOLE 1 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $/.250 WATER LINE TO IRRIGATION PIT (40' SERVICE LINE) 40 LF $30.00 $1, 200.00 $1,200 19 MODIFY WATER VALVE 4 EA $225.00 $900.00 $900 20 WATER LINE STUB FROM IRRIGATION PIT (40' SERVICE LINE) 40 LF $30,00 01,200.00 $1,200 '.. 21 CONDUIT SLEEVES 700 LF $7.50 $5,250.00 $5,250 22 GAS LINE STUB 1 LS $2,500.00 52,S00.20 $2,500 23 HANDICAP SIGNAGE 1 LS $1 ,000.00 01,00000 $1,000 24 TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT 1.0 I.5 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 51,000 25 TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAINTED MARKING 1.0 L5 $1,000.00 01,000.00 $1,000 26 CONCRETE STEPS AND HANDRAILS 0 L5 54,000,00 $0.00 $0 '.. 27 CONCRETE STEP STEM WALLS 0 LF 5100.00 $0,00 $0 Phase 629k PIIASE 1 and III: MaoGREGOR AVENUE and PARK LANE -- OPINION OT' PROBABLE COST Reduction in Scope of Park Lane from Elkhorn to Virginia I30nd Pork Cost Estimate Town of Estes PRrk, Co orndo J 18, 2011 ouaey ' SANDSTONE SEAT BOULDERS AND LANDSCAPE BOULDERS SEAT BOULDERS SEATING RING A NORTHEAST CORNER 8 4350.00 $2 300 00 $2 0 SITE LANDSCAPE BOULDERS 5300 00 8900 00 $900 ■ BEDS ' 869 LP $2'00 $1'73800 :$1'738 29 SPADE DUG EDGE BETWEEN TURF ANDSHRUB .. ;.. 30 TREE WELLS NATURAL. SANDSTONE ADD ALTERNATE FOR TREE WELL EDGE 216 LF $80.00 $12,960 00 512,960 34A 6" DEDUCT (94,320) 34P, 6" CONCRETE CURRADD 'ALTERNATE FOR TREEWELL EDGE 216 LF -$4000 $8,64000 - ".' DEDUCT 157,560) 34C TREE WELLS (INCLUDESEXCAVATION OF4'X8' PIT AND PLANTER 'M1X'BACKFILL)`"". 9 FA 65600A6 $5:400.00 P `:$38250 RIVER BOULDER BOLLARDS TO STREET PARKING SPACES :®M 5450:00 $36i2500T7 ® `$56,250 ADD 518,000 SANDSTONE SLAB BOLI ARDS TO STREET PARKING SPACFS ADD ALTERNATE _M 5750.00 00 R D50TUR F CREFI 1,240 SF SOTS $900A0 $900 Mlill$375`00 2.5" SHADE TREES '` 56,00000 $6000 2 5 5 5 GALLON ORNAMENTAL. GRASSES (ALLOWANCE) 3B : EA $40.00 ' $1,520 00 40 I PERENNIALS (ALLOWANCE) 96 EA $1500 01 440.00 ' `-'51 440' 41 1 GALLON ORNAMENTAL GRASSES S SHRUB BEDS MACGREGOR AVE PLANTERS AND ALONG PARK LANE FESTIVAL PROMENADE 3�---- $1 25 $4,806 25 $4,806 SYSTEM " IRRIGATION OF EXISTING IRRIGATION BACKFLOW PREVENTER, METER, AND METER "VAULT" (NEW) 1 LS $2p00A0 $2,000.00 ■DEMOLITION NEW 2" METER, BACKFLOW PREVENTERENCLOSURE FLOW SENSOR/MASTER VALVE (NEW 1 LS $9,500.00 89,500 00 EXTEND 2 1/2 PVC MAINLINE AND WIRE (FOR PHASE I AND III AND FUTURE PHASES) (NEW ® *MINKIE$2,805.00 EXISTING CONTROLLER LS $1,250.00 $1,250:00 = .RELOCATE QUICK COUPLING VALVES EA $"5000 $600.00 MODIFY EXISTING IRRIGATION HEADS IN TURF AREAS TO REMAIN LS $SAOC 00 $3,750.00 SLEEVING ALLOWANCE 0® $1000.00 $1,000:00 .IRRIGATION TO TREE WELLS:. 