HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A, County Road E Pedestrian Improvements
~
~HILLS
Request for Council Action
Prepared By:
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
Council Meeting Date: May 26, 2009
Motion to authorize staff to contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide
engineering services for the eounty Road E Pedestrian Improvements in an amount not to
exceed $78,555,
Budgeted Amount:
$450,000
Actual Amount:
$78,555
Funding Source:
Not specified; potentially Grant
Revenue, State Aid Funds
Recommendation:
1, Authorize Staff to Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Ine. to Provide
Engineering Services for the County Road E Pedestrian Improvements in an
amount not to exceed $78,555.
SUDDortinl! Documents:
I. See the attached memo from Civil Engineer Kristine Giga dated May 21,2009
2. State Aid Design Element Variance Justification Checklist
3. State Rules 8820.3330- Variance
4. Proposal from Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21,2009
TO: Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: County Road E Pedestrian Bridge Improvements
BACKGROUND
The City of Arden Hills approved an engineering consultant pool on August 27, 2007 for use on
specialized projects or projects that the City ofRoseville's Engineering Department may not have the
capacity to assist with.
One of the City Council's goals for the City is to eliminate the bottleneck for pedestrians and
bicyclists that exists on the existing bridge on County Road E over Trunk Highway 51. City staff has
been working with Mn/DOT to determine what improvements, if any, they would support on the
existing bridge to improve safety. Another alternative under consideration is the construction of a
standalone pedestrian bridge north of the existing bridge.
Rosevil1e staff does not have the expertise in structural design to complete this project. Therefore, a
scope of work was prepared for final design and construction services for both alternatives:
Alternative I: Modification to the existing bridge at the existing width
MnlDOT has indicated that they would consider modifications to the existing bridge deck. The
existing bridge width from parapet to parapet is 35 feet. With two 12' lanes, a 4' offset to the parapet
on the south side, and a 2' offset to the raised sidewalk, a 5' walk could be constructed along the
north side. This new cross-section would require an alignment shift on the bridge and approach
modifications. Mn/DOT has agreed to perform the structural analysis for the changed loading on the
beams.
Alternative 2: Construction of a standalone shared-use pathwav bridge north of the existing bridge
The City Council may choose to consider this alternative if structural analysis shows that Option 1 is
not feasible, or if the City Council considers alternative I to be inadequate. This bridge would be
constructed north of the existing bridge; the final location would be coordinated with MnlDOT to
\\Metro-inet\ardenhills\Admin\Council\Agendas & Packet Information\2009\05-26-09 Regular\Packet Information\7Al 5-26-
09Memo _ eRE _ ContractAward.doc
5/22/2009
Page 2
accommodate a future wider bridge at CR E. Trail connections would also be constructed to tie the
pedestrian bridge into the existing sidewalk to the east and shoulder to the west.
City staff reviewed proposals submitted by the firms in its engineering pool, and is recommending
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for this work.
DISCUSSION
Proposals were submitted by four firms in the engineering pool: Bonestroo, Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc., SRF Inc., and WSB and Associates, Inc. Since we did not create a structural pool,
firms with structural departments were asked to respond to our request for quotes.
The proposal amounts are listed below:
Consultant Alternative I Alternative 2
Bonestroo $97,268 $238,545
Kimley-Horn $32,360 $78,555
SRF $106,017 $145,060
WSB $37,400 $164,000
Staff reviewed the proposals for project understanding and staff experience as well as costs. Staff
recommends Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for this work. Kimley-Horn staff is experienced in
bridge projects, including both improvements to existing bridges and new bridge construction.
Kimley-Horn staff has worked on other projects that fall within Mn/DOT's jurisdiction, and is
familiar with their rules and requirements on bridge projects. Kimley-Horn provided some technical
assistance during a meeting with the Mn/DOT Bridge Office in March. City staff has had a positive
experience with this firm and feels the proposal that has been submitted best meets the intent of the
project and the City's needs.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
At the May 18 Worksession the City Council asked for additional information relating to this project.
Lifespan of a standalone pathway bridge: With proper maintenance, the typical life of this type of
bridge is expected to be about 50 years.
Maintenance costs of a standalone pathway bridge: Assuming a concrete deck to accommodate snow
plowing, maintenance would include:
. Washing the bridge 1-2 times a year to keep the deck clean and free of dirt and other
debris.
