Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CC: LAPC Policy Board Media
La Crosse Area Planning Committee Metropolitan Planning Organization
Serving the La Crosse/La Crescent Urbanized Area
Peter Fletcher, Director Jackie Eastwood, Transportation Planner La Crosse County Administrative Center
212 6th Street North Room 1200 La Crosse, WI 54601 PH: 608.785.5977 Web: www.lapc.org
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 FROM: PETER FLETCHER, DIRECTOR TO: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
The next meeting of the LAPC TAC will be Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm in Room 1107 of the La Crosse County Administrative Center, 212 6th St North, La Crosse, WI
AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes of the August 14, 2019 Meeting
2. Review the 2020-2023 Transportation Improvement Program
3. Ranking of STP-Urban project applications and recommendation to approve the ranking as decided (action requested)
4. Review the list of 2020 work program activities and budget
5. Update on Local Studies Program
6. November agenda items:
• Approval of the 2020 Planning Work Program
7. Other business; Adjourn; Next meeting to be announced.
If you have a disability and need assistance participating in this meeting, please contact Jackie Eastwood at 608.785.6141 or at [email protected] at least one week in advance of the meeting.
Page 1 of 2
La Crosse Area Planning Committee Metropolitan Planning Organization
Serving the La Crosse/La Crescent Urbanized Area
Peter Fletcher, Director Jackie Eastwood, Transportation Planner La Crosse County Administrative Center
212 6th St N Room 1200 La Crosse, WI 54601-1200 PH: 608.785.5977 Website: www.lapc.org
Minutes of Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, March 13, 2019
Minutes of the meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee held on Wednesday, Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 1107 of the La Crosse County Administration Center, 212 6th St N, La Crosse, WI. Members Present: Loren Schwier, Bill Waller, Becky Lakowske for Ginny Loehr, Kurt Wayne, Chris Dahl, Jim Kuehn (ph), Bob Fisher, Adam Lorentz, Charlie Handy, Jarrod Holter. Members Excused: Francis Schelfhout, Ron Chamberlain, Bobbi Retzlaff, Ginny Loehr. Others Present: Michael Erickson, Steve Flottmeyer. Staff Present: Peter Fletcher, Jackie Eastwood. Peter Fletcher called the meeting at 2:30 pm. Introductions were done. 1) Approval of the Minutes of the March 13, 2019 TAC Meeting:
Jarrod Holter motioned to approve the minutes for March 13, 2019; Charlie Handy seconded. All were in favor.
2) Welcome to Peter Fletcher as the new Director of the LAPC:
Peter Fletcher welcomed everyone to the meeting and then commenced to provide some personal background on his education and past planning positions. He came to the LAPC from the Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission. He then went on to highlight some of his goals for the LAPC.
3) Recommendation to Approve Amending the 2019-2020 Planning Work Program:
Peter Fletcher referred to a document that summarized the reasons for the amendment. In response to a question by Kurt Wayne, Jackie Eastwood stated that she had corresponded with MnDOT regarding their funding and that no adjustments needed to be made. The budget changes occur only on the Wisconsin shares. Jim Kuehn stated that the money would be offered to the transportation management areas (TMAs) because they contribute a portion of their revenues to the smaller MPOs. Jarrod Holter motioned to recommend to the Policy Board to approve amending the 2019-2020 Planning Work Program; Kurt Wayne seconded. All were in favor.
4) Recommendation to Approve Amending the 2019-2022 Transportation Improvement Program: Peter Fletcher highlighted the changes in the 2019-2022 TIP stating that the changes are illustrated in red and that the amendment was triggered because of two projects that were obligated a significant amount of federal funding. Jackie Eastwood added that the TIP sheets presented included the grouped projects list that she failed to include in their mailout. The full list has been on the website. She added that we are still in the 15-day public comment period and that the last opportunity for comment will occur at the Policy Board meeting on August 21. Charlie Handy motioned to recommend to the Policy Board to approve amending the 2019-2022 Transportation Improvement Program; Adam Lorentz seconded. All were in favor.
5) Surface Transportation Program-Urban: Michael Erickson from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation provided some handouts that listed the 2020-2025 program allocations and provided examples of how local projects have affected
Page 2 of 2
funding and scheduling. He stated that the application materials are on the WisDOT website and that the applications needed to be turned into the MPO by the end of August.
6) Local Studies Program: Peter Fletcher stated that the LAPC would have about $92,550 available for local studies, but staff would like up to $73,500 reserved toward the LAPC share of aerial photography and for employment data both of which will be used to update the travel model. Mr. Fletcher directed a question to Jim Kuehn regarding eligibility to which Mr. Kuehn responded that the photography would be an eligible activity, but we need to prorate the County portion.
7) September agenda items: • Recommend approval of the 2020 work program activities and budget—not the full work
program • Rank STP-U projects • Recommend approval of the 2020-2023 Transportation Improvement Program
8) Other Business, Adjourn, Next meeting to be announced:
The next TAC meeting will occur on September 11. Charlie Handy motioned to adjourn at 3:20 pm; Kurt Wayne seconded. All were in favor.
Main Work Activities and Budget for the 2020 LAPC Planning Work Program:
September 11, 2019
Items highlighted in yellow are new or specific to 2020.
Program Support (100)
• Provide training support to new Director. • Coordinate technical committee and policy board meetings. • Prepare the PWP, quarterly accounting, and billing for local dues.
Metropolitan Transportation Plan Implementation (200)
• FHWA Planning Emphasis Areas “PEAs”: o Performance-based planning and programming o Regional models of cooperation o Ladders of opportunity
• Complete update of MTP. • System Performance Report for MTP. • Update environmental resource inventory. • Consultation with resource agencies. • Work with DOTs to set targets and prepare resolutions for performance measures. • Implement recommendations from MTP and TDP. • Coordinate with DOTs on state transportation and modal plans.
Task 2019 Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Continue data gathering & drafting plan document
Incorporate Vulnerability Assessment, Resiliency, sustainability
System Performance Report
Resource inventory; environmental justice; consultation
Public input; incorporate comments
Public information meeting and LAPC approvals.
