Prioritization of Grants For the Fall Cycle, the following dates were given:

1. Applications will be made available on the District’s website by August 16, 2012  2. Grant applications will be due by the 10th of September.  3. The grant awards will be announced by October 31  4. Agreements would be required to have been executed by November 30. 

They are going to allow one grant application for a Major Grant and one for a Mini Grant for each community. They felt that the grant applications were too large last time and are going to modify the requirements to lessen the size. No transmittal letters will be allowed. They indicated that budgeting and scheduling were factors towards decisions in the last round.

1

Infrastructure Action Plan January 18, 2011

On August 12, 2010, Town Council and Town Staff met to refine the Town’s Strategic Plan and set goals. One of goals identified in the meeting was to develop an infrastructure action plan. Items to be planned included a round-a-bout at Castle Valley Boulevard and Hwy 6, a traffic signal light at Castle Valley Boulevard and Hwy 6, a pedestrian bridge over I-70, water treatment plant improvements, raw water system expansion, a south side wastewater interceptor, a new police office building, improvements to VIX Park, and construction of tennis courts.

Infrastructure Action Plan #1 Round-a-Bout at Castle Valley Boulevard and Hwy 6

Result Statement The intent of the round-a-bout is to ease traffic congestion at the main entrance to town. The round-a-bout will create a convenient way for residents and visitors to access local businesses. It will also improve pedestrian safety. Time Line Preliminary design and survey to begin in 2011 Grant application to begin in January of 2012 Final engineering design to be complete by December 2012 Contract award February 2013 Construction to begin in spring of 2013 Persons Responsible Project Coordinator, John Wenzel Project Engineer, Jeff Simonson Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Writer, Lance Stewart, SGM Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Legal Councel, David McConaughy Required Resources Preliminary engineering plans, including survey and revisions, $100,000 Final engineering documents, $150,000 Construction Funding, $2.2 Million Funding Sources Currently $376,550 is available from the Lakota Traffic Impact Fee. Each additional new home constructed in Lakota Canyon Development contributes an additional $1,139. This funding can be used for preliminary engineering, but might be better used as matching funds to secure a federal or state grant. This project meets the criteria for a Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Tier II Grant. Tier II grants are intended to support a wide variety of community development projects. In 2008, the majority of funds granted by DOLA went to roadway improvements. Tier II projects must be greater than $200,000 and up to $2,000,000. Applicants are expected to include a minimum match of 25%. Larger matching amounts are generally more competitive. DOLA funding has been suspended

2

for 2011. Typical application deadlines for a DOLA Tier II project are April 1, August1, and December 1.

3

Infrastructure Action Plan #2

Traffic Signal Light at Castle Valley Boulevard and Hwy 6 Result Statement The placement of a traffic signal light may be a less expensive alterative to the construction of a round-a-bout. The intent of the traffic signal light is to ease traffic congestion at the main entrance to town. The signal light will create a convenient way for residents and visitors to access local businesses. It will also improve pedestrian safety. The Colorado Department of Transportation’s preferred method of traffic control for this intersections may be a round-a -bout Time Line Preliminary design and survey to begin in 2011 Grant application to begin in January of 2012 Final engineering design to be complete by December 2012 Contract award February 2013 Construction to begin in spring of 2013 Persons Responsible Project Coordinator, John Wenzel Project Engineer, Jeff Simonson Project Manager, CDOT Engineer Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Writer, Lance Stewart, SGM Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Legal Counsel, David McConaughy Required Resources Preliminary engineering plans, including survey and revisions, $10,000 Final engineering documents, $40,000 CDOT local agency review/management fee, 20% of project cost, $60,000 Construction Funding:

Option #1: Span mire design = $350,000 Option #2: Mast arm design = $500,000

Funding Sources Currently $376,550 is available from the Lakota Traffic Impact Fee. Each additional new home constructed in Lakota Canyon Development contributes an additional $1,139. This funding can be used for preliminary engineering, but might be better used as matching funds to secure a federal or state grant. This project meets the criteria for a Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Tier II Grant. Tier II grants are intended to support a wide variety of community development projects. In 2008, the majority of funds granted by DOLA went to roadway improvements. Tier II projects must be greater than $200,000 and up to $2,000,000. Applicants are expected to include a minimum match of 25%. Larger matching amounts are generally more competitive.

4

Infrastructure Action Plan #3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge

Result Statement The pedestrian and bicycle bridge, located at the 105 overpass, will provide for a safe crossing over the train tracks, interstate highway, and river. Current conditions place pedestrians and bicyclists in direct conflict with vehicle traffic. The bridge will serve as the only pedestrian connection between North and South New Castle. Access will allow Town and County residents to safely access the connecting parks and trails system, businesses, and public transportation. Time Line Preliminary design and survey to begin in 2013 Grant application to begin in January of 2013 Final engineering design to be complete by December 2014 Contract award February 2015 Construction to begin in spring of 2015 Persons Responsible Project Coordinator, John Wenzel Project Engineer, Jeff Simonson Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Writer, Lance Stewart, SGM Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Legal Counsel, David McConaughy Required Resources Preliminary engineering plans, including survey and revisions, $150,000 Final engineering documents, $350,000 Construction Funding, $2.5 to $5 Million Funding Sources There are no Town funds designated or currently available for the design or construction of this project. This project does meet the criteria for a State of Colorado Transportation Enhancement Grant. The next available funding date is 2015-2017. Applicants must provide a least 20% of the total project cost in matching funds. Applications that offer more than the 20% minimum are strongly encouraged as they help stretch the total program, making more funds available to more projects. Applicants will not be reimbursed for any charges incurred by the applicant prior to the execution of the funding agreement. This program does allow agencies to utilize other federal funds as part of the project match. Other funds that qualify include DOLA funds. The Transportation Enhancement Program also allows the value of contributions to be credited toward the project match. Contributions can include local and government services, materials, and land. This project meets the criteria for a Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Tier II Grant. Tier II grants are intended to support a wide variety of community development projects. In 2008, the majority of funds granted by DOLA went to roadway improvements. Tier II

5

projects must be greater than $200,000 and up to $2,000,000. Applicants are expected to include a minimum match of 25%. Larger matching amounts are generally more competitive. DOLA funding has been suspended for 2011. Typical application deadlines for a DOLA Tier II project is April 1, August1, and December 1. This project may also qualify for a DOLA Tier III grant. Tier III funds are intended to help political subdivisions with regional or multi-jurisdictional projects. Tier III projects are multi-million dollar, multi-year projects. Tier III projects must be greater than $2,000,000, up to $10,000,000. This project does not seem to meet the criteria for any Great Outdoor Colorado (GOCO) grant funding. Links and/or connections to network trails are excluded from GOCO funding. Only trails within a park qualify for GOCO reimbursement. Other financial partners of this project should include Garfield County, LOVA and RFTA.

6

Infrastructure Action Plan #4 Water Plant Improvements

Result Statement Water plant improvements will provide “firm capacity” to meet peak demand. During the spring and summer season, water demand currently meets and sometimes exceeds maximum production capacity and requires 24 hour plant operation and monitoring. A failure in any part of our treatment system would require the Town to initiate an emergency water restriction notice to consumers. The improvements will provide sufficient capacity to meet the demand for 300 to 400 new EQR’s. It is anticipated that the simultaneous expansion of the raw water distribution system will further reduce the peak demand for the water treatment system. Time Line Preliminary design and survey is complete Final engineering design is complete Contract award June 2012 Construction to begin in September 2012 Persons Responsible Project Coordinators, John Wenzel, Greg Colter Project Engineer, Jeff Simonson Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Writer, Lance Stewart, SGM Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Legal Counsel, David McConaughy Required Resources Revisions to final engineering documents, $10,000 Construction Funding, $1,200,000 Funding Sources The Town has used approximately $60,000 for the design of this project. A DOLA planning grant has contributed another $25,000 to the design cost. The estimated total design cost is $85,000 New Castle residents have approved a mill levy increase to fund this project. Total funds available for this project and for the expansion of the raw water system are approximately $3,000,000. This project meets the criteria for a Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Tier II Grant. Tier II grants are intended to support a wide variety of community development projects. Tier II projects must be greater than $200,000 and up to $2,000,000. Applicants are expected to include a minimum match of 25%. Larger matching amounts are generally more competitive. DOLA funding has been suspended for 2011. Typical application deadlines for a DOLA Tier II project are April 1, August1, and December 1.