· Depending on surface treatments (paint, aesthetics, etc.), repainting may be required
every 10 years or so, at an estimated cost of$3,000-$5,000
· If any wood or other "soft" material is used on the bridge, this may need treatment or
replacement every 5 years or so, at an estimated cost of$2,000 to $3,000
Does a standalone pathway bridge need to be fenced in? MnlDOT indicated that fencing is required
to prevent objects from being thrown off the bridge; however, a full enclosure is not required.
5/22/2009
Page 3
The City Council also asked whether the existence of a standalone pathway bridge would negate
Mn/DOT's requirement to accommodate pedestrians on a future bridge at County Road E.
Mn/DOT's response to this question was that they still would accommodate pedestrians, even if a
separate pathway bridge existed to the north of the County Road E bridge.
Council also asked if a variance could be requested for the 5' sidewalk on the existing bridge
(Alternative I) from Mn/DOT so that State Aid funds could be used. Attached is a justification
checklist for the variance process as well as language from the State Rules regarding the variance
process.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The City Council approved the 2009 Budget to include the County Road E Bridge Improvements
Project. At that time, the project was estimated to be $450,000, with $50,000 to be funded by State
Aid dollars, and $400,000 to come from grant revenue. However, each of the alternatives would
have different funding sources. Alternative I may be eligible for State Aid funds if a variance is
granted. If a variance is not granted, the City would need to allocate local funds to this project.
If the City proceeds with Alternative 2, this project would be eligible for federal funding. The City,
with the consultant's assistance, plans to submit the project for federal funding. If funding is
obtained fhrough this process, funds would be available for construction in federal fiscal years 2013
and 2014. The federal funding requires a 20% local match; engineering fees are not an eligible cost.
This project would be eligible for State Aid funds for the local match, as well as for engineering, up
to 25% of construction costs. Ifthe City Council chose not to allocate State Aid fund to this project,
then an alternative funding source would need to be identified for the local match and all engineering
fees.
CONCLUSION
At this time, staff recommends contracting with Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. to work with the
City on the County Road E Pedestrian Improvement Project. Since a decision has not been made on
an alternative, staff recommends approving a contract for Alternative 2, as this alternative includes
the application for federal funding. If the City decides to move forward with Alternative I, the
contract can be amended to a reduced amotlllt.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Authorize staff to contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide engineering services for
the County Road E Pedestrian Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $78,555.
~\,\NESOt,
\~tJ
STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
Design Element Variance Justification Checklist
April 2007
A request for a variance to the design elements required by State Aid Operations Rules
Chapter 8820 should contain the following as applicable:
1. As required by the Rules: a certified resolution from the responsible city council
or county board which identifies the project by location and termini, cites the
applicable Rule and chapter, cites the standard for which the variance is
requested, and describes what is proposed in lieu of the standard.
2. Location map and typical section (in-place and proposed).
3. Describe adjacent land uses (agricultural, residential, commercial, etc). Describe
effects of designing in accordance to Rule versus proposed non-standard
element on adjacent properties, pedestrians, bicycles, motoring public, and
emergency vehicles.
4. Define the critical design element involved (i.e. not "Design Speed"):
horizontal alignment (radius or degree of curvature), vertical alignment, grades,
lane width, shoulder width, bridge width, structural capacity, stopping sight
distance (horizontal and vertical), cross slope, super-elevation, clearance
(horizontal and vertical).
5. Estimate the cosUimpacts to construct to the standard, the cost to build to the
proposed element, and information that logically explains why the particular
proposed design was chosen. For instance, if the radius and sight distance for a
horizontal curvature is proposed at 35 mph instead of 55 mph, include
cosUimpacts for 50 mph and 40 mph radii and sight distance.
6. Include available accident data in detail that indicates the resulting damage
(property damage/injury/death), contributing causes, and location.
7. Include existing and projected traffic counts.
8. Include legal, posted, and/or safe speed of abutting roadway sections.
9. Indicate if future improvements are planned on the roadway or on adjacent
property.
10. Describe safety mitigation considered, such as signing in accordance with
MMUTCD, side-slope flattening, etc.
11. Any other pertinent factors.
8820.3300 V ARJANCE. Subpart 1. Written requests. A fonnal request by a political subdivision for a
variance from this chapter must:
A. be submitted to the commissioner in writing in the form of a resolution;
B. identify the project by location and termini; and
C. cite the specific part or standard for which the variance is requested and describe the modification
proposed.
