The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Public Works 2000-08-17Zi AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AUGUST 17, 2000 8:00 A. M. Preparation date: 8/11/00 *Revision date: 1. Water Dept. Financial Plan and Water Rights Fee Study Presentation by Black and Veatch and request to approve 2. Mall Road Trail Request approval of a Change Order 3. Budgeted Water Dept. Equipment Request approval to purchase 4. Water Dept. Annual Water Line Replacement Project Request approval to bid the project 5. Annual Street Overlay Project Request approval of low bid Reports: 1. Hwy 7, speed limit change by CDOT TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum August 14, 2000 TO: Public Works 7myittee FROM: Bill Linnane ~(-4(_ SUBJECT: 1) Financial Plan by Black and Veatch 2) Water Rights Fee Study by Black and Veatch 3) Timing of Water Tap Sales Policy W 1. Mr. John Gallagher of Black and Veatch will present the Financial Plan and a copy The Plan recommends four options. Opilan-1: Raise water rates 12% in the year 2003 and 3% in the year 2005 (a total increase of 15.5%). This would allow for the proposed $800,000 annual capital improvements plan presented on Table 1-3 of the Plan and results in no deficits or fund transfers. The $800,000 annual capital improvements could then continue beyond the year 2005. (Continued on page 2) Cnqt/Riirl(yet U Not applicable RernmmendationÂ· 1) Staff recommends approval of the Financial Plan and the associated Option 4 that transfers monies from the Water Rights Reserve Fund to the Water Operations Fund and also raises rates in 2004 and 2005. This option provides a longer time spacing of CP. 2.4..1 five years between the~st rate increase in 1999 and the proposed increase in 2004. -1 2) Staff recommends <â‚¬191*ingthe waterri*liti-Efst-forimilÂ©described above and recommends no change to the current $2,000 water rights;fee. Staff recommends reviewing the fee periodically and changing it if the ma~;Fet warrants change. , 1-9 3) Staff recommends adopting ajoliwhereby water taps will only be sold with a Ce- building permit application. 4600<) ~ - 44*clt.,4 gu-.y_ Page 1 - Water Rate Study/Financial Plan/Purchase Policy 1-1 1 ;ET@992,Till,il Background: (Continued#om page 1) < Option 7 This is the same as Option 1, except there would be a uniform annual increase of 2.9% from 2001 to 2005 (a total of 15.5%). f Option-3: Transfer monies from the Water Rights Reserve Fund to the Water Operating Fund and not raise water rates. The annual water line replacement projects, that increase accountable water and thereby maximize the use of the Town's water rights, qualify for funding out of this Reserve Fund. A total transfer of $790,000 through the year 2005 would fund the annual capital improvements without a water rate increase. Between $2 million and $3 million would be available, after the transfer, for any possible catastrophic events and emergencies. This option would allow for the proposed 2001 to 2005 capital improvements. Beyond 2005 the annual improvements would be approximately $500,000 ~~~~ ~6 . and less than Option 1. Option-1 Transfer a total of $350,000-tilrough 2005 and raise water rates 7.5% in 2004 and 7.5% in 2005 (a total~15.5%). --~ /5 This option would result in a 5-year gap since the last rate increase in 1999. 4 1 Similar to Option 1, the proposed $800,000 annual capital improvements could be easily funded in the year 2001, as well as through and beyond the year 2005. 2. Mr. Gallagher of Black and Veatch will present a presentation on the Water Rights Fee Study. Black and Veatch researched the actual cost of water rights, which integrated the Windy Gap water credit associated with the Town's recent Augmentation Plan. He is recommending a cost formula with the credit built in and passing that cost and credit on to the purchaser of each water tap. The existing water rights fee for a single-family residence is $2,000. Commercial and multi-family fees are prorated using this fee. The proposed water rights fee formula structure is based on the following: a) Each tap will need to provide 0.45 ac.ft per single-family residence, based on the past 10-year average. b) Each tap must provide 0.45 ac.ft of Windy Gap water. The cost is projected at $13,790 per ac.ft which is the actual present value of the cost assessment to the Town through the year 2017 at an 8% rate of return. c) Each tap must provide 0.45 ac.ft of collateralized CBT water to ensure Windy Gap water availability. The current market value, based on a recent February, 2000 sale of a CBT unit is $15,000 per unit Since one unit may have a quota of 50% or one-half ac.ft in any given year, two units must be inserted into the formula. Page 2 - Water Rate StudyiFinancial Plan/Purchase Policy 1-2 d) The augmentation depletion credit of 90.6% will be used to adjust the above costs and pass on the savings to the consumer. Therefore, only (1-.906) or .094 of the water rights will be charged to the tap purchaser. Based on the above, the new year 2000 water rights fee formula is: Water Rights Fee = 0.45 x 0.094 x ((15,000 x 2) + 13,790) = $1,852 Black and Veatch is recommending no change to the current water rights rate of $2,000. The company also recommends periodically reviewing the water rights fee and adjusting it if warranted by the water rights market 3. The current policy regarding water tap fee sale timing is that a water tap fee can be purchased as long as it is installed within 12 months. This is, and has been, a problem with paperwork since those sales are difficult to track. It allows for an individual to avoid tap fee changes. The following agencies were contacted and all of them will only sell a tap with a building permit application: Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley, Berthoud, Longmont Boulder, and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District The Town Staff proposes a similar policy. BL/lb Page 3 - Water Rate Study/Financial Plan/Purchase Policy 1-3 Â® BLACK & VEATCH 11900 East Cornell Avenue Black & Veatch Corporation Suite 300 Aurora, Colorado 80014 USA Tel: (303) 671-4200 Fax: (303) 671-4285 August 17, 2000 Mr. Bill Linnane Public Works Director Town of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Linnane: We are pleased to submit our report on Financial Plan and Water Rights Fee. Tables referenced in the report are at the end of each chapter. We have greatly appreciated the assistance of your staff in providing guidance and information for the study. Mr. Todd Cristiano has been responsible for the preparation of the detailed findings of this study. If you have any questions regarding the report, please contact Mr. Cristiano or me. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to the Town. Very truly yours, \FO-lu, L.1 - w/-,>.tultf/- ~ John A. Gallagher alh the imagineÂ·build companyâ„¢ Contents Executive Summary ES-1 A. Introduction ES-1 B. Findings and Recommendations ES-1 Financial Plan 1-1 A. Introduction 1-1 B. Water Operating Fund Financial Plan 1-1 1. Reserves. 1-1 2. Revemipq 1-1 3. Revenue Requirementq 1-1 4. Adequacy of Water Sales Revenue Adjustments..... 1-2 C. Water Rights Fund Financial Plan.. 1-4 1. Reserves. 1-4 2. Sources ofFunds 1-4 3. Uses of Funds 1-4 Water Rights Fep 7-1 A. Existing Fep 2-1 B. Proposed Fee Forn,1119 2-1 C. Sample Calculation 7-1 D. Recommendationg 7-2 Tables Table 1 -1 Operating Fund Cash Flow Analysis Table 1 -2 Operation and Maintenance Expense Table 1 -3 Capital Improvement Program Table 1 -4 Water Rights Reserve Fund Cash Flow Analysis Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 TC-1 Water Rights Fee Snmp EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Introduction The Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town) provides water service to about 4,100 customers. The Town's water operations are financially self-sufficient with funding for capital and operating requirements derived primarily from water rates. In order to continue to provide reliable water service, the Town has commenced a capital program to upgrade the distribution system. Recognizing the importance of financially planning for these capital improvements, the Town authorized Black & Veatch to (1) update the water utility financial plan for the six-year period, 2000 through 2005 and (2) review the water rights fee. The study's assumptions, procedures, findings, and recommendations are summarized in this report. B. Findings and Recommendations â€¢ Annual water sales revenue under existing rates is insufficient to meet annual revenue requirements throughout the study period. Water Operating Fund reserves are sufficient to meet this deficiency through 2002. Beginning in 2003, the Town will not be able to meet revenue requirements from Water Operating Fund sources and will be faced with three financial plan options: > Option 1 - Adjust water rates to produce 12 percent increase in annual water sales revenue in 2003 and 3 percent increase in 2005. To avoid large increase in 2003, water rates could be adjusted beginning in 2001 to produce annual 2.9 percent revenue increases through 2005. > Option 2 - Use $790,000 of Water Rights Fund reserves to fund capital improvements during the three year period, 2003 through 2005, and avoid rate adjustments. > Option 3 - Use $350,000 of Water Rights Fund reserves to fund capital improvements during the two year period, 2003 and 2004. Adjust water rates to produce 7.5 percent revenue increases in both 2004 and 2005. Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 ES-1 Water Rights Fee Study â€¢ The following equation should be adopted to calculate the base water rights fee. Base Water Rights Fee =UxAx [(CBT x2)+ WGJ where: U = Annual acre-feet of water usage for single family tap A =Percent oftotalwater needed for augmentation CBT = Dollars per Colorado Big Thompson unit WG = Dollars per Windy Gap unit A base water rights fee of $1,850 was calculated using values that are representative of existing conditions. â€¢ The current base water rights fee of $2,000 and the current water rights fee for all other customers should be retained. â€¢ The water rights fee should be reviewed on a periodic basis and fee adjustments should be made as the water rights market warrants using the proposed formula. â€¢ The entire water rights fee should be collected at the time of the building permit application to ensure recovery of current market value oftap. Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 ES-2 Water Rights Fee Study 1. FINANCIAL PLAN A. Introduction The Water Utility financial plan includes cash flow forecasts for the Water Operating and Water Rights Funds for the six-year study period, 2000 through 2005. This report section summarizes the development of the plan. B. Water Operating Fund Financial Plan The Water Operating Fund tracks financial activities associated with annual operating revenues and normal annual revenue requirements. Table 1-1 summarizes the Water Operating Fund financial plan. 1. Reserves Water Operating Fund reserves include unrestricted carryover monies from previous years. These reserves are available to supplement annual revenue and meet expenditures in the Water Operating Fund and total $1.35 million at the beginning ofthe study period. 2. Revenues Revenue in the Water Operating Fund is derived from water rates, plant development tap fees, and other miscellaneous sources. Revenue from existing water rates is based on an analysis of historical water bills and assumes three percent annual growth during the study period. This growth rate is consistent with the Town's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. New customers pay water plant investment fees when they connect to the water system. The total plant investment fee includes a plant development tap fee and a water rights fee. Plant development tap fee revenue is included in the Water Operating Fund. Water rights fee revenue is included in the Water Rights Fund. Other miscellaneous sources of revenue include fire protection payments from the General Fund and interest income. Interest income is based on available Water Operating Fund reserves being invested at a four percent annual interest rate. 3. Revenue Requirements Revenue requirements of the Water Operating Fund include operation and maintenance expenses (0&M), debt service on existing and proposed bonds, and capital improvements. Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 1-1 Water Rights Fee Study 0&M includes annual water supply, treatment, distribution, customer accounts, and general administration costs. A three percent annual inflation allowance is included in the 0&M forecast. Table 1 -2 summarizes 0&M during the study period. Revenue-backed general obligation bonds totaling $3,355,000 were issued in 1991 to finance the Mary's Lake Treatment Plant. Annual debt service on these bonds averages $305,000 during the study period. The proposed $5.1 million capital program is shown in Table 1-3 and includes a three percent annual inflation allowance. Waterline projects represent about 75 percent of capital program expenditures. The remaining amount is for equipment. 