|
Final Alternatives Appendix B: Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix C: Reference Drawings
<br />December 2007 Georgetown – Final Alternatives Analysis Report page 1 1.0 Introduction The Town of Georgetown applied for a Junior Water Storage Right decree in 1999 to store and use
<br />315 acft of water in Georgetown Lake. The estimated total capacity of the lake and lagoon is 385-387 ac-ft. Downstream users opposed the decree due to problems with the existing outlet
<br />capacity. Issues with the outlet capacity include existing gate operation and maximum release capacity. This report examines several alternatives addressing the maximum release capacity
<br />issue. 2.0 Site Specific Information The Georgetown Lake and Dam are located off of Interstate 70, north of the Town of Georgetown on Clear Creek. The dam release capacity is about 275
<br />cfs, which includes 235 cfs from the existing 48” square slide gate on the spillway, and 40 cfs through the hydro plant downstream. The hydro plant currently acquires water from the
<br />lake through a siphon, which goes over the embankment. The purpose of this project is to investigate options for releasing additional incremental flows of 75 cfs, 150 cfs, and 225 cfs.
<br />The current release of 275 cfs and the highest additional incremental release of 225 cfs give a maximum release of 500 cfs. The Town is required by State statute to release all inflow
<br />that is stored out of priority. It has been estimated that most inflows can be released through the dam in approximately 24 hours with a 500 cfs discharge rate. 3.0 Existing Features
<br />The Georgetown Lake Dam is a composite dam consisting of embankment sections on either side of a concrete ogee spillway section. A 48-inch by 48-inch slide gate is located in the spillway
<br />section on the left side (looking downstream) and serves as the low level outlet for the dam. The ogee spillway section of the dam is 100-ft long and 13-feet high. The crest of the spillway
<br />is at elevation 8447.85-ft per the NAVD 88 Datum1. The spillway apron is at elevation 8434.85-ft. The maximum spillway base width at the apron elevation is about 19.5-feet. The top of
<br />the dam is at elevation 8457.85-ft. See Figure 1 below. The existing outlet works consist of a 48-inch square ARMCO slide gate on the face of the spillway. A 48-inch square concrete
<br />conduit passes through the spillway at elevation 8434.85-ft. The conduit outlet is contoured to compliment the ogee shape on the downstream side of the spillway. The gate is operated
<br />either manually or with a recently installed solar powered electric actuator. An approximately 30-inch diameter siphon penstock constructed over the dam embankment serves a privately-owned
<br />hydro plant downstream. Operation of this siphon is considered unreliable by State officials and downstream users. 1 The elevations included in this report are based on the NAVD 88
<br />datum. The referenced maps are based on the NGVD 29 datum, which is 4.89-ft lower than NAVD 88.
<br />December 2007 Georgetown – Final Alternatives Analysis Report page 2 Figure 1: Existing Features 4.0 Alternatives There are several methods of increasing flow through an existing dam.
<br />For the flow increments specified above, the following five alternatives were studied in the preliminary analysis: Alternative A – Gated notch in the spillway section (Gated Notch)
<br /> Alternative B – Additional slide gate with conduit through spillway section (Slide Gate) Alternative C1 – By-pass pipe through the embankment dam (By-pass pipe through dam)
<br />Alternative C2 – By-pass pipe around the dam (By-pass pipe around dam) Alternative D – Siphon over embankment dam (Siphon) Alternative E – Pumping station on embankment dam (Pumping
<br />Station) The preliminary analysis resulted in a recommendation to study Alternatives B, C1, and C2 in more detail in the final analysis. The three final alternatives are hereafter referred
<br />to as Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 4.1 Alternative 1 – Slide Gate The slide gate option involves installing a new slide gate adjacent to the existing 48-inch slide gate on the upstream
<br />face of the spillway at approximately the same invert elevation as the existing gate. A new 48-inch square gate can pass the maximum flow increment of 225 cfs, and can be throttled to
<br />reduce flow through the opening to match the 75 cfs and 150 cfs flow increments. Due to the shape of the spillway, about 19.5 linear feet of concrete would be removed to provide the
<br />new conduit downstream of the new slide gate. The perimeter shape of the conduit depends on the method of removal adopted. Diamond wire cutting would generate a square conduit, while
<br />coring would generate a round conduit. A square conduit could pass more water due to the larger cross-sectional area, but preliminary flow calculations were based on the smaller round
<br />conduit, so either option is acceptable for the application. Wire cutting was assumed for the engineer’s opinion of probable cost included in Appendix B. Wire cutting requires a dry
<br />condition upstream and downstream of the construction area. The report assumes this would be accomplished by installing a fifteen-foot diameter half-pipe steel structure bolted to the
<br />face of the spillway and the concrete apron. (See Figure 4 in Appendix A) Installation of the temporary bulkhead would be by divers.
