The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBee Creek Greenway TrailMeeting Notes Hike and Bike Trail Completion Bee Creek Greenway Trail (Along FM 2818 between Texas and Wellborn) May 1, 2009 City Attendees: Danielle Charbonnet, Graduate Engineer (CIP); Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager (P&DS); Joe Guerra, Transportation Planner (P&DS); and Beth Boerboom, Staff Assistant (P&DS) TxDOT Attendee: Mr. Chad Bohne, P.E., Bryan District Advanced Planning Engineer After a brief overview given by Danielle Charbonnet, Venessa Garza and Joe Guerra, the following notes were collected based on Chad Bohne's feedback. • Current progress of plan o AFA review • AFA review for Bike Loop Phase 3 is finished with no surprises • Potential issues with trail on south side of FM 2818 o Environmental clearance • Needed due to disturbance of public ROW • We may able to obtain a Categorical Exclusion o Confirmation of necessary width • Chad would need to verify the area is not needed/planned for another facility or needed by TxDOT o Confirmation of no conflicts with existing utilities o Drainage issues • Existing improvements o Wellborn • Normal, off-set sidewalk planned for east side • Plan for multi-use path on west side of Wellborn between road and railroad was considered but railroad company did not approve o FM 2818 -south side • No current plans or proposals for the section between the high school and Longmire o FM 2818 -north side • Grade separation project is currently taking place o FM 2818 • Originally planned to be a freeway but now this is improbable o Christine Ln • Right in/Right out • General suggestions o Send an informal layout to TxDOT for any additional plans or changes to plans before progressing too far in planning process • Include crossing information with the layout From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Joe Guerra Charbonnet, Danielle Garza, Venessa; Rother, Troy 2/15/2010 4:07 PM FM 2818 Hike & Bike Trail Comments I I Sheet #1 List of sheets -TxDOT has SW3P Standard Sheets. Note begin project and end project on vicinity map Sheet #5 Check station limits on sheets 9 & 10. Note begin project and end project. I Sheet #6 Typical Sections are not drawn to scale relative to each other. 10' on one typical section looks longer than on another typical section. Sheet #7 Line symbology I am guessing is for silt fence because it is not on a legend. The plan sheets are to busy, I suggest a separate sheet for SW3P items. Again we talked about this last meeting, but the absence of a vertical profile makes it hard to check ADA grade requirements. Sheet #8 Line symbology for tree protection is not on a legend. Sheet #9 Tree list and numbering system is hard to read on plan view, I suggest a separate sheet maybe combining it with the separate SW3 P sheets. · General comments: I assume quantity sheets will be part of 100% submission. Cross slope labeling and station limits were not included. Joe R. Guerra Jr. AICP, PTP Transportation Planning Coordinator Planning and Development Services P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue City· of College Station, TX 77842 979-764-3556 Office Phone 979-764-3496 Fax email: jguerra@cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University @ Multi-Use Path Alqng Harvey Mit hell PaA Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) Presentation by: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION I p Bury+ Partners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Multi-Use Path Along Harvey Mitchell Pa ,, Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) i> Bury Partners CJrr-.. E N G I N E E R I N G s 0 l u T I 0 N s Crrv OF Cou.F.GF. STATION Project Overview • Funding - 1 million dollars was allocated from the November 2008 Bond Referendum. • The Hike and Bike Task Force identified high priority t1 projects in 2004. A portion of this multi-use path was identified in that process. • The corridor will provide connectivity to key destinatio including A&M Consolidated High School, Bee Creek Park and commercial property such as Walmart. I! p Bury 1-Partners On OF C01.1.F.GE ST,\TION ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS .. General Improvements • 10 ft wide trail • Drainage improvements along trail route • Pedestrian signage and striping • Pedestrian signalization and push-buttons at interse crossings on the north side only ! p Bury -Partners CITY OF Cou.F.GF. STATIO ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Safety Consideratio s • Trail will be ADA compliant through the entirety of the r • Safety handrail installed at Bee Creek Crossing on ere side • Pedestrian friendly improvements at intersection cross I p Bury+ Partner s CITY OF Cou.r.cr. ST,ITJON ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Tim ·eline • Anticipated Completion • Design: February 2010 • Construction: September 2010 ~ p Bury -Partners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS CITY OF Cou.F.GE ST,moN Section 1 ! P Bury Partners ENGINEERING SOLU T IONS CITY OF Cou .F .• r. STATIO • • Section 2 ! P Bury Partners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Crrv OF Cou.r.cE ST,mo ' Section 3 ! p Bury _.__ Partners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS CITY OF Cou .F.GF. 5TA1·10N Section 4 ~ Bury Partners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS CITY OF Cou.F.GE STATION P1 Bury p artners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Section 5 CITY OF COl.1.F.CE STATION Contacts For additional information or to submit comments, pleas the following link and click on "Projects". www.cstx.gov/greenconnections City of College Station Contact Information Danielle Charbonnet Capital Projects Department 979-764-5028 dcharbonnet@cstx.gov Venessa Garza Planning and Development Serv 979-764-367 4 vgarza@cstx.gov ! p Bury Partners CITY OF COLLF.l.F. STATIO ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Background Bike Loop Phase II Realignment Capital Projects Department March 8, 2010 ~ Original 1993 grant proposal for the College Station Bike Loop to provide roughly circular connection of bicycle facilities connecting Texas A&M University, regional and local retail centers, residential areas , as well as various municipal buildings and several city parks. ~ 3 Phase Project: 0 Phase I -Constructed 29,000 If (5.5 miles) of bike lanes and signed bike routes, and upgrades to existing paths; 0 Phase II -Constructed 7,800 If (1.5 miles) of bike paths through Central Park, Lemontree Park, and Bee Creek Park; 0 Phase Ill -Upon completion of Bee Creek Drainage Improvements, would complete path along the Bee Creek shelf to Texas Avenue. 1 Original Alignment 2 Proposed Alignment Node Connection 3 Benefits ~ Accomplishes same goals with benefit of preserving trees ~ Allows connectivity with east side of Texas Avenue ~ Provides more direct connection from south of town northward towards the A&M campus Questions 4 Design Progress MeITD To: Danielle Charbonnet From: Alex Reyna, P.E. CC: Date: February 1, 2010 BURY+ PARTNERS, INC. Re : Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) -90% Submittal · Dear Ms. Charbonnet: We will be submitting the 90 % design of the hike and bike trail along Harvey Mitchell Parkway on Monday February 1, 2010 to your office for your review. Please accept this memorandum as a summary of tasks that have been completed, issues that have arose during the 90 % design, and tasks to be completed. Also attached to this memorandum is a response to the comments generated during the 60 % design review. Upon being released to proceed with 90 % plans on December 22, 2009, BPI began addressing comments generated by City of College Station staff as well as adding the final components to the plan set. The geotechnical engineering report for the project was completed on January 8, 2010 and has been included with this submittal package for the City's use. Furthermore, the environmental sub- consultant anticipates that the Categorical Exclusion document to be completed and ready for client review by February 8, 2010. For the 90 % Design, BPI focused on finalizing the grading, adding the drainage improvements, and finalizing traffic improvements for the project. The drainage improvements at Nueces A venue Crossing, Southwood Drive Crossing, and Longmire Drive Crossing have been appropriately sized placed in order to aid in the drainage with the construction of the trail. Upon consulting with our environmental sub-consultant and TxDOT environmental engineers, any disturbance to the trees at Bee Creek Crossing will not trigger coordination with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) because the trees do not meet the "mature" classification as set by TPWD. With regards to the permit obtain by the City for the Bee Creek area, any disturbance to these trees will not affect the permit as long as the trees are restored and maintained after the completion of the trail construction. Finally, the bid proposal as well as the specifications have been completed and included with this submittal package for the City's review. The items in the above memorandum are only a brief summarization of the tasks that have been completed and what is to be completed. We will be able to go into greater detail during the 90% Submittal Meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions or comments. Project Engineer Page2 60% Design Review Comment Response 1. Sheet 6 -The cross-section for the 6' sidewalk scales off at 3 inches, but our COCS standard states that we do a 4 inch sidewalk. BPI received the Geotechnical Engineering Report and have revised and finalized the various cross-sections per the recommendations of the report. 2. Please review AASHTO "Guide for the development of bicycle facilities" for design criteria. I believe it states a 6: 1 slope for the first 2 feet off of the edge of the path, 3 feet being preferred for vertical clearance. The grading has been reviewed and revised to reflect 6:1 slope for the first 2jeet off the edge of the trail. All areas along the trail meet or exceed the minimum vertical clearance at this time. Tree pruning will be required in the fature to maintain the minimum vertical clearance. 3. Include station numbers for where each cross-section applies. The range of stations for each cross-section has been provided on Sheet 6 -Typical Sections. 4. Include cross-section for traffic rated section at driveway crossings. BPI received the Geotechnical Engineering Report and have revised and finalized the various cross-sections per the recommendations of the report. 5. Sheet 7 -Note to adjust existing electrical ground box. A note has been included on Sheet 7 to address the adjustment to the electrical ground box. 6. Sheet 8 -Show where the gas line runs from the gas marker along Nueces. A subswface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility . Page3 7. Reconsider the design of the culverts on the west side of Nueces. You have the proposed culvert connecting in against the flow of the existing culvert pipe that is being extended. Based upon the survey data that was obtained and visual inspections ofthe existing culverts, the proposed culverts have been appropriately sized and designed. 8. Label Nueces. All roadways have been labeled within the plan set. 9. Will adjustments to the light pole be required adjacent to the path on the west side of Nueces? An annotation has been included within the plan set describing the relocation of the laminar. 10. Show where the electrical conduit runs to from the light poles. A subsurface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. 11. Show the depth of the culvert in plan-view and show cross-section. Flow line data has been included within the plans for all existing and proposed drainage features. A cross-section has also been included for all proposed drainage features. 12. Verify that proposed stop bar location is less than or equal to 30 feet from the edge line marking. Reference TMUTCD requirement. The proposed relocation of the stop bar meets the minimum requirements of the TMUTCD requirements. 13 . Stop sign located per TMUTCD. The proposed relocation of the stop sign meets the minimum requirements of the TMUTCD requirements. 14. Label all ambulatory ramps and reference detail. All ambulatory ramps have been labeled and referenced to their appropriate detail. Page4 15. Culvert on the east side of Nueces does not appear positioned with the flow-line of the ditch. Based upon the survey data that was obtained and visual inspections of the existing culverts, the proposed culverts have been appropriately sized and designed. 16. Show underground electric near Sta. 20 + 50 in cross-section view. A subsuiface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. 17. Reference intersection detail sheet. For proposed improvements with regards to signage and striping at intersections, exzstzng conditions have been included within the plan set and annotations have been included stating that proposed signage and stripping has been included on the respective intersection detail sheet. 18. Sheet 9 -Design path across private driveway so that there isn't a sharp slope between the sidewalk and the edge of roadway. Comment Noted 19. Label tree type and sizes on the plans. Tree tables have been included on the plan sheets that include trees that have been surveyed. 20. Path appears too close to cluster of trees on the north side of the path, within 5'. Construction will impact root zone . Position path such that it minimizes impact on the trees. ' The cluster of trees was surveyed and marked at the outside edge of the branches and brush. We are confident that this alignment will not impact the root zone of the trees. 21. Show where the conduit runs between light poles. A subsuiface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. Pages 22. Show the radius of the path at the light pole near Sta. 25+50. Line and curve tables have been included with the plan set. 23. Label rock wall on plan view. Will a handrail still be included? Provide detail view . The rock wall has been labeled and a cross-section of this area has been included on the specific plan sheet. Details have also been included within the detail sheets. 24. Rock wall alignment can remain as shown in 60 % plans and the trees can be removed to be replaced provided you provide a detailed spec that outlines the care and maintenance of the trees while uprooted. Can also consider changing rock wall angle to minimize tree impact. May consider doing this to stay below trigger points of the environmental review. BPI has consulted TxDOT environmental staff as well as our environmental sub-consultant with regards to the disturbance to the trees. Any impact to the trees will not trigger review with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (IPWD) because the existing trees do not meet the "mature" classification as set by TPWD. 25. Sheet 10-Show where the conduit runs from the light pole near Sta. 28+00. A subsurface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. 26. Include tree protection/pruning plan for areas where path near trees or brush, like Sta. 31 +50. Also, see AASHTO requirement for vertical Clearance of bike paths. Tree protection will be included with the specifications of the project. 27. Sheet 11 -Label electrical crossing at Sta. 33 +00 as overhead or underground electrical. The label has been revised to reflect the appropriate type of electrical crossing. 28. Pipeline marker symbol not shown in legend. Show where the pipeline runs on the plans from the marker. The pipe line marker has been added to the legend. A subswface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been Page6 included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. 29. Path seems to close to the trees at Sta. 33 + 50. How will root zone be handled so trees do not die? The route was first walked with BPI and City staff to obtain an approved alignment. BPI · feels that the current alignment will not affect the root zones of the trees. 30. Show the path radius around the tee near Sta. 36+00. Line and curve tables have been included with the plan set. 31. Sheet 12 -Flatten the curvature of the path in this area similar to Sheet 15. The alignment has been modified in this area to reduce the curvature of the path. 32. Show where electrical runs that connects to the existing electric ground box near Sta. 39+00. A subsuiface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. 33. Show where the conduit runs between the light poles. A subsuiface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. 34. Shrubs or bollards at the end of the asphalt driveway. City staff need to make a decision on what type of treatment shall be proposed, if any. The cross-section of the trail will be traffic rated from the Utility Substation to just east of the beginning of the frontage road in order to prevent vehicles from crushing the trail. 35. Sheet 13 -Label rock wall. Show in detail. The rock wall has been labeled and a cross-section of this area has been included on the specific plan sheet. Details have also been included within the detail sheets. Page? 36. Make sure grading will not impact signal pole. Foundation and bolts cannot be covered. The gra.ding has been modified and/or a.djusted near the signal foundations to prevent the foundations from being covered. 37. Include pedestrian buttons for both north and south directions. Pedestrian buttons have been included for a user to travel from north to south. 38. Label ambulatory ramps and reference appropriate detail. All ambulatory ramps have been labeled and referenced to their appropriate detail. 39. Reference intersection detail sheet. For proposed improvements with regards to signage and striping at intersections, ex1stmg conditions have been included within the plan set and annotations have been included stating that proposed signage and stripping has been included on the respective intersection detail sheet. 40. Label culvert as proposed at Sta. 48 + 25. Flow line data has been included within the plans for all existing and proposed drainage features. A cross-section has also been included for all proposed drainage features. 41. Sheet 16 -Label the box at the intersection on the west side of Longmire. The symbol for a traffic control box has been added to the master legend on Sheet 2. 42. Label and reference ambulatory ramp detail. All ambulatory ramps have been labeled and referenced to their appropriate detail. 43. Show depth of gas line west of intersection. Show in cross-section view. A subsuiface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Van·ous notes and annotations have been included within the plnn set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. Page8 44. Label culverts that are proposed as proposed. Flow line data has been included within the plans for all existing and proposed drainage features. A cross-section has also been included for all proposed drainage features. 45. Reference intersection detail sheet. For proposed improvements with regards to signage and striping at intersections, exzstzng conditions have been included within the plan set and annotations have been included stating that proposed signage and stripping has been included on the respective intersection detail sheet. 46. Rework the east corner at the intersection for compliant ADA ramps. The comer of Longmire and FM 2818 has been revised to comply with ADA requirements. 47. Sidewalk east of Longmire should be 8 foot wide. The sidewalk has been revised to reflect 8-foot width with a taper to 6 feet at the end in order to tie in to the existing sidewalk. 48. What's the depth of the underground electrical in the grading area? A subsuiface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey data is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. 49. Sheet 17 -What are these gaps in the curb? Not clear. The gaps in the curb represent existing cuts in the curb to allow for drainage. SO. Taper down sidewalk width from 6 feet to 8 feet where it ties in to existing sidewalk at back of curb. A taper has been added. S 1. Show trees as to be protected. Tree protection has been added. Page9 52. Include any trees and irrigation from Texas Ave. Streetscapes project on the plans and show to be protected. BPI has coordinated with WP and we have added the Texas Avenue Streetscape Plans to assure we do not affect that project. 53. Sheets 18-20 -In addition to the summary of Proposed pavement markings, show in the plans and give summary of existing pavement markings to be removed. Pavement markings to be removed have been added to the plan sheets. 54. Existing pavement markings need to be removed and not just covered in black paint. Comment Noted 55. Confirm distance from pavement edge per TMUTCD requirement. The proposed relocation of the stop bar meets the minimum requirements of the TMUTCD requirements. 56. Sheet 18 -Relocate existing lane assignment sign north 50 feet from current location. The proposed relocation of the lane geometry sign has been moved to 50 feet north of the existing location. 57. Sheet 19 -Show existing signage. Existing signage has been added to the plan sheet. 58. What is the box labeled 'A'? This is a reference to the electrical schedule table on the sheet. This annotation is common practice when identifying electrical runs for the purposes of signals. 59. #4 stripe, 12" white solid scales off as 34 LF. Quantities have been checked and revised. 60. Show existing signal pole-as ilepicted in legend. Existing signal poles have been revised to reflect the depiction of the legend. Page 10 61. Sheet 20 -Show existing signage. Existing signage has been added to the plan sheet. 62. What is the box labeled 'A'? This is a reference to the electrical schedule table on the sheet. This annotation is common practice when identifying electrical runs for the purposes of signals. 63 . Show existing signal pole as depicted in legend. Existing signal poles have been revised to reflect the depiction of the legend. 64. Show depth of gas line . A subsurface utility investigation was not conducted as part of this project, therefore the location of dry utilities that have been identified by survey dala is for reference only. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and locate underground dry utilities. Various notes and annotations have been included within the plan set to show the contractor where crossings are located and their assumed responsibility. General Comments: 65. Include both up and downstream flow-lines for all existing and proposed drainage features . Flow line dala has been added for all existing and proposed drainage features. 66. Show cross-sections at all utility crossings and drainage structures, proposed and existing. A cross-section has been included for proposed and existing drainage crossings. 67 . Provide a horizontal alignment data sheet to include vertical and horizontal control on the ground, specify datum. Datum, curve, and line data tables have been included within the plan set. 68. Provide curve data on each plan sheet. Datum, curve, and line data tables have been included within the plan set. 69. Provide station locations where slope changes on multi-used path. Spot elevations have been included at the north, middle, and south edge of the trail along the entire path of the trail. Page 11 70. We will not use an alternate trail material for the path. The path shall be concrete. Comment Noted 71. We do not wish to include an alternate for a sidewalk along Nueces. Comment Noted 72. No brick pavers shall be included from Longmire to Texas. Comment Noted 73 . The approximate letting date is driven mostly by the environmental review time. You can include July 14, 2010 as the date for the CE. Comment Noted 7 4. A waiting approval from TxDOT on the construction staging area and the rock wall approval. Comment Noted 75. Include survey control points and benchmarks. Survey control points and benchmarks have been added. Page 12 CITY OF C OUEGE STATION Platni"K t7 Dn'f!.lo/mntl Stntica PROJECT STATUS REPORT PROJECT: Bee Creek Greenway Trail along FM 2818 Date: May 13, 2009 Project Status: Planning CIP Project Manager: Danielle Charbonnett Client Department: Planning and Development Services Venessa Garza -Greenways Program Manager Other Departments: Parks and Recreation; Public Works BACKGROUND ~ One million dollars ~e allocated through the November 2008 Bond for the implementation of projects identified by the Hike and Bike Task Force and adopted by City Council on November J <>-:t' 23, 2004. Roi lout for these funds are slotted from FY 09 -FY 11. f' l-t 1'~ -tW \cPIU .......+<.. ~~~T ~~ p"-'°j~'t--\~ High priority trail projects, identified by the Hike and Bike Task Fo rce in 2004, that have not been completed include Bee Creek Trail West South {#2), Gulf States Utilities ROW (#5) and Bee Creek Trail West North (#6). Based on these priorities initial conclusions indicated the completion of Bee Creek Trail West South. This trail would follow FM 2818 on the south side from Steeplechase Park to Southwood Drive which would also connect Larry J. Ringer Library and Georgie K. Fitch Park. Staff, however, recommends the completion of Bee Creek Trail West North (as identified on the attached map from Welsh to Texas) due to a number of factors described here including: 1) Connectivity to key destinations including A&M Consolidated High School, Bee Creek Park and commercial property such as Walmart (crossing at Longmire) 2) Intersection improvements (existing/under construction) at Welsh & FM 2818 and Longmire & FM 2818 and 3) Demonstrated need from students attending A&M Consolidated High School wishing to walk and bike to school along this corridor. PROJECT STATUS • Staff met with Hannah White, a student at A&M Consolidated HS who participated in the walking demonstration on April 24th in front of the school. Students plan to attend the City Council meeting on May 18th to express their desire for sidewalks along FM 2818 and present a petition. • Staff met with TxDOT to discuss the proposed alignment within FM 2818 right of way. TxDOT has given preliminary approval and requested a map to distribute to appropriate departments for final approval. .. • Staff also met with Mr. Ernest Reed, the principal of A&M Consolidated HS who is in favor of a trail in front of the school. Based on the current situation and factors listed above, staff recommends design and construction of a greenway trail along the north side of 2818. Staff saw an opportunity at this stage in the project to reevaluate priorities and consider factors described above. July 9, 2009 Consent Agenda Item # Hike & Bike Trail Completion Professional Services Contract To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a resolution awarding the professional services contract (Contract No. 09~41) with Bury + Partners, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $112,133 for engineering design services for the Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project (ST-0904). Recommendation{s): Staff recommends Council approval of the resolution and award of the professional services contract to Bury+Partners, Inc. Summary: The Hike & Bike Tra jl Com pletion Project was part of the 2008 bond authorization to implement projects identified by the Rike & Bike Task Force and adopted by Council on November 23 After hearing the concerns of students at A&M Consolidated Hig c oo a e May 18th council meeting, staff proposed an alignment change and Council supported the decision for a greenway trail to be constructed on the north side of FM 2818 from Welsh to Texas Avenue. The Welsh to Texas Avenue trail is identified on the HikQ g. 6ik8 ~iii6te r PlaA. "f,1 \(.L.L.J~ ~ Pe.~'""-MA.Stl.Ju Pl~. Staff recommends building this portion of the plan to address the students' concerns and provide greater multimodal mobility along the FM 2818 corridor. The Welsh to Texas Avenue trail will also connect to the current improvements along Longmire, including the intersection improvements at FM 2818 and the bridge crossing Bee Creek, which will further increase multimodal connectivity throughout the city. Budget & Financial Summary: This project is funded from the 2008 Bond Authorization in the amount of $1,000,000. Funds in the amount of $333,000 have been appropriated this fiscal year for the design of the trail. $1,302.80 have been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of $331,697.20 for this contract award and future expenses. Attachments: 1.) 2.) p Tt ·~~of Resolution Project Location Map ~~/ _ ___," Q~ot -fk ptUot1.-(1', p"°)t-Li.S Engineering Services Scope of Work Prepared by Bury+ Partners For Texas Avenue/Welsh A venue Hike And Bike Trail Project Description The City of College Station (City) has established a Hike and Bike Trail Task Force, which has identified approximately 40 projects for new construction or rehabilitation of trails throughout the City. One of the projects selected is a new trail to be constructed from Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue along Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818). Starting in front of A&M Consolidated High School at the northeast comer of Welsh Avenue and FM 2818, the trail traverses east along the north right-of-way (R.O.W.) of FM 2818 to reach a major creek crossing. Upon crossing the creek, the trail continues east to terminate at Texas A venue at the northwestern return. The alignment of the trail lies entirely within the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) R.O.W. The total length of this project is approximately 6, 100 linear feet. It is assumed that this alignment has been established by the City and an evaluation of alternate alignments is not part of this scope of work. Bury+ Partners, Inc. (Bury) has prepared the following scope of work for Preliminary Engineering Services, Environmental, Preliminary Design, Final Design, and Bidding/Construction Administration. 