Subp. la. Additional information.Additional information needed:
A.index map;
B. typical section:
(I) inplace section;
(2) proposed section:
C. reasons for the request;
D. the economic, social, safety, and environmental impacts which may result from the reqnested variance;
E. effectiveness ofthe project in eliminating an existing and projected deficiency in the transportation
system;
F. effect on adjacent lands;
G. number of persons affected; and
H. safety considerations as they apply to:
(I) pedestrians;
(2) bicyclists;
(3) motoring public; and
(4) fire, police, and emergency units.
Subp.2. Notice of request. The commissioner shall publish notice of variance request in the State Register
and shall request comments from interested parties be directed to the commissioner within seven calendar
days from date of publication.
Subp.3. Decision. The commissioner shall base the decision on the criteria in part 8820.3400, subpart 3
and shall notify the political subdivision in writing of the decision. The commissioner may require a
resolution by the recipient of the variance that indemnifies, saves, and holds harmless the state and its
agents and employees of and from claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising out of or by reason
of the granting of the variance. The recipient of the variance shall further agree to defend at its sole cost
and expense any action or proceeding begun for asserting any claim of whatever character arising as a
resnJt of the granting of the variance.
Subp. 4.Contested case hearing. Any variance objected to in writing or denied by the commissioner is
subject to a contested case hearing as required by law.
c:J=
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
May 19,2009
III
Suite 345N
2550 University Avenue West
SI. Paul, Minnesota
55114
Ms. Kristine Giga, P.E.
Civil Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
Re: Quote for County Road E Bridge Pedestrian Improvements
Dear Ms. Giga:
Thank you for the opportunity to submitthis quote to complete final design artd
construction services for pedestrian improvemertts to the County RoadE (CSAH 15)
Bridge ovetTH 51. We have reviewed our original quote dated February 27, 2009, and
have modified our scope and fee based upon your memo dated May 12, 2009, as you
requested. This leIteI' should teplace our previous quote.
Prcjet;t Understanding
KimleyCHorn understands thatthe County Road E Bridge is the only pedestrian
crossing over TH51 between Lydia Avenue in Roseville and 1-694 in Arden Hills, a
distanced approximately one and il-halfmiles. The current bridge does not provide a
safe crossing ofTH 51 for the significant pedestrian traffic generated by Mounds View
High School, Bethel University, and area neighborhoods. We understand the main goal
of this project is to provide for safe pedestrian movementacross the TH 51 corridor,
providing a key link to the City trail system as identified in the City's Pathways Master
Plan.
The City, working in conjunction with Mn/DOT, has developed two alternatiVeS to
provide. pedestrian improvements at the County Road E Bridge. The first alternative
would modify the existing bridge consolidatirtg the two existing narroW sidewalks into
a five foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the bridge. The second alternative would
provide a new and separate shared-use pathway bridge to the north of the existing
County RoadE Btidge.
The first alternative would remove both 2'-6" sidewalks from the bridge, providing a
parapet-to-parapet width of35 feet. Thc deckwould be restriped to provide two 12-
foot lanes, a 4-foot offset to the south pat'apet, and a 2-footoffset to a raised sidewalk
on the north side. Theraised sidewalk is proposed to be 5-feet wide and would be
adjacent to the existing 1I011h parapet. The existing bridge parapets, expansion joints,
and bridge deck will not be modified as part of this project.
The secolld alternative would provide a new trail bridge to the norfh of the existing
CountyRoadEBridge. The new structure would he a shared-use facility for both
bicycles and pedestrians. The location of the bridge would be coordinated with
..
TEL 651 645 4197
FAX 651 645 5116
~
Kimley.Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Ms. Kristine Gigo, P.E., May t9, 2009, P. 2
Mn/DOTand will be within Mn/DOT right-of-way. We assume that the City would not
need to acquire property for the bridge. The bridge would be a single-span
prefabricated truss structure, with a total span length sHuilar to the existing County
Road E Bridge. New It'ail segments would be constructed from Connelly Avenue to the
east end of the bridge and from the west end. to the County Road E shoulder, near
Hamline Avenue. Topographic survey will bel'equired along the full length of the
project, generally from Connelly A venue to f1amline Avenue.
We understand the City would like to apply for federal funds through the
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Program iIthe seeondalternative isseleeted.