Public Participation and Outreach (200)
• Continue to improve digital access to information through the LAPC website. • Begin development of an ArcGIS Online application for transportation projects and
information. • Engage in active outreach to member and non-member planning area communities. • Explore social media options for engaging the public. • Redesign LAPC website.
Transportation Planning Database (200)
• Gather and analyze Census data. • Begin update of land use inventory. • Obtain employment data. • Continue updating sustainability indicators for La Crosse County. • Update EJ data with most recent data from the ACS.
Traffic Forecasting Model (200)
• Coordinate travel model review and update with WisDOT. Transportation Studies and Projects (300)
• Work with lead agencies on transportation studies and projects. • Coordinate LAPC Local Studies program. • Continue work with La Crosse County on SMRT service.
Modal Planning and Technical Assistance (300)
• Serve on MN Great River Rail Commission (formerly High Speed Rail Commission) and Passenger Rail Forum.
• Continue to work through our CTAT to plan additional regional bicycle routes. • Promote bike/ped and transit accommodations in area construction projects. • Technical assistance to member communities (data analysis, transit planning, etc.) • Serve on the City of La Crosse Safe Routes to School Steering Committee. • Analyze MTU AVL data for performance and customer service measures.
Transportation Improvement Program (400)
• Provide public notice of TIP update. • Maintain TIP project information on website. • Review existing and incorporate new projects. • Complete TIP Environmental Justice analysis. • Prepare TIP amendments as necessary.
• Prepare 4 year TIP document including financial plan. • Serve on MnDOT District 6 Area Transportation Partnership.
Consultant Studies Funding (500)
• Participate in La Crosse County aerial photography program.
100 200 300 400 500
Program Support
Long Range Planning
Short Range Planning
TIP Develop- ment
Local Studies / Budgeted Reserves
LAPC Revenue$38,067.00 $37,654.00 $18,058.08 $11,748.36 $5,988.48 $2,272.09192,713.70 145,073.60 63,893.58 41,568.36 21,188.59 8,039.16 58,024.00
11,000.00 11,000.00 5,218.14 3,394.86 1,730.46 656.552,750.00 2,750.00 1,304.53 848.71 432.61 164.14
11,404.80 8,585.46 3,781.22 2,460.02 1,253.94 475.76 3,433.8636,773.63 27,682.94 12,192.17 7,932.08 4,043.21 1,534.03 11,072.1421,318.37 30,409.06 10,112.93 6,579.34 3,353.68 1,272.42 0.0011,848.50 5,620.65 3,656.72 1,863.94 707.20 0.00
$325,876.00 $263,155.06 $120,181.30 $78,188.45 $39,854.90 $15,121.35 $72,530.00
% of Total Funds 36.9% 24.0% 12.2% 4.6% 22.3%LAPC Expenses 2020 2019
Salaries and FringeDirector Salary + Fringe $110,183.00 $45,014.00 $38,564.05 $33,054.90 $27,545.75 $11,018.30
Planner Salary + Fringe 82,061.00 83,405.00 20,515.25 45,133.55 12,309.15 4,103.05 Total: $192,244.00 $128,419.00 $59,079.30 $78,188.45 $39,854.90 $15,121.35
Program ExpensesOffice Supplies 600.00 600.00 600.00Indirect Costs 14,000.00 14,000.00 14,000.00Unemployment & retirees indirec 31,869.00 0.00 31,869.00Duplicating/Printing 650.00 1,500.00 650.00Postage (Internal) 200.00 350.00 200.00Telephone 175.00 175.00 175.00Cell Phone 500.00 450.00 500.00Meals 300.00 500.00 300.00Lodging 1,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00Mileage 1,500.00 2,550.00 1,500.00Parking 100.00 100.00 100.00Public Notice 350.00 350.00 350.00Publications Costs 0.00 300.00 0.00Conferences 900.00 900.00 900.00Dues 6,105.00 6,105.00 6,105.00Software Licenses 578.00 532.00 578.00Computers /monitors 1,275.00 165.00 1,275.00Training 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Total: $61,102.00 $31,577.00 $61,102.00
$253,346.00 $159,996.00 $120,181.30 $78,188.45 $39,854.90 $15,121.35% OF INTERNAL EXPENSES 47.4% 30.9% 15.7% 6.0%
Consultant Costs64056 Local Studies $72,530.00 $72,750.00 $72,530.00
To/From Reserves99913 To Reserves $0.00 $30,409.06 $0.00
$72,530.00 $103,159.06 $72,530.00$325,876.00 $263,155.06 $120,181.30 $78,188.45 $39,854.90 $15,121.35 $72,530.00100.0% 36.9% 24.0% 12.2% 4.6% 22.3%
Budgeted Reserves Account (Estimated)Balance December 31, 2019: $168,247.31Reserves used in 2020: $11,848.50Reserves added in 2020: $0.00Balance December 31, 2020: $156,398.81
Local Share Balance ($60,842 Dues Transfer from Reserves
Local Match for Minnesota Funds
Local Match for W iscons in Funds
Minnesota State FundsWiscons in Federal Grant Funds Minnesota Federal Grant Funds
Funding Source Funds (2020)
Allocation of Funds (2020)
Funds (2019 Amended)
Wiscons in State Funds
STP-U Project Evaluation Matrix Project
1 2 3 4 5 6 Economic Development
Safety & Security
Congestion Relief
Mobility & Accessibility
Key Component of Transportation System
Promotes Implementation of Land Use Plans
Multimodalism
Impacts on the Natural Environment
Energy Conservation
Social and Community Effects
Intermodal/Multimodal Connectivity
Supports Efficient Land Use Patterns
Cost Effectiveness
Preserves Existing System
Transportation Corridor Preservation
Project Coordination
Timeliness
Total Points Awarded
Page 1 of 5
STP‐U Program Project Prioritization Criteria Adopted May 18, 2011
Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
Economic Development: This criterion attempts to reflect the positive impact a transportation project may have on the economic vitality of the area.
