HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Public Safety Committee 2002-07-241 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AGENDA July 24,2002 4:00 P.M. POLICE DEPARTMENT Action 1. Scope of Services Traffic Study - Approval Requested 2. Restorative Justice - Approval Requested 3. LETA $.45 Charge For Telephone Exchange - Approval Requested 4. Surcharge - Approval Requested Reports 1. NIBRS 2nd Quarter 2002 Groups A & B, NIBRS 2nd Quarter Stolen and Recovered Property Reports 2. Department Promotions FIRE DEPARTMENT Action 1. Fire Truck Bids - Approval Requested Reports 1. None "NOTE: The Board ofTrustees (or Public Safety Committee) reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared."
't r x TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum July 16, 2002 TO: Public Safety Commitbee FROM: Bill Linnane ~1,3'~~0' Lowell Richardson SUBJECT: Estes Park School Campus Traffic Engineering Report - Scope of Services BACKGROUND: Chief Richardson was contacted by the Elementary School Principal requesting he attend a meeting with parents concerning traffic- related issues at the school in the morning and the afternoon. The parents stated concerns about the volume of traffic present and the safety concerns it creates for those elementary school children who walk to school. A request was made by the parents to investigate the feasibility of instituting a school guard crossing program. In the past the school district allowed Principal Waller to perform crossing guard duties; however a recent school administrative decision stopped that practice. Due to the above mentioned concern of the parents, the February 1998 Felsburg Holt and IJ11evig Estes Park School Traffic Report was presented at the June 2002 Public Safety Committee Meeting. All of the reporfs recommendations were implemented (minus the Brodie sidewalks). The Public Safety Committee requested an updated traffic report for the school campus area. The following items will be included: 1) Updated vehicle/pedestrian movements at all potential conflict areas; 2) Crossing guard evaluation atthe existing crosswalk at Brodie /Community Drive crossing; 3) Updating all school signs and using the new fluorescent yellow if applicable; 4) Pedestrian signage along Highway 7; 5) Traffic light study at Woodstock/Highway 7 (B & B Food Mart); 6) Sidewalk evaluation at Brodie and the Intermediate School;
/ 1 Signage study at Manford & Highway 7; 8) "Fines Doubled for Speeding" study on the school campus; 9) Evaluation of additional speed tables in the campus area; The report would be finalized in September or October to allow for an accurate pedestrian/vehicle count mention above. COST/BUDGET: Cost $7,500 Budget Not budgeted ACTION: Staff recommends approval to proceed with the report. BL/mjs
JUL u/ UL -LU' UU 1 r. I liu JUJ ICA uuu= lu 1 j I UJUUU-/0-0 1 • UC-' U.·t ~'FELSBURG ~HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering pachs to transportation solutions July 8,2002 Mr. Bill Linnane Public Works Director DRAFT Town of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Proposal for Traffic Engineering Services Estes Park School Campus Dear Mr. Linnane: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig is pleased to provide you with this proposal to revisit traffic issues in the ' vicinity of the Estes Park School Campus (the Campus). As you are aware, we completed the Estes Park School Traffic Review in February of 1998. As a result, we are very familiar with the Campus and with the interaction of vehicles and pedestrians during peak periods of school activity, Per your recent conversation with Rich Follmer, we understand that most of the recommendations of our prevjous study have been implemented. We hope that vehicle and pedestrian interaction has improved as a result. The objectives of the current proposal are to provide you with guidance on a few specific issues, while also recommending further safety improvements surrounding the Campus. Based on your conversation with Rich, we envision the following Scope of Work: 1. Record vehicle and pedestrian movements at twelve locations adjacent, or near, the Campus: • Community Drive/Manford Avenue (East intersection) , Inbound school bus access on Manford Avenue • Community Drive/Manford Avenue (West intersection) • Inbound school bus access on Community Drive • Parking/drop-off access on Community Drive , Community Drive/Graves Avenue intersection . Community Drive/Brodie Avenue • Parking/drop-off access on Brodie Avenue • SH 7/Manford Avenue intersection SH 7/Woodstock Drive intersection 303.721.1440 fax 303.721.0832 fhu@fhucng.com Greenwood Corporate Plaza 795 I E. Maptewood Ave. Sce. ZOO Greenwood Village, CO 80111
