Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Public Works Committee 2002-07-18
.V F AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JULY 18, 2002 8:00 A. M. Preparation date: 7/15/02 *Revision date: 7/15/02 1.Hospital/Prospect Ave. Road Connection Project Neighborhood meeting to determine future action 2.Fall River Trail - Phase 1 Request to bid 3. Water Dept. 2002 Loop project Request to bid *24-6-402(4)(a), C.R.S. - Purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other interest. MOTION: Under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a), I move the PWC go into Executive Session to discuss said item listed above. *1.Estes Valley water supply report Note: The Public Works Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 542. -2 ' 0.; -EPIWC- ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER 555 PROSPECT AVENUE • POST OFFICE BOX 2740 • ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE 970/586-2317 0 FAX 970/586-0109 ANDREW WILLS Chief Executive Officer July 17,2002 Public Works Committee Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado Dear Committee Members: This letter serves as notification that the Estes Park Medical Center is withdrawing the request for construction ofa roadway on tlie north end of odi property. We do, however, understand that there are still unresolved issues that will need to be addressed in the future. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 0»-Ul.loula Andrew Wills Chief Executive Officer Member of American Hospital Association ' Member of Colorado Hospital Association • Member of Voluntary Hospitals of America, Inc. Member of Colorado Association of Homes and Services for the Aging o Member of American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging lk' TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: June 18, 2002 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane . '(/76* SUBJECT: Prospect Avenue/Stanley Circle Drive Roadway Construction Project Background: Last year the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC) requested that the Town budget funds for a roadway connection in existing R.O.W. between Prospect Avenue and Stanley Circle Drive as shown on the attached sketch. Subsequently, the Town budgeted $70,000 for the project in 2002. An interesting note is that the hospital made the same request at the June 1983 Public Works Committee meeting. The August 1983 Public Works Committee recommended that the roadway could be built if the hospital paid for it. At the October 1983 Public Works Committee meeting, the hospital decided not to finance the project. The EPMC and Public Works Department Staff held a neighborhood meeting on April 10th to present the project to interested parties. Approximately 70 people attended the meeting and most were not in favor of the project. Some of the issues discussed were: • the dangerous short-cut traffic through the hospital parking lot that currently connects Narcissus Drive and Stanley Circle Drive; • the lack of a second public roadway connection to the Stanley Circle Drive neighborhood. New subdivisions attempt to have two roadway connections and try to plan for such; and • increased pedestrian danger as a result of the additional traffic the new road would generate through the neighborhood. 1-1 Hospital Staff stated their concern with the public using their parking lot as a thoroughfare between Moccasin and Stanley Circle Drive. A new road connection would help alleviate this problem and the danger associated with it People speaking against the public road connection suggested that the northern connection to the parking lot be either: 1) removed; 2) designated by a sign indicating emergency vehicles only; or 3) gated for authorized vehicles only. Town Staff explained that planning for new subdivisions usually allows for two roadway connections if possible. This policy stems from good engineering design of roadway networks. Staff explained that this 1971-platted neighborhood and its roadway system did not provide a two-road connection. Policy has changed since this area was subdivided. Hospital Administrator, Andrew Wills, spoke to the Committee at last month's May meeting and suggested that the road connection be made and that the existing parking lot driveway connect to the R.O.W. be removed. His opinion is that emergency vehicles could still access the hospital at the new roadway and removal of the dangerous parking lot connection would reduce existing traffic conflict point All of the issues discussed to date are very important and there are safety "trade-offs" with construction of an additional roadway connection. In particular, the additional emergency access to the neighborhood will improve safety, but on the other hand may increase the traffic through the neighborhood. Cost/Budget Budget: $70,000 Action: Action to be decided after input from all of the parties involved. BL/mjs Attachments 1-2 . 4 40 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 12. . 1, al& e- - uswiwiP.*51 78"* 5 239*93=82.# a 4ra r 41 _174·44€~3*/14444,4.4.1.-. . ~-2--3434. 1,9 /* '941 - John Baudek 12=* f 7+ Mayor 4*'00*2 11/ I- Tb: Public Xorks Committee Members: Chairman Barker, Trustee Doylen, Trustee Gillette From: John Baudek Date: July 9,2002 Subject: Proposed New Road by the Hospital I am sorry that I could not attend the July Public Works' Committee meeting to present my views in person, but I will be out of town on this date. I have attended the meeting regarding the proposed new road to be built by the Town of Estes Park by Stanley Circle which was held at the Estes Park Medical Center (hospital) back in April and the Stanley Circle/Park View Lane neighborhood meeting which was held on Saturday June 295 As I understand the facts the hospital has three primary reasons why they are proposing that the road be constructed: 1) To reduce the traffic flow through their parking lot which they feel is unsafe. 