Loading...
Public Works Committee Packet -5-2-12 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF MUSKEGO PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2012 TIME: 6:00 P.M. LOCATION: Durham Hill Room – Lower Level of City Hall W182 S8200 Racine Avenue Muskego, WI 53150 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD March 19, 2012 STATUS OF PROJECTS Discussion update. No formal action may be taken on any of the following: 1. Janesville Road Reconstruction (Moorland to Lannon) 2. McShane Pump Station Upgrade 3. PPII Reduction & Sanitary Sewer Backup Prevention Programs 4. Tess Corners Drive Reconstruction 5. Pioneer Drive Reconstruction 6. Woods Road Recreational Trail 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 the following: 1. Discuss design options for the Tess Corners Drive shared-use pathway (from Janesville Road to Woods Road). 2. Review contract amendment for consultant construction management services for the construction of the Woods Road pathway. 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 PLEASE NOTE: It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipalit y 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 City Hall, (262) 679 -4100. CITY OF MUSKEGO unapproved PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012 Alderman Noah Fiedler called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM. Also present were Alderman Dan Soltysiak, City Engineer David Simpson and Public Utilities Superintendent Scott Kloskowski. Alderman Keith Werner absent. Ald. Fiedler led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting was noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Law on March 16, 2012. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 Ald. Soltysiak moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2012. Seconded by Ald. Fiedler. Motion carried 2-0. STAFF REPORTS None STATUS OF PROJECTS Janesville Road Reconstruction (Moorland to Lannon) – City Engineer Simpson stated moving forward. Preconstruction meeting scheduled for next week. Work should be starting in April. McShane Pump Station Upgrade – Public Utilities Superintendent Kloskowski advised physical work there is completed. We have been waiting months for parts. PPII Reduction & Sanitary Sewer Backup Prevention Programs – City Engineer Simpson advised moving along nicely. We have had only six or seven grants for backup prevention devices go through at this point, but quite a few have inquired. Tess Corners Reconstruction – City Engineer Simpson stated we’re at 90% plans. DNR submittal should be this week. Pioneer Drive Reconstruction – City Engineer Simpson advised should go out for bid soon. Meeting with utilities Thursday morning. Woods Road Recreational Trail – They are staking out areas we approved per City Engineer Simpson. Should be on track to bid. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Discuss Request for City Water Main Extension to S81 W18051-53 Riese Drive - City Engineer Simpson stated the owner of Muskego Lakeaire Apartments located at S81 W18051-53 Riese Drive has submitted a request to connect to the City’s water system by means of a water main extension from the existing water main near the property. Recommendation would be to proceed with design of a public water main extension to the 2 eastern edge of the Pioneer Drive right-of-way with all costs associated with such project to be borne by the owner. Ald. Soltysiak made a motion to approve recommendation. Ald. Fiedler seconded. Motion carried 2-0. Review Public Hearing Comments Regarding for the Pioneer Drive Water Main Project – City Engineer Simpson advised a public hearing was held March 13, 2012, at 7:00 PM. Regarding water main construction and assessments for the Pioneer Drive water main project. At the hearing one person spoke who had concerns that the proposed interest rate of 8% was too high and the payback term of five years was too short. Payback term for this is 10 years and the interest rate has been 8% for years. Recommendation was to have the Director examine interest rate and payback time and pass the concerns to the Finance Committee for consideration. Ald. Soltysiak moved to approved recommendation. Ald. Fiedler seconded. Motion carried 2-0. We also received a letter on March 16 from an attorney representing the owner of a vacant property on the corner of Janesville Road and Pioneer Drive questioning the right to assess that particular property. After discussion regarding it being a corner lot and two properties, it was decided to leave assessment role as is. Ald. Soltysiak made a motion to leave assessment role as it stood. Seconded