Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />P.W. CASE <br /> <br />UPDATE OiN FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF DIRT STREETS <br /> By: Steve Jankowski City Engineer <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />At the March 2003 Public Works Committee meeting, Staff reported that,it was preparing a <br />feasibility study for the improvement of dirt streets. This study was initiated at the direction of <br />the City Council last fall. Several questions were raised by Councilmembers at the March Public <br />Works Committee meeting. <br /> <br />Il) <br /> <br />Could "Conbit" a base material made from crushed biturrfinous be u~ed as one <br />option considered? <br /> <br />"Conbit" provides the same function as Class 5 and is nearly identical in price. <br />Our street department has experience using this material. Staff has no objection <br />to this material, however it is our experience that dust control would still be <br />required. <br /> <br />(2) What funding sources are available? <br /> <br />The General fund; PIP,. Fund (special assessment); stormwater utility (for drainage <br />elements); and MSA funds (for MSA streets only). <br /> <br />(2) <br /> <br />Staff promised a copy of a previous report showing that the City subsidy to <br />grading and maintaining dirt streets is similar subsidy to the annual street <br />maintenance program. A copy of that information is attached to the case. <br /> <br />(4) <br /> <br />At the March meeting rough costs were mentioned by Staffregarding the cost to <br />Ia) bring roads up to a well drained, gravel road, and (b) a paved road way: These <br />costs were only given verbally. Table A below presents these costs. They are <br />-based on quantities for n/ne dirt street projects. <br /> <br />-255- <br /> <br /> <br />