Public Works Committee Packet - 6/16/2014
CITY OF MUSKEGO
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AGENDA
June 16, 2014
6:00 PM
Aldermen’s Room – Upper Level of City Hall,
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES HELD MAY 19, 2014
STATUS OF PROJECTS
Discussion update. No formal action may be taken on any of the following:
1. Janesville Road Reconstruction
2. Racine Avenue Recreational Trail
3. Gold Drive Storm Sewer
4. Circle Drive Storm Sewer
5. Woods Road Bridge
6. 2014 Road Improvement Program
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following:
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following:
1. Discuss Fireside Orchard subdivision final completion items
2. Discuss the Lake Drive lift station improvement project
3. Review of proposed berm installation in Oakridge Glen subdivision
4. Review and potential approval of the 2013 Compliance Maintenance Annual Report
5. Review and potential approval of updated standard curb and gutter detail
NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE
(The following items have been placed on file for staff review. Upon completion of review, staff
will submit a supplement detailing options and possible course of action to committee
members.)
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF
THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION
WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL
BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE.
ALSO, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF DISABLED
INDIVIDUALS THROUGH APPROPRIATE AIDS AND SERVICES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO REQUEST THIS
SERVICE, CONTACT MUSKEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, (262) 679-4136.
Unapproved
CITY OF MUSKEGO
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 19, 2014
6:30 PM
Aldermen’s Room – Upper Level of City Hall,
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
CALL TO ORDER
Ald. Bob Hammel called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ald. Hammel led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Ald. Hammel, Ald. Wolfe and Ald. Engelhardt were present.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
The meeting was noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Laws.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES HELD APRIL 21, 2014
Alderman Wolfe made a motion to approve April 21, 2014 minutes. Alderman
Engelhardt seconded.
Motion Passed 3 in favor.
STATUS OF PROJECTS
Discussion update. No formal action may be taken on any of the following:
Janesville Road Reconstruction
Racine Avenue Recreational Trail
Gold Drive Storm Sewer
Circle Drive Storm Sewer
Woods Road Bridge
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following:
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following:
Discuss request by Heritage Presbyterian Church located at S63 W13761 College Avenue for
connection to New Berlin sanitary sewer and water system
Alderman Wolfe made a motion to approve request by Heritage Presbyterian Church
located at S63 W13761 College Avenue for connection to New Berlin sanitary sewer
and water system. Alderman Engelhardt seconded.
Motion Passed 3 in favor.
Discuss request from Bob Stack (S70 W15905 Princeton Court) to relocate entrance
monument for Northfield Green from Sandalwood Drive to Princeton Court
Discuss timing of the Woods Road Bridge Reconstruction project
Discuss Hardtke Drive pathway design alternatives
Alderman Engelhardt made a motion to approve Hardtke Drive off road pathway
design alternative. Alderman Wolfe seconded.
Motion Passed 3 in favor.
NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE
(The following items have been placed on file for staff review. Upon completion of review, staff
will submit a supplement detailing options and possible course of action to committee
members.)
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW
ADJOURNMENT
Alderman Engelhardt made a motion to adjourn. Alderman Wolfe seconded.
Motion Passed 3 in favor.
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Staff Report to Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Fireside Orchard Subdivision - Final Completion
Date: June 10, 2014
The Developers of the Fireside Orchard Subdivision, Location 3 Corporation,
represented by Jim Lechner, Tom Sauer, and Shan Mason have failed to complete
the remaining items within the development, which include the final lift of asphalt,
inlet adjustments, and asphalt base layer repairs. The Developers have no financial
assets and are protected by Corporation laws according to the City Attorney , so we
cannot pursue them for the expenses that remain. The City requires that a Letter of
Credit (LOC) be in place by a financial institution guaranteeing that there is money
in reserve to complete the final subdivision items should the Developer fail to
complete the required items. Unfortunately, the bank that secured this
Development’s LOC was Maritime Savings Bank, which has gone bankrupt. I have
spoken with the FDIC and our City Attorney and have found that the LOC is not
federally insured and therefore useless at this point. A resident of Fireside Orchard,
John Zabkowicz, has requested that the Public Works Committee begin discussions
on how to proceed with the remaining items for completion of this subdivision.