2) The new road would assist them with their future expansion plans as it relates to deliveries to the hospital and their loading dock. 3) The Stanley Circle and Park View Lane should have two separate methods of egress and one of them should not be through their parking lot. I have considered this matter for this period of time and have come to the following conclusions as it relates to what actions the town should take. I feel that there certainly is some merit in what the hospital has stated. However, I believe that building a road in the middle of this residential area at this time would be an extreme measure which should only be considered after several other options which will have less negative impact on the neighborhood are implemented. The hospital has stated that much o f the traffic passing through their lot comes from the entrance off of Stanley Circle (these people do not have business at the hospital and just pass through the lot). A group of the neighbors did a count of vehicles using this entrance and they found that a large percentage of these vehicles using Stanley Circle and then this hospital entrance were in fact hospital employees. Others were coming to the hospital and a smaller percentage of the vehicles were residents from around the immediate area who just passed through. http' //,an..., Actpqnpt.Corn (970) 586-5331 • RO. BOX 1200 • 170 MAC C 1-3 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 0 FAX (970) 586-2816 Public Works Committee Members Letter - July 9,2002 Page 2 I believe that the hospital could, as one of many options, install some type of gate at the Stanley Circle entrance, which would stop the unwanted flow of traffic presently using this entrance. In addition this gate could be of a type which could be activated by emergency vehicles so they could use this entrance when they needed to. Having this entrance closed to emergency vehicles was one of the concerns of the hospital when this suggestion came up and this type of option would solve this concern. I would not object to the town sharing in some of the cost for this undertaking rather than for the road. It is clear that the vast majority of the neighbors in the area do not want to see this road built and do not feel that the proposed road would in fact help to alleviate the perceived concerns of the hospital. I do want to state that I clearly am against the town building this proposed road at this time without trying less invasive options, which might well solve the problem. CC: Bill Linnane Stanley Circle Residents' Committee 1-4 Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 . 1 1 1 1 + 71 1 1 It 1 7 111 4 1 1 6 - 1 - 1 16,61 1 + 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 111 .1 t. - IL - -1 21- 1 - 1 11,111, 1 1 4 11 - 1 1 . '1 1.1 1 + S - , id r 1 - 1 -4 - f 1 -1 ff 7 1.1 1 - I.*11 1 111 I 1, I- - It I I '' - I ' 4 -1 1- 11. 'I 1 1 1- - r. - - 61 - - 1 1· 1 1~ L" 14 1 ' 1 il tl ' 1 / - / - :t - 0 1 -44 -i - - 47 1 -4 -4 6 -,-7. -- 1 11 I L 11 1 1 & 11 4 1 -- 14. - 1- 1 -, f l. 1 -11 * 1 9 -4. -1 E- ... Ill 1 - T - 11 1 -/ 1 1 1-- - 1 \*: 71 1. - - 1 - .- 2.1 16. - r 1 4-4- -1,2 : t, 1 1 1-, i:..5- r 2 1 4 4 -1 1- 1 - - 1 1.- 1 1 --1 I E 111 1 . 4 Z 1 4 1 - _ 4 4 1 - 1 - IM; - , 1 1 L t' 1- 1- 1 1 1 1 - _ 71- 36 , 4'¥,1 1 141 ir -4 1 ' 1 9 1 IJ' 1 I .i - - --1- 4 5,1. _ 1 4 --- 7 -1 1 1 1--- * 1 | . 1 '- -- '' 4 11 r 4.- 4-1 1 1 1 - - + 1 9 1, --1 1 1 1 - 1 11. 1 - +1.'El -4 t.---- -1-1. 1 1 + 11 T I- P lili - 1 , It -1 -i ? 4,7 - ' "l :1 1 -- 11= r 1 .1 17 4- - 1 -2,11 - -- 1. IC. S.- ,6 - ~- - s I + r• t ' . lt' 1.1 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 1- f- ..LL ly I 1 - 1 m , .-¥ , '4- ' ' - 11 1 1 - 1. - - 1 n -I 4 - - -r - 1 -1 -?1 4 1 11 -- 1 If 1 t-' 1- - 1 11 + 1 11 - 1 4 15- 1 + - 0 - '4 ..1 1 - 0 .44 + 4 1 01 -3 1 1 - r -2._(64108 1-10:21 r- "4 -, i~~ :4--1 -74 141 1 1+ di-~ip 4 - < ~1=4~ *:1 ,':1,--- N 4- _ k . I - p 1-- 1 . . 1 1 1 11 1 11 - .1-1 ..1 -1 · 1 1 , f U - -·.. m tt 1 11- 1 11.- - 111 - 1-hirT 2 -'T--12-2.-0-fr- -- = 1 1 91 1 ' _ f 4 - 1 9-1 1 -,1 1 1 1 - .72*6-'ll//'3 f.,4 51 I ./,4 +I.*Ill•IM 1 - Prospect Avenue _ - -- 4 1 PApiUSEU NEW HOAD . 1.4 tr: I i _- S ' ,-, 2/DI :fl- - r -1 - 11 1 - - T 4 16 -: . 1- I 1 7 - 1 LI - i_ L t---r -5.6- - 1 9. -E P MC - Z t -•- i - ' L , -11 - 15 -,lID I' 1 1 11' 1--1., Il r- 1.- 4 ' 1 4- 7.71 1- 'L+ A- It=, - Ip -k - .. r u -1 1 , 2 3.€- 1 .-1 1-1.. J- 1- 1 -1 4 41 1 - - IL/ -I , 11 r /41 r 1 1 1 1 '5 1 - 1 - - L - 11 - r 4-*+ 1 111- . 1 1 I r. iLL - _ - - ' High Stre*t - 3.- : N , _ 4 b ' 1 1 1 . -1 1 r -1- -- 0 1- -2 2 . C- i, 1 - 1 --- 11 11__- 44.4-iL- . ---1, .. _ _...r -1 -1 4 4 - - - - r - 1 --- 4 L 6 |-| 227 1 - . - 1 -7 - r= 1 1.-4-1 1 1 - 14---7 1-1 |- I--'il-r ~id ' --7.. 1 - *+ 1 1. 1 - 1- - 1-4- 1 1- - -1*- 1- 11 - 4 $ ' 1 5 '4 -1 - 4 9 - I Vu I | I ; r | IM 0 L.+4 -= 11-1 1 . r . - f 11 - & r I -- - ./ 1 -lili . _---r-r- I - 6 1 -5 -- 1 1 1 -I- 1- 1 6, - 4 _- 1 , il'* L : 1 1 9 1-1 1 . 1 - 1 - --1- , r - - - ---3 7-- - -#i # 1 . 1 .1 11 --2 - 71 1 1-1 1 - -1- 1 + 1 _I._ - - -1 1 1 :1- - 1 4 -411 1 1 ..6-- 1 1 Ill, 4 1 1 4- 1 - r 11 1 1 - 1 1 +- 11 - - 1 - 1. 1 11 1 -- 1 1-1 1 1 -1 - 1 1 1 - - 11 11 -- 11 1 1 - h 1 1 T - , - 1 - / 1 1 1 1-5 -w-"r 4- 1-1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 20,2002 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of May 2002. Committee: Chairman Barker, Trustees Doylen and Gillette Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, Fire Chief Dorman, Police Operations Commander van Deutekom, Construction Manager Sievers, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Absent None Chairman Barker called the meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. HOSPITAL/PROSPECT AVE. ROAD CONNECTION PROJECT - CONTINUED FROM MAY 16 TH MEETING. Director Linnane summarized the road connection project request and outlined citizen concerns expressed to date. Additional audience comments were heard from John HazlitU325 Park View Ln.; Brenda Reins/165 Stanley Circle; and Byron Hall/161 Stanley Circle. Items discussed include: safety, breakaway barriers, and drainage. Andrew Wills/EPMC reported that neighborhood meetings are continuing and he requested additional time to allow Hospital staff and citizens to reach a consensus prior to consideration by the Town. The Committee agreed and continued this item to a future meeting to be determined. EMERGENCY ROAD CONNECTION AT PAWNEE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION CONTINUED FROM MAY 16]H MEETING. Director Linnane briefed the Committee on this request for the Town to construct an emergency, non-paved access connection