My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
09/12/95
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Road and Bridge Committee
>
Agendas
>
1995
>
09/12/95
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2025 11:29:59 AM
Creation date
7/9/2003 11:25:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Road & Bridget Committee
Document Date
09/12/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
REVIEW OF 1995 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM <br /> By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The 1995 Street Maintenance Program has been completed. This year's program consisted of eight <br />projects covering a total of 7.14 miles of street which received sealcoats proceeded by crackfilling, <br />and two bituminous overlay projects which covered a total of 4.33 miles. As you know, financing <br />of these maintenance activities consists of 50 percent City financing from the dedicated PIR fund <br />and 50 percent assessment to the benefitted property owners. The assessment hearing for this <br />year's program is scheduled for the September 26, 1995 Council meeting. The purpose of this <br />case is to report on the final costs as compared to those projected in the January 1995 Feasibility <br />Study, and to review the final assessment role in view of Council guidelines provided at an April <br />1995 Council Workshop. <br /> <br />Attached is a table summarizing the final project costs compared to the estimated costs in the <br />feasibility study. The final project costs for the two overlay projects were between eight and <br />eleven percent below the feasibility study estimate. However, the eight sealcoat projects ranged <br />anywhere between $6.17 to $26.94 per unit higher than those estimated in the feasibility study. <br />The overage was discussed at the time of contract awards in June. At that time, I reported that the <br />bid prices for sealcoating were 22.4 percent higher than estimated in the feasibility study and were <br />due to a number of factors which included (1) higher bituminous prices, (2) less City-owned <br />aggregate from previous year's programs; and (3) a less competitive bidding atmosphere. <br /> <br />While the individual unit cost increases are relatively small, and the overall project costs range from <br />110% to 119% of the feasibility study estimate, the percentage increase over the feasibility study <br />for five of the projects are considerably higher due to the fact that developer escrows were applied <br />against the total project cost. This had the effect of making the assessable cost a small fraction of <br />the total project cost. <br /> <br />It is my recommendation that unit cost assessments for the sealcoat projects be determined as <br />outlined in the feasibility study, using the actual final project costs, despite the result that these unit <br />prices will be higher than those projected in the feasibility study. Alternatively, if the City wished <br />to cap the assessments at the level outlined in the feasibility study, the additional cost to the City <br />would be $4,552. This would increase the City's share to the 1995 Street Maintenance Program <br />from $104,354 to $108,906. <br /> <br />A second issue which should be considered by the Road and Bridge Committee involves f'malizing <br />the project assessment roles. Earlier this year at a workshop in April, Council provided direction <br />on assessment policy for the street maintenance program. A copy of the minutes from this meeting <br />is attached. As a result of this direction, one property has been dropped from the preliminary <br />assessment role from Project #94-04 (133rd Avenue N.W.). Eight other properties have <br />circumstances which are not precisely defined by the Council directive. The parcels should be <br />reviewed and a determination made as to whether they should be retained or dropped from this <br />assessment role. The parcels and circumstances are as follows: <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.