Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board Study Session 2015-05-12
Tuesday, May 12, 2015 TOWN BOARD 4:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION Rooms 202/203 4:30 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions. 4:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 4:50 p.m. Dry Gulch Road Reconstruction Issues. (Engineer Ash) 5:20 p.m. Dinner Served. 5:30 p.m. Update on Economic Development Council (EDC) Broadband Project. (Diane Kruse – Neo Fiber) 6:10 p.m. Discuss the Process of Joining the Regional Transportation District (RTD). (Administrator Lancaster & Attorney White) 6:30 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting. “Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m.” AGENDA May 26, 2015 Update on Vacation Rental Home Project & Objectives (Requested by Administrator Lancaster) FEMA Community Rating System (Request for Approval to Engage Public in Discussions About Joining CRS Program) Truancy Ordinance (Requested by School District and Chief Kufled) June 9, 2015 Update on Economic Development Strategic Planning Process from Avalanche Consulting Items Approved – Unscheduled: (Items are not in order of priority) International Property Maintenance Code (Dangerous Buildings Code) and Adoption of New International Building Code Draft Reviews Town of Estes Park Financial Policies Wildlife Ordinance – Follow Up Future Expansion of the Conference Center Local Preference Purchasing Policy Briefing on Storm Drainage and Flood Management Issues and Management Options Discussion of How to Better Involve and Reach Out to the Hispanic Members of the Community Study Session Items for Board Consideration: Discussion of Noise Ordinance Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items May 12, 2015 ENGINEERING Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: May 12, 2015 RE: Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Options Background: In June of 2012, Public Works staff presented to the Town Board at a Study Session the Town of Estes Park Roadway Pavement Conditions Index. That presentation delivered a message that the Town’s roadway asset was deteriorating at a rate that would put a majority of the Town’s roads in the Poor category in 10 years. The $435,000 annually funded to the STIP would not be sufficient to stay ahead of the deterioration that leads to major reconstruction instead of a moderate asphalt overlay. Recommendations from that presentation included a 5-year Capital plan that showed how a $1Million dollar annual program could improve the roadway system. That plan recommended that Dry Gulch Road would be the first capital roadway project. That first project was going to take 2-3 years of $435k savings to be able to fund – with no money being available to fund other road projects in that timeframe. That presentation was a catalyst for asking the voters to approve a sales tax increase to fund expanded street maintenance efforts. Public Works evaluated the entire Town roadway system in preparation for that presentation. Consultants were hired and several conceptual designs and cost estimates were created to prioritize the location and timing of future roadway improvements. See the attached Estes Park Road Conditions Overview. Trustee direction for the Dry Gulch roadway repairs at that time included repair of the roadway surface, improvements to the impeded drainage, and creation of a pedestrian walkway on one side (per Town code). All the conceptual costs included curb and gutter, drainage culverts/inlets, and a sidewalk consistent with Town code for the location of the roadway. Multi-Modal Transportation: In the past 2 years, there has been a community-wide push to include bike lanes and multi-modal forms of transportation on the Town roadway system. This will create a noticeable modification to the design/construction process. Bike lanes of 5’ going in each travel direction create an additional 10’ of project width. This means 10 more feet of road base and asphalt, potentially increased utility relocations, and sometimes an increase in additional ROW acquisition to accommodate the wider roadway. These items typically increase the cost and time required to launch roadway improvement projects. Dry Gulch Conceptual Designs: In 2011, the Dry Gulch Roadway Capital Project was estimated at $1.67 million with the following: • Curb and Gutter both sides for the entire one mile length • An 8’ concrete sidewalk along the east side • Drainage improvements • Utility relocation was assumed Since the 2011 estimate was done, the following additions have come to the forefront and been evaluated: • Bike Lanes • Right-of-way acquisition is not reasonably available to accommodate the wider road • Retaining walls are needed to keep the wider roadway section within the existing right-of-way • Realignment of the intersection at US34 to create a safer access • Recreational trail crossing under US 34 east of the intersection • An attached 5’ pedestrian walk on the east side Per direction from the Public Works Department, Farnsworth created preliminary construction plans that incorporated rehabilitation of the roadway, added 2-5’ bike lanes, added a 5’ sidewalk to the east side, re-aligned the HWY 34 connection, modified the parking configuration at Sombrero, and developed a trail design to safely cross under US 34 and connect to the Estes Lake Trail. The following chart contains a summary of the Options and their costs. 2011 Estimate Road+Walk Opt 1 Road+Walk +Bike Opt 2 Road+Walk Opt 3 Road+Bike Opt 4 Road Only Road Const. $1.37Mil $3.23Mil $2.53Mil $2.58Mil $1.26Mil Hwy34 realign $0 $196k $196k $196k $196k Trail extension $0 $115k $115k $115k $115k Design/CM $300k $192k $192k $192k $192k Total $1.67Mil $3.73Mil $3.03Mil $3.08Mil $1.76Mil As indicated in the summary table, the original estimate done in 2011 is most clearly matched financially by the Road Only Option 4. Option 1 includes 2 bike lanes and an attached 5’ wide sidewalk. This cost is 2.2 times more than the original budget. Additional materials did add to the cost increase, but the primary cost increase with this option is the retaining walls required to support the additional 15’ of transportation surface for 2 bike lanes and a walk within the existing right-of-way ($1.15 Million). In addition, $470,200 in handrail cost is required to provide a safe walkway for this Option. Public Works was not able to negotiate an easement with the property owner to the east, so to keep this cross-section of roadway entirely within Town right-of-way means we have to put a wall on the east edge and not slope the ground into the adjacent property. Option 2 includes the road improvements with an 8’ walk. This option is most comparable to the 2011 scope that set the budget for the Dry Gulch project. The variables that have escalated the cost are again the retaining walls and the handrail. This option does fit within current funding availability. Option 3 consists of the road improvements and two 5’ bike lanes that could be shared by pedestrians and cyclists. This option is 2 times the budget, but does provide multi- modal options. Option 4 includes the road improvements only. The estimated construction cost for this option is $1.26 Million. This option most closely matches the original 2011 budget. There are no additional costs for retaining wall or handrail. This option does not address any alternative transportation methods. Current Funding: $3,392,620 is the current funding available for Street and Trail projects as shown in the attached Funds Available Summary. It includes $1,206,528 from Community Reserve Funds, $1,757,616 from sales tax issue 1A Street Improvement Funds, and $428,476 from the sales tax issue 1A Trail Expansion Funds. Options 2, 3, and 4 could be built with these available funds. Option 1 has a shortfall of $333,714. This could be funded with 2016 sales tax dollars from the 1A Street Improvement Fund some or all of the project is delayed one year. Staff Direction: Staff requests direction from the Board on how to proceed. We have evaluated options that will increase the original budget/scope estimated in 2011. We have evaluated other multi-modal alternatives that have strong public and Transportation Advisory Board support, but raise the cost of this project. Staff would like to know if the Board prefers to spend a greater portion of the 1A money on a multi-modal roadway for these alternative considerations. Also, moving forward, is it the goal of the Board to consider these alternatives on future projects? Attachments: 1. Estes Park Road Conditions Overview 2. 2011 Cost Estimate 3. Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Budget Summary 4. Option 1 Road + Walk + Bike Lane Exhibit 5. Option 2 Road + Sidewalk (east side) Exhibit 6. Option 3 Road + Bike Lanes Exhibit MAY 2015 ESTES PARK TOWN BOARD WORK SESSIONREVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR DRY GULCH ROADMay 12, 20151 2 3In January 2015, Farnsworth Group was retained by the Town of Estes Park to prepare Construction Documents for the Dry Gulch Road Improvement Project.According to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the Town’s plan was to widen the existing road. The existing roadway only contains two – 12-foot wide travel lanes. The asphalt is cracking and exhibiting distress in a large portion of the project area.The RFP described a final road cross-section that contained curb and gutter on each side, two – 7-foot wide bike lanes, two – 12-foot travel lanes, and an eight foot trail/sidewalk that would be attached in areas, but also detached in others. In the RFP, it was described that this cross-section would require installation of public infrastructure that is outside the existing Town Right-Of-Way (ROW). Due to the steep topography and developed areas to the west, it was assumed that property to the east would be acquired to be able to construct the desired cross-section, as shown in the image below. 4However, once the project began, Farnsworth Group requested permission from the property owner to the east of Dry Gulch Road to begin survey and environmental studies. The property owner politely declined any access to his property. Therefore, Farnsworth Group and the Town began investigating how we could accomplish obtaining the cross-section requested in the RFP. Farnsworth Group and the Town agreed on using the existing ROW to its fullest, changing the detached eight-foot trail to a five-foot attached sidewalk and including the two-foot curb and gutter with the bike lane to achieve a total of seven-foot. In some locations along the project area, this required the use of retaining walls to ensure that the property to the east was not included in the final project. This resulted in the use of retaining walls on both sides of the road in some places, only on one side of the road in others, and no retaining walls in the remaining. Farnsworth Group and the Town prepared a preliminary construction cost estimate, which was much higher than the planned construction budget for the project. Therefore, the Town requested Farnsworth Group to prepare alternatives that may allow some of the planned improvements to Dry Gulch Road, but be within the allotted budget. 1. Option No. 1 is road + walk + bike.2. Option No. 2 is road + walk.3. Option No. 3 is road + bike.4. Option No. 4 is rehabilitating the existing road, and adding curb and gutter.The following slides will show the option in more detail. 5OPTION NO. 1: Full Cross-Section (Road + Walk + Bike)As described on the previous slide this cross-section includes the following:• Two – 2-foot curb and gutters• Two – 7-foot bike lanes (inclusive of gutter)• Two – 12-foot travel lanes, and• One – attached five-foot (5’) concrete sidewalkThis cross-section requires the largest amount of retaining wall and the typical cross-sections are as shown on the following slides: 6OPTION NO. 1: Full Cross-Sections (Road + Walk + Bike)WITH RETAINING WALLS ON BOTH WEST AND EAST SIDEWITH RETAINING WALL ON EAST SIDE ONLY 7OPTION NO. 1: Full Cross-Section (Road + Walk + Bike)WITH RETAINING WALL ON WEST SIDE ONLYWITH NO RETAINING WALLS 8OPTION NO. 2: Road + Walk As described on the previous slide this cross-section includes the following:• Two – 2-foot curb and gutters• Two – 12-foot travel lanes, and• One – 5-foot attached sidewalkThis cross-section requires the third largest amount of retaining wall and the typical cross-sections are as shown on the following slides: 9OPTION NO. 2: Road + WalkWITH RETAINING WALLS ON BOTH WEST AND EAST SIDEWITH RETAINING WALL ON EAST SIDE ONLY 10OPTION NO. 2: Road + WalkWITH RETAINING WALL ON WEST SIDE ONLYWITH NO RETAINING WALLS 11OPTION NO. 3: Road + BikeAs described on the previous slide this cross-section includes the following:• Two – 2-foot curb and gutters• Two – 7-foot bike lanes (inclusive of gutter), and• Two – 12-foot travel lanesThis cross-section requires the second largest amount of retaining wall and the typical cross-sections are as shown on the following slides: 12OPTION NO. 3: Road + BikeWITH RETAINING WALLS ON BOTH WEST AND EAST SIDEWITH RETAINING WALL ON EAST SIDE ONLY 13OPTION NO. 3: Road + BikeWITH RETAINING WALL ON WEST SIDE ONLYWITH NO RETAINING WALLS 14ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTOption Estimated Cost*1) Road + Walk + Bike $3,730,0002) Road + Walk $3,030,0003) Road + Bike $3,080,0004) Road Only $1,760,000*Project costs include an estimated $315,900.00 for Highway 34 turn lane, Sombrero Ranch parking lot, and 8’ trail along Highway 34. This cost is consistent, no matter which Option is selected. 15ATTACHMENTS TO POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONAOPTION 1 PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS WITH AERIAL PHOTO BACKGROUNDBHIGHWAY 34 INTERSECTION WITH AERIAL PHOTO BACKGROUNDCTRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE WITH AERIAL PHOTO BACKGROUNDDSANITARY SEWER RE-CONSTRUCTION FOR TRAIL WITH AERIAL PHOTO BACKGROUNDATTACHMENTS Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFM, Public Works Director Kevin Ash, PE, Public Works Civil Engineer 406080100Pavement ConditionESTES PARK PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEXPavement CurveEstes Park System Average (69)FAIRGOODVERYGOOD$5 Square FootMajor Overlay$3 Square FootMinor Overlay2012 PCI Average ‐6902040608010013579111315171921Pavement ConditionAge of Pavement (years)ESTES PARK PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEXPavement CurveEstes Park System Average (69)POORFAIRGOODVERYGOOD$19 Square FootReconstruction$5 Square FootMajor Overlay$3 Square FootMinor OverlayFAILED2012 PCI Average ‐69 ROADWAY STREETFROM STREETTO LENGTH WIDTH PCI_2013 PCI_2014 PCI_2015 PCI_2016 PCI_2017 PCI_2018 IMPYEAR IMPTYPEDRYGULCHRD SH34 CL 5280 26 35 100 98 96 94 92 2014 RECONSTRUCT2014TOTALFOURTHST SH7 SH36 1281 40 55 45 100 98 96 94 2015 RECONSTRUCTSTANLEYCIRCLEDR STANLEYAV STANLEYAV 4599 22 60 50 100 98 96 94 2015 OVERLAY2015TOTALAXMINSTERLN PEAKVIEWDR SUNNYMEADLN 1137 20 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYAXMINSTERLN SUNNYMEADLN PINEKNOLLLN 858 22 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYELKHOLLOWCT LEXINGTONLN CDS 386 20 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYELKMEADOWCT LEXINGTONLN CDS 235 24 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYELKRIDGECT LEXINGTONLN CDS 285 24 95 93 90 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYLEXINGTONLN SH7 CONCORD 1590 22 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYLEXINGTONLN CONCORD LEXINGTONLN 2150 22 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYPINEKNOLLDR LEXINGTONLN TALLPINES 1608 22 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYPINEKNOLLDR TALLPINESDR SH8 1527 22 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYPINEKNOLLLN TALLPINESDR PINEKNOLLDR 179 24 70 60 50 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYSHADYLN BGN SH7 571 20 55 45 35 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYSUNNYMEADLN PEAKVIEWDR AXMINLN 1373 20 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAYVILLAGEGREENLN LEXINGTONLN LEXINGTONLN 1013 22 60 50 40 100 98 96 2016 OVERLAY2016TOTALCOURTNEYLN BGN DAVISST 1501 10 70 60 50 40 100 98 2017 OVERLAYDAVISST BGN DAVISST 277 22 50 40 30 20 100 98 2017 OVERLAYDAVISST DAVISST SH36 310 20 70 60 50 40 100 98 2017 OVERLAYDAVISST DAVISST COURTNEYLN 1301 22 50 40 30 20 100 98 2017 OVERLAYFALLRIVERLN OLDRANGERDR Newroadextension 1713 24 50 40 30 20 100 98 2017 OVERLAYFALLRIVERLN NewRoadX1997 ELKHORN 810 24 80 78 76 74 100 98 2017 OVERLAYHIGHDR CL SH36 929 24 70 60 50 40 100 98 2017 OVERLAYLOTTST DAVISST COURTLN 578 22 70 60 50 40 100 98 2017 OVERLAYOLDMANMOUNTAINLN OLDRANGERDR FALLRIVERLN 1206 18 45 35 25 20 100 98 2017 OVERLAYOLDRANGERDR BGN STR 1449 22 60 50 40 30 100 98 2017 OVERLAYOLDRANGERDR STR SH34 866 22 65 55 45 35 100 98 2017 OVERLAY2017TOTALCEDARLN COUNTRYCLUBDR COUNTRYCLUBDR 1758 24 40 30 20 18 16 100 2018 OVERLAYCOUNTRYCLUBDR SH7 WILLOWLN 290 28 40 30 20 18 16 100 2018 OVERLAYCOUNTRYCLUBDR WILLOWLN FISHCREEKRD 2041 24 40 30 20 18 16 100 2018 OVERLAYCREEKSIDECT COUNTRYCLUBDR CDS 545 24 40 30 20 18 16 100 2018 OVERLAYSCOTTAV SH7 FISHCREEKRD 2534 24 60 50 40 30 20 100 2018 OVERLAYTRANQUILLN SH7 VAILCT 872 20 60 50 40 30 20 100 2018 RECONSTRUCTTRANQUILLN VAILCT CDS 404 20 60 50 40 30 20 100 2018 RECONSTRUCTVAILCT TRANQUILLN END 106 20 60 50 40 30 20 100 2018 RECONSTRUCTWILLOWLN COUNTRYCLUBDR COUNTRYCLUBDR 1579 24 40 30 20 18 16 100 2018 OVERLAY2018TOTALESTESPARKROADWAYIMPROVEMENTPROJECTS20132018 FISH CREE K R D HIGH DR S SAINT VRAIN AVEHIGHWAY 66MARYS LAKE RDMORAINE AVEF A L L RIVER RD HIGHWAY 36 ELM RDGEM LAKE TRLCARRIAGE DRBIG THOMPSON AVE W ELKHORN AVE TUNNEL RDN SAINT VRAIN AVE C LIFF RD PEAK V I E W DRDRY GULCH RDRIV ERSIDE DRW WONDERVIEW AVE CUR R Y LN GREY FOX DRCL A RA DR WINDCLIF F D R ROCKRIDGE RDEAST LNMACGREGOR LNKIO W A T R L U TE LN BIG H ORN DRWIN D RIVER T R L UPPER HIGH DR WEST LNWINDHA M D R MANFORD AVE SC O T T A VE GRI F F IT H C T MA C G R E G OR AVEW PEAK VIEW DREAGLE CLIFF RD J U NI P E R DREA GL E C L I FF DRMILLS DR U P P E R B R O A D V I EW DAVID DR LONG VIEW DRSTANLEY AVE ELK TRAIL CTLARKSPUR AVEJA C O B R D LITTLE V A LLE Y R D4TH STL O W E R BROADVIE W BRODIE AVECHAPIN LNHI LL RDBIRCH AVEHIGHW A Y 7K E R R R D CRAGS DR JOHNSEN LN KIOW A DR WIL DWOOD DRB R OOK DR NORTH LND A V IS S T TWI N DRSTRONG AVELA KESH O RE DRROCKW O O D L N RAMSHO R N D R GRAVES AVE P I N E L N LAKEFRONT STWILDFIRE RD O L D R AN G E R DRUNNAME DAXMINISTER LNS TEA M E R D R F A LL RIVER DRO TIS LN SUNDANC E C IRSTONEGATE DR TERRACE LNRAVE N CIR INDIAN TRL H O M E S T E A D L N WILLOW L N HEINZ PKWY FIR AVESUMMIT DRN O BLE LN B L UEBIRD LN PTARM I G A N TRL C H A S M D R MAL L RD DUNRAVEN LNUPLANDS CI R L LOYD LN GIANT T R A C K RD S PAWNEE DR STANLEY C IRCLE DRPOWELLY L N P I O N E E R L N TYRO L ERNE LN S A D D LEBA C K L NASPEN BROOK DRLEX I N G TON LN CEDARCLIFF DR BAKER DRHONDI US LNLIT TL E P ROS P E C T R D M U M M Y L N Poor Fair Good Very Good Town Boundary 2013 Estes Park Road Conditions Based on Current Budget Town of Estes Park Public Works Department ³0 0.50.25 Miles All information provided is as 'best known' and is not guaranteedNAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetTHIS MAP IS NOT FOR LEGAL CONVEYANCEMap prepared by Town of Estes Park GIS_ Services_SB Reproduction only with Town of Estes Park Approval.Created: June 26th, 2012 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation Budget Summary ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION Budget Amount Actual Amount Over/Under Amount Over/Inder % Street Improvement Program Revenue 1 CRF 2012 Carry Forward $336,528 2 CRF 2014 Carry Forward $435,000 3 CRF 2015 Budgeted $435,000 Subtotal Community Reinvestment Funds $1,206,528 4 Sales Tax 1A STIP 2014 Carry Forward $795,420 5 Sales Tax 1A STIP 2015 Budgeted $1,261,260 Subtotal Street Improvement Program Funds $2,056,680 6 Sales Tax 1A Trail Expansion Fund 2015 Budgeted $428,476 Total STIP Revenue $3,691,684 Street Improvement Program Expenses Personnel Salaries & Benefits (Pvmt Mgr + Eq Oper)$147,024 Annualized Cost Spray Patcher $47,040 Pavement Mgmt Software & Data Collection $75,000 Aggregate & Emulsion for Spray Patcher $30,000 Total STIP Expenses $299,064 Funds Available for Street & Trail Improvements $3,392,620 Dry Gulch Project Budget ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION Budget Amount Actual Amount Over/Under Amount Over/Inder % Option 1 Road+Walk+Bike Option 2 Road+Walk Option 3 Road+Bike Option 4 Road only Design Engineering (Farnsworth)$129,316 Bidding & Record Drawing Support (Farnsworth)$8,168 Optional Flood Plain Modeling & Environmental Assess.