<br />December 2007 Georgetown – Final Alternatives Analysis Report page 3 There are several options regarding operation of the new slide gate. The simplest and least expensive option includes
<br />a rising stem with manual operation. Electrical actuation is another option that can be incorporated along with the manual operator. Both the manual and electrical options include a
<br />gate stem in the flow path of water over the spillway. Any obstacles in the flow path reduce the efficiency of the spillway design, and introduce an obstacle that could catch trash and
<br />debris. An option which eliminates obstacles in the flow path includes a submerged hydraulic operator. If the submerged hydraulic operator option is employed it is recommended that the
<br />existing gate be operated with a similar unit, as both operators could be driven by the same hydraulic power unit.2 The submerged operator will eliminate obstacles in the flow path over
<br />the spillway, whereby assuring the maximum spillway capacity. The engineer’s opinion of probable cost includes hydraulic gate operation. Figures 1A and 1B in Appendix A illustrate the
<br />slide gate alternative. 4.2 Alternative 2 – By-Pass Pipe Through Dam The by-pass pipe alternative through the dam involves installing a new pipe through the left (looking downstream
<br />or West) abutment of the spillway. A 48-inch diameter pipe could discharge the maximum flow increment of 225 cfs. A 42-inch diameter gate valve would be included on the downstream end
<br />of the pipe to regulate flows through the pipe, and a 48-inch square slide gate would be included on the upstream end of the pipe to act as a bulkhead. The invert of the new pipe would
<br />be located approximately thirteen feet below the crest of the spillway with an inlet located on the left abutment wall (See Figures 2A and 2B in Appendix A). Installation of the pipe
<br />in the existing embankment involves trenching through the embankment, installing the pipe, then backfilling and compacting the embankment over the pipe. The existing spillway structure
<br />concrete and embankment dam were designed for a specific application, and considerations should be made if the design is altered during construction of the new pipeline. Drawings 3 of
<br />9 and 4 of 9 of the Georgetown Lake Dam reference drawings dated September 1, 1971 show the walls and foundation of the existing structure. If this option is adopted a structural evaluation
<br />of the retaining walls and foundation would have to be performed to check the stability of these walls during all stages of construction. An analysis of these items would be performed
<br />during final design of the alternative. A 48-inch bulkhead gate at the inlet and a 42-inch gate valve at the outlet would be included to operate the by-pass line. It is assumed that
<br />the inlet bulkhead gate would be installed in the dry with the use of a steel fifteen-foot diameter half-pipe temporary bulkhead, similar to the dewatering method used in Alternative
<br />1 above. The regulating gate valve would be installed in a dry condition. Operation of the gate and valve would be by manual /electric operators with rising stems. Submerged hydraulic
<br />operation of the upstream gate is not required since the gate stem would not be located on the spillway crest. The concrete abutment walls would be penetrated at the inlet and outlet.
<br />For a 48-inch diameter pipe, the concrete core should be made slightly larger than 48-inch to accommodate concrete reinforcement. The engineer’s opinion of probable cost includes concrete
<br />coring for two 54-inch diameter penetrations. Coring can occur from either side of the abutment wall. Diversion flows to the hydro plant downstream could be accomplished with a modified
<br />version of this alternative by provision of a bifurcation to the hydro plant. The by-pass pipe would extend past the downstream abutment wall into a valve chamber. The valve chamber
<br />would contain a regulating gate valve for the by-pass flows, and a guard valve on a diversion line to the hydro plant. The engineer’s opinion of probable cost does not include this modification.
