The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Public Works Committee 2002-08-153 5 AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AUGUST 15, 2002 8:00 A. M. Preparation date: 8/9/02 *Revision date: 1. Fall River Trail - Willows Condo Assn. Trail Easement Association request to relocate proposed trail off their property 2. Water Dept. 2002 Loop project Request to award bid 3. Street Dept. 2002 Asphalt Overlay Project Request to award bid 4. Cardboard Recycling Request to proceed with pilot project 1. Misc. Note: The Public Works Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 7 -9 .A R 1 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: August 12, 2002 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane (1 /11:~ SUBJECT: Fall River Trail - Phase I - Willows Condos Trail Easement Background: Phase I of the Fall River Trail is proposed to extend from Performance Park west to the Bypass. (Please refer to the attached trail vicinity map). The trail is proposed to cross the Fall River Village Mobile Home Park property in a "yet to be obtained" trail easement and also extend along an existing trail easement adjacent to Fall River within the Willows Condos property as shown on the map. The Willows Condos owners adjacent to the trail easement, are requesting the Town relocate the trail off of their property and locate it to CDOT R.O.W. Relocation of the trail will require a pedestrian bridge to be built next to the state highway bridge since pedestrian traffic cannot safely cross the existing bridge. The additional cost to relocate the trail is estimated at $45,000 ($50,000 bridge cost minus $5,000 additional costs to place the bridge within the existing trail easement Staff has met with the concerned condo owners and has discussed: 1) Safety issues 2) Privacy issues (Background: Continued on page 2) Cosl/Budget NA Action: Unless the property owners absorb the relocation cost Staff recommends proceeding with the trail easement location. This recommendation is based on the legality of the trail easement being resolved by the Town Attorney. 1-1 , (Background: Continued front page 1) 3) River access issues 4) Security issues 5) Landscaping/vegetation removal 6) Miscellaneous It should be noted that the safety issue may require a split rail fence with four access openings on both sides of the trail and a center lane stripe, as well as other features such as signage. Possible bicycle use limits may be necessary if bicycle safety is a problem. Staff has suggested that the four (4) adjacent condo owners consider absorbing the additional $45,000 estimated cost of relocation. The legality of the trail easement is an issue and Greg White will attend the Public Works Committee meeting to address this. BL/mjs Attachments 1-2 f ~---L-3 1 L.-1 C,K I . 00 0 a Â¢=C 448 Â° 00 ES 0 0 0 'E J a. U.1 hE 0 -- ..