HomeMy WebLinkAbout5C, 2013 Pavement Management Program - Resolution Receiving the Feasibility Report and Ordering the Public Hearing for Improvement ,ARZEN HILLS
Request for Council Action . 5C
...........
Prepared By: John Anderson, Assistant Council Meeting Date: November 13, 2012
City Engineer
2013 Pavement Management Program—Resolution Receiving the Feasibility Report and
Ordering the Public Hearing for Improvement
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
$1,479,000 $1,165,678 to $1,671,186 PIR, Enterprise Funds,
(engineering and (engineering and
Special Assessments
construction) construction
Recommendation:
Motion to adopt Resolution 2012-039: Receiving the 2013 Pavement Management Program Feasibility
Report and ordering public hearing for improvement.
Supporting Documents:
1. Memorandum dated November 13, 2012, from John Anderson.
2. Feasibility Report prepared by the City of Arden Hills Engineering Staff.
3. Resolution 2012-039.
'It
- VEEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 13, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: John M. Anderson, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: 2013 Pavement Management Program — Resolution Receiving the
Feasibility Report and Ordering the Public Hearing for Improvement
Background
At the August 13, 2012 meeting, the City Council approved Resolution 2012-027
ordering the Feasibility Report for the 2013 Pavement Management Program (PMP)
project. The 2013 PMP consists of the improvements to the following streets:
• Asbury Avenue North, City limits to Glenhill Road
• Asbury Avenue, Glenhill Road to Edgewater Avenue
• Edgewater Avenue, Asbury Avenue North to Ridgewood Road North
• Glenhill Road, Asbury Avenue North to Snelling Avenue
• Ridgewood Road, City limits to cul de sac
In accordance with City Council direction, a Feasibility Report has been prepared that
details the proposed improvements, neighborhood impacts, and estimated costs and
financing for the proposed project. A copy of the completed Feasibility Report is
attached. The next step in the process is for the City Council to accept the Feasibility
Report and to schedule a Public Improvement Hearing.
Financial Implications
This project has financial implications for the City including the following:
1. Assessments levied in accordance with the Assessment Policy.
2. Use Permanent Improvement Revolving(PIR) funds to fund the balance of the
street improvements.
3. Expenditure of utility enterprise fund dollars to pay for the repairs needed to the
existing utility system as well as storm water improvements
The following table shows the amounts originally budgeted in the City's Capital
Page 1 of 2
Improvement Plan versus the preliminary estimated amounts in the Feasibility Report:
Fund Budgeted Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Reconstruction Reclamation
Watermain Enterprise Utility $ 250,000 $ 357,207 $ 357,207
Sanitary Sewer Enterprise $ 50,000 $ 62,075 $ 62,075
Utility
Surface Water Management $ 335,000 $ 393,756 $ 357,207
Utility
PIR/Assessments $ 844,000 $ 858,148 $ 426,794
Total $ 1,479,000 $ 1,671,186 $ 1,165,678
The Feasibility Report details out two alternatives for rebuilding the streets in this
neighborhood. The City Council retains the ability to choose either alternative as the
process progresses to the Public Hearing.
Council Action Requested
Motion to approve Resolution 2012-039: Resolution Receiving the 2013 Pavement
Management Program Feasibility Report and Ordering the Public Hearing for
Improvement. The Public Hearing would be scheduled for the regular City Council
meeting on Monday, January 14, 2013.
Page 2 of 2
,,�AVDEN HILLS
Feasibility Report
2013 Pavement Management Program
Asbury Avenue North, City limits to Glenhill Road
Asbury Avenue, Glenhill Road to Edgewater Avenue
Edgewater Avenue, Asbury Avenue North to Ridgewood Road North
Glenhill Road, Asbury Avenue to Snelling Avenue
Ridgewood Road, City limits to cul de sac
Prepared by: City of Arden Hills Engineering Department
Project PW-12-0111
John M. Anderson, P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
I hereby certify that this feasibility report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Lic. o. 25889 November 6, 2012
2013 PMP
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Table of Contents
Title& Certification Sheet
Letter of Transmittal
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
NeighborhoodMeeting....................................................................................................................1
ExistingStreet Conditions...............................................................................................................2
ExistingUtility Conditions..............................................................................................................4
ProposedStreet Improvements........................................................................................................5
ProposedUtility Improvements.......................................................................................................7
RequiredPermits............................................................................................................................12
Estimated Costs & Proposed Funding...........................................................................................12
Preliminary Assessments...............................................................................................................14
ProjectSchedule.............................................................................................................................17
Feasibility & Recommendation.....................................................................................................17
Appendix A: Figures
- 2013 PMP Location Map
- Assessment Parcels
- Existing Drainage Map
- Proposed Drainage Map
Appendix B: Preliminary Assessment Roll
Appendix C: Engineer's Estimate of Cost Alternative 1 —Reconstruction
Appendix D Engineer's Estimate of Cost Alternative 2—Reclamation
Appendix E: Geotechnical Report
Appendix F: Neighborhood Meeting Information
INTRODUCTION
On August 13, the Arden Hills City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-027 ordering the
preparation of a Feasibility Report for the 2013 Pavement Management Program which includes
the improvements to the streets listed below. A map showing the street locations can be found in
Appendix A.
• Asbury Avenue North, City limits to Glenhill Road
• Asbury Avenue, Glenhill Road to Edgewater Avenue
• Edgewater Avenue, Asbury Avenue North to Ridgewood Road North
• Glenhill Road, Asbury Avenue North to Snelling Avenue
• Ridgewood Road, City limits to cul de sac
The proposed project involves complete street reconstruction and installation of concrete curb
and gutter for all the streets listed above. The project was initiated by City Council/staff as part
of Arden Hills' Pavement Management Program. As outlined in the City's 5-year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP), these roadways are identified for improvement in 2013.
Utility improvements for the project include the repair of selected sanitary sewer manholes, and
construction of storm sewer catch basins and piping. Due to the excessive watermain break
history within the neighborhood, City staff is recommending that all watermain piping, valves,
and hydrants within the project be removed and replaced.
The proposed 2013 PMP maintains a neighborhood approach, which has consistently been a goal
of staff and City Council. The neighborhood approach minimizes the inconveniences residents
experience due to construction.
The total project cost is estimated to range between $1,671,185 (Alternative 1) and $1,165,678
(Alternative 2), which includes contingencies and overhead costs. Funding for the project will be
provided through assessments to the benefitting properties, sanitary sewer utility funds, water
utility funds, surface water management utility funds, and Permanent Improvement Revolving
(PIR) funds. It is expected that if these improvements are approved, the work will be completed
during the 2013 construction season.
This project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint and should
be constructed as proposed in this report with either alternative 1 or 2 for roadway construction.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
An informational meeting was held on October 23, 2012, for residents who live within the
proposed 2013 PMP project area. Meeting notices were sent out in advance to the neighborhood;
and the meeting was attended by twenty five people representing sixteen residences. At the
meeting, staff presented the City's Pavement Management Program, discussed the roadways
being proposed for improvement, and discussed the City's Assessment Policy. Residents were
able to ask questions during the presentation and City staff developed a summary of meeting
comments and questions received. Information pertaining to the neighborhood meeting has been
included in Appendix F. The meeting lasted approximately one and a half hours.
1
EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS
The project area includes single family properties in a fully developed neighborhood; all of the
properties adjacent to these streets are zoned R-1. There is limited access to this neighborhood;
therefore, these streets carry low volumes of traffic. There are no commercial or institutional
uses affected by the proposed improvements. There is one parcel, Johanna Marsh, which is a
City owned parcel. Northwestern College abuts the project, however, does not have any access to
the project area. Both Asbury Street and Ridgewood Road extend past the municipal boundary
into Roseville.
i
Arden Hills' pavement management system utilizes a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of
0 to 100 where street ratings are classified in three categories: "adequate" (66-100), "marginal"
(31-65), and "problem" (0-30). Ratings are based on observations of each of the street's
pavement surfaces. Generally, the three categories correspond to a level of most cost effective
improvement as follows: (0-30) pavement reconstruction, (31-65) bituminous overlay or reclaim,
and (66-100) sealcoat and/or crack sealing. This rating system assists in prioritizing roadway
improvements and projecting costs for use in the City's pavement management and capital
improvement plans.
In 2011, GoodPointe Technology rated the City's streets and entered the PCI values into
GoodPoint's pavement management software.
2011 PCI 2011
Street Value Category
Glenhill Road 51 Marginal
Asbury Avenue, City limits to Glenhill 74 Adequate
Road
Asbury Avenue, Glenhill Road to 70 Adequate
Edgewater Avenue
Ridgewood Road, City limits to Glenhill 66 Adequate
Road
Ridgewood Road, Glenhill Road to cul de 36 Marginal
sac
Edgewater Avenue 34 Marginal
Actual levels of street improvements are determined by obtaining soil borings and a
comprehensive geotechnical evaluation report. Soil borings have been obtained and are included
in Appendix E of this report. City staff has reviewed the soil boring results and have verified that
the recommended improvements as described are appropriate.
All of the existing streets are located within a sixty foot right-of-way. None of the streets have
concrete curb and gutter and there are no existing sidewalks or paths. The streets have an average
pavement thickness of 3 to 4 inches, with a subsurface consisting mainly of sandy lean clays.
The roads are approximately 50 years old.
2
Asbury Avenue
The width of Asbury Avenue varies between 29 and 30 feet and is 954 feet long (0.18 mile).
There is an existing bituminous curb along most of the street, most of which is deteriorated. The
street shows signs of distress such as moderate to severe transverse and longitudinal cracking.
City records indicate that this roadway was milled and overlaid in 1995. Since the mill and
overlay, maintenance activities for this neighborhood include patching, crack sealing, and seal
coating.
Edgewater Avenue
Edgewater Avenue is a 25 foot wide roadway and is 835 feet long (0.16 mile). There is an
existing, deteriorated bituminous curb along the roadway. On the north side of the street, there
are a few sections where concrete parking barriers have been installed to serve as concrete curb.
The roadway shows signs of distress such as transverse cracking, potholes, and deterioration of
the pavement surface, particularly in the wheel path. The pavement surface on the street shows
signs of oxidation, as evidenced by the exposed pavement aggregates. Maintenance activities for
Edgewater Avenue include pothole patching, roadway edge patching, and skin patching.
Glenhill Road
Glenhill Road is approximately 30 feet wide from Asbury Avenue to Ridgewood Road, and
varies from 32 to 36 feet wide from Ridgewood to TH 51. Glenhill Road is 982 feet long (0.19
mile). There is an existing, deteriorated bituminous curb along the roadway. The roadway shows
signs of distress such as moderate to severe transverse and longitudinal cracking, cracking,
rutting and deterioration of the pavement surface, particularly in the wheel path. City records
indicate that this roadway was milled and overlaid in 1989 and seal coated in 1998. Other
maintenance activities for Glenhill Road include pothole patching, skin patching, crack sealing
and seal coating.
Ridgewood Road
The width of Ridgewood Road varies between 29 and 33 feet and is 1,072 feet long (0.20 mile).
Ridgewood Road terminates at its north end with a cul-de-sac. Deteriorated bituminous curb can
be found along the length of the street. The northeastern portion of the cul de sac has been built
up with concrete parking barriers to direct the street runoff into the wetland to the east. The
roadway shows signs of distress such as transverse and longitudinal cracking, alligator cracking,
potholes, and deterioration of the pavement surface. The pavement surface on the street shows
signs of oxidation, as evidenced by the exposed pavement aggregates. Maintenance activities on
Ridgewood Road have included pothole patching and skin patching.
3
EXISTING UTILITY CONDITIONS
City utilities located within the project limits include storm sewer, water, and sanitary sewer. A
summary of the City's utilities are listed below. Private utilities include gas, electric, cable
television, and telephone.
Water System
The existing conditions for the water system were obtained from City as-built drawings. The
following is a table of the existing watermains with information on pipe size, pipe material, and
history of watermain breaks. The watermain was constructed in 1967.
