The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7A Prepared By: Dept.: Council Mtg. Date: Final Action Needed By: I5ti_~!tl"l_~___gJga Engineering 1/14/08 1/14/08 Agenda 7.A. Request for Council Action Actual Amount Funding !:i?~qy:fY~:n,l~gttgbTg~qci:~~J'(_',,>__:-:<,,-<->,,<_<,;-:,cO::',:;",:" "Motion to "adopt Resoiu-iion 2IYoS:OOf're'ceh,fng""ih'e"fea'sibffiiy"re"jl'o'rt"fo-r-the--2ootfPMFQ:iroJecfancforderi'nii"ihe""P'Li'b"iTc'''H'ea'i+n'g"'io'r"'Fehr'llary"~1'1";'" ,2008. !,:~ta~f~~c9h;WD:~h:~~ljqDj:_:;_trT.t_EL:_;_:_:Lnuu:_L:_F:JF__'-': i.A:dopt' Res'oiu'tion 2b08~007 rEiceiving~ihe--ieiiisihiTiiyreport'ior"ihe"'2'008 PMP Project and order the Public Hearing for February 11, 2008. No.: 2008.007 No.: Recommendation: Feasibility Report Recommendation: x CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2008-007 A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE 2008 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the Council adopted January 29,2007, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the improvement of the following streets: Asbury Avenue, City limits to Glenhill Road Ridgewood Road, City limits to Glenhill Road and this report was received by the Council on January 14, 2008, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible, 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$154,807. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the II th day of February, 2008, in the council chambers of the city hall at 7:00 p.m. and the Deputy Clerk 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 14th DAY OF JANUARY, 2008. Stanley D. Harpstead, Mayor ATTEST: Noah A. Simon, Deputy Clerk ~ Feasibility Report Project AH-08-07 Asbury Avenue, City limits to Glenhill Road Ridgewood Road, City limits to Glenhill Road Prepared by: City of Rose vi lie Engineering Department Kristine Giga Civil 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. ~/l~ Registration No. 430 ,P.E. 2008 Pavement Management Program Project AH-08-07 Table of Contents Feasibility Letter ..................................................................................................................3 Project Location Map ..................... ........................ .... ....... ............................................... ....5 Aerial Photograph .... .............................................. .............. .... ...... ... .... ....... ......... ........ .......7 Introduction......................................................................................................................... .9 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. I 0 Existing Street Conditions ................................................................................................. I I Proposed Street Construction.............................................................................................1 I Existing Utility Conditions .............................. ................................. ............................ ..... I 2 Proposed Utility Improvements ....................... ........... ........................... ............. ............... I 3 Estimated Costs/Proposed Funding ...................................................................................14 Inter City Coordination Concerns ......................................................................................16 Project Options.... ........................ ............. .......... ............... ............... ............... .......... ......... I 7 Parcel Maps.................. .... ............................... ............ ...... ........... ..... ........ ... ... ...... ....... ......19 Proposed Unit Cost and Assessments ................................................................................21 Preliminary Assessment Roll .. .......... ......................... .......... ............. .... ............ .................23 Engineer's Estimated Quantities and Costs .......................................................................25 1 ~ ~~HILLS January 10, 2008 Mayor and City Council City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: 2008 Pavement Management Program Dear Mayor and City Council Members: At the City Council meeting of January 29,2007, the Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for improvements to the streets included in the 2008 portion of the overall Pavement Management Program. This study considers proposed improvements to the following streets: Asbury Avenue, City limits to Glenhill Road Ridgewood Road, City limits to Glenhill Road As a part ofthe study for this area, the various public utilities have been analyzed regarding their capacity and structural integrity. Necessary utility improvements have then been recommended where appropriate. During the process of studying the existing conditions within the project areas, neighborhood meetings were held and input was received from area residents, as well as City staff. In accordance with the City Council request, this study has been completed. It is my recommendation that the projects as proposed in this study are feasible. Sincerely, ~~ Kristine Giga, P. E. Civil Engineer City of Arden Hill, . 1245 We,t Highway 96 . Arden Hill" MN . 55112-5743 3 Phone 651.792.7800 . Fax 651.634.5137 . www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us " ~NOill" 'e <]z 1 ik : Iii. i l' .1 o Ii , l ~ p _0 <2!P' ! ! !'ill!il ~l'llll Ifir.,t; tJ'li~' ,,!Iilll Jllllilli II JU1- )tlPid ji!!!!n !11~ll'H 11 i~ ~l !hHIl'l .fi!~~l "'''I' !~6"~ 1"'/" ft!~ I 1.1'I!J., 1l'IIJ, "1' ", 1l,.ilIili lluUUl urolV7lW1 . i i o . ! ! . ! "l CD II !! ~ o'l II I H fl<. H t~ n i~ . - ~ J H i~ c OJ . 0 . jj . . , . ;;: << c .1l 0 "'0 ~ g '" . C1S ~ 1! 0 Iii !:. c:: OJ ] . "'0 ~ 8- e a. a. ~~ID NA13"" ~ Q) ! C) =) 1 "'0 i ~ I c:: N~""Nri~~ N3,,"aH"''''''r.> - .!!! - :::: Q) , J:: ~ , ,,~ c: ~l. .g a.. - Iii .. :iE en <r; ... ~ 0 a.. ~~. >,. ~~ <3 co :::l 0& .c f 0 " 0 tfj ~""'4"''''' N <C 2008 PMP Asbury Street/Ridgewood Road ~ -'.'''" ,^~HILLS '~::::;:'.~;;:-. ..."..,,,,,,,,,,.,,~-,,,,,..., ,~".,,,,,~,,~_.",,.~,<,.. -,""."~ ".,.~.~.. ,,~~.....,~".,," """, O"~....."..,""....'"'""" =,..,,~,,"-,~,~", n__.~ ........__.01 . . . . '.' !!. , 2008 Pavement Management Program Project AH-08-07 INTRODUCTION This report consists of a detailed investigation of the following streets proposed for improvements: Asbury Avenue, City limits to Glenhill Road Ridgewood Road, City limits to Glenhill Road The project was initiated by the City Council following a request from the City of Roseville. The segments of Asbury and Ridgewood in the City of Roseville are significantly deteriorated and are in need of reconstruction. In the interest of reducing inconvenience for all residents in this neighborhood, the City of Roseville has requested that the limits of this reconstruction project be extended into Arden Hills from the City limits to Glenhill Road. The Arden Hills City Council ordered the preparation of the Feasibility Report for this proposed project on January 29, 2007. These streets are included in the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP), and are currently listed in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for reconstruction in 2015. Street condition ratings are divided into three categories: "adequate" (66-1 00), "marginal" (3 I to 65) and "problem" (O to 30). The 2005 street ratings, compiled by GoodPointe Technology, are listed in the table below. Using GoodPointe Technology's pavement management software, ratings can be projected based on the observed street condition and anticipated deterioration of the road. These estimated 2008 PCI values have also been listed. , 2005 Est. 2008 Street Rating Rating Category Asbury Avenue, City limits to Glenhill Road 74 63 Adequate/ Marginal Ridgewood Road, City limits to Glenhill Road 47 31 Marginal The proposed project involves removing the existing bituminous pavement, installing concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, water main and sanitary sewer improvements, as needed. As has been discussed during development of the CIP, the City Council has expressed the desire to complete projects using a neighborhood approach, when feasible. The neighborhood approach minimizes the inconveniences residents experience due to construction. It is expected that if these improvements are approved, the work will be completed during the 2008 construction season. As outlined by state law, projects initiated by council/staff require a 4/5 vote by the City Council for approval. 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA nONS CONCLUSIONS: I. All portions of the project as proposed are feasible. 2. Project costs: Roadway costs...........................................................................$ 134,519.25 Utility improvements .......... ............................................ ..........$ 20,287.50 Total Construction Cost ............................................................$ 154,806.75 3. This project would be undertaken as part of the 2008 Pavement Management Program and would be combined under one contract with the City of Roseville's Street Improvement Project. By combining these projects together and bidding them as one contract, we anticipate competitive bids from contractors. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Participate with Roseville and reconstruct streets in 2008. 2. Construct a 28-foot wide bituminous street with concrete S518 curb and gutter. 3. Construct storm sewer as required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. 4. Schedule a public hearing for February 11,2008. 10 2008 Pavement Management Program Project AH-08-07 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-I. There is limited access to this neighborhood; therefore, these streets carry low volumcs of traffic. There are no commercial or institutional uses affected by the proposed improvements. Both Asbury Street and Ridgewood Road extend past the City Limits into Roseville. The existing streets are centered on a 60-foot right-of-way. Asbury ranges from 28.5 to 35.8 feet wide; Ridgewood is 31 to 33.5 feet wide. Neither street has concrete curb and gutter and there are no existing sidewalks or paths. Arden Hills' pavement management system utilizes a pavement condition index (PCI) rating of 0 to 100. This rating is based on surficial pavement observations. Generally, the indices correspond to a level of most cost effective improvement as follows: 0-30 = pavement reconstruction; 31-65 = asphalt overlay; 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 improvements plan. Actual levels of improvements are determined by completing a comprehensive geotechnical evaluation and a preliminary engineering report. Soil borings have been completed and the results are incorporated into this report. Asbury Avenue and Ridgewood Road exhibit moderate to severe transverse and longitudinal cracking. The pavement surface on Ridgewood Road shows signs of oxidation, as evidenced by the exposed pavement aggregates. A bituminous overlay was completed on Asbury Avenue in 1995. There is evidence of patching on both streets. PROPOSED STREET CONSTRUCTION The following describes staffs recommendations for improvements to the pavement on each street. General comments The new streets will be constructed with a 7 -ton structural design, bituminous pavement, and concrete curb and gutter. In the interest of protecting existing mature trees, it is proposed to reconstruct these streets to a 28-foot width. Since this is a local road, this width would allow parking on one side of the street. At this time we recommend parking on the west side of Asbury and north side of Ridgewood Road. We will work with property owners on finalizing these recommendations through the design process. II If unsuitable material is encountered beneath the existing pavement during construction, it will be removed and replaced with suitable backfill material. 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 approximately the property line. A four foot (4') concrete apron will be constructed behind the curb, and the remainder of the removed portion of the driveway will be replaced in-kind with asphalt or concrete. During construction, City staff will work with those property owners who wish to make driveway improvements. The cost of any private driveway improvements is the property owner's responsibility. The PCls of the streets under consideration are not as low as others in the City, however, reconstruction is being proposed at this time for the following reasons. The soil borings indicate that the existing structure of the street is inadequate. Roseville's project would stop mid-block, therefore, this project is also being proposed to provide continuity in this section of the neighborhood and limit the inconvenience of construction to one season. With Lake Johanna nearby, the need to address water quality issues with storm sewer improvements also adds to the need for this project. Street design At our neighborhood meeting in December, the residents were comfortable with the width and design that is being proposed along the Roseville section of the streets. The type of curb and gutter proposed is S5 I 8 curb, which has a lower back and is a type of surmountable curb. Existing street grades will be altered where appropriate to address drainage. EXISTING UTILITY CONDITIONS Public utilities located within the proposed project areas include City water, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer. Private utilities include Xcel gas and electric, telephone, and cable TV. Watermain The following is a table ofthe existing watermain with information on pipe size, material and history of watermain breaks over the last 10 years. Street Watermain size Pipe material Break history Asbury Avenue 8" Cast iron 0 Ridgewood Road 6" Cast iron 0 Public Works staff also reviewed all of the hydrants and gate valves within the proposed project to evaluate the existing conditions and gain an understanding of what repairs and improvements are necessary. 12 Sanitary Sewer The existing condition of the sanitary sewer system was acquired from as-built information, sewer video tapes and manhole inspections. The following is a table of the existing sanitary sewer with information on pipe size, material and any problems noted during the televising. Street Sanitary sewer size Pipe material Problems Asbury A venue 8" Clay Circular cracks, heavy roots Ridgewood Road 8" Clay Circular cracks, heavy roots Storm Sewer Neither street under consideration has existing storm sewer. There are catch basins located at the intersection of Ridgewood Road and Glenhill Road that drain to the north into the wetland area east of Ridgewood Road. This system is located outside the proposed construction limits of the project. PROPOSED UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The 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 any underground utility improvements will be excluded from the assessable portion of the project and financed by the appropriate utility fund. Casting replacements or repairs are considered part of the street improvements and are not charged to individual utility funds. Staff wi!! work with private utility companies to coordinate other utility improvements with the street reconstruction project. Watermain Reviewing the history of watermain breaks, staff feels that there are no areas that need complete replacement ofwatermain. As a general guide, watermain replacement should be considered when more than five breaks occur in a ten year time period. Sanitary Sewer After reviewing the sanitary sewer video tapes, minimal repairs were identified. One manhole is in need of rehabilitation; the bottom half of the structure shows evidence of inflow. Heavy roots and several circular cracks were also noted in the pipe segments along both streets; however, repairs required for these types of problems could be completed using trenchless technologies, such as pipe lining. City staff will be working on a separate pipe lining project in 2008, outside the scope of the PMP. Based on the manhole inspections, staff has determined that the castings and rings should be replaced with chimney seals to eliminate a potential source of inflow. This area has not been identified as one of the City's problem areas for inflow and infiltration (1&1), therefore, these costs would not be eligible for credit towards the 1&1 surcharge. However, it is important to make these improvements at this time to ensure this does not become a problem area in the 13 future. Storm Water These streets currently do not have storm sewer; there is minimal storm sewer north of the project limits along Ridgewood Road into the wetland near the tennis courts. We will be installing curb and gutter as a part of the street reconstruction project, as well as storm sewer pipe and catch basins, where needed, to accommodate storm water. This road is located within the Rice Creek Watershed District. Their rules for road projects require that this project provide volume control for the storm water runoff. This can be accomplished through the construction of rain gardens and/or infiltration trenches within the street boulevards. The rain gardens in the boulevards would be maintained by the property owners. We are working with property owners on identifYing locations for these basins. If we are unable to find residents that support the construction of a rain garden in their boulevard, we will construct infiltration trenches to meet the Rice Creek infiltration requirements. ESTIMATED COSTS/PROPOSED FUNDING Proposed construction costs for the 2008 PMP Improvement Project (including bituminous street, stonn sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain, and turf restoration) are itemized in the tables located in the appendix and are summarized below. The City's assessment policy states that estimated construction costs should include 37% for overhead costs and a contingency factor. Overhead costs include legal, engineering, administrative and fiscal costs. The estimated costs for street improvements listed below include 32% for overhead costs, since the City of Roseville's proposal for the project was based on 15% for engineering fces, not 20%, as is listed in the policy. Utility improvements are not assessed; therefore, the cost estimates for utility work include only an additional 15% for engineering fees. These cost estimates are based upon 2007 public construction costs. Since we have no control over the cost oflabor, materials, competitive bidding process, weather conditions and other factors affecting the cost of construction, all cost estimates are opinions for general information and no warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy of construction cost estimates is made. 14 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Street Improvements Construction Costs $ 101,908.52 32% Overhead $ 32,610.73 Total Street Improvement Costs $ 134,519.25 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Construction Costs $ 1,100.00 15% Engineering $ 150.00 Total Sanitarv Sewer Improvement Costs $ 1,250.00 Storm Sewer Improvements Construction Costs $ 16,753.00 15% Engineering $ 2,284.50 Total Storm Sewer Improvement Costs $ 19,037.50 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 154,806.75 It is proposed that these projects be financed similar to past Pavement Management Program projects. Utility improvements will be funded from the appropriate Enterprise Fund, and street improvements will be funded from the PIR Fund and assessments. 15 INTER~CITY COORDINATION CONCERNS City Limits Roseville's City Attorney has advised staff that Roseville cannot construct any improvements north of the Roseville city boundary without executing an agreement with the City of Arden Hills that defines the improvements and how they will be funded. The attorney has also advised staff that properties located within Arden Hills cannot be assessed without agreement from Arden Hills City Council. As a result, we are working on a draft agreement for review by the Arden Hills City Attorney, which will be brought to the Arden Hills City Council for approval at the same time as the Public Hearing for the improvement described in this feasibility report. This agreement will address the different inter-city coordination concerns that exist in this neighborhood. This project is unique in that the city border between Roseville and Arden Hills runs mid-block through Asbury Street and Ridgewood Road. There are five parcels divided by the City limits, each of which have two separate tax Parcel Identification numbers (PlDs), one in Arden Hills, 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. Assessments The City of Roseville and the City of Arden Hills have different funding mechanisms and assessment policies for their Pavement Management Programs. We have used the Ramsey County tax records to develop an equitable way to apply these policies according to contributing tax base. This will be discussed in the next section of this report. In order to better understand the differences between the two policies here is a brief summary of each City's policy: City of Roseville Roseville's Pavement Management Program is paid for through two funding sources; the City's Street Infrastructure fund and Assessments. When the program was first approved by the Council in 1985, they increased the ad val arum property taxes to build up a street infrastructure fund to pay for the City's portion ofPMP projects. Roseville Assessment Policy summary: . Assessments are based on lot frontage. . The rate is determined by dividing the total cost for all residential street reconstruction in a given year's project by the total assessable frontage for the properties. . The assessments shall not be for more than 25% of the cost to construct a 7-ton road for all property zoning. . The City portion of the street reconstruction cost (75%) will be funded using street infrastructure funds. Arden Hills Assessment Policy summary: . Assessments are based on lot units. . The rate is determined by dividing the total cost for all residential street reconstruction in a given year's project by the total number of assessable properties. 16 . The assessments shall not be for more than 50% of the cost to construct a 7-ton road. . The City portion of the street reconstruction cost (50%) will be funded using PIR funds. Storm Water Asbury and Ridgewood currently do not have a complete storm sewer system. The installation of curb and gutter as a part of the street reconstruction project will also require the construction of storm sewer pipe and catch basins. It should be noted that because of the existing topography, a portion of Rose vi lie's streets drain north into Arden Hills; this will continue after construction. Rain gardens or infiltration trenches will be constructed in the boulevards of the homes in Roseville to collect and infiltrate the storm water. However, a portion of the runoff will still drain down the hill into the Arden Hills system. As a result of this, when the Arden Hills streets are reconstructed, the storm sewer system will be constructed to address the runoff from Roseville. The agreement between both cities will allocate the storm sewer costs appropriately, based on contributing runoff. PROJECT OPTIONS Option 1: Participate with Roseville and reeonstruct streets in 2008 As discussed above, there are many benefits to participating with Roseville on this project. By having one project, the homeowners would only have to deal with the dust and noise of reconstruction for one construction season. With a joint project, we may also see some construction cost savings. Because of the existing topography, a portion of the neighborhood in Roseville drains to Arden Hills. Roseville is proposing to construct rain gardens or infiltration trenches in the boulevards of the homes in Roseville to collect and infiltrate the storm water. However, a portion of the runoff will still drain down the hill into the Arden Hills system. By participating with Roseville at this time, the storm sewer system will be constructed to address the runoff from Roseville. By having one project, we would be able to have a more comprehensive storm sewer design. Option 2: Participate with Roseville and construct storm sewer only (rain gardens) in 2008 This project would only reconstruct the streets in Roseville. We would work with the residents that have lots that straddle the City boundary on a logical terminus for the reconstruction project in relationship with their property. Rain gardens would be constructed in Arden Hills as a part of this project to address the street runoff; however, we would not construct any storm sewer pipe or catch basins until the streets are reconstructed in the future. Roseville would contribute to the storm sewer cost of that future storm sewer project, based on contributing runoff. Option 3: Do not participate with Roseville This project would only reconstruct the streets in Roseville. We would work with the residents that have lots that straddle the City boundary on a logical terminus for the reconstruction project in relationship with their property. Street reconstruction and associated storm sewer 17 improvements would be completed together with the other streets in the neighborhood, tentatively scheduled for 2015. Roseville would contribute to that future storm sewer project, based on contributing runoff. ]8 ~*:"'-. . .",y~~. J~t/; ,.. ~_:~t -,~; "< '. , . If! "', ~ " \~,/" /'- '( \ \. / .11 i., c--" fI ~>_/ d [' , l!; \" Jt i "',,, 2008 PMP Asbury Street/Ridgewood Road ~ ~HILLS ":::~~'::o~' .....~"'"..w_...".,..'" ',.~_..,~-..~-,"., ~...-.'" ~_.........,~_...__.~~ o~.",."...~,,,,,,_. ....,......~~ <--~~ -.-.._~._....._....._...~......~._..-._....".".... ~~~IT~lg~~r~~~~~~;~~?Ji1~~ . . . -.. t:" " PROPOSED UNIT COSTS AND ASSESSMENTS The following narrative provides information and definitions of the properties affectcd by the proposed improvements as stated in the City's Assessment Policy. The policy states that the assessment is based on the total project cost, or estimated construction cost and associated overhead costs. City Council may choose to base the assessment on contract prices; deviation from the assessment policy is allowed as deemed appropriate. Estimated construction costs are estimates only; we can only anticipate factors affecting construction costs, but have no control over them. If the assessment is based on estimated construction costs, there is a possibility of over-assessing residents if the actual bids come in low. Ifbids come in higher than estimated, this would result in the City paying for a larger portion of the project. Staff recommends that costs for project financing should be based upon actual, competitive bid prices with reasonable contingencies. The proposed schedule of the project would allow for the assessment hearing to take place prior to construction if contract prices are used. 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." The residential equivalent assessment rate shall be based on 50% of the cost of the bituminous overlay, plus associated overhead costs. 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-l 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 proposed preliminary assessment roll. This project is unique in that five parcels are divided by the City limits. Each ofthese lots has two separate tax PlDs, one in Arden Hills, the other in Roseville. Property taxes for these parcels are paid to the respective City in which that portion of lot is located; these taxes are based on the size of the lot. The following table provides the proposed number and type of units to be included in the preliminary assessment roll. The second table lists information about the lots split by City limits and a proposed assessment unit for each lot. Residential Partial lots with Total Assessable Street equivalent units (REU) Roseville Units Asbury A venue 3 0.64 3.64 - Ridgewood Road 3 2.53 5.53 Total 6 3.17 9.17 2] Property Total Lot Total City City Proposed Address Frontage Lot Area PID City Area Percentage Assessment (n) (sf) (sf) Units Arden 3120 Asbury Ave 100.0 16,988.4 343023330044 Hills 10,890 64.1% 0.64 REU 032923220079 Roseville 6,098.4 35.9% 35.90 Feet 3111 Ridgewood Arden Rd 107.76 18,295.2 343023330045 Hills 12,196.8 66.7% 0.67 REU *Odd Lot 032923220081 Roseville 6,098.4 33.3% 35.92 Feet 3121 Ridgewood Arden Rd 99.97 15,246 343023330046 Hills 14,810.4 97.1% 0.97 REU 032923220082 Roseville 435.6 2.9% 2.86 Feet 31 30 Ridgewood Arden Rd 100.0 17,859.6 343023330050 Hills 13,503.6 75.6% 0.76 REU 032923220070 Roseville 4356 24.4% 24.39 Feet 3120 Ridgewood Arden Rd 100.0 20,037.6 343023330051 Hills 2,613.6 13.0% 0.13 REU 032923220071 Roseville 17,424 87.0% 86.96 Feet Assessment rates The proposed assessment rate is $7,334.75 per REU. The split lots would be charged a percentage of a REU based on the percentage of property within Arden Hills. The preliminary assessment roll has been included at the end of the report. Estimated street improvement project cost .......................................$134,519.25 Assessa ble amoun t (500/0) ............................................... .......................$67,259.62 Project cost distribution summary Total project costs ......................................................................$154,806.75 Total paid in assessments.............................................................$67,259.62 Total funded by City ...................................................................$87,547.12 22 o ~ "E E .. .. .. .. '" ,., :Uo. .S :2 EO. = a) <1>0 ~o o.N v '" '" '" roN 0 '" ~ "'''' N N r-- r-- r-- ~~ r-- r-- ": r--r-- <D - -i v V V VM V V V VV ci m M M M ~'" ~ M r-- MM '" ,.,C <0. "< M M mm ~ M '" C'1_ (")~ N ~ ...: OJ E v r-- r-- r-- v r-- r-- '" r--r-- c <D .- '" E .. .- " - .. ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" "'~ ." D..<( ~ "E "E " v r-- M r-- <0 t- " .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ": ~~ ~ "C .~ 0 0 0 0 0 ci Iii - :> .- ~ <T C w:> r-- r-- r-- r-- '" C> '" '" C> 0 '" '" N '" N V '" V V '" '" v '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" "' '? "' '? M '" "' "' M '" '" N N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;; ;;; '" ;;; ;;; ;;; '" '" ;;; '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" z z z z z z z z z ZZ 0. 2 2 2 2 2 :2; :2; 2 :2; 2 :2; N (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)(f) --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' =' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' !!i I I I I I I I I I I I VI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z .. i w w w w w w w w w w w .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 IY IY IY IY IY IY IY IY IY IY IY 0 << << << << << << << << << << << I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IY 0: IY 0: 0: 0: 0: '" w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. > I- > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ << (f) << << 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "C >- >- >- >- s s s s s s S "C 0: 0: 0: IY <( w w w w w w w ~ :::> :::> :::> :::> <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 m m m m g g g g g g g (f) (f) (f) (f) ~ << << << << 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0 '" 0 '" ~ 0 N '" 0 '" r-- 0 N N M co ~ N N CO CO CO ~ ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; 0. CO (J) W W Y: I- 0 (f) >- I :::> z 0: I 0 << l- I- (f) (f) 0: w 0: Z 0: N 0 >- N << W w 2 u: w " " z 0 I- --' << "= E w --' w 0 w OJ w 2 2 IIY a. Z w Y: ~ 2 2<9 0 --' ~ --' --' << >-2 w " !!! w 2 I- 0 << C Z 0 0: w Z Z Z ;: Z << << :J <{ <{ <{ w w 0 0 <{ 0 ~ z ~ 0: (f) W W '" I- 0 Z << (f) (f) I 0 Y: :::> IY >- w z 0 (J) <9 (f) 0: ~ I 2 u: z z (f) z <{ I- W l- X <{ LL 0: 0 w ~ " >- 0: 0 I '" (f) a: 0 :> N <{ W --' 0 W Z 0 z<9 I- 0: Effi --' --' w 0 w (f) 0. --' 2 0 --' Q2 0. <{ '" :2; w 2 (f) 0 0: Z --' '" LL W 1-0 0: I <{ ~ --' w --' (f) a: 0:0: z <{ z (f) " !!! I >- ~ z 0 w<{ w g <{ C Z <{ I --' ms :2; > :J ;: <{ ~ --' 0 0 0 00 << <{ :::> 0 0 2 0 w ~ 0 o:w ~ 0 ~ v '" "' .... '" ;;; '" .... 0 '" '" v CO ... CO V V V '" V '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" CO CO CO '" CO '" "' CO '" CO '" '" '" '" CO CO CO CO CO CO CO q; CO '" CO CO CO CO CO '" '" '" '" N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C> 0 ~ '" '" CO CO CO CO '" CO '" '" CO OJ V V V V V V V ... V ... v D.. '" '" CO CO '" CO '" "' '" '" CO City of Arden Hills ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS 2008 PMP Ridgewood. Asbury STREET CONSTRUCTION TOTAL Unit Total Item No. Item Unit Quantitv Price Amount 2021.501 MOBILIZATION, 5% MAX. LS 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 2104.503 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 53.0 $ 7.00 $ 371.00 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 106 $ 4.00 $ 422.22 2104.503 REMOVE BRICK DRIVEWAY SY 21 $ 10.00 $ 208.89 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS STREET PAVEMENT SY 2215.0 $ 3.00 $ 6,645.00 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 770 $ 12.00 $ 9,240.00 2105.507 SUBGRADEEXCAVATION CY 200 $ 16.00 $ 3,200.00 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CY 260 $ 20.00 $ 5,200.00 2211.501 AGG. BASE, CL. 5 (100% crushed limestone) TON 945.0 $ 14.00 $ 13,230.00 2350.609 TYPE MVWE35035B, WEARING COURSE TON 160.0 $ 53.00 $ 8,480.00 2350.609 TYPE LVNW35030B, BASE COURSE TON 160 $ 51.00 $ 8,160.00 2357.502 TYPE LVWE35030B, BIT. DWY REPLACEMENT SY 65.0 $ 35.00 $ 2,275.00 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 100.0 $ 2.50 $ 250.00 SC703.4 BITUMINOUS CONTROL JOINT LF 500.0 $ 2.00 $ 1,000.00 2506.522 ADJUST MANHOLE FRAME AND RING EACH 3 $ 750.00 $ 2,250.00 2504.602 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH 2 $ 300.00 $ 600.00 2521.501 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, (6") SY 115.0 $ 50.00 $ 5,750.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, DESIGN B.618 LF 1256.0 $ 9.50 $ 11,932.00 2575.505 SOD, WITH 6" TOPSOIL SY 1405.0 $ 6.00 $ 8,430.00 SUBTOTAL STREET CONSTRUCTION $ 92,644.11 10% contingency $ 9,264.41 32% overhead $ 32,610.73 TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET CONSTRUCTION $ 134,519.25 City of Arden Hills ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES AND COSTS 2008 PMP Ridgewood- Asbury STORM SEWER TOTAL Unit Total Item No. Item Unit Quantitv Price Amount 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 135 $ 12.00 $ 1,620.00 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR W/30% ORGANIC PEAT CY 80 $ 30.00 $ 2,400.00 2503.541 18" RCP, DESIGN 3006, CLASS 5 LF 50.0 $ 30.00 $ 1,500.00 2506.501 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE (TYPE B) EACH 2.0 $ 1,250.00 $ 2,500.00 2506.502 CONNECT TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN EACH t $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 2506.516 CATCH BASIN CASTING (R-3067) EACH 2 $ 350.00 $ 700.00 2571.509 DECIDUOUS SHRUB #5 CONT SHRUB 10 $ 40.00 $ 400.00 2571.510 DECIDUOUS SHRUB #1 CONT SHRUB 20 $ 20.00 $ 400.00 2571.511 PERENNIAL. #1 CONT. PLANT 65 $ 12.00 $ 780.00 2571.512 PERENNIAL- 4" PLUG PLANT 210 $ 8.00 $ 1,680.00 2575.511 MULCH CY 15 $ 30.00 $ 450.00 2575.604 PLANTER EDGING LF 360 $ 5.00 $ 1,800.00 . SUBTOTAL STORM SEWER $ 15,230.00 10% contingency $ 1,523.00 15% Engineering $ 2,284.50 TOTAL ESTIMATED STORM SEWER COST $ 19,037.50 SANITARY SEWER I TOTAL Unit Total Item No. Item Unit Quantitv Price Amount 2506.602 REHABILITATE MANHOLE EACH 1 $ 1,000.00 $ t ,000.00 .- SUBTOTAL STORM SEWER $ 1,000.00 10% contingency $ 100.00 15% Engineering $ 150.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED SANITARY SEWER COST $ 1,250.00