Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBike Loop Project DevelopmentCOLL G STATION BIK p IPJr<0>j~e'lr N0>mnil1(8l~U(Q)iOl 1@r Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION \ _.J ~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BIKEW A Y MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION SCALE 5,000 10,000 (FEET) Legend: -Bike Path -Bike Route -Bike Lane -Bikeway Needed ml Park ..&. School Mop prepared by Planning Division -Rev. Oct. 1993 '''" Posl Oo k Mall \ lf!f/ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program Legend: Bike Path Bike La ne Bike Route M°i?'#!ir<f.Wil Bikeway Ma ster Pl . 0 New Bridge a Box Culvert Crossing m City Park .A School A Apartment/Multi-Fam SCALE 3,000 I I I I I I (FEET) Mop prepared by Planning QM,lon -Oct. 199.3 ~·· (CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station. Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 Memorandum March 22, 1993 To: By: Veronica Morgan, Engineering ~ Edwin H~rd, Planning Mark Smith, Public Services Pebble Creek Engineering File Brett Mccully Subject: Bike Path Structural Details After consulting with Cindy Estakhri of the Texas Transportation Institute at A&M and Mark Smith of Public Services, I would suggest the following detail requirements for the City's Bike Paths. A section identical to the City's sidewalk requirement of 4 inches of Portland Cement Concrete over 2 inches of sand should be used in the following areas. A. Vehicular crossings of the bike paths including all driveways, alleys and maintenance roads. B. Areas where drainage flows are expected to cross the bike path rather than pass under the path within drainage conduits, such as low water crossings. C. Ramp areas where the path typical section is modified to provide for a street crossing or other such non- typical applications. A section composed of 1 1/2 inches (minimum) of Asphaltic Concrete over 4 inches (minimum) of flexible base should be allowed in all other areas. Consideration should also be given to the requirement of subgrade sterilization for this option in certain areas and/or applications. It may also be to the City's advantage to require that the paths be entirely PCC with the exception of those areas approved in advance by the City's Engineering and Public Services staff Should any questions arise, please contact me at ext. 761 ··suilding a Better City in Partnership with You· STANDARD BIKE PATH DETAILS ROADWAY .------ 5' MIN . BIKE PATH (WIDTH AS REQUIRED) EDGE OF STREET-----. ROW ---2% CROSSFALL '""""'-----2' MIN . GRADED COMPACTED BACKFILL NO OBSTACLES ALLOWED . BIKE PATH WITHIN STREET RIGHT OF WAY DRAINAGE SWALE TO OUTLET 2' MIN. GRADED COMPACTED BACKFILL ....-::---NO OBSTACLES ALLOWED. 5' MIN. 2% CROSSFALL LBIKE PATH (WIDTH AS REQUIRED) PARKLAND RIGHT OF WAY 5' MIN . BIKE PATH WITHIN PARK OR GREENBELT STANDARD BIKE PATH DETAILS #6 WIRE MESH OR 3/8" 0 BARS AT 12" CENTERS STANDARD SECTION DRIVEWAY SECTION ~ WOOD FINISH CONCRETE BIKE PATH CROSS SECTION NOTE: EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION JOINTS TO BE CONSTRU CTED PER STANDARD CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAILS HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE 10% MAX PREPARED SU BG RADE ASPHALT BIKE PATH CROSS SECTION NOTE: CONCRETE SECTION TO BE USED AT ALL VEHICULAR CROSSINGS, LOW FLOW WATER CROSSINGS, STREET ACCESS RAMPS , AND ALL TRANSITION STRUCTURES. ASPHALT SECTION MAY BE USED IN REMAINDER OF PATH PENDING Cl1Y REVIEW. STANDARD BI KE PATH DETAILS #6 WIRE MESH OR 3/8"0 BARS AT 12"CENTERS STANDARD SECTION DRIVEWAY SECTION ~ FINI SH CO NCRETE BIKE PATH CROSS SECTION NOTE: EXPANSI ON AND CONTRACTI ON JOINTS TO BE CONSTRU CTED PER STANDARD CONCR ETE SIDEWALK DETAIL S HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE /'.:/'.: • ?>; ?>; ?>; 4'' MIN. FLE XIBLE BASE PREPARED SUBGRAD E ASPHALT BIKE PATH CROSS SECTION NOTE: CONCRETE SECTION TO BE USED AT ALL VEH ICULAR CROSSINGS, LOW FLOW WATER CROSSINGS, STREET ACC ESS RA MP S, AND ALL TRA NSITION STRUCTURE S. ASP HALT SECTI ON MAY BE US ED IN REMAINDER OF PATH PENDING CITY REVIEW. STANDARD BIKE PATH DETAILS ROADWAY ~- 5' MIN . BIKE PATH (WIDTH AS REQUIRED) EDGE OF STREET---~ ROW ---2% CROSSFALL """""-----2' MIN . GRADED COMPACTED BACKFILL NO OBSTACLES ALLOWED . BIKE PATH WITHIN STREET RIGHT OF WAY DRAINAGE SWALE TO OUTLET 2' MIN. GRADED COMPACTED BACKFILL =---NO OBSTACLES ALLOWED. 5' MIN. ---2% CROSSFALL LBIKE PATH (WIDTH AS REQU IRED) PARKLAND RIGHT OF WAY 5' MIN . BIKE PATH WITHIN PARK OR GREENBELT * .. --'\ t t:-'"~ ~ ~ r c\k i·;··--. f\ \-: .. r.•· I Texas Department of Transportation PO. BOX 3249 •BRYAN. TEXAS 77805-3249 • (409) 778-2165 June 15,1994 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Programs Mr. Edwin Hard City of College Station P. 0. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Dear Mr Hard: rJ~/};~, FYI, &.L A,pLL &--JJ T /~ ~ VV1<--ef ~01-f f&rs £l; f/'k~. rJ w~,) ~~~~~ ~ 7~! h,~ ~ 1=r-E-w---e- Congratulations on the selection of the College Station Bike Loop Project for funding under the Transportation Enhancement Program. The Bryan District of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is currently processing all selected projects under our jurisdiction for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program and for subsequent construction letting. This procedure will be a cooperative effort between the project sponsor and TxDOT. An agreement will b e prepared and executed by both parties to formalize this procedure. In the interim you will be contacted by Mr. Bob Appleton, P.E., ~·s · · sportation Enhancement Co ordinator. We must turn in estimate when y our project could be developed to the point of e·t ing or construction. This information is due in Austin by July l, 1994. Thank you in advance for your help as we work together to bring these projects to fruition. If you have any questions please contact Mr. Appleton at (409)778 -9707. Sincerely, Phillip E. Russell, P.E. Bryan Director of Transportation Planning and Development An Equal Opporrunitv Emptover AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET ITEM SUBMITTED BY: Ed Hard, Transportation Planner FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF: ,// October;, 1Y) /) DIRECTOR APPROVAL' ~ ~ EXECUTIVE TEAM MEMBER APPROVAL' ~~ ITEM : Consideration of Resolutions submitting the College Station Bike Loop and the Bryan-College Station Bike Map as nominations for the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program to compete for federal money available for building bikeways. ITEM SUMMARY : The larger of the two projects is the College Station Bike Loop. It is a combination of bikeways approximately seven miles in length made up of bike paths, lanes, and routes. It provides connection and access between Texas A&M, numerous apartments and neighborhoods, the Mall, eight city parks, and the Amtrak Station. Key features for project continuity and safety include seven new bridges for creek crossings and bike path crossings under Texas Avenue, SW Parkway, and Harvey Road. The project involves a small amount of land acquisition and has a three year completion requirement. The second project is the development of a Bryan-College Station Bike Map. The map is not a bikeway plan , but a map rating the suitability and safety of streets for bicycle travel. It is intended to aid bicyclists in finding their way safely through the Bryan-College Station area. The map will be jointly sponsored by the Cities of Bryan and College Station with volunteered assistance from the Texas Bicycle Coalition. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS·: Staff recommends approval of both bikeway projects. FINANCIAL SUMMARY : The commitment of funds from the city for the Bike Loop project would be up to $270,000 over a three year period (Nov. 1994 -Oct. 1997). If the project is selected, this commitment would bring in approximately $1 , 100,000 in matching federal monies. The local funds could be included in the annual general operating budget for FY95-97 or certificates of obligation could be used. Once constructed, the estimated annual operating and maintenance costs will be approximately $125,000 per year. Should the Council choose to include this as a part of the general operating budget, it would result in a tax rate increase of abo';Jt 1 cent. In order for this project to be eligible for federal funds, the Bikeway Master Plan must be approved. The local match commitment for the bike map project is estimated at $6, 1 00. This cost will be split between the Cities of Bryan and College Station. The Bryan City Council approved their portion of the match at their October 19th Council Meeting. CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATIONS: NA COUNCIL ACTION DESIRED : Approval of resolutions submitting the College Station Bike Loop Project and the Bryan-College Station Bike Map Project as nominations for the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program and committing the City of College Station to provide a 20 percent local match for the Bike Loop project and a 1 o percent local match for the Bike Map project. SUPPORTING MATERIAL : 1. College Station Bike Loop Resolution. 2. Bryan-College Station Bike Map Resolution. RESOLlITION NO. __ _ WHEREAS, The City of College Station is committed to improving lhe quality of life thorough the development of the "College Station Bike Loop" which will provide approximately seven (7) miles of new bikeways in College Station; WHEREAS, the College Station Bike Loop is in keeping with the Council Issue of a Bicycle Friendly Community and in accordance with the College Station Bikeway Master Plan; WHEREAS, The College Station Bike Loop will encourage and promote bicycling in the city; WHEREAS, Some of the benefits to bicycling include improvement in individual health and fitness, a reduction in motor vehicle traffic, a reduction in air and noise pollution, increased transportation opportunities for those without motor vehicles, and an enhanced sense of neighborhood and community through increased personal interaction between bicyclists and others; WHEREAS, The Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program is a proactive community _enhancement program that provides funding for a broad range of transportation-related activities including bicycle and pedestrian activities; WHEREAS, The Statewide Transportation Enhancement program is a cost-reimbursable prograni whereby funds are eligible for reimbursement of up to eighty (80) percent of the tolal project cost; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. That the mayo~ is hereby authorized to sign the project nomination form of the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program for the development of the "College Station Bike Loop"; II. That the City Council commits a local match of Twenty (20) Percent or the allowable costs identified in the program; and, III. That this Resolution shall be effective illllllediately upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 28th day of Oclober, 1993. ATTEST: ADOPTED: Connie Hooks Mayor Larry Ringer WHEREAS, The City of College Station is co mmitted to improving the quality of li fe thorough the development of a "Bikeway Map" which will rate the suitability of Bryan-College Station streets for bicycling; WHEREAS, The map is in keeping with the Council Issue of a Bicyde Friendly Community and will encourage and promote bicycling in the city; WHEREAS, Some of the benefits to bicycling include improvement in individual health and fitness, a reduction in moto r vehicle traffic, a reduction in air and noise pollution, and increased transportation opportunities for those without motor vehicles; WHEREAS, The Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program is a proactive community enhancement program that provides funding for a broad range of transportation-related activities including bicycle and ~~.r ? '.: ... pedestrian activities; l~ .. WHEREAS, The Statewide Transportation Enhancement program is a cost-reimbursable program whereby ~~.·;!1:;:: funds a re· eligible for reimbursement of up to eighty (80) percent of the tota I project cost; ;~--t''·~ rw~;;;, ~~ ~!. WHEREAS, This project depends on a seeond match from the City of Brya n of ten (10) percent of the total --· .. , project cost and the volunteered assistance' of the Texas Bicycle Coalition to conduct all necessary field work. ·t :.:,11,;1:::: NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED: ·~.· :e0,U· .. ..-":.>.: I. ~1>'~.~~;1:::: That the mayor is hereby authorized to sign the project nomination forn1 of the Statewide Transportation t@>,i Enhancement Program for the development of the "Bryan-College Station Bikeway Map"; · -.-. · ,. ·-~ II. ·1~l\ That the City Council commits a loca l match of Ten (10) Percent of thl' allowable costs identified in the program, and; III. That this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 28th day of October, 1993. ATTEST: ADOPTED: Connie Hooks Mayor L1rry Ringer [!] Regular Item D Consent Item D Statutory Item Item Submitted By: For Council Meeting Of: Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Ed Hard, Transportation Planner May 22, 1997, Workshop Meeting Item: Discussion and update on the College Station Bike Loop Project and consideration of preliminary plan and property acquisition, Item Summary: This project is in the preliminary engineering design phase, The objective of this phase is to evaluate alternative route locations to determine the safest and most cost-effective alignment of the bike loop system prior to proceeding with final design, Preliminary engineering and cost estimates indicate that certain sections and features included in the original bike loop concept may not be workable, The City is under contract with Klotz & Associates for engineering design of this project Their project manager, Mr, Tom Ramsey, will present the bike loop's preliminary layout and discuss its key areas and issues, Staff and the consultant will identify areas for possible easement or right-of-way acquisition and discuss conflicts between bike lanes and on-street parking that will need to addressed prior to proceeding with final design, A proposed amendment to the contract for this project between the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) and City will also be discussed, Policy Issue Statement: #1 Transportation/Mobility, Citizens benefit from the ability to move into, within, and out of College Station in a safe and efficient manner, #3 Health and Public Safety, Citizens benefit from available health and human services and a reasonably safe and secure environment Item Background: The College Station Bike Loop Project is a joint project between the City of College Station and the Texas Department of Transportation, The project was selected for funding in April of 1994 under the Texas Statewide Transportation Enhancements Program, The enhancements program is part of the lntermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991 better known as ISTEA The City of College Station and the TXDOT are under agreement for the development and construction of the bike loop, Budgetary and Financial Summary: The estimated cost of the bike loop is $1.348 million. The project is funded through an 80/20 "enhancements" program administered by the TXDOT. The City committed to its 20 percent local share of $269,900 in 1993 and was awarded the 80 percent federal portion of $1,0780,000 the following year. Staff Recommendation: Staff has worked closely with the consultant on the preliminary alignment of the bike loop and recommends we move forward with this layout and the associated easement or right-of-way acquisition. City Attorney Recommendations/Comments: The City Attorney's office is working with staff and the consultant on easement acquisition. Council Action Options: No formal action is required . Staff is seeking general Council direction on the preliminary layout and, most importantly, the easement or right-of-way acquisition. If Council has no problem with this, staff will notify property owners and move forward with :easement property acquisition. Staff is also seeking general Council direction on the conflict between bike lanes and on-street parking . Supporting Materials: 1.) Illustration Showing Preliminary Layout of the Bike Loop O: DEV-SER\CVSHnbkloop. doc .. COLLEGE STATION P. 0 . Box 9960 June 1, 1998 Mr. Buck Henderson Director of Facilities Management The Association of Former Students P.O. Box 7368 College Station, TX 77844-7368 Dear Mr. Henderson: 1101 Texas Avenue Tel: 409 764 3500 College Station, TX 77842 Thank you for your letter of May 13th regarding the proposed bike lanes on George Bush Drive. I certainly understand and appreciate your concerns. Your point about motorists moving over in the outside lane to form in effect a right-tum lane is well taken. Part of the reason they do this is because the outside lane is overly wide which creates an area of undefined roadway space against the curb. The installation of the bike lane will narrow the outside lane width and better define the vehicular travel lanes through this area. The narrowed lane width will make it less conducive for motorists to make two lanes out of one. As you know, your concerns were forwarded to our design consultant on this project, Klotz Associates of Houston. {YVe have since also forwarded them a copy of your letter). We have ·asked them to give special attention on this section of the Bush design to ensure that the bike lane will be signed, striped, and marked to make it very apparent to motorists that it is a bike lane and that it is not to be used for vehicular travel. In addition to speaking with Klotz, we have also discussed your concerns with local traffic engineering consultant Dr. Joseph Blaschke. He is supportive of the installation of the bike lanes and agreed that the bike lane striping would better define the limit of the outside vehicular lane. The new bike lanes on Bush will not allow two way bike traffic. In fact, the primary reason the City is re-doing the lanes on Bush is to do away with the two way bike lanes on just one side of the road. This layout is out-dated and no longer considered an acceptable design. The new bike lanes proposed for Bush will be one-way in the direction of traffic and located on both sides of the road. This layout will bring the bike lanes up to the current design standard, make it safer to bicyclists, and reduce liability to the City. It is my understanding that the Texas Department of Transportation plans to do a pavement overlay or a rehabilitation project on Bush within the next few years (I am not sure of exactly when.) I apologize if I left you with the impression that I was going to set up a meeting with the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) to discuss the bike lane design. What I was trying to communicate is that I would be meeting with them at Home of Texas A&M University Henderson, Page 2 some point in the future to discuss the new striping plan as part of their overlay project. The concern you have raised could be better addressed with the roadway being restriped in its entirety. Thank you again for your letter and please do not hesitate to call me at 764-3570 or Mr. Brett McCully in our Public Works Department at 764-3690 if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, ~ Edwin Hard, AICP Transportation Planner cc: Mark Smith P.E., Director of Public Works Brett McCully P.E., Asst. City Engineer Richard L. Patrick P.E., Klotz Associates, Inc. .. ---·-- 4-11 -1997 11:25AM FROM KLOTZ ASSOCIATES. INC 713 589 7309 KLOTZ ASSOCIATES., JNC. CONSULTING ENGl~EERS PROJECT No·--~------­ TO: Ed H~.,.J C ' f'J o f Co/)~ c Shi-i-10~ DATE:_4 /u L92 ' 141001 --------· --- P. 1 I 155 Doiry Ashford Suite 705 Hou:ton. Te~as 77079 (281} 589-7257 1281 J 599·7309 Fo:.: FAANo.: 4:,01-76~-3E?J NUMBER OF PAGES ___ (Including this page) MESSAGE: --~l~D_J~~asc le~+-~.m......