6 Points: The project would have a high, positive impact on economic activity.
4 Points: The project would have a moderate, positive impact on economic activity.
2 Points: The project would have a low positive impact on economic activity.
0 Points: The project would have no positive or would have a negative impact on economic activity.
Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non‐motorized
users.
Safety & Security: This criterion is based on an assessment of existing safety and security problems and the extent to which the proposed project will reduce such problems. Crash statistics and standards should be used when considering roadway and bicycle/pedestrian projects, while safety aspects of passengers and employees should be considered for transit projects. Security aspects of projects may include, but not be limited to, traffic cameras, pedestrian‐scale lighting, access control, or IT infrastructure for emergency response.
6 Points: The project would have a high positive impact on safety and security.
4 Points: The project would have a moderate positive impact on safety and security.
2 Points: The project would have a low positive impact on safety and security.
0 Points: The project would have no impact on safety and security. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and to freight.
Congestion relief: This criterion is based on an assessment of existing congestion problems and the impact a proposed project may have in reducing such problems.
6 Points: The project would have a high positive impact on reducing congestion. Examples include projects that construct a new road, add lanes to an existing facility, or reconstruct an existing facility with accommodations for all users. These projects could include mobility options (bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) to help relieve roadway congestion.
4 Points: The project would have a moderate positive impact on reducing congestion. Examples include projects that would provide auxiliary lanes, left‐turn bays, or park‐and‐ride lots; fill gaps in the sidewalk system; add bicycle and/or transit accommodations within the project right‐of‐way.
Page 2 of 5
2 Points: The project would have a low positive impact on reducing congestion. Examples include projects that address congestion through operations rather than through added capacity.
0 Points: The project would have little to no positive impact on reducing congestion. Mobility and accessibility options: This criterion rewards projects that improve the mobility
and accessibility of users within the transportation system through improved connections and design. Projects that fill critical gaps in the system, remove barriers, or improve the geometrics of intersections to accommodate vehicle turning movements would receive points under this criterion.
6 Points: The project would complete critical connections, remove barriers, provide intersection improvements, or enhance the grid system.
4 Points: The project would moderately improve the mobility and accessibility of system users. These projects would include infrastructure improvements to intersections to accommodate users.
2 Points: The project would only slightly improve the mobility and accessibility of system users.
0 Points: The project would have no positive impact on improving mobility and accessibility. Key component of transportation system: This criterion gives weight to projects according to
their overall relationship with the rest of the transportation system.
6 Points: The project would have a high, positive impact on the overall transportation system (i.e. projects that occur on principal arterials or that provide a critical link in the transportation system).
4 Points: The project would have a moderate, positive impact on the overall transportation system (i.e. projects that occur on minor arterials).
2 Points: The project would have a low, positive impact on the overall transportation system.
0 Points: The project would have little to no positive impact on the overall transportation system.
Promotes implementation of local/regional land use plans: This criterion is an indicator of how
well the transportation project promotes the implementation of adopted local and regional land use and transportation plans, and how the project affects the region as a whole.
6 Points: The project implements recommendations of adopted plans and improves the transportation system of the region as a whole.
4 Points: The project helps promote adopted plans and improves the transportation system of more than one municipality.
2 Points: The project is consistent with adopted plans.
0 Points: The project has little to no relationship to adopted plans.
Page 3 of 5
Multimodalism: This criterion rewards projects that accommodate more than one mode of travel.
6 Points: The project accommodates more than three modes of travel.
4 Points: The project accommodates only three modes of travel.
2 points: The project accommodates only two modes of travel.
0 Points: The project accommodates only motor vehicles. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life. Impacts on the natural environment: This criterion rewards projects that enhance or have
minimal negative impact on, for example, the region’s farmland, forestland, bluffs, wetlands, or rivers.
6 Points: The project would enhance or have no negative impact the region’s natural environment.
4 Points: The project would have minimal negative impact on the region’s natural environment.
2 Points: The project would have some mitigable negative impact on the region’s natural environment.
0 Points: The project would have significant negative impact on the region’s natural environment.
Energy Conservation: This criterion credits those projects that promote a shift from the single‐
occupancy vehicle (SOV) to other modes such as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle, or to carpooling.
6 Points: The project would directly reduce SOVs (i.e. high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, most projects that enhance transit service, bicycle/pedestrian projects that are commuter‐oriented).
4 Points: The project would indirectly reduce SOVs.
2 points: The project would have low impact on reducing SOVs.
0 Points: The project would have no impact on reducing SOVs.
Social and community effects: This criterion assesses the impact a project has on the social, community, or human environment.
6 Points: The project would enhance neighborhoods or community livability to a high degree.
4 Points: The project would enhance neighborhoods or community livability to a moderate degree.
2 Points: The project would enhance neighborhoods or community livability to a low degree.
0 Points: The project would not enhance neighborhoods or community livability.
Page 4 of 5
Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight.
Intermodal/multimodal connectivity: This criterion credits projects that provide for an interconnection with other modes (transfer points). An intermodal project that provides connections to truck, rail, and barge, for example, would be considered a three‐mode transfer point.
6 points: The project provides a transfer point (or points) for three or more modes.
4 Points: The project provides a transfer point (or points) for two modes.
2 Points: The project that provides a transfer point (or points) for one mode.
0 Points: The project that accommodates only one transportation mode. Promote efficient system management and operation.
Supports efficient land use patterns: This criterion rewards those projects that promote an increase in density (population and/or employment), serve areas of mixed land uses, and reduce auto dependency.
6 Points: The project meets all three criteria (density, mixed use, and auto dependency).
4 Points: The project meets two of the criteria.
2 points: The project meets only one criterion.
0 Points: The project meets none of the criteria.
Cost effectiveness: This criterion reflects the degree of use each mode is expected to attain as a result of a candidate project compared to the costs of the project (i.e. number of bus riders attracted per day). Using an estimated cost of the project, a measure of the project’s cost‐per‐user may be calculated to provide a point of comparison among the projects.
6 Points: The project is highly cost effective.
4 Points: The project is moderately cost effective.
2 Points: The project is not very cost effective.
0 Points: The project is not at all cost effective.
Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
Preserves existing system: This criterion rewards those projects that strive to preserve the existing transportation infrastructure.