1. Data Collection Bury and its sub-consultant team members (the Project Team) propose to include the following services during the Data Collection phase of the project: 1.1. Conduct a project kick-off meeting with City staff and the Project Team. A walk of the area will be conducted with City staff and the Project Team to spot any sensitive areas and obtain concurrence on an alignment for the trail. June 2, 2009 Page 2of6 1.2. The City has attended meetings with the TxDOT to understand what level of review, including environmental, will be required. The City will provide meeting minutes from this meeting. 1.3. The Project Team will coordinate with TxDOT to gather roadway plans for FM 2818 for the extents of the project. 1.4. The Project Team will gather existing dry utility data along the trail path. 1.5. The City will provide any information regarding all existing wet utilities. 2. Environmental Any project that lies within TxDOT R. 0. W. is required to submit some level of an environmental document. This document depends on the level of disturbance in which the project will have on the land which it is planned to be constructed. City staff attended a meeting with TxDOT in which it was documented that a Categorical Exclusion (CE) would be the required environmental document for this project. The following services will be included within the Environmental Investigation of this project: 2.1. Per conversations with City staff, the Project Team has assumed that a CE will be the required environmental report to be submitted to TxDOT. The CE report will address the following: 2.1.1. Need and Purpose 2.1.2. Proposed Action 2.1.3. Project Setting and Land Use 2.1.4. Socioeconomics 2.1.5. Environmental Justice 2.1.6. Limited English Proficiency 2.1.7. Section 4(f) Resources 2.1.8. Historic Properties 2.1.9. Archeological Resources 2.1.10. Vegetation 2.1.11. Water Quality 2.1.12. Soils/Farmland 2.1.13. Utilities 2.1.14. Invasive Species 2.1.15. Threatened and Endangered Species 2.1.16. Air Quality 2 .1.17. Noise Impacts 2.1.18. Hazardous Materials 2.1.19. Visual 2.1.20. Flood Plains 2.1.21. Wild and Scenic Rivers 2.1.22. Public Involvement June 2, 2009 Page 3of6 2.2. Submit the finalized CE report to TxDOT for review. The Project Team will coordinate with TxDOT staff to address any comments. 2.3. Revise and submit updated report to TxDOT for final review and approval. 3. Preliminary Design The Project Team will conduct the following tasks to complete the Preliminary Design of the Hike and Bike Trail: 3.1. Conduct progress meetings, three (3), with City staff at each milestone submittal: preliminary, 30 %, and 60 % submittals. A progress memorandum will be submitted to the City at least one (1) week prior to each progress meeting. 3.2. Weekly progress emails will be sent out detailing project progress as well as upcoming tasks for the· following week. 3.3. Conduct a field survey to include topographic features and tree data. The survey will capture all areas 25-feet off the centerline of the trail route. All trees eight (8) inches and larger in caliper will be surveyed. 3.4. Conduct a field survey to tie R.O.W. monumentation to locate R.O.W. limits of FM 2818. 3.5. The Project Team will conduct a geotechnical analysis along the trail. One (1) boring sample at a 25-foot depth will be conducted on either side of the major creek crossing. Four (4) other boring samples at a five (5) foot depth will conducted along the trail. 3.6. Create preliminary route exhibits and schematic drawings of the trail alignment. This is to include schematic drawings of the pedestrian bridge to be constructed over the major creek crossing. Submit schematics to the City to gain concurrence. June 2, 2009 Page 4of6 3. 7. Preliminary designs for the trail will include the design of a structural pedestrian bride to span across the major creek crossing. The bridge is assumed to be a precast concrete double tee type bridge. 3.8. Bury will attend two (2) public meeting on behalf of the City. 3.9. Prepare 30 % plans/construction drawings for the pedestrian hike and bike trail to submit to the City for review. 3.10. Meet with the City in order to review and incorporate the City's 30 % review comments . 3.11. Prepare 60 % plans/construction drawings for the pedestrian hike and bike trail to submit to the City for review. 3 .12. Meet with the City in order to review and incorporate the City's 60 % review comments. 3.13 . Prepare an opinion of probable cost per the preliminary designs for the route. 3.14. Coordinate with TxDOT to understand the requirements of the Multiple Use Agreement (MUA) and what supporting documents will be required. 3.15. Prepare and submit the MUA to TxDOT with supporting exhibits and drawings. 60 % plans are typically submitted with the MUA. 3.16. Coordinate with TxDOT and the City of College Station in order to execute the MUA. 3 .17. Prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to be included within the construction documents. 3.18. The TCP will be submitted to TxDOT for review and approval. 4. Final Design Upon the completion of the Preliminary Design phase, the Project Team will begin the Final Design phase . The following services will be included within this phase of the project: 4.1. Conduct progress meetings, two (2), with City staff at each milestone submittal: 90 % and 100 % submittals. A progress memorandum will be submitted to the City at least one (1) week prior to each progress meeting. June 2, 2009 Page 5of6 4.2. Prepare 903 plans and specifications to the City for review. Specifications will be in City format to include the bid document in Word format, special provisions, and technical specification 4.3. Meet with the City in order to review and incorporate the City's 90 3 review comments. 4.4. The Project Team will submit plans to a Registered Accessibility Specialist to review the plans against the Texas Department of Licensure Requirement (TDLR) standards. We will coordinate with the reviewer to address any comments. 4.5. Finalize plans/construction documents to 1003 completion. 4.6. Provide 8 bid documents (not including construction drawings) to the City. A total of three (3) sets of final construction documents at 100 3 completion will be submitted to the City. Of the three (3) set of plans, one (1) set will be full-size (22-inch x 34-inch), and two (2) sets will be half-size sets. 4.7. One (1) digital copy of all engineering documents, plans, and design documents will be submitted to the City. 4.8. One (1) digital copy of electronic CAD file s in AutoCAD format will be submitted to the City. 4.9. Assist the City in the preparation of construction contract documents. 5. Bidding/Construction Administration After all bid and construction documents have been finalize, the Project Team will begin the Bidding/Construction Administration phase of the project, which will include the following services: 5 .1. Assist the City in advertisement of bid. 5.2. Assist in conducting a pre-bid meeting. 5.3. Prepare and issue any necessary addenda to bid. 5.4. Receive and evaluate bids. 5.5. Make recommendation of award of bid. 5.6. Assist the City in preparing construction contract documents. 5. 7. Assist the City in conducting pre-construction meeting 5.8. Attend up to six (6) monthly progress meetings June 2, 2009 Page 6of6 5.9. Provide periodic onsite field observation trips for an average of two (2) visits per month for a six (6) month construction phase (maximum). 5.10. The Project Team will provide materials testing during the duration of the construction phase. 5 .11. Review monthly pay requests from contractor. 5.12. Respond to questions during construction and any necessary Request For Information (RFI) responses. 5 .13. Review and provide recommendations to the City regarding any proposed change orders. 5.14. Prepare As-Built plans and submit in electronic AutoCAD format to the City. ASSUMPTIONS The follow items are assumptions that have been made for the purposes of this scope based on conversations with the City: 1. The City will provide any surveys that have been done for the area in which the trail will be built. 2. The construction of the pedestrian trail will be entirely within TxDOT R. 0 . W.; therefore, no easements will be required. 3. The preferred alignment has been established and, therefore, an evaluation of alternatives is not part of this scope. 4. It is assumed TxDOT will grant a CE for this project. 5. Plans will be prepared in AutoCAD. P:\ADMIN\80061-College Sration\01-Hike & Bike Trail\PM\Scope of Work 060209.doc 0 [QOOI "J)~\M '.Cj} j_ ~s:----·-- a6t?d pafOJd I date project ~pa_g_e -------~----'···· _ .. __ ......... _ .. ...... ........ ..... .. .... .. ....... t'Yl.~. I~~~-~~~--....... . .. bio~')\"1~~-~ ../e..~-~.: .......................................................... . -· --· .. ---· ··-.. -... ·-........ --..... ----' ........ ' .. -· -· --· .. . .... .. --· .. -----~ .. . . .. ·-. -.... ·-·--...... -· .. -· ... ----...................... ---.. ., ----- ----------·-··········-·········--·-····················-··············· "~~~~-.. ·············-~·-·································-······································································································· f.~ (!tlt:t:, ftCe>-y, ~ fT<-... · .·.·.·~·-·_·_·_·_·_· . .-.. -.. -.-.-.. ~.--.. _._._._. ______ _. __ ._ ___ ._.__._._._ ....... -.. ··.···-~------··.· . .-.·.· ....... :.· . .-.-.·.·.· . .-···.····.·· .. ~.-;&_ci .... ·~.;;;;;;;, . .-.-.-.. ~ .. i;.~ .. f .. ·;gi~i--;·~~--!1-- ---------------·····. •· ................ ------------------------------------------·----·----·-·-·-----··--. ···-··············· ································· ·······························-··········h .. (C4:~·::<, ... ::·;;;_~.5~::;··:.::.·.:::·.:····.::·::·.::::::·.:::.:.:::.::::::::::::.:::::·:::.:::.·:::::·:.::.··::·::.: . ............. .... :.:: : ...... :··.···:.~----~:: .. ::·.· ::::::.: .. :·:·:·::.:~···::·::.::: .. · ·: .... :~·~·~'± ... :: .. :: .. :· .. :· ... :.:·::.: ... :::··:·::···::: .. ::.::::·: .. ·.:::: .. ·:.···.:::.· .. :::: ... :.··:.:.::.::::::.::: .... :: .. ·:· .... ·····:·: .. ·::::·::·.::: -_·· ..••••...••.••••.•••••••••••.••.••..•••••••..••...•..••••••••••••• ~~············································································ •····•·•····•···· .. ···.· --~ri~u:t ~ltl~~-< .•..... ····•·· ... ·.·. > ,. " . v · ... L -Y.j task list: -. ... .. --·----------------· - -----··-·"'-· ·'---'.:;.--:;~··--- j --------~ ·_ :...._.,{<.----.. --~ ... -·---.......... --------.... . . " . C4..4(lj (Yl.{ l ,J.. (f. ~ t~---· .. .. . .. .. . ······· ..... ... ····lk···;···. ~--········· ..•..•• pMn~O'(,············· .• ... r~-rs --~~ . ............. . ..... -~·-··········· ····.· ... ······ · .. ······. · .. · ........ ··· ~ ~;~~t~~~lb-- 201 6. l .., Bury+ Partners ENGINEERING SOLUT I ONS City of College Station Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) (Texas A venue/Welsh A venue Hike and Bike Trail) Meeting Agenda August 23 , 2010 Type of Meeting: Pre-Construction Meeting Meeting Facilitator: Bury+ Partners Attendees: Danielle Charbonnet, Project Manager (City of College Station) Vanessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager (City of College Station) Jerry Jones , Engineering Inspector (City of College Station) Steven Kasberg (TxDOT) Trey Taylor (Bury+ Partners) Bobak Tehrany (Bury+ Partners) Ricky Palasota (Brazos Valley Services) Bill Gaston (Bravos Valley Services) Peter Paletta (Terracon) Mark Dornak (Terracon) \)it)S ~ Topics of Discussion: 1. Introductions 2. Project Overview and Limits 3. Submittals 4. Construction Schedule/Sequence of Construction: • Time to Completion wobl\~~ ~ 3b-t!J. I ·i d_>c-.r 3 • Establish NTP date _ c(~ce., ~-~ ~I 1J10 1\1)\ bn.l\-<t'J P:\ADMIN\80061-College Station\01-Hike & Bike Trail\! 1.03 Pre-Bid Documents\082310 Pre-Construction Agenda.doc Page 1 of 2 5. Special Items: • Grading and ADA Requirements • Bee Creek Area Construction • Electrical and Conduit Work at Southwood • Thickened slab and rails at Southwood and Longmire • TxDOT concerns ~ • Public Notification (72 hour advance for lane closures) • Construction site maintenance (erosion control, trash, restoring site conditions) 6. Material Testing 7. Summary P AI-~~'-~ 8. Adjourn P:\ADMIN\80061-College Station\01-Hike & Bike Trail\11 .03 Pre-Bid Documents\082310 Pre-Construction Agenda.doc Page 2 of 2 May 17, 2010 Regular Agenda Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project Final Design Presentation To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion concerning approval to publicly bid the Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project. Recommendation(s): construction bid. Staff recommends proceeding with advertisement for the Summary: Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project (ST-0904) was part of the 2008 Bond Authorization to implement projects identified by the Hike & Bike Task Force and adopted by Council on November 23, 2004. After hearing the concerns of A&M Consolidated High School students at the May 18, 2009 council meeting, staff proposed an alignment change and Council supported the decision for a multi-use trail to be designed and constructed along the north side of FM 2818 from Welsh to Longmire. The design contract was awarded July 9, 2009. Design was completed and environmental clearance obtained from TxDOT in April 2010. Given that the City has received favorable bids on recent construction projects, Staff has also included a bid alternative to extend the sidewalk from Texas Avenue to Longmire. The Welsh to Longmire trail is identified on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan recently adopted by Council. The trail will provide greater multimodal mobility along the FM 2818 corridor connecting destinations including A&M Consolidated High School, Bee Creek Park, and commercial and residential property. Budget & Financial Summary: This project is funded from the 2008 Bond Authorization in the amount of $1,000,000. Funds in the amount of $120,813.76 have been committed or expended to date, leaving a balance of $879,186.24 for construction of the trail and other expenses. Attachments: 1.) Project Map Date/Time: Location: Agenda: City of College Station Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-904) PRE-BID CONFERENCE AGENDA June 24, 2010; 2:00 p.m. City Hall 2nd Floor Conference Room 1 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 1. Sign-in Sheet 2. Introductions 3. Project Overview a. b. c. d. Tree Planting Times and Coordination -f'ltkt tzepl~.( 'I<. ~&.V. ~t' 0(., t. Southwood Traffic Work Coordination L. -~ • -· MM-«c~Oli-. -coc.~ ..-~ "-"''~'~ TxDOT Considerations Storm Water Pollution Abatement Plan (SWPPP) 4. Bid Date July 1, 2010, 2:00 p.m. 5. Bid Requirements 6. Time to Achieve Substantial Completion/Liquidated Damages 7. Work Hours 8. Site Access/Use of Premises 9. Bidder's Questions BPI Job No. 80061-01 Page 1of1 P:IADMIN\80061-College Station\01-Hike & Bike Trail\1 1.03 Pre-Bid Documents\062310 Pre-Bid Agenda.doc Pre-Bid Agenda May 17, 2010 Regular Agenda Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project Final Design Presentation To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion concerning approval to publicly bid the Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project. Recommendation(s): construction bid . Staff recommends proceeding with advertisement for the Summary: Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project (ST-0904) was part of the 2008 Bond Authorization to implement projects identified by the Hike & Bike Task Force and adopted by Council on November 23, 2004. After hearing the concerns of A&M Consolidated High School students at the May 18, 2009 council meeting, staff proposed an alignment change and Council supported the decision for a multi-use trail to be designed and constructed along the north side of FM 2818 from Welsh to Longmire. The design contract was awarded July 9, 2009. Design was completed and environmental clearance obtained from TxDOT in April 2010. Given that the City has received favorable bids on recent construction projects, Staff has also included a bid alternative to extend the sidewalk from Texas Avenue to Longmire. The Welsh to Longmire trail is identified on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan recently adopted by Council. The trail will provide greater multimodal mobility along the FM 2818 corridor connecting destinations including A&M Consolidated High School, Bee Creek Park, and commercial and residential property. Budget & Financial Summary: This project is funded from the 2008 Bond Authorization in the amount of $1,000,000. Funds in the amount of $120,813.76 have been committed or expended to date, leaving a balance of $879,186.24 for construction of the trail and other expenses. Attachments: 1.) Project Map S ~ V t:'LN otJ tlin-\-o.. µ.< ( Ler ~ O~V\ U Lb-SD 1>~ f/1 1:,~ ~V:t:>O-~ 0-AT\ 1~ ~~f- TeoV\ ~(){1c..Lv\Mclk' Eht\.ct \ \ A<ld.-K e 5: <;. Su ~r.;a~ ~ fu ks / t;}\.1( Neet-1n7 . ~ m \"ta 68-@ <JM-°'-l J ,c_o ~ jOV\V\· ~~c @ JMA~J-c~ A}_ 'SM{eg /lrl.6t,/ 1. l /JVT'... ell ~~@ {i::4k .~ f\-u PA rr 5"@ V l:.. ltt z..o Al . t\l ~ T {k W7~<2~~~1J77 .COUA._ ~m \I\/\ \ti'C!Yt@ ~J t~ Bryan/College Station Connectivity Discussion Joint P&Z Commission Meeting 9 November 2009 College Main • Bryan -planned project includes the reconstruction of College Main from Old College to the city limits. The street is to be widened and the open ditch will be converted to storm sewer with curb and gutter and sidewalks. This project is in design with planned construction start in summer of 2010. College Station -Existing sidewalks and designated bike lanes from University Drive to the city limits South College • Bryan -planned reconstruction of South College from Sulphur Springs to Villa Maria. The project includes bike lanes and 6 foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the street. This project is currently approved for the 2012 fiscal year in [he CIP plan. • College Station -multi-use path planned along South College is shown as the # 1 priority in the draft bike/pedestrian master p!an Texas Ave. Bryan -plans to install 6 foot wide sidewalks along both sides of Texas Ave. from the city lim its to Elm Avenue (Tejas Center). The project is under design with construction planned in early 2010. College Station -existing sidewalk along Texas (primarily on the east side) 29th Street/Tarrow • Bryan -plans to install includes 6 and 8 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of 29th street from Barak to Briarcrest and from Carter Creek to the city limits. This project is currently approved for the 2011 fiscal year in the CIP plan. College Station -Existing sidewalk on Spring Loop from University to Tarrow. Tarrow and Spring Loop designated as a high priority bike lane in the draft bike/pedestrian master plan -Sidewalks are also proposed along Tarrow from University to the city limits. - University Drive • College Station -multi-use path shown along Cater Creek and the Gulf States easement. A connection is also shown to the existing path in Veteran's Park. CS staff has been involved in discussions with TXDOT and the City of Bryan regarding best type and location for connection(s). TXDOT staff has indicated that the best location for a below grade connection would be under the University Drive bridge closest to Earl Rudder Freeway (AKA the bypass). • Bryan -recent opening of a multi-use path in Bryan. Ongoing discussions between the Parks Department staff regarding a possible connection to Veteran's Park. ! p Bury +Partners Bury+Parmers -Public Works, Inc. 221 West Sixth Street, Suite 600 Austin, Texas 78701 ENGINEERI N G SOLUTI ON S Meetmg Notes Project Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) Client City of College Station (512) 328-0011 -Phone (512) 328--0325 - Fax Conference Date August 14, 2009 Issue Date Revised August 24, 2009 August 18, 2009 Conference Location Bryan, Texas Project No. 80061-01 Attendees Alex Reyna -Bury + Partners Bobak Tehrany -Bury + Partners Danielle Charbonnet -City of College Station Maury Jacob -TxDOT Bryan District John D . Moravec -TxDOT Bryan District Andrew Greer -TxDOT Bryan District m " .,. Routing Discussion: The following is our understanding of the subject matter covered in this conference. If this differs with your understanding, please notify us: I. The meeting was started with introductions and the project overview. Mr. Tehrany went over the general trail alignment which was presented on the provided exhibits. The trail is planned to be 10-feet wide, concrete, and ADA Accessible from Welsh Avenue to Longmire Drive as the base bid and to Texas A venue as an add alternate. II. A list questions was provided to all in which the meeting generally followed the list of questions in order. Please reference the attached document which is the list of questions along with the answers to the questions. III. The point of contact for TxDOT over the next two (2) weeks will be Andy Greer (agreer@dot.state.tx.us). Andy will also be the person completing the Categorical Exclusion document on behalf of TxDOT. IV. Items which require further action: • • • • Attachments: 1 Ms. Charbonnet is to coordinate with J. Paige for any improvements at the intersection of FM 2818 and Rio Grande Boulevard. Also, in order to understand if the Frontage Road is planned to be extended from Southwood Drive to Rio Grande Boulevard. Ms. Charbonnet is to coordinate with the Property Owner as well as J. Paige in order to discuss the private drive just west of Bee Creek. Ms. Charbonnet is to coordinate with Bob Richardson in order to understand the process which will take place if TxDOT will be completing the Categorical Exclusion document. Ms. Charbonnet is to set the PAC meeting for a date to be determined . Prepared by: Bobak Tehrany P:ll Engineering\80061\01\Meetings\Meering Mintues 081409 (revised). doc Page 1of1 Trail Alignment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Hike and Bike Trail (ST-0904) TxDOT Meeting Questions August 2009 • Is the alignment that we have flagged and shown on the provided exhibit acceptable by TxDOT? The alignment as shown on the provided exhibits is acceptable. • How far do we need to stay away from Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818)? There is a clear zone requirement of 30jeet, however it does not need to be met for this project. As a guideline, the trail should be installed as far away as allowable from FM 2818. Mr. Jacob mentioned that the utilities tend to hug the TOW line, therefore it will be a good idea to stay some distance from the ROW line. • In the median near Welsh A venue, can we stay on top of the hill, out of the swail, for the alignment? Yes, the trail may stay outside of the swail and traverse along the ridge within the median near Welsh Avenue. • Will the public meetings that the City of College Station has planned pass the TxDOT public meeting requirements? As long as a Notice goes out to the property owners in which the trail will immediately affect, the TxDOT requirement will be covered. Creek Crossing • Can we utilize the box culvert to cross the creek? Yes, the trail may pass on top of the box culvert in order to cross Bee Creek. • If we can utilize the box culvert, what safety device will be required to create a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles (e.g . traffic barrier)? TxDOT will require a guardrail to be installed on the creek side of the proposed trail. When passing over the box culvert, the trail maybe raised in order to create a swail on the roadway side of the trail. • What environmental issues will come about in the creek area with the construction of the trail? A Categorical Exclusion will be the only environmental document required for this project. FM 2818 Improvements • Will the Frontage Road at just west of Southwood Drive be extended to Rio Grande Boulevard? TED -Contact J. Paige • What intersection improvements are planned at Rio Grande Boulevard and FM 2818? TED -Contact J. Paige • Will the private drive just west of the creek be removed or improved in the near future? The property owner and J. Paige need to be contacted to understand if the private drive will remain. Categorical Exclusion Document • Will TxDOT want to complete the CE document for this project? TxDOT has expressed that they would like to complete the CE document. • How much will it cost? Bob Richardson will need to be contacted in order to better understand how TxDOT will charge for these services. • How long will it take to complete? TxDOT has stated that if they complete the CE document internally, the process will take six (6) to nine (9) months from preparation to approval. • Does it fit within the City of College Station's schedule? The City agrees that the timeline of six (6) to nine (9) months falls in line with their schedule for the project. Page 1of1 Workshop Agenda Item No. 4 -Presentation, discussion, and possible action regardin~ the activities of the Bike and Hike Task Force as it relates to their prioritization of future CIP trail projects. Kristan Clann, Greenway Program Manager provided a brief overview of the greenway activities that the staff is focused on. The Bike and Hike Task Force has categorized trail projects into high, medium, and low priorities. Ms. Clann presented the following projects list with priority rating: Project Priority Ranking G Brison Park Connection High 01 td Bee Creek Trail West South High 02 f\lrA Lick Creek Trail West High 03 ~· Bee Creek Bridge High 04 Gulf States Utilities ROW Trail High 05 Bee Creek Trail West North High 06 ~Pen Creek Upper Trail Phase III Medium 07 Creek Trail East Medium 07 Wolf Pen Creek Upper Trail Phase II Medium 08 Wolf Pen Creek Trail West Medium 09 ~td Lick Creek Trail East Medium 10 Bike Loop Continuation Medium 11 ~WQlf Pen Creek Trail Lower Phase II Medium 12 Spring Creek Trail East Low 13 Spring Creek Trail West Low 14 Hensel Park Trail Low 15 I&GN Trail Low 16 ~CTrail Low 17 um Creek Trail Low 18 Council member Berry moved to approve the proposed project list as recommended by the Bike and Hike Task Force. Council member Massey seconded the motion. After a series of specific questions, Council member Massey moved to approve the bike plan, modifying the priority of the Bee Creek Bridge from high to medium priority. Council member Berry seconded the motion. Motion failed by a vote of 5-1 FOR: Massey AGAINST: Silvia, Happ, Wareing, Lancaster, Berry ABSENT: Maloney Council member Happ moved to approve the proposed project list and expand the scope of the Bee Creek Project to include improving Bicycle and Pedestrian access along Longmire Drive across FM 2818. Council member Wareing seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, 6-0. FOR: Silvia, Happ, Wareing, Lancaster, Berry, Massey AGAINST: None ABSENT: Maloney http:// agenda. cstx. gov/Council %20Minutes/2004/Minutes%2 Ofor%20N ovember%2 023, %2... 1 /3/2009 Bury+Partners Team Member Representative Hike & Bike Trail Experience Walk for a Day (WFAD) for Hill Country Conservancy -Austin, Texas • Summary of the project scope: designing 35 mile trail to connect Zilker Pork to existing trails as well as construction of new trails down to FM 150 • Construction cost: Anticipated $20 million • Challenges: This project hos numerous environmental challenges, heavy public involvement, and coordination between multiple agencies (COA, TxDOT, USFW, Texas Porks and Wildlife, TCEQ, etc .) • Innovative solutions/approaches: Utilizing new pedestrian signalization technology, crushed crashed granite and natural trails (no impervious cover), stimulus application experience • Public involvement: The City of Austin has established a WFAD Committee that meets monthly to discuss the project and how to move forward dealing with Water Quality Land, Land Preserves, User Education as well as to discuss maintenance issues, ownership, and funding. City of San Marcos River Road/Riverside Drive Project: • Summary of the project scope: The trail will be designed to connect trails east of IH-35 to City parks west of IH-35. This project was funded through Stimulus money. • Construction cost: Anticipated $200,000 • Challenges: Environmental challenges, endangered birds, multi-route, USFW, TxDOT, Texas Historic Committee, Archeological, Corp of Engineers • Innovative solutions/approaches: The project is required to be ADA accessible throughout the entire trail . • Public involvement: Moderate Crestview Station Phase I -Austin, Texas • Summary of the project scope: design of 1,700 LF of Sidewalk and Bikewoy along the urban corridor Lamar Road • Construction cost: ~$55,000 • Challenges: Existing Trees and Utility conflicts • Innovative solutions/approaches: Sidewalk and Bikeway ore sometimes combined, sometimes separate in order to save existing trees, ovoid utility conflicts and provide on interesting layout. • Public involvement: n/a Crestview Station Phase II -Austin, Texas • Summary of the project scope: design of 2,400 LF of Sidewalk and Bikeway to link Crestview Phase I, the _ Capitol Metro Train Station and the adjacent Crestview Neighborhood. • Construction cost: ~$40,000 • Challenges: integrating the bikewoy with urban neighborhood design • Public involvement: Feedback from the Crestview Neighborhood Association ~B +Part s ENGINEER! G SOLUTIONS Brushy Creek Regional Trail -Williamson County, Texas • Summary of the project scope: Over three miles of trails from east of Great Oaks Drive to Brushy Creek Lake Park adjacent to the Avery Ranch Development. Mr. Ran dazzo and the design team walked the entire route predevelopment and placed stakes for the surveyors to perform the route survey. Mr. Randazzo prepared the grading, drainage, and erosion and sedimentation control plans. • Construction cost: $750,000 • Challenges: The most challenging aspect technically was managing the project budget while utilizing erosion resistant materials for a proposed trail route which was almost entirely withi n the l 00 year floodplain adjacent to Brushy Creek. • Innovative solutions/approaches: n/a • Public involvement: The trail was a regional project for Williamson County but within the City limits of Round Rock. Therefore, th is required review by both authorities as well as public meetings with both. Gables Park Plaza and Gables Sand Beach -Austin, Texas • Summary of the project scope: Coordinating with the City of Austin to integrate the Gables projects with the City's Lance Armstrong Bikeway and Pfluger Bridge Bike Extension . The project included the design of 360 LF of City Bikeway to connect to the Pfluger Bridge Extension. • Construction cost: -$40,000 (including Soft Costs) • Challenges: Coordinating the site design of intensive utilities, stormwater management, parkland and two large commercial buildings with other agencies' and consultants' design of the Lance Armstrong Bikeway and Pfl uger Bridge Extens ion. • Innovative solutions/approaches: Despite the very urban nature of the project, extensive effort was made to keep manholes and other hazards out of the Pfluger Bridge Bikeway, which involved variances and waivers from TCEQ and AWU. • Public involvement: Public hearings took place to gain public approval of the bikeway layouts. EYA Hyattsville East -Hyattsville, Maryland • Summary of the project scope: Designing approximately 3 ,000 feet of the city's first hike/bike facility. This will eventually connect the City of Hyattsville in Maryland to Washington, DC's hike/bike trails . • Construction cost: -$100,000 • Challenges: Extreme grade variations and sensitive existing environmental features in the proposed hike/ bike trail path • Innovate solutions/ approaches: The layout snaked around to save and avoid trees and excessive cut/fill. Retaining Walls were utilized where necessary. • Public involvement: Public hearings took place to gain public approval of the hike/bikeway plan. Colleyville and North Richland Hills Trail -North Dallas Area, Texas • Summary of the project scope: Designed two miles of hike and bike trail in Colleyville, Texas and 4 miles in North Richland Hills along the Cotton Belt Railroad which also included drainage issues, bridges, culvert extensions, street crossing, and two railroad crossings. • Construction cost: NRH costs was $2.3M and Colleyville was$ l .2M • Challenges: The design had many challenges including drainage issues, pedestrian bridges, culvert extensions, street and railroad crossing and grading for HC accessible. In addition, some of the trail was designed over an existing Explorer Petroleum Pipeline and their concern was easy access to the pipeline t.