4. Adequacy of Water Sales Revenue Adjustments Water sales revenue should be adequate to meet revenue requirements (Table 1 -1, Line 30), provide adequate reserves and satisfy bond coverage requirements. An operating reserve equal to 90 days of operation and maintenance expense is recommended (Table 1 -1, Line 35). Annual water sales revenue under existing rates is insufficient to meet annual revenue requirements throughout the study period. Water Operating Fund reserves are sufficient to meet this deficiency through 2002. Beginning in 2003, the Town will not be able to meet revenue requirements from Water Operating Fund sources and will be faced with three financial plan options: â€¢ Option 1 - Water rate adjustments. â€¢ Option 2 - Transfers from Water Rights Fund. â€¢ Option 3 - Water rate adjustments and Water Rights Fund transfers. Option 1 - Water Rate Adjustments. If the Town pursues the first option, water rates would need to be adjusted to produce an overall 15 percent increase in annual water sales revenue by the end of the study period. Two water rate adjustment alternatives are proposed to produce this level of revenue. Under the first alternative water rates are adjusted in 2003 to produce a 12 percent increase in annual water sales revenue followed by a three percent increase in 2005. The second alternative avoids the large increase in 2003 by adjusting water rates beginning in 2001 to produce annual 2.9 percent revenue increases through 2005. Either alternative allows funding the capital improvement program without transferring monies from the Water Rights Fund. Furthermore, an additional $5 million of capital improvements could be funded during the ensuing five-year period, 2006 through Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 1-2 Water Rights Fee Study 2010, without additional rate adjustments or Water Rights Fund transfers, assuming an annual three percent growth rate. Option 2 - Water Rights Fund Transfers. If the Town pursues the second option, Water Rights Fund reserves totaling $790,000 would be transferred to the Water Operating Fund during the three-year period, 2003 through 2005. These transfers would preclude the need for rate adjustments. Over $3 million would be available in the Water Rights Fund at the end of the study period for any possible catastrophic events and emergencies. An additional $3.3 million of capital improvements could be funded during the ensuing five-year period, 2006 through 2010, without additional rate adjustments or Water Rights Fund transfers, assuming an annual three percent growth rate. Option 3 - Water Rate Adjustments and Water Rights Fund Transfers. W the Town pursues the third option, the initial rate increase could be delayed until 2004. This would allow a five-year interval since 1999 when the current rates were implemented. This interval was discussed at the previous water rate meeting. Under this option, water rates are adjusted in 2004 and 2005 to produce a 7.5 percent increase in annual water sales revenue in each year. Water Rights Fund reserves totaling $350,000 would be transferred to the Water Operating Fund during the two- year period, 2003 and 2004. An additional $5 million of capital improvements could be funded during the ensuing five-year period, 2006 through 2010, without additional rate adjustments or Water Rights Fund transfers, assuming an annual three percent growth rate. Table 1-1 summarizes the Option 3 financial plan. The Town is not required to meet a debt service coverage test on its outstanding general obligation bonds. However, the coverage test provides a standard to determine the financial health of the water utility. Debt service coverage is the ratio of operating revenues net of 0&M to annual debt service. A healthy utility usually maintains debt service coverage of at least 125 percent. The projected debt service coverage for the Town exceeds the recommended 125 percent throughout the study period for all of the above options (Table 1-1, Line 36). Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 1-3 Water Rights Fee Study C. Water Rights Fund Financial Plan The Water Rights Fund tracks financial activities associated with the purchase of water rights for the Town. Table 1 -4 summarizes the Water Rights Fund financial plan. 1. Reserves Water Rights Fund reserves include unrestricted carryover monies from previous years. Reserves of $1.75 million are available in the Water Rights Fund at the beginning of the study period. 2. Sources of Funds Revenue for the Water Rights Fund comes from the water rights fee assessed to new connectors. Water rights fee revenue is estimated to average $180,000 annually during the study period. 3. Uses of Funds Projected Water Rights Fund uses include purchasing additional water rights and funding capital projects that maximize the use of existing water rights. Replacing old leaking waterlines increases the efficiency of the distribution system thereby reducing unaccounted-for water and increasing water rights available to be consumed by the water customer. Such capital projects could be partially funded through transfers to the Water Operating Fund. The amount of transfers depends on which financial plan financing option is chosen. Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 1-4 Water Rights Fee Study Table 1 -1 Estes Park, Colorado Operating Fund Cash Flow Analysis Line Budget Projected -bIQ. 2QQfl 2Q21 2002 2QQ.1 2QQA 2QQS $$$$$$ 1 Beginning Balance 1,349,500 947,200 630,100 369,600 380,100 409,200 Revenue Water Sales Revenue 2 Revenue from Existing Rates 1,831,300 1,886,200 1,942,800 2,001,100 2,061,100 2,123,000 Revenue from Indicated Increases Percent Months Increase Effective 3 2000 0.00% 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2001 0.00% 12 0 0 0 0 0 5 2002 0.00% 12 0 0 0 0 6 2003 0.00% 12 0 0 0 7 2004 7.50% 12 154,600 159,200 8 2005 7.50% 12 171,200 9 Total Water Sales Revenue 1,831,300 1,886,200 1,942,800 2,001,100 2,215,700 2,453,400 10 Fire Protection - Gen Fund 132,200 132,200 132,200 132,200 132,200 132,200 11 Plant Development Tap Fees 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 12 Interest 45,900 31,500 20,000 15,000 12,700 10,200 Miscellaneous Revenue 13 Bulk Sales 12,200 12,200 12,200 12,200 12,200 12,200 14 Bulk Dispenser 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 15 Material Sales 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2.500 16 Meter Sales 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 17 Misc/Other 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 25,600 18 Nonoperating Revenue 100 100 100 100 100 100 19 Total Revenue 2,250,100 2,290,600 2,335,700 2,389,000 2,601,300 2,836,500 Revenue Requirements Operation and Maintenance 20 Source of Supply 117,000 120,500 124,100 127,800 131,800 135,800 21 Water Treatment 322,200 