I have estimated the completion items and the associated costs as follows:
Repair base course asphalt: 900 s.y.@ $30.00/s.y.= $27,000
Repair damaged curb & gutter: 130 l.f.@ $40.00/l.f.= $5,200
Install permanent curb inlets: 14 each @ $750/each= $10,500
Mill asphalt wedge along curb: 3,125 l.f. @ $1.00/l.f.= $3,125
Mill manhole ramps:7 each @ $100/each= $700
Install final lift of asphalt: 4,708 s.y. @ $6.50/s.y.= $30,602
Engineering: to be completed by City staff= $0
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST= $77,127
This is the first time I am aware of in recent history that a Developer has not
completed all obligations that were outlined under a Development Agreement. We
need to discuss options for completion and how the City would like to proceed.
There are 17 lots that benefit from the roadway improvements in the subdivision
and some options that staff would propose are as follows:
Option #1- If the entire project were assessed and the total cost was as estimated the
per property assessment would be $4,536.88. This would need to go through a public
hearing process and be budgeted for in a future year. This could be bid as part of
the City’s annual road program. The Engineering Division could use internal staff
for all this work and not charge for any Engineering costs.
Page 2 of 2
Option #2- Another option might be leaving the roadway in its existing condition
until such time that the City might normally expect to complete improvements,
approximately 2025, and at that time only assess for expenses that wouldn’t be
ordinarily expected. The negatives for this option is that the base layer is failing
now and might be in much worse shape by 2025. It is also difficult to plow with the
final lift of asphalt not in place, so it would be beneficial to have it installed soon.
Option #3- The City could potentially pay for a certain percentage of the
improvements. This would need to be budgeted for and an assessment process
completed as described in option #1.
Recommendation for Action by Committee:
Discuss options and recommend action for the Common Council.
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Staff Report to Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Discuss the Lake Drive lift station improvement project
Date: June 12, 2014
As part of the City’s continued efforts to increase sanitary sewer system reliability
we are working to improve the lift station controls at the Lake Drive lift station.
During the large rain events in 2008 and 2012 we experienced very heavy flows at
this (and other) lift station and had to descend into the underground vault in order
to reset breakers and make adjustments. Because it is a confined space we are
required to have a two man team at the site to enter the control area. Because we
have a limited staff and 26 lift stations that need monitoring during rain events (as
well as routine maintenance) moving the controls above ground would free up a
staff member to be free for other locations during emergencies.
This lift station was constructed in 1968 and the controls are in need of replacement
at this time as well. Moving the controls above ground will improve our ability to
respond to emergency situations effectively and efficiently. We completed a very
similar project at the Williams Drive lift station. The two pictures below show the
Williams Drive above ground control structure.
This project is budgeted and staff is moving forward with the project, however,
concerns have been brought forward by the property owners that abut the lift
station regarding the aesthetics of the building. The building’s location is the main
point of concern. If we put the building near the lift station, we would only need two
men at the site when performing routine maintenance (about twice a month), but if
we move the control structure further away from the lift station we will need three
Page 1 of 2
men there. Moving the structure will add approximately $5,000 to the cost, but the
project will still be within the budgeted $100,000. The pictures below show the area
of the lift station. The residents would like us to locate the building north of their
garage instead of next to the lift station so you cannot see the building from their
home or when approaching their house from the street. The attached map shows
the two locations being discussed.
As part of the project staff would relocated the existing antenna onto the building
and we would remove the existing telephone pole that now holds electrical panels
that would be relocated onto and in the new structure. Moving the structure is not
ideal for routine maintenance or cost, however, staff feels this would be an
acceptable compromise for aesthetic concerns of the residents.
Recommendation for Action by Committee:
Authorize staff to proceed with the project and place the control structure
approximately 80 feet north of the existing lift station within the Lake Drive right-
of-way.
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Staff Report to Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Berm installation request for Oakridge Glen Subdivision
Date: June 12, 2014
The Developer of Oakridge Glen subdivision is requesting that the City approve a
permit to install a berm along the eastern edge of the subdivision as shown on the
attached grading plan. He is proposing a 6 foot high berm to be constructed across
six existing lots. The berm would be constructed with a 2:1 side slope.
Staff has some concerns related to the proposal as follows:
The berm would be constructed with a 2:1 slope which is very steep and
impossible to mow. This will most likely leave the berm in an unsightly
condition that will lead to complaints from future residents that live on the
lots or around the berm. For reference the steepest part near the top of the
sledding hill at Park Arthur is a 2:1 slope, and that can only be mowed with a
specialty boom arm thrashing mower attached to a tractor.
The berm is adjacent to an existing drainage swale that is within an
easement. The Developer is proposing culverts under the berm but I feel that
the culverts will not take all water and the vast majority of drainage will
travel along the front of the berm, which is not in an easement.