Beeause this project would fill a critical gap in the overall bicyc1eand pedestrian
systein thereby providing additional access and mobility to the region's residents, the
City should consider applyil1gfor Surface Transportatiol1Program (STP) funding under
the bikewaylwalkway category in lieu of applyingfor TEProgram funds. There is
$105 million in funding available forSTP, which is significantly more than the $19
million a\iailablethrough theTE Program. We understand the City has already
requested a letter of support from MnIDOT. We suggest that the City also request a
letter of support from Ramsey County asthis will further strengthen the application.
The City needs an engineering consultantthat is tamiliarwithMnlDOT requirements
and knows MnlDOT bridge staff. Having a eonsultantol1 board that can collaborate
with the City and MnlDOT will lead to a suceessfulprojeet. Regardless of which
alternative the City chooses, Kimley-Horn call provide the knowledge and experience to
deliver a successful project.
Scope of Work
We have prepared two separate work plans, as outlined as follows, for cach of the two
bridge alternatives. The following is a summary ofthe proposed scope of work based
on our understanding.ofthe two distinctbridge alternatives.
Alternative 1: Existing Bridge Modification
Task 1,1: Project Management and Coordination
This task consists of management and administration of the eontract, as well as coordi-
nation and communication with City staff. We will attend up to two (2) meetings with
City and/or Mn/DOT staff during the project and provide weekly e.mail updates
regarding the project schedule and status.
Task 1.2:PreliIninary Engineel'ingServiees
We will conduct field reviews of the site to evaluate existing conditions. We will
provide preliminary bridge modification plans to be reviewed by the City, Ramsey
County, and MnlDOT. One concept for preliminary engineering will be developed for
review, based upon th<: conc<:pt set forthin the City of Arden Hills Memorandum dated
May 12,2009. No topographic survey will be.required. We will measure existing and
future lane widths based upon the existing bridge parapets.
=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Ms. Kristine Giga, P.E., May 19,2009, P. 3
Taskl,3: FinalDesign Bridgl'Plans & Tl'chnieal Special Provisions
Based upon eomments from the City, Ramsey County, and Mn/DOT, we will prepare
final design plans and teehniealspedaI provisions for the bridge modifications. The
eonstructiondocumellts will meet typical Mn/DO'f and AASFlTO Bridge Design
Standards. The final bridge improvement plans will includefhefollowing spedfic
drawings:
. Title Sheet, including plan, elevation, cross"section,and quantities
. Traffic eontrol plans
. Bridge modification details, including deek and sidewalk modifications
We have assumed that one lane of traffic will be maintained on County Roade during
construction using flaggers or a tempOl'llry signal consistent with the 1994 bridgercpair
plans.
Wc have assumcd thatthe project plans will not be submitted to Stafe Aid. We will
prepare and submit the permit application to Mn/DOT for work in the right-of-way. We
will coordinate the workwith Rice Creek Watershed Distriet (RCWD) but have
assumed the District will not require any permits. We assume the City will prepare thc
projeetmanual, which will inelude the special provisions we prepare, and manage and
coordinate Bidding Phase.
Task 1.4: Public Meetings
We will present the final design at a City Council meeting; a Parks, Trails and
Reereation Committee meeting; and a public information mecting. These three
meetings as well as two (2) color graphics/exhibits on boards are included in the fee for
this task.
Task 1,5: Construction Services
We will provide the following construction administration services fortheprojcct:
. Provide part-time observation to document construction activities. We have
included 12 hours of inspection per week for the total constnletion duration of
three weeks.
. Respond to design questions from City staff or residents
. Prepare payment estimate (assnmed I) based on the construction observer's
field logs
. Trackfield notes, testing, and other items on the project
. Project filing and general administration
. Coordinate and attend weekly project meetings. We have assumed this will
include 3 meetings.
~=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Ms. Kristine Giga. P.E., May 19,2009, P. 4
Alternative 2: New Shared-Use PlIthway Bridge
Task 2.1: Project Management and Coordination
This Iaskwnsi$ts of management and .administration ofthe contract, as well as coordi-
nation andeommunication with City staff. We will attend up to four (4) meetings with
City and/orMn/DOT staffthroughoutthe project and provide weekly e-mail updates
regarding the project schedlIle and status.