100,200 103,200 106,300 109,500 112,800 22 Distribution 435,400 448,600 462,200 476,100 490,500 505,300 23 Customer Accounts 102,300 104,700 107,800 111,000 114,300 117,600 24 Administrative & General 606,000 624,300 643,100 662300 682,200 702,600 25 Total Operation and Maintenance 1,582,900 1,398,300 1,440,400 1,483,500 1,528,300 1,574,100 Debt Service 26 Existing 306,900 305,800 306,800 304,100 298,900 308,200 27 Proposed 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Total Debt Service 306,900 305,800 306,800 304,100 298,900 308,200 29 Capital Improvements 762,600 903,600 849,000 840,900 845,000 930,100 30 Total Revenue Requirements 2,652,400 2,607,700 2,596,200 2,628,500 2,672,200 2,812,400 31 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (402,300) (317,100) (260,500) (239,500) (70,900) 24,100 32 Ending Balance Before Transfers 947,200 630,100 369,600 130,100 309,200 433,300 33 Transfer from (to) Water Rights Fund 0 0 0 250,000 100,000 0 34 Ending Balance After Transfers 947,200 630,100 369,600 380,100 409,200 433,300 35 Desired Balance (90 days of O&M Expense) 390,000 345,000 355,000 365,000 375,000 390,000 36 Simple Debt Service Coverage 217% 292% 292% 298% 359% 410% Table 1 -2 Estes Park, Colorado Operation and Maintenance Expense Line Budget Projected 2QQQ 2Qal 2QQ.2 2Â®1 2QQA 205 $ Source of Supply 1 Bureau of Rec 500 Acre ft. 14,000 14,400 14,800 15,200 15,700 16,200 2 Windy Gap 300 acre-ft @ $60/acre-ft 18,000 18,500 19,100 19,700 20,300 20,900 3 Windy Gap Debt 63,000 64,900 66,800 68,800 70,900 73,000 4 NCWCD 996 acre-ft @ $17/acre-ft 17,000 17,500 18,000 18,500 19,100 19,700 5 Power Interruption 5,000 5,200 5,400 5,600 5,800 6,000 6 Annual Water Rights 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Water Rights Purchase (2000 budget) 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Total Source of Supply 117,000 120,500 124,100 127,800 131,800 135,800 Water Treatment (Purification) 9 Personal Services and Salaries 117,700 121,200 124,800 128,500 132,400 136,400 10 Employer Benefits 31,100 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 36,100 11 Insurance Premiums 5,100 5,300 5,500 5,700 5,900 6,100 12 Professional Services 17,500 18,000 18,500 19,100 19,700 20,300 13 Repair and Maintenance 19,900 20,500 21,100 21,700 22,400 23,100 14 Materials and Supplies 77,400 79,700 82,100 84,600 87,100 89,700 15 Utility Expenditures 53,500 55,100 56,800 58,500 60,300 62,100 16 Total Water Treatment (Purification) 322,200 100,200 103,200 106,300 109,500 112,800 Distribution and Maintenance 17 Personal Services and Salaries 228,500 235,400 242,500 249,800 257,300 265,000 18 Employer Benefits 60,800 62,600 64,500 66,400 68,400 70,500 19 Insurance Premiums 5,500 5,700 5,900 6,100 6,300 6,500 20 Professional Services 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 21 Rentals 8,600 8,900 9,200 9,500 9,800 10,100 22 Repair and Maintenance 115,400 118,900 122,500 126,200 130,000 133,900 23 Materials and Supplies 6,000 6,200 6,400 6,600 6,800 7,000 24 Job Performance Expenses 700 700 700 700 700 700 25 Utility Expenditures 7,900 8,100 8,300 8,500 8,800 9,100 26 Total Distribution and Maintenance 435,400 448,600 462,200 476,100 490,500 505,300 Customer Accounts 27 Personal Services and Salaries 48,100 49,500 51,000 52,500 54,100 55,700 28 Employer Benefits 13,100 13,500 13,900 14,300 14,700 15,100 29 Insurance Premiums 400 400 400 400 400 400 30 Professional Services 30,000 30,900 31,800 32,800 33,800 34,800 31 Materials and Supplies 10,100 10,400 10,700 11,000 11,300 11,600 32 Job Performance Expenses 100 100 100 100 100 100 33 Other Current Expenses 500 500 500 500 500 500 34 Total Customer Accounts 102,300 104,700 107,800 111,000 114,300 117,600 Administration and General 35 Personal Services and Salaries 157,500 162,200 167,100 172,100 177,300 182,600 36 Employee Benefits 38,600 39,800 41,000 42,200 43,500 44,800 37 Insurance Premiums 12,300 12,700 13,100 13,500 13,900 14,300 38 Professional Services 195,100 201,000 207,000 213,200 219,600 226,200 39 Publishing 200 200 200 200 200 200 40 Rentals 67,300 69,300 71,400 73,500 75,700 78,000 41 Repair and Maintenance 3,700 3,800 3,900 4,000 4,100 4,200 42 Material and Supplies 3,400 3,500 3,600 3,700 3,800 3,900 43 Job Performance Expenses 15,300 15,800 16,300 16,800 17,300 17,800 44 Other Current Expenses 112,600 116,000 119,500 123,100 126,800 130,600 45 Total Administration and General 606,000 624,300 643,100 662,300 682,200 702,600 46 Total Operation and Maintenance 1,582,900 1,398,300 1,440,400 1,483,500 1,528,300 1,574,100 - 7 Table 1-3 Estes Park, Colorado Capital Improvement Program Line Budget Projected Total -N,2. 2QQQ 2921 2QQ.z 2292 222& 2QQ.i 2000-2005 $$$$$$$ Capital Equipment 1 Station Equipment 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2 Safety Equipment 0 1,000 1.000 3,500 3,500 3.500 12,500 3 Furniture and Fixtures 1,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 9.000 4 Omce Equipment 1,000 500 1,000 500 500 1,000 4,500 5 Data Processing Equipment 3.500 750 750 3,500 750 750 10,000 6 Communication Equipment 7,500 13,400 12,000 12,000 12.000 12,000 68,900 7 Laboratory Equipment 1,800 2.000 2.000 4,000 2,000 2,000 13,800 8 Shop Equipment 9,300 4,800 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 18,100 9 Purification Equipment 21,000 4,000 8,000 59,000 32,000 2,000 126,000 10 Tools 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 8,000 11 Building Remodeling 0 19,000 64.000 0 0 0 83,000 12 Distribution Meters 131,000 110,800 105,000 106,000 107,000 108,000 667,800 13 Vehides 58,500 0 38,000 38,000 40,000 0 174,500 14 Total Capital Equipment 237,600 163,250 234,750 229,500 200,750 132,250 1,198,100 Waterline Projects Priority One Projects 15 Fall River 12"Corridor 180,000 0 0 0 0 0 180,000 16 Big Hom 12- 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 90,000 17 Wonderview 12" 235,000 0 0 0 0 0 235,000 18 Fire Hydrants 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 19 Beaver Point to Ramshom Village 0 215,000 0 0 0 0 215,000 20 MacGregor Ave West/Wonderview 0 48,000 0 0 0 0 48,000 21 Stanley Cirde 2" 0 256,000 0 0 0 0 256,000 22 MacGregor Ave EasUWonderview 0 0 217,500 0 0 0 217,500 23 Total Priority One Projects 525,000 539,000 237,500 20,000 20,000 20,000 1,361,500 PMority Two Projects 24 Country Club 2" 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 120,000 25 Evergreen 4" 0 0 208,000 0 0 0 208,000 26 Panorama Circle 0 0 0 220,000 0 0 220,000 27 Devil's Gulch East-Phase One 0 0 0 0 160,000 0 160.000 28 Cummorrah Drive 0 0 0 0 80,000 0 80,000 29 Eagle Cliff 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 30 Spruce Drive 