Loading...
TC Council Packet 01-08-2002Print this document for the clerk's packet for roll calls. Town Council Meetings Roll Call Check Sheet ,, Date: JMv, a r y O, ?',v nQUrN . Michael Brown x ?r Debbie Buckley Peter Buckley Rick Cuny Mac McDevitt Buz Reynolds Judy Yoder Roll calls are called at start of meeting and for Ordinances. Do not call Mayor except for meeting roll call or to break a tie vote. Seating arrangements from west to east: P. Buckley, Cuny, Reynolds, Yoder, McDevitt, D. Buckley, Brown Staff Present: X Bill Efting Larry Brooks X Burt-Levin?,= Kris Nash Jacquie Halburnt Scott Wright -/, Jeff Layman X Norm Wood Meryl Jacobs Bob Reed Harry Taylor Ruth Borne Other Staff x '1 ? ]ATown Clerk\Council\Packets\Council Meeting Check List.doc TOWN OF AVON REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA January 8, 2002 - 5:30 PM 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Citizen Input a.) Real Estate Transfer Tax Appeal, Sunridge at Avon, Unit K103 (Todd Ahern) 3. Ordinances a.) First Reading of Ordinance No. 02-01, Series of 2002, An Ordinance Approving the First Amendment of the Wildridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot 25, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (Ruth Borne) 4. Resolutions a.) Resolution No. 02-01, Series of 2002, A Resolution Approving the Avon Town Center Plan (Tambi Katieb) 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business 7. Town Manager Report 8. Town Attorney Report 9. Mayor Report 10. Other Business 11. Consent Agenda a.) Approval of the December 11, 2001 Council Meeting Minutes b.) Approval of the December 18, 2001 Special Council Meeting C) c.) Approval of the Eagle County Ambulance District Service Agreement d.) Approval of the Lower Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements Proposal ' e.) Legal Representation Agreement / 12. Adjournment IATown Clerk\Council\Agendas & Worksessions\Agenda-Regular Meeting.doc TOWN OF AVON HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING January 8, 2002 - 5:25 PM 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Citizen Input 3. Ordinances 4. Resolutions a.) Resolution No. 02-01, Series of 2002, Town of Avon, Resolutions of the Housing Authority of the Town of Avon, Colorado, Buffalo Ridge Apartments 6(1,1, N 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business 7. Town Manager Report 8. Town Attorney Report 9. Mayor Report 10. Other Business 11. Consent Agenda 12. Adjournment V" ? f Jx' ? Z I:\Town Clerk\Council\Agendas & Worksessions\Agenda-Regular Meeting.doe Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Bill Efting, Town Manager From: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development Norm Wood, Town Engineer,' ?J Date January 3, 2002 Re: Review of Resolution 91-17 - Policy for Discouraging Detached Residences on Duplex and Multi-family Zoned Lots Summary On June 25, 1991 Council passed Resolution 91-17 directing the Planning & Zoning Commission to restrict the approval of further duplex zoned and multi-family lots to attached residences. Council was concerned with maintaining the integrity of current zoning and detached buildings. Resolution 91-17 reflects policies contained in the Wildridge PUD, current Town design guidelines, and the zoning code. The Resolution was designed to eliminate duplex and multi-family zoned properties from having detached projects. The Resolution does not impact an owner from creating one single-family residence on a duplex lot. The Planning & Zoning Commission has consistently applied this policy except when a property is downzoned. When a developer/owner eliminates development rights, then Planning and Zoning and Council have permitted detached projects. Alternatives 1. Retain policy as adopted. 2. Direct staff to create new resolution for Council consideration. Town Manager Comments Attachments: • Resolution 91-17 Memo to Town Council, January 3, 2002 Page 1 of 1 Review of Resolution 91-17 RESOLUTION NO. 91-17 SERIES OF 1991 The attached sheet is from the-.Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 25, 1991. Resolution No. 91-17, Series of 1991 was not put in written form; only verbal via the attached minutes. P TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1991. This ordinance would be deferred until the July 9, 1991 Council Meeting. At that point, Councilman Ptach. entered a Resolution on the floor. He proposed that Resolution No. 91-17, Series of 1991 be proposed stating that the Town of Avon Council direct the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Design Review Board to no longer allow any further subdivision of residential lots in the Wildridge Subdivision. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Design Review Board would be instructed to enforce the regulations as written in Wildridge to interpret that two unit lots mean "attached duplex buildings and no detached, duplex allowed and, three unit or greater lots would mean multi-family attached buildings of three units or more per building". The motion was seconded by'.Councilman Bennett. Mayor Davis stated that there was a moratorium on this issue at this time, and it was not clear of what the resolution would accomplish. Councilman Ptach stated that the resolution would accomplish no further subdivision of residential lots in Wildridge. He stated. that it deterred from the character of Wildridge and a resolution was needed as to comfort the residents of what was happening in Wildridge. Mayor Davis stated that it was not appropriate to circumvent the process