between Cherokee Dr. and Pawnee Dr. He explained that the developer will be required to construct this road connection upon development of the subdivision. Director Linnane also reported that Estes Park's two access point requirement for new development is in line with comparison cities. Fire Chief Dorman and Police Operations Commander van Deutekom confirmed that the existing access to the existing subdivision adequately meets safety requirements and Construction Manager Sievers identified easement locations that could be accessed in the event of an emergency. Concluding all discussion, the Committee denied the request for an emergency road connection between Cherokee Dr. and Pawnee Dr. at Pawnee Meadows Subdivision and encouraged the private developer to expedite construction of the road connection at the earliest possible convenience. MACGREGOR MOUNTAIN LODGE WATER TANK - REQUEST. Director Linnane presented a proposed lease of water rights between the Town and the Warren and Ruth Clinton Charitable Remainder Unitrust, owner of MacGregor Mountain Lodge (Lessee). Presently, the Lessee's primary water supply is a domestic well, which has a very junior priority date. The Lessee is currently pursuing an augmentation plan in order to continue the current use of the well and is requesting to lease one acre.foot of the Town's Windy Gap water to be used in Lessee's augmentation plan. In 1-6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - June 20,2002 - Page 2 consideration of the lease of the Windy Gap water, they agree to provide the Town the following benefits: 1. Pay sum of $200 per year for the lease of water 2. Upon extension of the Town's water system, to purchase a tap for the property 3. If the Town's future improvement to its water system requires construction of a storage tank on Lessee's properly, Lessee will give an easement to the Town for such storage tank at no cost. (The Town's Water Master Plan indicates that the Fall River High Zone Tank may be located on or near Lessee's property.) Town Attorney White has reviewed the proposed lease and is recommending the following modifications: 1. Paragraph 2.2 of the Lease be amended to provide the Lessee shall physically connect to the Town's water system when the system is available; and 2. The grant of easement for a storage tank include the grant of all necessary access easements and easements for distribution facilities from and to the storage tank. There are no budget implications. The $200 per year payment will more than defray the annual cost of pumping and delivering the one acre-foot of Windy Gap water (approximately $50.00 per acre-foot per year). The granting of the easement for the storage tank and distribution lines will provide the Town with a tank site at no cost. Concluding all discussion, the Committee recommends approval to lease MacGregor Mountain Lodge one acre-foot of Windy Gap water as compensation for a future tank site to include the modifications outlined above. REPORTS. None. Trustee Gillette noted citizen interest in Estes Park's fire evacuation plan and requested evacuation information be published in local newspapers to alleviate their concerns. There being no further busineas, Chairman Barker adjourned the meeting at 8:47 a.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk 1-7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - May 16, 2002 - Page 3 The Community Reinvestment Contingency Fund for the Board Room can accommodate the additional cost. The Committee recommends approval of the change order requests as presented. 2002 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH BIDDING THE OVERLAY PORTION AND PROCEED WITH CHIP SEAL, ETC. Director Linnane explained the work that will occur throughout the year to provide surface improvements to the asphalt infrastructure, such as patching, chip seal & slurry seals, overlaying, rebuilding, striping, and traffic calming devices. The 2002 Budget contains $300,000 for the annual Street Improvement Program. The Committee recommends staff be authorized to bid the project as outlined below returning to the Committee for further action. 1. Patching: solicit prices, award and complete by July, $10,000 2. Chip & Slurry Seal: purchase from A-1 & I.P.P. at 2000 prices and complete in June, $80,000 3. Overlay paving: bid in May, PWC in June, construct in September-October, $162,000 4a. Rebuild. a portion of Big Horn Dr. in partnership with EPSD & Water Dept., $8,000 4b. Rebuild. a portion of East Riverside Dr. is in partnership with a capital river-wall project and a water department project, construct in the fall, $40,000 Replace curb & gutter and sidewalk, $10,000 (Street maintenance funding) Design scope ($10,687.50) from Van Horn is to be paid by the (Water Department funding) 5. Striping'. purchase from United Rentals (1997 prices), install in May and October, $10,000 6. Traffic Calmer. construct asphalt Speed-Table on Summit Dr., $5,000 TOTAL $305,000 Locations and quantities may change to remain within the budget and avoid utility company constructions conflicts. REPORTS. -- -Il..... Prospect Ave./Stanley Circle Dr. Road Connection Pro~ect. Andrew Wills/Estes MI~ Park Medical Center briefed the Committee on the April lot public meeting regarding the Hospital's requested roadway extension and discussed concerns raised by citizens in attendance. Audience comments were heard from: Mark Igel/168 Stanley Circle; Brenda Reins/165 Stanley Circle; Byron Hall/161 Stanley Circle, Items discussed include: drainage, traffic patterns and studies, access points, notification of public meetings, safety hazards, and signage. Chairman Barker noted that additional public meetings would be beneficial prior to final consideration of the Hospital's request for this road extension and requested that this item be placed on the June 206 meeting to provide a forum for additional citizen input. There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:14 a.m. Rebecca van Deutekom, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk 1-8 El.