-Bm ENGINEERI G SOLUTIONS in case of on emergency and needed the ability to remove the trail without cutting it. Our solution was to design the trail in sections as a removable panel with lifting hooks. • Innovative solutions/approaches: Some of the trail was not accessible for concrete trucks so we eliminated the reinforcing steel which allowed the trucks to drive down the trail and place the concrete. The steel was replaced with fiber mesh which allowed the concrete to be place very rapidly without the delay of laying and tying the steel. • Public involvement: Two public meetings were requ ired in each city. The first meeting was to present a preliminary design and get community input and the second was to present the final design and cost estimates. White Rock Lake Trail Improvements -Dallas, Texas • Summary of the project scope: Mr. Lindner was responsible for the evaluation and improvements to 24 miles of hike and bike trail around White Rock Lake in Dallas. • Construction cost: $6.0 million • Challenges: This project was in a heavily utilized pork around White Rock Lake, through the Dallas Arboretum and high affluent neighborhoods. Public involvement, traffic control and environmental sensitivities were all major challenges. • Innovative solutions/approaches: Built new pedestrian bridge over White Rock Lake spillway. • Public involvement: This project involved coordination with multiple city deportments, bike clubs and citizens' groups around the lake. Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District Phase I, II, and Ill Park Improvements -Round Rock, Texas • Summary of the project scope: Mr. Ku was responsible for planning, layout, and design of over 20,000 LF of 8' wide crushed granite and concrete Hike and Bike Trails, trail heads, trail markers, ADA sidewalks, ramps, parking and playground facilities at various porks throughout the District. • Construction cost: Total project cost $1 ,205,000. • Challenges: Major challenges included routing trails across existing drainage features and providing ADA compl iant sections of the trail . Watters Creek -Allen, Texas • Summary of the project scope -designed 3,400 LF of 12' wide concrete Hike & Bike trails as port of the City of Allen's master planned trail system located adjacent to the Bury designed Watters Creek at Montgomery Form mixed-use development project. The tra il will allow residents of Watters Creek to hove access to other parts of the City & users of the trail to interact with the events within the project. • Construction cost -$520,000 • Challenges: located in the floodplain of Watters Branch, blending grades & location of trails into the existing topography & trees; connecting trails to existing street bridge & sidewalks while meeting City & ADA maximum slope requirements; providing trailheads with amenities connecting to the pedestrian facilities leading into the Watters Creek project. Design involved widening an existing concrete bridge over Watters Branch to make a trail connection to other projects. • Innovative solutions/approaches -used steel & concrete in bridge widening design which saved significant dollars. • Publ ic involvement -City of Allen Porks Department criteria was used for design & construction . Integrating the City's trail system connection & pedestrian traffic flow into the Watters Creek project was a critical part ~B ENGINEE P.1 G SO L UTlONS of the zoning & site planning in the initial stages of the project because the City will be using the park & open spaces w ithin Watters Creek for special events. TxDOT SH 161 Park Mitigation -Grand Prairie, Texas* • Summary of the project scope: As the Project Director, Mr. N icholson led the conceptual design, design development, and construction documentation for the parks mitigation project. The improvements include approximately three miles of fourteen-foot-wide concrete hike and bike trail that also included several bridges, an elevated boardwalk through wetland zones, trinity river overlook, pavil ions, equestrian center upgrades, equestrian center judges stand , parks maintenance facility building, restroom building, parking, internal park roads, playground, exercise stations, site furnishings, pedestrian lighting, landscape plantings, irrigation, and site and entry signage. • Construction cost: $10,400,000 • Challenges: dealt with developing within the Trinity River floodplain as well as crossing through several thousand feet of wetland habitat areas. The project involved sensitive detailing and construction to keep within mitigation requirements. • Innovative solutions/approaches: The Trinity overlook serves as a dual-purpose flood gauge and pedestrian destination. The detailing of the family of furnishings brings in the wild grassland type theme. • Public involvement: The public involvement actually occurred ten years before project began. Plum Creek Preserve and Nature Trail -Kyle, Texas* • Summary of the project scope: LDP is partnering with the City in planning a natural trail system with ameniti es connecting an approximate two-mile corridor between Steeplec hase Pa rk and Waterleaf Park and the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, land is being identified along the corridor for acquisition and preservation to enhance the trail corridor and protect the ecosystem of Plum Creek. LDP is preparing the Master Plan and Preliminary Trail Design for the project. • Construction Cost: $3,000,000 (estimated) • Challenges: l .) Assisting the City to piece together a contiguous piece of property for the preserve across many different single land owners and developments; 2 .) Providing a master plan to help the City in obtaining a TPWD grant. The City received a $500,000 TPWD grant for the project in 2009. • Innovative Solutions/ Approaches: Using GIS databases to assist in planning and create the overall Preserve plans • Public Involvement: LDP worked with individual land owners to assist the City in acquiring an easement agreement and a lso to help in the sale of a 120 acre parcel of land t~at is the anchor of the Preserve . Winter's Mill Parkway Trail -Wimberley, Texas* • Summary of the project scope: LDP is designing and preparing construction documents for the 3.4 mile Winter's Mill Parkway Trail. The trail itself is a 1 O' wide mix of decomposed granite and concrete surface with several low water and creek crossings. The trail is funded through a CAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Grant, Hays County and the Village of Wimberley. • Construction Cost: $1,000,000 • Challenges: 1.) Designing the trail to AASHTO and TXDOT standards to meet requirements of the CAMPO funding; 2.) Balancing the tra il design to minimize disturbance of sensitive natural features on Blue Hole Park such as large trees, rock outcroppings and creeks while maximizing the experience of being in nature for the tra il user.; 3.) Working with and satisfying multiple publ ic entities to complete the project I p Bm +P ENGINEE R ! G S.OlUTlONS -Hays County, City of Wimberley, TXDOT; 4.) Assisting Hays County to evaluate whether to obtain trail easements across private property or acquire the property itself • Innovative Solutions/ Approaches: N/ A • Public Involvement: No public meetings on the LDP end The Hollow Pedestrian Trails and Bridges -Jonestown, Texas* • Summary of the project scope: With such an expansive site and relatively scattered but numerous amenities, the need to create a extensive network of trails and bridges at the Hollows became a large component of the landscape architectural efforts. Particular care was given in laying out the tra ils so as to minimize disturbance to the site while at the same time still providing a safe and enjoyable pedestrian experience. Custom built, long pedestrian bridges, where they were adjudged to be necessary, were completed by the contractor who had to put the bridges together in place, as hauling in an entire bridge was not possible. In some areas of the Hollows where access to amenities needed to traverse slopes, wood walkways were installed. These constructions were laid out to weave through the existing trees and maintain the dense canopy. As the walkway was -completed, materials were hauled down the walkway and refuse back up the walkway in order to reduce disturbance to the site. In additio·n, throughout the trail system, down lighting was put into large existing trees creating a striking moonlighting effect. • Construction Cost: $650,000 • Challenges: Much of this project was in a riparian zone. In an effort to reduce the disturbance to the site, no large equipment was brought in so much of the labor was done by hand and only materials found on site were used for the mountain bike trails. • Innovative Solutions/ Approaches: Fibercrete (which is sturdier than asphalt) was used over existing so excavation wasn't necessary, causing little disturbance to the land. • Public Involvement: None (private project) Additional projects include: • Shops at Arbor Tra ils -Austin, Texas: 1.5 miles of granite hike and bike trails that used a public ADA route. • StoneCreek Crossing -San Marcos, Texas: 81 wide path 1 mile long of granite hike and bike trail, adjacent to a public right-of-way • Water Oak -Austin, Texas: designed approximately one mile of trail • Peter Pan Park Improvement Project -Dallas, Texas: The scope of services included slope stabilization (featuring the use of limestone-faced gravity walls), the installation of upland pedestrian amenities including the restoration of an existing 80-foot long pedestrian bridge and adjoining trail system; and public involvement meetings to build consensus for the park improvements with the public. Estimated construction cost: $300,000. * The following projects were performed by members of Land Design Partners (LDP), a member of the Bury Family of Companies. We would subcontract with LDP if necessary. ~B I ENGlNEERI G SOlUTlONS Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) RFQ # a) Detailed Project Description The Hike and Bike Trail Completion project includes the design of the Bee Creek Trail West South project, the #2 ranked project by the Bike & Hike Task Force. The project involves a bicycle and pedestrian trail that generally runs parallel to Harvey Mitchell Parkway on the south side from Southwood Drive to FM 2154. Some drainage crossings and trail amenities will be included in the design. The consultant will develop design drawings and technical specifications for construction bids, and provide construction administration services. b) Budget Amount Total project budget is $1,000,000 c) Scope of work It is the City's intent that the successful firm will provide professional engineering services to perform the necessary evaluation, design, and all related functions required for the development of plans, specifications, and estimates for the construction of the Hike and Bike Trail Completion Project (City of College Station Project No. ST-0904 ). d) General ledger account number and project number. General Ledger: 139-9111-971.30-10 Project Number: ST-0904 e) Contact person information Project Manager: Danielle Charbonnet Brison Park Connection • High Priority -#1 • Connection: south College Station & TAMU • Scope: signage beautification pavement improvements • Ownership: City of College Station • Cost Estimate: $25,000 ••• ..... ... .. ·~· ... ~- 2/23/2009 ./ 1 Bee Creek Trail -South/West • High Priority -#2 • Connection: Wellborn Road to Southwood Steeplechase Park Larry J, Ringer Library Georgie K, Fitch Park A&M Consolidated High School • Scope: beautification new concrete trail bridge crossing Bee Creek • Ownership: City of College Station, Private, TxDOT • Cost Estimate: $600,000 ••• •••• ...... . ,,,,. 2 Bee Creek Trail -North/West • High Priority -#6 • Connection: Holleman Drive to Bee Creek It Lincoln Center * future Southwest Park .t A&M Consolidated High School •Scope: ., new concrete trail ••• •••• •••• ••• -~-. .. • Ownership: City of College Station, Private, TxDOT, negotiating for greenway • Cost Estimate: $660,000 Bee Creek Trail -West ••• ... ~· ...... . •· '" • Ownership: We have CoCS property (south section I) and we are hoping to negotiate access to the current BTU electrical line easement (for both south sections I & II). For the North alignment, we are negotiating for greenway along most of the proposed trail route. We also plan to traverse CoCS parkland and travel along Christine Lane. 2/23/2009 3 Lick Creek Trail -West • High Priority -#3 • Connection: Victoria Avenue to Highway 6 ·· Edelweiss Gartens Park Westfield Park Cypress Grove Intermediate School residential neighborhoods • Scope: · new concrete trail . bridge crossing Lick Creek • Ownership: City of College Station, Private, negotiating for greenway • Cost Estimate: $550,000 ••• •••• •••• .... .. ., '\. 2/23/2009 4 Lick Creek Trail -West • Ownership: Working on gaining access or ownership of -0.5 mi. Owner indicates willingness for public greenway and trail. Sidewalk is already along public greenway property. Footpath is in private greenway, but HOA has expressed interest in that becoming a public greenway. ••• •••• •••• ••• •• 4 2/23/2009 5 Bee Creek Bridge • High Priority -#4 • Connection: Longmire Court to Bike Loop D.A. "Andy" Anderson Arboretum , Bee Creek Park Adamson Lagoon •Scope: beautification bridge crossing Bee Creek • Ownership: City of College Station , Private • Cost Estimate: $150,000 ••• •••• •• <I' .. ... . . .. 2/23/2009 6 2/23/2009 7 . . 2/23/2009 8 1 Parks and Leisure Services Vision Statement ••• •••• •••• ••• ... . • "We will continue to promote a wide range of leisure, recreational and cultural arts opportunities." Strategy #1.c. Implement greenway/bikeway plans that foster connectivity. Representatives • Recreation • Planning & Zoning Commission • Parks Advisory Board • Brazos Greenways Council • Environmental/Ecological Science • Neighborhood/HOA • Landscape Architecture • Development Community • •• •••• •••• .. .. ,., . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C Project Funding and Planning Information The project is a part of the 2007 Safe Routes to School program and is included in the November FY 2009 Revisions to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2008-2011 . It is proposed to be funded by the City of College Station as the local sponsor with federal Transportation Enhancements (Category 9) assistance using 100% federal funding. It is included in the 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) under the grouped CSJ #5000-00-916 for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Current total project cost is estimated to be xx. The estimated project letting date is August 2010 and the estimated completion of construction date is December 2010 . Reference Appendix D. D Need and Purpose The subject reach of existing Harvey Mitchell Parkway was constructed without a pedestrian sidewalk along the north side of the roadway. Residents attending the A&M Consolidated · High School at Welsh Avenue, living in the existing single-family residential develc_:>pment in neighborhoods north of the Parkway and living in the high-density residential areas along Welsh Avenue within~ mile of the Parkway do riot currently have safe pedestrian access to the significant commercial development that is available in the vicinity of Texas Avenue at the project's eastern terminus. Safe, multi-modal transportation facilities for walking and cycling are also generally desired as healthy alternatives for a more active lifestyle and to help reduce emissions due to motor vehicle traffic. The proposed project would connect to existing sidewalks at Welsh Avenue and Texas Avenue, providing safe, pedestrian and bicycle access between the existing school and residential development west of Texas Avenue and existing commercial development in the vicinity of Tex~s Avenue. Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 Terracon Project No. A 1095063 Prepared for: Bury + Partners, Inc. Austin, Texas Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. College Station , Texas ,_ January 8, 201 O Bury + Partners, Inc. 221 West Sixth Street Austin, Texas 78701 Attention : Mr. Bobak Tehrany PHN: 512.328.001 1 Regarding: Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail College Station, Texas Terracon Project No. A 1095063 Dear Mr. Tehrany: Terracon Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit our Geotechnical Engineering Report for the above-referenced project. We trust that this report is responsive to your project. needs. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you during the design phase of your project, and we look forward to assisting you during the construction pl1ase . Please contact us if you have any questions about our report, or if we may be of further service to you . Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Texas Firm Registration No. F-3272) Geotechnical Engineer ~· ,.,,,_,.,~..., ~14...,<:<:7-o</ /<-' Daniel E. Pickett P.E. Senior Geotechnical ~ngineer Enclosures Copies Submitted: Addressee: (1) Bound & (1) Electronic f ~~ ~a.lletta , PE Senior Associate/Office Manager ................. ,,"\\ ~-·OFT \\ .: ~'\Y,. ........ !f..f4 \~ .-~:::... ... · * ··· . .JI'· ,--~. . ...,,., . •1 ;*..... \*'J "*: ~*I , ..... ':. ... !•••······~··~········ .. ··"I. ~-ABIGJ\ll. \!J. ALFOR D :; f. ........................... :····-' ' ·. g72·-:'3: # , .......... 1 :/:I:'; f ~. • '-V'"" •1ro~··.~!CENS~.:.~.··~<:J; ' ~~ ·~ ....... 1C:i -\\\. 'S°/ONA\..e _.:-\. ,, ......... - Terracon Consultants, toe. 6198 Imperial Loop College Station. TX 77845 P 197$) 846 3767 F [979] 846 7604 tetracon.com .,,~-·~-.~t .,,. -':/'' \'t"J''"~'.-" ·;., ..... ,, 1'...,. ~ .. -•• ... ~. l':· ';;:""' "· ·•: .. • "" •' r ,. · .... ~ · ,,., · .... . .... -;. ... , · .,-.,-...... ,,¢ :'-· •-.. .,,, .. Geotechninl ·. • ·Environ·mentnl • C'onstruction Mo'teria,ls • · .fa.cjlJties '·'~ -• f •• ~.... ~ • • , "' ..,. ... ... • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT IN FORMATION ............................................................................................... 1 2.1 Project Descri ption ................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Site Location and Description ................................................................................ 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 3.1 Typical Soil Profile ................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 2 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ......................................... 3 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................. 3 4.2 Earthwork .............................................................................................................. 4 4.2.1 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade Considerations .............................................. .4 4.3 Grading and Drainage ........................................................................................... 4 4.4 Bridge Foundation Systems .................................................................................. 5 4.4.1 Straight Shaft Drilled Pier Foundation System ............................................. 5 4.4.2 Drilled and Underreamed Pier Foundation System ...................................... 6 4.5 Foundation Construction ....................................................................................... 7 4.5.1 Straight Shaft Drilled Piers and Drilled and Underreamed Piers .................. 8 4.6 Pavements ............................................................................................................ 8 4.6 .1 Design Traffic ............................................................................................ 9 4.6.2 Pavement Design Th ickness ................................................................... 10 4.6.3 Pavement Construction Specifications .................................................... 11 4.6 .3.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Fill ........................................ 12 4.6.3.2 Pavement Design and Construction Considerations ........................ 12 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 13 APPENDIX A-FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Exhibit A-2 Exhibits A-3 through A-8 Exhibit A-9 Vicinity Plan Plan of Borings Boring Logs Field Exploration Description APPENDIX B -LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing APPENDIX C -SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 Exhibit C-2 General Notes Unified Soil Classification Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY lrerracon A geotechnical investigation has been performed for the proposed Hike and Bike Trail in College Station Texas. The proposed concrete hike and bike trail will connect Texas Avenue and Welsh Avenue along the northern side of Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) within the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) right-of-way (R.O.W.). The hike and Bike trail will have a · major creek crossing and also intersects several driveways, requiring pavement recommendations. A total of six borings, designated B-1 through B-6, were drilled to depths of 5 or 25 feet for this project. Soil stratigraphy below the surface is predominantly clayey sand and lean and fat clays with varying amounts of sand that have a low to high potential for shrink/swell movement. Seepage was not observed while drilling, except in Boring B-3, where seepage was encountered at 1 O feet while drilling. Groundwater was observed in the 25-foot borings at depths of 5.5 feet after 24 hours. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for the proposed project. The followi ng geotechnical considerations were identified: • Stripping should include existing pavements, vegetation, or other unsuitable materials. • Proof rolling should be performed after overexcavation to detect weak areas. Weak areas should be removed and replaced with select fill . • The surface soils and soils underlying the concrete surface will exhibit trafficability problems, if they become wet and weak. • Concrete trail design, with the exception of where it crosses driveways, will be in accord ance with Bryan/College Station (B/CS) Unified Design Guidelines. • Pavement recommendations are provided for locations where the trail crosses existing driveways. • Straight shaft drilled piers or drilled and underreamed piers will be used to support the bike bridge. Recommendations for design and constructi on of pier foundations are provided in the report. • This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recog nized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and he report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. iReliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ·HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Project No. A 1095063 January 8, 201 O 1.0 INTRODUCTION Terracon Consultants Inc. (Terracon) is pleased to submit our Geotechnical Engine~ring Report for the prop osed Hike and Bike Trail in College Station, Texas. This project was authorized by Mr. John H. Lindner, P.E., through signature of "Agreement Between Engineer and Consultant" on November 11 , 2009. The project scope was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PA 1090047 dated June 2, 2009. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions observed at the six borings drilled fo r this study, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide recommendations with respect to: • Site and subgrade preparation , including removal of existing pavements, • Foundation design and construction; and • Concrete pavement recommendations. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description ITEM DESCRIPTION Site layout See Appendix A, Exhi bit A-2, Plan of Borings Hike and Bike Trail Con crete hike and bike trail, 10 feet wide, approximately 6, 100 feet long , with a major creek crossing. Trail surface Concrete Finished elevation Unknown Maximum loads Bridge loads: unknown Maximum allowable settlement 1 inch (assumed) Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative Geotechnica Engin ering epo ._ Hike and Bike Tra il •College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracan 2.2 Site Location and Description ITEM Location Existing improvements Current ground cover Existing topography DESCRIPTION North side of Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) between Texas Avenue and Welsh Avenue in the TxDOT R.O.W. in College Station, Texas. See Appendix A, Exhibit A-1 , Vicinity Plan. Existing concrete driveways. Grass. Existing grade is similar to FM 2818, with a major creek crossing. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Typical Soil Profile Subsurface soil conditions encountered during the geotechnical study are described in detail on the Logs of Borings. Strata lines shown on those logs represent the estimated depths at which the changes of soil types occur in the borings. However, the soil strata often transition gradually from one type of soil to the underlying type. Soil stratigraphy was predominantly sandy lean clay that extended to depths ranging from about 2 to 6.5 feet below the surface, underlain by clayey sand that extended to the termination depths of 25 feet in Borings B-2 and B-3 drilled for the bridge. Fat clay with variable amounts of sand was observed from the ground surface to the termination depth of 5 feet in Boring B-6 . The lean and fat clays and clayey sands have plasticity indices ranging from 11 to 39, indicating a low to high potential for shrink/swell movement. The soils at this site are generally of moderate to high strength. Details for each of the borings can be found on the Logs of Borings in Appendix A of this report. 3.2 Groundwater The borings drilled fo r this project were advanced by the dry auger drilling method to the boring termination depths of 5 or 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater observations were made during drilling the borings, upon completion of each boring, and at 24 hours after completion of Borings B-2 and B-3 . Seepage was observed at about 10 feet below the surface Reliable • Responsive • Convenient• Innovative 2 Geotec n·cal Engin ering, .epo Hike and Bike Trail• College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracon while drilling Boring B-3 . Groundwater was observed in both of the 25-fo ot bo rings at 5.5 feet below the surface 24 hours after completion of drilling. The above measurements recorded during and after drilling were made on a very sho rt-term basis at the time the borings were drilled. On a long-term basis, the groundwater might be observed at different depths. Rainfall might become temporarily trapped in the near-surface soi l layers causing perched water at very shallow depths from time to time. In addition , perched water could develop in deeper sandy soils overlying lower-permeability clayey soils following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Seasonal groundwater conditions may vary throughout the year, depending upon prevailing climatic conditions, and other factors such as significant changes in site topography. The possibility of water level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design an d construction plans for the project. 