CC_Minutes_1980_1117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3 Having done that, we simply selected the lesser of the two which would be the asphalt pavement with an aggregate base. As I stated earlier, this pavement was built in 1963. Finding some old designs (inaudible) the real life of this roadway has already been exhausted. The number of trucks, particularly with the heavy load bearing capacities that they have, has already exeeded the designed 20 year life of this particular roadway. Not wanting to have such a thing occur in the future, we also looked at the possibility that one or both of these roads would be extended either southerly or westerly to the service roads. As you know, there's a large amount of both undeveloped and underdeveloped,.l.1and. We wanted to make sure that if this were extended over that the areas involved would (inaudible) they contribute more traffic to come up there (inaudible) so it's our recommendation that the only actually efficient way to deal with this problem would be to tear the road out and put a new asphalt pavement in, and also to work with the railroad and redo the railroad crossings which are in very poor shape today, and include that as part of the improvement (inaudible) just a few feet past this railroad crossing so it could be brought down again. Keeping in mind this was built in 1963, as we apply the city's standard policy for assessing this kind of roadway, we included in the report an assessment rate that is 17/20 rather than 20 years as the assessment rate and I believe that comes to something approximating $68 a foot. COUNCILMAN KEHR: Who was the engineer? Which engineering firm did the original (inaudible). MR. ANDRE: That was the city engineer. COUNCILMAN KEHR: In your core sampling, were you able to determine what causes the slippage underneath that road? MR. ANDRE: I think I can respond to that. I think the big problem with that road is that it was put in at the time of the year - there was a lot of pressure to get it in before the winter season and I don't think it was able to be put in under ideal conditions. It was getting down to that time of the year when it was very questionable as far as the soil conditions. That's going back quite a while, but it's my recollection. MR. POPOVICH: Mr. Honchell has explained most of the assessment detail. I only want to point out two things. The original estimated cost of $871,045 is the estimate that was based on a normal road approach. The published cost that was included in the affidavit is $960,865. That assumes an alternate that would be more than your normal road. Based on the normal costs which the engineering department is recommending, that is $80.73 a front foot if it's 100% assessed, and based on the formula of 17/20 it's $68.62 a front foot for this project.