Minutes - Council - 05/23/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

additional forms of cost relief for the residents involved with this project. Following the close of the public hearing as a result of this testimony, City Council directed that a meeting should be held with the affected residents to determine their level of support for this project and requested staff to suggest alternative funding support for this project by the City which might be attributed to unique aspects of this particular project. A meeting was held on April 27, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the lower level of City Hall for this purpose and ten residents representing nine of the 19 properties were present. Mr. Jankowski reviewed the following options that were considered for a reduction of cost and an increase in cost sharing: 1. Storm Water Utility to Fund Storm Sewer Costs. Items 9 through 13 of the estimated project costs are associated with elements of storm sewer. These costs, which total $10,300, could be reasonably assigned funding from the City's Storm Water Utility since they would improve the existing drainage situation. Staff is recommending support of this project cost assignment. 2. City to Fund Costs Associated with Increased Road Section. Because of organic soils identified in the eastern portion of the project area it was the recommendation of the soils engineer to increase the strength of the road section with additional class 5 and bituminous wear course. The extra material results in an additional cost orS10,000. City participation in funding this element of the project could set precedent for future street paving or reconstruction projects. Although sandy soils are predominate within the City, there are areas having clay soils which would require a section stronger than the standard section. Staff is recommending against City cost participation in this element due to concern for setting precedent. 3. City to Fund Cost Associated with Borrow Material. Because of the need to raise the base of the road above the water table, granular material needs to be imported to the project site. The imported material results in an increased cost of $15,000. City participation in funding this element of the project could set precedent for future street paving or reconstruction projects. Any project involving weak soils may require the complete removal and replacement with granular material. Staff is recommending against City cost participation of this element due to concern for setting precedent. 4. Consider Costs associated with Project Overhead. The total project cost consists of two components; construction costs which are based on the contract quantities installed and overhead costs which are estimated based upon percentages of the construction cost. Page 3 of the feasibility study defines the overhead costs for this project as 25% consists of 8% for design; 5% for project administration; 2% for bonding and legal; 5% for inspection and testing; and 5% for project contingencies. The total cost of overhead on the project is estimated at $50,149. Approximately $11,000 in direct costs plus City staff time has been spent to date and the potential exists for actual overhead costs to be lower than the above estimate. Residents have expressed concern over a percentage of construction costs determining overhead costs since the higher the construction costs become the more overhead costs will be incurred. Staff would recommend that actual overhead costs be charged as follows: 15% for design, project administration, bonding and legal, plus the actual inspection cost based upon actual time spent. City Engineer Jankowski advised the recommendation of the Public Works Committee was to recommend to City Council that (a) staff be directed to modify the feasibility study with respect to financing in response to the issues outlined in the case above; (b) that the recommendations of this case be presented to the City Council for ratification at this meeting, and (c) that the deadline for petitioning against this project be extended to June 9, 2006, and that legal opinion be obtained regarding the possible elimination of soft costs associated with project overhead and the City Council / May 23, 2006 Page 10 of 20