$34,998 Construction Management (by Town)$0 Construction Material Testing (consultant tbd)$20,000 Subtotal Engineering $192,482 $192,482 $192,482 $192,482 $192,482 Utility Relocation (by Town ahead of construction) Right-of-Way Easement (Permanent) Easement (Temporary Construction) Right-of-Way/Easement Acquisition Services Subtotal Utilities & Easements $0 Construction (Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation)$3,226,881.21 $2,531,464.53 $2,576,794.03 $1,259,559.53 Construction (Intersection Realignment)$191,910.60 $195,797.80 $195,797.80 $195,797.80 Construction (Trail Extension Under US 34 to Lake Trail)$115,060.40 $115,060.40 $115,060.40 $115,060.40 Subtotal Construction $0 $3,533,852 $2,842,323 $2,887,652 $1,570,418 Total Project Cost $192,482 $3,726,334 $3,034,805 $3,080,134 $1,762,900 CRF Funds Required $1,206,528 $1,206,528 $1,206,528 $1,206,528 STIP & TE Funds Required $2,519,806 $1,828,277 $1,873,606 $556,372 STIP & TE Surplus/(shortfall)($333,714)$357,815 $312,486 $1,629,720 check $306,971.00 $310,858.20 $310,858.20 $310,858.20 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation OPTION 1 - Sidewalk and Bike Lane Option Construction Cost Estimate ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL High Low Avg Bid Schedule A: Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation GENERAL 1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 13,750.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 66,100.00 3 Remove Bollards and Concrete Vault 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 4 Remove Storm Trench Inlet 1 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,435.00 5 Remove CMP Storm Sewer 420 LF $ 22.00 $ 9,240.00 $ 24.70 $ 10,374.00 $ 24.70 $ 22.00 $ 23.35 6 Remove Trees 30 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 775.00 7 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 188 LF $ 6.00 $ 1,128.00 $ 6.00 $ 1,128.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 8 Removal of Concrete Around Existing Drainage Pipe (STA 11+00 and 19+00)15 SY $ 7.00 $ 105.00 $ 7.00 $ 105.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 9 Remove Guardrail and Posts 32 LF $ 6.00 $ 192.00 $ 6.00 $ 192.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 10 Remove Riprap 280 SY $ 58.00 $ 16,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 16,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 58.00 $ 58.00 11 Removal of Barbed Wire Fence 3500 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 12 Removal of Road Delineators 27 EA $ 9.00 $ 243.00 $ 9.00 $ 243.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 13 Removal of Road Signs (Regulatory, Warning, Guide)9 EA $ 94.00 $ 846.00 $ 94.00 $ 846.00 $ 94.00 $ 94.00 $ 94.00 14 Removal of Concrete Sidewalk 194 SY $ 11.00 $ 2,134.00 $ 11.00 $ 2,134.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 15 Sawing Asphalt 1230 LF $ 4.00 $ 4,920.00 $ 4.00 $ 4,920.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 16 Preparation of Sombrero Stables Parking 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 17 Remove/Replace Street Lamp at Red Tail Hawk Drive 1 LS $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 18 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 9,050.00 EARTHWORK 19 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 34,900.00 21 Retaining Wall 3283 LF $ 350.00 $ 1,149,050.00 $ 350.00 $ 1,149,050.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 STORM SEWER 22 36" RCP 127 LF $ 163.00 $ 20,701.00 $ 150.00 $ 19,050.00 $ 163.00 $ 150.00 $ 156.50 23 30" RCP 103 LF $ 110.00 $ 11,330.00 $ 98.00 $ 10,094.00 $ 110.00 $ 98.00 $ 104.00 24 24" RCP 206 LF $ 105.00 $ 21,630.00 $ 65.00 $ 13,390.00 $ 105.00 $ 65.00 $ 85.00 25 18" RCP 223 LF $ 80.00 $ 17,840.00 $ 58.00 $ 12,934.00 $ 80.00 $ 58.00 $ 69.00 26 23" x 14" RCP 96 LF $ 90.00 $ 8,640.00 $ 62.00 $ 5,952.00 $ 90.00 $ 62.00 $ 76.00 27 15' Type R Inlet 2 EA $ 7,070.00 $ 14,140.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 18,400.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 7,070.00 $ 8,135.00 28 10' Type R Inlet 12 EA $ 5,755.00 $ 69,060.00 $ 7,960.00 $ 95,520.00 $ 7,960.00 $ 5,755.00 $ 6,857.50 29 5' Type R Inlet 3 EA $ 4,660.00 $ 13,980.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 4,660.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,330.00 30 Type C Inlet 9 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 29,700.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,400.00 31 Rip Rap 25 CY $ 150.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 150.00 $ 175.00 ROADWORK 32 Asphalt Demolition (Average 4" depth)16186 SY $ 6.00 $ 97,116.00 $ 6.00 $ 97,116.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 33 Remove Existing Aggregate Base Course (Average 6")0 TON $ 10.00 $ - $ 15.00 $ - $ 15.00 $ 10.00 $ 12.50 34 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 – Roadways and Shoulders for the Road and Parking Areas 2870 TON $ 25.00 $ 71,750.00 $ 37.40 $ 107,338.00 $ 37.40 $ 25.00 $ 31.20 35 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 2159 TON $ 100.00 $ 215,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 215,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 36 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 3238 TON $ 100.00 $ 323,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 323,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 37 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 38 Epoxy Paint Centerline and Parking Striping 75 GAL $ 200.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 192.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 200.00 $ 192.00 $ 196.00 39 Thermoplastic Crossing Striping, Arrow, and Symbol 450 SF $ 20.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 19.90 $ 8,955.00 $ 20.00 $ 19.90 $ 19.95 40 Curb and Gutter 9865 LF $ 25.00 $ 246,612.50 $ 15.50 $ 152,899.75 $ 25.00 $ 15.50 $ 20.25 41 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)240 LF $ 25.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 22.90 $ 5,496.00 $ 25.00 $ 22.90 $ 23.95 42 Concrete Sidewalk 3112 SY $ 48.60 $ 151,253.08 $ 48.60 $ 151,253.08 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 43 Concrete Handicapped Ramps 2 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 44 Road Delineators 30 EA $ 9.00 $ 270.00 $ 9.00 $ 270.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 45 End of Road Barricade for North Lake Ave.1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 46 Handrail 4702 LF $ 100.00 $ 470,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 470,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 UTILITIES 47 Raising Water Valve Boxes 9 EA $ 360.00 $ 3,240.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 360.00 $ 300.00 $ 330.00 48 Raising Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole Covers 11 EA $ 450.00 $ 4,950.00 $ 400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 450.00 $ 400.00 $ 425.00 49 Moving Fire Hydrants 5 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 50 Pipe Edge Drain 715 LF $ 24.00 $ 17,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 17,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 24.00 $ 24.00 51 Waterline Disinfection 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52 Barbed Wire Fence (4-Wire) Replacement 3500 LF $ 3.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 53 Temporary Fence During Construction 3500 LF $ 2.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 54 Signs 1 LS $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,635.00 55 Seeding 5 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE A 3,267,541.58$ 3,186,220.83$ $3,267,541.58 $3,186,220.83 $3,226,881.21 ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL High Low Avg Bid Schedule B: U.S. 34 Improvements and Sombrero Parking GENERAL 1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,495.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 31,800.00 3 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,385.00 EARTHWORK 4 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,150.00 ROADWORK 5 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 – Roadways and Shoulders for the Road and Parking Areas 737 TON $ 25.00 $ 18,425.00 $ 37.40 $ 27,563.80 $ 37.40 $ 25.00 $ 31.20 6 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 159 TON $ 100.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 7 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 8 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 239 TON $ 100.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 9 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)60 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 22.90 $ 1,374.00 $ 25.00 $ 22.90 $ 23.95 TRAIL and SIDEWALK 10 Concrete 1239 SY $ 48.60 $ 60,215.40 $ 48.60 $ 60,215.40 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 11 Class 6 Road Base 41 TON $ 25.00 $ 1,025.00 $ 43.40 $ 1,779.40 $ 43.40 $ 25.00 $ 34.20 SEWER 12 30" DIP 332 LF $ 100.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 13 30" DIP Insulation 332 LF $ 25.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 14 Relocate and Modify 5' Manhole 3 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 3,000.00 15 Abandon 30" DIP 332 LF $ 10.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 10.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 10.00 STORM SEWER 16 4' Manhole 2 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 17 24" RCP 719 LF $ 105.00 $ 75,495.00 $ 65.00 $ 46,735.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 85.00 18 18" RCP 28 LF $ 80.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 1,624.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 69.00 19 Type C Inlet 2 EA $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 3,300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 20 Signs 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 $ 500.00 $ 330.00 $ 415.00 21 Seeding 1.5 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 4,620.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,540.00 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE B $328,220.40 $285,721.60 $328,220.40 $285,721.60 $306,971.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE A AND B $3,595,761.98 $3,471,942.43 $3,595,761.98 $3,471,942.43 $3,533,852.21 Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Unit Price Town of Estes Park, Colorado Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation OPTION 2 - Sidewalk Only Option Construction Cost Estimate ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL High Low Avg Bid Schedule A: Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation GENERAL 1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 13,750.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 66,100.00 3 Remove Bollards and Concrete Vault 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 4 Remove Storm Trench Inlet 1 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,435.00 5 Remove CMP Storm Sewer 420 LF $ 22.00 $ 9,240.00 $ 24.70 $ 10,374.00 $ 24.70 $ 22.00 $ 23.35 6 Remove Trees 30 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 775.00 7 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 188 LF $ 6.00 $ 1,128.00 $ 6.00 $ 1,128.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 8 Removal of Concrete Around Existing Drainage Pipe (STA 11+00 and 19+00)15 SY $ 7.00 $ 105.00 $ 7.00 $ 105.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 9 Remove Guardrail and Posts 32 LF $ 6.00 $ 192.00 $ 6.00 $ 192.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 10 Remove Riprap 280 SY $ 58.00 $ 16,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 16,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 58.00 $ 58.00 11 Removal of Barbed Wire Fence 3500 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 12 Removal of Road Delineators 27 EA $ 9.00 $ 243.00 $ 9.00 $ 243.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 13 Removal of Road Signs (Regulatory, Warning, Guide)9 EA $ 94.00 $ 846.00 $ 94.00 $ 846.00 $ 94.00 $ 94.00 $ 94.00 14 Removal of Concrete Sidewalk 194 SY $ 11.00 $ 2,134.00 $ 11.00 $ 2,134.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 15 Sawing Asphalt 1230 LF $ 4.00 $ 4,920.00 $ 4.00 $ 4,920.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 16 Preparation of Sombrero Stables Parking 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 17 Remove/Replace Street Lamp at Red Tail Hawk Drive 1 LS $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 18 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 9,050.00 EARTHWORK 19 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 34,900.00 21 Retaining Wall 1590 LF $ 350.00 $ 556,500.00 $ 350.00 $ 556,500.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 STORM SEWER 22 36" RCP 117 LF $ 163.00 $ 19,071.00 $ 150.00 $ 17,550.00 $ 163.00 $ 150.00 $ 156.50 23 30" RCP 93 LF $ 110.00 $ 10,230.00 $ 98.00 $ 9,114.00 $ 110.00 $ 98.00 $ 104.00 24 24" RCP 196 LF $ 105.00 $ 20,580.00 $ 65.00 $ 12,740.00 $ 105.00 $ 65.00 $ 85.00 25 18" RCP 213 LF $ 80.00 $ 17,040.00 $ 58.00 $ 12,354.00 $ 80.00 $ 58.00 $ 69.00 26 23" x 14" RCP 86 LF $ 90.00 $ 7,740.00 $ 62.00 $ 5,332.00 $ 90.00 $ 62.00 $ 76.00 27 15' Type R Inlet 2 EA $ 7,070.00 $ 14,140.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 18,400.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 7,070.00 $ 8,135.00 28 10' Type R Inlet 12 EA $ 5,755.00 $ 69,060.00 $ 7,960.00 $ 95,520.00 $ 7,960.00 $ 5,755.00 $ 6,857.50 29 5' Type R Inlet 3 EA $ 4,660.00 $ 13,980.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 4,660.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,330.00 30 Type C Inlet 9 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 29,700.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,400.00 31 Rip Rap 25 CY $ 150.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 150.00 $ 175.00 ROADWORK 32 Asphalt Demolition (Average 4" depth)16186 SY $ 6.00 $ 97,116.00 $ 6.00 $ 97,116.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 33 Remove Existing Aggregate Base Course (Average 6")0 TON $ 10.00 $ - $ 15.00 $ - $ 15.00 $ 10.00 $ 12.50 34 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 – Roadways and Shoulders for the Road and Parking Areas 2134 TON $ 25.00 $ 53,350.00 $ 37.40 $ 79,811.60 $ 37.40 $ 25.00 $ 31.20 35 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 1548 TON $ 100.00 $ 154,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 154,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 36 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 2322 TON $ 100.00 $ 232,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 232,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 37 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 38 Epoxy Paint Centerline and Parking Striping 75 GAL $ 200.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 192.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 200.00 $ 192.00 $ 196.00 39 Thermoplastic Crossing Striping, Arrow, and Symbol 450 SF $ 20.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 19.90 $ 8,955.00 $ 20.00 $ 19.90 $ 19.95 40 Curb and Gutter 9865 LF $ 25.00 $ 246,612.50 $ 15.50 $ 152,899.75 $ 25.00 $ 15.50 $ 20.25 41 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)240 LF $ 25.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 22.90 $ 5,496.00 $ 25.00 $ 22.90 $ 23.95 42 Concrete Sidewalk 4711 SY $ 48.60 $ 228,954.60 $ 48.60 $ 228,954.60 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 43 Concrete Handicapped Ramps 2 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 44 Road Delineators 30 EA $ 9.00 $ 270.00 $ 9.00 $ 270.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 45 End of Road Barricade for North Lake Ave.1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 46 Handrail 4702 LF $ 100.00 $ 470,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 470,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 UTILITIES 47 Raising Water Valve Boxes 9 EA $ 360.00 $ 3,240.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 360.00 $ 300.00 $ 330.00 48 Raising Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole Covers 11 EA $ 450.00 $ 4,950.00 $ 400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 450.00 $ 400.00 $ 425.00 49 Moving Fire Hydrants 5 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 50 Pipe Edge Drain 715 LF $ 24.00 $ 17,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 17,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 24.00 $ 24.00 51 Waterline Disinfection 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52 Barbed Wire Fence (4-Wire) Replacement 3500 LF $ 3.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 53 Temporary Fence During Construction 3500 LF $ 2.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 54 Signs 1 LS $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,635.00 55 Seeding 5 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE A 2,576,113.10$ 2,486,815.95$ $2,531,464.53 ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL High Low Avg Bid Schedule B: U.S. 34 Improvements and Sombrero Parking GENERAL 1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,495.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 31,800.00 3 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,385.00 EARTHWORK 4 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,150.00 ROADWORK 5 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 – Roadways and Shoulders for the Road and Parking Areas 737 TON $ 25.00 $ 18,425.00 $ 37.40 $ 27,563.80 $ 37.40 $ 25.00 $ 31.20 6 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 159 TON $ 100.