06-06-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1994
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
I. TOUR TO REVIEW CITY STREET. MAINTENANCE AND STREET LIGHTING
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
I. 7:00-7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF
STUDY SESSION
II. 7:30-7:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF
STUDY SESSION
III. 7:45-8:15 P.M. REVIEW OF REST
I-35W STUDY
CITY STREET MAINTENANCE
LETTER N0. 15
CENTRAL GARAGE FACILITIES
LETTER NO. 16
JLTS OF 76TH STREET WEST OF
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 17
IV. 8:15-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 18
V. 8:30-8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF FUNDING FOR CITY
BOARD/COMMISSIONS AND PROGRAMS TO BE
CONSIDERED IN UPCOMING BUDGET
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 19
VI. 8:45-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO ALLOW PULLTABS AT
LICENSED LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN
V.F.W. AND AMERICAN LEGION
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 20
VII. 9:00-9:15 P.M. PRELIMINARY BUDGET DISCUSSION FOR 1995
BUDGET YEAR
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 21
9:15 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE
UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ~"~
ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 21
Agenda June 6, 1994
Issue Statement:
Preliminary budget discussion for 1995 budget year.
Background•
City staff•is now preparing the 1995 budget. The preparations
are primarily based upon direction provided to City staff from
Council goal setting, periodic feedback throughout the year and
prior years' budget discussions and initiatives indicated by the
City Council. In preparing the budget, it is helpful to receive
input from the Council regarding any issues which should be
addressed ,during .budget preparation. .This Study Session is an
informal opportunity to do so.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a general budget discussion regarding the 1995 fiscal
year budget.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This discussion is helpful in staff preparation of a budget
for Council consideration.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The-Council. may decide to defer this matter to a later date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for discussion on June 6, 1994.
Respectful submitted,
Jame Prosser
City M nager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 20
Agenda June 6, 1994
Issue Statement:
Council discussion on whether to allow pulltabs at licensed
liquor establishments other than the V.F.W. and American
Legion.
Background-
Currently,•Section 519, Subd. 6, essentially prohibits
gambling (i.e., pulltabs) by any organization which does not
own or lease their property or the gambling does not occur
within the property which constitutes the principal place of
business. The effect of this ordinance has limited gambling
in Richfield to the V.F.W. and American Legion since they
are the only two non-profits (a requirement for a State
gambling license) who own or lease their property, and it is
their principal place of business.
Over the years, the City has received numerous requests to
expand the ordinance to allow gambling in other liquor
license establishments.
In an Attorney General's opinion, dated October 25, 1988,
the City of Cloquet was contemplating the same action.
However, the .Attorney General's opinion was that Cloquet, by
limiting lawful gambling to local organizations, was
possibly in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
State and/or Federal Constitution.
The Statute (Chapter 349) offers no guidance to local units
of government on what is a good reason for disapproval of a
license. The Council may recall that they can, by
resolution, disapprove or approve a license. However, all
licenses are issued by the State.
What the City can do is require that a licensed, lawful
gambling .organization spend all or a portion of its
expenditures in the City's trade area. However, we must
define what that trade area is which must include the cities
contiguous to the defining city (Chapter 349.213, Subd.l,
Paragraph b.). In addition, these regulations must apply
equally to all of the licensed organizations.
In summary, the City can determine what kind of lawful
gambling (if any) can take place; it can specify the hours;
and it can determine where in the City it will be conducted.
A number of charitable organizations, such as the
Minneapolis Jaycees, Little Gopher Baseball, et al; have in
the past expressed interest in conducting lawful gambling at
the licensed liquor establishments. To do this, they would
have to lease space from the establishments. The proceeds
derived would pay State taxes and support their ventures.
Recommended Motion:
Staff is seeking direction from the Council on whether it
wishes to expand lawful gambling and to what extent within
State Statutes, or leave the ordinance as is.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Public Safety is comfortable with the status quo or some
expansion. This type of lawful. gambling is not a source
of problems for the police.
2.-This is a community standard issue for the Council to
address.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The issue is presented to the Council for discussion and
direction to staff.
Respectf y submitted,
Jame Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.19
Agenda June 6, 1994
Issue Statement:
Discussion of funding for City Board/Commissions and programs to
be considered in the upcoming budget.
Background•
At the May•9, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council directed
staff to provide information concerning the possibility of
including compensatory stipends or salaries for City
Board/Commission Members in the upcoming budget. Information was
also requested concerning expenditures for boards and
commissions.
There are five board/commissions that are relevant for this
discussion: Advisory Board of Health, Community Services
Commission, Human Rights Commission, Planning Commission, and the
Sister City Commission. Each of these bodies have regularly
scheduled monthly meetings. Each consists of Council appointed
residents of Richfield, selected after voluntarily applying for
consideration and interviewed by the Council.
The City incurs few costs for commissions other than materials,
mailings, and training seminars. The amounts of these costs are
shown in the attachments. Mileage is rarely paid because of the
infrequency of its necessity.
The League of Minnesota Cities was contacted to find out if any
other .cities in Minnesota provide a stipend for commission
members. According to LMC outstate salary surveys, and a salary
survey by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, there
is no record of other cities providing compensation for board or
commission service.
Recommended Motion:
This is a discussion item.
Ba_sis_of Recommendation:
Prior direction from Council Members to research this issue.
Alternative Recommendation:
Because this is a discussion item, no recommendation or
alternative recommendation is made at this time.
_D_iscussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for Council discussion on June 6, 1994.
Res u ly submitted,
Ja e Prosser
Ci y anager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Memorandum
DATE: June 2, 1994
TO: James Prosser, City Manager
FROM: James Verbrugge, Media Assistant
SUBJECT: Commission/Board Costs and Expenses
Advisory Board of Health
Costs include monthly. mailings., meetings, and name badges
for each member. Estimated annual cost is 5400.
Community_.__.Services__.Commissions
Costs include annual bus tour, MRPA memberships, and monthly
meeting costs. Estimated annual cost is 5700.
Human Rights Commission
Costs include monthly meetings, name badges, Gene Jacobsen
Award, and brochures. Estimated annual cost is 5276.
Plannin Commission
- ---9-._. _. _
Cos s include monthly meetings, training seminars,
memberships, legal publications, and miscellaneous expenses.
Estimated cost is 51,399.
