2. Highway 93 South Utility Improvements` City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Hansz, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Utility Installation for US 93
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2000
BACKGROUND: In January of 1997 staff
develop a design for extending water
their present points of termination s
intersection with Cemetery Road in cc
reconstruction of the highway
process, the firm of Forsgren"Ass
junctionwiththe
Through*a�competitive
elected for the
design. A design has been developed and -,-'the work has been
integrated into the overall plan for US 93 reconstruction.
Development of the design has been discussed at several City
Council work sessions. These work sessions have also allowed for
discussion of potential funding methods.
The current estimate of cost for water facilities is
$920,804..60'.-Water facilities will include fourteen -inch diameter
mains on each side -of the highway with crossings to allow for
intermediate looping.
The current estimate of cost for sewer facilities is
$1,414,900..,00. Sewer facilities will include eight -inch diameter
gravity mains on each side of the highway, a pair of similar size
force mains on the east side of the highway, and a lift station
having an ultimate capacity of approximately 750,000 gallons per
day.
This effort has proceeded on the basic premise that it is
desirable to make these extensions at this time to take fullest
advantage of the highway right of way. MDT has indicated that
future installations, after reconstruction, would not be
permitted due to interference with other utilities and reluctance
to permit destruction of new highway improvements. (X- this
respect it should be noted that although-nstw in
conjunction with the highway reconstruction is the preferred
approach, future installations would -still remain possible- via
the use of alternative alignments and',:rights of way. However, it
is assumed that these alternatives would be _uch more costly and
difficult, and should therefore be avoided if -possible.)
In 1990 the City and State.,, ted a mem9rdum of
understanding concerning
ect. This MOU
included references to utilities but dealt=with the relocation
and replacement of existing facilities. The MOU was to be
followed by a utility construction agreement to be signed prior
to construction. MDT will soon prepare this utility agreement.
In order to prepare the utility construction agreement MDT
must know the position of the City regarding the installation of
the proposed new facilities. A final Plan -In -Hand review meeting
is set for July_11;''2000. At this meeting, as at the last
meeting, MDT is expected to request confirmation of the City's
desire to proceed. City staff has previously indicated that there
is no question concerning storm drainage and the existing City
utilities because the current MOU has addressed these items.
However, the formal action regarding new facilities was pending.
MDT representatives candidly expressed strong their opinions that
our qualified answers were unacceptable and that resolution of
this item is required.
This appears to be the appropriate time for a discussion of
the overall desirability of proceeding with construction as
designed. If these discussions show support for the project,
there should be statement of commitment by the City to proceed.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends proceeding with the project as
designed and further recommends passage of a Restitution to
clearly indicate the intent of the City,Council
FISCAL EFFECTS: Expenditures for construction, anticipated in FY
2001/2002, in the amounts previously. referenced.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council
Respectfully submitted,
Director of
Works/City Engineer
Report compiled June 15, 2000