by Ald. Fiedler. Motion carried 2-0. Review Funding Agreement MU04 between the City and MMSD for Private Property Infiltration & Inflow Reduction Program - City Engineer Simpson stated we have an agreement that will provide for grant funding from the MMSD to the City to complete the necessary repair work to defects that were discovered during the first phase of the City’s Private Property Infiltration & Inflow Reduction project. First phase of investigation detected five homes with lateral defects and six homes that will benefit from the installation of a groundwater migration barrier. The agreement will provide for the funding of the work by MMSD. No contributions will be required of the homeowners. If we approve this agreement it will allow us to go forward with coming up with an agreement to enter property to do work. We will bid the work publicly so we can take care of work for homeowner. This will come out of our allocated grant funds. Ald. Soltysiak made a motion to approve Funding Agreement MU04 between the City and MMSD. Ald. Fiedler seconded. Motion carried 2-0. Review Rates for Consultant Construction Management Services for the Reconstruction of Tess Corners Drive – It is important for the City to hire a qualified inspection team to ensure we receive exactly what we are requiring in our plans and specifications for all projects advised City Engineer Simpson. The Tess Corners project is being designed by Foth, who designed and inspected Durham Drive. We requested that the same team consisting of a Construction Manager and an On-site Project Representative be made available to us for the Tess Corners Reconstruction project and Foth was able to deliver that team at a competitive hourly rate. Recommendation would be approve amending the current design agreement to have Foth provide construction management services for the reconstruction of Tess Corners Drive. Ald. Soltysiak moved to approve recommendation. Seconded by Ald. Fiedler. Motion carried 2-0. Review Rates for Consultant Construction Management Services for the Reconstruction of Pioneer Drive – City Engineer Simpson stated it is important for the City to hire a qualified team to ensure we receive exactly what we are requiring in our plans and specifications for all projects. The Pioneer Drive Reconstruction project is being designed by R.A. Smith. The City has been lucky to have the same On-site Project Representative for the City’s Annual Road Program. The Construction Manager is very qualified as well. Ald. Soltysiak moved to approve amending the current design agreement to have R.A. Smith provide construction management services for the reconstruction of Pioneer Drive. Ald. Fiedler seconded. Motion carried 2-0. 3 NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE None COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW City Engineer Simpson requested next meeting be on April 23, 2012. City Engineer Simpson thanked Ald. Fiedler for his services. ADJOURNMENT Ald. Soltysiak moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 PM. Ald. Fiedler seconded. Motion carried 2-0. Jeanne Struck Recording Secretary CITY OF MUSKEGO Public Works Committee To: Public Works Committee From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject: Discuss design options for the Tess Corners Drive shared-use pathway (from Janesville Road to Woods Road). Date: May 2, 2012 A petition was received Thursday, March 29th, 2012 requesting that the City reconsider the current plan to construct a multiuse pathway along Tess Corners Drive, from Janesville Road to Woods Road. The petition requested that the path be reconsidered “based on taxpayer cost, environmental impact, and need.” The following sections of this memorandum outline the project’s history, status, alternatives, and potential resulting impacts. Project History. June 8, 2009 -This segment of path was first discussed at the Parks & Recreation Board meeting. At this meeting, a resident and their Alderman came forward requesting that a path be considered for construction along Tess Corners Drive because they were concerned that there is no place to safely walk along the road. The Board approved the concept for further exploration. November 23, 2010- Future trail construction planning process discussed at Committee of the Whole, which included the segment of pathway along Tess Corners Drive. The Committee approved the pathway inclusion at this meeting. August 15, 2011- Public Works Committee authorized the distribution of a Request for Proposals for the reconstruction of Tess Corners Drive including the addition of five foot wide paved shoulders allowing