7

Infrastructure Action Plan #5 Raw Water System Expansion

Result Statement The expansion of the raw water system will enable many Castle Valley residents to irrigate their lawns with raw water rather than with potable water. The increased availability of raw water will reduce the demand on potable water. The reduced potable water demand will delay costly capital improvements to the water treatment facility. The initial design and construction will provide a backbone infrastructure to supply new residential development. It will include construction of a second pump station, construction of a new detention pond, and the placement of additional mainline piping. Time Line Preliminary design and survey in October 2011 Final engineering design in March 2012 Contract award June 2012 Construction to begin in September 2012 Persons Responsible Project Coordinators, John Wenzel, Robby Gibson Project Engineer, Jeff Simonson Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Writer, Lance Stewart, SGM Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Legal Counsel, David McConaughy Required Resources Preliminary engineering plans, including survey and revisions, $10,000 Final engineering documents, $40,000 Construction Funding, $500,000 Funding Sources The Town has been awarded a $25,000 DOLA Planning Grant for the design of this project. New Castle residents have approved a mill levy increase to fund this project. Total funds available for this project and for the expansion of the water treatment plant are approximately $3,000,000. This project meets the criteria for a Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Tier II Grant. Tier II grants are intended to support a wide variety of community development projects. Tier II projects must be greater than $200,000 and up to $2,000,000. Applicants are expected to include a minimum match of 25%. Larger matching amounts are generally more competitive. DOLA funding has been suspended for 2011. Typical application deadlines for a DOLA Tier II project are April 1, August1, and December 1.

8

Infrastructure Action Plan #6 South Side Wastewater Interceptor

Result Statement Construction of the south side interceptor will provide for increase sewer collection capacity. This increase in capacity will be necessary to accommodate the build-out of Lakota Canyon Ranch or any future annexation east of Castle Valley Boulevard. Time Line The time line for this project is development driven. The current infrastructure is in good condition and will last for decades. Only when demand exceeds capacity will replacement be necessary. This new infrastructure may be required in as little as seven years or as long as 20+ years. Preliminary design and survey to begin in 2015 Grant application to begin in January of 2016 Final engineering design to be complete by December 2016 Railroad easement acquisition, if required, 2017 Contract award February 2018 Construction to begin in spring of 2018 Persons Responsible Project Coordinators, John Wenzel, Greg Colter Project Engineer, Jeff Simonson Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Writer, Lance Stewart, SGM Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Legal Counsel, David McConaughy Required Resources Preliminary engineering plans, including survey and revisions, $60,000 Final engineering documents, $120,000 Construction Funding, $1.2 Million Funding Sources There are no Town funds currently designated for the design and construction of this project. The Utility Fund has approximately $1.2 million dollars available for capital projects. It would be beneficial to try to leverage these funds with grants, when available, as the Towns ability to borrow more funds is limited in the current economic climate. Consideration should be given to implementing an impact fee assigned to any new development that affects the capacity of the south side interceptor. New annexations should also pay as they go. It is not likely that enough funds can be raised before construction is mandated, but the collected funds could be used as matching contributions toward grant funding. This project meets the criteria for a Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Tier II Grant. Tier II grants are intended to support a wide variety of community development projects. Tier II projects must be greater than $200,000 and up to $2,000,000. Applicants are

9

expected to include a minimum match of 25%. Larger matching amounts are generally more competitive. DOLA funding has been suspended for 2011. Typical application deadlines for a DOLA Tier II project are April 1, August1, and December 1.

10

Infrastructure Action Plan #7 Police Department Office Building

Result Statement The construction of a new Police Department office building will eliminate the overcrowding in the Police Department and simultaneously create additional space for Town administrative staff. Current Police operation space is far below the amount needed to meet minimal industry standards. A programming study should be conducted to define operational tendencies, functional requirements and space needs. This study should serve as a general basis for the location and size of the facility. Time Line Space needs programming study to begin in 2011 Preliminary design and survey to begin in 2011 Grant application to begin in January of 2012 Final engineering design to be complete by July 2012 Contract award August 2012 Construction to begin September of 2012 Persons Responsible Project Coordinators, John Wenzel, Chris Sadler Project Engineer, Jeff Simonson Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Writer, Lance Stewart, SGM Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Legal Counsel, David McConaughy Required Resources Preliminary engineering plans, including survey and revisions, $20,000 Final engineering documents, $80,000 Construction Funding, $500,000 Funding Sources There are no Town funds designated for the design and construction of this project. Consideration should be given to reserving a portion of the state severance tax and federal mineral lease revenue for design and construction of this project. General fund reserves, at some time in the future, may be available to finance this project. This project meets the criteria for a Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Tier II Grant. Tier II grants are intended to support a wide variety of community development projects. Tier II projects must be greater than $200,000 and up to $2,000,000. Applicants are expected to include a minimum match of 25%. Larger matching amounts are generally more competitive. DOLA funding has been suspended for 2011. Typical application deadlines for a DOLA Tier II project are April 1, August1, and December 1.

11

Infrastructure Action Plan #8 Improvements to VIX Park

Result Statement Improvements made to VIX Park should include the construction of two new shade structures, playground equipment, and the installation of picnic benches and barbeque grills. Time Line Develop project cost estimate in January 2011 Grant application to begin in January of 2011 Construction to begin July of 2011 Persons Responsible Project Coordinators, Dave Gray, Robby Gibson Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Required Resources Construction Funding, $60,000 Funding Sources $25,000 has been allocated from the Conservation Trust Fund for the completion of this project. This money should be used as matching funds to secure a Great Outdoor Colorado (GOCO) Local Government Mini Grant. A GOCO Mini Grant will not fund more than 75% of a proposed project cost. A minimum 10% of the total project must be a cash match. The remaining 15% match can be in the form of in-kind contributions. The total project cost of a Mini Grant can not exceed $60,000. The maximum grant request is $45,000. Application for the Mini Grant must be received no later than March 4, 2011

12

Infrastructure Action Plan #9 Tennis Courts in Lakota Canyon

Result Statement This project scope of work includes the construction of four tennis courts, a parking lot, a gazebo, and a trail system. The project also includes irrigation and landscape improvements. Time Line The construction timing of this project may depend on the ability of the developer to financially contribute their portion of agreed construction cost. Preliminary design and survey is complete Final engineering design is complete Architectural design and revisions to begin in January of 2012 Grant application to begin in January of 2012 Construction to begin July of 2012 Persons Responsible Project Coordinators, Dave Gray, Robby Gibson Project Engineer, Ron Mittleider, SGM Finance Coordinator, Lyle Layton Grant Writer, Sharon Rather Grant Coordinator, Sharon Rather Legal Counsel, David McConaughy Required Resources Preliminary engineering plans are complete, $0 Final engineering documents are complete but may require revisions, $10,000 Architectural design, $30,000 Construction Funding, 2008 engineer’s estimate of $863,696.25. 2011 estimate of $660,000. Funding Sources Approximately $85,000 of recreational impact fees have been collected from the developer. Although these funds have been expended to leverage grants on other park projects, the Town should start to replenish these funds. According to an agreement made between the Town and the Developer, the Developer shall develop (grading, seeding, and start up irrigation) and dedicate to the Town three public parks, one of which is the site of the proposed tennis courts. At its expense, the developer shall also construct a pond that can be used for irrigation purposes, a detention basin for storm drainage and four tennis courts. The Town shall contribute fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable actual construction cost to construct the tennis courts from the recreation impact fees collected by the Town as a result of construction within Lakota Canyon Ranch; provided however, that such contribution shall not exceed the Town’s actual collection of such recreation impact fees This project does meet the criteria for a Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Local Parks and Outdoor Recreation Grant. GOCO will not fund more than 70% of the proposed

13

project’s eligible cost. The maximum grant request is $200,000. There is no maximum for total project cost. A minimum of 10% of the total project cost must be a cash match from the applicant and/or partners. The initial cost of the park could be reduced if the tennis court construction was phased. For example, two courts could be constructed during the first phase, and then we could reapply for new GOCO funding and complete the second two courts the following season. This approach may qualify the Town for as much as $400,000 in grant funding.