JUJ I Ll UOJL lu 1 -2 1 BJOODJU/ . I ..1-" I.-7 JUL C.12 UL 10•UU rn rnu .,, .. July 8,2002 Mr. Bill Linnane Pakle 2 SH 7/Graves Avenue intersection • SH 7/Community Drive intersection Vehicle and pedestrian movements will be recorded between 7:15am and 8:15am on a typical school weekday after school starts in September. There is one exception, however. Vehicle and pedestrian movements will be recorded for two-hour periods during the morning and evening travel peaks (see Scope of Work Item No. 3) at the SH 7/Woodstock Drive intersection. The Town will provide all of the personnel to record vehicle and pedestrian movements at these intersections. FHU will provide guidance on how to properly record these data and will be in Estes Park when data is recorded to oversee the activities. 2. We will record where pedestrians are walking along Brodie Avenue between Community Drive and the Intermediate School, i.e., within designated bike lanes or adjacent to the roadway. This information will be used to reevaluate the need for a sidewalk along the north side of Brodie Avenue in this area. 3. Vehicle and pedestrian movements will be recorded for two-hour periods during the AM and PM peak hours at the SH 7/Woodstock Drive intersection for use in evaluating traffic signalization warrants at this intersection. We will evaluate three traffic and pedestrian volume-based warrants: • Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 3, Peak Hour , Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume We will also evaluate Warrant 7, Crash Experience, if you can provide us with accident data at this intersection. We would need the accident information for a two or three-year period. 4. We will evaluate the need for a crossing guard at the Community Drive/Brodie Avenue intersection (for crossing Community Drive on the south side of the intersection). The evaluation will be based on an analysis of the number of available gaps in the vehicle traffic stream that are large enough to allow pedestrians to cross. The analysis will be based on recorded vehicle and pedestrian movements. 5. We will make recommendations for signing changes that will be focused on three primary issues: Meeting current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) signing guidelines for school crossings. Special emphasis will be placed on evaluating changes to upgrade existing signs to the new flourescent yellow-green standard. • Changes to school speed zone signs to include "Fines Doubled For Speeding" placards. , School crossing sign additions/modifications at the SH 7/Manford Avenue intersection.
. July 8, 2002 Mr. Bill Linnane Page 3 ./ t Sign changes/revjsions will be summarized graphically, comparing existing versus proposed sign locations and design. 6. . We understand that there has been a raised crosswalk constructed on the south side of the Community Drive/Graves Avenue intersection. We will research installation guidelines and will assist the Town in deciding whether or not raised crosswalks should be constructed at any other locations. 7. Prepare a report summarizing all of the data collected, observations made, evaluations, and project recommendations. We would propose to conduct these services on a time and materials basis. Under such an agreement, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig is compensated at hourly rates for all direct labor and other direct costs are also reimbursed. The following are our standard hourly billing rates: Principal 11 $140.00/Hour Principal I $125.00/Hour Associate $115.00/Hour Senior Engineer $100.00/Hour Engineer 111 $90.00/Hour Engineer 11 $80.00/Hour Engineer $70.00/Hour Senior Designer $85.00/Hour Designer II $65.00/Hour Designer 1 $60.00/Hour Administrative $55.00/Hour At these rates we have estimated the above scope of services could be completed for a budget of $7,500.00. This amount would be established as an upset limit beyond which no charges could be made without your prior approval. If the conditions of this proposal are acceptable to you, please sign below and return a copy for our files. We will plan on beginning the project in September of this year. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Accepted By Robert W. Felsburg, P.E., C.C.E. Principal Title Richard R. Follmer, P.E. Date Senior Transportation Engineer ** TOTAL PAGE.04 **
Estes Park Police Department Memo To: Chairman Steven Gillette and Public Safety Committee Board Members From: Lowell C. Richardson, Chief of Police CC: Town Administrator Richard Widmer Date: 7/23/2002 Re: Restorative Justice Background Over the past six months the Estes Park Police Department has partnered with the Estes Valley Community Service Coalition, Estes Valley Victim Advocates, Larimer County health and Human Services, Estes Valley Partners, and several other community groups to address juvenile crime and disorder issues. The purpose of this collaboration was to seek innovative effective methods to reduce and mitigate unwanted juvenile behavior within the community. A comprehensive assessment of Restorative Justice revealed an opportunity to create a more balanced approach at addressing these very issues. Current Colorado communities who apply this process of justice are; Loveland; Weld County; Boulder and Longmont. Restorative Justice includes victim, offender and community. The victim often the last to participate in the criminal justice system very often never receives the opportunity to face the offender and express the harm and emotion they experienced as a result of the crime committed against them. The offender often never faces the victim knowing the harm they caused by the crime they committed. The community who is responsible for both the victim and offender never participates in repairing the harm caused to the victim and reintegrating the offender back into the community. Restorative Justice is about balancing the approach to how justice is administered. It is a separate function in comparison to the criminal justice system yet can work collaboratively with the traditional system of justice. Based on the information revealed about Restorative Justice the community partners deemed it appropriate to pursue the possibility of implementing the program in our community. Community support has been overwhelming from both government organizations and service organizations. Presentations to the League of Women Voters and the Noon Rotary received positive comments, 1St National Bank of Estes Park donated funds and PaCK donated funds to fund a workshop for developing a strategy to implement Restorative Justice. The Police Department and the community partners have recently submitted to the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice a no match grant to fund the project for the first year. The Municipal Court has agreed to share office space; the police department has agreed to commit staff to the program, to provide use of office equipment, and other operating necessities. BudqeUCost 1
If funded by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice costs associated with the Resbrative Justice project are: 1. Monthly phone costs. 2. Internet access. 3. Office supplies. 4. Dedicate 15% of Police Chief's Administrative Assistant time to the program. Estimated costs are at $6,500.00 dependant on the success of the program additional costs to fund the program after the first year would be requested. Recommendation Staff recommends support of the Restorative Justice program. If we do not receive grant funding for the project staff recommends supporting this program through alternative means to include the possibili~ of funding the program in whole or in part. This is a worth while endeavor to reduce crime and disorder issues; it has a proven track record, and does benefit the entire community. • Page 2