%00 0 0 O 0 J Z JO j <rvo %0 ]C * -X 0 -* 0 2 /09 15 a 0% e Cl X 0 6- (D > U- aA 1 1-3 30NVABO=lbl)d >IhIVd f Â°r=d 193AA 044 Z 101 LOT 23A 133=109~= HONI L Â»_ Owners of Building E The Willows 300 Far View Dr. Estes Park, Colorado August 12, 2002 Town of Estes Park Public Works Committee Estes Park, Colorado Gentlemen; The four property owners of Building E, The Willows request that you add to your meeting agenda for your next scheduled meeting, Thursday, August 15, 2002 time to discuss the purposed Fall River Trail and its location next to our residences. There are a number of issues that need your immediate attention. Please notify Ronald Schacher at 577-1398 as to the time ofyour meeting and the time allowed for discussion. Thank you for your concern in this matter. Sincerely, '4,4 tio~~~f /F<747 9139 13=5Â»>1;:4*Â«, -.v .591 F70' Ronald SchacheA- Howard biohdson Thomas Morroni Ronald Hinkle j 1-4 m n 71-Al- 1 \ 0 LoT 9-3 A S ew.,9 ApLE 5 \ \\\i ~ A-PR-EL 1-1, 1-999, 1 1 \\ FORMER ' 1 6- PROPERTY LINE 11 11 n l. 1 X . 1 (2 KL-LE) lo s . -* 9-//-, -I *. 4 -1 EL_ CO.7, 0*Li,)1704 S C Eli G - i W o r- EASEMENT LOCAT I ON / TIE IS 2.5' NORTH i Z I ALONG EX I STING ~ 7 /1 PROPERTY LINE 1 to 900 l /1 / v.,f . 17 7 / FOUND PLASTIC CAP ON #5 ~ REBAR MNT. yALLEY LS 10~55 1 FORMER -n / +~ 1 PROPERTY \ z ~ 44 LINE J~\ 1 - RECREATIONAL / 4,0. \ \AlÂ» TRAIL EASEMENT 0 1 0 ly %*% 1 2- . v.tr.1 ,5 4 Â¥7 Â¥ 2 1 ---7, -- 6 SEWER EASEMENT / 1 - â‚¬ 4444*ArD e 'max 4# 09#449- -~-- . 094 - Â£4- r 4/4,1-1 y A 2911-% Z I # Jile; rn-4 Â° cÂ·, /1 2 Lf,412>44,1. i *'b' 0 ' 1 4Ok 1 n,- 79\/ 17.W ...,4 6& 4 FALL RIVER- - 63 7 loo-YR FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION -** 04<( 1 . 1 , IS AT THE EXISTING BANK OF ~ FALL RIVER , 1-5 IN 00'00'00.0-W V X ~2 1Vld '981 M.0'00.9Â£.ZO S) 593K .*1'991 M.00.Ze.20 S 1 m - li -2 t J j. V G- 4tW LU m #5 3-8 8 -1 (|., L'J 2> Cr $ - 10 LU - 11 11 A * 2 >S lin 0 - lf) Ld # 10 LD . IL 1 - Â· wo j > 4.74 0 r 300/4 te 4 -Z 2 ..1 4 0- 4 { Sy3,1 ) .1 ge A- 00. 2.go 9 4 ~ 72.0, r, .0 9 1 .0'00.9Â£.80 9) . Z 4 - LUJW in - OO 9. 1 4 K 5 4, g.d~ # '44'Idt[%Â¥227 /, St - 01#W C ./ .# mn 2 i -1 - . 0. 4 .0 -- jf 42#*t.&87 L...9,/ C r--3 .47. 84 1/li#'Zill Yl:12>14 06 - .........-F.- -.i D I,TE, 0 44: lili / ~ -958~-7~-D-t~'Â» ~ .r-' -~ - ,4 N. '/~A h.1 4. .f.. i.lir-0 - 1 .5,2 4==dbinÂ·Le. 4. - P , 1 0-Z 1 00<I 14, . , IJZW Ill- Z q 2 / / 0-ma: M;U 49 . lÂ·Â·4? Â©& % 1 t '&7 1 1 2' , . Ct"-Of -1 r #- 922 0 1 1,1 6 1,- E di1ted A -1 X 4 Ch , UWUJU. {61 Â¥7~ -/- * ' , / 2 I 1,1.,f.~ .la 2 .l 1/-A i' f , :Â·UY , i V 2 &75.3/3.1 -3...,1 - -1 .1 6 . $ Cfpvl ~ " 1 - 3 9Â« 6 -. r\Â· r-Â·Fâ‚¬* , ,' .~ 0 , v< bl w 2blot# ,Â· -I . .--,-.7 L --*z ..:.-.*.:dif >c Â· , ,.-~... . au B--- .2 13 4 - Â¢ 43. 4 21 $ 'Ivt' '. * ' . ./~ ' I. -1,Wk . 7 '7 31 - , 44, â‚¬V 6-6-â€žte H I , . *2~1511,92"- 0 - .li>,O/ 9. '94 %91'-O 069 4,~Â·%~6;7 p U ~ ' 0.6,4 CL 1 , 00 N ) n k .g'evt' 3.0'00.00.00 9 ' y ad. '. 11 - . Â»CL , .r-Â· x u-Â·) . *r -/ 1 10 N / .21 9 -L 3 0 9/ 2 4- 3 d *-9 40>, 2 ~ .* Â¢603/0 â€¢ - . h.000 Â· ;Ill RES U I CCEN' ,. . I Â£ a 025% 1.OU~) Ul M .- -CESS Z E- r.2,1 1> f N 1~- h 1 10'Ch. EE& >,9 GEN W-k- b- rÂ·- r- >>> EEZ 2 z 3 11 11 11 UJ-O $36 1*0 Cr-- dE& Z23Q 1-6 L D G, Pâ‚¬'r A IT 1 1 4 1 '31 *Al -4<227 4 114130 33S Ic> VVATER .