for on road pedestrian/bicycle use. November 21, 2011- Preliminary soil borings and cost estimates were discussed at the Public Works Committee. Because of very poor subsoil conditions, an off road pathway was estimated to cost approximately $200,000 less than five foot wide shoulders. The Committee moved to alter the design to have an off-road trail constructed instead of the wide shoulders because of reduced cost and increased user safety. December 14, 2011- A Public Informational Meeting (PIM) was held, which all residents along the corridor were invited to by direct mailings. A detailed plan exhibit was displayed which depicted the off-road pathway. Comments were gathered for discussion at the next Public Works Committee meeting. These plans were also placed on the City’s web-site which was discussed in the letters sent to residents. January 30, 2012- Results of the PIM were discussed at the Public Works Committee meeting including the pathway’s impact upon resident’s properties. An alternative was discussed in which the entire road section would be moved, however, this alternative was not approved because of cost and existing terrain challenges. The Committee decided to move forward as already planned with direction to staff to save as many trees as possible without unreasonably increasing project costs. March 29, 2012- The City received a petition representing 21 properties along Tess Corners Drive and 1 property on Mystic Drive. This petition requested that the City reconsider the planned path. April 10, 2012- The Committee of the Whole discussed the pathway and the petition and decided to move the item to Common Council for a decision. April 24, 2012- The Common Council discussed the project after obtaining more resident input and it was decided to defer the decision until the alternatives could be discussed at a Public Works Committee meeting. Project Status. The project’s plans are 99% complete. A scheduled submission for bid advertisement of April 5th was canceled due to Alderman Harenda requesting the path be reconsidered at the April 10th Committee of the Whole. I have complied all resident responses that we have received including the petition, e-mails, phone calls, and comments at the Public Hearing and put them onto a map for ease of analysis (see attached). Potential Alternatives. The following are alternatives that could be considered and the associated costs: 1. On-Road Shoulders- Should the pathway be converted back to on-road shoulders, the redesign cost will be approximately $50,000 plus an additional $200,000 for construction resulting in a project cost increase of approximately $250,000. This alternative will most likely result in the same if not more tree loss within the right-of- way. This type of design is the least desirable as it still leaves the pedestrian or bicyclist on the same traveled surface as vehicular traffic. This alternative will require the project to have to be pushed back to 2013 due to complete redesign and permitting issues. 2. Removal of Pathway- Should the pathway be removed from the project completely, the redesign cost will be approximately $30,000 with a reduction in project construction costs in the amount of approximately $81,000. This would result in a net project cost decrease of approximately $51,000. This alternative may result in minor savings of trees. This alternative will delay the project for approximately 6-8 weeks depending upon permitting requirements. The project may or may not be able to be constructed in 2012 depending upon timing of bid let. This option does not address the on-road travel safety issue that would still exist for residents. 3. Reduced Pathway Width- Should the path be reduced to six feet in width, the redesign would cost approximately $6,500 with a reduction in project construction costs in the amount of approximately $15,300. This would result in a net project cost decrease of approximately $8,800. This alternative will most likely not result in any tree savings. This alternative will delay the project for approximately 2-3 weeks. The project might be able to be constructed in 2012. It should be noted that the City’s standard width is eight feet so that two-way traffic can pass safely. This new trail width will affect all current and future trail widths. For safe, two-way traffic flow, the 8’ standard was previously adopted based on Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Manual. I have attached section 4.4 of this Manual which discusses width requirements. Please note that the suggested width is 10’ with exceptions being made down to 8’. Anything less than 8’ should be used for only one-way traffic. 