10 El`.22.00 $250.00 00 00 ■IRRIGATION IRRIGATION SHRUB BEDS 5.045'' $10;090,00 -E IMIEllii ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ... AND TRANSFORMER(ALLOWANCE) .. LS 512,00000 $12,000.00 .PRIMARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR- SITE (ALLOWANCE) LS $10,000.00 000.000.00.11. RESET EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES :® EA 51,50000 54,500.00 ____ 526,500 ■ NM BID ITEM TOTAL ' Ithout GC's ln9urahce,'Bonds, Fees and Motillizatlon ' - -.1111.-- $511,848 SUBTOTAL WI.GC'a, INSURANCE, BONDS; FEES, AND MOBILIZATION $552,796 ® 111 1 Esllmaling Contingency 3.0% $16,58A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GRAND' TOTAL _.__ 5569380 _ II--- 005T5 OUT SIDE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Construction Contingency 11(1%)" 10 LS 356,93809 $56,938.00 MI Mater'als Testin. Durin. Construction 1 0 LS $4,000.00 '$4,000.00 Water Tap 7 Planllnvestment Fees 1 A : LS -'. $0.00 $0,00 Eieelr calf Gas Fees 10 LS $0.00 $0:00 Prie)na Specif cations and Blot Selo 1.0 - LS $1 500.00 51,500.00 $62,438 ($102,345) PROJECT TOTAL "WITH ALL "COST S $631;818 ($71,905) 4 Phase 629k PHASE 1 and III: MacGRFGOR AVENUE and PARK LANE -- OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Reduction in Scope of Park Lane from Elkhorn to Mid -Block between Virginia and MaeGre or Bond Park Cost Estimate Town of Estes Park, Colorado January 18 2011 . 33(40.*16(*14„,,akdia,44Adg.(&44.60.4"4.444(sibile443(414:4,144*43,,i, ad,4Tim34,1431,34.41.41114.11314(14.414.44.1.66,41KITI11n ' 3 31L&Oi124.1,&...4,:at4S3?..(..i,S.(.., r . , 1 :•....'7..."e',.', .0 ,..,,,,,,. m '- , ..a, "443,,,A,,;,1,43.444, . , , .. ' ,r'7 = ....7. ....-7,,.,, . ,777 ) 77."7.,,,77,17,17..7777A,...7777,-,r7,7F-77W, . . . , . . . , , „ , . , ,.. , , . , , , .. , , ., , , . , GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS, INSURANCE AND FEES (4,0%) $ 7, 66, 517,76875 $17 767 MOBILIZATION I DEMOBILIZATION AND TEMPORARY FACILITIES (4.9% Efflill 517 766.75 517,766.75 ' CONSTRUCTION SURVEY 0.7 07.50000 $5,250.00 98250 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1.0 $5,000.00 ' $5,00000 ' ' $5,000 EROSION CONTROL 0.9 $2,500 00 $2,25000'52250 MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLIT ON/CLEARING AND GRUBBING MISCEL LANEOUS CLEARING & GRL,IBBING O.1 AC $2,500.00 $ ,750 00 MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS PARK SIGNS, FLAG POLE, DOG STATIONS, ETC 07 LS $ .509.00 $1, 5 .00 REMOVE TURF 4,000 SF $1 00 $4.000.00 TREE REMOVAL 2 EA $ 50.00 $500.00 TREE AND RELOCATION 0 EA $7 0.00 $0.00 DEMO ASPHALT PAVING (MACGREGOR AVENUE PAVING) 1,400 SY $7 90 $1 .050.00 S D SAW CUT ASPHALT PAVING (PARK LANE PAVING) 275 LF $ .00 $550.00 DEMO CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 665 75 0570 $3,790.50 D DEMO TIMBER RETAINING WALLS 0 LF $3 00 $0.00 D DEMO / SALVAGE SITE LIGHTING AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL BOXES 8 EA $550.00 $4,400.00 DEMO. SALVAGE, OR MOVE MISC. UTILITY APPURTENANCESTALLOWANCE) 1 0 LS $1,000 00 51,000 0 0 P PROTECT EXISTING LARGE COTTONWOOD1 GROVE TO REMAIN EA $800.00 MOO 00 REMOVE EXISTING TRANSFORMER AND ELECTRICAL PANEL SOUTH OF PARK LANE 1 LS 52,00070 $2 000.00 SALVAGE RRIG EQUIP I SALVAGE AND RESET HISTORIC MONUMENTS BY TOWN STAFF 0 LS $0.00 $0 00 4 811 RELOCATE INFORMATION CABIN, PAYMENT BOX (BY TOWN STAFF .,, SITES TO DE DETERMINED) ' 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 - , E CUT and ROADWAY UNDERCUT (18") 850 $5.50 34 67 00 FILL n&thIn Park 25 CY $5,50 $1 50 I IMPORTED/EXPORTED MATERIAL 1,075 CY $1 .00 $10,750.00 5, 63 ROADWAY PAVING IIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ism Mill CONCRETE UNIT PAVING EIMMIIIIMIN 1 400 _____05250 31 9,500.00 MUM= PARK LANE $32 652 50 III IIIIIN $162,153 EllTINTED CONCRETE PAVING MACGREGOR AVENUE MACGREGOR AVENUE 1,400 $62.00 586,800. 0 PARK LANE 303 $62.00 $21,886 0 DEDUCT ($53,487) I 3108,685.00 STANDARD CONCRETE 1111E= MACGREGOR AVENUE 1.40() $72,800.00 PARK LANE 353 5 00 $18,356 00 DEDUCT (370 997) $91,156.00 10 ASPHALT PATCH BACK (5") 750 $21. 0 $16, 5.00 $16,125 11 4' CONCRETE PAN AT NORTH EDGE OF PARK LANE PARKING SPACES 45 $60.00 $2,700.00 $2,700 12 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 350 51725 6603755$6,0 8 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 677 $44.00 $29,788 00 $29,788 SIDEWALK TREE WELL 1 TENT AREA $0 00 CONCRETE UNIT PAVING 352 680.50 $24,160.00 $24,160 1111111111.1n= .111111111111111111101111 UOT TINTED ( STAMPED CONCRETE 302 $60.00 $18,120 00 ($6,040) DEDUCT STANDARD CONCRETE 302 $40 00 ,, _ . 0 ($)2 0801 CONCRETE HANDICAP RAMPS with 'TRUNCATED DOMES 2 $1,250.00 $2,500 00 $2,500 MIIIIIIiiii SANITARY SEWER STUB 70 $40.00 $2,800 00 $ .,800 MODIFY EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 1 $1,250 00 $1,250 00 $1,250 IIII 18 2" WATER LINE TO IRRIGATION PIT (40' SERVICE LINE) 40 $ 0 00 51 00.00 $1, 00 19 MODIFY VVATER VALVE 4 $225.00 $900.00 $000 20 WATER LINE STUB FROM IRRIGATION PIT (40' SERVICE LINE) 40 $ 0.00 $1,200.00 $1,200 21 CONDUIT SLEEVES 700 $7.50 $5,250.00 $5,250 5250000 $ ,500.00 $2.500 HANDICAP SIGNAGE 1 $1,000.00 $1,000 00 51 000 TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT 1.0 91 000.00 $1,00 .00 $1,000 TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAINTED MARKING 1.0 $1,000.00 $ ,000 00 $1,000 CONCRETE STEPS AND HANDRAILS 0 $4,000.00 $0.00 $0 CONCRETE STEP STEM WALLS 0 $100.00 $0.00 $0 SANDSTONE SEAT BOULDERS AND LANDSCAPE BOULDERS SEAT BOULDERS SEATING RING AT NORTHEAST CORNER 5 $3 0 00 $ ,800.00 $2.300 SITE LANDSCAPE BOULOERS 5 100 530000$ . 