Sister Cites Commission
Costs include monthly meetings and long-distance phone
. bills. This commission operates differently in that they
receive donations and maintain a separate account balance
with the Finance Department. Costs in 1993 were
approximately 51.00. An increase in long-distance phones
calls and faxes will push that total higher in 1994. The
Commission's year end fund balance for 1993 was 53,371.77.
Costs were estimated for generating small checks to boards and
commissions for per diem, payroll, etc.
• Approximate cost-per check (first month)
537.00
• Recurring cost/month (excludes cost of envelopes & checks)
57.78
JDV:ttf
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.18
Agenda June 6, 1994
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the
following:
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
Representative Edwina Garcia's bill to provide relief for cities
losing properties for state agency projects did not clear the
Legislature. The Impact Aid Bill would have compensated
Richfield for the loss of tax revenue from the acquisition. It
would have also provided compensatory payments for ten years to
School District #280. .The compromise legislation provides
District #280 a one-time compensatory relief payment of 5500,000.
Representative Garcia has indicated that she will attempt to pass
the bill again in 1995.
W.D. Schock has begun the closing and relocation process. As of
Thursday, May 26, there have been 40 purchase agreements signed,
with 19 closings completed. Six residents have already
relocated. Several residents have expressed concern that Schock
is not identifying Richfield homes as comparable relocation
houses when residents have specifically stated they wish to stay
in the City. Part of the problem is that the FAA will not permit
homes to be used within the 65 Ldn, which rules out parts of the
City. Staff asked Schock to attempt to locate homes in other
suburbs such as Bloomington in these instances. Often the comps
have been in Minneapolis when residents have said specifically
they don't want to be in Minneapolis. Residents are not bound to
relocate into the three comps selected by .Schock.
Funding for the project may become a problem. Schock under
estimated the number of hardship cases during Phase I; 25 was the
projection and 60 have been approved so far. The federal Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) passed by Congress provides enough
funding to probably finish this phase. MAC and the New Ford
Town/Rich Acres. Neighborhood Group are lobbying the state
representatives to secure funding to keep the program going
without slow downs.
A property management firm, Pham Express, has begun work in the
neighborhood. They will be responsible for maintaining the
appearance of vacated properties. Pham Express will also be on
the 911 Dispatcher notification list for vandalism or other
activity that may occur in the neighborhood.
• 4-22 Extension
Staff met with the Minnesota Department of Transportation -
Aeronautics Division to discuss their responsibilities regarding
the RDEIS for the .extension. MnDOT is the approving state agency
for the document and are required by law to conduct a thorough
analysis before final authorization. Staff, along with attorney
Steven Pflaum, explained several key sections of the document
that are lacking precision to detailed information. Until these
questions are answered, MnDOT should not sign the RDEIS. MnDOT
staff agreed to discuss among themselves what their course of
action should be.
The Chair of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board was
briefed on Richfield's position regarding the RDEIS. EQB was
very receptive to the issue and will attempt to organize a
meeting with MnDOT to further discuss the extension.
Staff-also met with Northwest Airlines to assess their position.
NWA favors the extension for a third reason that is not listed in
the RDEIS. The south parallel runway (11R-29L) will require
reconstruction in the next several years. Without the extension,
flight operations would be seriously hindered because 11R-29L is
the longest runway on the airfield. Shorter runways would force:
NWA to reduce payloads, which has financial impacts. NWA did,
however, agree that Richfield was justified in its concerns with
perception problems caused by the inflated operational numbers
that MAC would direct off 4-22. NWA agreed to participate in a
meeting with MAC staff and City staff to find some compromise.
Congressman Martin Sabo sent a letter to the Federal Aviation
Administration supporting Richfield's request to meet with the
Chief Counsel for the FAA. FAA also has to approve the final
EIS.
• MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
No new developments recently. MAC is working on finalizing the
details for airfield and terminal alternatives identified in the
LTCP. '
• Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
MAC staff reported the results of a survey of Part 150 Sound.
Insulation Program participants at the May meeting of MAC's
Planning & Environment Committee. The survey was conducted in
early 1994 and included participants in the program for 1992 and
1993. The MAC staff presentation of the survey is attached for
review. Most indicators of satisfaction have increased from
1992, the first year of the program, to 1993. This is due in
large part to a larger selection pool of contractors. One
contractor performed about 90% of the work in 1992, and only two
contractors were available from which to choose. In 1993,
participants had 11 contractors from which to choose.
One Richfield household that had their home sound insulated has
been experiencing problems the result of either poor workmanship
or poor quality materials. Doors and windows have been leaking
since the work was completed in March, as well as some other
problems. The resident has been unable to have the situation
resolved because of a dispute between the contractor and the
material supplier as to whom is responsible.. The matter has been
discussed with Kathy Larsen at the Center for Energy and
Environment and the situation should be rectified this week.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport policy issues.
Basis for Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff on
airport policy.
Alternative Motion:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discusssion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of June 6,
1994.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
MEMORANDUM ITEM7
TO: Planning and Environment Committee
FROM: Steven J. Vecchi, Manager Part 150 Programs (726-8133)
SUBJECT: Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program
1992 and 1993 Homeowner Opinion Survey
DATE: April 22, 1994
During the last Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program update at the. February 8th P&E
meeting, several Commissioners expressed interest in receiving a briefing on how participating
homeowners viewed the program, once insulation improvements were completed.
Attached are the results of the 1992 and 1993 Part 150 Sound Insulation Homeowner Opinion
Survey conducted by Center For Energy and Environment (CEE) staff during the January to
April 1994 time period. AI! homeowners who participated in the 1992 and 1993 insulation
program were asked to respond in a variety of areas relating to the insulation modifications.
- perceived improvement of modifications on "typical" home activities
- perceived improvement of modifications on major rooms in the home
- perceived improvement of modifications on overall exterior aircraft voice
- homeowner opinion. profile
- overall pertormance of consultant team
- overall performance of contractors
37% of the homeowners surveyed responded for the 1992 projects. 55% of the homeowners
surveyed responded for the 1993 projects. These overall responses represent a random
sampling of the homeowner population who participated in the 1992 and 1993 program. In
survey terms, a 37% return rate in 1992, and a 55% return rate in 1993 represent a very
positive response.
Staff will provide a brief summary of the survey results and will entertain any questions you
may have.
THIS tS AN INFORMATION ITEM ONLY. NO COMMITTEE ACTION IS REQUESTED.
MAC PART 150 POST-MODIFICATION IIOIVIEOW1vER QUESTIONNAIRE
I. HOMEOWNER PROFILE
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY:
1
YES
1. Do you think your home has increased in market value
because of the sound insulation modifications?