-iWIC- ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER 555 PROSPECT AVENUE • P.O. BOX 2740 • ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE 970/586-9513 • FAX 970/586-9514 E-mail: awills@epmedcenter.com ANDREW WILLS Chief Executive Officer May 8,2002 Public Works Committee c/o Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Members of the Public Works Committee: Estes Park Medical Center, (EPMC), has been working with the Town of Estes Park to extend Prospect Ave. along the Northeast boundary of our campus, connecting to the north drive entrance to our property. Doing so would be a benefit to EPMC strategically and from a liability perspective. As you may be awarecon Aptil 10,2002, wd:held a public meeting in EPMC's conference rooms to discuss the roadway extension. EPMC brovided information in a memd at that meeting; outlining the need for the road extensioh, (see attached). Several concerns were raised by those in attendance. Possibly the most sionificant concern l iwas hospital.traffic, (largely employee)t=:that utilizes Stanley Circle Drive to reach EPMC. This is a safety issue for area residents. Inkitead of reaching consensus on extending the roadway, the discussion shifted to a request ; from those attending(for EPMC to close its north entrance. It is my understanding that this will be an agenda itemat the Public Works Committee meeting on May 16, 2002. I would like to address the committee at that time. There may be a compromise approach, that may be beneficial to the Town, the neighbors of EPMC, and to EPMC itself. Thank you for your consideration of this project. Sincerely, 1 I 0»Ly, ,l<UG Andrew Wills Member of American Hospital Association • Member ofColorado Hospital Association • Member of Voluntary Hospitals of America, Inc Member of Colorado Association and Service for the Aping . M,mhpr nf A n,pri.In Association of Homes and Services for the Aging 1-9 344*1*:AN>Y.·yi'€1:'4'4.6'25'4924*911·,?1'·1 1Nfl «":6/£/9£/5~./48142%43{® :~43»--E.*otl 9-W;·,3:2#:t % Atki~~ditaliC@~*Afff *i#***affi'.if»*4%**;*9 TO: Little Prospect Addition residents and the public in general From: Andrew Wills, CEO Date: April 10, 2002 Re: Prospect Avenue extension The Estes Park Medical Center, (EPMC), has been experiencing traffic problems for years associated with two forms of non-medical related traffic. 1. Commuter traffic 2. Delivery traffic. Commuter traffic. When the Moccasin Bypass was built, traffic in increasing numbers began to utilize EPMC's campus as a surface roadway to quickly access the bypass from Stanley Circle Drive, and conversely, to return from it. As a result, EPMC experiences increased safety hazards for its patients as pedestrians, increased potential for automobile accidents, and additional maintenance costs associated with upkeep of asphalt in the parking lots. The extension of Prospect Avenue will alleviate this problem by providing commuter traffic a safer, easier, and faster route between Moccasin Bypass and Stanley Circle Drive. Delivery traffic. Currently, EPMC receives deliveries at the lower entrance to the Medical Center adjacent to the conference rooms. This entrance serves multiple purposes that are inconsistent with one another: deliveries and non-medical public foot traffic. Additionally, the delivery vehicles must coexist with patients that attempt to park near the Physical Therapy entrance. In the future, EPMC plans to relocate the delivery entrance to the facility at the North end of our campus, on the lower level of the building. This project is part of an overall facility renovation. When complete, this delivery entrance would be serviced by the new roadway extension of Prospect Avenue. The result would be a separation of delivery traffic from patient traffic, (car and pedestrian). Again, major safety issues would be addressed when this project is complete. 1 1-10 1%1 9 0·1,/624 Traffic Study Stanley Circle Drive/ Estes Park Medical Center Tuesday, May 14,2002 Time Hospital Through Stanley Circle 0530-0600 2 0 1 0600-0630 1 1 0 0630-0700 1 1 5 0700-0730 2 2 3 0730-0800 3 1 7 0800-0830 7 1 4 0830-0900 1 0 1 0900-0930 4 1 2 0930-1000 3 2 2 1000-1030 5 0 4 1030-1100 6 4 1 1100-1130 5 0 1 1130-1200 7 1 1 1200-1230 6 0 1 1230-1300 2 0 2 1300-1330 5 3 5 1330-1400 8 2 5 1400-1430 4 0 7 1430-1500 3 0 4 1500-1530 5 3 4 1530-1600 4 2 3 1600-1630 5 0 5 1630-1700 7 1 13 1700-1730 9 10 5 1730-1800 3 1 1 1800-1830 2 0 3 1830-1900 3 1 4 Total vehicles 113 37 94 Hospital: employees or visitors, to or from EPMC/PPLC via Stanley Circle Drive Through: any vehicle that uses EPMC lot to go either direction between Moccasin Bypass and Stanley Circle Drive Stanley Circle: vehicles that use Stanley Circle Dr, either direction, and do not use EPMC lot 1-11 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: July 15, 2002 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane (f<-,ri SUBJECT: Fall River Trail - Phase I Background: At its May meeting, the Public Works Committee granted approval to proceed with the design of the Fall River Trail, Phase I. Phase I will begin near Performance Park and extend to the vicinity of the Bypass. The design will be complete by the second week of August Staff is requesting approval to bid the project following completion of the design. Please note that the Willows Condominium Association, adjacent and west of the trailer park on West Elkhorn, has some issues with the placement of the trail in the developmenfs platted trail easement that follows the north bank of Fall River. Prior to bidding the project Staff and Cornerstone Engineering intend to present that final design to the Association to hear its input Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in September and be complete by December. Cost/Budget Budget $295,000 Action: Staff requests and recommends approval to bid Phase I. BL/lb Attachments 2-1 1 ./LA·Fr- LoT 1-3 A Su A p w A-~c,LE s\~ ~ < 1 il A-{*LO- 4, 199 9, ' FORMER ' -- PROPERTY LINE -1 l - 60 ,L-Lol,R S. --r -1 4 Co•j-i>oat,o~VA S : 1. In Of 12 I . M to r-EASEMENT LOCAT I ON z / TIE IS 2.5' NORTH 1 X' ALONG EX I ST I NG * 7 4 PROPERTY LINE 1 / do woo 1 1 44*0- N 1 i (!v~~~im) 9 / i .16 l.+i·*p) 1 1 ,~-FOUND PLASTIC CAP ON #5 REBAR MNT. yALLEY LS 10455 FORMER n *, PROPERTY \ ~ --4 1 ' 1 -3 ~.- LINE k 1 + *3 - RECREATIONAL / \ .l» TRAIL EASEMENT ~ ~ b ' SEWER EASEMENT , 1 . 10¢ 4 le:44*09:;3-LE*12 -- - -j Li~Mitti.~7 ) 1 Colv'30 1 * (4-ArD 9.\ 9- 4 49* 1 \ 1.\N»,2.921- -2 U 1141-4) 4-44~ . »842\4 4 / i N Ss. r-/ ->C 6& L FALL RIVER- , · 63 · 37 100-YR FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION ~ . 