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 7 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 8 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 239 TON $ 100.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 9 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)60 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 22.90 $ 1,374.00 $ 25.00 $ 22.90 $ 23.95 TRAIL and SIDEWALK 10 Concrete 1239 SY $ 48.60 $ 60,215.40 $ 48.60 $ 60,215.40 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 11 Class 6 Road Base 41 TON $ 25.00 $ 1,025.00 $ 43.40 $ 1,779.40 $ 43.40 $ 25.00 $ 34.20 SEWER 12 30" DIP 332 LF $ 100.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 13 30" DIP Insulation 332 LF $ 25.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 14 Relocate and Modify 5' Manhole 3 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 3,000.00 15 Abandon 30" DIP 332 LF $ 10.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 10.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 10.00 STORM SEWER 16 4' Manhole 2 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 17 24" RCP 719 LF $ 105.00 $ 75,495.00 $ 65.00 $ 46,735.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 85.00 18 18" RCP 28 LF $ 80.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 1,624.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 69.00 19 Type C Inlet 2 EA $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 3,300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 20 Signs 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 $ 500.00 $ 330.00 $ 415.00 21 Seeding 1.5 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 4,620.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,540.00 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE B $328,220.40 $285,721.60 $306,971.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE A AND B $2,904,333.50 $2,772,537.55 $2,904,333.50 $2,772,537.55 $2,838,435.53 Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Unit Price Town of Estes Park, Colorado Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation OPTION 3 - Bike Lane Only Construction Cost Estimate ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL High Low Avg Bid Schedule A: Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation GENERAL 1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 13,750.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 66,100.00 3 Remove Bollards and Concrete Vault 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 4 Remove Storm Trench Inlet 1 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,435.00 5 Remove CMP Storm Sewer 420 LF $ 22.00 $ 9,240.00 $ 24.70 $ 10,374.00 $ 24.70 $ 22.00 $ 23.35 6 Remove Trees 30 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 775.00 7 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 188 LF $ 6.00 $ 1,128.00 $ 6.00 $ 1,128.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 8 Removal of Concrete Around Existing Drainage Pipe (STA 11+00 and 19+00)15 SY $ 7.00 $ 105.00 $ 7.00 $ 105.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 9 Remove Guardrail and Posts 32 LF $ 6.00 $ 192.00 $ 6.00 $ 192.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 10 Remove Riprap 280 SY $ 58.00 $ 16,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 16,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 58.00 $ 58.00 11 Removal of Barbed Wire Fence 3500 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 12 Removal of Road Delineators 27 EA $ 9.00 $ 243.00 $ 9.00 $ 243.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 13 Removal of Road Signs (Regulatory, Warning, Guide)9 EA $ 94.00 $ 846.00 $ 94.00 $ 846.00 $ 94.00 $ 94.00 $ 94.00 14 Removal of Concrete Sidewalk 194 SY $ 11.00 $ 2,134.00 $ 11.00 $ 2,134.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 15 Sawing Asphalt 1230 LF $ 4.00 $ 4,920.00 $ 4.00 $ 4,920.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 16 Preparation of Sombrero Stables Parking 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 17 Remove/Replace Street Lamp at Red Tail Hawk Drive 1 LS $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 18 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 9,050.00 EARTHWORK 19 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 34,900.00 21 Retaining Wall 3241 LF $ 350.00 $ 1,134,350.00 $ 350.00 $ 1,134,350.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 STORM SEWER 22 36" RCP 122 LF $ 163.00 $ 19,886.00 $ 150.00 $ 18,300.00 $ 163.00 $ 150.00 $ 156.50 23 30" RCP 98 LF $ 110.00 $ 10,780.00 $ 98.00 $ 9,604.00 $ 110.00 $ 98.00 $ 104.00 24 24" RCP 201 LF $ 105.00 $ 21,105.00 $ 65.00 $ 13,065.00 $ 105.00 $ 65.00 $ 85.00 25 18" RCP 218 LF $ 80.00 $ 17,440.00 $ 58.00 $ 12,644.00 $ 80.00 $ 58.00 $ 69.00 26 23" x 14" RCP 91 LF $ 90.00 $ 8,190.00 $ 62.00 $ 5,642.00 $ 90.00 $ 62.00 $ 76.00 27 15' Type R Inlet 2 EA $ 7,070.00 $ 14,140.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 18,400.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 7,070.00 $ 8,135.00 28 10' Type R Inlet 12 EA $ 5,755.00 $ 69,060.00 $ 7,960.00 $ 95,520.00 $ 7,960.00 $ 5,755.00 $ 6,857.50 29 5' Type R Inlet 3 EA $ 4,660.00 $ 13,980.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 4,660.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,330.00 30 Type C Inlet 9 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 29,700.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,400.00 31 Rip Rap 25 CY $ 150.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 150.00 $ 175.00 ROADWORK 32 Asphalt Demolition (Average 4" depth)16186 SY $ 6.00 $ 97,116.00 $ 6.00 $ 97,116.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 33 Remove Existing Aggregate Base Course (Average 6")0 TON $ 10.00 $ - $ 15.00 $ - $ 15.00 $ 10.00 $ 12.50 34 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 – Roadways and Shoulders for the Road and Parking Areas 2502 TON $ 25.00 $ 62,550.00 $ 37.40 $ 93,574.80 $ 37.40 $ 25.00 $ 31.20 35 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 2159 TON $ 100.00 $ 215,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 215,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 36 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 3238 TON $ 100.00 $ 323,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 323,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 37 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 38 Epoxy Paint Centerline and Parking Striping 75 GAL $ 200.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 192.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 200.00 $ 192.00 $ 196.00 39 Thermoplastic Crossing Striping, Arrow, and Symbol 450 SF $ 20.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 19.90 $ 8,955.00 $ 20.00 $ 19.90 $ 19.95 40 Curb and Gutter 9865 LF $ 25.00 $ 246,612.50 $ 15.50 $ 152,899.75 $ 25.00 $ 15.50 $ 20.25 41 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)240 LF $ 25.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 22.90 $ 5,496.00 $ 25.00 $ 22.90 $ 23.95 42 Concrete Handicapped Ramps 2 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 43 Road Delineators 30 EA $ 9.00 $ 270.00 $ 9.00 $ 270.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 44 End of Road Barricade for North Lake Ave.1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 UTILITIES 45 Raising Water Valve Boxes 9 EA $ 360.00 $ 3,240.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 360.00 $ 300.00 $ 330.00 46 Raising Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole Covers 11 EA $ 450.00 $ 4,950.00 $ 400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 450.00 $ 400.00 $ 425.00 47 Moving Fire Hydrants 5 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 48 Pipe Edge Drain 715 LF $ 24.00 $ 17,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 17,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 24.00 $ 24.00 49 Waterline Disinfection 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50 Barbed Wire Fence (4-Wire) Replacement 3500 LF $ 3.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 51 Temporary Fence During Construction 3500 LF $ 2.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 52 Signs 1 LS $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,635.00 53 Seeding 5 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE A 2,619,448.50$ 2,534,139.55$ $2,619,448.50 $2,534,139.55 $2,576,794.03 ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL High Low Avg Bid Schedule B: U.S. 34 Improvements and Sombrero Parking GENERAL 1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,495.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 31,800.00 3 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,385.00 EARTHWORK 4 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,150.00 ROADWORK 5 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 – Roadways and Shoulders for the Road and Parking Areas 737 TON $ 25.00 $ 18,425.00 $ 37.40 $ 27,563.80 $ 37.40 $ 25.00 $ 31.20 6 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 159 TON $ 100.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 7 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 8 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 239 TON $ 100.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 9 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)60 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 22.90 $ 1,374.00 $ 25.00 $ 22.90 $ 23.95 TRAIL and SIDEWALK 10 Concrete 1239 SY $ 48.60 $ 60,215.40 $ 48.60 $ 60,215.40 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 11 Class 6 Road Base 41 TON $ 25.00 $ 1,025.00 $ 43.40 $ 1,779.40 $ 43.40 $ 25.00 $ 34.20 SEWER 12 30" DIP 332 LF $ 100.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 13 30" DIP Insulation 332 LF $ 25.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 14 Relocate and Modify 5' Manhole 3 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 3,000.00 15 Abandon 30" DIP 332 LF $ 10.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 10.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 10.00 STORM SEWER 16 4' Manhole 2 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 17 24" RCP 719 LF $ 105.00 $ 75,495.00 $ 65.00 $ 46,735.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 85.00 18 18" RCP 28 LF $ 80.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 1,624.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 69.00 19 Type C Inlet 2 EA $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 3,300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 20 Signs 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 $ 500.00 $ 330.00 $ 415.00 21 Seeding 1.5 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 4,620.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,540.00 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE B $328,220.40 $285,721.60 $328,220.40 $285,721.60 $306,971.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE A AND B $2,947,668.90 $2,819,861.15 $2,947,668.90 $2,819,861.15 $2,883,765.03 Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Unit Price Town of Estes Park, Colorado Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation OPTION 4 - Road Only Option Construction Cost Estimate ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL High Low Avg Bid Schedule A: Dry Gulch Road Rehabilitation GENERAL 1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 13,750.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 22,200.00 $ 66,100.00 3 Remove Bollards and Concrete Vault 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 4 Remove Storm Trench Inlet 1 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,435.00 5 Remove CMP Storm Sewer 420 LF $ 22.00 $ 9,240.00 $ 24.70 $ 10,374.00 $ 24.70 $ 22.00 $ 23.35 6 Remove Trees 30 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 775.00 7 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 188 LF $ 6.00 $ 1,128.00 $ 6.00 $ 1,128.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 8 Removal of Concrete Around Existing Drainage Pipe (STA 11+00 and 19+00)15 SY $ 7.00 $ 105.00 $ 7.00 $ 105.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 9 Remove Guardrail and Posts 32 LF $ 6.00 $ 192.00 $ 6.00 $ 192.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 10 Remove Riprap 280 SY $ 58.00 $ 16,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 16,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 58.00 $ 58.00 11 Removal of Barbed Wire Fence 3500 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 12 Removal of Road Delineators 27 EA $ 9.00 $ 243.00 $ 9.00 $ 243.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 13 Removal of Road Signs (Regulatory, Warning, Guide)9 EA $ 94.00 $ 846.00 $ 94.00 $ 846.00 $ 94.00 $ 94.00 $ 94.00 14 Removal of Concrete Sidewalk 194 SY $ 11.00 $ 2,134.00 $ 11.00 $ 2,134.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 15 Sawing Asphalt 1230 LF $ 4.00 $ 4,920.00 $ 4.00 $ 4,920.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 16 Preparation of Sombrero Stables Parking 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 17 Remove/Replace Street Lamp at Red Tail Hawk Drive 1 LS $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 $ 421.00 18 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 14,600.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 9,050.00 EARTHWORK 19 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 64,800.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 34,900.00 21 Retaining Wall 0 LF $ 500.00 $ - $ 500.00 $ - $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 STORM SEWER 22 36" RCP 117 LF $ 163.00 $ 19,071.00 $ 150.00 $ 17,550.00 $ 163.00 $ 150.00 $ 156.50 23 30" RCP 93 LF $ 110.00 $ 10,230.00 $ 98.00 $ 9,114.00 $ 110.00 $ 98.00 $ 104.00 24 24" RCP 196 LF $ 105.00 $ 20,580.00 $ 65.00 $ 12,740.00 $ 105.00 $ 65.00 $ 85.00 25 18" RCP 213 LF $ 80.00 $ 17,040.00 $ 58.00 $ 12,354.00 $ 80.00 $ 58.00 $ 69.00 26 23" x 14" RCP 86 LF $ 90.00 $ 7,740.00 $ 62.00 $ 5,332.00 $ 90.00 $ 62.00 $ 76.00 27 15' Type R Inlet 2 EA $ 7,070.00 $ 14,140.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 18,400.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 7,070.00 $ 8,135.00 28 10' Type R Inlet 12 EA $ 5,755.00 $ 69,060.00 $ 7,960.00 $ 95,520.00 $ 7,960.00 $ 5,755.00 $ 6,857.50 29 5' Type R Inlet 3 EA $ 4,660.00 $ 13,980.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 4,660.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,330.00 30 Type C Inlet 9 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 29,700.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,400.00 31 Rip Rap 25 CY $ 150.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 150.00 $ 175.00 ROADWORK 32 Asphalt Demolition (Average 4" depth)16186 SY $ 6.00 $ 97,116.00 $ 6.00 $ 97,116.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 33 Remove Existing Aggregate Base Course (Average 6")0 TON $ 10.00 $ - $ 15.00 $ - $ 15.00 $ 10.00 $ 12.50 34 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 – Roadways and Shoulders for the Road and Parking Areas 1767 TON $ 25.00 $ 44,175.00 $ 37.40 $ 66,085.80 $ 37.40 $ 25.00 $ 31.20 35 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 1548 TON $ 100.00 $ 154,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 154,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 36 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 2322 TON $ 100.00 $ 232,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 232,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 37 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 38 Epoxy Paint Centerline and Parking Striping 75 GAL $ 200.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 192.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 200.00 $ 192.00 $ 196.00 39 Thermoplastic Crossing Striping, Arrow, and Symbol 450 SF $ 20.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 19.90 $ 8,955.00 $ 20.00 $ 19.90 $ 19.95 40 Curb and Gutter 9865 LF $ 25.00 $ 246,612.50 $ 15.50 $ 152,899.75 $ 25.00 $ 15.50 $ 20.25 41 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)240 LF $ 25.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 22.90 $ 5,496.00 $ 25.00 $ 22.90 $ 23.95 42 Concrete Sidewalk 0 SY $ 48.60 $ - $ 48.60 $ - $ 48.60 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 43 Concrete Handicapped Ramps 0 EA $ 2,400.00 $ - $ 2,400.00 $ - $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 44 Road Delineators 30 EA $ 9.00 $ 270.00 $ 9.00 $ 270.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 45 End of Road Barricade for North Lake Ave.1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 46 Handrail 0 LF $ 100.00 $ - $ 100.00 $ - $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 UTILITIES 47 Raising Water Valve Boxes 9 EA $ 360.00 $ 3,240.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 360.00 $ 300.00 $ 330.00 48 Raising Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole Covers 11 EA $ 450.00 $ 4,950.00 $ 400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 450.00 $ 400.00 $ 425.00 49 Moving Fire Hydrants 5 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 50 Pipe Edge Drain 715 LF $ 24.00 $ 17,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 17,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 24.00 $ 24.00 51 Waterline Disinfection 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52 Barbed Wire Fence (4-Wire) Replacement 3500 LF $ 3.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 53 Temporary Fence During Construction 3500 LF $ 2.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 54 Signs 1 LS $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,635.00 55 Seeding 5 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE A 1,306,483.50$ 1,212,635.55$ $1,259,559.53 ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST UNIT TOTAL High Low Avg Bid Schedule B: U.S. 34 Improvements and Sombrero Parking GENERAL 1 Survey and Stakeout 1 LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,490.00 $ 3,495.00 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 31,800.00 3 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,385.00 EARTHWORK 4 Unclassified Excavation 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,150.00 ROADWORK 5 Import Aggregate Base Course, CDOT Class 6 – Roadways and Shoulders for the Road and Parking Areas 737 TON $ 25.00 $ 18,425.00 $ 37.40 $ 27,563.80 $ 37.40 $ 25.00 $ 31.20 6 Hot Mix Asphalt: SX-75, PG 58-28 159 TON $ 100.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 7 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ - $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 8 Hot Mix Asphalt: S-75, PG 58-28 239 TON $ 100.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 9 Concrete Pan (Gutter Type 2)60 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 22.90 $ 1,374.00 $ 25.00 $ 22.90 $ 23.95 TRAIL and SIDEWALK 10 Concrete 1239 SY $ 48.60 $ 60,215.40 $ 48.60 $ 60,215.40 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 $ 48.60 11 Class 6 Road Base 41 TON $ 25.00 $ 1,025.00 $ 43.40 $ 1,779.40 $ 43.40 $ 25.00 $ 34.20 SEWER 12 30" DIP 332 LF $ 100.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 13 30" DIP Insulation 332 LF $ 25.