2. Do you believe your home is more marketable with the
sound insulation modifications installed?
3. With the sound insulation modifications- complete, would
you consider moving due to aircraft noise?
4. Would you recommend this program to-your neighbors?
5. Would you be willing to share your experiences with the
Part 150 Sound Insulation Program with other eligible
neighborhood residents in the following areas:
A. Discuss modification questions by phone?
B. Show modifications by appointment?
C. Discuss contractor's performance by phone?
D. Yes, I will act as reference for other homeowners for a period of:
6 weeks 3 months 6 months _
1
YES
NO
2
NO
1 year
. III. MAC PART 150 SOUND INSULATION CONSULTANT" TEAM PROFILE
Who was your project coordinator?
1. Do you feel the Part 150 consultant staff 1 2
accurately represented & described the Part 150 YES NO
sound insulation modifications that you were
eligible to receive?
2. Were your questions regarding the Part 150
Program adequately addressed by the MAC
Part 150 consultant staff?
4. Was the MAC Part;~150 consultant-staff
helpful, courteous & prompt?
5. Were the Part 150 documents properly explained
to you by MAC Part 150 consultant staff?
IV.`ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Please add any additional comments you may have regarding the Part 150 Program:
V. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE PROFILE
NAME OF CONTRACTOR
A. 1. Was all construction completed within 30 days?
2. During construction, was disruption kept to a minimum?
3: Did the contractor do a cleanup on a daily basis?
4. If any items did not pass inspection, were they
addressed by the contractor in a timely matter?
1 2
YES NO
5. Would you recommend the contractor to another homeowner?
ti~~ate ~ is ~ now sealed for New F
r
,rQne ' a seHes
of occasional a
ti
l .,. .
.
r
c
es
. otidbe Now Ford Town buyout..
. r
^ Richfleld:is VigorOUSIy
~% :r.:. ~ ~ _,
BByy!!N~orman~Draper
-SfaB'W
_. >,2. wooing, NeHr ford Town's
displaced residents. Page ifA
.
rtter
~ ~
y~r i# Tell from~the outside that ,
~~
~ -~ .
themselves' ~fo the neighborhood
~t8r, es are empty, but they are..
~°~+'j»c;
° ~
~11V -0iK -- <p W ~ grapevine, passing on rumors about
what , neighbors are being. paid for
,
2
!~i;one appearances are being kept
,. iipitltere's. a pickup in the driveway
owners kept in limbo for•years have
let things slide their;houses., ...
~`'
h
~~ttd the lawn has just been mowed.
At+'another
tw
bl
k . T
e transformation of this 87-acre
,,
o
oc
s away, the
>; ygaii;has a scragglier look, but no
• !Qt
jg bo than others whir home- Still, people in New Ford Town
know the exodus has begun. They've
se
n
i town has begun~Ratticd bythe noise
from thundering jets and penciled in
~ mBv
e
ng vans and have twined .
1 as the'possible site of a new runway
•''s'
~, ~ i
,
Town nei i hborhood
9
for the adjoining Minneapolis-St.i sales, and five of them have moved
Paul International ' Aitpott; .New:
Ford Town eventually vnll be noth-i out. More are planning to leave in
the next few weeks
ing more than a bare swath of land.'. .
'
Already, 48 homeowners in New Delays in the process have vexed
many residents, and questions re-
Ford Town and Rich Acres - anodt-
er, much smaller Richfield neighbor- main about federal funding needed to
complete the buyout.
hood also slated for buyout -- have,
accepted offers from the MetropoG-
tan Airports Commission (MAC) to But records kept by MAC and the
Hennepin County assessor's oftce
buy their homes. ~ show that man of those h t d
That number rises daily. Twenty-two
homeowners ~ gave closed on the
.. t
buyout/'Appraisers ignored
airport
y w o a rea y
have sold are reaping bonanzas when
Buyout contin jed on page l0A
noise when setting price
compared with the `neighborhood's
rock-bottom property values. ,
Most are getting prices that far ex-
ceed their 1994 assessed property val-
ues. Those values, which are comput-
ed for tax purposes, generally.-lag
slightly behind potential sales values.
But in the case of New Ford Town
and Rich Acres, homeowners are get-
ting as.much as 46 percent more than
their. assessed- values.
In -part, that's because appraisers
working .for the. MAC deliberately -
ignored neighborhood values that
have been depressed by noise from
the nearby, airport. and uncertainty
over airport expansion.
Instead, they 'compared the New
Ford Town homes with ones outside
the neighborhood to determine their
values. By contrast,. the assessed. val-
ues do take into account the airport's
impact on property values.
Another factor in the high prices
might be a robust housing market
that has inflated home prices,- said
Ralph White, spokesman for W.D.
Schock Co., the Nashville firm hired
by the MAC to handle the buyout.
White said home acquisition costs
were averaging 9.6 percent more than
anticipated.
One resident sold a home assessed at
$70,000 for $95,000. Another home,
assessed at $79,000, went for
$115,000. That's at the top- end.
More representative is the home on
21st Av. S. that -was assessed at
$71,000, but fetched $83,000. A few
houses are being sold for figures
much closer to the assessed values.
Added to that was an $11,000 pay-
ment made to Gray because finding a
home of "comparable value" in an-
other neighborhood cost $92,000:
With her New Ford Town home paid
off, Gray only had to raise $1,000 to
buy .her current home in Edina free
and clear. `
"I 'thought I was going to have to
have a mortgage on this house, but T
didn't," she said.
The "comparable value" payments
have been .averaging about $6,741
White said. Moving costs, also cov-
ered . by the MAC, have averaged
$2,000 to $3,000.
Not everyone is a§ ecstatic as Gray,
The commission has made 67 offers,
which means 19 haven't been accept-
ed. Some homeowners still are mull-
ing things over. Others were disap-
pointed with .their offers and want to
negotiate, White said.
A few.residents still balk at leavittg a
neighborhood that's been home for
decades. Even some who accepted
offers fumed as minor tie-ups stalled
the buyout process..
Homeowner Paul Lake's patience
was tested as the two weeks that were
supposed to elapse between apprais-
al and offer turned into two months.
"If I was a car engine, I was up to
about 7,000 RPM in January, Febru-
ary and March, when all the timeta-
bles fell behind," said -Lake, 46.
"Now, I'm down to about 3,000
RPM."
