CR 95-172 Order Feasability Report Residential Street Improvements
.
e
.
\ y
(,
September 29, 1995
(,
o
-'; Co
o \'
P to.. \,
Council Report: 95-172
ORDER FEASIBILITY REPORT
1996 RESIDENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Adopt Resolution
No. 95-89. orderinq preparation of a Feasibility Report 1996
Residential Street Improvements and authorize the City Manaqer to
enter into an aqreement with MSA Consultinq Enqineers for preparation
of Street Improvement Feasibility Report and Survey."
This action is the first step in the process of improving selected
residential streets in 1996. The city has not received a petition to
improve any of the proposed roads.
Primary Issues to Consider
o
o
o
o
Why order a feasibility report?
How was MSA Consulting Engineers selected?
What is the budget for these improvements?
What would be the proposed schedule if these roads were to be
improved?
Supportinq Information
o Proposed Resolution 95-89
o MSA Proposal
Steven J.
Director of Public Works
Council Report: 95-172
Page 2
. Detailed Background
Proposed 1996 street improvements are as follows:
Reconstruct with curb and qutter
8th Ave South, 6th to 7th Street
7th Ave South, 7th to 8th Street
8th Street, 6th to 8th Avenue
Burnes Drive
Sweetbriar Lane (670 LF)
Mill and Overlay
8th Ave south, 7th to 8th Street
7th Ave South, 5th to 7th Street
These roads are proposed for rehabilitation due to their poor pavement
condition, poor drainage, and/or utilities that need to be replaced.
We are using pavement management principles to help determine the
proper level of rehabilitation, i.e., overlay or reconstruction.
.
A major objective of prudent pavement management is to identify street
sections that are still in fair condition but need rehabilitative
work. The timely identification and rehabilitation of these streets
is more prudent than waiting until the street has aged and
deteriorated to the point that reconstruction is the only feasible
alternative. Of course, other considerations such as drainage,
traffic and parking , utilities, and the desire to complete an area
improvement rather than isolated streets, also come into play.
These issues were discussed with Park Valley neighborhood residents at
a public meeting on September 27th. The 14 residents in attendance
appeared receptive to the pavement management approach to street
improvements. A public meeting with Sweetbriar Lane and Burnes Drive
residents will be held next week.
Analysis of Issues
o Why order a feasibility report?
As Council is aware, preparing a feasibility report is a
mandatory procedure that a city must comply with in the
assessment process. In this case, the feasibility report would
serve to meet this requirement, and it would also provide Council
with detailed information that they would be able to use in
determining whether this project should proceed past the
feasibility report stage. The information contained in the
report will give Council the total project cost, a per parcel
project cost, and the city's share of the project cost.
.
.
.
e
council Report: 95-172
Page 3
o
How was MSA Consulting Engineers selected?
staff solicited and received proposals for preparation of a
feasibility study and topographic survey from three qualified
engineering consultants; Westwood Professionals Services, Inc.,
Bolton and Menk, Inc. and MSA Consulting Engineers. Cost
comparison:
Bolton
MSA & Menk Westwood
Feasibility: $3,996 $3,950 $4,990
Topo Survey: $1.983 $3.450 $4.010
Total: $5,979 $7,400 $9,000
staff recommends MSA for this work based on an excellent proposal
indicating a solid understanding of our needs and schedule,
example reports, numerous references and the lowest cost.
o What is the budget for these improvements?
1996 CIP budget is:
Street Improvements:
$238,210 special assessment
$174,690 general obligation
utilities:
$ 54,000 storm sewer utility
$ 25,000 water fund
$ 18,000 sewer fund
NOTE:
Reconstruction costs are assessed 70% to abutting
property owners. Mill and overlay, utility work, and
curb and gutter repair/replacement prior to overlay
work are costs that are not assessed.
o What would be the proposed schedule if these roads were to be
improved?