04<0 IS AT THE EXISTING BANK OF FALL RIVER L-dE . 2-1A I. V Vv. W k. '60 S ) TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: May 8,2002 TO: Public Works Committee 1 A FROM: Bill Linnane LN/<.% SUBJECT: Fall River Trail Background: Staff, with support from CDOT and Cornerstone Engineering, presented the Fall River Trail Concept Plan at a community meeting February 21St Cornerstone Engineering presented the preliminary location plans. A question and answer session followed this initial project description. Generally the audience supported the project However, a handful of those in attendance had design questions that could not be readily answered at that stage. Therefore, Staff requested Cornerstone Engineering to contact four property owners along the proposed trail location and specifically address their individual design concerns. Cornerstone met with the individual property owners the week of April 8th. The concerns of the individuals have been addressed and future design of the trail will attempt to accommodate such. (See Background - Continued on page 2) Cost/Budget Design/CM Scope of Services Cost Proposal: $28,046 Budget: $295,000 for design, construction management and construction. Action: Staff recommends proceeding with Phase I Design and Construction Management for a cost of $28,046 from Cornerstone Engineering. 2-2 Background - Continuedjtom page 1 Cornerstone Engineering will present the results of the individual neighbor discussions at this PWC meeting. Cost of the entire project, from Performance Park to the Rocky Mountain National Park boundary, is estimated to be approximately $2 million. Due to the cost of the project it must be a phased project with the number of phases estimated at 5 to 10, depending upon future funding. Currently, the 2002 Community Reinvestment Fund has $295,000 budgeted for design and construction of the first phase, which begins near Performance Park. This phase could begin this fall. Since Cornerstone has performed all of the preliminary work to date, they were asked to provide a Design and Construction Management Scope of Services. BL/lb 2-3 CORNE?STONE (970) 586-2458 437 South St. Vrain Estes Park, CO 80517 Fax (970) 586-2459 ENGINEERING & //G. 21 SURVEYING, INC. E-mall: ces@charter.net 1 Ikc »7 May 7,2002 Mr. Bill Linnane Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Fall River Corridor Pedestrian Trail Study, Part II Dear Bill: Following a public information meeting for the Fall River Pedestrian Trail on February 21,2002, , a field survey was performed of the state highway right-of-way from 1520 Fall River Road to 1820 Fall River Road. The purpose ofthe survey was to determine existing state highway right- o f-way and actual alignment of the trail through this section of highway. Survey information was compiled with state highway right-of-way maps and it was determined that approximately 30 feet of state highway right-of-way exists from the south drive lane to the southern edge of the right-of-way. Based on the survey information and the right-of-way data adequate state highway right-of-way exists for construction of a pedestrian trail system. The attached exhibits were prepared for four property owners and subsequent on site meetings were scheduled to discuss trail alignment. The meetings took place on April 10,11 and 12,2002. At all nieetings Conietstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (CES) discussed with the properly owners/managers a proposed minimum cross section of a two foot curb and gutter starting at the existing white line of U.S. Highway 34, an attached ten foot walk and a minimum clear zone to fences, signs, etc. of three feet. A brief synopsis of each meeting is as follows: · Castle Mountain Lodge, 1520 Fall River Road-CES met with the owners of Castle Mountain Lodge on April 12, 2002 and discussed the trail. A copy of the exhibit was left with the owners. The owners were shown the limits of the project and were very receptive to the proposed trail. · Inn on Fall River, 1660 Fall River Road-On April 10, 2002, CES met with property managers who were shown an exhibit o f the proposed cross section and alignment adjacent to the property. Discussion of construction of the trail and relocation of a fence which currently sits in highway right-of-way took place. The managers were very receptive to the project. 2-4 • Black Hawk Lodge, 1750 Fall River Road-CES met with the property owner on April 10, 2002 and discussed the exhibit and proposed cross section and alignment of the trail adjacent to the property. CES indicated the edge of the walkway would be placed two feet off the drive lane and, because of the clear zone requirements, would require relocating a fence. The owner's primary concern was encroachment of the trail on his property. An additional concern of the owner was public safety due to the trail being close to the highway. The back of the trail would be twelve feet off of the drive line and eighteen feet off of the property line. The owner expressed concern about snow build up along his fence. CES met with the owner a second time on April 10, 2002 to further discuss the owner's questions. · Ponderosa Lodge, 1820 Fall River Road-The property owner met with CES on April 11, 2002, and was shown a proposed cross section and alignment ofthe trail adjacent to the property. The property is separated from the highway by the river. The owner was shown the physical limitations and required tree removal for the proposed trail placement in that area. A concern of the owner was that the trees removed for trail construction be replaced by the Town o f Estes Park to establish a buffer between the trail and the owner's property. State highway minimum specifications establish a distance from the drive lane to the back of curb of two feet six inches for a sidewalk. Optimum construction of the trail allowing the greatest separation from the road based on state highway right-of-way would increase user safety. CES recommends, for actual and perceived safety, trail alignment be a minimum of six feet off of the edge ofthe drive lane except as indicated at the above mentioned properties. If you have questions or need further information regarding this phase of the Fall River Corridor Pedestrian Trail Study please contact me. Sincerely, A / d Corne#str Zn eering & Surveying, Inc. Lt JUD jterd Prochaska, P.E. Principal Attachments 2-5 tel \ 0 %00 W \ Xi---4 091 0 01 £ 2 E-e 0 5 6=0 0 4 z \ 1 th 93 hAG D-J 4294 9 ti: 3\ 4 0 92 O m 22 E 0 .'S \ 443 C=> i 20 \ ./It , : 5 1/ M .w · ¢ 4.