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 14 Relocate and Modify 5' Manhole 3 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 3,000.00 15 Abandon 30" DIP 332 LF $ 10.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 10.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 10.00 STORM SEWER 16 4' Manhole 2 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 17 24" RCP 719 LF $ 105.00 $ 75,495.00 $ 65.00 $ 46,735.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 85.00 18 18" RCP 28 LF $ 80.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 58.00 $ 1,624.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 69.00 19 Type C Inlet 2 EA $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 3,300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 20 Signs 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 $ 500.00 $ 330.00 $ 415.00 21 Seeding 1.5 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 4,620.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,540.00 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE B $328,220.40 $285,721.60 $306,971.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE A AND B $1,634,703.90 $1,498,357.15 $1,634,703.90 $1,498,357.15 $1,566,530.53 Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Unit Price ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' SECTION A C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. VARIES VARIES RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION B C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. VARIES RETAINING WALL ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' SECTION C C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. VARIES RETAINING WALL ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION D C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' TURN LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION E C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. 12' TURN LANE ȭ EXISTING BIG THOMPSON AVE (HIGHWAY 34) 8' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK 2%2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION F C11 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 VARIES 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. 12' TURN LANE 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 8' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK 2% SECTION G C12N.T.S. 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 2' CONCRETE PAN 2"6" BERM Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C4 TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION NOTE: 1. SEE DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS (C5 - C9), BIG THOMPSON AVENUE TURN LANE SHEET (C11) AND TRAIL PLAN & PROFILE SHEET (C12) FOR LOCATIONS OF SECTION PLAN VIEW LOCATIONS. N O R T H L A K E A V E N U E BI G T H O M P S O N A V E N U E (H I G H W A Y 3 4 )1+002+003+004+005+006+007+00L1L2C1C2STA. 1+49.45 27.50' LT STA. 2+75.24 26.88' LT STA. 3+96.96 19.00' LT STA. 4+69.73 19.00' LT STA. 5+85.03 19.00' LT R=30' STA. 1+19.45 57.61' LT STA. 1+29.88 52.44' RT STA. 1+59.88 22.50' RT STA. 2+56.18 22.50' RT STA. 3+54.77 19.56' RT STA. 4+69.73 19.00' RT STA. 5+85.03 19.00' RT 5'12' 12' 12' 5' R=30'5'(TYP)11.5' (TYP) 11.5' (TYP) 5' (TYP) 5' (TYP) R=981' R=1019' R=292' R=270'8'MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C2.2 L3L3 4 C2 4 L35 C2 6 L 3 6 C 2 8 L37 C3 0 L3 8 5' 12' 12' 12' 5' R=30' 8' (TYP) L1 8 L1 9 L20L21L2 2 L23C13C14 L2 4 L25L26L27 L28L29 L30 C 1 5 C16C17 C18 L31 L32 L33 C19 C20 C21 8'C 5 2 L55C53L57C54L59N 1381576.09 E 3003908.89 L3 4 C2 4 L35 C2 6 L 3 6 C 2 8 L37 C3 0 L3 8 LINE TABLE LINE L1 L2 L3 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 L21 L22 L23 L24 L25 L26 L27 L28 L29 L30 L31 L32 L33 LENGTH 155.02' 98.66' 172.61' 235.54' 146.97' 3.42' 15.42' 63.00' 33.04' 99.00' 4.02' 7.41' 13.95' 125.55' 19.00' 9.37' 8.10' 2.00' 7.04' 8.72' 11.21' BEARING 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 6 ( 6 ( 6 ( 1 : 6 : 6 ( 6 ( 6 ( 6 ( 6 ( 6 ( 6 : 1 : 6 : 6 ( 6 : 6 ( 1 : START POINT (N, E) (1381658.80, 3003688.17) (1381903.34, 3003803.76) (1382111.41, 3003838.34) (1381658.33, 3003748.52) (1381539.73, 3003952.03) (1381811.46, 3003800.52) (1381759.02, 3003813.85) (1381766.76, 3003800.51) (1381712.27, 3003768.90) (1381680.62, 3003778.39) (1381631.01, 3003864.06) (1381834.22, 3003809.11) (1381806.26, 3003839.33) (1381768.47, 3003858.08) (1381651.25, 3003903.04) (1381644.45, 3003885.30) (1381643.12, 3003871.07) (1381633.38, 3003867.74) (1381718.76, 3003822.37) (1381705.83, 3003820.66) (1381707.57, 3003835.38) END POINT (N, E) (1381792.89, 3003765.9529) (1382001.11, 3003816.9417) (1382278.69, 3003880.9275) (1381539.73, 3003952.0310) (1381455.45, 3004072.4254) (1381809.75, 3003803.4773) (1381766.76, 3003800.5088) (1381712.27, 3003768.8977) (1381680.62, 3003778.3869) (1381631.01, 3003864.0581) (1381628.99, 3003867.5400) (1381830.51, 3003815.5196) (1381794.07, 3003846.1146) (1381651.25, 3003903.0442) (1381644.45, 3003885.3048) (1381645.58, 3003876.0045) (1381636.11, 3003867.0149) (1381632.38, 3003869.4741) (1381712.66, 3003818.8388) (1381701.46, 3003828.2080) (1381718.04, 3003831.3669) CURVE TABLE CURVE C1 C2 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 CHORD 116.74' 112.36' 51.20' 7.68' 33.98' 28.26' 5.51' 2.83' 7.07' 9.43' 9.02' LENGTH 117.49' 112.42' 55.56' 8.76' 34.39' 28.29' 5.83' 3.14' 7.86' 12.31' 11.25' RADIUS 300.00' 975.04' 40.00' 5.00' 64.00' 200.00' 5.00' 2.00' 5.00' 5.00' 5.00' DELTA START POINT (N, E) (1381792.89, 3003765.95) (1382001.11, 3003816.94) (1381809.75, 3003803.48) (1381761.66, 3003821.07) (1381830.51, 3003815.52) (1381794.07, 3003846.11) (1381645.58, 3003876.00) (1381636.11, 3003867.01) (1381712.66, 3003818.84) (1381701.46, 3003828.21) (1381718.04, 3003831.37) END POINT (N, E) (1381903.34, 3003803.76) (1382111.41, 3003838.34) (1381761.66, 3003821.07) (1381759.02, 3003813.85) (1381806.26, 3003839.33) (1381768.47, 3003858.08) (1381643.12, 3003871.07) (1381633.38, 3003867.74) (1381705.83, 3003820.66) (1381707.57, 3003835.38) (1381718.76, 3003822.37) LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING START POINT (N, E) (1381796.26, 3003850.05) (1381615.60, 3003921.54) (1381576.09, 3003908.89) END POINT (N, E) (1381808.45, 3003843.27) (1381770.08, 3003862.28) (1381594.92, 3003919.87) CURVE TABLE CURVE CHORD LENGTH RADIUS DELTA START POINT (N, E) (1381808.45, 3003843.27) (1381770.08, 3003862.28) (1381594.92, 3003919.87) END POINT (N, E) (1381835.82, 3003815.40) (1381796.26, 3003850.05) (1381615.60, 3003921.54) NORTH LAKE AVENUE BIG THOMPSON AVENUE (HIGHWAY 34) R = 3 0 ' R=30'5'(TYP)8'N 1381576.09 E 3003908.89 L34 C24L35 C26 L36 C28 L37 C30 L38 C32 L39 C34 L40 C36 L41 C38 L42 C40 L43 C42 L 4 4 C44L45C46L46C48 C49LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING START POINT (N, E) (1381659.41, 3003754.61) (1381650.62, 3003775.31) (1381631.21, 3003808.74) (1381601.27, 3003862.17) (1381569.76, 3003919.76) (1381537.59, 3003985.30) (1381468.62, 3004104.89) (1381430.75, 3004169.84) (1381377.38, 3004255.18) (1381254.50, 3004465.07) END POINT (N, E) (1381661.78, 3003750.54) (1381653.04, 3003768.42) (1381635.21, 3003803.60) (1381602.75, 3003858.46) (1381590.87, 3003883.53) (1381541.91, 3003975.18) (1381525.62, 3004008.88) (1381459.49, 3004120.43) (1381388.46, 3004238.28) (1381363.44, 3004277.75) CURVE TABLE CURVE CHORD LENGTH RADIUS DELTA START POINT (N, E) (1381653.04, 3003768.42) (1381635.21, 3003803.60) (1381602.75, 3003858.46) (1381590.87, 3003883.53) (1381541.91, 3003975.18) (1381525.62, 3004008.88) (1381459.49, 3004120.43) (1381388.46, 3004238.28) (1381363.44, 3004277.75) (1381239.48, 3004478.79) (1381210.42, 3004487.53) (1381089.46, 3004449.73) (1381097.96, 3004391.62) (1381083.31, 3004436.31) END POINT (N, E) (1381659.41, 3003754.61) (1381650.62, 3003775.31) (1381631.21, 3003808.74) (1381601.27, 3003862.17) (1381569.76, 3003919.76) (1381537.59, 3003985.30) (1381468.62, 3004104.89) (1381430.75, 3004169.84) (1381377.38, 3004255.18) (1381254.50, 3004465.07) (1381226.39, 3004484.89) (1381129.42, 3004478.59) (1381083.07, 3004435.79) (1381038.57, 3004419.43) LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING START POINT (N, E) (1381226.39, 3004484.89) (1381129.42, 3004478.59) (1381083.07, 3004435.79) END POINT (N, E) (1381239.48, 3004478.79) (1381210.42, 3004487.53) (1381089.46, 3004449.73) 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C2.1 GEOMETRIC PLAN 0 SCALE: 1"=20' 10 20 40 Scale: Parking Lot Geometric Plan 1"=20' Scale: Big Thompson Avenue Trail Geometric Plan 1"=50' 0.60% -1.00% -1.50%PVI STA = 1+19.31PVI ELEV = 7488.09PVI STA = 6+99.63 PVI ELEV = 7480.53 A.D. = 0.02 K = 38.07 80.00' VC LP STA = 7+16.87 LP ELEV = 7480.70'PVC = 6+59.63ELEV = 7481.13PVT = 7+39.63ELEV = 7480.77PVI STA = 11+73.61 PVI ELEV = 7483.37 A.D. = 0.02 K = 65.06 100.00' VC LP STA = 11+23.61 LP ELEV = 7483.07'PVC = 11+23.61ELEV = 7483.07PVT = 12+23.61ELEV = 7484.43PVI STA = 3+53.75 PVI ELEV = 7485.73 A.D. = -0.00 K = 100.13 50.00' VC HP STA = 3+28.75 HP ELEV = 7485.98'PVC = 3+28.75ELEV = 7485.98PVT = 3+78.75ELEV = 7485.36EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3+0 0 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00PC = 2+55.02PT = 3+72.51PC = 4+71.17PT = 5+83.59PC = 7+56.20 PT = 9+27.31PC = 10+64.19PT = 11+60.94N 1381792.89E 3003765.95N 1381903.34E 3003803.76N 1382001.11E 3003816.94N 1382111.41E 3003838.34N 1382278.69 E 3003880.93 N 1382445.20E 3003920.30N 1382578.93E 3003949.51N 1382673.25E 3003971.07LOT 6BLOCK 2LONE PINE ADD'NLOT 7BLOCK 2LONE PINE ADD'NNORTH LAKE AVENUE(75' ROW)RAVEN AVENUE(80' ROW)LOT 8ALONE PINE ACRESAMENDED PLATLOT 9ALONE PINE ACRESAMENDED PLATNORTHRIDGEMEADOWCONDOMINIUMSUNPLATTED LAND(RN 95032179)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TOW=7484.96 BOW=7483.46 TOW=7483.14 BOW=7479.04 TOW=7481.60 BOW=7475.90 TOW=7480.90 BOW=7474.88 TOW=7479.60 BOW=7474.82 TOW=7480.35 BOW=7475.17 TOW=7480.95 BOW=7476.38 TOW=7481.55 BOW=7479.52 TOW=7482.23 BOW=7479.17 TOW=7484.00 BOW=7481.64 E C4 B C4 STORM SEWER 3 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 4 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 5 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 1 (SEE SHEET C14.1) STORM SEWER 2 (SEE SHEET C14.1)MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C6PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN 7487.787487.287486.787486.277485.757485.047484.297483.537482.787482.037481.287480.747480.837481.137481.437481.737482.037482.337482.637482.937483.287483.977485.007486.067487.131+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 7470 7475 7485 7480 7490 7495 7500 7505 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7470 7475 7485 7480 7490 7495 7500 7505 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C5 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C6 2.70% 2.13% PVI STA = 20+55.22 PVI ELEV = 7502.19 A.D. = 0.01 K = 89.08 50.00' VC LP STA = 20+30.22 LP ELEV = 7501.65'PVC = 20+30.22ELEV = 7501.65PVT = 20+80.22ELEV = 7502.86EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00PC = 17+11.89PT = 17+77.20PC = 20+94.63PT = 21+59.95PC = 25+85.10N 1383209.12E 3004099.02N 1383272.61E 3004114.40N 1383580.87E 3004190.14N 1383644.35E 3004205.51N 1384057.87E 3004304.25NORTHRIDGEMEADOWCONDOMINIUMSPUBLIC AREALONE PINE ACRESFIRST ADD'NOWNERTOWN OF ESTESPARKPROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TOW=7486.14 BOW=7484.04 TOW=7487.75 BOW=7486.25 TOW=7499.37 BOW=7497.92 TOW=7501.61 BOW=7499.67 TOW=7504.30 BOW=7501.92 TOW=7507.00 BOW=7504.23 TOW=7509.70 BOW=7506.25 TOW=7503.53 BOW=7503.03 TOW=7508.72 BOW=7505.70 TOW=7511.78 BOW=7508.38 TOW=7511.15 BOW=7510.68 TOW=7512.40 BOW=7507.64 TOW=7515.09 BOW=7509.51 B C4 D C4 A C4 B C4MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C5MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C7STORM SEWER 7 (SEE SHEET C14.3) STORM SEWER 6 (SEE SHEET C14.3)7487.137488.207489.277490.337491.407492.477493.547494.607495.677496.747497.817498.877499.947501.017502.107503.397504.747506.097507.447508.797510.137511.487512.837514.187515.537516.8714+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 7485 7490 7500 7495 7505 7510 7515 7520 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7485 7490 7500 7495 7505 7510 7515 7520 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C6 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C7MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C5 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00PC = 25+85.10PT = 27+21.41PC = 29+22.57PT = 31+00.48PC = 32+44.53PT = 34+13.35PC = 35+74.08N 1384057.87E 3004304.25N 1384192.93E 3004320.25N 1384394.10E 3004320.52N 1384570.51E 3004340.47N 1384710.97E 3004372.43N 1384878.32E 3004371.70N 1385034.73E 3004334.66UNPLATTED LAND(RN 990077524)OWNERCROSSROADSMINISTRYVISTA RIDGECONDOMINIUMSLOT 2BLOCK 3THE NEIGHBORHOODWILDFIRE ROAD(ROW VARIES)RED TAIL HAWK DRIVE(50' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TOW=7517.68 BOW=7511.98 TOW=7521.00 BOW=7516.56 TOW=7522.34 BOW=7521.78 TOW=7529.96 BOW=7527.10 TOW=7533.91 BOW=7532.41 TOW=7526.80 BOW=7519.27 TOW=7532.59 BOW=7525.88 TOW=7536.22 BOW=7530.83 TOW=7537.00 BOW=7536.20 TOW=7537.70 BOW=7536.70 TOW=7538.36 BOW=7537.24 TOW=7538.63 BOW=7537.72 TOW=7541.23 BOW=7540.47 TOW=7543.08 BOW=7541.30 TOW=7544.30 BOW=7543.30 B C4 A C4 B C4 C C4 E C4 MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C6MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C8PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN STORM SEWER 8 (SEE SHEET C14.3 ) STORM SEWER 9 (SEE SHEET C14.4 ) STORM SEWER 10 (SEE SHEET C14.4 ) STORM SEWER 11 (SEE SHEET C14.4 )7516.877518.227519.577521.257523.767526.777529.777532.777535.237536.857537.647537.997538.347538.697539.047539.397539.747540.097540.637541.567542.687543.897545.4526+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 0.70% 2.25% 6.02 % PVI STA = 27+55.08 PVI ELEV = 7521.05 A.D. = 0.03 K = 30.12 100.00' VC LP STA = 27+05.08 LP ELEV = 7519.71'PVC = 27+05.08ELEV = 7519.71PVT = 28+05.08ELEV = 7524.06PVI STA = 35+00.07 PVI ELEV = 7540.44 A.D. = 0.02 K = 64.58 100.00' VC LP STA = 34+50.07 LP ELEV = 7540.09'PVC = 34+50.07ELEV = 7540.09PVT = 35+50.07ELEV = 7541.56PVI STA = 36+67.02 PVI ELEV = 7544.19 A.D. = 0.02 K = 66.03 100.00' VC LP STA = 36+17.02 LP ELEV = 7543.06'PVC = 36+17.02ELEV = 7543.06PVI STA = 30+21.68 PVI ELEV = 7537.10 A.D. = -0.05 K = 30.09 160.00' VC HP STA = 31+01.68 HP ELEV = 7537.65'PVC = 29+41.68ELEV = 7532.28PVT = 31+01.68ELEV = 7537.65EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 7515 7520 7530 7525 7535 7540 7545 7550 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7515 7520 7530 7525 7535 7540 7545 7550 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C7 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C8MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C6 0.60% 3.76%PVT = 37+17.02ELEV = 7546.07PVI STA = 41+58.18 PVI ELEV = 7562.66 A.D. = -0.03 K = 50.61 160.00' VC HP STA = 42+38.18 HP ELEV = 7563.14'PVC = 40+78.18ELEV = 7559.65PVT = 42+38.18ELEV = 7563.14EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINEOUTLOT AGOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONLOT 2GOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONLOT 1GOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONPTARMIGAN TRAIL(50' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)37+00 38+00 39+00 40+0 0 41+0 0 42+0 0 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+0 0 47+ 0 0 48 + 0 0PT = 39+49.93PC = 42+19.52PT = 43+20.72PC = 45+42.82PT = 47+68.88N 1385405.84E 3004348.01N 1385663.03E 3004428.82N 1385760.83E 3004454.73N 1385977.89E 3004501.81N 1386189.42E 3004579.47D C4 MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C7STORM SEWER 12 (SEE SHEET C14.5) STORM SEWER 13 (SEE SHEET C14.5)MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C9PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN 7545.457547.317549.197551.077552.957554.837556.717558.597560.437561.847562.777563.217563.517563.817564.117564.417564.717565.017565.317565.617565.917566.217566.5137+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7540 7550 7545 7555 7560 7565 7570 7570 7540 7550 7545 7555 7560 7565 7570 7570 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C8 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C9MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C7 2.00%PVI STA = 50+24.51PVI ELEV = 7570.31PVI STA = 48+48.73 PVI ELEV = 7566.80 A.D. = 0.01 K = 57.30 80.00' VC LP STA = 48+08.73 LP ELEV = 7566.56'PVC = 48+08.73ELEV = 7566.56PVT = 48+88.73ELEV = 7567.60EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE OUTLOT CGOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONSTONEGATE DRIVE(60' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 20130011766)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)47+ 0 0 48 + 0 0 49 + 0 0 50 + 0 0 51 + 0 0 51 + 2 5PT = 47+68.88PI = 49+44.61PI = 50+24.79N 1386189.42E 3004579.47N 1386344.46E 3004662.18N 1386412.52E 3004704.58D C4 MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C8STORM SEWER 14 (SEE SHEET C14.5) 7460 7566.517566.967567.837568.827569.8248+00 49+00 50+00 51+00 51+25 7555 7560 7570 7565 7575 7580 7585 7550 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7555 7560 7570 7565 7575 7580 7585 7550 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C9 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C8 ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' SECTION A C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. VARIES VARIES RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION B C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. VARIES RETAINING WALL ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' SECTION C C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. VARIES RETAINING WALL ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION D C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' TURN LANE 5' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION E C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. 12' TURN LANE ȭ EXISTING BIG THOMPSON AVE (HIGHWAY 34) 8' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK 2%2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION F C11 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 VARIES 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. 12' TURN LANE 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 8' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK 2% SECTION G C12N.T.S. 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 2' CONCRETE PAN 2"6" BERM Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C4 TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION NOTE: 1. SEE DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS (C5 - C9), BIG THOMPSON AVENUE TURN LANE SHEET (C11) AND TRAIL PLAN & PROFILE SHEET (C12) FOR LOCATIONS OF SECTION PLAN VIEW LOCATIONS. 