- VE E..Sf Me N- Â« 1~, 31 lesgz. - Â· 7575' RIM ELEV = ~0~ 0~ RNI-IH31'004 - 1199 CORNE@TONE Estes Park, CO 80517 437 South St. Vrain (970) 586-2458 Fax (970) 586-2459 ENGINEERING & Mf 9 SURVEYING, INC. E-mail: ces@charter.net August 13, 2002 Mr. Bill Linnane Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Fall River Pedestrian Trail Dear Bill: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. has performed a cost analysis for two alternative alignments for the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the Willows Townhomes. The first alignment is contained within the existing trail easement north of Fall River. The second alignment crosses Fall River on the existing bridge and proceeds south of the river inthe Highway 34 right-of-way. The second alignment re-crosses Fall River on a new pedestrian bridge in the vicinity of the Highway 34 bridge. Costs for the two alignments are as follows: Alignment 1 - North of Fall River Description Ouantitv Unit Unit Cost Total Concrete Pedestrian Trail 2600 SF $ 4.00 $10,400 Bank Stabilization 200 LF $18.00 $ 3,600 Transplant Willows 1 LS $1,500 $ 1,500 Fencing 400 LF $ 5.00 $ 2,000 Guy Wire Relocation 1 LS $ 300 $ 300 Total $17,800 Alignment 2 - South of Fall River Description Ouantitv Unit Unit Cost Total Concrete Pedestrian Trail 3000 SF $ 4.00 $12,000 Pedestrian Bridge 600 SF $75.00 $45,000 Bridge Abutments 2 EA $4,500 $ 9.000 Total - $66,000 1-7 Mr. Bill Linnane Fall River Pedestrian Trail August 13, 2002 Page 2 The cost differential between the two alignments is approximately $48,000. If you have questions or need further information please contact me. Smetrely, /1 1 / Corny~~stoho~ilineering & Surveying, Inc. ttil Keri~ Prochaska, P.E. Principal 1-8 Lew 01519 of JOHN G. PHIPPS, RC. 266 PARK IANE FIRST NATIONAL BANKBLDG. BulTE 206 ESTES PARK COLORADO 80517 mLEPHONE. 970/886.2045 FAX: 970/580-.8398 MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 1589 Augu*t 1,2002 Greg White Attorney at Law Loveland, Colorado Dear Gng: I am writing to you on behalf of the Condominium Association lior The Willows Condominiums, As you may be aware. this condominium properly is located on West Elkhom Recently, mirveyors where on the property, on behalf of the Town, for the purpose of laying out a trail area, evidently to be pan of the "Fall River Trail". The goodominium unit owners WerÂ¢ shocloed, as they weoe not aware of this situation. 1 have reviewed the title documents, including the Condominium Map and the Subdivision Maps. The only place where I can find any reference to this trail is on a 1995 Amended Subdvision Plar involving this area in the subdivision. On that AmeAded Plat, there in reference to a recreation trail but only by an arrow pointing to an area. The dedication statement on that plat includes utilities but does not mention a trail. It is the position of the Condominium Assogiation that the Town does not have either an easement or any rights through a dedication. The Association has asked tile Town to place tbe walkway on the other dde of the river, ncar the street. It appears that tbis is where the walkway will be placed as it leads upto and leaves thisparticularproperty. However, the request hasbeendenied. 