HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071725.tiff WORK ORDER FORM
PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
WELD COUNTY
AND
FELSBURG HOLT&ULLEVIG
DATED: 1-26-07
Work Order Number: FHU-9
Project Title: WCR 28 Subarea Analysis
Commencement Date: March 1, 2007
Completion Date: July 1,2007
Limitations on compensation: Not to Exceed $10,800.00 (See attached cost details)Weld County Portion
amounts to $3600.
Project Description: Assist Weld County, City of Longmont and City of Mead in assessing roadway
laneage within the area bounded by WCR1, I-25, SH 66 and SH119.
Scope of Services: See attached Scope of Work
Professional agrees to perform the services
identified above and on the attached forms in The attached forms are hereby accepted and
accordance with the terms and conditions incorporated herein, by this reference, and
contained herein and in the Professional Notice to Proceed is hereby given.
Services Agreement between the parties. In the
event of a conflict between or ambiguity in the
terms of the Professional Services Agreement Weld Courtly
and this work order (including the attached
forms) the Professional Services Agreement By: Scot Lewis, Pro ect Manager,.
shall control. Dates
Professional By:
Department Head
Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Date: s--- 2,3 —o/0
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600
Centennial By:
Director of Finance and Administration
By: i• Date: 8/2007
Title: Ri KA'?41 By: J. e
Chairman,Weld County Commissi. e
Date: Nil 23" 2007late: 06/18/2007
-A IT? 77
TO BOARD OF COUNTY
�` 1b�
/NER SIGNATURES ONLY
f r o. W
u
INTY CLERK TO THE BOARD
CEP Y C'L TO THE 6 AHD - / -
a4,-gig-e7 W.','LJ awl-/gas
•
FELSBURG
�1 HOLT &
ULLEVIG
engineering paths to transportation solutions
January 26, 2007
Mr. Scot Lewis, PE
Senior Traffic Engineer
Weld County Public Works
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632-0758
RE: Proposal for Transportation Planning Services
Roadway Alignment Assessment
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Pursuant to our meeting last Thursday, we are pleased to submit this proposal to assist Weld
County, Longmont and Mead in assessing roadway alignments within the area bounded by
WCR 1, 1-25, SH 66, and SH 119. One of the critical pieces is the east-west alignment for the
roadway passing under 1-25 at WCR 28. From our conversation, we have assembled the
following Scope of Work:
1. Obtain copies of recent traffic impact studies and development plans completed for
developments in the primary study area (bounded by 1-25, WCR 1, SH 66, and SH 119).
These will be provided by all agencies. We will review the land use and traffic analyses to
supplement the regional model.
2. Modify the regional model used in developing Mead's Transportation Plan to include land
use planned in the study area as well as supplementing the roadway network to include the
basic grid of county roads in the study area as well as the different alignments.
3. Analyze forecasted volumes for up to three east-west alternative alignments as well as
origins and destinations of the traffic that would use the alternative or is diverted to other
routes.
4. Review the constraints (existing and planned development, drainage and topographic
features, etc.) and opportunities that are presented by each potential alternative alignment.
5. Prepare a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages and potential utilization of each
alternative alignment for presentation to the County. One of the considerations will be
measuring the potential for induced traffic along WCR 5.5 south of WCR 26.
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 tel 303.721.1440 fax 303.721.0832
www.fluieng.com info@fhueng.com
•
January 26, 2007
Mr. Scot Lewis, PE
Page 2
6. Prepare a draft and final technical report that summarizes the analyses and conclusions of
the study. It will be distributed to you for review and comment before being finalized.
7. Attend up to two meetings with you/or the development community to discuss the findings of
our assessment.
We would propose to conduct these services on a "time and materials" basis. Under such an
agreement, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig is compensated at hourly rates for all labor and other direct
costs are reimbursed at 1.1 times the cost. We will use the current billing rates we have on file
with Weld County as part of our on-call contract.
We have estimated that the above scope of services could be completed for an estimated
budget of$10,800. This amount would serve as an upset limit beyond which no charges could
be made without your prior approval. This budget includes attendance at two meetings in the
Mead area. Attendance at additional meetings, upon your request, would be billed at the same
rates.
We have laid out an approximate timeline for each of the tasks below. You will see that some
of the tasks will overlap, and that the entire effort is estimated to take just under two months;
key findings would be available in one month. For the sake of this exercise, we have assumed
a start date of February 5th, 2007.
• Task 1 - Two weeks extending from February 5th to February 19th.
• Task 2 - Two weeks extending from February 9th to February 23rd.
• Task 3—This would be a result as part of Task 2; completion by February 23rd.
• Task 4—One week extending from February 21st to February 28th.
• Task 5—Two or three days to be completed by March 5th.
• Task 6—Three weeks (assuming rapid County review) to be completed by March 26th.
• Task 7—As needed.
If the conditions of this proposal are acceptable to you, please sign below and return a copy or
our files. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to call. We thank
you for this opportunity to offer our services, and we look forward to the possibility of working
with you on this assignment.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG
DD
�00 Accepted By
Christopher J.4_17;00j:
P.E. z..." J
Principal 'tor /aT77C Errieter
Title
/ 3 -07
Date
•
Scot Lewis
From: Joe.Olson@ci.longmont.co.us
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:05 PM
To: Scot Lewis
Cc: Nick_Wolfrum@ctlongmont.co.us
Subject: Re: FHU Proposal
Hey Scott,
We've talked about this at the staff level and our recommendation to our City Council will
be that we move forward with this work agreeing to pay
1/3 of the cost ($3,600) . While I can't speak for City Council given that staff is
recommending that we move forward and there is value in timeliness on this project if it
would be possible to have FHU start work on this prior to the completion of the formal IGA
that would be fine with us.