that the Council had been discussing the issue. He stated that the Council agreed in an earlier work session to come up with a way to resolve this issue. Councilwoman McRory stated that it was the consensus that 30,000 square feet of 40,000 square feet might be acceptable - to allow the duplex subdivision for single family homes. The Mayor felt that that was the consensus of the'Council and that this issue be reviewed and brought back-. to the. next meeting. Councilwoman McRory called for.question. Because of the nature of the issue, the Mayor called for a roll call. Those Councilmembers voting aye were Tom Ptach, Jim Stovall and Mike Bennett. Those Councilmembers opposing the resolution were Albert Reynolds and Gloria McRory. The motion carried by a 3 to 2 vote. The Mayor stated that he found that type of action objectable, for the Council to agree at one point to discuss the issue further and then to propose a resolution, approve it without any further . discussion was not appropriate. TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1991 The next discussion was in respect to duplex subdivision in Wildridge. Ken Gubler approached the Council. He wanted to express his opinions of the 'issue of the subdivision of lots in Wildridge. He stated that his goal was to have a single family home and two car garage: He believed and hoped the opportunity would surface in Wildridge with some of the re-zoning of some of the multi-family lots, down-zoning and building of single family homes, that those would provide a range that his budget could afford. Joe Peplinski, a Real Estate Broker and who was also involved in the C1aivin Project in Wildridge. This project had a lot of focus in respect to this issue. The project was a six unit. detached townhomes. He stated that their group had purchased another lot in Wildridge, Lot 17, Block 1, which was zoned for four units. He stated that their main concern was whether those units could be detached. They were not going to change the density or the zoning. The Claivin was six detached Townhomes. He stated that in appearance they looked like single family homes. Councilman Stovall stated that the resolution that was adopted would not preclude the developer from developing the lot as requested. He stated that the developer bought the lot with the knowledge of the restrictive covenants of Wildridge.. He stated that those restrictive covenants could be amended. He stated that there was an 'alternative process that could come into the Town which probably would be more appropriate and that was to amend the covenants to allow what was wanted to be accomplished. Councilman Ptach stated that the intent of the resolution was not to restrict conventional attached duplexes or multi-family subdivisions. The intent was to restrict subdivision or resubdivision of undeveloped land to allow for additional single family housing to be constructed. Mr. Peplinski stated that there was a market for detached units verses attached units. Paul Jeppson a property owner in Wildridge stated that he had bought in Wildridge three yeara ago because that was the only undeveloped property in the area. He stated that he like the open space. He stated that it was important to take a look of what would be built in Wildridge. Mike Bruen owner of a lot in Wildridge and, also a real estate agent. He agreed with the above comments. He stated that they were ready to break ground for a fractionalized project that would allow six units on a four-plex lot. This was approved in June of this year. He stated that there seemed to be a wide variety of lot sizes, square footage acreage, some lots had multi-entrances off of different roads. He stated that there were a lot of gray areas, nothing was written in stone. He stated that the variety was much more attractive than having buildings all the same. Michael Rick, property owner in Wildridge and owner of a duplex in Wildridge approached the Council. The original intent of what the building was to be in Wildridge when he bought his lot now seemed to be changing. He stated that if you let one developer.have approval for subdividing, then you would have to let all developers have their wish. Ken Sortland property owner and developer in Wildridge approached the Council. He felt that there have been too many changes in the laws in Avon. He stated that Council wanted to encourage building in Avon, then they dempen that encouragement by changing the laws. He stated that the lenders would not loan any funds on four-plex units unless all the units were pre-sold. He suggested that the requests should be on a case by case basis. Peter Monroe, property owner in Wildridge and structural engineer approached the Council. He stated that the resolution was excellent. He stated that the guidelines have to be specific. He stated that a more simplified language in the resolution could have read, "Undeveloped property cannot be subdivided and sold". Jack Hunn, resident of Wildridge approached the Council. He served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for two years and dealt. with these issues of for and against of these types of projects. He stated that for two years he had been encouraging the Planning staff to come up with a criteria on which you could consider these types of projects. There was no process to notify owners of what was going on. People that own property in Wildridge that do not live in the area, do not know what is being proposed in Wildridge, and how their property value may be greatly effected. He stated that there are