0.60% -1.00% -1.50%PVI STA = 1+17.68PVI ELEV = 7488.17PVI STA = 6+99.05 PVI ELEV = 7480.53 A.D. = 0.02 K = 38.07 80.00' VC LP STA = 7+16.29 LP ELEV = 7480.70'PVC = 6+59.05ELEV = 7481.14PVT = 7+39.05ELEV = 7480.77PVI STA = 11+73.03 PVI ELEV = 7483.37 A.D. = 0.02 K = 65.06 100.00' VC LP STA = 11+23.03 LP ELEV = 7483.07'PVC = 11+23.03ELEV = 7483.07PVT = 12+23.03ELEV = 7484.43PVI STA = 3+39.33 PVI ELEV = 7485.94 A.D. = -0.00 K = 100.22 50.00' VC HP STA = 3+14.33 HP ELEV = 7486.19'PVC = 3+14.33ELEV = 7486.19PVT = 3+64.33ELEV = 7485.57EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00PC = 2+39.30PT = 3+56.79PC = 4+69.98PT = 5+83.09PC = 8+56.22PT = 9+31.06N 1381779.29E 3003758.07N 1381889.74E 3003795.88N 1382001.91E 3003811.00N 1382112.89E 3003832.53N 1382377.58E 3003899.91N 1382450.25E 3003917.83LOT 6BLOCK 2LONE PINE ADD'NLOT 7BLOCK 2LONE PINE ADD'NNORTH LAKE AVENUE(75' ROW)RAVEN AVENUE(80' ROW)LOT 8ALONE PINE ACRESAMENDED PLATLOT 9ALONE PINE ACRESAMENDED PLATNORTHRIDGEMEADOWCONDOMINIUMSUNPLATTED LAND(RN 95032179)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL E C4 B C4 STORM SEWER 3 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 4 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 5 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 1 (SEE SHEET C14.1) STORM SEWER 2 (SEE SHEET C14.1)MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C6PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN TOW=7482.70 BOW=7481.45 TOW=7481.16 BOW=7479.62 TOW=7479.80 BOW=7478.21 TOW=7480.07 BOW=7478.67 TOW=7480.67 BOW=7479.39 TOW=7481.27 BOW=7479.27 TOW=7481.87 BOW=7479.68 TOW=7482.83 BOW=7481.15 TOW=7484.54 BOW=7483.25 7487.847487.347486.847486.347485.777485.037484.287483.537482.777482.027481.277480.747480.847481.147481.447481.737482.037482.337482.637482.937483.287483.987485.017486.087487.141+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 7470 7475 7485 7480 7490 7495 7500 7505 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7470 7475 7485 7480 7490 7495 7500 7505 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C5 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C6 2.70% 2.13% PVI STA = 20+54.65 PVI ELEV = 7502.19 A.D. = 0.01 K = 89.08 50.00' VC LP STA = 20+29.65 LP ELEV = 7501.65'PVC = 20+29.65ELEV = 7501.65PVT = 20+79.65ELEV = 7502.86EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00PC = 25+98.14N 1384071.77E 3004304.90NORTHRIDGEMEADOWCONDOMINIUMSPUBLIC AREALONE PINE ACRESFIRST ADD'NOWNERTOWN OF ESTESPARKPROPOSED RETAINING WALL B C4 D C4 A C4 B C4MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C5MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C7STORM SEWER 7 (SEE SHEET C14.3) STORM SEWER 6 (SEE SHEET C14.3) TOW=7508.12 BOW=7506.84 TOW=7510.82 BOW=7507.46 TOW=7513.52 BOW=7510.22 7487.147488.217489.287490.357491.417492.487493.557494.627495.687496.757497.827498.897499.957501.027502.117503.417504.767506.117507.457508.807510.157511.507512.857514.197515.547516.8914+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 7485 7490 7500 7495 7505 7510 7515 7520 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7485 7490 7500 7495 7505 7510 7515 7520 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C6 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C7MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C5 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00PC = 25+98.14PT = 27+37.73PC = 29+26.17PT = 31+04.08PC = 31+90.19PT = 34+63.95PC = 35+71.28N 1384071.77E 3004304.90N 1384210.07E 3004321.27N 1384398.52E 3004321.53N 1384574.93E 3004341.47N 1384658.90E 3004360.58N 1384930.29E 3004359.39N 1385034.73E 3004334.66UNPLATTED LAND(RN 990077524)OWNERCROSSROADSMINISTRYVISTA RIDGECONDOMINIUMSLOT 2BLOCK 3THE NEIGHBORHOODWILDFIRE ROAD(ROW VARIES)RED TAIL HAWK DRIVE(50' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)PROPOSED RETAINING WALL B C4 A C4 B C4 C C4 E C4 MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C6MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C8PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN STORM SEWER 8 (SEE SHEET C14.3 ) STORM SEWER 9 (SEE SHEET C14.4 ) STORM SEWER 10 (SEE SHEET C14.4 ) STORM SEWER 11 (SEE SHEET C14.4 ) TOW=7516.21 BOW=7510.93 TOW=7518.83 BOW=7514.41 TOW=7523.25 BOW=7519.95 TOW=7529.26 BOW=7525.29 TOW=7534.64 BOW=7529.50 TOW=7536.76 BOW=7526.36 7516.897518.247519.597521.287523.807526.807529.817532.807535.257536.867537.657538.007538.347538.697539.047539.397539.747540.097540.647541.577542.697543.907545.4726+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 0.70% 2.25% 6.02 % PVI STA = 27+54.50 PVI ELEV = 7521.05 A.D. = 0.03 K = 30.12 100.00' VC LP STA = 27+04.50 LP ELEV = 7519.71'PVC = 27+04.50ELEV = 7519.71PVT = 28+04.50ELEV = 7524.06K = 64.58 100.00' VC LP STA = 34+49.49 LP ELEV = 7540.09'PVC = 34+49.49ELEV = 7540.09PVT = 35+49.49ELEV = 7541.56PVC = 36+16.44ELEV = 7543.06PVI STA = 30+21.10 PVI ELEV = 7537.10 A.D. = -0.05 K = 30.09 160.00' VC HP STA = 31+01.10 HP ELEV = 7537.65'PVC = 29+41.10ELEV = 7532.28PVT = 31+01.10ELEV = 7537.65EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 7515 7520 7530 7525 7535 7540 7545 7550 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7515 7520 7530 7525 7535 7540 7545 7550 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C7 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C8MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C6 0.60% 3.76%PVT = 37+16.44ELEV = 7546.07PVC = 48+05.53PVI ELEV = 7562.66 A.D. = -0.03 K = 50.62 160.00' VC HP STA = 42+37.60 HP ELEV = 7563.14'PVC = 40+77.60ELEV = 7559.65PVT = 42+37.60ELEV = 7563.14OUTLOT AGOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONLOT 2GOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONLOT 1GOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONPTARMIGAN TRAIL(50' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)37+00 38+00 39+00 40+0 0 41+0 0 42+0 0 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+0 0 47+ 0 0 48 + 0 0PT = 39+47.13PC = 42+16.72PT = 43+17.93PC = 45+39.68PT = 47+78.51N 1385405.84E 3004348.01N 1385663.03E 3004428.82N 1385760.83E 3004454.73N 1385977.55E 3004501.74N 1386200.30E 3004585.49D C4 MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C7STORM SEWER 12 (SEE SHEET C14.5) STORM SEWER 13 (SEE SHEET C14.5)MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C9PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN 7545.477547.337549.217551.097552.977554.857556.737558.617560.447561.867562.787563.217563.517563.827564.127564.427564.727565.027565.327565.627565.927566.227566.5237+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7540 7550 7545 7555 7560 7565 7570 7570 7540 7550 7545 7555 7560 7565 7570 7570 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C8 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C9MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C7 2.00%PVI STA = 50+21.86PVI ELEV = 7570.31PVI STA = 48+45.53 PVI ELEV = 7566.79 A.D. = 0.01 K = 57.23 80.00' VC LP STA = 48+05.53 LP ELEV = 7566.55'PVC = 48+05.53ELEV = 7566.55PVT = 48+85.53ELEV = 7567.59OUTLOT CGOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONSTONEGATE DRIVE(60' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 20130011766)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)47+ 0 0 48 + 0 0 49 + 0 0 50 + 0 0 51 + 0 0 51 + 2 2PT = 47+78.51PI = 49+41.76PI = 50+21.86N 1386200.30E 3004585.49N 1386343.11E 3004664.58N 1386412.52E 3004704.58D C4 MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C8STORM SEWER 14 (SEE SHEET C14.5)7566.527566.997567.887568.887569.8848+00 49+00 50+00 51+0051+22 7555 7560 7570 7565 7575 7580 7585 7550 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7555 7560 7570 7565 7575 7580 7585 7550 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C9 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C8 ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' SECTION A C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. VARIES VARIES RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION B C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1.5'1' SECTION C C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. VARIES RETAINING WALL ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION D C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. ȭ12' DRIVE LANE 12' TURN LANE 5' BIKE LANE5' BIKE LANE VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2' VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER 2%2% 2' 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION E C5-C9 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. 12' TURN LANE ȭ EXISTING BIG THOMPSON AVE (HIGHWAY 34) 8' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK 2%2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . SECTION F C11 3" HMA PAVEMENT S-75 VARIES 12" FLY ASH TREATED SUBGRADE N.T.S. 12' TURN LANE 2" HMA PAVEMENT SX-75 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 8' TRAIL/ SIDEWALK 2% SECTION G C12N.T.S. 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 2' CONCRETE PAN 2"6" BERM 2' 2% 3:1 M A X 2 % M I N . 1' VARIES RETAINING WALL 2' 2% 2' 2% 2' 2% Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C4 TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION NOTE: 1. SEE DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS (C5 - C9), BIG THOMPSON AVENUE TURN LANE SHEET (C11) AND TRAIL PLAN & PROFILE SHEET (C12) FOR LOCATIONS OF SECTION PLAN VIEW LOCATIONS. 0.60% -1.00% -1.50%PVI STA = 1+19.31PVI ELEV = 7488.09PVI STA = 6+99.63 PVI ELEV = 7480.53 A.D. = 0.02 K = 38.07 80.00' VC LP STA = 7+16.87 LP ELEV = 7480.70'PVC = 6+59.63ELEV = 7481.13PVT = 7+39.63ELEV = 7480.77PVI STA = 11+73.61 PVI ELEV = 7483.37 A.D. = 0.02 K = 65.06 100.00' VC LP STA = 11+23.61 LP ELEV = 7483.07'PVC = 11+23.61ELEV = 7483.07PVT = 12+23.61ELEV = 7484.43PVI STA = 3+53.75 PVI ELEV = 7485.73 A.D. = -0.00 K = 100.13 50.00' VC HP STA = 3+28.75 HP ELEV = 7485.98'PVC = 3+28.75ELEV = 7485.98PVT = 3+78.75ELEV = 7485.36EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3+0 0 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00PC = 2+55.02PT = 3+72.51PC = 4+71.17PT = 5+83.59PC = 7+56.20 PT = 9+27.31PC = 10+64.19PT = 11+60.94N 1381792.89E 3003765.95N 1381903.34E 3003803.76N 1382001.11E 3003816.94N 1382111.41E 3003838.34N 1382278.69 E 3003880.93 N 1382445.20E 3003920.30N 1382578.93E 3003949.51N 1382673.25E 3003971.07LOT 6BLOCK 2LONE PINE ADD'NLOT 7BLOCK 2LONE PINE ADD'NNORTH LAKE AVENUE(75' ROW)RAVEN AVENUE(80' ROW)LOT 8ALONE PINE ACRESAMENDED PLATLOT 9ALONE PINE ACRESAMENDED PLATNORTHRIDGEMEADOWCONDOMINIUMSUNPLATTED LAND(RN 95032179)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL E C4 B C4 STORM SEWER 3 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 4 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 5 (SEE SHEET C14.2) STORM SEWER 1 (SEE SHEET C14.1) STORM SEWER 2 (SEE SHEET C14.1)MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C6PROPOSED 8' CROSS PANTOW=7485.19 BOW=7484.19 TOW=7483.72 BOW=7479.60 TOW=7482.18 BOW=7476.48 TOW=7480.80 BOW=7475.03 TOW=7481.00 BOW=7475.94 TOW=7481.60 BOW=7476.37 TOW=7482.20 BOW=7477.61 TOW=7482.80 BOW=7478.14 TOW=7483.72 BOW=7480.82 TOW=7485.74 BOW=7483.32 7487.787487.287486.787486.277485.757485.047484.297483.537482.787482.037481.287480.747480.837481.137481.437481.737482.037482.337482.637482.937483.287483.977485.007486.067487.131+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 7470 7475 7485 7480 7490 7495 7500 7505 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7470 7475 7485 7480 7490 7495 7500 7505 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C5 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C6 2.70% 2.13% PVI STA = 20+55.22 PVI ELEV = 7502.19 A.D. = 0.01 K = 89.08 50.00' VC LP STA = 20+30.22 LP ELEV = 7501.65'PVC = 20+30.22ELEV = 7501.65PVT = 20+80.22ELEV = 7502.86EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00PC = 17+11.89PT = 17+77.20PC = 20+94.63PT = 21+59.95PC = 25+85.10N 1383209.12E 3004099.02N 1383272.61E 3004114.40N 1383580.87E 3004190.14N 1383644.35E 3004205.51N 1384057.87E 3004304.25NORTHRIDGEMEADOWCONDOMINIUMSPUBLIC AREALONE PINE ACRESFIRST ADD'NOWNERTOWN OF ESTESPARKPROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TOW=7503.53 BOW=7503.03 TOW=7508.72 BOW=7505.70 TOW=7511.78 BOW=7508.38 TOW=7511.15 BOW=7510.68 B C4 D C4 A C4 B C4MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C5MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C7STORM SEWER 7 (SEE SHEET C14.3) STORM SEWER 6 (SEE SHEET C14.3) TOW=7487.88 BOW=7485.64 7487.137488.207489.277490.337491.407492.477493.547494.607495.677496.747497.817498.877499.947501.017502.107503.397504.747506.097507.447508.797510.137511.487512.837514.187515.537516.8714+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 7485 7490 7500 7495 7505 7510 7515 7520 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7485 7490 7500 7495 7505 7510 7515 7520 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C6 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C7MATCHLINE 13+50SEE SHEET C5 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00PC = 25+85.10PT = 27+21.41PC = 29+22.57PT = 31+00.48PC = 32+44.53PT = 34+13.35PC = 35+74.08N 1384057.87E 3004304.25N 1384192.93E 3004320.25N 1384394.10E 3004320.52N 1384570.51E 3004340.47N 1384710.97E 3004372.43N 1384878.32E 3004371.70N 1385034.73E 3004334.66UNPLATTED LAND(RN 990077524)OWNERCROSSROADSMINISTRYVISTA RIDGECONDOMINIUMSLOT 2BLOCK 3THE NEIGHBORHOODWILDFIRE ROAD(ROW VARIES)RED TAIL HAWK DRIVE(50' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TOW=7522.34 BOW=7521.78 TOW=7529.96 BOW=7527.10 TOW=7533.91 BOW=7532.41 TOW=7541.23 BOW=7540.47 TOW=7543.08 BOW=7541.30 TOW=7544.30 BOW=7543.30 B C4 A C4 B C4 C C4 E C4 MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C6MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C8PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN STORM SEWER 8 (SEE SHEET C14.3 ) STORM SEWER 9 (SEE SHEET C14.4 ) STORM SEWER 10 (SEE SHEET C14.4 ) STORM SEWER 11 (SEE SHEET C14.4 ) TOW=7538.80 BOW=7538.00 TOW=7539.75 BOW=7537.25 TOW=7539.26 BOW=7535.80 7516.877518.227519.577521.257523.767526.777529.777532.777535.237536.857537.647537.997538.347538.697539.047539.397539.747540.097540.637541.567542.687543.897545.4526+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 0.70% 2.25% 6.02 % PVI STA = 27+55.08 PVI ELEV = 7521.05 A.D. = 0.03 K = 30.12 100.00' VC LP STA = 27+05.08 LP ELEV = 7519.71'PVC = 27+05.08ELEV = 7519.71PVT = 28+05.08ELEV = 7524.06PVI STA = 35+00.07 PVI ELEV = 7540.44 A.D. = 0.02 K = 64.58 100.00' VC LP STA = 34+50.07 LP ELEV = 7540.09'PVC = 34+50.07ELEV = 7540.09PVT = 35+50.07ELEV = 7541.56PVI STA = 36+67.02 PVI ELEV = 7544.19 A.D. = 0.02 K = 66.03 100.00' VC LP STA = 36+17.02 LP ELEV = 7543.06'PVC = 36+17.02ELEV = 7543.06PVI STA = 30+21.68 PVI ELEV = 7537.10 A.D. = -0.05 K = 30.09 160.00' VC HP STA = 31+01.68 HP ELEV = 7537.65'PVC = 29+41.68ELEV = 7532.28PVT = 31+01.68ELEV = 7537.65EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE 7515 7520 7530 7525 7535 7540 7545 7550 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7515 7520 7530 7525 7535 7540 7545 7550 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C7 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C8MATCHLINE 26+00SEE SHEET C6 0.60% 3.76%PVT = 37+17.02ELEV = 7546.07PVI STA = 41+58.18 PVI ELEV = 7562.66 A.D. = -0.03 K = 50.61 160.00' VC HP STA = 42+38.18 HP ELEV = 7563.14'PVC = 40+78.18ELEV = 7559.65PVT = 42+38.18ELEV = 7563.14EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINEOUTLOT AGOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONLOT 2GOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONLOT 1GOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONPTARMIGAN TRAIL(50' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)37+00 38+00 39+00 40+0 0 41+0 0 42+0 0 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+0 0 47+ 0 0 48 + 0 0PT = 39+49.93PC = 42+19.52PT = 43+20.72PC = 45+42.82PT = 47+68.88N 1385405.84E 3004348.01N 1385663.03E 3004428.82N 1385760.83E 3004454.73N 1385977.89E 3004501.81N 1386189.42E 3004579.47D C4 MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C7STORM SEWER 12 (SEE SHEET C14.5) STORM SEWER 13 (SEE SHEET C14.5)MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C9PROPOSED 8' CROSS PAN 7545.457547.317549.197551.077552.957554.837556.717558.597560.437561.847562.777563.217563.517563.817564.117564.417564.717565.017565.317565.617565.917566.217566.5137+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7540 7550 7545 7555 7560 7565 7570 7570 7540 7550 7545 7555 7560 7565 7570 7570 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C8 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C9MATCHLINE 37+00SEE SHEET C7 2.00%PVI STA = 50+24.51PVI ELEV = 7570.31PVI STA = 48+48.73 PVI ELEV = 7566.80 A.D. = 0.01 K = 57.30 80.00' VC LP STA = 48+08.73 LP ELEV = 7566.56'PVC = 48+08.73ELEV = 7566.56PVT = 48+88.73ELEV = 7567.60EXISTING GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE PROPOSED GRADE @ STREET CENTERLINE OUTLOT CGOOD SAMARITANSUBDIVISIONSTONEGATE DRIVE(60' ROW)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 20130011766)UNPLATTED LAND(RN 2002089998)47+ 0 0 48 + 0 0 49 + 0 0 50 + 0 0 51 + 0 0 51 + 2 5PT = 47+68.88PI = 49+44.61PI = 50+24.79N 1386189.42E 3004579.47N 1386344.46E 3004662.18N 1386412.52E 3004704.58D C4 MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C8STORM SEWER 14 (SEE SHEET C14.5)7566.517566.967567.837568.827569.8248+00 49+00 50+00 51+00 51+25 7555 7560 7570 7565 7575 7580 7585 7550 0 SCALE: 1"=50' 25 50 100 7555 7560 7570 7565 7575 7580 7585 7550 Reviewed: Book No.: Date: Design/Drawn: Description:Date:# Field: RRL JCC GROUP www.f-w.com Engineers | Architects | Surveyors | Scientists 1612 SPECHT POINT ROAD, SUITE 105 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 (970) 484-7477 / info@f-w.com Project No.: 05/2015 0150096.00 Town of Estes Park DRY GULCH ROAD REHABILITATION Estes Park, CO C9 DRY GULCH ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MATCHLINE 48+00SEE SHEET C8 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Date: May 12th, 2015 RE: Update on EDC/Town Broadband Service Project Objective: To update the Board on the progress of the EDC/Town Broadband project. Present Situation: The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation and the Town are contracting with NEO Fiber of Carbondale, Colorado for the Broadband Expansion Technical Assistance Strategy Project. The project is one of three funded by the U.S. Economic Development Administration’s $300,000 grant award announced last year. NEO Fiber was chosen from 8 national applicants because of its experience in planning, community engagement, design and engineering, business modeling, financing, owning, and operating of fiber optic, wireless and Fiber to the Home/Premise (FTTH) networks. NEO Fiber is a national leader in providing consulting services for all of the areas involved in planning for and implementing advanced wireless, fiber, broadband and middle mile FTTH networks. For more information on NEO Fiber, go to their website: http://www.neofiber.net/ The Broadband Expansion Strategy Project started in February and is expected to take five to six months and will have five phases: Phase 1: Needs Assessment, Market Analysis and Business Planning. NEO Fiber will conduct a business and technical assessment of existing broadband and telecommunications services and then, with input from local partners, develop a communications and outreach strategy, and conduct outreach to existing businesses to assess market needs