Task2,2: Federal Funding ApplielltionPreparation
We will complete an a.pplicationforfederal funds through the Transportation
Enhancement(TE) Program by the June 15th deadline.
TlISk2,3:PreliminaryEngineering ServItllS
We will conduct field reviews of the site toevalnate existing.eonditions. We will work
with the City to develop a preliminary plan for the new structure. The basic plan,
elevation, and cross section ofthe desired bridge wiII be developed to determine the
overall geometrics and how the bridge wiII fitintothe site. One conceptfor preliminary
engineering wiII be developed forreview, assuming a single span prefabricated truss
bridge with a 12-foot-wideshared use path. We will provide preliminary plans to be
reviewed by the City, Ramsey County, and Mn/DOT. Topographic survcyand existing
utility locates will be required along the path alignment fromC011nelly Avenue to
Hllmline Avenue, generally 30-50 feet wide. We will pl'Ovidethe City a preliminary
eonslruction cost estimate for the project underthis task. We assume that the City will
procure a geotechnical consnlt;mt for the new bridge. Providing aesthetics treatments
for the bridge ate 110t included.
Task 2.4: Public Meetings
We will presentthepreliminary desigrt concepta.t a City Council meeting;ll Parks,
Trails and Re.creationCommittee meeting; ilnd a public information meeting. These
three mectings as well as three (3) color graphics/exhibits on boards are included in the
fee for this task.
Task 2.5: Finall>csign Plans
Based upon comments from the City, Ramsey County, and MnJDOT, we wiII prepare
final design plans consistent with federal aid Slandatdsand technicaispecial provisions
for the new strueture and approach trails. The consfruction documents will meet typical
Mn/DOT ilnd AASHTO Design Standards fora shared-use (bicycle/pedestrian) trail.
The final plans will include thefollowingspeeific drawings and meet the. MnJDOT
State-Aid plan requirements:
. Title Sheet
. Statement of Estimated QUilntities
. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
. Traffic Control Plans (for minor shoulder work along County Road E)
. Bridge general plan, elevation, cross-sections, and quantities
~=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Ms. Kristine Giga, P.R., May t9, 2009, P. 5
. Bridge substructure layout;l11d details
. Bridge superstructure thuning plan, including approach railing details
. Bridge survey, existingutilities, and foundation information
. Approach trail pl;l11s, including plan, profile, and cross-sections
We will provideprojcet technical special provisions based upon the MnlDOT Standard
Specifications for Construction. We will prepare and submit the permit application to
MnlDOT for work in. the right-of-way. We will eoordinate the work with RCWD.and
assisttheCity in acquiring therequiredperrnit from the District, including preparation
of the pennit application.
Our scope of work does notinclude federal aid review and approval as federal funding
has not beenseeured atthis time. With construction of the new bridge likely in 2013 or
2014, we propose the City request an amendment to the agreement betweenKimley-
Born and the City to procure federal aidteview, bidding, and construction phase
services for this alternative.
Project Team
The Kimley-Horn team has significant local experiencc in bridge evaluation and design,
public involvement, and construction observation. Primary members of the Kimley-
Horn teatl'l are as follows:
.Beth Engum, P.E"project Manager
Beth Engum will serve as the ProjectManager and primarycontact throughout the
project. She has to years of experience in the design and coordination of numerous
roadway/municipal infrastructure improvement projects. Bethwill coordinate all
design elements ofthe project and lead the approach trail design and plan production.
Jon Hot'll, P.E" Client Manager
Mr. Horn has more than 22 years of diverse engineering, planning, and project manage-
ment experience and has played an integral roleinthesuceess of numerous municipal
projects for several metro area communities byptovidingnot only quality design and
project management, but also public involvement cxpertise. He will provide overall
support and quality eontrolreview of all deliverables under this contract.
Matt Jensen, .P.E., StructuralEllgineer
Matt has assisted municipalities through the MnlDOT State-Aid review process and
designed several pedestrian bridge projects for local agencies, including the Cities of
Maple Grove, New Hope, and Golden Valley. He has designed new overpass structures
and provided safety inspcctions and construction phase services for numerous structures
throughout the metro area. Matt will provide structural design expertise and engineering
oversight and observation during construction of this project. Matt is certified by
Mil/DOT for both bridge constmction inspection and bridge safety inspection.