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 31 Webb Cottages 0 0 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 32 Hill Streets 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 33 Old Mocassin Drive 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 75,000 34 Juniper Lane 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 75,000 35 Total Priority Two Projects 0 0 328,000 220.000 530,000 650,000 1,728,000 Water System Master Plan 0 36 Backup Raw Water Pump 0 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 37 Fall River Tank #2 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 300,000 38 Total Water System Master Plan Projects 0 175,000 0 300,000 0 0 475,000 39 Total Waterline Projects 525,000 714,000 565,500 540,000 550,000 670,000 3,564,500 40 Total Capital Improvements Uninflated 762,600 877,300 800,300 769,500 750,800 802,300 4,762,800 41 Total Inflated Capital Improvement Program 762,600 903,600 849,000 840,900 845,000 930,100 5,131,200 Table 1-4 Estes Park, Colorado Water Rights Reserve Fund Line Budget Projected -Ng. 2QQD 2QQ1 2092 2~13 2QQ& 2QQ5 $$$$$$ 1 Beginning Balance 1,754,800 2,010,100 2,275,800 2,552,400 2,585,200 2,772,400 Sources 2 Water Rights Fees 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 3 Interest 75,300 85,700 96,600 102,800 107,200 116,800 4 Total Sources 255,300 265,700 276,600 282,800 287,200 296,800 Uses 5 Water Rights Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Transfer to (from) Operating Fund 0 0 0 250,000 100,000 0 7 Total Uses 0 0 0 250,000 100,000 0 8 Ending Balance 2,010,100 2,275,800 2,552,400 2,585,200 2,772,400 3,069,200 2. WATER RIGHTS FEE A. Existing Fee The current water rights fee assessed to new single family connectors is $2,000. Fees to other types of users, such as commercial and multi-family, are prorated according to this $2,000 fee. This fee was based on the market value of water rights at the time the fee was established in 1993. B. Proposed Fee Formula The water rights fee is intended to recover the cost to provide water rights to new connectors in proportion to their water usage requirements. According to Town staff, augmentation water is needed to supplement river water depletion at the Glacier plant. The proposed water rights fee is designed to recover the cost of the augmentation water and the required Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) collateral water. Collateral water is needed to provide availability of Windy Gap water during periods when there is no reservoir capacity for Windy Gap water. The following equation is proposed to develop the base water rights fee. It takes into account the amount of augmentation water needed for a typical single family customer, the necessary CBT collateral water, and the current value of water rights. Water rights fees for non-single family customers, such as commercial and multi-family, are prorated using the base fee. Base Water Rights Fee =UxAx KCBT x2)+ WGJ where: U =Annual acre-feet of water usage for single famity tap A = Percent of total water needed for augmentation CBT = Dollars per Colorado Big Thompson unit WG = Dollars per Windy Gap unit C. Sample Calculation All example using values that are representative of current conditions illustrates how this formula can be used to calculate the base water rights. The following values are used: â€¢ Annual water use per tap (U) is 0.45 acre-foot for a single family residential connection based on the historic 10-year average use. Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 2-1 Water Rights Fee Study â€¢ Augmentation factor (A) is 9.4 percent. This is the percent that augmentation water represents of the total water usage. The factor used in the calculation is based on historical records from July 1998 to June 1999 from the Town's 1998 Temporary Substitute Water Supply Plan. â€¢ The market value of a CBT unit is $15,000 per unit based on a February 2000 sale price. The Town is entitled to CBT water deliveries based on annual quotas set by the Northern Colorado Conservancy District. Historical quotas have ranged from 0.5 acre-feet per unit (dry year) to 1.0 acre-foot per unit (wet year). Based on historical data and considering a dry year as a conservative estimate for CBT quotas, the average equivalent residential unit needs two units of water thereby doubling CBT collateral in the equation. â€¢ The current market value of a Windy Gap unit (WG) is $13,800 per unit. This amount is based on the present value of the Town's historical and future Windy Gap assessments. From 1980 through 1999, the Town paid $5,542 per unit in assessments, an average annual payment of $277 per unit. The present value of these payments is $12,700 per unit assuming an 8 percent discount rate. The Town is scheduled to pay $2,082 per acre-foot from 2000 through 2016, an average annual payment made of $122 per acre-foot. The present value of these payments is $1,100 per unit. Based on the above values, the water rights calculation is as follows: Sample Base Water Rights Fee = 0.45 x .094 x f($15,000 x 2) + $13,8001 = $1,850 D. Recommendations Black & Veatch recommends that the Town: â€¢ Adopt proposed water rights fee formula. â€¢ Retain current base water rights fee of $2,000 and current water rights fees for all other customers. â€¢ Review water rights fee on a periodic basis and adjust the fee as the water rights market warrants using the proposed formula. â€¢ Collect entire water rights fee at the time of the building permit application to ensure recovery ofcurrent market value oftap. Estes Park, Colorado Financial Plan and August 2000 - 97461.100 2-2 Water Rights Fee Study TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter Office Memorandum DATE: August 15, 2000 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane C 0 SUBJECT: Request Approval of Mall Road change orders To date, the change order estimates for the project is $37,088 as approved by the May 18th, Public Works Committee meeting. In addition, staff has recently received the following change order estimates for the Mall Road Trail Project. Item 1 and 2 were discussed at the May Committee meeting. 1.) An additional $1,080 for underground electric services, (see attached letter) 2.) An additional 14,150 for traffic control (see attached letter) 3.) $1,525 soil testing per Larimer County direction. Cost/Budget Budget: $246,000 Cost: Original Public Works Dept. Contract $171,569 Change order per 5/18 P.W. Committee: 37,088 This request: 1.) Elect 1,080 2.) Traffic Control 14,150 3.) Soil Testing 1,525 Total: $225,412 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the additional change order estimate. BL/cah 2-1 Meceiveo. O/11/UU 0 - a er- ivil 1... ..........,WI -- AUG-11-00 FRI 1:37 PM VAN HORN ENGINEERING FAX NO, 19705868!01 P. 2 , <1 .0 %-:*UN .1, ' 4- 2 ' '*b- 0 A 2 - - ?., 76 / 3- i*0~4>*Â·,2.22:5.: ' ./ r.