1995
November 21:
December 19:
Accept feasibility study and order public hearing
Public hearing & authorize final plans
1996
January:
Feb. 20:
March 12:
March 19:
April 16:
May 21:
June:
October:
Public input meetings
Complete plans, approve plans, order bids
open bids
Order assessment hearing
Assessment Hearing and adopt assessment roll
Award bid
start construction
Complete construction
.
e
.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 95-89
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORTS FOR
THE 1996 RESIDENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the following streets are in need of rehabilitation;
8th Ave So; from 6th to 7th Street, 7th Ave So; from
7th to 8th street, 8th Street; from 6th to 8th Ave,
Burnes Drive, Sweetbriar Lane (670 LF), 8th Ave So;
from 7th to 8th Street, and 7th Ave So; from 5th to 7th
street; and
WHEREAS, city staff is requesting that these streets be upgraded
under the current assessment policy even though no
petition for the upgrade has been submitted; and
WHEREAS, the first step in the assessment procedure is the
ordering of a feasibility report.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the city of
Hopkins, Minnesota, that the proposed improvements be
referred to the Public Works Director for study and
that he is instructed to report to the council with all
convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary
way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota,
this 3rd day of October 1995.
BY
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
.
e
.
~
11l\Xl Ln\& t\&I\D1S
m
Work Plan
CITV OF HOP~INS
INTRODUCTION
As we understand, the City of Hopkins proposes to improve eight blocks of residential streets as
part of the 1996 Residential Street Improvement program. The project will involve reconstruction
of five blocks of streets and a milling and overlaying program to restore the pavement condition
on three additional blocks. The project will also involve utility work, including repair of sanitary
sewer mains and services, replacement of watermain that needs to be increased in capacity or
replaced as a result of age, repair of water services that exhibit maintenance or operational
difficulties, and installation of storm sewer to provide proper surface drainage.
Roadway segments are approximately 3,000 feet in length and lie generally in the south central
portion of the City of Hopkins, with the exception of Burnes Drive.
In conversations with Public Works Director Steve Stadler, the project elements have been
identified as follows:
.
Street reconstruction to residential standards for five blocks.
Street mill and overlay to restore pavement surface condition on three blocks.
Utility repairs and replacements as necessary.
Storm sewer improvements to improve surface drainage.
Feasibility study to r~view project elements and develop feasi1?le project alternatives.
Public involvement process will be required, including a neighborhood meeting and a
normal Chapter 429 Public Improvement Hearing, since project costs are to be assessed
in accordance with City policy.
.
.
.
.
.
Based upon our review, MSA proposes that the project be broken down into three major work
tasks. An outline of an optional fourth task, Preliminary Surveying, is included as well. A
description of the tasks and our approach to completing them are as follows:
TASK 1: DATA GATHERING
As part of this task, MSA will work with City staff and other affected agencies to determine all
existing data regarding the project and to also determine what additional technical data or design
information is required.
Data will be gathered, assembled, and reviewed, including but not limited to the following:
.
Existing utility base maps.
As-built plans for sanitary sewer, watermain, stonn sewer, street, and other underground
utilities.
5-year Capital Improvement Plan.
Existing and proposed traffic counts.
Pavement condition evaluation analysis done by City staff.
.
.
.
.
. -
.
.
.
~
IlImLmG t:\tL\fl1S
~
~
Work Plan
CIT" OF ~O~~INS
. Utility and street maintenance records provided by the City's Public Works Department.
. Zoning map and Comprehensive Plan.
. Any history of complaints regarding drainage, traffic concerns, water or sewer service
problems, etc.
Following review and analysis of this information, all required new data will be gathered. The
data will include any additional studies necessary, soil borings at appropriate frequencies to
determine design conditions for the street pavement, and necessary preliminary surveys.
TASK 2: FEASIBILITY REPORT
Once the existing and required additional data has been gathered and reviewed, MSA will prepare
a feasibility report analyzing the project. The feasibility report will be presented to the public and
City Council as part of the public involvement process and the Chapter 429 assessment
proceedings. The feasibility study will analyze existing conditions and recommend a future design
for the streets to be reconstructed. Based upon our preliminary review of existing pavement
condition, pavement width, and traffic volumes, it appears that three alternates will be feasible.