4.0 RE CO MMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION The fo llowing recommendati ons are based upon the data obtain ed in ou r field and laboratory progra ms, project information provided to us , and on our experience with similar subsurface and site co nditions. 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The proposed project is a hike and bike tra il and a bike and pedestrian bridge spa nn ing a creek along FM 2818. Terracon understands the proposed bridge may be constructed on either straight shaft drilled piers or drilled and underreamed piers. Structural live and dead loads were not known when the report was prepared. A geotechnical item of concern is any potential for shrink/swell movement of soil bel ow and around the piers. Highly-plastic, fat clay soils are present on this site. Such soils are commonly referred to as "expansive" or "swelling" soils because they expand or swell as their moisture contents increase. However, these soils also "contract" or "shrink" as their moisture contents decrease. Piers supported within the active zone of expansive soils, but not anchored below the active zone, will experience cycles of upward and downward movement that might result in distortion, possibly causing cracking or structu ral damage to the structure. This site has the potenti al for creek bank an d bottom erosion caused by rapidly-moving water, drainage from surround ing areas flowing down the bank of the creek, and other means. Such erosion could cut away soi ls near the foundation and potentially reduce the effectiveness of the soils surrounding the foundation. This could potentially reduce the skin friction resistance of the straight-sided shaft as stated in this report. To help reduce the risk of loss of skin friction support, the potential for creek bank erosion should be considered wh en developing the design and construction plans for the project. Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative 3 Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail •College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 rerracan Another geotechni cal item of concern is the presence of clayey sand and lean and fat clay soils at or near the surface. These soils may become saturated during heavy rainfall and/or wet seasons, and that condition could cause trafficability problems at this site. The following sections present detailed geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of straight shaft drilled piers and drilled and underreamed piers. 4.2 Earthwork Existing pavements within the hike and bike trail should be demolished, and construction areas should be stripped of all vegetation , organics, and debris. Underground utilities and fill may exist at the site. Alth ough not observed in our borings, buried debris and fill could be uncovered at the site. If encountered during excavation, debris or unsuitable fill would need to be completely removed and replaced with compacted pavement fill soil, specified in "4.6.3.1 Pavement Subg rade Preparation and Fill" section of this report. The construction contract documents should make provision for the possibility of encountering buried utilities, unsuitable fill, or debris. 4.2 .1 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade Considerations Near-surface soils include lean and fat clays with varying amounts of sand , and clayey sand that will become wet and weak following rainfall events after the concrete and vegetation are removed. Construction operations may encounter difficulties due to the wet or soft subgrade soils becoming a general hindrance to equipment due to rutting and pumping of the soil surface , especially during and soon after periods of wet weather. If the subgrade cannot be proof rolled or adequately compacted to minimum densities as described above, one of the following measures will be req uired: 1) removal and replacement with select fill, 2) chemical treatment of the soi l to dry and increase the stability of the subgrade, or 3) drying by natural means if the schedule allows. In our experience with similar soils in this area, chemical treatment is the most effi cient and effective method to increase the supporting value of wet and weak subgrade. Terracon should be contacted for additional recommendatio ns if chemical treatment of the soils is needed. 4.3 Grading and Drainage All grades must provide effective drainage away from the construction areas during and after constructio n. Water permitted to pond next to the trail and bridge can result in unacceptable differential movements and distress to the trail and bridge. Trail and bridge foundation performances descri bed in this report are based on effective drainage for the life of the trai l and bridge and cannot be relied upon if effective dra inage is not maintained. Trail and surrounding ground shou ld be designed to promote proper surface Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative 4 Geotec hnical En gineering Re port Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texa s January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracon drainage , preferab ly at a minimum grade of 2 percent. After construction and landscaping, we recommend verifying fina l grades to document that effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the trail and bridge foundations should also be periodically ins pected and adjusted as necessary, as part of the maintenance program . 4.4 Bridge Foundation Systems Terracon understands that the bridge may be supported on straight shaft drilled piers or drilled and underreamed piers . Recommendations for both fo undation systems are discussed in the following sections . 4.4.1 Straight Shaft Drilled Pier Foundation System It is our understanding that the proposed bridge may be supported on straight sh aft drilled pier foundations. Geotechnical parameters for straight shaft drilled piers are provided below. The straight shaft design parameters should be neglected in the upper 5 feet below finished grade to account for strength loss due to surface effects an d moisture varia ions within the near-surface soils. The potential for erosion and scour should be considered in design of straight shaft piers. DESCRIPTION BRID GE LOADS Minimum embedment below existing grade1•2 5 feet below existi ng grad e (grade at the time of our field investigation) Neglect 0 to 5 feet Net allowable end bearing pressures3 3,000 psf@ 5 to 10 feet 5,000 psf @10 to 25 feet Neglect 0 to 5 feet Allowable skin friction for vertical 150 psf@ 5 to 10 feet compression loads 300 psf @10 to 25 feet Estimated uplift pressure from foundation 500 psf soil4 Minimum Percentage of steel5 0. 75 percent for 40 ksi steel 0.5 percent for 60 ksi steel Approximate total settlement 1 inch or less Estimated differential settlement6 Approximately % of total settlement Allowable passive pressure7 750 psf 1. To bear within the native sandy lean clay and clayey sand soils. 2. In addition to having an adequate bearing area to support the compressive loads, the depth of the straight shaft should be adequate to overcome uplift forces on the footing without causing detrimental movement of the stra ight shaft pier. The depth required to meet that criteria mig ht be greater than the Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative 5 Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracan Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. DESCRIPTION BRIDGE LOADS minimum depth listed in the .table. Uplift resistance is provided by dead weight of the footing and supported structure, and by skin friction over the perimeter of the shaft below the active soil zone. The skin friction component of uplift resistance below the active soil zone can be estimated by using 500 psf over the entire perimeter of the shaft below a depth of 8 feet. Whichever condition yields a larger bearing area. The magnitude of uplift caused by foundation soil surrounding the shaft is difficult to predict, and will vary with moisture content changes and soil stratigraphy. That component of uplift loads can be approximated by using the indicated uplift pressure over the entire perimeter of the shaft between the top of the shaft and a depth of 8 feet below final grade. The footings should contain sufficient vertical reinforcing steel throughout the entire shaft length to resist uplift (tensile) forces due to post-construction heave of the clay soils, as well as structural uplift loads. The amount of reinforcing steel required can be computed by assuming that the dead load of the structure surcharges the footing, that the estimated tensile force acts vertically on the shaft, and that the underream acts as a rigid anchor. Differential settlements will result from variances in subsurface conditions, loading conditions and construction procedures, such a cleanliness of the bearing area or flowing water in the shaft. For footings placed against an undisturbed vertical face of the in-situ soils. Lateral resistance of the straight shaft drilled footings is primarily developed by passive resistance of the soils against the side of the footing. Due to surface effects, the lateral resistance of the upper 3 feet of the soils at the surface should be neglected , unless paving is provide around the pier. 4.4.2 Drilled and Underreamed Pier Foundation System Structural loads for the proposed bridge could also be supported on a drilled and underreamed pier foundation system. In our opinion, drilled and underreamed piers would better resist uplift and lateral loads than would straight shaft piers . We therefore recommend that a foundation system of drilled and underreamed piers be used for support of the proposed bridge. The potential for erosion and scour should be considered in design of straight shaft piers. DESCRIPTION Minimum embedment below existing grade 1 Net allowable end bearing pressure2•3 Maximum underream-to-shaft diameter ratio Estimated uplift pressure from foundation soil4 Minimum 'percentage of steel5 Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative BRIDGE LOADS 15 feet below existing grade (g rade at the time of our field investigation) 5,000 psf 2:1 800 psf 0. 7 5 percent for 40 ksi steel 0.5 percent for 60 ksi steel 6 Geotech nical Engineering Report lrerracan Hike and Bike Trail •College Station , Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 DESCRIPTION BRIDGE LOADS Estimated total settlement6 1 inch or less Estimated differential settlement7 Approximately ~ of total settlement Allowable passive pressure8 750 psf 1· To bear within the native clayey sand soils. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 4.5 Whichever condition yields a larger bearing area. In addition to having an adequate bearing area to support the compressive loads, the diameter of the underream should be large enough to overcome uplift forces on the footing without causing local soil failure of the overlying soils. Uplift resistance is provided by dead weight of the footing and supported structure, and upward bearing on the soil. For allowable upward bearing over the projected area of the underream, we recommend 70 percent of the previously-noted net allowable bearing pressure for vertical compression loads. The magnitude of uplift caused by fo undation soil surrounding the shaft is difficult to predict, and will vary with moisture content changes and soil stratigraphy. This component of uplift loads can be approximated by using the indicated uplift pressure over the entire perimeter of the shaft between the top of the shaft and a depth of 8 feet below final grade. The footings should contain sufficient vertical reinforcing steel throughout the entire shaft length to resist uplift (tensile) forces due to post-construction heave of the clay soils, as well as structural uplift loads. The amount of reinforcing steel required can be computed by ass uming that the dead load of the structure surcharg es the fo oting , that the estimated tensile force acts vertically on the shaft, and that the underream acts as a rigid anchor. Provided proper construction practices are followed. A clear distance between the footings of one underream diameter of the larger footing should be provided between the underreams to facilitate construction , to develop the recommended bearing pressures, and to control settlements. If a clearance of one diameter cannot be maintained in every case, the above bearing pressures should be reduced by 20 percent for a clearance between one half and one underream diameters. Underreams closer than a clearance of one half of an underream diameter are not recommended. Differential settlements will result from variances in subsurface conditions, loading conditions and co nstruction procedu res, such a cleanliness of the bearing area or flowing water in the shaft. For footings placed aga inst an undisturbed vertical face of the in-situ soils. Lateral resistance of the drilled and underreamed footings is primarily developed by passive resistance of the soils against the side of the footing. Due to surface effects, the lateral resistance of the upper 3 feet of the soils should be neglected, unless area paving is provided around the pier. Foundation Construction We recommend that construction of piers be monitored by Terracon . This would help assure that the piers are constructed in accordance with the project plans and specifications. Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative 7 I Geotechnical Engi ee ring Report Hike and Bike Trail •College Station, Texas Jan uary 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerraca 4.5.1 Straight Shaft Drilled Piers and Drilled an d Underreamed Piers Clayey sands with high sand content and 'groundwater were observed in the borings for this project. Th erefore, provision should be made in the construction contract documents for th e use of temporary casing or slurry displacement methods if required by field conditions at the time of construction. Concrete and reinforcing steel should be placed in each pier immediately after underreaming or drilling straight shafts. In no case should an underreamed pier or shaft be left open for more than 4 hours. The allowable end bearing pressure listed previously is for undisturbed foundation soil. The pier contractor should not leave water or a layer of loose soil at the base of the piers prior to placement of concrete. Groundwater was observed on a short-term basis in the borings drilled at this site. Alth ough the risk of groundwater typically increases with depth, sand layers, lenses, or pockets cou ld be present and temporarily trap water du ring rainfall events, or during the seasons of winter and spring. Groundwater in the soil might also be affected by water level in the creek. Construction documents should make provision for handling groundwater in pier excavations. 4.6 Pavements This project includes construction of an approximately 10-foot wide concrete hike and bike trail. The trail will cross several paved driveways. We understand that portland cement concrete surfacing is pla nned fo r all of the pavements on this project, and that trail design, with the exception of where it crosses driveways, will be in accordance with Bryan/College Station (B/CS) Unifi ed Design Guidelines. Pavement design grades are expected to require minimal cut and fill. Recommendations for pavement fi ll are presented subsequently. Following cut to design grade, and pri or to placement of any fill, the pavement subgrade should be proof rolled to detect any soft areas. Surface and near-surface soils at this site are fat clays and lean clays. That soil becomes saturated and weak during wet weather. Depending on the time of construction, additional removal and replacement or chemical treatment of existing weak soils might be necessary, as discussed previously in the "4.2.1 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade Considerations" section. After design subgrade elevati on is achieved by cutting and fill ing , we recommend that th e top 8 inches of the fi nished subgrade soils directly beneat h the pavement be chemically treated. Chem ical treatm en t will increase the supp orting value of the subgrade and decrease the effect of moisture on subgrade soils. We recomm end that Terracon observe the subgrade soils fo llowing cut and fi ll to the design pavement subgrade elevation in order to determine the type chemical(s) that would be the most appropriate for treatment of the subgrade soil. Lime would be the most appropriate chemical for treatment of the moderate-to high-plasticity lean clay and fat clay soils at this site. Recommendations for treatment of the subgrade soil with lime are presente d subsequently in this re port. Reliable • Responsive • Convenient• Innovative 8 Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 4.6.1 Design Traffic l rerracan Detailed traffic loads, frequencies, and service life were not available. The client indicated that pavement would need to support HS20 traffic loading at the driveway crossings. We anticipate that the remaining sections of the trail will need to support occasional maintenance and construction vehicles in addition to bicycl es and pedestrains. Based on these assumptions, the following three pavement alternatives have been evaluated: (1) Ve ry Light Duty -seasonal recreational roads, bike paths, and golf cart paths, (2) Light-Duty -Passenger veh icles only, and (3) Medium-Duty -Passenger vehicles with a limited number of multi-axle maintenance, construction , and/or delivery vehicles. We have designated traffic for those three pavements as Class I, Class II , and Class Ill , as described subsequently. Please contact us if the traffic expected for this project is different than used for our analyses. Traffic loadings for various classes of traffic are provided in the fo llowing table wh ich is based on a table published by the Asphalt Institute. The approximate traffic for the design period is expressed in 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL) appli cations . Information in that table may be used to verify, or mod ify if necessary , the design traffic we selected for the proposed pavement. TRAFFIC CA TE GO RIES ~verage No. Heavy Approximate Trucks Functional Use Group Daily Expected Over 18-kip ESAL for Class Traffic Design Period (ADT) Design Period (1 OOOs) (1 OOOs) Very Light -small parking lots, driveways, light farm roads , non- traffic S,chool areas and 50-100 <7 5-10 I playgrounds, seasonal recreational roads , bike paths, golf cart paths, tennis courts Light -residential roads, rural farm roads, parking lots less < 200 7-15 10-50 ' II than 300 stalls, and light general aviation (GA) airports Reliable• Responsive• Convenient• Innovative 9 Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracan TRAFFIC CATEGORIES !Average No. Heavy Approximate Trucks Functional Use Group Daily Expected Over 18-kip ESAL for Class Traffic Design Period (ADT) Design Period (1000s) I (1 OOOs) Medium -Urban and rural II minor collectors, parking lots < 700 70-150 100-250 greater than 300 stalls, 15-kip max gross weight GA airports Medium-Heavy -Urban minor arterial and light industrial, rural maj or collector and minor IV arterial, industrial parking lots < 4500 700-1,500 1,000-2,000 and rue~ stalls, bus driveways and loading zones, and 30-kip max gross weight airports NOTES: Table is based on the Traffic Classification table published in the Asphalt Institute IS-181 (MS-1 ). Heavy trucks include two-axle, six-tire trucks or larger. Pickup, panel, and light four-tire trucks are not included as heavy trucks. 4.6.2 Pavement Design Thickness The pavement component thicknesses listed below may be used as a guide for pavement systems at the site for the traffic classifications and traffic loadings stated herein. These systems were derived based on general characterization of the subgrade. No specific testing (such as CBR, resilient modulus, etc.) was performed for this project to evaluate the support characteristics of the subgrade. RIGID PAVEMENT SYSTEM I Material Thickness, Inches I Class I Class II Class Ill Pavement Component Very Light-Light-Duty Medium-Duty Duty (50,000 ESAL) (250,000 (10,000 ESAL) ESAL) Reinforced Concrete Surface 5.0 5.0 6.0 Chemically Treated Subgrade 6.0 8.0 8.0 Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative 10 Geotechnical Eng ineering Report Hike and Bike Trail •College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracon Please contact Terracon if recommendations are needed for other traffic loadings. We would be pleased to perform add itional pavement analyses. Acceptable performance of the new pavement will be strongly influenced by maintenance, drainage, and other unknown factors. The service life of this pavement is based on periodic maintenance, adequate drainage, and traffic that is consistent with the design traffic discussed previously in this report. 4.6 .3 Pavement Construction Specifications The following information may be used to prepare technical specifications for construction of the pavement. Specifications referred to herein are the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 2004 "Standard Specifications for Constru ction and Mainte nance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges." Reinforced Concrete Surface: Portland cement concrete pavement surfacing should be constructed directly on the chemically treated subgrade soil. Concrete for the pavement should be designed for a 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 po unds per square inch. An air entraining admixture is recommended to increase durability of the concrete . Item 360 of the previously-noted TxDOT Specifications may be used as a technical specification for reinforced concrete pavement. Steel reinforcement will not prevent the concrete pavement from cracking. Nevertheless, we recommend that steel reinforcement be used to help ho ld cracks together. Guidelines developed by the American Concrete Institute may be used to prepare technical specifications for steel reinforcement. Control and expansion joints should be provided in accordance with requirements of the American Concrete Institute. All joints in the concrete should be sealed to make them impervious to surface water intrusion. A sand leveling cou rse beneath concrete pavements should not be permitted. Lime Treated Subgrade: The lean and fat cl ay so ils at this site, or impo rted pavement fill, may be treated with lime . Based on the classification test results, we recommend that about 5 percent lime by dry weight of soil (equal to about 35 pounds per square yard per 8-inch depth, or 26 pounds per square yard per 6-inch depth) be used for estimating and planning of subgrade treatment. That amount of lime should be verified by the use of pH tests at the time of construction. Lime treatment of the subgrade soil should be in accordance with provisions of TxDOT Item 260. After the specified'initia l mixing, moist curing, and final mixing , lime treated subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's maximum dry unit weight determined by ASTM 0 698 Standard Effort at a moisture content at, or within 4 percent above, the optimum moisture content. · Reliable• Responsive• Convenient• Innovative 11 Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracon Type C quicklime meeting the req uirements of TxDOT Item 260 could be used in lieu of hydrated lime. In no case should waste lime or by-product lime material (sometimes called carbide lime or blue lime) be approved for use. The surface of the lime treated subgrade should be protected until the concrete or crushed stone base is placed. 4.6.3.1 Pavemen Subgrade Preparation and Fill Th e pavement areas shou ld be prepared as described in the "4.2 Earthwork" section . If the surface soils are wet and weak at the time construction begins, a stable subgrade must be provided by one of the options discussed in the "4.2.1 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade Considerations" section. Those options include removal and replacement of weak soil , chemical treatment, or drying by natural means. The construction contract documents should make provision for encountering wet, weak subgrade soils. On-site soils , exclusive of organic topsoil, may be used for pavement fill, but the lean cla y and fat clay soils will be difficult to process and compact. Imported fill for pavement areas should be clean clayey sand or sandy clay with an Atterberg plasticity index between 4 and 25 . All fill soil for pavement sh ould be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material 's maximum dry unit weight determined by ASTM D 698 Standard Effort at a moisture content within 3 percent of the material's optimum moisture. After the pavement subgrade has been prepared to a firm, unyielding condition, as evidenced by proof rolling , and after any fill has been placed and compacted, we recommend that the previously-recommended thickness of the finished subgrade soils directly beneath the pavement be chemically treated. The recommended thickness of chemical treatment is a required part of the pavement design, and is not a part of site and subgrade preparation for wet/soft subgrade conditions. Positive drainage of the construction areas should be maintained at all times. Rainfall and stormwater on the open subgrade soil should be removed immediately. The exposed subgrade soil sho uld not be allowed to dry out or become saturated. Trafficability of raw subgrade soil on this site will be poor if that soil becomes saturated . . It is possible that new underground utility lines may cross the proposed pavement areas. Set lement of utility line backfill could result in pavement distress and failures. We recommend that any utility trenches in pavement areas be backfilled with cement treated sand in order to reduce the potential fo r set lement of he backfill. 4.6.3.2 Pavement Design and Construction Considerations The pavement sections presented previously are based on the indicated traffic categories, and those sections are not suitable for heavy construction traffic. A partially-constructed pavement section may be subjected to heavy construction traffic that can result in pavement deterioration Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative 12 Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracon and premature fa ilure. Our experience indicates that heavy construction traffic on the pavement (partially or fully constructed) can result in pavements that will not perform satisfactorily. Thicker pavement sections could be used to accommodate heavy construction traffic, or such traffic could be routed around the pavement. The following recommendations should be implemented to help promote long-term pavement performance: • The subgrade and th e pavement surface should be designed to promote proper surface drainage, preferably at a mi nimum grade of 2 percent; • Site grading sho uld be designed to drain away from the pavements, preferably at a minimum grade of 2 percent; • Joints and cracks should be sealed immediately; Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for the pavements at this site. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and consist of both localized maintenance (e .g . crack and joint sea ling and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observations are recommended to determine the type and exten t of preventive maintenance. The subgrade soil in the proposed pavement area includes expansive clayey soil. Despite the lime treatment of upper subg rade soils, there is a possibility that shrinkage and swelling of that deep subgrade so il might cause cracks to appear in the pavement and/or vertical movement of the pavement. That con dition sometimes develops in concrete pavements on expansive clayey subgrade soil. Although thickening of the pavement layers of concrete and chemically treated subgrade would provide some resistance to those type cracks and movement, it is doubtful that increasing thickness of those layers within reasonable limits, above the values needed for structural design to support the traffic, would eliminate the risk of all cracks and movement caused by shrinkage of the deep subgrade soil. Overexcavation of expansive subgrade soil and replacement with non-expansive select fill could be used to reduce the ris k of cracks and movement caused by shrinkage of the subgrade soil. Thickening of the pavement layers and overexcavation of existi ng soil would increase cost of the project, and might not be justified. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project. Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative 13 Geotechnical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail •College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracon The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon he data obtained from the borings perfo rmed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between bo rings , across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi , bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pol lutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or impl ied , are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requi re ments are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of th is report in wri ing. Reliable • Responsive • Convenient • Innovative 14 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION LW l[~!rn;,~ an ers and Scientists Note: Vicinity Pl Develop an was prepar d ment Permit Plans for eH.~sing a vicinity mao f . I e and Bike T , rom City of C II "''""''' rail Compl•tio•. o '''''"°"Sil• ;:---..::;.AW~'"':_A I Projecl No. Drawn By: Checked By: VICINTY PLAN HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL H~RVEY MITCHELL PARKWAY EXAS AVENUE TO WELSHAVENU College Station, Texas E -·-·~·....! A-1 ~--- ..., LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 CLIENT: Bury + Partners, Inc. PROJECT: Hike and Bike Trail Austin, Texas Harvey Mitchell Parkway BORING See Plan of Borings SITE: Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue LOCATION: College Station, Texas SAMPLES TESTS 0 u.. >!!. x 0 Zu.. u >!!. w z. I-<i.(f) Q 0 0 u.. Ui >!!. WC!J ~ _J u.. It-~ 0 I--?:: I-0 (i5 0 ' >!!. ~ ~ >I-Q Cl DESCRIPTION w CD 0 >-Ui -I-0 s: w:::? ~ 0 ('.)W _J w :2 1-0 w -(fJ :::i I-0 CfJI (fJ Zn'. u.. >-0 Q'. I-z :::i 0 ~* w I-u C2 Q'. ::iZ u Q'.('.) w -::i :E I -Cf) _J w Q'. ?;Cf) CD CD I-1-W 0 0 i= i= Cf) -o._Z a. I-Cf) w _w (fJ I-(fJ (fJ ::iw ::2:w ::i U..C!J ro Q u Q I--_J z -Z >-::i 5 5 ?::[;j 0 g: _J zw (9 Approx. Surface Elevation: Existing Grade w Cf) >-[L <l'.W oo Q'. a <( on:: 0 ::i I-(fJ U O.. :20 0 :::i Q Q ::2: Ui UC!J u.. Un. ~ SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff to CL hard, brown -SS 5 17 26 15 11 52 - ~ -becomes tan -SS 13 10 34 15 19 59 - 5.0 ST 4.5 Boring terminated at 5 feet. 5 STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE REMARKS: Dry auger to 5 feet. BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU. THE Seepage was not observed while drilling. TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE MORE Boring was dry and open to near termination depth upon completion. GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS DATE DRILLED Page 1of1 'SJ_ .!. lli!rracm 1 12/31/2009 FIGURE '1-l'. PROJECT NUMBER 3 FREE WATER WAS NOT OBSERVED DURING A1095063 DRILLING OPERATIONS .. OG OF BORING NO. B-2 CLIENT: Bury + Partners, Inc. PROJECT: Hike and Bike Trail Austin, Texas Harvey Mitchell Parkway BORING See Plan of Borings SITE: Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue LOCATION: College Station, Texas SAMPLES TESTS 0 LL ,,g x 0 Z LL u ~ w z I-<f.(f) Cl. ~ 0 LL en _J LL I I-~ 1-· ~ W (f) ~ Ol I-0 U5 0 ~ 1-" ~ >I-Cl. 0 DESCRIPTION w CD w~ ~ 0 en -I-_J w 2 ~ w -en ~ _J 0 (f)I (/) t9 w u LL >-0 1-Q Cl'. I-z :::i ~~ w I-z o::: ;? Cl'. ::i Z u u Cl'. t9 w -::i :c I (/) _J w Cl'. ~(/) c. CD ~tu 1-W 0 g f== f== (/) -o_Z ~ I-(/) w (/)I-:::> (/) (/) ::iw 2W :::> LL(/) Cl. u Cl. 1-· _J z -Z >-::i ::i ~iii _J zw t9 Approx. Surface Elevation: Existing Grade w (/) >-Cl. <(W o o Cl'. 0 o g: < oo::: 0 :::> I-(/) U ll. 20 0 :::i Cl. Cl. 2 en 0 ([) LL 0 Cl. I SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff to hard, brown CL -SS 10 --becomes brown and red -ST 4.5 15 36 18 18 50 ~ --becomes dark gray ~ ~ 5-ST 1.5 17 101 36 16 20 1.9 10 0 ~ 6.5 - ~: CLAYEY SAND; medium dense, gray -SC SS 12 I I - -ST 3.0 29 92 42 22 20 35 6.1 4 0 10- I - -~ - ~ -ST 4.5 22 34 19 15 39 15-~ -m - -~ -SS 27 24 34 21 13 39 20- -~ - -~ -becomes very dense -SS 50/4' ·.-·:/ 25.0 25 Boring te rminated at 25 feet. STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE REMARKS: Dry auger to 25 feet. BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU, THE Seepage was not observed while drilling by dry auger. TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE MORE Water at 5.5 feet after 24 hrs. GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS DATE DRILLED Page 1 of 1 'Sl 5.5 ft at 24 hrs .!. II li!rnrcm 1 12/31/2009 FIGURE y l'.. PROJECT NUMBER 4 A1095063 \:cc--==----=-..., ..:,;;::r.u ·--~. ---'-..... .· : ,.. oa"¥.&.--w:.u;. -.:. .. .J..a=~....,_.----7_) LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 CLIENT: Bury + Partners, Inc. Austin, Texas BORING LOCATION: See Plan of Borings Ol 0 ...J u :c a. <1l DESCRIPTION (3 Approx. Surface Elevation: Existing Grade PROJECT: Hike and Bike Trail Harvey Mitchell Parkway SITE: 1-w w LL I I--Cl. w 0 ...J 0 CD ::2: >-Cf! Cf! u Cf! :::> Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue College Station, Texas SAMPLES w Cl. ~ TESTS ~ 0 SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, brown CL 1----+-~+---+~-+---1~-1-~1----+-~+---+~-t---1 2.0 SS 7 CLAYEY SAND; medium dense, brown SC -ST 0.5 -becomes gray, very loose 5-SS 2 26 31 18 13 48 -SS 24 27 39 22 17 32 -becomes medium dense to very dense -ST 4.0 27 91 45 23 22 30 3.0 5 10- - - -SS 150/2' 15- - -SS 150/6' 20 38 20 18 32 20- - -SS 5014' 21 40 22 18 40 STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU. THE TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE MORE GRADUAL. REMARKS: Dry auger to 25 feet. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS .¥'. 10 ft AB .:?: 5.5 ft at 24 hrs Seepage was observed at 10 feet while drilling by dry auger. Water at 5.5 feet after 24 hrs. 11erracan DA TE DRILLED 12/31/2009 PROJECT NUMBER A1095063 Page 1 of 1 FIGURE 5 0 LOG OF BORI NG NO. 8 -4 CLIENT: PROJECT: Hike and Bike Trait Bury + Partners, Inc. Austin, Texas Harvey Mitchell Parkway BORING LOCATION: See Plan of Borings SITE: Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue College Station, Texas SAMPLES TESTS 0 LL ~ >< 0 Z LL u ~ w z I-<(en Cl. ~ 0 0 LL LL I I-~ 0 1-· ~ wen ~ ii5 0 ~ r..: ~ >I- ~ w~ ~ >-0 en . I-W · en ::::; I-0 en I en 1-Q 0::: I-0 ;} 0::: :::iZ z ::::; u 0 ~~ w I-w ....J w 0::: t9 0::: Cl) ~tu 1-W 0 g i= i= en • o_Z w en I-en en :J w 2w :J Cl. 1-· ....J Z -Z >-:J ::5 ::5 ~[;j og: ....J >-Cl. <(W Oo 0::: 0 < I-en UCl.. 2U 0 ::::; Cl. Cl. 2 en u en LL ....J Ol DESCRIPTION I-0 0 w Cl) ....J w 2 () LL >-:.c :i en 0. I-en ro (5 Approx. Surface Elevation: Existing Grade Cl. u w en 0 :J SS 6 19 47 16 31 64 ST 4.5 18 49 15 34 56 ST 4.5+ ~ SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff to CL ~ hard, brown - - ~ -becomes tan - - 5.0 5 Boring terminated at 5 feet. REMARKS: Dry auger to 5 feet. Seepage was not observed while drilling. STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU, THE TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE MORE GRADUAL. Boring was dry and open to near termination depth upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS DATE DRILLED 12/31/2009 PROJECT NUMBER FREE WATER WAS NOT OBSERVED DURING A 1095063 ~.~OPERATIONS ,..,r~~w::•co.s::i'lt.Jr"Ca·.t~-..~-i----~--~~ •• ;.sr.-~:....._-··-· Page 1of1 FIGURE 6 en Cl. t9 w zo::: -:::i ~en LL en Zw oo::: UCl.. LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 CLIENT: Bury + Partners, Inc. PROJECT: Hike and Bike Trail Austin, Texas Harvey Mitchell Parkway BORING See Plan of Borings SITE: Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue LOCATION: College Station, Texas SAMPLES TESTS 0 lL ~ x 0 z lL u ~ w z I-<( (/) Cl. ~ 0 0 lL Ui __, lL I I-~ 0 i-"' ~ WUl ~ I-0 Ui 0 ' ~ i-"' ~ >I-Cl. Ol DESCRIPTION w en w~ 0 r:: 0 Ui • I-l'.JW 0 s: Ui ~ UlI __, w ~ 1-Q W· ::J 0 (/) za:: lL >-0 a:: I-z ::J u ~~ w I-u ~a:: ::iZ u a::<.9 w -::i :.c I . (/) _, w a:: ~(/) en ~tD 1-W 0 0 i= i= (/) . o._Z a. I-(/) w (/)I-(/) (/) ::iw ~w ::i lL (/) ~ Q_ u Cl. i-"' _,z -Z >-::i 5 5 ~GJ og: _, Zw (.'.J Approx. Surface Elevation: Existing Grade w (/) r:: Cl. <(W oo a:: 0 ~ 00:: 0 ::i (/) UD.. ~u 0 ::J Cl. Cl. ~Ui OUl lL U Cl. ~ SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, ta n CL -SS 5 26 46 19 27 64 2.0 ~ LEAN CLAY; hard, tan CL -ST 4.5 25 46 24 22 86 - 5.0 ST 4.0 Boring terminated at 5 feet. 5 STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE REMARKS: Dry auger to 5 feet. BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU, THE Seepage was not observed while drilling. TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE MORE Boring was dry and open to near termination depth upon completion. GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS DATE DRILLED Page 1 of 1 '¥ .!. 11Brracm1 12/31/2009 FIGURE :J. l'.. PROJECT NUMBER FREE WATER WAS NOT OBSERVED DURING A1095063 7 DRILLING OPERATIONS - LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 CLIENT: Bury + Partners, Inc. PROJECT: Hike and Bike Trail Austin, Texas Harvey Mitchell Parkway BORING See Plan of Borings SITE: Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue LOCATION: College Station, Texas SAMPLES TESTS 0 LL >< <ft. ZLL u ~ UJ z-<{ U) ll.. LL -' f-If-~ t::: 0 UJ U) ~ iii LL ~-~ f-0 (/j 0 ' <ft. f-->f-ll.. Ol DESCRIPTION 2 0 UJ Ill UJ 2 >-0 iii -f-....J UJ 2 s: UJ • iii ~ :::; f-0 U)I U) t9 UJ f-Q er:: f-zcr:: u LL >-0 ~er:: ::iZ z :::; u u ~~ UJ f-UJ -::i E I U) ....J UJ er:: t9 er:: ~ U) a. Ill ~t;j f-UJ 0 0 f= f= U) -ll..z ~ f-U) UJ U) f-::i U) U) ::i UJ 2 UJ ::i LL U) ll.. u ll.. i-:-....JZ -Z >-5 5 ~(ij ....J z UJ t9 Approx. Surface Elevation: Existing Grade UJ U) >-ll.. <{ UJ Oo er:: 0 0 g: <( ocr:: 0 ::i f-U) Oil. 20 0 :::; ll.. ll.. 2iii 0 U) LL O il. ~ SANDY FAT CLAY; medium stiff, brown CH -59 2.0 SS 4 30 21 38 65 ~ FAT CLAY WITH SAND; hard, tan CH -ST 4.5+ 17 58 19 39 84 - 5.0 ST 4.0 17 56 20 36 83 Boring term inated at 5 fe et. 5 STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE REMARKS: Dry auger to 5 feet. BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU, THE Seepage was not observed while drilling. TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE MORE Boring was dry and open to near termination depth upon completion. GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS DATE DRILLED Page 1 of 1 'Si.. l'. Ii lerracm1 12/31/2009 FIGURE 7 ~ PROJECT NUMBER 8 FREE WATER WAS NOT OBSERVED DURING A1095063 DRILLING OPERATIONS ---~-..:u.;:: ..-UT~,; --""" - City of College Station Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) (Texas Avenue/Welsh A venue Hike and Bike Trail) Meeting Agenda July 27 ' 2009 Type of Meeting: Project Kickoff Meeting Meeting Facilitator: Bury + Partners Attendees: Danielle Charbonnet (City of College Station) John Lindner (Bury + Partners) Bobak Tehrany (Bury + Partners) Cathy Wahren (Terracon) Topics of Discussion: 1. Project Overview and Limits 2. Review scope of services and confirm responsibilities 3. Project schedule and deliverables (milestones) 4. Trail Route • Overview • Creek Crossing/Environmental Concerns • Pedestrian bridge crossing option • TxDOT right-of-way design standards 5. Go out to site and walk proposed alignment 6. Summary 7. Adjourn City of College Station Architects & Engineering Professional Services Contract This Contract is between the City of College Station, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, (the "City") and Bury+Partners, Inc., a project engineering and management corporation (the "Contractor"), whereby the Contractor agrees to provide the City with certain professional services as described herein and the City agrees to pay the Contractor for those services. ARTICLE I Scope of Services 1.01 In consideration of the compensation stated in paragraph 2.01 herein below, the Contractor agrees to provide the City with the professional services as described in Exhibit "A", the Scope of Services, which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes, and which services may be more generally described as follows: Professional engineering, environmental, and surveying services for the design, preparation of plans and construction documents, and construction assistance for the Hike and Bike Trail Completion Project from Welsh Avenue to Texas Avenue (the "Project"). ARTICLE II Payment 2.01 In consideration of the Contractor's provision of the professional services in compliance with all terms and conditions of this Contract, the City shall pay the Contractor according to the terms set forth in Exhibit "B". Except in the event of a duly authorized change order, approved by the City as provided in this Contract, the total cost of all professional services provided under this Contract may not exceed One hundred and twelve thousand one hundred and thirty-three and 00/100 Dollars ($112,133.00). ARTICLE III Time of Performance and Construction Cost 3.01 The Contractor shall complete the professional services within the times set forth below. The Contractor shall exercise a degree of care and diligence in the performance of all services under this Contractor in accordance with the professional standards prevailing among Contractors in the location in which Contractor practices or College Station, Texas, whichever is the higher standard, skilled in design for projects of similar scope, and all of the Contractor services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with said standards and the orderly progress of the Work. [Conceptual Design: 70 calendar days after the authorization to commence planning] [Preliminary Project Design: 28 calendar days after authorization to commence PPDJ [Final Design: 35 calendar days after authorization to commence final design] Page 1 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 3.02 All design work and other professional services provided under this Contract must be completed by the following date: as set forth in the Notice to Proceed. 3.03 Time is of the essence of this Contract. The Contractor shall be prepared to provide the professional services in the most expedient and efficient manner possible in order to complete the work by the times specified. Promptly after the execution of this Contract, the Contractor shall prepare and submit for the City to approve in writing, a detailed schedule for the performance of the Contractor's services to meet the City's project milestone dates which are included in this Contract. The Contractor's schedule shall include allowances for periods of time required for the City's review and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. The time limits established by this schedule over which Contractor has control shall not be exceeded without written approval from the City. 3.04 The Contractor's services consist of all of the services required to be performed by Contractor, Contractor's employees and Contractor's consultants under the terms of this Contract. Such services include normal civil, structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services, plumbing, food service, acoustical and landscape services, and any other design services that are normally or customarily furnished and reasonably necessary for the Project. The Contractor shall contract and employ at his expense consultants necessary for the design of the Project, and such consultants shall be licensed as required by the State of Texas and approved in writing by the City. 3.05 The Contractor shall designate a principal of the firm reasonably satisfactory to the City who shall, so long as employed by Contractor and acceptable to the City, remain in charge of professional services through completion and be available for general consultation throughout the Project. Any replacement of that principal shall be approved in writing (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) by the City, prior to replacement. 3.06 Contractor shall be responsible for the coordination of all drawings and design documents relating to Contractor's design and used on the Project, regardless of whether such drawings and documents are prepared by Contractor. Contractor shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all drawings and specifications submitted by or through Contractor and for their compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, regulations, laws and statutes. 3.07 Contractor's evaluations of the City's project budget and the preliminary estimates of construction cost and detailed estimates of construction cost, represent the Contractor's best judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. 3.08 The construction budget for this Project, which is established as a condition of this Contract is $750,000.00. This construction budget shall not be exceeded unless the amount is changed in writing by the City. Page 2 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 ARTICLE IV Conceptual Design 4.01 Upon the Contractor's receipt from the City of a letter of authorization to commence planning, the Contractor shall meet with the City for the purpose of determining the nature of the Project. The Contractor shall inquire in writing as to the information he believes the City may have in its possession that is necessary for the Contractor's performance. The City shall provide the information within its possession that it can make available to the Contractor. The City shall designate a representative to act as the contact person on behalf of the City. 4.02 The Contractor shall determine the City's needs with regard to the Project, including, but not limited to, tests, analyses, reports, site evaluations, needs surveys, comparisons with other municipal Projects, review of budgetary constraints and other preliminary investigations necessary for the Project. Contractor shall verify the observable existing conditions of the Project and verify any existing as-built drawings. Contractor shall confirm that the Project can be designed and constructed within the time limits outlined in this Contract. Contractor shall prepare a detailed design phase schedule which includes all review and approval periods during the schematic design, design development and construction document phases. Contractor shall confirm that the Project can be designed and constructed for the dollar amount of the project budget, if applicable. 4.03 The Contractor shall prepare a conceptual design that shall include schematic layouts, surveys, sketches and exhibits demonstrating the considerations involved in the Project. The conceptual design shall contemplate compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. Upon the City's request, the Contractor shall meet with City staff and the City Council to make a presentation of his report. ARTICLE V Preliminary Design 5.01 The City shall direct the Contractor to commence work on the Project design by sending to the Contractor a "letter of authorization" to begin work on the preliminary Project design pursuant to this Contract. Upon receipt of the Letter of Authorization to commence preliminary Project design, the Contractor shall meet with the City for the purpose of determining the extent of any revisions to the Conceptual Design. 5.02 The Contractor shall prepare the preliminary design of the Project, including, but not limited to, the preliminary drawings and specifications and other documents to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, materials and such other elements as may be appropriate. The Contractor shall submit to the City a detailed estimate of the construction costs of the Project, based on current area, volume, or other unit costs. This estimate shall also indicate both the cost of each category of work involved in constructing the Project and the time required for construction of the Project from commencement to final completion. Page 3 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 5.03 Upon completion of the preliminary design of the Project, the Contractor shall so notify the City. Upon request the Contractor shall meet with the City staff and City Council to make a presentation of his preliminary design of the Project. The Contractor shall provide an explanation of the preliminary design and cost estimate and shall verify that, to the best of Contractor's belief, the Project requirements and construction can be completed within the project budget and schedule. ARTICLE VI Final Design 6.01 The City shall direct the Contractor to commence work on the final design of the Project by sending to the Contractor a "letter of authorization" to begin work on the final design phase of the Project. Upon receipt of the Letter of Authorization to proceed with final design of the Project, the Contractor shall immediately prepare the final design, including, but not limited to, the bid documents, contract, drawings, and specifications, to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to structural, mechanical, and electrical systems, materials, and such other elements as may be appropriate. The final design of the Project shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 6.02 Notwithstanding the City's approval of the final design, the Contractor warrants that the final design will be sufficient and adequate to fulfill the purposes of the Project. 6.03 The Contractor shall prepare and separately seal the special provisions, the technical specifications, and bid proposal form(s) in conformance with the City's current pre-approved, "Standard Form of Construction Agreement" for the construction contract between the City and the contractor. The Contractor hereby agrees that no changes, modifications, supplementations, alterations, or deletions will be made to the City's standard form without the prior written approval of the City. 6.04 The Contractor shall provide the City with complete contract documents sufficient to be advertised for bids by the City. The contract documents shall include the design and specifications and other changes that are required to fulfill the purpose of the Project. Upon completion of the final design of the Project, with the submission of the complete contract documents, and upon request of the City, the Contractor shall meet with City Staff and the City Council to present the final design of the Project. The Contractor shall provide an explanation of the final design and cost estimate. Page4 Contract No. 09-241 Co1D1ci1 Approved -Rev. 2112103 ARTICLE VII Bid Preparations & Evaluation 7.01 The Contractor shall assist the City in advertising for and obtaining bids or negotiating proposals for the construction of the Project. Upon request, the Contractor shall meet with City Staff and the City Council to present, and make recommendations on, the bids submitted for the construction of the Project. 7.02 The Contractor shall review the construction contractors' bids, including subcontractors, suppliers, and other persons required for completion of the Project. The Contractor shall evaluate each bid and provide these evaluations to the City along with a recommendation on each bid. If the lowest bid for the construction of the Project exceeds the final cost estimate set forth in the final design of the Project, then the Contractor, at his sole cost and expense, shall revise the construction documents so that the total construction costs of the Project will not exceed the final cost estimate contained in the final design of the Project. 7.03 Where substitutions are requested by a construction contractor, the Contractor shall review the substitution requested and approve or disapprove such substitutions. ARTICLE VIII Construction 8.01 The Contractor shall be a representative of, and shall advise and consult with, the City (1) during construction, and (2) at the City's direction from time to time during the correction, or warranty, period described in the construction contract. The Contractor shall have authority to act on behalf of the City only to the extent provided in this Agreement unless modified by written instrument. 8.02 The Contractor shall make visits to the site, with a frequency appropriate to the scope of the Project, to inspect the progress and quality of the executed work of the construction contractor and his subcontractors and to determine if such work is proceeding in accordance with the contract documents. Contractor shall periodically review the as-built drawings for accuracy and completeness, and shall report his findings to the City. 8.03 The Contractor shall keep the City informed of the progress and quality of the work. The Contractor shall exercise the utmost care and diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the City any defects or deficiencies in such work and shall disapprove or reject any work failing to conform with the contract documents. 8.04 The Contractor shall review and approve shop drawings and samples, the results of tests and inspections, and other data that each construction contractor or subcontractor is required to provide. The Contractor's review and approval shall include a determination of whether the work complies with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances and codes and a determination of whether the work, when completed, will be in compliance with the requirements of the contract documents. Page 5 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 8.05 The Contractor shall determine the acceptability of substitute materials and equipment that may be proposed by construction contractors or subcontractors. The Contractor shall also receive and review maintenance and operating instruction manuals, schedules, guarantees, and certificates of inspection, which are to be assembled by the construction contractor in accordance with the contract documents. 8.06 The Contractor shall issue all instructions of the City to the construction contractor as well as interpretations and clarifications of the contract documents pertaining to the performance of the work. Contractor shall interpret the contract documents and judge the performance thereunder by the contractor constructing the Project, and Contractor shall, within a reasonable time, render such interpretations and clarifications as it may deem necessary for the proper execution and progress of the Work. Contractor shall receive no additional compensation for providing clarification of the Drawings and Specifications. 8.07 The Contractor shall review the amounts owing to the construction contractor and recommend to the City, in writing, payments to the construction contractor of such amounts. The Contractor's recommendation of payment, being based upon the Contractor's on-site inspections and his experience and qualifications as a design professional, shall constitute a recommendation by the Contractor to the City that the quality of such work is in accordance with the contract documents and that the work has progressed to the point reflected in Contractor's recommendation for payment. 8.08 Upon notification from the construction contractor that the Project is substantially complete, the Contractor shall conduct an inspection of the site to determine if the Project is substantially complete. The Contractor shall prepare a checklist of items that shall be completed prior to final acceptance. Upon notification by the construction contractor that the checklist items designated by the Contractor for completion have been completed, the Contractor shall inspect the Project to verify final completion. 8.09 The Contractor shall not be responsible for the work of the construction contractor or any of his subcontractors, except that the Contractor shall be responsible for the construction contractor's schedules or failure to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents if such failures result from the Contractor's negligent acts or omissions. This provision shall not alter the Contractor's duties to the City arising from the performance of the Contractor's obligations under this Contract. 8.10 The Contractor shall conduct at least one on-site inspection during the warranty period and shall report to the City as to the continued acceptability of the work. 8.11 The Contractor shall not execute change orders on behalf of the City or otherwise alter the financial scope of the Project without an advance, written authorization from the City. 8.12 The Contractor shall perform all of its duties under this Article VIII so as to not cause any delay in the progress of construction of the Project. Page 6 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 8.13 The Contractor shall assist the construction contractor and City in obtaining an Occupancy Permit by accompanying governing officials during inspections of the Project ifrequested to do so by the City. ARTICLE IX Change Orders & Documents & Materials 9.01 No changes shall be made, nor will invoices for changes, alterations, modifications, deviations, or extra work or services be recognized or paid except upon the prior written order from authorized personnel of the City. The Contractor shall not execute change orders on behalf of the City or otherwise alter the financial scope of the Project. 9.02 Written change orders may be approved by the City Manager or his delegate provided that the change order does not increase the amount set forth in paragraph 2 of this Contract by more than five percent (5%). Changes in excess of this amount must be approved by the City Council prior to commencement of the services or work. Any request by the Contractor for an increase in the Scope of Services and an increase in the amount listed in paragraph two of this Contract shall be made and approved by the City prior to the Contractor providing such services or the right to payment for such additional services shall be waived. If there is a dispute between the Contractor and the City respecting any service provided or to be provided hereunder by the Contractor, including a dispute as to whether such service is additional to the Scope of Services included in this Contract, the Contractor agrees to continue providing on a timely basis all services to be provided by the Contractor hereunder, including any service as to which there is a dispute. 9.03 The Contractor shall furnish the City seven (7) sets of plans and specifications. It is hereby agreed that additional copies shall be provided to the City at the City's expense. The Contractor shall provide the City one (1) sets ofreproducible, mylar-record drawings that clearly show all the changes made during the construction process, based upon the marked-up prints, drawings, and other data furnished by the construction contractor to the Contractor. The Contractor shall provide copies of documents, computer files if available, surveys, notes, and tracings used or prepared by the Contractor. The foregoing documentation, the Contractor's work product, and other information in the Contractor's possession concerning the Project shall be the property of the City from the time of preparation. The Contractor shall also furnish one set of digital files representing the final as-built mylars. Page 7 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 ARTICLEX Warranty, Indemnification & Release 10.01 As an experienced and qualified design professional, the Contractor warrants that the information provided by the Contractor reflects high professional and industry standards, procedures, and performances. The Contractor warrants the design preparation of drawings, the designation or selection of materials and equipment, the selection and supervision of personnel, and the performance of other services under this Contract, pursuant to a high standard of performance in the profession. The Contractor warrants that the Contractor will exercise diligence and due care and perform in a good and workmanlike manner all of the services pursuant to this Contract. Approval of the City shall not constitute, or be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of the Contractor, its employees, agents, or associates for the exercise of skill and diligence to promote the accuracy and competency of their designs, information, plans, specifications or any other document, nor shall the City's approval be deemed to be the assumption of respons.ibility by the City for any defect or error in the aforesaid documents prepared by the Contractor, its employees, associates, agents, or subcontractors. 10.02 The Contractor shall promptly correct any defective designs or specifications furnished by the Contractor at no cost to the City. The City's approval, acceptance, use of, or payment for, all or any part of the Contractor's services hereunder or of the Project itself shall in no way alter the Contractor's obligations or the City's rights hereunder. 10.03 In all activities or services performed hereunder, the Contractor is an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. The Contractor and its employees are not the agents, servants, or employees of the City. As an independent contractor, the Contractor shall be responsible for the professional services and the final work product contemplated under this Contract. Except for materials furnished by the City, the Contractor shall supply all materials, equipment, and labor required for the professional services to be provided under this Contract. The Contractor shall have ultimate control over the execution of the professional services. The Contractor shall have the sole obligation to employ, direct, control, supervise, manage, discharge, and compensate all of its employees or subcontractors, and the City shall have no control of or supervision over the employees of the Contractor or any of the Contractor's subcontractors. 10.04 The Contractor must at all times exercise reasonable precautions on behalf of, and be solely responsible for, the safety of its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, licensees, and other persons, as well as their personal property, while in the vicinity of the Project or any of the work being done on or for the Project. It is expressly understood and agreed that the City shall not be liable or responsible for the negligence of the Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, invitees, licensees, and other persons. 10.05 Indemnity. The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents (separately and collectively referred to in this paragraph as "lndemnitee"), from and against any and all claims, losses, Page 8 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 damages, causes of action, suits, judgments, settlements made by Indemnitee, and liability of every kind, including all expenses of litigation, court costs, attorney's fees, and other reasonable costs for damage to or loss of use of any property, for injuries to, or sickness or death of any person, including but not limited to Contractor, any of its subcontractors of any tier, or of any employee or invitee of Contractor or of any such subcontractors, that is caused by, arises out of, related to, or in connection with, the negligence of and/or negligent performance of this Contract by Contractor or by any such subcontractors of any tier, under this Contract. 10.06 It is agreed with respect to any legal limitations now or hereafter in effect and affecting the validity or enforceability of the indemnification obligation under Paragraph 10.05, such legal limitations are made a part of the indemnification obligation and shall operate to amend the indemnification obligation to the minimum extent necessary to bring the provision into conformity with the requirements of such limitations, and as so modified, the indemnification obligation shall continue in full force and effect. 10.07 Release. The Contractor releases, relinquishes, and discharges the City, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, including the cost of defense thereof, for any injury to, sickness or death of the Contractor or its employees and any loss of or damage to any property of the Contractor or its employees that is caused by or alleged to be caused by, arises out of, or is in connection with the Contractor's work to be performed hereunder. Both the City and the Contractor expressly intend that this release shall apply regardless of whether said claims, demands, and causes of action are covered, in whole or in part, by insurance and in the event of injury, sickness, death, loss, or damage suffered by the Contractor or its employees, but not otherwise, this release shall apply regardless of whether such loss, damage, injury, or death was caused in whole or in part by the City, any other party released hereunder, the Contractor, or any third party. ARTICLE XI Insurance 11.01 The Contractor shall procure and maintain at its sole cost and expense for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the p erformance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, volunteers, employees or subcontractors. The policies, limits and endorsem ents required are as set forth on Exhibit C. ARTICLE XII Use of Drawings, Specifications and Other Documents 12.01 The Drawings, Specifications and other documents prepared by the Contractor and Contractor's consultants for this Project shall become the property of the City whether the Page 9 Contract No. 09-241 CoWlcil Approved -Rev. 2112103 Project is completed or not. The City shall be furnished and permitted to retain reproducible copies and electronic versions of Contractor's Drawings, Specifications and other documents. 12.02 The documents prepared by Contractor may be used as a prototype for other facilities by the City. The City may elect to use the Contractor to perform the site adaptation and other architectural services involved in reuse of the prototype. If so, the Contractor is obligated to perform the work for an additional compensation that will fairly compensate the Contractor and its consultants only for the additional work involved. It is reasonable to expect that the fair additional compensation will be significantly less than the fee provided for under this Contract. If the City elects to employ a different architect to perform the site adaptation and other architectural services involved in reuse of the prototype, that architect will be entitled to use Contractor's consultants on the same basis that Contractor would have been entitled to use them for the work on the reuse of the prototype, and such architect will be entitled, to the extent allowed by law, to duplicate the design and review and refer to the construction documents, approved shop drawings and calculations, and change order drawings in performing its work. The Contractor will not be responsible for errors and omissions of a subsequent architect. The Contractor shall commit its consultants to the terms of this subparagraph. 12.03 In the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason, the City shall receive all original documents prepared to the date of termination and shall have the right to use those documents and any reproductions in any way necessary to complete the Project. 12.04 Only the details of the drawings relating to this Project may be used by the Contractor on other projects, but they shall not be used as a whole without written authorization by the City. The City furnished forms, conditions, and other written documents shall not be used on other projects by the Contractor. ARTICLE XIII Termination 13.01 The City may terminate this Contract at any time upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice. Upon the Contractor's receipt of such notice, the Contractor shall cease work immediately. The Contractor shall be compensated for the services satisfactorily performed prior to the termination date. 13 .02 If, through any cause, the Contractor fails to fulfill its obligations under this Contract, or if the Contractor violates any of the agreements of this Contract, the City has the right to terminate this Contract by giving the Contractor five (5) calendar days written notice to the Contractor. The Contractor will be compensated for the services satisfactorily performed before the termination date. 13.03 No term or provision of this Contract shall be construed to relieve the Contractor of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City because of any breach of contract and/or negligence by the Contractor. The City may withhold payments to the Contractor Page 10 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 for the purpose of setoff until the exact amount of damages due the City from the Contractor is determined and paid. ARTICLE XIV Miscellaneous Terms 14.01 This Contract has been made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. The parties agree that performance and all matters related thereto shall be in Brazos County, Texas. 14.02 Notices shall be mailed to the addresses designated herein or as may be designated in writing by the parties from time to time and shall be deemed received when sent postage prepaid U.S. Mail to the following addresses: City of College Station Attn: Danielle Charbonnet P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Contractor: Attn: Alex Reyna 221 West 6th Street Suite 600 Austin, Texas 78701 14.03 No waiver by either party hereto of any term or condition of this Contract shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any other term or condition or subsequent waiver of the same term or condition. 14.04 This Contract represents the entire and integrated agreement between the City and the Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This Contract may only be amended by written instrument approved and executed by the parties. 14.05 This Contract and all rights and obligations contained herein may not be assigned by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 14.06 If any provision of this Contract shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that any provision of this Contract is invalid or unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision it may become valid and enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be written, construed, and enforced as so limited. 14.07 The Contractor, its agents, employees, and subcontractors must comply with all applicable federal and state laws, the charter and ordinances of the City of College Station, and with all applicable rules and regulations promulgated by local, state, and Page 11 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 national boards, bureaus, and agencies. The Contractor must obtain all necessary permits and licenses required in completing the work and providing the services required by this Contract. 14.08 The parties acknowledge that they have read, understood, and intend to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Contract. 14.09 This Contract will be effective when signed by the last party whose signing makes the Contract fully executed. 14.10 Notice of Indemnification. City and Contractor hereby acknowledge and agree that this Contract contains certain indemnification obligations and covenants. BURY+PARTNERS, INC. By: ___________ _ Printed Name: __________ _ Title: --------------~ Date: ------ Page 12 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION By: ___________ _ Mayor Date: ------ ATTEST: City Secretary Date: -------- APPROVED: City Manager Date: -------- City Attorney Date: -------- Chief Financial Officer Exhibit A Scope of Services Prepared by Bury+ Partners, Inc. For Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) (Texas Avenue/Welsh Avenue Hike and Bike Trail) Project Description The City of College Station (City) elected to move forward and selected a new trail. The project selected is a new trail to be constructed from Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue along Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818), which is the subject of this scope of work. Starting in front of A&M Consolidated High School at the northeast comer of Welsh Avenue and FM 2818, the proposed trail route traverses east along the north right-of-way (R.O.W.) of FM 2818 to reach a major creek crossing. Upon crossing the creek, the proposed trail route continues east to terminate at Texas Avenue at the northwestern return. The alignment of the proposed trail route lies entirely within the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) R.O.W. The total length of this project is approximately 6, 100 linear feet. It is assumed that this alignment has been established by the City and an evaluation of alternate alignments is not part of this scope of work. Bury+ Partners, Inc. (Bury) has prepared the following scope of work for Data Collection, Environmental, Preliminary Design, Final Design, and Bidding/Construction Administration Services, and Materials Testing. 1. Data Collection Bury and its sub-consultant team members (the Project Team) propose to include the following services during the Data Collection phase of the project: 1.1. Conduct a project kick-off meeting with City staff and the Project Team. A walk of the area will be conducted with City staff and the Project Team to spot any sensitive areas and obtain concurrence on an alignment for the trail. 1.2. The City has attended meetings with TxDOT to understand what level of review, including environmental, will be required. The City will provide meeting minutes from this meeting. 1.3. The Project Team will coordinate with TxDOT to gather roadway drawings for FM 2818 for the extents of the project. Page 13 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 1.4. The City will provide all available information regarding City owned existing wet utilities including water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electrical. 1.5. The Project Team will gather all other existing dry utility data along the proposed trail route. This includes gas, telephone, BTU Electrical, and data. 2. Environmental The trail route is proposed to be constructed within existing TxDOT R.O.W and provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) apply. It is anticipated that, based on the level of potential impacts and City staff discussions with TxDOT personnel, that documentation supporting Categorical Exclusion (CE) will suffice. The following services will be included within the Environmental Investigation of this project: 2.1 . The Project Team will prepare appropriate CE in general accordance with TxDOT's Environmental Manual and Standards of Uniformity. The CE report will address the following: 2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. 2.1.4. 2.1.5. 2.1.6. 2.1.7. 2.1.8. 2.1.9. 2.1.10. 2.1.11. 2.1.12. 2.1.13. 2.1.14. 2.1.15. 2.1.16. 2.1.17. 2.1.18. Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 Need and Purpose Proposed Action Project Setting and Land Use Socioeconomics Environmental Justice Limited English Proficiency Section 4(f) Resources Historic Properties Archeological Resources Vegetation Water Quality Soils/Farmland Utilities Invasive Species Threatened and Endangered Species Air Quality Noise Impacts Hazardous Materials Page 14 2.1.19. 2.1.20. 2.1.21. 2.1.22. Visual Flood Plains Wild and Scenic Rivers Public Involvement 2.2. Submit the CE report to the City for review and comments. The Project Team will coordinate with the City to address staff comments. 2.3. Revise and submit finalized report to the City for final review and approval. 2.4. The City's Project Manager will submit to and coordinate with TxDOT for approval. 3. Preliminary Design The Project Team will conduct the following tasks to complete the Preliminary Design of the Hike and Bike Trail: 3.1. Conduct progress meetings, three (3), with City staff at each milestone submittal: preliminary, 30%, and 60% design submittals. A progress memorandum will be submitted to the City at least one (1) week prior to each progress meeting. The memorandum will include, but not limited to, project progress, design issue, and recommendations to issues. 3.2. Weekly progress emails will be sent out detailing project progress as well as upcoming tasks for the following week. 3.3. Conduct the field survey to include topographic features and tree data. The survey will capture the area within 25-feet of the centerline of the trail route. All trees eight (8) inches and larger in diameter will be surveyed. 3.4. Conduct a field survey to tie R.0.W. monumentation and to locate R.O.W. limits of FM 2818. 3.5. The Project Team will conduct a geotechnical analysis along the trail. One (1) boring sample at a 25-foot depth will be conducted on either side of the major creek crossing. Four (4) other boring samples at a five (5) foot depth will conducted along the trail. Page 15 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 3.6. Preliminary designs for the trail will include the design of a structural pedestrian bridge to span across the major creek crossing. The bridge is assumed to be a precast concrete double tee type bridge. 3.7. Create preliminary route exhibits and schematic drawings of the trail alignment. This is to include schematic drawings of the pedestrian bridge to be constructed over the major creek crossing. The Project Team will also evaluate utilizing the culverts at the creek to cross. Submit schematics to the City for review and approval. 3.8. Bury will attend two (2) public meetings on behalf of the City and provide supporting exhibits for the meetings. 3.9. Bury will attend the Pre-application Conference (PAC) at the City of College Station. 3.10. Prepare 30% plans/construction drawings for the pedestrian hike and bike trail to submit to the City for review. 3.11. Meet with the City in order to review and incorporate the City's 30% review comments. 3.12. Prepare 60% plans/construction drawings for the pedestrian hike and bike trail to submit to the City for review. 3.13. Meet with the City in order to review and incorporate the City's 60% review comments. 3.14. Prepare an opinion of probable cost per the preliminary designs for the route. 3 .15. The Project Team will provide supporting drawings and exhibits to the City for the Multiple Use Agreement process with TxDOT. 3 .16. Prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to be included within the construction documents. 3.17. Submit the TCP to the City for review and approval. The City will coordinate with TxDOT for TCP approval. 4. Final Design Upon the completion of the Preliminary Design phase, the Project Team will begin the Final Design phase. The following services will be included within this phase of the project: Page 16 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 4.1. Conduct one (1) progress meetings with City staff at 90% submittal. A progress memorandum will be submitted to the City at least one (1) week prior to each progress meeting. The memorandum will include, but not limited to, project progress, design issue, and recommendations to issues. 4.2. Prepare 90% plans and specifications to the City for review. Specifications will be in City format to include the bid document in PDF format, special provisions, and technical specification. 4.3. Meet with the City in order to review and incorporate the City's 90% review comments. 4.4. The Project Team will submit plans to a Registered Accessibility Specialist to review the plans against the Texas Department of Li censure Requirement (TDLR) standards. We will coordinate with the reviewer to address any comments. 4.5. Finalize construction documents to 100% completion. 4.6. Provide three (3) project manuals (not including construction drawings) to the City. A total of three (3) half-size sets of final construction drawings at 100% completion will be submitted to the City. 4.7. One (1) digital copy of all engineering documents, plans, and design documents will be submitted to the City. 4.8. One (1) digital copy of electronic CAD files in AutoCAD format will be submitted to the City. 4.9. Provide the City with bid proposals in excel format. 5. Bidding/Construction Administration After all bid and construction documents have been finalized, the Project Team will begin the Bidding/Construction Administration phase of the project, which will include the following services: 5.1. Assist in conducting a pre-bid meeting. 5.2. Prepare and issue any necessary addenda to bid. 5.3. Receive and evaluate bids. 5.4. Make recommendation of award of bid. Page 17 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 5.5. Assist the City in preparing construction contract documents. We will also provide four ( 4) copies of construction drawing incorporating any associated Addendum during construction bidding. Of the four ( 4) set of plans, one (1) set will be full-size (22-inch x 34-inch), and three (3) sets will be half-size sets. 5.6. Attend up to six (6) monthly progress meetings 5. 7. Provide periodic onsite field observation trips for an average of two (2) visits per month for a six (6) month construction phase (maximum). 5.8. The Project Team will provide materials testing during the duration of the construction phase. Please refer to the attached scope of work provided by Terracon Consulting Engineers and Scientists for a detailed scope. 5.9. Review monthly pay requests from contractor. 5.10. Respond to questions during construction and any necessary Request For Information (RFI) responses. 5.11. Review and provide recommendations to the City regarding any proposed change orders. 5.12. Prepare As-Built plans and submit in electronic AutoCAD format to the City. Also, one (1) mylar set of as-built plans shall be submitted to the City. 6. Reimbursables 6.1. Out of pocket expenses on the project will be charged to the City in the form of a reimbursable expense. The expenses will be based on out of pocket expenses incurred during the performance of tasks related to the project. These reimbursable expenses have been estimated as follows: • Printing and Reproduction ($2500) • Mileage ($2500) ASSUMPTIONS The following items are assumptions that have been made for the purposes of this scope based on conversations with the City: 1. The City will provide any surveys that have been done for the area in which the trail will be built. Page 18 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 2. The construction of the pedestrian trail will be entirely within TxDOT R.O.W.; therefore, no easements will be required. 3. The preferred alignment has been established and, therefore, an evaluation of alternatives is not part of this scope. 4. It is assumed TxDOT will grant a CE for this project. 5. Plans will be prepared in AutoCAD. Contract No. 09-241 Page 19 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 Exhibit B Payment Terms SELECT ONE: Payment is a fixed fee in the amount listed in paragraph 2.01 of this Contract. This amount shall be payable by the City pursuant to the schedule listed below and upon completion of the services and written acceptance by the City. Schedule of Payment for each phase: Page 20 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 CJTYOFCOI,UIC.:&STATlON TEXAS AVENUl!IWHLSllAVENIJE l'ROJEL"T Pa)'fl)t'flt. 't'r.ntit. F.xblbll a JUD.t 1009 I JHl.11T I AR (IT I i SJ9l..50 i SU7 • .50 I S109 . .50 I S160.0Q S-117.50 I SIOL<o I St(.s> Su b-con~uJLa nt Tocat Budlttl Na mt - fflimO -----------------j---~----:-4_ -t---~o ------i--1-----+-+~------ •Plan~ ' 6 ! 6 : f 12 ! '-l 81:! I t 8 I u • J1 • s ).696 ~.=withCil.vto dlscu..q:«j:O%Pl.ans i _6 t ' i 12 iS l,S l2 lnccrponnc:®'''-xtTm1.Ull•mtoPl~tl.f i -i 12 ;.S. L.378 i! .. :.L.;.~:;...~.=-.~~~I~~~-j~~1~~~i~q;j~i~~~.~.~.~ ~~~;;~~c0Rr:;w AOACccn-Tin~---------·-j----f------L-t----·-'L:i-----1---·· ---~--H---~~-1-Ai~S:.~~ $117$ ~g;;;~~~~~~::~~==:=~=f~±=f-:,=;:T=:~::?::~.'=::=F::;=-:::.&:::tt=1f:::=:=~::= i ~ t j Sni.. Tollll! $ .9 466 Sub .. .Total S 1.17,5 ~~~':,;~~ ·~~~c:;1~~i~~~v•·¥-·-·--~ .. ··--···-·-·· .. v•v··· .. ·----·~--·-····~1 ··· ,-··--···-···i---~--·--···-······v· .. -·l· ., ... , _____ ... ·-··-· ...... •v•v ·v--~·v-----~----··-···-·· ·------··-Nts········ .... :, ···SJ;~~b&"~~--·s---···900· Mi.~ in rond11e.iin.~--a rttt-bid n'Mtiu&-! 6 t f i 6 ~ ! J. l.55 ~*~:-~.;;;~~~~'!1~J~_lf.1. ___________________________ ·+·-~·-+--·--1---!....+------· -·--·-·----·--··-----1-·-;i_ ____ .. --i--·-H---d~· --·----·--·-·-·-·····-· MAk~-;;;;d~;;i'"orawarddbid:--1 t ! i 1 ! 1 is 210 Pnpato ... IJ<lill pl<vlsl<obmil in <leClronk AUl.C.'\D -to O" Cit)• .. wdl •• rn• (I )Ji i i i S 940 M}11rR<. _ j i I ™;;;:;~~~~~dR~iXod'~tt;~;· .,..-......... H·--···--·---~-"·--,._,., .. , ....... ~-----··•·u··--··· --i----~,_, __ -~f ........ ~--····+ , .. ~-··"··-.... ~---· ..... -----M---~~*1,. ... __ ... .__._,_,, ·---~!_tt~!~i··t-H:~~ .. ,.._ . ..,J,!~_:T!'~-J_,._ ... ~~~.7, ~~~d--~-~~~-~-----·=~-=~=~:=:~---~:--~-=~~~;1=~~=~t~~--=1~-~~;~~:-J;i= ~;~= =----~;~~~=t=:--=. -~;:;;~---~~~ ----~~~~!~ l~::~ Page 21 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 Exhibit C Insurance Requirements During the term of this Agreement all Contractor's insurance policies shall meet the following requirements: I. Standard Insurance Policies Required: A. Commercial General Liability B. Business Automobile Liability C. Workers' Compensation D. Professional Liability II. For each of these policies, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City, its officials, employees and volunteers. Any self- insurance or insurance policies maintained by the City, its officials, employees or volunteers, shall be considered in excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute to it. No term or provision of the indemnification provided by the Contractor to the City pursuant to this Contract shall be construed or interpreted as limiting or otherwise affecting the terms of the insurance coverage. All Certificates of Insurance and endorsements shall be furnished to the City's Representative at the time of execution of this Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and approved by the City before any letter of authorization to commence planning will issue or any work on the Project commences. III. The Contractor shall include all subcontractors as additional insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. IV. General Requirements Applicable to All Policies A. Only insurance carriers licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Texas will be accepted. B. Deductibles shall be listed on the Certificate of Insurance and are acceptable only on a "per occurrence" basis for property damage only. C. "Claims made" policies will not be accepted, except for Professional Liability msurance. D. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice has been given to the City of College Station by certified mail, return receipt requested. E. Upon request, certified copies of all insurance policies shall be furnished to the City. F. The Certificates of Insurance shall be prepared and executed by the insurance company or its authorized agent. Each certificate shall contain the following Page 22 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 provisions and warranties: 1. that the insurance company is licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Texas 2. that the insurance policy is underwritten on forms provided by the Texas State Board of Insurance or ISO 3. all endorsements and coverages according to the requirements of this Contract 4. the form of notice of cancellation, termination, or change in coverage provisions 5. original endorsements affecting coverage required by this Contract. 6. The City of College Station, its officials, employees, and volunteers are named as Additional Insureds on the Commercial General Liability and Business Automobile Liability Policies. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded the City, its officials, employees, and volunteers. V. Commercial (General) Liability requirements: A. Coverage shall be written by a carrier with an "A: VIII" or better rating in accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide. B. Minimum Limit of $1 ,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage with a $2,000,000 annual aggregate. C. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Service's Office Number CG 00 01. D. No coverage shall be excluded from the standard policy without notification of individual exclusions being attached for review and acceptance. E. The coverage shall include but not be limited to: premises/operations; independent contracts, products/completed operations, contractual liability (insuring the indemnity provided herein), and where exposures exist, Explosion Collapse and Underground coverage. F. The City shall be named as an additional insured and the policy shall be endorsed to waive subrogation and to be primary and non-contributory. VI. Business Automobile Liability requirements: A. Coverage shall be written by a carrier with an "A: VIII" or better rating in accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide. B. Minimum Combined Single Limit of $1 ,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. C. The Business Auto Policy must show Symbol 1 in the Covered Autos portion of the liability section in Item 2 of the declarations page. D. The coverage shall include owned autos, leased or rented autos, non-owned autos, any autos and hired autos. VIL Workers Compensation Insurance requirements: Page 23 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved-Rev. 2112103 A. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Title 28, Section 110.110 of the Texas Administrative Code, all employees of the Contractor, the Contractor, all employees of any and all subcontractors, and all other persons providing services on the Project must be covered by a workers' compensation insurance policy: either directly through their employer's policy (the Contractor's, or subcontractor's policy) or through an executed coverage agreement on an approved Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation (DWC) form. Accordingly, if a subcontractor does not have his or her own policy and a coverage agreement is used, Contractors and subcontractors must use that portion of the form whereby the hiring contractor agrees to provide coverage to the employees of the subcontractor. The portion of the form that would otherwise allow them not to provide coverage for the employees of an independent contractor may not be used. B. The worker's compensation insurance shall include the following tenns: 1. Employer's Liability limits of $1 ,000,000 for each accident is required. 2. "Texas Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others Endorsement, WC 42 03 04" shall be included in this policy. 3. Texas must appear in Item 3A of the Worker's Compensation coverage or Item 3C must contain the following: All States except those listed in Item 3A and the States of NV, ND, OH, WA, WV, and WY. C. Pursuant to the explicit terms of Title 28, Section 1.10.l 10(c)(7) of the Texas Administrative Code, this Agreement, the bid specifications, this Agreement, and all subcontracts on this Project must include the terms and conditions set forth below, without any additional words or changes, except those required to accommodate the specific document in which they are contained or to impose stricter standards of documentation: "A. Definitions: Contract No. 09-241 Co1D1cil Approved -Rev. 2112103 Certificate of coverage ("certificate'') -A copy of a certificate of insurance, a certificate of authority to self-insure issued by the Division of Workers Compensation, or a coverage agreement (DWC-81, DWC-83, or DWC-84), showing statutory workers' compensation insurance coverage for the person's or entity's employees providing services on a project, for the duration of the project. Duration of the project -includes the time from the beginning of the work on the project until the Contractor's/person's work on the project has been completed and accepted by the governmental entity. Persons providing services on the project ("subcontractors" in§ 406.096 [of the Texas Labor Code}) -includes all persons or entities performing all or part of the services the Contractor has undertaken to perform on the Page 24 project, regardless of whether that person contracted directly with the Contractor and regardless of whether that person has employees. This includes, without limitation, independent Contractors, subcontractors, leasing companies, motor carriers, owner-operators, employees of any such entity, or employees of any entity which furnishes persons to provide services on the project. "Services" include, without limitation, providing, hauling, or delivering equipment or materials, or providing labor, transportation, or other service related to a project. "Services" does not include activities unrelated to the project, such as food/beverage vendors, office supply deliveries, and delivery of portable toilets. · B. The Contractor shall provide coverage, based on proper reporting of classification codes and payroll amounts and filing of any coverage agreements; that meets the statutory requirements of Texas Labor Code, Section 401.011(44)for all employees of the Contractor providing services on the project, for the duration of the project. C. The Contractor must provide a certificate of coverage to the governmental entity prior to being awarded the contract. D. If the coverage period shown on the Contractor's current certificate of coverage ends during the duration of the project, the Contractor must, prior to the end of the coverage period, file a new certificate of coverage with the governmental entity showing that coverage has been extended. E. The Contractor shall obtain from each person providing services on a project, and provide to the governmental entity: (1) a certificate of coverage, prior to that person beginning work on the project, so the governmental entity will have on file certificates of coverage showing coverage for all persons providing services on the project; and (2) no later than seven calendar days after receipt by the Contractor, a new certificate of coverage showing extension of coverage, if the coverage period shown on the current certificate of coverage ends during the duration of the project. F. The Contractor shall retain all required certificates of coverage for the duration of the project and for one year thereafter. G. The Contractor shall notify the governmental entity in writing by certified mail or personal delivery, within 10 calendar days after the Contractor knew or should have known, or any change that materially affects the provision of coverage of any person providing services on the project. Page 25 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 H The Contractor shall post on each project site a notice, in the text, form and manner prescribed by the Division of Workers Compensation, informing all persons providing services on the project that they are required to be covered, and stating how a person may verifY coverage and report lack of coverage. I The Contractor shall contractually require each person with whom it contracts to provide services on a project, to: Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 (1) provide coverage, based on proper reporting of classification codes and payroll amounts and filing of any coverage agreements, that meets the statutory requirements of Texas Labor Code, Section 40I.011 ( 44) for all of its employees providing sefvices on the project, for the duration of the project; (2) provide to the Contractor, prior to that person beginning work on the project, a certificate of coverage showing that coverage is being provided for all employees of the person providing services on the project, for the duration of the project; (3) provide the Contractor, prior to the end of the coverage period, a new certificate of coverage showing extension of coverage, if the coverage period shown on the current certificate of coverage ends during the duration of the project,· (4) obtain.from each other person with whom it contracts, and provide to the Contractor: (a) a certificate of coverage, prior to the other person beginning work on the project; and (b) a new certificate of coverage showing extension of coverage, prior to the end of the coverage period, if the coverage period shown on the current certificate of coverage ends during the duration of the project; (5) retain all required certificates of coverage on file for the duration of the project and for one year thereafter,· (6) notifY the governmental entity in writing by certified mail or personal delivery, within I 0 calendar days after the person knew or should have known, of any change that materially affects the provision of coverage of any person providing services on the project; and (7) contractually require each person with whom it contracts, to Page 26 perform as required by paragraphs (a) -(g), with the certificates of coverage to be provided to the person for whom they are providing services. J By signing this contract, or providing, or causing to be provided a certificate of coverage, the Contractor is representing to the governmental entity that all employees of the Contractor who will provide services on the project will be covered by workers' compensation coverage for the duration of the project, that the coverage will be based on proper reporting of classification codes and payroll amounts, and that all coverage agreements will be filed with the appropriate insurance carrier or, in the case of a self-insured, with the Commission's Division of Self- Insurance Regulation. Providing false or misleading information may subject the Contractor to administrative penalties, criminal penalties, civil penalties, or other civil actions. K. The Contractor's failure to comply with any of these provisions is a breach of contract by the Contractor that entitles the governmental entity to declare the contract void if the Contractor does not remedy the breach within ten calendar days after receipt of notice of breach.from the governmental entity. " VIII. Professional Liability requirements: A. Coverage shall be written by a carrier with a "A: VIII" or better rating in accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide. B. Minimum of $1 ,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, with a maximum deductible of $100,000.00. Financial statements shall be furnished to the City of College Station when requested. C. For "claims made" policies, a two-year extended reporting period shall be required. Page 27 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 Contract No. 09-241 Council Approved -Rev. 2112103 Exhibit "D" Certificate( s) of Insurance Page 28 Geotechnica! Enginee7ing Report ·Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 Field Exploration Desc ription lrerracan Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling six test borings, desig nated B-1 through B-6 to depths of 5 and 25 feet The borings were drilled on December 31 , 2009, us ing track-mounted drilling equipment at the approximate locations shown on the Plan of Borings, Exhibit A-2 of Appendix A Boring locations were selected and staked on the ground by Terracon measuring from existing site features without the use of surveying equipment The Plan of Borings was prepared from a Site Plan provided by Bury + Partners, Inc. The boring depths were measure d from the existing ground surface at the time of our field activities. At the completion of our field activities, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings. Cohesive soil samples were generally recovered using thin-walled tu be samplers. Hand penetrometer tests were performed on samples of cohesive soils to serve as a general measure of consistency. Gran ular soil s and soils for which good qual ity open-tube samples could not be recovered were sampled by mean s of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). This test con sists of measuring the number of blows (N) req uired for a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches to drive a standard split-spoon sampler 12 inches into the subsurface material after bei ng seated six inches. This blow count, or SPT N-value, is used to evaluate the stratum. A CME auto matic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in th e borings performed on this site. A greater efficiency is typically achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope . Published correlations between the SPT values and soil properties are based on the lower efficiency cathead and rope method. This higher efficiency of the automatic hammer affects the standard penetration resistance blow count (N) value by increasing the pe netration per ham mer blow, with a resu ltant decrease in the blow count value, over what would be obtained using the cathead and rope method. The effect of the automatic hamme r's efficiency has been considered in.Terracon's interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. If necessary, the consistency description we assigned to the soil strata on the borin g logs has been adjusted to account for that higher efficiency. Samples were removed from samplers in the field, visually classified, and appropriatel y sealed in sample containers to preserve their in-situ moisture contents. Samples were returned to our laboratory in College Station, Texas. Samples not tested in the laboratory will be stored for a period of 30 days subsequent to submittal of this report and will be discarded afte r this period , unless we are notified otherwise. A field log of each boring was prepared as drilling and sampling progressed. These field logs included visual classification of the soils encountered during drilli ng. Laboratory testing was used to confirm or revise field classifications, and to determine general soil conditions. Hand Exhibit A-9 Geotechnical Engineer"ng Report Hike and Bike Trail • College Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No. A 1095063 lrerracan penetrometer test results, which give an indication of strength of the soil, are shown on the logs. Soil descriptions and symbols used on the logs are in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The Logs of Borings, presenting the subsurface soil descriptions, type of sampling used , and additional field data, are presented on Exhibits A-3 through A-8 of Appendix A The General Notes, which define the terms used on the logs, are presented on Exhibit C-1 of Appendix C. The Unified Soil Classificatio n System is pre sented on Exhibit C-2 of Appendix C. Measurements to determine the presence and depth of seepage and groundwater were made in the boreholes wh ile drilling and upon completion of each boring. This information is shown on the Logs of Borings. A more detailed study would be needed to determine a more accurate location of groundwater and seepage rates. Such a study might require additional deep borings, water level observations on a long-term basis, and setting and monitoring piezometers (observation wells) over an extended period of time. 2 Exhibit A-9 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING ------------- Geote chn ical Engineering Report Hike and Bike Trail • Coll ege Station, Texas January 8, 2010 • Terracon Project No_ A 1095063 L boratory Testing lrerracan Soil samples were tested in the laboratory to measure their dry unit weight and natural water con tent. Unconfined compression tests we re performed on se lected samples and a calibrated hand penetrometer was used to estimate the approximate unconfined compressive strength of some co hesive samples. The calibrated hand penetrometer has been correlated with unconfined co mpression tests , and provides a better estimate of soil consistency than visual examination alone. Selected samples were also tested to determine Atterberg limits testing and percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The test results are provided on the boring logs included in Appendix A Descriptive clas sificatio ns of the soi ls indicated on th e boring logs are in acco rdance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbo ls. A brief description of this classifi cation system is attached to this report. All classification was by visual manual procedures. Exhibit B-1 APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ~------------------ GE ERAL NOTES D~LLING&SAMP LING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon -1-3te" l.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube -2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger RS: Ring Sampler -2.42" l.D., 3" 0.0., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring -4", N, B RB : Rock Bit BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D . split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N-value". WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WS: WCI : Wet Cave in WO: While Sampling While Drilling N/E: Not Encountered DCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring BCR: ACR: Before Casing Removal After Casi ng Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groun dwater. In low permeabi lity soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible wi th only short-term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOI L CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 si eve; their principal descriptors are: bo ulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of thei r dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major co nstituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added accordin g to the relati ve proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation , coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Standard Penetration Com12ressive or N-value {SS} Consistency: Strength, Qu, QSf Blows/Ft. < 500 <2 Very Soft 500 -1,000 2-3 Soft 1,001 -2,000 4-6 Medium Stiff 2,001 -4,000 7-12 Stiff 4,001 -8,000 13-26 Ve ry Stiff 8,000+ 26+ Hard RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL Descriptive Te rm{s) of other Constituents Trace With Modifier RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Descriptive Term{s} of other Constituents Trace With Modifie rs Percent of Dry Weight < 15 15-29 > 30 Percent of Ory Weight <5 5 -12 > 12 RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Standard Penetration Ring SamQler {RS} or N-value {SS} Relative Densi!Y Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. 0 -3 0-6 Ve ry Loose 4 -9 7-18 Loose 10-29 19-58 Medium Dense 30 -49 59-98 Dense 50+ 99+ Very Dense GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Major Com12onent of Sample Particle Size Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm) Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm) Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm) Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm) PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Term Plasticity: Index Non-plastic 0 Low 1-10 Medium 11-30 High 30+ Exh ibit C-1 I I I UNI FIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Group Symbol Group Name 8 Gravels: Clean Gravels: Cu ~ 4 and 1 ~ Cc ~ 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F More than 50% of Less than 5% fines c Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F coarse Gravels with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F.G. H Coarse Grained Soils: fraction retained on More than 12% fines c Clayey gravel F.G.H Nn. 4 •:iF'V" Fines classify as CL or CH GC More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Sands: Clean Sands: Cu ~ 6 and 1 ~ Cc ~ 3 E SW Well-graded sand 1 50% or more of coarse Less than 5% fines 0 Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E SP Poorly graded sand 1 fraction passes Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G.H.1 No. 4 sieve More than 12% fines 0 Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G.H.i Pl > 7 and plots on or above "A" line J CL Lean clay K.L.M Si lts and Clays: Inorganic: Pl < 4 or plots below "A" line J ML SiltK,L,M Liquid limit less than 50 Organic: Liquid limit -oven dried I OL Organic clay K.L.M,N Fine-Grained Soils: <0.75 Organic silt K.L.M.o Liquid limit -not dried I 50% or more passes the Pl plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clayK.L.M N0. 200 sieve Inorganic: Silts and Clays: Pl plots below "A" line MH Elastic Silt K.L.M Liquid limit 50 or more Organic: Liquid limit -oven dried I OH Organic clay K.L.M,P I < 0.75 Organic silt K.L.M.a Liquid limit -not dried Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-in . (75-mm) sieve H If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. 8 If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. 1 If soil contains ~ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. c Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel," whichever is predominant. 0 Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-g raded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay L If soil contains ~ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. M If soil contains ~ 30% plus No. 200, predo minantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. 2 (D30 ) E Cu = Deo/010 Cc = -~-- N Pl ~ 4 and plots on or above "A" line. 0 Pl < 4 or plots below "A" line. o,o x 0 60 P Pl plots on or above "A" line. F If soil contains ~ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group ame. 0 Pl plots below "A" line. a If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM . Q_ x w 0 z 6° Fo~ classif.!catlon_of 1 fine-gr? 1 lned 1·~1-, 1 1,/·-[ ]/' sails and fine-grained fraction / _I / 50 -Of coarse-grained sous 17 --·,<e-0,.!---·~,<e-0 ....---.----; ~v /' ~v Equation of 'A" -line •V, •\>- Horizontal at P1=4 to LL=25.5. ,/ / 40 1-then Pl=0.73 (LL-20) --I --,--' -~ o-0 -. -------- Equation of ·u· -line ,/ '(-o Vertical at LL=16 to Pl=7, / G j 1 3-0 r '"'"i".09 IL'~~,~ :o"-v I ------- : H /,//~ MH '.,00 ----~- 7 r---, I j ~r -~~~ / M~o_:_____ __ _ ______ _ 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Exhibit C-2 I ! • Southwood Drive Crossing: There is a large existing culvert on the west side of Southwood in which the alignment was modified to travel on the south side of the culvert instead of the north side so as not to redesign that existing culvert. However, in order to achieve the proper grading in this area, a rock wall has been proposed to accommodate a 3: 1 slope when traveling south of the culvert. On the east side of Southwood Drive, a culvert has been proposed in order to allow water to flow under the sidewalk. • Longmire Drive: On the east side of Longmire Drive, a culvert has been -proposed to allow water to flow under the sidewalk. In order to calculate and design the appropriate sizes of the improvements, we have requested a copy of the FM 2818 Roadway Plans so as to analyze the drainage patterns and design set forth by the Texas Department of Transportation (fxDOT). These plans have been requested from the City as well as TxDOT. Furthermore, four (4) varying sections have been sought for the trail. BPI has requested Terracon to provide recommendations for these four sections. Once the report has been obtained from Terracon, BPI will then be able to incorporate the sections into the plan set. The following is a summary of future tasks and meetings to be held: • 60% Design Submittal Meeting -December 14th • Geotechnical Report -December 21, 2009 • Categorical Exclusion Document from Terracon -January 20, 2010 • 90 % Design -Upon the receipt of the 60 % design comments from the City The items in the above memorandum are only a brief summarization of the tasks that have been completed and what is to be completed. We will be able to go into greater detail during the 60% Submittal Meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions or comments. Thank you, Alex Reyna, P.E. Project Engineer Page 2 ~i <Jr~ .. ~-1-i~~~ 2.~ @~,~fs·Jdt~I~. -"h~~; .A '' w~.,. Design Progress Menn To: Danielle Charbonnet From: Alex Reyna, P.E. CC: Date: December 9, 2009 BURY+ PARTNERS, NC. Re: Hike and Bike Trail Completion (ST-0904) -60 % Submittal Dear Ms. Charbonnet: We will be submitting the 60 % design of the hike and bike trail along Harvey Mitchell Parkway on Wednesday December 9, 2009 to your office for your review. Please accept this memorandum as a summary of tasks that have been completed, issues that have arose during the 60 % design, and tasks to be completed. During the review for the 30 % plans, Bury+ Partners, Inc . (BPI) attended and assisted the City of College Station (City) with a Public Meeting on October 26, 2009 which was held at the Peace Lutheran Church in College Station. After the Public Meeting and upon completion of the 30 % Design Review, BPI was released to move forward with 60 % Design on November 11, 2009 For the 60 % Design, BPI released Terracon for Geotechnical Services and Environmental Services associated with the project. For the plan set, BPI focused on the grading, drainage, and traffic improvements for the project. During the grading design, some areas where found that will need drainage improv~ments in order to allow the proper flow of water with the installation of the trail. Four areas have been identified for drainage improvements: • Nueces Avenue Crossing: Due to the new alignment of the sidewalk, on the -west side a new culvert is proposed to allow water to travel under the sidewalk and the existing culvert will need to extend out passed the sidewalk. On the east side a new culvert is proposed to allow water to travel under the sidewalk. The -grading in this particular area is the constraint requiring culverts. • Bee Creek Crossing: The grading here showed to be a little challenging in order to obtain a 3: 1 slope passed the sidewalk north to the creek. In order to achieve -a 3: 1 slope a rock wall has been proposed to be extended from the headwall of the Bee Creek culvert. L . ' \4, ooD 0-aol~lo\· -~ o. '\"" p~i:t HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL COMPLETION (ST-0904) Preliminary Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost December 14, 2009 Item No. Description 1.00 MOBILIZATION 1.01 Insurance and Mobilization for all material, equipment and labor to complete the project (not to exceed 5% of construction) per lump sum. 2.00 REMOVALS & RELOCATIONS 2.01 Prepare ROW for the hike and bike path including excavation and haul off spoil material as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete per Station 2.02 Remove and Properly Dispose of Trees as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete per each 2.03 Remove and Reset Electrical Ground Box to match proposed grade as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete per each. 2.04 Relocate Small Traffic Sign Assembly as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete per each. 2.05 Furnish and Install Number 2 Base Electrical Conductor as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete per linear foot. 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price (Figures) Total Cost LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 ----------'----- Subtotal Item 1.00: $ --------=3...:0-'-',0:...:0...:0.:...:.0...:0_ 62 STA $ 1,248.00 $ 77,376.00 10 EA $ 77.00 $ 770.00 1 EA $ 250.00 $ 250.00 1 EA $ 100.00 $ 100.00 217 LF $ 4.75 $ 1,030.75 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal Item 2.00: $ _____ __:7.:..9.<:,5:.:.:2...:6.:...:.7..:;5_ Item No. Description 3.00 ROADWAY & EARTHWORK 3.01 Furnish and Install Pedestrian Rail as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in place per linear foot. 3.02 Furnish and Install 5" Sidewalk including all embedment, finishing, surface texture and joints as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. 3.03 Furnish and Install 6" Lime Treated Subgrade including placement and grading as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. 3.04 Furnish and Install{fpe 1 Curb Ramj)s shown on the drawings and directed by the engmeer, complete in place per each. 3.05 Furnish and Install -GLCurb ~ as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in place per each. 3.06 Furnish and Install Segmental Retaining Wall including reinforcement for trail, as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in place per surface square foot. 3.07 3.08 4.00 EROSION CONTROL 4.01 ~ 4.02 .. ~4.03 4.04 Furnish and Install 4" Topsoil including placement and grading as directed by the engineer, complete in place ,.;:: per square yard. _J Furnish and Install Block Sodding including ground preparation, planting and raking as directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. Furnish and Install Cell Fiber Mulch Seeding (permanent seeding for urban clay areas) as directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. Furnish and Install Vegetative Fertilizer as directed by the engineer, complete in place per acre. Estimated Quantity 78 6,200 7,500 3 500 TBD Unit Price Unit (Figures) Total Cost LF $ 175.00 $ 13,650.00 SY $ 45.00 $ 279,000.00 SY $ 25.00 $ 187,500.00 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 SSF $ 18.00 $ 9,000.00 $ $ $ $ Subtotal Item 3.00: $ ______ 4_9_3_,__,1_5_0_.0_0_ SY $ 12.00 $ ---------- SY $ 3.15 $ ________ _ SY $ 0.21 $ ---------- AC $ 150.00 $ ________ _ Item Estimated Unit Price No. Description Quantity Unit (Figures) Total Cost 4.05 Furnish and Install Vegetative Watering as directed by the engineer, complete in place per thousand gallons. 28 KG $ 35.00 $ 980.00 4.06 Furnish and Install Temporary Sediment Control Fence as directed by the engineer, complete in place per linear foot. 12,000 LF $ 2.20 $ 26,400.00 4.07 Furnish and Install Tree Protection as directed by the engineer, complete in place per each. 10 EA $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 4.08 $ $ 4.09 $ $ Subtotal Item 4.00: $ 28,380.00 5.00 PAVEMENT MARKINGS 5.01 Furnish and Install Small Sign Assembly as directed by the engineer, complete in place per ea oh. ~ 4 EA $ 100.00 $ 400.00 5.02 Furnish and Install Type I, 4" Solid Yellow Reflective Pavement Marking (100 MIL) as directed by the engineer, complete in place per linear foot. , • 276 LF $ 0.45 $ 124.20 5.03 Furnish and Insta~olid White Reflective "t1 Pavement Markin 90 MIL directed by the ~ engineer, complete in place per linear foot. • 75 LF $ 0.75 $ 56.25 5.04 Furnish and Install Type I, 12" Solid White Reflective f Pavement Marking (100 MIL) as directed by the 1 engineer, complete in place per linear foot. 419 LF $ 3.35 $ 1,403.65 5.05 Furnish and Install T~ I, 24" Solid White Reflective Pavement Marking<JLMIL)J> directed by the engineer, complete in place per linear foot. 80 LF $ 6.14 $ 491.20 5.06 $ $ Subtotal Item 5.00: $ ______ ...:.c2_,_,4_7....:5....:.3....:0_ Item Estimated Unit Price No. Description Quantity Unit (Figures) Total Cost 6.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL 6.01 Provide Traffic Control including labor and materials as directed by the engineer, complete in place per month 2 MO $ 2,135.00 $ 4,270.00 Subtotal Item 6.00: $ _______ 4,_,2_7-'-0--'.0-'-0- 7.00 STORM SEWER 7.01 $ $ ----~ ---------- Subtotal Item 7.00: $ _________ _ BASE BID: (Sum of Items 1.00, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00, 5.00, & 6.00) 637,802.05 ALTERNATE BID ITEMS TABLE: Item Estimated Unit Price No. Description Quan ti~ Unit (Figures} Total Cost Alternate No. 1 -Sidewalk from Longmire Drive to Texas A venue • ~ A-1 Remove and Properly Dispose of Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete per square yard. 7 SY $ 15.00 105.00 A-2 Remove and Properly Dispose of Concrete Curb and Gutter as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete pe~ear foot. 45 LF $ 5.00 $ 225.00 A-3 Furnish and Insta~ e Treated Subgrade including placement and gra g as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. 778 SY $ 25.00 $ 19,450.00 A-4 Furnish and Install Type II Concrete Curb and Gutter as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in place per linear foot. 875 LF $ 13.00 $ 11,375.00 A-5 Furnish and Install 4" Sidewalk including all embedment, finishing, surface texture and joints as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. 