Estes Park Police . Department Memo To: Chairman Steven Gillette and Public Safety Committee Board Members From: Lowell C. Richardson, Chief of Police CC: Town Administrator Richard Widmer Date: 7/23/2002 Re: LETA Surcharge Background The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority set the monthly access facility charge (911fee) for telephone exchange and wireless communication at $.45 a month per phone for the year 2003. A prepared resolution by the LETA board is presented for adoption by the Town Trustees at the next available board meeting. These fees fund all 911 expenses required to operate the communication center; computers; software; training of 911 dispatchers. BudgeUCost None Recommendation Since this is not an increase or decrease it is recommended to approve the presented service fee of $.45 a month. 1
. a Frey, Korb, Haggerty & Mickaels, P.C. Attorneys at Law John P. Frey 318 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 2283 July 10, 2002 ~ JUL 1 1 2002 1 |1 ?ECED¥-gim Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-2283 Telephone (970) 493-8622 1 ll Fax (970 493-1218 E-mail jfrey@fkhmlaw.com L- Ms. Vickie O'Connor, CMC Town Clerk Town of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Vickie: Re: Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Enclosed is a copy of a Resolution of Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority concerning action taken by the LETA Board on July 9, 2002, approving a telephone exchange access facility charge and a wireless communications access charge effective January 1, 2003, each at the rate of $.45 per month. We have taken the liberty of preparing the enclosed Resolution for adoption by the Town's Board of Trustees. Please review the Resolution and if you find it acceptable please place it before the Board of Trustees for adoption and provide us with a copy of the adopted resolution no later than September 9, 2002. Should you have any questions concerning the Resolution or any other matters involving the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority, you should feel free to contact our office or one of the Town's representatives on the LETA Board: Tim Gaines or Lowell Richardson. Very truly 3 ' 3, ~Ey~RE~GERTY & MICHAELS, P.C. ~bhn P. € ey ~00 Attorney for 4*ner Emergency Telephone Authority U jk enclosures cc Ms. Debbie Tellez, LETA Administrative Assistant Zini
. RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2003. WHEREAS, the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority was created pursuant to § 29-11-101, et seq., C.R.S., by an Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Implementation of an "E911" Emergency Telephone Service, dated November 14, 1990, between certain governmental entities located in Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid statutory authority and by resolution of the Town ofEstes Park on May 8, 1990, and Ordinance No. 4-98 properly adopted by the Board of Trustees on February 10, 1998, the Board of Trustees is authorized to raise, lower, or reestablish a telephone exchange access facility charge and a wireless communications access charge to be assessed telephone (wireline and wireless) service users in the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees deems that reestablishing the telephone exchange access facility charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month and the wireless communications access charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month is necessary and appropriate to adequately fund emergency telephone services in the Town of Estes Park; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Commencing on January 1, 2003, the telephone exchange access facility charge and the wireless communications access charge shall each be reestablished at forty-five cents ($.45) per month per exchange access facility or per wireless communications access. 2. Telephone service suppliers providing telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the telephone exchange access facility charge in accordance with § 29-11-101, et seq., C.R.S. 3. Wireless telephone service suppliers providing wireless telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the wireless communications access charge in accordance with § 29-11-100.5, et seq., C.R.S.
'. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of , 2002. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk
Estes Park Police -- 1 . Department Memo To: Chairman Steven Gillette and Public Safety Committee Board Members From: Lowell C. Richardson, Chief of Police CC: Town Administrator Richard Widmer Date: 7/23/2002 Re: Surcharge Fees Background The Estes Park Police Department initiates several levels of service for community members and visitors. These services vary depending on the time of year and the type of service requested. Typically services are provided through the general fund budget. The Municipal Court addresses convictions utilizing a fine and fee schedule that is imposed once a conviction is determined. These services require training of personnel, funding victim services, and purchase of equipment to adequately provide services for those in our community. A review of Colorado Statute by City Attorney White and Town Municipal requirements a community can set fees in addition to fines. In an effort to identify what other communities do to provide funding for Victim Services; Traffic Enforcement Equipment; Training and Education; and Youth Crime and Disorder issues the feasibility of implementing a surcharge system was explored. To determine if appropriate other Colorado communities researched revealed four Colorado communities affix a surcharge they are: 1. The City of Windsor a. Charges $7.00 per conviction to fund the Weld County Drug Task Force. 2. The City of Edgewater a. Charges 25% of every fine imposed for Victim Services, Warrant location, Training, and police equipment. 3. The City of Breckenridge a. Applies a surcharge for training and education. 4. Routt County a. Charges a $10.00 depositing revenues back into the general fund. The communities surveyed revealed they applied surcharge fees to convictions for traffic, criminal violations, and animal code violations. These communities surveyed are similar in size and service capabilities to our agency. 1
w Budget/Cost Administrative processing costs similar to costs incurred to process court fines and fees. Recommendation Based on information provided staff recommends affixing a $20.00 surcharge for all the following Municipal violations: 1. All moving traffic convictions. 2. All criminal convictions. 3. All animal control convictions. Further, staff recommends these fees are used for Estes Valley Victim Services, Training and Education of personnel, Community Policing Projects and purchasing traffic enforcement equipment. It is recommended distribution these funds equally distributed for each conviction. This places responsibility on the offender to fund a part of the costs associated with providing services for Estes Park community members through the police department. • Page 2
312 aiR 22 0 y gie gm£ 0%% g m & 88 888 (9.- P N O 0 --000 0 00 LO M O 0 0 0 »0001(NO-ON 0 0 -00-00 0 0 0 - - O 0 0 0 N Un (NO 00<D r- O - CD - O G) 10 CD N O (NOONOO O 0 O 00000 0 0 0 0 -0000000- O 0 000000 0 O 0 --000 0 00 10 (9 0 0 0 0 (NO-<Dr-00)4)0 04 0 ™000100 0 gig gig 0000 gg 000000000 00 000000 0 9§99 8§02809:00 0 0 000§00 0 0 0 00000 0 C) M 1- 09 O 0 N O-00™0-00 0 - "00-00 0 O 0 00000 0 a) (N 1 09 O 0 0 A--90)010-1 - r -009-00 0 O 0 00000 0 0000 000 )000-Or-00 0 0 000000 0 O 0 00000 0 C) Al 9 M O 0 CD 2--99°0-' e r -00-00 0 £ % izzic g 55%% mig Egg#MUgg :Bug O 0 00000 0 V - 5 0 - O 0 hool·-000- O 0 --0000 0 O 0 00000 0 W " . O 9- O 0 R.-00000,90'}OLD - . re-000 0 O 0 00000 0 0000 000 000000000 0 0 000000 0 O 0 00000 0 If) " 1 0 - O 0 :8.-00000"MOW) r 1 A - 0 0 0 0 t 0 00 !1! a O 2 1- 0 %8 62 2 220 d E @f e ZI luz 21 9 1 9 , F Z F LU f Ul 58 4 1- 0 !& 00> R m ,-co E emae 5 EW:ti:t;65 00/0 EL 1- ¤ am ul 0 minima 2%* 1 - 5 2 h m 0 000COLUOOI- 0 2 jo-&01-4.11.5 0 0 OU- Reported Unfounded Actual Cleared Clearance Rate Reported Unfounded Actual Cleared Clearance Rate Reported Unfounded Actual Cleared Clearance Rate 2002 2001 2000 2nd Qrtr NIBRS Crime Summary-Grp A 2002,2001,2000 & 133H1/A April - June PPING/ABDUCTION EX OFFENSE/OFFENSE GRAVATED ASSAULT 1 NDLING ONI 11 ne INOB=1 SSAULT ASSAULT OFFENSES E ASSAULT 31OIH3A hl01 HOMICIDE EXTORTION 31aNIMS/N313Hd 3S1V:I OFFENSE ROBBERY DATION an¥hl:1 3¥V=I13M %0 INBW31ZZESINE ANBOBVI bl3 H1O 11¥