The reason for Lake's chill-out? He
closed on his home May 2, settling
for $77,000 for a house appraised at
$58,000. And that's not counting the
Homeowners such as Gray and Lake
are among the. first to go because they
have been designated "hardship
cases" by the commission. lake faces
reduced income as a result of a job
reclassification, and Gray's husband,
Bill, died Oct. 6, 13 days after he was
struck by a car near his home.
Hardship cases also include residents
with medical problems, those facing
foreclosure or those who have been
transferred out of tom~n.
Charlie and Shannon Phillips were
moved to the head of the list because
Charlie, 32, a mechanic for North-
west Airlines, was transferred to At-
lanta in January. Shannon, 2S, stayed
in their New Ford Town house, but
was planning to be out .and on her
way to Atlanta by this weekend..
By the end of the month, the Phil-
lipses are scheduled to have closed
on athree-bedroom, two-bath log
home that sits on a 2-acre lot south
of Atlanta.
"It's gorgeous, it sure is,"` Phillips
said from his Atlanta apartment.
They agreed to take $115,000 from
the. MAC for a house so close to the
airport that it shakes when planes fly
over. Coupled with a relocation ben-
efit of $11,800, that gives the Phil-
lipses enough money to put down 20
percent on the new home and still
have plenty left over for savings-after
the mortgage on the New Ford Town
home is paid off.
"I know we're going to put some of it
away," Charlie Phillips said. "To tell
you the truth, we were never able to
save money. We do have two kids
and want to save some money for
their education.
When Louise Gray, 76, heard she $15,000 comparable-home bonus
wad going to get $81,000 for her that allowed him to put 20 percent "With us being apart, I had to sup-
three-bedroom rambler, "I opened down on his new Richfield home, port the mortgage and utilities on the
my mouth and stood there with it which Lake describes as "like a 'SS house up there and pay rent on the
hanging open,". she said. "I was Chevy, a real nice house." He'll apartment down here," he said. "The
amazed.... I got about twice what I move mto it next month.
was expecting." Buyout continued on page 11A
i
~.
_~-- ~ocxg~~HoNf ~•~
~ y
G
3 • Q,H ~ •arpr) .~
o V r r w. r..e
~~ w ~ M ~ •f o y `ra'Gc.)'Q ~ C ~ e.°'~i ~L1' m N
H ooh °Yp,G>, °r 7e)•U N~ Or
y
~ U~O...~~~~HSRf„cJ td~U~30pp
ON ~r.~1 GU~r3~ yr ^~~O
~"' .p N O y~ O .~• C~ G y r ..~ C ~..
u ...,~ H ~G•U OVA a ~ m U ~ ~ O ° tH
O O ~. G '~ v,S d a~,0•'C
tU.. ~~ ,~,~ Ham. N H 1WUY+'tU.. y
r en'C ~ ;• ~ °row d Z'Hso~••U'
~~ jam"' N'+~tO J N" N d w'3 ~+ H d
*~ y ~, o
r y
~ y •o nod 'o °3°' °c~„p°=~°-
1' r. ~ ~ 'R d a O T e) N~ y y ~• j.~ y
G ~ ~ N ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'N ~ ~ H ~ R~
.~ N y ~+ O T e)
r N y ~ Y
}7- '~ :y ~' ~„•"" ~•m w ~ ~ 6 op~• a R G ~•„-.+ ~ N yam„
^.- ~ >. .Q y .+ a) >r ~ O y y O $ O N O N t6 ..• +•• t,. U N
7 ~ ~ ° O.°y:w i °'U~O arUd~r~. --' ieQ ~6sYaoio~o' •7G~vN~m~
.s 'frt ~ „pa~~o 3~•"" o•a ~oRYo esy~~~o c~^~,o~sr
m ~ y 'syo~ a3~,4U„ C~ ~,..1si•o 'OG4~ A~~r. .p~O~°„°w'^00o
N ~ ~~'~ o 'Q°= C`~,~° ~.0. ~ o.°ooW m~°Q~~°~ .._yy~ ~~,~ yy
N r .-+ V. O W N y~+'~ 4) O .+ J H y e7 ~+
K ~ G N °S 3s ~ ,. L OSl` ~ H°~>i 'r• ~~~ G..O+U ~3 OA~ 3
y ~ O ~ N ° 'O OG e6 L' y y'O eJ N ~~ 'C9
e~ d ee •O ~ yG, 0 ee w a4 d y' V ,0 A G ..~+ w p '~' p U 0 0
9 y ,,. r C .O et • p ' 3 O '~^~, ~ • G, a ~'' y d ..+ vi ~ ° ,,, a> d ~ ~ q y ~ .G
/_ ~'. ~^y ,~, to ~~d { C ~ ~.'r' •: •~''~ N N y.a Off.. ~„~••¢ y p r j. OD .s~+ Q' N T'~ ~.
~eocar.^., ,'~ "~C`3~^~~ ,~~c Gooh~c "~~ o'fl~ ~~~ca~."~l~
N ~~ N U a~+0 ~OK3 id.. yU r w y T °~ y C. N y O Q3~~ C~i~ N T~y v U ° L N
qS 7r Oyw9 y O w G V R R- r 0 N.N. SU.+ TG'a TO y°N ~ i [~..•V•N UP+
w~ ~ A E°- ~•- r y ~ ~'`sb s 3 aYr= a^ ~ ~ 'te'a ° ~ ar °~ V ? ~`"~~ y °~
Y a •r~, ~ r T.-~ °j •^' U y e6 > r ~ O o o *.'O °~ ~
fi i ~ V d ~ T to r ... y ..... y ee • O.f ~ y d C. ~ y
G •L+• 0 y y ~ ~ • ~J Ir' ~~y "3 y+ O O ~ /~ ~' ~ Y , c+ 9~L d yUG ~ ~r'r.. •°+
0 3 W ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,Tn, ~ a• o o .o ~ ~:,' m ai ~ O Y''t3 m.aF
~~1 ^~ ~ T~ ~~~.y° ~ C7 ON~~ r^a,yG O G p0 ~O•y oD'~.•
4i R~•~•L (j'`~R ~..N.~ 4~",N~O'~ ~cc~~v~w ~+~~ wry
s.¢~'j', 4~ o U•°'o c ~ o.> ~'° y y ~ ~ v 03•C ~ O Oa.°n"o~,~'i'' rU" UeYi ;
m m yn ~~~ c t° ~~ 1 ? r v ~.. d ''~' S7.O ~ ~ O N c6 N C N pe > ~G ~•.'S ~ ~ ~ O
H > -- `~h~ `V"~'~ _ w =U•• y A ° '^ cE W .O ~~.. O °>'~ rN, ~ N y„ U G U ~ ~ S .rRe~S p ~ ~'
' ~ ~,f~` aS u~ ~ cN6 ~O y~'~,.-31~ 0O cr6ta'N r+~N ~~560•7s° ya,
I~~I~ '~ N r ~~r~r•OH~~yA~ ~=0 N~ w~O.O~°y6 NC
`° ~ J jj/~J ~ G ~ O ,n {yc:» i'G •+ ao-i G ,+ ° o ~ ~ ~ °~ '~' O O v t 9 ~ ~
~( ~/ • QS s. O ~ ~ 7 y ~'~ Uy'q ^3 y ,Q d U ay ~ ~ 0 1 O N
v~•- ,.