6 points: The project preserves the existing system through pavement replacement and rehabilitation. Examples could include resurfacing projects that include signage, pavement markings, and crossing improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians.
4 Points: The project preserves the existing system, but may include some new construction to provide connections and continuity.
2 Points: The project preserves some of the existing system, but is dominated by significant changes in alignments, routes, and facilities.
Page 5 of 5
0 Points: The project does not strive to preserve the existing system. Transportation corridor preservation: This criterion recognizes the preservation or protection
of corridors or other land parcels for future transportation use. Projects that seek to preserve transportation corridors generally include right‐of‐way acquisition for scenic byways, transit centers, park‐and‐rides, and rails‐to‐trails for transportation purposes.
6 Points: The project seeks to preserve or protect land along an endangered transportation corridor.
4 Points: The project seeks to preserve or protect land along a “major” corridor.
2 Points: The project seeks to preserve or protect land along a “minor” corridor.
0 Points: The project does not seek to preserve or protect land. Other criteria: Project coordination: A project that can be coordinated with another planned or programmed
project for significant cost and time savings shall receive 6 points.
Timeliness: Projects whose funding and subsequent programming is necessary to avoid loss of previous funding or to avoid delaying another project shall receive 6 points.
A-1
WisDOT 2020-2025 STP-Urban Program Application
STP-Urban Application Instructions Project Description
Project Sponsor: County of La Crosse Facility Owner: County of La Crosse
Project Location:
Municipality: Village of Holmen County: La Crosse
On Route: CTH SN
At Route (Start): Hanson Road Offset: (tenths of a mile)
Toward Route (End): Alpine Lane Is the project a planning, administration, or other non-infrastructure project? Yes No If yes, please select the type of project and provide a brief explanation: SELECT Please indicate the project’s distance from the applicable urban/urbanized area boundary: Less than 1 mile NOTE: Attach an 8½ x 11 map showing the project location. A WISLR map is REQUIRED (refer to the following link: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/wislr/default.aspx Length of Project: 1.29 (tenths of a mile)
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 6100 ADT Year: 2014 Posted or Statutory Speed Limit(s): 35 (mph)
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Functional classification map change anticipated during this program cycle? Yes No NOTE: Roadway must be functionally classified as a Collector or higher to be eligible for funding.
Existing Facility
Number of Lanes: 2 Lane Width: 13 Cross Section: Rural Urban
Pavement Type: Asphalt If Combination, explain: Pavement Width: 26
Pavement Rating: 3 Pavement Condition: Block cracking, rutting, edge cracking Year Last Improved:
1987
Shoulder Type: Gravel If Combination, explain: Shoulder Width: 2
Existing Sidewalk? Yes No
Are sidewalks designated as part of a regional or local bicycle or pedestrian system? Yes No
Existing bicycle/pedestrian accommodations? Yes No
Are bicycle/pedestrian accommodations designated as part of a regional or local bicycle or pedestrian system?
Yes No
Lighting: Spot Lighting Style: SELECT
NOTE: This application is required for each new potential 2020-2025 program cycle project. Please review the application instructions (see link below) to assist you in completing the application.
A-2
Sub-standard alignment? Horizontal: Yes No
Vertical: Yes No
Any federal-aid-eligible structures within the existing facility? Yes No If yes, please indicate the structure ID
#(s):
Does a railroad facility exist within 1000 feet of the project limits? Yes No If yes, specify: SELECT
Known Safety Issues? Yes No If yes, specify: (consider applying for Highway Safety Improvement
Program [HSIP] funds if applicable) Project Justification Explain why the project is needed, including the scope and appropriate detail on the project’s uniqueness and complexity. Describe specific deficiencies such as pavement cracking, edge raveling, surface deterioration, substandard geometrics, etc. Include and separately identify any 100% locally funded components of the project that are part of the overall improvement. The pavement is in poor condition, there is block cracking, aligator cracking, rutting and edge cracking. There are no existing bicycle or pedestrain accomodations. The curretn roadway barely meets the standards for a collector and the traffic counts indicate a minor aterial. Proposed Improvement NOTE: Applicants should refer to the traffic data and design standards information in the instructions prior to completing this section of the application. Improvement Type: Reconditioning If Combination, explain: Overall Length: 6864 (feet)
Rural Cross Section Length: (tenths of a mile)
Urban Cross Section Length: 1.29 (tenths of a mile)
Will the project add lanes? Yes No If Yes, describe which part(s) of the project will receive additional lanes:
Grading: Minimal Moderate Extensive
New Pavement Type: Hot Mix Asphalt If Combination, explain: Width: 24 Length: 6864
New Shoulder Type: Hot Mix Asphalt If Combination, explain: Width: 6 Length: 6864
Sidewalk Width: Length:
Are bicycle/pedestrian accommodations required? Yes No If yes, specify: Paved shoulders and paved
Muti-use path.
Curb and Gutter Length: 6864
Signals Roundabout NOTE: Refer to FDM 11-26 for modern roundabout information (http://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-11-26.pdf).
Railroad improvements
Freight-related improvements
Lighting: Spot Lighting Style: Standard
Beam Guard
Permanent and Temporary Pavement Marking
Permanent and Temporary Signing
Storm Sewer:
A-3
Lateral Storm Sewer Lines Estimated Total Length: Estimated Diameter(s):
Trunk Storm Sewer Lines Estimated Total Length: 2612 Estimated Diameter(s): 12,15,18,24
Storm Sewer Included in Non-participating Construction Cost estimate (see page A-5)
Structure Structure Type: SELECT Work Required: SELECT
Structure #(s): Sizes and Descriptions:
Traffic Management During Construction: Road Closed with Detour
Do you anticipate submittal of an exception to standards request? Yes No
If yes, please describe: Environmental/Cultural Issues
Agriculture Yes No Not Investigated Comments: 1 farm
field
Archaeological sites Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Historical sites Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Lakes, waterways, floodplains Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Wetland Yes No Not Investigated Comments: spot
wetlands
Stormwater management Yes No Not Investigated Comments: Storm
water management during construction and a storm water system as part of the new facility.
