Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.01 Road InformationEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Casey Concrete was given approval to operate a concrete batch plant on the Jean Blue property by Resolution No. 93-020. One of the conditions of approval required Casey Concrete to use CR 103 as the haul route. They were also required to keep the road in a certain minimum condition per a separate agreement. As a result of approving the use of a new haul route directly to Highway 82 for Western Slope Aggregate, Casey Concrete was no longer obligated to use CR 103 for their haul route. Casey requested a release of obligations, due to this change. Staff researched the records and determined that Casey had not met all of the obligations for maintenance per a separate road agreement. Mr. Casey has proposed to make the repairs described in the attached letters. Staff would recommend that Mr. Casey be allowed to hire the appropriate contractors to do the work and that it be certified by an engineer. February 8, 1999 To: Mark Bean, Director — Building and Planning Re: Resolution 93-020, CR 103 — Casey Concrete Dear Mark; ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer I received Mr. Casey's January 18th letter of proposal for remediation efforts for CR 103. On January 14th we had met at my office to discuss many of these ideas. Also at this time we agreed that any remediation would be to the entire width of the road, as opposed to some contradictory and confusing language that referenced the downhill lane. I would support acceptance of the attached proposal as it addresses the concerns that I have with this road section. My primary concerns, as voiced in my December 14th letter, are as follows: 1) Cracking throughout alignment needs to be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into road base. — resolution will crack seal the entire width and length of the roadway section. 2) Potholes and ruts need to be repaired and filled to prevent water from accumulating and working their way into the road base and causing softening of the base courses. — resolution will repair all potholes over the entire width and length of this road section. 3) Chip seal the roadway — resolution accomplishes single chip seal over entire width and length of the road section. I would also expect that paint striping will be done as a part of the chip sealing process. As the present time of year is not suitable to making repairs of the above scale, I would also support delaying the repairs until the weather warms. Please contact me if you require any additional information or justification for this project. Cc: Mr. Richard Casey King Lloyd 109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785 easek,_ &JzcrGfe eo. P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 January 18, 1999 Mr. Robert B. Szrot County Engineer 109 8`h Street STE 300 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Re: Resolution No. 93-020 Dear Mr. Szrot: READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970)963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 We sincerely appreciate your meeting with us on 01/14/99. As was discussed in that meeting, we would like to make the following proposal for improvements on CR 103. First, we will fix the existing potholes and crack seal the road, This will be followed by a 3/4" chip seal. According to Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.'s letter of June 11, 1998, " This would result in an improved road surface with a condition rating in the low 90's initially." Due to the time of year and scheduling, we anticipate completion in April 1999. Casey Concrete will agree to place the funds to perform this work (approximately $16,500.00) in an escrow account or any other security arrangement that the county requires. Please inform me of the acceptability of this offer. Should this offer be acceptable we would request that the county release us from our maintenance obligations on CR 103, and allow us to utilize the direct access road, as it will minimize any further wear on CR 103 by our trucks. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter. Please feel free to call me if you need any clarification or any additional information. Sincerely, DI/' GA1EY CONCRE�.E Richard Casey President/Owner December 14, 1998 Mr. Richard Casey Dick Casey Concrete Company P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, CO 81650 ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer Dear Mr. Casey; I wanted to thank you for your December 4th response and your direction and reference to the agreement document. I have since obtained a copy and have reviewed it to acknowledge your comments. I wanted to review some of the items in the agreement that enabled the issuance of the special use permit for your operation. In Paragraph 3, you agreed that satisfactory compliance is achieved by the following: a) Your completion of a minimum roadbed width of twenty-six feet with two -foot gravel shoulders. b) Your completion of either two (2) layers of %" chips or a 1'/I' asphalt mat over this 26 foot roadway. c) (text deletion) d) Your construction and maintenance of i) positive drainage ii) regrading settled areas of the road surface bar ditches iv) neat line the new mat v) provide a soils engineering report for road widening e) You will install additional signs In Paragraph 4, you are committing yourself to maintaining this section of roadway to include regular and periodic crack sealing, pot hole patching, and seal coating. Paragraph 5 commits you to hire an engineering firm to perform a baseline evaluation and conduct periodic evaluations twice per calendar year (spring & fall) with copies sent to the County. Paragraph 6 requires you to fix/remediate the road every time one of these inspections falls below 80 subject to the County's review and approval. In Paragraph 7, the County agrees that once you notify them in writing of your suspension of operation, your maintenance commitment will from that time forward be suspended. However, such suspension shall not apply to any required remedial work, 109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785 which resulted from road deterioration which, occurred prior to the County getting your suspension letter. Paragraph 8 tells me that if you no longer use CR 103, your ongoing (future/continued) maintenance obligation will be terminated. I would like to ask for your help to straighten this matter out. I have not found copies of your baseline evaluation or your twice -yearly annual evaluations required per Paragraph 5. I would also like you to send to me any logs or receipts that evidence any roadway crack sealing, pothole patching, and seal coating (paragraph 4) that you have done in the past (after initial construction). In the absence of biannual inspections - I cannot accurately assure that you have successfully remediated your Paragraph 6 commitment. My visual inspection of this section showed pot -holes, severe rutting, severe cracking, and other maladies which I would not expect to find in a road that has been inspected and maintained twice yearly. Your June 15', Hepworth-Pawlak inspection report reaffirms this. The appearance of this road section would more accurately suggest that it has been neglected for several years. While Paragraph 8 terminates your ongoing/future maintenance obligation, Paragraph 7 still requires you to remediate damage that has been done in the past to this road section. In summary, I do not feel that a single chip seal will meet your obligation. While I sympathize with the costs involved in an asphalt overlay, I am committed to protect the taxpayer's interest in the County infrastructure and assuring compliance with County contracts. There is one additional fix that, I feel, would comply with your commitment. This would be a three part solution: 1) fill & seal all cracks initially - hot poured. 2) fill & level all potholes and ruts with acceptable material/compound. 