2 0 0 32 0 #2 ' 4•hf 0 888 0 - 091-N 00 0 0 0 0 0 A u#oc, 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 000 00 0 0 0 0 0 ~ COM(N OCE) O O O O O g# #00 iggg ggi O N - u 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - E = 0 10 0000 000 - O 0 000 0000 0000 CN - 7§ E N O - O 10 0000 000 - a. N. N r <0 g 00# ggg, Cggg §§§ O (9 0 9- 0 0000 0000 O 9 O V O 0000 0000 0 0 000 0000 0000 O . O . O 0000 0000 -1 04 r- a: ac 00 Reported Unfounded Actual Cleared Clearance Rate Reported Unfounded Actual Cleared Clearance a 2001 2000 WEAPON VIOLATIONS 100% 2nd Qrtr NIBRS Crime Summary-Grp A 000 DESTRUCTION/VANDALISM 13% DRUG/NARCOTIC O .NSE 1 1 STOLEN PROPERTY UG/NARCOTIC V UG/EQUIPMENT VIOL SEX OFFENSES STA~) RY RAPE PORNOGRAPHY/OBSCENE GAMBLING OFFENSE PROSTITUTION OFFENSES BRIBERY
4 .£, e 2nd Quarter NIBRS Crime Summary Group B April-June 2002, 2001, 2000 OFFENSE CHARGED 2002 2001 2000 90A - BAD CHECKS 10 0 90B - CURFEW/LOITERING/VAGRANCY VIOLS 00 0 90C - DISORDERLY CONDUCT 40 3 90D - DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE 13 10 6 90E-DRUNKENNESS 13 0 90F - FAMILY OFFENSES, NONVIOLENT 001 90G - LIQUOR LAW VIOLATIONS 15 27 8 90H - PEEPING TOM 001 901 - RUNAWAY 62 0 90J - TRESPASS OF REAL PROPERTY 30 1 90Z - ALL OTHER OFFENSES 9 10 6
STOLEN RECOVERED PROPERTY · 2nd QUARTER APRIL -JUNE 2002 STOLEN RECOVERED PROPERTY TYPE CURRENCY/NOTES $10,469 $0 MONEY $10,469 $0 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS $ $0 $0 JEWELRY/METALS $8 $8 CLOTHING/FURS $1,068 $0 LOCALLY STOLEN MOTOR VEHICLES $21,437 $21,437 AUTOS $21,437 $21,437 BUSES $ $ OTHER VEHICLES $ $ RECREATIONAL VEHICLES $ $ TRUCKS $ $ OFFICE EQUIPMENT $3,300 $0 COMPUTERS $3,300 $0 OFFICE EQUIPMENT $ $ TV/RADIO/STEREO $1,082 $224 RADIO/TV/VCR $242 $0 RECORDINGS $840 $224 FIREARMS $ S HOUSEHOLD GOODS $1,645 $50 CONSUMABLE GOODS $133 $8 ALCOHOL $45 $0 CONSUMABLE GOODS $88 $8 DRUGS/NARCOTICS $ $ LIVESTOCK $ $ MISCELLANEOUS $7,626 $209 AIRCRAFT $ $ BICYCLES $520 $0 CREDIT/DEBIT CARDS $ $ DRUG EQUIPMENT $ $ FARM EQUIPMENT $ $ GAMBLING EQUIPMENT $ $ CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT $ $ MERCHANDISE $1,665 $169 NON-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS $ $ PURSEANALLETS $0 $0 TOOLS $2,015 $0 VEHICLE PARTS/ACCESSORY $ $ WATERCRAFT $ $ OTHER $3,426 $40 GRAND TOTAL $46,768 $21,936
,. , TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter Office Memorandum July 18,2002 To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Public Safety Committee From: Scott Dorman, Dave Mahany Subject: 2002 Fire Rescue Truck Purchase Background: Bids were received for a new Fire Department Rescue Apparatus, exceptions were taken to the specifications by some of the body vendors in the areas o f frame and body construction, compartment configuration and electrical therefore not meeting specifications, these exceptions are considered critical to the longevity ofthis Fire Rescue Apparatus. Budget / Costs: AMERICAN LAFRANCE: $262,327.00 = Truck w/one light tower $ 15,240.00 = Optional 2nd light tower ( $277,567.00 = Bid price if optional light tower were chosen) SVITRUCKS: DOES NOT MEET BID SPECIFICATION $252,228.00 = Truck w/one light tower $ 10,592.00 =Optional 2nd light tower ( $262,820.00 = Bid price if optional light tower were chosen ) FRONT RANGE FIRE: DOES NOT MEET BID SPECIFICATIONS $254,153.00 = truck w/one light tower $ 15,351.00 = Optional 2nd light tower ( $269,504.00 = Bid price if optional light tower were chosen) HACKNEY EMERGENCY VEHICLES: No Response The 2002 Fire Department budget includes $225,000.00 for rescue truck. ($125,000.00 Town and $100,000.00 from Fire Department) Costs : $262,327.00 (American LaFrance) Budget: $225,000.00 Recommendation: Due to the framing and body exceptions taken and specifications not being meet by SVI Trucks and Front Range Fire, Staff recommends approval of the bids from American Lafrance and requests approval to purchase a new Fire Rescue Apparatus from American Lafrance for a cost of $262,327.00 w/single light tower at this time, possibly adding a second light tower in future years.