Thanks. I will call you to discuss the details of the IGA. O�
Joe
'C72 c9/� Cc9N✓c'Y2S1%'?G't✓5 G i/i F{/ nt
Can L 6,73 t -i// NO/ be Ter//Pef
�1
"Scot Lewis"
<slewis@co.weld.c
o.us> To
<Joe_Olson@ci.longmont.co.us>
01/31/2007 12:50 cc
PM
Subject
FHU Proposal
Please review and comment.
Thanks.
Scot K. Lewis, P.E.
Senior Traffic Engineer
Weld County Public Works Department
1111 H Street, P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado80632-0758
970-304-6496 ext 3726
1
, 02/01/2007 1.9:40 9705350831 TOWN OF MEAD PAGE 02
Town of Mend
e , P.O.Box 626
441 Third Street
Mad "A UMeTlin Mead,Colorado 50842.0028
wq.sleTxv.••
(970)535-4477
February 1,2007
Mr. Scot K. Lewis
Weld County Public Works Department
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632-0758
Dear Scot:
The Town Board authorized up to$4,000 as its share of the cost of the traffic modeling study
outlined in the January 26,2007 letter from FHU to the County. Thus we can commit to the
current share of$3,600 and see how the study goes, as perhaps there may need to be another
meeting added to the scope or something like that.
I would like to add the following clarifications to the list in the letter, in no particular order:
1. I believe that the City of Longmont has some transportation plan covering this area as
well,so it should be part of the mix, not just Mcad's Transportation Plan.
2. While the emphasis is on east-west routes,the north-south mutes should not be ignored,
since Union Reservoir and Liberty Gulch, as well as Longmont's dam rights in the
Liberty Gulch, do or can potentially interrupt the north-south grid, and the Great Western
Railway crossings affect north-south routes as much as they do cast-west routes.
3. Although the County is taking the lead in contracting for this,the presentation referred to
in Paragraph 5 should be to all three entities,not just the County.
4. I am unclear on the"two meetings"in Paragraph 7. if there is a kick-off meeting with
FHU with all the affected parties(governments and developers and their consultant
representatives),similar to what we convened in December 2005, and then a presentation
meeting in public at the end of the study as referred to in Paragraph 5,then there is no
provision for a staff/consultant technical meeting in the middle of the study, which is
likely to be necessary, unless the kick-off meeting is not considered part of the two
meetings in Paragraph 7.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
/u≥4s2 -e
Michael D. Friesen
Town Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO: Clerk to the Board DATE: June 12, 2007
C.
COLORADO FROM: Scott Lewis, Public Works
SUBJECT: Consent Agenda Item
Work Order Form No. 9 with FHU for the WCR 28 Subarea Analysis.
The appropriate documentation is attached.
Mi\Francie\AgendaChairsignature.doc
h3 :Z d £ I NW LOOT
S2I3NOISSINNO3
Amu 013M
2007-1725
• a 0(77a,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS
REVIEW/WORK SESSION REQUEST
RE: Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig (FHU) On-Call Consulting Services; Work Order FIIU-9/WCR 28
Subarea Analysis
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: 5/25/07
PERSON REQUESTING: Scot Lewis, P.E., Sr. Engineer
Brief description of the problem/issue: Based on the direction given by the BOCC in January 2007, Public
Works has proceeded with the project to assess the roadway network within the area bounded by WCR 1, I-25,
State Highway (SH) 66, and SH 119. Attached are agreements (in letter form) with the Town of Mead and the
City of Longmont stating that they agree to the project and associated costs.
We have selected FHU to perform the services under the On-Call Engineering Contract. FHU has submitted a
proposal and a not to exceed cost to complete the requested services. Attached is Work Order No. 9 outlining
the scope of work and costs to complete the work. FHU estimates the project to cost $10,800 which will be
shared equally among Weld County, City of Longmont, and the Town of Mead. Each agencies share therefore
being$3,600.
What options exist for the Board? (Include consequences, impacts, costs, etc. of options)
BOCC can either approve the Work Order No. 9 and continue proceeding with the work or deny approval for
Work Order No. 9.
Recommendation to the Board: I recommend approval of Work Order No. 9 for FHU under On-Call
Engineering Contract.
Approve Schedule
Recommendation Work Session Other
David E. Long Ni E'
.
L- - / �.K F''",ass.,,, S..-t
�-
William H. Jerke ( $' J
William F. Garcia v
, e-
5 _
: zer
-- G� S k)h411/Garcia1a/����� �` Jerke
Attachments: Work Order Form No. 9, Sc, \ ; Ck
c\
D LJ Long
De-
pc: Mona Weidenkeller, Public Works X (/
M:F-Active PeojcctOMisc ProjecttkEngincering On-Call SmicestF RI Convett\Woi Y^ \ Masden
Oi 1" Rademacher (12‘c --_v--
Hello