Cl=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Ms. Kristine Giga, P.E., May 19,2009,1'.6
Jerry P~rtzsch,P,E., Bridge QAlQC
Mr. Pertzschhas 30 years of bridge design experience including the design of MnlDOT
bridges over the last 25 years. He has assisted the Cities of Orollo, Farmington,
Minnetrista, Red Wing, Peterson, and Owatonna through the Mn/DOTreview process
and will provide bridge design and plan quality aSSlll'ance.
Estimated Costs
Kimley-Horn proposes to petfotm all services for the project on an hourly basis. The
following is a summary of our estimated costs for the individual work tasks identified in
the scope ofwotk. We have developed separate estimated costs for both the Bridge
ModificationScope (Tasks ).1-1.5) and the New Shared-Use Trail Bl'idge Scope (Tasks
2.l-2.5).
Alternative 1: Existing Bridge Modification Estimated Costs
Task Number
).1
1.2
1.3
1.4
L5
Task
Project Management & Coordination
Preliminary ElIgilleeringServiees
Final Design Plans & Teehnical Special Provisiolls
Public Meetings
Construction SerVices
Subtotal
Reimbursable Expenses
total Estimated Alternative 1 Cost
Estimated Fee
$2,315
$6,760
$5,440
$3,655
$5,310
$23,480
$1,400
$24,880
AIt~rllative 2: New Shared-Use Pathway Bridge Estimated Costs
Task Number
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Task
Project Management & Coordination
Federal Funding Application Preparation
Preliminary Engineering Serviees
Public Meetings
Final Design Plans & Technical SpecialProvisions
Subtotal
SubconsultantFee (Survey)
Reimbursable Expenses
Total Estimated Alternative 2 Cost
Estimated Fee
$4,325
$7,240
$20,600
$3,655
$13,785
$49,605
$4,000
$3,000
$56,605
A more detailed summary ofollt estimated costs is attached.
Project Schedule
Possible schedules forthe two project alternatives are as follows:
Contract to Consultant Awarded
Kickoff Meeting with City Staff
May 26, 2009
Week of June 1, 2009
~=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Ms. Kristine Giga, P.E., May 19, 2009, P. 7
Existing Bridge Modification Alternative!
Completion ofConstruetionDoeuments
Construction
July 2009
Anticipated 2009 or 2010
New Shared-Use Pathway Bl'idge Altel'native2
Submittal of the TE Funding Application Jnnc 15.2009
Completion of COl1structionDocuments September 2009
Construction Anticipated 2013 or 2014
The above schedule for alternative 21s based onproceedil1gwith design of the bridge as
soon as the contract is awarded by the Council. The schedule would change if the City
decides not to proceed with design until the outcome ofthe federal funding application
is known.
1'hank you again for considering Kitnley-Horl1. We look forward to being an integral
part ofasuccessful project team. If you have any questions regarding this quote, please
do not hesifateto call.
Sincerely,
Kimley-Hornand Associates, Inc;
~L a 2fl.?JU-1V\..
Beth A. Engum, P.E.
Project Manager
(651) 643-0434
beth.engum@kimley-horn.com
Jo B. om, P.E.
e .entManagetiVice President
(651) 643.0406
ioti.horn@kimlcv-horn.com
Enclosures:
Estimated Cost Summaries
o
a<;
ui
w
!;(
o
o
(1)
(1)
<(
o
f1)~
:l~
-0
l.i.l .:t: :I:
)..
OZw
<(l.i.l...l
O~~
c a:: <I:>':
W)-u.Ol",
....JI--O@:5
:a: Z 0:: '"
I-- :::10 i:: D':~
W _UJ>.
cOU&:~
..Jcn
<(0::
~::)
~~
,. O'l oeo .....(0 ,v.
.....<0 vM"I;f '0';
~.
..J....
~(J)
~8
...l
lS
0::
~
o
N"l:f:c;o;
z
<(
00
0-
<(z
0:1:
o
W
....
(O-.;t<o
~.N
:Wj '" ~ ~ '~ ~. ~,
..
..
...l
030::
::)W
....W
0'"
:00
o::Z
....w
rn
l-,O:::
Ow
wC>
a~
g:~
::;:: 0 CO <0 C'iI N 'CO'
........ ......<9:
0::
....w
ru~
-z
t5~
:::::.....<q"N..-
W
...l
....
F
<I>
C
o
'0
.~
"-
'ii
'0
.,
<1>(1)
~-
.- ~
1: .-
., c:
(1)'0
~
..