Pipe Pipe
Street Size Material Watermain Break History
Asbury Avenue 8" Cast Iron 1
Edgewater Avenue 6" Cast Iron 4
Glenhill Road 8" Cast Iron 0
Ridgewood Road 6" Cast Iron 4
Public Works staff has inspected the hydrants and gate valves within the project limits to
determine what improvements are necessary. The recommended water system improvements are
discussed later in this report.
Sanitary Sewer System
The existing conditions for the sanitary sewer system were obtained from City as-built drawings
and televised recordings performed by the Public Works Department. The following is a table of
the existing sanitary sewer with information on pipe size, pipe material, and any problems noted
from the televising. The sanitary sewer was constructed in 1959.
Pipe Pipe
Street Size Material Problems/Notes
Asbury Avenue 8" Clay Roots, cracked pipe
Edgewater Avenue 10" Clay Roots,mineral deposits
Glenhill Road 8" Clay Roots,mineral deposits
Ridgewood Road 8"-10" Clay/lined Roots; portion lined in 2011
In addition to the above information, City staff also inspected all sanitary sewer manholes within
the project limits to determine if maintenance should be performed in conjunction with the street
improvement project. The recommended manhole and pipe maintenance is discussed later in this
report.
4
Storm Drainage System
Existing neighborhood drainage patterns are as shown in Appendix A. The total drainage area
under analysis as part of this feasibility study is 30 acres. All street and private property
drainage within this area drains directly into Johanna Marsh, which is a wetland complex and
City park property adjacent to the neighborhood that carries drainage from Lake Josephine to
Lake Johanna.
Most street drainage is overland with minimal storm sewer conveyance. Generally, drainage is
channeled along the edges of the streets and relies on the boulevard edges to keep the drainage
impounded. Approximately 96% of the overall neighborhood drainage area drains overland to
Ridgewood Lane at its intersections with Edgewater Street and Glenhill Road. Catch basins and
culverts located at or near these intersections capture overland flows, and channel the flows via
culverts and ditches to the Johanna Marsh wetland. The remaining area drains to the wetland
overland via the MnDOT Highway 51 ditch. All flows discharge to the wetland untreated, with
no formal opportunities for sediment, oil, debris capture.
Existing storm sewer conveyances are generally in poor condition and have reached the end of
their useful life. Existing drainage conveyances are insufficient for capturing excessive overland
street flows causing boulevard erosion, excessive pavement deterioration and icing hazards.
Upgrades to the existing neighborhood drainage system are essential for properly managing
storm drainage from the roadway and provide treatment prior to discharge into Johanna Marsh.
The recommended storm drainage system improvements are discussed later in this report.
PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Due to the existing conditions of the roadways as previously outlined and as shown in the soil
borings, City staff is providing two alternatives to be considered for rehabilitation of the
roadways. Alternative 1 involves full reconstruction of the street section and adding concrete
curb and gutter. Alternative 2 consists of reclaiming the existing bituminous surface and
constructing a new pavement on the reclaimed base.
Alternative 1 - Reconstruction
In 2008, the City of Roseville reconstructed Asbury Avenue and Ridgewood Road up to the
City limits to a street width of 28 feet (face of curb to face of curb). A surmountable curb,
style 5518, was constructed on the Roseville project. This was the result of a discussion
with both Roseville and Arden Hills' residents at a neighborhood meeting about continuity
of the street once both cities completed their street improvements. The sections of Asbury
Avenue and Ridgewood Road from the municipal border to Glenhill Road within the City
limits of Arden Hills were considered to be included in the 2008 Roseville project, but it
was decided to delay this work until the streets in the entire neighborhood in Arden Hills
could be rehabilitated.
To maintain continuity with the already reconstructed street in Roseville, it is proposed to
reconstruct Asbury Avenue and Ridgewood Road to a 28 foot width (face to face). Due to
the low volume of traffic in the area, it is proposed to narrow Glenhill Road from a 30 foot
width to a 28 foot (face to face) width from Asbury to Ridgewood. Since Glenhill Road is
5
one of only two entrances into the neighborhood, it is proposed to construct the road 34 feet
wide (face to face) from Ridgewood Road to TH 51 in order to provide sufficient access for
trucks and emergency vehicles. Edgewater Avenue is proposed to be constructed at its
current width, 22 feet (face to face), to minimize impacts to the existing slopes on either
side of the road. The concrete curb and gutter added along with this road section is
proposed to be the same surmountable style as constructed in 2008.
All roadways will be constructed with a seven ton structural design. Existing street grades
will be altered where appropriate to improve drainage. Necessary corrections to the
roadway subgrade will be made in areas exhibiting more severe signs of distress or where
unsuitable material is encountered prior to placing the aggregate based and bituminous
pavement.
Any sod that is damaged as a result of the project will be replaced. In order to match the
new street, driveway approaches will be removed between the existing pavement and the
grading limits, roughly the Right of Way line. The driveways will be replaced in-kind with
concrete or bituminous.
Alternative 2 - Reclamation
The existing bituminous surface represents an investment in the road system that has value.
The bituminous surface would be reclaimed, a process that involves pulverizing the
bituminous pavement and blending it with the road base below. This approach was used on
Amble Road in the 2011 Pavement Management Program project. The reclaimed material
would then be shaped and compacted to provide a stable base to construct the bituminous
road surface on. Areas found to have unstable subgrade will be excavated and filled with
excess reclaimed material.
Roadway width would be restored to essentially the same width currently in place.
Driveways would be cut and blended into the new road surface as needed. The sod along
the edge of the road would be restored by placing topsoil and sod.
Drainage and landscaping will require some bituminous curb be added in select areas to
facilitate collection of stormwater and prevent erosion. It is possible to make some minor
adjustments to road grades to improve drainage but with a reclaimed road base, lowering
the road surface significantly, is not possible.
6
PROPOSED UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Existing manholes, fire hydrants, gate valves, and other similar structures will be adjusted and
repaired as necessary as part of this project. The cost of underground utility improvements will
be excluded from the assessable portion of the project and financed by the appropriate utility
funds.
City staff will coordinate with private utility owners such as gas, electric, cable television, and
telephone throughout the construction project.
Water System
Due to the history of watermain breaks within the project area, the recommended water system
improvements include abandoning and replacing the existing watermain with a PVC pipe system
on Edgewater Avenue and Ridgewood Road from Glenhill Road to the cul-de-sac.. As noted by
the Public Works staff, the watermain breaks have been as a result of pipe displacements and
settlements; PVC pipe will be less conducive to these types of watermain breaks. In addition to
watermain replacement noted all valves and hydrants in the neighborhood will be replaced.
Sanitary Sewer System
The recommended sanitary sewer system improvements are relatively minor and include
maintenance on all manholes. Manhole castings will be replaced with new, standard sized
castings with concealed pick holes and chimney seals to reduce the potential for inflow and
infiltration. There is a need to line the sanitary sewer mains in the neighborhood. All of the pipe
segments within the project have been televised and inspected. From the televised inspection,
City staff will be considering including the balance of the unlined sewers in a future lining
project. A portion of the sanitary sewer along Ridgewood Road was lined as a part of the 2011
Sanitary Sewer Lining Project.
Storm Sewer Upgrades
Storm sewer upgrades will require the abandonment and/or removal of the existing in-place
storm sewer system. Additional storm sewer inlets throughout the neighborhood are needed to
capture overland flows thereby reducing future street maintenance, improving passibility
during storm events and reducing icing in the wintertime. Refer to Appendix A for a proposed
layout of the neighborhood storm sewer system. If reclamation is the selected option for
pavement rehabilitation the new storm sewer system would be scaled back in order to
minimize disturbing the existing base.
The new drainage system will also direct storm drainage to both localized and regional
treatment devices to reduce pollution, decrease overall runoff volume and increase water
quality within the Lake Johanna system.
7
Storm Water Management
Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as, infiltration basins, bio-filtration basins, rainwater
gardens, underground filtration cells, filtration strips and constructed wetlands are proposed to
improve water quality treatment, volume and rate control of storm water runoff in the area.
These BMPs will be designed to meet Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)requirements.
Overland street drainage and drainage from the limited storm sewer system currently flows into
the Johanna Marsh wetland. Upgrades to the storm drainage system which include treatment,
volume control and rate control measures are recommended to decrease pollutants in storm
water runoff discharging into Johanna Marsh and, subsequently, Lake Johanna.
A. RCWD Volume Reduction Requirement
Storm water management will include volume reduction requirements for new and/or
disturbed impervious areas created by the project. Volume reduction requirements are
based on approximately 4.8 acres of reconstructed impervious areas created by the
proposed neighborhood project as well as connected impervious areas draining into
streets.
Based on current RCWD Rule C5(f) utilizing a local street classification, the volume
reduction requirement is 0.8 inches off all disturbed plus added impervious areas and
those impervious areas connected to the streets. Connected impervious areas include
applicable roof, driveway and patio area with runoff draining directly into the street right-
of-way.
Existing street widths are irregular throughout the neighborhood due to the poor
pavement conditions and frequent patching. The proposed project, with the addition of
concrete curb and gutter, will provide consistent street widths throughout. However, an
overall impervious surface decrease is anticipated post-reconstruction. For the purposes
of calculating a volume control requirement, the impervious surface assumptions are
based on current street edge locations as outlined on an aerial photograph.
The total RCWD volume reduction requirement based on 2012 RCWD rules is as
follows:
- Impervious Area(Disturbed+ Connected+New) = Regulated Area [square feet]
117,568 sq ft+ 90,704 sq ft+ 0 sq ft= 208,272 square feet
- Regulated Area [sf] x 0.8 inches x 1/12 ft/inch= Volume Reduction [cubic
feet]
208,272 sq ft x 0.8 inches x 1/12 = 13,885 cubic feet
Meetings with RCWD staff in May 2012 indicate that RCWD is considering rule changes
to a volume reduction requirement consistent with other Twin Cities area metropolitan
watershed districts. It is anticipated that the infiltration requirement will increase
from the current rules applicable to this project.
8
B. Proposed Volume Reduction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Proposed infiltration/bio-filtration areas are shown in Appendix A.
Generally, volume reduction is proposed through the following measures:
Large infiltration and/or filtration basins in select locations of extended street
boulevards:
• West side of Asbury Street bordering the Northwestern College property.
• East side of Ridgewood Road north of Edgewater Avenue.
• West side of Ridgewood Road between Edgewater Avenue and Glen Hill
Road.
Depending on the infiltration capabilities of the soils, the basins may utilize
underground filtration cells with perforated pipe to assist drawdown.
Residential boulevard infiltration/bio-filtration basins or rain gardens:
homeowners will have the option of placement of a small basin with a curb cut in
their street frontage and are subsequently responsible for maintenance. The City
will offer shrub and plug plantings at the discretion of the homeowners. The
boulevard basins offer the homeowner the opportunity to participate in the
treatment of street runoff that eventually reaches the Lake Johanna.
If BMPs (rain gardens, infiltration basins, filtration basins) are constructed in one third
of the boulevards in conjunction with the large infiltration/filtration basins listed above,
up to 33% of the RCWD storm water treatment requirement would be accomplished in
the neighborhood itself.
C. Constructed Basin in Johanna Marsh Parkland
A neighborhood treatment basin constructed within the upland area of the Johanna Marsh
parkland is proposed to meet the balance of the RCWD treatment requirement. Two
options are recommended for further exploration.
Option 1: Biofiltration Basin
The construction of a large biofiltration basin would be similar in construction to the
smaller-scale basins proposed in the neighborhood. Low-maintenance plant material
suited to a wetter environment is recommended. Soil borings taken in January 2012
indicate no presence of ground water in the neighborhood. However, there are concerns
about a high groundwater table within the marsh area. Further soil exploration and
wetland delineation is needed in order to determine the feasibility of installing a bio-
infiltration basin.