and future demand for high -speed internet access. Phase 2. Stakeholder Support. Identify and consult with regional community leaders and citizens to build understanding of and support for the broadband economic development project. Phase 3. Design and Engineering. Analyze the current broadband capability and service relationships. Then, design a broadband delivery system to address the current and future needs of Estes Park and the surrounding region and conduct a preliminary engineering analysis to determine the methods and costs most appropriate for delivering the desired broadband services. Phase 4. Development of Business Model. Based upo n technical and market analyses, evaluate potential business models for build-out and operation of expanded regional broadband services, then analyze Colorado regulatory environment and include analysis of public/private partnerships and public options. Phase 5. Financial Planning and Funds Sourcing. Develop a financial plan for the identified broadband infrastructure plan. Work with the Town of Estes Park, the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation, and others to identify funding opportunities to implement the broadband design. The purpose of the presentation is to discuss the various options that are available for consideration regarding Organizational Structure (which entity should own this project?) and Service Delivery Options (how should services be provided?). We will have a discussion regarding the options available, the pros and cons of various organizational structures and what role the infrastructure owner could provide in terms of how services are delivered. A decision from the Town Trustees is not required at this point as this is an information-only presentation regarding options that will be further explored Proposal (including budget if applicable): n/a update only Advantages: n/a Disadvantages: n/a Level of Public Interest high About NEO Fiber NEO’s main line of business is to provide strategic consulting services and project/program management for utilities, municipalities, companies, tribal communities, real estate developers, grant recipients and government agencies that are deploying advanced broadband and Fiber to the Home/Business (FTTH, FTTB) networks. We are big supporters of the National Broadband Plan and are ambassadors of Gigabit networks and their enabling technologies. This includes smart grid and energy management systems, ultra‐fast broadband networks, cellular backhaul, telemedicine and tele‐health, distance learning and better education, e‐government, enhanced homeland security, as well as all of the unforeseeable improvements in and for our lives that broadband networks provide. About Kruse Diane Kruse is the CEO and founder of NEO Fiber and is the lead consultant on the Estes Park Broadband Planning Efforts. Kruse is past Chairman of the Board for the Fiber to the Home Council and currently serves on the Chairman’s Circle for Broadband Communities. She has founded four successful telecommunication companies has (30) years of telecommunications and energy industry experience, the last (20) years as an entrepreneur starting and managing successful telecommunication, energy and start‐up companies. Prior to NEO, she was the CEO of a leading firm in the FTTH industry for Greenfield real estate development projects and FTTH design, engineering and construction for municipalities and rural telecommunications companies. Additionally, Kruse has provided consulting services for AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, 360 Networks and Level 3 Communications and has held numerous management positions with Sprint Communications. NEO Clients NEO’s clients this year include: City of Boulder (CO) City of Durango (CO) City of Montrose (CO) EAGLE‐Net Alliance (CO) State of Colorado (CO) Teller County (CO) Urbana Champaign Big Broadband (IL) Colorado Region 10 (CO) Sho‐Me Technologies, (MO) University City, St. Louis (MO) Wellston, St. Louis (MO) Blue Ridge Internetworks (VA) Florida Rural Broadband Alliance (FL) Pavlov Media (several states) Rockfire at the Lake (KS) Town of Lost Rabbit (MS) Tucows, Ting Fiber (Toronto) Town of Estes Park (CO) Cable Labs (several states) U.S. Virgin Island NGN (VI) Town of Estes ParkConsiderations for Ownership, Organizational Structure, Collaboration and Public-Private PartnershipsNEO FiberMay 12, 2015 AgendaPurpose: To discuss options for consideration for Organizational Structure (what entity shall lead this and own the infrastructure?) and Service Delivery Models (how shall services be provided and by whom?)Take Aways: There are many options for consideration regarding ownership and operating structures. We will discuss the various options, their pros and cons, and how various models for providing advanced broadband service. This presentation is to share information and discuss options, a decision is not required at this time. Why is this Important?The community wants it. 94% in favor public vote.Broadband is a critical infrastructure. The existing “model of scarcity” can be dramatically disrupted in this process.Broadband infrastructure is necessary to support local tourism, economic development, industry, our schools and students, healthcare and everything that we do. Service Delivery ModelsInfrastructure OwnerDark FiberLand, Towers, ConduitGovernment Services ProviderAnchorsStakeholdersOpen Access ProviderRetail Services BusinessesRetail Services Business and ResidentialIncreasing Services12345 Organizational Structure (Who Owns the Infrastructure?Regulatory Limitations Grant and Funding OpportunitiesBalancing and Consideration for:Control: Who owns the network and how is it operated?Risk: Balancing financial and political risks with community rewardReward: Financial, economic development, affordability, redundancy, abundant broadband What are the Options?Public UtilityCity DepartmentConsortiumNon-profit 501(c)3, 501(c)12Public/Private Partnerships Public/Private PartnershipInvitation to Negotiate ProcessTown of Estes Park provides Assets, Value of those Assets“Build friendly” PoliciesDig OnceBlanket PermitsWaive Permit FeesService Provider Builds OutContractual RelationshipManagement and Oversight Broadband Impacts Every Sector of Industry Next StepsRecommendations & Go Forward Business PlanFinancial ModelingDesign and Engineering Diane KruseNEO Fiber970-309-3500dkruse@NEOfiber.netwww.NEOfiber.netThank you! NEO Fiber Deliverable 1 The purpose of this section of the Business Plan is to discuss two important concepts. The first is a discussion of what type of entity could potentially own and operate a broadband system within the Town of Estes Park and what the pros and cons of each option include. The second concept deals with how services can be delivered on the network and the various business models for consideration. As these concepts seem to take time to seed and grow, they are being introduced early on in the process of evaluating strategies for the Town of Estes Park. Exploration of Ownership and Operations Models There are a number of considerations to how the network can be operated and who or what type of entity would own the network. Regulatory Environment. The first consideration in determining models for ownership and operations structure is to consider the regulatory environment in Colorado and specifically, within the Town of Estes Park and whether or not there are any limiting factors in regards to the Town of Estes Park building telecommunications or broadband networks, providing services, entering into public ‐ private partnerships and/or financing a broadband build. By a vote of the Town’s citizens in February of this year, the Town has restored the authority it had prior to passage in 2005 of the state statute known as Colorado’s Senate Bill 152. The wording of the Town’s ballot issue was: “Without increasing taxes, shall the Town of Estes Park reestablish the Townʹs right to provide all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as “advanced services,” “telecommunications services” and “cable television services,” including any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including, but not limited to, the existing fiber optic network, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, residential or commercial users within the Town and the service area of the Townʹs light and power enterprise?” The wording of the ballot language is quite broad, and references the authority to “provide all services” that were previously restricted by SB 152. The ballot language also specifically references public – private partnerships when it authorizes the Town’s involvement in broadband “either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners…” Therefore, the NEO Fiber Deliverable 2 Town has very broad authority to enter into any one of the wide variety of public – private partnerships that exist today or may be developed in the future. Any restrictions or limitations are based upon general authority of a statutory municipality and not as a result of state law addressing local government involvement in broadband matters. Financing of a broadband network, just like the financing of any other public project, is governed by state law, and primarily by the Constitutional Amendment known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20. With respect to incurring debt, Section 20 (4)(b) of TABOR requires an election prior to “creation of any multiple‐fiscal year direct or indirect district debt or other financial obligation whatsoever without adequate present cash reserves pledged irrevocably and held for payments in all future fiscal years.” To the extent that the financing of a broadband network, or any components of a network would require the issuance of debt, the Town would be required by TABOR to seek a vote of the registered electors in the Town. To the extent that the Town owns or controls existing network facilities that it wishes to use in a network, or has the financial resources to pay for new facilities, it may do so without an election. Statutory municipalities are granted their authority in Title 31 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Estes Park is a statutory town. Among the powers of statutory municipalities are the power to enter into contracts and the power to acquire, hold, lease, and dispose of both real and personal property. C.R.S. 31‐15‐1(b) and (c). The Town also has the power to contract indebtedness (subject to TABOR) by borrowing money or issuing the bonds of the municipality “for any public purpose of the municipality, including but not limited to the following purposes: Supplying water, gas, heating and cooling, and electricity; purchasing land; and purchasing, constructing, extending, and improving public streets, buildings, facilities, and equipment…” C.R.S. 31‐15‐ 302(1)(d)(I). While this section of the statute does not specify telecommunications, the authority granted to Towns is specifically not limited to the examples stated, and the broadband facilities the Town is considered would, according to Denver‐based attorney, Ken Fellman, be deemed a public purpose, and therefore permitted. That being said, the total amount of the Town’s indebtedness for all authorized purposes may not exceed three percent of the actual value, as determined by the assessor, of the taxable property in the Town. C.R.S. 31‐15‐302(1)(d)(II). Financing Options. Other considerations for choosing an ownership model include the ability to receive financing and funding to pay for the capital costs of the network construction. Certain financing and funding programs restrict who is eligible to apply for and receive funding. The federal grant and loan programs available for funding broadband construction include the following: NEO Fiber Deliverable 3 The Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) has announced a $20 Million grant program for regional councils of governments and municipalities. In 2015, DOLA will have three rounds of financing applications with deadlines for grant submission being April 1st, August 1st and December 1st. The Rural Broadband Experiments and Connect America program are available to unserved areas; the definition for eligibility is 3 Mbps combined upload and download. As the FCC in 2015 raised the definition of served to 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps in upload speeds, there may be funds available through the Connect America to a wider group of communities. One caveat currently of the Connect America program is that it is available for Eligible Telecommunication Carriers. The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program available through the USDA “makes long‐term direct and guaranteed loans to qualified organizations for the purpose of financing the improvement, expansion, construction, acquisition, and operation of telephone lines, facilities, or systems to furnish and improve Telecommunications service in rural areas. The definition for “rural area” is within the boundaries of any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough having a population exceeding 5,000 inhabitants.”1 As of 2014, Estes Park’s population is 5,901 people. Since 2000, it has had a population growth of 6.52 percent. Estes Park would not qualify as a rural area and therefore, would not qualify for the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program. 1 US Department of Agriculture Rural Development, About Telecom Infrastructure Loans, available at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/utp_infrastructure.html State‐Level Grants DOLA Rural Broadband Experiments, Connect America Community Connect Grants Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program Health Connect, Rural Healthcare Program E‐rate Eligibility Regional Council of Governments Yes ‐‐‐‐‐ Local Government, Tribes Yes Yes Yes Yes ‐‐ Non‐profit ‐Yes Yes Yes ‐‐ Corporations ‐Yes Yes Yes ‐‐ Cooperatives ‐Yes Yes Yes ‐‐ Education ‐‐ ‐Yes ‐Yes Medical Providers ‐‐ ‐Yes Yes ‐ Eligible Telecommunications Carrier ‐Required ‐‐‐‐ Timing Ongoing November 7, 2014; Phase II in 2015 Grant cycle is in early part of year. How much? $100M total, grant amounts dependent upon technology/bandwidth Grants available for Equipment, inside wiring and "other facilities" Federal Level NEO Fiber Deliverable 4 The Rural Broadband Loan Program, which is part of the Farm Bill, “is designed to provide loans for funding, on a technology neutral basis, for the costs of construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment to provide broadband service to eligible rural communities.”2 Again, the definition of rural includes communities with a population less than 5,000 inhabitants. Other sources of funding should also be considered. These include internal loans, bonds, TIF and revenue funds, economic development financing programs, and crowd sourcing. E‐rate is available for schools and in the past was used to as a reimbursement or supplement for Internet access services. The E‐rate program has had a number of changes recently; one significant change is the ability to reimburse for construction of facilities (i.e. fiber optic cable) to serve the school. There are grant programs that are available for Telemedicine and Distance Learning as well as program targeted specifically for Rural Health. There are a number of other financing options some of which include; New Market tax credits, for which allocations would have to be secured; economic development retail sales tax funds, and bond financing through a number of different structures and types of bonds. Control, Risk and Reward. Other considerations for selecting the most appropriate ownership model include balancing the tension between control, risk and rewards. Control considerations include who owns the network and makes decisions regarding how the network is used coupled with who maintains the network and the types and levels of services offered. Many proponents of community broadband networks are in favor of having a local entity own the network. This local entity may be a public utility, the municipality, a local community non‐ profit, collaboration of entities, or in some cases, a locally‐owned service provider. Local ownership could also be in the form of a public‐private partnership. These controls may be able to be provided contractually with reversionary clauses if the agreed on public interests were not being provided. Such as those that can be placed in a sale or transfer of property for development agreement. These provisions need to be balanced with the financing requirements of the sources of the funds. Local ownership implies having a vested interest in the economic outcomes for the community. Networks are built to spur economic 2 US Department of Agriculture Rural Development, About the Farm Bill Loan Program, available at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/utp_farmbill.html NEO Fiber Deliverable 5 development and are built to key anchor institutions that require high availability of bandwidth. A local entity may own the network, but the impact of the cost of building the network must be weighed against the risks of doing so. Fiber networks are capital intensive. Consideration of bearing the financial risk must be weighed against the rewards that the network could potentially bring to the community. Rewards of local ownership of the network may include more abundant broadband, higher bandwidth speeds available, and lower costs to end users. These attributes may also entice companies, research facilities, education centers and entrepreneurs to re‐locate to the community. The network infrastructure then becomes a catalyst for economic development. Owning the network can give the local entity more control over the services being offered. For example, if the network owner provides services directly to the end user using a retail model, the network owner sets pricing and service offerings. In a wholesale model environment, the network owner should take care to still control the level of services offered and pricing. Utopia is an all‐fiber network that was built for sixteen municipalities in Utah. The law in Utah prohibits Utopia from offering retail services; the consortium could only offer services using a wholesale platform. The service providers that used the Utopia network offered services that were the same as other competitors in the market that were not using the Utopia network. There was no compelling reason to change providers; no greater offering of bandwidth speeds and no better pricing options. This resulted in Utopia not meeting its revenue or take‐rate targets. Utopia had accumulated over $200 Million in debt and had only $3 Million in annual revenues. A rescue‐plan needed to be put in place this past year to ensure the long‐term viability of the project. In order to avoid this type of scenario, the network owner must ensure there is a minimum threshold level of services offered and must maintain some control over pricing. There are other considerations for dealing with control issues. For example, the network owner may own the network, but outsource the operation and maintenance of the network to