~ 5 .so~QQ-Q y d°Gyyi~~~°Nd ~~r~ ~ co "rev ~`N.N
i ~ ~~! ~ y S ~ ~~~ mgy'^~ v~v~ Ur..N~ y ~p "03~""y 7+`~^""'00~ ~ a .
O .~. ~ 4 t~ • A~ ~C' U Gr ~~ ya ~047~ `~~ ° N
t W ~,u ~pa'J LC `.3 ~ 'd'o `•~ '' `~ o.Y" T °' o r G G p~, O G ~ o, ca .. a0i '~
~' ~ ~ ~ ~•yv~'3 9~a~e ec3 84° a7~ TOE R?e~~at6iG ECG m`~ ._
$~.G ~$, C G9 ,.C cco o~°n~ipOG>' c~onasas~ ~3`'"-N.p•
+' ~„' ° A ca ~ r..• ~• d ', V ~' ° N'O ~ ce ~ ~ p ?~ >'O' y d / ~ 61 .
y c6 oD°eoy 'y•~„N> e).: 3rU es0 ? y° L' p~~7, bD ..y Ti '~•CQ Od
`~ ..d 't',. S+ ~ d x^ " S3 ~.. y..'d ~ e7 N O 4) d ~ >, O N ~ N .,.. y ~ - r "' G ~' -,.,
G ~~y G" O~+yce0~ ~~ _ 3 ea oo Cw ~asd ~C'O ...ce3
y y d r y V ~ ~~ ~ ~~ o O~ .
f ;° r o 3 i Y r ,,, ~ yN y C ° ~~-~ ~." N +''Q :: ° r ~ 7' as e6 ~ ~ ~ ~n r 3 ° ~ •" ~,.
c ~ C ~ ~ ~y. ~ >=4°•L-' $ eyeeN "°:~ >.a y y $ ep d N ~ ~*~ o r :+ ~ y'+ . ~i•~ _
~ ~ ~ Y y td j.' ~ • ~ •!. y., ~ i/1 ~' OY ~+ W I ~ O y f+ ee eS ~ ~ ~ ..~ '~'~ ~ • ~ .
f d:-:~a,`~'. s '.~g 3NNyp•'7., ;od`L.'y'-:~ ~°e.o~,,.oo~•~as,°o N~~OO.G Goy ;`.da
oo ~ ° e~ r 'r v ~ ~, ~ r .o ~ ~ O ~ ~ pD,-~ ~ °v d $ ce o s'.~" "=.~ .;...Q ~ 3 ~ '
E _ qty,':' 3,~~, y - y as y•,u ~ °~, 'C.' ee°i .°~os~ a a ~, ~ es ~ e..-,°'.. ~ ~ as.o ? o
- ~ u ~ o o :. ~ ~, . , ~ " p,y e~ ,... ~ R° oo Le ~ ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ a9e~ N p o d °R °
v ea W ~ N r +' ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 17
Study Session June 6, 1994
Issue Statement:
Review the results of the 76th Street West of I-35W Study.
Background:
The 76th Street West of I-35W Study, begun in October 1993, was
initiated in response to a request by residents who live along
76th Street. The citizens wanted corrective action taken to
alleviate conflicts between traffic and residential land use
along 76th Street.
The City undertook a study of this issue in October, 1993. The
Ad Hoc Traffic Committee involved the residents in four
neighborhood meetings and evaluated six alternatives. Three
stayed on the 76th Street alignment and three shifted to new
alignments. closer to I-494.
All six alternatives were evaluated based on project objectives
that responded to issues raised by residents. A summary of the
evaluation is attached for your review.
An origin-destination survey was performed in March 1994 of
motorists who drive on 76th Street. The survey involved 475
interviews at three different locations. The results of the
survey are also attached. They show that 95-97% of all motorists
on 76th Street have. either an origin or a destination in
Richfield, Bloomington or Edina. These results show that 76th
Street carries short, local trips, not the long, regional trips
many people expected.
The Richfield Ad Hoc Traffic Committee met with neighborhood
residents on April 6, 1994. Residents were asked to indicate two
alternatives they liked and two they disliked. The results are
shown on the attached summary.
The Ad Hoc Traffic Committee met again on May 25, 1994 to receive
public comments and prepare a recommendation. The Committee
unanimously recommended Alternative #3 (Widening 76th Street)
with one modification. The Committee asked that three homes east
of Penn Avenue not be acquired if the design can avoid them.
Maps of the six concept alternatives will be available for review
at the Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
There is no action needed at this time.
Basis of_Recommendation:
1. The evaluation of all six alternatives is summarized in the
attached report.
2. The Committee used an extensive public participation process
as part of the 76th Street Study. The Committee held five
meetings with the neighborhood. City staff contacted
numerous homeowners and businesses about the study.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A decision will be requested within approximately a month to give
direction to the Ad Hoc Committee and staff on this issue.
Respe~~~iljly submitted,
James D~l Prosser
City wager
JDP:ds
Attachments
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
76TH STREET WEST OF I-35W
1. Improve east-west travel through Richfield
• Provide a minimum capacity for 15,000 ADT
• Provide a minimum intersection Level of Service D
2. Develop a transportation system that provides for all modes of travel
• Provide bus facilities
• Provide sidewalks on both sides of 76th Street
• Provide east/west bicycle trail
3. Improve accessibility for residents and visitors
• Improve driveway access along 76th Street.
