Agenda - Council - 02/28/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Proposed Improvements Damaged sections of existing concrete curb and gutter will be removed and replaced, including concrete cross gutters at driveways and intersections which facilitate drainage to prevent pockets of standing water which can freeze in the winter resulting in unsafe conditions for drivers and pedestrians. The existing bituminous pavement is proposed to be reconstructed using a process called Stabilized Full Depth Reclamation (SFDR). The SFDR process would include milling the top 3 inches or so of existing bituminous pavement and disposing of the millings off site. All remaining existing bituminous pavement will then be reclaimed (ground up and mixed) along with most of the existing class 5 aggregate base. Approximately 1 inch of reclaimed material will need to be removed from site. The remainder of the reclaim material will be spread on top of the existing subgrade and a stabilizing agent will then be mixed into the reclaim material. This stabilized reclaim material will be shaped and compacted into a 5 inch lift, then 4 inches of bituminous pavement will be placed on top of the compacted stabilized reclaim material. This new pavement section will result in a 10-ton pavement design meeting current State Aid pavement design standards. The existing storm sewer system is in good condition and based on preliminary review appears to meet all applicable current State Aid design standards meaning no improvements are proposed, other than necessary casting adjustments. The existing sanitary sewer and watermain appear to be in good condition but inspections will completed during final design to ensure no repairs are needed prior to completing the proposed improvements. Estimated Costs The engineer's opinion of probable costs for completing the proposed improvements on Sunwood Drive as outlined in the attached draft Feasibility Report is $607,000. Estimated costs include 23% indirect costs for administrative, engineering, finance and legal costs. A summary of the engineer's opinion of probable costs is included in Appendix Bof the Feasibility Report. Funding Sources The improvements are proposed to be funded using a combination of Street Reconstruction and Overlay Program (SROP) bond funds, stormwater utility funds, and special assessments to benefiting properties. The majority of the proposed improvements will be funded using SROP bond funds, which will be paid back over a 10 year term using the general fund. This cost is estimated at $447,950 in the Feasibility Report. Stormwater utility funds will pay for required storm sewer improvements estimated to cost $7,300. Special assessments are proposed to fund up to 25% of eligible construction costs totaling $151,750 per the City's adopted Special Assessments Policy. A total of 9 parcels receive special benefit from the improvements as identified in the attached revised preliminary assessment map and roll. Special Assessments Per the City's adopted Special Assessments Policy special assessments can be used to pay for 25% of eligible street reconstruction improvement costs, which equals $151,750 for this project. Preliminary assessments are calculated using methods that result in reasonable and equitable distribution of assessments that are uniform upon the same class of properties within the assessable area. The test for determining the validity of a special assessment is whether the improvement for which the assessment was levied has increased the market value of the property against which the assessment was levied in at least the amount of the assessment. The City's adopted Special Assessments Policy identifies three optional methods for calculating assessments. The 9 identified benefiting properties are zoned El or E2 (industrial). Only two assessment methods are recommended for assessing industrial parcels, these being the "adjusted front footage" and "area" methods. Staff initially reviewed both methods as they would be applied in the current context of the policy. This review showed that the adjusted front footage method results in less variance between assessments ($9K - $40K), while the area method resulted in assessments that are more variable ($3K - $42K) and therefore appeared to better assign benefit based on lot geometry, which includes significant differences in lot depths. Staff therefore first applied the area method to calculate assessments. In doing so, Staff reviewed all assessable