another entity. Often local entities such as a local public power company or the municipality may have many desirable and already established operational skills and systems in place. These may include an established customer call center and/or a billing system. Power companies that already maintain electric infrastructure may own bucket trucks and have outside plant engineers that maintain power lines and equipment. The skills needed to maintain a fiber network may be taught to existing electric department employees that are already familiar with maintaining outside plant. If the local entity does not have these systems in place, then it may make better sense to outsource these areas to a service provider or other entity. NEO Fiber Deliverable 6 The pros and cons of the following organizational structures are included below: • Public utility • Public or City Government Department • Community Non‐Profit • Collaboration • Service Provider or Privately‐Owned Public Utility. Many of the community broadband networks that are in place today have been initiated by a public utility, either as a municipality that provides electric services to its constituents or from an electric cooperative. Many of these fiber networks were initially built to better manage utility systems, connecting the power stations with a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition or “SCADA” systems. These fiber networks were then leveraged to build out to anchor institutions and then in some cases, to all of the residents and businesses within the area. Examples of public utilities that have built community broadband networks include: WHOLESALE MODEL (OPEN ACCESS MODEL) Danville,VA Leverett, MA Chelan PUD, WA Sho‐Me Technologies, MO Grant County PUD, WA RETAIL MODEL Chattanooga, TN EPB Kit Carson Electric Coop., NMUnited Electric, MO Opelika Light and Power, AL Clarksville Department of Electricity, TN St. Louis Park, MN Bristol, VA Bristol, TN Chaska, MN Cloud, FL Benton Public Utility District – Kennewick, WA Longmont, CO As these public utilities are locally controlled, they have a vested interest in the community’s success. There is a high level of local control over network funding and priorities. This established organizational structure provides local oversight. These public utilities have a NEO Fiber Deliverable 7 board of directors to guide their activities and oversight already established by a city council or other governing body. This community model creates loyalty. A chart illustrating the benefits of this organizational model, along with the potential pitfalls is shown on the following page. PPros and conns for a PUBBLIC UTILIT8 TY NEO Fiber DDeliverable NEO Fiber Deliverable 9 The potential disadvantages of this model are that city politics can sometimes play a role in the process and may make decision‐making a difficult process. Often business decisions must be made quickly in order to respond to competitive pressures, and the decision making process within a city can sometimes be a slower process. Also, the required expertise and experience to operate a telecommunications network may not be present with the city’s organization and this experience either needs to be built, established or acquired. City Department. In other cases, the municipality that does not own a public utility has established a community broadband network and has run it through a city department. This organizational model has many of the positive attributes of a public utility as it is locally‐owned and has the community’s best interest in mind. The impetus for creating a community broadband network owned by the city is based upon economic development initiatives. Many of the elements discussed here can be used in combination with other models discussed within to create the best practices in delivering the best service for the value. A municipality may have sources of funding that may not be available to a private company and can be used in a public private partnership. Municipal securities are issued to finance public‐purpose projects for infrastructure such as roads, airports, hospitals, school, water and sewer systems and telecommunication networks. Generally, municipal bonds fall into one of two categories – general obligation bonds or revenue bonds. Interest income is generally federally tax exempt; although there are several types of general obligation and revenue bonds and it should not be assumed that all bonds are tax exempt. General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the governmental entity, and taxes can be issued to pay back the loan. Revenue bonds are secured by revenues generated by the issuer or by certain taxes such as sales, fuel or hotel occupancy taxes. As community broadband networks are considered infrastructure that serves the public purpose, municipalities can use bonds to finance the construction costs. A municipality may also have the ability to implement favorable policies and ordinances to facilitate community broadband network construction. For example, the city may have a “Dig Once Policy” that requires all public works, utility and/or road improvement projects to install additional conduit for the city while there is an open trench. The city may also have an ordinance whereby any abandoned fiber located within the city limits reverts to the city’s ownership after a period of time. A municipality may consider these policies whether it decides to own the network or not. Having these policies in place allows the city to have access to conduit and fiber that could be used by another entity to build infrastructure. Either way, much of the capital costs of opening a trench and installing conduit are greatly reduced by having NEO Fiber Deliverable 10 these policies in place. It is our recommendation that these polices be put in place within Town of Estes Park at the earliest opportunity, no matter what model is used. In many cases, having the municipality own the network infrastructure allows for more choices in collaborative efforts. The municipality may be a neutral party to collaborate with numerous service providers in an open‐access approach. The municipality may more easily leverage their assets and policies to collaborate with other public‐private ventures and with community leaders and non‐profits. On the following page is an outline of the pros and cons of the municipal‐owned or city department organizational structure. PPros and conns for a CITYY DEPARTM11 MENT NEO Fiber DDeliverable NEO Fiber Deliverable 12 Examples of community broadband networks owned by a city department include: y Santa Monica, CA y Farmington, NM y Windom, MN y Corpus Christi, TX y Provo, UT y Seattle, WA y Centennial, CO In both of the public utility model and the city department model, transparency can be a barrier or a competitive threat. Measures must be taken to allow the entity to remain competitive and nimble, with the ability to react quickly to changing market environments. Community Non‐Profit Organizations. Another organizational model to consider is a community non‐profit organization. Control is still maintained locally, and all of the benefits of local control can be realized. Additionally, non‐profit organizations may have yet another source of funding available through charitable giving and foundational funds. The non‐profit organization may not be under the same transparency requirements of a city department or public utility and may be able to operate more effectively. The potential downsides of a non‐profit organization may be that the governance structure and funding may be difficult and therefore, considerations should be in place to mitigate this risk. Examples of community broadband networks that are using the non‐profit organizational model include: y UC2B, Urbana Champaign, IL y One Community, Ohio y Cape Cod, MA y Rhode Island, RI The benefits and potential disadvantages are listed on the following page. PPros and Coons of Commmunity Non‐13 ‐Profit Organnizations NEO Fiber DDeliverable NEO Fiber Deliverable 14 Consortium. Another organizational structure to consider is one of a consortium. A consortium could be a non‐profit organization or a public‐private initiative or both. Many municipalities and counties have formed a collaborative effort or consortium to address broadband needs as a region. In these cases, there was power in numbers; either as in buying or purchasing power or in sharing costs. By aggregating demand, a regional approach may reduce overall capital costs of a community broadband project. Many of the funding sources encourage a regional collaboration versus a one‐municipality or one‐jurisdiction approach for this reason. Most of the Stimulus projects funded under the ARRA BTOP program were indeed consortiums. These consortium pooled resources and established large projects that could effectively compete for grant funding. Examples of consortium‐type community broadband organizations include: y Ohio Middle Mile Consortium (OMMC) y Wireless Silicon Valley y Colorado Region 9 Council of Governments y Utopia, UT y Florida Rural Broadband Alliance y Numerous BTOP Projects, Middle Mile projects CConsortiums15 NEO Fiber DDeliverable NEO Fiber Deliverable 16 Service Provider Owned Organizational Model. Finally, another model for consideration is one in which the service provider or multiple service providers own the network. This strategy seems to promote the status quo. Service providers own their networks today. Using this strategy gives up the components of control, risk and reward. The municipality or the community must rely on the service providers to upgrade their networks to offer gigabit‐ enabled services. This appears to be the least attractive option for Town of Estes Park as there are no providers currently that are planning to offer gigabit‐flavored services to the community. Town of Estes Park would have no control over where the network is built, when it is built or what services would be offered and at what price level. Town of Estes Park could try to promote pro‐build policies – Dig Once Policies, and sharing of existing assets, but without some measure of control, the potential rewards that could be realized with a community broadband network are left to the service providers to implement. There is no incentive or penalty for the service provider to improve the service. Public/Private Partnerships. It should also be noted that a Public/Private Partnership (“PPP”) model could be set up to reduce the operational risks potentially for a municipality, and yet provide all of the benefits that are associated with local ownership and patient funding. A PPP is a negotiated contract between a public and private entity to fulfill certain requirements and obligations to build out telecommunications or broadband infrastructure and provide services. PPPs can leverage public assets, such as fiber optic cable, conduit, poles and land with private service providers’ assets. These assets can be combined or shared or used to facilitate better and more available access to high speed broadband services. As a PPP can take on several shapes and forms, we will discuss how PPPs can help address risks in various service delivery models. Typically the questions to be addressed when setting up a PPP includes the following list: • Who will own the network? • Who will pay for the network to be built? Will the costs of building the network be shared? • What are the parameters, priorities and boundaries for build‐out? • What assets will be provided for use by the municipality? At what cost? What is the value of these assets? • What assets will be provided by the service provider? At what cost? What is the value of these assets? • What policies can be put in place to further incentivize build‐out? For example, permitting timelines can be streamlined through bulk/blanket permits or permitting fees could be waived or reduced. Another possibility could be allowing for lower cost construction methods (i.e. aerial construction or microtrenching) NEO Fiber Deliverable 17 • Is this partnership exclusive? Open to many service providers? • Who will provide services to end users? Which end users? • What services will be provided? • What minimum level of service is required? • What pricing will be offered? • Who will provide network management and operations? • How will the partnership be managed? • What happens if either party falls short of its obligations? • How will the performance and progress be measured? The Town of Estes Park could engage in either an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) or a Request for Proposal process with service providers to allow providers the opportunity to submit a PPP proposal for consideration. This could be in an open and non‐discriminatory process by which one or more service providers could be selected to enter into a PPP with the Town of Estes Park. The ITN would specify what assets could be available for use and at what cost. The Town of Estes Park could also provide a streamlined permitting process for use of poles and opening trenches for further build‐out. There are certain conditions that the ITN would require of service providers. These conditions could be the following: • The Town of Estes Park could reserve the right to provide services directly to the schools, hospitals and government offices within the community. • Specific price targets for specific tiers of service offerings for residential and business customers • Provide a minimum level of service to residential and business customers. For example, many municipalities are requiring a minimum service level of 1 Gbps. • Joint marketing opportunities. For example, the community can market the connectedness of the town and promote this for economic development purposes and to recruit new businesses and industries to the community. The service provider can market its selection as the preferred provider within the community. • Free wi‐fi in specific areas of the community, such as parks, downtown areas, tourist areas or other designated places within the community. • Service level agreements guaranteeing availability, reliability, redundancy and performance. • The ability to have the municipality provide oversight, management of performance and progress NEO Fiber Deliverable 18 The PPP model could then assume that the service provider would then further build‐out the infrastructure to the community using or leveraging the municipality’s assets or that the cost of further build‐out could be shared. In all of Owned O manner. Network Here are 1. Infrast land, and service p Se Op the organiza Organization In other w k and then se the various tructure Pro d property t providers to ervice D Mu pen Acc v ational mod nal Model, t words, the m ervice delive forms of ser ovider. The m to service p build out w Delivery unicipal cess or vs. Reta els discusse the network municipality ery models w rvice deliver municipality roviders to within the c 19 y Mode l Partic Wholes ail Strat d above, wi k owner cou y could deci would then b ry for a Com y could sell c use. This c ommunity. ls to Co ipation sale Str tegies ith the excep uld offer ser ide to build be contempl mmunity Bro conduit, dar can dramatic For examp NEO Fi onsider n, rategies ption of the rvice in a re d a Commu lated. oadband Net rk fiber, use cally improv ple, having a iber Deliver r Service Pro tail or whol unity Broad twork: of poles, tow ve the abilit access to con rable vider lesale dband wers, ty for nduit NEO Fiber Deliverable 20 can reduce the capital costs of deployment by 60‐80% as most of the capital cost for building a fiber optic network is in the labor to open a trench, lay conduit and then place fiber. 2. Government Services Provider. The municipality builds fiber to and provides services for anchor tenants, government offices, public safety, schools, universities, and medical establishments. In addition to providing more abundant broadband at an affordable price to these stakeholders, other services such as IT support, videoconferencing, software updates, etc. can be provided and shared amongst governments to reduce costs and provide better e‐ government applications. 3. Open Access Provider. An open access network is one in which the physical access to the network is separate from the services that are offered on the network. In its truest sense, the infrastructure owner does not supply services for the network; these services are provided by the service provider. There is clear delineation of separation of network ownership and service providers (i.e. wholesale only services). In many open access networks, the network owner may also be the retail service provider (for example, offer retail Internet services directly to end users) AND offer wholesale service is an open‐access environment or perhaps the municipality retains the ability to serve anchor institutions and/or government agencies. The access is open if it is sufficiently available on a non‐discriminatory basis so that all competitors can access the infrastructure under equivalent cost and quality terms. There are a number of “flavors” of open access networks. These variations of the model are determined based upon technical design aspects of the network and how “deep” the infrastructure owner’s network exists. These technical components are referred to as layers on the Open Systems Interconnection (“OSI”) model. The OSI model is a conceptual model that defines and standardized the internal functions, protocols and languages of a communication system by partitioning it into abstraction layers. The lower the layer on the OSI, the less involved, or less functions are provided by the infrastructure owner. As one moves up the layers, the infrastructure owner is providing an increasingly robust and sophisticated set of functions. NEO Fiber Deliverable 21 This graphic is taken from The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics. For example, if the municipality were to offer conduit only and collocation space, this is a basic level of functionality, or sometimes referred to as “Layer 0.” Service providers use the collocation space to house and terminate their own equipment and pull fiber through the existing conduit. This approach minimizes the municipality’s role and its investment and allows service providers the greatest degree of flexibility in the broadband access network they implement. This approach also increases the costs required to become a service provider and minimizes the extent to which infrastructure is shared. Nonetheless, opening a trench and laying conduit is often the most expensive part of the outside plant costs and a municipality can provide conduit to entice the service provider to offer more robust services. This was discussed previously under the Infrastructure Provider Model. At a higher level of investment, the municipality could deploy fiber through conduit or in an aerial fashion and sell dark fiber leases or long‐term IRUs of the dark fiber to recover its investment costs (“Layer 1”). The municipality provides the physical layer (conduit and fiber), but leaves the service provider with lighting the fiber with its own electronics and