·i i e Z.:P 0 1.'4 \ ..2 \\ \ ~41 7.41 -W -6. 4- AVAA--30-1HDIM AMH -~ 1 - \2 . m. -1 hr d.- 9- \ -4 - 4-7 - - N 0 0 4 i EN / 4 1,1- f Air . 1 6 0 2 / L i- \ .*4.% : OR W 11 4. h or) 0 &20 EE 7'5·. 2 R <C 7 1 191 LU 0 \ ED h f 0 1 DZ Z LU d 03 O m 0 ' =? ty; bM C < 1 1\-1 1 Mg 2-6 08 @3AIN 30001 -1NIAI 311SVD =9 1IVEI ONVH ONINIV.E 1IVU1 1VlhllS303d t'fiH°IH / £---< O 4 0 0, i,/iN 8 WA 93 /01 I i. / ib / 1 3 \ .....Tiff··f ~ ~ / E -114 4 { 4 '<e *; f..12 If, - - ·i l. 1 (42/ ,# / 4* st 43/ ..... / eff A. It. - AVA\-30-1H0R:I XMH ---/ ~ , /44-1.0 147 gaM / 9/ 4412"ky t 0 / - Z ~teN., CD t. | 021 Z L P-(f) £ - G O LJ O gi l...1 2 10 0 11 : 0& (/) LU a- 1- 0- I -1 . 09 1 1 - 1 2 JI-1 --- » 0- LU 1- // Z - 0 0 / th_ ' § 23 %W i / S! tis ~ ¥ 1 / . 7 1 2-7 900 VSON OVOW 83Al@ 11~ ,0 L L;908.0 1193 -~ Woo'L 1 ugo.0 1IVU ONVH 11Vhll -IVil AVMHDIH 3 3301AOHS 1 1 4 97 E iN L t-- 0 . E=1 1 25 i i *73 /1 1% am J,5 2 5 2 4 4-1 «f 41 C\1 1 .1... I 7...1 / ji- .1 /- \ 'ft...... /:if ~ -i 0/ /. 4.y 11 fi / 41 4 1 .4. 4 81 At.%41 / - / m O /%4: 1/ f , ~-4~ 0//~ I l ' .4. / :,4 8 /4 ..ii ,/ 1 1 \\ 9 / 11 -- . -1,5.fi, -/ f 4-. ¢41 ~ Ul:*1; 3 r ~ ff-%.9 44--- 9 9 /' •~ t22•'IF/ O- t.t. 0- \ - 2-8 C'IMJf'Al 0-1 >IMVH >10¥18 ,Ot=„ L 31¥05 fi i . \\ E .0 0 fiR \ 11 c= m 0 9 2 2 014 2 £5 - CO 3 2 \« -- 1 y T; 2 0 P •r' 3 z \ 19 \ r.1 \ ..0 L.- \ k 44 . \ - rk .'IK 1 0 44 \ A : .0 j 0\ 4-5 » 1 hi * 5 1 I 31 I . 1 1 , I 11 -:- 11 1 - 1 0 9 - 1./ / i 1 / i O- 9-0 mIA -ls Hunos ~77 099 L - ~~NN ONFALL RIVER ,Ot=„ L 31VOS CORNE?STONE Estes Park, CO 80517 437 South St. Vrain (970) 586-2458 Fax (970) 586-2459 1 ENGINEERING & /0 Clht t« SURVEYING, INC. E-mail: ces@charter.net May 9,2002 Mr. Bill Linnane Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Scope of Services Fall River Pedestrian Trail, Phase I Dear Bill: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (CES) is pleased to provide the following Scope of Services for design and construction observation of Phase I of the Fall River Pedestrian Trail. Project Overview Fall River Pedestrian Trail would be a trail system extension linking the downtown river walk area, west along Fall River Road ending at Rocky Mountain National Park Gateway Visitor Center. The trail would be a10 foot wide concrete path. The length of the trail constructed in Phase I would be based on the Town of Estes Park budget fdr Phase I. Phase I would extend to the area of 1150 West Elkhom, providing approximately 5,000 feet of trail. Design The design of Phase I of the Fall River Pedestrian Trail would include the following services: Survey the area surrounding the proposed trail alignment. Preparation ofbase maps showing horizontal and vertical constraints with topographical contours at two foot intervals. • Trail design with plan and profile sheets, alignment and grading requirements. • Highway right-of-way permits. • Preparation of construction documents. Manage construction bidding. Construction Observation Construction observation ofPhase I of the Fall River Pedestrian Trail would include construction observation during the construction phase of the trail to insure the contractor complies with the intent of the plans and specifications. 2-10 Mr. Bill Linnane Scope of Services Fall River Pedestrian Trail, Phase I May 9,2002 Page 2 Cost The cost for design of Phase I of the Fall River Pedestrian Trail is $19,606. The cost for construction observation is $8,440. Total engineering costs would be $28,046. A breakdown of design and construction observation costs is attached. Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. is pleased to have the opportunity to provide this 4 scope o f work to the Town o f Estes Park. If you have questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. yull b bUA Michael S. Todd, P.E. Principal 2-11 Fall River Pedestrian Trail Phase I Design Personnel Hours Rate/Hr Total Cost Principal 18 $90.00 $ 1,620 Project Engineer 75 $60.00 $ 4,500 Project Manager 23 $70.00 $ 1,610 Engineering Technician 90 $50.00 $ 4,500 AutoCadd Technician 133 $50.00 $ 6,650 Clerical 22 $33.00 $ 726 Total Design $19,606 Construction Observation Personnel Hours Rate/Hr Total Cost Principal 3 $90.00 $ 270 Project Engineer 37 $60.00 $ 2,200 Project Manager 12 $70.00 $ 840 Engineering Technician 72 $50.00 $ 3,600 AutoCadd Technician 24 $50.00 $ 1,200 Clerical 10 $33.00 $ 330 - Total Construction Observation $ 8,440 Total Engineering Cost $28,046 2-12 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: July 15, 2002 TO: Public Works Committee il FROM: Bill Linnane (·'C/~« SUBJECT: Water Department 2002 Loop Project Background: To refresh your memory of the location of the project I've included the March Public Works Committee location maps and other information. Construction should begin in September and be completed by December. Staff is recommending approval to bid the project. Please note that the Fall River High Zone Tank Project shown on the map is scheduled for construction in 2003 and will not be bid until then. Cost/Budget Budget: $555,000 Action: Staff requests and recommends approval to bid the project. BL/lb Attachments 3-1 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: March 18, 2002 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane UL SUBJECT: 2002 Water Department Capital Improvements Project - Design and Construction Management (C.M.) Scope of Services Background: The Town has budgeted for the following projects in 2002. Please refer to the attached location map and project priority list. 1. * Fall River IIigh Zone Tank (Priority #2 List) 2. Evergreen Interconnect (Priority #2 List) 3. ** East Wonderview Interconnect (Priority #1 List) 4. Country Club Interconnect (Priority #2 List) * The Fall River Tank Project construction is estimated to begin in 2003. This scope is for preliminary design and easement procurement. ** This project will complete the Priority #1 List. Cornerstone has submitted the attached Scope of Services cost for design and construction management of$62,980. Cost/Budget: Cost: $ 62,980 Budget: $134,000 Action: Staff recommends approval of Cornerstone's scope of $62,980. BL/mjs 3-2 , ull 1 „34% 1 - 1, M 3.4 1 j , ./4 -4444. 