0 60 Phase 540k PIIA GREGOR AVENUE sand PARK LANE -- OPINION OL' PROBABLE COST Redaction in Scope of Park Lane from Elkhorn to Mid -Block between Virginia and MacGre or Bond Park Cost Estimate Town of Estes Park, Colorado January 18, 2011 ._'' k z1. ,. SPADE DUG EDGE BETWEEN TURF AND SHRUB BEDS LF $G00 $3d8.00 39 TREE WELLS -; 3?A 6" NATURAI. SANDSTONE ADC ALTERNATE FOR TREF WELL EDGE 144 LF 5F,0.90 $8,840.00 0,640 DEDUCT ($2,880) 348 6" CONCRETE CURB ADD ALTERNATE FOR TREE WELL EDGE 144 LF 54000 55760.00 "' DEDUCT ($5.040), 34C TREE WELLS (INCLUDESEXCAVATION OF 4' X 6' PIT' AND PLANTER MIX BACKFILL,) 6 ` EA 600.00 53g800 00 PARKING BOLLARDS -___ RIVER BOULDER BOLLARDS TO STREET PARKING SPACES ® ' $450.00 $33,750.00 ADD $15,000 5AND5 TONE SI.AS BOLLARDS TO STREET PARKING SPACES ADD ALTERNATE ®® $750.00 $48;750:0D RESTORE EXISTING TURFMEIBMIEZEMIEEMEMEEMIIIMENE -_-- FINE GRADING AND SOD FOR RELOCATED WALK IN FRONT OF TOWN HALT_ 1,200 SP $0?5 $900.00 $900 2.5" SHADE TREES $375`00 $4r875'00 $4875 2" AND 8' CLUMP ORNAMENTAL TREES $350 00 $0 00 " $0 8"EVERGREEN TREES 0 $400.00 `$0.00 ' ' $0 1 5 GALLON DECIDUOUS SHRUBS (ALLOWANCE) 44 ' EA " $30.00 01,320.00 01,320` 5 GALLON EVERGREEN SHRUBS(ALLOWANCE) 4 EA $35.00` $140.00' 39 5 GALLON BROADLEAF EVERGREEN SHRUBS (ALLOWANCE) EA" $38.00 "$152.00 5 GALLON ORNAMENTAL GRASSES ALLOWANCE EA "$40.00 'r$920.00 `$920 40 =11.M111 G SHRUB BED' MULCH OVER WEED CONTROL FABRIC --® SHRUB BEDS (MACGREGOR AVE PLANTERS AND ALONG PARK LANE FESTIVAL PROMENADE) 2,214 51 25 52,767 50 $2768 ® ,. IRRIGATIONS SYSTEM DEMOLITION OF EXISTING IRRIGATION BACKFLOW PRFVENTER, METER, AND METER "VAULT" (NEWJ 1 LS $2,00000 52:000.00 NFW 2" METER. BACKFLOW PREVENTER, ENCLOSURE, FLOW SENSOR'MASTER VALVE (NEW) 1 LS $9,500.00 $9,500.00 EXTEND 2 1/2" PVC MAINLINE AND WIRE (FOR PHASE I AND II! AND FUTLIRE PHASES) (NEW) 272 LF $5.50 $1,496.00 RELOCATE EXISTING CONTROLLER 1 LS $1,250.00 31,250.00 QUICK COUPLING VALVES 2 EA $150.00 0300.00 MODIFY EXISTING IRRIGATION HEADS IN TURF AREAS TO REMAIN 0 LS $5,000.00 52,250.00 IRRIGATION SLEEVING ALLOWANCE 1 I_S $1,000.00 $1,000.00 IRRIGATION- TO TREE WELLS 6 68 $250.00 $1,500.00 IRRIGATION- SHRUB BEDS 3,414 SF 52A0 56,828.00 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PRIMARY AND TRANSFORMER (ALLOWANCE) $12,000.00 012,000.00 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR SITE (ALLOWANCE) 510,000 00 510,000.00 RESET EXISTING LICHT FIXTURES $1,500.00 $4500.00 $26,500 BIO ITEM TOTAL (Without GC's, Insurance, Bonds, Fees and Mobilization $444 169 -_ SUBTOTAL WI GC's, INSURANCE, BONDS, FEES, AND MOBILIZATION $479,702 3.01 IMIMMI 47 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GRAND TOTAL $494,0S3 40 COSTS OUT SIDE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Construction Conli'gency (10%1 1.0 LS $49409.33 549,409.33 Materials Testing During Construction 0.9 LS $4.000.00 $3,000.00 Water Tun / Plant Investment Fees 1 0 LS $0.00 $0.00 '.. Electrical / Gas Fees 1.0 LS $0.00 $0.00 Prinrinq SOecliications end Bld Sets 1.0 LS $1,500.00 01,500.00 353,909 '.. i$6e,1p7) PROJECT TOTAL WITH ALL COSTS $548,003 ($62,a07) 2 Phase 540k PHASE 1 and Ili: 1ViaerGREGOR AVENUE and PARK CANE -- OPINION OI^ PROBABLE COS P Reduction in Scope of Park Lane from Elkhorn to MacGregor Bond Park Cost Estimate )'own or Estes Park, Colorado January 10,2011 '.... ak`d'9r;9 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS, INSURANCE AND FEES (4,04) LS'.. 551588994 "'915,890" _ MOBILIZATION !DEMOBILIZATION AND TEMPORARY FACILITIES (4.0%) '1 LS 815889,04 $15889.94 ` $15,890 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY 0.5 `55 '$7,50000 '$3.750.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL 0.8 LS '$5,000.00 "$4,00000 '$4000 '.. EROSION CONTROL , . •.. 0 7 LS $2500.00 $1 750 00 '01,750 MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITIONOCLEARING AND GRUBBING MISCELLANEOUS CLEARING GRUBBING 0.5 $2 500.00 $1,2.50.0U '.. . MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITION SITE IMPROVEMENTS (PARK SIGNS,FLAG POLE, DOG STATIONS, ETC) N 08SITE IMPROVEMENTS 0.5 LS LS 51 500A0 $750.00 REMOVE TURF 3,5g0 SF $1.00 $3500.00 TREE REMOVAL 1 FA S250.00 $250.00 TREF AND RELOCATION tl EA 5750.00 0800 DEMO ASPHALT PAVING (MACGREGOR AVENUE PAVING) 1 400 SY $7.90 $11,080.D0 SAW CUT ASPHALT PAVING (MACGREGOR AVENUE PAVING) 75 LF 02.00 $150.00 DEMO ASPHALT PAVING (PARK LANE PAVING) 1,033 SY 57.90 SAW CUT ASPHALT PAVING (PARK LANE PAVING) 150 LF 52.00 a300.00 DEMO CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 540 LF $5.70 53073 OU '.. '.. DEMO SIDEWALK 137 SY $i1.50 $i S75.50 DEMO TIMBER RETAINING WALLS 0 LF 035.00 00.0G DEMO TIMBER! CONCRETE STEPS 0 LS 5500.00 $0.00 '.. DEMO; SALVAGE SITE LIGHTING AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL BOXES t0 EA 5550.00 54,400.00 DEMO, SALVAGE, OR MOVE MISC. UTILITY APPURTENANCES (ALLOWANCE) LS 01,000.00 51,000 00 PROTECT EXISTING LARGE COTTONWOOD GROVE TO REMAIN 1 EA 5800.00 $300.00 ''.. REMOVE EXISTING TRANSFORMER AND ELECTRICAL PANEL SOUTH OF PARK LANE 1 LS $2,000.00 82,000.00 ''.. SALVAGE IRRIG. EQUIP I SALVAGE AND RESET HISTORIC MONUMENTS BY TOWN STAFF 0 LS 50.00 $0.00 '.. - -�--MigiNgM -i'MIIIMI-- INFORMATION CABIN, PAYMENT BOX (BY TOWN STAFF - SITES TO BE DETERMINED). 