GCFMLD Grant Application

For

Town of New Castle

New Castle Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety

Enhancements

May 25, 2012

Table of Contents

GCFMLD Grant Application For

Town of New Castle

May 25, 2012

Exhibit Item

A Cover Letter B Application C Signed Resolution from Town of New Castle D Budget Form E Preliminary Timeline Estimate F Response to Selection Criteria Questions G Attachments to Selection Criteria

May 25, 2012 Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease District ATTN: Spring 2012 Grant Cycle P.O. Box 2477 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-2477 RE: Town of New Castle Grant Application Dear Ms. Payne: Please find enclosed the Town of New Castle’s application for grant funding for the spring 2012 cycle. We believe the application supports the mission of the District and will benefit all the citizens of the Town as well as western Garfield County by mitigating the effects and impacts of continued energy resource development. The Town of New Castle is located in an area of Garfield County comprised of narrow mountain valleys approximately equidistant between the cities of Rifle and Glenwood Springs. The community is bisected by the Colorado River, Interstate 70, and the Union Pacific Railroad. This provides many logistical and safety challenges for the Town to overcome. Founded in 1888, New Castle has been a mining, ranching and agricultural center. Beginning in the late 1980s, the Town began to grow quickly, absorbing residential population from nearby industrial and commercial growth. Typical of Garfield County, a significant part of that growth resulted from the energy extraction, tourism and recreation industries. During the period spanning 2000-2007, the Town’s population sustained an annual average growth rate of 9.24 %, making it one of the fastest growing towns in Colorado. The Census Bureau estimated the Town’s 2007 population at 3,669, and subsequently found its 2010 population was 4,518. A most pressing challenge for the Town is dealing with the problems associated with Interstate 70 Exit 105, the primary access to New Castle. The 105 Interchange provides motorists access to residential and business areas located on either side of the Highway. The majority of businesses exist on the north side of the Highway, including a shopping center which holds a City Market grocery, Alpine Bank, a fitness center, two diners, two gas stations, two fast food restaurants, and several other businesses. On the south side of the Interstate exists a hardware store, a variety of other businesses as well as two Town parks. The majority of the Town’s population lives on the north side of New Castle. This

Administration Department Phone: (970) 984-2311 Fax: (970) 984-2716 www.newcastlecolorado.org

Town of New Castle 450 W. Main

Street PO Box 90

New Castle, CO 81647

2

population tends to converge on the 105 Interchange, both from downtown, situated on Main Street west of the Interchange, and from three newer neighborhoods situated on Castle Valley Boulevard which feeds from the north directly into the Interchange. A significant population of unincorporated areas of Garfield County also converges on the 105 Interchange from both the north and south sides of the Colorado River. Recently, Wintergreen Homes opened 153 units of housing and the Town developed a large and popular park on the south side of the River, very close to the Interchange. In addition, the unincorporated areas of Riverbend and Apple Tree are also located south of the River and depend heavily on the 105 Interchange. A system of three bridges comprises the 105 exit, as traffic must cross not only the Interstate, but also the Colorado River and a set of busy railroad tracks. These three bridges were built in the early 1970’s and are not pedestrian friendly. They are heavily utilized by pedestrians who frequently depend on them to gain access from shopping, jobs, and homes on one side of the river to locations on the other. Pedestrians gain access to the bridges from paths and sidewalks which lie parallel to the frontage roads adjacent to the Interstate. Due to the narrow configuration of the bridges, pedestrians essentially walk in the traffic lanes contributing to a very serious safety problem. Presently, there is not a pedestrian bridge for their use. Stacking and queuing at the I-70 interchange is a problem during peak commuting hours. Evening traffic queues frequently extend the length of the west-bound off-ramp from the access bridge intersection onto the shoulder of westbound I-70 creating a significant safety concern for both the queued traffic as well as west bound I-70 motorists continuing at up to 75 mph speeds. Without substantial intersection improvements this vehicle stacking is going to become more severe as New Castle’s population increases along with continued development and growth in adjacent unincorporated Garfield County. There is a demonstrated need to move forward at this time with a preliminary design process for intersection and pedestrian improvements. In 2011, New Castle commissioned a study of the U.S. 6 Corridor with emphasis on pedestrian safety. The Executive Summary (attached as Exhibit One to Applicant’s Response to Selection Criteria) of this Study explains the Town’s traffic needs at the I-70, U.S. 6, Castle Valley Boulevard, C.R. 335 complex. Among its findings are:

● if no improvements are made to address the congestion at the intersections under study, all intersections attached to the north side of the I-70 105 exit will operate under CDOT Level of Service (LOS) E or F at various times of the day; ● to accommodate a twenty year traffic volume without signals at US 6 – Castle Valley Boulevard, the Colorado River motor vehicle bridges must be widened; and ● significant safety hazards exist for pedestrians on the I-70 Spur Road as no pedestrian facilities exist, and pedestrian railings on the bridge crossings do not exist.

3

Recently, as gas drilling has moved east into the New Castle area, the Town has experienced greater utilization of its bridges and highways by heavy equipment, including water hauling and other heavy service rigs. As the County’s only designated haul road routes to gas fields in Alkali and Garfield Creeks, the 105 interchange with County Road 335 is the only choice for access to the oil and gas operators in this area. Perhaps owing to strong law enforcement assets and good traffic management, the Town has been extremely fortunate, that to date, there has not yet been a motor vehicle – pedestrian accident impacting loss of life or serious bodily injury. The New Castle Town Council is extremely interested and committed to remedying what it perceives is an unsafe and difficult traffic situation at the 105 exit, both in terms of traffic control and pedestrian safety. In 2009, The New Castle Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a Comprehensive Plan which contained findings about the need for safety enhancements, including the need to “pursue improvements to the existing Interstate bridge that will increase traffic and pedestrian capacity”. The New Castle Town Council included as a primary goal in its 2010 and 2011 Strategic Plans both traffic and pedestrian safety improvements. The Town Council has sought and received the attention of the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, which has indicated its interest in the success of traffic and pedestrian safety enhancements at the 105 Interchange. The Town will be presenting its case to the Northwest Colorado Transportation Planning Region on July 28, 2012. New Castle also enjoys the support of the local mass transportation district (RFTA), the regional trails developer (LoVa), the adjacent business district, (Burning Mountain Associates), and the local HOA (Riverpark Condominium Association Homeowners’ Board of Directors) in its efforts to provide a safer intersection and pedestrian crossing. This grant application seeks 70% of the financing necessary to complete four projects comprising the preliminary design process, which are integrally linked and necessary before New Castle can construct the Exit 105 traffic and pedestrian safety enhancements. The Town of New Castle is able and willing to provide the other 30% funding for the improvements. New Castle intends to spend traffic impact fees and general fund revenues it has collected for this purpose, and has memorialized this intention in a Resolution, dated May 15, 2012. The four projects are: (1) preliminary design process for the intersection and pedestrian projects with concurrence from CDOT to the Field Inspection Review stage, (2) Geotechnical engineering and environment clearance studies as required within CDOT rights of way, (3) final design process, including field office review by CDOT, and (4) CDOT and federal highway administration bid process oversight. The Town of New Castle has not yet begun these projects, but has developed several initial studies in order to better understand the scope of the project; including a Ramps Corridor Study, a design survey of the entire corridor, and an Intersection Operational and Feasibility Study of the intersection of US Highway 6 and Castle Valley Boulevard.

