Minutes - Public Works Committee - 03/18/2003

Home

Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Zimmerman, and Councilmembers Elvig, and Cook. Voting No: None. Case #3: Update on Feasibility Study for the Improvement of Unpaved Street City Engineer Jankowski stated that Staff was directed last fall to prepare a feasibility study addressing how gravel and dirt streets might be upgraded. Direction to Staff was to consider a program for non paved streets, similar to that in place for paved roadways, specifically that the City pay half the cost of preventative maintenance. The purpose of the case was to review the current status of the preparation of this study, and to solicit direction on several policy issues that will be need to be defined before the financing section of the study can be completed. A draft of the portions of the study which describes the City's current unpaved street inventory was presented to the Committee. Several roadways are proposed to be eliminated from consideration for this study for the reasons described. The study anticipates the possibility of twelve separate projects, a nd a t t his time a discussion of existing conditions and proposed improvements has been prepared for half of them. It was noted that two separate levels of improvements have been proposed for each project. Alternative A brings the roadway to a well-drained gravel surface, which is capable of being maintained with dust control and periodic grading. Alternative B goes an additional step beyond, with the addition of bituminous surfacing. Having these two levels of improvement was the specific direction of the Council last fall. The financing section of this report is still to be completed. There will be significant costs associated with grading, placement of Class 5, and installation of driveway culverts. In the past when unpaved roadways were hard surfaced these costs were fully assessed. Unless there is a desire to provide an addition financial incentive for paving these remaining streets, these costs should be fully assessed to remain consistent with past practices. It will also be necessary t o define the elements o fp eriodic o r preventative maintenance, which would be partially financed by the City and partially assessed. Staff proposed that these elements include monthly grading, annual treatment with calcium chloride to control dust, and the addition o f Class 5 after five years. For alternative A, it is proposed that the construction costs and 50 percent of the maintenance costs for the first four years would be assessed if the project was approved. Subsequently, in every fifth year, an assessment would be proposed for 50 percent of the cost of adding gravel and maintenance for the next five years. Finally, several of the potential twelve projects may not be possible to be considered for both alternative A and B. For example, Ute Street has only a 33-foot right-of- way, which would be insufficient to accommodate the ditches required for drainage under alternative A. In this case, only a paved roadway with curb and gutter may be possible. Councilmember Cook inquired if they have considered using combet as a "half step" rather than paving all the roads. Director of Public Works/Fire Chief Kapler replied that they have used combet a lot throughout the City, but not to the extent that Councilmember Cook is talking about. Councihnember Cook stated that combet it is about a 1/3rd of the cost of paving and it can in the future be used as Class V under the pavement. Public Works Committee/March 18, 2003 Page 6 of 10