4. Concrete Alternative- Any concrete alternative will be approximately three times the cost of the asphalt alternative. 5. Edge of One Side of Road- The redesign cost will be approximately $60,000 with an additional construction cost of $730,000 more than the current design. This will result in a total project cost increase of $790,000. Foth does not recommend this design to the City. The current ditches at the north end of Tess Corners currently hold much more than the 25 year storm. In recent 100+ year recurrence events, Tess Corners Drive overtopped. If the ditches are enclosed, the storm sewer that replaces the ditch can only hold the 10 year storm. Due to the flat slope of the road, from the north end of the job to the creek, it would be difficult to hold any greater capacity, and there isn’t very much cover over the culvert pipes in the current design. Putting any larger pipe to increase the capacity could not be done. The only alternatives would result in additional right-of-way needed to install double pipes. This reduction in capacity could result in flooding elsewhere in the project area, or upstream of the project area. Besides the capacity issue, there are other issues with this design that make it undesirable. When designing a full curb and gutter project, generally, the top of the curb is below the lower of the 2 right-of-way elevations. This method ensures that the right-of-way drains to the road, and is picked up by the storm sewer. Drainage issues on private property are not usually addressed using this method, but it definitely keeps road drainage off of private property. This method can’t be used with curb and gutter on one side of the road. Since we have ditches on the east side of Tess Corners, we have to balance the road profile between the 2 types of design. That means in many locations, we will need to install yard drains in the right-of-way instead of using natural drainage ways. These can become clogged, and need regular maintenance, which the homeowner is responsible for, much like residents with driveway culverts remove debris, and people with storm sewer inlets remove snow and ice to allow drainage into the inlets in front of their houses. It is estimated that over half the homes on the west side of Tess Corners could have yard drains within the right-of-way. The path would also need to meander at each driveway due to ADA requirements. Perhaps installing a 2 or 3’ terrace would be a better alternative, with an 8’ path to alleviate meandering and leave room for mailboxes. The roadway design would also change significantly due to the curb and gutter. We would artificially add high and low points into the profile to direct the drainage into the storm sewer inlets, because the road is so flat, and curb and gutter can’t be installed that flat. Potential Impacts. Should the decision be made to change the currently designed pathway to anything other than the City’s current standard, all impacts must be carefully considered. Recommendation for Action: Construct the project as currently designed. !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( SOMERSET CT K I P LIN G DR S H E R WOOD CIR FEN N I M O R E C T J A N E S V I L L E R D D U R H A M P L B EL M O N T D R G AULKE DR BRISTLECONE LN FLEETWOOD RD ROSEWOOD DR C A M IL L A D R EMPRESS CT HALE PARK D R C ON R A D C T W O O D S R DHALE P A R K C T L A R K S P U R R D T E S S C O R N E R S D R HALE PARK CIR DUNSTAN CT S AND Y K N O L L C T B R I S T L E C O N E C T C O RNE LL D R S O M E RS ET D R LO N G F E L L O W L N JA E G E R P L CATALINA D R C A M I L L A C T W O O D L AND PL W O O D L A N D C T D O V ER LN M A C L E N D R H A R D W IC K E P L SA R O YAN R D CLARENDON PL CORNELL CIR TESS CORNERS DR F ENNIMORE LN H I D D EN C R EE K C T W E S T C OT DR BRENTWO O D D R GA U L KE CT DARTMOUTH CIR FL I N T L O C K T R L S H E R W O O D C I R ³ PROPERTIES THAT OPPOSE PATH (23 Pr operties) ² PROPOSED PATH LOCATION May 2, 2012 PROPERTIES IN FAVOR OF PATH (30 Properties) PROPERTIES IN FAVOR OF PATH w/ MODIFICATIONS (4 Properties ) !( !( !