covenants in Wildridge, they were legal and binding. The people that bought in Wildridge. had confidence that the laws of the covenants would stand. Celeste Nottingham approached the Council. She also was a property owner in Wildridge. She stated that she also supported the resolution. She felt that the Wildridge covenants was there to protect the intent of openance, which was very attractive. The Council should not be moving as a reaction to the market or, chasing the market. She stated that Council should not loose site of the big picture. Those people were looking toward the Council to preserve that confidence for them. Councilman Bennett asked if the resolution precluded anyone from appealing-to the Council to allow subdivision of a lot. He was under the impression that the request could be heard. Mr. Dunn stated that there was nothing in the resolution that stated that a developer could not ask. He stated that what was really being talked about was the SPA for Wildridge. The provision of the resolution was for the Planning and Zoning Commission to enforce the regulations as they were written for Wildridge. Councilman Garton stated that it had always been his understanding that protective covenants ran with the land. He stated that he did not feel that Council could override protective covenants. He did not think it was the right group of people to be discussing changes in the covenants that govern the building in Wildridge. He stated that there was a provision in the covenants that would set forth how amendments could be made to those covenants. He stated that 75% of property owners would have to get together in order to change the zoning in Wildridge. Councilman Ptach stated that one observation was that people who live in Wildridge support the resolution, and those who do not live in Wildridge, do not support the resolution. Mayor Davis stated that the Town of Avon did not have the obligation or responsibility to amend the covenants, but the Council did control Design Review and zoning and what can and cannot be built in Wildridge. The Planning Commission did not have an ordinance that would enforce the covenants, and that the resolution did not enforce the covenants. He stated that he objected to the process last time. There was a market out there now for single family homes. There are not any single _ family lots in the valley. He stated that Avon could continue to build row townhomes. Single family homes would add to the variety. He stated that there was an article in the Planning Issue of July, 1991 in which they were describing a new idea called "Co-Communities". He stated that things change,. new ideas come along and he did not know why Avon should resist. Perhaps staff could look at a study then, come up with something that would be acceptable. His concern was that the Council had cut off all requests, when probably an ordinance needed to be established to clarify what was and what was not proper to define a SPA. He felt it was a very unstable situation. He stated that he woulc like to see Avon grow, and having a few more single family homes would do that. He had hoped that this Council could look at that somewhere in the future and solve the problem. He. stated that he was not sure that the problem was solved with this resolution. Councilwoman McRory stated that there were more duplex lots than there were multi-family lots. She felt that was a great concern. She suggested that a open hearing or work session be scheduled to discuss thiE issue and set a criteria for two single. families on a duplex lot provided the lot was large enough and flat enough. -4- Councilman Reynolds stated that two weeks ago the Council had requested that Rick Pylman research this issue. He stated that he voted unfavorably of the resolution because there was not a public hearing on this issue. He requested that Mr. Pylman do the research and return to the Council. He :stated that possibly some lots were feasible. He felt that the resolution needed to be in writing so it would not be interpreted differently each time it was discussed. Mr. Dunn stated that the resolution was written into the minutes therefore, a resolution was not needed. Being there was no further discussion on this matter, the Mayor stated that the resolution would stand as is. The Council recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m... Second reading of Ordinance No. 91-11, Series of 1991, AN ORDINANCE REGULATING FIREPLACES AND OTHER SIMILAR DEVICES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AVON AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION HEREOF. Bill James stated that there were three parts to the proposed Air Quality Program. 1. Was the ordinance regulating fireplaces and other similar devices. 2. Was the resolution in respect to an Incentive Program to encourage people to convert from Solid Fuel Devices to Certified Solid Fuel Devices. 3. A request for a purchase of a street sweeper. He stated that approximately 40% of the air problems were created by dust. The Town was looking at using a different type of material in the winter months to reduce the dust. Mr. James reviewed the ordinance with the Council. If the Council approved the resolution in. respect to the Incentive Program then Section 15.40.070-could be deleted from the ordinance.' The resolution outlined conditions that staff suggested for consideration. Staff made an extensive study of costs that would make conversions. The Certified Solid Fuel Devices range in price from $750.00 to $1,500. Mr. James recommended that the Town pay 50% of the actual cost not to exceed $750.00 for the conversion of any existing Solid Fuel burning device to any Certified sold fuel burning device, gas log fireplaces or gas appliance. The program would be limited to only two units of condominiums complex within any given year. The ordinance did allow a wood burning fireplace in the areas of hotel lobbies and lodges and recommended that a fee of $3,000 be applied to the Construction Fund. There were some modifications to the ordinance. 