3) put down a double chip seal — round 1 = seal coat & aggregate after first layer is set - round 2 = seal coat & aggregate I will await your copies of the above requested documentation or in their absence, your choice of acceptable solutions to repair this road section. Thank you for your input and assistance in resolving this matter. Please call me if you need any additional information at 928-9201. P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 easek,_ eoltcrefk eo. READY MIX December 4, 1998 Mr. Robert B. Szrot County Engineer 109 8t Street Ste. 300 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Dear Mr. Szrot: SAND AND GRAVEL ' DECGAFFiELD 7 199t1 PHONE (970) 625-34.89 OR (970) 625-1464 (970) 963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 In response to your letter dated November 30, 1998, we recall Mark Bean's letter of November 6, 1998 that states, " It will be necessary for you to come up with a proposal to get the scores up to at least 80." In our road agreement with Garfield County (Book 861 Page 498) paragraph #6 states, "Should the independent engineering firm's periodic evaluations find and determine that the condition rating for any section of the subject roadway has a score of less than 80, subject to a margin of error of (+) (-) 5 points, for an acceptable score in the range from 75 to 85, Casey shall be responsible for performing , or causing to be performed, such remedial actions, as recommended by the independent engineering firm, subject to the County's review and approval, in order for the subject section of roadway to achieve a condition rating of at least 80. Casey's obligation for performance of any remedial work shall be limited to the downhill lane of C.R. 103, from its intersection with C.R. 104 to its intersection with S.H. 82." As per Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical's letter of June 11, 1998, " As an alternative, the road could be chip -sealed. This would result in an improved road surface with a condition rating in the low 90's initially. We expect that the road surface would deteriorate more rapidly without the deep patching. A reduction in the volume of large truck traffic would extend the pavement life." For the above reasons, we again propose the chip and seal solution to comply with the original agreement. As for our future use of this roadway, we propose to use the main pit access road which has direct access to Highway 82 as our primary access. The original agreement (paragraph 8 ) states, " Should Casey, its heirs, successors, or assigns, notify the County in writing that it has, or will by a specified date, cease to us C.R. 103 for vehicular access from S.H. 82 to concrete batch plant facilities on the subject property, this agreement shall be deemed to be terminated as to Casey's ongoing maintenance, as specified herein." It should be noted that in our original agreement, paragraph #6 it states, " Casey's obligation for performance of any remedial work shall be limited to the downhill lane of C.R. 103, from its intersection with C.R. 104 to its intersection with S.H. 82." I am concerned that the improvements and maintenance that we have done on this road since 1993 have gone unnoticed by the county. We widened the road, put gravel on the shoulders, created positive drainage, installed culverts, constructed bar ditches, installed traffic control signs, did crack sealing and pothole patching. As a result of these improvements the road is in much better condition than before we ever started using it. With the chip and seal the road will be superior to many of our county roads. The vast majority of roads in the county are chip and sealed or gravel, not asphalt. Having already spent approximately $70,000.00 of initial improvements and yearly maintenance to C.R. 103, then offering to bring it up to a rating in the low 90's with a chip and seal as soon as possible, and reducing our truck traffic by using the pit road, we feel that we will have complied with our obligation. Mr. Szrot, we are not trying to avoid or minimize our responsibility under our agreement with Garfield county, however as you are aware, the cost of an asphalt overlay would be extremely expensive and far exceed our responsibility. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Please call me with any clarification or additional information you may need. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CONCRETE CO. Richard Casey Pres ner? cc: Mark Bean King Lloyd • November 30, 1998 Mr. Richard Casey Dick Casey Concrete Company P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Re: Resolution No. 93-020 ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer Dear Mr. Casey, Mr. Mark Bean forwarded your November 18`h letter to me and asked me to look at the roadway in question, make my recommendations, and reply to your offer pertaining to CR 103. On November 24th, I examined CR 103 and noted significant alligator cracking, transverse and longitudinal cracks, rutting, pot holes, raveling, and other wearing of the roadway. I read the June 11th Hepworth-Pawlak report and rating and feel that their rating reasonably represents the condition of the roadway. I also agree with their recommendation for deep patching with an asphalt overlay. I do not agree that a chip seal would be an acceptable alternative. It is my understanding that there was an agreement for you to inspect this road each year, document these inspections, and make yearly repairs. I also understand that this has not been successfully accomplished. In the absence of yearly maintenance and with heavy loads using this roadway, this road has deteriorated quite prematurely. My recommendation would be based on your future use of this roadway. If the same number and weight of trucks is to be the norm — a minimum of four inches of asphalt would need to be put down. Deep patching would be an ideal extra, but I believe much of the subgrade damage has been from water intrusion through the excessive amount of cracking. If the number or weight of your trucks will be diminished by half — then a minimum of two inches of asphalt would be an acceptable fix. Completion of either of these two options would allow me to recommend release of your maintenance obligation. 109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785 The suggested Chip Seal alternative would only minimally serve to seal this road, it would not add any additional supportive structure, and it would not level and repair ruts and depression. I feel that this option would not provide a successful fix for past road damage and does not meet your obligation to the road section. Please let me know if and when you will accomplish the asphalt overlay as I will need to look closer at the full agreement and obligations in addition to doing a legal review if this overlay option is unsatisfactory to you. Please call me at 928-9210 if you have any questions or require any additional information. ncerely, obert B. Szrot, P.E. CC: Mark Bean King Lloyd File ase eoncrefe eo. P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 November 18, 1998 Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department 109 8'" Street STE 303 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL Re: Resolution No. 93-020 Dear Mr. Bean: As per your correspondence of November 6, 1998 we agree to make one of the improvements recommended by Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. in their June 11, 1998 letter. PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970)963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 We propose to perform the chip sealed solution to upgrade the road. According to Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical , " This would result in an improved road surface with a condition rating in the low 90's initially." Due to the fall and winter season that is upon us, it will not be possible for this to be done until mid April of 1999. I have enclosed a quote from Harry's Heavy Haulers to perform this work. Casey Concrete would agree to put the money to perform this job in an escrow account or any other form that the county required. Due to Harry's Heavy Haulers condition "This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 10 days." We would request a reply as soon as possible so that we may reply to Harry's within their stipulated time frame. Please inform me regarding the acceptability of this offer. Should this be acceptable, then we would appreciate the county releasing us from our maintenance obligations agreed to in the original agreement. We would also request that we are allowed to utilize the direct access road from Hwy 82 that is used by the gravel pit customers. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CON2E Richard Casey President/ Owner • I Noy 1 9 1998 P. 01 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO Casey Concrete STREET PROPOSAL HARRY'S HEAVY HAULERS, INC. 204 Park Ave. -Valley Trade Center P.O. Box 555 Basalt, Colorado 61621 PHONE (910) 927.4607 FAX (970) 927.9434 PHONE 970.825-3489 FAX 970.825-1486 JOB NAME city, STATE, AND ZIP CODE Chip Seal Co. Rd. 103 JOB LOCATION County Road 103 we Hereby Subayt Sps&Mesdone end estrum for Chip Sea1.7 miles X 24' wide of County Road 103 9,856 sq. yd. 421$1.07 $10,545.92 DATE 11.18-98 WIII make it one of our first projects in 99" — Approz the middle of Arpil. Ve Propose hereby to fumish material and labor --Complete In accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: $10,545.92 Payment to be made nfollows:Net 30 days. Al material Is guaranteed to be as sperSed. AY work to be oomplstee In a worlvrwdeoe manner acoordhp to standard practices. Any alteration or devbdon from above spectllcallons Invntrig ata costs w7 be snouted any non written orders, and will become stns dwr0e over and above the estimate M agsemsnts eewhgsd upon slims, aod. - delays beyond our cond. Owrwr to carry 1W, tornado and other necessary bourn drwafters are My covered by Wadman% Compere Authorized Signature Ha.. •�: • • • President The e proposal may be wn • us B not accepted wthh 10 days. Acceptance of Proposal The above Moss, avedncallene and canna are atiaaactory and are hereby sited. You are atthodad to do the work nowise. Payment wNi be made as mann above. Any wpald evoke aS bear Interest M 1.5% pr mach. Signature Date of Acceptance ase eoncrefe eo. P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 June 22, 1998 Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970) 963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 Re: Resolving No 92-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Bean: As per your correspondence of May 13, 1998, we have hired an engineering firm to evaluate County Rd #103. Enclosed is a copy of the report and recommendation from Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.'s After you have reviewed these reports, please contact me and inform me of the action required on our part to resolve the situation. Thanks for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CONCRGO. 0 ✓J Richard Casey Pres./ Owner CC: King Lloyd HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 June 1, 1998 Casey Concrete Attn: Dick Casey P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Job No. 198 358 Subject: Pavement Condition Evaluation, County Road 103, Garfield County, Colorado Mr. Casey: As requested, HP Geotech has completed an evaluation of the pavement condition at County Road 103, from the intersection of State Highway 82, approximately 0.7 miles to the north. The evaluation was performed in accordance with "A Pavement Rating System for Low -Volume Asphalt Roads" by The Asphalt Institute (15-169) dated November 1977. The section of road was independently observed by two qualified staff members, May 27 & 28, 1998. The attached Rating Forms indicate an average Condition Rating of 65. Alligator cracking is noted to be the principal defect observed. If you have any questions, or we can be of further assistance, please contact this office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Michael Evans, S.E.T. ME/kc Rev. By. DEH Encl. ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM STREET OR ROUTE: County Rd 103 CITY OR COUNTY: Garfield LENGTH OF PROJECT: approx. 0.7 miles WIDTH: varies 22' - 30' PAVEMENT TYPE: asphalt + chip seal DATE: 5-27-98 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) DEFECTS RATING Transverse Cracks 0-5 3 Longitudinal Cracks 0-5 2 Alligator Cracks 0-10 7 Shrinkage Cracks 0-5 1 Rutting 0-10 4 Corrugations 0-5 0 Raveling 0-5 2 Shoving or Pushing 0-10 0 Pot Holes 0-10 4 Excess Asphalt 0-10 5 Polished Aggregate 0-5 1 Deficient Drainage 0-10 1 Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent, 10 is very poor) 0-10 3 Sum of Defects 33 Condition Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100 - 33 Condition Rating = 67 Evaluated by: Dan Hardin ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM •STREET OR ROUTE: County Rd 103 CITY OR COUNTY: Garfield LENGTH OF PROJECT: approx. 0.7 miles WIDTH: varies 22' - 30' PAVEMENT TYPE: asphalt + chip seal DATE: 5-28-98 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) DEFECTS RATING Transverse Cracks 0-5 4 Longitudinal Cracks 0-5 2 Alligator Cracks 0-10 8 Shrinkage Cracks 0-5 1 Rutting 0-10 7 Corrugations 0-5 0 Raveling 0-5 2 Shoving or Pushing 0-10 1 Pot Holes 0-10 0 Excess Asphalt 0-10 4 Polished Aggregate 0-5 4 Deficient Drainage 0-10 0 Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent, 10 is very poor) 0-10 5 Sum of Defects 38 Condition Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100-38 Condition Rating = 62 Evaluated by: Michael Evans HEPWORTH-PAWL.AK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 816(11 June 11, 1998 Casey Concrete Attn: Dick Casey P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Job No. 198 358 Subject: Mitigation of Pavement Condition, County Road 103, Garfield County, Colorado. Mr. Casey: As requested, we are providing recommendations regarding possible repair for the portion of County Road 103 from State Highway 82 to County Road 104. We previously provided an evaluation of the pavement condition in a letter to you dated June 1, 1998. The condition rating for the road was 65 with alligator cracking as the principal defect. Many patched potholes and some rutting were also observed. These defects are evidence of poor subgrade support. Long term road improvements should include deep patching of these areas. Condition ratings below 80 generally indicate that an asphalt overlay is needed. The deep patching and overlay would result in a "perfect" road with a Condition Rating in the high 90's. As an alternative, the road could be chip -sealed. This would result in an improved road surface with a condition rating in the low 90's initially. We expect that the road surface would deteriorate more rapidly without the deep patching. A reduction in the volume of large truck traffic would extend the pavement life. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. `-tttIIvu, uii�7j 00 REoeiSif r•2 Daniel E. Hardy, P.E. 24443 % o• G��a(9$r:r moo••• :.www; Rev. by: ME • y��JFSereNRiiointrtmi; tENI,0 DEH/ro GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department November 6, 1998 Richard Casey, President Casey Concrete Co. P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, CO 81650 RE: Resolution No. 93-020 Dear Mr. Casey: The reports submitted in your June 22, 1998 letter and the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 93-020 were reviewed by the Road and Bridge Supervisor and me. We agree that it will be necessary for your company to make one of the recommended improvements made by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. in their June 11, 1998 letter. Resolution No. 93-020 required you to enter into an agreement for the maintenance of CR 103. In that agreement, your company is responsible for making improvements to the road surface, should the engineer's report show pavement rating scores of less than 75. The Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. report shows that both roads are well below the 75 score. It will be necessary for you to come up with a proposal to get the scores up to at least 80. Any work to be done will have to be approved by the Road and Bridge Department and performed by a contractor acceptable to the County. If you have any questions about this letter, feel free to call or write to this office. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department xc: Don DeFord King Lloyd 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 eas„ evncrefe P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 November 18, 1998 Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department 109 8'h Street STE 303 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL Re: Resolution No. 93-020 Dear Mr. Bean: As per your correspondence of November 6, 1998 we agree to make one of the improvements recommended by Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. in their June 11, 1998 letter. PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970)963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 We propose to perform the chip sealed solution to upgrade the road. According to Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical , " This would result in an improved road surface with a condition rating in the low 90's initially." Due to the fall and winter season that is upon us, it will not be possible for this to be done until mid April of 1999. I have enclosed a quote from Harry's Heavy Haulers to perform this work. Casey Concrete would agree to put the money to perform this job in an escrow account or any other form that the county required. Due to Harry's Heavy Haulers condition "This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 10 days." We would request a reply as soon as possible so that we may reply to Harry's within their stipulated time frame. Please inform me regarding the acceptability of this offer. Should this be acceptable, then we would appreciate the county releasing us from our maintenance obligations agreed to in the original agreement. We would also request that we are allowed to utilize the direct access road from Hwy 82 that is used by the gravel pit customers. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CONS E TE CO / Richard Casey President/ Owner NOV 1 9 1998 P. 01 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO Casey Concrete STREET PROPOSAL HARRY'S HEAVY HAULERS, INC. 204 Park Ave. -Valley Trade Center P.O. Box 555 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE (970) 927-4507 FAX (970) 927.9434 PHONE 070.825-3489 DATE FAx 970.825-1485 11.18-98 JOB NAME Chip Seal Co. Rd. 103 JOB LOCATION County Road 103 CflY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE We Hereby Submit SpecMndone and esthetes for Chip Seal 1 miles X 24' wide of County Road 103 $1tl,545,92 8,858 sq. yd. (4 $1.07 Will make it one of our first projects in 99" -- Approx. the middle of Arpil. Ve Propose hereby to furnish material and labor --complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: 510,545.92 Payment to be made as folows: Net 30 days. Aa matron le berated to be as spielled. All work to be completed In a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. My alteration or deviation from above specification involving extra costs wM be executed ony upon written orders, and will become a extra charge over and above the estimate. AI agreements eeralnGed upon strikes. molded • delays beyond our control. Oa to cany he, tornado and other mastery Inns Ow worker ars My covered by Weknan's Compeil Authorized Signature He Note: TM proposal may be President us H not accepted wtNn 10 days. Acceptance of Proposal The above plots, specifications d. You are atftheriard to do the and condeons art Payment We be made as outlined above.Any unpaid sfaCtory and are hereby invoice shall beer Interest at 1.696 work Pmonth. Signature Date of Acceptance ase eoizcrte ea P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 June 22, 1998 Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970)963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 Re: Resolving No 92-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Bean: As per your correspondence of May 13, 1998, we have hired an engineering firm to evaluate County Rd #103. Enclosed is a copy of the report and recommendation from Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.'s After you have reviewed these reports, please contact me and inform me of the action required on our part to resolve the situation. Thanks for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CONCRETE-Cp. i Richard Casey Pres. ! Owner CC: King Lloyd HEI'WORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 754 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 June 1, 1998 Casey Concrete Attn: Dick Casey P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, Colorado 81650 I -ax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7933 Job No. 198 358 Subject: Pavement Condition Evaluation, County Road 103, Garfield County, Colorado Mr. Casey: As requested, HP Geotech has completed an evaluation of the pavement condition at County Road 103, from the intersection of State Highway 82, approximately 0.7 miles to the north. The evaluation was performed in accordance with "A Pavement Rating System for Low -Volume Asphalt Roads" by The Asphalt Institute (I5-169) dated November 1977. The section of road was independently observed by two qualified staff members, May 27 & 28, 1998. The attached Rating Forms indicate an average Condition Rating of 65. Alligator cracking is noted to be the principal defect observed. If you have any questions, or we can be of further assistance, please contact this office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Michael Evans, S.E.T. ME/kc Rev. By. DEH Encl. ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM STREET OR ROUTE: County Rd 103 CITY OR COUNTY: Garfield LENGTH OF PROJECT: approx. 0.7 miles WIDTH: varies 22' - 30' PAVEMENT TYPE: asphalt + chip seal DATE: 5-27-98 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) DEFECTS RATING Transverse Cracks 0-5 3 Longitudinal Cracks 0-5 2 Alligator Cracks 0-10 7 Shrinkage Cracks 0-5 1 Rutting 0-10 4 Corrugations 0-5 0 Raveling 0-5 2 Shoving or Pushing 0-10 0 Pot Holes 0-10 4 Excess Asphalt 0-10 5 Polished Aggregate 0-5 1 Deficient Drainage 0-10 1 Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent, 10 is very poor) 0-10 3 Sum of Defects 33 Condition Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100-33 Condition Rating = 67 Evaluated by: Dan Hardin ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM STREET OR ROUTE: County Rd 103 LENGTH OF PROJECT: approx. 0.7 miles PAVEMENT TYPE: asphalt + chip seal DEFECTS Transverse Cracks CITY OR COUNTY: Garfield WIDTH: varies 22' - 30' DATE: 5-28-98 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) Longitudinal Cracks Alligator Cracks Shrinkage Cracks Rutting Corrugations Raveling Shoving or Pushing Pot Holes Excess Asphalt Polished Aggregate Deficient Drainage Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent, 10 is very poor) Condition Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100-38 Condition Rating = 62 Evaluated by: Michael Evans 0-5 0-5 0-10 0-5 0-10 0-5 0-5 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-5 0-10 0-10 Sum of Defects RATING 4 2 8 1 7 0 2 1 0 4 4 0 5 38 HEPWORTH-PA4VI-AK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. June I1. 1998 Casey Concrete Attn: Dick Casey P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Subject: 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO Slh{)1 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Job No. 198 358 Mitigation of Pavement Condition, County Road 103, Garfield County, Colorado. Mr. Casey: As requested, we are providing recommendations regarding possible repair for the portion of County Road 103 from State Highway 82 to County Road 104. We previously provided an evaluation of the pavement condition in a letter to you dated June 1, 1998. The condition rating for the road was 65 with alligator cracking as the principal defect. Many patched potholes and some rutting were also observed. These defects are evidence of poor subgrade support. Long term road improvements should include deep patching of these areas. Condition ratings below 80 generally indicate that an asphalt overlay is needed. The deep patching and overlay would result in a "perfect" road with a Condition Rating in the high 90's. As an alternative, the road could be chip -sealed. This would result in an improved road surface with a condition rating in the low 90's initially. We expect that the road surface would deteriorate more rapidly without the deep patching. A reduction in the volume of large truck traffic would extend the pavement life. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ocicl'ee54c2, Damel�H did, PIE. 24443 8 a Gra-(4S a i e.4iC Rev. by: ME % .°° t' Y c e°e.eeee Ci o`er 40i )/ONR` tv` DEH/ro GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department March 6, 1998 Richard Casey Casey Concrete P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, CO 81650 RE: Resolution No. 92-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Casey: Return Receipt No. P 164 023 840 At the time the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 93-020 for your Special Use Permit, you also entered into an agreement with the County. In the Agreement for Road Improvements on County Road 103, you agreed to hire a "geotechnical or civil engineering firm" to perform evaluations on the twice a year basis. King Lloyd, County Road and Bridge Supervisor has advised this office that there has not been an evaluation done for a number of years and there is damage to the County Road 103 surface. It is necessary to have an evaluation done to determine the extent of the damage. Condition No. 5 of the agreement requires that an evaluation be performed between March 15 and April 15, each calendar year. To maintain your permit in good standing, it will be necessary for you to hire an engineering firm acceptable to the County, to do an evaluation. It will then be necessary for your company preform any remedial action necessary to bring the pavement rating score up to the agreed upon level. Please contact King Lloyd by March 13th, to make arrangements for submitting a report and reviewing it with the Board. If you have any other questions about your commitments or the issues noted in this letter, feel free to call or write to this office. Sincerely, ✓ - LLt, Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department xc: Board of County