Section 2 – Application – Summary Form

1

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Name: Town of New Castle

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 90, New Castle, Colorado 81647

Applicant Contact Name: Jeffery S Simonson, PE, CFM Title: Town Engineer

Telephone: 970-984-2311 Are you the primary contact for this grant: × YES NO

E-mail:jeffs@sgm-inc.com or grussi@gmail.com

Do you currently have an open GCFMLD grant? If yes, provide your grant number(s): NA in inaugural cycle And, you are required to contact staff prior to completion of this application.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title or Name: New Castle Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Enhancements

Grant Request (not to exceed $1,000,000): 273,000 Total Project Cost: $390,000

Percent of overall match (% of total project cost): 30% Percent of cash match (% of total project cost): 30%

Impacted Community(ies):New Castle, Garfield County City (location of project, including cross streets): New Castle Exit 105, US Hwy 6 and Castle Valley Boulevard

Brief Project Description (Answer the three questions below in a total word count of 250 words (250 total, not 750) or less:) • What is the proposed project, including all components? Preliminary and final design of pedestrian and traffic safety

enhancements at the I 70 105 Exit, including three pedestrian bridges and intersection improvements at US Hwy 6 and Castle Valley Boulevard.

• Explain how your project is consistent with the Mission Statement of the GCFMLD? The project will utilize the proceeds from federal mineral leasing to address impacts to the primary access to New Castle caused by very heavy usage by large trucks, equipment and employees accessing the gas fields in proximity to the Town. The project will result in a much safer environment for all the traveling public on I-70 and Hwy 6 and the citizens of New Castle and western Garfield County.

• How will your project benefit communities impacted by the development of natural resources locally? The project will benefit all citizens and visitors that utilize the 105 Interchange by providing for safe and separate pedestrian passage, reducing congestion and long frustrating waits, improve traffic flow and greatly reduce the probability for loss of life.

Section 2 – Application – Summary Form

2

APPLICATION CHECKLIST

Verify that this application contains all of the following required documents:

Signed Resolution from Governing Body

Budget Form

Preliminary Timeline Estimate

Draft Intergovernmental Agreement, if applicable

Response to Selection Criteria Questions (a narrative provided on your own paper, nine-page maximum)

Attachments to Selection Criteria:

Map(s) identifying the project location (Using Google Earth or Google Maps) Site map Letters of support Photos of existing public works or capital projects to be replaced, if applicable Documentation of any opposition to the project, if applicable

By signing below, the applicant certifies that it owns, leases, or otherwise has control over the property on which this project will be completed (collectively, “Control”) (or is applying on behalf of an entity that has such Control). Applicant has on file documentation evidencing its Control of the property and will provide such documentation to GCFMLD on request.

Authorized Signature: _______________________________________ Date: ________5-24-2012__________________________ (From eligible applicant) Printed Name and Title: ____Jefferey S. Simonson, PE CFM________________________________________________

Source of FundsDate Secured

GCFMLD Grant Request

Applicant Match ($)

Partner Match ($)

Total Funding ($)

CASHGarfield County Federal Mineral Lease District 273,000.00 $273,000.00

Town of New Castle 117,000.00 $117,000.00

$0.00

$0.00$0.00

IN-KIND$0.00$0.00$0.00

TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $273,000.00 $117,000.00 $0.00 $390,000.00

Project Budget: New Castle Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Enhancements

GCFMLD_Budget_Form_FINAL Page 1 of 3

CASH Use of FundsNumber of Units

Cost Per Unit

GCFMLD Funds

Applicant Funds

Partner Funds

Total Funding ($)

Phase 1 Project Preliminary Design $0.00SGM - Town Engr Preliminary Design of Intersection Improvements 1.00 54,000.00 37,800.00 16,200.00 $54,000.00SGM - Town Engr Preliminary Design of Pedestrian Improvements 1.00 36,000.00 25,200.00 10,800.00 $36,000.00

$0.00Phase 2 Geotech, Environmental, Utility studies for Design(s) $0.00SGM & Geotech Consultant Borings, laboratory work, analysis, recommendations 1.00 30,000.00 21,000.00 9,000.00 $30,000.00SGM & Environ.Consultant Archaeological, wetlands, utility clearances, etc.. 1.00 50,000.00 35,000.00 15,000.00 $50,000.00

$0.00Phase 3 Final Design Process $0.00SGM & Consultants Final Design of Intersection Improvements 1.00 108,000.00 75,600.00 32,400.00 $108,000.00SGM & Consultants Final Design of Pedestrian Improvements 1.00 72,000.00 50,400.00 21,600.00 $72,000.00

$0.00Phase 4 CDOT Bid Process $0.00SGM & Consultants Bid Intersection Improvements 1.00 24,000.00 16,800.00 7,200.00 $24,000.00SGM & Consultants Bid Pedestrian Improvements 1.00 16,000.00 11,200.00 4,800.00 $16,000.00

$0.00$0.00

USE OF FUNDS - CASH SUBTOTAL $273,000.00 $117,000.00 $0.00 $390,000.00

Project Budget: New Castle Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Enhancements

GCFMLD_Budget_Form_FINAL Page 2 of 3

IN-KIND Use of FundsNo. of Units / Hours

Cost Per Unit / Hour

GCFMLD Funds

Applicant Funds

Partner Funds

Total Funding ($)

Professional Services N/A $0.00$0.00

Materials N/A $0.00$0.00

Equipment N/A $0.00$0.00

USE OF FUNDS - IN-KIND SUBTOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

10% Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL PROJECT COST $273,000.00 $117,000.00 $0.00 $390,000.00

Project Budget: New Castle Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Enhancements

GCFMLD_Budget_Form_FINAL Page 3 of 3

Project Timeline

Spreadsheet Date: 5-11-2012

New Castle I-70 Exit 105 Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Enhancement Project2012 Activities 2013 Activities

Task May June July August September October November December January February March April

Grant application to GCFMLDGCFMLD Grant approvalReview and Concurrence of Project with CDOT Region 3Environmental Clearances and Geotechnical ReportsPreliminary DesignCDOT Field Inspection Review (FIR)Final DesignCDOT Field Office Review (FOR)Project Bidding for Pedestrian ImprovementsProject Construction Start for Pedestrian Improvements

RESPONSE TO SELECTION CRITERIA QUESTIONS: 1) Describe the scope of the project – what exactly will be built. Be specific, explaining preparatory work, quantities, dimensions, etc. If the project is intended to enhance, rehabilitate, or replace existing public works or other capital projects, describe the state of the existing public works or other capital projects. The scope of the Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Project is to provide a safe corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists to gain access between the businesses, residences, and parks on County Road 335 on the south side of the Colorado River and the businesses, residences, offices, and parks on the north side of the River. The Town of New Castle asserts that the safety of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic is of grave concern as no pedestrian facilities exist in this three bridge corridor. Vehicular/pedestrian/bicyclist collisions are likely as safe transport across the bridges does not exist and the likelihood for vehicular/vehicular collisions is elevated as a result of the lack of pedestrian facilities and the forced integration of pedestrians with vehicular traffic. The second component of the project resolves the need for traffic safety improvements at the intersection of Castle Valley Boulevard and Highway 6 where safety issues exist on the westbound off ramp from I – 70. Currently, the four way stop at the Highway 6 and Castle Valley Boulevard intersection creates enough queue storage at peak hour that there is frequent backing of traffic onto the travel lanes of westbound Interstate 70. This obviously creates a significant safety concern. Any disruption of traffic due to pedestrians, icy road conditions, stalled traffic, accidents, or other reasons exacerbates this traffic safety problem. Please see the Town of New Castle Alternative 4 Plan, a map of the bridge corridor (attached as Exhibit Two). The first phase of the project, when constructed, will provide for a separate pedestrian and bicycle facility consisting of 3 bridges with connecting paths at each ramp and both the northern and southern approaches. There will be a crossing of each the Union Pacific Railroad, Interstate 70, and the Colorado River. To assist with the traffic safety issues noted in the paragraph above, the Town will also proceed with the development of a signalized intersection with Highway 6 & Castle Valley Boulevard (CVB) laneage improvements or construction of a roundabout in place of the current Highway 6 & CVB intersection. The specific focus of this grant application for the GCFMLD grant is to provide the preliminary and final design funding for these two projects following the recent completion of the operational analysis, field data acquisition and traffic studies for the corridor. 2) How is this project one that would improve a community impacted by the development of natural resources? Describe the community/neighborhood the project will serve.

