The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Public Works 1996-04-25'4 AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE APRIL 25, 1996 8:00 A.M. 1. Elkhorn Ave. Curb and Gutter Request retroactive approval to proceed with construction 2. Street Slurry Seal Project Request to award contract 3. Street Dept. Budgeted Vehicles Request to purchase 1.) Sweeper 2.) Utility Truck 4. Town Fuel Tanks Abandonment Project Request to bid 5. Fleet Dept./Water Dept./L&P Dept. Computer Network Server Request to solicit prices 6. Water Dept. Projects Change Orders Request approval of estimates 7. Traffic Signs Installation request 8. Lake Estes Causeway Trail Request approval of Design / Construction Mgmt. Scope of Services Reports: 1. Customer Service Response 2. Monthly Water Report 3. Hwy. 34, Hwy. 7, Elkhorn Ave. Projects Update 4. Lake Estes Causeway Trail Grant Application Update 5. River Clean Up on May 18th PUBLICS WORKS DEPT. Memo 0/talÂ» To: Gary Klaphake OP- From: Greg Sievers 4-ed 1(924 46 CC: Bill Linnane ~ACK L + *--* Date: April 8, 1996 ~-Â§/Fl.=u~( 4-0 'prvo C..2-ec-(~ Re: Elkhom Avenue Curb Repairs ~ Ad/VAL BT- 9/(2.3 iqf= In an effort to maintain an expedient work schedule prior to the Elkhom Avenue repaving in May we are proposing to do curb, gutter and concrete pan repairs and replacement immediately. The next PW Committee is April 250' and that late date for approval may hinder the highway schedule ( which was moved up to avoid June paving). This project was bid concurrent with an U.R.A. project which has overlaps of scope and location. The 1996 public works budget contains $25,000 for their portion on this project. Bids were received Monday, April 8*, with G.L Hoff being the low bidder. The bid for the Public Works portion totaled $14,904.78 . We are requesting to skip Board approval on this single asterisk item and issue a Purchase Order immediately. Also we are proposing to increase the unit quantities up to, but not exceeding the budget to produce the maximum amount of repairs on Elkhom prior to ifs repaving by CDOT. â€¢ Page 1 1-1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Memo To: Public Works Committee From: Greg Sievers CC: Bill Linnane Date: April 22, 1996 Re: 1996 Street Improvement Project The 1996 Public Works budget includes $200,000 for the annual Street Improvement Project. This work has traditionally been asphalt paving overlays on existing deteriorated streets. In 1994 the Public Works Department began working toward increasing the coverage and quality of our roadway infrastructure without the use of the 17 " asphalt thickness increase. Through technology updates, education and association with the City of Greeley we have begun the application of a Slurry Seal program. This liquid asphalt and W sand aggregate combination help to preserver, protect and extend the life of our streets at approximately 1 /3 the cost of asphaltic concrete . Slurry Seal material is very temperature critical in application. Last year the production of that contract with Quality Resurfacing Inc. was cut short by sub-zero weather in mid- September. They will be mobilizing in Town June 10 for a three week construction period. In 1995 Quality Resurfacing Inc. of Commerce City was the low bidder and we wish to add on to the existing contract by increasing the quantity of there 1995 contract by 55,000 square yards. This will reflect a $50,000 expenditure from the 1996 budget. Installation of this product will cover approximately 24 additional streets; see attached list. As noted; some streets will be deleted and others added to this list to avoid interference with utility company work schedules. We will return to the August PW Committee for approval to proceed with expenditure on the remainder of the project for regular asphalt paving in September. â€¢ Page 1 2-1 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 23, 1996 TO: ALL EFFECTED UTILITIES COMPANIES FROM: PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING, Sievers RE: 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The streets listed below are proposed for improvement in 1996. Please verify your facilities within and notify this office with any conflicts. Shaded selections indicate street which have been planned for facility work by a utility company, and therefore deleted from the 1996 work list. ASPHALT OVERLAY SLURRY SEAL 1996 Slurry Seal 1995 1. Baldpate Court 1. Castle Mtn. Rd. 1. Cyteworth Road 2. Black Canyon Drive 2. Far View Lane epsd 2. David Drive 3. Blue Spruce Ct. 3. Big Horn Drive 3. East Riverside Drive 4. Deer Mtn. Drive 4. Virginia Drive epsd 4. Elk Meadow Court 5. Fall River Court 5. Prospect Estates Drive 5. East Court & 50, St. 6. Lakeshore Drive 6. Devon Drive 6. Grand Estates Drive 7. Lexington Lane - 7. Marcus Lane 7. Monida Court 8. Larkspur Drive ' 8. Axminster Drive 8. Morgan Street 9. Pinewood Drive 9. Morgan Lane epsd 9. Mountain View Court 10. Park View Lane 10. Vista Lane 10. North Lake Avenue 11. Manford Avenue 11. Hillside Lane w 11. Park Lane 12. Fawn Lane 12. Prospector Lane 12. Peak View Drive 13. Country Club Drive 13. Freeland Court 13. Weston Lane 14. Valley Road w 14. James Street 15. Stanley Circle 15. Old Man Mtn. 16. Driftwood 16. Fall River Lane 17. Aspen Avenue epsd 18. Columbine Ave. 19. Woodstock Drive 20. Elm Avenue 21. Woodstock Drive 22. Pine Knoll Drive 23. Shady Lane 24. University Drive 2-2 FARIS ~~ MACHINERY COMPANY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES 5770 EAST 77th AVENUE April 5, 1996 COMMERCE CITY, COLORADO 80022-1099 PHONE (303) 289-5743 Mr. Gary Shanafelt Town of Estes Park Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Gary: We are pleased to quote prices on the following ELGIN equipment: One- ELGIN Pelican Street Sweeper with all standard equipment listed on the enclosed specification sheet and to include dual hydraulic side brooms, John Deere 4039T diesel engine, 6" convex mirrors, AM/FM stereo with two speakers, two Warren 651 strobe lights with protectors, two suspension seats, air conditioner, Turbo II preceleaner, automatic lubrication system, 105 amp alternator, sprung guide wheel, hydraulic main broom suspension, broom tilt on right side, additional 40 gallon water tank, front jack pads, 2 year parts and labor warranty, service manual and painted white. Price FOB Estes Park, CO $ 87,035.00 Less Trade-in of 1981 Pelican -4.500.00 Net Price after Trade $ 82,535.00 For lower conveyor flush system Add $300.00 Notes: 1) The price includes sending one Estes Park employee back to the Elgin factory for a one day training seminar. The cost includes lodging for 3 days, and a $25.00 perdiem. It does not include parking at D.I.A. If the Town of Estes Park would like to make the travel arrangements and pay the expenses deduct $1,200.00 from the purchase price. 