• Improve local street access along 76th Street
4. Enhance aesthetics in the area
• Provide screenwalls in residential areas
• Provide landscaping in corridor
5. Improve the environmental quality in the area
• Reduce noise
• Reduce CO emissions
• Reduce vibration
6. Develop a project with a reasonable cost that can be constructed within the next
five years
•
Estimated construction and right-of--way cost
• Compatibility with 1-494 and I-35W reconstruction plans -
pW
H F=
~Q
(~ Z
Z
W
Z J
a "-
~O
2
+~ O
~a
~~
= J
ti W
ti ~ ~~~
~s3 •e e•• ee ee eee ~o~e
~~
~~~
ti o
~~~
•• e•e •~ •• ••• M~~'e
~~~
0
~ ~~~
°' •• o•e •• ee eee MN~o
o ~~~
c
Q N
~~~
M; •• ••• ee •• ••e ~~~•
N
~-
N r et
EA d4 d4
~
N ~
~ ~
~
~J 3 00 •00 00 00 000 cw nc°o•
~ C r
M ~ H9 6H d3
O
~ ~ ~ ~
00 •00 00 00 000 NOM•
e-
~--
~
~ C `-
69 d9 69
E
a~
a>
R
~
N
U
~ .
_ ~
' _
' ~ °
°
~
nab
3
NO o °.
E~ : :~ai'n
c~'io° ~
t~~ E~
U
E c
~c
~ 3
~
'_
~
~ ~ ~
'
~ ~
~ 3~ oc
a
>E o gc
a
~
c~ v.3v~~
c v~c4.~~
co3o~
a~ ~U
-
'~
c~~
E
~3 >.o
~'C~
cams ~
c~
~
N c~
c•-o.
~.ca c
m ~o~
~ 2oUo,c
~
o
~ ~ u,
>o~~' ,
~
o~
a
~ >~'m n~
~~'c a~~
°?N~a' ~~crn~ov C
~ o~,dj c :
.
ymcnm oaZ c~atn.`°.i ~Z>•= v°~~U~hQ-U_ i
> a
~ a~i n ~ °- ~ ~ -~ a
w .. o... ~.. w.. ~... ~~....
~ N M d' Ln CD ~
U ~
~~ ~
acv
~ -v N
0
i~~
Leo
SRF No. 0931916
April 1, 1994
CITY OF RICHFIELD
76TH STREET ORlGlN•DESTINATION SURVEY
Vin en h ridan an
Survey Date: March 22,1994 March 29, 1994 March 30, 1994
Sample Size: ~ 134 148 253
Sample Time: 4:00-6:00 p.m. 4:00-6:00 p.m. 4:00-6:00 p.m.
Direction of Traffic Eastbound Westbound Eastbound
Sampled:
Vehicle Occupancy: 1.24 1.39 1.40
Origin of Trip: Richfield - 16% 32% 23%
.Bloomington - 23% 26% 25%
Edina = 49% 2% 38%
Other = 11 % 40% 14%
Beginning Purpose: Home = 9% 35% 19%
Work = 68% 43% 51
Shopping = 10% 9% 12%
Other = 13% 13% 18%
Destination of Trip: Richfield = 43% 16% 59%
Bloomington = 12% 10% 12%
Edina = 2% 65% 2%
Other = 43% 9% 27%
Ending Purpose: Home = 78% 38% 67%
Work = 7% 19% 9%
Shopping = 6% 19% 9%
Other = 9% 24% 15%
Turn at Penn.: Yes = 28% 45% 40%
No = 72% 55% 60%
Days Use 76th: 0 = ~ 10% 13% g%
1 = 13% 21% 14%
2 = 3% 12% 9%
3 = 4% 6% - - - 4%
4 = 7% 5% 4%
5 = 47% 21% 30%~
6 = 2% 6% 5%
7 = 14% 16% 25%
Origin or Destination = 95% g5% g7%
in Richfield,
Bloomington or
Edina
STUDY OF 76th STF2EE7I' WEST OF I-35W
RESULTS OF RATING OF SIX ALTERNATIVES BY RESIDENTS WHO ATTEI~IDID THE
RICHFIELD AD HOC 135W/I494 TRAFFIC CONMITTES N~PING
WIDNFSDAY, APRIL 6, 1994
After the presentatian and cliscussian at each table,: people were given a
ballot to indicate the two alternatives they liked and the two they disliked.
There were thirty responses and the results of this exercise were:
Alternative
Like Dislike
1. Four 11-foot lanes with curb and gutter an 10 12
76th Street
2. Three lanes with two-way left turn lane- west 5 17
of Penn; four 11-foot lanes east of Fenn an
76th Street
3. Four 12-foot lanes with left turn lane and 19 5
landscaped median an 76th Street
4. New arterial with four 12-foot lanes using 4 10
existing frontage road/78th Street
5. Using 77th and 78th Street, new arterial with 12 8
four 12-foot lanes east of Penn and three lanes
with two-way left turn lane- west of Penn
6. Four 12-foot lanes an 76th Street east of Penn 4 13
and new arterial between 76th and 78th Street
west of Perez
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.16
Agenda June 6, 1994
Issue Statement:
Discussion of Central Garage facilities.
Background:
The present City Garage facilities are located .south of 77th
Street at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue, north of 77th Street at 7645
Pillsbury Avenue and at the former Lampert Lumber site at 300
West 78th Street. Since 77th Street has been extended through
the Central Garage site, the garage is severely impacted.
The three present sites are approximately seven acres in total
size and unable to handle current operations. For example,
storage of snow, brush, logs, and wood chips is at sites other
than the City garage, primarily on Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) land. Since MAC will no longer grant the City
an easement for this arrangement, continued use is tentative at
best. Enclosed storage also presents a problem. Utilities,
Engineering and Government Buildings Divisions have temporarily
moved to the Lampert Lumber site. Storage of some motor pool
equipment, Public Safety's confiscated vehicles and bicycles, and
Recreation Division equipment have also been moved to the Lampert
site. Mechanics have moved to the north portion of the remaining
structures; Street and Park Maintenance Divisions occupy the
south portion of the structures.
The existing structures are in need of repairs; i.e., garage
doors need updating, heating systems should be expanded, and the
roof will need replacement in a few years. Salt storage does not
meet present codes and .fuel tanks will need to be removed and
replaced by January 1, 1999 to comply with state law.
Lindberg Pierce Architects have performed a space needs
assessment. Their study shows proper housing for the operation
would be 74,691 square feet of enclosed building and 5,730 square
feet of exterior covered storage. Staff is working out of less
than 30,000 square feet of building, plus the temporary space at
the Lampert site. The scattering of staff has also caused
inefficiencies in clerical coverage, sharing of equipment and
communication between divisions.