1-9 I need to discuss this with you before any additional work is accomplished on the trail on this property. Please advise. Tbank you. Very tntly, ~ /John G. Phipps c: The Willows Condominium Association 1-10 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: August 13, 2002 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane SUBJECT: Water Department 2002 Loop Project - Request to Bid Background: Bids were received for the 2002 Loop Projects and the locations are shown on the attached vicinity map. The following bids were received: CONTRACTOR BID SCHEDULE A BID SCHEDULE B BID SCHEDULE C COUNTRY CLUB WONDERVIEW BIG HORN DRIVE AVENUE DRIVE AISA Civil ** $119,240 $190,435 ** $259,696 BT Construction 148,000 258,720 289,826 DeFalco Lee 137,859.01 204,255.32 291,972.14 Weinland 146,403 223,712 N/A Ed Excavating 120,471 **184,010 292,158 ** Indicates apparent low bid (Background: Continued on page 2) Cost/Budget Budget $550,000 Cost $562,946 Action: Staff recommends awarding the bid to AISA Civil (Country Club Drive and Big Horn Drive) and Ed Excavating (Wonderview Avenue) for a total of $562,946, with the $12,946 excess funded from the postponed Marys Lake Raw Water Pump Project 2-1 (Background: Continued from page 1) PROJECT CONTRACTOR BID Bid Schedule A - Country Club Drive AISA Civil (Broomfield, CO) $119,240 Bid Schedfile B - Wonderview Avenue E-Z Excavating (Erie, CO) 184,010 Bid Schedule C - Big Horn Drive AISA Civil (Broomfield, CO) 259,696 Apparent Low Bids for Schedules A, B, C Total: $562,946 Construction will begin in September and be complete by October, weather permitting. BL/lb Attachment hr 2-2 TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: March 18, 2002 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Bill Linnane tyly 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 High 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 2-3 ' */4- G F.. 0 -6 - kpi ,â€¢C- 1 1 .1-,4 1 . - -111=411 .:. I .a . 1 h h A/7 L Wa=+41 -1 -1, 044 ..7' T,2. 'tf p'. 1. 4, Â¢ r i 7 , 30*~r . 0-- 4<--- it* r A-wa. ~.i . 4..1 t' :Â· Fy<ic= ' 1 - ;-- 21-3/ 3,02 l r. i /6 i -"-v Of ,M { %+Ac} ~:;-i * Â«' 112 , .1 .,: r ixi' , w=LE k.b .1 2 r- 10..17'. : ; 9% .9 4.1 6 â€¢ 9 C .1 1 I Â· wrÂ· Â·, . r r f l 1., /7 I D/*RF.ki '!Pwk ' ~1|I: ~ ~ ' .uk ' j 4 .4 r ' 'Ji Â· . . I W ' ep V Â£ I 3 1 4.9 : 9 Law #24 f '44 . 1...1 14 :1: . I I .=11 1 r , 1 7. Vi, 1 %12 1 '1 4: 4 /3 0 2 1. h d. 1 ~- - - 4 M '*IL 4,4:9 2 '44#fs.*.6,3,21. t 7 I .77 f h r . I -Â· /1- - . t ...=,pl - Al. 4.Â· 47 P $ , . ......r t . H . Â· ,â€¢r 5 P .1 .t' 2 e 1 F Â¥r .Â· 9 Q - . 2 : 1 2-4 qnri AUU[k 91..L,â‚¬:14 1 1, el. 1 Futuve Improtements M The existing $9.6* capital iniprovements have reduced Ilie Water Department cash 4 fund to the point where a $1.61\4 catastrophic fund can be maintained. In. addition, 2 B approximately $400,000/yr. can be spent on facilities and pipeline maintenance 0 without operating witli a negative cash flow. 1 1 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 pro tection li.nes Priority ill <500 GP]\4 fire protection lines Category 1 has been established as [lic #1 priority so that water line breaks that cause extremely long water service delays can be eliminated. These high maintenance lines also result in inadeq-uate 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 y danger of breaking, but experience low pressvile and inadequate domestic and fire protection sei-vice, can be eliminated. Category 3 contains only fire protection problems, therefore, it has been established 1 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 Witli associated projected Eyn MA-Â·râ‚¬D costs, categorized as previously explained. 