1 ; / 1 ---71-Ck- />4 i i '~til<.29(- * r * ' I ilil! i "t jb. 07-/ 4 I- It _L- M e,». I ; 11 12 P.-'--arr N '-4 i ; 41 41-„64 \ 1 i # t j w 'g" 9.,N'.2~ I. - M . 4 1 . 1 1,9 r. 1 1,1 . 4 . ,- 4 ,,, 5 :L, . . 4, ? '4' 2 . ·1· · A.J j p' :- $, 9 : k :U ·' 3 4 ~ 1 ' E-1113*J- I .'. ·0 4'3 1. | 7£& 6- 6 ; j / 1 Qt - '4 - Nic.n,1,4 t. r,L.0 1:i· <Ant It' :. r- .A f I iii -> . 77.-fj ' 9- . ~,~21 :A - 9 . -· ·,41 1 1:.•, f i.. * 4 I. -I# ' .1 3 4 - -, 4 7,0 f ...4 -4 26 1 r A . iyy. 1.W. 1, . e , . 5 1.1 1 t -0.1.. El: 1.' i P. r. , r - b.?f . ' *5' · + ; "J,/ 9 1. · ..le . 4 / N*'1 I.1 3.-1.. i.' L ' I ¥J·,2 ..,4 , % d i ." . M. 1 1./. 4 . 1 -7-r- p 04 . Pl. 0 1 r· 7 r'. i . f , f C 3 - r . . X3 4' : . ·i , 17#F~ 1 4 4 .,i '4 .N'. f / - ··6 t A 17--. I. r .. I~7-'r™=7=33-zz·:~} --1 9 7 ¥ 2 4 1 1 J. 3-3 f« Counny Club E,etgoeen ~~ 1 F q , 5 7 Fit-ture Improvements The existing $9.6bf capital iniprovements 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 f without operating -witli 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 Priori ty #3: <500 GPM fire protection lines Category 1 has been established as Ule #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 as a third priority. All 3,categories are very important, but projects must be 1 prioritized in such a n.iethod'as that described.. ' The following is the current annual improvement lists 34'illi associated projected -12911¢n A-T·€D costs, categorized as previously explained. A 57- A.vlm g d 77 A-rE Priority #1: Extremely High Maintenance Lines LF +A Amount ~ Ovt,1 P LET€- Beaver Point to Ramshorn Village 1,900 $135,000 CU-1 pLE-rEE Big Horn 8" 1,400 95,000 Co-(pt-€715 Big Thompson 10" 3,300 230,000 Co.4 Pca€· Chapin/Chiquita 2" 500 35,000 C.0,•·1~LE-i'Ef Chiquita 2" 800 52,000 Un#IpLe-T= Fall River Corridor Abandonment 4,000 305,000 2001- MacGregor Ave. E./Wonderview 2,700 190,000 C<ovll#L[DE MacGregor Ave. W./Wonderview 3,900 270,000 (loutfer€' Stanley Circle 2" 500 35,000 Sublotal $1,347,000 Priority #2: Extremely Low Pressure Domestic Use and <500 GPM Fire Protection i 2©02 Country Club 2" 1,200 $85,000 60 *1 pLOCE Devils Gulch East-Phase I 4,300 300,000 ' Zot I Devils Gulch West - Phase 11 2,100 150,000 ': 2 0 01 Evergreen 4" 1,400 100,000 100 3 Fall River Tank #2 (Master Plan) 4,300 300,000 , 63 ~»(pua·E Hwy. 7 to Prospect Mountain Pump House 2,900 205,000 COMPLLE[ENorth Lane to Devils Gulch 1,200 80,000 2.003 Panorama Circle 3,100 216,000 .<9 *ip--en=, Southern Interconnect 900 60,000 1 A e 200(0 Twin Drive 2" 600 40,000 Sublotal $1,536,000 «SOO-rt\01-A 1/67€1(.ou,j€77+ prz_pjaC'r Con-AdureD Lauj p R. et, 3 u R-2 , 3-4 Priority #3: <500 GPM Fire Protection Feet Amount 1 VAA Tr7 4 ,-ltv LY'l.~,J List Axminster 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 50,000 71 24: Cpernorrah Drive 800 Davis Hill 3,000 180,000 200 w Eagle Cliff 2,500 150,000 East Lane/North Lane 3,000 180,000 Forl Morgan Colony 1,000 60,000 Hill Road 2" 1,500 90,000 Zoos Hill*Streets 5,000 300,000 Hondius Heights 5,500 335,000 1001 Juniper Lane 1,000 60,000 Lone Pine Acres , 3,500 210,000 Narcissus Circle 1,000 60,000 ZOO w Old Mocassin Drive 1,000 60,000 Old Ranger Road 900 55,000 zook Park View Lane 500 30,000 Pinewood Lane 1,500 90,000 20°y Spruce Drive 500 30,000 Sunny Acres 1,000 60,000 Tranquil Lane i 500 30,000 i Upper Broadview 1,800 105,000 P Uoo4 Webb Cottages 500 30,000 Willow Lane 1,900 60,000 Sublotal $3,060,000 c.O.1·1-tituae (ba_. 4 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. 200 4 05 3 -1- MA.Do,3 A vot 7~0 CA-17-I<'~L-A € C ; 1 J 2. c. 4. bs)j aDJ 100& 1-WIA DL. ~4-0,1 4 5 1, 2-, -L" 1 / 64 a0 3 1 00 C Po Ab gru• LA- A J E- 8 '0 0 d 000 3 3-5 CORNEASTONE Estes Park, CO 80517 437 South St. Vrain (970) 586-2458 Fax (970) 586-2459 ENGINEE-RING & dif~~*t~ SURVEYING, INC. E-mail: ces@charter.net 43tS90 March 9,2002 Mr. Bill Linnane Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: 2002 Waterline Interconnect Projects / Dear Bill: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (CES) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following scope of services with cost for the Town of Estes Park, Public Works Department, 2002 Waterline Interconnection Projects. Fall River High Zone Study The Fall River High Zone Study is to research and make recommendations as to the size and location of a new potable water storage tank. The purpose of the tank is to provide potable water and fire protection for the existing and future development of Estes Park above the current town blue line along Fall River. Research would include the following: Tank Site Locations - Proposed tank sites will be evaluated as to elevation, available land, access to the tank, and cost benefit of the location. · Tank Size - CES will calculate the necessary tank size to provide adequate potable water and fire flow. Calculations would be based on maximum possible future development per the Town of Estes Park current zoning criteria. • Easements - CES will evaluate necessary easements for the recommended tank location and waterline alignment. CES will submit a letter with recommendations for tank and waterline location. And, CES will prepare and negotiate necessary easements for the water tank and waterline. 