Option 2: Constructed Wetland
Due to the possibility of a high ground water table and wetland conditions, consideration
is being given to a constructed wetland for storm water treatment. A constructed wetland
is a treatment system that uses natural processes involving wetland vegetation and soils to
improve water quality. These systems also provide plant and animal habitat.
9
A number of activities as follows are needed in order to proceed with a wetland
improvement approach:
- Additional soils exploration and wetland delineation.
- A possible MnRAM or equivalent wetland classification.
- A determination if the wetland falls under Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
regulation as well as RCWD.
- Determination of the best location of the constructed wetland relative to the
delineated wetland edge.
- Determination that the existing wetland will sustain no net loss in function and value.
- Balance of cut/fill activities for the purposes of floodplain regulation.
D. Other BMPs
Other storm sewer improvements such as sump manholes or proprietary grit chambers to
collect sediments will be considered as part of the project. The design will provide for
erosion control and energy dissipation at storm water outfall points, and pre-treatment
prior to discharge into basins or rain gardens.
Erosion Control
As part of the project plans and specifications, staff is required to prepare a storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) for the purposes of enforcing erosion and sediment control rules. The
SWPPP will include erosion and sediment control methods that will be implemented throughout
the project. Silt fence, bio-rolls, erosion control blanket, and other best management practices
will be utilized where direct runoff might occur. Inlet protection will be used to protect both the
existing and new catch basins during construction. Street sweeping will occur, as needed, on all
paved street surfaces throughout the project, including intersecting streets. Watering of exposed
soils and aggregate material would be done as a dust-control measure. An erosion and sediment
control plan sheet and storm water pollution prevention plan will be created during the design
phase of this project. Immediate turf establishment in areas of soil disturbance will be required
such as placing seed and erosion control blanket. After street and utility work is completed, sod
will be placed as the permanent turf establishment in all disturbed areas. The City in
coordination with the watershed district will closely monitor all erosion and sediment control
measures throughout the construction process. The selected contractor will be required to install
all preventative measures and maintain them as required by the City, RCWD, MPCA, and other
regulatory agencies.
10
Drainage and Stormwater Costs
Three options relative to managing storm water drainage on the site were explored. Following
are the options and their costs and assumptions.
Option#1• Johanna Marsh Bio-Filtration Basin
- Street storm sewer system and inlet capacity increased.
- Bio-Filtration feasible in upland Johanna Marsh Area.
- Resident buy-in to residential boulevard basins.
Estimated Cost: $320,000 to $400,000 (depending on pavement rehabilitation)
Advantages: Most treatment conducted in a single area.
Opportunity to fix erosion and gully problem.
Residents participate in storm water treatment and maintenance.
Meets RCWD volume control requirement.
Disadvantages: Possible groundwater issue.
Significant tree loss or loss of tennis court
Option#2• Johanna Marsh Constructed Wetland Improvement
- Street storm sewer system and inlet capacity increased.
- Constructed wetland allowed in Johanna Marsh area.
- Resident buy-in to residential boulevard basins.
Estimated Cost: $350,000 to $430,000 (depending on pavement rehabilitation)
Advantages: Most treatment conducted in a single area.
Opportunity to fix erosion and gully problem.
Residents participate in storm water treatment and maintenance.
Disadvantages: Option may be discouraged — has to prove that the function and value of
the wetland is not compromised after the project has been conducted.
Alternative compliance sequencing needed in order to proceed.
Flood plain may limit viability
Option#3' No Improvement to Johanna Marsh
- Street storm sewer system and inlet capacity increased.
- No treatment basin constructed in Johanna Marsh.
- All treatment accomplished in filtration trenches in boulevards.
- Residents have optional plantings of basins.
Estimated Cost: $380,000 to $430,000 (depending on pavement rehabilitation)
11
Advantages: No need for work in Johanna Marsh.
Meets RCWD Requirement.
Disadvantages: Increased maintenance of underground systems.
Needs significant resident buy-in.
Most extensive pipe network.
REQUIRED PERMITS
The anticipated permits required for the proposed project are as follows:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) ...............................NPDES Erosion& Stormwater
Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT) .....................................Right-of-way Permit
Minnesota Department of Health(MDH)...........................................................Watermain System
Rice Creek Watershed District(RCWD) .......................................................................Stormwater
During final design for the project, City staff will coordinate with each of the agencies to ensure
all requirements are met.
ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROPOSED FUNDING
Proposed project costs for the 2013 PMP Improvement Project (including bituminous streets,
storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain, and restoration) are itemized in the tables located in the
Appendix C and D and are summarized on the next page. The cost estimate is based on recent
construction projects of similar character and assumes that the proposed improvements would
begin in 2013. Actual costs will be determined through competitive bids following final design
for the project. Therefore the actual costs will be dependent upon the market conditions that exist
at the time of the bidding.
The City's Assessment Policy states that estimated project costs should include 37% for
overhead costs and contingencies. Non-assessable portions of the project include a 10%
contingency and 20% for overhead costs. Overhead costs include legal, engineering,
administrative, and fiscal costs. The project costs are summarized as follows:
12
Alternative 1 —Reconstruction
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Street Improvements
Construction Cost $ 626,384
Contingency&Overhead (37%) $ 231,763
Total Estimated Cost $ 858,147
Watermain Improvements
Construction Cost $ 274,774
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 82,433
Total Estimated Cost $ 357,207
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Construction Cost $ 47,750
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 14,325
Total Estimated Cost $ 62,075
Storm Drainage Improvements-Biofiltration
Construction Cost $ 302,889
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 90,867
Total Estimated Cost $ 393,756
Total Street Improvements Cost $ 858,147
Total Utility Improvements Cost $ 813,038
Total Project Cost $ 1,671,185
Alternative 2 - Reclamation
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Street Improvements
Construction Cost $ 311,528
Contingency&Overhead (37%) $ 115,266
Total Estimated Cost $ 426,794
Watermain Improvements
Construction Cost $ 274,774
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 82,433
Total Estimated Cost $ 357,207
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Construction Cost $ 47,750
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 14,325
Total Estimated Cost $ 62,075
Storm Drainage Improvements-Biofiltration
Construction Cost $ 245,847
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 73,754
Total Estimated Cost $ 319,602
Total Street Improvements Cost $ 426,794
Total Utility Improvements Cost $ 738,884
Total Project Cost $ 1,165,678
13
The proposed project is eligible for assessments according to the City of Arden Hills Assessment
Policy. Per City policy, a portion of the street improvements will be assessed to the benefitting
properties. Along with assessments, street costs will be financed through the PIR fund and the
General Fund. Utility improvements will be funded from the appropriate Enterprise Fund, and
are not assessable.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS
Assessments will be levied to the benefitting properties as outlined in Minnesota State Statute
Chapter 429 and the City's Assessment Policy. The City's policy is to assess 50% of the overall
street improvements costs including contingencies and overhead to the benefitting properties.
The assessed amount is levied on a unit basis. The policy also includes a provision that states that
the City Council may deviate from any portion of the Assessment policy as deemed appropriate.
The City Council can choose to base the assessment on actual contract prices or on the estimated
prices in this report. Estimated construction costs are estimates only, all of the factors that affect
construction prices cannot be predicted. If the assessments are based on estimated construction
costs, there is a possibility of over-assessing residents if the bid prices come in lower than
anticipated. If bids come in higher than anticipated, the City will end up paying for a larger
portion of the project than estimated. Therefore, it is recommended that the assessment rates be
set based on actual competitive bid prices with reasonable contingencies. The current proposed
project schedule will allow for the assessment hearing to take place prior to construction if bid
prices are used.
There are two different types of properties that abut the proposed improvements; single-family
properties (R-I zoning), and tax-exempt (City-owned) properties. There are no commercial
properties that abut the proposed improvements. Northwestern College abuts the project,
however, does not have any access to the project area. The following discusses the proposed
number of assessable units for each type of property followed by the preliminary assessments.
Single-Family Residential Properties
The policy states that "all residentially zoned properties with frontage abutting a street that is
overlaid with bituminous shall be assessed on a per unit basis at the residential equivalent
assessment rate." A lot unit is defined in the Assessment Policy as a platted single-family
residential lot or equivalent, which cannot be further subdivided for R-1 and R-2 residential use
according to the current City Code. Corner lots are assessed on the street used for the mailing
address; this has been factored into the preliminary assessment roll.
All of the properties that have a mailing address on Asbury Avenue, Edgewater Avenue, Glenhill
Road and Ridgewood Road are single-family residential properties and will be considered as a
Residential Equivalent Unit (REU). There are no larger properties within these neighborhoods
that can be further subdivided to meet the City's Code.
This project is unique in that the City border between Arden Hills and Roseville runs mid-block
through Asbury Avenue and Ridgewood Road. There are five parcels divided by the City limits,
each of which have two separate tax Parcel Identification numbers (PIDs), one in Arden Hills,
14
the other in Roseville. Property taxes for these parcels are paid to the respective City in which
that portion of the lot is located. These taxes are based on the size of the lot.
In 2008, the City of Roseville reconstructed its portion of the streets. The following table shows
each of the split properties, whether they were assessed for the Roseville project, and what the
proposed assessment is for the 2013 project.
Property Address Front footage in Front footage in Assessed for
Arden Hills Roseville Roseville 2008
proj ect
3120 Asbury Avenue 65.5 34.5 $682
3111 Ridgewood Road 0 127.50 $2900
3121 Ridgewood Road 70.38 29.62 $673
3120 Ridgewood Road 100 0 $0
3130 Ridgewood Road 100 0 $0
It is proposed that 3111 Ridgewood Road not be assessed for this project. The parcel's frontage
falls entirely within Roseville, and was assessed the full amount of the Roseville project. It is
proposed that parcels 3120 and 3130 Ridgewood Road are assessed as full REUs for this project,
as the entire frontage for these parcels falls within Arden Hills. These parcels were not assessed
in 2008.
The frontage for parcels 3120 Asbury Avenue and 3121 Ridgewood Road are divided. It is
proposed that these parcels be assessed as full REUs minus the amount paid in the previous
Roseville project in 2008. The Arden Hills Assessment Policy does not specifically address this
situation so the City Council has latitude to accept this approach or select another method to
establish the amount to assess these border properties.
3207 Ridgewood is a parcel currently owned by the Arden Hills No. 3 Association. The parcel is
approximately 75 feet wide, and there is a 30 foot wide sanitary sewer easement over the entire
length of the property. It is recommended to include this parcel as one REU in the assessment
roll.
The table below itemizes the number of single-family REUs for each corresponding street being
improved. Refer to the Appendix B for the Assessment Figures and the Preliminary Assessment
Roll.
Street REUs
Asbury Avenue 6
Edgwater Avenue 18
Glenhill Road 16
Ridgewood Road 8
Total 48
Tax-exempt Properties
The assessment policy states that tax-exempt properties are to be assessed based on 100% of the
bituminous overlay, plus associated overhead costs. The tax-exempt equivalent assessment rate
15
shall be set by the City Council. For the purposes of determining this rate, staff has converted
Tax-exempt Equivalent Units (TEU)to Residential Equivalent Units (REU) as described below.
Johanna Marsh is a City-owned parcel that has front footage on Ridgewood Road, City staff is
proposing that this parcel be considered for zero (0) REUs, since this parcel is predominantly
wetland and is unbuildable.
Preliminary Assessment Rate
Based on 48 REU, and the estimated street improvement costs, the estimated assessment rate per
REU is $8,939.03 for Alternative 1, Reconstruction and $4,445.77 for Alternative 2
Reclamation.