These alternates are: no parking, parking one side, and parking both sides. Widths for these
three scenarios would be 26 feet, 32 feet, and 38 feet, respectively. The section would provide
a required residential pavement design with concrete curb and gutter. The roadway design would
include all required storm sewer for the roadway including a system to drain not only the
roadway, but adjacent side streets and all abutting property. In addition to the storm sewer
system, an analysis will be completed of the conditions of all sanitary sewer and watermain within
the street right-of-way. Necessary improvements to the watennain and sanitary sewer system will
be included in the project. This work will probably not involve complete replacement of mains,
but replacement of selected sections showing maintenance difficulties unless the main needs to be
enlarged for capacity reasons. Also, replacement of sewer house services exhibiting root or
freezing problems should be considered.
The feasibility study will be broken down into the following sections:
.
Introduction! scope.
Existing conditions:
Roadway.
Utili ties.
Storm sewer improvements.
Proposed improvements:
Roadway reconstruction and pavement rehabilitation design alternates.
Required storm drainage improvements.
Utility repairs.
Easements and permits required.
Estimated project costs.
Project financing.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
[ll\\1 L TI" DGmllS
Work Plan
m
CITY Of ~O~~IN$
· Project schedule.
. Conclusion.
. As requested, the report will have a separate section for the Burnes Drive restoration.
As previously mentioned, the MSA team has completed 20 to 25 similar projects involving
roadway reconstruction within the past two years. Most of these were similar in that they included
roadway reconstruction or repair, utility upgrading, and storm sewer work. For your reference,
a sample feasibility report, prepared for an Eagan project, demonstrating the quality of work
which our company provides, is attached.
Not only will the feasibility report address technical design issues, but also secondary impacts to
individual property owners. These will include:
.
.
Local access during construction.
Securing appropriate easements and permits for the project to proceed.
Providing communication throughout the project to appropriate City officials, affected
property owners, and the general public.
Preservation of existing landscape features including shrubs, mature trees, and other
landscape amenities where possible.
Roadway design impact to existing residences including removal of private landscaping,
fences, driveways, etc.
Maximizing project financing, including utilization of a combination of property
assessments, City utility funds, and any available outside funding sources.
.
.
.
.
.
Regarding project fmancing, based upon discussions with City staff, cost estimates for the project
include:
. Street Reconstruction - $352,000.
. Milling/Overlay Work - $50,000.
. Utility/Drainage Improvements - $86,000.
TASK 3: PUBLIC INFORlHATION
As part of the ongoing feasibility analysis, design, and construction process, MSA will include
a comprehensive public informational program. This program is coordinated by Meg Desmond,
our Communications Specialist. Meg's background is in the area of communications and she
provides services to assist the design and construction personnel in implementing your project.
.
Our public involvement program will include preparation of support presentational graphic
materials for the neighborhood meeting and public hearing. These will include appropriate
overheads and, if necessary, "before and after" photographs using computer enhanced imaging
.
.
.
~
Ill\\lLTI\& mmm
m
Work Plan
C'TV Of HOP<I'lS
to allow neighbors to visualize the potential final roadway appearance. Copies of this type of
computer enhanced imaging, prepared for a project completed in Roseville, are enclosed. This
type of process allows concerned property owners to see how the completed project will affect
their property .
If the project proceeds to construction, Meg will coordinate and produce periodic construction
newsletters to be distributed to residents. MSA has found that this is an extremely valuable tool
in keeping residents informed about the status of the project. Samples of recent project
newsletters are anached.
TASK 4: PRELIMINARY SURVEYING (Optional)
Preliminary surveying is proposed as an optional service. Based on our past experience, we
recommend that the preliminary surveying should be completed in conjunction with the feasibility
report. Data gathered from the preliminary surveys will be important to develop information for
presentations at the neighborhood meeting and public hearing. This data is very useful in
addressing public concerns.
Preliminary surveys will include the following tasks:
.
Establish contro1.
Verify benclunarks.
Complete preliminary profile surveys of street and storm sewer (50' stations and high! low
points) .
Complete cross-sections at required frequencies (100' stations to full right-of-way width).
Complete topographic information for full width of right-of-way.
Provide centerline profiles for all driveways.