2

The neighborhoods directly impacted by the project are residential and commercial neighborhoods on both sides of the Colorado River. New Castle has a very active commercial neighborhood on the north side of the 105 exit, including a busy grocery store. These stores are destinations for pedestrian traffic. Adjacent to them are neighborhoods both west and north of the shopping district. Likewise on the south side of the River is a large apartment development with a popular ten acre city park (Grand River Park) adjacent to it. Just 1/2 miles west of the proposed bridge is a hardware store and across the County Road from it, a city park including a boat ramp and disc golf course. Presently there is no safe connectivity between these two groups of neighborhoods. We believe that the proposed pedestrian bridge would not only provide safety for the existing pedestrian traffic but also provide connectivity for neighborhoods that do not enjoy that presently. Each of these two community issues is important; safety and connectivity. Each would enhance commercial opportunities for affected businesses, the use of our Town parks, and the quality of life for our residents. In addition, as noted in the attached letter from the Lower Valley Trails Association (LoVa) multimodal neighborhood connectivity is a good development for all users of the County’s trails network. Please see five letters of support, (attached as Exhibit Three). 3) Explain how this project is one that will reduce or alleviate social, economic, or public finance impacts resulting from the development of natural resources. This project will help alleviate safety and traffic concerns resulting in part from the development of natural resources. The bridge span which crosses the Colorado River is particularly narrow at 27 ½ feet (please see Exhibit 2, attached, lower right corner). Current traffic controls require that any gas and oil traffic servicing the Alkali and Garfield Creek basins (County Roads 314, 312, and 328) must cross this bridge to get to or from the drilling sites. Garfield County’s Resolution Number 2003-113, adopted by the BOCC on December 15, 2003 (attached map included as a part of this Grant Application, Exhibit Four) designates certain county roads as haul routes, and prohibits traffic on other roads. Because haul traffic on C.R. 335 is disallowed west of C.R. 312, haul traffic into these several gas and oil leaseholds must cross the Colorado River bridge at New Castle to travel either east or west on I-70. This impact threatens pedestrian traffic on the bridge spans more than typical car traffic because of the larger size of typical gas and oil haul rigs. 4) Describe how this project will help the GCFMLD achieve its mission and specifically how granting New Castle’s request will provide the greatest use of our resources for the greatest number of persons. The grant writers and the New Castle Town Council are familiar with the policy objectives of the GCFMLD and believe this application will achieve the mission of the District in total by utilizing taxes in a cost effective manner generated by the energy industry to address energy impacts affecting a large population in Garfield

3

County. Necessary traffic and pedestrian safety enhancement improvements to the New Castle intersection corridor will benefit the citizens of the Town of New Castle, employees of the energy industry, the entire traveling public on I-70, and especially the residents of unincorporated Garfield County living in and around the New Castle exit 105 corridor. Not addressing the safety issues at this location could have expensive, direct ramifications for the County and the residents living south of the Colorado River between New Castle and Silt. The Town incorporates its answer to question number 3 into this answer. 5) Describe the demand for your proposal in detail. As noted in Town’s response to question #1 above, and the Executive Summary (Exhibit One), very significant safety issues exist for the pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic at the Interstate 70 Exit 105 interchange. To add to the complications of the existing traffic characterization, the County has also designated the CR 335 corridor as a haul route to the oil and gas fields accessed by Alkali and Garfield Creek roads. This oversized traffic, consisting of rig moves, condensate removal, construction traffic, fracking traffic for many years into the future, and ancillary truck trips, is heavier than the traditional farm and ranch supported traffic typical of the past. Four years ago, prior to the downturn in the economy, the traffic warrants for signalization (or roundabout installation) at the Highway 6 and Castle Valley Boulevard intersection likely already existed. Now, with just a 1½% per year growth factor, the Town’s recent corridor study reveals the need for improvements in support of traffic safety at that intersection within two to four years of the present. Currently there exist no facilities on the three bridge corridor to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Even the current vehicular bridges only allow for a minimal 2 foot shoulder on the widest of the three bridges after considering two 12’ wide driving lanes. For the Colorado River Bridge, in particular, after considering 12’ wide driving lanes, no shoulder exists. Likewise, all three bridges exist with only vehicle guard rails. This means that the railing for the vehicles is only 27”, well less than the mandatory minimum height of 42” for pedestrian railing. Attached as Exhibit 5 to this Grant Application are pictures which show pedestrians navigating the narrow spans which cross the highway, river and railroad tracks. Anecdotally, we have seen cyclists, pedestrians, and even mothers pushing baby carriages on this span. We are very concerned that an accident will happen with the increased traffic. We are very grateful to not yet have experienced such a loss. Please see representative photographs, attached as Exhibit Five. FUNDING: 6) Describe the status of confirmed and potential funding sources including all applications previously submitted to other organizations requesting funding and the dates on which those funds are to be awarded.

4

The Town of New Castle has pledged 30% of this project ($117,000) by Resolution of the Town of New Castle dated May 15, 2012. There are no other applications. 7) Provide a summary of and the individual commitment letters from those partners who have already committed cash or non-cash equivalents as funding for this project. There are no other cash or non-cash equivalent contributions to this project beyond that from the Town of New Castle. The Resolution attached to the Grant Application, section two, shows the Town’s clear commitment to the success of this necessary traffic and pedestrian safety enhancement project. 8) Is this project dependent on receiving funds from GCFMLD? What additional sources of funding not listed above could be utilized for this project? We believe that the project is probably largely dependent on receiving a grant from the GCFMLD capital improvement funds. Additional possible sources of funds are other governments including CDOT and DOLA, and private funding. We believe that New Castle will have a very successful application before the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) once we are able to show that we will be “shovel ready” for these projects by the end of calendar year 2012. Should the GCFMLD find this project proposal worthy, New Castle will provide its 30% match and the projects will be shovel ready at the end of this calendar year. From that point, we will be prepared to commence construction. Those funds should come from federal and state highway construction monies, Energy Impact grants, the Town of New Castle itself (which has a very limited budget remaining for this investment), and possibly from other governments which find the project necessary, worthy, and in service to its public. 9) Does this project require ongoing operational funding? If so, describe the estimated funding amounts and the sources to fund this ongoing need. Yes, the Town of New Castle anticipates entering into a Memorandum of Understanding or Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT regarding the subject property. The costs of operation and maintenance will be borne by the Public Works Department in the Town of New Castle, which already maintains the streets, highways, and pedestrian bridges in the Town. These operation and maintenance commitments include snow removal, pavement surface repair, pavement marking, sign replacement, and weed control. The letter of Joe Elsen, Program Engineer, Colorado Department of Transportation, dated May 21, 2012 indicates that CDOT understands that “the Town will commit to ownership and maintenance of the facilities subject of the design and construction” (attached as Exhibit 6). The annual maintenance cost for this project is expected to be $2,857 “per lane mile”. This is a rough estimate for the planning of routine maintenance cost. The