Hazardous materials sites Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Hazardous materials on existing structure Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Upland habitat Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Endangered/threatened/migratory species Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Section 4(f) Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Section 6(f) Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Through/adjacent to tribal land Yes No Not Investigated Comments: Miscellaneous Issues
Construction Schedule Restrictions (trout, migratory bird, local events): None
Has there been any real estate acquired or transferred in anticipation of this project? Yes No
If yes, please explain.
Right of Way: (NOTE: It is recommended that local funds be used to acquire right of way.)
Check all that are applicable.
None Less than ½ acre More than ½ acre
Parklands Large parcels Strips Temporary interests
Other Funding Sources: Has the municipality anticipated, requested or been approved for other federal or state funding
from WisDOT for the improvement? Yes No If yes, please indicate all of the other funding sources that are
anticipated, have been requested, or approved with the associated project ID(s):
A-4
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP) Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Railroad Programs (see instructions) Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Local Bridge Program Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Surface Transportation Program - Rural Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Transportation Alternatives Program Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Transportation Economic Assistance Program Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Disaster Damage Aids Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Other: Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Other Concept Notes: Provide any additional relevant project information that has not been covered in another section
of the application.
This is a main corridor into and out of Holmen. The current roadway is narrow and the traffic volumes high. It goes
through a residential area that includes an elementary school. The proposed improvement will provide for safe
pedestrain and bicycle accomodations that do not exist today. The widening of the driving lanes will provide for safer
operation of motor vehicles and the improved pavement structure will facilitate freight in a manner that allows the
COunty to avoid even seasonal weight limit postings.
A-5
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Cost Estimate, Project Priority, and Scheduling (do not include pages A-5 and A-6 in the Concept Definition Report [CDR]) Applicants should reference the following WisDOT web page prior to completing this section of the application: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/highway/tools.aspx NOTE: Requesting design and construction projects in the same fiscal year is not allowed. All applications must include a sheet documenting the calculations performed to create the estimate(s).
Tied Projects? All requests for design must be tied to a construction project. Please indicate which projects will be
tied (if applicable):
Construction:
Basis for Construction Estimate: Itemized Per Mile Past Projects
Other, specify:
Project Priority: 1
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Roadway:
Federal Share of the Participating Construction Cost (80%) $2,321,752
Local Share of the Participating Construction Cost (20%) $580,438
Non-Participating Construction Cost (100% Local) $0
Structure(s) (if applicable):
Federal Share of the Participating Construction Cost (80%) $
Local Share of the Participating Construction Cost (20%) $
Non-Participating Construction Cost (100% Local) $
A. Subtotal Construction Costs $2,902,190
B. Construction Engineering Costs $290,200
C. State Review for Construction (see instructions, page I-8, Table 1) $20,400
Construction with State Review Cost Estimate (sum lines A, B and C) $3,212,790
Design:
100% Locally Funded (state review is required to be included as 100% locally funded) OR
80% Federally Funded (“state review only” projects are not allowed)
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
A. Plan Development (see instructions page I-9, Table 1) Percentage: % $
B. State Review for Design (see instructions, page I-9, Table 1) Percentage: % $
Design with State Review Cost Estimate (sum lines A and B) $
NOTE: WisDOT Region staff may revise estimates in the Plan Development, State Review for Design, and State Review
for Construction categories based on the complexity of the project or other factors.
A-6
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (continued) Real Estate: (Recommend funding with local funds.)
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Total Real Estate Cost (Round to next $1,000) $ Cost Estimate, Project Priority, and Scheduling (do not include pages A-5 and A-6 in the Concept Definition Report [CDR])
Utility: (Compensable utility costs must be $50,000 minimum per utility. Recommend funding with local funds.)
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Total Utility Cost (Round to next $1,000) $
NOTE: WisDOT Utility Policy link: http://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-18-01.pdf
Other (Planning, Administration, or Other Non-infrastructure):
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Total Other Cost (Round to next $1,000) $
WisDOT Information – Shaded area to be completed by WisDOT staff only.
Additional Confidential Information
FOR WISDOT USE ONLY – enter the following information at application review
WisDOT Region Reviewer: Date:
WisDOT Region Comments on Application:
FOR WISDOT USE ONLY – enter the following information after project approval
Approved Federal Funding Amount: Construction: $ Design: $ Real Estate: $ Utility: $
Other: $
A-7
Key Program Requirements Confirmation
Please confirm your understanding of the following project conditions by typing your name, title and initials in the boxes at the bottom of this page. A Head of Government/Designee with fiscal authority for the project sponsor, not a consultant, must initial below AND sign the next page of this application.
a. All Federal Funding will be limited at the estimate amount unless an increase is approved by WisDOT. Additional costs incurred over the limit will be 100% the responsibility of the project sponsor.
b. A federally funded design project must be tied to a construction project. Stand alone design projects are no longer eligible for funding (this does not apply to MPO area projects).
c. Only new projects may apply, existing projects are ineligible for additional funds through the new cycle process. Existing projects requiring additional funds are encouraged to use the existing Project Change and Cost Increase processes.
c. Federally-funded projects must be designed in accordance with all applicable federal design standards (even if the design for a federally-funded project was 100% locally funded).
d. The sponsor must provide matching dollar funding of at least 20% of project costs.
e. The sponsor must not incur costs for any phase of the project until that phase has been authorized for federal charges and the WisDOT Region has notified the sponsor that it can begin incurring costs. Otherwise, the sponsor risks incurring costs that will not be eligible for federal funding.
f. As the work progresses, the state will bill the project sponsor for work completed which is not chargeable to federal/state funds. Upon completion of the project, a final audit will be made to determine the final division of costs. If reviews or audits show any of the work to be ineligible for federal funding, the project sponsor will be responsible for any withdrawn costs associated with the ineligible work.