2) The height of the sweeper is 9'-6" and the length is 15'-10". The air conditioner has 5 adjustable vents. The water tank gauge is located just outside the cab and is visible from the operators seat. The battery has 925 cold crank amps. The strobe lights are activated by a switch from the cab. 3-1 Town of Estes Park Page 2. Terms: Net 30 days after receipt of the invoice. Delivery: 8 to 10 weeks after receipt of the order. Prices are firm for 30 days from date of quote. Thank you for the opportunity of quoting this equipment. Sincerely FARIS MACHINERY COMPANY le YneO 'Bill McQueaky-)14,41 District Mgr. 0 BMcQ/jo Enc. clgin/EstesPark-ms.040596 3-2 THE - ESTES PAAK BAN~| April 17, 1996 ig=m 1 â€ž\ APR 17 1996 Monte L. Vavra TOWN OF EMES PARK Finance Officer Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Lease/Purchase Bid on Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper Dear Monte: Our Bank is willing to bid the following: Rate: 5.625% Annual payment approximately $234.98/1000 or $19,394.07 on $82,535.00 amortized over five years. This bid assumes the lease would be tax free and would require a legal opinion to satisfy that requirement. No other costs are anticipated on a lease of this nature. Do not hisitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jack G. Haselbush Chairman and CEO JGH/nc ESTABLISHED 1908 363 EAST ELKHORN RO. BOX 2270 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 (303) 586-4412 DENVER 573-9060 MEMBER FDIC TO: BILL LINNANE/DAN SPEEDLIN FROM: GARY SHANAFELT SUBJ: UTILITY VEHICLE PURCHASE DATE: 12 MARCH 1996 SPECIFICATIONS WERE WRITTEN AND BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR ONE FOUR WHEEL DRIVE UTILITY VEHICLE FOR THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT WITH FOUR RESPONSES RECEIVED AS LISTED BELOW. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT ME. LONGMONT AUTOMOTIVE GROUP AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA~~AAAAAAAA ONE FORD BRONCO WITH-OUT TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE $20,181.00*-r ONE FORD BRONCO WITH TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE OF G.69 $17,181.00,6--~- Â·Â· RAINS MOTOR COMPANY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.A ONE FORD BRONCO WITH-OUT TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE $20.562.17 PRICE WITH 2% LOCAL VENDOR CONSIDERATION: $ 20 , 150.9341-\ ONE FORD BRONCO WITH TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE OF G.69 $17,562.17 j PRICE WITH 2% LOCAL VENDOR CONSIDERATION: $17,210.93 2. HAJEK CHEVROLET AAAA.AA........ ONE CHEVROLET TAHOE WITH-OUT TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE $25,211.90 ONE CHEVROLET TAHOE WITH TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE OF G.69 $20,811.90 DELLENBACH CHEVROLET AAAAAAAAAA~,AAAAAAAAA ONE CHEVROLET TAHOE WITH-OUT TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE $25,043.00 ONE CHEVROLET TAHOE WITH TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE OF G.69 $21,543.00 Lowl -2, eD : RA,Als 0~0 -re.Ama-i d (2, 80,5 611-1 - AD'D 2.-oW + Su 50Â»411 od 3-4 PROPOSED SOLUTION FOR 1996 Fuel Data 1__Sch001 | County | Without the Network PC, these two links would not b e D ata will be s ent D ata will be s ent from County to the possible. from School site Network PC. to the Network PC. Network E-pcl At this point, data can be A put into and taken out of the Fleet mainframe using V the Network PC. Fleet IVIainframe 25.-l ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. gmc 437 South St. Vrain Estes Park, CO 80517 (303) 586-2458 Metro (303) 825-8233 April 22, 1996 FAX (303) 825-8912 Bill Linnane Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Highway 34 Water Main Interconnection Dear Bill: This letter has been written to inform you of a change to the aforementioned project. The following change orders include: Item 1) There has been a change order at the interconnection of Summit Drive and Highway 34 to facilitate the actual location of the existing 8" water line. The amount of the change order is $715. Item 2) A change occurred on Hillside Lane when BTC Construction at the request of the Town excavated a existing service line. The service line needed to be located to alloW the installation of the new 12" water line. The amount of the change order is approximately $480. ' Item 3) A change occurred on Pine Lane and a portion of Grand Estates Drive. The water line at both locations had to be relocated into the asphalt portion of the roadway due to interference with the new gas line. The amount of the change order is $22,860. Item 4) A final change occurred when BTC at the request of the Town mobilized another pipe line excavation crew to expedite the construction schedule. The earlier project completion will allow for a more timely start up and completion of the Highway 34 widening project. $2,500 The change order amounts are still under negotiations with BTC. The amounts shown are the maximum amounts that the Town would be charged. The Colorado Department of Transportation is aware of the changes and has agreed to pay their portion (42 %) of the final charges. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING â€¢ PLANNING 6-1 9mc Maximum Amount of Change Order to Date: Item #1 $ 715 Item #2 $ 480 Item #3 $22,860 Item #4 $ 2,500 TOTAL $26,555 TOWNS PORTION @ 58% = $15,401.90 CDOTS PORTION @ 42% = $11,153.10 If you have any questions, please do not hesit~e to call. Siner*y, <~~ l ROC)(Y~ 0AIN CONSULTANTS, INC. /,ceF<M. Prochaska, P.E. Associate Principal KMP/mas 6-2 =11 Sally M. Anderson P. 0. Box 4222 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-2645 (home) 970-586-6186 (work) April 16, 1996 Bill Linnane, Public Works Director Town of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Bill: I'm writing to ask that you consider placing a STOP sign on Spruce Drive at the intersection with Big Horn rather than a YIELD sign. That's very nearly a blind corner for traffic coming from all directions. I've personally had a couple of near misses and one "close encounter of the $750 kind" at that spot. Putting DANGEROUS INTERSECTION signs at the approaches on Big Horn wouldn't hurt either. While I have your attention, have you considered putting a CONTINUOUS LANE sign for "right turners" off Riverside onto Elkhorn going east? Locals know full well they can make that turn but visitors inevitably wait until there's no traffic coming from the west. It's not so much of a problem when the traffic officers are there in the summer but it might avoid tie-ups during the shoulder season. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Sally M. Anderson 7-1 to .2 b g.= & 22 g ug -a d Se Wi :1 2'.- = 01 - 2.2 i~ %. 05= bâ‚¬ 2 2 00 U - .2 E 2 â€¢ 44 3 U 4-4 u r. O A il ts - 0.% 8 -0 0.5; K. 8 =9.& Re'. 0 Eg = ti U} M M i Eu F M $ 0 , i b.# 1 5 6 (4 -0 .- 1- 0 22 90 1~ E, *ag , 1 1 1 0. f * 2 ... = 2 4.:.1 Â§.= 8 - 2 g g.2.2 rn A E cu Om OCC= E n /3 7 2 -2- R 2&22 2 - - 0.5 2 8 9% i ?Eli E '3.2 :9 k 7 0 2.9 b g 8 t, EM 0 = U .9 I. AE) *r,0 Â·Â¥ - = cl â‚¬ 8 6. t p = W .- =16 ... 6. PU 12:@ 0 2 2 H = cu - *laAME . 1-808<t; UEE 11 2.S 9 -O t C W E- co * C o w v 42 0 N 2 â‚¬ E .S E 8 - 23... 5 2-8 2 - 21 44 U U wi Al gus= -O 4 u 07 = + 0 -0 - m. = 1.83 .EL f# 5 6 4-6 25 Oct -E-E 40 ON 31.2 464 0 x.z ; d~82 C C 5 2 1 =22gy U w U $ C 5 PR.- NCUm ix .5 9 2 7 * 3' .5 2 3 8 2 8 9 .se ./ 1 6 Mu~ 41 -5 ce R N k :,2.9 5 4 @ 0 . ~ 8 0 vp 4 4 61 8 & 2 03 Im f 00 2 Â¤ v .S N 22 ,4 as U A as 2 8 2- U 0,6. 25 0 0, - 0 2.2 2 -8 8* 6 26 M U 6. U 50 C - M Eu,3 - = 3 2 50 - 0- U ty-0420 EN 1 CO T *54; g u -C E 0 2 E .8 -~ 00 0 X 8 .2 5 0 3 = :2 e = 0 40 9 -94 AS 5.L m :- 8 8 1 L. O 4 -1 -= 694=38 5 N 5 8 6 0 , 2 g Â£.6 E =1 2 23.19 -0 * 0 - R Â£ Â·Eg.2 9 22- 4 9 0 4 1 0 4 â‚¬ M - 9 9 2 9Â· , - ca M t; 14 8 3 2 < g & B: 8 E w < CH -5 -2 2 =2 S ..'-' A & cs .= C==-2 <:2 12 2 0 45 0 -g.M N N wc,5,2AX 2 ... 7-2 stop is not necessary times. Periodic reviews of existing installations may be desirable to e whether, because of changed conditions, the use of less restrict control or no control could accommodate traffic STOP signs should never be used on the through roadways of expressways. Properly designed expressway interchanges provide for the continuous flow of traffic, making STOP signs unnessary even on the entering roadways. Where at-grade intersec ons are temporarily justified Rl-4 for local traffic in sparsely populated TOP signs should be used on the entering roadways to pr 1 fic. STOP signs may also required at the end of dive intersection with other hways not designed as expressways. I these cases. the speeds STOP signs are intended for use where traffic ired to stop. Th STOP signs 11 be erecte s where traffic control nals are oper ting. h e conflict es of control mounted just below each STO s If the number o norInally be posted on the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. he intersection is three or umeral on t engineering studies, however, may justify a decision to install a Su!10@UISUO OU,JE.n poI!Elop E Kq pou!ULIOiop UO@q Set[ poott 41!m uo!,Ounfuoo u! posn ~ ABUI SUOOB@q JO UOOB poods 101 posn Oq lou PInoqs suils dOLS 'osly .spsodind 60 113!S dois Jol nuu.uBA# 91[Z Bus s @41 103 OpBUI SUpq 218 SlUDUIOSUBIIE 2 UOAYS @q prnoqs uoilelop!suoo 'siuuilem os@qi Jo uo O!Idde @41 01 10!id '8/6 *Aey ume loc condary roads with lo light facing the tha must lementary plat two main highways intersect, the STOP sign or gns should nnentary shall correspond to the mber of legs, or t sign or signs on the major street, as at a three-way intersection JO Mou JOJEOJS @41 Sulddols 4 nr Artu suoRelopIS _~ 1~50 ~17 puels B @A WIP.ZTZI Bq Pol B Uo SSUISSOJO @paIS KEMI[Sit!-pEO.II!El Poloops lu posn @q KE UNIS dols the STOP sign at railroad-highway grade crossings J idoox@ posn oq lou IIENS st.18!s dO.LS guip-Ned 10 0Iq OUIOS le jinSBOUI KloJES E SU Injosn s! uo!,MIIEJSU! narily be used only where the vo ume 3 JJB.4 V '[unbo KI@lu pcoidde O.LS KEMPInt[I E Wellâ„¢ ABUI SUO!1!puooy poou Knuilm pue polue.LIUM @19 S b POHelsup @q UEO le41 @inSBOUI 3 demands safely and more effectively. 11 not warrant any great increase is not warr e ut on nches . If traffic is UIOAOUI BU!uinliJOI U '6-as uolloos u! P Â·s@OBJ URS dO,LS uo posn oq Jou Ilet[S SONESS@UI KIEptIOO@S 0@SIO JU! UU I J XIOJOUJS!}ES O IS UO!10@51@ U p@Z US. Un .uo!1EHE)su! .07 Z-8Z '8/6 'Aey 'Sls!10 JOUI 01 OOU@!UDAUOOU I IE,clueisqns E sasneo uSTS le politellum Oq Reut UNIS dO,LS V 'PoluE.LIEN, 3101{11\ 0104* pno.I Ugul U 41!M pRO.I luetiodUI! ss @I Polo!4501 'poods 18! 00 8 0104 Slolu! I0410 :15!Xe SUO!1!pUOO SU!/MOHOJ 041 Jo oIOUI SnopIEZEq KInpun daLS 041 Aq Iolluoo Â·UNIS *f-Ht uo!1005 III PoqUOSOp ~ ~ IlnJ E 01*tim (L-HE) ums GlE[IA 041 SE tpnS 'SOInSUJUI OA!10!.Ilsol ss@I 01 B SnON@S pUB 'M@!A 7*41 ..ING '* . **+Le s:. 4,44-1) 4. 4 4**;. *48 b intended for use to warn motorists that merging :d for use on an approach to a STop 21..4.m~~ s.t4 k. encountered in advance o f a point where two roadways it distance to permit the driver to b ...........-r- ign. Obstruction(s) causing the limited W aed Â£,0 turning connict occurs. rmittent. . 'Â·:hZ~, dp ,bould be crected on the side of the major roadway on which 0 4Â¢~0,~, Infru .ill be encountered and in such a position as not to : a minimum of 30 X 30 inches. i ..33.. 4,#,w..01â€ž,d :bi d:1% ci's view of vehicles on the entering roadway. Ordinarily 1 for emphasis where there is : 4%*---.1 on the minor or ramp roadway are aware that they may have *P-b~..... .:th other traffic. but an additional sign may be placed on the AD sign (W3-1) may be used as an 9~0,.,,~,0.2.â€žÂ· as a reminder. Where two roadways of approximately a)Â· .*:tÂ· _,.,,0 1-:-unce câ€žns crge, a sign should be placed on each roadway. t -Â«9 .../.I- â‚¬BÂ¥-6 'n, 1*CTIc wgn,hould not be used where two roadways converge and 4...... %*.41Â·Â· e'Epe~ mo,rmats are not required. ~ I Th iterc sign should not be used in place of a Lane Reduction t' 122' 1.0.-*30 ugn â€¢ here lines o f tra ffic moving on a single roadway must 7 ft' ae. doc to a reduction in the actual or usable pavement width (sec. ./.:ill.. I :i x.,n / L Â· / t 39. 4 A W..L 9 2.6 I k 4 4.4 ,1l1. V3-2a W3-3 e x 36" 36" x 36" l a~~ < ~ ~F 9.5 , '.2 - W4-3 W4-1 1 30 0 x 30 ' 36" x 36" led for use on an approach to a YIELD,f .A. , 97 . nt distance to permit the driver to bring r..4 1. "d, f sign. Obstruction(s) causing the limited,+ 6 : ' ermittent. 3 4â‚¬/2 be a minimum of 30 x 30 inches. 7 â‚¬ EAD sign (W3-2) may be used as an; -5'. ! Za). 9.46 X> Ill Added Lane Sign (W4-3) 9 40Â·. f A. Added L.ane sign is intended for use in advance of a point where tto 9.,41 -,3.11' converge and merging movements are not required. This sign 5 Â· 16,...j A-'d be crected in advance of the point of convergence and should be ~03-,- -blÂ¢ from both roadways; otherwise, a sign should be placed on each ;for use in advance of any signalized j, *s prevent drivers from having at â‚¬it; I".Ill/1/'L - 4-4->. -elu,17 on the side of the roadway on which the other roadway nal indications for distance specified in ~ ,%99-4 re >:8 . li-tr: 1'19-.1 - egED?. 2C-9 Rev. 12/83 , <3.4 . 1 -57. 7-3 I. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST AND FUNDING COST ESTIMATE 1. Mobilization LS $22,000 2. Traffic Control LS 4,000 3. Embankment Fill 7,400 CY @ $15/CY 111,000 4. Rip Rap 1,110 CY @ $32/CY 35,500 5. Rip Rap Filter Material 750 CY @ $10/CY 7,500 6. Concrete 2,500 LF, 10 FT Wide @ $2.50/SF 62,500 7. Reseeding 2,200 SY @ $0.65/SY 1,400 8. Contingencies and Unknowns LS 60,000 9. Design and Construction Management @ 15 % 45.000 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $348,900 FUNDING SOURCE 1. Local Match $186,400 2. Enhancement Program Request $162,500 Application for Enhance Program Funding Inke Estes Pedestrian and Bicycle Commuter Path - Phase 4 Fiscal Year 1996 R4 - 2 ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS. INC. â€¢mc April 19, 1996 437 South St Vroin EMes Pok. CO BO617 (303) 586-2458 Metro (303) 825-8233 Bill Linnane FAX (303) 825-89~2 Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1 200 16;tes Park. CO 80517 RE: 1{stimated quamities and Cos[ for construclion of Phase 4 ul* tile Lake Estes Trail System along ihc H ighway 36 Causeway. Dear Bill: Phase 4 of the Lake Estes '1'rail System would begin at the cabl end of the Lake Estes picnic areas along 1Iighway 36. The trail would excend tfustrily along (hc north edge ofthe Highway 36 Causeway to Mall Road. The estimated construccion quantities and co,1 arc as follows: ircm Description (111 l)niI Cost//J ni[ 13&19]11120 1) Mobilization 1 IS $22,000 $22.000 2) Imt,vaed Embankment 6850 ('Y $16.00 $109.600 31 Kip Rap 2140 ('Y $35.00 $74,900 4) Geogrid ritter Fabric 6420 SY $5.(X) $32.100 5) Retaining Wall 1300 S F $16.00 $20,800 61 Hand Rail 260 LF $30.(x) $7,800 7) Concrete Trail 24,It)0 SF $3.00 $72,30() 8) Traffic Control I LS $ 5,000 $5,000 9) Re~eeding 2410 SY $0.65 $ 1.566 $346,066 Contingencies @ 10% $34.606 T(yfAL COST ESTIMATE $380,672 The above unit cost arc based on the Phase 1 & 2 1 .ake 12.,tr) Trail System plus approximate yearly cost increases. If you have ally queslion.5, please do not hesitate lu call. Sincerely. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ((JNSul,TANTS, INC. *44-2. dalf-2-- I Michael S. Todd Project Engineer MST/mas C.IVII ANU LNVIf:OfÂ·.1Mt:NTAI f NG,NEFT'INC - PLANNING R4 - 3 eÂ»X: *PE: 24 /:04 2% r"Â»1. .:92 093 m.:m 2*9* :...Rk:SC.:SI vt:~ Â·Â· I I 1 ... R. I Â· C ./ E a, < m R4 - 4 April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec uo!10nllsuoo PROJECT SCIIEDULE F 2/44 - 4104 Permits Acquisition PJBAAV Design Review ... ~ ~ C~& d~*~f TOWN OF ESTES PARK ...0(*â‚¬4.&.0 /0 2:RpeeÂ·z,Med -%:I:f_>2#&5 fi,Z~*t=24 .4 *p hy;vip .- 4%-TU-?42':t :175.'-9 0 -Gk,U'.tlic. 4' 1, P..P.,tâ‚¬.1Â£? WAI ...Jvfaftdiht<Wit) .ek. -&07.- . -AS..92'..\ tv -th/,a.: 133/ . .- AVZ. 29 March 12, 1996 4.g*491,9 , -,---1-t.,1. e . \ Mr. Jeff Manual Regional Coordinator for Enhancement Program Funds COLORADO DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION P.O. Box 850 Greeley, CO 80632 Subject: Fiscal Year 1996 Application for Enhancement Program Funding for the Proposed I.ake Estes Pedestrian and Bicycle Commuter Path Project - Phase 4 Dear Mr. Manual: The Town of Estes Park is formally requesting Enhancement Program Funding for the project mentioned above. The attached application package is in accordance with the CDOT application instructions dated September 17, 1993. To summarize the package, our proposed project is a bicycle and pedestrian facility that promotes safe commuter activity from the eastern portion of the Estes Valley at Highway 36/Fish Creek, across the lake causeway to the downtown area to the west. The project is also proposed in an existing pedestrian and bicycle trail master plan. The project is very important to the residents of Estes Park. Due to the high level of interest, the Town of Estes Park is committed to construct the project. We are requesting a fund grant of $162,500, and the Town will match this amount with $186,400, if necessary. We truly think that this project is worth Enhancement Program Funding and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK KAF 1/1 7 ; 99/rt'r/v'uu(A H.'Bernertbannels, Mayor HBD:ck Enclosure R4-1 (303) 586-5331 â€¢ RO. BOX 1200â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 â€¢ FAX (303) 586-0249 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT â€¢ FAX(303) 586-6909 OTHER ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. gmc 437 South St. Vrain Estes Park, CO 80517 (303) 586-2458 Metro (303) 825-8233 April 23, 1996 FAX (303) 825-8912 Bill Linnane Public Works Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Lake Estes Causeway Trail Phase 4 Dear Bill: Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following scope of services and cost of engineering services for the Lake Estes Causeway Trail - Phase 4. We understand the project construction will be phased between 1996 and 1997 with the project to be bid no later than September 30, 1996. The trail will be approximately 2500 feet in length by 10 feet in width and located on the north side of U.S. Highway 36 along the causeway. The trail will rise approximately 50 feet from the elevation of Lake Estes to Mall Road. The design will involve extensive rip rap and retaining wall work along the lake shore. The design will also meet the requirements set by the American Disabilities Act (ADA) to facilitate handicap access. The following services will be provided by RMC for the project: I. SCOPE OF WORK A. Project Coordination and Permitting 1. Project Coordination - RMC has and will continue to collect and review various reports, master plans and design standards. RMC will coordinate with the Town of Estes Park, Bureau of Reclamation and Colorado Department of Transportation during review of design standards and design. In addition to the initial meetings, RMC will continue to keep all involved factions informed of the project progress and schedule meetings as needed. 2. Permits - RMC will obtain permits from the Army Corps of Engineers necessary for the rip rap construction and fill along the north shore of the causeway. Information from the above mentioned permits will be provided to the Bureau of Reclamation as needed for their NEPA permits. Plans and information of the trail design and location will also be provided to the Bureau of Reclamation as needed for their NEPA permits. Additional CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING â€¢ PLANNING 8-1 gmc RMC on behalf of the Town will obtain a State Highway Right-of-Way permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation. B. Reconnaissance and Data Collection 1. Utilities - RMC will research map locates and coordinate actual ground locates of utilities with respected utility owners in the area of the proposed trail alignment. Size, type, invert elevations, locations etc., of all located utilities necessary for construction will be indicated on plan drawings. Special attention will be given to the Bureau of Reclamation control cable and Western Power Authority transmission main. 2. Easements and Right-of-Ways - RMC will research all CDOT Right-of- Ways and easements critical to the proposed trail alignment. All available subdivision plats, boundary surveys, right-of-way maps and Public Land Monument records will be collected and analyzed. RMC will prepare all right-of-way and easement contracts, including legal description necessary to insure legal access for the trail system alignment. Special attention will be given to existing easements and licensing for the Bureau of Reclamation property and the Western Power Authority easement. 3. Survey - RMC will provide all field surveying for the location and design of the trail system alignment. The survey will establish horizontal and vertical controls and monuments; locate existing roads, streams, utilities; gather topographical data for profiles and cross sections; and record other pertinent data. C. Preliminary Design 1. RMC will compile all survey information and plot the information on 24"X 36" sheets for the preliminary and final design. The drawings will contain all pertinent information collected including utilities, roads, property lines, fioodplains, topographical data etc., 2. A preliminary trail alignment will be submitted to the Town of Estes Park, Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado Department of Transportation for review, comments and approval. 3. Specification for the trail system along with estimated construction cost will be submitted to the Town of Estes Park for review and approval. 8-2 gmc 4. Final drawings and specifications for the trail system will be prepared for the most feasible route found during the preliminary design phase. Design criteria and standards set by CDOT, ADA and AASTHO shall be followed in the design process. Special attention will be given to future trail interconnections including Mall Road and possible underpasses of U.S. Highway 36. 5. The design will consist of approximately 2500 linear feet of concrete trail. The trail surface will be 10 feet wide. The design shall be prepared to minimize cost, provide for user safety and comfort, minimize hydraulic impacts and handicap accessibility. Also addressed in the design will be signage, guard rails, path typicals, retaining walls, landscape items, drain systems, fencing, and erosion control plan. D. Final Design 1. Final design and construction documents will be completed. 2. RMC shall prepare detailed construction drawings on 24"x 36", 3 mil double mat inked mylar paper. The original set of inked mylar shall be property of the town. A Cadd drawing file will be supplied with the final mylar drawings. The construction drawings shall contain: a. The date of preparation, scale, north arrow and legend. b. Project title. c. Title sheet with index. d. Plan and profile sheet(s) of proposed improvements as needed for construction indicating size, type, slope, cover, length, and relationship with other utilities. e. Property ownership, construction easement, and permanent easements. f. Existing conditions, including the location of all utilities and streets. g. Erosion control details for installation and maintenance. E. Construction Administration Services RMC will provide construction administration services following Notice to Proceed to the successful contractor. The services will include: a. Construction administration service, including review of shop 8-3 9mc drawings, attending all progress meetings, review of progress payments from the contractors, prepare and review all change orders and the general administration task associated with the construction project. b. Preparations of "as built" drawings, with the originals being turned over to the town. c. Provide a field representative for construction observations. A rate schedule for the project is attached to the proposal. The cost of Engineering Services is as follows: II. COST OF ENGINEERING SERVICES LAKE ESTES CAUSEWAY TRAIL - PHASE 4 Task 1 - Project Coordination and Permitting Personnel Rate/Hr. Hrs. Cost Project Manager $75.00 20 $1500 Engineers $45.00 32 $1440 Designers, Tech.,Landscape Arch. $35.00 24 $840 Clerical $20.00 20 $400 SUBTOTAL TASK 1 COST .96 $4,180 Task 2 - Data Collection/Reconnaissance Personnel Rate/Hr. Hrs. Cost Project Manager $75.00 8 $600 Project Engineer $50.00 8 $400 Engineers $45.00 8 $360 Designers, Tech.,Landscape Arch. $35.00 32 $1120 Licensed Surveyor $40.00 6 $240 2-Man Crew $65.00 8 $520 CAD System & Operator $55.00 40 $2200 Clerical $20.00 2Q $400 SUBTOTAL TASK 2 COST .138 $5,840 8-4 gmc Task 3 - Preliminary Design Personnel Rate/Hr. Hrs. Cost Project Manager $75.00 32 $2400 Project Engineer $50.00 48 $2400 Engineers $45.00 48 $2160 Designers, Eng. Tech. $35.00 40 $1400 CAD System & Operator $55.00 40 $2200 Clerical $20.00 32 $640 SUBTOTAL TASK 3 COST 240 $11,200 Task 4 - Final Design Personnel Rate/Hr. irs. Cost Project Manager $75.00 16 $1200 Project Engineer $50.00 20 $1000 Structural Engineer $45.00 8 $360 Designers $35.00 40 $1400 Licensed Surveyor $40.00 4 $160 CAD System & Operator $55.00 24 $1320 Clerical $20.00 24 $480 SUBTOTAL TASK 4 COST 136 $5,920 Task 5 - Construction Administration Personnel Rate/Hr. irs. Cost Project Manager $75.00 16 $1200 Construction Inspc./Engineer $45.00 300 $13,500 2-Man Crew $65.00 24 $1560 CAD System & Operator $55.00 16 $880 Clerical $20.00 24 $480 SUBTOTAL TASK 5 COST 404 $17,620 8-5 gmc Task 1 - Project Coordination and Permitting 96 $4,180 Task 2 - Data Collection/Reconnaissance 138 . $5,840 Task 3 - Preliminary Design 240 $11,200 Task 4 - Final Design 136 $5,920 Total Preliminary and Final Design 610 $27,140 Task 5 - Construction Administration 404 $17,620 PROJECT TOTAL.... ....... 1014 $44,760 We feel confident that the company's strong emphasis in trail design, storm drainage, landscaping and flood control systems and past experience with similar projects will enable us to successfully produce a viable and economical design. The personnel assigned to this project are experienced and qualified to complete a quality product. We will firmly commit engineering and support staff to ensure a timely completion of the project. We are prepared to begin work immediately following your notice to proceed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, A / ROOKY MOWDÂ¢7AIN CONSULTANTS, INC. ~~~~ska, P.E. AsÂ¢ociate Principal KMP/mas 8-6 gmc RATES AND CHARGES ESTES PARK BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Personnel Rate Principal $90.00 Project Manager 75.00 Project Engineers, Planners, Architects, 50.00 and Geotechnical Engineers Engineers, Planners, Geologist, 45.00 and Chief Construction Inspectors Engineering Technicians, Designers, 35.00 and Landscape Architects Licensed Surveyors 40.00 Two-man Crew 65.00 Three-man Crew 85.00 Construction Inspectors 45.00 Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) 55.00 System with Operator Drafting 30.00 Secretarial 20.00 Compaction Testing 25.00/test (Nuclear Density Gauge) Proctor Tests 200.00/test Sieve Tests 65.00/test Rates and Charges will be fixed for the Contract period. Hourly rates include ordinary expenses and charges, i.e., mileage, telephone calls, telegrams, postage, stakes, pins, normal printing and reproduction costs. Actual cost of special testing, equipment and the service of special consultants at cost plus ten (10) percent. 8-7 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT MARCH 1996 CODE TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS 11 BLEEDER MAINTENANCE 12 UTILITY LOCATION 174.00. 6:9:75..1 15 SERVICE LINE INSPECTION 16 TAP REQUEST 2.00 4.00 17 WATER QUALITY ~ <.1.00 2.00 - 20 PRESSURE PROBLEMS 22 FROZEN LINES 1.00 1.00 24 LINE BREAKS: MAIN 9.00 91.661 30 METER REPAIR 13.00 27.50 32 FINAL INSPECTION. 8.00 6.00 40 CONSTRUCTION RELATED 50 STREET REPAIR 51 SNOW REMOVAL 52 STREET SWEEPING 53 SIGN REQUESTS AND REPAIR 54 STORM DRAINAGE 60 OTHER ~ " I " 718Ea.. " 9.50 TOTALS FOR MARCH 1996 215.00 190.75 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 215.00 128.00 84.00 TOTAL MAN HOURS * 190.75 213.00 174.00 %CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) +67.97%/-10.80% -15.79%/+65.4404 +159.52%/+9.63% Rl - 1 - -- ----1 ,WE?-c~ Alt_ ' tv TOWN OF ESTES PARK MARCH 1996 ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT I) Treated water for February 14, through March 13: Feb. 14 to 29 Water Treated: Fall River 0 Glacier Creek 0 Marys 18,386,000 March 1 to 13 Water Treated: Fall River O Glacier Creek 0 Marys 15,388,000 Total Water Treated in Billing Period 33,774,000 Gal. 2)Accountable Water Adjustments: 3,535,672 Billing(Includes billed bleaders) 18,580,279 Backwash 0 Total Water accounted for: 22,115,951 Gal. 3.) PERCENT ACCOUNTED FOR: 65% 4.) 12 MONTH AVE. PERCENT ACCOUNTED FOR: 74% R2 - 1 MARCH, 1996 ADJUSTMENTS 1.) Water Dispenser TOTAL WATER DISPENSER (Gal.) 78,540 2.) Bleeders TOTAL BLEEDERS NOT BILLED (Gal.) 1,455,132 3.) Flushing/Leaks/Misc. a. b. 2/14-3/13 Machins cotttages 135,000 c. 2/14-3/13 Fish Hatchery 1,364,000 d. 2/14-3/13 Riverside Dr. loss 180,000 e. 22-Feb Dry Gulch leak 3,000 f. 15-Feb W. Elkhom leak 15,000 g. 21-Feb Brookside leak 10,000 h. 23-Feb Glacier Tank 75,000 i. 10-Mar Hwy. 7 leak 100,000 j. 12-Mar Rodeo Grounds flush 120,000 k. L TOTAL LEAKS, MISC. (Gal.) 2,002,000 TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS (Gal.) 3,535,672 R2 - 2 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORDS MARCH, 1996 DATE FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL MARYS ' i TOTAL RIVER CREEK (GAL) CFS (GAL) CFS (GAL) 1 0 0 - 0.00 1,142,000 1.78 1,142,000 2 0 0 - 0.00 1,139,000 1.77 1,139,000 3 0 0 - 0.00 1,150,000 1.79 1,150,000 4 0 0 - 0.00 1,166,000 1.82 1,166,000 5 0 0 - 0.00 1,235,000 1.92 1,235,000 6 0 0 - 0.00 1,119,000 1.74 1,119,000 7 0 0 - 0.00 1,192,000 1.86 1,192,000 8 0 0 - 0.00 1,213,000 1.89 1,213,000 9 0 0 - 0.00 1,168,000 1.82 1,168,000 10 0 0 - 0.00 1,171,000 1.82 1,171,000 11 0 0 - 0.00 1,246,000 1.94 1 1,246,000 12 0 0 - 0.00 1,267,000 1.97 1,267,000 13 0 0 - 0.00 . 1,180,000 1.84 I 1,180,000 14 00- 0.00 1,190,000 1.85 1,190,000 15 0 0 - 0.00 I 1,244,000 1.94 1,244,000 16 0 0 - 0.00 1,258,000 1.96 1,258,000 17 0 0 - 0.00 1,280,000 1.99 1,280,000 18 0 0 - 0.00 1,216,000 1.89 1 1,216,000 19 0 0 - 0.00 1,117,000 1.74 . 1117,000 20 0 0 - 0.00 1,181,000 1.84 1,181,000 21 0 0 - 0.00 1,119,000 1.74 1,119,000 22 0 0 - 0.00 1,183,000 1.84 1,183,000 23 0 0 - 0.00 1,376,000 2.14 1,376,000 24 0 0 - 0.00 1,275,000 1.99 1,275,000 25 0 0 - 0.00 i 1,144,000 1.78 1,144,000 26 0 0 - 0.00 1,124,000 1.75 1,124,000 27 00- 0.00 1,223,000 1.90 f 1,223,000 28 0 0 - 0.00 i 1,143,000 1.78 1,143,000 29 0 0 - 0.00 1,164,000 1.81 1,164,000 30 0 0 - 0.00 1,232,000 1.92 1,232,000 31 0 0 - 0.00 i 1,357,000 2.11 1,357,000 TOT. 0 0 0 0.00 37,214,000 1.87 37,214,000 AF 0.00 0.00 0.00 114.21 T 114.21 CFS 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 1.86 1.86 BULK(-) NA N/A N/A N/A -3,535,672 GAL 0 0 0 37,214,000 | 33,678,328 AF 0 0.00 0.00 . 2 114.21 103.36 1st-13 0 0 15,388,000 14 - 31 0 0 21,826,000 R2 - 3 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TOTAL WATER PLANT PRODUCTION (CALENDER MONTH MINUS BLEEDERS/LEAKS) 1995 1995 1996 1996 MONTH YTD 2 ~' MONTH YTD 71 % % MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL t i CHANGE CHANGE (GAL.) (GAL.) (GAL.) . (GAL.) (GAL.) (MONTH) (YTD) JANUARY 29,773,400 29,773,400. 32,444,432 32,444,432 ~ 9% 9% FEBRUARY 26,673,800 56,447,200 1 ] 34,076,000 66,520,4321 28% 18% MARCH 29,439,200 85,886,400 ~ 33,678,328 100,198,760 14% 17% APRIL 28,508,550 114,394,950! 1 MAY 33,845,000 148,239,950 ~ i ! i JUNE 45,954,716 194,194,666 i i 1 1 JULY 67,042,100 261,236,766 1 1 1 1 AUGUST 68,288,200 329,524,966 : 1 1 1 1 SEPTEMBER 47,652,486 377,177,452 OCTOBER 34,487,192 411,664,644 NOVEMBER 31,147,515 442,812,159 1 DECEMBER 31,743,870 474,556,029 TOTAL 474,556,029 AC-FT 1,456 R2 - 4 A $ 0 2 56 :0 ** o R \4 .m . 1 9661. 9661. 1 - ./ailik## , 4661. ~ â‚¬661 Ii=I.t: ~.,:igi..&14â€žill[;t#mt# Â· .1Â·.. :.IÂ»Â·- rÂ·.~ 166 L 1.661. -tr ~'~~ -9 --- - ----- ---- 066 t ~.zi:GERUFFIffell *3 V. -Â·r-r- 'Im..........=.. ~,~rrm, .. 996L .- 1 - 1 L86L '... :Â·.-Â·-Â·~: NN:*miiimiE/im 1 lilli .. -:' # : ./. 996L .. Â·Â· Â· 1 -I</W0*J./.A-.I ---.3.-Mul*#./j&2 9961. -, I & ' A . 'f. '. '. I '-... ' Â· Via&*89 2861, 0 R2 - 5 previous Change from previous yea from -1.1% lilli MARCH & YTD GALLONS BILLED hIVEA 60,000,000 - 50,000,000 -K 40,000,000 -~ GALLONS 30,000,000 -1 /- 000'000'01 1- 000'000'01. 0 4) 9 33 %' E .2 ~ 0 =a E A noo- - 9661. 32 9 E ....1 . -,0- Iliw- 9661. 00 *66t CO I â‚¬66X ~ 166 L 918)-EUM*2**22% ....-.....7............lili.... 066L ,..#WUm.'AW.---...'.â€¢- 6961. 996L Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· i , mita=singa L861. 6.0/6.4:.2.422.2 901*~,24* I~.*~XX~4~EX; 986 L P"""P.el...r~ f96L L66L 1 2%1.Isifli Â£961. 3 im'al/ME 1961. g d R2 - 6 hIVIN mi previous year O.LA â€¢ hIVEA MARCH & YTD REVENUE W k, : : 250,000.00 -0 .....'I 1JI' I ..1 1 1 21#- 00.000'001Â· REVENUE 150,000.00 . - 00 000'09 300,000.00 -/ 200,000.00 -1 ' 27 49 44 <4%54 1i /0// ' 11 11" - YA #r # Â»9 3 I $ 4 9% Nf/.9 ~~71 14- , % V - 10 4-4 xin C 11 ~ \ .X. 0 f- . -4 , e A 0 + â‚¬ i. - C . b . j R3 - 1 P'Wn.1. ..!d21 -eÂ·'rag og tÂ·21.0 0 Â®g= . 