The Developer would be constructing the berm in small segments so it may
look unfinished for quite some time. A time of completion restriction should
be considered.
A financial guarantee should be required and an amendment to the
Development Agreement to guarantee completion. Also the existin g LOC
should be examined for remaining balance to completion item ratio as part of
this process to ensure funds are in place to complete the subdivision.
Recommendation for Action by Committee:
Consider allowing the berm only if it were to have 3:1 maximum side slopes, be
completed in less than one year, and a letter of credit and development agreement
be updated to include the berm construction.
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Staff Report to Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Recommend approval of the Compliance Maintenance Annual Report
(CMAR) for 2013
Date: June 12, 2014
One of our responsibilities in the operation of the City’s Sanitary Sewer Conveyance
System comes from the WDNR. They require an annual report titled “Compliance
Maintenance Annual Report” (CMAR). Part of the report (see attached) is a
requirement to have a resolution such as the attached resolution in order to ensure
that elected officials are aware of the current state of the system by sharing the
CMAR and ensuring adequate funding is available to the Utility.
For the year 2013 the City’s Grade was an A (4.0) as can be seen on the attached
report.
Recommendation:
Recommend approval of the attached resolution.
COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO
RESOLUTION #____-2014
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
NR 208 - COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE RESOLUTION
FOR 2013
WHEREAS, It is a requirement under a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (WPDES) permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to
file a Compliance Maintenance Annual Report (CMAR) for the City of Muskego’s
wastewater collection system under Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 208; and
WHEREAS, It is necessary to acknowledge that the governing body has reviewed the
Compliance Maintenance Annual Report (CMAR) for 2013.
WHEREAS, The Muskego Sewer Utility had a 4.0 average in 2013.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the Common Council of the City of
Muskego, upon the recommendation of the Public Works Committee, does hereby
commit the necessary funding to operate the City’s sewer utility efficiently and maintain
its above 3.0 grade point average.
DATED THIS _ DAY OF _ , 2014.
SPONSORED BY:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #___-2014 which
was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego.
_______________________
Clerk-Treasurer
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/2/2014
Reporting Year: 2013
Financial Management
Name:Scott Kloskowski
Telephone:(262) 679-4149
E-Mail Address(optional):skloskowski@cityofmuskego.org
Yes (0 points)
No (40 points)
If No, please explain:
0-2 years ago (0 points)
3 or more years ago (20 points)
Not Applicable (Private Facility)
Yes
No (40 points)
REPLACEMENT FUNDS(PUBLIC MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SHALL COMPLETE QUESTION 5)
5.1 When was the Equipment Replacement Fund last reviewed and/or revised?
Year: 2013
1-2 years ago (0 points)
3 or more years ago (20 points)
Not Applicable Explain:
5.2 What amount is in your Replacement Fund?
Equipment Replacement Fund Activity
5.2.1 Ending Balance Reported on Last Year's CMAR:$789850.90
Questions Points
1.Person Providing This Financial Information
2.Are User Charge or other Revenues sufficient to cover O&M Expenses for your wastewater
treatment plant AND/OR collection system ?
0
3.When was the User Charge System or other revenue source(s) last reviewed and/or revised?
Year: 2013
0
4.Did you have a special account (e.g., CWFP required segregated Replacement Fund, etc.) or
financial resources available for repairing or replacing equipment for your wastewater treatment
plant and/or collection system?
0
5.Equipment Replacement Funds
0
Page 1 of 10
5.2.2 Adjustments
if necessary (e.g., earned interest, audit correction, withdrawal of
excess funds, increase making up previous shortfall, etc.)
+$0.00
5.2.3 Adjusted January 1st Beginning Balance $789,850.90
5.2.4 Additions to Fund (e.g., portion of User Fee, earned interest, etc.)+$26,949.92
5.2.5 Subtractions from Fund (e.g., equipment replacement, major repairs
- use description box 5.2.5.1 below*.)
-$0.00
5.2.6 Ending Balance as of December 31st for CMAR Reporting Year $816,800.82
(All Sources: This ending balance should include all Equipment Replacement
Funds whether held in a bank account(s), certificate(s) of deposit, etc.)
*5.2.5.1. Indicate adjustments, equipment purchases and/or major repairs from 5.2.5 above
5.3 What amount should be in your replacement
fund? $215,000.00
(If you had a CWFP loan, this amount was originally based on the Financial Assistance Agreement
(FAA) and should be regularly updated as needed. Further calculation instructions and an example
can be found by clicking the HELP option button.)