1 5-7- A-w en cd 17 A-rE Priority #1: Extremely High Maintenance Lines LF +/- Amount Â·' C ovMPLer-â‚¬- Beaver Point to Ramshorn Village 1,900 $135,000 C 0.-1 fLCS Big Horn 8" 1,400 95,000 Co- pt.â‚¬715 Big Thompson 10" 3,300 230,000 Co -1 PUBrE- Chapin/Chiquita 2" 500 35,000 60-1~LE'le Chiquita 2" 800 52,000 Câ‚¬) MPLeTâ‚¬ Fall River Corridor Abandonment 4,000 305,000 2.001- MacGregor Ave. E./Wonderview 2,700 190,000 Clovt.~pLUTE MacGregor Ave. W./Wonderview 3,900 270,000 1 C.outpua-6 Stanley Circle 2" 500 35,000 Sublotal $1,347,000 Priority #2: Extremely Low Pressure Domestic Â· t ' Use and <500 GPM Fire Protection -2-00 2. Country Club 2" 1,200 $85,000 .d. 610*1 pLOre Devils Gulch East-Phase I 4,300 300.000 i Z ov I Devils Gulch West - Phase 11 2,100 150,000 2 0 01 Evergreen 4" 1,400 100,000 1003 Fall River Tank #2 (Master Plan) 4,300 300,000 6341pwa-E Hwy. 7 to Prospect Mountain Pump House 2,900 205,000 (20012 Lerts North Lane to Devils Gulch 1,200 80,000 -:~~4 2003 Panorama Circle 3,100 216,000 : ,+1~Le-rb Southern Interconnect 900 60,000 2 2006 Twin Drive 2" 600 40,000 :.p SubloN# $1,536,000 Fl. -*--SOL)-rtia.A 1/.\Tâ‚¬lcon,jecT 'pa-pj der Con_,AdUI-Efi) Lau.) FR.(Ft,luf.2 Â· ' 2-5 } ' -I I -. Priority #3: <500 GPM Fire Protection Feet Amount 1 VAATeD List Â·,-ltv Lr'62 9. .â‚¬- $120,000 Axminster Lane 2,000 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 A 50,000 lu,4- C,pernorrah Drive 800 Davis Hill 3,000 180,000 200 9 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 Zoos Hill Streets 5,000 300,000 Hondius Heights 5,500 335,000 70Â°57 Juniper Lane 1,000 60,000 Lone Pine Acres , 3,500 210,000 Narcissus Circle . 1,000 GO,000 100 6 Old Mocassin Drive 1,000 60,000 Old Ranger Road 900 55,000 zoot- Park View Lane 500 30,000 Pinewood Lane 1,500 90,000 20oy Spruce Drive 500 30,000 Sunny Acres 1,000 60,000 Tranquil Lane , 500 30,000 Upper Broadview 1,800 105,000 P 2004 Webb Collages 500 30,000 Willow Lane 1,900 60,000 Subtotal $3,060,000 co 4*Tul JED (ba._044 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. 7 0 04 0 5 -3 + MA.D...3 4 cot 7-b CAÂ·Â·-11-t<'IL~ <-- C l tÂ·J 2 c. 4 527>1106 10 06 -1-*J, A De-. ,/60,1 6 5 -D A. -1-11 i 6% 40 0 1 00 C PoAD etâ€¢ LA- A.JE 8 10 01 000 2-6 Estes Park, CO 80517 437 South St. Vrain (970) 586-2458 Fax (970) 586-2459 ENGINEERING & ,Â·Al SURVEYING, INC. E-mail: ces@charter.net tiky August 13, 2002 Mr. Bill Linnane Director of Public Works Town ofEstes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: 2002 Town of Estes Park Water Looping Projects Apparent Low Bidder - Bid Schedules A, B, C Dear Bill: Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (CES) held a Bid-Opening meeting for the above noted projects on Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 10:00 am at CES's office. The apparent low bidders for Bid Schedules A, B, and C are as follows: Contractor Bid Bid Schedule A - Country Club Drive AISA Civil, $119,240 Broomfield, Colorado Bid Schedule B - Wondeview Avenue E-Z Excavating, $184,010 Erie, Colorado