15.40.030, add to the sentence, "provided, a fee in the amount of $3,000 is paid at the time of application for building permit".. I- Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Bill Efting, Town Manager From: Norm Wood, Town Engineer,,,, ? Anne Martens, Assistant Tow6 Engineer Date: January 3, 2002 Re: Lower Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements Proposal / Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. Construction Contract Administration Services Summary: The attached Proposal for Construction Contract Administration Services for Lower Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements was submitted by Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. The proposed services would include daily observations of construction activities, coordination of materials testing, review and evaluation of potential corrections and changes, coordination of construction progress meetings, measurement and documentation of quantities for payment, review of pay requests, and other related activities as required for efficient administration of a construction project. The proposed cost of these services is not to exceed $51,550 without prior written approval. The actual cost of these services is somewhat dependent upon the Construction Schedule and is expected to be less due to construction timing. The cost of these services has been included in the Approved Project Budget. Approval of the Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. Proposal for Construction Contract Administration Services for Lower Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements with an estimated cost not to exceed $51,550 without approval is recommended. Recommendations: Approve the Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. Proposal for Construction Contract Administration Services for Lower Metcalf Gulch Improvements with an estimated cost not to exceed $51,550 without prior written approval. Town Manager Comments: C:\Documents And Settings\Nwood\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLK2\Memo Prpsl Aprvl.Doc 0 n Inter-Mountain Engineering Ltd. December 21, 2001 Mr. Norm Wood, Town Engineer Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 500 Swift Gulch Road Avon, CO 81620 Hand Deliver - 500 Swift Gulch Road Re: Construction Observation Services Proposal Lower Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements Dear Norman, Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. (IME) is pleased to present this proposal for construction observation services for the referenced project. IME is uniquely qualified for this work since we completed the final plans and specifications for the project, have a solid working relationship with Town staff and are well versed with projects of this size and scope. Inter-Mountain Engineering is a multi-disciplined civil engineering firm with the ability to provide, in-house, the construction observation services required for this project. Over the years, IME has successfully completed many similar projects for the Town and other clients. We are familiar with the Town's expectations, which will help lead to a successful project. Finally, being local is a significant asset that will allow us to be more responsive to the Town's and the Contractor's needs during construction. 1. Specific personnel dedicated to this project: 1.1. Sandra E. Mendonca, P.E. will serve as IME's project manager for construction observation services. Ms. Mendonca has been IME's engineering manager since October 1999. She has more than sixteen years experience with civil project planning, design and construction. She has a very diverse background and is able to provide project management, engineering, and construction oversight services. 8392 Continental Divide Road, Suite #107 • Littleton, Colorado 80127 • Phone: 303/948-6220 • Fax: 303/948-6526 77 Metcalf Road, #200 • Box 978 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • Phone: 970/949-5072 • From Denver Direct: 893-1531 Page 2 of 4 Construction Observation Services Proposal Lower Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements December 21, 2001 1.2. Bob Yost, E.I., design engineer, will perform the majority of the field observation and related services. 1.3. Dale Hope, construction quality control manager, will provide support services as necessary to fulfill the project requirements. 2. General Conditions: 2.1. The enclosed General Conditions are incorporated into and made a part of all IME's agreements for services. 3. Scheduling Services: 3.1. Our normal hours of business are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). We request that services be scheduled 24 hours in advance during regular business hours. 3.2. If services are required after hours or on weekends or holidays, we request 48 hours advance notice. Work scheduled outside of normal business hours is charged at a rate of 1.5 times our standard charges. 3.3. We understand that there may be times when it is necessary to provide construction observation without advance notice. We can generally accommodate these requests, providing services within a few hours, given that such requests are infrequent. 