g. The project sponsor will pay to the state all costs incurred by the state in connection with the improvement that exceed federal financing commitments or are ineligible for federal financing. In order to guarantee the project sponsor’s foregoing agreements to pay the state, the project sponsor, through its duly authorized officers or officials, agrees and authorizes the state to set off and withhold the required reimbursement amount as determined by the state from any moneys otherwise due and payable by the state to the municipality.
h. If the project sponsor should withdraw the project, it will reimburse the state for any costs incurred by the state on behalf of the project.
i. For 100% locally funded design projects, costs for design plan development and state review for design are 100% the responsibility of the local project sponsor. Project sponsors may not seek federal funding for only state review for design projects.
j. The sponsor agrees to state delivery and oversight costs by WisDOT staff and their agents. These costs include review of design and construction documents for compliance with federal and state requirements, appropriate design standards, and other related review. These costs will vary with the size and complexity of the project. The sponsor agrees to add these costs to the project under the same 80% federal and 20% local match requirements.
k. Transportation construction projects using federal funds except sidewalks, are likely general improvements that primarily benefit the public at large and for which special assessments cannot be levied under s. 66.0703, Wis. Stats. Municipalities desiring to obtain the required local project funding through special assessments levied against particular parcels should seek advice of legal counsel. See Hildebrand v. Menasha, 2011 WI App 83.
A-8
I confirm that I have read and understand project conditions (a) through (k) listed above:
Name: Ronald Z Chamberlain Title: Highway Commissioner
Accepted (please type your initials here): RZC Contact Information and Signatures
Application prepared by a consultant? Yes No If yes, consultant information and signature required below.
Consultant Company Name: Company Location (City, State):
Consultant Signature (electronic only): Date: NOTE: On Local Program projects, it is not permissible for a consultant to fill out applications gratis (or for a small fee) for a municipality and then be selected to do the design work on a project. A municipality could start their consultant selection process early enough and make the application part of the scope of services with the understanding that all costs incurred prior to authorization will be the responsibility of the local municipality. See FDM 8-5-3 for additional information: http://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-08-05.pdf
Sponsor Agency: La Crosse County Highway Department
Contact Person: Ronald Z Chamberlain (Note: must be Head of Government or
Designee)
Title: Highway Commissioner
Address: 301 Carlson Road, West Salem, WI 54669
Telephone: 608-786-3810
Email: [email protected] Only one project sponsor is allowed per project. As a representative of the project sponsor, the individual that signs below confirms that the information in this project application is accurate. A local official, not a consultant, must sign the application. I understand that completion of this application does not guarantee project approval for federal funding. Head of Government/Designee Signature (electronic only): Ronald Z Chamberlain
Date: 8/29/19 Local Unit of Government Agency (when owner differs from sponsor):
Owner Signature (when owner differs from sponsor) (electronic only): Date: WisDOT Information – Shaded area to be completed by WisDOT staff only.
FOR WISDOT USE ONLY – enter the following information at application review
NOTE: Please add any WisDOT application comments in the comments section on the Confidential page A-6.
Subprogram: Project Improvement Type:
Anticipated Environmental Document Type (e.g., CE, ER, EA, EIS):
Region Reviewer’s Name:
Reviewer’s Title:
Date Received:
WisDOT Region Reviewers Signature: Date:
FOR WISDOT USE ONLY – enter the following information after project approval
WISLR Map CTH SN Hanson Road to Alpine Lane
wislr-fl270 HMAC
Railroads
State Trunk NetworkInterstate Highway
USH Highway
USH Connecting Highway
State Trunk Highways
STH Connecting Highways
On-Off Ramp
Connector
Frontage Road
Wayside
Rest Area
Weigh Station
County RoadsCounty Trunk Hwy
County Forest Roads
Other County Roads
Local RoadsMunicipal/Local Roads
Ineligible Roads
Rivers
Lakes
Cities/Villages/TownsCity
Village
Town
Counties
Copyright(C) 2020 Wisconsin Department of Transportation
The information contained in this data set and information produced from this dataset were created for the official use of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Any other use while not prohibited, is the sole responsibility of the user. WisDOT expressly disclaims all liability regarding fitness of use of the information for other than official WisDOT business. Map created on August 22, 2019
0 0.3 0.60.15 mi
0 0.5 10.25 km
±
A-1
WisDOT 2020-2025 STP-Urban Program Application
STP-Urban Application Instructions Project Description
Project Sponsor: Village of West Salem Facility Owner: Same as Sponsor
Project Location:
Municipality: Village of West Salem County: La Crosse
On Route: City Loop Drive
At Route (Start): CTH B Offset: 0.0 (tenths of a mile)
Toward Route (End): Neshonoc Road Termini Is the project a planning, administration, or other non-infrastructure project? Yes No If yes, please select the type of project and provide a brief explanation: SELECT Please indicate the project’s distance from the applicable urban/urbanized area boundary: Less than 1 mile NOTE: Attach an 8½ x 11 map showing the project location. A WISLR map is REQUIRED (refer to the following link: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/wislr/default.aspx Length of Project: .16 (tenths of a mile)
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 2900 ADT Year: 2014 Posted or Statutory Speed Limit(s): 25 (mph)
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Functional classification map change anticipated during this program cycle? Yes No NOTE: Roadway must be functionally classified as a Collector or higher to be eligible for funding.
Existing Facility
Number of Lanes: 2 Lane Width: 14 Cross Section: Rural Urban
Pavement Type: Asphalt If Combination, explain: Pavement Width: 40'
Pavement Rating: 5 Pavement Condition: fair, severe alligator cracking Year Last Improved: 2000
Shoulder Type: Asphalt If Combination, explain: 6' Asphalt Shoulder Width:
Existing Sidewalk? Yes No
Are sidewalks designated as part of a regional or local bicycle or pedestrian system? Yes No
Existing bicycle/pedestrian accommodations? Yes No
Are bicycle/pedestrian accommodations designated as part of a regional or local bicycle or pedestrian system?
Yes No
Lighting: Spot Lighting Style: Standard
NOTE: This application is required for each new potential 2020-2025 program cycle project. Please review the application instructions (see link below) to assist you in completing the application.