5.3.1 Is the Dec. 31 Ending Balance in your Replacement Fund above (#5.2.6) equal to or greater
than the amount that should be in it(#5.3)?
Yes
No Explain:
6.1 During the next ten years, will you be involved in formal planning for upgrading, rehabilitating
or new construction of your treatment facility or collection system?
Yes (If yes, please provide major project information, if not already listed below)
No
Project Description Estimated Cost Approximate
Construction
Year
6.Future Planning
7.Financial Management General Comments:
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/2/2014
Reporting Year: 2013
Financial Management (Continued)
Page 2 of 10
Total Points Generated 0
Score (100 - Total Points Generated)100
Section Grade A
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/2/2014
Reporting Year: 2013
Financial Management (Continued)
Page 3 of 10
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/2/2014
Reporting Year: 2013
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems
Yes
No
Yes (go to question 3)
No (30 points) (go to question 4)
Goals: Describe the specific goals you have for your collection system:
Properly manage,operate and maintain all parts of the collection system, provide
adequate capacity to convey base and peak flows, prevent and mitigate impacts of
SSO's, provide notification to those with reasonable potential for exposure to
pollutants associated with SSO's.
Organization: Do you have the following written organizational elements (check only
those that you have):
Ownership and governing body description
Organizational chart
Personnel and position descriptions
Internal communication procedures
Public information and education program
Legal Authority: Do you have the legal authority for the following (check only those that
apply):
Sewer use ordinance Last Revised MM/DD/YYYY 05/22/2003
Pretreatment/Industrial control Programs
Fat, Oil and Grease control
Illicit discharges (commercial, industrial)
Private property clear water (sump pumps, roof or foundation drains, etc)
Private lateral inspections/repairs
Service and management agreements
Maintenance Activities: details in Question 4
Design and Performance Provisions: How do you ensure that your sewer system is
designed and constructed properly?
State plumbing code
DNR NR 110 standards
Local municipal code requirements
Questions Points
1.Do you have a Capacity, Management, Operation & Maintenance(CMOM) requirement in your
WPDES permit?
2.Did you have a documented (written records/files, computer files, video tapes, etc.) sanitary sewer
collection system operation & maintenance or CMOM program last calendar year?
0
3.Check the elements listed below that are included in your Operation and Maintenance (O&M) or
CMOM program.:
Page 4 of 10
Construction, inspection and testing
Others:
Overflow Emergency Response Plan: Does your emergency response capability
include (check only those that you have):
Alarm system and routine testing
Emergency equipment
Emergency procedures
Communications/Notifications (DNR, Internal, Public, Media etc)
Capacity Assurance: How well do you know your sewer system? Do you have the
following?
Current and up-to-date sewer map
Sewer system plans and specifications
Manhole location map
Lift station pump and wet well capacity information
Lift station O&M manuals
Within your sewer system have you identified the following?
Areas with flat sewers
Areas with surcharging
Areas with bottlenecks or constrictions
Areas with chronic basement backups or SSO's
Areas with excess debris, solids or grease accumulation
Areas with heavy root growth
Areas with excessive infiltration/inflow (I/I)
Sewers with severe defects that affect flow capacity
Adequacy of capacity for new connections
Lift station capacity and/or pumping problems
Annual Self-Auditing of your O&M/CMOM Program to ensure above components are
being implemented, evaluated, and re-prioritized as needed.
Special Studies Last Year(check only if applicable):
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis
Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES)
Sewer Evaluation and Capacity Managment Plan (SECAP)
Lift Station Evaluation Report
Others:
We did some flow monitoring at various locations in the system.
