Agenda - Council - 03/08/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

are roughly $ 100,000 higherlthan thislaverage. The reason for this variation in annual expenses associated with this pfograrr~, ~ due primarily to the fact that new street construction was extremelY high d~g the Six Year period between 1978 and 1983 when nearly 40% of our current street inventory was paved. This grouping of streets has been requiring the more expensiv~ bituminous .overlay maintenance over the past several years. It can be observed that future annual costs will be decreasing as the needs of these older streets are be satisfied~ ,However, °v~er the last several years a number of measures had been undertaken to prov. ide for th~s n&eded funding including the lengthening of sealcoating intervals and th~ deferral.6f some overlays. In addition, funding, from all designated MSA streets haVebeen pm~ammed for MSA funding even when such streets have similar numbers of benefited properties:as neighboring non MSA streets. The projected six year pro~ c°ntinues :tO employ these same techniques, however, the streets projected for overlaYS!in 2006 and 2007 do not appear to be capable of being deferred to a later year. If it is desired .to cap :the annual program at $300,000 it would be possible to defer some of the 2007 sealcoats to 2008. However, the 2006 program does not allow for this flexibility Since the-prOgram.contains few sealcoats which are not financed by developer escrows or MSAfunding. Discussion: i One alternative toward achieving a budget amount equal to the current allocation would be to increase the.annual City allOcatiOn t0 this program in 2006 by $60,000 and defer some of the 2007 sealcoats until 2008.! Another alternative might be to investigate the use of a portion of the Overhead COsts' to ir~'Creaselthe size of the program. Currently 17% of the actual project.constructiOn costs ar~ added to determine the total project cost which are assessed. These overhead, costs areias fotloWs: engineering and inspection 10%; administration 5%; and boring and !egal 2%. In addition, 5% for contingencies are included in the costs identified bY the .feasibility study, but these are only assessed if the actual project cost exceeds th© feasibil!tY estimate. For the 2006 program 17% of the assessed half of the project would be approximately $61.,000 which would be roUghiy equal to the deficit forthat Year, ItmuS~t be emphasized that the City does incur actual out of pocket expenses associated with this program. These include publication costs, postage and payments to Anoka Cotmty to administer the assessments: Recommendation: Based upon discussion Reviewed By: Public Works Director/Fire Chief · . Assistant Public Works Director/PrinC~pal. iEngineer Street Maintenance SupervisOr Finance Officer PW: 02/15/05