A-2
Sub-standard alignment? Horizontal: Yes No
Vertical: Yes No
Any federal-aid-eligible structures within the existing facility? Yes No If yes, please indicate the structure ID
#(s):
Does a railroad facility exist within 1000 feet of the project limits? Yes No If yes, specify: Parallel
Known Safety Issues? Yes No If yes, specify: (consider applying for Highway Safety Improvement
Program [HSIP] funds if applicable) Project Justification Explain why the project is needed, including the scope and appropriate detail on the project’s uniqueness and complexity. Describe specific deficiencies such as pavement cracking, edge raveling, surface deterioration, substandard geometrics, etc. Include and separately identify any 100% locally funded components of the project that are part of the overall improvement. The asphalt is deteriorating rapidly, with severe alligator cracking. Traffic volume on this road is high and has increase with a new Kwik Trip Truck Stop business in that area. This section of the road is part of the Interstate 90 alternate route. Proposed Improvement NOTE: Applicants should refer to the traffic data and design standards information in the instructions prior to completing this section of the application. Improvement Type: Pavement Replacement If Combination, explain: Overall Length: 845 (feet)
Rural Cross Section Length: .16 (tenths of a mile)
Urban Cross Section Length: (tenths of a mile)
Will the project add lanes? Yes No If Yes, describe which part(s) of the project will receive additional lanes:
Grading: Minimal Moderate Extensive
New Pavement Type: Hot Mix Asphalt If Combination, explain: Width: 40' Length: 845'
New Shoulder Type: Hot Mix Asphalt If Combination, explain: Width: 6' Length: 845'
Sidewalk Width: Length:
Are bicycle/pedestrian accommodations required? Yes No If yes, specify:
Curb and Gutter Length:
Signals Roundabout NOTE: Refer to FDM 11-26 for modern roundabout information (http://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-11-26.pdf).
Railroad improvements
Freight-related improvements
Lighting: SELECT Lighting Style: SELECT
Beam Guard
Permanent and Temporary Pavement Marking
Permanent and Temporary Signing
Storm Sewer:
Lateral Storm Sewer Lines Estimated Total Length: Estimated Diameter(s):
Trunk Storm Sewer Lines Estimated Total Length: Estimated Diameter(s):
A-3
Storm Sewer Included in Non-participating Construction Cost estimate (see page A-5)
Structure Structure Type: SELECT Work Required: SELECT
Structure #(s): Sizes and Descriptions:
Traffic Management During Construction: Road Open with Staged Construction
Do you anticipate submittal of an exception to standards request? Yes No
If yes, please describe: Environmental/Cultural Issues
Agriculture Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Archaeological sites Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Historical sites Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Lakes, waterways, floodplains Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Wetland Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Stormwater management Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Hazardous materials sites Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Hazardous materials on existing structure Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Upland habitat Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Endangered/threatened/migratory species Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Section 4(f) Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Section 6(f) Yes No Not Investigated Comments:
Through/adjacent to tribal land Yes No Not Investigated Comments: Miscellaneous Issues
Construction Schedule Restrictions (trout, migratory bird, local events): No
Has there been any real estate acquired or transferred in anticipation of this project? Yes No
If yes, please explain.
Right of Way: (NOTE: It is recommended that local funds be used to acquire right of way.)
Check all that are applicable.
None Less than ½ acre More than ½ acre
Parklands Large parcels Strips Temporary interests
Other Funding Sources: Has the municipality anticipated, requested or been approved for other federal or state funding
from WisDOT for the improvement? Yes No If yes, please indicate all of the other funding sources that are
anticipated, have been requested, or approved with the associated project ID(s):
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP) Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Railroad Programs (see instructions) Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Local Bridge Program Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Surface Transportation Program - Rural Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
A-4
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Transportation Alternatives Program Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Transportation Economic Assistance Program Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Disaster Damage Aids Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Other: Anticipated Requested Approved ID:
Other Concept Notes: Provide any additional relevant project information that has not been covered in another section
of the application.
A-5
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Cost Estimate, Project Priority, and Scheduling (do not include pages A-5 and A-6 in the Concept Definition Report [CDR]) Applicants should reference the following WisDOT web page prior to completing this section of the application: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/highway/tools.aspx NOTE: Requesting design and construction projects in the same fiscal year is not allowed. All applications must include a sheet documenting the calculations performed to create the estimate(s).
Tied Projects? All requests for design must be tied to a construction project. Please indicate which projects will be
tied (if applicable):
Construction:
Basis for Construction Estimate: Itemized Per Mile Past Projects
Other, specify:
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Roadway:
Federal Share of the Participating Construction Cost (80%) $189,377
Local Share of the Participating Construction Cost (20%) $47,344
Non-Participating Construction Cost (100% Local) $
Structure(s) (if applicable):
Federal Share of the Participating Construction Cost (80%) $
Local Share of the Participating Construction Cost (20%) $
Non-Participating Construction Cost (100% Local) $
A. Subtotal Construction Costs $236,721
B. Construction Engineering Costs $
C. State Review for Construction (see instructions, page I-8, Table 1) $28,406
Construction with State Review Cost Estimate (sum lines A, B and C) $265,127
Design:
100% Locally Funded (state review is required to be included as 100% locally funded) OR
80% Federally Funded (“state review only” projects are not allowed)
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
A. Plan Development (see instructions page I-9, Table 1) Percentage: % $
B. State Review for Design (see instructions, page I-9, Table 1) Percentage: 5 % $13,256
Design with State Review Cost Estimate (sum lines A and B) $13,256
NOTE: WisDOT Region staff may revise estimates in the Plan Development, State Review for Design, and State Review
for Construction categories based on the complexity of the project or other factors.
A-6
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (continued) Real Estate: (Recommend funding with local funds.)
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Total Real Estate Cost (Round to next $1,000) $ Cost Estimate, Project Priority, and Scheduling (do not include pages A-5 and A-6 in the Concept Definition Report [CDR])
Utility: (Compensable utility costs must be $50,000 minimum per utility. Recommend funding with local funds.)