_e_~K.~~~e~~v~~~'~f'--..±.-...~~e=r.~c......-a_~~e_u-...c..<4~~~P~+~~~c-c--"1~~~f=K'.--&..-·--"'w~(---~ ~,J -Ip _ v tiJ.ll"rn r;c io lrJ k fl O . il.l o ,,.. 4n':} e fl,,.,.. IJ rue. 7J.u,n J(s G ..,J J fJ,m K I b, vc 4 na fbe,,-5 .J-,,et!:+ +o f1 JJ -fb ±lie b1Kc fqo(J. {a.sK i/ereo1c,;) I If Transmission Is Not Com lete, P~ase Call 281) 589-7257 ~-~......_--'-~--~~-----~----' Buck Henderson '62 Director of Facilities Management THE ASSOCIATION OF FORMER STUDENTS P.O. Box 7368 •College Station, Texas 77844-7368 • (409) 845-7514 May 13, 1998 Mr. Edwin Hard Traffic Planner 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 Dear Mr. Hard, I appreciate your returning my phone call in reference to our earlier discussion about the proposed bike lane for George Bush Drive. I am sorry I was not available and have tried to reach you yesterday and today , but you were not available. Your message, yesterday, stated that my comments had been forwarded to a consulting agency and you would make sure we received a copy of their study. After our original phone call, I was under the impression you were going to set up a meeting with a representative from the Texas Department of Transportation to discuss our concerns about the safety of not only bikes, but also the vehicle traffic turning into The Association of Former Students' parking lot. The concern for bike safety is understood and appreciated, but after your phone message yesterday, I thought it would be best to outline my original concerns in writing. Vehicles going in the direction of Wellborn Road have to turn right to enter our parking lot. It has been my observation that many motorists think vehicles signaling to turn right into our lot actually plan to turn on Houston Street which is just past The Association building. Also, most people who now turn into our lot move over to the right out of the two active lanes. With a bike lane added, the main concern here is people being hit in the rear especially from vehicles turning off Coke Street. In most cases , these people will be looking back to their left at the oncoming traffic on Bush Drive and will have less than 280 feet before reaching any car or cars stopped for bikes prior to entering our parking lot. The other concern in reference to bike safety is about vehicles going towards Texas A venue that turn into our lot. Those cars have a turn lane in the center, but it will be hard to see bicycles going in the same direction if your plans allow for two way traffic in the bike lane. I am not sure if this is in your proposal or you plan to have bike lanes on both sides of George Bush Drive. ' ...... You did mention in your phone message that you had talked to Tom Williams and he supports the bike lane. I have not discussed this matter with him as we are not part of Texas A&M University, and I thought I should provide our concerns directly to the city of College Station. I would recommend that your consulting firm observe our concerns , especially about 7:45 to 8:00 a.m. during a normal school day at Texas A&M University . Thank you for your assistance on this matter, and please let me know if I may provide additional information or assistance . Sincerely, ~t-JI~ Buck Henderson Director of Facilities cc: Randy Matson Ron Spies COLLEGE STATION P. 0 . Box 9960 June 1, 1998 Mr. Buck Henderson Director of Facilities Management The Association of Former Students P.O. Box 7368 College Station, TX 77844-7368 Dear Mr. Henderson: 1101 Texas Avenue Tel: 409 764 3500 College Station, TX 77842 Thank you for your letter of May 13th regarding the proposed bike lanes on George Bush Drive. I certainly understand and appreciate your concerns. Your point about motorists moving over in the outside lane to form in effect a right-tum lane is well taken. Part of the reason th ey do this is because the outside lane is overly wide which creates an area of undefined roadway space against the curb . The installation of the bike lane will narrow the outside lane width and better define the vehi<?ular travel lanes through this area. The narrowed lane width will make it less conducive for motorists to make two lanes out of one. As you know, your concerns were forwarded to our design consultant on this project, Klotz Associates of Houston. CNe have since also forwarded them a copy of your letter). We have ·asked them to give special attention on this section of the Bush design to ensure that the bike lane will be signed, striped, and marked to make it very apparent to motorists that it is a bike lane and that it is not to be used for vehicular travel. In addition to speaking with Klotz, we have also discussed your concerns with local traffic engineering consultant Dr. Joseph Blaschke. He is supportive of the installation of the bike lanes and agreed that the bike lane striping would better define the limit of the outside vehicular lane. The new bike lanes on Bush will not allow two way bike traffic. In fact, the primary reason the City is re-doing the lanes on Bush is to do away with the two way bike lanes on just one side of the road. This layout is out-dated cmd no longer considered an acceptable design. The new bike lanes proposed for Bush will be one-way in the direction of traffic and located on both sides of the road. This layout will bring the bike lanes up to the current design standard, make it safer to bicyclists, and reduce liability to the City. It is my understanding that the Texas Department of Transportation plans to do a pavement overlay or a rehabilitation project on Bush within the next few years (I am not sure of exactly when.) I apologize if I left you with the impression that I was going to set up a meeting with the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) to discuss the bike lane design. What I was trying to communicate is that I would be meeting with them at Home of Texas A&M University Henderson, Page 2 some point in the future to discuss the new striping plan as part of their overlay project. The concern you have raised could be better addressed with the roadway being restriped in its entirety. Thank you again for your letter and please do not hesitate to call me at 764-3570 or Mr. Brett McCully in our Public Works Department at 764-3690 if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, ~ Edwin Hard, AICP Transportation Planner cc: Mark Smith P.E., Director of Public Works Brett McCully P.E., Asst. City Engineer Richard L. Patrick P.E., Klotz Associates, Inc. d-04-1997 d :52PM FROM KLOTZ ASSOCIATES. INC 713 589 7309 KLOTZ ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSU LT I NG ENGI NEERS April 4, 1997 Ms. Veronica Morgan, P .E. Assistant City Engineer City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 Dear Veronica: 11 !i!i Dairy A:;hbrJ Sui10 7C5 Housron, foxo~ 77079 125 1) 589·7257 128 1) .589·7309 Fox koinc:@in.;ync.m1t Klotz Associates proposes to finalize the set of specification. documents for George Bush Drive striping from High,,...-ay 6 to Wellbum Road (FM 2154). These bid documents will be completed and submitted for your review and TxDOT approval since this will be a part of the bike loop. We anticipate that these bid specifications will be completed for $8,500.00 and we believe a schedule of 3 weeks will be sufficient. Please advise me ifl may proceed with these documents and let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~':s.~~ Vice President TSR:dmm P. '2 ('6·~ r CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station. Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO : THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE: Skip Noe, City Manager Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services Ed Hard, Transportation Planner/ctll-- September 6, 1996 Status of Bike Loop Project The City and the TXDOT are under agreement for the development and construction of the Bike Loop Project. The City is responsible for project development activities and the TXDOT is responsible for project administration and construction. Requests for Statements of Interests and Qualifications (RFQ's) for the development and engineering design of the bike loop were sent out on June 19, 1996. The deadline for their submittal was a month later, July 19. The City received fourteen Statements of Qualifications from firms throughout the State. In August, staff from Planning, Engineering, and Parks reviewed and ranked all submittals. Many of the firms who responded did not clearly indicate their willingness to enter into the City's standard contract that was included as part of the RFQ. In light of this, staff sent letters to all 14 firms requesting that they provide in writing by August 30th their acceptance of the contract as it was submitted. Six of the firms were unwilling to accept the contract. The firms ranked 2nd and 3rd by staff were a part of these. Staff has since re-ranked the remaining eight firms and is scheduling interviews with the top three firms for the week of September 30th. An item to allow staff to begin negotiations with the top ranked firm will be brought to Council in October. Schedules included as part of the firms' responses indicate that the engineering design will take a minimum of nine months. Once complete, the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) will be submitted to TXDOT for construction. The schedule of the bike loop project has suffered due to capital projects which have had higher priority. ff additional information is needed or if I can be of further assistance, please advise. '"Building a Better City in Partnership with You· Sheet1 BIKE LOOP SUMMARY 1Lr.,<< 1.. !';j: o A RANKINGS FIRM CITY BRETT ED RIC TOTAL RANK BERNARD JOHNSON YOUNG INC . YES HOUSTON (3) 83 7b /(') Z'L-J e-AR"'fER BURGESS --No -HOUSTON -70 ---E-f.f ?--) ----15--W J.: -a ./ ;T~ DESHAZO TANG & ASSOCIATES INC. Y£) DALLAS 77 El 7q-, 2.J? GUTIERREZ SMOUSE WILMUT & ASSOC. INC. '/?~ HOUSTON 81 7B 7?' '217 nKLrr K55uet1\'f~s-tNe. -. ---/110 DAttAS----·---· -?9 --B-z.;;; --,..., -, --I I 11/ 'L.>. ~ .::> Ht:JITT zettAn3 -N-o --BAttAS --81---gt:;(~) ~7 ft.~ --U--3 ... .J JNS CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC Y£~ HOUSTON 66 l'L ~ [, I ~ 3 KLOTZ ENGINEERING INC '-/£.S HOUSTON 2> 91 8,(1) !T'L 1..t;., I / N-A-"fHA-N [). -MA I ER ---1 'tJt) GALLAS ---1-· --7-6---7~ PIERCE GOODWIN ALEXANDER & LINVILLE I Y£S HOUSTON 81 ti/-r i ~-() 3 SEHRIGKEI: R81:1:1~JS AN8 ASS-HG A-f-E-S-+N€ 1 ~ " '"'l:+N&Fe-N--:4 _ .. -I & -, & IV V ......, It''• _, ?) -,-...-~"" .. =fi:IHN-ER-€-91:1:+E--&--B R-A-8-EN-+N G-----N-()---HBl:::ISTGN --------1---··-7-4 77 7.:q'-1-:t;-,-0-- URBAN DESIGN GROUP '/£) COLLEGE ST A TION 74 If; 17 ~ 'Z-2-1 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES I/£.) HOUSTON 81 KJ 75 tf 1.. ~ 1 S' I 4 '-""" Page 1 Bike Trails around Town & Open Space & Trails Safety Program Page 53 © CCS Publishing 1996 Open Space & Trails Safety Program i Preserving open space and developing parks and trails has been a concern of Fort Collins residents for more than 25 years. During that time, much input has been received from citizen groups, consultants, and through recreation studies. Findings indicate that the community wants more active and passive recreation areas while preserving natural resources and areas of unique beauty or historical significance and restricting urban development that could endanger wildlife or property. The focus of the open space and trails programs is to preserve the foothills west of the city along with the Poudre River and Spring Creek corridors. Funding for the progran1 began in 1973 as part of a seven-year capital improvement program. In recent years, citizen-approved sales tax increases and proceeds from the Colorado Lottery have financed the program. To date, 20 miles of recreational trail have been completed and 18 open space areas of nearly 1200 acres have been acquired. Future plans include adding eight-plus miles to the trail system to connect the Poudre and Spring Creek trails with the Foothills Trail and extending the Poudre Trail to the historic Strauss Cabin near I-25. For further information, call the City's Park Planning and Development Division at 221-6360. Emergency Locator System If you become injured while using the trails, you can get help quickly by using the emergency locator system. "ELS" is a series of metal signs posted every quarter-mile which help pinpoint the location of a mishap. The signs are marked with an alpha-numeric code which represents the distance from that point on the trail to College Avenue. For example, a sign marked SW-2 would indicate the Spring Creek Trail and two quarter-mile units west of College A venue. If you have an accident on the trail, have someone find the nearest emergency locator sign and report that location to medical rescue personnel so that you may be found quickly. There are 21 signs on the Spring Creek Trail and 26 signs on the Poudre Trail. Become familiar with the Emergency Locator System. It's your best bet for a quick response in the event of an accident! 10 Tips for Trail Safety By using courtesy and following these 10 guidelines, your experience on the trails should be safe and enjoyable. 1. Travel with a companion. Remember there is more risk after dark. 2. Be aware of weather conditions such as rain or snow which might make the trail slippery. 3. Be prepared for dangerous wildlife encounters (snakes, mountain lions, skunks, etc.) on certain trail sections. 4. Keep your pets on a leash and under control at all times. 5. Minimize horse travel on paved trail sections. 6. Give an audible signal before overtaking and passing another trail user, especially the handicapped. 7. Stay to the right of the center stripe and yield the right-of-way. 8. Cyclists should travel in single file at a controlled speed and use hand signals for stopping or turning. 9. Reduce speed when entering blind curves or switch-backs. 10. Bicycles traveling at night should be equipped with lights which are visible from the front and back. Page 54 © CCS Publishing 1996 l [_ [ ~ i1------.-11-~~_._~~---liJ ~ LOCATION SYMBOL KEY t Northside Aztlan Center 3 City Hall S: Public Library "' Post Office <t Lincoln Center ~: Poudre Valley Hospital 'f' EPIC ·~Northern Colorado Nature Center -· Trailhead • 1 BICYCLE TRAIL : A trail, path or segment • of a bikeway completely • separated from the roadway • and used exclusively for bicycles and pedestrians (i.e. off-street recreational trails and sidewalk trails). I BICYCLE LANE · "' .,, · A portion of a roadway designated for bicycles, distinguished by a paint stripe, curb or similar device. BICYCLE ROUTE A system of bikeways that interacts with automobile ·: traffic, does not have a separate lane and is desig-nated by rou te markers. Bikes must share the same roadway with vehicles. CROii. COUNTRY CYCLISTS .~·-· ~ .......... ·. ··-. ·-·. Bikes are prohibited on College Avenue. Please use Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, Taft Hill Road or Shields Street. For more lnfonnation call the City of Fort Colline Tranaportatlon Dlvlalon, 221..eeoa. .. ::J c l ,}. ·- 8 -- ' Spring Creek Trail Cit-; of f-ort Collins Parks and Recreation All Maps i i Courtesy of the City of Fort Collins Parks ~ and Recreation Foothills Trail US. 287 " I \{ MulDerry SI W Elizal>elh SI. Counly Rrt 38 W. Horsetooth Rd. W. Harmony Rd. Foothills Trail W Prospect Rd. Prospect Road W. Willox Ln. c J ,._ .... >-. a; (/) "' W. Laurel St Spring Creek Trail ,_ e ~ z E. V1n1 Or. Poudre River Trail E. Orake Rd. Fort Collins Bike Trails " r_ r r [ [ [ r [I l-, l ~ /µ,v.. !M!V'>~ !,I !{l/p )1-e_ _____,.. I Rrrv-d-< f.< (o lz-"'''-ti-'!"-7'4 'I.-ri--/J VJ/., J> M SCJ , p I;~L 7 /~J« 0 v.) /'L f-<ridt1'/f Jk~, ~ 'fl+1JI-/' I rfJ./~ wA-,;;J_,f vdl ~,/f'lA... ~?N"~~ (J :) -"' /I. (;' / "1 (fr lALj -JJ, >Lr. e.. t?--/-e. I Av-f,trr, ~ -/Lty;dux.sl: (J~ c~lrJJ P~k ~ G//~ -rrr r-(jf-CZ1l1J ,, ao) it -/-v7 r/~i sa-L '-/~VJ - • ~ lj ,>el YlJ _.J jf-C;) 7 r <J<nrl '-' e..,x•Paf"" '.JW 1 Gf! # <i> --rp MX -/,,,.7d IYIS - ·r- 1 " ,., I Brazos County CSJ : 0917-29-062 RE : College Station Bike Loop AMENDMENT NO. 1 to AGREEMENT (TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) STATE of TEXAS* COUNTY of TRAVIS* THIS AMENDMENT, is entered into and executed this day of , 1997 by and between the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State", and the City of College Station, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESS ETH WHEREAS, on the 7th day of August, 1995, an agreement ('AGREEMENT") was made between the State and the City for construction of the College Station Bike Loop, hereinafter referred to as the "Project", and WHEREAS, the agreement provided for certain covenants, provisions, and responsibilities of the State and the City; and -r ~ ... ·1-r~'f~-.--WHEREAS, the State and the City both agree that the specifications described in Article 14, .P • .'.v. /" CONSTRUCTION FUNDING. Section D, shall~ omjtted; and / /,.. lf. ~ -r--·,, ,.~ No M~ rJ.,. ~ ~. > r..t /J..c_ o 1£. (5,... ,,,...«J'~HEREAS, Article 15, CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES, Sections A, B, and C describe JI' 'L 'I the responsibilities of the State and the City concerning the construction process of the Project, ?-Y. previously agreed upon by the State and the City; and "...,.., ' . o.~ ' ' 1 ~(\-J. .,,/ f'!'.""- WHEREAS, the State and the City both agree that the specifications described in Article 15, CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES, Sections A, B, and C shall be omitted and replaced as described herein; and NOW THEREFORE, the State and the City, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Agreement is amended as follows: 1. Amendment to Article 15, CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES, Sections A, B, and C are omitted and replaced with the following: (A). The City shall be responsible for the construction of the Project. Actual construction shall be performed by contract awarded by competitive bidding. The ---tr.. , ·~ City shall comply with the applicable regulations and requirements established in / 1.(.£(; '1 3 CFR, Part 635, Sub-parts A, C, and D. The City shall develop written ~ 11--construction contract procedures for the State's review and approval. The City p, t ~ '-"''~ ;.f? shall not initiate the bidding process until approval of the procedures has been ~ k. obtained from the State and a 'letter of Authority" has been issued by the {&---1~? ,) 0 Federal Highway Administration. ~ pq.. ~ ~~ 1of3 fu P-a,1 ~ J./, f>~""~'~' Ftt~J, ~~ .... ' (D). ~~ft ,,-~ v--'~--~ ,/ G po .,..,.