<br /> 2 The Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost includes the cost of submerged hydraulic operation (hydraulic cylinder and hydraulic power unit) of the new gate. The cost of an additional
<br />submerged hydraulic cylinder to operate the existing gate is about $15,000. The hpu would be used to operate both cylinders.
<br />December 2007 Georgetown – Final Alternatives Analysis Report page 4 4.3 Alternative 3 – By-pass Pipe Around Dam The by-pass pipe alternative around the dam involves installing a new
<br />54-inch diameter pipe around the left (West) abutment of the dam. Based on the topography, an inlet structure would be located approximately 120-ft upstream of the dam on the West side
<br />of the reservoir. The pipe would discharge into the creek approximately 100-ft downstream of the existing spillway. (See Figures 3A and 3B in Appendix A) Routing the pipe completely
<br />around the dam may reduce or eliminate regulatory agency requirements. In order to route the pipe completely around the dam, the pipe would need to be located in Alvarado Rd. The engineer’s
<br />opinion of probable cost assumes that the invert of the new pipe would be located approximately 20 feet below the eastbound lane of the road. It is likely that utilities currently exist
<br />along the proposed pipe route. Therefore, it is assumed that a utility survey would be performed before design of this alternative in order to avoid any conflicts. A 15-inch diameter
<br />concrete sewer pipe is known to run along the West side of the reservoir from Georgetown to the sewer plant downstream of the dam, and is located approximately 6-feet below the spillway
<br />crest elevation. As shown on Figure 3A, the intake channel for a new intake structure directly conflicts with the existing sewer line. It is our opinion that approximately 60-feet of
<br />the sewer line would be rerouted at this location. On the downstream side of the dam, it is anticipated that the new pipe would cross under the existing sewer line. Regulation of flow
<br />through the by-pass pipe would be with a 42-inch diameter regulating gate valve at the downstream end of the pipe. The valve would be housed in a valve vault and would discharge into
<br />a concrete discharge structure on the bank of the creek downstream of the existing spillway. A bulkhead gate at the intake structure would allow drainage of the pipe for inspection.
<br />Based on the topography, it appears that the intake structure could be located between the West side of the reservoir and the East side of Alvarado Road and would consist of a trashrack,
<br />the bulkhead gate, and a bubbler system to prevent ice formation at the stem. Depending on the actual location of the intake structure, construction of this alternative could be performed
<br />the following ways: If the topography requires that the intake be located in the reservoir, a coffer dam would be required for construction in the dry. If the intake structure
<br />can be located on the bank of the reservoir, construction of the structure could take place in a dry pit on the bank, and then an intake channel would be excavated. Excess trench
<br />dirt from the pipeline installation could be placed in the reservoir at the location of the intake structure. This would allow extension of the structure into the reservoir without the
<br />use of a coffer dam. The engineer’s opinion of probable cost assumes that the pit would be dug for construction of the intake structure, then the dirt plug would be excavated to create
<br />the intake channel. Diversion of water to the hydro plant could be accomplished with this alternative by providing a bifurcation and suitable valves. A detailed hydraulic analysis would
<br />need to be performed to determine an economical diameter of pipe with and without hydro plant flows. The engineer’s opinion of probable cost does not include provisions for a hydro plant
<br />diversion.