Recommended Motion:
No action required. This is a discussion item.
Basis of Recommendation:
This item is being discussed at Council request.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This discussion is scheduled for the June 6, 1994 Council Study
Session.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City M alter
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 15
Agenda June 6, 1994
Issue Statement:
Discussion of City street maintenance.
Background•
At 6 p.m.,•a bus departed from City Hall to tour field examples
of street conditions and street maintenance methods. The bus
returned to City Hall at approximately 7 p.m.
Discussion of street maintenance will include conditions,
methods, financial implications and options.
A street light reconstruction project has been in the Capital
Improvement Program for a number of years. Because it appears a
street light utility may only, for now, be able to cover the
costs of electricity to operate street lights, the street light
reconstruction funds would need to come from another source. The
necessity for street light reconstruction is that the mercury
vapor City-owned street lights have reached the end of their
useful life. In fact, new energy efficiency standards recently
legislated make it illegal to repair or replace them with similar
fixtures. It is proposed to replace all the mercury vapor
fixtures with high pressure sodium heads over a four-year period
of time, changing about 525 fixtures per year, for the years
1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998.
High pressure sodium lights are more energy efficient than the
present mercury vapor system. Actual cost comparisons made on a
test plot during 1990 indicated that the payback for retrofitting
to a high pressure sodium system was not economically feasible.
However, with a rebate program initiated by Northern States Power
Company, it appears that the payback may be reduced to less than
ten years. The first year would bring a $8,600 rebate on 525
fixtures in addition to 57,245 energy savings on those 525
fixtures. When all new fixtures are installed the resulted
savings per year is approximately 529,000 at today's energy.
However, the rebate program may be eliminated by Northern States
Power at anytime.
Sealcoating was last performed in 1992. This is the process of
placing a liquid asphalt and small granular material across the
street surface to seal small cracks in the early stages of
development and to seal seams where the roadway has been
repaired. Sealcoating is recommended following the two repair
procedures outlined below. Not only does this process provide
better aesthetics, but it helps prolong the effectiveness of the
repair work. Sealcoating also helps to rejuvenate the surface
which tends to dry out over a period of time. The City does not
have the equipment to perform this work and would propose to
contract for it.
A second aspect of a street maintenance program is asphalt joint
sealing. This work is done on cracks too large to fill by
sealcoating but not large enough to require milling. The cracks
are sawed or routed, to provide a clean surface for the crack
filler to adhere, and then filled with liquid crack filler.
Asphalt joint sealing will slow down the incidence requiring
milling.
The milling calls for cutting out a portion of the street where a
crack has deteriorated beyond repair by the first two procedures.
This milled area, depending on the extent of the problem, may
have new base material added as well as an asphalt mixture to
fill the now evened out crack. City crews have been doing this
work since the acquisition of a milling machine.
The City had planned for a seven year street maintenance program.
Lack of funding has extended this program to ten years or longer.
There is some thought in the industry that such a maintenance
program should be only a five year. period. The attached sketch
explains the street conditions and maintenance programs outlined
above. The second attachment is examples from Pavement
Management System (PMS) reports. As for budgetary amounts, the
third attachment includes estimates which will need to be
reviewed each year as the PMS is updated. The additional
5250,000 of funding for a rigorous approach to street maintenance
should extend the life of the City's streets by five to ten
years. The fourth attachment is an article, "Good Streets Cost
Less to Maintain."
Recommended Motion:
No action is necessary at this time.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City streets are deteriorating.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This is a June 6, 1994 Council Study Session item.
Respec ully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
• PROLONGING THE LIFE OF A CITY STREET
OR
PREVENTING A LITTLE CRACK FROM BECOMING A BIG CRACK
BEFORE •
CONDITION #1
O ~ ~~ ~o~. ~Q'o,,,°Y'~,.s•~.,0•:ir.~. ° •o.-ASPHALTP:
- .. - '.
ESTIMATED AGE: 0-10 YEARS ~ ~ '
PROBLEM: MINOR CRACKS, NO
.DETERIORATION OF CRACK EDGES
CONDITION #2
AFTER
•., _.
BADE •. ~.SE]4~COAT
MAINTENANCE: SEALCOAT
.'p~'e.o °•'o; ° ~~e.• ~ c :~~ ~: ~~1-SPHALTPAVEMENT.:o e e ~: .~ i ao• °:,4:°~' -°
'b
. ' : ~. ~ ~. ~. ~ ~. ~ -~ '.~ -' .~ ~ :.- : = :'ASPh1~4t.7• CRAC~C ~~AL1N~, .
, • _ ~- .` .. , , ; ~ _- SUBG ADE` , , _ : ` ' _ ' • '. • _ _ '` • `~ ~ -~- ~ ~ . .
ESTIMATED AGE: 5-15 YEARS ~ ~ ~ ~ '
PROBLEM: •MODERATE CRACKS, MINOR MAINTENANCE: ROUT CRACK, FILL WITH LIQUID
DETERIORATION OF CRACK EDGES SEALER AND SEALCOAT "
.:VNDITIVN #3
,,.°p. • v . - •.a':, ~°~ ~~•~ '°, ~~' ASPHALT PAVEMENT `~' - ''••;b•
• ~~
r' ; •• _ :.. ', ` ~~ . •,•, SUBG ADE • ,. .. ~ .MLL' L~I!~C.1 •_ , ' •~
ESTIMATED AGE: 10-20 YEAF~S - .-' • -~ '-_ `. .` , ~' ' -. ~ • . •. ~ - .' . ~ .~ -_ _ •- _ .- .~
PROBLEM: SEVERE CRACKS WITH SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE: MILL OUT A 14" WIDE BY 2"
DETERIORATION OF CRACK EDGES THICK STRIP OF PAVEMENT,
AND SUBGRADE PATCH AND SEALCOAT
CONDITION #4
• ~ (. • - _
ESTIMATED AGE: 15-40 YEARS
PROBLEM: SEVERE ALLIGATORING, SETTLEMENT
SUBGRADE DETERIORATION AND
MULTIPLE SEVERE CRACKS •
•..: ,, t
LT PAVEMENT''
• _ .'A
~, ,~
• - c ~.__- _ ~ ~
UBGRADE ' • • - -' ~ ~ `~'~~ - - ~ `
. _ <
- ~ - _ .. _ -OVERLAY ~- ~ - - r . .