0 $0 00 $0 $0.00 ®RELOCATE ' EARTHWORK CUT and ROADWAY UNDERCUT 18) 800 5550 34,400.00 FILL within Park ©®MEM®- IMPORTEDIEXPORTED MATERIAL 1,000 $10.00 510,000.00 '.. $14,400 ROADWAY PAVING CONCRETE UNIT PAVING '.. MACGREGOR AVENUE 1.400 $02.50 "a129500.00 PARK LANE 0 $92.50 05.00 5129,500 TINTED CONCRETE PAVING (MACGREGOR AVENUE) '.. MACGREGOR AVENUE 1,400 562.00 586,800.Oa PARS LANE 0 362.00 $0.00 DEDUCT (542,700) 586,800.00 STANDARD CONCRETE 1,400 ® 052.00 572,800.00 PARK LANE 0 $52.D0 S0.00 DEDUCT 1556,700) $J2,800.00 10 ASPHALT PATCH BACK (5") 1,250 $21.50 826,878 00 $26,875 11 4' CONCRETE PAN AT NORTH EDGE OF PARK LANE PARKING SPACES 0 000.00 80.00 $0 ®®ice $6,037.5D $6,03a CONCRETE SIDEWALK 604 $4400 $26,576.00 526,576 SIDEWALK TREE WELL I TENT AREA $0.00 CONCRETE UNIT PAVING 302 $80.00 074,160.00 $24,160 DEDUCT (56,040) TINTED !STAMPED CONCRETE 302 560.00 018,'20.00 0FOUCI (512,080) STANDARD CONCRETE 3C2 540.00 $12,08QG0 CONCRETE HANDICAP RAMPS with TRUNCATED DOMES 2 51,25000 $2500.00 02,500 SANITARY SEWER STUB 70 $40.00 $2,800.00 32,800 MODIFY EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE. 1 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1250 2" WATER LINE TO IRRIGATION PIT (40' SERVICE LINE) 40 $30.00 01,200.00 $1,200 '.. MODIFY WATER VALVE 4 5225.00 $900.06 5900 WATER LINE STUB FROM IRRIGATION PIT (40' SERVICE LINE) 40 $30.CC $1,200.00 $1,200 CONDUIT SLEEVES 700 $7.50 $5,250.00 '.. GAS LINE STUB 1 $2,500,00 $2,500.00 $7,500 HANDICAP SIGNAGE 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 01 000 TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT 1.0 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 S1,000 '.. TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAINTED MARKING 1 0 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000 CONCRETE STEPS AND HANDRAILS 0 54,000.00 $0.00 50 CONCRETE STEP STEM WALLS 0 $100.00 $0.00 SANDSTONE SEAT BOULDERS AND LANDSCAPE BOUL.DF_RS _____ '.. SEAT OIL (5EATING RING AT NORTHEAST CORNER) ®ice $2,800 00 SITE LANDSCAPE BOULDERS 0 EA 5300.00 50.00 50 Phase 4801, PHASE 1 and 111. MacGREGOR AVENUE and PARK LANE -- OPINION OF PROBABLE COSk Reduction in Scope of Park Lane from Elkhorn to MacGregor '.... 