<br />December 2007 Georgetown – Final Alternatives Analysis Report page 5 5.0 Cost Comparison An engineer’s opinion of probable cost was developed for each alternative. The following assumptions
<br />were made: Alternative 1 assumes a 4-foot by 4-foot square cast iron slide gate and trashrack, operated with a submerged hydraulic cylinder, and concrete removal by diamond wire cutting
<br />in the dry using a half-pipe temporary bulkhead. Alternative 2 assumes a 48-inch diameter by-pass pipe with an upstream bulkhead gate and trashrack, a downstream regulating gate valve
<br />with electric operators, and installation of the upstream gate in the dry using a half-pipe temporary bulkhead. Alternative 3 assumes a concrete intake structure, a 54-inch diameter
<br />by-pass pipe with an upstream bulkhead gate and a downstream regulating gate valve with electric operators, trenching in the road, and dredging an inlet channel after completing construction
<br />of the intake tower in the dry. Costs of general construction were estimated using the Means catalog and by obtaining vendor quotes. Since this is a small project Engineering /Design
<br />costs were estimated as 30%. Permitting and Legal costs (“Owner’s Costs”) were estimated as 10% for all alternatives. Mobilization was estimated at 5%. Alternatives 1 and 2
<br />include a 35% contingency due to the non-traditional construction practices required. Since Alternative 3 utilizes traditional construction practices, a contingency of 25% was included.
<br />6.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives The relevant advantages and disadvantages of each spillway modification alternative are provided in the table below: Table1: Alternative Advantages
<br />and Disadvantages Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Alternative 1 Slide Gate Operation and Maintenance SEO acceptance Least Expensive Underwater construction Operator
<br />in flow path, or Expensive submerged operation Non-traditional construction techniques Alternative 2 Bypass Pipe through dam Operation and Maintenance Potential siphon removal
<br /> Slightly more expensive than Alternative 1 Underwater construction Structure stability during construction Seepage potential along pipe Non-traditional construction techniques
<br />Alternative 3 Bypass Pipe around dam Simple Operation Potential for limited regulatory involvement Potential for siphon removal Traditional construction techniques Pipe
<br />route through road and under sewer pipe (may require sewer pipe relocation) Cost (most expensive option)
<br />December 2007 Georgetown – Final Alternatives Analysis Report page 6 The comparative analysis of the three alternatives with respect to cost, durability, reliability, vulnerability,
<br />ease of operation and maintenance, constructability, timeliness of construction, opinion of agency acceptability, hydro impact /siphon removal, need for a dry condition during construction,
<br />and potential spillway blockages is provided in the table on the following page. The terminology used for comparison shall be interpreted as follows: Excellent – Minor, if any, problems
<br />anticipated Good – A few problems anticipated Fair – A moderate amount of problems anticipated Difficult – Many problems anticipated Low – Low chance of occurrence Moderate
<br />– Medium chance of occurrence High – High chance of occurrence
<br />December 2007 Georgetown – Final Alternatives Analysis Report page 7 3 Assumes no special dewatering measures or reservoir lowering are needed to excavate for the pipe placement.
<br /> 4 Assumes six feet of reservoir lowering is required to excavate for the pipe placement. Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 1: Slide Gate 2: By-Pass through dam 3: By-pass
<br />around dam Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost $640,000 $750,0003 $1,080,0004 $1,110,000 Durability Excellent Excellent Excellent Reliability Excellent – with exposed stems Good – with
<br />submerged operators Good Good Vulnerability Low Low Low Ease of Operation and Maintenance Good Good Good Constructability Poor Difficult concrete removal; Underwater construction Poor
<br />Difficult access; Underwater construction; Dam stability during construction Good Potential utility conflicts; Reservoir dredging; Traditional construction Timeliness of Construction
<br />Fair SEO review required Fair Difficult access; SEO review required Good No SEO review required Opinion of Agency Acceptability High – with submerged operators Moderate – with exposed
<br />stems Moderate Seepage potential High Regulation may not be required Provides potential to remove Hydro siphon No Yes Yes Need for a Dry Condition During Construction Required Use of
<br />temporary bulkhead Required for upstream gate. Also may need to lower reservoir depending on pore pressures. Construction in a dry pit with subsequent excavation of the berm between
<br />reservoir and pit. Spillway Blockage Potential /Reduction in Spillway Capacity Low – with submerged operators High – with exposed stems None None
<br />December 2007 Georgetown – Final Alternatives Analysis Report page 8 7.0 Recommendation As a result of the information presented in this report along with the supporting review documents,
<br />Alternative 3, Bypass around dam, appears to be the best overall choice. TCB recommends that this alternative be pursued for design. Construction of this alternative offers the following
<br />advantages over the other alternatives: Alternative 3 is least likely to be influenced by currently unconfirmed factors. Alternative 3 uses traditional construction techniques.