~ ir--:.1 rt . ~ r-uJ•! In accordance with the requirements established 3 CFR Part 633, Subpart A, the City shall include the latest version of Form "F WA-1273" in the contract bidding documents. The required contract provisions contained in Form FHWA- 1273 shall apply to all work performed on the contract by the contractor's own organization and to all work performed on the contract by piecework, station work or by subcontract The prime contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the requirements contained in the provisions of Form FHWA-1273. Any change orders, supplemental agreements or additional work orders which may become necessary subsequent to the award of the construction contract shall be the responsibility of the City and subject to the approval of the State. The City will provide or cause to be provided the inspection and testing services as may be required to ensure that the construction of the Project is accomplished in accordance with the approved construction plans. The State may enter the Project site to perform reviews at any time during the Project's construction. The City shall submit to the State all documentation relating to the actual costs incurred associated with the construction, testing, and construction management of the Project Reasonable costs incurred by the City after the City has obtained written aut ~t~n from the State will be eligible for reimbursement at an amount eighty percent (80%) of the actual costs. The State will make payment to the City within thirty (30) days from receipt of the request, provided the request for reimbursement is properly prepared and documented. The State will withhold five percent (5%) retainage from each reimbursement payment made to the City. The release of the retainage will be made to the City upon final audit of costs associated with the Project (E) The City will provide written notification to the State upon completion of the Project The State will perform an audit of costs associated with the Project and funds due to the City will be promptly returned. The State will perform a final ~ inspection, and if the Project is acceptable, the State will issue to the City a "Notification of Final Completion", acknowledging that the Project has been completed and all financial commitments have been performed. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP NOT AMENDED HEREIN SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. ----------1 ~ ,) ----fff IN ;f ,.. f 2-- ---------------...,..·(( 'Jj ' 1-~1 _J ~ D." w' trf -tt--,_,..J ~ .Jc ~-. {.. ,_..c, ~: ~ " IL.f- ~ r~vcr 2 of3 ' ... .. j ' IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to be executed, but this Amendment shall not be valid until it is signed, in full recognition, by a duly authorized representative of each party. THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By: (Typed Name) (Title) (Date) ATIEST: (City Secretary) THE STATE OF TEXAS Executed for the Executive Director and approved for the Texas Transportation Commission under the authority of Minute Order 100002 and Administrative Circular 26-93, for the purpose and effect of advocating and/or carrying out the orders, established policies or work programs by the Texas Transportation Commission. By: Robert Cuellar, P. E. Deputy Executive Director for Transportation Planning and Development (Date) 3 of3 (~iv) ~JQ 3> ~f"J ~"iV"J j ~. . r a-rv._1yY -N,/S~IWfl4°J . '· . 1 ----------~ },"¥~ i I L:f:fj ~ l~·. -~~--v-J 1' srz1a ~~/\NJ I ;_~-r ~~f71_ -1 ~--~ ~ n-5 j sv"/d f icy j L / I '-"YUc; YJ S d-}/ ! T· J U ! 1 • ~----------. 1 f\11°>J ~d I (}JO / t • • r I 1 : • --v . . . . I • • I r--venV'"iJ J..oa~) 1-; ~r /,..1 H!~ft I 4nJ>O; -hhf ~ 0 (j j 11' - Preliminary Engineering Report Initial Review Redlin es Notice to Proceed tlJ Preliminary Engineering Report Initial Review Red lines Notice to Proceed i l RNi'.Q,N l " [_ R~/,w: 5 1 j IZ e,/l '.eAAJ )~ /~.,,~l w. l --{ frtt,.P P/~-.s j ~cs F-4Y-- tlo ,4-,J ~ -- 1 !!Jv_,,rf,'t-e_ g;ds \ I --- f l:;,~:J~~ L t . G&M rVt 15' s ( N-IA I Yi v-J~ OrJJJ-A-( Af~~) L----~ / . City Review Red lines Resubmit Bush Bike Lanes Red lines Back Review Red lines Resubmit ~~~£,~T~ --=--~ r 15,'/-:e Lo,,r f2 o IA) 7 --y __ -"' (ID--Pro r"r l-Ns I --. J; --_ _J r ( M ~ L.Jkr A,.~ «-°JI, (J -p-R/-,v._r-~> ( ifr--r [!~ w Mr -S-~vy 1 J~,l< /'7'__~' J~ / IR Do T (< _ _,,. J) VJ,c,J f 1),,{;Vl,R_ kf 'J~"~.f/ (AJ,-J. \ c'2'----· (Artp~ J ' > Identify Properties Contact Property Owners f;vJ,A~ Bike Loop ROW Approval of Preliminary , t<:::----, Engineering Report , / Federal Ruling on TIP ·-··--. . · Offer/Purchas~ ~~00JtL~ fZaJs-~)<_~ ~ ~ ~°!' ~~ \=::.'OJtf) ~rr~M~ ~~ CITY /TxDOT AGREEMENT: College Station Bike Loop -Costs •Total Cost $1.348 Mil •city's Share, $269,600 -Approved Fall of 1993 -1989 Bond Funds •11 11 •state Compensation Now Required RULES ot the Texas Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program Published in the Texas Register July 16, 1993 (18 TexReg 4649) Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 11 43 TAC §§ 11.200-11.205 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Pagei II Table of Contents RULES II Purpose ( § 11.200) .......................................................... ... ... .................. pg 1 Definitions ( § 11.201) ......................... ..................................... ... .. . . ...... .. . pg 1 Project Eligibility ( § 11.202) .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. . .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. pg 2 Project Nomination ( § 11 .203) .. .. ...... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .... . .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... pg 3 Selection of Projects for Funding ( § 11. 204) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . pg 5 Project Administration ( § 11.205) ... .... ................. .................... .... .. .. .......... pg 7 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 1 of8 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program Rules As Published in 'the Texas Register, July 16, 1993 43 TAC §§11.200-11.205 RULES §11.200. Purpose. Title 23, United States Code, §133(d)(2) and §160(e)(2). and §1015(d)(2) of the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-2401 (hereinafter, ISTEA) require that 10% of certain funds apportioned to a state pursuant to Title 23, United States Code § 104(b)(3) be used for transportation enhancement activities, as defined. The Commission will use those funds in a statewide competitive program that enhances the intermodal transportation systems and facilities within the state for the enjoyment of the users of those systems. The sections under this undesignated head prescribe the policies and procedures for the implementation of the program. §11.201. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this undesignated head, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Allowable costs -Necessary project expenditures incurred after federal approval and authorization to proceed and otherwise eligible for reimbursement under applicable statutes and regulations. In appropriate projects, allowable costs may include costs of preliminary engineering (including environmental studies), project planning and design, acquisition of land or other real property, and interpretation or other activities to enhance the appreciation of scenic, historic, or cultural resources. Expenditures for routine operation and maintenance are not allowable costs. Appropriate local officials -Principal elected officials of general purpose local governments. Candidate project • A project recommended to the department by a nominating entity for the commission's consideration as a project included in the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program. Commission -Texas Transportation Commission. Department -Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). District office ·A headquarters office for one of the department's geographical districts into which the state is divided. In-kind· contributions • That portion of the otherwise allowable (chargeable) costs of a project contributed by other governmental entities or private parties. It includes both donations of cash or property and contribution of services. lntermodal transportation system -An interconnected transportation network for moving people and goods using various combinations of different modes, including the transportation systems of the future. Local transit operator -A public or private non-profit entity providing public transportation within a given region. . Metropolitan area -That area included within the boundaries determined pursuant to Title 23, United States Code, Section 134(c) and/or Section 8(c) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. § 1608(c)). Metropolitan long-range plan -The plan required by Title 23, United States Code, Section 134(g) and/or Section 8(g) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. § 1608(g)). Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) -That entity designated by the governor in accordance with Title 1, TAC §§5.51-5.57 (relating to Metropolitan Planning Organizations) as responsible, together with the state, for carrying out the provisions of Title 23, United States Code, Section 134 and/or Section 8 of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. § 1608), as required by Title 23, United States Code, Section 104(f)(3) and capable of meeting the requirements of Sections 2(a)(2l. 2(e)( 1 l. 3(a). 4(g){1l.and4(1) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App.§ 1602(a)(2). § 1602(e)(1),§1603(a). § 1604(g)(1). and § 1604(1)). MPOs are generally composed of local elected officials, the administrators of the area's major transportation systems, state officials, transit officials, and other interested parties. Nominating entity -The state agency, agency of the state, MPO, councils of governments, city, TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 2 of 8 RULES county, or local transit operator which nominates a particular candidate project for consideration by the department, and which exercises jurisdiction over the geographic area in which that project is located. Operational income -Net income received by the owner of a facility constructed or enhanced using funds received through the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program after deducting the costs incident to the generation of that income. The term includes, but is not limited to, income from fees for services performed, use or rental of real or personal property, or sale of commodities. Taxes, license fees, fines, royalties, and other such revenues received by the facility owner or paid within the facility are not considered income. Project -An undertaking to develop, implement, or construct a particular transportation enhancement at a specific location or locations, or, if the context so implies, the particular enhancement so developed, implemented, or constructed. Public authority -A state agency or political subdivision of this state. Selected project -A project which the commission has elected to include in the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program. Sponsor -One or more individuals, partnerships, associations, private corporations, or public authorities recommending a particular project and committed to its development, implementation, construction, maintenance, management, or financing. State -The State of Texas. State highway system -As defined in Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6674b, that system of highways in the state included in a comprehensive plan prepared by the department's executive director under the direction and with the approval of the commission. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) -The program required by Title 23, United States Code, Section 135(f). Statewide long-range transportation plan -The plan required by Title 23, United States Code, Section 135(e). Statewide project -A project benefitting the entire state but without activities related to the intermodal transportation system in any specific metropolitan area, city, or county. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) -The program required by Title 23, United States Code, Section 134(h), and/or Section 8(h) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. App. §1608(h)). Transp·ortation enhancement activities -Those activities so defined in § 101 (a) of Title 23, United States Code. That provision defines transportation enhancement activities as: (1) provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles; (2) acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites; (3) scenic or historic highway programs; (4) landscaping and other scenic beautification; (5) historic preservation; (6) rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structur~s or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals); (7) preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails); (8) control and removal of outdoor advertising; (9) archaeological planning and research; and (10) mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. Transportation -Pertaining to the purposeful movement of people between their places of residence, employment, commerce, education, recreation, and entertainment; or of goods between places of manufacture, storage, sale, maintenance, repair, salvage, and disposition. USDOT -Either the Secretary of Transportation for the United States of America, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or the appropriate agency within that department. § 11.202. Project Eligibility. (a) To be eligible for consideration for inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program, a candidate project must: ·. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 3 of 8 RULES ( 1) propose one or more transportation enhancement activities that have a direct relationship of function, proximity, or impact to the intermodal transportation system, yet go beyond activities customarily incorporated into transportation projects; (2) consist of expenditures that conform to applicable provisions of state and federal laws; (3) present persuasive evidence of support for the candidate project from the community in which it would be implemented, to include a commitment to provide at least 20% of the allowable costs of the candidate project; (4) propose to construct or enhance a facility from which all operational income will be used for the costs necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the facility, including reconstruction, restoration, and rehabilitation; and (5) be nominated for consideration by an eligible nominating entity in the manner prescribed in § 11.203 of this title (relating to Project Nomination). (b) Whether proposed as an independent project or as an element of a larger transportation project, the candidate project must be limited to a logical unit of work and must be capable of being completed within a reasonable time, as determined by the department in consultation with the nominating entity. In the absence of information suggesting that a shorter or longer period is appropriate, three years or less will be presumed to be a reasonable time. § 11.203. Project Nomination. (a) Call for nominations. The department will call for nominations of candidate projects annually by publication in the Texas Register. The department will also provide notice of the call for candidate projects to all MPOs, all councils of governments (COGs), and all local transit operators in the state. (b) Who may nominate. ( 1) The department will receive and consider for funding only candidate project nominations from specific nominating entities, depending on the location of the candidate project, as outlined in the following chart: IF THE CANDIDATE PROJECT IS: Located within a single metropolitan area Located within a single city not within a metropolitan area Located in a rural area in a single county and not within a metropolitan area Located in multiple jurisdictions consisting of any combination of metropolitan areas, cities not within a metropolitan area, or rural areas in one or more counties A statewide project THEN THE ELIGIBLE NOMINATING ENTITY IS: The MPO The governing body of the city The governing body of the county Either: • A state agency • An agency of the state • A local transit operator • Any one MPO, the governing body of any one city or county, any one Council of Governments, or any one local transit operator A state agency TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page4of8 RULES Other proponents of transportation enhancement activities may submit project ideas for application only through an appropriate nominating entity. (2) Activities in multiple jurisdictions should be segmented into separate candidate projects whenever practical. (3) When the nominating entity for a candidate project (other than a statewide project) is not itself the MPO, city, or county designated by Title 23, United States Code, §134 or §135 to select Surface Transportation Program projects in any area in which activities would take place, the nominating entity must provide documentary evidence that the MPO, city, or county designated by § 134 or § 135 to select such projects in that area has authorized it to nominate the project. (c) How to nominate a project. ( 1) To nominate a candidate project, the eligible nominating entity must file its nomination, in the form prescribed by the department, with the district engineer of the district office responsible for the area in which the proposed enhancement would be implemented. The nomination form for a single project in multiple jurisdictions may be filed with the district engineer of the district office responsible for any of the areas in which the proposed enhancement would be implemented. The nomination shall consist of information necessary for project evaluation, and shall include to the maximum extent practicable: (A) a clear and concise description of the proposed enhancement (The description must detail all work to be performed as part of the candidate project, the relationship between the proposed enhancement and the intermodal transportation system, any right-of-way or easements required, any special land uses planned, and any relationships between the candidate project and any other work anticipated, planned, presently under way, or previously completed.); (8) an implementation plan for the candidate project, including both a schedule of project activities and a budget (The schedule of activities must indicate any circumstances known to the nominating entity that are likely to affect commencement of work on the candidate project or the time required to complete it, including environmental and historic issues likely to affect commencement of the work. The budget must describe all proposed local financing of allowable project costs and be accompanied by documentary evidence of the commitment of project sponsors to pay those costs and of their ability to do so. If federal funds will be used for the locally provided share of project costs, a copy of the statutory or regulatory authority for that use must be attached.); (C) a map delineating the location or locations of the candidate project (The map should show project limits, highlight any areas of major work, and show all existing or proposed transportation facilities and associated rights-of-way.); (D) original photographs of the existing project site; _ (E) a site plan of the proposed construction and illustrations of the proposed work; (F) if land is to be acquired, a description of how it is to be acquired, including estimated cost, if any, and proposed funding arrangements; (G) if construction is proposed, a description of how it would be accomplished, including estimated cost; (H) a description of the expected benefits from the proposed enhancement (The description must include expected use of any facilities involved, and must compare current and projected demand for use of those facilities.); (I) appropriate documentary evidence of community involvement in development of the proposed enhancement and public support for it (At a minimum, evidence submitted must include a description of any opportunities for public participation that were included in the process of selecting candidate projects and a resolution or other official document from the governing body of each city and county with jurisdiction over any area in which activities associated with the project and related to the area's intermodal transportation system would take place. That document should state the governing body's support for the TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 5 of 8 RULES implementation of the proposed project, its recommendation that it be considered for funding, and (when appropriate) its commitment