Commissioners King Lloyd Don DeFord 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 May 13, 1998 Richard Casey Casey Concrete P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, CO 81650 GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department RE: Resolution No. 92-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Casey: As noted in a previous letter, at the time the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 93-020 for your Special Use Permit, you also entered into an agreement withi County. In the Agreement for Road Improvements on County Road 103, you agreed to hire a "geotechnical or civil engineering firm" to perform evaluations on the twice a year basis. Since no reports have been done since May 5, 1993, the Board is requiring you to hire an engineering firm acceptable to the County, to do an evaluation. If the scores deem it necessary, It will be the responsibility of your company to preform any remedial action necessary to bring the pavement rating score up to the agreed upon level. Once this has been accomplished, the Board will consider releasing you from the obligations agreed to in the original agreement. If you have any other questions about your commitments or the issues noted in this letter, feel free to call or write to this office. Sincerely, Mark . Bean, Director Building & Planning Department xc: Board of County Commissioners King Lloyd Don DeFord 109 8th Street, Suite 303 9454212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado ` 81601 (3aseq eon crate eo. P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 March 24, 1998 READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL Mark L. Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8" Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970) 963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 6 I -�*xi 1.--'-7-4-"-^.,1 r-: ( Ft :t_D C .;'r37Y Re: Resolution No. 93-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear My. Bean: The following is a brief summary of improvements that Casey Concrete has performed on CR 103. First we grubbed out and compacted the sub grade on the portions of 103 Road that was to be widened. Approximately 98% of the road required widening. We placed road base in the grubbed out areas, compacted and applied water to get necessary compaction. This required 3 to 5 feet of fill to bring to grade. Neat lining the edge of the existing pavement was achieved by sawing the existing asphalt with a concrete saw. Two layers of 3/4" chip and seal was applied to the widened area. We then applied two additional layers of chip and seal to the transition area making the ride smoother. We patched depressed areas with asphalt and applied skin patch on the lower end. We installed new traffic control signs to meet Colorado DOT specifications. Finally we fixed existing potholes, extended the culvert 10 feet and performed final grading to eliminate standing water. All of the above work was performed with 24 hour a day traffic control, flagging and cone protection. As per CTL/Thompson's investigation and pavement design report, copy enclosed, the existing + 1-22 foot wide road was widened to 26 feet. Road shoulders were improved to 2 feet on each side. Compaction tests were taken by CTL and compaction continued until specified results were obtained. The cost of these initial improvements to CR 103 was approximately $70,000.00. Casey Concrete has continued to do annual maintenance in the form of pothole repairs and crack seal. We have been purchasing HFMS2P Asphalt Emulsion from Koch Materials in Grand Junction and applying it for crack seaL We have also had Basalt Construction do the pothole repair work. The cost of this maintenance work has been approximately $6000.00. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CO Richard Casey President/Owner CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS May 5, 1993 Casey Concrete P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Attention: Mr. Shawn Vondetti Subject: Subgrade Investigation and Pavement Design 0.7 Miles of Crystal Springs Road (CR 103) Garfield County, Colorado Job No. GS -1032 Gentlemen: This report presents the results of our subgrade investigation and pavement design for 0.7 miles of Crystal Springs Road (CR 103) in Garfield County, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the type of subgrade soils present, judge support characteristics, provide earth fill construction criteria and provide design pavement section alternatives for the part of the road to be widened. The report includes a description of the subgrade soils found in test holes, laboratory test results, flexible pavement sections, and construction and materials recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS The section of Crystal Springs Road (CR 103) we investigated begins at Highway 82 and extends approximately 0.7 miles to the County Road 104 turn off. The lower alignment of Crystal Springs Road is in part on a naturally deposited river terrace and in part on a man-made bench. The upper part of the road is built on native silty clays and clayey silts above the natural gravels. Most of the road is on natural soils or areas of cut. In several places the road embankment was made by cutting into the natural slope and pushing the soils away from the slope to form a flattened area. The road surface appears to be several layers of chip and seal. The road is generally in good repair. Distress observed is predominately normal wear expected with age and use with the exception of considerable transverse cracking in 3 small areas of failed pavement. The failed areas are expressed in the road surface by alligator cracking and are adjacent to the shoulder of the road. PLANNED CONSTRUCTION The existing +/- 22 feet wide road will be widened to 26 feet. Road shoulders will be approximately 2 feet wide on each side. After clearing and grubbing it appears fill to 5 feet deep might be required to achieve subgrade elevation. SUBGRADE INVESTIGATION The subgrade soils were investigated by drilling seven (7) test holes at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. We have assumed that the soils we found in test holes or similar soils will be used as structural fill to achieve the required subgrade elevation. Subgrade soils at each test hole were sampled by our engineering geologist who directed field operations and logged the soils. The existing road has a chip and seal surface. Native granular soils were below the road surface on the lower half of the road and aggregate base underlain by native clays and silts occurred on the upper portion of the road investigated. The thickness of chip and seal and aggregate base at test hole locations are presented in Table 1. TABLE I CHIP & SEAL AND AGGREGATE BASE COURSE THICKNESS (inches) Chip & Seal Aggregate Station Number Surfacing Base 3+00 2 0 8+00 3 0 13+00 4 0 20+00 4 2 26+00 4 2 31+00 3 6 36+00 2 6 RECOMMEND PAVEMENT SECTIONS Our methodology was to determine design asphalt sections as if a new road was being built. This project actually involves improvement to an existing road. Below we present pavement design sections for new road construction and for the road section as planned. The clays and silts offer moderate subgrade support, the gravels offer excellent support. Atterberg limit testing on samples of the subgrade showed liquid limits between non -liquid and 26 percent and plastic indices of between non -plastic and 10 percent, 22 to 83 percent silt and clay sized particles (passing the No. 200 sieve) were determined in individual samples. We assumed a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 8.0 for the design discussed below. We used an EDLA of 30 which reflects moderately heavy truck usage. A new road would require 6.0 inches of full depth asphalt on a prepared subgrade or 4 inches of asphalt on 6.5 of aggregate base course. Based on the pavement section shown on plans we received that show the desired section (see Figure 5) we suggest 1.5 inches of asphalt above 6.0 inches of aggregate base on 8.5 inches of native granular soils which can consist of sands or sands and gravels. EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Fill to build the road embankment required to widen the road can be with the native soils similar to that found in our test holes. The entire area to receive fill should be stripped of vegetation and proof -rolled with a heavy pneumatic tired vehicle (e.g. a 10 wheel loaded dump truck) before fill, base course or pavement is placed. Soils which deform excessively should be removed and replaced with structural fill or stabilized. Fill should be moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by