<br />(No underwater construction or special concrete removal) Alternative 3 removes the project from the State Engineer’s Office jurisdiction (because it is completely separate from the
<br />dam). In order to pursue Alternative 3 for design, TCB recommends the following steps be taken: Perform a detailed geotechnical investigation along the proposed pipe alignment.
<br />Perform a detailed utility survey to locate all existing utilities along the pipe alignment. Inquire with the hydro plant owner about potential removal of the siphon. If so, include
<br />a bifurcation in the bypass pipe through the dam to be connected to the hydro plant. Perform a detailed engineering design of the alternative.
<br />APPENDIX A Graphical Representation of Final Alternatives
<br />P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\CADD\Work\Slide Gate.dwg, 12/20/2007 2:00:21 PM 4'X 4' OPENING STEM BRACKET GATE STEM SUPPORT WALL PLATFORM EXTENSION AA GATE OPERATOR SUPPORT
<br />WALL PLATFORM EXTENSION A NEW SLIDE GATE REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE AND SHAPE AS SHOWN ON REFERENCE DRAWING (SEE NOTE 1) Town of Georgetown NOTES: 1. REFERENCE SHEET 5 OF 9 OF McCALL ELLINGSON
<br />DRAWINGS DATED 9-1-71. 2. THIS ALTERNATIVE HAS TWO ACTUATION OPTIONS; ELECTRIC /MANUAL AND HYDRAULIC. THE ILLUSTRATION SHOWS THE ELECTRIC /MANUAL OPTION. 3. CONCRETE OPENING SHALL BE
<br />CUT LARGER THAN 4' X 4' TO ACCOMODATE REINFORCEMENT AND LINER. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY LEVEL
<br />P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\CADD\Work\3D for Report.dwg, 12/20/2007 1:51:59 PM Slide Gate Option Manual /Electric Actuation Submerged Hydraulic Actuation
<br />P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\CADD\Work\by pass.dwg, 12/20/2007 1:59:48 PM A A EXISTING PLATFORM ( GATE OPERATOR NOT SHOWN) EXISTING CONCRETE FOOTING FLOW EXISTING WALL DRAIN
<br />( CONCRETE SAND AND GRAVEL) EXISTING SPILLWAY ( GATE AND STEM NOT SHOWN) NEW 48" DIAMETER PIPE EXISTING WALL AND FOOTING NEW GATE OPERATOR PLATFORM EXISTING LEFT ABUTMENT WALL ( RAILING
<br />NOT SHOWN) NEW 42" GATE VALVE NEW 48" SLIDE GATE Town of Georgetown NOTES: 1. REFERENCE SHEET 4 OF 9 OF McCALL ELLINGSON DRAWINGS DATED 9-1-71. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY LEVEL
<br />P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\CADD\Work\3D for Report.dwg, 12/20/2007 1:54:04 PM Bypass Pipe Through Dam Option FOOTING NEW PIPE FOOTING WALL DRAIN NEW SLIDE GATE EXISTING
<br />SPILLWAY EL 8447.85 EXISTING GATE OPERATOR NEW GATE PLATFORM AND OPERATOR SPILLWAY APRON EL 8434.85 NEW GATE VALVE AND OPERATOR TOP OF WALL EL 8457.85 TOP OF WALL EL 8440.52
<br />P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\CADD\Work\by pass around 2.dwg, 12/20/2007 1:58:45 PM AA HWY I-70 WESTBOUND HWY I-70 EASTBOUND NEW 54" DIAMETER BYPASS PIPE EXISTING 15" DIAMETER
<br />SEWER LINE EXISTING SPILLWAY INTAKE STRUCTURE EXISTING UTILITY POLES ALVARADO RD. 8441 8439 8437 8439 8441 8443 8434.85 SPILLWAY APRON 8447.85 SPILLWAY CREST 8457.89 DAM CREST /ACCESS
<br />ROAD 8455 8445 8441 8455 8465 8455 8445 8435 8426.85 SPILLWAY TOE ESTIMATED SIPHON LOCATION VALVE VAULT AND OUTLET STRUCTURE RE-ROUTE SEWER LINE OPEN CHANNEL TO RESERVOIR Town of Georgetown
<br />NOTES: 1. THE CONTOUR LINES SHOWN WERE TRACED FROM REFERENCE SHEET 1 OF 9 OF THE McCALL ELLINGSON DRAWINGS DATED 9-1-71. THE ELEVATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REFERENCE DRAWINGS WERE BASED
<br />ON THE NGVD 29 DATUM. THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO THE NAVD 88 DATUM, WHICH IS ABOUT 4.89-FT HIGHER THAN THE NGVD 29 DATUM. 2. THE EXACT NUMBER AND LOCATION OF EXISTING
<br />UTILITIES ALONG THE NEW PIPE ALIGNMENT IS UNKNOWN. A DETAILED SURVEY IS REQUIRED BEFORE DESIGN OF THIS ALTERNATIVE. 3. THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE HYDRO PENSTOCK SIPHON IS UNKNOWN. 4.