Funding Sources
Based on the cost estimates discussed above and the projected residential assessment for the two
alternatives the project funding would be as shown in the following tables:
Alternative 1 —Reconstruction
Funding Source Cost
Residential Assessments $ 427,719
PIR Fund $ 430,429
Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund $ 62,075
Watermain Enterprise Fund $ 357,207
Surface Water Management
Fund $ 393,756
Total Funding $1,671,186
Alternative 2 - Reclamation
Funding Source Cost
Residential Assessments $ 212,042
PIR Fund $ 214,752
Sanitary Sewer Enterprise
Fund $ 62,075
Watermain Enterprise Fund $ 357,207
Surface Water Management
Fund $ 319,602
Total Funding $1,165,678
16
PROJECT SCHEDULE
If the City Council approves the project through construction, the following schedule can be
anticipated:
City Council Receives Feasibility Report
and Orders the Public Improvement Hearing ...................................................November 12, 2012
Conduct Public Improvement Hearing
and Order Plans and Specifications .......................................................................January 14, 2013
City Council Approves the Plans and
Specifications and Orders Ad for Bids ..........................................................................March 2013
AnticipatedBid Opening.................................................................................................April 2013
City Council Accepts Bids and Orders
the Assessment Hearin ................April 2013
Conduct Assessment Hearing and Award
the Construction Contract.................................................................................................May 2013
BeginConstruction...........................................................................................................June 2013
Complete Construction................................................................................................October 2013
FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION
This project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint and it is
recommended that the project be constructed as proposed in this Report.
17
Appendix A: Figures
r
f.
a..
c*>
�Tv
fi
.i
{
4
lip
t
v
«
?t
2013 Pavement Managment Project N
Legend W E
2013 PMP Neighborhood Feet
0 90 180 360 540 720 S
3265
3263
Lake Johanna �
3261
\ 3213
321�
0
r. rn
LO �O r� rn N 1505 LO►n ca c+)
LO LO to
r r
Johanna Marsh
Z EDGEWATER AVE
w 00
00 Nt
q M u, to ko �° M N N 3168
LO LO to LO
U CIO o
i ,Q
N Cn � M N r r
LO LO D
NLO •' r r O
r ^ `°
V i 1485
NFI ILL RQ
t GLE �, f
1566 1546 M 3137
h �
LO
3135 3125 �ti 3136
3130 ¢�� 1488
3121
3125 3120 ��>> 312 3130 _ city,_f Arde Hills
Clty of Rosevil
2013 PMP
Preliminary Assessments Proposed Street Reconstruction a
p„ �I Proposed Parcels to be Assessed "
IiMRo.,. =�at Non-Assessable Parcels o 50 goo �5o zoo Feet
CRy of A—Hih Engiiw mg Depa nt maptloc..2013P MPA1S ,,ents mxtl
Novam0ar 1.2012 „�,,,,,�,q,w. „„a„„„,,,,,.,..,.,, map:2013PMPASSessmen Pdf
30 �
.c.,
O n
O
� Or� oa�
I ...� "!•A� may. V � � ^ O N
\ V
ti cl 14
;? ! + ? ~ �
`° Z
'ma ° �
c �
W
a
oeq
uj
f' p lF: , t
tf) J Q
ul
999t
°l to
cn
01 Ic
99 Cf)
x
W
f � �
3 � o
O N
� a � tio�N
r O i
i ii v
L rr w
y ea Nw W
*w.
Tj
Cb
Q9t
t")
1 t91c
to
g6c lcs W
H
o Esc X!gk
1
W W
Q
w ~ tn t t?t� l ° � 1 ' l ('14'
a
02LU
us cn n. W � '
� m m r
� � cc
d U, In Z
to
NIP
W
0 z en
O
O
Appendix B: Preliminary Assessment Roll
M T m M T M M T T m m T T M M m m T M M m m T T M m m m M T T M M M m m m T T T T T M O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m
c of of of of ai of ai m ai of m Oi of of °i of ai of of °i ai of of of of of of m m ai of a; ai of of ai of of of of of of of ari of n ai aA
y m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m T m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ry
m m m w w w w m m m at m m m w m m at w w Cl m m m m m m m m m m w w w m m m m m m at w w w w ry m n
°w » w w m w w w w w w w w m w w w m m m w w w w m m w w w w w as w w w w w w w w m w w w m m m a6 m w ri
n� e
o a
a`
--------------------------------------------------- N
� S O
o £ b
C W
a
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N JJRL'�
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m M m m m T m m m m m m m m m m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r" of m w ai of of of of ai of m of of of of of of ai of of of of ai ai of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of rri of of of of of of
cE m m m m T T m M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m T M T M m m m T m m T M m M M
E w m at m at at w w m w m m w w w m w m m w w w w m m m w w w at w w m m at w w w w m m m m w w w w w
m
m
a a"
N N N N N N N N N N N N N--------------------------------------
« m m m m m T m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
of m m of ai ai of of of m m of ai ai m ai of of of of 6 °i of I of m of m . of ai w ai ai of of of of of of ai ai m ai of of of of of of ai
T m m m T M T T M m m m m m m m m m T T Imm T M T m m m m m m m m M m m m m m m m m
d w m m m m m m w w w w m m m m m m w w w m m m m
at w w w m mmm m m w w w w m m w m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
7
Ai a
C .-i .-i .i - O .-i - - - .a �
H E
N H N N H N N N N N N H N N N N H N N N
n T n m O N N 0 O O O N O m n O N No O N O m m N r N ry w O m N m O N N N ry � n N o r o
N N T T T T o m m m T m T - N T O O N m M M 2 T m m M N m
ww w �° w w $ wewww wwo - www �° w w $ mw w �° w �° wwwm $ m �° �° wwwww
o m m m m m m m m m m rn m m m m m m m m m rn m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n m m m m m m m m m m
ill N Val r~fl ~ �l�l m w
m N w M N M N N N T N M m M w N m Y1 N M m N ill N N T w N m w M M i/1 N N N M M m Vl T N N
m N Z Z Z Z z Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z z Z
MIA 2 2 2 M�m
w w w C C c c c C C C v w w w w w w a r d a r v w w a r a r v a r w w w w w w v v v v v v f v a v v v v -Q � v v E v -c v v -c v -Q v -Q v v v Q a` a` ¢` a ¢ a a a` a a a a Q a a a a a a a a a a` ¢ a a` a a Q a a a`
o �
¢ Q ¢
`m o o °o gar`, 3 }`y = a v a v v a c a `a o z v ar v
Q Q - a 0: - S T O: •' O O O O L ry K O « a Q « « �' O° O: O pO O: K t 00 '�' « �' [[ 2 O � " a o
3 r t 3 3 3 3 r 3 u air w 3 m 3 w 1O 3 z v 3 Z c 3 3 Z 3 r w m r t °
H w s y a w w w w °w m w w v a a W.lr w w w w uci w m a s w a
ry v rn ul o w w $ w a rn m ry o m w w m m o . . m m m o I v I 1 o w m m w ul w m O N o
N m m N N w T O < N h O w Vl M M N N N O N V N N ao N ry N T T w w N N m e a s m
m m .+ 0 .wi .m-i a .r°. m m .m-i .i°-� m m .�+ m m M m .a r .�i ii .m-1 m .1°+ m .i°. .l"-i m m
v
d > „
„ 0 0 N C O N H H O C F >'« „ D N
° d
c > m C t = H q p N C d N L 2
0 C an d C V Q
O a c v - a o r E }° E w ¢ ° C o x
un x LL .^ > c y ri U a m' x 2 J LL x r N o w
c
o
m c o c c E 'm a w `m > a o c .� a
�u o ° z f 10 $ z m > m i w o
Z
O
o c
o IN
Z w ,c. „ w - c N N ° $ o „ l j N >' m c E t v m m
E N u c `m c s o Y m s E ._ $ c -° o
e v a ar > m `m o e d �e e H E ° -
> at Q C ar H a C W ar C m u Y C J x0 O N Y Q Z —
,. N i c t u N o: o v d v O z u d v a, w o: a E g w a
H z d � ¢ N X03 ¢ ¢ aajY � aJN Etozrilf Nu` m � maxaf aJ ° � ¢ uu >z a = = o Q ;� � u
xz
Q 3 o mr Z.« u ? Of y a mr -Oar !° '°-° c � Zo � � ; YLL yrL c -° a +� > s ° m o ma a, 3v s
z a x > LL w o w f w z° �., o g o 0 0° o° z o E o o cw
m` a m o
O J
Q v u > a, d d v > > a m ar u a a
d „ Q < Q ¢ ¢ ¢ Q Q Q ¢ ¢ Q y Q Q a v a v v Q Q Q v v Q a
¢ o°c ¢ z
0 0 0 « « « v « « > a v v a -° v v .O a v v a
Z O v Q> QCQO: � o: oc o ¢ 0 0 0 z o ;; aQ w ¢> ooz o oacoc o o « � °oa oo � « a' o
d d d a 3 - 3 3 z 3 3 Z c 3 3 Z' 3 = y y - y y 3 3 3 c d r w r 3 it d
c c w c c v w w .2 w c m
y a Q t27 W y ty 7 �pp m w m am z'pp w ' aae o?c ° a m ar m 9 a :2 �w o2: � 2 [: v�p W w W w (7 z 00 cw 7 'v s w a' a
z l7 tD ¢ zz w m
c7 w Q a
Q. W
� Z
} 2 O r n m a w o M ry N m m tO °m .w+ mi N ry n ry N
W F a w aa T O N N N T m N O O N Q O O M O O v m V O O O O O O M N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . °m m m o 0 o O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o o m o o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m °
d m
H J M ¢ u m ry N ry n ry ry ry N n rmmi m m `lr m m m m m ry ry N ry m m m m m �m m N ry n m ry ry ry m m m m m m �l ry ry N n ry n ry
M Q N pp N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O W +� o 0 10+1 T o o °m °m 0 o T o o l0al o R01 0 0 0 0 0 tOYI o 0 0 0 o f011 T t011 °m °m T M °m °m o Rol R01 0 0 0 o T r0.1 0 o T o 0 0
N A m °m
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n o
ra « n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n o
Y1 u1 N N N N N Y1 N Yf N ' N N Y1 VI tl1 N N N N N N Y1 VI v1 Y1 N ' N N Y1 ' VI N IV Yp1 Y1 N N N N of V1 J1 N N N Yl T Yf 1V
e e d d d d d 9 E d d d d e e pp pp d d p p p d d d d d e e d d d d d V O d e d d pp d d e e d r d v 40
v e e v d e e e v o e e e e a d v o e e e e v a e v v v e v e v tri e e v e v v e o e e e v e n±o ri
o
a`
N N M N N N N N N N N N M iA N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N h to N V1 N N N N 1A N N N N N h N N N N N N N N
a O
n
b
N Q
u?u?N h N V1 N N N N N N N N M N N N 1A N N N N N H N V1 N h N N N—u—IN
N N N N N N N N N N]jjJJJ'h M
n n n n n n n rn n n n n n n n n n n n n n rn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n rn n n n n
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
2'a vi vi vi tri ui tri ui ui vi vi vi vi vi tri vi tri vi vi vi vi tri tri tri ui vi tri vi vi ui vi tri vi vi vi vi tri vi vi vi vi vi ui ui
d e d d d d d e e d pp pp d d d aa pp d e d d d d d d d e e d d aa d e d d pp d e e d a "z
e E e d d d d d e d d d d O C d d d O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d O d d d d d e d d d
E N e v o d v v e e e v v e v e e e e e e e a v e e v v e a a a e v v e v e o c e e e v e e e e e e
o a
a a
---------------------------------------------------
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n rn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
n n n n n n rn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
¢ of N N N N Y1 N N N N N Y1 N N N N Y1 V1 Yf N N N N of Vf N N N N N Y1 Y1 N N N of tl1 N N N N N N N N N N
« d e d pp e e d d d a pp pp e d d d d aa aa pp d e a d aa pp e d pp aa d e a d aa a d d s aa a e d d d
E aTe e v a v v e e e a e 6 e e e a v e v e v e v v o v e e e a e c e v a v o v e v e 6 e e e e v o v e
G N N N -----------------------------------------------
7
Cc C m