5

figure is an average of New Castle’s actual “per lane mile” costs for the past two years. The funding source for this annual expense will come from an existing Town of New Castle 1% street maintenance retail sales tax. This sales tax generates over $300,000 of dedicated revenue each year. 10) Is this project part of an existing, established program or partnership? Describe its accomplishments to date as they relate to the GCFMLD’s mission as well as the partners involved. This project is not part of an existing established program or partnership other than the ongoing provision of safe traffic and pedestrian conveyance in and through the Town of New Castle. We perform this governmental obligation in partnership with the Colorado Department of Transportation and Garfield County. 11) Provide a detailed list of and support letters from all participating partners contributing non-cash equivalents to the project. The Town does not have any participating partners contributing non-cash equivalents to the project. 12) How much of your planned cash match is secured? How much of it is yet to be raised, and what are your plans for raising those additional funds? What is your “Plan B” if you are unable to raise those funds? All of the matching funds are currently held by the Town for use on this project. The Town has collected traffic impact fees since its Lakota Canyon Ranch subdivision, situated ½ mile north of the intersection, opened in 2003. This fund contributes 60% of New Castle’s matching funds with the remainder coming from Town general funds. This traffic impact fund is held by the Town for the designated purpose of providing for impacts at the I-70 interchange caused by residential growth. The remainder of the funds come from budgeted and appropriated general fund revenues which have been designated for the purpose of pedestrian safety enhancements. The figure (60%) represents the engineers’ best estimate of the breakdown of the project between vehicular traffic impacts and pedestrian safety enhancements, which make up the remaining 40% of the work of the project. The Town uses this equation in its assignment of revenues for the project. 13) What is the plan to fund future management and/or operating costs of your project? If this project requires multi-phase applications and related approvals, describe other sources of funding, other than from the GCFMLD in case this project does not receive future awards. The Town does not envision any need to appeal to other jurisdictions or granting organizations for operations and maintenance costs. We maintain our streets, highways, and pedestrian bridges from general fund revenues, including a 1% street

6

maintenance retail sales tax, a ¾% county street maintenance tax, and a Federal Highway Use Tax. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: 14) Provide letters of support from all local governments that are expected to benefit from this project. These letters must be on official letterhead of the entity signed by an authorized signatory. Please find enclosed with this Application letters provided by The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, the Lower Valley Trails Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, Burning Mountain Associates, and the RiverBend Homeowners Association. The Town of New Castle also passed a resolution in support of the grant application which is attached in answer to Section 2 of the Grant Application. 15) Who is supporting the project? We believe there is unanimous support for the pedestrian and traffic safety enhancement projects. In this Grant Application you will find:

1) 2012 Resolution of the Town on New Castle Town Council; 2) Letter of Support from the Garfield County Board of County

Commissioners; 3) Letter of Support from RFTA; 4) Letter of Support from LoVa; 5) Letter of Support from the Riverbend Homeowners’ Association; 6) Letter of Support from Burning Mountain Associates; 7) Letter of Support and recognition of impending MOU or IGA, CDOT.

16) Who is opposed to the project? The Town of New Castle is not aware of any individual or group who has voiced opposition to the pedestrian and traffic safety enhancement projects. 17) Describe the Applicant’s ability to complete the specific actions required to accomplish this project. Have you demonstrated this ability before with similar projects? The Town of New Castle is confident that its engineering team and public works department is capable of professionally managing and completing the specific actions necessary to accomplish the projects. Please see our answer to question 19, below. The Town of New Castle completed the following projects in recent years:

New Castle Wastewater Treatment Plant, a $9 million project completed in November of 2009

7

New Castle Public Works Building, a $1.5 million project completed in December of 2009

Grand River Park, a $900,000 project completed in of August 2010. 18) Is the project “shovel ready” and will it be completed within to years of the award date? Describe the planning that has gone into the project. Is design and engineering complete or is there work yet to be done? Using the sample Timeline provided by GCFMLD as a guide, please illustrate the timeline for completion of your project. The project is not shovel ready. This request is for design and engineering project funds which are necessary before the project can go before CDOT for approval. Upon CDOT’s approval, the project will be “shovel ready”. The project will be completed within two years of the award date. The Town Council is confident that additional monies as necessary will be appropriated by the New Castle Town Council, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Local Affairs energy impact funds, and perhaps other governmental entities as well as contributions from the gas industry key players. Please see the map of local Federal Mineral Leases, (attached to this Application as Exhibit 7). The planning which has gone into the project to date includes a ramps corridor study and an operational and feasibility study of the Castle Valley Boulevard and SH 6 Intersection analysis (dated April 1, 2012). The Town Engineer performed a design survey of the entire corridor along with preliminary alignment studies and cost estimates a various alternatives. An Executive Summary of the ramp corridor study and operational and feasibility study of the Castle Valley Boulevard and SH 6 Intersection analysis is attached Exhibit One to this Application. The Town of New Castle provided general fund revenues and traffic impact fees in order to fund these studies. 19) Describe the Applicant’s project management team, who will be used to complete this project.

Jefferey S. Simonson, PE, CFM, Principal of SGM and Town Engineer for the Town of New Castle will serve as Principal in Charge as well as will lead the civil and drainage design aspects of the project. Jeff will provide oversight to the project and will serve as a liaison between the Project Team, Town Staff, CDOT Staff and Town Council. Dan Cokley, PE, Development Sector Leader and Transportation Team Leader for SGM will function as Project Manager and will oversee the project team’s CDOT Local Agency coordination for the life of the project. Dan will work concurrently with Jeff and the Transporation Team to manage the Local Agency planning, coordination, design and construction services.

8

Steve Ehlers, PLS will oversee all surveying and right-of-way aspects of this project. He is a professional land surveyor with over 16 years experience in boundary and rights-of-ways surveys within the Public Lands Survey System. Mike Fowler, PE will serve as the senior bridge design technical resource and will be responsible for the bridge design oversight. He brings 15 years of experience in the design and management of a variety of transportation infrastructure projects in Colorado and the Western U.S. BUDGET: 20) Provide a detailed budget that presents information consistent with the answers presented throughout the Selection Criteria and on the Application Summary Form.

1. Preliminary Design Process for Intersection and Pedestrian Projects – Advancement of design concepts that have concurrence from CDOT, to the FIR (Field Inspection Review) stage or about 50%. This effort is the baseline of detailed design and critical to define project impacts to ROW. Approximately $90,000 Engineering

2. Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental clearance studies – Because the majority of work will be within CDOT ROW required soil investigations and environmental clearances are started after preliminary designs define the footprint of the project. Approximately $80,000 Studies

3. Final Design Process – The last stage of the CDOT design process is the FOR (Final Office Review) or about 90% design reviews. After the review meeting final design modifications are made and plans and specifications are “shovel ready” to bid to Contractors. Approximately $180,000 Engineering

4. CDOT Bid Process – When funds are allocated, a fairly rigorous bidding process is required by CDOT/FHWA that requires attention and a certified pool of Contractors to do the work. Approximately $40,000 Engineering

Summary of Exhibits

GCFMLD Grant Application For

Town of New Castle

May 25, 2012

Exhibit One Executive Summary

Exhibit Two Alternative 4 Plan map

Exhibit Three Letters of Support

Exhibit Four BOCC Res. No. 2003-113 (Haul Routes)

Exhibit Five Photographs, pedestrians

Exhibit Six Letter of Joe Elsen, CDOT Letter of SGM

Exhibit Seven Federal Mineral Lease Map

US 6 Corridor and Pedestrian Study Town of New Castle

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key findings and recommendations of this US 6 Corridor and Pedestrian Study for the Town of New Castle are:

• Most intersections in the study, under Existing Conditions, operate at an acceptable level of service during the morning and afternoon peak hours with the exception of the eastbound ramp intersection in the morning peak. In the morning, the level of service for south bound traffic turning east onto the I-70 entrance ramp is LOS F. In the afternoon, returning traffic to New Castle turning right off of the I-70 exit ramp going north to New Castle operate at a LOS E.

• The intersection of the westbound ramps with the I-70 Spur Road currently meet the peak

hour signal warrant in the afternoon peak. Three out of the four hours analyzed in the four hour warrant at the US 6 and Castle Valley Boulevard intersection currently meet a signal warrant. It is likely, based on previous traffic counts that the warrant for a signal existed at the US 6/CVBLD intersection prior to the recent down turn in the economy and the 16% resulting reduction in traffic.

• It is noted that the current housing vacancies have led to a 16% reduction in traffic on the

corridor when compared to 2006. As a result, when the vacancies are filled, the four hour warrant for a signal at the US 6/CVBLVD will be fulfilled. The Town has “approved” subdivisions and vacant lots that, once developed, will exacerbate the signal need at the intersections.

• For future traffic growth projections, a 20 year planning horizon was studied using 1 ½%

growth per year in concurrence with CDOT personnel.

• If no improvements are made to address the building congestion at the intersections under study, all intersections south of Walters Road and Castle Valley Boulevard intersection operate under a LOS E or F at various times of the day. All other intersections in the study area operate at LOS B or C levels. Signal warrants are required at all I-70 Spur road intersections and the Castle Valley Boulevard intersections with US 6 and Walters Road.

• To accommodate the 20-year traffic volumes a signal installation alternative will require

the expansion of the Spur Road from the 2 – lane section to a multi – lane section generally between the ramps. This will require the widening of the existing bridges. The Colorado River Bridge will widen by as much as of 2 lanes to accommodate turn lane transition lengths. The crossing of I-70 will widen by as much as of 3 lanes. The crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad will require widening by at least 3 lanes to accommodate 2 added traffic lanes and the width of a turn lane transition.

• To accommodate the 20-year traffic volumes with no signals, a roundabout alternative

exists for the US 6/CVBLVD section and the ramp intersections. The ramp intersection roundabouts will create a need for widening the Railroad Bridge by 2 lanes as well as the I-70 Bridge. The Colorado River Bridge will widen slightly on the north end to accommodate transitions.

US 6 Corridor and Pedestrian Study Town of New Castle

2

• The Roundabout alternative operates at a higher level of service than the Signal alternative for the 20 – year traffic for the Spur Road ramp intersections and US 6/CVBLVD intersection. Both alternatives are acceptable solutions to the corridor.

• Significant safety hazards exist for pedestrians on the I-70 Spur Road as no pedestrian

facilities exist. Even pedestrian railing on the bridge crossings of the Colorado River, I-70 and the Union Pacific Railroad are non-existent.

• Integrating pedestrian and bicyclists into the signalized intersections creates additional

widening and higher structural loading requirements at bridges due to the need to provide adequate barrier construction between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists in lieu of separately constructed pedestrian bridges.

• The provision of a pedestrian access corridor located along the west side and separated

from the I-70 Spur Road will allow for phased construction and less vehicular/pedestrian conflicts.

• Locating the pedestrian corridor coincident with the I-70 Spur Road centrally locates all

present and future pedestrian traffic and removes the need to secure additional lands for construction.

• Considering the whole of all improvements, the roundabouts alternative appears to be the

most cost effective over the signal installation alternative as the latter requires more significant structure widening to accommodate turn lanes for traffic intending to proceed east on I-70. However, continued collaboration with CDOT Region 3 may modify the configuration of the corridor.

Figure 1 – Overall View of the Corridor Figure 2 – Bicyclist on I-70 Bridge

Figure 1 - Pedestrian Crossing of Colorado River Bridge (Looking South to CR 335) Figure 4 - Pedestrian on Colorado River Bridge

118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601

Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.

(970)945-1004 (970)945-5948 FAX

MEMORANDUM TO: Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease District FROM: Jefferey S. Simonson, P.E., C.F.M. Steve Ehlers, PLS DATE: May 25, 2012 SUBJ: Town of New Castle Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Project Dear Board Members of the Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease District, Please let this memorandum serve to inform you that relative to the current planning, studies and surveying efforts, the project known as the New Castle Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Enhancement project is being designed and planned to be contained within Colorado Department of Transportation’s Highway 6 and I-70 rights of way as associated with the Exit 105 Interchange and as integrated with the Town of New Castle’s Castle Valley Boulevard. As well, the Town’s Castle Valley Boulevard right of way is part and parcel to that planning and design effort. As identified with the prior CDOT support letter from Mr. Joe Elsen, Program Engineer, it is understood that the Town, through an Intergovernmental Agreement or a memorandum of Understanding, will commit to ownership and maintenance of the facilities subject of design and construction. Upon your receipt and review, if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact either of us. Thanks! Jefferey S Simonson , PE Steve Ehlers, PLS

COGCC Federal Minerals Leased

Page 1 of 1COGCC_GISOnline

5/1/2012http://dnrwebcomapg.state.co.us/mapguide2010/mapviewernet/printablepage.aspx?SESSIO...

Project Information

For

Town of New Castle

New Castle Exit 105 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety

Enhancements

July 27, 2012

Figure 1 – Overall View of the Corridor Figure 2 – Bicyclist on I-70 Bridge

Figure 1 - Pedestrian Crossing of Colorado River Bridge (Looking South to CR 335) Figure 4 - Pedestrian on Colorado River Bridge

SimTraffic 8 - New Castle US 6 Corridor StudyNetwork at time = 7:04:16 A 3/13/2012

New Castle US 6 Corridor Study 2031 PM Forecasts I:\1993\93128\A\093\Task2-CorridorStudy\Synchro\Models\NC2031PM.synlmb

US 6

US 6

©2011 Microsoft Corporation ©AND ©2010 NAVTEQ

New Castle Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Project

Date: 7/27/2012

Project Desc.: Separated Pedestrian Bridges

Item Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Price

1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 2 Earthwork 17000 CY $ 5.00 $ 85,000.00 3 Structure Backfill 5400 TON $ 16.00 $ 86,400.00 4 Block Facing 3000 SF $ 30.00 $ 90,000.00 5 Aggregate Base Course 270 TON $ 25.00 $ 6,750.00 6 Concrete Path 7200 SF $ 5.50 $ 39,600.00 7 Class B Bridge Concrete 230 CY $ 125.00 $ 28,750.00 8 Class D Bridge Concrete 150 CY $ 375.00 $ 56,250.00 9 Epoxy Coated Reinf Steel 27000 LB $ 1.25 $ 33,750.00 10 Steel Piling (HP 12x53) 1200 LF $ 50.00 $ 60,000.00 11 Shoring 2 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 30,000.00 12 295x8' Prefab Pedestrian Bridge 2360 SF $ 150.00 $ 354,000.00 13 202x8' Prefab Pedestrian Bridge 1616 SF $ 150.00 $ 242,400.00 14 134'x8' Prefab Pedestrian Bridge 1072 SF $ 150.00 $ 160,800.00

15Misc Demo & Prep, Clearing, Grubbing, etc.

1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00

16 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 17 Handicap Ramps 6 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 30,000.00 18 Lights 6 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 18,000.00 19 Striping 1.00 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 20 Signage 1.00 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 21 Seeding/revegetation/SWMP 1.00 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00

Subtotal of Improvements $ 1,497,700.00 Force Account/Contingency $ 224,655.00

Total Improvements $ 1,722,355.00

Contract Administration (1%) 17,223.55$ Construction Inspection/Testing (8%) 137,788.40$

CDOT Oversight (5%) 86,117.75$

Total Project Cost1,963,484.70$

New Castle Traffic Safety Enhancement Project

Date: 7/27/2012

Project Desc.: Roundabout at I-70 Spur and Highway 6/Castle Valley Boulevard

Item Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Price

1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 2 Removals 1 LS $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 3 Earthwork 3140 CY $ 50.00 $ 156,986.30 4 Muck Excavation 300 CY $ 50.00 $ 15,000.00 5 Stormwater Management BMP's 1 LS $ 36,000.00 $ 36,000.00 6 Sidewalk 6000 SF $ 8.00 $ 48,000.00 7 Curb and Gutter 2500 LF $ 30.00 $ 75,000.00 8 Truck Apron 325 SY $ 150.00 $ 48,750.00 9 Class 2 ABC 3901 TON $ 30.00 $ 117,043.99 10 Class 6 ABC 1743 TON $ 45.00 $ 78,419.47 11 Asphalt 1173 TON $ 125.00 $ 146,666.23 12 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 13 Handicap Ramps 8 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 40,000.00 14 Lights 6 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 18,000.00 15 Striping 1.00 LS $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 16 Signage/delineation 1.00 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 17 Utility adjustments 1.00 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 18 Construction Staking 1.00 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 19 Public Information SVCS 1.00 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 20 Seeding/revegetation 1.00 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00

Subtotal of Improvements $ 1,417,865.99 Force Account/Contingency $ 283,573.20

Total Improvements $ 1,701,439.18

Contract Administration (1%) 17,014.39$ Construction Inspection/Testing (8%) 136,115.13$

CDOT Oversight (10%) 170,143.92$

Total Project Cost2,024,712.63$

Project Timeline

Spreadsheet Date: 5-11-2012

New Castle I-70 Exit 105 Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Enhancement Project2012 Activities 2013 Activities

Task May June July August September October November December January February March April

Grant application to GCFMLDGCFMLD Grant approvalReview and Concurrence of Project with CDOT Region 3Environmental Clearances and Geotechnical ReportsPreliminary DesignCDOT Field Inspection Review (FIR)Final DesignCDOT Field Office Review (FOR)Project Bidding for Pedestrian ImprovementsProject Construction Start for Pedestrian Improvements

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish

1 New Castle / CDOT Efforts 408 days Thu 9/22/11 Mon 4/15/132 Scoping Meeting with Town Staff 1 day Thu 9/22/11 Thu 9/22/113 Project Kickoff Meeting with Town Staff 1 day Tue 1/31/12 Tue 1/31/124 CDOT Traffic Study Review 30 days Mon 7/2/12 Fri 8/10/125 NC FIR Design Review Mtg 1 day Mon 8/27/12 Mon 8/27/126 Garfield County Grant Application 45 days Mon 8/27/12 Fri 10/26/127 GOCO Grant Application 50 days Mon 8/27/12 Fri 11/2/128 CDOT Safety Grant Application 45 days Mon 8/27/12 Fri 10/26/129 DOLA Grant Application 45 days Mon 8/27/12 Fri 10/26/1210 LOVA/RFTA Grant Applications 49 days Tue 8/28/12 Fri 11/2/1211 Private Funding Partners Requests 44 days Tue 8/28/12 Fri 10/26/1212 NC FOR Design Review Mtg 43 days Thu 11/15/12 Mon 1/14/1313 CDOT Local Agency Grant Application 100 days Mon 9/3/12 Fri 1/18/1314 CDOT Access Permits Review (if Necessary) 45 days Tue 8/28/12 Mon 10/29/1215 NC Construction Award 1 day Tue 3/19/13 Tue 3/19/1316 Construction Award and NTP Period 20 days Tue 3/19/13 Mon 4/15/1317 CDOT Construction Project NTP 1 day Mon 4/15/13 Mon 4/15/1318 SGM Project Management Activities 90 days Mon 10/15/12 Fri 2/15/1319 Adjacent Business Owner Coordination 90 days Mon 10/15/12 Fri 2/15/1320 Project Open House 1 day Tue 1/15/13 Tue 1/15/1321 Utility Coord 75 days Mon 10/29/12 Fri 2/8/1322 SGM Corridor Studies 215 days Mon 12/12/11 Fri 10/5/1223 Traffic Counts 5 days Mon 12/12/11 Fri 12/16/1124 Temporary Traffic Mitigation Memo 5 days Thu 1/12/12 Wed 1/18/1225 Operations and Feasibility Study 40 days Mon 12/19/11 Fri 2/10/1226 New Castle Traffic Studies review 10 days Mon 2/13/12 Fri 2/24/1227 Modifications to Corridor Traffic Studies 10 days Mon 8/13/12 Fri 8/24/1228 Boundary Investigations 10 days Mon 8/27/12 Fri 9/7/1229 Field Survey Data Collection 10 days Mon 9/10/12 Fri 9/21/1230 Project Electronic Base Mapping 10 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/5/1231 FIR Design (Intersection/Pedestrian) 58 days Wed 8/8/12 Fri 10/26/1232 Preliminary Design Efforts 25 days Mon 8/27/12 Fri 9/28/1233 Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment 25 days Wed 8/8/12 Tue 9/11/1234 Preliminary Hydrological Design 10 days Mon 9/17/12 Fri 9/28/1235 Environmental Clearance Efforts 45 days Wed 8/8/12 Tue 10/9/1236 UPRR Preliminary Design review 40 days Mon 9/3/12 Fri 10/26/1237 NC/CDOT FIR Design review 20 days Mon 10/1/12 Fri 10/26/1238 FOR Design Intersection 145 days Tue 8/28/12 Mon 3/18/1339 Final Design Efforts 35 days Tue 8/28/12 Mon 10/15/1240 Finalize Geotechnical Rpt 10 days Tue 8/28/12 Mon 9/10/1241 Finalize ESA and other reports 25 days Wed 10/10/12 Tue 11/13/1242 NC/CDOT FOR Design review 20 days Wed 11/14/12 Tue 12/11/1243 Convert Final Design Docs to Bid Docs 5 days Tue 1/15/13 Mon 1/21/1344 CDOT Final Bid Package Reviews 25 days Tue 1/22/13 Mon 2/25/1345 Construction Advertisement Project 15 days Tue 2/26/13 Mon 3/18/1346 FOR Design Pedestrian 155 days Tue 8/28/12 Mon 4/1/1347 Final Design Efforts 35 days Tue 8/28/12 Mon 10/15/1248 UPRR Design review 120 days Tue 10/16/12 Mon 4/1/1349 NC/CDOT FOR Design review 20 days Wed 11/14/12 Tue 12/11/1250 Convert Final Design Docs to Bid Docs 5 days Wed 12/12/12 Tue 12/18/1251 CDOT Final Bid Package Reviews 25 days Wed 12/19/12 Tue 1/22/1352 Construction Advertisement Project 15 days Wed 1/23/13 Tue 2/12/1353 2013-14 Construction Activities 430 days Mon 4/15/13 Fri 12/5/1454 Construction Pre-Con Meeting 1 day Mon 4/15/13 Mon 4/15/1355 Construction Project I 175 days Tue 4/16/13 Mon 12/16/1356 Clean up and Punchlist Phase I 15 days Tue 12/17/13 Mon 1/6/1457 Construction Project II 175 days Mon 3/17/14 Fri 11/14/1458 Clean up and Punchlist Phase II 15 days Mon 11/17/14 Fri 12/5/14

CDOT

8/27

11/15

CDOT

3/19

Town of New Castle

4/15

10/15 2/15

1/15

SGM

SGM

SGM

SGM

SGM

UPRR

Town of New Castle

Town of New Castle

SGM

CDOT

SGM

UPRR

Town of New Castle

SGM

CDOT

SGM

4/15

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec12 2013 2014

Task

Progress

Milestone

Summary

External Tasks

Project Summary

Split

Rolled Up Split

External Milestone

Deadline

Town of New CastleNew Castle Blvd / SH 6 Enhancement Project2012-2014 Design & Construction Schedule

Project: SGM Design/Const ScheduleDate: 20 Dec 2011