<br />TRASHRACK STRUCTURE NOT SHOWN. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY LEVEL
<br />P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\CADD\Work\3D for Report.dwg, 12/20/2007 1:54:33 PM Intake Structure for Bypass Pipe Around Dam Option
<br />P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\CADD\Work\3D for Report.dwg, 12/20/2007 1:53:17 PM Temporary Bulkhead Temporary Bulkhead Bolt to existing concrete with flanges welded to
<br />semi-circular shape Gasket at steel /concrete interface Approximately 20' tall
<br />APPENDIX B Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
<br />Client Town of Georgetown Date 12/21/2007 Project Gate Valve Retrofit Project By SLR Details Alternative 1: Slide Gate Option Checked GLW Sheet 1 of 3 Cost 75 150 225 Gate 48" square
<br />slide gate $20,000 x x x Trashrack $3,000 x x x Gate subtotal $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 Operator Electric Actuator* $3,000 Submerged Hydraulic $49,000 x x x Operator subtotal $49,000 $49,000
<br />$49,000 Diving Temp BH Install & Remove $38,500 x x x Diving subtotal $38,500 $38,500 $38,500 Dry conditions Half Round Coffer Dam $70,000 x x x Sheet Pile Coffer dam $215,000 Dry condtions
<br />subtotal $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 Concrete removal Concrete removal by blasting N/A Concrete removal by cutting $77,500 x x x Concrete removal by coring N/A Concrete removal subtotal
<br />$77,500 $77,500 $77,500 Equipment installation Crane $23,500 x x x Installation of gate & controls $23,000 x x x Concrete and steel liner $21,500 x x x SCADA Programming $2,000 x x x
<br />Equipment Install subtotal $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 Subtotal Cost $328,000 $328,000 $328,000 Engineering /Design (30%) $98,400 $98,400 $98,400 Permiting and Legal (10%) $32,800 $32,800
<br />$32,800 Mobilization /Demobilization (5%) $16,400 $16,400 $16,400 Contingency 35% 35% 35% Total $640,000 $640,000 $640,000 * Flow Increment (cfs) Use of an electric actuator would require
<br />extension of the existing concrete platform. It is estimated that the cost of the concrete platform would approximately match the cost of the submerged hydraulic operator. Engineer's
<br />Opinion of Probable Cost P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\5.0 Estimates of Construction Cost\Final Cost Estimate2.xls 12/20/2007
<br />Client Town of Georgetown Date 12/21/2007 Project Gate Valve Retrofit Project By SLR Details Alternative 2: Bypass Through Dam Checked GLW Sheet 2 of 3 Cost 75 150 225 Gate Bulkhead
<br />gate -48" $20,000 x x x Gate Valve -42" $90,000 x x x Trashrack $1,500 x x x Gate subtotal $111,500 $111,500 $111,500 Operator Electric Actuator $3,000 x x x Submerged Hydraulic N/A
<br />Concrete Platforms (2) $6,500 x x x Operator subtotal $9,500 $9,500 $9,500 Diving Temp BH Install & Remove $38,410 x x x Diving subtotal $38,410 $38,410 $38,410 Dry conditions Temporary
<br />Bulkhead $70,000 x x x Sheet Pile Coffer dam $215,000 Dry condtions subtotal $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 Concrete removal Concrete removal by coring (2) $14,000 x x x Concrete removal subtotal
<br />$14,000 $14,000 $14,000 Equipment installation Trenching $3,000 x x x Backfill $23,000 x x x Pipe $23,500 x x x Crane $24,000 x x x Gate Install $36,000 x x x SCADA Programming $2,000