583 SY $ 45 .00 $ 26,235.00 A-6 Furnish and Install 4" Topsoil including placement and grading as directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. SY $ 12.00 $ • Item Estimated Unit Price 'o. Description Quantity Unit (Figures) Total Cost A-7 Furnish and Install Block Sodding including ground preparation, planting and raking as directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. A-8 Furnish and Install Cell Fiber Mulch Seeding (permanent seeding for urban clay areas) as directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. A-9 Furnish and Install Vegetative Fertilizer as directed by the engineer, complete in place per acre. A-10 Furnish and Install Vegetative Watering as directed by the engineer, complete in place per thousand gallons. A-11 Furnish and Install Temporary Sediment Control Fence as directed by the engineer, complete in place per linear foot. Alternate No. 2 -Nueces Sidewalk Extension A-1 A-2 Furnish and Install 6" Lime Treated Subgrade including placement and grading as shown on the drawings and Furnish and Inst 14" idewalk including all embedment, directed by the e~· eer, complete in place per square yard. finishing, surface re and joints as shown on the drawings <\ • and directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard' <.J' (; SY $ 3.15 $ SY $ 0.21 $ AC $ 150.00 $ 28 KG $ 35.00 $ 980.00 2,000 LF $ 2.20 $ 4,400.00 Subtotal Alternate No. 1: $ 62,770.00 400 SY $ 25.oo $ ______ 1_,o,_00_0_.o_.:.o_ 300 SY $ 45.00 $ 13,500.00 ~~~~~~.=..lC:..C...:..:..:.~ Subtotal Alternate No. 2: $ 23,500.00 TIDS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ALEJANDRO REYNA, JR. #101243 ON THE DATE SHOWN ON THE DATE STAMP. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES. LIBERTY MUTUAL SURETY 005338 8350 N CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY SUITE 820 Contract Bond Status Query ~ Liber!_y MutuaL ~ C::llDt:TV DALLAS, TX 75206 Date of Request: 6/2/2014 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 110 l TEXAS A VE. COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842 Offic. __ Phone: 972-233-9588 Fax: 855-318-1836 Email: StatusQuery@LibertyMutual.com In order to allow us to monitor the progress of our contractor, please complete and return this form. Your response will not prejudice your rights or affect our liability under our bond(s) referred to below. We enclose a prepaid return envelope for your use. Bond Number: 022042787 Contract Price: $480,366.00 Cross Reference Bond Number: Contract Description: Project No. 13-351 Hike and Bike Trail Phase II Our Bond On Behalf Of: G.W. Williams, Inc. Bond Executed In The Following Company: West American Insurance Company l . HAS CONTRACT BEEN COMPLETED? 2. IF COMPLETED PLEASE STATE: a. Date of acceptance b. Total amount of completed contract 3. IF NOT COMPLETED PLEASE STATE: a. Probable completion date b. Amount paid contractor to date c. Amount withheld as retained percentage 4. HAS WORK PROGRESSED SATISFACTORILY? 5. ARE THERE ANY UNSATISFIED CLAIMS OR LIENS ON FILE? Dated: ________ _ Inception Date: 9/24/2013 ~ !h.0.o .. 0 Signed ··~ Tim Mikolajewski President -Liberty Mutual Surety Signed _____________ _ Name Title Phone: ______ Fax: _____ _ MONTHLY PROGRESS MEETING HIKE & BIKE PHASE 2 G.W. WILLIAMS, INC. 4090 Raymond Stotzer Parkway College Station, Texas 77845 Project Name: City of College Station -Hike & Bike Phase 2 Project Number: PK0806, ST1103 Date: April 9, 2014 9:00 AM Present: Mark Ward, Casey Rhodes, Danielle Charbonnet, Jerry Jones, Gary Williams, & Mike Wesp A. SCHEDULE 1. Pouring Sidewalks at SW Pkwy. Complete at the end of the week or early next week. 2. Start grading at SW Pkwy upon sidewalk completion. 3. Will leave SW Pkwy construction entrance in place until final grading and clean up. After that we will pour the last section of sidewalk along the street. 4. Fabricating handrails along SW Pkwy to match existing. 5. Reinstall road sign along SW Pkwy 6. Next week drill and pour light pole base at 2818. 7. Early to middle of next week set up traffic control to saw cut asphalt at new curb & gutter. 8. Next week start setting up and pouring sidewalk at 2818. 9. TxDot handrails at 2818 should be delivered the week of April 21st. B. SUBMITT ALS 1 2. 3. B. RFI STATUS 1. N/A 2. 3. B. CHANGE ORDERS I REVISIONS 1. Working on change order #2 to dowel into the retaining wall. B. OUTSTANDING ISSUES 1. N/A 2. B. NEW ISSUES 1. 2. B. MONTHLY PAY REQUEST Our Next Meeting will be Held : May 7th To: From: September 9, 2010 Regular Agenda FM 2818 Hike & Bike Trail Phase II Glenn Brown, City Manager Chuck Gilman, P.E., Director of Capital Projects Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion concerning Phase II of the Hike and Bike Trail project along FM 2818 continuing from Welsh Avenue to the Campus Village trail and through Southwest Park. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal IV, Improving Multi Modal Transportation. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the plan to move forward with Phase II of the Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project. Summary: Staff has identified an opportunity to complete the multiuse trail system identified on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan from Texas Avenue along FM 2818 to Southwest Parkway. The first phase of the Hike & Bike Trail Completion Project, which is currently under construction along FM 2818, will complete the trail segment from Texas Avenue to Welsh Avenue. Phase I is currently under construction and is being delivered under budget. The Campus Village development under construction at the corner of FM 2818 and FM 2154 is constructing a multiuse path through their property which will begin immediately west of the A&M Consolidated High School property line and end at Southwest Park. Staff feels this short segment of path between Phase I of the Hike and Bike Trail project, which terminates at Welsh, and the Campus Village path is an important connection in the hike and bike network. Staff proposes to use the remaining budget in Phase I of the project to design and construct this segment that will connect Phase I with Campus Village. Additionally, staff is proposing to extend the trail from Campus Village through Southwest Park to Southwest Parkway. Staff proposes to use Parkland dedication funds from Zone 6 for the proposed improvements in Southwest Park. In an effort to maximize the money available for construction of these improvements, Staff is proposing to design these improvements and develop the bidding documents. · The proposed trail aligns with Council's Strategic Goal for improving multi-modal transportation by providing greater multi-modal mobility along the FM 2818 corridor and by providing a parallel route for bicyclist to Wellborn Road, one of the major transporta_.tion corridors in the City. The trail will also connect destinations including A&M Consolidated High School, several City parks, business centers, and residential properties that have traditionally been rented by students. · ~ Budget & Financial Summary: Phase I is funded from the 2008 Bond Authorization and budgeted in the General Government CIP Fund in the amount of $1,000,000. Fu.nds in the amount of $661,818.29 have been committed or expended to date, leaving a balance of $338,181.71. Additional funds in the amount of $77,810 are anticipated for other expenditures associated with the construction of Phase I, leaving a balance of $260,371.71. Parkland dedication funds in the amount of $258,000 have been budgeted in t he Parks Escrow Fund -Zone 6 for the development of Southwest Park. Funds in the amount of $219.54 have been expended to date, leaving a balance of $257,780.46. Attachments: 1.) Project Map ------i---1 ----\ __ !, ------~-: l : : j --------: ---! 1 l -----:--------: ~-· -~- . . - ___ J date project --t - t ---·-- task list: -· ----··-------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----~--------------------------------- -----,--- -----------l ·- Phase II Hike & Bike Complete, Ph. II ST1103 PK0806 FY 12 Budget 192,000.00 260,000.00 land 1,500.00 environmental 5,000 4,000.00 survey 4,200 16,800.00 geotech 2,500 1,000.00 structural 2,000 5000 engineering design 10,920 21,840 ST1103 PK0806 engineering/OH 13,563 27,127 24,620.00 48,640.00 design budget ADA inspection 500 500 150,000.00 162,500.00 construction budget miscellaneous 1,000 1000 13,563 27,127 OH construction 115,200 126800 1,500 1,500 misc conting 28,800 31,700 188,183.33 238,266.67 TOTAL materials testing 6,000 4,000 Total: $ 189,683.33 $ 241,266.67 Balance: 2,316.67 18,733.33 ~EM I QTY I UNIT I DESCRJPTION 00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ITEMS LOI Insurance and MobiliZJJtion for all matenal, equipment rmd labor to complete the project (00( LS to exceed 5'A of construction) !um sum Subcotul hem LOO .00 REMOVALS & RELOCATIONS 2.01 51 2.02 17 2 03 2.04 2.05 025 2.06 l>repor~ ROW for the tuke and bike path mclud1ng exca\'lltion nnd haul otrspoil material as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete ST A ix:r Station Remove and Replace Trees as sho"n on the drawings '"" EA directed by the engineer, complete per each. Rc..'tru>\'C nnd Reset Electrical Ground Bo'.'< to match proposed grade as shown on the drawings and EA directed bv the cmz.inoer. com lete ocrcach. Relocate Small Troflic Sign Aucmbly as sho\\1l on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete EA percrich. Trimming of Trees nnd Remove\ of Brush as shown on the dmwings as directed by the engu'IC!Cr, complete per Ml mile IA•ff10hsh existing 24" RCP Safety End Tre.1tm .. -ntns shown on the drawings as directed by the engineer, EA complete in pince per ench Sub101al l1em 2.00 3.00 ROAOWA Y & EARTHWORK 3 01 725 ] 02 2.534 3.03 133 3.04 4,667 ].05 1,050 3.06 S,095 3.07 1,155 3.08 310 3.09 65 3.10 ],\\ 312 39 CY Excavate Arens as l>ho"11 on the plans and directed by the engineer. Remove materials encountered to the lines, and typie11J sections shown on the plans and c..-rou-sections, complete in place-per cubic ynrd Furrush and lnsr.all Topsoil mctudmg placcm..-nt and grading as din:ctcd by the engincc:r, complete in pince CY per squnrn yurd. Furnish nnd Install Pedcstnnn Hund Rail as shown on thc plans nnd directed by the engineer, complete in U pince per linear foot Fw11ish and Install 5" Sidewalk including 1111 t.'ITlbcdmcnt, finishing, surface texlure and joinllll u SY shown on the dmwinas Furnish and lnstall 6" Sid .. ··walk mcluding all embcdmcnt, finishing, surface texture and joints as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, s y complete in pince per square yard. Provide 6• dept.h of Lime Treatment for subgmde Sy including pln~mcnt as shown on the dmwing! nnd Provide 8" depth o,f Llme Treatment for subg.radc including placement as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer. complete in place per square SY yard. Provide Flexible 13ase inc\udmg plaa..-"tncnt as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, SY complete in place per square yard Furnish and lnstall lluckened Concrete Slab as shown on the drawings and directed by the: engineer, LF complete inplacc per Furnish and install Type S Curb Ramp as shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in EA place per ench. Furnish and lnstnll Type 7 Cw-b Ramp as shown on the dmwingJ nnd directed by the engifk!t."r, complete in EA p\ncept.'fcach. SF FWTiish and Install Scgmcn\11] Retainmg Wall including reinforcement for trail, ns shown on the dmwings nnd directed by the engineer, complete in place per swfnce square foot. Brazos Vallcv Services UNIT PRICE I TOTAL PRICE $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $500.00 125.500.00 $400.00 $6,800.00 1660.00 $2,640.00 $360.00 $720.00 St.000.00 1250.00 $200.00 $40000 $36,.310.00 SI0.00 $7,250.00 SI0.00 $25.340.00 $125.00 $16,625.00 128.00 $130,676.00 130.00 $31,500.00 $4.00 120.380.00 15.00 $5,775 00 115.00 $4.650.00 $25.00 Sl.62S.OO $750.00 $750 00 1500.00 12,500.00 $50.00 $1,9SO.OO City of College Station -Purchasing Division Bid Tabulation for #10-71 "Hike and Bike Trnil" Open Date: Thursday. July I, 201a@ 2:00 p.m. G. W. Williams, Inc. Dudlev Constnrction Ltd. Larrv Youn2 Pavin2 UNIT PRICE I TOTAL PRJCt: UNIT PRICE I TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE I TOTAL PRICE 19.000.00 19,000.00 $12,42000 $12,420_00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $9,000.00 $12,42000 $20,000.00 $798.00 $40,698 00 $19800 SI0,098.00 1380.00 119.38000 $136.80 $2.325.60 $101.00 Sl,717.00 $22500 $3,825.00 $684.00 $2,736.00 $688 83 $2,755.32 $66000 $2.640.00 $372.12 $744.24 $373 12 $746.24 $375.00 $750 00 $4,560 00 $1,140.00 $16,072.80 $4,018.20 $15,000.00 $3.750.00 $228.00 $456 ()() $28700 $574 00 1300.00 1600 00 S-'8,099.84 $19,908.76 $962 $6,974 50 $6 89 $4,995.25 18 50 $6,162.SO 113.68 $34,665.12 $13.78 $34.918.52 $13.50 $34,209.00 $117.42 S\5,616.86 $88.40 $11,757.20 $120.00 $15,960.00 S26.97 $125,868.99 $34.09 1159.098.03 12800 $130,676 00 $28.46 129,883.00 $39.84 $41,832.00 130.00 131,500.00 $6.98 SJS,563.10 $5.19 $26,443 OS $6.40 $32,608.00 $7.27 $8,3968S $5.57 $6,433.35 $7.25 $8,373.75 SI0.42 $3,230.20 $86 10 $26,691 00 $1700 $5,270.00 $44.04 $2,862.60 $26.49 Sl,721.85 $21.00 Sl,365.00 $777 46 $777.46 $51663 $51663 $825 00 $82S.OO $403.56 $2,017.80 $401 82 $2,009.10 $935 00 $4,675 ()() $2936 $1 ,145.04 $82.42 $3,214 38 $12000 $4,680.00 Kieschnic:k General Contractors Acklam Construction Co., Ltd. D.L Meacham LP UNIT PRICE I TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE I TOTAL PRICE UNITPRJC[ I T<JTAL PRIC£ $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $33,250.00 $33,250.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $15,000.00 $33,250.00 $35,000.00 1500.00 125,50000 $763.00 $38,913.00 $21000 $10.710.00 $200.00 $3,400.00 1200.00 Sl,400.00 $350.00 $5,950.00 $700.00 $2,800.00 $654.00 $2,616 00 $750.00 SJ,00000 $364 00 $728 00 $354 25 1708.50 $350 00 1700.00 16,000.00 Sl,500.00 SJ0,000.00 $2,500.00 $4,900.00 Si,225.00 $50000 Sl,000.00 $55000 $1,10000 $250.00 1500 00 $3-',928.00 S49,2J7.30 $22,083.00 $6.00 $4,350.00 $9 16 $6,641.00 $15000 $108,750.00 SJ0.00 $25,340.00 $1308 $33,14472 SJ0.50 $77,287.00 $120.00 $15.960.00 $18,620.00 $210.00 $27.93000 $32.00 $149,344.00 $40.00 $186,680.00 130.00 $140,010.00 $35.00 $36.750.00 $41.00 $43,050.00 $33.00 $34,650 00 $7.00 $35,665.00 $6.65 $33,881.75 $14.50 $73,877 50 $9.00 SI0,395.00 $6.93 SS.004 15 $\6.50 $19.057.50 $20.00 $6,200.00 $1000 13.10000 $28 00 18,680 00 $50.00 SJ.250.00 $40.00 $2,600.00 152.50 $3,412 so $1,50000 $1,500.00 150000 1500.00 $1,15000 $1,15000 $2.400.00 $12,000.00 $550.00 $2,75000 $95000 $4,75000 $100.00 $3,900.00 $75.00 $2,92S.OO $45.00 $1,75500 IT<M QTY 3.13 4.00 EROSION CONTROL 4.01 4.02 7,374 4.03 14 4.04 4.05 7 154 4.06 7.154 5.00 PAVEM.ENT MARKINGS 5.01 284 5.02 75 5.0J 280 5.04 60 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 75 5.09 409 5.10 81 5.11 5.12 5.13 292 514 75 UNIT DESCRIPTION Remove and Rclocnte Street Light u shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete in EA pince per ench SY Sublolal llem 3.00 Furnish and lrut.111 Tcmpornry Corutruc.•t1on Exit as sbown on the drawings and directed by the engineer. complete in place per each Furnish and Inst.all Temporary Sediment Control Fence as din:..ted by the engincc!I', complete in place LF locr linear foot. Furnish and Install Tree Protection as directed by the El\ engineer, oomplcle in place per cnch. Furnish a Stom1...,-atcr Pollution Protection Plan for U1c work to be performed as shmm in the drawings and LS directed by thc engineer. complete per each SY SY LF LF Furnish and lrutall Cell Fiber Mulch Secdmg (pcnnancnt seeding for urban clay areas) H directed by the engineer. complete in place per square yard. Furnish and lru:tall Soil Retention Blanket as directed by the engineer, complete in place per square yard. Su1Jtot11.I Hem 4.00 Elim.in11tc 4~ Solid Yellow Pa~ncnt Marking as directed by the engint .. 'Cr, complete in place per linear Eliminate 8~ Solid White Powmcnt Mnrking u directed by the engineer, complete in place per linear Elimin.nte 12" Solid White Pavement M.nrking as directed by the engineer, complete in pince per linear LF foot. Eliminnte 24" Solid White Pavement Marking as directed by the enginccr. complete in plnoc per lmcnr LF fool EA Eliminnle Arrow Solid White Pavement Mnrking ns directed by the engineer, complete in place per each. Eliminate Double Arrow Solid White Pavement Marking asdirected by the engineer. complete in pince El\ ocr each. Furnish nnd lnslllll Type I, 4" Solid Yellow Reflecti"e Pn\'\..'l!lcnt Marking (JOO MIL) ns directed byU1e LF cnRincer, oomnlete in Ince ocr linear foot. Furnish and Inst.nil Type I, r Solid White Reflective Pavement Marking (100 M[L) as directed by Uie LF L'llRinca-, comok1e in olace oer linear foot. Furnish and luslllll Type I, 12" Solid White Reflective Pavement Marking (100 MIL) as directed by U1c LF cop,inccr, complete in pince ncr linear foot. LF EA F./\ FlU11ish nnd Install Type I, 24" Solid White Reflecti\"c Pavement Mnrking (100 MIL) ns di~ted by U1c en inecr, com !etc in lace oer Jincnr foot. Furnish nnd lnstnll Type I, /\rrow Solid White Rcflccti\."e Pa"cmcnt Mnrking (100 MlL) n~ directed bv the cn12.incer, comoletc in olace ncr e<1ch. Furnish and lnstnll Type I, Double Arrow Solid White Reflective Pn\'emcnt Mnrking(IOO MIL) ns directod by the engineer, complete in place per each. Furnish and Install T)'pe II, 4" Solid Yellow Reflective Pavoncnt Marking as directed by the engint.'Cr, LF comolcte in lace ocr hnear fool Fwnish and Install Type II, 8" Solid White Rcflcctm~ Pavement Marking as Jirected by the engineer, LF comolete in lace ocr hnear foot. Brazos Valley Services City of College Stntion -Purclrnsing Division Bid Tabulation for #10-71 "Hike and Bike Trail" Open Dale: Thursday, July 1, 201-@2:00 p.111. G. W. Williams, Inc. Dudley Construclion Ltd. l..arni Yo11n2 Pavin2 Kieschnick General Contractors Acklam Conslmclion Co., Lid. D.L. Meacham LP UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE _TOTAL PRICE .UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE llNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE $6,600.00 $19,800.00 $6,840.00 $20,520.00 $6,888.34 $20665.02 S6 600.00 $19,800.00 S7000.00 $2\,000.00 $6,540.00 $19 620.00 S7,000 00 $21,000.00 $268.821.00 $287,521.52 $340 295.38 $296,!04.H SJ25 6S4.00 $361.516.62 $522.309.50 SJ5.00 S!,96000 $47 88 S2,68\ 28 $14 35 $803 60 SJ0.00 SJ,680.00 $14.00 $784.00 $25.00 Sl,400.00 $24.50 Sl,372 00 $3.00 $22,122.00 SI 66 $12,240.84 Sl.49 S\0.987.26 $1.40 $10.323.60 Sl.46 Sl0.766.04 $2.46 $18,140.04 $1.40 $10,323.60 $200.00 $2,800.00 $171.00 $2,394.00 $66.01 S924.14 $500.00 S7.000.00 S450.00 S6 300.00 $15000 S2 100.00 $20000 $2,800.00 150000 1500.00 S969 00 S969.00 $861 .04 S861 04 SJ 800.00 SJ,800.00 S750.00 $75000 Sl,50000 Sl,500.00 S2,50000 12 500.00 S0.50 SJ 577.00 S0.33 $2,360.82 S0.33 $2 360.82 S0.30 $2,146.20 S0.39 $2,790.06 $0.40 $2,861.60 SO.JO $2,146.20 $2.00 S\4,308.00 Sl.24 18,870.96 SI 24 $8 870.96 Sl.10 $7,869.40 Sl 34 $9 586.36 Sl.18 $8.441.72 S0.95 $6,796 30 545 267.00 519.516.90 $24.807.81 $32,819.20 SJO 976.46 $34 443.36 $15 938.10 $2.10 $596.40 $2.18 $619.12 $2 18 $619.12 S2.20 $624.80 $2.13 $604.92 $2.08 S590.72 $2.10 $596.40 S3.20 $240.00 SJ.32 S249.00 SJ.JJ $249.75 $3.30 $247.50 SJ.25 $243 75 SJ.17 S237.75 $3.05 $228.75 S4.40 Sl,232.00 $4.56 Sl.276.80 $4.59 Sl.285.20 $4.45 SJ.246.00 $4.48 Sl,2S4 40 $4 36 Sl,220.80 $4.20 SJ,17600 15.50 S330.00 $5.73 S343.80 S5.74 $344.40 S7.00 $42000 S5 60 S336.00 $5.45 $327.00 S5.25 $315.00 SI 1000 $220.00 SI 14.00 $228.00 SI 14.81 $229.62 SI 15.00 mo.oo SI 12.00 $224 00 $109.00 S218.00 $105.00 $210.00 Sl65.00 SJJ0.00 $171.00 S342.00 $172 21 $344.42 $165.00 $3JO.OO Sl6800 SJJ6.00 $163.50 sm.oo Sl60.00 SJ20.00 Sl.32 $385.44 Sl.37 $400.04 Sl.38 $402.96 Sl.34 $391.28 Sl.34 $391.28 Sl.31 $382.52 SI.JO S379.60 S2.40 $180.00 S2.47 $185.25 $2.48 $186.00 $2.42 $181.50 $2.42 $181.50 $2.36 $177.00 $2.30 $172.50 $4.00 Sl,636.00 $4.12 Sl,685.08 $4.13 SJ,689.17 $4.00 Sl,636.00 S403 Si,648 27 $3.93 Sl,607.J7 $3.50 Sl,431.50 S9.25 $749.25 $9.62 $779.22 $9.64 $780.84 S9.41 $762 21 $941 S762 21 S9 16 $741.96 S8.90 $720.90 S\65.00 S330.00 $171.00 $342.00 $168.83 $337.66 $170.00 $340.00 S168.00 $33600 S16J.50 $327.00 $160.00 $320 00 $231.00 S462.00 S239.40 S478 80 S241 09 S482.18 $245.00 $490.00 $235 20 $47040 $228.90 S457 80 $22000 $440.00 S0.61 Sl78.12 $063 S\83 96 S0.63 $183.96 S0.62 $181.04 S0.62 $181 04 S0.60 $175 20 $060 $175 20 SJ.45 $108.75 Sl.51 $113.25 Sl.52 Sl \4.00 11.50 $112.50 $1.48 Sii l.00 Sl.44 $10800 Sl.40 SI05 00 Brazos Valley Services City of College Stntion -Purchasing Division Bid Tabulnlion for HI0-7 l "Hike and Bike Tr·nil" 01>en Date: Thursday, July I, 201-@ 2:00 p.m. G. \V. \Villiams, Inc. Dudlev Cons1ruclion Ltd. Larrv Voun2 Pavim! Kieschnitk General Contratton Acklam Cons1ruc1ion Co., Ltd. D.L. Meacham LP 't:M "'-""-f---'0,._1,_'Y:..__+-"U"-'N"'J1'-' -+F::-·um_,,.;,"'h-,nd..,..,.-lm-w""n"'~"'~~o::C:;,~;:..'~::,2r:.:.'Soi"O;'~d"Wh""";t:-o,;:Ro~fl;--«-,,tive--j•""U"Nll .... TP...,.RIC~I~~ Tffr&' puir1.· UNIT PHIC_t; TOTALPRIC£ UNJT PRIC.E TOTAL PRICE UJ'lllT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE Tn-r PRICE UNJT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRIC!: TOTAL PRICE. ).15 409 5.16 81 5.17 5.18 00 TRAFFIC 601 235 6.02 6.0J 13 6,04 6.05 44 7 00 STORM SEWER 701 122 702 177 7.03 7.04 LF LF Pnvement Marking as directed by the engin«r, ·-" Fwnish and lnst111l Type U, 24" Solid White Reffocti\!e Pnvemcnt Marking its directed by the engineer, comnlcte in nlnce oer linear foot. FWTiish 1md lnstnll Type II, Arrow Solid White Rellccti\..: Pavement Mnd:ing as directed by the EA em1.ineer, com letc in lace rx:r ench. Fwnish nnd lnsll11l Type I, Double Arrow Solid White Renecti\IC Pnvenwnt Marking 111 directed by the EA emi.ineer, complete in vl11ce per e:ich. LF Subtolal Item 5.00 Fw11iid111nd lnsl.Zltl Nwnbcr 2 Base Elcctricnl Conductor 11s shown oo the drawings nnd directed by the engineer, complete in pince per linear foot. Furnish 11nd Install Pedcstrinn Push Buttom 11 1hown on the dniwingii 11nd directed by the cngmeer, EA complete in pince per e.1ch Furnish and Install Traffic Signs ns shown on the drawings 11nd directed by the engineer, complete in EA 1_,n ___ 1t"h Provide Traffic Control mcluding l11bor 11nd m.iterinls as directed by the engineer, complete in place per MO month Fwnish and Install I" Conduit llS shown on the drowingt and directocl by the engineer, complete in LF · , ......,. Jin .. ftr roo SublUl~l llem 6.00 Furnish nnd Install 18• Clnss Ill RCP as shown on the t.F drawings nnd directed by the engineer, complete in Fwn1sh and lnstall 24• Class Ill RC!' H shom1 on the LF drawings and directed by the engineer, complete m Furnish 11nd lnstull IS-Type II Sofiey End Trcounent as shown in lhe drawings and directed by the engineo.-r. EA complete in place FWTiish and lnsUlll 24• Type II Snfiey End Treatment us shown in the drawings 11nd directed by the engint.'t."I", EA complete in pince Sublolal Item 7.00 Sum of lle11u J.00, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00, 5.00, 6.00, & 7.()0 ALTERNATE urn ITEMS TABLE Alternate No. I -Sldcw.11lk from Lon!!mlrc Drive lo TcIH Avenue A·I 10 A·2 A·J 858 A-4 860 A·5 901 A-6 908 A-7 A-8 1,%7 A-9 1,967 l'ln.-pare ROW for I.he hike nnd bike path mcluding exca\'ution nnd hnul off spoil mnterinl ns shown on the drawings and directed by the engineer, complete STA loer Station CY Excnvnte Areas us showTI oo the plans and directed by the engineer. Remove mnterinls encountered to lhe lines, nnd typical sections sho\'Tl oo the pl11ns and cross-sections, complete in place per cubic ynrd Furnish and Install Topsoil mcludm8 plncemt."llt and grading 11s directed by the engmccr, complete in pince CY 1 ....... ,..,h,,.,.,.M Fwnish and lnst11ll 5• Sidt.-w11lk including all embcdment, finishing, swface texture nnd joinlll ns shown on the dr11wings and direc1ed by the engineer, SY ..... ....i Provide 6. depth of f'lexible Bnse including plnct.'ffient nJI shown on the drawings 11nd directed by the SY engineer, complete in pince per square y11rd. Furnish and Install T1..mpomry Sediment Control Fence as directed by the cngmcer, complete in place l.F lr'l<'rlinf'nrfoot. Furnish and Install Tree Protection as directed by lhc EA enninccr com lele in Ince ......,. each. SY SY Furnish and Install Cell Fiber Mulch Seeding (pc..-nnanent seeding for urban clay arens) as directed by the engineer, comp!l.1.c in place per squnre yard. Furnish and Install Soil Rentcnt1ot1 Dlnnkct as direct«! by the engineer, coo1plcte in pince per square )'Drd Provide Tmflic Control including labor and materials as din:cted by lhe engineer, complete in pince per month $1.85 $156.65 $1.89 S77301 $1.89 $600 $486.00 $6.30 $510.30 $6.JI $10000 S20000 S94.46 S188.92 $94 71 Sl60.00 S320.00 $157.44 $314.88 $157.86 S9,0U.H S2.75 S64625 $2.86 $672.10 $2.87 $825.00 $3,300.00 $855.00 $3,420.00 S861.04 $385.00 S5.005.00 $399.00 $5,187.00 S40\.82 SJ,000.00 S9.000.00 S2,280.00 $6,840,00 $2.694.49 $31 00 Sl,364.00 $31.92 Sl,404.48 S32.15 $19,315.25 $17,523.58 SS-000 $6.100 00 S56.JJ $6,872.26 SS0.91 $75.00 $13,27500 $63 20 $11,18640 $61.82 Sl.000.00 $4,00000 Sl.299 60 $5,19840 $910.26 St.000.00 $4,000.00 $1.573.20 $6.292.80 Sl.191.27 $27,375.00 $29,.549.86 S423,tU8.86 5"30,225.13 S500.00 S5.000.00 Sl,91500 S19,!5000 $146.95 S25.00 S\5000 $16.49 $98.94 $6.89 $10.00 S8,58000 SIJ.68 SI 1,737.44 S13.78 S28.00 $24.080.00 $27.31 $23,486.60 $33.58 $15.00 $13.515.00 $1042 $9,388.42 $861 SJ 00 $2,724.00 Sl.66 Sl,507.28 $1.49 $250.00 S750.00 $171.00 $513 00 $86.10 $0.50 $983.50 S0.33 $649.11 SO.JJ $2.00 $3,934.00 $1.24 $2,439.08 $1.19 .U.000.00 SJ.00000 S2,280.00 S2.280.00 SJ.435.07 $773.01 $1.85 S756.65 Sl.85 $75665 SI 80 $736.20 $1.75 $715.75 $511.11 S6.05 $49005 S6.16 S498.96 $6.00 $486.00 $5.78 $468.18 $18942 $90.75 $181.SO $92.40 Sl84 80 S89.9J St79.86 $87.00 $174.00 S315.72 $150.00 SJOOOO $154.00 $308.00 $149.88 S299.76 $144.00 $288.00 $9,038.5 .. SS,921.03 $8,829.18 $8.599.9 .. $8,236.78 $674.45 $2.75 $646.25 SJ.00 $105.00 $2.73 $641.55 SJ.00 $105 00 S3,444.16 $825.00 SJ.JOOOO S900.00 SJ.600.00 $817 50 SJ.27000 S800.00 $3,200.00 $5,223.66 S400.00 S5.200.00 $392.00 $5,096.00 $380.00 $4,940.00 S500.00 $6,500.00 $8,083.47 S8,000.00 SH.000.00 S2.00000 $6,000.00 S5,00000 $15,000.00 $3,500.00 $10,500.00 $1,414 60 SJ0.80 SJ,355.20 $33.00 $1,452.00 $30.52 Sl,342 88 $32.00 $1.408.00 SJ4,~0l.45 $16,853.00 $25,194.43 $22,313.00 $6,211.02 $55.00 $6,710.00 $50.00 $6,100.00 $83.93 $10,239.46 $63.00 $7,686.00 $10,942 14 $67.00 SI 1,85900 S60.00 $10,620.00 $87.20 $15,434 40 $77.00 $13,62900 $364104 $1,70000 $6 80000 $\,500.00 $6,00000 $790 25 $3.161.00 Sl,050.00 S4,20000 $4,765.08 S2,250.00 $9,000.00 $1,700.00 $6,800.00 $1,362.50 $5,450.00 Sl,250.00 S5,000.00 $25.559.28 $34,369.00 $29,520.00 534,284.86 S30,515.00 s .. 50,s10.12 $457,659.93 $461,760.64 S5,.6 .. ~26.71 $666,397.38 SJ,46950 SJ80.00 $3,800.00 S50000 S5.00000 $1,831 20 $18,31200 $21000 $2,100 00 $41.34 SJ0.00 $6000 $20.00 $120.00 $15 70 $94.20 $\20.00 $720.00 SI 1,823 24 S14 ()() $12,012.00 $10.00 S8,580.00 $13 08 $11.222 64 S30.50 $26,169.00 $28,878 so $2800 S24.080.00 SJ200 $27.520.00 $4000 $34,40000 $3000 $25,800.00 $7,757.61 $17.00 S\5.31700 S20.00 Si8,020.00 $10.00 $9.010.00 $33.00 $29.733.00 $1,352 92 Sl.40 Sl.271 20 Sl.46 Sl,325 68 $2 46 $2,233 68 Si.40 $1,271.20 $258.30 $500.00 Sl.500.00 S64.40 $193.20 $15000 $45000 S200.00 S600.00 $649.11 SO.JO $590.10 SO.J9 $767.13 S0.40 $786.80 $0.30 S590.IO $2.34073 SI.JO S2,163.70 Sl.34 $2,635.78 $1.18 $2,321.06 S0.95 Sl,86865 Sl,435.07 16.000.00 $6.000.00 S2.000.00 $2,000.00 $20,000.00 S20.000.00 SJ.500.00 SJ.500.00 ITEM QTY /HI A-12 A·\J A·\4 A-15 Ceor1irk11;tlon or Bid Acknowlctl cd Atldcntlum'I l2\ Old Bond UNIT DESCRIPTION Furnish and lruiLDll 10' Type 2 Curb Inlet 11s shown 011 the drawings and as dm:ctcd by lhc engineer, complete flA in -1-------!.. Fumish nnd lnsLDll 15" Class Ill RCPas shown on lhe dmwings nnd directed by the t.-nginccr, complete in LF ~1~-ner 1;--~-foot Furnish and lruitall 15" Type II Saf\ey End Trcntmcnt as shown in the drawings and directed by the cngmcer, complete in ploce EA •v..-cach Fmnish and Install Type Curb 1md Gutter u ~hown in the drawings and directed by the engineer, eomp\c\e in place per LF r~• EA Raise Existing Street Light to match propsed grndes as shown in drawings and directed by engineer, complete Sullto111JAltcn111;leNo. I To!MI UM.M: Bid and Altcr11alu Brazos Valley Services Cily of College Sta lion -Purchasing Division Bid Tabulalion for HJ0-71 "Hike and Bike Trail" 01>cn Oal'e: Thursday, July I, 201-@ 2:00 p.m. G. W. Williams, Inc. Dudlev Construction Ltd. Larry Y 011112 Pavin2 Kieschnick General Contractors Acklarn Construction Co., Ltd. D.l... Meacham LP UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTA~ PRICE UNI'. PRICE TOTAL PRIC& Ui'llT PRICE JOTAL PRICE Ur<JT oo•r•· TOTAL PRICE 'N'"' PRICE TOTAL PRICE $4,00000 $12000.00 $2,528.52 $7,585.56 $5,740.29 $17 220.87 $2.750.00 $8.250.00 $4,000.00 $12,000.00 $5.232.00 $15.696.00 $4,500.00 $13 500.00 $40.00 $3,680.00 $47.69 $4 387.48 $34.91 S3 211 72 $5500 $5,060.00 $5000 14,600.00 $78.48 $7,220.16 $58.00 $5,336.00 $75000 $2,250.00 $1,187.88 $3 563.64 $678.19 $2,034.57 SI 700.00 $5,10000 $1,50000 $4,500.00 $654.00 $1,962.00 $950.00 $2,850.00 $1800 $15,480.00 $12.46 $10,715.60 $17.79 $15,299.40 $20.00 $17.200.00 $15.00 $12,900.00 $17.00 $14.620.00 $30.00 $25,80000 S7.000 00 $14,000.00 $7.182.00 $14.364.00 $7.232.76 $14,465.52 $7,000.00 $14 00000 $7 300.00 $14 600.00 $6,867.00 $13.73400 $7,200.00 $1440000 Sll0,126.~0 SllJ,866.15 SIOS,238.70 SI 16 404.00 SI 14 761.79 $152,062.54 St.s.4,237.95 ---·3~J.9~~-J{, SS-'2,091.28 S559 108.82 S574,063.93 S576-'U2.4J S698-'i89.25 5820,635.JJ \ ,/' I ,/' ,/' ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,/' ,/' ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,/' ,, ,/' ,/' ,/'