to provide a share of allowable project costs. For activities in metropolitan areas, one of these documents must be from the governing body of the MPO for that area.); (J) a plan covering the operation and maintenance of the facility created by or benefiting from the enhancement (The plan will identify all parties responsible for operation and maintenance, estimate the annual cost to operate and maintain the facility, describe the source of those funds, identify all expected operational income from the facility, and describe the intended use of that income.); (Kl documentary evidence that the environmental consequences of the proposed enhancement have been fully considered, and that the proposed enhancement will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal environmental laws, regulations. and requirements (The evidence required should include sufficient facts to allow the department to determine the necessity for environmental studies according to § § 11.80-11 .90 of this title (relating to Environmental and Public Involvement for Highway Improvement Projects); (l) a written statement showing that the proposed enhancement is consistent with any long- range transportation plans for that area in which it would be implemented; (Ml a written statement of the relative priority ranking assigned by the nominating entity to that candidate project among all candidate projects nominated by that entity for consideration in response to the current call for project nominations; and (NI for any enhancement activity that would be implemented within a metropolitan area, a letter from the MPO stating that, should funding for the candidate project be made available, the MPO will include the candidate project in the TIP for that area if the candidate project has not yet been included. (2) Nominations must be received by the department no later than 90 days after publication of the call for candidate project nominations in the Texas Register. (3) Nominating entities proposing candidate projects calling for work in multiple metropolitan areas, cities, or counties must provide copies of the nomination documents to affected local public officials. § 11.204. Selection of Projects for Funding. (a) Eligibility and technical screening. ( 1 I The department will review each candidate project to determine eligibility for funding according to federal and state law and to determine that each candidate project will meet technical standards established by applicable law and accepted professional practice. In determining eligibility. the department will coordinate with US DOT. In determining technical sufficiency, the department will coordinate with appropriate state and federal agencies. Eligible candidate projects, together with the results of the technical review. will be submitted to the transportation enhancement project evaluation committee as described in subsectiori:(b)( 1 I of this section for evaluation of potential benefits. (2) Each ineligible candidate project proposal will be returned to the nominating entity by certified mail, return receipt requested, with a statement explaining its ineligibility. A request for reconsideration of a finding of ineligibility may be initiated only by a letter from the nominating entity to the executive director setting forth reasons in support of a finding of eligibility. The letter requesting reconsideration must be received by the department no later than 15 days after the nominating entity received the returned proposal, as established by the return receipt. The determination of the executive director in response to the request for reconsideration will be final. (b) Evaluation of project benefits. (1) Transportation Enhancement Project Evaluation Committee. (Al The potential benefit of each eligible candidate project will be evaluated by an advisory committee, to be known as the Transportation Enhancement Project Evaluation Committee. The members of the Transportation Enhancement Project Evaluation Committee shall be: (i) the executive director of TxDOT, or designee, who shall chair the committee; ·• TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 6 of 8 RULES (ii) the State Land Commissioner, or designee; and (iii) the executive director, or designee, of each of the following state agencies: the Texas Department of Commerce, the Texas Historical Commission; the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; and the Texas Water Commission. (8) The transportation enhancement project evaluation committee will meet at least once annually at the call of the chair to consider and discuss the potential benefit of eligible candidate projects (including all previously submitted candidate projects not selected for funding and retained by the department pursuant to subsection (c)(5) of this section). After discussing the candidate projects, the committee will evaluate the potential benefit of each project based on the quality and scope of the project in three areas: economic benefit, environmentat benefit, and social benefit. In evaluating each benefit area, the committee will consider both the quality of the benefit and the scope of that benefit, and will assign a score to each according to subsection (b)(2). The committee will prepare a list of all candidate projects with their respectively assigned scores, and will by resolution provide the project list and scores to the department. The resolution may also include comments or recommendations concerning the potential benefit of any listed project. (C) Except as provided in this subsection, the operations and procedures of the Evaluation Committee are governed by § § 1.80-1 .84 of this title (relating to Advisor.y Committees). (2) Project scoring. The transportation enhancement project evaluation committee will score each project as follows. (A) The committee will evaluate the benefit of each candidate project in each of the three areas (economic benefit, environmental benefit, and social benefit) described in subsection (b)(1 )(8) of this section. For purposes of this evaluation: (i) economic benefit refers to the project's enhancement of the local, regional, or statewide economy by, for example, increased tourism, enhancement of property values, enhancement of tax base, or reduction of economic loss due to injury; (ii) environmental benefit refers to the project's improvement of some aspect of the natural, historic, or prehistoric environment by, for example, improving or protecting air or water quality, vegetation, wildlife habitat, historic or archaeological resources, or the quality of human life; and (iii) social benefit refers to the project's enhancement of some aspect of human life, including cultural aspects, visual or aesthetic aspects, recreational aspects, or historic aspects, whether locally, regionally, or statewide. (8) For each benefit area, the committee will score the benefit on a scale of one to 100, with 100 being the most beneficial of the candidate projects being considered and one being the least beneficial. The committee will consider both factors of quality and scope in assigning scores in the three areas. Quality relates to the technical quality or the measurable or identifiable benefits of the project. -Scope relates to the magnitude of the _benefit of the project as measured by the geographical extent, population served, and duration of the benefit (long-term or short-term). (C) The score for a candidate project is the sum of the committee's scores in each of the three benefit areas. (c) Selection. ( 1) The department will recommend for consideration by the commission a program of candidate projects. To assist the commission in its decisions concerning selection and funding, the department will, in addition to department staff recommendations, provide to the commission: (A) the list of all eligible candidate projects and scores provided by the transportation enhancement project evaluation committee, together with any comments or recommendations included in the committee's resolution; (8) any other comments relevant to consideration of any candidate project for funding, including: (i) any policy matters; (ii) consistency of the candidate project with the statewide long-range transportation . . TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 7 of 8 plan and any local, metropolitan, or regional long-range transportation plans; RULES (iii) the candidate project's benefit-cost ratio, calculated by dividing the project score by the project's estimated cost; (iv) the priority ranking assigned the candidate project by the nominating entity; (v) evidence of public support for the candidate project; (vi) evidence of the commitment of project sponsors to provide more than the minimum required non-federal share of allowable project costs and their ability to do so; (vii) an evaluation of proposed projects indicating the extent to which each project will meet accepted standards as established by applicable law and by accepted professional practice; and (viii) the views, comments, and certifications, if any, of an MPO or a governing body of a city or county. (2) The commission will select from among all eligible candidate projects those projects, if any, approved for funding. In selecting an eligible candidate project for funding, the commission will consider: (A) all information provided under paragraph (1 )(A) and (8) of this subsection; (8) the potential benefit to the state of the candidate project; and (C) the impact of the candidate project on the economies of each county in which the project is to be located, and of the municipalities within those counties. (3) In evaluating the potential benefit to the state of the candidate project, the commission will consider, but is not bound by, project scores and other comments included in the resolution of the transportation enhancement project evaluation committee. (4) The commission will, by written order, designate the selected projects and specify for each the rationale for selection. (5) The department will retain eligible candidate project proposals not selected for funding. After subsequent calls for candidate project nominations, all unselected candidate projects will be resubmitted to the Transportation Enhancement Project Evaluation Committee with any new eligible candidate projects. Prior to resubmitting unselected candidate projects to the evaluation committee, however, the department may require the nominating entity for the project to update the nomination information and to renew the evidence of public support and to re-evaluate the priority ranking of the project as required by § 11.203(c)(1 )(l)&(L) of this title (relating to Project Nomination). § 11.205. Project Administration. (a) When a project is selected for funding, the department will notify the nominating entity for that project of its selection. If the selected project is to be implemented in a metropolitan area, the department will request that the MPO immediately begin the process required to include the selected project in its TIP. (b) The department will immediately begin the process required to include all selected projects in the STIP. Costs incurred prior to the inclusion of the activity in the STIP and prior to federal approval and authorization to proceed are not eligible for reimbursement. (c) The department will implement or arrange for implementation of each selected project in accordance with statutory requisites and contracting procedures applicable to the type and character of the project. (d) All selected projects must be developed to standards and specifications established or recognized by the department. The department may allow project plans to be developed by other public authorities or by sponsors, provided those plans are reviewed by the department and determined to have been developed according to department standards and specifications. The department will coordinate with other state and federal agencies as required by state or federal law or applicable policy. (e) All agencies receiving federal funds for transportation enhancement activities must comply with all federal and state procedures and requirements applicable to development of federal-aid transportation projects. • • TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 8 of 8 RULES (fl Before funding any right-of-way acquisition or construction activities, the commission will ensure that required opportunities for public involvement have been provided and proper environmental documentation has been completed. (g) Except for the fair market value of land incorporated into the project and donated to the state pursuant to Title 23, United States Code, §323, locally provided share of allowable project costs must be in dollars provided to the project by a public authority. Funds from other federal programs may be used only when specifically authorized by federal statute or regulation. Private cash donations, contributions of services, and other in-kind contributions only reduce the allowable costs of the project. Except where specifically permitted under federal law, the value of an activity accomplished away from the project and not directly chargeable to the project ("soft match") is not allowed as credit toward the non-federal share of allowable project costs. (h) The department is responsible for inspection and final acceptance of all selected projects and for certification of project completion. (i) The department will submit all requests to USDOT for reimbursement of allowable costs. When the department implements appropriate projects through or in cooperation with other entities, those entities will request reimbursement of allowable costs they incur from the department using the forms and procedures specified by the department. This agency hereby certifies that the section as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas on July 5 , 1993. Diane L. Northam Legal Administrative Assistant Texas Department of Transportation COLLEGE STATION P. 0 . Box 9960 September 15, 1997 Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Mr. Chad Bohne, P.E. 1300 N. Texas A venue Bryan, Texas 77803 RE: City of College Station Bike Loop Dear Mr. Bohne: 1101 Texas Avenue Tel 409 764 3500 College Station, TX 77842 The City has reviewed the Preliminary Engineering Report for the above referenced project and identified concerns that are listed on the enclosed attachment. I have also sent you a copy of the report for your files. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (409)764-3570. Steve Homeye( Asst. to the City Engineer xc: ~in Hard, Transportation Planner CIP File Home of Texas A&M University COLLEGE STATION P. 0. Box 9960 September 15, 1997 Klotz Associates, Inc. Attn: Mr. Tom Ramsey, P.E. 1160 Dairy Ashford, Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77079 RE: City of College Station Bike Loop Dear Mr. Ramsey: 1101 Texas Avenue Tel: 409 764 3500 College Station, TX 77842 The City has reviewed the Preliminary Engineering Report for the above referenced project and identified concerns that are listed on the enclosed attachment. Please incorporate the comments into the report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (409)764-3570. Steve Homeyer· Asst. to the City Engineer xc: ~n Hard, Transportation Planner CIPFile Home of Texas A&M University (I 0'(1 "/) -J4; ~ -r~ ~ <fr -yYl~c/ f ~;5r_~~ J-J-;40 ~t os;v ;.~YflJ _ . '~ r '----r1 ~ -rM r""-5 4'1;; . -.z!""~ ~ ~ ~ "1~1 /1 ~ °f yY) 5f""'JVJ ~~ - ~ry-J?'j ·1->-n1 f )J ~ ~ .· s u t; rn f"'7' i ~ 'l s 9 m (JI-"YV ~ r~ ~ 7 /:·yd ,ff ,1 ---7'! ~ -44" ~ Y--( ~ g ~ "l"'ti . ~h~./~n/~J ip ~~s ~ I 0 U ~, ~~ f"(!I ~.~? --w?.'t7·$~-I 7 '?f"'JV ,/ d-r-fi. 'Y7' Yn '() --0-(, I f ~FJ"7V_j__ (IP""~-'<;/) ), "~ <1 ~ ~ '7 % 5 / h ~ Brazos County CSJ : 0917-29-062 RE : College Station Bike Loop AMENDMENT NO. 1 to AGREEMENT (TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) STATE of TEXAS * COUNTY of TRAVIS* THIS AMENDMENT, is entered into and executed this __ day of , 1997 by and between the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State", and the City of College Station, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, on the 7th day of August, 1995, an agreement CAGREEMENT") was made between the State and the City for construction of the College Station Bike Loop, hereinafter referred to as the "Project", and WHEREAS, the agreement provided for certain covenants, provisions, and responsibilities of the State and the City; and WHEREAS, the State and the City both agree that the specifications described in Article 14, CONSTRUCTION FUNDING, Section D, shall be omitted; and WHEREAS, Article 15, CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES, Sections A, B, and C describe the responsibilities of the State and the City concerning the construction process of the Project, previously agreed upon by the State and the City; and WHEREAS, the State and the City both agree that the specifications described in Article 15, CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES, Sections A, B, and C shall be omitted and replaced as described herein; and NOW THEREFORE, the State and the City, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Agreement is amended as follows: 1. Amendment to Article 15, CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES, Sections A, B, and C are omitted and replaced with the following : (A). The City shall be responsible for the construction of the Project. Actual construction shall be performed by contract awarded by competitive bidding. The City shall comply with the applicable regulations and requirements established in 23 CFR, Part 635, Sub-parts A, C, and D. The City shall develop written construction contract procedures for the States review and approval. The City shall not initiate the bidding process until approval of the procedures has been obtained from the State and a "Letter of AuthoritY' has been issued by the Federal Highway Administration. 1 of 3 (8). In accordance with the requirements established in 23 CFR Part 633, Subpart A, the City shall include the latest version of Form "FHWA-1273" in the contract bidding documents. The required contract provisions contained in Form FHWA- 1273 shall apply to all work performed on the contract by the contractor's own organization and to all work performed on the contract by piecework, station work or by subcontract. The prime contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the requirements contained in the provisions of Form FHWA-1273. (C). Any change orders, supplemental agreements or additional work orders which may become necessary subsequent to the award of the construction contract shall be the responsibility of the City and subject to the approval of the State. The City will provide or cause to be provided the inspection and testing services as may be required to ensure that the construction of the Project is accomplished in accordance with the approved construction plans. The State may enter the Project site to perform reviews at any time during the Projecis construction. (D). The City shall submit to the State all documentation relating to the actual costs incurred associated with the construction, testing, and construction management of the Project. Reasonable costs incurred by the City after the City has obtained written authorization from the State will be eligible for reimbursement at an amount not to exceed eighty percent (80%) of the actual costs. The State will make payment to the City within thirty (30) days from receipt of the request, provided the request for reimbursement is properly prepared and documented. The State will withhold five percent (5%) retainage from each reimbursement payment made to the City. The release of the retainage will be made to the City upon final audit of costs associated with the Project. (E) The City will provide written notification to the State upon completion of the Project. The State will perform an audit of costs associated with the Project and funds due to the City will be promptly returned. The State will perform a final inspection, and if the Project is acceptable, the State will issue to the City a "Notification of Final Completion", acknowledging that the Project has been completed and all financial commitments have been performed. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP NOT AMENDED HEREIN SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to be executed, but this Amendment shall not be valid until it is signed , in full recognition, by a duly authorized representative of each party. THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By: (Typed Name) (Title) (Date) 2 of3 ATTEST: (City Secretary) THE STATE OF TEXAS Executed for the Executive Director and approved for the Texas Transportation Commission under the authority of Minute Order 100002 and Administrative Circular 26-93, for the purpose and effect of advocating and/or carrying out the orders, established policies or work programs by the Texas Transportation Commission. By: Robert Cuellar, P. E. Deputy Executive Director for Transportation Planning and Development (Date) 3 of3 DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Section 1: PURCHASING AND WAREHOUSING A. Purpose B. Responsibility C. Organization ;!-:: Sectibh 2: PURCHASING POLICIES · · .A. General Policies B. Competitive Bidding Policies C. Emergency Purchasing Policies ., Sect"n 3: PURCH~SING PROCEDURES ·1 P1. Charges Less Than $500.00 ~~. B ... Purchases of $500.00 to $15,000.00 '.'i> C--~~u·rchases of $3,000.00 to $15,000.00 IJ. D:J::Purchases of $15,000.00 or More .. . ... Section 4: WAREHOUSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A. Warehousing Policies B. Warehousing Procedures Section 5: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS A. City Attorney Approval B. Identical Bids C. I nterlocal Cooperation D. Bonding E. Personal Interest Section 6: DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED SURPLUS AND OBSOLETE PROPERTY A. Unclaimed Property t ·c:-B. Sale of Unclaimed Property C,,j,$urplus or Obsolete Property D. ·Destruction of Pistols and Illegal Weapons E. Liens on Motor Vehicles F. Variance of Certain Provisions G. Purchase by City Officers and Employees ~· · AccP-ptance of Donated Property ·.-;,. APFJENDIX A Fixed Asset Change Form APPENDIX B In-State Travel Expense Report Form AP F'ENDIX C Out-of-State Travel Expense Report Form APPENDIX D Receiving Report APPENDIX E Purchase Request (with competitive quotes) APPENDIX F Purchase Request (purchasing to complete pricing) 3-a Page 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-4 3-10 3-11 3-11 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-14 3-14 3-15 3-15 3-15 3-15 3-15 3-15 3-16 3-16 3-16 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-18 3-18 :-. . . . -~~~ . .. 3-19 ·.··..;,,~ ·:·· 3-20 .. 3-21 •:.·· •. ~!:,.~~~: ·.:.:::~ .... .:t' . ... \~ • 3-22 .)~ 3-23 3-24 ( ' Section 1: PURCHASING AND WAREHOUSING A. PURPOSE The purposes of the Divisions of Purchasing and Warehousing are: 1. To recommend to the City Council, City Manager and Executive Director of Fiscal and Human Resources, those policies and procedures needed to ensure that goods are acquired, stored, disbursed, utilized and disposed of in a uniform and economical manner. 2. To aid all departments and divisions in understanding established purchasing and warehousing policies and procedures in order to ensure that they are consistently followed. 3. To assist all departments and divisions in any procurement needs. B. RESPONSIBILITY 1. Purchasing shall be responsible for legal advertising, invitations to bid, bid openings and presentation of bids to the City Council for all materials and supplies. 2. Purchasing shall be the only division authorized to negotiate with suppliers on matters relating to price, delivery and commitments as they pertain to bid items. 3. Purchasing shall solicit evaluation and recommendations from user departments on bids received from suppliers. 4. In selected instances, authority may be delegated to others. However, in the case of Capital Improvement Projects (C.l.P .) , the Director of Development Services is responsible for the aforementioned tasks. C. ORGANIZATION The Divisions of Purchasing and Warehousing are organized as shown below. City Manager Executive Dfeclor of F seal & Hl.zn~ Resources Purchasing Agent Buyer Buyer Secretary Clerk 3-1 Section 2: PURCHASING POLICIES A. GENERAL POLICIES 1 . Appointed Desiqnees A list, by division, of those designees appointed by the Department Head who may authorize the purchase of materials MUST be on file in the Finance Department. It is recommended that there be no more than one or two designees per division and that these persons should be well versed in the policies and procedures involved with the purchasing and receiving of materials. Receiving reports will be signed for payment authorization by these designated persons only. 2. Specifications and Requisitions Purchasing shall participate with Fleet Maintenance and user departments in establishing clear, concise and non-restrictive specifications and instructions to be used in procurement. Purchasing has full authority to question the use, quality, quantity and kind of equipment, materials, supplies and services requisitioned. 3. Contacts with Suppliers Contacts with suppliers furnishing equipment, materials, supplies, and services shall be subject to the following guidelines. a. In the event that visits to a manufacturer's plant or distribution center are necessary by other departments or individuals for technical or other reasons, advance coordination with Purchasing will help to eliminate duplication of effort and ensure that all the necessary information is secured at a minimal amount of cost and man-hours. b. Purchasing shall give other cognizant city personnel the opportunity to meet with suppliers in order to provide additional evaluation of supplier's products or services. 4. Qualifications of Suppliers The City shall purchase from suppliers who have adequate financial, management and service capabilities, high ethical standards, and the ability to provide materials which consistently meet City requirements. 5. Value Analysis and Competition Purchasing shall ensure that principles of value analysis are applied to the procurement function and that opportunity for competition is provided . . :J. Good-Will Every effort shall be made to develop and maintain good-will between the City and its suppliers. The good-will of suppliers and the reputation of the Purchasing Division shall be promoted by: a. Giving all salespersons a full , fair, prompt and courteous hearing. b. Making every effort to promptly grant an interview or to make a future appointment if a delay is unavoidable; c. Keeping competition open and fair; d. Cooperating with the suppliers and considering their difficulties; e. Following consistent buying policies and principles; f. Observing strict truthfulness in all transactions and correspondence. g. Maintaining the highest ethical standards when dealing with suppliers and other City Departments; h. Respecting the confidence of the salesperson or his company as to confidential information. 3-2 7. Local Preference Policy Statement The City of College Station encourages free and unrestricted competition on all bid requests and purchases. In light of our purchasing philosophy, we do not advocate preferential purchasing practices, i.e. local preference policy. Our position is explained in the following five (5) points. a. By encouraging all potential vendors to bid, competition remains keen and bids reflect "true" market prices. A restrictive bidding climate discourages vendors from participating when they consider it futile to bid. The number of available supply sources are then diminished because of the unwillingness of vendors to continue bidding in a closed or friendly environment. This causes prices to rise. b. By accepting the lower responsible bid, we exhibit our commitment to excellence in prices, merchandise and vendor services. This policy reflects a responsibility to the city council, to top management and to the people (citizens) who ultimately pay the bills. Whenever a public official is obliged to exercise preference in making awards, he/she is being forced to make highly subjective judgments which may or may not be in the best interest of the community. The primary responsibility of the purchasing official is to secure the lowest, most responsible bid. Open competition in the marketplace encourages honesty in any purchasing office. c. By expanding rather than restricting competition, taxpayers can be assured that their tax dollars will be discreetly spent. Our unbiased purchasing practices assure the city of realizing the best possible return on each dollar. Preferences result in a direct subsidy to a few taxpayers at the expense of the general taxpaying public. In addition, the costs incurred in administering a preference program can be substantial. To favor one group at the expense of others cannot be justified in public buying. d. By giving all vendors equal opportunity in bidding, a fair and unbiased bidding philosophy is communicated to the business community. This policy discourages other jurisdictions from counteracting with retaliatory measures. A preference for bidders located within a defined area can only result in net loss to those industries. This fosters discrimination by other governments outside that area. e. Section 252.043 of the Local Government code requires that municipalities in the State of Texas "award contracts to the Lowest Responsible Bidder." Knowingly or intentionally violating the competitive bidding requirements is criminally punishable as a Class B misdemeanor. In addition, the City of College Station City Charter, Article VII, section 75 states, "All contracts and purchase~hall be handled so as to obtain the best value for the City, with bids or quotes solicited whenever practicable." No provision has been made in either state statutes or city charter to permit bidder preference. In summary, allowing a vendor preference may initially appear to be an economic boost to the local community. However, in the long run, it could foster an economic disaster. An excellent purchasing system that advocates and nurtures free and open competition should not be sacrificed in an attempt to alleviate the impact of local economic downturns. Social, unemployment and recessionary concerns should be addressed on another level --not in the purchasing arena. 8. Changes on Purchase Orders Any changes of quantity, description, price, or terms on issued Purchase Orders must be sent to Accounting with a "Change Order" form approved by the Purchasing Division. 9. Circumvention of Purchasing Under no condition shall an order be "split" into two or more smaller orders in an attempt to circumvent the stated Purchasing procedures. All receiving reports will be audited by Accounting in order to ascertain any peculiarities that may present themselves. Any division found to be circumventing the Purchasing Procedures may be subject to extraordinary measures of Financial control. 10. Capital Equipment Transfers Capital Equipment, Computer equipment, Telephones and Vehicles to be transferred from one division to another must be noted on a "Fixed Asset Change Form" (See Appendix A). The completed form must be sent to Accounting prior to the transfer for proper recording. 3-3 11 . Printing Policy All printing jobs will be sent to the Print/Mail Division first to determine if the job can be produced economically in house. If the Print/Mail Division does not print the job, the Purchasing Division will then solicit bids from outside suppliers. 12. City Credit Card Use All credit cards are the property of the City of College Station and issued to departments for authorized purposes only. It is the responsibility of each Department Head to properly control and monitor credit card use by employees. Credit card use is subject to all normal purchasing regulation; in addition, purchases are limited to approved travel expenditures and may not be used for local purchases, with exception of approved local meals in connection with business or training. All expenditures on credit cards must be reported to Accounting within five (5) days after an employee has returned from travel. B. COMPETITIVE BIPPING POLICIES 1. Expenditures of Less than $500.00 Contracts for purchases involving the expenditure of less than $500.00 do not require competitive bidding. 2. Expenditures of $500.00 to $14,999.99 a. All contracts for purchases involving the expenditure of $500.00 or more shall be let to the lowest and best bid by a responsible bidder. The Executive Director of Fiscal and Human Resources shall have the authority to make expenditures, without the approval of the City Council, for all budgeted items not exceeding $15,000.00. b. Bids may be taken by telephone and/or written confirmation of quotes. For exceptions to the bidding requirements; see Sections 28(4) and 28(6)-(9). c. The Executive Director of Fiscal and Human Resources shall have the right to reject any and all bids. No recourse is provided for unsuccessful bidders. Factors in determining the lowest and best bid by a responsible bidder include, but are not limited to the following: Conformity of product to specifications, quality, bidders ability to supply and provide service, bidders past performance on other contracts with the City and life cycle costing. d. Where two or more responsible bidders submit the lowest and best bids, identical in both amount and nature, the contract shall be awarded by the casting of lots. 3. Expenditures of $15,000.00 or more a. Where an expenditure of $15,000.00 or more is involved, there will be approval in advance by the City Council of that expenditure. For expenditures of more than $15,000.00, there must be publication of time and place when and where such contract shall be let. Publication must be in a local newspaper, once a week for two consecutive weeks. The first publication must be at least fourteen (14) days before the bid opening time. b. The exceptions to the bidding requirements are the same as those enumerated in Sections 28(4) and 28(6)-(9). c. The City Council shall have the right to reject any and all bids. d. No recourse is provided for unsuccessful bidders. Factors in determining the lowest and best.bid by a responsible bidder include, but are not limited to, the factors enumerated in 28(2). e. Where two or more responsible bidders submit the lowest and best bids, identical in both amount and nature, the contract shall be awarded by the casting of lots. 3-4 4. Exempted Procurements Exceptions to the competitive bidding law are as follows: a. Procurements made in case of public calamity. b. Procurements necessary to preserve public health or safety. c. Procurements made necessary by unforeseen damage to public property. d. Procurements for personal or professional services. e. Procurements for work done and paid for by the day, as such work progresses. f. Purchase of land or right-of-way. g. Purchases from government agencies h. Procurements where the functional requirements of the city can be satisfied by only one source. EXAMPLE: Where competition is precluded because of patents, copyrights, secret processes, natural monopolies, purchase of films, manuscripts of books, electric power, gas, water and other utility services; and the purchase of captive replacement parts of components for equipment. 5. Public Works/Public Improvements Contracts a. Public works/public improvements includes construction work, repair or renovation of a structure, road, highway, or other improvement or addition to real property. The Director of Development Services is responsible for administering all contracts on all Capital Improvement Projects. b. Public improvements of $15,000.00 or more must be made by contract unless authorized by the City Council to be done by a City Department. Contracts of $15,000.00 or more must be bid upon and awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The City Council has the right to reject all bids and advertise again. It should be noted that public notice and competition may be prescribed by ordinance. c. At this time the advertising requirements for bids require that the bid include a description of the work, the state where the bidding documents and plan specifications or other data may be examined, state time and place for submitting bids, and the time and place where bids will be opened. Publication must be in a local newspaper once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks. The first publication must be at least fourteen (14) days before the time for opening of the bids. Furthermore, notice of this aforementioned information must be mailed to an organization that (1) requests in advance that notice for bids be sent to it, (2) agrees in writing to pay actual cost of mailing the notice, and (3) certifies that it circulates notices for bids to the construction trade in general. Note that notice must be mailed not later than the date that the first advertisement is made. d. If the contract is for the construction of public works, then the successful bidder may be required to give bond in the full amount of the contract price for faithful performance. However, if the expenditure is less than $50,000.00, the bidder may, in lieu of a bond, provide that no money be paid until completion of work. e. Contracts for construction of public works for the purchase of materials, equipment and supplies may be let on a lump sum basis or on a unit price basis. A contract to be let on a unit price basis shall specify the approximate quantities estimated on the best available information, but compensation shall be on actual quantities. f. City Council is authorized to approve change orders affecting the total contract price when provision has been made to provide for the payment by either (1) appropriating available funds or (2) authorizing the issuance of debt instruments. City Council may grant authority for administrative approval by Executive Director of Fiscal and Human Resources of change order increases or dscreases in the amount of $15,000.00 or more. Contracts may not be changed by more than 25% without contractor's approval. g. Bids must be opened only by the City Council at a public meeting or by an employee of the City at an office of the City. Prior to the award of a public improvement contract, each lower bidder must be given notice of the proposed award and an opportunity to appear before the City Council and present evidence concerning the bidder's responsibility. 