3-6 Mr. Bill Linnane 2002 Waterline Interconnect Projects March 9,2002 Page 2 Engineering Cost for the Fall River High Zone Study is $6,380.00. Engineering allowance for preparation and negotiation of easements is $3000.00 Evergreen Waterline Interconnect A four inch steel water main exjsts from 800 Big Horn Drive (Kingstone Estates) to Evergreen Lane and MacGregor Avenue across Black Canyon Creek and up through Black Canyon Inn to the saddle between Black Canyon Inn and the Stanley Hotel property. The proposed improvement is to replace the existing four inch steel water main with approximately 2600 linear feet of new 12 inch ductile iron pipe (DIP). The new 12 inch water main would improve flow between the 12 inch water main in Big Horn Drive with the 6 inch water main to Black Canyon Hills Subdivision in addition to improving water service and fire flow along the new line. CES will research existing easements, negotiate any required new easements, survey, design, prepare plans and specifications with contract documents for bidding, manage construction bidding for the project and perform construction observation to insure contractor complies with the intent of the plans and specifications. CES will also obtain an Army Corps of Engineers permit for a stream crossing and work within wetlands. Engineering Cost for the Evergreen Waterline Interconnect is $22,144.00. East Wonderview Interconnect An old 12 inch steel water main of approximately 2200 linear feet connects a new 12 inch DIP water main at the intersection of MacGregor Avenue and East Wonderview, with a new 12 inch DIP water main located at the northwest corner of the State Highway 34/36 intersection. The proposed improvement is the replacement of the existing 12 inch steel water main with a new 12 inch DIP water main. The portion of the new water main would be located in the state highway right-of-way requiring a State Highway Access Permit for construction. The remaining portion would be located on Town of Estes Park property or in Town right-of-way. A stream crossing of Black Canyon Creek will require a 404 Permit from the Army Corps Of Engineers. CES will survey, design, and prepare plans and specifications with contract documents for bidding, manage construction bidding for the project, and perform construction observation to insure contractor compliance with the intent of the plans and specifications. CES would also obtain a highway right-of-way permit for work in the highway right-of-way and an Army Corps of Engineers permit for a stream crossing and work within wetlands. Engineering Cost for the East Wonderview Waterline Interconnect is $18,692.00. Countrv Club Interconnect A four inch and two inch steel waterline of approximately 1300 linear feet is located along Country Club Drive between Highway 7 and the east intersection of Cedar Lane. The proposed 3-7 . Mr. Bill Linnane 2002 Waterline Interconnect Projects March 9,2002 Page 3 improvement is to replace the existing four inch and two inch waterline with a new 6 inch DIP water main. The new 6 inch water main will improve flow between the 12 inch water main in Highway 7 and the 6 inch water main at the intersection of Country Club Drive and Cedar Lane in addition to improving water service and fire flow along the new line. CES will research existing easements, negotiate any required new easements, survey, design, prepare plans and specifications with contract documents for bidding, manage construction bidding for the project, and preform construction observation to ensure contractor compliance with the intent of the plans and specifications. Engineering Cost for the Country Club Waterline Interconnect is $8,764.00. Summarv of Cost Fall River High Zone Study $ 6,380.00 Evergreen Waterline Interconnect $22,144.00 East Wonderview Waterline Interconnect $18,692.00 Country Club Waterline Interconnect $ 8,764.00 Allowance for Easements for Waterline* $ 4,000.00 Allowance for Easements for Water Tank* $ 3.000.00 Total Engineering Cost $62,980.00 *Allowance for easements will be based on the number and complexity of easements and will be billed at CES unit rates. Estimated construction cost for the new waterlines is approximately $413,600. Engineering cost for the waterline design ($49,600) is at approximately 12% of the estimated construction cost. Please see attached pages for a breakdown of costs associated with the above referred projects. If you have questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. il -2- 91/3 : /'' ( C A / Michael S. Todd, P.E. Principal 3-8 . Mr. Bill Linnane 2002 Waterline Interconnect Projects March 9,2002 Page 4 2002 WATER LINE INTERCONNECT PROJECTS FALL RIVER HIGH ZONE STUDY Personnel }Irs Rate/Hour Total Cost Design Principal 10 $ 90.00 $ 900 Project Manager 20 $ 70.00 $ 1,400 Project Engineer 30 $ 60.00 $ 1,800 Engineering Technician 10 $ 50.00 $ 500 AutoCadd Technician 10 $ 50.00 $ 500 Clerical 40 $ 32.00 $ 1.200 Subtotal $ 6,380 Easement Allowance* $ 3.000 Total $ 9,380 *Allowance for easements will be based on the number and complexity of easements and will be billed at CES unit rates. EVERGREEN WATERLINE INTERCONNECT Personnel Hrs Rate/Hour Total Cost Design Principal 16 $ 90.00 $ 1,440 Project Manager 30 $ 70.00 $ 2,100 Project Engineer 60 $ 60.00 $ 3,600 Engineering Technician 50 $ 50.00 $ 2,500 Surveyor 12 $ 55.00 $ 660 Survey Crew 16 $110.00 $ 1,760 AutoCadd Technician 60 $ 50.00 $ 3,000 Clerical 16 $ 32.00 $ 512 Total $15,572 Construction Observation Principal 6 $ 90.00 $ 540 Project Manager 12 $ 70.00 $ 840 Project Engineer 50 $ 60.00 $ 3,000 Engineering Technician 24 $ 50.00 $ 1,200 AutoCadd Technician 16 $ 50.00 $ 800 Clerical 6 $ 32.00 $ 192 Total $ 6,572 Total Evergreen Waterline Interconnect $22,144 3-9 Mr. Bill Linnane 2002 Waterline Interconnect Projects March 9,2002 Page 5 EAST WONDERVIEW WATERLINE INTERCONNECT Personnel Hrs Rate/Hour Total Cost Design Principal 12 $ 90.00 $ 1,080 Project Manager 24 $ 70.00 $ 1,680 Project Engineer 60 $ 60.00 $ 3,600 Engineering Technician 40 $ 50.00 $ 2,000 Surveyor 8 $ 55.00 $ 440 Survey Crew 8 $110.00 $ 880 AutoCadd Technician 60 $ 50.00 · $ 3,000 Clerical 12 $ 32.00 $ 384 Total $13,064 Construction Observation Principal 8 $ 90.00 $ 720 Project Manager 10 $ 70.00 $ 700 Project Engineer 48 $ 60.00 $ 2,880 Engineering Technician 12 $ 50.00 $ 600 AutoCadd Technician 12 $ 50.00 $ 600 Clerical 4 $ 32.00 $ 128 Total $ 5,628 Total East Wonderview Waterline Interconnect $18,692 3-10 Mr. Bill Linnane 2002 Waterline Interconnect Projects March 9,2002 Page 6 COUNTRY CLUB WATERLINE INTERCONNECT Personnel Hrs Rate/Hour Total Cost Design Principal 4 $ 90.00 $ 360 Project Manager 10 $ 70.00 $ 700 Project Engineer 28 $ 60.00 $ 1,680 Engineering Technician 16 $ 50.00 $ 800 Surveyor 4 $ 55.00 $ 220 Survey Crew 6 $110.00 $ 660 AutoCadd Technician 30 $ 50.00 $ 1,500 Clerical 8 $ 32.00 $ 256 Total $ 6,176 Construction Observation Principal 4 $ 90.00 $ 360 Project Manager 6 $ 70.00 $ 420 Project Engineer 18 $ 60.00 $ 1,080 Engineering Technician 8 $ 50.00 $ 400 AutoCadd Technician 4 $ 50.00 $ 200 Clerical 4 $ 32.00 $ 128 Total $ 2,588 Total Country Club Waterline Interconnect $ 8,764 3-11