# , ,/rs, ~1:11\;.\ '~\ . * 1 Â· -7 = 1---041:?~Skib--- ... ....A 2 Â· Â·re LAND SURVEYS - --' * -'I & A- . I -. .. - SUBDIVISIONS - ..-- C ,-7 :DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SANiTARY ENGINEERING j'., WILLIAM G. VAN HORN - COLO. PE & PLS 9485 MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING . Aug. 11,2000 TO: Bill Linnanc, Estes Park Public Works Â·Â· FROM: John Spooner, Van Hom Engineering RE: Estimate of additional Traffic Control Costs to finish the project Mall Road Reconstruction and Lake Estes Trail, Phase VI Now that the majority of the difficult construction is done on Mall road, I, with the advice of Ed Kitchen, are in a position to estimate traffic control costs necessary to finish: In my letter of May 16, 2000 to you, I estimated that we needed an additional $15,000 plus $1840 (for laying the sewer line), for a total additional cost of $16,840. Â· Now that all the invoices are in for work completed to date, the overage is actually $21,990.85, : or about*5150 above my May 16'h estimate. In addition, it is possible that the Rec District has paid about*00.0 more that their grants would allow, thus that $6000 may become a Town t . r , Liability. L The only goodnews inthis, is that Ed alid I estimate thati@Â®00; or less, will be needed to complete the project. . 41 2-2 1043 Fish Creek Road Â· 20. Box 456 â€¢ Eetes Park, Colorado 80517 â€¢ 970-586-9388 â€¢ Fax 970-586-8101 / 64/ asfiat.44#~t . 2,-323 3%6 u...Aplvi,ist. 94* ff*k, vit .Â· --. Lq'to-.0,101.1,% 1 5 - --28Â£".=4,1861.1' 4- 4#, ~4....01> - -11Â» LAND SURVEYS'~~'2--=f.-tÂ¢sed- i . ' 44~--~9--~ . 12 '.7 SUBDIVISIONS - DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SANITARY ENGINEERING /// r\\ WILLIAM G. VAN HORN - COLO. PE & PLS 9485 . MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING 1 July 13, 2000 TO: Bill Linnane, Estes Park Public Works FROM: John Spooner, Van Horn Engineering 9/ - RE: Underground Power to Existing Houses . Mall Road Reconstruction and Lake Estes Trail, Phase VI With difficulty, I have finally received bids to underground the power to the existing houses on Mall Road. I was only able to obtain one bid on the trenching from TA Enterprises (Tom Childers) for $1190.00. Chief is too busy and refused to even consider bidding. I icceived two bids on the electrical work, Estes Valley Electric at $4082.00 and Rightway Electric at $3890.00. I recommend an award to Rightway. The total amount would thus be S5080.00, which is above my May 16,2000 letter estimate of S400O. Please advise me if it is OK to award these bids. Thanks. Ul<, -84 7-13-59 2-3 .043 Fish Creek Road Â· RO. Box 456 Â· Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Â· 970-586-9388 Â· Fax 970-586-8101 *.6-00 TUE 9:31 AM--VAN HORN ENGINEERING FAX NO, 19705868101 P. 1 \ . I.-*C- '%9'airga"/ , 1 . 6 I. , 61 6/3;# >74..... r fip)'~ i< e<*P 9 72,24\\ " 'Ee<AP{i,iftj;Â¢ e##664:liatifN iN........ i. j \i -2-pr~ h ir- LIT- .Â· L*ID SURVEYS - , SUBDIVISIONS - DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SANITARY ENGINEERING . WILLIAM G. VAN HORN - COLO. PE & PLS 9485 MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING . , May 16, 2000 TO: Bill Linnane, Estes Park Public Works Stan Gengler, EVRPD e . FROM: John Spooner, Van.Horn Engincerin 7 , /l RE: Anticipated Additional Costs Mall Road Reconstruction and Lake Estes Trail, Phase Vl As we have discussed, there are a number of additional costs which should be anticipated on the referenced project. I will attempt to estimate as best possible these additional costs. 1. Replacement/protection ofUTSD sewer lines. UTSD has a major force main/gravity sewer line running down Mall Koad which serves nearly : one-half df their sewerage district. The continual operation of this line is imperative to the District. Over some reaches we are reducing the cover over the line. This raised concerns with : the District. In addition, the District conducted a TV inspection.of the line (which is 16" ~ diameter clay tile and discovered several cracked tile - not a result of any construction actiyities). The UTSD Board decided it was prudent to replace all their gravity lines since they will ron under the new pavement. This is about 700 feet of line and requires a bypass line tb divert the ~ 0 sewage flow during the time of construction. ' Estes Park Sanitation District crews have been engaged to do this construction as the most cost- effective means of getting this work done in a timely manner. Through negotiations with UTSD, Â· an arrangement was reached where the Project would bear the costs of the following: A. One-half the cost of labor and.flow fill for 165' of the line, with UTSD paying for the materials and the total cost (labor and materials) for the remaining approximately 535' of line. (Note that the 165' section is in the area where cover has been reduced). B. Excavation and the placement of a concrete cap over those portions of the cast iron force main where cover has been reduced. . * 1043 Fish Creek Road â€¢ RO. Box 456 â€¢ Est 2-4 7 â€¢ 970-586-9388 â€¢ Fax 970-586-8101 mmaem'~m--~~~~~~~M~~~M~~M ,~ TUE 9:33 AM YAN HORN ENGINEERING FAX NO, 19705868101 2 1 C. The cost of the materials and installation of 6" sewage bypass piping, approximately 700 feet, with UTSD paying for the seal within the forcc main required to bypass the flow. D. The costs associated with the concrete cap over the force main (approximately 200 Â· feet). E. The costs offlaggers required while this work is being completed (note that the project has flaggers engaged anyway, and at the worst, one additional flagger will be required). Â·The estimated cost to be born by the project for this work is: Lay sewer line and flow fill costs for 165'- M of $20/foot $1650 Bypass piping Materials and installation $2000 Concrete cap 200 feet @312 $2400 Additional flagging 80 hours at $23/hour . ilidQ TOTAL: $7890 It is worth noting that UTSD has been very cooperativc in assisting the project, in particular providing a considerable volume of fill material from their plant excavation which can be used ' on the eastern end of the trail construction at no cost and providing an easement for the trail where it crossed a small portion of theirproperty, 2. Relocation of gas mains. It was assumed in the design that it would be necessary to relocate a gas main on Joel Estes Drive. In addition, during construction it was discovered that another high pressure gas main