Minutes - Public Works Committee - 02/18/2020

Home

Councilmember Menth asked the amount of funding that was available when the Committee first reviewed this case. City Engineer Westby replied that there is currently $811,000 in the fund but after the unpaid project costs for the two 2019 street reconstruction projects are taken from that account, the available balance would be about $775,000. Councilmember Menth commented that it was his belief that one of the three project areas would be selected, as the Feasibility Reports have already been completed, rather than selecting a different road without a Feasibility Report. City Engineer Westby stated that his understJanuary was for Staff to present updated cost estimates at this meeting. He noted that the motion also included staff bringing back alternative options identified in the current CIP that could be completed with the available funding. Chairperson Kuzma asked if letters were already sent to property owners on the streets identified to receive overlays in 2020 per the current CIP stating that the project would be completed. City Engineer Westby replied that such letters had been mailed but that a second letter was also sent noting that the pavement conditions would not support a standard mill and overlay so more extensive repairs would be required and that it would be most cost-effective to complete those repairs in the future. He also noted that the letter stated the property owners would receive another letter if improvements were ultimately proposed on their streets in 2020. Chairperson Kuzma asked for funding information. City Engineer Westby stated that in the next case it is recommended to reallocate $250,000 from the 2020 sealcoat budget towards this project for option three. He confirmed that could also be sufficient funding to complete options one or two. Councilmember Menth asked why one of the roads from the originally proposed project would not be selected. City Engineer Westby stated that option one, which proposes removing 3.5-inches of pavement and underlying aggregate base and repaving with 3.5-inches of new pavement at an estimated cost of $835,000, and option two, which proposes completing a full-depth reclamation at an estimated cost of $811,000 to 1.5 miles of streets would provide less than the standard pavement base section and therefore staff would not be confident that the expected lifespan of the improvements would be reached. He stated that staff would be more confident that option three, which proposes standard 2-inch mill and overlay improvements on streets in the Business Park 95 and Regency Ponds Additions, would provide pavement sections to allow standard pavement management practices to be applied in the future. Staff is therefore more confident in achieving the expected lifespan on these 2.8 miles of opinion option three is the most cost-effective. Public Works Committee / February 18, 2020 Page 4 of 8