11mId Park Cost Estimate Gown of Estes Park, Colorado Januarv19, 2011 '.. SPADE DUG EDGE BETWEEN TURF AND SHRUB BEDS 1 22 00 ' 0108 00" TREEWELLS ----- 34rt 6" NATURAL SANDST NE ADD ALTERNATE FOR TREE WELL EOOE 96 16 $00,00 05,750.00 $5,705 UEDUCT ($1,020) 5" CONCRETE CURB ADD ALTERNATE FOR TREE WELL EDGE 28 ' ' LF '340.00 "02,04D.00 .340 DEDUCT ($3,3601 34C TREF WELLS (INCLUDES EXCAVATION OP 4' X 6' PIT AND PLANTER MIX BACKFILL) ` � 4 EA "'5600 00 00400 00 31 PARKING BOLLARDS 34A RIVER BOULDER BOLLARDS TO STREET PARKING' SPACES 70 EA `$45000 021,500 CO ADD $13,508 349 SANDSTONE SLAB BOLLARDS T0STREET PARKING SPACES ADD ALTERNATE 80 '"` EA -$750.00 '045,000.00 _-___ RESTORE EXISTING TURF GRADING AND SOD TO REPLACE TURF DAMAGED BY PHASE I AND III WORK 1,739 Ell$0 5075 . "s1,304.7,, 39,304 ■PINE FINE GRADING AND SOD FOR RELOCATED WALK IN FRONT OF TOWN HALL 1,200 75 $900 00 0038 ®® 2.5" SHADE TREES $875.00 $4,12502 i ' 2" AND 8' CLUMP ORNAMENTAL TREES 0 EA ' $350 00 '$0.00 - �-® - EVERGREEN TREES 0 EA '$400.00 '$000 $0 ®8' 10' EVERGREEN TREES 0 EA '$500.00 $000 $0 1_- ®_ 5 GALLON DECIDUOUS SHRUBS ALLOWANCE U®+ 330OD $1,320.00 "=MEM 5GALLON EVERGREEN SHRUBS (ALLOWANCE) __- EA $3500 014000 -$140 5 GALLON BROADLEAF EVERGREEN SHRUBS ALLOWANCE MIMI $38 00 $15200 -I-- WI 5 GALLON ORNAMENTAL GRASSES ALLOWANCE ®0 $40.00 `5020.00 1 GALLON ORNAMENTAL GRASSESY PERENNIALS(ALLOWANCE) - '$15.OD $82500 $825 SHRUB BED MULCH OVER WEED CONTROL FABRIC-IIIIIII -- BEDS AVE PLANTERS AND ALONG PARK LANE FESTIVAL PROMENADE) $z,787.20 •SHRUB (MACGREGOR ®iiMIE IRRIGATION SYSTEM - ----- DEMOLITION OF EXISTING IRRIGATION BACKFLOW PREVENTER, METER, AND METER 'VAULT' (NEW) 1 LS 62,000:00 52.000.00 '.. NEW 2" METER, SACKFLOW PREVENTER, ENCLOSURE, FLOW SEN50RIMASTER VALVE (NEW) 1 LS $9,500.OD $9,500.D0 EXTEND 2 112" PVC MAINLINE AND WIRE (FOR PHASE I AND III AND FUTURE PHASES) (NEW) 7.72 LE $5.50 51 4°800 RELOCATE EXISTING CONTROLLER 1 LS $1 250.00 $1,250.00 QUICK COUPLING VALVES 2 EA 5150.00 0300.00 MODIFY EXISTING IRRIGATION HEADS IN TURF AREAS TO REMAIN 0 $5,000.00 $1.750 00 IRRIGATION SLEEVING ALLGWANCE - $1,D09.CO $1,000.00 IRRIGATION - TO TREE WELLS 4 $250.00 $1000.00 IRRIGATION- SHRUB BEDS 3,414 52.00 $6,828.00 $25,124 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PRIMARY AND TRANSFORMER(ALLOWANCE) 1 012A00.00 $12,000.00 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR SITE (.ALLOWANCE) 1 $10.000.00 $10,000.00 RESET EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES 1 $1,500.00 CO $23,500 BID ITEM TOTAL (Without GC's, Insurance, Bonds, Fees and Mobilization) 5397,248 '... SUBTOTAL WI GC's, INSURANCE, BONDS, FEES, AND MOBILIZATION $429,028 Esnrnalinp Contingency 3.0% $12,871 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GRANO TOTAL $441,899 '... Il. Construston Coningensyj10%) 1.0 ®$44189.92 $44,",89.92 Materials Testin. Durin Construction 0.6 ® 01 00D.00 $3,090.00 40,60 30.00 $0.00 Printfnp psi ion and Bld Sete 1.0 LE $1 600.00 $1,500.00 $46,090 ($72,140) PROJECT TOTAL WITH ALL COSTS $490,589 (350,660) 2 Phase 480k