needed relocation. What was not assumed was that the Joel Estes Drivb main would have to relocated in solid rock which required drilling and biasting. This was not a bid item in the original contract because of the uncertainty with scope ofwork. The additional cost of this work is estimated at: $4198.25 3. Traffic Control ' The original bid quantities were under estimated for traffic control. The needs for flaggers, and .the volumes of traffic on the road and the very tight construction work areas all have lead to cost ovemins. In addition, the project completion date has slipped as unforseen difficulties have arisen. An estimate of additional flagging costs is: $15,000 2-5 5/16/00 11:42AM; 19705868101 -> Town Of Estes Park; Page 2 /18-00 TUE 9:34 AM VAN HORN ENGINEERING FAX NO. 19705868!01 P. 2 4. Underground power to existing houses With the relocation of the power lines semicing the area, it will be necessary to replace the existing overhead service lines to four houses with underground conduits and hire a local electrician to hook up these houses. Estimated costs are: $4,000 . 5. Wetlands issues in the marsh adjaccnt to the sewage treatment plant. : The trail going down from Mall road to the area below the dam will impact a small area of wetlands. While the Corps of Engineers willÂ·permit this activity under a nationwide permit, the Bureau of Reclamation will require some mitigation activities. This will most likely involve construction of some additional Wetlands. Estiniated mitigation costs are: , $3000 Silt Fencing $1000 6. Top Soil ... Top soil was not bid in the originalÂ· contract because it was not known what materials would be available on site. Good topsoil materials were found and some have been stockpiled for use .. along the trail going down.alongÂ·the sÂ¢Ivice road. Estimated cost $2000 In summary, total additional costs estimated are: $37,088 IY a 2-6 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum June 14, 2000 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bob Goehring ~,~ SUBJECT: Purchase equipment for water quality monitoring and bulk chemical storage Backgrolind: A. We need two analyzers to monitor C12 and Turbidity at Marys Lake Clearwell These devices will provide an early warning for system failures and will be connected to the SCADA system. B. Currently we are using 200-gallon totes provided by Nalco Chemical Company to store the three chemicals we use: 8157, 8102 & 7390. At a cost of $.75, $1.25 and $1.35 per pound respectively. This year Nalco said that if we could receive 500 gallons per delivery, per product the company would reduce its prices to $.50, $.90 and $.80 per pound. This reduction in cost will result in a savings of between $11,000 and $12,000 per year. Cost/Rudget A. 1. Turbidity Analyzer $ 1,800.00 2. Chlorine Analyzer $ 7,500 00 Total: $ 4,300.00 Budget for these items: $ 5,000.00 B. 1. Bulk Tanks for Glacier and Marys Lake $ 5,700.00 2. Elevated Stands $ 4,900.00 3. Spillliner and miscellaneous plumbing $ 3.500 00 Total: $14,100.00 Budget for these items: $15,000.00 Recommendalian: Staff recommends purchase of this equipment RMG/lb TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter Office Memorandum DATE: August 15, 2000 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane 645 SUBJECT: 2000 Water Dept. Water Line Project and the Crystal Tank Upgrade Project Request to Bid. Background The Water Dept. budgeted to replace the following lines. The location of the lines are shown on the attached sketches. All of these projects are included in the attached Capital Improvement Project Priority #1 list. 1.) Fall River Estates Interconnection 2.) James St./MacGregor Ave. Interconnection 3.) Boyd Lane/Wonderview Interconnection The Dept. also budgeted for : 1.) The annual Fire Hydrant Extension Project 2.) The Crystal Tank Building Upgrade Budget 1.) Fall River: $180,000 2.) James St./MacGregor: 60,000 3.) Boyd Lane/Wonderview: 235,000 4.) Fire Hydrant Project 20,000 5.) Crystal Building: 30,000 Total: $525,000 Recommendation Staff requests and recommends approval to bid the five (5) projects. BL/ch 4-1 FALL RIVER ESTATES / BOULDER BROOK INTERCONNECTION 1 15 14- -- 22 23 -- 1 7 11 1 1 1 : ,/AF.,f~nk~Â£*(7.~142'$ BINNS IC,rut 'CN 1 i iÂ·5- 4.Â·\ p.th/' 1,1~\-_ \-2%.6~.. N,r-1 ROCKY MOUNT, C i V'-L~/ t.. â€¢â€¢eâ€¢ | ' ' -Il-#1.~. ./b----VJ#F.:i,3 --' I./-12.: .1-JI...ELf.223.r'.'.,2--/Q'z'.'. 1Â«9111Â« â€¢00''i' 4 1 11 1 1,' >42,2,2 /1-1-1 /1 1,11 ' 111 --_1_21 ILL- , 27 26 ,422\/ ''- \%<â‚¬~ 4-2 Â¤61 JAMES ST. / MACGREGOR AVE. INTERCONNECTION r-7 . 1/0- g . 0.3. \UP 1 ut-NEAN,ON Â·Â· 1 I 4.--nY t:Â«30Â· 1.4 i , L--- \ 1 -- 1< .O/â€¢' .Ir. -s---1 MILL ' 7----1,10" //7- ~d 1 1 1 12*4< 1 4-1 .1'.S,--- ' 23 ' 2 1, i , .0. 12Â«:clutf:C - STANLEY i MISTORIC ' 1 U â€¢, i,-7,Â·#24 .4 Kf \FP Â·62 / ' 1 O,37"CT . E -f-~1 -:, fÂ· -z-*a~e~ 3/0 D. /5 \ 21 4 1 e.,1 - , Â·~1 94'~ -Â·:C-%3-Â·..\ Â£52x- 1 -;:-23'%3.Yhji.'_~L.1%935'14,1 1 ;frd-,\1.-el.1 1.08 pl.L. - 1 1 94 t 'G ; 4:,411 - i /~l Sul. fc,â€¢C/â€¢ , t...,4-'ll . --1Â£ ' .4 9.0 , '00'',04 1 ~t.~NQ~f;."el!1.110\.C~ (:.b.2/*.:IYFTS-~rf,/3,~r~ *Ii':P.Â·.Â· 3'ill'Ii!11!11 U.---.rum , rN-Ub./Al. ~Â·.1 1 11 n /6.9~' \ I.4/.4.4 E-Eim 4-3 --.(21'err/.I / BOYD LANE / WONDERVIEW INTERCONNECTION fly 1 .ar n â€¢, 1 1 14--4-ls#f-Pr-1-- -1 ..'..1 1 1 \ '-Â·Â£Â£8332:34//LEÂ¥ 1 , STANLEY I 1.-1 1 .11/ Â«i .' I â€¢ 5 1 0 .IC 11=..=1 ., LE,- \ .1 'V 1 I â€¢. 6-4~1 4-772- i i .02.--~, -- - -1- - .- - --477*1-y : DISTâ€¢,CY f : 1 ' 1 - d -7*'reN FLUs. ~MILL 2:34 2.,2714(flly~ir 71=91 E - --L 1 .1 - . - -. 4 I â€¢'I \ Â·7 . 1 ' '/Ai-.j - ---6.- NJ / - I ID- 1 , â€¢0.Of.Vid. , ,- #i.E,TJIIZEFT-7>.59:r,:7:';::2:tE~~-T--33MTA:--\ Â·Â·.4 -Â· 1 51.Nify f~.*4 < 6173 ,â€¢-1 ie Iii i â€ž#1 , 1 I 'ttl. 431Â·500 1 " -9 177-TFWZX<. i #,UL\,4,1.Â·,1:Â·. 4- d - . C:,1-=A\1 $ 5-TTIâ€ž,â€ž,Â«7Â«-Â« â€¢ ~ ..-;' â‚¬+ ri'.~.~930Â·t'.jr< V' _9dA\>:,.~,011.4.L) ' .../.~i....0...S:.2//6/,u :1/4.-/3&1"1'*5:il'.M.J.'*.#.F,(ir)..- I,2 /9.4 i . . tefrp...JEEâ‚¬~~2=1'.1.1.1~,13 f..1/4. 0-1.41.4,2 41'4Â£1 /*03â€¢ri pr Â·,Â·r.3,c,- 12~frid.z.i,Â·Â· FJC[:~11:,E.-eu~t--"-L...; ~~l-i~\'.:.v,Ex;1 4 ..