4. Fees: 4.1. Due to the unpredictable nature of construction observation requirements, the actual scope of services is difficult to predict. We generally perform this type of work on a time and materials basis. A copy of IME's fee schedule is attached. 4.2.A spreadsheet with a tentative breakdown of the time that may be devoted to various aspects of construction observation, and the associated, estimated, fees is enclosed. It is based on a total contract time of 240 calendar days, as indicated in the contract documents, with the understanding that the contract time allows for winter weather delays and the majority of the services would be required during a 120 day period in late spring and summer. 5. Basic Services: 5.1. Construction observation services begin with the award of the construction contract and end with issuance of the final certificate for payment to the Town. However, IME shall be entitled to extra compensation in the event of contract time extensions. 5.2.IME shall review and take appropriate action upon the contractor's submittals for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with the information and design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. 12/21/01 12:32 PM Page 3 of 4 Construction Observation Services Proposal Lower Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements December 21, 2001 IME shall forward the reviewed submittals to the Town and the contractor. This action shall be taken with reasonable promptness, in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents (to allow for a thorough review), so as not to delay the work. Review of such submittals shall not be conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy or completeness of details such as dimensions or quantities or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance of equipment or systems designed by the Contractor, all of which remain the responsibility of the contractor. Approval of a specific item shall not constitute approval of an assembly of which the item is a specific component. Shop drawings and other submittals related to work designed or certified by the contractor shall bear the design professional's written seal when submitted. IME shall be entitled to rely on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the services, certifications, or approvals performed by such professionals. 5.3. IME shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the contractor's stage of operations to become generally familiar with and keep the Town informed about the progress and the quality of the portion of the work performed, endeavor to guard the Town against defects and deficiencies in the work, and to determine, in general, if the work is being performed in a manner that, when complete, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. IME will not make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the work. IME may recommend minor changes in the work that are consistent with the Contract Documents and do not involve an increase in the contract amount or an extension of the contract time to the Town and the contractor. 5.4. IME shall not have control, charge or responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures used in performing the work, since these are solely the contractor's rights and responsibility. 5.5. IME shall not be responsible for safety precautions and programs in connection with the work. 5.6. IME will report known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule to the Town. However, IME will not have control or charge of or be responsible for the contractor's failure to perform the work in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. IME shall not have control or charge of or be responsible for acts, negligent acts or omissions of the contractor, subcontractors, their agents or employees, or of any other persons or entities performing portions of the work. 5.7. IME shall have access to the work at all times. 12/21/01 12:37 PM Page 4 of 4 Construction Observation Services Proposal Lower Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements December 21, 2001 5.8. IME shall assist the Town with evaluating amounts due to the contractor based on the contractor's submitted applications for payment. 5.9. Upon written request for information or clarification by the contractor, IME shall provide written interpretation of our plans and specifications if such interpretation is necessary for proper execution or progress of the work. 5.10. IME will assist the Town in preparing change orders for their and the contractor's execution in accordance with the Contract Documents. 5.11. IME will assist the Town in determining whether to reject work that does not conform to the contract documents. 5.12. IME will assist the Town in determining the date of substantial completion, preparing a list of items to be completed or corrected prior to final acceptance, and determining the date of final completion of the work. 6. Exclusions: 6.1. Quality control and quality assurance testing are not included in the scope of this proposal. Quality control tests are the contractor's responsibility. IME staff will be available to perform required quality assurance testing, as directed by the Town, as an extra service at the rates presented in the enclosed fee schedule. 