Bid Schedule C - Big Horn Drive AISA Civil, $259.696 Broomfield, Colorado Total Bids for Schedules A, B, C $562,946 The bid tabulations for each apparent low bidder have not been verified. CES will verify the bid tabulations to confirm each bid's accuracy. CES will notify you once the bids have been verified. Please contact me if you have questions or need further information regarding the bid-opening for the 2002 Town ofEstes Park Water Looping Projects. Sincerely, Co*~rst~e~Engineering & Surveying, Inc. yll j Kerry Prochaska, P.E. Principal Attachment 2-7 2002 Town of Estes Park Water Looping Projects Bid-Opening August 13, 2002 Bid Schedule A Bid Schedule B Bid Schedule C Contractor Country Club Dr. Wonderview Ave. Big Horn Dr. AISA Civil $119,240* $190,435 $259,696* BT Construction $148,000 $258,720 $289,826 DeFalco Lee $137,859.01 $204,255.32 $291,972.14 Weinland $146,403 $223,712 ----------- E-Z Excavating $120,471 $184,010* $292,158 *Indicates Apparent Low Bid 2-8 Public Works Engineering Memo To: Public Works Committee From: Greg Sievers CC: Bill Linnane Date: August 15,2002 Re: 2002 Street Improvement Program Background: at the May 16, 2002 PWC meeting the Committee approved the bidding of the Overlay Project portion of the S.T.I.P. Staff received bids from 3 northern Colorado paving companies. The Bid Tabulation sheet is attached. In summary: 1. LaFarge $227,449.75 2. Coulson Excavation $211,500 3. Aggregate Industries $191,705 Budget The 2002 STIP budget is $300,000. Approved Expenditures to date: $81,129.57 (Chip Seal, Slurry Seal, Big Hom paving & striping) Budget Balance: $227,076.50 Recommendation: Staff is requesting to proceed with contracting Aggregate Industries for $191,705 to provide paving in various locations as per Attachment B and map. We further request to use the remaining $25,423.63 (or the total remaining balance) from the STIP Budget to apply to Item 4b (5/16/02) for the Rebuilding of East Riverside Drive. â€¢ Page 1 3-1 %3 Il (C,r - 66 - Z i .2 & N 2~35% 49 Z 6/ -1 \ 1 M ./ i Lir..;'. /1% *.79,8 2 .1 m i re:#f#:74 m .22, comn.*to j 1Â· 4 0 44Â»* s iii 4,11 , 9 N- & Its & 0'5Â· 2,# 1~ Â· 54LJ "-- Al I - -- 14.4.9*4612 h â€¢\ 4 40"1 h ZA ,#434 0 644,0 2 f j /i LL.â€¢m~+1 4.00, *Â¥'1' 1 4 < - uila tfi ~' / m./.- 1 -d b /7 1 ,&2\ 4? 0. 136 ' 1'1 Nt 3.7 â€¢2 -AN fil 1-4 4-n P. a , ..1 b y' 1 as Fott " 9 *3<qi 9:fip ' a \42, RÂ«r- U 't. 9. $.. p..7 ' N.>.....A // 4 1< d y i I t 'A (t /4 rim- i BE /1 , 1 103 4 V 0* A-7 P) M.It 2 6 Â«\7 / ,*:iti . 6- 5 TJA U 2,222 0~ -1-~ 0 5-,0 5. 8 h a .A* 1 4 f a g 16 $31- t 15 Il 8 44Â·. 1 L--- E-\,f. m#* ~ 5 z u,ns 1 e:.:ff//,43,2,4 Â°J %' .4. 5 0 */ 1 & a mt: / 1 0 3-2 2002 Over ay WadÂ·~*fe 0 0 OOP-0000 0 r.i e 000 0,/. 0.-.LO O ORREE R: 9 W' r- CO 0%000000000 e**52st[388:2 < 4- CD- CD â€ž WL' r- r- r- CN to Â» 31 - !~HOO..04Â·#34. W CNI (9 N N N CNI C\1 tO CNI R Eâ‚¬ O X 6 E O*OLD WOO~ LO Zl~E~Pgwt:~Ria &5 CON N O n o c) O 0 cD Â© CD CD r- 00 Colo CO 03 co 0 4 U) CO CD . L- W J co C 80 0-E (0 0 UnJO LL OO.E.J 2 5* 0 01 0= U.1 03 6 5* 5 4% 5, fl Oj44%- 23 2 m A %1%. O*91288*2 â‚¬ â‚¬ (DIII#co u)Im 2 4 m 66 5 2 -Â§ == --2,% /2/ a.: 0 0 = 8>Â¢5 2%&982* =2= C U>-ouo== 0 AO DC 0). *mir = ~2=22EE E 1- m = 11 m m m m - 11 C 0, & O 0 .C = * O g U 1 21 imezzcnecoo 2 0.-0000 r- c\1 00 4- Ir) co r- 00 c) 9 3-3 m Road (2" 3700 Ozt't' ozl,Z 08 L'ZZ Z696 L eSed 1001/Z L/8 SleARS 6039 Xq peJed@Jd STREET NAM E FROM TO PCI LE T NS LF Qt . er Dept. parking lot 57 50 2100 <175> QUARE Town of Estes Park 2002 Street Improvement Progra Schedule A--Proposed Overlay w (1401.1.dO kIBNAAO) 'eu!40ew xoq e Aq peAed eq lu pue l~ell.tal eoe, gino le eep â€žs t X ep!AA *9'9 6U!pu!.Ifi eA!0031 liells Pals!I sle erwise noted. leSpnq e41 e Ave. Ouelewl) 10 sao!OAU! eje.ledes ejeo!pu! Swal! TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: August 13, 2002 TO: Public Works Committee 1 +L EROM: Bill Linnane ( 3 1 2- SUBJECT: Cardboard Recycling Pilot Project Background: Last year's cardboard recycling project attempted by the Estes Park High School National Honor Society indicated that there is a high demand for this type of recycling in the valley. Therefore, the Town Board established the implementation of a cardboard recycling program as a Town Board Goal. A committee was formed to research and implement a type of cardboard recycling program. The committee decided to try a "pilot projecr during the fall of this year. The existing Recycling Center at the Transfer Station was chosen as the pilot project location. I have attached a copy of the committee minutes which help substantiate the decision-making process. The trial period would be October through December, 2002 and would consist of a cardboard roll-off next to the other recycling roll-offs at the Transfer Station. There would be no fee. Note: This is important since cardboard recycling is not a revenue generator. The hauling and miscellaneous costs are estimated at $3,000 per month and revenues are estimated at less than $1,000 per month. (Background: Continued on page 2.) Cost/Budget Budget $0 Cost Town - $0 Waste Management/Larimer County - as stated above Action: Staff recommends proceeding with the Cardboard Recycling Pilot Project 4-1 (Background: Continued from page D Waste Management will donate roll-offs and associated man-hours, and Larimer County will donate the costs associated with hauling the material to Fort Collins. Actual costs/revenues and citizen use, as well as the efficiency of the Transfer Station area operations will determine if the project is successful and if it should be extended into 2003 and future years. If it is, an automated compaction roll-off may need to be purchased or leased. BL/lb Attachment 4-2 TOWN BOARD GOALS 2002 - 2004 GOAL 6: IMPLEMENT CARDBOARD RECYCLING ACTION PLAN: 1. Review possible locations and decide on the first priority location for a cardboard recycle area. 2. Review the benefits of an automatic, unmanned compactor system versus a manned uncompacted dumpster system. 3. Set up a test pilot project using an uncompacted type of system. 4. Review the test pilot project results. 5. Review the feasibility of a permanent long term cardboard recycling program. 6. Possibly start up a permanent cardboard recycling program. 7. Review the community's existing recycling program. TIMELINE: April 1,2003 ACTION TEAM: Leader: Bill Linnane Members: Sue Doylen StephenGillette Betty Kilsdonk Bob Joseph 4-3