Minutes - Public Works Committee - 05/16/2006

Home

o City including Estates of Silver Oaks and Brookfield are examples. Many of the existing subdivisions in these areas similarly have clay soils. Staff is recommending that against City cost participation of this element due to concern for setting precedent. 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 suitable granular material. Staff is recommending against City cost participation of this element due to concem for setting precedent. Consider Costs associated with Project Overhead. The total project cost consists of two components; construction cost, 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% consisting of 8% for design; 5% for project administration; 2% for bonding and legal; 5% for inspection and testing; and 5°/6 for project contingencies. The total cost for 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 stated project residents had also expressed a concern at the neighborhood meeting relative to the time schedule for the project. It was noted that the 60-day petition period from the close of the public hearing will expire on May 28, 2006 and that the City Council could take action to order the project by advertising for bids at the meeting of June 11, 2006. If as a result of this case the Public Works Committee recommends a reduction of costs, these recommendations should be sent on to the City Council for ratification at the May 23, 2006 meeting. The Council may wish to extend the petitioning period for a period of time beyond the May 28th date to allow the new cost information to be distributed to the project residents such that they can make an informed decision on whether they wish to petition against the project. Mr. Jankowski advised staff recommends 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 the May 28, 2005 meeting, and (c) that the deadline for petitioning against this project be extended to June 9, 2006. Chairperson Elvig asked if the residents seem to be anxious to have this project completed this year if possible. City Engineer Jankowski responded in the affirmative. Public Works Committee / May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 16