a standard Proctor density test (ASTM D 698). The fill should be proof rolled to check for soft areas prior to placing aggregate base. In areas of widening not atop new fill the subgrade surface below pavements should be moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor density before placement of base course and/or pavement. The performance of pavement sections depends on the quality of the materials used. Aggregate base course should conform to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) specification for Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base and should have a minimum R -value of 78. The base course should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557). Asphalt should have a total resistance (Rt) of at least 94 and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum Marshall density. DRAINAGE The primary cause of early pavement deterioration is water infiltration into the pavement section. This increase in moisture content usually results in softening of the subgrade and failure of the pavement. We recommend drainage be designed to rapidly removed surface run-off. Final grading of the subgrade should be carefully controlled, so the design cross -slope is maintained and low spots in the subgrade that could trap water are eliminated. LIMITATIONS The pavement and construction recommendations are based upon expected traffic loading. The design procedures were formulated to provide sections with adequate structural strength. Routine maintenance, such as sealing and repair of cracks is necessary to achieve the long-term life of a pavement system. If the design and construction recommendations cannot be followed or anticipated traffic loads change considerately, we should be contacted to review the recommendations. If we can be of further service in discussing the content of this report, or in the analyses of the proposed pavement systems from a geotechnical point of view, please call. Very truly yours, CTUfHOMPSON, INC. John Mechling, P.E. Branch Manager JM:cd (5 copies sent) 15+00 14+00 S-7 37+00 LEGEND: 1– w w w —0 – 1 – 2 – 4 —5 id April 23, 1993, with a Chipsous flight power auger. ► subject to the explanations, Cla fusions as contained in © mois Job No. GS -1032 was encountered at the Grai to S-1 al moisture content (%) ensity (pcf) limit (%) ity index (%) ;ent passing the No. 200 sieve 0- 1 – Li 2 – P`6 3 – -2 4 – 5- Fig. 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (Z BUnSIA) I 3-1OVI S-7 1 I O`(.71 i i F I L.1 Y 0 zt Q 0 F 0 F 0 F 0-4 0 N N 0-4 R1 m v = Q -4 01 J O Cr. CO W F 0 22 m LI N zhhh111 80-4 N N F N N N ON N N NP r r Z "A Q ca v P... ATTEAEIERG UNITS 0 ON .O .I F NL E g 0 5 x n OI F F F O O Z 0 C M v F D F D F D F > F > .- >' O CLASSLFICATIDN 1 r CL 1 CL r r SC SM c _z '1 m 0 N 01 n r F > > -< < z 0 z 0 -< -< r > -c -< CLAY, SILT SAND, CLAYEY SAND, SILTY O m u) a -p z 0 z SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (Z BUnSIA) I 3-1OVI 9'Z = XBONI A11118V3OIANBS S1N31N3AVd 3181X31d EIOd HdVUDOINON NDIS34 0) z .O l S£'Z =NS 0£ =Va13 0'8 =89D 00N8o100 `AiNno0 a13IddV9 (£0I 2ID) aVo8 SENIadS 1V1SA8D m v r 09 001. 009—= 009- 9 01 l 7D 91- 1- 08 08 0 tY 09 09 OL 9L 08 98 03 08 017. 09 09 OL 08 011ila ONIad38 VINHO311V0 •6td z£0i-S9 'oN qof •apoi6gnS pa;pail awn sayout +;loydsy sayout Jo'asJnoO asog a;o6a.66y sayout s•ni+;loydsy sayoui Jo 'asJnoJ asog a;D6a.66y sayout 9 + ;loydsy sayout Jo 'asog a4o6ai66y pa;pail ;uawaj sayout + sayout Jo';jDydsy y;daa find Jo sayout apoJ6gnS pa;Dail awn }o sayout 'S 9.' h '£ 'Z 9 •1 :$N011333 03aN3WW003d = 01'0/((0''OX ) - ( D.= fia :30V1:09f1S a31v32d1 3WI1 + 1lVHdSV OJ asJnoj asog a;o5a'56V }o sayout 9 yT= Z1'0/((O17'0)9•I-s£•z) = Ca asino' asog a4o6aJ66y }o sayout £ • 9 = Z I'0/((0h'OX'') -9£'z) _ £a :NOIlj3S 3S1:1f1OD 3SV9 31v032dDDV + 11VHdSv 2dOJ = £Z'0/((Oh'OX ) - ( )) = Za :NO11J3S 3SVS 31v032dD0v x31'3211 1N3W30 + 1-IVHdSV 2dOd asog a;o6aJ66y pa;oail ;uawa0 Jo sayout ;loydsy y;daa !Ind }o sayout 6.9 = WO/S£.3 ICI :NOI103S 11VHdSV Hld30 -rind 2dOd (sayout) apoJ6gnS pa;pail awn ;o y;daa - na (sayout) ammo asog Jo y;daa - £a (sayout) asog a;o6aJ66y pa;oail ;uawa0 }o y;daa - Za (sayout) ;loydsy ;o y;daa - la apoJ6gnS pa;Dail awn - asJnoO asog a;o6a166y - asDg a;o6a.66y pa;oail 4uawa0 - ;loydsy snoutwn;tg ;oH - ;uatoi j pop 1446uaJ;S - ;uatoupo3 y;6uaJ;S - ;uatot;pop y46uaJ4S - ;uatot})aoa y;6ua.;S - 0I'0 = h0 Z I'0 = £0 £Z'0 = ZJ = IO hah0 + £a£0 + ZaZO + 1013 = NS NOIldf103 NOIS3a •61d woJ1) s£•z = (NSM) JagwnN I0Jn;ofJ;s pa4146ta/ •6td woJ;) 0.8 = (2d80) OI;D),d 6UIJDag DIUJOJIIDJ (v703) 02 _ (Nla) JagwnN ot;;DJl u61saa viva NOIS30 (SIIOS t dl02d0) . SNOIly-1f1D1VO NOIS30 INCHES AGGREGATE BASE OVER J W CCa 0 oz 0 z w 0 M 1- L ¢z W > v 0 14.5 INCHES PIT RUN CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD (CR 103) L0 IL JOB NO. GS -1032 080, evnerefe eo. P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 March 18, 1998 READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL Mark L. Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8r'' Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 MAR 2 U 1998 } 414 Cr.X.A4TY PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970)963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 Re: Resolution No. 93-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Bean: As per our phone conversation on March 16`'. I am enclosing the pavement evaluations that we have had completed on County Road 103. I am in the process of summarizing the improvements and maintenance that we have performed on County Road 103. I will be forwarding this information to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or if we can be of any assistance. Please give me a call. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CONCRETE..CO. Richard Casey President/owner Huntingdon October 4, 1994 Casey Concrete Attn: Mr. Dick Casey P.O. Box 1815 Rifle CO 81650 Pavement Evaluation, County Road 103, Crystal Springs Road, State Highway 82 to Intersection 0.7 Miles North, Garfield County, Colorado Subject: Huntingdon Engineering & Environmental, Inc. (Chen -Northern, Inc.) 5080 Road 154 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Telephone: (303) 945-7453 Fax: (303) 945-2363 Job No. 4 101 95 Gentlemen: Huntingdon Engineering & Environmental, Inc. (Chen -Northern, Inc.) has completed an investigation to evaluate the present conditions of the above referenced section of County Road 103, Garfield County. The investigation was performed in accordance with our Agreement for Geotechnical Engineering Services to you, dated October 3, 1994. The investigation was conducted based on the categories and guidelines provided in "A Pavement Rating System of Low -Volume Asphalt Roads", which was prepared by the Asphalt Institute. The document is identified as Information Series No. 169 (IS -169), and is dated November 1977. The road section was rated by two qualified staff members on two different days. The individuals' ratings were not shared between the observers until the field work and scoring had been completed. Individual rating forms are attached and indicate an average Condition Rating of 81. If you have any questions or if we may be of further service, please call. Respectfully submitted, HUNTINGDON ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 911.44V e e 011 Fred R. Cameron Construction Materials Manager Reviewed by Bobby J. Hays Laboratory Manager A mmnner m me HIH auto o: cmcaoes ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM STREET OR ROUTE Crystal Springs Road CITY OR COUNTY Garfield LENGTH OF PROJECT 0.7 miles WIDTH + 25 feet PAVEMENT TYPE Asphaltic Concrete DATE 10-3-94 Chip Seal (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect doesn't occur) DEFECTS RATING Transverse Cracks 0-5 2 Longitudinal Cracks 0-5' 1 Alligator Cracks 0-10 2 Shrinkage Cracks 0-5 0 Rutting 0-10 3 Corrugations 0-5 1 Raveling 0-5 1 Shoving or Pushing 0-10 1 Pot Holes 0-10 1 Excess Asphalt 0-10 1 Polished Aggregate 0-5 2 Deficient Drainage 0-10 0 Overall Riding Quality 0-10 (0 is excellent 10 is poor) Sum of Defects Conditions Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100 - 18 Condition Rating = 82 3 t8 ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM STREET OR ROUTE Crystal Springs Road CITY OR COUNTY Garfield LENGTH OF PROJECT 0.7 mile WIDTH + 25 feet PAVEMENT TYPE Asphalt/Chip & Seal DATE 9-28-94 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect doesn't occur) DEFECTS RATING Transverse Cracks 0-5 2 Longitudinal Cracks 0-5 2 Alligator Cracks 0-10 2 Shrinkage Cracks 0-5 1 Rutting 0-10 1 Corrugations 0-5 2 Raveling 0-5 0 Shoving or Pushing 0-10 2 Pot Holes 0-10 1 Excess Asphalt 0-10 2 Polished Aggregate 0-5 1 Deficient Drainage 0-10 0 Overall Riding Quality 0-10 (0 is excellent 10 is poor) 4 Sum of Defects 20 Conditions Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100 - 20 Condition Rating = 80 CIL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING AND INSPECTION May 2, 1995 Mr. Dick Casey Casey Concrete P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, Colorado Subject: 81650 Visual Pavement Evaluation, County Road 103, Crystal Springs Road, State Highway 82 to Intersection 0.7 Miles worth, Garfield County, Colorado Project No. G95 106-3 Gentlemen: MTI-GEO is pleased to submit our report of pavement condition for the above referenced section of road. The pavement was evaluated by means of a visual survey, conducted on April 27 and 28. 