<br />x x x Equipment Install subtotal $111,500 $111,500 $111,500 Subtotal Cost $383,910 $383,910 $383,910 Engineering /Design (30%) $115,173 $115,173 $115,173 Permiting and Legal (10%) $38,391
<br />$38,391 $38,391 Mobilization /Demobilization (5%) $19,196 $19,196 $19,196 Contingency 35% 35% 35% Total $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 Flow Increment (cfs) Engineer's Opinion of Probable
<br />Cost P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake Dam\5.0 Estimates of Construction Cost\Final Cost Estimate2.xls 12/20/2007
<br />Client Town of Georgetown Date 12/21/2007 Project Gate Valve Retrofit Project By SLR Details Alternative 3: Bypass Around Dam Checked GLW Sheet 3 of 3 Cost 75 150 225 Gate Bulkhead gate
<br />-52" $25,500 x x x Gate Valve -48" $90,000 x x x Gate subtotal $115,500 $115,500 $115,500 Operator Electric Actuator $3,000 x x x Submerged Hydraulic N/A Operator subtotal $3,000 $3,000
<br />$3,000 Intake Structure Trashrack $1,500 x x x Concrete $26,000 x x x Bubbler System $2,000 x x x Excavation & Plug Removal $22,000 x x x Intake Structure subtotal $51,500 $51,500 $51,500
<br />Civil Work Gate Installation $40,500 x x x Dirt Trenching $8,500 x x x Backfill $72,500 x x x Pipe $211,500 x x x Crane $46,500 x x x Sump Pumps $2,000 x x x Shoring $2,200 x x x Saw
<br />cut road and repair $2,500 x x x Survey $14,000 x x x Traffic Control $3,000 x x x Sewer pipe realignment $36,000 x x x SCADA Programming $2,000 x x x Civil Work subtotal $441,200 $441,200
<br />$441,200 Subtotal Cost $611,200 $611,200 $611,200 Engineering /Design (30%) $183,360 $183,360 $183,360 Permiting and Legal (10%) $61,120 $61,120 $61,120 Mobilization /Demobilization
<br />(5%) $30,560 $30,560 $30,560 Contingency 25% 25% 25% Total $1,110,000 $1,110,000 $1,110,000 Flow Increment (cfs) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost P:\DOMESTIC\60028228 Georgetown Lake
<br />Dam\5.0 Estimates of Construction Cost\Final Cost Estimate2.xls 12/20/2007
<br />APPENDIX C Reference Drawings
<br />TCB 717 17th Street, 5th Floor Denver, Colorado 80202-0202 T 303.298.7117 F 303.296.1124 About AECOM AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is a global provider of professional technical and management support
<br />services to a broad range of markets, including transportation, facilities, environmental and energy. With more than 31,000 employees around the world, AECOM is a leader in all of the
<br />key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence
<br />TOWN OF GEORGETOWN, COLORADO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009
<br />TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTORY SECTION Title Page Table of Contents FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors’ Report Basic Financial Statements Government – Wide Financial Statements
<br />Statement of Net Assets 1 Statement of Activities 2 Fund Financial Statements Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances –
<br />Governmental Funds 4 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 5 Statement of Net Assets
<br />– Proprietary Fund Type 6 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets – Proprietary Fund Type 7 Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Fund Type 8 Notes to Financial
<br />Statements 9 – 23
<br />TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) Required Supplementary Information General Fund – Budgetary Comparison Statement 24 Sales Tax Fund – Budgetary Comparison
<br />
|