3-5 6. Professional/Personal Service Contracts a. Professional services are defined as "services performed within the scope of the practice of accounting, architecture, medicine or professional engineering". Selection and award of these services may not be made on the basis of competitive bids, but shall be awarded on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the services performed. Contracts shall be awarded to those asking fair reasonable prices, as long as the fees are not higher than published recommended practices and fees of the various applicable associations and do not exceed the maximum provided by any state law (Article 664-4, Sec. 3, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.). Services that would not qualify under this definition would be construction contractors, repairs, etc. (A purchase order is required if the contract amount is over $500.) b. Contracts or agreements made without complying with the requirements of the law are not enforceable in any Court of the State and the performance of the same may be enjoined by any property tax paying citizen in the City. 7. Acquiring Consultant or Outside Professional Services a. For Specific Projects When it is determined that the use of outside professional services are needed for a specific project, the following criteria will be reviewed in the approval process: (1) Statement of Intent -Engagements for professional services, consultants or special studies where the estimated fees are less than $15,000 can be approved at the staff level prior to the contract being signed if budgeted funds are available. (2) Modified Request for Proposal -Engagements with expected fees between $15,000 and $75,000 would require written proposals from firms with a staff recommendation to the City Council for approval. (3) Full Request for Proposal -Consultant or professional service engagements where fees are expected to be greater than $75,000 would require written proposals and presentations demonstrating qualifications for Council approval. b. Engineer and Architectural Services All engineer and architectural services will be procured in accordance with State Law as provided in Article 664-4 Vernon Revised Civil Statutes whereby the firm selected is chosen based on their demonstrated competence and qualifications with contract negotiation to follow. Selection of firms for these engagements shall be based on qualifications and past work history and not solely on fees. 8. Use of Consultants and Outside Professional Services a. It is the policy of our city to maintain staffing levels and expertise to meet the service demands of our citizens. Such a policy is a vital part of a fiscally responsible government. Such a policy will require the staff to be supplemented during periods of high service demand and for special expertise. Accordingly, the following policies are adopted to identify conditions under which the use of these services will be considered. b. Contracting for consulting or professional services may be considered when at least one of the following conditions exist: (1) The expertise needed for the. required service is best provided by persons who have more concentrated experience in the field. Where special expertise is required and where in-house expertise is desired, it should be typically required that the city will be provided with all work papers and models so that in-house expertise can be developed. (2) The services required are in excess of normal service levels, but not a continuing service .demand. Service in this instance can be provided more efficiently and effectively though hiring professional services rather than increasing staff or expertise in the work area. (3) The need for a neutral third party to examine a particular issue and to make necessary recombination . 3-6 All outside consultant or professional service engagements will be evaluated in accordance with the above criteria. When it is determined that these services should be utilized, the City Manager may approve if estimated fees are less than $15,000; if fees are greater than $15,000, proposals will be approved by the City Council. 9. Personnel Requests Personnel requests do not require a purchase order and must be cleared through the Personnel Department prior to soliciting applicants. 10. Formal Contracts a. All contracts for Professional Services, Construction, or any other type of service for which the City enters into a contract will be routed through the CONTRACT REVIEW COMMITTEE. The committee will review the documents and the insurance limits to be included in the contract. This committee will meet every Monday at 9:00 AM to review these contract documents. The committee is composed of the Director of Development Services, City Attorney, Risk Manager, and the Purchasing Agent. All information and supporting data must be in the office of the Director of Development Services no later than noon on Thursday to be included on the agenda for the following Monday meeting. b. For a complete copy of the contract policy explaining the department's responsibilities in bringing contracts to the committee, call the office of the Director of Development Services. c. The forms listed below will be used for all formal contracts. (1) The Architect contract form will be used exclusively where the fees to be paid to the Architect are less than $5,000. (2) The Consultant's contract form will be used for Architectural projects over $5,000. It will also be used for "generic" professional services consulting projects. (3) The Engineer's contract form will be used for Professional Engineers. (4) The day to day contract form will be used for construction work and other services under $15,000. (5) The standard form of agreement will be used for construction projects over $15,000. d. Assignment of Contract Numbers All contracts will now be assigned a "contract number" by the Legal Department during signature routing. Contract numbers will be helpful in tracking contracts after execution. Once a contract is fully executed, an original should be returned to Legal for filing. e. Routing Procedures All contracts should be routed for signatures by using the "Contract Routing Sheet" which is available at the warehouse. f. Purchasing Requests Purchase Requests may be enclosed with the contract during routing. This will allow Purchasing to assign a purchase order during the signature routing and should save time. g. The flow chart outlining the process for contract approval is on the following page: 3-7 CONTRACT ROUTING PROCEDURES ccmR.OCT FEVE.W ca.t.fT1CE ------ll FEVE'ftS ~ -!:ET tG..fW£E LMTS ~~~ YES YES 3-8 SE1'V O .!T FFOS 11. High Technology Purchases Solicitations for high technology procurements may be solicited through a request for proposais. The request for proposal shall specify the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors. High technology is defined as information processing equipment, software, telecommunications equipment, radio and microwave, electronic distributed control systems and the technical services related to such equipment. 12. Computer Related Purchases a. All requests for computer equipment, software and/or services should be submitted to the MIS Department for review and technical evaluation. MIS will review each request for compatibility with other hardware and software and will investigate alternatives. Whenever possible, MIS will provide the requesting department with written recommendations and comments within three (3) working days of receiving the request. b. If it is determined that a response cannot be provided within three working days, MIS will so notify the requesting department upon receiving the request or as soon thereafter as possible. Recommendations and comments will include but not be limited to: (1) Additional costs incurred because of the purchase, (2) Compatibility considerations, (3) Cost effectiveness of the request, and (4) Alternatives that would effectively meet the users' needs. c. After all questions have been resolved, MIS will prepare the necessary purchase requests. All required signatures will be obtained and purchase orders secured. As soon as the purchase orders have been printed and received, MIS will place the orders. d. Exceptions to the above process will occur when: (1) MIS is unable to respond to a request within three (3) working days, or (2) The request is of an emergency nature and/or the purchase is to be made with funds from the requesting department's operating budget. e. In either case, the user department should provide MIS with information needed to update the database of hardware and software installed throughout the City. (This is very important, since the database is used to determine the funding level for the Microcomputer Replacement Fund.) f. Handling computer related purchases in this manner will: (1) Help ensure that purchases are made with a minimum of delay and confusion, (2) Facilitate tracking of requests and help expedite the purchasing process, (3) Assist MIS in maintaining accurate inventories for insurance and other purposes, and (4) Contribute to the most effective use of City resources. g. If the requesting department disagrees with the recommendations of the MIS Department, they may either request that additional alternatives be developed or submit the request to the MIS Steering Committee for disposition. In such instances, the decision of the Steering Committee will be final. h. Prior approval of the MIS Steering Committee will be required for all major computer related purchases. The committee will establish and/or revise such procedures as may be necessary to ensure that the acquisition of computing products is handled in an effective and efficient manner. 13. Personal Interest in Contracts Members of the City Council or officers of employees of the City shall not benefit or profit from any contract with the City. Members of the City Council or officers or employees of the City shall not have a financial interest, whether direct or indirect, including ownership of stock, in any contract with the City or in the sale to the City of any land, materials, supplies or services except on behalf of the City as an officer or 3-9 . . employee. The provisions of this section shall be applicable when the stock owned by the officer or employee exceeds one per cent (1 %) of the total capital stock of the corporation. 14. Sale of Property Land owned by the City may not be sold or exchanged for other land without first publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Notice should state that the land is to be offered for sale or exchanged to the general public, its description, its location, and the procedures under which sealed bids to purchase land or offers to trade the land may be submitted. Notice shall be given on at least two separate occasions. No sale shall be held less than fourteen {14) days after the last notice. C. EMERGENCY PURCHASING POLICIES 1 . Emergency Conditions Competitive bids and advertising for all bids shall be required, except in the case of public calamity, where it becomes necessary to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity of the citizens of College Station, or to preserve the property of the City of College Station or when it is necessary to preserve or protect the public health of the citizens of College Station, or in the case of unforeseen damage to public property, machinery or equipment. Any of the aforementioned conditions shall constitute an emergency. 2. Emergency Purchasing Procedures a. Emergency purchases up to $15,000 shall be executed by the Purchasing Division upon the authority of the Executive Director of Fiscal and Human Resources. Competitive bids shall be solicited in the most suitable manner from at least three (3) sources if available and time permitting. The Department Head shall provide purchasing with a memo outlining the necessity for the emergency purchase. Purchasing will advise the City division facing the emergency of the bids received and request the recommendation. Advertising for bids will not be required. Explanation of the emergency purchase shall be placed on the next City Council agenda for confirmation. b. Emergencies that occur outside of normal working hours will be completed by the department involved. Competitive quotes will be solicited by telephone from known suppliers, to the extent permitted by the emergency circumstances. A purchase request, along with quotation data and a memo outlining the necessity for the emergency purchase shall be delivered to the purchasing division by the requesting department as soon as normal working hours resume. The requisition should be clearly marked "EMERGENCY PURCHASE". 3-'0 ~-~~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION s= ~ ENGINEERING DIVISION Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 InterOffice Memo To: Kathryn Anthony, Steve Beachy, Dave Giordano, Edwin Hard, Bill Kennedy, Garry Lange, Kent Laza, Clara Mounce, Linda Piwonka, Ric Ploeger, Charlie Shear, Mark Smith From: Brett McCully I/ Date: July 14, 1995 Subject: CIP Consultant Selections Dear all, As you are aware, we have a large RFQ in process to address a total of seven categories of work in the upcoming Capital Improvements Program I have assembled and attached a list of the preferred persons from each related department to assist me in evaluating the Statements of Qualifications for design consultant services for each of these project groupings. During the next week, I will be visiting each of you separately to bring you the SOQ's for evaluation, along with a guide to ranking the firms responses. Our current schedule will bring us back together in topic groups during the second week of August to collectively rank the firms so interviews can be scheduled before the end of the month. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. ·~~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ ENGlf'EERING DIVISION Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenu~ College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 InterOffice Memo To: Kent Laza From: Brett McCully Date: July 12, 1995 Subject: Capital Program Consultant Selection Kent, Listed below are the evaluation committees for the CIP selection process. I believe that three is the optimum number, however we have varied in the case of the Library to include the broad range of input needed on this project. I will be a member of all of the committees for process and continuity. Please look this over and let me know if you feel changes should be made. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Street Reconstruction and Rehab Mark Smith and Kathryn Anthony Drainage Improvements Mark Smith and Kathryn Anthony Traffic Signal Installation and Enhancement Edwin Hard and Garry Lange Fire Station 1 Bill Kennedy and Dave Giordano City Library Linda Piwonka, Charlie Shear, Clara Mounce and Kent Laza Park Improvements Steve Beachy and Ric Ploeger Bike Loop Edwin Hard and Kathryn Anthony Should you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please let me know as soon as possible. FIGURE 1 \ -'" !(fl CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP Statewide Transpor1;ation Enh ancement Program Legend: 0 D m ..i A Bike Path Bik e Lane Bike Route Bikeway Mast er Plan New Bridge Box Culvert Crossing City Park School Apartment/Multi -Family SCALE 0 J,000 l-'-'-'-1-l__,1--,1--,1--,1-+-'-1-11-11--11 (FEET) Llap pr•pored by Plonnlng Dlvblon -Oct. 1 iQl,l From: To: Date: Subject: Kent Laza GBEASLEY, TBRYMER 11/14/95 8:54am Status of Bike Loop Project -Reply This is the information Ed supplied to me about this project. I hope it helps. One of the things Ed didn't say is that we included the bike loop project in the RFQ we sent out for all our other CIP projects. Due to federal requirements on selection of engineers it was not sufficient. We will have to send out another RFQ that is advertised nationally and includes certain wording that complies with their requirements. We have been busy on other CIP projects and have not made this one of our priorities yet. >>> Edwin Hard 11/13/95 05:14pm >>> Progress is slow right now on the Bike Loop Project. We haven't been able to spend as much time on it as we'd like due to other projects/activiites having higher priority. A few months we came to terms with TXDOT on an agreements establishing who was responsible for what. We are now in the "project development" stage. Our next step is to to send out RFQ's and get a consultant on-board for the project's design and engineering. I had hoped to get the RFQ's out this Fall, but it could be after the first of the year given currnet workload. Once the projects PS&E are developed, City's part (for the most part) will be over and the State will oversee construction. I met with TXDOT personnel about the project a couple of weeks ago. We spent almost an entire day in the field on a "walk through" of the project for their environmental assessment. The assessment has been completed by local TXDOT personnel and forwarded to Austin for their review. I have a copy of their findings in my office if you'd like a copy. I haven't read the editorial yet so I don't know exactly what to address. I will say that this project will probably come to fruition much slower than a city capital project since it involves Federal Dollars. Keep in mind that the city money earmarked for the project was only a 20% local match. Per our conversation earlier today, I'm hoping we'll be able to direct more time and personnel towards the project in the near future. CC: EHARD ---~'· If v.U-_c/_..es1'r,,t,, 4'<~~ff~ R.()v// vJk-/ IS 11.('~~ _____ /Jr F~#~~/I~~-:.-=--( ___________ ~ ---- 3. c: _ n-tto""1·'7 e ~ ~· £-!ti Tl-oor £ ,r.R.An',,ew-~ --------~r {L~~ '10./ 4-/ ""' iK!!0 -C 717~ f. $,,.r,n,.,,.,ed-f ;,(,~~_#-·------- 4fl.,~. ___ ........__ -~IJo r ~-;b ~.,fw.. Z.,E.. ~ t:;,u.c IJ£U;JEJ tJ. kJQ "7 , lAJ.A-',,.( ~~? /&" c..Jk,r.ll.-r ba..~ °""-w ~f ~-~· w~'pt ~ £ s-v..C.IV-lf-~ ~ ./. -----1Y-tJ;:;r '""P~,;,,i ,_.,g. ~,,,...... -4 A.J ~ ro~r~ - ~DT -~dt/ s~ ~) L {>i-t;or ~;_:_ ---- _--_ p,,_.Jj ~,,,_J...f ~.,__../~ ~·'(J"i.;_ {; y__J_ ~. -- -~ 17~ 6r ~1~ -~I~ TZ"rirf ( 1. 1:ne,~J<.~1J -_ -U-tJDT .,,-,·1/ rro-n'XL «J ~ ~ ./'J}L u. .. .J,......,f...._ c.v.t,...J ---t£-1 "tl..£ ~ .("'-'-V hy d),(./ L.jrfiv~ . -- ------------------------------- From: To: Date: Subject: Brett, Edwin Hard Utility Services Center.BMCCULLY 12/21/95 11:49am Are you ready for some Bike Loop?!@#$% I know your off in Alaska right now, but I thought I'd write you a note about the package of bike loop info that will be in your mail box when you get back. (Hope you and Sabine arn't freezing you tails off!) You should have the following: 1. An approved set of "Procdeures for the Selection and Procurement of Engineering and Design Services". Reference the attached TXDOT letter dated 10/4/95. I have made all of their requested modifications. I'm sending you this because it was used as the basis for putting together the RFQ. 2. The Bike Loop RFQ. (Believe it or not, it's done) PLease review it and make any changes you see fit. Send back your marked up copy and I'll make the changes. It should be in pretty good shape. I'll point out a couple of key points ••. - I wasn't able to find a requirement in the State's guidelines for how long we need to advertise. We'll just have to make it "reasonabale" (3-4 weeks?) Recall that we have to adverstise both in-state and out of state. - I set the submittal deadline for February 9, 1996. I know that's optimistic but it really depends on how long it takes us to get the ads published. -So far the only change I see that we'll need to make to our SFOA will be the requirement for the min. of 15% DBE participation. I'll send up a RFLA to get this incorporated. -We need to provide a debarment certification, a lobbying certification, and a lower tier debarment certification for subconsultants to the TXDOT when we submit a contract for their approval. DO you know what these things are? Do we need to include a comment that the sucessful firm will need to submit these things to us? 3. FYI. A copy of the State's draft Environmental Assessment of the project. It is currently being reviewd by TXDOT in Austin. This should get you all up to date on the bike loop. I'm ready to DO IT •.. to really get the ball rolling on this! If possible, I'd like to remain a part of this project and would be happy to help you in any way I can. Of course, I'm no engineer ••. but I can ride a bike! CC: KLAZA, JKEE ~·*r CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT'" Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station. Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM THROUGH: Tom Brymer, Interim City Manager • V Jim Callaway, Asst. Director ofE&DS ~ Ed Hard, Transportation Planner~ TO: FROM: DATE: February 3, 1995 RE: Status of Bike Loop Grant Funds Staff is currently in the process of working out the terms of an agreement between the City and the TXDOT which establishes each of our responsibilities in the project. If you recall, the City was awarded the grant in April of last year. The TXDOT submitted a draft agreement for our review last November. Staff has since reviewed the draft contract and requested numerous changes. We have not yet heard back from the State on our requests. The CS Bike Loop was one of eighty-two projects selected in the first round of the Enhancement Program. I began talking to TXDOT's Bob Appleton last Fall about the slow progress of this project. I had concern that we were falling behind the progress being made of other first round projects around the State. Bob assured me that we were not, that it was going slow Statewide. He said that TXDOT's legal office in Austin was flooded with contracts from the first round and that this was the reason it was taking so long. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please advise. cc: Jeff Kersten, Administrative Assistant ··suilding a Better City in Partnership with You· '-·- ATIACHMENT 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION- The College Station Bike Loop is a combination of bikeways approximately seven miles in length made up of bike paths, lanes and routes. It provides connection and access between Texas A&M, numerous apartments and neighborhoods, a regional mall, eight city parks, an amphitheater, and College Station's Amtrak Station. Key features for the bike loop's continuity and safety include seven new bridges for creek crossings and bike path crossings under three of the City's largest thoroughfares. The project calls for development of new bike paths to run along the perimeter of College Station's Central Park. The path along the east side of this park will extend south along the SH 6 East Bypass until reaching Emerald Parkway, an entrance to one of College Station's largest subdivisions. Krenek Tap Road borders the north side of Central Park. This street is currently undergoing reconstruction and widening and will include bike lanes when completed. West of Central Park, a bike path will connect with Krenek Tap Road and then tum south along the perimeter of city property until reaching and going under Texas Avenue via an existing box culvert. Once on the west side of Texas Ave., the path will go two directions. Going south, a new bridge will be installed going over Bee Creek to a bike path where it will terminate at a major recreational area that includes a putt-putt golf, bumper boats, and batting cages. Going north, the path will go along Texas Avenue in front of the City's Arboretum and then tum west and continue along city property until reaching Bee Creek Park. Bee Creek serves as a barrier between the park and residential areas to the south and west. A short path extension and new bridge will provide access between these areas. The path in Bee Creek Park will continue northwest until reaching and going under Southwest Parkway. Once on the north side of this thoroughfare, the path continues north through Lemontree Park, a linear greenbelt, until reaching Anderson Street. Again, Bee Creek serves as a barrier for residential areas to the west. A small path extension with a new bridge across Bee Creek will provide access for this residential area to the Bike Loop and Lemontree Park. The bike loop will continue with the installation of bike lanes on Anderson Street from Lemontree Park to the A&M campus at George Bush Drive. The current two-way bike lane along the south side of Bush will be changed to one-way bike lanes on both sides of this street as part of this project The new, more safely designed bike lanes will extend along Bush from Marion Pugh Street where the Amtrak Station is located east to Texas Avenue. Once reaching Texas Avenue, the loop will be continued with a bikeway that will be ~nstalled as part of the TXDOT's widening of this roadway. From Texas Avenue, bike lanes will be installed in the Eastgate area along both Lincoln and Walton Streets in order to facilitate the large number of students who bike to and from campus in this area. From Walton Street.the bike loop will continue south through this residential area and Oaks Park until reaching S.H. 30 where a bike path will go under this arterial via a box culvert. The bike path will then continue east along S.H. 30 in front of two large condominium complexes until turning south along a utility easement that runs directly adjacent to Post Oak Mall and a large apartment complex. A new bridge will connect the apartment complex with the bike loop system and the Mall. The path along the utility easement will extend to Holleman Street and from there a bike path will go through the Wolf Pen Creek Park and by the Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater. This bike path will exit the park and connect with bike lanes to be installed on Central Park Lane and continue until reaching Southwest Parkway. The final leg to complete the bike loop will be a bike path to extend from Southwest Parkway to Central Park, the location of origin. In sum, the proposed Bike Loop project calls for 4.1 miles of new bike paths, 3.8 miles of new bike lanes, seven new bike path bridges, and three grade separated bike crossings going under three of the City's· widest and busiest thoroughfares. Importantly, the bike loop will· serve both commuter.· and recreational bicyclists by virtue of new bike lanes adjacent and approaching the Texas A&M campus and new bike path through city park areas. The project is located primarily on City and State property and requires very little land acquisition. The bike loop system is in accordance with the City's Bikeway Master Plan and was developed considering AASHTO design requirements for bikeway facilities. All bikeways and related structures in this project can and will be designed to meet AASHTO standards. ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET SCHEDULE: Year 1 -Engage design and contract management consultant; conduct pavement condition assessment on proposed bike facilities; design project; begin repair of pavement as necessary; begin installation of signs and bike lanes; begin land acquisition. Year 2 -Complete land acquisition; begin construction of culverts and bridges; repair street surfaces as necessary; complete striping and signing bike lanes; begin construction of bike paths. Year 3 -Complete bridges and box culverts; complete bike path construction. FUNDING: WORK ACTIVITY CA TE GORY YEAR Bike Striping & Bridges Box ROW Design & Paths Marking Culverts Constr. Mgmt. 1 -------$20,400 ------$16,400 . $23,000 $254,200 $7,050 $100,000 $90,000 ·"! 2 $5,000 $42,600 3 $330 225 _______ ... $94 000 $148 000 ---------$42 628 TOTAL $584,425 $27,450 $194,000 $238,000 $21,400 $106,528 POSSIBLE DELAYS TO COMMENCEMENT OR COMPLETION OF WORK: 1. Land Acquisition. Land acquisition could delay the schedule in the second year if ROW has not been secured for the construction of the Bike Paths. It is not likely that will occur over the entire scope of the project. 2. Agency Approvals. Approvals by state and federal reviewing agencies could delay of the project. It is believed any delays would be minor delays. 3. Weather. A delay could be weather related. This area has experienced continuous rain for six to seven months at a time. Should unusual rains occur, the construction of bridges and box culverts would be delayed. *NOTE: A 15% contingency was added to the above estimates to bring the estimated total project cost to $1.348 million. < , I , I TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 1of10 l)(.)TJ • J:;1" • ...._, -• u ' ' ' NOMINATION FORM PROJECT NOMINATION FORM STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM provided for by the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Project Evaluation and Selection will be determined by the information submitted in this nomination form or required attachments. Supplementary information is optional and may delay processing. PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: College Station Bike Loop DATE 10/1 2/93 1. FORM PREPARED BY (name/title) Edwin Ha.r.d , Transportat i on Planner A . SPONSOR City of College Sta tion B. AFFILIATION Member City of Bryan-College Stat i on MPO C. ADDRESS PO Box 9960 D. CITY College Stat i on E. STATE Texas F. ZIP CODE 77842 ------- H. DAYTIME TELEPHONE c 409 > 764 -3 570 I. FAX No. <409>764-3496 (person TxDOT may contact for further information) 2 . TEST OF PROJECT ELIGIBILITY. The proposed project must have a direct rela- tionship of Function, Proximity, or Impact to the lntermodal Transportation System. Please check the appropriate box(esJ below that shows the candidate project's relationship to transportation system. Q A . Function W B. Pro ximity W C. Impact For additional information on the completion of this nomination form, please contact your local TxDOT district office or TxDOT, Environmental Section, ATTN: !STEA Enhancement Program, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2483, or call 512/416-2606. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 3 of 10 . NOMINATION FORM 5. NOMINATING ENTITY. A. NAME Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization B. ADDRESS 4001 E. 29th Street, Suite 170-B C. CITY Bryan, Tex as D. ZIP CODE 77802 E. CONTACT PERSON Ms. Susan Kubichek ---'--~"-"-'-'---'..O..::...:~:;..:.;..:=-=---------------~ F. TELEPHONE C4 09l260-s293 G. FAX No. None --------~ 6. PROJECT LOCATION. A. CITY/COUNTY College Station.Brazos B. TxDOT DISTRICT(S) _ _._. __ _ C. ROUTE NUMBER/STREET NAME/FACILITY NAME Bike Loop Sys tem ·/ servi ng central College Station. D. PROJECT LIMITS -Ffern: Conn e cts Texas A&M, Eight Ci ty Parks, a Regional Mall, and TO":' High Density Resident i al Areas. E. PROJECT LENGTH Approx ima tel y Seven ( 7) Mi 1 e s 7. ESTIMATION OF FUNDS REQUIRED . Following selection by the Texas Transportation Commission and approval by FHWA, all projects will be funded on a cost-reimbursable basis. Costs incurred before this time are not allowable. Be as accurate as possible. An inaccurate estimate may result In an unexpected increase In the amount of funding required for the local match. Year Funds Required I 3 I $1,078,400 I Local Match $ 269' 600 I Total Project Cost $1 1 348 1 000 I I I / I ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION PROJECT NOMINATION FORM of the STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM provided for by the INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991 (ISTEA) FIRST ANNUAL CALL FOR PROJECT NOMINATIONS PUBLISHED IN THE TEXAS REGISTER AUGUST 6, 1993 NOMINATION PERIOD AUGUST 6, 1993-NOVEMBER 4, 1993 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 1of10 PROJECT NOMINATION FORM NOMINATION FORM STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM provided for by the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Project Evaluation and Selection will be determined by the information submitted in this nomination form or required attachments. Supplementary information is optional and may delay processing. PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: College Stat ion Bike Loop DA TE 1 o I 1 2 I 9 3 1. FORM PREPARED BY (name/title) Edwin Ha-rd, Transportation Planner A. SPONSOR City of College Stat ion B. AFFILIATION Member City of Bryan -College Station MPO C. ADDRESS PO Box 9960 0. CITY College Station E. STATE Texas F. ZIP CODE 77842 ------- H. DAYTIME TELEPHONE <409>764-3570 I. FAX No. <409>764-3496 (person TxDOT may contact for further information) 2. TEST OF PROJECT ELIGIBILITY. The proposed project must have a direct rela- tionship of Function, Proximity, or Impact to the lntermodal Transportation System. Please check the appropriate box(es) below that shows the candidate project's relationship to transportation system. Q A. Function W B. Proximity W C. Impact For additional information on the completion of this nomination form, please contact your local TxDOT district office or TxDOT, Environmental Section, A TIN: ISTEA Enhancement Program, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2483, or call 512/416-2606. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 2 of 10 NOMINATION FORM 3. ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES OF THE CANDIDATE PROJECT. Check all boxes that apply to the candidate project. ~ A. Facilities for Pedestrians & Bicycles D B. Acquisition of Scenic Easements & Scenic or Historic Sites D C. Scenic or Historic Highway Programs D D. Landscaping or Other Beautification D E. Historic Preservation D G. Rehabilitation & Operation of Historic Transportation Facilities D H. Preservation of abandoned Rail- way Corridors D I. Control & Removal of Outdoor Advertising D J. Mitigation of Water Pollution due to Highway Runoff D F. Archaeological Planning & Research 4. TYPE OF NOMINATING ENTITY. Please check the appropriate categories. D A. County D E. Council of Government D B. City D F. Local Transit Operator 0 c. Metropolitan Planning D G. State Agency Organization (MPO) D D. An Agency of the State TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 3 of 10 NOMINATION FORM 5. NOMINATING ENTITY. A. NAME Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization B. ADDRESS 4001 E. 29th Street, Suite 170-B C. CITY Bryan, Texas D. ZIP CODE 77802 ~~~~~~~~- E. CONTACT PERSON Ms. Susan Kubichek ~--"--=--=-=-=-=-:"'--'-.=...:::..:...::~:...:..:....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- F. TELEPHONE C409l260-s298 G. FAX No. None ~~~~~~~~- 6. PROJECT LOCATION. A. CITY/COUNTY College Station.Brazos 8. TxDOT DISTRICT(S)_ ..... 1 ...... 1 __ C. ROUTE NUMBER/STREET NAME/FACILITY NAME Bike Loop System serving central College Station. D. PROJECT LIMITS -From: Connects Texas A&M, Eight City Parks, a Regional Mall, and =fa: High Density Residential Areas E. PROJECT LENGTH Approximately Seven (7) Miles 7. ESTIMATION OF FUNDS REQUIRED. Following selection by the Texas Transportation Commission and approval by FHWA, all projects will be funded on a cost-reimbursable basis. Costs incurred before this time are not allowable. Be as accurate as possible. An inaccurate estimate may result in an unexpected increase In the amount of funding required for the local match. Year Funds Local Match Total Project Required Cost I 3 I $1,078,400 I $269,600 I $1,34 8,000 I TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 4 of 10 PART II. PROJECT SPECIFIC INFORMATION NOMINATION FORM A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. On a separate sheet, provide a clear and concise description of the proposed project, Including all work to be performed, right-of-way, easements required, or other property Interests, special land uses planned, and any relationship between the project and any other work. The description should consist of one 8112" x 11" sheet with a of a maximum of one page of single-spaced text. This sheet must be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION." B. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. On a separate a1'2" x 11" sheet, include a one- page, single-spaced schedule of project activities and budget, indicating any circumstances likely to affect commencement of work or time required to complete project. Project budget should Include all proposed local financing. This sheet should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 2. SCHEDULE AND BUDGET." This information should be accompanied by documentary evidence of a committment to provide for a local match. The documentary evidence should be in the form of an official action by a duly constituted governing body. The document from this body may consist of a one-page letter in the form of a resolution, a minute order, or commissioner's court order that provides for a committment of local match of funding. The letter should include a recommendation that the candidate project be considered for enhancement funding. The nominating entity may provide this certification if it ls a pubHc authority. Where appropriate, the letter should show the consistency of the project with long-range transportation plans for the area. This letter should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 3. CERTIFICATION OF FUNDING COMMITTMENT." For projects within an MPO, provide a letter from the MPO stating that the project will be included In the local Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), if approved for funding. This letter should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 4. INTENT FOR TIP PLACEMENT." C. PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION. Attach a map delineating the project location. Indicate project limits, areas of major work and all existing and proposed transportation facilities and rights-of-way. As appropriate, Include original photographs of the existing project site, a site plan of proposed construction, and Illustrations of proposed work. Documentation of the project location should not exceed five 8112" x 11" pages. The map and any accompanying documentation should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 5. PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION." D. LAND ACQUISITION INFORMATION. If land will be acquired or other property Interests are involved, describe on a separate 8112" x 11" sheet how it will be acquired, including cost estimates and funding arrangements. The land acquisition information should not exceed one page of single-spaced text. This sheet should be labeled, "ATTACHMENT 6. LAND ACQUISITION INFORMATION." TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 5 of 10 NOMINATION FORM E. CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION. If construction will be required, briefly discuss below how it will be accomplished. Include cost estimates. The Bike Loop project will involve a number of "subprojects" that will be undertaken concurrently. Development of the bike paths and bike path under-crossings will be the primary construction activities. Approximately 4.1 miles of 1 O feet wide concrete bike paths will be constructed at an estimated cost of $584,000 which accounts for about 44% of the total project cost. Three bike path under-crossings will be constructed at an estimated cost of $238,000. Two of the three under-crossings can use existing box culvert structures while the third will require installation of a new box culvert. The bike path under-crossings make up about 18% of the total project cost. Other construction activities include installation of seven bike path bridges and striping and signing of approximately 3.8 miles of bike lanes. The bridges, made of corten steel, come completely prefabricated and will be set in place with a crane. Their estimated cost is $194,000 which is approximately 14% of the total project cost. The cost to install the bike lanes is estimated at $27,000 which is about 2% of the total project cost. The remaining 22% of the estimated $1.348 million total project cost will be for right-of-way acquisition, engineering design, and contingency. All striping, engineering design, and construction work will be contracted out. The City College Station will provide project management and construction inspection services. F. FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN. Ro\,Jtine operations and maintenance costs are not allowable enhancement costs. If a facility is being proposed, discuss below how It will be operated and maintained. The plan will identify all parties responsible for operation and maintenance. Estimate the annual cost to maintain said facility, describe the source of those funds, identify expected annual gross income from the facility, if any, and describe the intended use of that income. The College Station Bike Loop will be a free public access bikeway system that will generate no income. The care and maintenance of the bikeway system will be the responsibility of the Public Services Department and the Parks and Recreation Department. These two city departments are currently entrusted with similar maintenance activities. Maintenance activities such as mowing, edging, trash pick-up and sweeping will be shared and the responsibility of both departments. In addition, the Public Services Department will be responsible for bike path concrete repair, bike lane restriping and resigning, and ensuring that all bike path crossings through box culverts are safe and clean at all times. The City's Parks and Recreation Department will have the additional responsibility of bridge maintenance and safety. The estimated annual maintenance cost of the College Station Bike Loop is $125,000. A large majority of this cost is box culvert maintenance. The College Station City Council approved monetary commitment for project maintenance. If the Bike Loop project is selected by the Highway Commission, the $125,000 annual maintenance cost will be included in the annual operating budgets of the Public Services and the Parks Department for future years. Many of the maintenance duties associated with the project can be covered under current city maintenance programs. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 6 of 10 PART Ill. PROJECT BENEFITS, IMPACTS, AND PUBLIC SUPPORT. NOMINATION FORM A. PROJECT USE AND BENEFITS. Describe below the benefits of the proposed project. Description should Include expected use of any facilities involved and should compare current use with expected use and projected demand for use of the those facilities. Project Use -The potential is there for College Station to have one of the highest percentages of bicyclists per capita 1n the nation and become the most "Bicycle Friendly" community in the State. Compared to other university cities, College Station is a small community despite the fact that it is home to the fourth largest University in the country. Its geographic smallness makes bicycle commuting in College Station a very feasible mode of transportation. The general close proximity of off-campus student and faculty housing areas to the Texas A&M campus is a the primary reason for the current high amount bike use in the city. The 1980 census showed that there were 1.44 7 workers (excluding A&M students) in our area commuting by bicycle. A recent traffic count on one street providing access to campus showed that for every three cars there was one bike. This street had an auto ADT of about 5,000 and bike ADT of 1,700. A recent survey on the A&M campus indicated that 1 out of every 4 students use a bike. This relates to an additional 1 o, ooo potential bike users on city facilities. College Station is "ripe" for the development of new bicycle facilities and the City is committed to providing them. Pro ect Benefits -The bike loop project has numerous economic, environmental, and social benefits. The current su stan ard design of the two-way bike lane on George Bush Drive is a potential liability to the City. Replacing this substandard design with 1-way lanes on both sides of the street as part of this project could potentially save the City millions. The culvert crossings under busy city streets and bridges crossings over creeks greatly improve the project's safety which in tum can be translated into an economic benefit. Other economic benefits include linking residential areas with major commercial areas, easing parking problems, and improving the City's image as a bicycle friendly community. The bike loop will enhance and increase bike use and therefore improve environmental conditions. Bikes make little noise and for every 1 oo miles travelled by bike instead of a car approximately 96 pounds of pollutants are removed from the air. The project will enhance the quality of life in College Station and offer social benefits by providing bike access between residential areas, city parks and a community amphitheater. B. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. Provide evidence below of community involvement and public participation in project development. Include a description of any opportunities for public participation in the process of selecting candidate projects. The City of Colleg~ Station adopt~d standards for b!~eways in .1 !392 after results of a city-wide survey s~owed overwhelming support for b1keways (70% positive) and willingness to pay for them (67% positive). City staff then developed a draft Bikeway Master Plan which was accomplished over a six month period. A bikeway "Focus Group" was developed to review and discuss the draft plan. The Focus Group included represel')tatives from. the City of Colle!;Je Station, the City of Bryan, Texas A&M University, the TXDOT, the Texas Bicycle Coalition, the A&M Cycling Team, the College Station Independent School District, the Parent Teacher Organization, and the local traffic engineering community. This group recommended revisions to the draft plan and along with the city planning staff developed the nnal Bikeway Master Plan. Concurrently, as a major step toward implementation, the City Planning, Parks, and Public Services staffs developed the Bike Loop project. The project was presented to and discussed with the above Focus Group. Bot~ the M~ster Plan and the f?ike Loop .were presented to the City's Planning & Zoning Commission at a public meeting where they received unanimous support and recommendation for approval. Once approved by the P&Z Commission, .a public hearing was held before City Council where a petition with over 3,000 signatures was presented 1n favor of the B1keway Master Plan and the College Station Bike Loop project. (A local restaurant in conjunction with the Texas Bicycle Coalition was responsible for the petition.) The Council Chambers overflowed as a result of people there to support the Bikeway Master Plan and the Bike Loop Project. The College Station City Council unanimously approved the Master Plan and the Bike Loop project along with the associated monetary commitment. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Paga 7 of 10 NOMINATION FORM D. POSSIBLE PROJECT IMPACTS. Indicate possible impacts of the pro- posed enhancement project on the resource categories listed below. GENERAL Following is 11 ch11cklist of 11nvirontm1ntal factors. For each of th11 list11d factors, answer the question of whether your proposed project would have be11n 11 &neficial (BJ effe;;t, e Neutral (NJ effect, or an Adverse IAJ effect. For example, would your projt1Ct creet11 eny significant Land-Use Change, or is it Consistent with Local Pfsnsl Would it h11v11 any beneficial or 11dv11rs11 Economic Impacts? Many transportation llnhanc11ment projt#Cts will have minor, H any, impacts on th11se listed factors. Howevsr, it is important that 11Bch factor is considerad and your response is indicated in the appropriate box. Note: Check only one box for BBch line. Do not skip 1111y lines. :: Key to Imp.wets: B"""-ficial; A-=•dvtlt'Se; nl• ""not applicable. FACTORS I Type of Impact B N -A n/a Soclo-Ecooomlc Factors Uind-use Change/Conslste!)CV with Locel Plans [] 0 0 0 Economic Impacts [] 0 0 0 Impacts on Neighborhoods/Community Cohesion [] 0 0 0 Relocation of Residences/Businesses 0 0 0 00 Impacts on Churches/Schools Kl 0 0 0 Title VI Impacts (i.e., impacts to ethnic, minority, elderly, Kl 0 0 0 disabled, or other groups) Potential for Controversy Yes No x Recource Fact<>l'W Section 4(f) Properties (publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and all historical sites (in public or private ownership) included on or eligible for [i] 0 0 0 tho National Register of Historic Places) Historic Sites and Districts 0 0 0 [gJ Archaeological Resources 0 0 0 (XJ Recreation Areas [] 0 0 0 Wetlands Kl 0 0 0 Aquatic Preserves (wildlife and waterfowl refuges) [] 0 0 0 Stream Modification Kl 0 0 0 {Continued on next p•ge] TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM NOMINATION Page8of 10 FORM D. POSSIBLE PROJECT IMPACTS. Indicate possible impacts of the pro- posed enhancement project on the resource categories listed below. Type of Impact B N A n/a Resource Factors. continued Wild and Scenic Rivers 0 0 0 []! Rood plains [i) 0 0 0 Throatanad and Endangorad Species 0 0 0 [il Fannland Conversion 0 0 0 @ Agricultural Operations 0 D D 00 Hazardous Materials/Wastes D D D 00 Enorgy-Use Impacts Ii] D 0 0 Construction Impacts !Kl D 0 D Tree Removal ~ D Q 0 Physical Environment ([) 0 0 0 Water Quality Noise ([) 0 0 0 Attainment of Air Quality Standards [] D 0 0 Other Factors Visual Impacts g] D 0 0 Impacts on Utilities and Railroads 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Considerations ([) D 0 0 Detours; Temporary Closures of Roads/Ramps Yes No x Chlinges in Access Control Yes No _x_ PERMITS & CLEARANCES Navigational Permits (Section 10) Yes No _L Section 404 Permits Yes No x Section 106 Clearance Yes No x Texas Antiquities Permits Yes No x NPOES Yes No x TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 9of10 NOMINATION FORM The sponsoring entity indicated below hereby recommends that this project be selected for funding through the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program and attests a committment to the pro- ject's development, implementation, construction, maintenance, management, and financing. SIGNATURE OF SPONSOR'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: N•m•~6- ~ayor, City of College Station Affiliation P.O. Box 9960 Address College Station, TX 77842 City /State/Zip Code Date If/ i-/ '13 I I The nominating entity indicated below hereby agrees to provide TxDOT with a prioritized ranking of all enhancement projects submitted for nomination by that entity. Projects will be listed by name and in the priority order determined by the nominating entity. The ranking list indicating project priorities must be received by the TxDOT office no later than 90 days after publication of the call for candidate project nominations in the Texas Register. SIGNATURE OF NOM NATING ENTITY'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Chairman, Bryan-College Station MPO Title Bryan-College Station Metrop6ljtan Planning Organization Nominating Entity 4001 E. 29th Street, Suite 170-B Address Bryan, TX 77802 City/State/Zip Code Date l{/-z-/ 73 r I TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Page 10 of 10 NOMINATION FORM CHECKLIST NOMINATION FORM 1. Read the TxDOT booklet, Summary, Texas Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program for general information. 2. According to the booklet, determine which of the three tests for eligibility the proposed project addresses; function, proximity, or impact. 3. Determine which of the ten categories of enhancements the proposed project addresses. 4. Determine who will act as the candidate project's sponsor. 5. Determine who will act as the nominating entity. Obtain a committment from the nominating entity to nominate the candidate project. Identify a contact person who will act as the representative for the nominating entity. 6. Identify source of local match (funding source) and determine appropriate public authority funding committment. 7. Identify local TxDOT office. 8. Obtain a copy of the nomination form and instruction booklet from T xDOT. Review instructions and TxDOT Guide (see Item 1 ). 5. Complete the nomination form. Do not skip any parts without an explanation on the appropriate page. Your local TxDOT district office may be able to offer assistance if questions arise. 6. Obtain the necessary attachments required by the nomination form. These are listed in the nomination form as A TI ACHMENTS 1 through 6. 7. Review nomination materials for completeness. Make a copy for your records . 8. Send completed nomination form to the local TxDOT district office. It is recommended that the form be sent by registered mail. 9. The nominating entity must supply the TxDOT district office a list showing the prioritized ranking for all candidate projects nominated within 90 calendar days of the call for projects in the Texas Register. ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET SCHEDULE: Year 1 -Engage design and contract management consultant; conduct pavement condition assessment on proposed bike facilities; design project; begin repair of pavement as necessary; begin installation of signs and bike lanes; begin land acquisition. Year 2 -Complete land acquisition; begin construction of culverts and bridges; repair street surfaces as necessary; complete striping and signing bike lanes; begin construction of bike paths. Year 3 -Complete bridges and box culverts; complete bike path construction. FUNDING: WORK ACTIVITY CATEGORY YEAR Bike Striping & Bridges Box ROW Design & Paths Marking Culverts Constr. Mgmt. 1 ------------$20,400 ------·----· $16,400 $23,000 2 $254,200 $7,050 $100,000 $90,000 $5,000 $42,600 3 $330 225 --··------·· $94 000 $148 000 -----------$42 628 TOTAL $584,425 $27,450 $194,000 $238,000 $21,400 $106,528 POSSIBLE DELAYS TO COMMENCEMENT OR COMPLETION OF WORK: 1. Land Acquisition. Land acquisition could delay the schedule in the second year if ROW has not been secured for the construction of the Bike Paths. It is not likely that will occur over the entire scope of the project. 2. Agency Approvals. Approvals by state and federal reviewing agencies could delay of the project. It is believed any delays would be minor delays. 3. Weather. A delay could be weather related. This area has experienced continuous rain for six to seven months at a time. Should unusual rains occur, the construction of bridges and box culverts would be delayed. *NOTE: A 15% contingency was added to the above estimates to bring the estimated total project cost to $1 .348 million. (:i : .:;_ :: ; WHEREAS, The City of College St<1tion is committed to improving lhe quality of life thorough the deyelopment of the "College Station Bike Loop" which will provide approximately seven (7) miles of new bikeways in College Station; WHEREAS, the College Station Bike Loop is· in keeping with the Council Issue of a Bicycle Friendly Community and in accorditnce with the College Station Bikew11y Master Plan; WHEREAS, The College Station Bike Loop will encourage and promote bicycling in the city; WHEREAS, Some of the benefils to bicycling include improvement in individual health and fitness, a reduction in motor vehicle traffic, a reduction in air and noise pollution, increased transportation opportunities for those without motor vehicles, and an enhanced sense of neighborhood and community through increased personal internclion between bicyclists and others; WHEREAS, The Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program is a proactive community enha ncement program that provides funding for a broad range of transportation-related activities iQcluding bicycle and pedestrian activities; WHEREAS, The Statewide Trnnsporlalion Enh ancement program is a co~t-reimbursable program whereby funds are eligible for reimbursement of up to cighly (80) percent of the total project cost; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. That the mayor is hereby aulhorized lo sign the projecl nomination fon11 of lhe Statewide Transporta ti on Enhancement Program for the devrlopmenl of the "College Station Bike Loop"; II. That the C ity Council rnmmits a loca l match of Twenty (20) Percent or the allowable costs identified in the program; and, III. That this Resolution shall be effecti ve immcdi;1tcly upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeti ng on the 28th day of October, 1993. ADOPTED: ~~cs= , ' ·-. ·~. . ' -.--. .. f ~ Brazos County City of Bryan City of College Station Texas A&M University and the Texas Department of Transportation Metropolitan Planning Organization BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY 4001 E. 29th, Suite 170-B BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 409/260-5298 ATTACHMENT 4 INTENT FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) PLACEMENT The Bryan College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization will revise the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to reflect the decisions of the Transportation Commission in its selection of any local projects that are submitted for nomination to the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program. The "College Station Bike Loop" has been nominated for consideration by the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization and has received the Number 1 priority ranking among three projects from this MPO. It will be placed on the revised local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) upon approval by the Transportation Commission. The TIP will identify the project, scope of work estimated cost, and source of funding for this project. This letter serves to guarantee the commitment of the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization to place the "College Station Bike 1-oop" on the local revised Transportation Improvement Program if approval is granted by the Transportation Commission . The Steering Committee of the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization ~~e~~~ Title:r=r-rhoo;,. Date: 1(1 i. I f 3 ~~e ::~talion Title:~ cs== Date: ~<).-4 • L, 1 C\S-'3> The X4'S Af1M J...4We sity System By -L-ll. r Title:~~~~~~~~~-~ Date: 1/ / -z. / '/3 The County of BrkZos By/k-!..--./4/kv1~ Title: <1J31;e11o:c:A6t~¥ Date: 1u~~3 Texas Department of Transportation, Bryan District By~~~~~~~~~~- Title: ----------- Date:----------- N \ -j ~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BIKEW A Y MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION SCALE 0 5,000 10.000 ~ I I (FEET) Legend: -Bike Path -Bike Route -Bike Lane -Bikeway Needed illllll Park A. School Map prepared by Planning Division -Rev. Oct. 1993 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ~ CITY OP COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program Legend: -Bike Path -Bike Lane -Bike Route ~ Bikeway Master Plan • New Bridge CJ Box Culvert Crossing lill! .... A City Park School Apartment/Multi-Family SCALE 0 3,000 l 1111 l ,,"l"11 I (FEET) ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION I ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ~ CITY OP COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION BIKE LOOP Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program Legend: -Bike Path -Bike Lane -Bike Route -Bikeway Master Plan • New Bridge Cl Box Culvert Crossing • City Park " School ..._ A Apartment/Multi-Family SCALE 0 3,000 i""l ,,,,1 ,,,,1 (FEET) 4 • ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION ATTACHMENT 6 LAND ACQUISITION INFORMATION The College Station Bike Loop requires little property acquisition since a large majority of the project is located on City or State property. Two individual properties will be acquired for off- street bike paths either in the form of a bikeway easement or right-of-way. The City of College Station has adopted procedures for this type of acquisition. Efforts will be made to voluntarily obtain the necessary property but preparation for condemnation will be made simultaneously in the event this becomes necessary. The estimated cost for property acquisition is $21,400. The College Station City Council has approved the expenditure of funds for the purpose of acquiring land needed for this project. The monies for acquisition will come from contingency funds if the property is acquired in this year's budget or funds will be budgeted for acquisition in the annual operating budget for Mure years.