~ ' li IC- \-1-,9\.1, , 4-2..2,1 4-4 l 4 . Future Improvements . rhÂ·. The existing $9.6M capital improvements have reduced the Water Department cash fund to the point where a $1.6M catastrophic fund can be maintained. In addition, approximately $400,000/yr. can be spent on facilities and pipeline maintenance without operating with a negative cash flow. The Town of Estes Park and a majority of the water industry uses the following system to prioritize annual pipeline projects: Priority #1: Extremely high maintenance lines Priority #2: Extremely low pressure domestic use and <500 GPM fire protection lines Priority #3: <500 GPM fire protection lines Category 1 has been established as the #1 priority so that water line breaks that cause extremely long water service delays can be eliminated. These high maintenance lines also result in inadequate fire protection and extreme damage to private and public land. Category 2 has been set as the next priority so that lines that are not immediately in danger of breaking, but experience low pressure and inadequate domestic and fire protection service, can be eliminated. Category 3 contains only fire protection problems, therefore, it has been established Â· as a third priority. All 3 categories are very important but projects must be prioritized in such a method as that described. The following is the current annual improvement lists with associated projected costs, categorized as previously explained. Priority #1: Extremely High Maintenance Lines LF +/- Amount 'BOID I.A. , ~~avHjr flir't to Ramshorn Village 1,900 $135,000 1,400 95,000 Big Thompson 10" 3,300 230,000 Chapin/Chiquita 2" 500 35,000 â‚¬2,jâ€¢r wn- Chiquita 2" 800 52,000 1 Fall River Corridor Abandonment 4,000 305,000 314 MacGregor Ave. E./Wonderview 2,700 190,000 MacGregor Ave. W./\Alonderview (NW wf#-9 nalâ‚¬) 3,900 270,000 Sitâ€¢ Stanley Circle 2" 500 35,000 Subtotal Sl,347,000 Priority #2: EExtremely Low Pressure Domestic Use and <500 GPM Fire Protection Country Club 2" 1,200 $85,000 Devils Gulch East - Phase I 4,300 300,000 Devils Gulch West - Phase 11 2,100 150,000 Evergreen 4" 1,400 100,000 Fall River Tank #2 (Master Plan) 4,300 300,000 Hwy. 7 to Prospect Mountain Pump House 2,900 205,000 North Lane to Devils Gulch 1,200 80,000 Panorarna Circle 3,100 216,000 Southern Interconnect 900 60,000 Twin Drive 2" 600 40,000 Subtotal Sl,536,000 4-5 - Priority #3: <500 GPM Fire Protection Feet Amount List ~3.â‚¬7 - 1 AD<minster Lane 2,000 $120,000 Belleview Heights . 2,000 120,000 Broadview/Lower Broadview 54,000 325,000 Brook Drive 1,200 70,000 Cedar Lane 1,500 90,000 Charles Heights Water Main 2,000 110,000 Cremorrah Drive 800 50,000 Davis Hill 3,000 180,000 Eagle Cliff 2,500 150,000 East Lane/North Lane 3,000 180,000 Fort Morgan Colony 1,000 60,000 Hill Road 2" 1,500 90,000 Hill Streets 5,000 300,000 Hondius Heights 5,500 335,000 Juniper Lane 1,000 60,000 Lone Pine Acres 3,500 210,000 Narcissus Circle 1,000 60,000 Old Mocassin Drive 1,000 60,000 900 55,000 Old Ranger Road 500 30,000 Park View Lane Pinewood Lane 1,500 90,000 Spruce Drive 500 30,000 Sunny Acres 1,000 60,000 Tranquil Lane 500 30,000 Upper Broadview 1,800 105,000 Webb Cottages 500 30,000 Willow Lane 1,900 60,000 Subtotal $3,060,000 TOTAL $5,943,000 By comparing the estimated project costs with the available funds of $400,000 +/- per year, it is obvious that the funds available are short of the project costs. 4-6 ... Public Works Engineering Memo To: Public Works Committee From: Greg Sievers 4 CC: Bill Linnane Date: August 15, 2000 Re: 2000 S.T.I.P. Background: At the March 16, 2000 Public Works Committee meeting the 2000 Street Improvement Program was approved with an agreement to return the Bids for the Overlay (repaving) portion of the Project to a subsequent PWC meeting. (see attached minutes) This annual project was put out to bid in June and 4 northern Colorado businesses returned interest. Aggregate Industries Connell Resources Coulson Excavating Lafarge $191,595.45 $184,182.00 $175,587.50 $177,572.25 Budget: The remaining 2000 budget contains $170,258.42 for this Street Improvement Project. Recommendation: Staff requests to proceed with the project and reduce the quantities to keep the project within the budget. 5-1 U.2 10 10 OOOLOO-MOO 12Â·Â·L- O Â·r- h r-O Ef 00 4 0 -- 10 1- 10 1- 1- C\1 w - 00 10 831= P.!,i.&..4*.1, ::&.?1:.4 9/Ney:. A-,~il:.1.1, 0 01000000-001.09- 983ggREW'gitg&1(0 13 91. N. 4. C\1 1-2 cv CD .r- C'fcc) g 87' 4..0% 12 0% CD 91- o c\1 co 00 0 C) o * cv Al N C\' C\1 C\1 1- CD 1- C\' C\' C\1 A.=01*C reer:3 lei.-,m 2.31Â« 10 O ID LO Lr) ~ ~ 41.* E. 1 AB %07 4... d E I <0 523-9 I. 1 3 8 KYA 9?= 9% Â· N *8 (1) LCJ Sim /1 .6 -c E k u 203 06 â‚¬ $ JAF .3 4, E c 4 21 20- il U) ~ 894; 8 -2 1 .5 3 2 $ 2 i g i 0 t !Â· Â· O :eL*'4. f LL _1 0 1- LU 02 0 ill O- K i. 1,Â¥49-91? fil fea k.,Affl -O /9 0 1,# 0 O + i. 9 .11, 2%31 5 (1) 4 O 30 -C > 0 75â‚¬ 0 3 -f> O ELLI 0 * - 1.-1 - 2 16 5 h co >fE Â·- = B Cl t., 0 g / '9 0 I 0 0 e Â§ 0 &2; 2 2 856 .9 -, & *93% iE ir I co r 0 u.1 CO co 0- 44." -=LictÂ«.~r-* ...k .- Z~?â€¢ I El 604 495= t.2 24 ed 41.LA % 2<0 3 0 4 .C .c P * 3 73 ;cz g, 2 Â¥,ji~ 008*&52Cco 24= -5 1 & E.Â£:29Ew 2 (C .c -3 .9.9 f. J = 2 CDOOLLI=~SOD- v- N CO rf tr) CD h 00 C) ~ U 0182 Â£09ZL 2000 Street Imp ent Program 2000 Town of Estes Park 1 River Drive eALI sfje.10 eA!.la ep!S.leA!&1 pajou es!~uallio sselun ' leails Jed XepeAo lielldsÂ¥ 1,2/1 L o jefpnq el# u!4UM Xels 01 6%92: oidn X.leA Xeul se!1!juano 4;dap aBe-laAe .Â£ Jo 6u!pu!.,6 aA!0Oal liells eAV 1059190evy $45*91 Ja Sewls) loads BRADFOID ......ING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - March 16, 2000 - Page 2 2000 budget includes $5,000 for -this roof replacement. Local bids were received from Apex Roofing ($5,100) and Halls Roofing ($3,435) to include a full tear off of the old blistered roof. Staff will hold an additional $1,400 as a contingency, should any unforeseen difficulties arise. Therefore, the total requested expenditure is $4,835. The Committee recommends accepting the low bid from Halls Roofing in the amount of $3,435 and the $1,400 contingency requested by staff. 2000 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (STIP) - APPROVAL Construction Manager Sievers reported that the STIP is broken down into categories of work that take place throughout the year to provide maintenance and rehabilitation to the asphalt and roadway infrastructure. The 2000 budget contains $250,000 for the project. Expenditures for the categories discussed are as follows: Slurry Seal - $50,000, Chip Seal - $50,000, Patching - $20,000, Overlay - $120,000, and Striping - $10,000 totaling $250,000 for the STIP in 2000. The Committee recommends proceeding with the STIP expenditures and schedule as presented. The overlay portion will be brought back to Committee when bids are received. REPORTS. The Customer Service Response Report for February 2000 was reviewed. The Highway 36/7 Project is on schedule. Traffic will be rerouted mid-April to allow work on the existing lanes and the project should be completed the beginning of June. There being no further business, Chairman Baudek adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk 5-3