(NOTE: Two additional prope rties, W152S7709 Mystic Dr. (opposed) and S74W12971 Courtland Ln. (in fav or), were not mapped sincethey are not loc ated in the mapped extents. NOTE: Four res ide nts of Stoney Creek are in favor. T E S S C O R N E R S D R I V E P A T H W A YResident c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d v i a P u b l i c H e a r i n g , p e t i t i o n , e -m a i l s , a n d p h o n e c a l l s (M a r c h 2 9 - M a y 2 ) ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 1 ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 2 ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 3 LC POINT REFERREDTO ON PROFILE AS CL 12' 1'1' IN CUT IN FILL EXISTING GROUND IN FILL EXISTING GROUND4:1 4:1 12" - 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, 2 LIFTS 4:1 4:1 5.5" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENTTYPE E-3 2.00%2.00% 11' EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT4" TO 7" LC VARIES 4:1 VARIES EXISTING AGGREGATE BASE COURSE,4.5" TO 15" VARIES VARI E S STA 10+90 to STA 58+80 PROPOSED SECTION ALTERNATE 1 - ON ROAD SHOULDER EXISTING SECTION 4%4% 11'VARIES UNDERCUT AREA, BACKFILL GRANULAR,GRADE 1, 3-6' DEPTH* 5'2'12'5'2' 2012 Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC CITY OF MUSKEGO PROJECT ID FIGURE NO.DATE: 05/01/2012 PREPARED BY: MDS CHECKED BY: MKS 1 NTS TESS CORNERS DRIVE RECONSTRUCTIONTYPICAL SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 1 LC POINT REFERREDTO ON PROFILE AS CL 13' 2' 13' 2' 1'1' IN CUT IN FILL EXISTING GROUND IN FILL EXISTING GROUND4:1 4:1 12" - 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, 2 LIFTS 4:1 4:1 5.5" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENTTYPE E-3 2.00%2.00% VARIES VARI E S PROPOSED SECTION ALTERNATE 2 - NO PATH 4%4% UNDERCUT AREA, BACKFILL GRANULAR,GRADE 1, 3-6' DEPTH* 11' EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT4" TO 7" L VARIES 4:1 VARIES EXISTING AGGREGATE BASE COURSE,4.5" TO 15" STA 10+90 to STA 58+80 EXISTING SECTION 11'VARIES 2012 Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC CITY OF MUSKEGO TESS CORNERS DRIVE RECONSTRUCTIONTYPICAL SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 2 PROJECT ID FIGURE NO.DATE: 05/01/2012 PREPARED BY: MDS CHECKED BY: MKS 2 NTS LC POINT REFERREDTO ON PROFILE AS CL 13' 2' 13' 2' 1'1' IN CUT IN FILL EXISTING GROUND IN FILL EXISTING GROUND4:1 4:1 12" - 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, 2 LIFTS 4:1 4:1 5.5" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENTTYPE E-3 2.00%2.00% VARIES VARI E S PROPOSED SECTION ALTERNATE 3 - REDUCED PATH WIDTH 4%4% UNDERCUT AREA, BACKFILL GRANULAR,GRADE 1, 3-6' DEPTH* 3" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENTTYPE E-0.3 6" - 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 11' EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT4" TO 7" LC VARIES 4:1 VARIES EXISTING AGGREGATE BASE COURSE,4.5" TO 15" STA 10+90 to STA 58+80 EXISTING SECTION 11'VARIES 2012 Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC CITY OF MUSKEGO PROJECT ID FIGURE NO.DATE: 05/01/2012 PREPARED BY: MDS CHECKED BY: MKS 3 NTS TESS CORNERS DRIVE RECONSTRUCTIONTYPICAL SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 3 LC POINT REFERREDTO ON PROFILE AS CL 13'12' 12" - 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, 2 LIFTS 5.5" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENTTYPE E-3 2.00%2.00% PROPOSED SECTION ALTERNATE 5 - CURB AND GUTTER UNDERCUT AREA, BACKFILL GRANULAR,GRADE 1, 3-6' DEPTH* 3" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENTTYPE E-0.3 6" - 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 10' CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 2' IN FILL EXISTING GROUND4:1 VARIES 2.00% 4:1 4:1 11' EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT4" TO 7" LC VARIES 4:1 VARIES EXISTING AGGREGATE BASE COURSE,4.5" TO 15" STA 10+90 to STA 58+80 EXISTING SECTION 11'VARIES 2012 Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC CITY OF MUSKEGO PROJECT ID FIGURE NO.DATE: 05/01/2012 PREPARED BY: MDS CHECKED BY: MKS 5 NTS TESS CORNERS DRIVE RECONSTRUCTIONTYPICAL SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 5 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: Review contract amendment for consultant construction management services for the construction of the Woods Road Pathway Date: May 2, 2012 As we near the beginning of the construction season, it is important for the City to hire a qualified inspection team to ensure we receive exactly what we are requiring in our plans and specifications for all projects. The Woods Road Pathway project is being designed by GRAEF. The Woods Road Pathway project will require staking and inspection from a qualified team of professionals. GRAEF is able to provide the Construction Manager that worked with the City on last year’s Cornell Drive Storm Sewer Project and he is very qualified to assist the City with construction management services. Recommendation: Recommend approving the attached agreement amending the current design agreement to have GRAEF provide construction management services for the construction of the Woods Road Pathway.