2. .a N N .-� .y N N .-t O .y .i N .-t .y O N .y r N .y
Z, E
OO G R pOp C O N T t!1 O O p p N C O N p �p T N T O N N m T (YYff N N
Nm m m m m m m m m to m m m m m m m m N to m m T m N m m m m m m m m m n m m m m m m m m m m m
N N N N N N N N H N N ry N N N N N ti N Q N ry ry .N-t N N N N H N N N N N N N N N N H ry H N N N
%i A N .y N
6 N N N N N N N N N rl rl •i N N N H N N N N N
tNn
� � N tNll N N N ill N N N N N N N N VNl N N N N N N � N N N N N N N N ill N N N ill N N N N N N
A N z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z N z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
oQU+ f f f f f f f f f f f f f f 2 2 2 f m 2 2 2 2 f z 2 f f f 2 2 2 2 2 f 2 2 2 f f 2 2 2 f 2 2 2
u y E S 2 x S S E S S x S S E x S S S S E x S a S S S E S = S S 2 2 S S S S S S S S S 2 m S S 2 2 S x S
y m C C C c c c c c c a C C d C c '> c c c c c C c c c c a C c N
u w ' a N "E a m m a v v m a a 2 u m m a s
3
-E -2 i � av 'E va -2 T vvvvvEv Evv ._ -Q T!T72 ovvvv -Q -Qvva -Q -Qvavvvvv -° vv o
a` a` a a a a` a a a a a a a a a 'v a` a a a a a a` a a a ¢ a a a a ¢ a a a a a a a a a ¢ a` a s
o >
°1 a
>a> m y p pt0 pp s iN a m D _T N $m 6 a t0N m V iy a W O a a W a az s ln>m ll e'a am a Na v~ W a z v N a v tN z r m im ll Y in z v z 100 w.1a'm Dd w a O>a a Z
w o 0 0 o o o ¢ 0 o « ° �m«
a¢N>Z
-t�t0o z 0 0 O0 0L 0 0 0 O 0
° v 3 r 3
3 0 -6 1 44 nn O O n o f N N p N b o v l'l
a
y N
«
r d « N
c c « a o N
E a U Y N C L LL
Z LL > T U N r L a s N ¢
a Z a N t m o c
_
o ro >° f W o
a N N c u
« 00
K E v y -_ °m C O 0 o c u° > °1 E t � v m
a E x a ,o„ v d > m �`a, ,tea. N N E o o v o a r �_ E ii
y
W a > a o E a « ,an ` °' vl a c v a c L w u ,a, ` u = ° x do. N Y ¢ Z v E w d
a' z ., _ v L J N ¢ o a a - o o L u a s c x = 0 a
Z = a u o 3 a a W a o o N N Y o x" � W � �7 n � u v x ° � '¢ � ° o a u a >� a -O = o a � u
J2 e
Z c o f !? a ,u. t v u `a E m t u m a m N Z' E t E r - w°. c c o °' W 2 > u o c c m v 3 3 -o c c a
Q w 'z li m` u s ti H x > li w o w H d J w zo w ° f ° no z° s o
J
> a a a > >
a a a a a a a a' a s
°o a; « a; S a o « > > 0 0 0 ,a`; o o ar > o
s tr z z ac s ,. ¢ a . z
Z 3 3 1.: 3.: = = 3 ¢ m a 3 = 3 3 z = 3 3 = 3 r 3 = a 3
W D: 3 a a 3 3 3 q Z'
a e a a a �m c m m d m
W ~ q a w wO a W m W m a m m a v v m m y y m a
'z s w w l7 w w l7 z w ¢ ul w °W ¢ z l7 a ¢ l7 l7 z s °w w w (7 'z 17
Z N 6 N Q N � ill ill tt011 N YTl toll N � tNll ill N 1O Ynl 011 N N V01 N ill N kill � O ill Yel N N O N trill m N l~!1 ti011 trvll trvil N Yel ~ tall udj m
0 W
Z a a In Z
�
W W >
W F a � maa T O N N N m toil lNV N O N trvn N T O T N %� N pp tNn N N O N N O m � tmn Q O � a '� In O O � N O O O V O loll N p d YOl
0 0 0 pp O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O pp
J 9 M T T O O O M ton T O O ton M T O O 110'1 M T O O O O m T T T O 0 0 0 m O 0 m 0 M T 0 0 M T T O O m m 0 0 0 0
m m m m m to m m m m ° m m m m m m T m T m
m . m m m n a m a n T a Q m m m to a a m n a m m N r ry ry ry N N T
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M ton T T toll M m tool T 10+1 T t0r1 m tort T M m mO toil T M T M T T 0 toil T T T l0n 0 M T t0r1 m m m M m m ton M M m o o ton m m m
N W a u mt�. tqi m m °m °m tyi tYl °mm °m tai t9im °m dm tl. A m m dT dm a� t�i tai °mmm °m ter t9i °mm °m ter t5i °mm °m tit t5i °m °m mtgi t9i dm mr�i tai
Appendix C: Engineer's Estimate of Cost
Alternative 1 - Reconstruction
2013 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY REPORT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF COST - Alternative 1 (Reconstruction)
City of Arden Hills, MN
No. Item Description Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost
Street Improvements
1 Mobilization (5% Maximum) LS 1.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000
2 Clearing &Grubbing LS 1.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000
3 lRemove Concrete Curb &Gutter(Incl. Sawcut) LF 40.00 $ 5.00 $ 200
4 Remove Bit Driveway Pavement (Incl. Sawcut) SY 1,001 $ 5.00 $ 5,005
5 Remove Conc Driveway Pavement (Incl. Sawcut) SY 568.00 $ 8.00 $ 4,544
6 Remove Bituminous Street Pavement SY 12,661.00 $ 3.00 $ 37,983
7 Common Excavation (P) CY 4,187.00 $ 14.00 $ 58,618
8 Subgrade Excavation CY 316.77 $ 10.00 $ 3,168
9 Select Granular Borrow (CV) CY 267.00 $ 15.00 $ 4,005
10 Aggregate Grading &Compaction STA 40.00 $ 200.00 $ 8,000
11 Aggregate Base Class 7 TON 5,526.00 $ 13.00 $ 71,838
12 Type SPNWB230B Non-Wearing Course Mix TON 1,371.00 $ 60.00 $ 82,260
13 Type SPWEB330B Wearing Course Mixture TON 1,371.00 $ 62.50 $ 85,688
14 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 568.00 $ 3.50 $ 1,988
15 Bituminous Control Joint (Saw &Seal) LF 2,608.00 $ 2.50 $ 6,520
16 Type SPWEA240B Wearing Course Mix (3" Driveway) SY 1,001.00 $ 30.00 $ 30,030
17 Rehabilitate Manhole (Interior) LF 16.00 $ 250.00 $ 4,000
18 lConcrete Curb&Gutter 5518 LF 7,726.00 $ 12.00 $ 92,712
19 6" Concrete Driveway Pavement SY 568.00 $ 45.00 $ 25,560
20 Traffic Control LS 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000
21 Silt Fence LF 1,100.00 $ 3.00 $ 3,300
22 Inlet Protection EA 6.00 $ 150.00 $ 900
23 Sod w/6"topsoil borrow SY 8,542.00 $ 7.50 $ 64,065
Street Improvements Subtotal $ 626,384
37% Contingency&Overhead $ 231,763
Street Improvements Total $ 858,147
2013 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY REPORT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF COST - Alternative 1 (Reconstruction)
City of Arden Hills, MN
No. Item Description Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost
Storm Drainage Improvements
1 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.25 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,500
2 REMOVE&DISPOSE OF STORM SEWER PIPE (ANY SIZE&TYPE) LF 320 $ 11.00 $ 3,520
3 REMOVE/ABANDON DRAINAGE STRUCTURE&SALV.CSTG. (CB, EACH 6 $ 400.00 $ 2,400
4 COMMON EXCAVATION (BMP INSTALLATION) CY 755 $ 15.00 $ 11,325
5 IAGGREGATE BACKFILL MATERIAL FOR INFILTRATION TRENCH(L CY 322 $ 29.00 $ 9,338
6 SOIL MEDIUM FOR LARGE INFILTRATION AREAS(LV) CY 153 $ 31.00 $ 4,743
7 SOIL MEDIUM FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILTRATION AREAS(LV) CY 30 $ 35.00 $ 1,050
8 AGGREGATE PIPE FOUNDATION CY 200 $ 44.00 $ 8,800
9 12-INCH RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 $ 450.00 $ 450
10 36-INCH RC ARCH EQUIV PIPE APRON EACH 1 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,200
11 6-INCH HDPE PERF DRAINTILE LF 580 $ 4.00 $ 2,320
12 12-INCH PERFORATED HDPE PIPE SEWER LF 970 $ 20.00 $ 19,400
13 12-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL V LF 794 $ 23.00 $ 18,262
14 15-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL V LF 647 $ 23.00 $ 14,881
15 18-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL V LF 366 $ 25.00 $ 9,150
16 18-INCH RC ARCH EQUIV PIPE SEWER CL V LF 46 $ 26.00 $ 1,196
17 24-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL V LF 196 $ 31.00 $ 6,076
18 24-INCH RC ARCH EQUIV PIPE SEWER CL V LF 461 $ 34.00 $ 15,674
19 27-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL IV LF 104 $ 47.00 $ 4,888
20 30-INCH RC ARCH EQUIV PIPE SEWER CL IV LF 258 $ 57.00 $ 14,706
21 36-INCH RC ARCH PIPE SEWER CL III LF 357 $ 78.00 $ 27,846
22 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 2 X3 CB EACH 14 $ 850.00 $ 11,900
23 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 27-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 1 $ 700.00 $ 700
24 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 48-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 19 $ 1,300.00 $ 24,700
25 ICONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 60-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 5 $ 2,200.00 $ 11,000
26 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 72-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 3 $ 2,500.00 $ 7,500
27 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 84-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000
28 FURNISH&INSTALL CASTING(STORM SEWER MH IN BIT.OR C& EACH 43 $ 650.00 $ 27,950
29 ADJUST CASTING(STORM SEWER MH IN BIT. OR C&G) EACH 41 $ 350.00 $ 14,350
30 RANDOM RIPRAP WITH FILTER,CLASS IV TON 25 $ 140.00 $ 3,500
31 PERENNIAL PLUG, 2-INCH CONTAINER EACH 1,500 $ 2.00 $ 3,000
32 NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESIDENTIAL BASIN PREPARATION ALLO LS 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000
33 INLET PROTECTION EACH 43 $ 95.00 $ 4,085
34 TURF ESTABLISHMENT, BWSR NATIVE SEED MIXTURE SY 2,276 $ 0.65 $ 1,479
Storm Drainage Improvements Subtotal $ 302,889
30%j Contingency&Overhead $ 90,900
Storm Drainage Improvements Total $ 393,789
2013 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY REPORT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF COST - Alternative 1 (Reconstruction)
City of Arden Hills, MN
No. Item Description Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost
Water System Improvements
1 Remove Watermain LF 1,700 $ 5.00 $ 8,500
2 Remove Gate Valve & Box EA 10 $ 500.00 $ 5,000
3 1 Salvage Hydrant &Valve EA 10 $ 750.00 $ 7,500
4 Pipe Bedding Material Cy 832 $ 17.00 $ 14,144
5 Temporary Water Supply System LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000
6 Connect to Existing Watermain EA 2 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000
7 Reconnect Water Service EA 19 $ 250.00 $ 4,750
8 1" Corporation Stop EA 19 $ 275.00 $ 5,225
9 1" Curb Stop and Box EA 19 $ 375.00 $ 7,125
10 6" Gate Valve & Box EA 10 $ 5,000.00 $ 50,000
11 8" Gate Valve & Box EA 10 $ 6,000.00 $ 60,000
12 6" Hydrant EA 10 $ 5,000.00 $ 50,000
13 6" PVC C900 Watermain LF 1,740 $ 22.00 $ 38,280
14 8" PVC C900 Watermain LF 20 $ 25.00 $ 500
15 1" Copper Tubing LF 510 $ 20.00 $ 10,200
16 Polystyrene Insulation (4"Thick, 4' Wide) Sy 80 $ 30.00 $ 2,400
17 Ductile Iron Fittings LB 950 $ 7.00 1 $ 6,650
Water System Improvements Subtotal $ 274,774
30% Contingency&Overhead $ 82,433
Water System Improvements Total $ 357,207
No. Item Description Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
1 Sanitary Sewer Force main LF 700 $ 50.00 $ 35,000
2 Casting Assembly (Sanitary)w/Chimney seal EA 17 $ 750.00 $ 12,750
Sanitary Sewer Improvements Subtotal $ 47,750
30% Contingency&Overhead $ 14,325
Sanitary Sewer Improvements Total $ 62,075
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL $ 1,251,797
OVERHEAD(37%STREETS,30% UTILITIES) $ 419,421
PROJECT TOTAL $ 1,671,218
Appendix D: Engineer's Estimate of Cost
Alternative 2 — Reclamation