Shoot house features for extremely high or low houses impacting design.
Research and supervision as required.
Provide surveys for side streets and surrounding area to assure correct topography for
drainage analysis.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
11l\SlL1'l\& F.\M\El1S
Fee Estimate/Billing Rates
o
CITY OF "OP~lNS
Following are MSA's estimated fees to provide the required project tasks as described in the Work
Plan for Tasks 1,2, and 3. As requested, Task 4 is listed as an optional service. Compensation
will be on an hourly basis with "not-to-exceed" upper limits for each item.
.
Proj. Proj. CADD Field. Survey Clerical
Mgr. Engr. Tech. Tech. Crew $40/hr.
$81/hr. $54Jhr. $48/hr. $50/hr. $75/hr.
TASKS I, 2, and 3
Data Collection, Feasibility Analysis, 8 40 16 8
and Public Information
$648 $2, 160 $768 $320
Expenses $100 Total Maximum (Lump Sum) $3,996
TASK 4 2 24
Preliminary Surveying (Optional) -- -- -- --
-- $108 -- -- $1 ,800 --
Expenses $75 Total Maximum $1,983
(Hourly - Not-ta-Exceed)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $5,979
(Including Optional Surveying)
NOTE: The basis for our fee estimate is an estimated construction budget as follows:
Item
Construction Cost
Road Reconstruction (5 blocks - 3,300 LF)
Road Rehabilitation (3 blocks - 2,000 LF)
Stonn Sewer (1,000 LF)
Utility Repairs (500 LF each for sewer/water)
$352,000
50,000
43,000
43,000
$488,000
Should the scope of the project change significantly from the estimated budget, hourly maximums
for preparation of the feasibility report could change to reflect the modified scope. Any changes
will be mutually negotiated.
Expenses include such items as postage, printing, copying, vehicle mileage, and other out-of-
pocket costs.
.
.
III
fll\SlL1l\G mm:ms
Fee Estimate/Billing Rates
fi}
C'TV OF HOP~I'iS
In general, MSA structures its fee schedule based upon negotiated project specific "not to exceed"
budget amounts. Services are provided according to the schedule of hourly rates, and progress
billings are submitted monthly.
The Engineer's fees shall be based upon an overhead multiplication factor of 2.45 times
annualized hourly rates. The hourly rates are calculated based upon an individual's annualized
salary rate during the perfonnance period. Rates are established by employee classification from
February 1st, 1995, through January 31st, 1996, as follows:
e
CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF BILLING RATES
Principal Engineer 80.00 - 102.00
Registered Land Surveyor 55.97 - 71 .40
Department Manager 55.97 - 71.40
Project Engineer/Registered Engineer 53.56 - 71 .40
Strucrural Engineer 53.56 - 71.40
Environmental Engineer 53.56 - 71 .40
Traffic Engineer 53.56 - 81. 00
Design Engineer/Civil Engineer 37.44 - 46.58
Surveyor 41.17- 61.29
Senior Engineering Technician 40.90 - 65.02
Technician 16.17 - 53.67
Resident Project Representative 16.17 - 51.70
Three- Person Survey Crew 88.85 - 116.94
Two-Person Survey Crew 70.00 - 75.39
Word Processor/Computer Technician 31.10- 46.04
Typist/Clerk 22.23 - 39.60
.
.
,.
.
~
fll\SILTl\C l.'\1;1\l.1:r..'l
m...~.."
> >~ . III
. '.
Fee Estimate/Billing Rates
e'TY OF HOP~INS
Project Identifiable Costs
The following schedule establishes a listing of identifiable costs that would be provided by the Engineer
and billed to the Owner on projects:
Expense Code Description Rate
03 Field Supplies At Cost
04 Office Supplies At Cost
05 Postage and UPS At Cost
06 Equipment Rental At Cost
07 Miscellaneous Expense At Cost
10 Photo Reproduction At Cost
11 Private Auto Use $.30/Mile
12 Company Auto Use $.30/Mile
13 Private Truck Use $.35/Mile
14 Company Truck use $.35/Mile
27 CADD System $15.00/Hr.
99 Subcontractor Expense At Cost