20Cleaning % of system/year
0Root Removal % of system/year
100Flow Monitoring % of system/year
0Smoke Testing % of system/year
4.Did your sanitary sewer collection system maintenance program include the following
maintenance activities? Complete all that apply and indicate the amount maintained:
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/2/2014
Reporting Year: 2013
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 5 of 10
15Sewer Line Televising % of system/year
43Manhole Inspections % of system/year
52Lift Station O&M # per L.S/year
.1Manhole Rehabilitation % of manholes rehabed
.1Mainline Rehabilitation % of sewer lines rehabed
0Private Sewer Inspections % of system/year
0Private Sewer l/l Removal % of private services
Please include additional comments about your sanitary sewer collection system below:
34.26 Total Actual Amount of Precipitation Last Year
34.81 Annual Average Precipitation (for your location)
150.5 Miles of Sanitary Sewer
26 Number of Lift Stations
0 Number of Lift Station Failure
0 Number of Sewer Pipe Failures
0 Number of Basement Backup Occurrences
0 Number of Complaints
1.8 Average Daily Flow in MGD
3.5 Peak Monthly Flow in MGD(if available)
12.9 Peak Hourly Flow in MGD(if available)
5.Provide the following collection system and flow information for the past year:
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/2/2014
Reporting Year: 2013
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 6 of 10
LIST OF SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (SSO) REPORTED
Date Location Cause Estimated
Volume (MG)
NONE REPORTED
** If there were any SSO's that are not listed above, please contact the DNR and stop work
on this section until corrected.
What actions were taken, or are underway, to reduce or eliminate SSO occurences in the future?
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
0.00 Lift Station Failures(failures/ps/year)
0.00 Sewer Pipe Failures(pipe failures/sewer mile/yr)
0.00 Sanitary Sewer Overflows (number/sewer mile/yr)
0.00 Basement Backups(number/sewer mile)
0.00 Complaints (number/sewer mile)
1.9 Peaking Factor Ratio (Peak Monthly:Annual Daily Average)
7.2 Peaking Factor Ratio(Peak Hourly:Annual daily Average)
Yes
No
If Yes, please describe:
The flows increase dramatically through the one substantial storm event of the year.
Yes
No
If Yes, please describe:
Continued televising and spot repairs are done where practical.
6.Was infiltration/inflow(l/l) significant in your community last year?
7.Has infiltration/inflow and resultant high flows affected performance or created problems in your
collection system, lift stations, or treatment plant at any time in the past year?
8.Explain any infiltration/inflow(l/l) changes this year from previous years?
9.What is being done to address infiltration/inflow in your collection system?
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/2/2014
Reporting Year: 2013
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 7 of 10
Total Points Generated 0
Score (100 - Total Points Generated)100
Section Grade A
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/2/2014
Reporting Year: 2013
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 8 of 10
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:Reporting Year: 2013
WPDES No.0047341
Notes:
A = Voluntary Range
B = Voluntary Range
C = Recommendation Range (Response Required)
D = Action Range (Response Required)
F = Action Range (Response Required)
GRADING SUMMARY
SECTION LETTER
GRADE
GRADE
POINTS
WEIGHTING
FACTORS
SECTION
POINTS
Financial Management A 4.0 1 4
Collection Systems A 4.0 3 12
TOTALS 4 16
GRADE POINT AVERAGE(GPA)=4.00 4.00
Page 9 of 10
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:Reporting Year: 2013
Resolution or Owner's Statement
NAME OF GOVERNING BODY OR OWNER DATE OF RESOLUTION OR ACTION TAKEN
City of Muskego
RESOLUTION NUMBER
ACTIONS SET FORTH BY THE GOVERNING BODY OR OWNER RELATING TO SPECIFIC CMAR
SECTIONS (Optional for grade A or B. Required for grade C, D, or F. Regardless of grade, required for
Collection Systems if SSO's were reported):
Financial Management: Grade=A
Collection Systems: Grade=A
ACTIONS SET FORTH BY THE GOVERNING BODY OR OWNER RELATING TO THE OVERALL GRADE
POINT AVERAGE AND ANY GENERAL COMMENTS (Optional for G.P.A. greater than or equal to 3.00,
required for G.P.A. less than 3.00) G.P.A. = 4.00
Page 10 of 10
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Staff Report to Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Review and potential approval of updated standard curb and gutter detail
Date: June 12, 2014
The City has an approved standard detail for new construction requirements that is
used to guide new development construction plans. The current standard curb and
gutter cross section is a mountable curb and gutter that allows for installation of
driveways behind it without removal of the curb. We have received many
complaints through the years about our existing curb’s bump when driving into and
out of owner’s driveways. I have been looking for a new curb and gutter section
that would still provide for a mountable section while reducing the bump that
residents have when going into and out of their drives.
The attached curb and gutter detail from the City of Brookfield allows for
mountable curb while having less of a bump for driveways. I have also attached our
current standard detail for reference. I propose changing to this new standard detail
for future development.
Recommendation for Action by Committee:
Approve updating the City’s standard detail to the attached mountable curb and
gutter detail drawing.
Page 1 of 1
STANDARD MOUNTABLE
CURB & GUTTER