MAINTENANCE: MILL OUT PROBLEM AREAS TO
FULL DEPTH, DRY, COMPACT
SUBGRADE, PATCH AND OVERLAY
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
CRACK REPAIR TECHNIC~UES FOR BITUMINOUS STREET
June 6, 1994
The Pavement Management System (PMS) reports have indicated
Richfield's streets are deteriorating. The City's concrete
streets are not included in this analysis. Samples of the PMS
reports are shown below. OCN = Overall Condition Number. When
the OCN is 15, overlay is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
STREET ; 1988 ; 1990 ; 1992 ; $ TOTAL
CLASS ; OCN ; OCN ; OCN ; STREETS
Minor Arterial ; 9.1 , 13.2 ; 13.5 ; 2.43
Collector ; 11.6 ; 9.3 ; 10.8 ; 8
Residential ; 8.7 ; 10.1 11.9 ; 83.1
Frontage Roads ; 13.9 ; 15.'5 ; 15.9 ; 6.47
Total Systgem ; 9.3 ; 10.5 ;. 12.1 ; 100
June 6, 1994
Street Maintenance Budgetary Estimates
Existing Program
The existing street maintenance program takes approximately ten years
to get through the entire City street system once. If this level of
street maintenance continues, it is estimated overlay will be needed
in five to ten years. The 1994 adopted budget includes approximately
$67,000 for the street maintenance items listed below. The average
annual budget allocation for the last several years, in 1994 dollars,
has been as follows:
Seal Coating $75,000
Asphalt Joint Sealing $15,000
Milling $75,000
Total $165,000
Moderate Program
The moderate program takes approximately seven years to get .through
the City streets once. Assuming-there is an additional $250,000
available in the General Fund for street .maintenance in addition to
the approximately 567,000 now .budgeted annually, overlay is estimated
to be needed in 10-15 years. The recommended allocation would be:
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Street Light Reconstruct $78,000 $78,000 $78,000 $78,000 $0
Seal Coating $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $125,000
Asphalt Joint Sealing $72,000 $72,000 $67,000 $67,000 $65,000
Milling $67,000 567,000 $72,000 572,000 $127,000
Total $317,000 $317,000 $317,000 $317,000 $317,000
Optimum Program
The optimum program takes approximately five years to get through the
City streets once. With this program, overlay would generally be
needed in 15-20 years. This program begins to-overlay approximately.
two miles of arterial streets in addition to being more aggressive
with other aspects of street maintenance. It is estimated major
overlay programs would be needed in 15-20 with this program. The
recommended allocation would be as the follows:
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Street Light Reconstruct $78,000 $78,000 $78,000 $78,000 $0
Seal Coating $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Asphalt Joint Sealing $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Milling $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Overlay SO 5228,000 $228,000 $228,000 $228,000
Total $453,000 5681,000 $681,000 $681,000 $603,000
Overlay. Program
Although the optimum program begins to overlay approximately two miles
of arterial street s, as in the existing and moderate program the
optimum program do es not include funding for overlay of residential
streets. To do a 2" overlay of residential streets would cost
approximately $15 million. An overlay program for residential streets
will need to begin at the end of whichever program may be effect;
i.e., residential street overlays are estimated to begin:
Existing Program: 5-10 years Note: A timely, "extra" $100,000 in
Moderate Program: 10-15 years 1994 would help toward optimizing
Optimum Program: 15-20 years street maintenance.
La ~vva.+i waa~~a~a vv.7a i..~i.~~7 av I~IAi115G1ii1
~:;~
For many municipalities the street maintenance budget pro•
blems seem to begetting worse, not better. Thera Seems to
be more deteriorated streets each year, and the cost per
mile for maintenance seems to be, increasing dispropor-
tionately.
There is a reason for this chronic crisis. Exhibit 1 it•
lustrates the way pavements generally deteriorate. During
the first 75% of a pavement's fife, it performs wail and, to the
untrained eye, Iooks good, After that, however, the pavement
deteriorates so rapidly it seems to tall apart. Notice that the
time axis in the exhibit is not marked In years. The number of
years that a pavement stays in what might be termed the
"good condition plateau" depends an how well it is main•
twined. ideally this plateau could.be extended indefinitely
with proper timing of major rehat?ilitatlOn end good interim
maintenance, given reasonably consistent traffic patterns.
"ph yes," one might respond, "if there was plenty of
money." Ironically, this isn't true. In fact, quite the opposite Is
the case. Numerous studies indicate that if the streets are
properly maintained in a perpetual. "good" to "excellent"
condition, the total annual maintenance investment is four to
live times less than if the pavement is allowed to cycle
through to the '`poor" and "sailed" conditions and then
rehabilitated. Why? An oversimpiified.explanation (graphlcal•
N displayed in Exhibit 2) iS that the engineer is maintaining
and replacing only the top portion of the pavement if It is in
good condition. in poor or tailed Condition, the entire base
and, somelfines the subbase, must be repaired and
rehabilitated. Because this is such a critical concept to pave-
ment maintenance budgeting, we present the results of one of
the .landmarie studies on this issue. The Utah Department of
Transportation carefulby examined tour maintenance
strategies for each of three road Classifications: primary,
Secondary, and urban. The tour strategies are graphically
represented in Exhibit 3. A through D, and described below.
Ext~><srr ~
COMPARISON OF THE COST AND AMOUNT
OF MATERIAL NECESSARY TO REHABILITATE'
A PAVEMENT BEFORE AND AFTER FAILURE
a 161,400
Cost per mile '
of pavement
4p ft. wide ~ `,
-,., .
156004 ~~
,,
~ .
Befare Failure
DOT
After Failure
Strategy A required that each pavement be rehabilitated
when its condition rating (measured on the AASHTp index
where 5 equals excelient and 1 equals very poor) dropped to
3.0. This would occur approximately every 17 years.
Strategy 8 required rehabiiitallon when the condition
rating dropped to 2,5, or about every 20 years.
>rxHr~rr i
Excellent PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE
Govd 4090 drop iln quality
Lr-- iiI,04 lot t~tovatlon here
Fair 7595 of life
Poor
4096 drop in quality Will cost 64.00
1296 ~ to 15.00 here
of life
Very Paotr ,_.......~
Failed '';'~ ;"r .,
Tlrne y, ~.`...,,
~ , k
... 7 .. , ..'. •.
.,
,~ ,~}r+tr r ~. p I,
., n'
t ~ i ry
a,
~:.
*~• ;. ,
.. , ~ . ~. u