Loading...
CR 98-169 Order Feasibility Report 1999 St ImprovementsOctober 29, 1998 Proposed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council adopt Resolution 98 -074, ordering preparation of a feasibility report — 1999 Street Improvements and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Bolton & Menkinc. for preparation of street improvement feasibility report and survey. This action is the first step in the process of improving selected streets in 1999 and assessing abutting property per city assessment policy. The city has not received a petition to improve any of the proposed roads. Overview. The1999 -2003 CIP includes a street improvement project for 12 and 13 Avenues South between 2 Street South and Mainstreet and 1 Street South from 11 to 13 Avenues. The abutting property owners were informed of the proposed project prior to CIP approval. The first step in proceeding with this 1999 project is ordering a feasibility report. Staff has selected the most qualified consultant and requests City Council approval to proceed. The cost of the feasibility report and project survey work is $13,440. Project design and construction services fees will be negotiated separately with the consultant after the feasibility report is completed and City Council orders the improvement project. Primary Issues to Consider. • Project detailed background • Why order a feasibility report? • How was Bolton & Menk, Inc. selected? • Project Budget • Project schedule Supporting Information. Proposed Resolution 98 -074 Consultant Selection Rating Sheet and Results • BM proposal Steven J. Stadler Public Works Director ORDER FEASIBILITY REPORT 1999 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Council Report 98 -169 Council Report 98 -169 Page 2 Analysis of Issues Project Detailed Background The scope of the proposed 1999 assessable street improvements include: Partial or total reconstruction of 1 Street South from 11 o 1 3 Avenues, 12 Avenue South from Mainstreet to 2 Street South and 13 Avenue South from Mainstreet to 2" Street South. These streets were selected for 1999 improvements due to their deteriorated pavement condition, lack of adequate curb and gutter and substandard drainage. The Hopkins pavement management system includes pavement condition ratings on a scale of 0 to 100. Generally, the pavement scores correspond to a level of most cost- effective improvement as follows: 0 — 30 = pavement reconstruction; 30 —50 = asphalt overlay; and 50 — 100 sealcoat and /or cracksealing. The pavement condition indices (PCIs) for these streets are as follows: • 1 Street South from 1 1 th to 12 Avenue: PCI = 18 • 1 Street South from 12 to 13 Avenue: PCI = 17 • 12 Avenue South from Mainstreet to 1 Street South: PCI = 20 • 12th Avenue South from 1 to 2 "d Streets South: PCI = 45 • 13 Avenue South from Mainstreet to 2 "d Street South: PCI = 36 An upcoming report from a geotechnical testing firm which performed street and subgrade boring and strength testing will be used to further define the project scope. As was the case with 1 Street North, it may be feasible on the blocks with higher PCI ratings to partially reconstruct by replacing existing deteriorated curbing and mill and overlay the street. There is still discussion taking place between the City and St Josephs Church regarding the possibility of vacating a section of 13 Avenue between Mainstreet and 1 Street South. This vacation would be part of an agreement that would allow the City access for public parking purposes on the St Joseph's parking lot between 12 h and 13 Avenues. It is anticipated that discussions will be completed in time to adjust the scope of the feasibility report and keep the street improvement project on schedule. The proposed project scope would result in street improvement assessments levied against properties that are still paying off a 1996 assessment for alley reconstruction. Staff is preparing an assessment policy revision which would allow an option of deferring a second assessment until the current assessment payback period expires. The proposed revision would also include modified language regarding an assessment cap provision, as used on the Interlachen Council Report 98 -169 Page 3 neighborhood project, to help protect against high assessments due to competitive but unusually high construction bids. Why order a feasibility report? Preparation of a feasibility report is required by MS 429 assessment procedures. The report will provide preliminary engineering information, project cost estimates and preliminary assessment amounts to help City Council decide whether or not to proceed with the project. It is also used to present and discuss the project with the abutting residential and commercial owners. • How was Bolton & Menk, Inc. (BMI) selected? Staff solicited proposals from four engineering consulting firms. A selection committee was then formed to review the proposals and score them based on qualification -based selection criteria and cost. The selection committee was comprised of Steve Stadler, Jim Gessele, Mike Lauseng and Rich Hill. Bolton & Menk, Inc. received the highest score after averaging the selection committee members' scores. It should be noted that BMI did not submit the lowest cost proposal. Accordingly, they received the lowest score in the cost category. Their overall high marks are due to their high level of responsiveness and general customer service to city staff, accessibility and professionalism in dealing with Hopkins residents, quality design and construction inspection. As mentioned in the overview, design and construction services will be negotiated separately after the project is ordered by City Council. These services represent the bulk of the engineering services costs to the City. Staff expects to pay 15 — 18% of estimated construction cost for these services. This is the historical cost range regardless of the consultant used. The selection rating sheet and summary of results are attached to this Council report. The other consultants who submitted proposals were: RLK- Kuusisto, Howard R. Green Company and Short, Elliott, Hendrickson (SEH). Project Budget The 1999 CIP budget for this project is $550,000 ($325,000 from the City PIR fund, $225,000 from special assessments). The associated budget for utility improvements is $200,000. These project amounts could change due to level of improvement (partial vs. total reconstruction) and extent of utility work. Project schedule Order Feasibility Report - Nov 4, 1998 Initial Public Informational Mtg - Early December, 1998 Council Report 98 -169 Page 4 Project schedule continued Public Mtg -- Present Feasibility Report — City Council accept Feasibility Report — Public Hearing — Council authorizes constr plans — Complete plans and order bids — Accept Bids and order Assessment Hearing — Assessment Hearing - Award Bid - Construction - Early January, 1999 January 19, 1999 February 16, 1999 April, 1999 May, 1999 June, 1999 June, 1999 July — October, 1999 CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 98 -074 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE 1999 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the following streets are in need of rehabilitation: 12 Avenue South from 2 Street South to Mainstreet, 13 Avenue South from 2 Street South to Mainstreet, and 1 Street South from 11 Avenue to 13 Avenue South; and WHEREAS, City staff is requesting that these streets be upgraded under the City's 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 4 day of November 1998. ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk BY Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor RATING E OF CONSULTANT BEING SCORED: ame of rater: X11 core each category as 1 onsultant understanding of . project and services to be provided and reasonable estimate of personnel time and expenses. X2 Qualification of consultants proposed project team and City experience working with the team members including project n manager, design engineer and construction observation. g g r RATING X 4 = 3 Consultants description of project approach and comments on project schedule. Is the proposal specific about what will be included in the feasibility report? Is the proposed scope adequate? Is there more than what we'd normally expect in a preliminary report? RATING X 3_ 4. Proposed feasibility report and topographic survey fees. (score high for fair, reasonable fees and score low for .abnormally high or unreasonable fees) RATING: _ _X 1 = 1999 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SELECTION RATING SHEET TOTAL SCORE = 0, with 10 being highest qualification and 1 being (maximum score is 100) To4-D-Q. St) (4D.A.NA-- ge-e) e K cst