Loading...
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