provisioning of services. This works when there is a large amount of fiber counts available from the NEO Fiber Deliverable 22 municipality. For example, if Town of Estes Park built a 288‐count fiber network, it could sell excess capacity to numerous service providers in an open‐access manner. This is not the case. The Town of Estes Park has 30‐36 fibers available for use. The IRU pricing is dependent upon the number of fibers acquired. It may be cost prohibitive to purchase a large strand count of fiber and most IRU agreements restrict the further resale of the acquired strands. If Town of Estes Park had more fibers available on its fiber network, than it could more easily sell dark fiber leases or IRUs to other service providers. Another hand‐off to the service provider could be at a lambda or a wavelength. Lambda switching (sometimes called photonic switching, or wavelength switching) is the technology used in optical networking to switch individual wavelengths of light onto separate paths for specific routing of information. In a simplistic sense, a wavelength could be thought of as a different color of light. Technologies such as Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) enable 80 or more separate wavelengths to be transmitted on a single optical fiber. Handing off at a lambda to the service provider allows a light path to behave like a virtual circuit.3 The most often used form of open access for community broadband networks is the Data Link layer, or ʺLayer 2ʺ. In this case, the infrastructure provider deploys both the fiber and the link layer electronics at either end. Many municipalities are deploying this level of service and often this is referred to as the Open Access Model. As there are different meanings assigned to this term in the industry, it is appropriate to further define which Open Access Model and strategy is being provided. Service providers are offered a basic network service which they can use as a platform for delivering a bundle of retail‐level services. The handoff to the service provider might be an Ethernet port to support Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) service. The Ethernet port handoff could be 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps. This level of service could then be available to any location that is fiber‐fed. Pricing for this type of service could be a port charge or access fee per location. If the network infrastructure owner is providing a link layer service based on Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), then customers are assigned separate Permanent Virtual Circuits (PVCs) which are switched to the designated service provider. While providing the electronics for lighting the fiber, the infrastructure owner might also provide what is normally viewed as a 3Tech Target, Lambda Switching, definition available at http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/lambda‐switching NEO Fiber Deliverable 23 Layer 1 service: point‐to‐point circuits, for example using Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) Add/Drop Multiplexors (ADMs). Finally, open access can occur at the network layer (ʺLayer 3ʺ). Once again, this may be implemented in a number of ways. Policy based routers, or Multi‐Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)‐based Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) are used to separate traffic going to competing service providers or ISPs. Pricing for this type of service could be a revenue share or a fixed monthly fee per customer per service. The term “open access” can be generally used to mean that the network is available on a non‐ exclusive basis, and for any qualified service provider to utilize in order to connect their customers. Qualified service providers would be able to serve any business or residence that is connected to the network. 4. Retail Service Provider Model, Businesses. In this model, the municipality builds the fiber network, installs electronics to light the network and provides services directly to the end users. Most often, municipalities provide voice and Internet services to local businesses. In this model, the municipality competes directly with the service providers 5. Retail Service Provider Model, Businesses and Residences. In this model, the municipality provides voice, data, Internet and cable TV services to the businesses and residences within the community. As things are changing rapidly in the industry, some municipalities are only providing data and Internet services and are deciding not to provide voice services and cable TV services. With enhancements being made to cellular phones and the increasing mobility needs of customers today, more customers are opting for cell phone services over their landline phones. 90% of adult Americans have a cellular phone. The number of adult Americans with a smartphone rose from 35% in April 2011 to 58% in January 2014. Smartphones have more advanced computing ability and connectivity than landline phones. Smartphones are now cameras, media players, video cameras, GPS navigation units, web browsers, and personal digital assistants. Landline phone service is a product in decline. The number of households in the United States that have only wireless phone service has jumped from about 18% in 2008 to almost 35% in 2011, now at 70%. It is predicted that only 30% of homes will retain their landline phones in 2015. The FCC is recommending changing the Universal Service Fund, which helped subsidize the installation of networks to build landline phones; to subsidizing BROADBAND services. The Universal Service Fund would no longer subsidize landline phone service, but would instead subsidize broadband or Internet services. NEO Fiber Deliverable 24 IPTV: Video and cable TV usage is dramatically changing too. The top 12 cable companies have all seen a dramatic decline in cable TV subscribers in the past twenty‐four months. Former pay‐TV subscribers are opting for lower‐priced Internet streaming solutions, such as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. The big three channels (ABC, NBC and CBS), as well as most cable TV content is now offered online at no or very low cost depending upon the programming. As customers are becoming more Internet‐savvy, more content is now offered online for free, and given the current context of the tough economic climate, when given a choice, customers are discontinuing their cable TV subscriptions in favor of Internet entertainment options. The customer’s experience in the world of TV is well established and expectations are deep‐ seated. Customers do not want to experience channel delay or service disruptions, which have been typical in most IPTV service roll‐outs. Initiating an IPTV service must meet or exceed previous customer experience from cable or satellite companies. Market research shows that if these experiences are not impeccable, the customer is already predisposed to changing services should their expectations (or anybody else’s in the household, for that matter) not be met. Offering IPTV services is challenging and complex. Even for existing service providers or other utility providers that already have an operational team and systems in place, launching IPTV service is unlike providing any other service offering in the past. The complexity of the last‐ mile network infrastructure, i.e. the fiber from the curb to the premise, the Customer Premise Equipment configurations, the difficulties in establishing programming and distribution rights, competition among Fortune 500 companies, the complexity of the service offerings, coupled with the customer’s established TV viewing expectations make offering IPTV services difficult at best. Given these changes in phone and cable TV use, NEO will model all of the various models for consideration for broadband services only. The Town of Estes Park will need to make a number of inter‐related business decisions prior to a detailed business model being developed. These decisions include: • What is the right investment level? • What control is Town of Estes Park seeking to have? • What are the desired rewards of the system? In other words, what are the goals of this project? • What are the risks that Town of Estes Park is willing to make? NEO Fiber Deliverable 25 • What sort of appetite does Town of Estes Park have for operations? What functions will Town of Estes Park provide? (i.e. customer service, order provisioning, billing, network maintenance, etc.) • What customers does Town of Estes Park want to serve? (i.e. residential, business, anchor institutions, government agencies). The services that are offered may be different for residential and business customers. Residential services may include Internet access, telephony, and video (including both broadcast video and video‐on‐ demand—VOD). Business services may include dark fiber leasing, point to point circuits (e.g. DS1 or OC3) or metro Ethernet. • What services shall the network support? What services shall be offered at a retail‐ basis? A wholesale basis? • Risk, reward tension and balance NEO will provide the financial models for all of these service delivery models for consideration in the next section of the business plan. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Date: May 12th, 2015 RE: Possibility of Estes Park joining the Regional Transportation District (RTD) Objective: To provide the Trustees background information on the procedures for the Town to become part of the RTD, in order to provide regularly scheduled transit services to the Estes Valley. Present Situation: The Regional Transportation District, or commonly RTD, was organized in 1969 and is the regional authority operating public transit services in eight of the twelve counties in the Denver-Aurora-Boulder Combined Statistical Area in Colorado. RTD is governed by a 15-member, publicly elected Board of Directors. Directors are elected to a four-year term and represent a specific district. It includes all of Boulder County, as the area in closest proximity to Estes Park. Currently RTD Services Longmont, Lyons and Nederland in Boulder County. RTD’s operating revenues are derived primarily from two sources, sales taxes and passenger fares. Sales tax revenues account for 69% of those revenues while passenger fares account for 30%, with the remaining one percent coming from on- vehicle advertising and grants. In order for the Town to be served by RTD, the first step would be to be annexed into the district. Three essential criteria for any annexation are that (1) the land to be annexed is contiguous to the district; (2) that there is a petition submitted by 100% of the landowners of that area, or there is a successful annexation election following the petition or county commissioner election process set forth in the statute; and, (3) that the RTD Board of Directors agrees to the annexation. An election process would likely be the most practical means of annexation, and would have to include participation from Larimer County in order to provide the contiguity required. RTD staff would meet with Estes Park representatives to begin an analysis, should the community, the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners decide to proceed. A copy of the applicable RTD annexation statute is attached. Proposal (including budget if applicable): None Advantages: n/a Disadvantages: n/a Level of Public Interest High C.R.S.A. § 32-9-106.7 Page 1 © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated Currentness Title 32. Special Districts Special Statutory Districts Article 9. Regional Transportation District Act (Refs & Annos) § 32-9-106.7. Additional district area--petition or election--required filings--definitions (1) Subject to the requirements of section 32-9-106.1(2)(e)(III), the following areas may be included in the district according to the terms set forth in this section: (a) For any parcel of land thirty-five acres or more that is located in the incorporated or unincorporated portion of any county and has a boundary that is contiguous to any boundary of the district, the land may be included in the district upon presentation to the board of a petition signed by one hundred percent of the owners of the land sought to be included. The petition shall contain a legal description of the land, shall state that assent to the inclusion is given by the fee owner or owners thereof, and shall be acknowledged by the fee owner or owners in the same man- ner as required for the conveyance of land. (b) For any area in an incorporated or unincorporated portion of any county containing multiple parcels of land, any of which is less than thirty-five acres and which area is contiguous to any boundary of the district, the area may be included in the district after one of the following conditions is met: (I) One hundred percent of the owners of the land within the specified area, including the owners of any land consti- tuting a planned unit development or subdivision, submit a petition to the board seeking inclusion in the district. The petition shall contain a legal description of the land, shall state that assent to the inclusion is given by the fee owner or owners thereof, and shall be acknowledged by the fee owner or owners in the same manner as required for the conveyance of land. (II)(A) A petition requesting an election for the purpose of including the specified area in the district signed by at least eight percent of the eligible electors who reside within the geographic boundaries of the area is submitted to the board. The petition shall contain a legal description of the area; and (B) The board authorizes an election to be held in the area sought to be included and a majority of those registered electors, as defined in section 1-1-104(35), C.R.S., who reside within the geographic boundaries of the area and who vote in such election, approve the inclusion of the area in the district. (c) Deleted by Laws 2007, Ch. 169, § 1, eff. April 26, 2007. (1.5)(a) As used in this subsection (1.5), “ area” means: (I) All or any portion of a county entirely outside the boundaries of the district; or (II) Portions of a county that are not within the boundaries of the district when other portions of the county are within the boundaries of the district. (b) Subject to the requirements of section 32-9-106.1 (2)(e)(III), the area that is contiguous to any boundary of the district may be included in the district according to the following terms: C.R.S.A. § 32-9-106.7 Page 2 © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. (I) An election is requested for the purpose of including the area in the district by one of the following methods: (A) A petition signed by at least eight percent of the eligible electors in both incorporated and unincorporated por- tions of the area who reside within the geographic boundaries of the area is submitted to the board. The petition shall contain a legal description of the area to be included within the district. (B) A resolution by the board of county commissioners of the county to hold an election for the purpose of including the area, including municipalities and home rule municipalities, in the district is submitted to the board of directors of the district. The resolution shall contain a legal description of the area to be included within the district. (II) The board authorizes an election to be held at the same time for both the incorporated and unincorporated por- tions of the area seeking to be included in the district and a majority of those registered electors, as defined in sec- tion 1-1-104(35), C.R.S., who reside within the geographic boundaries of the area and who vote in the election ap- prove the inclusion of the area in the district. (2) No election shall be held for inclusion of any area into the district pursuant to this section unless the board of directors of the district first resolves to accept the area if the election is successful. No petition for the inclusion of any area into the district shall be accepted except upon majority vote of the board of directors of the district. (3)(a) A petition submitted to the voters pursuant to this section shall be filed with the board at least one hundred twenty days before the election at which the ballot question is submitted to a vote. Upon receiving such petition, the board shall designate an election official to conduct the election and provide a copy of the petition to such official. Upon declaring the petition sufficient, the board shall submit the petition along with the ballot question to the coor- dinated election official in accordance with section 1-7-116, C.R.S., and the coordinated election official shall con- duct the election. (b) Any ballot for any election authorized by this section shall include a description of the specified area proposed to be included in the district and the current rate of sales tax levied by the regional transportation district. (c) The ballot shall contain the following question: “Shall the area described in the ballot be included in the regional transportation district?” (d) An election held pursuant to this section shall be conducted in accordance with articles 1 to 13 of title 1, C.R.S., and any other requirements of this section. The election shall be run by the office of the clerk and recorder of the county containing the area seeking inclusion in the district. The ballot question shall be submitted to a vote pursuant to this section only at a state general election or, if the board so determines, at a special election held on the first Tuesday in November of an odd-numbered year. The district shall pay for all costs associated with the election. (e) The board shall call the election authorized by this section by resolution. The resolution shall state: (I) The object and purpose of the election; (II) A description of the area proposed to be included in the district; (III) The date of the election; and (IV) The name of the designated election official who is responsible for conducting the election pursuant to articles 1 to 13 of title 1, C.R.S. C.R.S.A. § 32-9-106.7 Page 3 © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. (4) Repealed by Laws 2007, Ch. 213, § 10, eff. Oct. 1, 2007. CREDIT(S) Added by Laws 1999, Ch. 144, § 1, eff. April 30, 1999. Amended by Laws 2000, Ch. 120, § 3, eff. Aug. 2, 2000; Laws 2003, Ch. 92, § 1, eff. April 1, 2003; Laws 2006, Ch. 187, § 1, eff. May 4, 2006; Laws 2007, Ch. 169, § 1, eff. April 26, 2007; Laws 2007, Ch. 213, § 5, eff. May 14, 2007; Laws 2007, Ch. 213, § 10, eff. Oct. 1, 2007. CROSS REFERENCES Other special districts, excluded areas, Metropolitan football stadium district, see § 32-15-104. Metropolitan major league baseball stadium district, see § 32-14-104. Scientific and cultural facilities district, see § 32-13-104. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2002 Main Volume Municipal Corporations 34. Westlaw Topic No. 268. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 62. C. R. S. A. § 32-9-106.7, CO ST § 32-9-106.7 Current through the end of the Second Regular Session of the 67th General Assembly (2010) Copr (c) 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. END OF DOCUMENT