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Total Utility Cost (Round to next $1,000) $
NOTE: WisDOT Utility Policy link: http://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-18-01.pdf
Other (Planning, Administration, or Other Non-infrastructure):
Project Priority:
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Total Other Cost (Round to next $1,000) $
WisDOT Information – Shaded area to be completed by WisDOT staff only.
Additional Confidential Information
FOR WISDOT USE ONLY – enter the following information at application review
WisDOT Region Reviewer: Date:
WisDOT Region Comments on Application:
FOR WISDOT USE ONLY – enter the following information after project approval
Approved Federal Funding Amount: Construction: $ Design: $ Real Estate: $ Utility: $
Other: $
A-7
Key Program Requirements Confirmation
Please confirm your understanding of the following project conditions by typing your name, title and initials in the boxes at the bottom of this page. A Head of Government/Designee with fiscal authority for the project sponsor, not a consultant, must initial below AND sign the next page of this application.
a. All Federal Funding will be limited at the estimate amount unless an increase is approved by WisDOT. Additional costs incurred over the limit will be 100% the responsibility of the project sponsor.
b. A federally funded design project must be tied to a construction project. Stand alone design projects are no longer eligible for funding (this does not apply to MPO area projects).
c. Only new projects may apply, existing projects are ineligible for additional funds through the new cycle process. Existing projects requiring additional funds are encouraged to use the existing Project Change and Cost Increase processes.
c. Federally-funded projects must be designed in accordance with all applicable federal design standards (even if the design for a federally-funded project was 100% locally funded).
d. The sponsor must provide matching dollar funding of at least 20% of project costs.
e. The sponsor must not incur costs for any phase of the project until that phase has been authorized for federal charges and the WisDOT Region has notified the sponsor that it can begin incurring costs. Otherwise, the sponsor risks incurring costs that will not be eligible for federal funding.
f. As the work progresses, the state will bill the project sponsor for work completed which is not chargeable to federal/state funds. Upon completion of the project, a final audit will be made to determine the final division of costs. If reviews or audits show any of the work to be ineligible for federal funding, the project sponsor will be responsible for any withdrawn costs associated with the ineligible work.
g. The project sponsor will pay to the state all costs incurred by the state in connection with the improvement that exceed federal financing commitments or are ineligible for federal financing. In order to guarantee the project sponsor’s foregoing agreements to pay the state, the project sponsor, through its duly authorized officers or officials, agrees and authorizes the state to set off and withhold the required reimbursement amount as determined by the state from any moneys otherwise due and payable by the state to the municipality.
h. If the project sponsor should withdraw the project, it will reimburse the state for any costs incurred by the state on behalf of the project.
i. For 100% locally funded design projects, costs for design plan development and state review for design are 100% the responsibility of the local project sponsor. Project sponsors may not seek federal funding for only state review for design projects.
j. The sponsor agrees to state delivery and oversight costs by WisDOT staff and their agents. These costs include review of design and construction documents for compliance with federal and state requirements, appropriate design standards, and other related review. These costs will vary with the size and complexity of the project. The sponsor agrees to add these costs to the project under the same 80% federal and 20% local match requirements.
k. Transportation construction projects using federal funds except sidewalks, are likely general improvements that primarily benefit the public at large and for which special assessments cannot be levied under s. 66.0703, Wis. Stats. Municipalities desiring to obtain the required local project funding through special assessments levied against particular parcels should seek advice of legal counsel. See Hildebrand v. Menasha, 2011 WI App 83.
A-8
I confirm that I have read and understand project conditions (a) through (k) listed above:
Name: Loren Schwier Title: Director of Public Works
Accepted (please type your initials here): LS Contact Information and Signatures
Application prepared by a consultant? Yes No If yes, consultant information and signature required below.
Consultant Company Name: Company Location (City, State):
Consultant Signature (electronic only): Date: NOTE: On Local Program projects, it is not permissible for a consultant to fill out applications gratis (or for a small fee) for a municipality and then be selected to do the design work on a project. A municipality could start their consultant selection process early enough and make the application part of the scope of services with the understanding that all costs incurred prior to authorization will be the responsibility of the local municipality. See FDM 8-5-3 for additional information: http://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-08-05.pdf
Sponsor Agency: Village of West Salem
Contact Person: Loren Schwier (Note: must be Head of Government or Designee)
Title: Public Works Director
Address: 900 West Ave. N West Salem Wi. 54669
Telephone: 608-786-2850
Email: [email protected] Only one project sponsor is allowed per project. As a representative of the project sponsor, the individual that signs below confirms that the information in this project application is accurate. A local official, not a consultant, must sign the application. I understand that completion of this application does not guarantee project approval for federal funding. Head of Government/Designee Signature (electronic only): TS Date: 9/3/2019 Local Unit of Government Agency (when owner differs from sponsor): Owner Signature (when owner differs from sponsor) (electronic only): TS Date: 9/3/19 WisDOT Information – Shaded area to be completed by WisDOT staff only.
FOR WISDOT USE ONLY – enter the following information at application review
NOTE: Please add any WisDOT application comments in the comments section on the Confidential page A-6.
Subprogram: Project Improvement Type:
Anticipated Environmental Document Type (e.g., CE, ER, EA, EIS):
Region Reviewer’s Name:
Reviewer’s Title:
Date Received:
WisDOT Region Reviewers Signature: Date:
FOR WISDOT USE ONLY – enter the following information after project approval
Project ID(s):
Description Unit Qty Unit Cost ($) Cost ($)
Pulverize Asphalt SY 4,090 $5.50 $22,495CABC TON 100 $15.00 $1,500Asphalt (4") TON 1,100 $96.00 $105,600Traffic Control LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500Shoulder Grading LS 1 $800.00 $800Epoxy Pavement Marking LF 2,600 $2.50 $6,500Mobilization LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000Beamguard LF 950 $30.00 $28,500
Construction Cost Total $184,895Engr $33,281Total $218,176
Adjustment for 2023 const. (8.5%) $236,721
Street Length = 845 LF, width 40', 4" asphalt depth
Village of West SalemWest Salem - City Loop Street Project
Project Cost EstimateSeptember 3, 2019
Estimated quantity(s) and assumptions:
