HomeMy WebLinkAboutPavement Management Plan PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
SUPPLEMENT
�
�
'�
PREPARED BY STAFF ON FEBRUARY 8, 2011
2/9/2011
Pavement Management Plan-2011 Supplement
The City of Centerville adopted a Pavement Management Study and Plan dated October 9, 2003.
This plan was the basis for improvement projects in 2004 and 2009. This plan identified one
additional list of streets that needed reconstruction which is scheduled for 2015.
The city currently has 17 miles of paved streets. The city streets are generally 32 feet wide from
face of curb to face of curb and have concrete curb and gutter. The City of Centerville's
Pavement Management plan consists of four distinct parts—annual crack filing, seal coating, mill
and overlay, and total street reconstruction.
Crack Fillins�
This is done on an annual basis in order to mitigate the damage caused by water penetrating the
base of the street through surface cracks in the asphalt.
Budget $15,000 included in annual General Fund operations.
Seal Coatins�
Seal coating is a process of laying down oil and covering it with rock in order to extend the useful
life of the road surface. Each section of street is completed approximately every six years. The
City plans to seal half the streets at a time resulting in a project every three years. The budget
contains $60,000 each year which accumulates in fund balance until the third year when a project
is completed. 'I
Budget: $60,000 in annual General Fund operations. '�
Street Reconstruction
There is one major street reconstruction project left within the city to get all of the city streets to
substantially the same standard of construction. Areas are shown on the map attached as
Exhibit A. They consist of—Area 1: South Robin Lane North Robin Lane West Robin Lane '
Cardinal Drive; Area 2: Peterson Trail, Fox Run, Houle Circle & Ha�eld Road; Area 3: 73rd
Street between Mill Road and the portion completed in 2009; Area 4: Center Street east of Dupre
along with Sumac and Ivy Courts; Area 5: Mound Trail and LaValle Drive watermain; Area 6: ',
Downtown streets (except Centerville Road s of Main and not including streetscapes). Areas 1,
4, 5 and 6 include the cost of city water in the project. It is anticipated that the cost of water would i
be paid by the Water Fund in the same manner as 2009 and then collected upon hookup in the
form of a connection fee. Area 6 has some sanitary sewer costs that would be paid by the Sewer
fund. Cost estimates are contained on the attached Exhibit B. In order to fund this project it is
anticipated that the City will issue improvement bonds in the amount of about $3.5 million that are
repaid through a combination of tax levies and special assessments as shown on the attached
Debt Service and Levy Summary-Exhibit C. The policy of past practice is to assess
approximately 25% of street reconstruction.
Estimated 2015 Project Cost in 2011 dollars: �4,487,500
Mill and Overlav
The newest component to the capital improvement plan is the mill and overlay as maintenance.
This is not a complete reconstruction of the street, but rather milling off part or all of the surface
and then reapplying the asphalt surface. The first mill and overlay in the plan is proposed for
2020 and is estimated to cost about $1.2 million. If the Council wishes to avoid issuing debt for
the project and special assessment for part of the cost, it is recommended that the City begin
2/9/2011
levying in advance for this project on an annual basis. The second project would be five years
later and would require a slightly higher advance levy of about $200,000 per year. This would
have the advantage of softening the levy impact when projects are actually done and would avoid
the contentious public hearings that often go with improvement projects along with the need for
issuing debt. For a street by street timeline of mill and overlays please see the attached Exhibit
D. A number of cities pay for the entire cost of mill and overlay as a maintenance item as is being
suggested here. If everyone knows they will get their turn at mill and overlay without assessment
the taxpaye�s may be supportive of the levy.
2012 Budget Impact: $136,500 or if delayed to start in 2013: $153,000
Prepared by City stafF with information supplied by Bonestroo and Associates and
Northland Securities. Costs are approximate and will need to be updated as we get closer
to the project dates. These estimates provide information for planning purposes.
Dallas Larson, Administrator
Febru�ry 8, 2011
I
I
I
I
e ~
I PE` R - _ -- = i �, _ � a ;_j
A�rea 5 �; '�� � � � �; � � � , - - -
j • i � '�� ,- � ,, i � 'y ,i
�� Watermal� only � '� � � ; ' : ' �_ .����=�fi�= ��� �� _-�� � _ �
. \' _ � _ , � �� � N - F–i � ` 'tI, _ I �
' �� -r=- � �_� w �-
, ••• ' J �:, � j� � , i( r , � - —
; �
...-.. ---� � � - - —
-- - — - � � , �� � ' I ` �., '� ' � . . i � �
� �' � ����� �"� - � -- �- ' _ _ o
. � i �a\i��,. � � ~�'� � �
= i ` � __ .-� 1 ; �... : I '
� - I ��.� . l' --� s
_ ,
.
" � 1 � --�--- � - -- � -
� �- � � . , . - a -- - � _- _ - �
� %i - � .. �:�
1 ��i .�....a,. _ . �'_ •., _ � / , � _, a-. o
V ` �
: � l���� y [ '� � � � � .�. .
� . � ` �
i � , _
G.
,. � � Y � - ����' , _ �
� " 2 � � � v' `� � �� - � � �- ` �� �,F - _ � t �
��: � � � ,� �, � ��r _ �
,-C
\� � ,\�� / ,�_ ,� - - �
_ ,
, _
� , ..�.
, �, , ,
c � ' - .
'�� � `-- �� � �
� �� - ��i - _- ' _ j M
�_-___� �\ S\ _ �' `^' 1 � - � � � {
A
i/ f
;; �,��E Area 6 : � ;=- � � _�\�, �
� , _
, � _
�� � qy � � � pt � - _� i _ - , _
' � 1 E L ..�, � � ' � _ - 7 , I ; � � �__ 1 J
N EN Downto Al4[i - J
-� �,_ k � — '
� � 1 _�__� � i � '
I i y ' � _ �
�,� —� i
1 �� J
: ' i. �1.,,.--w.''. --_ _ _ _ —
V � _' _ _ _ — i�
� � r - - - - ___r_ �
I ,, E �, - _ : � � � - � �' w � -- I T I
o �oo ,aoo K � i �_ �
� ••( i 1 � ` �. I ( _ �
� � Scale in feet ;_�- �- �� � � �� � �
r � a
I � PROPOSED BINMINOUS PA1H p ,(� �: �� -_- �o.� ' '� � �_�'. . ��,�• � � 1 .
�y ,j � � � ��
� � PROPOgD CONCRETE 90EWALK `� ` �v'� � - �' , Q,.1��� ; A �
� EXISTING BINMINWS 7RNL t. ;� _._ . i � c��1� , f � µ i \
� � E%ISITNG CONCRETE SIDEWAUC -- — — � ' . — ... . � � I
�: i i
m NUMBER OF NEW WAiER SERNCES PROPOSm ��� i J ���-q� K� . J �� � i
Q PARCQ NOT CURREN7LY $ERVED WITM pTY WAlER ' ! � � _ ( _ 'w ���,
� A1- WA7ER MNN E%IENSKXI WITI SERNCES ��.�:� �� �� " .._ v � � xi��� "� � � ,,
_ —�I
�� ` ',.--- .. ... ._ .� I � -��� •�Edi _.- � '�
A2�- SERNCE INSTALUITON ONLY � , , � " Y.. . � _� , <' � - . . ' � . . ,��
I � �
�. � . . � s n > `I ' i
� B- FULL RECON N11H WM� SERNCES. NEW CURB k ORNN7ILE ' -'� I 1 �•� !�_._. '� , , ". .
� . �_ � ' �. ' � g 1
_ C1- NLL DEP1H RECON WITH CURB SPOT REPAIRS k DRAIN7ILE '- � � _ � ��
� C4- fULI DEPTi RECON MA1H WA1. CURB SPOT REPAIRS k DRAINME �; �` Y,� ' ., iT' I ...l �,,.. � -: -- . I . .. _.-_.. -- �--
. ���`�: Dt- fULL BINYINOUS Rddt WIM CVRB SPOT REPANiS k DRANIILE , �� t�....- � tl . 1 1 ' i - :. ,,
�,,. � D2�- NLL BIIUMIN0U5 RkR IM7H SERNCES. CURB �OT REPNRS k ORNNIILE ' � � � ` . ..._.� � �� � � � -1'a 6 . .� !4 �k
� E- EDGE MILL k OVERUY N1TH CURB SPOT REPAIRS �` y ~._ -- _ l _ . �`n:a.i _ r .r ,� � - .. J . �' � ; . `
r
� � �, � � � -
� ASSESSMENT WILL VARY - � �, � ����� � .` � x � � � . ,
� DPoNqNC WAiER SUPPLY MANACpAEHT AREA _. . -_ � - � � � � � � - �' I ._—. 4 . _- _.-��--}�- � .('' � "- � � i -_ _- . � - _
I �CONNECTIDN CMARCE WILL BE MPLJm IN LIEU OF WAIER ' ^ �_ . . �, , y � . �� `" I ` _� � _ I , ? ...,...� , � . . . .. . .. _ . .. _.. . _ . � �
MAIN ASSSESSIIENT � -•/ � -� � Y. � C .
. I� � 'r..��� � ----� '. _> ti m �i � t. I� --- - -
PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS �
CITY OF CENTERVILLE FIGURE 2 ���
2009 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2015 Improvement Project
61607158F002.DWG DATE:2/18/08 COMM:616-07-158 Area 4
� Incomplete- Scheduled for 2015 Reconstruction
EXHIBIT A
To
2011 SUPPLEMENT TO PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Exhibit B
2015 Reconstruction Plan
Street Water Sewer Storm Total
Area 1 29,060 29,060
South Robin Lane 147,200 43,800 191,000
North Robin Lane 147,000 37,000 184,000
West Robin Lane 143,000 32,000 175,000
Cardinal Drive 144,000 42,000 186,000
Area 2 39,500 39,500
Peterson Trail 309,000 309,000
Fox Run 135,000 135,000
Houle Circle 156,000 156,000
Ha�eld Road 190,000 190,000
Area 3
73rd Street 255,000 255,000
Area 4 30,950 30,950
Center Street East of Dupre 397,000 165,000 562,000
Ivy Court 111,000 37,000 148,000
Sumac Court 111,000 37,000 148,000
4a Liftstation Abadonment 92,000 92,000
Area 5
Lavelle 50,000 50,000
Mound Trail 99,000 99,000
Area 6
Downtown Area 549,000 177,000 182,000 600,000 1,508,000
Totai 2,794.200 T19,800 274,Q00 699,510 4,487,510
'Estimates derived from:
Downtown: 2007 Downtown infrastructure plan
Area 1-4: Appendix B of 2009 Street Project cost estimates
±'? (ICV.!nt��a:�� i�nc(c J !�J� . _�C/C�.�` . ,.E.�,'���c� u'�1C� ��.�E'Ci SCBJ''B
Exhibit C
Debt Service and Levy Summary
Inr�aOon
City of Centerville 1.50'%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Tax Levies
General Fund Tax Levy 1,806,400 1,685,920 1,727,561 1,739,600 1,826,400 1,853,796 1,881,603 1,909,827 1,938,474
Mill Overlay portion of Levy - 153,360 153,360 153,360 153,360
Existing Debt Service Levy 179,200 357,900 504,100 529,200 529,000 564,000 564,000 564,000 564,000
New Debt Issue 85,000
Total Le 1.985,600 2.043,820 2,231,661 2,268,800 2,355,400 2,571.756 2.598.963 2,627,187 2.740,834
% Increases 29% 92% 1.7% 3.8% 9.2% 1.1% 1.1% 4.3%
' The tax impact on a typical homeowner of the
5153,360 mill overlay portion of the levy would be
approxlmatley S90 per year
Tax Levies
General Fund Tax Lery 1,967,552 �,997,065 2,027,021 2A57,426 2,088,287 2,119,612 2.151,406 2,183,677 2,216,432
Mill Overlay portion of Levy 153,360 153,360 153,360 153,360 208,440 208,440 208,440 208,440 208,440
Existing Debt Service Levy 574,000 574,000 465,000 465,000 240,000 235,000 230,000 225,000 -
New Debt Issue 85,000 85,000 250,000 250,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 40Q000 400,000
Total 2,779;912 2,$09,4215'''�' "�7[;�
%Increases '4';� 1.�% 3.1'Z 11%� 04 0.9% C9?� 0.9%� -64�;��.
Exhibit D
Mill and Overlay Plan 80 per foot
35% Engineering
2020 Feet Cost
Revoir Street 1,200 129,600
Old Mill Road 1,900 205,200
Eagle Trail 3,960 427,680
Portage Way 450 48,600
Pioneer Lane 400 43,200
South Brian Drive 1,950 210,600
Brian Court 500 54,000
Cottonwood Court 1,000 108,000
11,360 1,226,880
2Q25
Lake Land Circle 2,700 291,600
Dupre Road 2,600 280,800
Deer Court 500 54,000
Hunters Trail 1,150 124,200
Meadow Lane 1,250 135,000
Meadow Circle 900 97,200
Meadow Court � 550 59,400
9,650 1,042,200
2030
Deer Pass Drive 1,000 108,000
Steven Lane 475 51,300 i
Mill Road 2,600 280,800 I
(South) Dupre Road 3,350 361,800 I
Mallard Way 700 75,600
Patridge Place 2,150 232,200 I
10,275 1,109,700
2035 I
Mound Trail 3,350 361,800 I ,
Beaver Pond Way 2,800 302,400 �
Widgeon Circle 450 48,600 ,
(West) Dupre Road 2,600 280,800
Hunters Ridge Lane 1,400 151,200 �
10,600 1,144,800
2040
Tourvi!!e Circle 475 51,300
Center Street 2,050 221,400
Pheasant Lake 1,100 118,800
Oak Circle 500 54,000
Dupre Road 950 102,600
(North) Brain Drive 3,600 388,800
Lamotte Drive 1,175 126,900
Heritage Street 1,400 151,200
11,250 1,215,000
2Q45
Peltier Lake Drive 3,700 399,600
Centerville Road - -
Clearwater Drive 600 64,800
Clear Ridge 1,500 162,000
Garange View 500 54,000
Praire Drive 1,350 145,800
Fox Run 1,450 156,600
Exhibit D
Brian Drive 1,950 210,600
Brian Way 1,000 108,000
72nd Street 1,050 113,400
Unity Avenue 950 102,600
' 72nd 1/2 Street 475 51,300
Twin Lakes Avenue 725 78,300
73rd Street 2,700 291,600
17,950 1,938,600
2050
Ivy Court 500 54,000
Center Street 1,900 205,200
Sumac Court 500 54,000
No�th Robin Lane 500 54,000
Cardinal Drive 500 54,000
South Robin Lane 500 54,000
West Robin Lane 520 56,160
Quebec Street 1,050 113,400
73rd Street 2,700 291,600
HayField Road 700 75,600
Pete�son Trail 2,150 232,200 '
Houle Circle 200 21,600
Westview 500 54,000 �
Centerville Road 300 32,400
Sorel 750 81,000 '�
Guiffon 300 32,400
Heritage Street 600 64,800 I
Mound Trail 3,300 356,400
17,470 1,886,760 I
I
I
Exhibit D
Brian Drive 1,950 210,600
Brian Way 1,000 108,000
72nd Street 1,050 113,400
Unity Avenue 950 102,600
72nd 1/2 Street 475 51,300
Twin Lakes Avenue 725 78,300
73rd Street 2,700 291,600
17,950 1,938,600
2050
Ivy Court 500 54,000
Center Street 1,900 205,200
Sumac Court 500 54,000
North Robin Lane 500 54,000
Cardinal Drive 500 54,000
South Robin Lane 500 54,000
West Robin Lane 520 56,160
Quebec Street 1,050 113,400
73rd Street 2,700 291,600
Hayfield Road 700 75,600
Peterson Trail 2,150 232,200
Houle Circle 200 21,600
Westview 500 54,000
Centerville Road 300 32,400
Sorel 750 81,000
Guiffon 300 32,400
Heritage Street 600 64,800
Mound Trail 3,300 356,400
17,470 1,886,760
I
�
�
�
�
0
�
e��z e
� Established 1857
�
� ��
PAVEMENT ANAGE�I+IENT STUDY
�
� .
�
Cent�rvil��, M��nesota
t
� O�r �3
' File No. ��b-�t3-1�1
r
� ��
t o. �
��
� ��
` � Engir�eers & Ard�l�erts
; �
�' • Bonesiroo, Roze�, ArMerllk and Aszoclates, Inc. is an Affhmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
� Bonestroo and Employee Owned
PrFncipals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. • Marvin L. SOrvala, P.E. • Glenn R. Cook, P.E. • Robert G. Schunich[, P.E. •
� Rosene Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. • Mark A. Hanson. P.E.
1 Rnderlik & Senior Consuttants: Robert W. Rosene. P.E. • Joseph C. Anderllk, P.E. � Richard E. Tumer, P.E. • Susan M. Eberlin, C.PA.
Assoclate Princlpals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. • RoOert R. Pfefferle. P.E. • Richarq W. Fosier, P,E. • David O. Loskota, P.E. •
A ssocia#es Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. • Ted K. Fieltl, P.E. • Kenneth P. AnOerson, PE. • Mark ft. Rolis, P.E. • David A. Borxstroo, M.B.A. .
� � Sidney P. WIIliamson, P.E., L.S. • Ag�xs M. Ring, M.B.A. • Allan Rick Schmid[. P.E. • Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. •
En ineers b Architects �ames R. MalanG. P.E. • Miles B. Jensen, P.E. � L. Phfllip Gravef III, P.E. • Oaniel J. EOgercon, P.E. •(smaef MarNnez, P.E. •
9• Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. • Shelqon J. Johnson • Dale A. Giove. P.E. • Thomas A. Roushar. P.E. • Rolxri J. Devery. P.E.
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar. MN • Milwaukee, W! • Chicago, IL
� VNeGsite: www.bonestroo.com
� October 9, 2003
I
� Honorable Mayor and City Council
� City of Centerville
i ' 1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
i
; 1 Re: Pavement Management Study
Bonestroo File No. 616-03-131
' Dear Mayor and Council:
� In accordance with your authorization, we have prepared a Pavement Management Plan for the City
of Centerville. This plan addxesses the needs for rehabilitating the older streets and associated utility
improvements in the City. The primary purpose of this planas to provide the City Council and its
� staff with a planning tool to assist them in discussing future improvement projects with its residents.
The plan discusses proposed street rehabilitation, necessary utility improvements, estimated costs,
' possible assessments and a recommended capital improvement program for 2004 through 2012.
Please contact us to discuss any portion of this study or the project in general.
� Yours very truly,
' BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
���� w �
' Thomas W. Peterson
I I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me
I , or under my direct supervision and thai I am a duly
Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of
' the State of Minnesota.
�'�r
�ll
Thomas W. Peterson, P.E.
� Date: October 9. 2003 Reg. No. 16610
' 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN SS113 � 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651-636-1311
I
'
�
�
� � Table of Contents
�
' � Letter of Transmittal ........................................................................................................................ l
Tableof Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2
i
ExecutiveSummary ......................................•---.............................................................................. 4
�
� Figure 2- Reconstruction Schedule 2004 - 2009 .................................................••--................... 5
Table 1- Estimated Street Assessments .................................................................................. 6
� Table 2- Yearly Estimated Cost Summary .............................................................................7
Policy Decisions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 7
� Background ................................................................................................................................. 8
� Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 I
i I
Street Cycle ..:....................................................................................................................... 8
� Table 3- Maintenance Program .............................................................................................. 9
Figure1- Street Life Cycle .......................................................................................................10
'' Residents/City Officials Expectations ....................................................................................... l l
FxistingConditions .......................................................................................................................13
� Street Areas/Conditions .............................................................................................................13 ',I
Street Surface Evaluation ..........................................................................................................13
�� Figure 3- Pavement Condirion Indices .....................................................................................14
Table 4- Pavement Condirion Ranking ............................................................15
....................
Proposed Improvements - Street ...............................................................................................15
Figure 4- Typical Street Repairs ...............................................................................................16
� Storm Sewer ..............................................................................................................................17
Sanitary ...........................................................................................................................17
` Water Main Repairs ..................................................................................................................18
- Figure 5- Storm Sewer Improvements .....................................................................................19
� Figure 6- Water Main Improvements ..................................................................................•--..20
i '
' Centerville Pavernenr Management Study 2
, I '
i �
CostEstimate ................................................................................................................................ 21
' Table 5 - Rehabilitation Costs ...............................................................................................21
Assessments.................................................................................................................................. 22
' � Table 6- Suggested City Assessment Policy ................. 22
.
.......................................................
� Proposed 2004 Sireet Improvements Estimated Costs and Assessments .............................. 23
' Figure 7- 2004 and 2006 Proposed Street Improvements ........................................................ 24
� Figure 8- 2009 Proposed Street Impmvements ........................................................................25
Tabie 8- 2U04 Project Costs ..................................................................................................... 26
Table 9- Yeazly Cost Esrimates ................................................................................................27
Revenue......................................................................................................................................... 28
� Pro�ect Schedule ............................................................................................................................29
� Appendix A— Cost Estimates for Seai Coat, Mi1UOverlay and Reconstruct
Appendix B— Utility Costs for Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer and Water Main
�
�
�
� -
�
�
I �
�
�
�
r �
'' Centerville Pavement Management Study 3
i�
�
� Executive Summa�
� Purpose of the Study
In 2003 the City of Centerville authorized the preparation of a Pavement Management Plan to
� determine the current condition of the existing pavement network. The Plan also provides a detailed
street rehabilitation multi-yeaz program that incorporates utility improvements. The purpose of this
� report is to provide information and recommendations to guide decision making for maintaining and
rehabilitadng City streets and utilities including:
� 1 Develo in a ca ital im mvement lan that will reserve and/or im rove the uality of the
) P S P P P P P 9
� City's streets for least cost,
2) Developing and implementing a plan that will help allocate where funds are best spent, '
� 3) Preparing a systemaric plan and a workable method of financing, and
4) Providing information for the public to i�e better informed and involved in decision making.
� 'I
Summary of Findings
� The study idendfies the current pavement condition for each city street and at what point in a street's '
life is the most cost effective for maintenance. The study recommends a rehabilitation program
�. between the years 2004-2009 as shown on Figure No. 2. Listed in Table 2 are the estimated costs to
rehabilitate the 6 miles of streets, which inctude utility costs (water main and storm sewer) required
r on certain City streets where known problems exist or additional piping is needed.
� In general, most of the city streets fall in the Reconstruct or Seal Coat category. This is due to the
fact that many of the streets north of Hwy.14, built between 1987 and 1992, did not incoiporate sand
� subgrade material below the gravel base. These streets need to be reconstructed with sand and
draintile, where normally a less-expensive Mi1VOverlay option would have been recommended.
� Some mill and overlay work is proposed in 2004 and 2009.
� Most city streets have surmountable concrete curb and gutter that is in good condition. During
� reconswction, cturb would remain and only the paved roadway excavated. Typically, the oldest
streets would be reconstructed and repaired first.
I
�' Centervitle Pavement Management Study 4
r_- c� r- t� � t�.�: r:_- c:-:: r'�: r��x. c._: �., t:: f c: _. c: - e �:r r'" �"-
�
'.� uy� -- GIT1 Of lIMO=AR[t
= ll
� � T i
41 Z
O
,, m
� � m o .......... .......
0
�i � I
FF � I
g � � h'
� � � � I"
a 9 � �°
� � I � �.
�� � ,�. �
b
u �� � � I
� � N
{ g I �'
I Z I
I � m � I
�
I
, - I
t
, � � �
I . �
I
� I
1
�� -
I
� ,. a� �,.� �..., � �
, , .
, I . -. � I
- -- -- - --- I
� � - -�-- -- -__-
� ' I
� � � I
� , b � �
. z I
- — � I
� , I
� , �� �� � ` - - �
� _ �� - �� F H ��
_� _ :� .� i
� — � ';�_, ���
F � — �
I ' �
I l I
:. � � _ _ -- " " I
i �
_
� F
I '
7 i� : i � � I
i .,. � . - — — --- - ;,-'. �
I - �
. I � _ �
� � � ,' _ - - - �
.� : �� :, � :��:.: ;
, �,_. :: _ __ ___ ___���__-�
: i � s 1 -
�,.. o. �,.o �....
i�� '
; �
- - � � -
_ �°� 1 _ _ '' �
- -- --- -- ---�
�� „ o. .�.o .....
RECONSTRUCT SCHEDULE — 2004-2009 �'� Bonestroo
� � Rosene
Anderllk 8�
CENTERVILLE, M(NNESOTA FIGURE 2 1'� qssociates
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY
6160'131F01.DWG JULY 2007 COMM.� 615-Oi-131
�
�
�
�
� Pmposed assessments are computed on a front foot basis, assuming a 75' minimum and 90'
maximum assessable footage to residential property in areas where new concrete curb is constructed
j and in areas where existing concrete curb will be saved. The estimated assessments to residential
property on a typica133 foot wide street (back-to-back) are summarized in Table 1.
�
Table 1 Estimated Street Asse.SSments
� Reconstruct save most elristin concrete curb
,
75' minimum frontage $2,371l1ot
90' maximum frontage $2,547/Iot
�
Reconstruct, instail new concrete curb
� 75' minimum frontage $2,939/lot �
90' maximum frontage $3,526/lot I
�
1Vlill and Overlav
�` I
75' minimum frontage $170/lot
90' maximum frantage $200/lot I
�
The estimated cost for the overall program proposed herein and presented on Figare No. 2 is
� summarized in Table 2.
�
�
�
�
� '
' Centerville Pavement Management Study 6
i i �
I
�
� Table 2- Yearly Estimated Cost Summaiy
Item Resident Cost Ci Cost Pro'ect Cost
� ty a
� 2004 Seal Coat $0 $120,300 $120,300
2004 Reconstruct $639,700 $1,9b6,7UQ $2,606,400
� 2004 Mill-Ovexlay $8,100 $72,200 $80,300
' 2004 Utilities $713,000 $254,000 $967,OQ0
� 2006 Seal Coat 0 96 40Q 95 400
$ $ , $ ,
� 2009 Reconstruct $583,300 $1,871,100 $2,454,400
� 2009 Mill-Ovezlay $11,900 $107,100 $119,000
2009 Utilities (est) $175,OQ0 $175,000 $350,400
� TOTAL $2,131,000 $4,662,800 $6,793,80ti
� Policy Decisions and Recommendations
� T'he City has various optians on how it elects to maintain its bituminQUS surfaced streets. As noted
previously, many streets were constructed without gtanular subgrade materiat and draintile. As a
result, these streets will need to be reconstructed at some point to meet City Street standards. Miil
�' and overlay techniques can be used on streets that ex rience frost boils in the s rin .
Pe P g
� The ma�orit of maintenance from 2003 — 2009 will involve reconstruction and seal coatin . The
J Y S
� streets bordered by Main Street, 20`� Avenue, 73 � Street and Mill Road all were constructed in the
� late 1980's — early I990's. Their concrete curbs aze generally in good condition, but the driven
� roadway areas are showing signs of significant deterioration. Seal coating these streets will not
� increase their life, and reconstruction is the recommended im rovement method. Newer streets will
P
� require crack sea�ing and seal coating on a regular basis, in addition to occasional mil] and overlay.
I �� It is recommended the City present this Capital Improvement Study to citizens and property owners
' at a City Council meeting. Additional informational meetings would be held specificaily for those
I � property owners included in the street project proposed for that year, and feasibility reports prepared.
�
'
�� Centerville Pavement Management Study �
I
�
�
Background
� Basic source data was collected to develop the information and recommendations presented in this
study. The data collected consisted of the following:
�
� 1) An evaluation of all Ciry streets to produce a numerical pavement condition index (PCn
which rates the existing condition of the pavement based on a visual surface inspection. A
� PCI =1 means the pavement has completely deteriorated; while a PCI =10 means it is brand
new.
� 2) An inventory of the year built, length, curb type and last maintenance performed.
3) Discussions with Public Works about storm sewer deficiencies, water main needs and
sanitary sewer repairs.
� This data was studied and professional judgment (from both an engineering perspective and '
rehabilitation perspective) was applied to develop the opinions and recommendations presented .
� herein.
� .
Introduction
�
� i
Street Life Cycle
� The City of Centerville is similaz to other communities with local streets approaching the end of their
useful life. The City must consider budgeting for more expensive programs to maintain its streets,
� other than routine seal coats. Figure No. 1 identifies the life cycle of a typical street and the required
maintenance based. on its condition.
�
Asphalt pavements perform well, deteriorating slowly through the first 10 years of the streets life,
i and then tend to fail rapidly. In the early years of a street's life, crack repair/seal coat is the
recommended maintenance. As the pavement condition begins to deteriorate further and streets
:� become older, seal coat applicadons are no Ionger recommended as the most cost effective
maintenance. A street's condition will deteriorate 40°90 during the first 75°Xo of its life, while the next
!; � 40% of deciine takes place in only 129�0 of a streets life. This cridcal juncture typically occurs 15 to
20 years after a street is built, as shown on Figure No. 1.
;� Centerville Pavement Management Study 8
i _'. . ..-- ..._...___'-'�_ ...
-'_' '_ "__'".. . ___"' _"'
�
�
� lfiree maintenance programs listed in Table 3 may be considered for maintaining the streets. The
table notes at what point in a street's life each maintenance program should be considered, and the
estimated cost per lineal fooC.
l
� Tabte 3 - Maintenance Program
� Percent in Life Cycle Estimated Cost
i
Maintenance to be considered PCI Per Lin. F�
� Crack Repair/Patch/Seal Coat 0— 75% 6— 9 $4.50 —$6.00*
Mill and 4verlay 60 — 85°Io 4— 6 $50.00 —$57.00
� Reconstruct 80 —100% 1— 4 $214.00 — $255.00
� * Street width from 33' — 42' (back to back curb)
� Cities like Centerville will typically �nance seal coat projects internally through their general
fund. However, due to the high cost of overlay and reconstruction type projects, it is difficuIt for
� cities to finance these types of projects internally. Therefore, additional revenue sotu'ces need to
be considered. One way to help finance an overlay and reconstruction type project is to assess
� the pro�rties abutting the street.
�
,
� �
�
�
�
!
; �
, 'I
; �
� �
� Centerville Pavement Management Study 9
__ - --- — ... .
�
�
; � TYPICAL MAINTENANCE
NUMBER VERBA� CONDITION
RATING RATIN GROUPING NUMBER RATING R PAIR
� 10------- COST/L . F .
—'�—,
Excel {ent ���
� � � � No Repoir
9 Povements thot (8
have ��cc�e o� Typical Street Life
� 8 Very Good no distress. ��`�
�
.-. ♦
z Povements thct have \
� � 7 Good o significant level � Seo! Coot (=3.00–�6.00)
F,., of distress. �
non–lood reloted. �
� � � 6 Pcvements tnat nove �
Q o significant tevel �
� U ot distress. �
• � c load related. �
Z Overlay (=40.00–t50.00)
W Foir �4-5) I
� �
W 4 �
a Pavements hot hove ��
a. mojor distress. ♦ ',
`-' 3 Pccr `� �
� �
Reconstruction �(=150.00–t255.00)
�
2 Very Poor Povements thot hove (0-3) �
� significont amounts � � '
of mojor distress. � � `
� Failed `
�
� � �
3 15 (YEARS) 20 25
�
�
� �
�
STREET LIFE CYCLE � eoneatroo
Aoaene
,� CENTERVILLE. MINNESOTA FIGURE 1 � Anderllk 8
, � Associates
I PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY
� 61603131 F02.OWG JUIY 2003 COMM.: 616-03-131
_1.�.
I �
�
�
i
I t Residents/City Df,�cia�ls Expectaxions
; Local streets were constructed to serve the property that abuts them. They were fully financed by
i -,
� � developers when they were first constructed or were constructed as part of a urility improvement
I � project, which was assessed to abutting properties. As streets deteriorate through time, residents
� should accept some of the financial responsibility for maintaining the street that abuts their property.
� Therefore, many communities will assess a portion of the overall cost of overlay and reconstruction
� type projects. When residents are asked and expected to accept assessments for street improvement
projects, City officials must have a proven and effective program to present. However, satisfying
�,, r each resident's expectations is difficult. Questions raised by concerned residents include:
�
� • Is my street really in need of repair at this time?
� � Is the proposed method of repair the best possible alternative?
• Is the proposed assessment fair and consistent with what other residents will be expected to
� pay in the future?
i� If those questions can be answered by City officials, residents will hopefully accept street
improvement projects. However, it should be noted the answers to these questions will be
� interpreted differently, depending on what is important to each resident. Therefore, ali types of
rehabilitation programs must be considered by the City to satisfy what they believe wil] be the best
� solution.
�� Listed below are a few street rehabilitation programs that can be cunsidered reasonable options.
'! • Continue to crack seal; patch and seal coat streets indefinitely until total reconstruction is
, �' required.
I • Construct timely overlay projects to extend the usefullife of a street.
� • Elect not ta seal coat and patch certain streets near the end of their expe�ted life, knowing
' street reconstruction is required in the neaz future.
� �
I j �
I i Centerville Pavement Management Study , 11
..
1
� �
�
Each program has advantages and disadvantages:
r
• Seal coaring and crack sealing sends a message to residents that the City is doing the best it
� can within its hudget. However, it is not the most prudent way for the City to spend its
1 money when seal coat applications are not cost effective. This approach may not satisfy the
expectations of all the residents who expect a quality street abutting their home.
� • Milling and overlaying is a cost effective approach to maintaining a public street, provided
the street is in � condition that can accept an overlay. This method delays street
� reconstruction, but residents may not accept it because the most opportune time to construct
an overlay is when a street appears to be in reasonably good condition. In some cases
� overlay projects are considered a band-aid approach to sireet maintenance. However, overlay i
projects are considerably less costly than total street reconstruction.
� • Electing not to seal coat streets in poor condition and waiting for reconstruction is cost I
effective for the City because monies are not being wasted on unnecessary seal coat
� materials. This allows all the streets to d teriorate to a condidon where residents will accept
a reconstruction project. However, residents who expect a quality street sometimes must I
, wait several years before the majority of a street has deteriorated to a condition where all I
residents will accept a street reconstruction project.
�
In summary, the purpose of this Pavement Management Plan is to help the City of Centerville �
� develop the best plan for rehabilitating its streets and satisfying the needs of its residents as well as
� addressing the issues with existing utilities. The existing street subgrade in 60% of the City's streets
consists of clay material that dces not have good drainage characteristics. This material attributes to a
� shorter life of existing pavements. Once a new mad section with draintile and freely draining sand
material is placed, the pavement and curbing will have a longer life and future street rehabilitadon
� (besides seal coating) will involve milling and overlay rather than total reconstruction.
�
�
� Centerville Pavement Management Study 12
�
�
E�sting Conditions
�
� Street AreaslCond�tions
The condition of a street will vary for a number of reasons:
� • Surface candition (roughness, cracking, alligatoring)
• Drainage (street pmfile/street cross-section/storm sewer/draintile)
� • Street section (bituminous/gravel base thickness)
• Subgrade soil (sand, clay, silt)
� • Amoundtype of traff'ic
• Age
� • Maintenance (seal coadpatching)
� All of the above items contribute to whether a street will be in poor, fair, or good condition. It is not
� uncommon for streets in the same area, constructed at the same time, to vary in condition. This
makes it difficult to develvp an efficient street rehabilitation program that will satisfy everyone.
� However, most of the streets in Centerville do follow a general conditian rating.
� Street Surface Evaluation
Bonestroo performed a walking/driving survey inspection that covered 100°� of the surface of each
� pavement section to determine the current condition of the pavement netwark. The pavement was
rated using the widely accepted PASER (PAvement Surface Evaluation and Rating) System. The
' � methodology is based on a numeric rating system ranging fron� 10 for a newly surfaced street to 0 for
a failed surface. The results of the pavement condition survey aze shown on Figure No. 3: From the
I � ' n seal coatin . The
ratings rt has been deternuned that the ma�onty of the streets are �n eed of g
� pavement surface condition corresponds to the rankings which are presented on Figure No. 3 and
sumrnarized in Table 4.
�
�
� Centerville Pnvement Management Study 13
�
� �
I
I
;� Table 4- Pavement Condition Ranking
�
� .
i ,� � PCI Pavement Recommended
�
I � Rating Condition Maintenance
� � � 8 -10 Excellent Do Nothing
�
,� . 6- 7 Good Seal Coat
�
��. 4- 5 Fair Overlay or Reconstruct
� �
� 1— 3 Paor Reconstruct
� �
�
� It is recommended that a follow-up pavement condition survey be perFormed on one-third of the
�
� street network on an annual basis. The surveys should be conducted in the spring of each year so
� the information can be used to update and confnYn the findings for the current and upcoming
� �
construction seasons.
� �
, Prouased Improvements
� �
� Street
; Various street improvements may be considered when a seal coat application is no longer a cost
;� effective solution. The improvements #o be considered are:
� � -
• Mill and overlay existing bituminous surface if existing street condition will accept an
� overlay. Existing concrete curb and gutters remain in-place.
� Reconstn�ct street by removing existing curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, gravel base,
� and subgrade material. Install geotextile fabric, draintile, sand subgrade, aggregate base,
bituminous pavements and concrete curb and gutter.
� • Reconstruct street by leaving the concrete curb and gutter in-place, then removing and
replacing the road material as noted pzeviousiy.
�
Figure No. 4 presents Typical Street Repairs for each street improvement. It should be noted that
;� sections of existing curbs that are cracked �r settled can be sawcut, removed and replaced when the
option to leave curbs in-place is chosen.
'� Centerville Pavement Management Study 1 S
i - -. __ _ _ �.. —' — " - - - .. _ _. . ... . .
I
I � `C.
� Vorioble Variable
�
� Ex. Concrete Curb
' to Remain (Typ)*
, 0.02'/ft.
� Mill Existing Povement & Overlay With
Type 41 Bituminous Weor Course (1 1/2") Ex. Draintile
Remaining Bituminous Pavement.
� Aggregate Base & Subgrade Material
� *NOTE: Sma{I Sections of Curb Removoi/Reptacement are likeiy.
� MILL AND OVERLAY
� �
Varioble Variable
�
� Surmountable Concrete Curb And Gutter
,� .� : : � See Oetaiis 8elow
,','f�i•.'i.�.x?}d� �' '} fl,tiGr��.
� ��-;�;5 �'�r =.� . v= l ��� �> 0.02'/ft. I
; ;�,�::,;�.F- .".. �_ � �..ti>
-'.;>�._�., 'i, ,.�
�• Type 41 Bituminous Wear Course (1 1/2") '
Type 31 Bituminous Base Course (1 1/2")
� Aggregote Base Course (6")
, � Select Gronulor Borrow (20")
, Geotextile Fabric
� RECONSTRUCT New 4" PVC Drvintile (Typ)
�
� DRAINTILE LOCATION DRAINTILE LOCATION
� WHEN CURB dc GUTTER WHEN CURB & GUTTER
� IS REMOVED/REPLACED REMAINS fN—PLACE
� � , �� i �� : : ti�" .. :..�,e:
` :�k �,�.� •tY` ti.l ;, .
.:t.
� •�'4::i'v��.S:��.:b;�:FN•�r'• j'`w
.�:
I �
� TYPICAL STREET REPAIRS � Rosene�
I � Andertik d
j CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 4 � Asaociatee
� � PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY
i
� 61603131F03.DWG JUNE 2003 COMM.: 6t6-03-131
I 11�
� _ -- - - - -- --- - - - -.. - - - - - -- - - � - -
I
�1
;
�f �
�
' ! Storm Sewer
�
When street unprovements/repairs are being considered, the existing storm sewer system needs to be
� � reviewed. The design standards for storm sewer systems have changed and improved since many of
� the streets and storm sewers were constructed in Centerville. Presently it is recommended the
� drainage area to ihe upstream end of any storm sewer system be no greater than 3-5 acres. This
minimizes the amount of storm water reinoff being conveyed down a street's surface and improves
� � iniersection drainage.
I i The City of Centerville has some storm sewer systems that p�rform poorly due to undersized
pipes/structures and flat pipe grades. Placing lazger pipe and reconstructing catch basins and
� manholes to help collect storm water would be advantageous on many streets.
� Figure No. 5 is a map of the City that shows storm sewer extensions that are antici�ated when streets
� are reconstructed. This layout is based on a brief review of the City's existing system; however, a
more detailed design and study will be perfoimed during prepazation of feasibility reports and
� construction plans for these areas. In addition to storm sewer extensions, it is necessary to install
PVC draintile to p�per2y drain the street subgrade.
� �
� Mvst homes in the City have basement sumps and sump pumps that dischazge groundwater to low
�� areas around the home. In some cases it may be necessary to provide connections to the City storm
r sewer for sump pump water, to prevent deterioration of street pavements.
i �
�
� � � Sanitary Sewer �
'� When overlay and reconstruction type projects are considered for an area, the existing sanitary sewer
� I system needs to be reviewed to make sure repairs are done before street reconstruction. As part of
�'� the review, pipes will be televised and ihe associated report reviewed by the Engincer. This review
,, will deternune if repairs/upgrades are required.
�
�
�
, Centerville Paveme�rt Management Study 17
t
�
All sewers in the Ciry have been televised previously. While some small sections appear to need
' repair, most sewers in the city are adequate and no additional work is necessary. It is recommended
that sewer tapes be reviewed and manholes inspected as part of each reconstruction project.
�
� Water Main Repairs
When overlay and street reconstruction type projects are considered for an azea, it is recommended
� the history of the existing water main system be reviewed. If repairs/upgrades are required, they
should be done with the project.
�
As shown on Figure No. 6, several residential streets in the City do not have water main. When
� streets such as Shad Avenue and Center Street are reconstructed, new water main will be extended.
� Service lines, hydrants and gate valves will also be installed to meet the City's standards.
,
. ,
�
�
�
i
�!
't �
�1
; 1
1 Centerville Pavemertt Management Study 18
I — _
r r t a� i���e � a� ��� r s� tr� �� i
CITY OI LIMO \�It[•
� � , ......r ....... �
.I
� � � �
� � � b �
g � � � r
� i � �
�
#' � i = � � I
. �
S � I
3 � � . �
Q Z I . .
S � I . � �
� - �
� " I
I � � I
I ' �
� I '
� . . �
� � �
, �
_ '
CIT• Of 1�N0 L�It�b � - � '
r - ---- ------------ ( � �
� ...._. ', • I
I � , ' � "� � � �
- � . - a' . �
i-_ .. � � I
I' � • ... '. � , �
, � , . , _ ' ' . : : ..... �
I . - i _. '. • • . -• . � ' �. -..' � . � '`- I
� _ .� � � ,...� � 3 .' ' . , ..' T ,, �
, „�, . '1 • . • . . .. • . � .I
� • • . - ... � : .•-• . � . �� • . .. .. _ '�, .� . .�
' � . . • �> • _ • , ' . " _ - I
, I . • ' . , . . , • .. .. . I
� .. ` . . . . .: - I
� °. _ • : . . .... ._ • .. .. . . I
, :.,,� . . .. ....... . , - ' • • - I
� ,t. : ' ' . . � . ..___ •�- .. : ��i �
� L _ _ _ _ _ _ � ' . . . • - . . . . . . . " ' '
� • •• � . ' . . . . . " " " � . • . . . . - . . . '
a � •' v , ' . ' ' • . r � . � . ...... . ...' . -- . .. . • I
� , . % .. ... � : : •:: • - • : °, : . ... .- I
� _ . . _ _ . . � . . : _ , . . • . . � I
. . . . ,
., ,._.... , . .,
�..... - • • • �
� �.-.aa ..,,., • ----- --
_ ' ' �. � � ' � nitr or uwa uRts
r � • -
: � e • • j � �
� � i � � � . . . •
N . I
r . . . � ....,... ",-,.. �
, E I
-- �— --- € t �— ---� i
;. — —= —� — ;
� CIiT Oi "���LIMO LAMEf ^ I
I
I
u �sa� r�r w a
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS � B
v Rosene
CENTERVILLE, M�NNESOTA FIGURE 5 andeHik &
� Assoc�ates
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY
61603731F01.bWG JUNE 2003 COMM.: 616-03-131
� � � � � �s w w� � �t � � � � r � � r� +�
CIiY 01 LINO LAR[6 �.
� . m _ _ _ � _ � _ �
1 I
ay I
I � � � �
� la
I �� I � �
�
�
I � � I b
j � � � �• I
N
i � � I �
; I
' Z � I
� � � I
' I
I _ I
� I
i � I
�
T I
� I
I
i � i
I
� o��r ar uMO uK[s - � � �
� r ---- -- -- -- -- � • �
I � I
� - � � � i
I � ,
� , a I
� I I
� € ' I
� _ S .�
1 _- -. e� I
-k= - �1 + .� � sI I
� � - „� - i _ � _ � � �I
�
� �� - " I
I � I
i � ,
I - � j
f �:., - I
I � � �: �i� I
L _ _ _ _ _ _ ( p _ _ i I
. i •+.� ' '
. n - ., i
• - � • • . .. .. . .. .
�.....« � -. -• . �' " • • ' � '' J
. . �:..:.: � �.a:.; ' — — — — — r.�.� — —
I � ���::�..�..��• - OITT Of lINO L�N[•
� I � . . � .. . .
o +' } "� '.� ___"
I I
�
! I
--- �— --- € f' — ---J
i CItT 0��'LIMO L�kl� '
��I �u mu� �Yi� s
'
II I
I I
'� WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS � Bonestroo
i 0 Rosene
I CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 6 Anderlik &
� Associates
PAVEMANT MANAGEMENT STUDY '
; 61603131FOt.DWG JUNE 2003 COMM.: 616-03—t37
I — —
I �
�
I �
I
I �
� Cost Estimate
�
�
�
i� The costs associated with street rehabilitation will vary, depending upon the amount of construction
�
� needed. Seal coating is a relatively inexpensive method of maintenance. On the ather hand, the cost
I�; � to reconstruct roads is far greater than milling, patching, and constructing a bituminous overlay. .
� �, Each road in the City has been anaiyzed, and recommended repairs are described.
� �
; The estimated cost per lineal foot of street rehabilitation (measured along street centerline) is shown
� � on Table 5.
i
�
� �
i
, Table 5 - Rehabilitation Casts
i � (Residential Street — 33' Back-to-Back)
�
� � Seal Coat $4.21/LF
�� Mill and Overlay $44.16/LF
�� � Reconstruct (Existing curb & gutter remains in place) $151.51/LF
,
,� Reconstruct (Remove and replace curb & gutter) $221.95/LF
i
i
i The various rehabilitation methods include seal coat, milUoverlay and ceconstruct. Reconstcvction is
� further divided into com lete temovaUre lacement of curbs vs. s t re airs of existin concrete curb
, P P Pa P g
' and gutter.
, �
I The mill and overlay estimate assumes 10% of the street will need patching and the outer 6 feet of
�� the pavement on each side is rxulled off. This method of rehabilitation also assumes that the concrete
� �
� curb and gutter is in fairly good shape and 10% of the total length wouid be removed and replaced.
� A bituminous wear course 1 thick would be conswcted after aIl curbs and atches were
i �
, P
� complete.
�
� '
I
/ Centerville Pavement Management Stualy 2�
�
�
I Costs are based on the typical Centervilie street width of 33' back-to-back of surmountable concrete
, curb and gutter (30 feet face-to-face). T'he actual bituminous pavement width between the curbs is
� 28'4". Costs are also listed in Appendix C for streets wider or narrower than 33'.
Estimated utility costs for new water main, storm sewer extensions and sanitary sewer repairs are
� listed separately in Appendix B.
� All cost estimates include a 10% condngency factor and 30% indirect costs. Indirect costs include
engineering design, construction inspecdon, legal, aci�ni.nistrative, testing and interest on the bond.
'
� Assessments
� Street improvement projects, whether new or reconstruction, are generally assessed totally or in part
� to the abutting property owners. These costs are typically assessed on a front foot basis. The City of
� Centerville has not developed a policy for assessing street reconstiuction type projects. One purpose
of this Pavement Management Study is to suggest an assessment policy. This policy can be adjusted ;
� or modified as necessary to meet the needs of the City:
, Table 6— Suggested City Assessment Policy
� Infrastructure Property
; Imarovement Owner Citv
� Street Seal Coat 0% 100%
Street MilUOverlay 10°l0 90%
� Street Reconstrucrion 25°Jo 75°1'0
Concrete Curb & Gutter* 75°10 25%
;� Sanitary Sewer Repairs 0% 100%
Water Main** 100% 0%
Storm Sewer SQ% 50°!0
� Sidewalks 25% 75%
� * Applies only where no curb and gutter existed before reconstruction
,
** All costs over and above a 6" diameter aze financed by City Trunk Fund
, Centerville Pavement Managernent Study 22
I — --
�
�
� It is recommended the City assess property abutting street reconstruction projects on a front foot
basis in accordance with the rates established in this report.
�
It is also recommended residential property be assessed a minimum 75. front feet (F.F.} and a
� maximum 90 F.F. an their short side, regardless of side yard or backyard lengths. Shown in Table 8
is the ro sed 2004 Street Im rovement Pro'ect. Streets aze listed alon with centerline f�ta e
,
P Po P J g g
I � estimated costs and proposed residential assessment amounts. Figure �10. 7 shows the proposed
improvements on a City map, which includes seal coating, mill and overlay and street reconstrucpon.
'
� Proposed 2(N14 Street Improvements Estimated Costs and Assessments
The project streets are listed on Page 1 of Table 9. The total cost for street improvements (seal
� coat, reconstruct and mill) is $2,800,000. Approximately 25% of this totaI, or $650,000� will be
assessed to property owners wha abut the streets and receive benefit. The street reconstruct
, assessment ranges from $2,500 to $3,p00 per lot.
� Most of the 2004 project streets will require water mains and storm sewers to be installed. The
� total cost for these new utilities within the city right-of-way is $967,000, as shown in Table 8.
New water main is assessed 100% to residents, up to a 6-inch diameter pipe. Storm sewer is split
� SO-50 between residents and the City. The estirriated assessment per lot for water main and
storm sewer is $4,000 to $5,000.
�
I All streets proposed for reconstruction in 2004, except Dupre Road, will need concrete curb and
� gutter to replace existing bituminous curbs. The estimated assessment for curb and gutter, which
is based on 75% homeowner cost, is $1,000 per lot.
1
Combining the street, utility and curb assessments, the total range is $7,500 to $9,000 per lot.
i
t
� Centerville Pavement Management Study 23
ii r � � � -- � � � —
CITT Ot 1�M0 L11M[f
I � «•....... ....... I
I�I � . . � 1_
� • '�
� �k � I �e
� �$ I ,, � �.
� �� I b
� e � � � �� I
� I �
'� h Z I �r
� � .
Z I ' ' I
� I . �
I
� I
' , `
� I
� � I
� � . �
� ' �
, �
c - �
CIT1 0I LIMO L�11[� I g � �� � I ,
r - ---- — --- ---- . �
� .•• , ' I
� , . . i �� �, i I
I . • � � .- a. �
I �• � . • • , � � I
' •� 1 • ' Y • • - '' � • ' ` . . � . . . _ . • , I i
� � ' � ., — ' : . :._ . �� : , '' . • .� . • � I
� • • • • . - ... ., . . • - • _
; , • " �. . : . ..-• � : - �,� ' ' �. .� Y � IM �� I
• � � ., .
. , . . . . ,, - _ _ _
I � �- � ' : � � � . . - ��`� � �
I • ; � ' ' - • ' . . ' �i . :� �
� `..: ... ' . , - : : ' � -- �
� -_ : . . , , - _:: . . ' " I i
= e., . . . _ . . - • i
j � : ' ; . . � . .. •- � .. __ • � � � I I
„ . .
L_ _ _ _ — _ �� � . . • . . . '
', . . . , . . . - . . . .
� . . . � . . � .... .. . .
I '. . ..... � �h .. � .
�. _ . . . . . . . . ' . . . . .. . . �
� � , • • , • . • • , . . • • ' � ' � � • . . . '. . ' • . . . . . � ' . . . I
I .' . . . , . • . . . . . . . . • , _ I
. ' ..__ . .� ... -.�, . .. -••• - . • . ' ,, _J
.. r.,.�,.. ....,:�-.:..._. ' — _ — _ — _�_.��._ .^
I •� ;y� �... CITT 0/ LIMO L�R[t
� � 5 �
(,�v. �' �� � I
g N � _.--'�:
ti ! I
f
-- '— --- € ��— --�
��.. a. .�«o ...�, --
2004 & 2006 PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS � Bonestroo
� Rosene
Anderllk 8�
CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 7 � Associates
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY
61603131FOt.DWG JULY 21, 2003 COMM.: 616-03-131
I -
■„� - � __ � _ _ � _ - -- - - - � r �
�
EITT O! LINO LAFEi
II ��� � � ".. ..........j...�+ I �
� �
I � Q I �
�p
g S I � I�
i I � �
i I b
I � � ' , � �
S � Z � �
} � A I . �
Z � . . I
� � I - • 1
I _' ' �
I • I
� ' I
� I I
I • ` '
V� � I
. • I
y _ I
CITY 0/ 11�0 L11REf a ' � I
r -- -- -- --------- � ' �
� ...... ' a '. �
� : ' ' � , . " � �
� . • t� � �, • �
I, .. � � . - . � - �
I• . ... -, a , �
� � ' � � •-- �
. . : . .. �
� - -! -- ,�. ;,:.•: � _ '�.-•� ... . `' • - I
I. . . • _ _ � � -• . . ,
� . - . . ... . � - . � ..P -
-�.:,, . ' '� , : .. - - ... �• ' . � • � a I
I ' ' . . • � � . '. . . . ' . " �� . n Nlr " � . I ¢ 6 . �'
� . • � � . . . . . . . ' . I
,�,, � . � • • • • - ... . . � '
,,. ' _ . ' • i . ' • ... I
. ',,,. � - . . - r . � . � . ' • ' . " . ' : �
� —_ �. �e. �' • ', .... ••. � , •.._.. .... � .. , �. ' � t 1 I
L— __ .
. . .... ... . .... - • _.....
- e . . • - - " �' - . .
I "
. Y . • . . . . .... ._ ' '_ •... _ I
_ � . . . _ : • .. ..... • � - . �- . • : . . � 1
< ! • ' ' . • � � : .. . .. ' �' ...: . : ' , .. : . .. ." I
. - .� , _ . .. . : : . �
. .. . , ,
. •.,.--.... , . ..
a....�. . .• . • _ " J
� � ,..a - .,. � �.. .+,e,oa ._ _ — _. _ _�-,.�.._. — —
� ' ti .. �,,.'c� . . .
CITY 0/ LINO L11NLf
I � S .� I
. . . �
� � �� � .._..:.:::-�� 1
( ' I
F
-----�"¢— --- � ��— ---�
a�ir ar '�� uwo ieKCS � �
I
2009 PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS � BO"�
� � Rosene
CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 8 �deriik &
� � Associates
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY
61603131F01.DWG JULY 21, 2003 COMM.: 616-03-131
,
� ���d�om;��<�� m��
= m��=m�������� »»�
� w�-�»-»-m��
; ���s�����:��m ��s
° �r��m�mm��mg �
n w&www�G°'��$�iq .Y.:6�'n
�
o R�N8����.°��9�', �BFi
� ov m no
s a��'_°����»��ym »�
�
"o $. 8 S.8
`-' 8�8��g888�$�S ���
S ���F o��w ��m
� 8858888888888 8$8
��S$�����&�R� »�
�u ��� ���
;
� 8888888888888 888
���m»5�8��8�� 9.Si�
s �«�� ���� °�� i
� � I
O g g
q 8 &�9, j
� N O N O� q H � N � N m ''.
� � w ww'�$ w Mww °� I
0 o°8ogggggggggg $g$
� �° �8����������� 3��
€ V No Mr��M�ih N��i
�
� V y O p p p O C OOOp p C p O
u O g O O g O O O O O O O O O O O ..
�, �g����������� St�a
7 o a9�"Gr��S«.Y«�^v$b�'
C a
� �
°m'n 8 8 89i� o
m � � ��Qa:°�a��:�^ m
F y � �����y��»$y�� S��
�
E � ' �°�,�8«�R n�o
� � 01:2 `��' ^ AS�Fi«m a�'e �o N '
� . m m _ _ � - . .
m �� �oa��_�i���gg�� x�»
$
N � °�c'"iS�n�i5t�3�9.�i 'r"�«
s �� gi v�m e o� o�m�n � e �
q N N � O N h t� 1� O t�
� w� d1 F a o N N� I�l � N� N � $
O
S
N O� P OI N O� p N Oi
�� ���w����w���� ���
Ev 'S
Z d
O
� �
�` ������:�<��� o�
� o
�
�
� Z �
� � � m � � Z m
� �
�o.� � s
y �Z��='����: �� �'
}� p � � � -�
X��3c"imcic �n o
�
y 3
E � g �+
P
� _ � N ¢ _ � � � � � o � � Q �
� $��,°�3�3���� �3 '=
� �
,� � � -���� > -� o
4 � � � � °� y o � � � � � o � � � a g � �
C � � � ¢ � y � � � W 8 C �
� � ¢ �� E y m "� 5.� � o E 3 �
��� y N 0 S�Ina0U0� ���� =n $ Q
�� �rS � �¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢Q¢Q '�i� ¢
� ' ��$�gg���g��� ��� �
na
- -- � - - - - — -
�
$ _
� ��� g������������ �N � g��
�a; ������������� ������xx&��������������������� � � s �
$ � �°. � m 99SmSll� �� �',o", pn m ������ °:`;":� � 3
� ��v ��E7��3��� � � "�g A- ��$�'$��$��m�� k.�: 0 3
� � � � � $ � m $ ' � D C � � c� S � � � � � � N � .7 m D � D d F 4 � m `" n � ~ � � � S 3
E ��a x �� ����""m�������` °�s��'g �Z83g � �� ��ffi
, g = 5 3���'+� � 3� n�°�ma�� _ n � � � � � �
� - �m vm ��Z��� £a��� � �� �� gQ3� 3
�'- -a �aa g g � I � a �
a a n 3 s
'� �� 2� m ��§ N � 3 i��� N � v&� a� S$ S �� l Ci � e= m m � T S
�" Q ��� ma°� �_�� ��� z�='=� �� � �°�#
���
� a s���
n (1Nll �! nTtl _3 n[) nN l�py$ C]ClllnnDt) t)mm-i �
J � m ^� F S25 � � £ ���
a 3 � ��$� y�? �g� � �. a�i y v m �n � r�n "� (QitQ,�i�nv �: /�i� ( � 5' E
� m Q i �N�N�{1�[1, R vIZ D g D m o m T 2rfn g C a ��
L 4 m � a Ns � a-' 3 y_�m
�� a ' a� 3��' a $D$ �� � � S�
� � S 3 y _ '�� ° �.E f F N � ~ ����
�^ ' � - � € a
� � � 5
� c���
�� �
g� osHN"aH��a�Ng ��og���a�NHs000�N€�o����os��� s� � F
F �
�� ������xti��>� �������a ��� �
�' �
�� �m������a��� ��������������H:�����;���t����� a��a' <
. cacaaeaccco Hcaaeco acca x�$
s x
I
� � * � �
o� �$�������w�� �ou�� ' -
. . . . . aacoo cao 1
; m
V
i
I , � S�g �O
>
�o :g���U�m:��� �NNm� �' $ �
� a0000 m
_ �
33 �����5$����� �§3§34���§����3���$§���9"�3$3� ~� o
G
m
q� �?��mmmmmm� <r� @@ �sm�m�mmm�!� ��� �s? ¢� »
EE c^22E2 22 E2 �T 2222c22 B2EF�
3 3 3 3 3 3 3� 3 3�� 3 3. 3.3 � 3 3 3 3 3 3� 3 3 3 3 3 3 3� 3 3 3 3 �� 3
3''� O d� C b ��'0 3 8 0 3 5 3 m
�� ����€�gg���� �v�sH��m��°s�sr<�g��������g��� 3
a. �„umeawuv� m�W w
$
s � �
� � �
0
m� m�m������� ms�m��� m����� s��
� ������ � � ����� � � ���
� ���$�� � � ����s ° � �
6 c m¢� y s §j �� y ��� Q c c N N� N N N N� O O N N N � N N N N � � 41 N � H��
N3 3�s���..�.a� ' ro3'33�3'���� 3aa���3����33��3 �r.
� #�"��#��M��'" �'A
rn�°S �'18�J';��"+'=»8�' frkk'CN'S`CYSYS'Ck'J:11CA3Yg'kY1CkSST'SK'L"1C ��
�e °dm ��°-$� $����� �__ ;��m ��vN6°3m
- - - �R
� JN��#���`S G� �$
ffiG'l ��,,.��,�w�o..��,� ��
� �� S ��,�$sm����'�mm
�N�� _ '"��oo���Sffi�oo�000�Sg�ffigg��ffi�g�
�Ei�u $���Y�LHN$w�o �$88888888888888$888888$88$8$$
i tt �#�««»«�;»«�.a « Si
m��� ���m_��-��Ng� ^���������«�a�r���rN��w�a�N��xw
� ���a ���m�������m� ����mH:��.���°�o�.��w;N�mow�$N�
N�N�����sH�� �ssossN��m�s���N „ N�m�oae�Ns��
�
���� �����o��a���� ti�������a����x���xa��«���H��:� �'�
�?�€m ����m�m��:°m� ���mN£������xa���,�����mo���N'= "�
� ���� :�s��s�s�s�Na �sssgs;��m�����s,�N�m�ssm�;���
i
i �
�°��«a�mN��rR°���'�R��� om<"�����5:������8m $ °'s�-^$8 �
00 °����e;"s�S���������m�� �s���s.m��w��gs���"�� s ��n��se
�� aaxx��e�w=�a»�w��»ww�� ��_���x�aaos ��R����=�
»��-w-»� »� �.„�
o��� �s��s���������� r���n m��m m�m m�� �� ��
e � �;,; ��_.: � °'Nm �o�m�;��;�" � �^���
��^_��,.�s��a�m�m�� �m������#s_a�_���3� ��
�� �a��wa�m»�wa»����»���� �='��x��"s����������� ����»���n
» „ x
°ssssaassgsssss.seesss$ ^���mmm$«�mas�s.s.s�m � 8:�s°��
a���ss�s»�s������ss�$a ��o������o����n^��H � «�����"
�� »�a»»��s����»»���xi� - �8 �� �„r
x yC . LL / .- � o � r m m .- � � n n ��... � � � q � � p� m
V a�����1�iY� W�1��1���r�1�SI1yi�i�lxN ul ul vf N v1 Yf O C� N N N 1� nA I� YIN �
�U YIHNYGNiHMH`"� NI'�FAf`k`YY�1
�
� � F E 5 5 € E 3 � € � € € € � € m r� g € rv € € a n a € � € � € € € € � € E
V�1 NN NNNNN N� NNN 41 N m Vi 41 S N NO[I �N NY1 N NN V1NN N
� uuu� �3 3 3�c� � c�� �c� ��� �
�F� � aa — --� �` �� � �� � •
�' R�°� g� � ��8 � �� �° � �8 �
3 '
��; ��W��a��a�"s����"s� ��� �����#������������ �
- -��-- $
�
��� ��m�m �m�
� a
��� ,.�.,.�,.������,.,.,.�,.�,.,.,. ________ ____ ____ _
� 8 � .���.�.� ��s����£ � �� ���Fg�F€F�F �g��F� F I
q E E E E E ��� ��� E E E> j�E€ E E € E �
� H .� .� .�' � . �' �' � 2 2 2 . � � � 2 2 2 _ _ 2 2 2 � � i 5 S � � � 2
� mmmm� ��m��mmm'm� m �� �m'm�3 c3nl �iE�d'd miEd'nl��� 3
W
� g �3������ r $ $��3P�������������� �
¢ti r n n n w n n n n n � n n n r n�. � � n n r. r- � � n n n � r r n n n n n n n r
T O
C
000000000000000000 0
�. �_ �Som��e����8��$��� �
� 3
� �LL
� � I
A
�
�e ` S; �
LL LL
'z
�� � i t �
j vif�it�il�iC�(��In�iC�it�it�ir��i�t�JC�t����� ��iC�i IgiaYit�i�iC��t�i�iPit�t����th �i
� I
� $
m �
� 8 ` 0000in o 00 00 0000�n �
e � �� ` v��.�ir�.�in� n e���.� �i��r���e�Fia' � n�e �pi�. � � �ceNo
M
`^ � � t� �mq o um
� � �� :��������m�a;��m���s�� $os�����°�n������� � ���"'�s��
�� �
��� § �
e L � � �
��� � �� a +� � �� 3 �3€; R
� �� 8 N 2 U N 2�= W Y Z �A Q N �� N' 3 � p y$ Z N a W V g � N 3 <�$ Y
b g
W �������g��g����83W��� ������°3�g���8a�a �
��\�
���� � �r �$ ��� � $_ =�Z
, .� � �
� ��� �_`��`�����������'�m.�� �<�mm���€��g�O�<Q�� ° b
m��c��ci�ooc`3 ��cS �v� d3a �SacS�a ���..R� ��3�z �
��s� � �
� ���� �€ �� �P � € �� �b � _ � zw3 � a
��� �� �' ���� E3@ _" 3 ����s E � o � ; ��8a ���� ¢ d m r� ��E� �� > � n
�� ac�$o` �¢ad°�o� � g A�F�� �� c� U ��a� o 9p $ R �
? ° �'oiviv u ��m�� aw�������aSKdd 3 g � z m'�BdLL���$rDt�rEd`� � � �3 g �Fa �
y � Q � � U V(? U V U U UU U U V V U U � 6 m a. � N
E ' _ �2f24�2{Fi�F�TUNN�A�����A�N� ¢ K66¢�¢66R tt6GG¢Q¢S¢¢ � � � V16��� J
��� � ����� ��8���������������� �� � �������� �
�
�
�r �■ � � � � �. � �r � � � � � � � �r � �
�
�
It is also recommended multiple family properties be assessed similar to residential property. Listed
, below is a suggested front foot amount for each unit based on property type and the estimated
percentage of value campared to residential property.
, �
FF/Unit
, Duplex -(80% of 75 Fk� 60 F'F
Townhomes -(60°l0 of 75 Fk� 45 FF
I Apartments -(40% of 75 FF� 30 FF
, An alternative to the front footage assessment would be to assign an average cost per lot for all single
� family lots with proportional rates for all other residential housing types.
� It is recommended commercial and industrial property be assessed the full rate, based on the
construction incu�ed, and be assessed for their entire frontage abutting the street project. Tn same
� cases, if commerciaUindustrial properties have minimal frontage abutting the project, it may be
appropriate to assess on a per lot basis or adjusted in some manner to reflect beneft received.
� _ _ _
Table 6 shows suggested assessment percentages for utility upgrades for sanitary sewer, water main
, and storm sewer. Appendix B gives estimated costs for various pipe sizes and appurtenances. New
water main is typically assessed 100°!0 of the equivalent 6-inch diameter with all oversizing costs
� paid through City Trunk Funds. It is fett that additional storm sewer or storm sewer repairs add
considerable benefit to property owners and a 50% assessment was figured.
�
� Revenue '
, Managing the city's infrastructure is a ve'ry large undertaking. As shown in this report, total street
project costs of approximately $6,763,542 are anticipated through the year 2009 to upgrade streets. �
, Approximately 23°Io or $1,583,654 will be assessed to benefited property owners. The remaining
$5,179,888 must be financed through bonds, general fund, special city funds, or County
� participation.
� Centerville Pavement Management Study 28
r
�
, Proiect Schedule
' City Council orders preparation of Report February 26, 2003
Evaluate all Roads using PASER method April — May, 2003
' Present Draft Pavement Management Report (PMR) July 23, 2003
Council orders Feasibility Study for 2004
, Residential Street Improvements September 2003
Council receives Final Report, reviews Assessment
' Policy at Workshop October 2003
� Public Information Meeting on PMR and Assessment Policy November 2003 �
' Council and staff review financial requirements and
2004 project specifics December 2003
' Public Hearing Notice published and mailed to
affected property owners December 2003 '
, Public Hearing for 2004 Street Improvements January 2004
Authorize preparation of plans and specifications January 2004 '
' City Council approve plans/specs, authorize advertising March 2004 i
; Open bids and award contract April 2004
I, Begin construction — 2004 Street Improvements May 2004
Complete Construcrion August 2004
', Assessment Roll and Hearing 5eptember — October 2004
,
. '
,
,
�
Centerville Pavement Management Study 29
'
-._ -- --- - -. _.. .. ... _ . . _ ....._ . _ _.
� �,
'
,
� �
' o
� � V � �
� � . Established 1857
I `
�
�
� A endix A
PP
�
�
�
� �
� .
�
�
�
�
�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � , i
Appendix A - Cost Estimates
Seai Coat - Crack Seal
Cost per Lineal Foot of Street
Street Seal
Width B-B Crack Coat Total Total Total
(feet Seal Rock Oil Construction +1096 +30°� �
25 0.48 0.92 0.76 2.16 2.38 3.09 j
27 0.52 1.00 0.83 2.3G 2.59 3.37
29 0.57 1.08 0.90 2.55 2.81 3.65 j
31 0.61 1 17 0 97 2 75 3.03 3 93 �
'r �.a- i �€. ;irj nx n i x r� i :a �S'"i' - ,r' � �
��� r � r�' e�` � V �� "^�� 1 Z� � �',r {' .n�sra, c r � :
.33.. �:,�, , �;� ,�;:: � .ty�.�,.;�',�a�a�.. .�" �5��33�� �4;21
35 0.70 1.33 1.11 3.14 3.46 4.50 �
37 0.74 1.42 1.18 3.34 3.67 4.78
39 0.79 1.50 1.25 3.54 3.89 5.06
41 0.83 1.58 1.32 3.73 4.11 5.34
43 0.87 1.67 1.39 3.93 4.32 5.62
45 0.92 1.75 1.46 4.13 4.54 9.80
r � � � � � � r � � r +■� � � r � � � � r�s
Appendix A - Cost Estimates
Mill and Clverlay �
�
�
Cost per Lineal Foot of Street �
Street
Width B-8 Outer 6' 10.0090 C 8 G Driveway Tota1 + � py, + 3Q�
feet Millin Patch Overla Re air Re air Sodding Constr Contingencies Indirect Costs
25 3.33 3.33 $8.82 $10.00 a.08 0.50 $26.99 $28.69 538.80
, 27 �3.33 $3.60 59.53 �10.00 $1.00 �0.50 �27.96 $30.76 a39.99
29 $3.33 $3.87 $10.23 $10.00 $1.00 $0.50 a28.93 $31.83 aA1.38
31 $3.33 $4.13 $10.94 $10.00 $1.00 $0.50 $29.91 $32.90 �L2.77
. v: 3�� �';.. �3�3�� $4:4Q�'�s°=x�(1�65 ..'.���'�Uk00���`�.� ���?Q � `.� ��$�'.5Q;�' �`�..�$��.$8 , :M��.s� �:s''.�33'9�3 � ���*�Y -�=�t:16°=
35 $,3.33 $4.67 $12.35 $10.00 $1.00 $0.50 $31.85 $35.04 �45.55 �
37 $3.33 $4.93 $13.06 $10.00 $1.00 $0.50 $32.82 $36.11 �46.94 �
39 $3.33 $5.20 513.76 $10.00 $1.00 $0.50 $33.80 $37.18 �48.33
41 $3.33 $5.47 $14.47 510.00 $1.00 $0.50 $34.77 $38.25 a49.72 �
43 $3.33 E5.73 $15.18 a10.00 $1.00 $0.50 $35.74 $39.32 a�1.11
45 $3.33 $6.00 515.88 a10.00 $1.00 $0.50 $36.71. $40.39 552.50 :
I
nnuuover�ay 2
-- ,
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ,� , i
Appendix A - Cost Estimates
Reconstructlon
Cost per Lineal Foot of Street
Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter
I
t wid�h I '
to b�k BllumNwus BNumh�ous Rem 3 Rep 4' Drafn Ciaas S Select Reclaim Const. + 10X + 30%
feet W�r Baae C 8 G Tlb Baes Granular Excavafion 8it Fabric Dtivev� 3odd Total Contl enc�s Indkect Costs
25 9.33 .81 24.00 12.00 11.98 5.00 513.00 s5.56 54.50 S12•50 $4.80 5131.4$ 5144.63 5488.02
27 10.07 9.53 4.00 512.00 512.87 26.85 13.98 .00 54.83 512.50 S4.8d 137.42 181.16 5196.51
29 10.62 10.23 4.00 S12•00 573.75 528.70 14.93 .44 5.17 12.50 s4.80 5143.35 3187.68 5204.98
31 11.57 10.9�i 24.00 312.00 574.84 30.58 15.89 56.89 55.50 ;t2.50 54,80 149.28 5784.21 s213.47
.. : �r'�J'�•. y . � . . . . . . . . . . � . . . : . . ... .. . . . �
.., . .,. . .. . .. .�. .
. 54.80:=`, . . _: 55:21 17Q:'F3: . . , . �221.g5;
t� �;�. 12'31... �r. fii.85r :� `;�'�532:41��"�;� 9H :,. : . .:.3'12.50 ^: >:� - �. _;���. {. .
_..33 �, . �' '�"?�524,00"� �! .,� 12500 �..,.x., 553.
35 13.06 512.35 s24.00 12.00 578.42 34.26 17.81 57.78 .17 s72•50 54.80 161.14 5177.26 i230.44
37 s13.80 513.08 524.00 512.00 517.30 36.11 18.7B 58.22 .50 572.50 54.80 5167.08 E183.T8 5238.92
39 14.55 513.76 524.00 s12-00 518.19 37.96 19.74 58.67 6.83 512.50 54.80 5173.01 5790.31 s247.40
41 1b.30 :11.47 24.00 512.00 19.08 9.81 20.70 59.11 j7.1T 512.50 .80 178.94 196.83 S25S.88
43 18.04 15.18 24.00 12.00 19.97 1.67 s21.67 9.58 s7.50 12.50 .80 5184.87 s203.36 i2B4.37
45 516.79 515.88 524.00 512.00 520.85 i43.52 i22.63 510.00 i7.83 512.50 54.80 5190.80 5209.88 5272.85
Reconstruction �
Cost pe� Lineal Foot of Street
Curb and Gutter Remains in Place
aeec w�dn,
b back Bkuminous BNumk�ous Rem b Rep 4" Drain Class 5 Select Reclafm Const. + 10°� + 309k
eet Wear Base C b G Tile Baae Grarwtar Excavation Bit Fabric Drivewa Soddfn Total Cond rxies Indirect Costs
25 9.33 .82 3.00 12.00 9.02 18.82 59.79 55.56 53.39 $2.00 0.50 82.23 90.45 5117.58
27 10.07 59.53 53.00 S12•00 59.91 20.68 s10.75 56.00 53.72 $2.00 0.50 $88.16 $98.97 5126.07
29 510.8? 510.23 53.00 12.00 510.79 522.53 511.71 ;6.44 s4.06 $2.00 $0.50 $94.09 $103.50 5134.55
31 11.57 10.94 53.00 s12•00 511.68 24.38 12.68 58.89 54.39 S2•0� 50.50 5100.02 5110.02 3143.03
,-_ ;� g :,' 1'l<65:""'>. ; .OU�:�� �2`04 .� ��;. :1E: _ �� 26:23�„�� 'l.�.B;�*�,'��": 7.s33f� T-��^ :<�2,�.s.��:.;.52,00�....::;: ;$0::50ra� ,$'IQ5'&5 ���.::r$'�.�'6'155r �.. ', 15� �1,
35 13_08 12.35 53.00 ;12.00 513.46 28.08 14.60 57.78 5.08 S2•00 50.50 111.89 $123.07 �5160.00
37 13.80 573.08 53.00 12.00 514.34 529.94 s15.57 8.22 $5.39 $2.00 �0.50 $117.82 5129-60 5168.48
39 14.55 13.78 .00 12.00 15.23 S31.T9 518.53 s8.87 $5.72 $2.00 �0.50 �123.75 �136.12 �i176.96
41 15.30 514.4T Z3.00 S72•00 516.12 533.64 517.49 9.11 56.06 52.00 $0.50 5129.68 5142.65 5185.44
43 18.04 S15.t8 .00 312•00 a17.01 535.49 518.46 59.58 Z8.39 52.00 50.50 s135.81 $149.17 5193.93
45 16.79 15.88 Z3.00 512.00 517.89 537.34 19.42 510.00 56.72 a2•00 50.50 141.55 $155.70 5202.41
� _.. - - - -
I �
'
�
I '
I ' '
0
, V �� � �
� �'stabl�,shed 1857
�
�
�
�
, Appendix B
_ _ _
_ ._
__
� �
� �
�
�
I �
I �
�
�
.
� .'
1 Appendix B- Utility CQSts
1
Sanitary Sewer
' - - "fotai
ltem Unit Unit Price +10% +30%
8' PVC, SDR 35 LF $20.00 $22.00 $29•00
' 10" PVC, SDR 35 LF $23.00 $25.30 $33.00
24" PVC, SDR 35 LF $44.00 $48.40 563.00
Standard manhole, 4' diameter EA $2,500.00 $2,750.00 �3,575.00
' Services EA $650.00 $715.00 $930.00
-
' Storm Sewer _ _
Total
ttem Unit Unit Price +10% +30°k
' 12" RCP LF $25.00 ' $27.50 $29.00 �
15" RCP LF $27.50 " $30.25 536.00 I
18" RCP LF $30.00 ' $33.00 539.00
, 21" RCP LF $32.OQ ' $35.20 $42.00
24" RCP LF $34.00 ' $37.40 S44•00
27" RCP LF $45.00 ' $49.50 �59.00
30" RCP LF $50.50 * $55.55 566.00
' 36" RCP LF 7.00 ' $73.70 $87.00
42" RCP LF $95.00 ' $104.50 �124.00
48' RCP LF $111.00 ' $122.10 5144.00
, Catchbasin EA $1,550.00 "' $1,705.00 $2,015.00
Manhole EA $1,750.00 " $1,925.00 $2,275.00
' Unit Price includes improved pipe foundation and removal of ex�stmg pipe
' " Unit Price includes new structure and �emoval of existing structure I
I
' Water Main ,
Total
Item Unit Unft Price +10% +30% �
' 6" PVC Watermain LF $23.00 $25.30 �'27.00
8' PVC Watermain LF $26.00 $28.60 534.00
10` PVC Watermain LF �330.00 $33.00 539.00
' 12• PVC Watermain LF $33.00 $36•30 S4�•0�
Hydrant EA $1,800.00 $1,980.00 $2,340.00
Gate valve EA $750.00 $825.00 5975.00
Services EA $620.00 $682.00 5806•00
,
'
' ,
' .
I ... -- -- -
�.
terviC�le
� �iskecf 1857
. �
I
�
I
i
�
Downtown Redevelopment
Comprehensive infrastructure Plan
City of Centerville
October 2007
Project Number: 000616-07161-0
� eonestroo
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Te1 65 1-63611600
Fax 651-636-1311
I www.bonestroo.com
I
I o�tone� , o, Zoo� ,.'� Bonestroo
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
�
Centerville, MN 55038-9794
' Re: Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan
City of Centerville
Bonestroo File No.: 000616-07161-0
Dear Mayor and Council:
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to assist in the im ant elements of ructure that
wil� serve your newly developed downtown area. The infor co in this report I be the
framework for plans and specifications developed as the projec s from ptanning to reality.
We would be pleased to meet with you at an ' meeting or w to discuss the findings of this
report and to address any concerns you may ha
Sincerely,
BONESTR00
I� �q�
�
Mark Statz
City En ' r
651- 9
, I hereby certify t �s plan, sp ication, or report
was prepared by m der direct superoision
and that I am a duly Li rofessional Engineer
under the laws of the St of Minnesota.
�
Mark Statz, PE
� Date: October 10. 2007 Reg. No. 42717
I
�
CITY OF CENTERVILLE - DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Table of Contents
Letter Transmittal ..................................................................................................................................1
Tableof Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure Project Overview ................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure Streets and ROW Needs ........................................................................... ........................................... 5
Streets ........................................................................................................ ..... ................................. 2
lmprovements.............................................................................................. `................................................. 2
Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... ..... ...........................................2
Figure 3.1 — Sanitary Sewer Option 1 ...................................................... ............. ..................................... 3
Figure 3.2 — Sanitary Sewer Option 2 ........................................... ...................... ............................... 4
Sanitary ................................................................. ..................................... ....................... 5
Improvements ................................................................. ............... ............................. :................ 5
Cost Estimate ........................................................................... ........ .........,............... .......................5
Figure — Water Main Option 1 .................................................. ..............................................................6
figure — Water Main Option 2 ................. .................................. ......................................................... 7
WaterMain .................................................... ...............,.......... .............................................. 8
Improvements ..................................................... .... ....................... .:............................................ 8 �
Cost Estimate .........................................................
...... .... ................................................... 8 �
Figure 5— Storm Sewer, Pondin InfilVation ............. ... ..:.......... .......................................................... 9 ,
Figure 5— Storm Sewer, P , tion ................ .................... ................................................................ 9 j
StormWater Managem .............. ..................... ........................,................................................10
Proposed Stormwate a ent ..... :.......................... :.........................................................................10 �
CostEstimates ....................... .. ........... ...............................................................................11 I
Figure6 .1- ............ � .................. .....................................................................................12 �
Figurerails an � ". ks....... ..........................................................................................................13
Fig - Trails and Side Altema .:...............................................................................................1 A
Fiure ' hting .................. ............ .......................................................................................................15
Figure - ape ................. . ....................................................................................................................16
Figure - Cro 'ons ........... .....................................................................................................................17
figure - Cross s ...... ........................................................................................................................18
St�eetscape and Trails .. :.................................................................................................................19
Improvements .............. ....................................................................................................................................19
Cost Estimate ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
CostEstimates ........................................................................................................................................ 21
figure - Potential Phasing .............................................................................................................................. 22
PotentialPhasing .................................................................................................................................... 23
Recommendations .................................................. ................................................................................. 23
Schedule ................................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendices............................................................................................................................................. 25
CITY OF CENTERVILLE - DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
I
� Introduction
As the City has prepared to redevelop its downtown, many efforts have been made to make sure different
� elements of the project are in order. A study was completed by Damon-Farber to give the development an
, overall framework and to present design principles and guidelines. This will ensure the area has continuity
and a connection to the history of Centerville. The City's Finance Director has worked diligently to keep the
project economically feasible. This report was commissioned to plan the infrast cture to serve the nearly
375 new homes and 63,000 square feet of retail space that will occupy the n area. Figure 1
illustrates the project area and the proposed uses of the lots within the t area.
-}
�
City of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment �i �nQ�r� Page 3
II
, �� � �
�
�� � e� �
�t
- r .. �, � „ ,, � �°
�� � �� .�-.k ' 7,—,—_.._.,�. �,� ��� �p." ,�a � � � �� � y �,. ;, � � �, ,
c- � -c �'�� ` � �� ��� � k ` � �
� �� {
' � y _�,� ��.�'� ,x � ,,' � � � y ' � j��
"� F a !.' - ,ia N
� .1
. � " � .� x� �
� ` " . _� . y. �
:% �
l C �� �
,. �.c '� r # °
�:E; .. . � {§�',x
�, � �, s �_ � y � �'���.� �
��`� ' � �a� ` ��,' Multi Faml y Units� ��
� �: . ��, � � �, � � .� .�
�� ' � �� � �� 40 Units`ix- ° Retail/Office
Townhomes ��� � � .� �Retail(Office � ��� , � - 6000 SF
, ' 7 Units '� � � ' 14000� SF x £ , RetaiUOffice� �`
* 8000 SF ;'„'�,��
. � �,_ - " ; ::�; ., �.
;y: � � �...
CSA�;F #�4� � �� `
.� � �• �: , � �,�
� , _,� �� � _, � -- ��� -
� ;� ' � ; ,
� r° ` Multi-Farriily Units� Multi-Family�U,nits =
�, 48 Units �: 6Q Units
��r.�
� � ��� '��Retail/Office '�°�� Reta,il/Office ��� �
jy
�: " �, _ 15000 SF� , 20�000 SF
�� �E� - �� a
?� fi � ; -�� N� Towmhomes
�. � , � ,� ���,_ ,� .
�� , ��� �58 Unit
� . � � ,;�;,
�:. � �, � N.� _ �
�� ,����
'�� �µ ' Multi-FamiLy Units. M"ulti-Family Units
""`� 41 Units �.; � �� ��,- 72 Units
�� � � �;. I
- �;
�
; �r
� :. ��.,��•� � �� : � x�.,r ,�„��; �
;�� �m ��'�' i
� �: _ �� -.�� , _ , , " .
: �, ,,
^�' � � `� Townhomes
� �� � , ,.16�rnts �- � Townhomes� ��
.� .
,,,,� "� �, -� ��" ��� - ��� 32 Units
� �� ��-. � �. �
r; ��� .:�.'� �'' '�,-' '�
+rr ���. � f t, �-a� �.'y� r�
:�1F: �
�, � . . .n :: �� �`
�- ;� � a �
��
� .��y.F , �y'
Deveioper's Phasing �, ; ��-� �`� ~�� "°
« :�
- Phase 1 �;.��� �� w+ " ""
, �.,- �
� Phase 2
. . �e> x x'. ..
- Phase 3 � �` x
, �.�: � � � z ..�
- Phase 4 �� �w* ' '
�, � ;
•�. y � ,� ,�. �
c ,�,,
x- x�a ,
Figure 1 Project Overview N �
Downtown Redevelopment W �� E
� Bonestroo
Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan S
Feet
City of Centerville 200 ,00 0 20o cervt!!e
�p��-
I:\616\61607161\GIS\projects\Figure �-Project Overview.mxd October 2007
� , � . t�; , � �r �.; . ; .,.
�,:
� � � ��� �� ° ----- Proposed ROW �
� �
<.,�, , � � � ��
� ��'� � �� � `�"��" �� Existing ROW �
-� �
, a.:
� ��� s .�� � �� � '� Parcel Base Map �
�` '' � � Proposed Vacated ROW }
�' ` � Alternate ROW
h w , s.�' a�!s y4' '
��� ; b
. ��� ; . m � . : � •� Existing Vacated ROW
� m. � 4 �, �'�
{� �� '� �, A/8 Proposed Street Typical Section
� � � „ (See Figures 9 & 10)
�� ,�. ��, a. �
w � � �� � - f
.d'� � �� _ w � ,.�� � � s ����`�►�t` ��: �����`���i1��� i.
,� ,�; ��� .
- , ;-x � . �
� �g���� *`r�8,�� ���
a-�-������
�f
� � `M,��9
�;L �s��+� �
�� `�
$Q' j�j�� �'��
�� 60'
�
,
. ` ._y"
I �� �,� � . � � � . �.���
ROW i �� �� ROW ���,i N j���
� , , i ��' � _�# � ` �'� �f
R�..� .. _ "� .� � ��
` '•,�""' € , '���4,
o � F � �0 0 �f�� o °� O �'� �* ��
.. °
o � O o �,� ,
.. - . . ,
� , � a , � ' a , __ � �
` Y
.,.. .. . - ^i zsx`�.",
` S0� � 60� .. v♦:. �,.:
, �, 5
�,. �:. �-�:
ROW i R � W tfi �•�,i b°
i .� �
i �� ; � ,�:� =�
� � ���
. + . �� ►
�� �:�� �
! �� "� ` ♦�
� �`
,j � � " ��� ±
� � >::: . �`- � p ���I' �� *� �����' ��♦ �, ��
� :� ..o.� � � �
� *� ' !��
�� ►4��
. �
`60'
80 ROW .��r; � ��t ►� ����� .
� ' ��„
ROW ; k'` �` ` �
♦
►
� • � O o O �• �
_ �
� ' � : : � � � �
., , , _ . .. . . : .� ;��.�- �
� . . � . . �� < ..�w � . ,
� s
.� � «�� = 80' � ��, . � � �� � �
° ,� f;�
; �'� �� �:; �
rv -
;
o-
,:� � ' ROW � � ��
-
.,., . .v , � ,y[ `* " ;
� � , r s� , � .
� �
� . �� ,
°
'1 "� �..v� � ` #1' '� ,?�'',
��
Figure 2 ROW Needs N ;�
Downtown Redevelopment W E
Bonestroo
Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan S
City of Centerville Feet �
200� 100 0 200 tervifCe
1:\616\61607161\GIS\projects\Flgure 2-Streets 8 ROW.mxd October 2007
Streets
IMPROVEMENTS
The streets will be reconsVucted as part of the overall redevelopment of the area. Figure 2 illustrates the
roadway right-of-way and the general horizontal alignment of the streets proposed as part of this project.
The streets within the project can essentially be divided into three categories. These categories are as
follows and are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10:
Tvae A Cross Section: This type of layout includes only Cent ad and consists of an eighty
foot right of way and a fifty-six fo eet ' cluding on-street
parking.
T�,pe B1 Cross Section: This layout includes all othe iden 'al streets wit p�oject a�ea and
consists of a sixty foot r' of way a d a twenty-eight e t width.
This section does not c n-stree rking.
T�r,pe 62 Cross Section: This layout pertains to the h f el Street on ei er side of
Centerville Road. This section is me as 61, but incorporates on-street
parking.
These cross sections along with their respective ica ill be de further in the Streetscape
and Trails section of the report. ''��?'
Currently, the City does lan to ruct the dea nd portion of Heritage Street, east of Progress '
Road. The costs asso ' 'th the c ruction of this 5 oot portion of roadway are itemized '
throughout the report as a ate city wishes t nstruct this section of road, these costs would I
be considered e publi r
COST MATE �.
The table ge 'zes the projec costs incurred in constructing the sVeets to city standard.
BLE 1- STREET RECONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Item Total Price
A Cross Section $303,600
ion B1 Cross Section $230,900
Section 62 Cross Section $107,500
ConsVuction Cost $642,000
Contin encies (5%) $32,100
En ineerin , Admin., Le al, Bondin (30%) $192,600
Total Cost E866,700
Altemate Addition - Herita e St�eet (E. ofPro ressJ $68,600
, �,�; . � �., �., � �� ,. �:�,.� � � ..�,..�� .� ;�-��- c �. -�;
� � , i
�'���� ��`° � � o Existing Manhole
' � � o Proposed Manhole
� E Lift Station
� y � Invert Elevation
:� '.fi�, � 889.55
� � R :_ , �..'
9os Estimated FFE
:� "' � �
��' �� � �.. �— Existing Sanitary Pipe
� } ;�` � � '� � � ��� �— proposed Sanitary Pipe
�` ���f--` �`" � Proposed Service Stub
�,� ��., •f�•• Existing Sanitary Forcemain
' � ■■■■■� Existing Sewer To Be Abandoned
' ��_ . �,� `4:
� : � :` Parcel Base Map
;,� * . .
s ���;� Phase 1
� � �: �:
�> �.� -:►���;'.f � .
. � ° � ��:
�� r�
,` 9 16 x , « �.
r
, ...�,,`"�y'^.y,. �' Z � s "`.� ' , , = �
F �
t:
�- -
� -�
� ,�.
6 5 sas s� £ � ,
1 ; j '���
saz s� „y �� 0
. � �
4 � � <� ° '« ��� 7�
� 9'l2 � . , � .:
; , �,. ., �
0 .
1A ..
7= �� � 890.55
�.;
8 151
�� �*� r
888.38 �
7 `c aso
8 i74 890.31 ;, _ 859.07 888.43
8 2 �tt���, , � � � �,'°.
9 887.66 - 149 �:
„. :. ,>.. � .. �
,
� �Y' �
888.00 - ' �"'�%
- 43 w� .. . 148
675 ' �
889.23 �"''
\
5 ass.s, Temporary service
6 7 7 eaa.s� aaa.�i 3 s as ss �. 890.47 to be provided.
i� �`36
4 �
;�;
,� �� �
4�..
�
a .� _
��� �
: . w r �
� �� � .
v.. , i!; ,,'�, �,.
�, �.� ,,
' � � � .
4 ;
��" �'� .A;' .
� ' . r . : � .-.�..� �... , ._
F = t _
� _
S� "
� . , . e . � . . ' e.r:�, ..
I
v i� � Y ' ...H � -� t ,, � � �. .
a # ,�.
: , .,. �. � i� .
� ` t i �
�#
}� �� "
. ..
? � * =,r
Figure 3.1 Sanitary Sewer - Option 1
One Service Per Complex N '��
Downtown Redevelopment W�i�''F Bonestroo
'�
Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan S
Feet �
City of Centerville 300 150 o soo t"`�`ttE
I:\616\61607161\GIS�prqects\Sanitary Sewer-0ptl.mxd October 2007
^, ; •� � � � a:� ..: �_
-`� '�,- ' . ,� � - `�,w.' '" . ,
; � '`� � '�� °� h � �� � F � � � � #� :°� o Existing Manhole
¢ �,�-. � � �.`� � � R�o � � � o Proposed Manhole
�°�' . •:' ` �� "` ■
� �' '�� ' ��,�� �_ � � � �� �� Lift Station
� � � � -�� �� . �r� „ � �+�. �
� � �� � ; �"' � 8B9�s5 Invert Elevation
��. �� ��� ` $ � "� � � ` 906 Estimated FFE
��`A .< � a
� p.
� P . ``; ��`` �'"� � . �-- Existing Sanitary Pipe
�' � v � : ` 4 �'�'°.;y� —�— Proposed Sanitary Pipe
,..: � ' s�,° � ;' .. `;� ,
• , ~ � Proposed Service Stub
� • � �''� •��•• Existing Sanitary Forcemain
���
� � :�` ■■■�■� Existing Sewer To Be Abandoned
�
'� � . � t , Parcel Base Map
� � ��_�'
Y� ��_ ; � � x� Phase 1
'�a�"`` ;�r� «::
r .
�
Townhomes to be �
'��� ��', � �� �� °:
designed with proper ' � -"° I `
setbacks to sewer. 2 2 g s
�. ,
27 ° ` s
6 5 sea.s�
� �., ;y ' � 887 37 0
�.
� .
� � 4 ' g �� 7
�� > :�.; 912 .�
� .:
� . ;..�- _ , . � � 1A �
^ . V . 7: .. . � -
� �� X �9 .��. 889.87 889.23 8 .' S1 I
*q� � �� °
888.38 r�„•� � �
y� 7
>�; � .o
s- 8 ' S74 i.• �' 890.31� ��889?71 889.07 888.43 �
, . ` 8 ��
9 ' as�'ss � 2 �as
- �:�. �:
� ass.00 ssi.o�
� 890.11
,y,. - .:� ���.. 891.27 148
675
� 889r23 j
�> I
5 889.31 ~
r , �
,, . , - . �. .. , ���
. . -' �. . � � �,;. s�_ , . .:�. ., �888 31 �. 888 71 _... 3 �889.99 .890.47 � �' � ° .�,��.
6 �€ �-=, _� ,��. 7 �.-_.�.. �,
, �, ..
� ,. �� � ; 36 �
g . � :. �;° -.
4 � �.
>
«e't, 3^.,,'�` ..� I�`. f y -
T . . .
_ . . a . . .�T.t . �r� . � - i . wv :,.>.
,'".. f ��°� �:' . � e �' � � ' � .- 890.03 � 890!7t . 891.19
,�„� fe,� � � 889�.03 � 889.43
? � � + • '
�.��<' �.,� ,�..� , ,�
a � ,�t�`��,�,. ,,�� ," ".s ./
� ,�a,.w,� ' `��i' a
re a y ;�: -o '��t�" ��,
��r +�r�» �; v� �, 8
�;� ,..
, q�
,>,.
� _ ,r _
t H�w; � .
�'
Figure 3.2 Sanitary Sewer - Option 2 N �
One Servcie per Townhome ,�,��
Downtown Redevelopment '�' Bonestroo
Comprehensive Infrastructure Pian Feet
Clt of Centerville 300 150 0 300 �rerville
Y 1 xLWU./L15
I:\616\61607161\GIS\projects\Figure3.2 Sanitary Sewer.mxd October 2007
i
I
I Sanitary Sewer
IMPROVEMENTS
In order to provide service to the proposed buildings, additions to the sanitary system must be considered.
To analyze the expected sanitary sewer additions needed, the finish floor elevation for each of the proposed
buildings was estimated based on the existing topography of the area. In addition to this, an assumption
regarding the status of an underground parking system had to be made. The mptions were based on
knowledge of similar buildings and correspondence with the developer.
Pipe was calculated at a minimum grade from the nearest existing ole. these minimum,
conservative elevations, it was determined whether or not servi o be avai o the proposed
building with the existing system. If service was available, a wa dded out to ter of the
proposed lot. In the case that the proposed building cou ot be se d by the existing ystem,
pipe and manholes were designed to be removed and p as nec ry in order to all ervice.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 depict the proposed options available. Optio ows one service installed per
townhome complex while Option 2 installs a ' idual service to e wnhome unit. It is recommended
that the City chose Option 1 in order to keep c
COST ESTIMATE
The following is a gener d versio ; the costs ass ' ted with constructing the sanitary sewer
improvements descri �
RY S R COST ESIIMATE
0 tion 1 0 tion 2
Total Price Total Price
Removals $2,200 $4,200
Connection to "n $12,000 $12,000
VC Sanita Se $85,300 $187,000
Sewer S ures $32,500 $62,500
tion $2,200 $4,500
Construction Cost $134,200 $270,200
Contin encies (5°�) $6,700 $13,500
, En ineerin , Admin., Le al, Bondin (30%) $40,300 $81,100
Total Cost $181,200 $364,800
I
i
i
.
City of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment # Bonestr+o�o Page 5
str
i
,.; r� � � , . ,;x . _ o-. : . .:.. ,. . .: .. ... . . _. ,
�� �: �e�. �_� -. .
�. .a'?�'°''� ' � $ . �y.:1�. � '�" r '�y '� � . -,�..
� �' { E � � ��, � �' ,�' � `'�� �:' �� {�}- Existing Hydrant
� � _'; � �'� �'������' `� ��;��,�„.�--f` ti�'�,..� - ��" ' ; � �� 0 Existing Valve
�� � � e , � : f
� �° � �� -� .�, ����,. T 8 � : _..� - ~ ��' � ��� ��* �; Existing Pipe *
� � � - �: � � ' S � s" � �� .
s � �� � � � , � �, ��" ��� �`��� �s° ---- g
��� � � � '�� � .� � � � �'
Existin Private
�'" � �� �� � *� �-�, � � � � � � �� "� Proposed Watermain
� �� �� �_ � �, �� �' � `�'-� ,
�" � ,� � � » ,`�;,� ,�, � � ; �: • , _> � '° �; - � ---- Proposed Private Watermain
� �°� �� ' ' ��.�� ' � # `��"'� Y Proposed 6" Service �
- ��.� � '� � �' '� � -� � � �r ���� Parcel Base Map
` ' � ��"' � �< Homes Not Currently
. � - � N � �,,
. E �>
� � � �` " =�"x * � F���, Served by City Water
' ' � , , '�`�- � ,, � h �� Phase 1
�� � '�;*
. . � t ;; A�. y� y � !� .� ,afTS �4 ._.� � ,
�!"F_ � S 5 . . _ .
`� �.�� ti. * 12" watermain on CSAH 14 to be
'"� '" installed with county project in 2008.
�,
� � .� � , � ; ,
� �
� �� ��
� � � �` �;. �,
�.�;
� *, �;
.�
��,� �. �� � �,= c ;
x � �� F �. ' � .,. ' . I
� �
� �
� aiu< , � T��� �!� . � T�� m
s
�� � . . : � I � , .
�= � i�` .. G x'.7 } °� � � �:
- " � �o be pr+�ti„� X� I
� � � _ �" �
,� � x
T ,. � �.: �
�
h
'�,,. � . ;5�`� . _ . . .. . ....
_., m .
.. .. .. ; ' ..:.,4!R�-..�. . ,.�. '. . .
' . . � . .. .. � � . .
� ;�
>,
, . . _
" � �� �-�. , � - �. , �=� - � :�. a �„ � �.,, � <.� �. � � . t , . . . .
...�`.- � .�. . � .. , . � .:5t� .°s"`" ...., , . �,
� � � .. � � �� s '"` � . � � .. . � ��,
.. _ < �
� : _«, .. �
,.
_ w � � : - . �.,.. �x, . . . � . . :.. ,._, .. ..
„ . ,
.:.. . . �_,�� '- �:.. _ . . .
� . ' � „ - �.,> � � " . "
�
. . 4 #' - .� '9'��. ,, .
.+� dt' . z . a��` n.3»::.�•, . ��. ��..d1 . .
f: . s r t?. ' ' ,_.. d ' � ,1
,� • . . : � � � y�
� � . � ,
�
v.. � , . ,. � .
+ -. .
. .
� � r , � � _ . ���. ..
.
.r9t m>� ., � .
. . .. . ��� 4 �� . .. . .
t� � . . . .. �' e } ..
, t
�
i, � � , ` , �
Figure 4.1 Watermain - Option 1 N
One Service Per Complex w�"�E '�
Downtown Redevelopment �' Bonestroo
Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan Feet
City of Centerville 300 �50 0 300 �te�
1.wN ar7 LM
I:\616\61607161\GIS\projects\Figure 4.1 -Watermain.mxd October 2007
` - .��� ' �.�,r,�r, ..��. �a41 *'.� z:�aff��`..� . �r+�^.�*., ..,.a` � _ F�s�..g -,z �
�
��' �� ���" �,�„ �"'''r� � � q � {,� Existing Hydrant
.�� � � , � ,
� ��� ��� �� � `��'� � ��� � Existin Valve
I = g
�,��� � � �, � � � 0 9
� � � � Ye j �� ��� , �f `� Existing Pipe *
'� •
° � ,�� � � ---- Existing Private
# �� } " ' � ��` u � �; � � � � proposed Watermain �
���
I � � s,�,. ��~��
, � ��:; � ;u , ---- Proposed Private Watermain v
� ;•�� �
, �� �� � �.� �� Parcel Base Map ,�
z � x� �` r�� *�'` Homes Not Currently
�� ��, �. � � ,� , -:
� �',�, " � � � � _ �`� 's � t Served by City Water �
�� -� ��` ����' Phase 1
I �. � _� - � � � ��-� �
#' �' '� � � �'��; � '��' �,;.�'��`� * 12" watermain on CSAH 14 to be
�'�v� � installed with county project in 2008.
_ -� �
� x , � "' , �.»� �� , r,� ,
�' � a � � � t� ��.
. ��� , ��C. �,.
,. ,
.
.,
. ... , � , . . -� � a- ,>.
� � - .. `�� ���� ��� ... i �� # �� , �.��� ��§
I - r " �k ir���
. .� a�' `�` ,. �-- `.
+ �a .� ; , # �� . ��
�. �. :
.� : ��'�,� y�°x � �. ;� � .. � '� `� � ._ .
� � «,��. . -�- . � .�'� ..
. x ., � � , . , �- .
.
. ��'" .. . . .... .: , . � ;'s ... . �,.. . � .,.,.:� � .
,n
_x :
. . , �... � . Y ..... � n,' �t � , � y�� ,.
��w
��_ ��
y gY� � r � g � �� ,�' & .
� ' �`� # {�"�� ��. y�'��,: . � .
, . � � �3 '�.`k �..',. u � .. a , .
�`
� i
N' `
� V1° �I�' , �' Temporary service ;` � '�
� .�, �,, �� � �. � �"x °�'�' to be provided.
�' �� � � �� �
.. � „� ::
� 4 � �� ��%�.�. �*�. r- � � F
4,-
� � � � :� . , � '. j _ � �
Ot '
� , t. =.�- s'%�>�A � .�Y
� ... :. � '.,,�3 h" L�x,� �� 4 ,.
k �.
.. .µ , , . ... . ^ " ,
,... . .. , ,� u
. � �tix� � . �` _�* . .. .. . y A , '
� .. ..: '�z �,.� � F ' �
uc,w
� _ � � �4 . �.: ?? 'a
r �4 �
�x�' � ' � f �
" � ,�.`� � �-' r.tar � � �
� x��k � � `�
� .. �� � " � �Y ,�� � S t� �s,� » «
�° t g � �; � � 1r . :�� �
�
� a�"�4+'�' Z � g I � ' � �`., ,
�.. ., .. . >e . ,«,,. ,.
" r " '' �'�4 >� '.i ' �. _ � ,x.,y .
,
a , . � .aa;m '..+.,$ .� ` `� ±.'
x .
. °t �. ,� - a '� �':��: ,. � �' � '�� . _.
" � *�,="'� .�+�: S� . E .. „
`>
+k . • . � ' � �� ,' ,. � � �, �. P .�_ � � � � ,
, � � � F v �'� � �� }p N �,r
^ x .
s
_ # i.'��� ,rdf�
_` �. 3+�.' .. . . � r ^5
. .. . ' �r`,� ' "� - sF��
.. � � � . � ,. � � �q .
. �
. �
. �,.-. ' x g < -� ' �
. �Ri rv . � ,�, s F _ Y. _ ` � =� ,.5� u . !�ri �$s �' '� 's $r. Y�t ��
. ... ..z, pF^ . -�" � , ... � .� � � .. . �� , — '. _
, � �� � � � � �',�,�. '� ����s��
_., . ,
_
_�, w : : �
, � ,. � y%
��� _ �,K,,�� �? k�a��.::
� "� ` , � .� e �� � ��,� �,w
� �,, � , j , � � � �, � �� �
>� �
' "�" � �
� � . �
�� > - . � r � ,�±
�, ,,, ,,. —,�.- __
� � r .�, x� � � . „- � � .� �; �: , .� v �� � .
� Figure 4.2 Watermain - Option 2 N
One Service Per Townhome .��
W E
Downtown Redevelopment Bonestroo
s
Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan Feet ,
300 150 0 300 �' tervifle
City of Centerville ��.�..�.��.��_�,
I:\616\61607161\GIS\projects\Figure 4.2-Watermain.mxd October 2007
Water Main
IMPROVEMENTS
Along with the other utility improvements, it is necessary to upgrade the water system for fire flow and to
add additional pipe in order to provide water service to the proposed new buildings. The estimated average
daily demand for the area once it is developed is 120,000 gallons. The demand may peak up to 250,000
gallons per day at its maximum, These estimates are based on statistics for th ropolitan area and
general published data. Using these numbers it is conservative to assume the ter use for the
developed area will be 3,200 gallons per acre per day,
In 2005 the City completed construction of a 0.5 million gallon r wer. Thi r, along with the
existing two primary wells, will be sufficient to serve the full velo d area assum e previously
stated demand. It should be noted, however, that the fa' of one o the wells on a p m d day
would result in the City running out of water and bei u o serv residents. )t is, t ore,
strongly recommended that the City proceed with their plans ir eIL '
i
It has been determined through analysis that ater system is ca f providing a fire flow of 2,500
gpm for 3 hours to the downtown redevelopm is is equivale ;000 gallons of water, �
leaving 50,000 gallons for typical operations du th ich is exa the capacity of the tower. All �
mains can maintain this fire flow with the excepti of t -end node on Westview Street. It i
is just under 2,500 gpm. If n this node can oped dow connect with the water main on
Main Street. See Append� for a �n-depth disc ion of the analysis. I
��� ,
Similarly to the sewer servic �� tio ' ure 4.1) sho ne service installed per townhome complex i
while Option 2' 4.2) ins in o each townhome unit. tt is recommended that the
City chose ater s in order to keep costs down. I
CO � TE
�.
The following c� imate repr nts the project cost of the proposed water improvements.
TABLE 3- WATER MAIN COST ES7IMATE
Item tion 1 Total 'on 2 Total
Connect existin $6,000 $6,000
ater main $51,100 $54,000
Valves and H drants $35,800 $48,300
Fittin s $16,800 $24,000
Services $21,500 $68,700
Constructian Cos $131,200 $201,000
Contin encies (5%) $6,600 $10,100
En ineerin , Admin., Le al, Bondin (30%) $39,400 $60,300
Total Cos $177,200 5271,400
Ciry of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment �i �n�� Page 8
� t�
I �� � � � � r._ `� �''� � ' ;i ��,��� � � ;� �, � •, ,
� � ��� �� � ���
I � ; � � '� f � i„_ ��.. 4 �. � '�-°"-����ys�a�' .
rt ;� �' '
� � �' � , t , I F� �,, „r � .s'.
�-�; / '�`� & � 7 � 1 �' �k . �� �' .�. �� �� �
� � ,� �
. '�s�. � F
� � - �,� � � � r
µ
. ,. .' , _ . ,. ' . , , I � �*St .,n f 7�.
I � �.
� �� � � �# a= � i I P � �� x 4 �, 5 ;
_, x � I �� ��' � �
�
i
� k „�� +,
,� k"
� 4 �,'
� '.
�
�� fi � � ;� � �l
� � �
�
£
�_,:
p;� " nl �� �_
� \
:�
�: —
� a � r
R�
I �-�
�'
�. -
,�:#-«..v . i
>u.'�: �- - � , .t e • "€t. , , -r V.�v �4. ,:
� s. E
.: ' � "e*n C. ' 9�N±2 � � .... + . .:.
. x . ..
p
y , � � . � ,�_. x
�. , t .� ., '..
I '. ,... v �...
i �' ��
#
2. .*� } y
m # ��
2 � f Oi,,:
��� I II �
'�- ��` � ��� -
.
���� �' '� �. �
,
� �� � � �.�,
� �
.' ��A� '��� �.�
��� ' �- ��
�
,� _
� � ��
�, .
m �:
�
� � � � � ��
.� � � � >� � ' ��
`�. � �� � � ���� � x:.
�� �� �� �� ���,, �'
�. ,. r
' : ,�..� ; •� ' � � A ,
_ � �
� �`
� 1� � � ^�"� i� ��" ��
� " k' � rm.�+��AYn�.� l} �� M� II �� �#�'�� Y.
P
} Sti
� � , . .... � ..
�� ' �.�. }y OI . .� .
� " . . ' � . .. .. . ,
, . , � . . � ' ts �.: i �
,t; � = � LEGEND
— Proposed BMP
��' " ` -� 0 Existing Pond
r . r
I" if�u�il ..� �. �� t=� .. � . . �
M��� ���'� ' ��� �� Approximate Subdistrict Boundary
� � Pervious Pavement
r — Future Pond
r - < a . _..` �'; , ' -
�d•=, _"' � Option 2 Pond Location
�
— — � Option 2 Outlet Pipe
Future Storm Pipe
* Existing Storm Pipe
�� y* � • Future Storm Structure
�
�' - � Existing Storm Structure
♦ Future Flared End Section
, 'a�, � � ,
G Existing Flared End Section
�
' Figure 5- Stormwater Management N ,
�
Downtown Redevelopment W E �
�� �onestroo
Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan S
Feet
City of Centerville 300 150 0 300 �` tervi�le
�,.�s,s_ �.�
I:\616\61607161\GIS\projects\Proposed Cond.mxd October 2007
Storm Water Management
PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The redevelopment area has been evaluated based on our current understanding of the Rice Creek
Watershed District (RCWD) Rules. This understanding is based upon the written versions of the current and
proposed rules as well as our meetings and other correspondence with watershed staff.
In order to meet the requirements of the watershed, we have employed t e of a variety of Best
Management Practices (BMP's). This combination of BMPs offers the ion to stormwater
treatment. The BMPs include traditional NURP style ponds, rain ga s, pe avements and
irrigation.
The most significarrt of these BMPs is the irrigation strat The ide is that by storing w er and
releasing it via an irrigation system, we satisfy the ne ation r'rements. Altho e
watershed rules do not specifically address the use of this str ee nfident that ey will approve
of such a system based on our meetings with their staff and adm tor, The most expensive part of that
system will be the pumps, controls and irriga ' ing. We have s a range of costs in our estimate, '
indicating that the cost will vary greatly depen the system i d and how it is designed. I
We believe, from our initial calculations that the S en mmunity Center pond could be ,
used, without major modifi ' the purpose rage. Ob sly, this would require some type of I
agreement between the ' and t rch. If the c annot reac an agreement with the church, an
altemative would be uct a p `in Laurie Lam P rk. This pond would be fairly deep and its
additional cost is shown on st e as an addit al alternative.
�
Previous e� � ithou `' rigation sys em were much higher due to the need for large
amoun pervious pave eet t °_ D' filtration requirements. j
�,
City of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment � �n�r� Page ] 0
I
I
� COST ESTIMATES
The foilowing table depicts the costs that would be incurred to meet the requirements of RCWD.
TABLE 4- STORM SEWER AND STORMWATER COST ESTIMATE
Item Total Price
Storm Sewer $321,600
Pervious Pavement $37,800
Rain ardens $105,000
Common Excavation, onds $17,400
Irri ation S stem ,000
Groundwater Su I Well $, 00
Construction $789,800
Contin enci %) 9,500
En ineerin , Admin., Le al, Bo ' �o) 00
cost al,
Alternate Addition - Storm Water 0 tion nd Location $286,2
�
�
City of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment �i �n�r� Page 11
I
�� 1
�
f � r �#
I� { -� ,
a �l f r. i'`� T I. � C�+� I�_. !. t_ t. �._ E:�'41 C�� r . '• �"'� �
���.�.,,,.,� rk�_ � t � ���( ���Tj ��..����'Jt_ t
t " � �/ � � S ��� �tF t-•_. � � // �Ti t � ;
I % / f/-�1' �; ' ? G :' I �_ r ,' U ! �` t� �� � � /�✓ - '` %� ;
� E. %f r � _ . , ,
�` ,
J; ` ' �
i I� `�� ;
� ; r .
1 j t-
�
t �`' +��,aoo�� j Mu.n-F�r u�rrs
� � ,o u�s
, r�r��ar� aer�cE
r� - aaoo sF �
}` - ; �: ��
,, f :�
;
�' _ \ ,
, � t
f �,� i € �._.� �� � � .
�
� � 1� I� -��,���.! �� �:E;i � �t <. .
1�_a!'.�..�G�.�.r,`. . - � . ,.._._ . .
. -
^
• i '� _--._._..._.----.._.________
i
�
!' � i ; i ,
/ i i.� ��—
�-
1 �' , FAI�Y
r � , UNiS
j y% �6 UN1S MULII—iAIILY INi15
�/ �i � �� 60 U//75
� 15.00D SF ���
� j;� ��
�;
r
� � j� �
r'
c--r . -�'�-� i �` �� _t_ � � . .
['i
<1
� :� L�l �� �
�� _�._ --� '
�� -
INJIII—FAYLY TONf1101ES S6 UN7S
� `� - ���g i INlLT—FA1�Y UN15
; i ' r . 72 UINIg 1"_
I,_ -
� ,; i.,. �,_
i�� _ ;
i ;.� � `;
��'h� '� I �i. t:f �
70M�1101E5 16 UIN1S TOMIIOIIES 3Y UM75
� ��
LEGEND �
� vaaPOem oaaaeo co�� �� �
� �
[ PR�OBED PARMIEI PMKW�i STALL '� ��.=�
' ��
'�
l' i i j
f 1 i Gr 00r lOd 200r �
� �1,
I �+'
SCALE IN F'EET
Downtown Streetscape
�
City of CenterviNe FIGURE 6.1 ���
Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan
61607161F006.1-8.DWG DATE:9/19/07 COMM:616-07-161
; i �
""ch /4 LE I_�4�:E:��"�Ti;i:Y\
� . JTER� L E � � � i
N
LEGE D
? �,rs��t�E�� s������- uc��c��._ � �
a�oaos�v �' w�oE sco� oor�� soEw�uc ' �..� -•.�
, �� i'� l�rE�T�1iE'dJ SIREET �' ;� � �
�� PROPOSED IG MADE B11lMNN0US PA7HYUY l/
F_, , �
�� EbSTNG /C M�E BIAIMNOUS PA7MMAY I� t,l
Li I �
�
DOS7NG E� M�E CGI1CRElE S�EWALIC �� !--
t � �
��0 PROP06ED PEDISiRIAN CROSSYIIAIJf
' '-�-�._�__
� � � �� PROPOSED �CTd�I 70 COlNi7Y 1RAll ? � � __
� � � � � �� � � � � ��� ALIENNAIE �70lArEC110N i0 COUI�ITY iRAk SY�TErI ri
C � ''e
i'
f��niN �,T�E�� �:.ti.h`.1-i. 14
f �
I /
r'
� � r �J
1� 1 r O O
, `�;, ;! / ,. ;,'
� �� ' .• -
`� �
'� t` ;�l - \
f � ../ . �.____� �
}.,��' , �is� C7 t,.1 - `j
/ ,°� � -1 ` �
,, � � � � �_
Y f
� �"� �?� �.1 � /
� � 3 {:> t ... � ��`�,
�..
�"� � �a� �i
�
f � 3 O O �
f �/,' C.; � �1
�-� s i
i
i� ���
i
`i 5._>-�. ,-�'� �
, ,
�4 } �
; � � � ,,��. �, ;
������� r f������ o 0 0 0 ���
� � ``�. �`�, ' ��� �.
1`�, ���`� � �-�. f �+�� '-
�t � ,
' i � �, -
? , �j � ��; y__ _
� °
t� �
, �, ��..
j ``; _
,` ,
� .< j �_ � i ;
ti
t � �-��� l
. � -t'
ti,. ,� ! �;
, _._.__.________________.___.._—___..,
�� �� �
, �
, , ��
– _....... -
---- -___...._ �.------.. __.__-__ � __._ __ _ _ _ _
__ ___.__ _ _. , ____._ .__�_.... _ _ _ �__
Z � � ..�.. � .... ,_
❑ 3 ; � � t
E ' j 3 I � � �,
� � � �, � \
,
, �1 i r� �� �`� +�;� � r v �
; r-
_ _.. ...__. _._
� � i -°- � -- �— i .. _-- � � - -
t I —�''_
�� � k g � �
� r��mnrt�mrmrn�m�mmnminminrmtmm�nn�rmmnnmrmmnnnrmrmmm ? � � � !
° / ' , ,
_ t � k , 1 .--__..._ :-_.._._ ...�, _.._.._.-
- _,. _
�
= ��,�.!t�li . ".�: s,� 4t�p`F'G�o� c,,��:� � R I �_ �..._.,. �, '
- ,. �;. � — ,
�
e
"e ! 4 s �,
, _ � t
� � � F i _._ _.__ _
i I � „_ _._
� �
: A �
_ '`*
, i ,
- E � � � �
� � k x
- � �'� ��.� 4 __ A l ,
_ � �_._..
-
. .._.. __.._ �
��� ��i ;
; -
; � ; ( r I � '' � � , Y � � j
.
. .
, . :.
� � �
. ,
� - _.� I ,, _4 � � `-..
_ _ � ! _ �.— — ---# G �
.
_
3 �
I � � F ' i : , : f
� # �
�
� � � i i � '
_ � . . - ' �..-�__' _ .-_ ; ...__ _ __ _ ._ ., _
i ` . _.._ ...a...-:! 1 � i ` � _ _. i _
_
! ! � ! 1 ' I �t � ; - i _...�.,
i � �
I 1
- � � I n-- i � ( a
�
! � G I � ( E
�. __ . _ ._...,._. �
� � , f �_ � f �� �o' �sj ,so # �o �, < i
� , m ..___ _-- -- '__._ i
� � � ��'te'����
, i._ _. _... __ € E �.. � �.. ..
.. . _.....__... _._ ...�_._._.., t
1 e i ��� � � _- _-
Downtown Trail and Sidewalk Layout
I City of Centerville FIGURE 6.2
�
Bonestroo
Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan
I 61607161F006.2.DWG DATE:9/19/07 COMM:616-07-161
I
ak r
� � ,�� .
, ,; ,,
E � ;, ,
I� k�;"
' ( �. f � �( E I—' , �F f l. � � � t_ 1 �' ; _ � �t �' Y ��
� ��; ,
r �r.��� � -- �� �- 1�� , r r,�_r"�. �
,� ti�;_ 'r< < c � �,
i �,// ,'� � . � �`, � k � _ , r � r.. 4'�� � I 1 � � E � � %��f / / ��':'� f r 1 ,,
r �
r _ y • • •
} t,�-i
� :.1
�
I
;' `' ' a.�aoo�� w�n-v�r uns
r' � �� r+�N�/o��
- �,�'��°� aaoo sF
i { �_,
,
. ;
, , „
�
���� �✓�=�� ° r �;�lh�•i � ���` _( c °, �-
�..._:�.1 �f�_���_� . , -. _ . . , I.
, _
;� ; --- - __ � _
;� �>� • . �
�- �_
i"
� ' �-- ` w�n-
1 � � ?' FAMLY
� ; � �/�` � rs �rs :
� �- �� �xn-v�r ua�s
� � a� �r��r�
� f r �' �a000 sr �
1r�7k� '�.QOD $f �.
,% 4,� , �,�� ��
+ -'i`�_ . (.
• • ��
t- �_ �
, . . l� - ( 1
,;, � .; .
, - .__,
;-, ,
;%i =—
�;;� w�n-Fanr �ow�ra�s ee u�ns �
1 �� 4 UIM75 M1171-FAI�Y UN78
:. � - M U1i75 t :
x i ;`
�'i '
_
1
% -
.
I �
r-' - f'. r1 �
--
---- - - -----____...----.r.
101MN11q�E.�S 16 1MI1S � �� � ��
�� �1
.1
LEGEND � `� '
1 � � J J
i
O 0000R�me a�s�w�w uarc { � 1
��?
( • �,�►,� �►,� �,� � '''. I � �
� ;-
� ��
�,,
, � ,':;
� :' a aa ,on aao� �
��
, - ---__.__ _-----__.__..._
1 i � �F-f�� - - — -
Downtown Lighting
�
City of Centerville FIGURE 7 �
Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan
61607161F006.1-8.DWG DATE:9/19/07 COMM:616-07-161
/ � 1
1 / `� �
� ��
�
� �_?�!>�=�ttt1�.�� EeLE?��Eil if�l�l'�� .� ��
t - _ ., x� — - ; �;�;I--iC�?C)1_. � ;
,
f �� 1 � � �
, �!vES ��`l��,� � , r<.'E_E:_ r __ �_ �
, _
, . ; �.
,�' . ,�, --. - - 7� 7 i - y,� f --
ti rr't-:' - r� i �� [ � �. 3 � j �� ,�r �:� )
�` �/
�' f / �� � ..� � t,�`� � w� .� � F� � I� f ,� , ,� - /
�__ � ,' � %;J,'
� � i � i �- �
� �� � �
t �> �+.000 sv wu�n-vu�r u�ers
�e
�o u�rs ���
aer�/o�
� � a000 sF a000 s ' .,�� -
� ��
' � �.;,,- `
_ ` �'�/ � �`'ti
�� � c n � ! � � �
_.:�' �E iV� �,if`� `.J � �C� � $ 1_,.�.i�.i�. I `�
t i' i '
,l� WLII- �`.� .
f � , FAUILY � ' �
UN75 �
ri'� �� j NULT-i/1YLY INiTS ,t �
i ` ��� _ �
;' � pp � p,g Z0.000 SF f
�/� � -;�
,�
/
�
r `- �_._______..
�, ' � �_ � �; � � � � ..�.. r.
� � � � � ��I 4---
r�- _., ; �.__.--
�_ .� � ,r "'
INJL71-FANLY '' TONfM101E5 36 UN7S � `'
UN1S 4 1� s /
__. H UINiS � WL71-FANLY UN75 + � f
�"t X__ 72 UN75 { -� �� ,,
Li. � -;�(
�- L�_!
� � ���
�.r' l � i
iJ.t
�
1 1 r _ .� (
-- -
` l l
- _�v_� '
lOMN101ES iC INNiS TOM�lIOMES 32 UN75 t � ���
� � L����.a
; j
' t� �,,
LEGEND � �
;�
` I � ; �
i � � �/
�. weuc ,ue* l .', ; �r r`
Q 7REE M at��E F f 1 i r�, 1
� � ;`�
O 7REE M T1RF BOUEVARD �� F' � „� � i
� � � t_.�'� , �
- - IRRAGA110N , i �, � 'i ',
� �r; a sC ,ao� son � � '
' �*Y � _
; `�;. SCALE IN FEET '
Downtown Landscape
City of Centerville FIGURE 8
�
Bonestroo
Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan
61607161F006.1-8.DWG DATE:9/19/07 COMM:616-07-161
� : �` :�.. '��:
� �. ��� A ff '.�' e b ,.��' ' a '�
`�.` � , �� �� � ' � #5 �"� �
� � . � �. . ¢. �;.,� -
. � � �� :� �„ [ �+ {, . p � �e .,; '�� "�'f � ._
}��� .�C ! ��4 ,. � s ,� .a...
§.--' .� ':s^� s `"� r ���`'.` S "�%� �'`,��'- �' u. �� .
�,• '��� �� ��} 5 � �� �:�.�` �"
� .� �• � � � �;
� � � � �� �
w r =_ > � ��, � ��, � � � �
: �, � �„�
� �
,�„` „ ,� � � ,�'�"�' .
K x � � �` �
� ,t : °� t''7c��; ss'
� S +G_'. �' a A k� ��`��� �'� �
` L ,+ :t?
k "a .'. ' � # # "`r �� '
� � :,� � . ,r� ,- "" � k=.�
�'
„i
�
. . I
y .
t � *~ f
y � #� N�k. � r� .. � 4'
� �
,;.� ::a F,- °�t v' r� �i$ ��.
* �,
. . -.. �`::.�, � I
y �
. ?��'7 � ,.=s r ,
SeGtion A Recommended Design for CSAH 21/ Centerviile R�# � � � ������ �� � �` � � �� ~ �
i
I
I
� :,�� 2 ,� . I
¢ �� ; �
��w.a � , ��. �,
��;-, ��.
.�_
.,
�.
-�,
� � �. �, � I
� �
,�:;�, �,, , . . . �, �
�, .
T� . ..y � �� .+ ' .
�
�� ., .q:. "*it S�t - a.-,:-:... , z:.. .-
�vv ,
� � � � "�_^`�`� ' i �_� w
• �:,_ � , � � �
SeCtiOn B 1 Rec�mmended Design for Loc� Canmerc�al and Nei�bort�ood Streets x F ,.�°` ���-_- :._ ,�
��- �x;
Downtown Street Sections �
City of Centerville FIGURE 9 BoneStroo
Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan DATE:iQ/2/07 C4MM:616-07-161
i
�
i �: ��� -
� ���� � � �
� � � ��
� � . �. � ��.' �� �,
r �,
�,�. �; ;, -� � _ xW: F
� ,., w° . . -
� � � �Itw� `v
.� `�
I
��
�
..�r
�
�
� 9. ,� �, ;�, , , . . rA_ � ;: � �.
�T� .� � �. , � , • � � x �k- �5, , . ���_ �;��> � �.:� ��,� � �.� � �" � � � � ��
�
_ , *
:' .runr� �[ riMnMC av.ca,+ac w�oox �rc. z�ea
Y Mf�NC COIIRiC MI%MK SPIk81bC �NC07 SPEF 4369
7� NCli-IEARWC CWR�'. Y1(7URE �N'�BiJIE 1MD6T �EC. 37lA 4' N[�WMG CWNR W%Nti lVNC�SU]W YMpO! SSC T150
i2' �GPE,CA7F 614. Qt$$ S 1007I IXU�1ED Qt�KL. MIDO' �EC 2211 i� Ad(AEQA}E BJSE, SiASS 5 ORA\EA. M�DDT SPEC. 22f1
CFNifRNLAL ROAC
� NNWW �ik1k
I
i�'�1'kr�'_ 17�_ ��' i?"k��
'4�'kri!'?f� tr� '?n 'kil�'
'�t�Y��ti ri ,T+�it�
"���k���k' �§� ��� ?��
�'§�f'_ ,�'_ �r'_' rf'
r !fi -
1$� �UW1G COURSC rM%fuRL l'/�[1±6�908 Mq6i 31'CC 31F6
Y H4X-M[N4MC Otl1M5C Y%7URE tYMMS5030! MNODT'SO[C. 1010
K AWMEG�IE 8�. G1A55 4 YNOOi SMC 22»
2IY SRECI GRNNl.AR BpRROM
aomnac rneac �' oowcanc w,uc wwor srcc. un
♦• �r,acw�c e+�s[. aaas a ww.. urocT �vcs. zz++
D01M�o�3mcE7S 4FTle 6
WVOREiC. 90E'fAIX
T�fC81 S�IOt1S
� Downtown Street Sections
I �
Clty of Centerv111e FIGURE 14 Bonestroo
Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastruc,ture Plan DATE :�a�z�o� COMM:616-07-161
Streetscape and Trails
IMPROVEMENTS
The streetscape extension has been designed to compliment the existing streetscape plans for C.S.A.H 14.
Many cities have 1-2 cross streets that become the focal point of the downtown. C.S.A.H. 14 and
Centerville Rd have been identified as the main corridors through the downtown district. In efforts to
visually designate these streets as main thoroughfares the number of street trees and lights are
concentrated on these two roads. An urban cross section will also reinforce t ' al identity. This
includes sVeet parking with bump outs along Centerville Road, a 6` stam olore 'concrete section
abutting the back of curb, sVeet trees planted in structural soil and tr and potential planters and
benches. The City could consider custom made light pole banners, I art s res, an informational
kiosk, and custom designed entry features to further personaliz ' force t ntown center.
An integral colored intersection at Centerville Road and I SVeet uld vibrantly ma in Street
intersection pattern. This intersection would greatly c t the ur section and des e the
downtown along Centerville Road. !t adds visual interest an utio to crossing p estrians. The
intersection layout can be seen illustrated in Figure 6.1. �,
I
Plain scored concrete 6' wide has been placed ominant leve flow will occur. The use
of concrete in the marked areas is preferred ove 'tu i nify a n , consistent, downtown feel.
Based on proposed multi-family, retail, and townh I s will support pedestrian traffic
flow among residential, reta' lots, and des ons such a e elementary school and St.
Genevieve Church.
F
There are two concepts pro � for '` � ntown trail sidewalk plan. Figure 6.2 shows the preferred
concept which ' a trail s t orth of the senior center to provide additional
recreation seni surroundin neighbors in this area. This off road section of trail
then co ts to a propo tion o ret sidewalk that connects to a patch of existing sidewalk.
This alignment wou meet ith the existing sidewalk at Meadow Lane. At this point a
crosswalk s be provided a ain th to the recreational opportunities and regional Vail east of
Centerville Ro roposed tr s shown that links to Laurie Lamotte Memorial Park and the Regional
Trail. Many park re alre creating their own path at this crossing. This concept shows a practical
and safe way to link idents and seniors to greater park and trail amenities and is consistent with
the City's trail and sidew lanning. Please see Appendix C for the City's comprehensive trail and
sidewalk plan. It also all ws Heritage Street to stay consistent with the surrounding sections of roads and
compliment the urban residential environment of the proposed development. Figure 6.3 represents one
bituminous Vail connection along Heritage Street. This connection would bypass the senior center and the
east link to Laurie Lamotte Memorial Park.
Decorative lighting is located within a one block radius from C.S.A.H. 14 and Centerville Road. Again
lighting and trees have been concentrated among the highest traveled roads with 10-12 lights per street
block at approximately 50' spacing. On the side streets, 6 lights are proposed per sVeet block at
approximately 100' spacing. These lights are estimated to have a 35' span of light at 100 watt voltage.
Ciry of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment � . �11eSt1� Page 19
Alternate lights have been shown on the attached plans as an option for the City. Lighting should be
provided by the developer at the East end of Heritage Street if this portion becomes privately owned. Lights
along the bituminous trail will promote a safe environment. Lights on the north side of the senior center
are shown as alternate based on the City's decision of where to place this portion of the Vail. The lighting
can be seen in Figure 7.
Street trees in the boulevard are a less expensive approach than lighting to designate the downtown zone
and provide a green aesthetically pleasing downtown center. Trees are spaced approximately 50' apart on
side streets and evenly spaced along Centerville Road. This layout is consistent 'th the tree planting along
Main Street. Trees placed in tree grates are differentiated from trees plant g boulevards on the
attached Figure 8.
Figure 9 and 10 represent the typical street sections and relation ip o pedes Section A shows the
recommended Damon Farber design for Centerville Road wit t arking on sides of the road.
On street parking will serve as a convenient access to ma the commercial and re es that will
front Centerville Road. Section 61 shows the recomm sign fo e remaining sid in the
downtown area. On-street parking is not necessary, as the ar ' s in almost ev block
surrounding Centerville Road. Future residents can enjoy more space and screening from these larger
parking lots by providing a wider boulevard less on street park ection B2 shows the areas in the
downtown center that could justify on street p ong Sorel Stree �n fr nt of St. Genevieve Church
on the North side of Sorel Street. These parkin e erve as a co ent access to local
businesses, the church, and other community fun ns.
COST ESTIMATE
The following costs ar project be incurred t an�form the downtown area into a focal point of
.
the city.
TABLE E COST ESTIMATE
Item Total Price
In ion Tre $57,400
° Wal and Tra $307,400
Li htin $353,600
Plantin d Irri ation $134,800
Other nities $153,800
Construction Cost $1,007,000
Contin encies (5%) $50,400
En ineerin , Admin., Le al, Bondin (30%) $302,100
Total Cost $1,359,500
Alternate Addition- Connection to Coun T�ails $100,200
City of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment � Bonestroo Page 20
Cost Estimates
The following table represents the total costs that will be incurred for this project and the possible additions
that could be made. A 30% cost has been added to the total construction cost for engineering,
administration, legal and bonding costs expected to be incurred as part of this project. Additionally, a 5%
contingency cost has been added in to account for changes in bidding prices and other unknown variables.
TABLE 6- TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
��k�ll �IC2
SVeets - $86 ,700
Sanita Sewer $181,200
Water Main 77,200
Storm Sewer & BMP's $ 200
Sveetsca e & Landsca e � $1,3
Total Pro'ect Cost $3,650,
PossibkAdditions✓U�r/uctions to TotalPro'
Altemate Addition - Herita eet (E. ofPro ress) $68,600
Altemate Addition - Sanita ion 2 ' $183,600
Altemate Addition - Water Mai $94,200
Alternate Addition - Storm Water tion tion $286,200
Altemate Addition- Connection to n ails $100,200
For more detailed estim please ppendix 0.
t��
City of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment �i �nQ�r� Page 21
I ;
t � � ,
LEGEND /' �j � �j
�
� �'
I PHASE 1 S7REETS dt UitUitES i �
' . � ; ��
PHASES 2-4 STREETS dc Ul1LIl1ES t °... '`; �_ ;'':%� t$ � F€ � r �- r � l � r`? Fi 1' � �#: i
G
PHASE 1 STREETSCAPE Y �P `�, ' � � i" ` � � : 4 I C� �� � i
PHASE 2—� STREETSCAPE ta ;, r = f - �,�;'-j -� - - -'� -
v+lE� > , � �.;�- I ,��a� �;
� � i
I �
� f
�
�--
U ' �000�� w�n-F�w�r u�ns
+o uats ���
� �"� aaoo sF � �;��-__.
,
_ �� __
� ��;
� i � � ��`�
(y d �
i. Y_. I . G t., �-
�
_ � � € t� ���";.� ; �� �'� I h. , �.. � I � i ., , = r�. . `�; I :1.
f
YU171— v �
. � �4� fAIILY
�,. , .
✓/ r ' �� ��
�, �� �� 60 UIN75 Y �lMTS - t��''
13,000 Sf ����� E ', �
,�`�i` ���
r.�
��-.�_
�m, - ��
�-� � �
r_? c� � �- _
� �. _.
�y,;= .,�_; � - . f f
wxn-Fww.r - mww+ouES ss uw�s
fv at�uwis wu�n-FUnr uNns -' � ��
, A .
�._. rl uwrs ��
�! � r(
i,._ �I
`} � �� i
��y J t l
� � uS s
�. i_ ' �
�o�wa�$ �e {�ars `° � k �
� � rov��o��s sz uns ,
_ _ � ��'
� i
� �; 'i
:,�
i
t ; j.,,
� �� ,
� �`
, V
�
�
._ C SO IOG 700 {
SCALE IN FEET
Proposed Phasing
�
�
City of Centerville FIGURE 11
BOI�Str00
Downtown Redevelopment Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan
61607161FOO11.DWG DATE:10/9/07 COMM:616-07-161
Potential Phasing
The completion of the proposed infrastructure is needed at varying times throughout the developer's four
phases, As such, the improvements detailed throughout this report can be divided into two separate phases
if the City so desires. Phase 1 of the public infrasVucture improvements would correspond with Phase 1 of
the developer's proposed buildings. The second phase of infrastructure improvements would take place
with the construction of the developer's Phases 2 through 4. This general concept can be seen depicted in
figure 11.
The following cost estimate correlates with the identified potential pha '
TABLE 7- TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SE 1
Phase 1 T
Sueets $6
Sanita Sewer $88,2
Water Main $103,100
Storm Sewer & BMP's $293,500 �
SUeetsca in $405,400
Total Phase 1 Cost 51,537,700 I
TABLE 8- TOTAL PR CT CO � �� E PHASE 2- I
Phase 2- Total Price '
SVeets $219,400 I
Sanit wer $93,200
W $73,900
Storm Se MP' $772,700 I
a in $953,900
2-4 $2,113.100 I
Recomm tions
It is the findings of this dy that the improvements are necessary, feasible, and cost effective. It is
recommended that the City Council for the City of Centerville adopt this report and its recommendations as
a guide for development of the proposed improvements.
Please refer to the following Figure for the proposed schedule.
City of Centerville Project No: 616-07-1610
Downtown Redevelopment � �n�� Page 23
City of Centerville
Downtown Redevelopment Project Schedule terUifCe
���
DATE �-�► ZOOS
rasK
July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct.
1
EAW � 30-Day
o Comment Respon es to
Commen s and
� fep > �„ Period,� FOF R D
Auth. Submi Draft Su mit E d of CC NOD
EAW to Cit and No ice co ment Approve Publishe
Prep. Devel per to QB p riod FOF/RO in EQB
CC Publish � 5 bmit
Approves Legal Notice � t EQB
in Paper
�
�
Designl � '
Bidding
�ity/De�lo r,
urvey Work and Cc�unt
rep.5tudy �� pre e Plans & S ecs Reviiw Revisions Bidding Contracts
Auth. �C Aprove uthorize Subm t I omments A prove Open Not e to
Infrestructure tudy Survey/ Draft PI ns � Due Plans Bids Pro eed
Study & Au h. Plans uthorize I
Plans
ur ApProv I
Study
�
Permitting/ I ;
C0115t1'UCti011 Permitt ng Construction
Send Plans ut Begin Co struction Constr ction
#'B01'1QSt1�00 forPermi s Com lete
Appe i ,
i
f �
� f � l I i
I �
City of Centerville Project No: 616-0'7-1610
Downtown Redevelopment � �n��� Page 25
� Memorandum �" sonestroo
70: Mark Statz Project: DT Red. Comprehensive Date: 10/2/2007 Z335Highway36W
Infrastructure Plan SL Paul, MN 55113
From: Mark Rolfs Client: City of tenterville Tel 651-636-4600
Fa�c651-636•1311
Re: Downtown Redelvelopment Hydraulics File No: 616-07161 ww�.bonestroo.com
Mark: � �
We have reviewed the proposed Centerville downtown redevelopment with respect to the water
system.
The redevelopment area and usage is essentially the same as we previously reviewed in October of
2006. At that time we estimated that the fully developed average day demand would be
approximately 120,000 gallons per day and the maximum day demand would be approximately
250,000 gallons per day. These estimates were based on experienced residential demands in the
metropoiitan area for the apartment and townhouse areas, and from general published data for
retail areas. It was assumed that the retail area would include a reasonable percentage of restaurant
area which it the most intensive water use land use type ex ected within this retail area. These
assumptions translated to an overall water use of approximately 3,200 gallons per gross acre per
day. We feel that the numbers above are conservative. The current deveiopment plan includes 4°�
more residential development and 6% less Retail/Office development than was listed in the October
Land Use Plan, so we feel that the previously developed numbers are still accurate.
The analysis portion of this mema consisted of updating the hydraulic model of the Centerville water
system that was prepared during the report phase for the 0.5 MG elevated tank that was completed
in 2003. The tank itself was completed in 2005. The hydraulic model was updated to match the
2006 Maximum Day Demand of 848,000 gallons. The model was also updated to include the new
0.5 Mg Elevated Tank and to reflect the fact that the existing 100,000 gallon tank was removed. In
addition, all of the mains that have been constructed since the 2003 hydraulic model was prepared
were added to the model. This updated hydraulic model was then used to evaluate the ability of the
Centerville Water System to provide service to the fully developed downtown redevelopment.
With the construction of the 0,5 MG elevated ta�1k, and with planned construction of a third well as
outlined in the feasibility report for the elevated tank, it is anticipated that the tenterville water
system will be able to serve a fully developed maximum day demand of 1,67 MGD. It is important to
note that for the purpose of this analysis it was assumed that both of the existing wells were
producing at there rated capacity, and that it will be necessary for the City of Centeroille to drill a
third well in order to pravide firm capacity. If the third well is not drilled, and the City expands to a
maximum day demand of 1.67 MGD, the City will run out of water in the event of a wel� faiiure. The
maximum day demand experienced in 2006 was 0.848 MGD on July 19, 2006. That summer was
hot and dry during late lune and July, so we feel that this 2006 maximum day demand should be a
reasonably conservative indicator of where the current state of development is at in the City of
Centerville. The 2007 maximum demands included large transfers to Lino Lakes which are not as
meaningful to the Centerville system. This means that the City has the ability to accommodate an
additional 0.82 MGD of maximum day demand. Subtracting the anticipated maximum day demand
from the downtown redevelopment leaves 0.57 MGD of maximum day demand available for other
development within the City ot Centerville. This translates to approximately 640 SF homes of
equivalent development. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that an additional 200
homes would be constructed in the southern residential area of Centerville, and it was assumed that
the remainder of the future demand would occur in the Industrial Park located east of the new 0, 5
MG elevated tank.
The updated model showed that the system can support the downtown development and the
maximum day demand of 1.67 MGD. With two wells operating, the 0.5 MG tank fluctuates
approximately 20 feet to keep up with the peak hourly demands associated with heavy summer
usage. The tank i5 satisfactorily refilled overnight, prior to the next day's demands. The most I
detailed part of the analysis looked at fireflows in the downtown area. Attached is hydraulic Fig. 1
which was based off of Figure 4 of the main report. It was determined that the supply, storage, and
distribution system are capable of providing a fireflow of 2,500 gpm for 3 hours to the downtown
redevelopment area. This limit is based on the size of the water tower, A fireflow of 2,500 gpm for
3 hours translates to 450,000 gallons of water. Leaving 50,000 gallons for operational
consideration, and the ability of the wells to produce water equal the maximum day demand, this
fireflow volume just matches the tank volume. As shown on Figure 1, all nodes shown as green are
able to meet a flreflow of at least 2,500 gpm. The only node downtown that cannot meet 2,500
gpm is J-470. J-470 is a dead-end main and can provide a flow of just under 2,500 gpm. If it is
determined that 1-470 needs to be ab{e to provide a fireflow of 2,500 gpm, it would need to be
looped back to J-465. One additional analysis was performed concerning the possibility of adding an
8 inch main between Nodes 1-505 and J-515 on Figure t. This addition increased the available
fireflow to the immediate area by 7°k, but since the desired 2,500 gpm was available without this
pipe, it was not included in the final recommendation.
Page1 of3
In summary, the Centerville water system is able to serve the fully developed downtown
redevelopment with and overall maximum day demand of 1.67 MGD, and can provide for a 2, 500
gpm fireflow to nearly all intersections of the downtown area.
Page 3 of3
I
, � 1�-`� �
,,
�.' ,
P- 1
J- 89
�
�.
P 108
. . �� J- 4
: ; ; �
,
:. J;-470 _ P- 2 ; ,
� _ i
1�
- 6
i -
i
, ,
; �
_ J- 2(J _� �
,-. � :.�...: � . ,
_ _ -- I
J-465 _
_ r
. � __
I
-
_ �
�
� �
__ � =60
5 � �
i . �
_ -510 ; �
_ ---�-- __
7 �- .6_� J 76
505 P-5 0 `"
P- 05
J-30 P _ 9 5
-77 ,
. . , ; ,
Memorandum :� Bonestroo
2335 Highway 36 W
To: Mark Statz Project: Centerville Downtown Date: 9/20/2007 St. Paul, MN 55113
From: Earth Evans Client: City of Centerville Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
Re: Stormwater System File No: 616-07-161 www.bonestroo.com
Remarkr.
This memo summarizes our preliminary stormwater system design and analysis for the
Centerville Downtown Redevelopment project. The existing site is primarily developed with a
' mix of residential and commercial land uses. Proposed development includes medium and high
density residential and mixed use commercial sites. Proposed stormwater management
measures will be designed to meet the City of Centerville, Rice Creek Watershed District
(RCWD) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (MPCA NPDES) General Construction Permit requirements. The most sVingent of these
requirements in terms of stormwater management is RCWD. Compliance with these
requirements will meet or exceed the requirements of the City and NPDES.
City and Bonestroo staff met with RCWD to discuss their proposed new rules on 9/13/07.
These rules are slated to be accepted by the RCWD Board in December of 2007 and will
therefore apply to the proposed site. Based on these discussions, infiltration and bioretention
practices for the site were sized on the following criteria.
• For all new im�ervious - best management practices (BMPs) designed to infiltrate
and/or retain the runoff volumefrom the two-year (2.8 inch) storm event.
Proposed new impervious (assuming 50-75% impeNious) = 7 acres
• For all existing impervious - the treatment requirement is to provide infiltration
volume adequate for the 0.8-inch event. Existing impervious (including offsite
drainage area) = 9 acres.
Rate control is also required, but this is generally met by providing BMPs sized to meet the
above requirements. A total of approximately 2.2 ac-ft of bioretention volume is required.
Note that this sizing criterion is different than the verbiage in the rules dated June 13, 2007.
At the writing of this memo, RCWD had not made a final decision on the redevelopment
standard, but based on discussions with Carl Almer at EOR this method was the original irrtent
of the rule and has therefore been pursued.
Based on the Soil Survey, soils are roughly 60% hydrologic soil group (HSG) B/D and 40% HSG
B. The BMPs provided to meet the above RCWD requirements will include a combination of
several features — rain gardens, depressed parking lot islands, pervious pavement with
underground storage, and stormwater ponds as shown on the attached figure. An innovative
method of utilizing the stormwater generated from downtown to irrigate nearby LaMotte Park
is also proposed.
Irrigation System
Two ponds within the development on the east and west sides of the site are proposed to
provide the primary water quality treatment. These ponds are routed downstream to either of
two pond options.
Option 1: Route both downtown ponds via a large gravity pipe to the existing pond in St
Genevieve's Church property.
Option 2: Route both downtown ponds to a future constructed pond in LaMotte Park.
Option 1 is dependent on discussions with St Genevieve's Church and detailed analysis of the
existing pond. A pump would then be consVucted from either pond option connected to a
proposed irrigation system in LaMotte Park. The irrigation system would reuse the downtown
siormwater on the LaMotte Park fields, essentially eliminating discharge for small storm events.
An adjacent groundwater supply well is recommended to feed the pond during dry conditions
and allow for continued field irrigation.
The concept of the irrigation system was discussed with RCWD staff. Ongoing discussions will
be necessary to finalize the detailed system, but it is considered an acceptable BMP. There are �
numerous benefits to irrigation systems utilizing stormwater — reduces runoff volume, spreads
stormwater over large su�face area, beneficial for low permeability soils, provides evaporation, I
biological uptake and soil adsorption, high pollutant removal efficiency,
Utilizing the irrigation system provides the majority of the required bioretention volume needed
to meet RCWD requirements for the downtown redevelopment. A portion of the area north of
CSAH 14 cannot be gravity piped into this system based on existing grades and would require
smaller scale BMPs as shown. Area 4 adjacent to Centerville Lake would also require small
scale BMPs onsite.
Refer to the attached sheet for general assumptions regarding the preliminary stormwater
system design. I I
Centerville lake TMDL Study
Both Centerville Lake and Clearwater Creek are listed as impaired waterbodies by the MPCA — I
a waterbody that does not meet water quality standards and designated uses because of
"pollutant(s), pollution, or unknown causes of impairment". Clearwater Creek is impaired for
fish and invertebrate index of biotic integrity and Centerville Lake is impaired for nutrients.
RCWD is in the process of completing a TMDL study for CenteNille Lake. Additional
stormwater analysis may be necessary once the TMDL study is accepted.
�
Projed Project Na Page �
tlient Prepared by Date 3/ � � t �
taiculations tor Reviewed by Date •
_ : ; , , .
; . ; ; , ; !
- ._.__�S��r_rn.4'�.4# .r: ' D.SM���vl___ .SSK�n�ia.tiaS __. -- - ----�-- - -- � --- ---• i - --. '_._ ...._!_ ,
- _i__......
, , ;
I ' _ .. ...� . ' ; ;
_ ; : ; : , .
� � t : � i � i � j ;
.._.._ � _:.,.�.�� ..._.�._....—_""._ .__ '....._..,...... _ "_ _ — —" __ _ ' __—_ ' ' ___— _" '
: ; . ._.-� _. i- � �ti .: i "'...
� , � % i ; i i : � � - ` : f
� � : ; F ' li a " ' i � ' i i '
-�r i
� ��
i �
� , ' �� p � 1
� ._..-...�.._ Q� � �!.! 0 NS ....P6�! W1 Cir T _ � 1 v..t�.f.S...�_�e} _ .!l.S..St�..._._��3,�t � r�.a.tG. ..�� �.� r --- ....- -•- ---r---_..
I i ' �
,--_�... , - : � - ?t�__ c ._ _ S�._�_---.;___._..�. .j
� ' i j . : . 1 � !� ' : i � :
i at �' e5 i� � Qo n ow n' � { f � 1 � ; 3
� t+r vhRN`7 N f`'1� YN0.�G� ii Tiw� � � ' �
♦ =rt.i_q � �i� �._ ��4� v�n�� rov , �'�.� : ' ( � I
" J. � ` ; ' ,
_.......:._... . � , : --- - ----t°��� __ .. ....i�d� �_--- QY .e.4_�.Rr_�t ..--.__.j_ ........ ...........i---
j _ - r , ; �' ; , i - --- �
-- --�P�s.�'S-L . � �e�. �o F b;.g�C,� y, �i� o vq�u t �is ���p roviiae ,ni //� ' r� �
_ ' _S}-'--� �-------;.._.._._ __✓�:_ ' i�P�!`� W�_.,_
----L— —" ��.. ' �.1_�.TC.... _ .J� _ _�
i . .
. , f J : � - ! i i . : i �
� � : � .
♦ ' � Ny� ! "
...� .......:.:.. ..... � cQ QS.�.. ___.. .Q±���-- - ---- R� --� -_�s�,..: _ _ ...�.....,.. _ ....- --��__ti_ ,.. ---- ---- �.
,
; , ,
6
�?. 1 J�, ; _ _ : _ �J�_ J��V+4 OPO.
�Ol.�. i�l S'{. !N.' i
� � �._. _.�.._ --� �
; a = - ; : :
r 1 e ab��
i ;
� . , ,
� ; : , :
, , , _ ;
� � � � ( ; t � ;
; � C • l� � � . :
'__'.;'_""_'__'....._h.._ ... ..... .� r-.:G..t�.!.t�f.'r �W1 . ` (6 ti.�..._!. � '_ _'�'�"�,� _ ' : i i R
� , �
...._. "' '!. i :
i ;
, � J`. � ' -.. - -.._..._ ..""_"'"'" r'_ __ _.+" " ...'_ _"�" .,'_
' + ' i ' . ._ ...' � : ; L�._ � �.'...
i
� � ; �__ w !- $ 9 � 0 :�47 a,c.� ' ' ? '• ;
_.... ,.... -- _...�j------ - --- � ; �
, , -�- ..-�-.�,..- �: r�-- .... .. �._.- - ---�--•-----...i........_ . .._.-+-----:_._..r _.
.5 ; ; ; i ' .. ;�, 8 y. .
: ; � + � ' ' + x0
. ,
-- ----- -...5_-- -.... ----•_._._...__ .._._._.,. ._. .......:......_... � �
� • s :
.;. _.... _ -�a-' ► --- --- �°• -- o�� r.;.M �e�.,.. �.�r s�:__ 2
i :��_�_,. _�—._... --: -- p�.P�1 1
3 S� i �! `b" I.;� O�G -�? �e rn a:� �CW �.��., wa�tr �
e
,
�. - .
: :
� i i : ,
; � � ; . � �
, ,
, ;
� �• : �
. .
;
, �
;
�
�
�_.. . _.._..._.__ _--- -- - -- ----- -�_. _ . .. . _.... ..., - • � c .Y3.� .._.Eav�;;a�� �
. ; : ; . ,
�----�. --- --�p�- '� �-- ` _ _-- �
, : ; , : ; .
n�� �
: „� � � ; i
. ___-R - � ................3...___.__--� -- -------- ---- ----- -- - -
, , ; , , —_-- -- - - --- -.......-- - -
o�� __._._. s
, ; , � . ; - : .
� ; ; ; �
, ; :
. ; , :
°- --------= ----._ ---------=--- � --�- ---- ' � d ' 1 � �� {;cl e s � � � u '
�
,
,
. r ... � . -- --......,...__...._.._.....__[._....._... . _...... �?- -•- - - - . _ �... .... -":"�' -- --- -
c �L+ ;ar
i �......� . �.
� � ;
�
'- : r ; ; : � � � .
: ; +
�
, �
. ; i� , = , , ;
; +
' ; 7� _ � !_�__� ..rs.c: S � _�24 _ �.__`...___ � ' ,
� s
; ;
_.....__....._.._..------- ----...:...
ta_ �. ' '
: . ----•- ' , , • - --
,
, :
, • �---- --=----=--._._.; _._.._.. ...._.._,... ._ ._;._ _
(--._._._.. __.. ----
r
�
---._------�-- ; �
� ---�------------- ---- �---- ' --- -� - -- .. . . ... _ . _ .. --- - -
r-------- , ------=--- - : _.. . ... - - ---- __ - _ ... _. __. _ _-- ----- !
,
. . , . ....-i-.. ...;
.__......!...�.r;AU.M.P.WO� . C._._.'iu��.77. w+t�i _ 3�1�G� I.uiY{!1_ i ��,L ±�2L ��� � .
......._ _.. .�._ _ ' _ _ _ ._..
�
I
:
i
i ' i i � i i ' _ — '_—�_ ____. "_________'_ '_'_ '_'_ _ •' . .
� T �'w�� a' �5 �v� �ow,n�ow ! Sk. 6alr� a.n� wou�t�' t utrG t3. " a 1�1vJL �
� : :
; � :
` :� fa ha.' e,€�n.r�` s; o _ �_�!'► ��'�..� � ' - -- - - -
; ; �
�� � � � �
_.._._......_ _.._ ....... _. ...._. ,...._._.__ �
--_ . ........ _ .._ ....__.- ------.:
,
� ; !
r _... ; . .�_�li _ -- ; �----- -- � � .� _. �—
; • --- - - --r--- --V �.._._...j..._._
� O � i ►n 2 ^►��- � Q�Q__. oda �oa}�d r2- -. ��Q__!._ w _@� �a )`��N � �� _ x �'� �; n�
,
.... .. .... �� _ � :_ _. __ , _ � ------. _ R�._ . , .. �-- s�} _ ... �w�.. stti� - - -.
: : { ; ; \ `� 1 � � 1 ; � ;
-'#?�.
----i-A�' .. �A�...ff.R4tti0�,.4►....4 .'•.�.�-�µ.....!R._t,.!� t-���'�--�r-4°9 .--.�e_...It.S.4�,...._�_._.._
:� . ; , , � �' : . —.r:_�._._....-- ---
. w� �j' !�� ,V t, i e r�a n.�t� 'Sv � ui�.�� a�}:o�noJ'
: : (� ; : ' � ; : �� ,
----=--------`�-s� 10S__ �_p�nA,�. _ .fs` Sn��o�n.�� ..Y.r%A;qV�.....�tl.... a �.1 .x��..'-is� �b_.-.....__
� !-. __ _ ' ._. 0
. .. . ,_ ... �-- -
%
: � ,
:
� ----.; ...........:..........'. ' ' _... ._.. � ` . , . .
�
......... ..F. ....,.. ' " i
....... ..... ........... _.. ...' "e.�._ - __.....5._......." ""'_'..�"—"'..._.. ._ i
; ; ;
e
. : . , . r -T— "_'""...-_"_""""'"..-.."'.__._.j..�""""""�"""'_'_ �_"""' ' " _
i ; ! �
...._......_"_'_r___'_�" ""'"c._�_._.__._..._.._. '
:
_ , .... .._._......�..._........ ....�_........._. _ _...._.__l........._..."'_..�_.... . '_'_'__ '"_' '.. _ _.. . ... _ —" '_ . ......_ .
: � ;
. .....__._....i� _�—. ...... . i.._ ._..... ..:.. __.i...__
� i
i
: � : .
, i
"".._.."'^_.�_'._..:_....._._ .............._......._..._._..�_.,.._ ...............'..... .........._.. ....' __—___ _'__'_"__'__ _'_ '_' '
._.. .__..__._:...__'_ ........... ............ .......s......_..._....
. _......;- .................._�..._._.__....._.. " "
. � ..,-:__ _ _ ._._.__'_ "_ """' —'..__.._ _ _— _ .._ _ __. . . _ '""'
. _.._..
: : i ; . � : ."" - ._ ....
f
...�.,�.�.�.�.,.T. i
_.__ _ ..:... . . . . .. .. ' � .... .. _ " ' . .""". ' ' '. _ ..._ ..._' _"`_ ' "' .._ .
; '
, .......... ...... . .........i_........._"....'"'""'..�..___.�.....__. _.. _ _. „
i
I '
i . _.� .s_ . .._ �.. ...i _
, �
. . : : . . . . . . . .............. _.._._.....:."' '... _ '_'..._..... . -
1
,
! �
.
,
�
�
'_"'_..�...___.._.__.__..._..._ _"..._:_....�.'_""i._'__ '__.._�_....._._._._.__._..i...�_. ...__.., r__._.........__ '
; , . . _i ...... .. . .......� .......___""'____ .._.. . , . . ..., ... . . __' _ _.__ '_......___... _
, ,
.
. r .. .....- ...:� .,�.. ...
"j E
_._.. _.._.._._.. .. ._.._.. ... _._... --- _ -
.
_........ _...._. . __ .. _. _.. _ . __ t
, ...- ---- ... _..__ _.._ ..... ............_ _ ..__ .. _ .-- . ,_..._� _ ._....
- I
!
�
LIMO AR _ _ _
- � e ...�
�
I
L� i � I
w t' E R '_" '- n,,,�,� ^ � p
r ' OE �L- r
j 9 i y , � : . � ' . } . . . . . ' � ' , J
+ a ` i � ,l '� � . . . � .
e - • ' ' • e
j , "° .. � � ' . . . . . . , .� ' , ' a.�^Ep r r .' s
e .a.m.s �� s�� . . . � - �.� ' w ,v c s ,vo. cs ; �.,n�� .I ; ��:' , a� • • . . , . . . . ; � o
y � �r ia�. �. . ` , i 0 ' ' �' °. � !• • � I h
n . � �p� � L' �E� - M �LlJ_l.� I 4
' � � �� • ; ' • - " f � �; ' ' € : .
. " _ � ' � , h � . R r � . . ,�
.. � 4 t . � � p . � � � � , � ��� �.
I v' ` ` E ' ' ' s ' � 1 4 1 � . . ' � � . .
cENtER � . . . i ��■ �• �" � � �' �
SIDEWALK AND TRAIL MAP . , ' ; __ .__:_, . ___,� � � ' ' ° - � ' � ° �. - �
, . - i -- • � - :.... --= T� -- -- ,- � -- -- --�
F, . . • -- -.�. � � � , � j' PA K �
LEC9END � � ... . � . �. � ; � � I , , � R in� . ,
�ni�nNOUS m�a 1 pY � . y, � ' . • • � e , ° �' __ i � • . q . .
-�--�--�-� NNRE BITJMINWS iRAll • � � 5 � � � �
CONCRETE $WEWALK �� 1 '� • 6 � f � . • S Y • �• � �' I A
t , ' ,� _ '. , , . . " -' � ,
"�'���'�� NIURE CONGRETf 50fWALK � 1i � r,nxoEns � V' ' �- n•� / s.�.zao j .
TRNL EASEMENT e ' * • � � _.
- PARK �� c�wxi x � . . . . . . L B O . - ` • ^ . . . ? O
� RESTROOMS 6 . 6 . � ; . .�. „" a , ` __ �� :
, aa
..e. '� . �5 � AaE^' PP R .
y � . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . � � • e .
4 ' �
s � � i a O � S. i.. �• • � • ' .'' - f
J . ' J � • ' c' ' ' ., • �• � . , . . f�. p � ' . , u
■ . 5. • 'S � ^ ' . . . � . . _
ter°v2lle e ' . , q , � • ' r . II �� I RoUS A`.
� r •
.
, . � ...
i ' '
.
.
� '
Estabdished 1857 � � '-�- ___ --- -'' -•m
. ,.. . . ,�
� ;,.
� � • .,
. N ^ °' , . r, � ppp
o . ., . z � , , . >., � �...v
d"
.. • ° . � . . . A • , St , �
� i � �, ' ^ � ^ .,.. — — ` _
� � � 5 �;'/ I
B 5 . � , � I ��,
i
i � I 400 0 400 800 Bonestroo : J ��� ^ �
:°: ' ' � � � -
, 3 ;i� m
snbic�mc�.0 se�x�rs-w.�rcisr.o.. �omxnro erezizao� ua�,ab ++r cn. /" \ _°
/
Street Reconstruction Cost Estimate � Bonestroo
Reconstruct Streets
Section A Section B1 Section B2 Altemate
No. Item Units Unit Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Q 7otal Price
CL Length' 1200 1482 586 325
1 MOBILIZATION LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 0.5 $5,000.00 0.25 $2,500.00
2 TRAfFIC CONTROL LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 0.5 $2,500.00 0.25 E1,250.00
3 PR07ECilON Of CATCH BASIN IN STREET EA $250.00 6 E1,500.00 14 $3,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $250.00
4 PROTECTI�N OF CATCH BASIN, NON-STREET EA $100.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 E0.00
5 SILT FENCE LF $3.00 2,400 $7,200.00 2,964 $8,892.00 1,172 $3,516.00 650 $1,95p.00
6 ADJUST MH EA $250.00 0 $0.00 10 $2,500.00 0 $0.00 2 $500.00
7 ADIUST GV EA $150.00 0 $0.00 10 b1,500.00 0 $0.00 4 $600.00
S COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY $4.00 3,867 $15,466.&7 4,323 $17,290.00 2,165 $8,&59.78 948 53,791.67
9 SUBGRADEEXCAVATION CY $6.00 1,160 $6,960,00 1,297 57,780.50 649 $3,896.90 284 $1,706.25
10 SUBGRADE PREPARATION - STREET SY $0.55 7,733 $4,253.33 4,940 $2,717.00 2,474 $1,360.82 1,083 5595.83
11 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (C� CY $13.00 1,160 $15,080.00 4,041 $52,535.53 2,Q24 $26,312.67 886 $11,520.95
12 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE V SY $1.65 0 $0.00 4,940 $8,151.00 2,474 $4,082.47 1,083 $1,787.50
13 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN $12.00 5,104 $61,248,00 2,174 $26,083.20 1,089 $13,063.89 477 $5,720.00
14 6618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF $9.00 2,400 $21,600.00 2,964 $26,676.00 7,172 $70,548.00 650 $5,850.00
15 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY $1.00 3,467 83,466,67 4,281 $4,281.33 1,693 $1,692.89 939 $938.89
16 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LF $1,00 2,400 $2,400,00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
17 4" PERFORATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE LF $4.OQ Q $0,00 2,964 $11,856.00 1,172 54,688.00 650 $2,600.00
I 18 1YPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TN $52.00 0 $0.00 454 $23,632.96 240 $12,459.66 100 55,182.67
19 TYPE LV 3 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TN 853.00 0 $0.00 341 $18,065.58 180 $9,524.45 75 $3,961.75
20 TYPE SP 4 BITUMINOUS MIXTURE TN $60.00 2,392 $143,520,00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
21 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE, YELLOW EPDXY LF $1.00 1,200 $1,200.00 0 $0.00 0 50.00 0 $0.00
22 4" SOLID LINE, WHITE EPDXY LF $0.50 2,400 $1,200,00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
23 12" SOLID STOP LINE (BAR), WHITE EPDXY LF $9.00 120 $7,080.00 0 $0.00 0 50.00 0 $0.00
24 PAVEMENT MESSAGE. LEFT TURN ARROW - EPDXY EA $150.00 6 $900.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
25 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GL $2.20 693 $1,525.33 198 $434.72 104 E229.19 43 595.33
Conswction Cost $303,600.00 $230,895.82 $107,534.72 550,800.64
Contlngencies (5%) $15,180.00 $11,544.79 $5,376.74 $2,540.04
Engineering (30%) $91,080,00 $69,268.75 $32,260.42 $15,240.25
Totai Cost 5409,860.00 5311,709.36 E745,171.87 E68,581.13
Const. Cost per Foot ;253.00 ;155.80 5183.51 t156.31
LF Phase 1 1200 696 368 325
LF Phase 2-4 0 786 218 0
ASSUMPTIONS:
Typical Section
Wear 4 in. 1.5 in. 1,5 in. 1.5 in.
Base 2 in. 2 in. 2 in. 2 in.
CL5 12 in. 8 in. 8 in. 8 in.
Select Granular Borrow D in. 20 in. 20 in. 20 in.
Street Width 56 ft B/B 28 ft BB 36 ft B/B 28 ft B/B
Bit. Width 52 ft 24 ft 32 ft 24 ft
' I:\616\61607161\Design\Cost Estimates for Report.xls
Street Reconstruction Cost Estimate �!/. � i
"R'
Cl5 �dth 58 ft 30 ft 38 ft 30 ft I
COUNiI' OVERIAY COSTS I
MOBILIZATION LS $5,000.00 7 $5,OQ0.00 �
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS E5,000.00 1 55,000.00
MILLING SY 51.50 2,456 $3,683.33 �
BITUMINOUS PATCHING (REM. & REPLAC� SY $15.00 500 57,500.00
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GL 82.20 123 5270.11
iYPE SP 4 BITUMINOUS MIXTURE TN b60.00 270 $16,206.67
4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE, YELLOW EPDXY LF 51.00 850 $850.00
4" SOLID LINE, WHfTE EPDXY Li $0.50 1,700 $850.00
12" SOLtD STOP LINE (BAR), WHITE EP()XY LF E9.00 24 $216.00
PAVEMENT MESSAGE, LEFT TURN ARROW - EPDXY EA $150.00 2 $300.00
CoraUUCtion Cost $39,876.11
Contingenceis (5%) Et,993.81
Engineering, Admin., Legal, Bonding (3096) 511,962.83
Total Project Costs 553,832J5
I:\616\61607161\Design\Cost Estimates for Report.xis
Sanitary Sewer Cost Estimate
� Bonestroo
Sanitary Sewer
0 tion 1 0 tion 2
No. Item Units Unit Price Q Total Price Total Price
1 Remove sanitary pipe LF $1 0 $0 760 $760
2 Abandon Sanitary Pipe In-Place LF $2 600 $1,200 200 $400
3 Remove sanitary manhole EA $500 2 $1,000 6 $3,000
4 Connect to existing sanitary sewer EA $2,000 6 $12,000 6 $12,000
5 4' diameter sanitary manhole EA $2,500 13 $32,500 25 562,500
6 8"x4" Wye EA $125 0 $0 106 $13,250
7 8"x6" Wye fA $150 12 $1,80Q 0 $0
8 4" Service Pipe LF $15 0 $0 1060 $15,900
9 6" Service Pipe LF $17 360 $6,120 0 $0
10 PVCsanitarypipe LF $35 22t0 E77,350 4510 $157,850
11 N Inspection LF $1 2210 $2,210 4510 $4,510
Construcdon Cost ;134,180 5270,170
CoMingencies (5%) 56,709.00 $13,508.50
Engineering (3096) $40,254.0 $81,051.0
Total Cost ;181,143 ;364,730
Sanftary Sewer - Phase 1
I tion 1 0 tiwn 2
No. ftem Units Unit Price Tocal Price Total Price
' 1 Remove sanitary pipe LF $1 0 $0 400 $400
2 Abandon Sanitary Pipe In-Place LF $2 600 $1,200 100 5200
3 Remove sanitary manhole EA $500 2 $1,000 4 $2,000
4 Connect to existing sanitary sewer EA $2,000 & $12,000 6 $12,000
5 4' diameter sanitary manhole EA 52,500 5 E12,500 8 $20,000
6 8"x4" Wye EA $125 0 $0 60 $7,500
7 8"x6" Wye EA $150 6 $900 0 $0
8 4" Service Pipe LF $15 0 $0 600 $9.000
9 6" Service Pipe LF $17 180 $3,060 0 $0
10 PVC sanitary pipe LF $35 960 $33,600 1425 $49,875
11 N Inspectlon LF $1 960 $960 1425 $1,425
Constr�don Cost 565,220 $102,400
Contingencies (5%) 53,261.00 $5,120.00
Engineering (30%) $19,566.0 $30,720.0
Total Cost ;88,047 5138,240
1:�616\61607161\Design\Cost Estimates for Report.�ds
i
I
Sanitary Sewer Cost EsUmate I
� Bonestroo
i
�
Sanitary Sewer - Phase 2-4
Option 1 OpUon 2
r No. Item Units Unit Price Qty Total Price Qty Total Price
1 Remove sanitary pipe LF S1 0 $0 360 $360
2 Abandon Sanftary Pipe In-Place LF S2 0 $0 100 $200
3 Remove sanitary manhole EA 5500 0 $0 2 $1,OQU
4 Connect to existing sanitary sewer EA $2,000 0 $0 0 $0
5 4' diameter sanicary manhole EA E2,500 8 $20,000 17 $42,SU�
6 8"x4" Wye EA 5125 0 $0 46 $5,750
7 8"xs" Wye EA E150 6 $900 0 $�
8 4" Servke Pipe LF $15 0 SO 460 Y6,900
9 6" Service Pipe Lf E17 180 $3,060 0 $0
10 PVC sanitary pipe LF $35 1250 E43,750 3085 $107,975
11 N Inspection LF $1 1250 $1,250 3085 $3,085
Construction Cost 568,960 3167,770
CoMingencies (5%) $3,448.OU f8,388.50
Engineering (30%) $20,688.0 $50,331.0
Total Cost 593,096 5226,49a
I:\616161607161\Design\Cost Estimates for Report.xls
I Water Main Cost Estimate v�` BOnestr��
Water Main
0 tion 1 0 tion 2
No. Item Units Unit Prx:e Total Price Total Price
1 Connect ro Existing EA $1,000 6 $6,000 6 $6,000
I 2 12" Water Main LF $30 650 $19,500 650 519,500
3 8" Water Main LF $23.00 7375 $31,625 1500 $34,500
4 12" GV and Box EA $2,000 3 $6,000 3 $6,000
5 8" GV and Box EA $1,200 4 E4,800 4 $4,600
' 6 Hydrant wlvalve EA $2,500 10 $25,000 15 $37,500
, 7 Ductile Iron Fittings LB $4 4200 $16,800 fi000 $24,000
6 Corp Stop EA $100 0 $0 106 $10,600
9 Curb Stop EA $125 0 $0 106 E13,250
10 1" Type K Copper Service Pipe LF S14 0 $0 1060 $14,840
11 6" Valve on Service EA $750 19 $14,250 1fi $12,000
12 6" Service Pipe LF $20 360 $7,200 900 $18,000
ConsUUCtan Cost $131,175 $200,990
ContingenCies (5%) $6,558.75 $10,049.50
Engir�ering (30%) $39,352.5 560,297.0
Total Cost t177.086 5271.337
Water Main •Phase 1
0 tion 1 0 tion 2
No. Item Units Unit Price Total Price Totai Price
1 Connect to Existing EA $1,000 3 $3,000 3 $3,000
2 12" Water Main LF S30 0 $0 0 $0
3 8" Water Main LF $23.00 1375 $3i,625 1375 $31,fi25
4 12" GV and Box EA $2,000 0 $0 0 $0
5 8" GV and Box EA $1,200 4 $4,800 4 $4,800
6 Hydrant w/valve EA $2,500 7 $17,500 10 $25,000
7 Ductile Iron Fittings LB a4 2000 $8,000 4000 $16,000
8 Corp Stop EA $100 0 $0 60 $6,000
9 Curb Stop EA $125 0 $0 60 $7,500
10 1" Type K Copper Service Pipe LF $14 0 $0 600 $8,400
11 6" Valve on Service EA $750 10 $7,500 10 $7,500
12 6" Service Pipe LF $20 200 $4,000 500 810,000
Cor�structan Cost $76,425 $119,825
Contlngencies (5%) $3,821.25 $5,991.25
Engineering (3096) $22,927.5 E35,947.5
Totat Cost 5103,174 t161,764
Water Main - Phase 2-4
0 tion 1 0 tion 2
No. Rem Units Unit Prke Total Price Total Price
1 Conrrect to Existing EA $1,0� 3 $3,000 3 $3,000
2 12" Water Main LF $30 650 $19,500 650 $19,500
3 8" Water Main LF $23.00 0 $0 125 $2,875
4 12" GV and Box EA $2,000 3 $6,000 3 $6,000
5 8" GV and Box EA $1,200 0 $0 0 $0
6 Hydrant w/valve EA $2,500 3 $7,500 5 $12,500
7 Ductile Iron Fittings LB $4 2200 $8,800 2000 $8,000
8 Corp Stop EA b100 0 EO 46 $4,600
9 Curb Stop EA 5125 0 $0 46 $5,750
, 10 1" Type K Copper Service Pipe LF $14 0 $0 460 $6,440
11 6" Valve on 5ervice EA 5750 9 $6,750 6 $4,500
12 6" Service Pipe LF $20 160 $3,200 400 $8,000
ConsUuCtion Cost $54,750 $81,165
Contingencces (5%) $2,737.50 $4,058.25
� Engineering (30%) $16,425.0 $24,349.5
Total Cost S73,913 5109,573
�
I:\616\61607161\Design\Cost Estimates for Report.xis
Stormwater Management Cost Estimate � Bones#roo
Stormwater Mana ement
No. Item Units Unit Price Total Price
1 12" RCP Storm Sewer LF 1175 $26 $30,550
2 15" RCP Storm Sewer LF 500 $26 $13,000
3 18" RCP Storm Sew� LF 970 S30 829,100
4 21 " RCP Storm Sewer LF 560 $35 $19,600
5 24" RCP Storm Sewer LF 200 S40 $8,000
6 36" RCP Storm Sewer LF 750 $60 $45,000
7 42" RCP Storm Sewer LF 1000 $70 $70,000
4' diameter storm sewer CBMH, R-3067V casting
8 and adjusting rings, inc. 3' sump EA 23 $2,500 $57,500
9 4' diameter STMH, inc. 3' sump EA 11 $2,500 $27,500
10 4' diameter beehive overflow structure EA 3 $2,500 $7,500
11 Outlet Strucwre EA 2 $3,000 86,000
12 Pervious pavement (assumes 4' rock depth) SF 2700 S14 837,800
Raingarden (includes seed, no draintile,l8"
13 engineered materials) SF 10500 $10 E105,000
Comman Excavation (assumes 2' bounce and
excavation is from HWL to bottom, and 3' depth
14 below outlet) CY 1150 86 $6,900
15 21" FES EA 1 $1,400 $1,400
16 36" FES EA 1 $2,100 $2,100
17 24" FES EA 1 $1,100 81,100
18 12"FES EA 1 $700 $700
19 42" FES EA 1 $2,500 $2,500
20 Irrigation Sys[em, pump and convols EA 1 $300,000-8500,000 $300,000 ,
21 Excavation of St Gen. pond CY 1750 $6 $10,500 '
22 Groundwater supply well and controls EA 1 $8000 -$10,000 $8,000
ConsWCtion Cost Optlon 1 5789,750
Contlngencies (596) 839,488
Engineering (30%) $236,925
TMaI Cost 57,066.163
23 42" RCP Storm Sewer LF 800 S70 $56,000 II !
Common Excavation (auumes 8' depth, NWL '
24 898, existir�g grade 911) CY 26000 S6 $156,000 '
Constructfon Cost Option 2 51,001,750
CoMingencies (596) 550,088
Engineering (3096) $300,525 ,
Total Cos[ =1,352,363 '
25 Pervious pavement (auumes 4' rock depth) SF 32670 $14 5457,380 I
CoraVUCUon Cost Optlon 3 $811,130 '
Comingencies (596) $40,557
Engineering (30%) $243,339
Total Cost =1,095,026
I:\616\61607161\Design\Irrigation analysis\Downtown storm sewer.xls
Streetscape Cost Estimate � Bonestroo
Streetscape
Preferred Conce t PHASE 1 PHASE 2-4
Item Uniu Unit Price Total Price Total Price Total Price
/Merser[ia► TreeUnents
8" Colored Concrete -Roadway Integral color 600 SY $85 $51,000 600 E51,000 0 SO
Color Hardener 45 SY $25 $1,125 45 $1,125 U $0
6" solid line cross walk 580 LF S5 $2,900 400 $2.000 180 $900
Aggregate base (C� Class 5 95 CY $25 $2,375 95 $2,375 0 30
SuMotel $57,400 $56,500 $900
, Wa/kways & Trails
4" Colored Concrete/ Stamped in portions -Walkway 1,630 SY $65 $105,950 475 530,875 1,155 $75,075
4" Regular Concrete 3fi,100 SF $4 $126,350 9,900 534,650 26,200 $91,700
Bituminous Trail (10' wide) 13,500 SF $2 $27,000 1,500 $3,000 12,000 $24,000
Pedestrian Ramp 35 EA $350 $72,250 8 $2,800 27 89,450
Truncated Domes 280 SF $45 $12,600 64 $2,880 216 $9,720
Proposed Connection to County Trail System SEE BELOW $23,200 $23,200 $0
Subtotel $307,350 $97,405 $209,945
lighting
Pedestrian Light Fixtures 84 EA $3,500 $294,000 22 577.000 62 5217,000
Concrete Bases & Wiring 84 EA $500 $42,000 22 $11.000 62 $31,000
Conduit-Lighting 8,800 LF $2 $17,600 2,300 $4,600 6,500 $13,000
Subtotel 5353,600 $92,600 $261,000
Plantings
Trees 102 EA $400 540,800 28 $11,200 74 $29,600
Irrigation 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 1 10000 1 $40,000
Fertilizer 540 LB $5 $2,700 150 $750 390 $1,950
Mulch 230 SY $10 $2.300 63 $630 167 $1,670
Structural Soils 520 CY $75 539,000 140 $10,500 380 528,500
Subtotel 5134,800 $33,080 $101,720
OtherAmenities
Tree Grates 38 EA $1,100 $41,800 12 $13,200 26 $28,600
Benches 8 EA $1,500 512,000 3 $4,500 5 $7,500
Trash Receptacles 4 EA $1,000 54,000 1 $1,000 3 $3,000
Planters 16 EA $500 $8,000 4 52,000 12 $6,000
Public Art (Range: 10,000-40,OOOJ 2 EA $40,000 $80,000 0 $0 2 $80,000
City & Regional Trail Map & Display 1 EA $8,000 58,000 0 $0 1 $8,000
Subtotel $153,800 $20,700 $133,100
Construction Cost $1,006,950 8300,265 $706,665
Conti�ugenciee (5%) E50,348 $15,014 $35,333
Engineering (30%) $302,085 $90,086 $222,599
Total Cost 51,358,383 5405,385 5964.598
I:\616\61607161\Word\Work_In_Progress\Streetscape Costs_092007.x1s
Streetscape Cost Estimate � Bonestroo
Pro Connection to Cou Trail
Item Qty. Units Unit Price Tot�l P�ice
Wa/kways
BiWminous Trail (10' wide) 3,000 SF E2 56,000
Pedestrian Light Fixtures 4 EA $3,500 814.000
Concrete Bases & Wiring 4 EA $500 S2,OOQ
Conduit-LighUng 600 LF $2 $1,200
ComUuction Cost E23,200
CoMingencies (5%) $1,160
Enginee�ing (3096) $7,308
Total Cost S31,666
Altertiate Addition -Altemate Connection to Co� Trail
I[em Qty. Units Unit Price Total Price
Wa/kways
Bituminous Trail (10' wide) 27,500 SF $2 $55,000
4" Regular Concrete 1,950 SF $4 $6,825
Pedestrian L'ght Fixtures 8 EA $3,500 $28,000
Concrete Bases & Wiring 8 EA 5500 $4,000
Conduit-Lighting 1,400 LF $2 $2,800
Constnktan Cost 596,625
CoMi�ncies (5%) $4,631
Engineeriog (3096) $30,437 �'
Total Cost 5131,893 '
I
I:\616\616071611Word�Work_In_Progress\Streetscape Costs_092007.x1s