6.2. If it appears that claims may arise as a result of work on the project, IME will document information related to the potential claims. However, such work is considered an extra service. The work will be billed at the rates presented in the enclosed fee schedule. 6.3. Preparation of as-builts after the work is complete is not included in the scope of this proposal. IME will not exceed the estimated project total of $51,550 without prior authorization from the Town. We look forward to working with the Town toward a successful project. Sincerely, 9A Sandra E. Mendonca, P.E. Project Manager Enclosures 12/21/01 12:26 PM 0 wInteFAIr-mountain ngineeringrxa. General Conditions THESE GENERAL CONDITIONS ARE INCORPORATED INTO AND MADE A PART OF AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES BYINTER-MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING, LTD. 1. Responsibilities of Inter-Mountain Engineering. Ltd.: A. IME will perform professional engineering and/or professional surveying services as specified under "Basic Services" and when authorized, "Additional Services". ll. Responsibilities of Client: A. Provide all criteria and full information as to the requirements of the project. Furnish all appropriate tests, reports, and surveys not included in Basic Services. A Title Insurance policy shall be provided when a survey is included in Basic Services. IME shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of such information. B. Render approvals and decisions as expeditiously as necessary for the orderly progress of IME services. C. Give prompt notice to IME of any development that affects the scope or timing of its services. D. Coordinate the work of IME with that of others. E. Give complete and careful consideration to services and recommendations provided by IME. F. Provide "Right of Entry" for IME and all necessary equipment. IME will take reasonable care to reduce damage to property, however, it is understood that in the normal course of work, some damage will occur, the repair of which is not part of this agreement. G. Delineate the location of all utility lines and subterranean structures within the property. IME shall not be responsible for damage resulting from their incorrect location. Ill. Compensation: A. IME shall submit invoices to client monthly and a final bill upon completion of services. Invoices are due upon presentation, and past due 30 days after the invoice date, client agrees to pay a service charge of 1 3/4 percent per month on past due accounts. B. If it becomes necessary to enforce collection, client agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney's fees. C. It is understood that estimates of professional fees are based upon the preparation of designs, reports, or surveys for a single design concept or site plan, and that charges to that concept or additional engineering required by governing agencies (except normal "Redlines") shall constitute an increase in the scope of services. Additional Services ("Additional Services") shall be billed at the normal billing rates for the individuals assigned to the work. No Additional Services will be provided without prior authorization. N, Standard of Care: A. Services of IME under this agreement will be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of the project. B. IME liability for damages to client arising from negligent acts, errors or omissions, will be limited to an aggregate amount not to exceed $50,000 or the total fee under this agreement, whichever is greater. This limitation shall apply to [ME, its officers and employees. V. Ownership of Documents: A. All reports, drawings, specifications, notes and other documents prepared by IME in the course of providing services are instruments of service and shall remain the property of IME. These documents are not intended to be suitable for reuse on extensions of this project or for use on any other project. Documents shall not be altered in any manner without the permission of IME. W. Construction: A. Client agrees to require the construction contractor to assume sole and complete responsibility for the construction of the project including the safety of persons and property and the means, methods, techniques and sequences of construction. Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless IME from any liability arising from the construction of the project, except liability arising directly from the negligence of IME. B. If IME is not providing services during the construction process, client hereby agrees to contact [ME if construction documents are unclear or if errors or discrepancies are discovered. IME shall not be liable where client and/or contractor makes his own interpretations of and/or revises the intent of the construction documents and design drawings. C. If construction observations are provided, the term "Observation" implies only that IME would observe the progress of the contractors work, and perform tests, from which to develop an opinion as to whether the work essentially complies with the job requirements. Our efforts shall be directed at providing the client with a greater degree of assurance that construction is proceeding in accordance with project requirements. The presence of IME representatives will be for the purpose of providing observation and/or testing. IME work does not include supervision or direction of actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Neither the presence of IME representatives or their observations or testing shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in his work. D. Any opinions of project cost rendered by IME represents it's best judgment and are furnished for general