..
g: ...
...
?!'~ <10
~. 'i<f
~ :~
~
..
~
~
~
~
~
<(
~:
" "
"
'. .'
:
: ..
"
: .'
..
..
.'
"ti):
w:
<Jl
z:
w. ()j
4,:
>(. :.:J
~: i<t
..;.a: 5
00: r.;
<C' t<'
'1Il'
~' '0
I w
."
~
m Q;;
o
=
ui
W
!.;:
o
o
II)
~
o
z
<
Z
0:
o
:t
~
..J
<( O::i!
01:1::2
01:1:: <(:>:
W>- IJ.. III en
....Il-Orng
:.(Z ~:;
l-::::l "- ~
wOw,.,
o (,) g:~
.J~
5=>
I--~
.,. '" <0 ;;; '" '"
'" <0 .. N '"
""". ~ M;
.. ..
;~[~ ....
<0 '" '" <0 <0 ...
~ ~ '" <0 '" ""
'" <0 l>- ....
i% t--:' 0 &i '" '"
V> N V> ;;; ~
V>
.. ..
'" g
'"
q '"
;J; ~
.. ..
..
,",
..
N N '" ~:
~ ~
..
.. .'
..
.. l!? '" '" '"
'" ".
~
'.
:
..
N '" ~ S '" 0:
~ N ~
'.
'. :
'.
'.
..
'.
..
.. '" '" '" N ~ l:>i
~ .. '" ~
't":
.'
:
..
..
'.
: .. .. '" ~ .. .;.;
~
..
:
ill: ..
l!l' '.
o.
i!
~ '" '.
~ 13 '"
c "
.~ 0
f:i': c 'on
0 ~ .~
w. ~ ~
cn. c
::t: c ,Q "-
'" 11 N ~ m
UJ. 0 '1;
8 ~ ~
0:. c ~
~: ~ .-
ill: '" "- c <J)
- UJ 9/S :
c c
~ <l) ,2 c '"
E c
<l) ~ 'on Ig ~
<l) ii:
'" 0
N c ~ 'li c
'" <
I!! ::i! <l) '"
c ::i! <l)
<( Q c :1:; .g 0 :
z' <l) :s :a m
0: "8 c ~ ~
" " c
~. "- u.. "- "- ii: 1+
.:.r ~ N '" .. <0 0:
,-(. N N N N N 1-+
....ll-
~(f)
00
1-0
I-
Z
~
;.;.J
::>
cn
z
o
o
m
::>
<J)
5
i2
UJ
..J
o
z
<
05
~z
05
~
~o:
::>w
I-W
o:g
::><.'>
a::z
I-W
'"
1""0:::
OW
~--~
fiz
"-~
0:
I--W
2.0
W<
-z
d~
W
~
;::
N.
....
;; .' ~:
-:
:
" .,
.. .(0'
'" 0:
~ ~
~ .(0;
...,
~
.'
'"
2
'"
c
2
;;:
,..,
:.
..
.
.'
;'
.'
.'
'.
..
"
.'
,.
rh '-,.
w:
lI>
~ w:
lK :.:.:.t:
U> <:
Ui g
~ F
",. ~
" w:
III ~.
::i! O'
~ 0::.
A::
Kristine Giga
From: Matl.Jensen@kim"~y-horn.com
Sent: Thursday, May 21,200910:31 AM
To: Kristine Giga
Cc: beth.engum@kimley-horn.com
Subject: RE: CR E bridge
Hi Kris,
Here's are the answers to your questions:
1. For Alternative 1, we estimate the cost to provide the following services:
Bidding phase services $4,750
Project manual $2,500-$3,000
2. For Alternative 2, we estimate the cost to provide the following services
(understanding that some of these services would not be provided until the
projected bidding phase in 2613-2614)
Federal-Aid Review: $10,600 (based recent projects having this type of
review)
Bidding Phase Services:
Construction Phase Services:
16hr/week)
$4,750
$7,200 (based upon 6 weeks of construction @
Also, the requirements for shared-use bridges would likely include a 8-foot high
barrier/screen on each side of the bridge. Mn/DOT does not require a "full cage"
around pedestrian bridges as seen in the past. I hope this answers your questions.
Let us know if you need any more information.
Thanks!
Matt Jensen, P.E,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc,
Direct: (651) 643-0473