9-Â»1 . . 0 \L 40 /5 / R3 - 2 -- I - -- - - 0 \ % . 9 00 \ 1 \ 1, \ 9 9 0 V. \ \ R3 - 3 APR 23 '96 02:10PM CDOT PRECONSTUCTION GREELEY 41 . . P.2/a. STATE OF COLORADO DEPARâ„¢ENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 ,â‚¬.ma 1420 2nd Street -1---.- Greeley, Colorado 00631 (970)35>1232 OF 1137z: Bike/Ped Facility South Platte River, Ft. Lupton UF 1137(new): Lake Estes Bike/Ped Path - Phase 4 April 18, 1996 Ms. Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chairperson Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Dear Barbara: The attached letters from the Town of Estes Park and the City of Fort Lupton indicate their desire to have this Department amend its 1995-2000 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Our Region 4 Enhancement Project Coordinator, Mr. Jeff Manuel, has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds that it should be acceptable, given his understanding of financial constraints for the FY 1996 Region 4 Enhancement program of projects and the ability to start the construction phase of the project this summer. Consequently, Region 4 is willing to forward this proposed amendment to CDOT Headquarters as soon as we receive a letter of recommendation from you in your capacity as chairpersob of the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (RPC). In accordance with established procedures, the Office of Management 4 Budget (OFMB) will review the proposed amendment for any statewide financial constraint issues and the Division of Trans- portation Development (DTD) will review it for any planning process coordination issues before finalizing it. Since this is the first time an "Enhancement" project is being proposed as an addition to the 1995-2000 STIP for the Upper Front Range, the proposed amendment presents the following potential issues for the Upper Front Range RPC: â€¢ What is the policy of the Upper Front Range RPC with regard to the redirection of funds when Enhancement projects do not proceed into implementation, as is the case with the Fort Lupton project, "Bike/Ped Facility, South Platte River?" VA.,1 - CAL/u - Ehf=t - t-*. K R4 - 5 ,APR 23 '96 02:11PM CDOT PRECONSTUCTION GREELEY . ..P. 3/8 - - MS. BARBARA KIRKMEYER Upper Front Range STIP Amendments for Enhancement Program April 18, 1996 Page 2 â€¢ Do any local agencies other than the Town of Estes Park have Enhancement projects that could also make use of the $163,000 of federal funding and obligation authority during ,Fiscal Year 1996 that was originally committed to the Fort Lupton project? If neither you nor our office is currently aware of any other potential Enhancement projects, what opportunity should be offered at this time, prior to proceeding with the STIP amend- ment, to enable other local agencies to inform the Upper Front Range of other potential projects? â€¢ If other Enhancement projects would be identified, how would they be ranked by the Upper Front Range RPC in comparison to the "Lake Estes Bike/Ped Path?" What process would the Upper Front Range RPC use to make a final recommendation of action to me? These issues are brought to your attention considering that it was the Upper Front Range RPC as a whole which originally recom- mended to me which particular Enhancement projects should be programmed in the 1995-2000 STIP for the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region. Now that a new project is being proposed, it is my desire to consult the RPC in a similar way. Summarizing the requests for the Upper Front Range's "Surface Transportation Program" portion of the STIP: STIP #UF 11372: Bike/Ped Facility, South Platte River, rt. Lupton The City of Fort Lupton has requested that this project be removed from the STIP. A more detailed explanation of this proposed STIP amendment is provided in the attached letter from Hon. Dick Wolfe, Mayor of Fort Lupton. STIP #OF 1137(new): Lake Estes Bike/Ped Path - Phase 4 The Town of Estes Park has requested that this project be added. A more detailed explanation of this proposed STIP amendment is provided in the attached letter from Ron. H. Bernerd Dannels, Mayor of Estes Park. This is Phase 4 of a six-phase series of projects that will eventually circle Lake Estes with a bike/pedestrian path. Phases 1 and 2 were funded with Pre-1995 EnhancementÂ·funding. Phase 4 crosses Lake Estes on the US 36 causeway. An added benefit of proceeding with this project at this time to both the Town of Estes Park and CDOT is that CDOT's US 34 highway widening project in 1996 on the north side of Lake R4-6 APR 23 '96 02:11PM CDOT PRECONSTUCTION GREELEY P.4/8. . MS. BARBARA KIRKMEYER Upper Front Range STIP Amendments for Enhancement Program April 18, 1996 Page 3 Estes will be generating excess dirt. This amounts to ap- proximately 5,000 cubic yards of material which can be used as embankment for this bike/pedestrian path. The attached STIP amendment request table shows the proposed change in funding for these projects. In this case, I intend to obtain your recommendation before finalizing these amendments to the STIP through CDOT's DTD and OFMB. (This would be in contrast to our procedure on amendments to the STIP for projects sponsored and funded by CDOT Region 4, for which we solicit your review and comment. ) Please be aware that our ability to amend the STIP for FY 1996 will significantly diminish after June 1 because we are already anticipating final obligation plan adjustments for the end of the federal fiscal year (Septembek 30). Therefore, if you intend to have an RPC meeting to discuss this amendment, it will need to be scheduled very foon. If you or other -members of the Upper Front Range RPC have any questions, concerns or comments about these amendments, please contact me at (9701 350-2103 or Stan Elmquist at (970) 350-2169. Very truly yours, , 3214'P-J Dougla; Rames Region Transportation Director Attachments cc: Mr. Jim Disney - Upper Front Range RPC (with attach.> Ms. Cynthia Erker -" " " " " Hon. Bernerd Dannels, Mayor - Town of Estes Park " 1, Hon. Dick Wolfe, Mayor ~ City of Fort Lupton . " " Ms. Elaine Spencer - Upper Front Range TAC Mr. Drew Scheltinga - " " " " Mr. Joe Baltazar - 11 " .1 ",T M. Tieman - CDOT OFMB " R. Grauberger/G. Ventura - CDOT DTD S. Wilmoth - CDOT R-4 n J. Manuel - CDOT R-4 1, 1 Â« -) File via Davis/Crier/Elmquist/Kennedy " R4-7 . APR 23 '96 02:12PM CDOT PRECONSTUCTION GREELEY , _F. 5/8.. ., ..