2013 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY REPORT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF COST Alternative 2- (Reclamation)
City of Arden Hills,MN
No. Item Description Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost
Street Improvements
1 Mobilization LS 1.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000
2 Remove Concrete Curb&Gutter(Incl.Sawcut) LF 40.00 $ 5.00 $ 200
3 Remove Bit Driveway Pavement(Incl.Sawcut) Sy 534.00 $ 5.00 $ 2,670
4 Remove Conc Driveway Pavement(Incl.Sawcut) Sy 268.00 $ 8.00 $ 2,144
5 Reclaim Bituminous Pavement(P) Sy 12,661.00 $ 1.00 $ 12,661
6 Subgrade Excavation Cy 540.00 $ 10.00 $ 5,400
7 Select Granular Borrow(CV) Cy 540.00 $ 15.00 $ 8,100
8 Grading&Compaction STA 40.00 $ 200.00 $ 8,000
9 Aggregate Base Class 7(reclaimed excess) TON 540.00 $ 3.00 $ 1,620
10 Type SPNWB230B Non-Wearing Course Mix TON 1,371.00 $ 60.00 $ 82,260
11 Type SPWEB330B Wearing Course Mixture TON 1,044.00 $ 63.00 $ 65,772
12 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 568.00 $ 3.50 $ 1,988
13 Bituminous Control Joint(Saw&Seal) LF 2,608.00 $ 2.50 $ 6,520
14 Type SPWEA240B Wearing Course Mix(3" Driveway) Sy 534.00 $ 30.00 $ 16,020
15 Integral Bituminous Berm LF 2,045.00 $ 6.00 $ 12,270
16 6"Concrete Driveway Pavement Sy 268.00 $ 40.00 $ 10,720
17 Traffic Control LS 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000
18 Silt Fence LF 1,100.00 $ 3.00 $ 3,300
19 Inlet Protection EA 26.00 $ 150.00 $ 3,900
20 Sod w/6"topsoil borrow Sy 3,731.00 $ 7.50 $ 27,983
Street Improvements Subtotal $ 311,528
37% Contingency&Overhead $ 115,266
Street Improvements Total $ 426,794
2013 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY REPORT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF COST Alternative 2 - (Reclamation)
City of Arden Hills,MN
No. Item Description Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost
Storm Drainage Improvements
1 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.50 $ 10,000.00 $ 5,000
2 REMOVE&DISPOSE OF STORM SEWER PIPE(ANY SIZE&T LF 320.00 $ 11.00 $ 3,520
3 REMOVE/ABANDON DRAINAGE STRUCTURE&SALV.CSTG EACH 6.00 $ 400.00 $ 2,400
4 COMMON EXCAVATION(BMP INSTALLATION) CY 755.00 $ 15.00 $ 11,325
5 AGGREGATE BACKFILL MATERIAL FOR INFILTRATION TREN CY 322.00 $ 29.00 $ 9,338
6 SOIL MEDIUM FOR LARGE INFILTRATION AREAS(LV) CY 153.00 $ 31.00 $ 4,743
7 SOIL MEDIUM FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILTRATION AREAS(LV) CY 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 1,050
8 AGGREGATE PIPE FOUNDATION CY 150.00 $ 44.00 $ 6,600
9 12-INCH RC PIPE APRON EACH 1.00 $ 450.00 $ 450
10 36-INCH RC ARCH EQUIV PIPE APRON EACH 1.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,200
11 6-INCH HDPE PERF DRAINTILE LF 580.00 $ 4.00 $ 2,320
12 12-INCH PERFORATED HDPE PIPE SEWER LF 970.00 $ 20.00 $ 19,400
13 12-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL V LF 595.50 $ 23.00 $ 13,697
14 15-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL V LF 485.25 $ 23.00 $ 11,161
15 18-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL V LF 274.50 $ 25.00 $ 6,863
16 18-INCH RC ARCH EQUIV PIPE SEWER CL V LF 34.50 $ 26.00 $ 897
17 24-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL V LF 147.00 $ 31.00 $ 4,557
18 24-INCH RC ARCH EQUIV PIPE SEWER CL V LF 345.75 $ 34.00 $ 11,756
19 27-INCH RC PIPE SEWER CL IV LF 78.00 $ 47.00 $ 3,666
20 30-INCH RC ARCH EQUIV PIPE SEWER CL IV LF 193.50 $ 57.00 $ 11,030
21 36-INCH RC ARCH PIPE SEWER CL III LF 357.00 $ 78.00 $ 27,846
22 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT,DESIGN 2 X 3 CB EACH 10.50 $ 850.00 $ 8,925
23 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 27-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 1.00 $ 700.00 $ 700
24 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 48-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 14.25 $ 1,300.00 $ 18,525
25 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT, DESIGN 60-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 3.75 $ 2,200.00 $ 8,250
26 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT,DESIGN 72-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 2.25 $ 2,500.00 $ 5,625
27 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCT,DESIGN 84-INCH DIA MH/CB EACH 1.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000
28 FURNISH&INSTALL CASTING (STORM SEWER MH IN BIT. EACH 32.25 $ 650.00 $ 20,963
29 RANDOM RIPRAP WITH FILTER,CLASS IV TON 25.00 $ 140.00 $ 3,500
30 PERENNIAL PLUG,2-INCH CONTAINER EACH 1,500.00 $ 2.00 $ 3,000
31 NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESIDENTIAL BASIN PREPARATION LS 1.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000
32 INLET PROTECTION EACH 32.25 $ 95.00 $ 3,064
33 TURF ESTABLISHMENT, BWSR NATIVE SEED MIXTURE SY 2,276.00 $ 0.65 $ 1,479
Storm Drainage Improvements Subtotal $ 245,900
30% Contingency&Overhead $ 73,800
Storm Drainage Improvements Total $ 319,700
2013 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY REPORT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF COST Alternative 2 - (Reclamation)
City of Arden Hills,MN
No. Item Description Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost
Water System Improvements
1 Remove Watermain LF 1,700 $ 5.00 $ 8,500
2 Remove Gate Valve&Box EA 10 $ 500.00 $ 5,000
3 Remove Hydrant&Valve EA 10 $ 750.00 $ 7,500
4 Pipe Bedding Material Cy 832 $ 17.00 $ 14,144
5 Temporary Water Supply System LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000
6 Connect to Existing Watermain EA 2 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000
7 Reconnect Water Service EA 19 $ 250.00 $ 4,750
8 1"Corporation Stop EA 19 $ 275.00 $ 5,225
9 1"Curb Stop and Box EA 19 $ 375.00 $ 7,125
10 6"Gate Valve&Box EA 10 $ 5,000.00 $ 50,000
11 8"Gate Valve&Box EA 10 $ 6,000.00 $ 60,000
12 6"Hydrant EA 10 $ 5,000.00 $ 50,000
13 6"PVC C900 Watermain LF 1,740 $ 22.00 $ 38,280
14 8"PVC C900 Watermain LF 20 $ 25.00 $ 500
15 1"water service LF 510 $ 20.00 $ 10,200
16 Polystyrene Insulation (4"Thick,4'Wide) SY 80 $ 30.00 $ 2,400
17 Ductile Iron Fittings LB 950 $ 7.00 $ 6,650
Water System Improvements Subtotal $ 274,774
30% Contingency&Overhead $ 82,433
Water System Improvements Total $ 357,207
No. Item Description Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
1 6" HDPE Sanitary Sewer Force Main LF 700 $ 50.00 $ 35,000
2 Casting Assembly(Sanitary)w/Chimney seal EA 17 $ 750.00 $ 12,750
Sanitary Sewer Improvements Subtotal $ 47,750
30% Contingency&Overhead $ 14,325
Sanitary Sewer Improvements Total $ 62,075
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL $ 879,952
OVERHEAD(37%STREETS,30%UTILITIES) $ 285,824
PROJECT TOTAL $ 1,165,776
Appendix E: Geotechnical Report
BRAUN Braun Intertee Corporation Phone:651487.3245
1826 Buerkle Road Fax: 651.487.1812
INTERTEC
Saint Paul,AIN 55110 Web: braunintertec.com
September 28,2012 Project BL-12-05201
Mr.John Anderson, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Re: City of Arden Hills 2013 Pavement Management Plan
Arden Hills, Minnesota
Dear Mr.Anderson:
The purpose of this letter is to provide our geotechnical opinion of the subsurface conditions at the
provided boring locations as they relate to planned improvements. Borings were performed by Element
Materials Technology(formerly Stork Twin City Testing) in 2007 and 2012 as part of the proposed 2013
Pavement Management Plan for Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Project Background
Based on your email, it is our understanding that the City of Arden Hills is considering improvements to
approximately 0.7 miles of City streets in 2013 as part of their system-wide pavement management
plan. The improvements being considered include either pavement reclamation or total reconstruction.
Both improvements would include some watermain replacement and the addition of some new storm
sewer. If reconstruction is selected,the project would also include the addition of curb and gutter.
We understand that the planned improvements include portions of Asbury Avenue, Edgewater Avenue,
Glenhill Road and Ridgewood Road,as per the attached map. We also understand that the City of
Roseville improved portions of Asbury Avenue and Ridgewood Road in 2008, adjacent to the municipal
border.
We were contacted on August 28,2012 by the City's Assistant City Engineer, Mr.John Anderson,to
provide our geotechnical opinion related to the existing boring logs. The soil borings were performed in
2007 and 2012 by Element Materials Technology. Borings logs produced by Element Materials
Technology were provided to us by the City and are attached for reference. The boring logs for 2012
were noted by Element Materials Technology as draft logs.
Soil and Groundwater Findings
The borings were conducted at 6 locations in the area of interest and a summary of the findings is
presented in Table 1. As per the logs provided,the borings were extended to depths of five to six feet.
The boring numbers presented below correspond to those provided on the boring logs.
AA/EOE Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957
City of Arden Hills
Project BL-12-05201
September 28, 2012
Page 2
Table 1—Summary of Borings
Reported Reported Reported
Boring Bituminous Aggregate Base Subgrade(<5 ft)
Number Street/Location Thickness(in) Thickness(in) Material(s)
F A3 Asbury Avenue,south of 3.5 — Silty Sand over Sand with Silt
Glenhill Road
Ridgewood Road,south of Silty Sand over Sandy Lean
A4 Glenhill Road 3'0 Clay over Silty Sand
Asbury Avenue,south of Clayey Sand over Sandy Lean
B13 Edgewater Avenue 4.0 Clay
Edgewater Avenue,
B14 between Asbury Avenue 6.0 0 Clayey Sand over Sandy Lean
and Ridgewood Road Clay
Glenhill Road, between Silty Sand over Sand with Silt
B15 Asbury Avenue and 5.25 —
over Silty Sand
Ridgewood Road
B16 Ridgewood Road,north of 3.75 19.25 Silty Sand over Organic Clay
Glenhill Road over Sandy Lean Clay
Average 4.25
The geologic materials encountered were classified by Element Materials Technology and were not
reviewed by Braun Intertec. According to the logs,groundwater was not reported in any of the borings.
No laboratory testing was included on the logs or in the subsurface exploration information provided to
US.
Aggregate base was noted in only two of the borings; B14 on Edgewater Avenue noted 7 inches of
aggregate base and B16 on Ridgewood Road noted 19 1/4 inches of aggregate base.