guidance. IME makes no warranty as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs. VII. Soils and Materials Testing: A. Client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where explorations are made, and that data, interpretations and recommendations made by IME are based solely on the information available to it. B. Client represents that Client has made a reasonable effort to evaluate whether hazardous materials are on or near the project site and has informed IME of any information or findings relative to the possible presence of such materials. Should unanticipated hazardous material be discovered in the course of the performance of services under the Agreement, such discovery shall constitute a changed condition mandating a renegotiation of the scope of work or termination of services. Should the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials require IME to take immediate measures to protect health and safety, Client agrees to compensate IME for costs incident to taking such measures and for any equipment decontamination required. IME agrees to notify Client promptly when unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials are encountered. Client agrees to make any disclosure required by law to appropriate govemment agencies. Furthermore, Client agrees to defend, indemnify and hold IME harmless from any and all liability arising from discovery by anyone of unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials. C. IME will discard samples 30 days after submission of reports on those samples. IX. Insurance: A. IME and it's employees are protected by insurance which meets or exceeds statutory requirements for Workman's Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Professional Liability. Certificates evidencing coverage will be provided upon request. IME shall in no event be responsible for any loss or damage beyond the amounts, limits and conditions of such insurance. X. Miscellaneous: A. This agreement shall be governed in accordance with Colorado law. B. Services are for the exclusive use of the Client for this specific project. These services are not to be relied on by others without the specific authorization of IME. C. Neither party shall assign or transfer any interest in this agreement. D. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon 7 days written notice to the other, in which case IME shall be paid for all services provided up to termination, plus all additional cost incurred by [ME due to said termination. 0 n Inter-Mountain Engineering ud. PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE March 1, 2001 PROFESSIONAL FEES: Principal Engineer $120.00/hr Senior Engineer 90.00/hr Project Manager 100.00/hr Project Engineer 80.00/hr Design Engineer 70.00/hr Field Engineer 75.00/hr Surveyor 90.00/hr Survey Crew without GPS 115.00/hr 2 Man Survey Crew with GPS 137.50/hr 1 Man Survey Crew with GPS 115.00/hr CADD Technician 70.00/hr Technician 60.00/hr Technical Typist 35.00/hr Computer Processing 65.00/hr Photocopies .15/each Blueprinting 3.00/Sheet Outside Services Actual Cost +15% LABORATORY TESTING: Atterberg limits (one point method) (ASTM D-4318) $ 50.00 Atterberg Limits (three point method) (ASTM D-4318) 125.00 Grain Size Analysis: A. 1'/2" sieve to No. 200 sieve $ 85.00 B. Percent passing No. 200 sieve (ASTM-1140) 60.00 C. Hydrometer analysis 75.00 Swell-Consolidation Test A. Loaded to 5,000 psf (4 loads) $75.00 B. Per load in addition to 5,000 psf 15.00 8392 Continental Divide Road, Suite #107 • Littleton, Colorado 80127 • Phone: 303/948-6220 • Fax: 303/948-6526 77 Metcalf Road, #200 • Box 978 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • Phone: 970/949-5072 • From Denver Direct: 893-1531 Natural Moisture and Density $20.00 Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D-2166) 75.00 Standard Proctor Density Test (ASTM D-698) $ 90.00 Modified Proctor Density Test (ASTM D-1557 $100.00 One Point Proctor $50.00 Concrete field test (sampling, slump, unit weight, air content, temperature, & cylinder fabrication) $ 60.00/hr Concrete compressive strength tests (includes $16.00/cyl cylinders held and not tested) Laboratory preparation of samples, remolds, etc. $ 50.00/hr Mileage @ $0.40 per mile Scheduled overtime (after 6:00 p.m. and weekends) 1.5 x base rate. Overtime must be scheduled 24 hours in advance on weekdays and on Thursday for weekends. W n v m n A 0 O n :0 O 0 D O m m < (1). = y < s 0) x CID m :3 v O co o C a ?• M W Dpi 0 Dpi ra a ry m z N O °- ' a D N c n O m 7 (D n (D O W n N W n n N y. t _ N C O 0 .. O . ? @ 0 N fu 1'4 O N (D ID .Oi ID fk ' = m ° 2 m ' O ' m o 3 c R o c o N o N d y S = a W D ?G VI . = ? N Q° (DD o ? (D R0 . N y r_ : 1 N X R A m c N t f3 - p c 3 fN m c O N N N y N i N (D to m N N 3 fy O N N O m N c m 3 m D 3 m = ,o. o ID N N N 4A GA ? o o o co co O N ?' N N A ° D 0 O O ° =. N m 3 m 3 m O) A O s D O 'A m m m 0 m m z 00 j 0 0 0 ° ` D m C m m0 m ? 49 A N .1a 69 N n m c 2 n p° ° o ° ai z o O p $ 0 D z m Z m y Z N co O N am K3 .A N p , O Co O z z o m -n = m . A M c o ? L D. j = 3 X Q c m 2 S v 2 2 2 ? 2 m n CO) m i rn W rn m m N m ( n C X m D D D D D D y r r r r r r fig fA fA 69 fA ffl ffl -o 64 ffl ffi 69 fH fig ffl ffl O p W v W J? Cn W 1 NA A O N N N N D w N O A N CO cn O cn O O O W m w A cn N O co O co O O V N V N CO co O r - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 11 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A•O IA iIQ m m v m m cn 0 2 m v C r - m 0 fD n m N O D 3 E m m n O a ° n .? 3 ? o o ° 7 V m D cn "0 (D (OD N ID (D - CD N (n -0 + X C:) .r+ C)