- - 41 - .... D Â»3Â©04 â‚¬ity of Yort*=ton 'ci'. btLE"D. tr â‚¬,A.0/ PO. BOX 148 COUNTY OF WELD 130 S. McKINLEY AVENUE FT. LUPTON. CO 80621 (303) 857-8694 ~-Â£212820-/ Februiry 13, 1996 Mr. John E. Kessenich Colondo Department of Transponation 1420 2ndStreet Greoley. CO 80631 Re: Fort 1.upton South Platie River Trail Project Dear Mr. Kessenich: After mach deliberation by the City Cotmcil ir was decided that the Cty does not have tbe necessary Emds to commit to the 1996-1997 pahway/trail project at this time. Howeir. we are pursuing e number of aihancement projects to improw the -quality of life" fbr our commimity, oce of dich is a trail along the So~h Platte River on our property. It is iâ€¢moded thatthis trail willbecome alinkinlhe 6:tua South PlatteRivertrail pmject SingÂ¢weareasmalloomnumkywith linitccesougcesmaddress.ourmanymeeds, we found it appropriatetouseeurlimitfunds forprojeâ€¢s~,ithmediatehiÂ¢h*crcon=miV prioruies. 'Ihe decisicanottopuouethesubjectprojeed atâ€¢his *ime.,pdlopsed. matching.Emding wasve:ydiBicultandwasnotmadclÂ¥4* FoUÂ¢;,enl~ms**Uvebe;tplm@gloparticipate Ditrailprojects .algagthÂ¢ Kivgrtolk:k*=*poititiocestens.*~sequ~*, Â¥&m-Â¢hc ftmdi~ ibr yotirprojectwas nvaBable, we believedwercoME=dourpot#60. We understand and ippreciate de efforts you and te CDOT Haff made helping us in obtain the CDOT portion of the cohancement fundiog Br (he project. We are hopiag our inability at this time to go ferwurd will not jeopardize any of our futire tran fmding endeavors, be it fer state or fedeel maneys. 'Illank yon apin for 211 your help. Ify~ have aoy Flestioas, please call Jerty Pineau, City Administrator, at (303) 8574694 or Lee Robbins, Black and Veatch, at (303) 6714255. Mayor Â¢C: City Council Jerry Pineau Lee Robbins CC.Â· 54-- CE|-9V"E JAf4 maÂ·'4.1 - R4-8 APR 23 '96 02:12PM CDOT PRECONSTUCTION GREELEY . TOWN OF ESTES PARK tu ts=,Er Ail*755*at:,Â· _-a...,fâ€¢k 27 A Â¥,02%. -.,27man,Efu aaÂ». rver=-in..m E..yb Â£â€¢â€¢Lâ€¢ A-~18 11. ---P - 1- -/-/4*a.J . /37.,9Â¥.9 + a P.,1941#Kjvmreflij, I March 12, 1996 Â£:I24 Wâ‚¬-9-210-4 f M.~fl~Manual Regional Coordinator for Enhancement Program Funds @m@[2=@ COLORADO DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION P.O. Box 850 ' 0~ MAR 25 1996 l Greeley, CO 80632 Ull[3 Ul=]U OINED Subject: Fiscal Year 1996 Application for Enhancement Program Funding for the Proposed Lake Estes Pedestrian and Bicycle Commuter Path Project - Phase 4 Dear Mr. Manual: The Town of Estes Park is formally mquesting Enhancement Program Funding for the project mentioned above. The attached application package is in accordance with theCDOT application instructions dated September 17, 1993. To summarize tile package, our proposed project is a bicicle and pedestrian facility that promotes -safe commuter activity from the eastern portion of the Estes Vattey at Eighway 36/Fish Creek, across the lake causeway to the downtown area to the west The project is also proposed in an existing pedestrian and bicycle trail master plan. The prqject is very important to the residents of Estes Park. Due to the high level of interest, the Town of Estes Park is committed to construct the project. We are requesting a fund grant of $162,500, and the Town will match this amount with $186,400, if necessary. We truly think that this project is worth Enhancement Program Funding and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK 11 19-AfA/V'â€¢'\A.KA H28@kerd~bartnels, Mayor &- HBD:ck Enclosure -- - -- Â·- --â€¢ Â·Â· â€¢, ..â€¢in, r,c,/ci nougNT â€¢ FAX 003) 586-6909 OTHE R4-9 APR 23 '96 02:13PM CDOT PRECONSTUCTION,GREELEY - 4.- P. 7/8. - - tPA + e a St.,1 u . 1 - . 4 -- . .. 38 . . 4% ihit ~ 32 - ~ Â¥t . 8,7 11 1 - /1 2 . 1 1 - 1. r" 145 * :I 48 Â¥A t. 3 CÂ·'/0 I 42 y" Â·11,1 1 t- Att Oll iÂ¢ -0 4 33 Â· '6 3% -St 24.~ 49 4,6 . 93 *: 39 i g..4 k 0 :t. :49 Â£ Â·;Â¥,Â· 1 ?N i P. 14 4 CL 5:. Â·112!22 1:le/ 724 - ~ 7% .Â·4. W .7/31 W 0 Z : 1,1 â‚¬ 2 .4 F 31; fr ./0. i 31-1 E 9. 0 y. 91,1 i 2 t- . 1 A & O Â· 95 .Â·413 ~.1'Â· 4 ..t L . ! 4,4 2 93 46, . E ' 0,11 , ACCZ .9 f E :6;,4. *. 1* a I.- S ':M 6 A -ill. 0. â‚¬UC 16 4,~,4 > la b . 8 2 . Â£ I b'Â·4Â·i 41 Â· S E ..:t' 1 - tlyÂ¢ 1 - 4.1 RE; 44 2 C : 1,9 0 0 ,~, L 94 ENC, :.:>, 34 27 #0 4 px .ti Â£ ii D $..,46 Â¥ i % F SAd :.: . 0 M i E Yi 16 0:1- 441 Cl 2,4 - 4 1 I . I . 0 e O. h:i . C. Â«.:?% . }3% .t. t. '19 - f z# 1 19 1 ... 1% 4'4 3* 4>1 i nz 1Â·T 4.*C 6.: 4 E :W 1 81 - 2, . I: I k 144. . Â¥ 4 i i 9. til : 2Â¥. . 2,0 .t .5 12; * 12 7 C- 04 E= 11 1 0 R: O. 4 2 11 fif.24 9 5.4 9 4,1 70 t. 1 Â·.ifi 7*12 24 6. . 1 4 '.- 04 2 / e Â·'tÂ· 1 141': J .'Â»4 ...b. ...... 74 - 2 1 â€¢ .. Â£ E 1 2 6 * 2 . a. 2 2 2 1 't O E a. mt 5 5 46< 2 2 G. S - 3 4. â€¢ 0: I. i U. 9% 1 E ?A 0 , 23 - ap/ . 1 R4 - 10 0.0 STIP TIP R.vt, Beg. Wom Â· Proloct Courrty ProjÂ«* 1~pwy"'*1 7," Fundin, Flia MIS /YM FYI, FY .FY,7 FY 1995 thru FY 2000 State Transportation Improvement Program {STIP} 0011â€¢mtâ€¢TRâ€¢-ni 1 y>'Â·y -Â·.~Â· Â·'~,1Â·. fZ~~(f~''~~ 41 9***Di **12 2 152) {000'40&0 , 1â€¢21 Piti 000'2$*$ â€¢ 1â€¢JAPN '006'*MI â€¢ 1â€¢10.0 â€¢Puni 1â€¢Â»1 80 000'Im â€¢4*1 â€¢, @MAO,4 liMA }Pld *01,3,0 412 by) '*Aoqâ€¢ WA04; 1401000'tons N o; 110111* 14:HOLV,Ad@AO Â·t-qi elge} -) tlotnl Â·U '94&1 011â€¢1d 41Â®9 '44'01 PO<*418 :4:D I ,.Irl/ dUS Um) Pe,UULE,00160J Al,pUAB IWA di,LS 04,04 p'pp' DU!09 St *FO,NL Â·ttled u,plaeped,â€¢4{9 8 4Â»44 -03 qul op,15 Allen:-2 11,â€¢4 )Â¥415104* id,o *811â€¢* â€¢nlld-9 0 jo ) e:ILId awidato) litâ€¢ toâ€¢[OA Wei,bâ€žovellu , - w kid uowillod.uâ€¢,1 .0.>Ins .141 UM,nont*â€¢f,0,71'R ~ April 18,1996 'Aa-ne,oc go owl uoâ€¢â€¢03 Nel nisâ€¢OJ, P ***tld 81,}pur,j Illewoowatlw3 - Wij60.Iduoile,odsuall Doevny,60. A,- IMP. 1â€¢10â€¢S} C),senfantleÂ¢,flon 1-6.0, 2000 State Tr I #14*Zed Ped-G '*3â€¢411 I .: taSVHd - HlÂ¥4 03dBMIâ€¢ :3153 2),yl â€¢ 3Allvyâ€¢VN 103roWd 40#**%**%*3944 APR 23 '96 02:13PM CDOT PRECONSTUCTION GREELEY .P. 8/8 . {DATE} Douglas D. Rames, Region Transportation Director Colorado Department of Transportation 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Rames: On behalf of the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFR RPC), I recommend that CDOT finalize the proposed amendments to the Statewide Transmortation Improvement Program (STIP) submitted by the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Estes Park for the following projects: STIP #UF 11372: Bike/Ped Facility, South Platte River, Ft. Lupton STIP #UF 1137(new): Lake Estes Bike/Ped Path - Phase 4 The need to amend the STIP for these projects was described in your April 16, 1996 letter to the UFR RPC. I appreciate CDOT's consultation of the RPC on thebe proposed amendments to the STIP. Yours truly, Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chairperson Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission R4 - 11