1995. The survey was conducted in accordance with "A Pavement Rating System of Low -Volume Roads", from the Asphalt Institute. Information Series No. 169 (I5-169). The evaluation was performed by two staff members on two different days and the information was not shared between observers until the survey was complete. The individual rating forms are attached and indicate an average Condition Rating of 79. Figure II -4. A Guide for the Estimation of Pavement Condition Rating and Priority for Flexible Pavements, provides the following description and recommended action for a pavement Condition Rating of 79: **"Pavement is in fairly good condition with frequent slight cracking, slight or very slight channeling and a few areas of slight alligatoring. Ridability is fairly good with intermittent rough and uneven sections." Action: Resurface in 3 - 5 Years. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please call. Respectfully Submitted, MTI-GEO g Fred R. Cameron Construction Materials Manager Attachments Reference: Asphalt Overlays For Highway And Street Rehabilitation, Asphalt Institute, Manual Series No. 17 (MS -17), June 1983 Edition 5080 Road 154 • Glenwood Springs • Colorado • 81601 ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM STREET OR ROUTE Crystal Springs Road CITY OR COUNTY Garfield 2 lanes (25') LENGTH OF PROJECT 0.7 mile WIDTH Asphalt PAVEMENT TYPE As p (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) DATE 4-27-9.5 DEFECTS Transverse Cracks Longitudinal Cracks Alligator Cracks Shrinkage Cracks Rutting Corrugations Raveling Shoving or Pushing Pot Holes Excess Asphalt Polished Aggregate Deficient Drainage Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent; 10 is very poor) Condition Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100 - Condition Rating = RATING 0-5 0-5 0-10 0-5 0-10 0-5 0-5 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-5 0-10 0-10 Sum of Defects 3 0 0 4 1 0 3 ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM STREET OR ROUTE Crystal Springs Road CITY OR COUNTY Garfield LENGTH OF PROJECT 0,7 mile WIDTH 2 lanes (25'l Asphalt DATE PAVEMENT TYPE 4-28-95 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) DEFECTS Transverse Cracks Longitudinal Cracks Alligator Cracks Shrinkage Cracks Rutting Corrugations 0-5 0-5 0-10 6-5 0-10 0-5 0-5 RATING Raveling 0-10 Shoving or Pushing 0-10 Pot Hoies 0-10 Excess Asphalt 0-5 Polished Aggregate 0-10 Deficient Drainage Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent; 0-10 10 is very poor) Sum of Defects Condition Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100 - Condition Rating = 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 4 P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 March 12, 1998 ase evncrefe READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL Mark L. Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 i MAR 1 3 199 OfAttritA.0 PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970)963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 Return Receipt No. P 195 401 427 Re: Resolution No. 93-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Bean: In answer to your letter dated March 6, 1998 we have the following response. Item number eight of the Agreement for Road Improvement on CR 103 states, in part, "Should Casey, its heirs, successors, or assigns notify the County in writing that it has, or will by a specified date, cease to use CR 103 for vehicular access from Highway 82 to the concrete batch plant facilities on the subject property, this agreement shall be deemed to be terminated as to Casey's ongoing maintenance obligations, as specified herein. The Board of County Commissioners has approved a new access to Western Slope Aggregates gravel pit. This approval was dated August 5, 1996 and was stated in Resolution # 96-48. Casey Concrete has been and will continue to use this new access to the concrete batch plant facilities on the subject property. This letter serves as notice that Casey Concrete has ceased to use CR 103 for vehicular access to the concrete batch plant. In lieu of the above circumstances Casey's obligation for on going maintenance on CR 103 has been terminated as well. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CONC / ..-ecz Richard Casey President/Owner March 6, 1998 Richard Casey Casey Concrete P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, CO 81650 RE: Resolution No. 92-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Casey: At the time the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 93-020 for your Special Use Permit, you also entered into an agreement with the County. In the Agreement for Road Improvements on County Road 103, you agreed to hire a "geotechnical or civil engineering firm" to perform evaluations on the twice a year basis. King Lloyd, County Road and Bridge Supervisor has advised this office that there has not been an evaluation done for a number of years and there is damage to the County Road 103 surface. It is necessary to have an evaluation done to determine the extent of the damage. Condition No. 5 of the agreement requires that an evaluation be performed between March 15 and April 15, each calendar year. To maintain your permit in good standing, it will be necessary for you to hire an engineering firm acceptable to the County, to do an evaluation. It will then be necessary for your company preform any remedial action necessary to bring the pavement rating score up to the agreed upon level. Please contact King Lloyd by March 13th, to make arrangements for submitting a report and reviewing it with the Board. If you have any other questions about your commitments or the issues noted in this letter, feel free to call or write to this office. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department xc: Board of County Commissioners King Lloyd Don DeFord easek,.. eoncrefe eo. P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 June 16, 1999 Mark L. Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8h Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970) 963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 Return Receipt No. PZ 379 438 627 Re: Resolution No. 93-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Bean: As per our phone conversation today we have the following response. Item number eight of the Agreement for Road Improvement on CR 103 states, in part, "Should Casey, its heirs, successors, or assigns notify the County in writing that it has, or will by a specified date, cease to use CR 103 for the primary vehicular access from Highway 82 to the concrete batch plant facilities on the subject property, this agreement shall be deemed to be terminated as to Casey's ongoing maintenance obligations, as specified herein." The Board of County Commissioners has approved a new access to Western Slope Aggregates gravel pit. This approval was dated August 5, 1996 and was stated in Resolution #96-48. This letter serves as notice that Casey Concrete has ceased to use CR 103 for its primary vehicular access to the concrete batch plant. We partially over laid with asphaltic concrete and then chip and sealed the 0.7 -utile length of 103 Road. This created an average condition rating of 98, which exceeds our obligation. I have enclosed a copy of H.P. Geotechnical's evaluation. In lieu of the above circumstances, Casey's obligation for ongoing maintenance on CR 103 has been terminated as well. RECEIVED JUN 1 7 1999 Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CONCRETE CO. Th) "0 Richard Casey President/Owner Encl. HEI'WORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 June 7, 1999 Casey Concrete Attn: Dick Casey P.O. Box 1815 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7985 Job No. 198 358 '_subject: Pavement Condition Evaluation, County Road 103, Garfield County,2,olorado Mr. Casey: As requested, HP Geotech has completed another evaluation of the pavement condition at County Road 103, from the intersection of State Highway 82, approximately 0.7 miles to the north. The roadway was partially over laid with asphaltic concrete and then chip -sealed the 0.7 mile length. The evaluation was performed in accordance with "A Pavement Rating System (or Low -Volume Asphalt Roads" by The Asphalt Institute (15-169) dated 'Iovember 1977. rhe section of road was independently observed by two qualified staff members, June 3, 1999. The attached Rating Forms indicate an average Condition Rating of 98. If you have any questions, or we can be of further assistance, please contact this office. 1cerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Michael Evans, S.E.T. M E/1<c ev. By. DEH Hind. RECEIVED JUN 1 C 1999 ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM .lob No. 198 358 STREET OR ROUTE: County Rd 103 CITY OR COUNTY: Garfield LENG'T'H OF PROJECT: approx. 0.7 miles WIDTH: varies 22' - 30' PAVEMENT TYPE: chip seal DATE: 6-3-99 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) DEFECTS RATING its ' erse Cracks 0-5 11 Lon giiudina1 Cracks 0-5 0 Alligator Cracks 0-10 0 Shrinkage Cracks 0-5 0 Rutting...(mino• rutting in area of chip seal only at about.. 0-10 Y .3 miles up from 82 in southbound lane) orrugations 0-5 0 Ravcliw' 0-5 II Shoving or Pushing 0-10 1) Pot Holes 0-10 0 Excess Asphalt 0-11) 0 Folisiieu Aggregate 0-5 0 Deficient Drainage 0-10 11 Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent, 10 is very poor) 0-10 /z Sum of Defects 1 Condition Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100- i 'undition hating = 99 Evaluated by: Dan Hardin ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM .lob No. 198 358 STREET OR ROUTE: County 12d 103 CITY OR COUNTY: Garfield LENGTH OF PROJECT: approx. 0.7 miles WIDTH: varies 22' - 30' PAVEMENT TYPE: asphalt + chip seal DATE: 6-3-99 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) )l:FECTS RATING Transverse Cracks 0-5 0 Longitudinal Cracks 0-5 Il Alligator Cracks 0-10 0 Shrinkage Cracks 0-5 Il Rutting 0-10 2 Corrugations 0-5 0 Raveling 0-5 11 Shoving or Pushing 0-10 0 Pot Holes 0-10 I) Excess :Asphalt 0-10 II Polished :Aggregate 0-5 II Deficient Drainage 0-10 11 Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent, 10 is very poor) 0-10 1 Sum of Defects 3 ('audition Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100 - 'ondition Rating = 97 Evaluated by: Michael Evans P.O. BOX 1815 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 June 16, 1999 ase eoizcrefe Go. '►lark L. Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8t Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 READY MIX SAND AND GRAVEL PHONE (970) 625-3489 OR (970) 625-1464 (970) 963-9070 FAX (970) 963-0180 Return Receipt No. PZ 379 438 627 Re: Resolution No. 93-020 Agreement for Road Improvements on CR 103 Dear Mr. Bean: As per our phone conversation today we have the following response. Item number eight of the Agreement for Road Improvement on CR 103 states, in part, "Should Casey, its heirs, successors, or assigns notify the County in writing that it has, or will by a specified date, cease to use CR 103 for the primary vehicular access from Highway 82 to the concrete batch plant facilities on the subject property, this agreement shall be deemed to be terminated as to Casey's ongoing maintenance obligations, as specified herein." The Board of County Commissioners has approved a new access to Western Slope Aggregates gravel pit. This approval was dated August 5, 1996 and was stated in Resolution #96-48. This letter serves as notice that Casey Concrete has ceased to use CR 103 for its primary vehicular access to the concrete batch plant. We partially over laid with asphaltic concrete and then chip and sealed the 0.7 -mile length of 103 Road. This created an average condition rating of 98, which exceeds our obligation. I have enclosed a copy of H.P. Geotechnical's evaluation. In lieu of the above circumstances, Casey's obligation for ongoing maintenance on CR 103 has been terminated as well. RECEIVED JUN 1 C 1999 Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, DICK CASEY CON RETE CO. Richard Casey President/Owner Encl. L CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS February 15, 1993 Casey Concrete Company P.O. Box 1850 Rifle, CO 81650 Attention: Mr. Dick Casey Subject: Pavement Rating 0.7 miles of Crystal Springs Road (CR 104) from Highway 82 Garfield County, Colorado Job No. GS -1032 Gentlemen: As requested, we rated the subject road using the "Pavement Rating System For Low Volume Asphalt Roads" published by The Asphalt Institute. This letter briefly describes the road and the rating system. The lower alignment of Crystal Springs Road is in part on a naturally deposited river terrace and in part on a manmade bench. The upper part of the road appears to be built on native silty clays and clayey silts above the natural gravels. Most of the road is on natural soils or areas of cut. In several places the road embankment was made by cutting into the natural slope and pushing the soils away from the slope to form a flattened area. The pavement surface appears to be several layers of chip and seal applications. The road is generally in good repair. Distress observed in the pavement is predominantly normal wear expected with age and use with the exception of considerable transverse cracking and three small areas of failed pavement. The failed areas are expressed in the road surface by alligator cracking and are adjacent to the should of the road. The rating system includes subjectively determining and applying scores for damages from a list of twelve (12) types of distress and one score for overall ride quality. The individual scores are tallied and subtracted from 100 to determine a "conditions rating as a general indicator of type of maintenance". We determined the road to be rated as 'overlay". The conditions rating we determined was 67. 234 CENTER DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • (303)945-2809 Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CTL/THOMPSON, INC. a echling, P.E. anch Manager JM/cd INSF ION PERFORMED : JOHN MECHLINL -.E. CTL/THOMPSON, INC. 234 CENTER DR. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 ASPHALT PAVEMENT RATING FORM CRYSTALL SPRINGS ROAD STREET OR ROUTE (CR 104) LENGTH OF PROJECT 0.7 MILES PAVEMENT TYPE CHIP/SEAL CITY OR COUNTY GARFIELD WIDTH APPROX. 22' DATE FEBRUARY 15, 1993 (Note: A rating of "0" indicates defect does not occur) DEFECTS Transverse Cracks Longitudinal Cracks Alligator Cracks Shrinkage Cracks Rutting Corrugations Raveling Shoving or Pushing Pot Holes Excess Asphalt Polished Aggregate Deficient Drainage Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent 10 is very poor) Conditions Rating = 100 - Sum of Defects = 100 - 33 = 67 Condition Rating = OVERLAY RATING 0-5 4 0-5 3 0-10 3 0-5 1 0-10 3 0-5 2 0-5 1 0-10 2 0-10 2 0-10 2 0-5 2 0-10 4 0-10 4 Sum of Defects 33 DEC -09-1992 16:42 FROM, GARFIELD CO ROAD & BRIDGE TO 9457785 P.01 GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2264 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-2254 Phone 945-8111 DATE: December 9, 1992 TO: Dave Michaelson, Planning Dept. FROM: King Lloyd, Road & Bridge Dept. RE: Casey Concrete Batch Plant.;__ After reviewing the application I•have concerns about further deterioration of County Road -.103 due:to the volume of truck traffic and excessive axle loads. There already exists a resolution committing the operator of the pit to maintain County Road 104, which is primarily the access road for the pit. However, -county Road 103, serves as access for a larger area, and there has been damage to the road at the intersection of Co..Rd ...103 and Co Rd 104. The damage is primarily settlement of the roadway and pavement failure. The intersection is poorly designed and is restrictive to the truck traffic leaving Co Rd 103, and turning onto Co Rd 104. The type of distress I'm.seeing on County Road 103, is not something that could be fixed with an overlay. The subbase needs to be upgraded as well..as a road.constructed with adequate radius and shoulders. This would be a costly proposition, and not one that.. is currently in the future plans of County road upgrades. 1 have had discussions with the pit lessee about the problems that are occurring on Co Rd -.103, of :which most existed before his arrival. We both concur that this facility would be better served with access directly onto Highway 82, which is where a majority of the trucks end up. I would encourage this operations to continue to formulate plans toward Lhe Highway 82 connection: TOTAL P.01