Pavement Condition and Proposed Maintenance
In providing our geotechnical opinion for the proposed maintenance options,we reviewed historical
data from the City's ICON pavement management system. This included a review of past pavement
condition surveys,as well as historical project information. Results from the pavement condition
surveys included observation of various distresses, such as raveling, longitudinal and transverse
cracking, patching and alligator cracking.
Typical bituminous pavements last 20 to 25 years,depending on various factors such as thickness
design,environmental conditions,traffic loading, and drainage conditions. Pavement life is also
dependant on maintenance treatments applied throughout the life of the pavement.
BRAUN
I NT TC
City of Arden Hills
Project BL-12-05201
September 28, 2012
Page 3
A pavement life of 20 to 25 years will typically include at least one major repair, such as an overlay, in
addition to timely localized repairs(patching and crack sealing)and seal coating. According to the
historical data,Glenhill Road was sealcoated in 1998. While routine maintenance most likely occurred,
no other preventive maintenance was recorded in the pavement management system.
According to the available data,the last structural improvements in each of the segments ranged from
17 years to 32 years. Given the condition data and the age of the pavements, it is our opinion that the
segments are in need of a major structural improvement,such as reconstruction or pavement
reclamation.
Recommendations
The general nature of the materials encountered by the borings suggests that the subgrade soils are
reasonably well-suited for pavement support. It is our opinion that the pavements can generally be
designed assuming silty sand subgrade soils. A conservative R-value of 30 can be assumed for design
purposes. If areas of less-suitable soils are encountered,we recommend subgrade improvements;
particularly if those areas will be excavated for new water main installations.The recommended
corrections would include subcutting and replacing the less-suitable soils with compacted fill.
Alternatively, if it is desired to reduce earthwork corrections in those areas,the pavement layers could
be thickened to account for weaker subgrade soils.
Groundwater was not noted in any of the borings to depths of 5 to 6 feet and will not likely significantly
impact the design or construction of the pavements. Given the likely depth of watermain between 6
and 10 feet, it is possible that groundwater will be encountered. Dewatering may be required to
facilitate placement and compaction of watermain backfill at some locations.
Boring B16 encountered a layer of organic clay from 3 1/2 feet to 4 feet. We recommend that this be
removed and replaced with suitable MnDOT select granular borrow.
Reconstruction
For full reconstruction,we typically do not recommend construction of full-depth pavements
(pavements placed directly over subgrade soils without aggregate base),particularly when the subgrade
soils consist of clayey soils,as was noted in some of the boring logs. We believe that there would be
long-term benefits to placing an aggregate base layer beneath the bituminous surfacing.
Based on the MnDOT State Aid design chart and assuming an ADT between 400 and 1000,we
recommend a pavement section that includes 3 1/2 inches of bituminous pavement over 6 inches of
aggregate base material with the following considerations:
■ We recommend removing the existing bituminous pavement. Reclaiming the existing
bituminous pavement is an option, however,this may prove to be difficult without aggregate
base. Seethe following section for more information pertaining to reclamation.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
City of Arden Hills
Project BL-12-05201
September 28, 2012
Page 4
■ Following pavement removal, we recommend removing the remaining materials to a total depth
of approximately 10 inches below final grade and fine grading the site to accommodate the
recommended pavement section.
■ Some conditioning (wetting or drying)of the subgrade soils may be necessary to facilitate
compaction. We recommend compacting the subgrade to 100 percent of the standard Proctor
density.
■ Following compaction,we recommend proofrolling the subgrade with a loaded tandem-axle
dump truck under the direction of a geotechnical engineer. The proofroll will help reveal areas
that are soft or weak and require additional compaction and/or removal and replacement. For
areas showing excessive surface deflection,we recommend that the subgrade be subcut an
additional one foot and backfilled with MnDOT select granular borrow(MnDOT Specification
3149.2B2)and compacted to 100 percent of the standard Proctor density. A final proofroll
should follow the correction.
■ For the new pavement section, we recommend that 6 inches of aggregate base be installed on
the subgrade and that the aggregate base material meet the requirements for Class 5 Aggregate
Base per MnDOT Specification 3138. We recommend that the bituminous paving be done in
two lifts; 11/2 inches of non-wear course and 2 inches of wear course. Compaction of the
bituminous should follow MnDOT specifications 2360.
Pavement Reclamation
Pavement reclamation options include full-depth reclamation (FDR)or cold-in-place recycling(CIR). For
full-depth reclamation, a sufficient depth of both asphalt and aggregate base material are typically
needed. Based on the boring results, only two of the six boring locations noted the presence of
aggregate base material. In our opinion, additional borings or hand augers would be warranted to
determine the feasibility of FDR.
Remarks
Our evaluation,analyses and recommendations were based on the information provided to us by the
City and Element Materials Technology. Samples were not collected or reviewed by Braun Intertec.
This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written
approval,we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation,analyses
and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.
BRAUN
INTERTE :
City of Arden Hills
Project BL-12-05201
September 28,2012
Page 5
In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality.
No warranty,express or implied, is made.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Amy Grothaus at 651.261.7122 or Matt Oman
at 612.360.0752.
Sincerely,
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
Amy J.Gro hau
Senior Project Manager/Engineer
Professional Certification:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Matthe S.Oman, PE
Senior Engineer _
License Number: 43843 $
s
4�
Attachments: q�wiOF1M`�������``
2013 Pavement Management Project Ma�
Boring Location Sketch
Log of Boring Sheets (6)
BRAUN
INTERTE
LL
O
O
O
LO
m
in
SWMWW 2M79dWS
HN Fu
RAMON aooAtxm
Misr dvwm
da mml 3w
5NNASYLLm6 AdEN SNEUAVGA%EN
r-_ (X) 0 0 N
0 0 C)
C) 0 C) 0 0
N N N N N-cr C,
44 cn) 0
SYAES 01
SHELL a'ms
CW0004QVO&
000*-ft ik l
amav 10 FJVAV wry
NWUVW
FMEW AYE N
aOr7ffvmvwor3)W7 I.0 al tY'IS
ol
cn
AMD
c
iy &3n�
av�04370
.tSV LLI
,C,i
10
N,
.... .......
wN
At
44
-
Arden Hills Base M to ap
Roadway
Water
.U. Parks
W'7�
Project No. 3188891 LOG OF BOREHOLE NO. l �7L��`�Sheet t of 1
CLIENT ARCHrrECT/ENGINEER
City of Roseville
SITE PROJECT
Arden Hills&Roseville,Minnesota 2808 Arden Hills&Roseville Streets
SAMPLES TESTS
o Cr o CL
LL w j z ui F ADDITIONAL
v ❑ a O> z W DATAI
CL H J w w V— N p w REMARKS
m cu
w -j zz oa c3<
m
Surface Elev.: 0 ❑ z 0c z LL
FILL,mostly silty sand,brown,some gravel, UGE
moist,3.5"of bituminous and 1"of brown
sand at the surface
2.5 Fill
SAND with silt,fine grained,brown, moist 2 AUGEF
(SP-SM)
5,0
(Coarse Alluvium)End of Boring 5
e
0
z
z
z
0
0
J
'a
(9
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Stork Twin City Testing STARTED 9/28/07 FINISHED 9128/07
None 662 Cromwell Ave. DRILL Co. Stork TCT DRILL RIG 367
z St. Pau[, MN 55114
Telephone: 651-645-3601 DRILLER T.Aldrich ASST DRILLER HH
ED Fax: 651-659-7348 LOGGED BY APPROVED
LOG OF BOREHOLE NO. W LCb
Project No. 3188891 1 Sheet 1 of 1
CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
City of Roseville
SITE PROJECT
Arden Hills&Roseville,Minnesota 2008 Arden Hills&Roseville Streets
SAMPLES TESTS
O w
>z V) ADDITIONAL
U io O W � z W DATA/
Q m p REMARKS
< w o>a ? a o a o >-LL ��
Surface Elev.: a o m z W z ?? o O =ua.
FILL,mostly silty sand,brown,moist,3"of 1 UGE
bituminous and 1.5"of black sand at the
1.5 surface 2 kUGEF
2.5 Fill
SANDY LEAN CLAY,trace to a little gravel, 3 UGE
brown,moist(CL)
Till
5.0 SY SAND,fine grained, brown to light 5
n,moist(SM)
oarse Al luvium
End of Boring
i3
a
r
c�
a
0
a'
iS WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Stork Twin City Testing STARTED 9/28107, 9128/07
None 662 Cromwell Ave. DRILL CO. Stork TCT DRILL RIG 367
St. Paul, MN
51 645-3 DRILLER T.Aldrich ASST DRILLER HN
Telephone: 651-645-3601
Fax: 651-659-7348 LOGGED BY APPROVED
Project No. ESP008914P LOG OF BORING NO. 1313 Sheet 1 of 1
CLIENT ARCHITECTIENGINEER
City of Arden Hills
SITE PROJECT
Arden Hills,Minnesota 2012 Arden Hills Pavement Rehabilitation
Asbury Ave SAMPLES TESTS
0
0 a o
r w Z uj � °f ADDITIONAL
U C? U O W Z a DATA/
= O 2 w L) p v REMARKS
C�7 LU U mZa Z ca W a KA O �U p o.
Surface Elev.: z z g 0 n a s
FILL,4"of bituminous pavement ILL AS 1 kUGER 24
.3-----------------------
FILL,clayey sand with a little gravel,
brown,frozen to 2'then moist
11 2 SS 24'
3-5-----------------------
FILL,sandy lean clay with a trace of
gravel,brown,moist
1 13 3 SS 24
5
N
r
F�
C
6.0
g End of Boring
Z
ca
t�
0
'a
L7
v
S
w
y
0
a
0
LL WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS element STARTED 1117/12 FINISHED 1/17/12
S None ! nxderlcls technology
� , � DRILL CO. Element DRILL RIG 367
662 Cromwell Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55114 DRILLER Dunleavy ASST DRILLER JR
W Telephone: 651-645-3601
LOGGED BY KSZI APPROVED MAS
OL i
Project No. ESP008914P LOG OF BORING NO. B14 Sheet 1 of 1
CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
City of Arden Hills
SITE PROJECT
Arden Hills,Minnesota 2012 Arden Hills Pavement Rehabilitation
Egewater Ave SAMPLES TESTS
0
w
e
w N m ADDITIONAL
U r j n[ O W z �6 DATA!
a T `n¢ Wm w a a REMARKS 2E 2� a Surface Elev.: 0 o mzcc z — s
FILL,
6"of bituminous pavement FILL AS 1 AUGER 24
0-5--- -----
FILL,7"of sand&gravel aggregate
base,brown,frozen
1 1-----------------------
FILL, clayey sand with a little gravel,
brown,frozen
2-0-----------------------
FILL,sandy lean clay with a little 10 2 SS 24`
gravel,brown,moist
I 11 3 SS 24
5
N
a �
F
�? 6.0
End of Boring
Z
Z
a
a.
0
w
a
0.
K
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS element" STARTED 1/17/12 FINISHED 1117/12
materials technology
None 662 Cromwell Ave, DRILL Co. Element DRILL RIG 367
St. Paul, MN 55114 DRILLER Dunleavy ASST DRILLER JR
Telephone: 651-645-3601
LOGGED BY KSZ APPROVED MAS
Project No. ESP008914P LOG OF BORING NO. B15 Sheet 1 of 1
CLIENT ARCHITECTIENGINEER
City of Arden Hills
SITE PROJECT
Arden Hills,Minnesota 2012 Arden Hills Pavement Rehabilitation
Glenhill Rd SAMPLES TESTS
0
w
0
O
Z tL v� � ADDITIONAL
N w o> a z � DATA/
= o �x�- -a w v— D p a� REMARKS
OW W pJ�L]U' 7 a �� Q �U E
Surface Elev.: t� t� o m z o z -- 02 all a 8
FILL,5 1/4"of bituminous pavement FILL AS 1 kUGEF 24
0-4-------------------
FILL,silty sand with a little gravel,
brown,frozen
2.0 __
SAND with SILT and a little gravel,fine U RS 10 2 SS 24`
to medium grained,brown,moist,loose
(SP-SM)
4_0 _
SILTY SAND with a little gravel,fine to u 7 3 SS 24
medium grained, brown,molst,loose
(SM)
5
N
a I
B.0
Z
cZ7
0
a
n
a
e
w
N
4
7
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS STARTED 1/17/12 FINISHED 1/17/12
� element'"
None natedala technology
662 Cromwell Ave.
DRILL CO. Element DRILL RIG 367
k St. Paul, MN 55114 DRILLER Dunleavy ASST DRILLER JR
g Telephone: 651-645-3601
LOGGED BY KSZ APPROVED MAO
Project No. ESPOO8914P LOG OF BORING NO. B16 Sheet 1 of 1
CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
City of Arden Hills
SITE PROJECT
Arden Hills, Minnesota 2012 Arden Hills Pavement Rehabilitation
Ridge Wood Dr SAMPLES TESTS
0
w
0
O ADDITIONAL
U 6 � �j � O� a z v DATA/
O x in m w tom- p a� REMARKS
O off. p>❑ a �O ru p Ea
Surface Elev.: c� 0 o mz� z ?? 02 oa a?
FILL,3 3/4"of bituminous pavement at FILL AS 1 AUGER 12
0.4 the surface
FILL, 19 T/4"of sand&grave! —
aggregate base, brown,frozen
22 2 SS 24
2-0-----------------------
FILL,silty sand,gray to brown,moist
9 3 SS 24
3.5
ORGANIC CLAY,black,moist(OL) {_ r P oL
4.0
SANDY LEAN CLAY with a trace of GLACIAL
gravel,gray and brown mottled,moist,
firm(CL)
5.0 5
End of Boring
N
ti
F-
D
U
m
2
Z
a
0
J
a'
gw
a
w
wH
O
a
o:
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS element STARTED 1117/12 FINISHED 1/17/12
None materials technology DRILL co, Element DRILL RIG 367
662 Cromwell Ave.
` St. Paul, MN 55114 DRILLER Dunleavy ASS'TDRILLER JR
Telephone: 651-645-3601
LOGGED BY KSZ APPROVED MAS
Appendix F: Neighborhood Meeting Information
Minutes
2013 Pavement Management Program
Informational Meeting
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
A. Attendance
Twenty-five residents representing 16 properties signed the attendance log. The
attendance logs are available if the City Council would like to view them.
B. Presentation
John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer, went through the attached PowerPoint
presentation about the proposed 2013 PMP project.
C. Question/Answer
The presentation was followed by a question and answer session. The following is a
summary of the questions asked and the answers given:
Q: Will there be an opportunity to see the presentation in front of the City Council?
A: Yes, residents will receive a written notice of the Public Hearing at an upcoming
City Council meeting. After the presentation there will be an opportunity to give
testimony to the Council.
Q: How are the utility improvements mentioned funded?
A: The sanitary sewer, water, and storm drainage utility improvements are all
funded by the respective enterprise fund from users' fees.
Q: Will the Feasibility Report be made public?
A: Yes, after it is presented to the City Council on November 13, 2012, it is a public
document. Staff will put the document on the website or you can contact John or
Terry.
Q: Explain the difference between reconstruction versus reclaiming.
A: In a reconstruction project the existing blacktop surface would be removed as
well as approximately two to three feet of the material down to native soils before
the street section is built. With the addition of concrete curb and gutter the
elevation of the road would be lowered 4"-8" so the curb does not block water
drainage from lawns and driveways. In a reclamation project the exiting blacktop
surface is ground up along with 6"-10" of the gravel base to create a gravel
surface on which new pavement can be placed. Very little change of grade
and/or drainage patterns is possible. The ground up material is regraded, soft
spots can be excavated and filled with better material and then the area is
repaved. Both reconstruction and reclamation projects end up with the same
amount of new blacktop surfacing.
Q: In a reconstruction project is there a standard width for the new street?
A: The City has no standard width for new streets, generally the street would be
reconstructed to the same width for each block. In this proposed project the
existing streets are different widths so if they are reconstructed you would likely
see differing widths throughout the project. Generally, the City tries to keep a
minimum width of 24 feet.
Q: There is some erosion along the edge of the street/boulevard on
Asbury/Edgewater adjacent to Northwestern College property.
A: This will reviewed and a correction made in the design phase.
Q: Do overhead utilities get buried when these projects are undertaken?
A: Generally not, all utilities will be notified of this project as it moves forward so any
work they have to do on their facilities can be coordinated but burying of the
small utilities is not a requirement. If the City asked for that the utility companies
would ask the City to pay the cost which in turn would be passed on to the
property owners.
Q: There were several questions about the impact of reconstruction and reclamation
on retaining walls, mature trees and other landscaping near the edge of the
street.
A: Give John or Terry a call and we would be happy to come out and discuss these
types of issues. If a group of neighbors with the same concerns could get
together at a time that works for all of them that will generally work the best.
Q: Does Northwestern College also get an assessment for their frontage?
A: Our reading of the assessment policy would say no since Northwestern College
has no access directly on to the street. This is an issue that can be brought up
with the City Council at the Public Hearing.
Q: A question was asked about individual rain gardens.
A: It was explained that as drainage patterns were determined individual properties
would be given an opportunity to have a rain garden built on the boulevard of
their property. It was also explained that the City would look for the property
owner to sign an agreement stating they would maintain the rain garden after it is
built. It was also explained that RCWD rules would require a total area of water
treatment that will mean a treatment area will need to be constructed before
Johanna Marsh. There are only two areas that can be used; one of them
requires trees to be removed and the other area would require the tennis court to
be removed.
Q: A few questions were asked about access during construction.
A: It was explained that emergency vehicle access would be provided at all times
and access to driveways would be provided each night. There will be times that
construction activities will disrupt individual property access during the work day
but the homeowner will be given notice. Finally, if concrete curb and gutter is
included in the project there will be a few days after it is poured that it cannot be
driven over so access to the driveways will be restricted.
2013 Street Improvements Meeting Agenda
+ +m City's Pavement Management Program
■ Existing Utilities
■ Storm Water/Water Quality Improvements
Neighborhood Informational Meeting ■ Common Concerns
October 23, 2012 ■ Street Improvements:
. City Staff - Bituminous Reclaim
—Terry Maurer,Public Works Director - Full Reconstruction
—John Anderson,Assistant City Engineer ■ Schedule
■ Questions
Pavement Management Program
. City roadways rated based on their condition +
■ Information used to develop the Pavement
Management Program
■ Roadways identified for reconstruction/
bituminous reclamation
■ Problems include: aging or failing
infrastructure,poor drainage,deteriorated
pavement structure
_ Photos of streets
�,� exwiyno {°'.�.✓.-n,.,i ,t .w1J,^ 'f p
S,
y ' `
1
u
-.. '.s Rr ... .;....,+.'fie.., ...
3.cIf r i
Existing Utilities
.,. ± Watermain Break History
,r s,. ■ Sanitary Sewer backups / I&I problems
�� ���� ■ Sanitary Sewer Force main breaks
°� ■ Storm Sewer repairs
■ Private utilities (gas, electric, phone,
cable) will be notified
�����`� y Watermain Sanitary
t p• ���I System
Sewer
• Replace watermain on
Ridgewood North block •Sanitary Sewer Lining
and Edgewater Ave •Force main replacement
end
•Replace valves and
Hydrants
Storm Water / Water
I'
ualit Im rovements
Storm ■ Storm sewer collection system replaced
■ Water Quality Improvements
�,m : SeWBr —Raingardens
\r I. �'� —Biofiltration Basins
—Infiltration Trenches
—Cooperation with Rice Creek Watershed
•Storm Sewer Collection System M nholes, District
Inlet&Outlet
Catch Basin
Storm Pipe
•increase inlet capacity
Raingardens
-� ■ Raingardens are vegetated depressions that +_
infiltrate water from small storm events �"'���.� _� �#'_
■ Constructed where appropriate conditions `'�` ``'"
exist(3 constructed in 2008 with Roseville ` . ���
■ The watershed requires storm water �, � �
infiltration-encourages raingardens �� ��}�"
■ Raingardens are voluntary
■ Resident maintained through an agreement
with the City
■ If interested please contact us
Street section
Reconstruction
• 30—32 feet wide
■ 10— 12 inches removed
■ 6 inches of Gravel
■ Concrete curb and gutter
■ 2 inches of Bituminous base material
RCWO
reclutred
■ 1 '/2 inches of Bituminous wear material
beatment
r a 14.000 CF
Diain;age area
26 Acres
Street section Comparison -
Reclamation + With or Without Curb & Gutter
• 30—32 feet wide
■ 10— 12 inches reclaimed (pulverized )
■ 2-4 inches removed / regraded
■ Bituminous berm (if needed)
■ 2 inches of Bituminous base material
■ 1 1/2 inches of Bituminous wear material
Comparison - Project Funding
With or Without Curb & Gutter
± Currently developing estimates
■ Capital Improvement Funds
—Street improvements
■ Assessments
—for roadway improvements
■ City Utility Funds
—Storm sewer,sanitary sewer&watermain
Assessment Policy Assessment
• Per unit basis Payment Options:
■ Platted single family residential lot which cannot be
further subdivided ■ Paid in full without interest within 30 days of
• Corner lots-assessed on the street of the mailing the assessment hearing
address
• Association lot treated as other residential lots ■ Certified and added to property taxes
• Assess 50%project cost —Payment period
—includes roadway construction,engineering and .street reconstruction io yrs
administration costs ■Bituminous Reclaim 5 yrs
• Coordinate assessment of partial lots on municiral —Interest rate set when assessment roll is
border with work previously assessed in Roseville
adopted
Assessment Deferral Previous Assessments
■ Homestead property
• Age 65 or older, or retired by virtue of Curb No Curb
a disability 2011 PMP $3,489
• Payment would be a hardship
2010 PMP $s,z68
• Assessment will accrue interest
• Application available at City Hall 2009 PMP $6,601
2008 PMP(proposed) $7,334
2006 PMP $9,831
Schedule/Public Process Schedule
• Neighborhood Meeting Oct 23,2012 ■ If the Arden Hills City Council approves the
• Feasibility Report to City Council Nov 13,2012 project:
• Public Hearing Dec 10,2012
• The Arden Hills City Council will take the next step —March 2013 Receive Bids
on this project after the public hearing. Possible —May 2013 Assessment Hearing
actions: —June 2013 Start Construction
— Approve project as presented,order final design —Oct.2013 Substantial Completion
— Approve project with modifications,order final design
— Deny project
Project Contact Info 2013 Street Improvements
If you have any questions or concerns,
please contact: ■Questions and Discussion
John Anderson P.E. Assistant City Engineer
John.AndersonCcbci.arden-hills.mn.us
(651)792-7846
Terry Maurer P.E. Public Works Director
Terry.Maurer ci.arden-hills.mn.us
(651) 792-7847
"It
EN HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-039
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE 2013 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the Council adopted August 13, 2012, a report has
been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the improvement of the following streets:
Asbury Avenue North from the municipal boundary to Glenhill Road;
Asbury Avenue North from Glenhill Road to Edgewater Avenue;
Ridgewood Road North from the municipal boundary to the cul-de-sac:
Glenhill Road from Asbury Avenue North to Snelling Avenue North;
Edgewater Avenue from Asbury Avenue North to Ridgewood Road
and this report was received by the Council on November 13, 2012, and
WHEREAS,the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is
necessary, cost effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in
connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as
recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for
affected parcels.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARDEN
HILLS MINNESOTA:
1. The council will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with the report and
the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of$1,671,186.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 14th day of January,
2013 in the council chambers of the city hall at 7:00 p.m. and the City Administrator shall give
mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS
13th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012.
David Grant,Mayor
ATTEST:
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator