Loading...
03-16-87 Council as Whole0 March 16, 1987 COUNCIL WORKSHOP 4:00 P.M. Mayor Kennedy and all Councilmen present except C. Hafferman, who arrived sometime after 5:00. Also in attendance were DPW Hammer, Surveyor Zavodny, Construction Inspector Van Dyke, S/W Supt. Hyde, Police Chief Stefanic, 10 spectators most of whom were from the Street Department, and Roger Hopkins of the Daily Inter Lake. STREET RECONSTRUCTION/MAINTENANCE - Mayor Kennedy opened the meeting and asked for comments on the material that had been supplied to each Council member on Friday. C. Grainger asked how the 63 miles of paved streets had been figured - and DPW Hammer stated that it was blocks. C. Grainger said he didn't think there was that much pavement left. C. Manning asked DPW Hammer what he had lined out for maintenance for the next year. DPW Hammer reminded the Council that it was based upon the budget, but pointed them to the second page of memo ST-0008-87, which shows 88 blocks of streets needing chip sealing and almost 24 blocks needing overlay. His recommendation was to reconstruct 38 blocks, rebuild 5 major intersections on the east side, crack seal and repatch the list of 88 blocks and then prepare the 1987-88 budget for chip seal during the 1988 construction season. He went on to say that depending on what the Council did with the budget they might get away with chip -sealing 25 blocks during this construction season. He went on to say that the information that was passed out to all the Council members on Friday included two 1984 memos that touched on maintenance. If we only did maintenance, looking at this year's budget, where are we going to get the funds to reconstruct 38 blocks? If you take the materials cost for those 38 blocks and put it into maintenance, all that money could be used up. Then were would the funds come from to redo the 38 blocks? Patching can start earlier, but crack sealing should be considered in the next budget. C. Manning asked if what he was saying was that if they did a full-blown maintenance program they wouldn't be able to do the 38 blocks, and DPW Hammer stated that was correct. C. Manning asked how many blocks could be reconstructed if the maintenance were to be done the way it should be. DPW Hammer said he didn't like that question. The answer, he said, was if he had the entire Street Department back, which is budgeted for until June 30, and we added 5 employees (one temporary and 4 seasonal) they could do the street reconstruction plus the maintenance. Funds are available. C. Nystul said looking at a approximate budget for maintenance - total street program - you would have the funds to do everything listed between now and November? DPW Hammer said not the 88 blocks, but 25 blocks of chip seal this year and working out the remainder in the 1987-88 budget so that the other blocks could be done the following year. C. Nytsul asked if that was based on the assumption of using the City's in-house forces. DPW Hammer said that the 25 blocks of chip seal could be taken out of materials funds (assuming approximately $1,000/block) and contracted out. That would not be from the salaries portion of the budget at all. But that would short us about $25,000 the following year unless we continue with what was started last year with the tax increment. DPW Hammer stressed that they should remember the savings to the Street Department because of monies not spent out of department • funds. That is why there is the money available to do the 38 blocks of reconstruction. C. Nystul asked if we knew what gas tax was going to be, and DPW Hammer replied that it will stay about $15,000/month. There is no legislation that will change it at the city or county level. C. Nystul went on to say that then within the dollars available we could accomplish quite a bit, using our own resources plus contracted resources this summer. DPW Hammer stated that depending on what the Council did there is a possibility that more funds may be available COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 2 from tax increment, and more chip sealing could be done. C. Nystul stated that the question he had had previously about a total program was answered by the handouts they had received. DPW Hammer stated that if this was what the Council wanted he would obviously have to break it down more precisely as to what streets to chip seal. Some listed for chip seal if not done this year will be an overlay next year, some could wait another year and still be chip sealed. C. Nystul said his concern with the first list was that there was only information about reconstruction, but with this list showing minor and major repair and chip seal they now have a whole program to look at. He felt the Council had two issues to look at: 1) whether they concur with the basic program (although they may have questions about specific streets), and 2) the method to accomplish that. He felt the important thing for the moment was to concur with this approach, and then to continue discussions about the apportionment of the effort so as to get the most efficient use of the City's scarce resources. C. Saverud asked if the proposal had been built around the budget or around the projected manpower. DPW Hammer responded both. C. Saverud said he did not see too many blocks for reconstruction within the tax increment district, although he realized that the tax increment budget from last year included 1st Alley West. DPW Hammer explained that of the $225,000 from tax increment that was set aside for streets last year there was subtracted the overruns from the off -site improvements, which amounted to approximately $80,000, and approximately $80,000 that was set aside in case the Council decided to go underground with the overhead wiring in 1st Alley west (which would not occur in this budget year, however), but that left roughly $183,000. If you take away the lst Alley West portion you come up a little short ($18,000+) for the street reconstruction (Needed: $117,000). C. Saverud asked how much maintenance was being considered within the district that could be funded from the tax increment. DPW Hammer said that IF they could do what he was recommending - hiring the additional people as listed from the funds available because of the lay-offs, in addition there would still be an additional $7,600 to purchase a crack sealing piece of equipment. The City would then have a crew of 3 men continually going out patching, beginning about April 20, and the crack sealing beginning about May 20, both continuing until they had to stop in the fall. One thing that has to be remembered is that when you do the chip sealing program is that you still have to go back and take out bad trenches, the depressed areas, clean them out, square them up, repatch them, reseal them - all before you can seal them. That program is necessary before we can go to chip sealing. C. Saverud asked if there were any possibility of doing more work on 3rd Avenue East this year - doing it in a two year cycle rather than a 3 year cycle. DPW Hammer said yes. The practice has been to put out the list of streets and let the Council have their input also. C. Nystul asked if the two blocks on 4th by Hedges School that were on last years list were still on the agenda. Surveyor Zavodny explained that it has become apparent that some sort of storm drain must be installed around the perimeter of Hedges School before the streets are reconstructed, or else there would be problems. So until a storm drain could be designed to go east and down Woodland hill it would not pay to do the streets. There was a short discussion of the storm drainage available in the area and the reasons it could not be hooked into. COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 3 Should not logically reconstruct a street without dealing with where to put the water. DPW Hammer said that to give C. Saverud a better answer he had basically planned 20 blocks within the tax increment district and 18 outside of the district. We have enough funds available between now and June 30 to do 18 blocks of street reconstruction outside of the district. On July 1 more funds will be available. If the Street Department can keep up then yes, it is possible. C. Saverud pointed out that the district goes all the way to 6th Street, but if they could do 6 blocks instead of 3 that would really help, and would be fundable after June 30. Storm sewer problems would also have to be addressed. Surveyor Zavodny pointed out that the expense includes storm drains, new water mains, and going back up to 100 feet at the intersections in order to tie in properly. Looking at it over a three year period would spread out the expenses also. C. Schindler stated that the only problem was that it was going to be a wagon path soon. 'Surveyor Zavodny said they had ridden -it today and from 6th on down it was not worth overlaying, but they could get a year or two more out of it if needed. It was not pumping clay like Oregon. C. Grainger asked why the meeting had been called - was it to let DPW Hammer do what he asked? DPW Hammer said he hoped that it was to let him do what he said he could within his budget, and he would get it done. C. Grainger asked when they were supposed to decide and C. Manning said he would bring his motion back on the floor at this evening's Council meeting and it would be addressed then. He didn't remember exactly how the motion had read but the intent was whether they were going to pursue the reconstruction program or a maintenance program. That was his concern when he brought it to the Council - that the maintenance program had been neglected. He said that if the program being projected could be done, and there was still the monies to continue the reconstruction program he didn't have a problem with that. He said he had always said that they had to take care of the maintenance of the streets we do have or we'll lose the whole thing. So when you're talking about $8,000 for a crack sealing machine, cut out a block of reconstruction and buy the machine so you can get the maintenance done. He felt that maintenance is a high priority. C. Manning questioned the storm drains on 2nd Street with the big dips, and he was assured that theywould be done - they are the 5 intersections listed. C. Grainger said that was a deal that was sold to the Council when he had been on it about a year. That was the way you build streets because then the water shed. That was one thing. Then on 1st and about 7th, 8th, 9th and loth, and 6th and 5th, there are the trenches which were sold to the Council. He said they had been sold alot of things, and part of it is not the fault of the council, but the fault of someone telling them what they should do and the Council believing them. He stressed that he was not talking about DPW Hammer. C. Grainger said they hired some of these jobs out and believed the "professionals" who worked for these companies. Those things really were sold on the basis of benefit, but he said they failed to tell the Council the benefits really were not there. COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Mainenance March 16, 1987 Page 4 C. Nystul stated that when you put the storm sewer in and the catch basins in, with the dollars the Council had to work with there were not adequate funds available to make them either right with the existing grade or right with the grade that it should be during reconstruction. There was never any direction given or money budgeted to go back and correct the 3-foot radius' at the corners where the inlets are down so far, so that is not necessarily an engineering error, ,but rather adding something to an old street that was not designed for a curb inlet, and trying to make the best of the situation. Everyone knew that was not good, but you had no choice. You could either put the storm drain down and not put inlets, or you put the inlets in with provision that you come back and correct the grades with minimal modifications. C. Saverud asked about the breakout of the reconstruction sheet - installed prices or materials costs. DPW Hammer stated they were materials cost. So where is labor factored in. DPW Hammer stated we don't, because that is part of the operating budget for the Street Department.- C. Saverud said one `thing he wanted to pint out to put somewhat of a more complete look is that a basic change of approach was made when we started contracting out the excavation portion of reconstruction. That is included in these materials costs. DPW Hammer stated that at $80/hour the City could not afford to do the excavation ourselves. The City does do the hauling. He went on to say that about the only thing the Street Department does is some grading and hauling, and what they specialize in and do the best is the paving. Out of pocket costs for paving are much cheaper than contracting it out. C. Saverud felt that was a major factor that tips the scales. If the City was still doing alot of that with our "tea -cup loaders" the cost is significantly higher. C. Palmer said, in regards to construction such as 5th Avenue West, most of it was contracted out, and compacted, the City tested the compacting. Now that the City does have it's valleys, whether it be from the frost or the compacting, the City could not really go back and tell the contractor to rip it up since we paved it. DPW Hammer said we wouldn't anyway - there is nothing wrong with that street other than rideability. It is structurally sound. C. Palmer said rideability is what the taxpayer is after. DPW Hammer said he had to remember that we were really put under the gun on that street. We were working right behind the contractor and there were many times the paving crew waited for the contractor because we were trying to get it done before school. The contractor would probably have had the same difficulty. C. Palmer said his question was specifically when two people participate in a job who is responsible for it, and are you telling me that if we contract a street out that the contractor is not responsible for the rideability of that street? If the rideability of that street is not adequate or according to the specifications is he not obligated to go back in and redo that street? DPW Hammer said you would have a hard time on rideability. That is something that you don't spec in a design. What different individuals think is a good surface may be many different things. He felt that within a few weeks many of the bumps would be gone. C. Palmer said he would phrase it another way: With a street that has been constructed, that has other problems with it, if the contractor has built that street and it has structural problems, wouldn't we expect him to go back in an repair those? DPW Hammer responded yes. C. Palmer then said can we expect him to do that if we participate in a job with him. DPW Hammer COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 5 said absolutely. That is his responsibility. The Public Works inspectors and staff inspect every phase of that job from water or sanitary mains 12 feet below on up, and when they give that street to us if we think that the subsoils have not been compacted properly then we certainly would not accept it to put the cushion on it and pave it. To give a comparison DPW Hammer said that on North Meridian, a job done with City and County forces, they had a Pavement Management rating from Morrison-Maierle of 98, which is 98 out of 100. On the 5th Avenue West job the rating was only 88. Out Street Department didn't do anything different than they did with the County and got a 10 point less rating because of working right behind the contractor. If you can wait and pave 11 blocks all at once . . . C. Palmer stated that was not his question. DPW Hammer asked him what his question was. C. Palmer said his question was who is responsible for the construction of the street. DPW Hammer said the contractor as well as the City. C. Schindler: After our indpectors inspect the contractor's work -and give them the okay, then when problems arise can we still go back to the contractor? DPW Hammer said that if the contractor did something improper then yes, we could. He reminded the Council of a discussion that took place some months ago about the 5th Avenue West job and the conclusion was that if the engineer improperly designs something or the contractor improperly places something it is there responsibility. For an example he gave the case where some grades were wrong and the curbing had to be torn out. He went on to say that as far as he was concerned there is nothing wrong with 5th Avenue West except that it appears to be a little rough, but the roughness was not from the contractor making a mistake, but rather from the Street Depart- ment having to work block by block on the tail of the contractor. Had there been another month or two they could have waited and done all the blocks continuously and it would have been like North Meridian. C. Palmer said he would like to make some observations of his own for the minutes. First of all, he said he didn't feel that anyone could complain about what the Street Department had done in the last three or four years. He feels there has been a tremendous turn -around of resources and the use of them. The question they are trying to address is how can we get the best bang for the taxpayers dollar, and whether or not we have the resources to do that. The pros for the Street Department existing the way it does are obvious: when we go into a street we are doing the tree removal, the curbs, the water and sewer lines, and that is the reason most of these jobs that were held up were held up. So we have to consider when we are talking about this whether an individual contractor is going to be able to wait for us to go in and do our water lines and sewer lines and remove our trees and fit into his schedule. The ability to move our resources: we do have that ability. If we have a crew situated in one place we can tell them to go work on something that is more of an emergency situation, we can't tell a contractor that. • Turning the cons around, we have lack of financial resources to have that equipment that is necessary, that these contractors have to have to be competitive and do a good job. We also have the lack of ability to provide adequate equipment such as at 5th and Center, 5th and Idaho, Russell School were open for a long time when they didn't need to be. He stated he had a businessman tell him that he hated the potholes around his business, but if came to a choice of having his street closed up for three months he would rather have the potholes. COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 6 These are some of the things that must be taken into consideration. He said that he felt it important to reflect in the minutes that these conditions of these streets could not be blamed on the existing Street Department could not be blamed because Kalispell was built on a lake bed. We certainly have gained more than we have lost. C. Ruiz said he wanted to share with the Council some items he had picked up when he was in Seattle for the National League of Cities Convention in December of 1985. From the City of Boulder: They have what they call a pavement management program, but regardless of what they call it, we are trying to do the same thing that they are doing there. He read: The City of Boulder has developed an integrated pavement management program which has significantly reduced potholes, reduced maintenance costs, and brought about a plan and preventative approach to pavement maintenance. They use a computerized street maintenance data system and other things that we don't have the ability, to do. In 1979 the city faced a crisis of deterioratfn'g streets and highways. Improper maintenance practices, increasing traffic volumes that exceeded pavement design strengths, and poor problem identification led to an acute situation where 5,340 potholes occurred during that year. In 1980 the problem worsened as over 7,800 potholes occurred. The proliferation of potholes indicated that there were serious surface and base deficiencies on many streets. If these deficiencies were not addressed a major capital street reconstruction program would have eventually been required. Crisis maintenance was the operating standard with crews filling and re -filling potholes. Basically, in the 7 or 8 years I have been on the council, C. Ruiz stated, before Mr. Hammer arrived, alot of what I felt we were doing was crisis maintenance. To me that has never been the solution. He went on: Of the $487,000 spent for various pavement maintenance activites in 1979 only $91,000, or less than 20% was spent on planned or preventive maintenance. So what they have gone into is a pavement management program which basically, if you will turn to page two of DPW Hammer's memo (Feb. .16, 1984): The following is a brief explanation and proposed compre- hensive street improvement program and preventive maintenance program. And he has three catagories there: reconstruct streets only when necessary, asphalt overlay and patch and seal -coat. The words are a little different but it is almost identical to what the City of Boulder is doing. He stated that he also had a brochure from the Public Works Department of Vancouver, Washington and they use the same title: Pavement Management. Each year the street overlay grows in response to the commitment made by the City Council to preserve our investment in the City street system. The total system involves more than just overlaying the City streets with several inches of asphalt. Some streets can be rejuvenated with treatments as simple as crack sealing while others require much more extensive treatment. C. Ruiz stated that in reviewing information from both of these cities, he felt that the Public Works Department in the last two or three years is basically on the right track in terms of street maintenance and to say that it is construction versus maintenance tends to . confuse the Council more than it does to determine what we are doing. We have a combination of three main items as DPW Hammer indicated: construct streets only when necessary, and that is what he has done. Asphalt overlay and patch and seal -coat, whatever definition we give to those, what the Public Works Department is proposing to us is really on the right track with what other cities are doing in terms of how to address the street maintenance problems. COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 7 C. Ruiz stated that he didn't think the Council could disagree on the philosophy of that. There seems to be some discussion of whether we have it contracted out 100% or 10% or whatever, and not have a Street Department - he stated that to him he didn't think that was consistent with what other cities are doing. It is a combination like we have had in the last several year. He said they had always had the feeling, and they could look in the minutes of past Street and Alley Committee, where they would try to beef up the Street Department from 4 to 6 employees and hopefully to 10 or 12. So he felt the Public Works Department was coming from was they were ready to put their laid - off employees back to work if they are to proceed with either any kind of maintenance program or construction program. He said the first thing the Council should do tonight would be to decide if we are going to put the people back to work, and give the Public Works Director the permission or the direction to go ahead and begin calling the people back to work as he sees fit. That is the first thing to address. How many people you want on the Street Department. Then to decide on whether they basically agree"witlq-the program DPW Hammer has laid out for the year, adn then give him the direction on that. He said that the funds that are available are a point they really didn't need to get into tonight because we always have budget limitations as to what we can do or can't do and that can be hased out later on when the budget is addressed. He said that he assumed that from the last sheet they had been given, showing the funding, showing the employees, that if the Council gave the direction the funds were there to pay the salaries. DPW Hammer was affirmative. C. Saverud said that somewhere along the line the Council would have to wrestle with the question of whether they can afford the 1000 blocks of streets they have in the City. He said he rcalized that they couldn't get rid of and of them, but maybe they don't take care of all of them in the same way. When something needs repair maybe it doesn't need to built to the same specifications as a more heavily traveled street. DPW Hammer said that is true and they are designed according to the traffic loads. C. Palmer asked if the Public Works Department tests the soils. He said he had had a conversation with Terry Richman and he felt that if the soils were tested before the road was designed we would have an indication if something other than the standard City construction design could be used and funds saved. The standard design should not be applicable to all situations because it is probably for the most beefed-up street. Where there is a good gravel base already there is no need to go in with all that cost. DPW Hammer stated that the Public Works Department already does that. A good example is in the Northridge area. C. Palmer asked if the specifications had been amended to read "or as designed otherwise"? What are you doing for soils testing? DPW Hammer said we don't actually test the soils, but we use the local engineers and contractors information for the area. The Northridge area is gravel and so it makes no sense to dig as deep. North Meridian from Idaho to Center Street • is built on an old swamp. We couldn't go deep enough or put enough pit run down there, so in areas like that we dig out some and put a mat in in place of the pit run. We don't actually test the soils but know what the soils are in the various regions and do the work accordingly. Surveyor Zavodny said that the City did do soils testing on North Meridian Road last year. C. Saverud asked if DPW Hammer had any comparative figures comparing the cost COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 8 of the mat material versus the gravel material. DPW Hammer said he didn't. Since the mat was used on South Meadows there is a recent price available. It can make a difference on how deep you have to go. C. Saverud asked about a budget request from a year or so ago for a rubber tire roller or some additional compaction equipment more than we have. Is that still on the list? DPW Hammer clarified that it was a vibratory roller, and yes it was still needed. The City has been renting,some. The compaction has been good with what we have been using. He said that depending on what the Council decided he would like to take a look at his request for a crack sealing machine. The funds are available. C. Manning asked if there was any problem in going in and properly patching and preparing the streets for chip sealing in the 1988 season - would there be a problem, or wouldn't it be better to do the patching and the chip sealing in the same year. DPW Hammer responded that it would, and it could be done if the funds were available. C: Manning said it came back to not construction versus maintenance, but what emphasis should the Council take. The emphasis should be to take care of what we have with a good maintenance program. In other words, realign our direction - he said he still wanted a reconstruction program because he felt we needed it, but he didn't want to give up the maintenance and lose what we have. His thinking is to get the maintenance so we don't lose what we have, bring everything up as much as we can, and then adjust the construction. He said he didn't care if they reconstructed 38 or 20 blocks in a year, so long as we take care and maintain what we have. DPW Hammer said the answer to that was to look at memo ST-0008-87 where it states that since 1973, 352 blocks of street have been reconstructed or overlayed. That leaves 681 blocks that have not been properly constructed. That means 60% - 70% of our streets have not been properly constructed. He stated that he would hate to put $1000 - $1100 in chip seal on one of those streets that is so old - especially when the design life of those streets is only 20 years. We are not to that point yet. Fifteen years from now we should be at the point that if we have a major catastrophe is our streets it is a matter of taking the mat off the street and just reshaping and overlaying, which is relatively quick. He said they were looking at a ton of blocks, and that he had even gone so far as to look at a City-wide SID.or a bond issue for $5 million dollars or so - but if you look at the streets we have that is impossible - it would take $20 million. The taxpayers can't afford that. We have streets like the one Chuck was talking about that needs to be be recon- structed, but will hold up for another two or three years before it gets to that point. We would stay away from that one and let people drive on it until it blows up, and then make it part of the reconstruction schedule. There are 600+ streets out of 1100 that are like that. DPW Hammer said he felt confident with the Street Department people he has that if the Council would let him do his job - which is exactly what he is requesting - if he screws up then get rid of him because he isn't doing his job. What he is trying . to propose here is in the best interests of the taxpayer. It is maximizing the dollar value. If a year from now he is wrong, he said, then maybe he should resign. He said special interest groups out there would love to do nothing but contract. There are special interest groups out there that would love to engineer it all. He said he had talked to many of those special interest groups and after he explained to them how the budget works he felt they also COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 9 agree that we are maximizing our dollar for the taxpayers. He stated that he had talked to two or three major contractors in town who said that they would love to get all the contracting business, but that DPW Hammer was right. The City has basically $180,000 a year for materials only. At $30,000/block, which is what it would cost to contract the construction and engineering out, that is only 6 blocks. With the same money our Street Department is doing 38 blocks. Plus add patching and 25 blocks of chip sealing. He said if he is wrong he should resign next year - and he will. C. Manning said DPW Hammer had made reference on the Saturday tour that Morrison-Maierle (Sohn Heinecke) was working with the Street Superintendent on a computerized program. They were doing this free of charge? He said it sounded like that was the exact program C. Ruiz was talking about. DPW Hammer said that the program was relative cheap - less than $4,000. C. Manning asked if they hadn't done some actual onsite inspections. DPW Hammer said they had done 28 blocks. C. Manning asked if that -information parallefezr with what the staff was doing. DPW Hammer explained that what the staff has to do is go out every year and make an inspection. If we had the Pavement Management System it oculd be updated every year and when the Council says 'Let's do 50 blocks of chip seal' he could give the computer the score and it would print out the streets. It would take the staff alot of time riding around checking streets out to get the same information. C. Manning asked what it cost for that service. DPW Hammer said somewhere between $2400 and $4000. C. Manning asked what it cost for the staff to update it every year, and DPW Hammer responded more than that. C. Manning said maybe we should seriously consider something like that. Not necessarily Morrison-Maierle, but put it out for bid. DPW Hammer said the WWTP has budgeted $5,000 for a computer. The same type of computer that is needed to do the computations they do over and over by hand, the same computer can be used for the street reconstruction program. The Public Works Department staff really does need some type of computer because the alternative is 1100 sheets plus the files and cabinets to house them, plus the time to update. Unfortunately, the Council has given the Public Works Department a hammer but no wood and no nails to build the house. That is where we are. We have the hammer but that isa 11 we have. C. Manning said, okay, but did DPW Hammer understand his philosophy on the maintenance. He siad he did and that he was in agreement with it. He went on to say that he didn't feel that they had neglected maintenance but that they sinply weren't at that point yet. There were more streets blowing up than there was time to put in maintenance. C. Manning said that was what bothered him - he saw the cracks on 1st Avenue East and 1st West and some of the things that weren't taken care of last fall, and now we have gone through a whole winter and those are the kind of areas that he is concerned about maintenance because it seems that moisture can get into those, and then we lose the base and it costs more in the long run than to chip seal and take care of the street a year ago. DPW Hammer said that if they continue what • he is trying to do this year and with the 5-year period, what you will see is the Street Department doing more and more maintenance and less street recon- struction. That is what we are all looking at. COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 10 C. Saverud asked if they could be any more efficient if more blocks were done together, say on 3rd Avenue East, rather than one or two here and one or two here - so many projects going on all over town. DPW Hammer said it would be, but the problem he has run into with other cities is that each Council person would submit needs from his area - say 10 blocks - and if you do twelve blocks here, the people don't see you working in the different areas. C. Saverud said that politically they were willing to take that heat, there was no problem with that, if they could get more productivity. DPW Hammer said he felt they probably would. Spreading the blocks out slows us down - which is why most of the time we don't do just one block unless there is a reason. Usually we do two or three together. You also have to take into consideration the curb and sidewalk contractor - the more he has to do in one area the cheaper his price is. That is why we do Phases I, II, and III for bidding for sidewalk and curbing - it is based on region so that the contractor does not have the expenses of moving all the time. C. Saverud said that if the efficiency could be increased even more by having fewer projects and -more extensive projects he would encourage that. DPW Hammer said Center Street was an example of that, and doing Meridian from Center to the county line would be another one. C. Ruiz said he half agreed, but the problem you get into is the traffic flow. Also the length of time things are torn up. In an area with a heavy traffic flow, where the reconstruction schedule is 5 years down the road, the more traffic the worse the road gets. All agreed that you could max out in either direction. Mayor Kennedy asked what was needed for tonight. C. Ruiz will bring to the Council for adoption DPW Hammer's recommendations for recosntruction, including the hiring back of the employees. He said that rather than having to do it over and over again, like they seem to be doing, the Council needs to definitely address how many employees we are going to have in the Street Department. If they want a Street Department of 8 - 10 employees full time, year-round, laid off whenever that is slow (that is up to management at that point) that is what Council definitely needs to determine. He said there is no way to project this year and coming years if you don't know how many personnel you have. If DPW Hammer gives them a request that he is envisioning for the next 5 or 6 years, and the programs that he wants, a Street Department of from 8 - 10 employees, then that is what they have to adopt. Otherwise the Council will have to send him back to the drawing board. C. Ruiz said he hoped the Council was ready to address that this evening. Mayor Kennedy asked if they could also address going out for bids for the crack sealing machine. He felt that would be a good idea. C. Ruiz agreed. C. Manning asked what else was needed for maintenance. DPW Hammer said that was the major item, the rest was materials. The machine and the employees. C. Manning asked what the minimum employee need was for year-round, say for snow removal, just so he had an idea of what was reasonable to mushroom to doin the summer time. DPW Hammer said that this was a very unusual year. He felt that if there was no snow about 4 employees - that way if there was snow the four could get started while the others were being called back. Plus the Street Superintendent. If you have the normal amount of snow you are looking at keeping 8 - 10 guys year-round. This was a very unusual year that will probably never happen again. C. Palmer asked what kind of a budget that was going to take. DPW Hammer said the same as this past year. C. Palmer COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 11 pointed out that that was using tax increment financing. DPW Hammer disagreed. C. Palmer asked if that did not include what was done with tax increment on 5th Avenue West. DPW Hammer said no, if the Council says he cannot increase his budget, then that same budget would be for the same full-time employees. Mayor Kennedy asked if some of the salaries didn't come from tax increment this year. DPW Hammer said that they had, plus the lay-offs saved some money, so there was about $25,000 additional in the Street Department salaries alone - that is why he was recomending several additional seasonal employees for this summer to do the patching and crack sealing, and the surveyor's aide - and still have enough left for the crack sealing machine. This year's budget is for a full-time Street Department 12 months out of the year. C. Manning asked if the philosophy was that if there was not the need to carry them through next fall, would there be lay-offs? DPW Hammer said that was the Council's policy but if they had another eyar like this one, unless they could find something to keep them busy they would have to get back to lay-offs. If this year we are going to do 38 blocks of street reconstruction you have 38 mo`re blocks of material to recycle. If the weather is like this year more time could be spent doing maintenance. That decision has to be made at the time. C. Schindler said one correction: That is not a Council policy. It is an administrative and management decision whether or not to lay off in the fall. DPW Hammer said if the Council would give that to either himself or the Mayor... C. Schindler said he didn't think they had to give it - it is an administrative and internal management decision and has been all along. If the Council absolutely doesn't agree they can always veto the administrative action, but up until that point that is what you are getting paid for, to run the City. Mayor Kennedy said there was no way to guess ahead on that type of decision. C. Ruiz said that in a year like this one when there was very little snow and the streets were open, was there other types of maintenance that could be done. Does it always take hot weather? DPW Hammer said yes - if you don't have the moisture. Anything we open up, it eventually will get moisture, so it's kind of tough. You have to play it by ear. There may be some things that can be put off to do in those months, being more efficient during the summer construction months so that some things could be scheduled for the winter months. That is a possibility. C. Ruiz asked about equipment maintenance. DPW Hammer explained that there are two mechanics. .This year somehow the Central Garage endedupwith $30,000 less than what was used the previous year so the mechanics had only X amount of dollars in the inventory - so maintenance was curtailed. If you can't buy certain items to maintain the vehicles - you are short and you scrimp. How we got through the budget this year he isn't sure. C. Saverud said that when they were here the other day they had some input from an individual who seemed to think that there were other ways of handling these temporary patches. Is there anything else we should be doing or should be looking at that might last a little loneger? DPW Hammer responded that cold mix is the way to do it during the winter months. C. Saverud asked if a little more time was spent trying to get more of the junk out, or drying the patches, was it more effective, and the answer was no - not during the winter months. COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 12 C. Manning asked if where in areas that there is a good base and a good street, and there is a hole - he noticed that the patching crew has just been throwing cold mix in there. Is that just a temporary until they can come back this summer and replace them? DPW Hammer said it is temporary if it is on a good street. On a good street they go back and do it right in the summertime. If it is on the map of street reconstruction for the past 13 years it's worth doing a good job. C. Hafferman came in, apologized for arriving late (she had to work) but wanted to ask a couple of questions. On the figures that DPW Hammer had provided showing equipment costs. There is $2.36/hour for the City trucks. She said she couldn't rent a wheelborrow for $2.36/hour and she couldn't believe that it was a realistic figure. There is no way in the world that you can make a truck operate for $2.36/hour. And the grader - -$7.36 an hour for a grader? DPW Hammer said that was correct. Those numbers on the grader and - front end loader, as low as they appear to be - well, the grader is $7.36/hour. C. Hafferman said $35.00/hour if you rent one. DPW Hammer said right, if you rent it, but we aren't renting. What we did was looked at the numbers provided by John Deere and Caterpillar when we bought the front end loader. They provided us the numbers of what it cost per hour to operate. He took • the number of operating hours on that piece of equipment over the period of one year's time, depreciated that cost, used the higher priced numbers provided, and put them in there. C. Hafferman said she still didn't believe that - they weren't right. If you bought a grader, say it cost $100,000 and the life you maybe figured was 20 years (10 years is more reasonable), but when you get 20 years you are going to have to face repairs, but say you bought it for $100,000 - does that include the interest you are going to have to pay on it? DPW Hammer siad that was the actual cost - $82,000. Even though our graders we run for 40 years, he only took an honest 20 year depreciation cost. We have a 1947 grader that we still use. We get more use out of our equipment because the contractor puts more hours on their equipment. He took the $80,000 for the grader, divided by 20 years, then divided that number by how many hours . . .Wait, wait, stop (C. Hafferman) Are you counting your interest on that money for every year? What is the interest cost? DPW Hammer explained that it was paid for from Revenue Sharing so there is no interest. She said how about if you claim you can use a grader for 40 years - after 20 years repairs come into play, too. You have to count on it breaking down and then you will have more money payig for repairs. No matter what you say,• C. Hafferman went on, she did not believe that he could operate a grader for $7.36/hour and a truck for $2.36. She said she just didn't believe it. DPW Hammer said she would have to argue with John Deere and Caterpillar. She said again she didn't think tose figures were right. C. Schindler asked if those figures included insurance. DPW Hammer said the only thing it didn't include was insurance. It included the hours per • gallon on fueld, wear and tear on tires, etc. In the past when he has done this he has used the $35.00/hour type figures, but it was really what it would cost if we were to go out and rent the equipment. He said he was astounded and double-checked the numbers, but that is what they came up to be. COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 13 C. Grainger said he felt that DPW Hammer has given the Council the answer, and if they go along with the program and are not happy, then they only have one person to go to - the department head. He has already said to let him do his job. If the Council isn't happy that is the place to go. C. Saverud asked if those numbers were the ones that they would be using if the Water Department does work for . . . Laughter . . . not for the private individual, but for the increment district. Are they charged out at these prices or at the $25/hour rates? DPW Hammer said, let's put it like this: These are general fund numbers, not enterprise fund numbers. The enterprise fund numbers seem extremely high to him. When the Water Department goes out and does a repair we charge $25/hour, when in fact, what we charge the Street Department is rates like $12.16/hour - now, what this does not take into consideration is things like lights in the Council chamber, phone calls to the Mayor, the Council, how many phones, depreciation of the building down at the Street Department - basically you are looking at administrative costs, and what that cost is I don't know. These are actual costs. C. Saverud said inter -departmental costs. DPW Hammer agreed and said the point was well taken. - C. Schindler said he did not have a bunch of fancy figures but said all • he could tell them was that from what he had seen DPW Hammer and his department do, going back in his past to when he was a building contractor, anytime you have the expertise and can do it in-house and can afford the equipment, you are going to be ahead of the game, no question about it. He said he felt they have the expertise and the projects that have been done show the expertise. There is no question that the City is going to save money by doing it in-house with our own crews. He said that perhaps the $2.36/hour for a truck did not represent the replacement costs and insurance, etc. that they are going to have to look at, but he still felt that the City is ahead of the game. C. Hafferman asked about the fact that the State Highway Department contracts out all their construction. She said she had checked up on that. They contract theirs out and the State Highway Department ought to know something about construction. DPW Hammer explained that the State does it miles at a time. C. Grainger said she had not driven on the State Highway lately or talked to the people who work at the division headquarters here - they don't know what they are doing and they are in as much trouble as we are. They are not doing very well - and have a lot of problems contracting out. He said he didn't think there was a set way of doing it. In fact, right now, if you drive Highway 93 - don't. They have a problem and they don'tknow what to do with that one. That's a big job and a bad one. DPW Hammer said the county contracts nothing out. C. Schindler said that anytime you can factor out the profit cost you're going to be ahead. The City is not out to make money. C. Hafferman agreed but asked if the City had the money to buy the equipment to do the reconstruction. She said she felt that the City should must maintain • the streets and contract out the excavation. She said she felt they would be doing good to do preventive maintenance - maintain what we have. C. Manning said that had been discussed at length before she got there. C. Ruiz stated that we do contract out the excavation. He went on to say that basically all our street crews are doing that would be considered construction would be the overlay work. C. Hafferman said that they didn't have the equipment to do that, did they? C. Ruiz responded that we don't have a hot mix plant _ COUNCIL WORKSHOP Street Reconstruction/Maintenance March 16, 1987 Page 14 so we buy the hot mix from private contractors, so really about all we're talking is labor and machine. Mayor Kennedy asked if there was any more discussion. He asked if anyone in the audience would like to say anything. There was no response. The meeting was dismissed. ajg • • 1• 1• I• It \t, 7��'� CITY Or John "Ed" Kennedy, Jr. Mayor DATE: March 13, 1987 Drawer 1997 Kalispell, Moniana 59903-1997 TO: Ed Kennedy, Mayor All Council Members FROM: Ken Hammer, Director of Public Works RE: Informational Packet Please find attached information requested by a few Council members concerning "Street Reconstruction". Additional information concerning "Street Maintenance" will be available for the work session on Monday, March 16, 1987 at 4:00 P.M.. aj g 11 Yamlran (6y�.. LeRoy E. M<Dowdl Mayor Telephone (46) 755'5457 THE CITY OF K A L I S P E L L, M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 16, 1984 P.O. Sox 1035 ZIP 59901-1035 MONTANA TO: Mayor McDowell, City Council & Street & Alley Committee FROM: Ken Hammer, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Street Reconstruction and Maintenance The past history of street reconstruction in the City of Kalispell reveals that streets have been reconstructed on a year by year basis without regard for other construction • projects of different departments and that the planning stage has been all but eliminated. This is in conflict with good management practices and is not consistent with efficiency and productivity. Services provided by the Street Department and other departments are highly visible and citizens judge their local government by the manner in which services are provided. Thus, it is especially important that a "Street Improvement Program" be implement- ed and carried out in an effective and efficient manner, and that these services are responsive to community needs. The Street Improvement Program should be well thought out and developed for a "5 Year Program". This will encourage us to look at long term goals and objectives and should make "Budgeting" of capital equipment more responsible to fit these needs. In addition, I am requesting that the Sewer and Water Department develop a "5 Year Program" to encourage coordination between the various departments and to ensure cooperation to achieve these goals and objectives. Currently, the Street Department is responsible for street reconstruction and maintenance of over 1,040 blocks (3201X 30') of streets within the City limits. -It is imperative that an explanation of "Design Life of a Street" be brought to the forefront at this time. A design life of 20 years for a street is defined as "the useful life" of an asphalt design section subject to normal maintenances. That is, • we can expect a newly reconstructed street to last 20 years with normal maintenance. Therefore, for the City to achieve "Vacation City" Memorandum • Mayor McDowell, City Council & Street & Alley Committee February 16, 1984 Page 2 its street reconstruction cycle, approximately 52 blocks of streets should be reconstructed every year, (1040=20). In addition, regular maintenance should be performed. All streets are deteriorating at a rate that exceed the current street reconstruction schedule. The City of Kal- ispell is headed for serious problems unless the rate of repair and maintenance is stepped up! With inflation soar- ing, traffic increasing and budgets remaining at a near constant level, how can the City of Kalispell afford these expenses? It is with this in mind, along with the current "economic and budget crunch", that the City should ser- iously consider redirecting her energies to a more effici- ent_ and effective "Street Improvement Program". This CAN be accomplished through better manageme`nt, supervision and following the criteria outlined below. 1) Reconstruct streets only when absolutely necessary. • 2) Overlay streets that do not require total recon- struction. 3) Patch and seal coat other streets for preventative maintenance. The following is a brief explanation of the proposed Com- prehensive Street Improvement Program and Preventative Main- tenance Program. "Reconstruct Streets Only when Necessary" - A street should be reconstructed only because the base and subbase have completely failed. Surface defects, potholes, and large cracks in streets should not be a basis for total reconstruction. This can be handled by an asphalt overlay or preventative maintenance. "Asphalt Overlay" - This method of street improvement is simply overlaying the present street with 1-1/2 inches of hot mix. In addition, a tack coat of oil would be spray- ed on the old surface to help rejuvenate the old surface as well as to bond the new surface with the old. It can readily be seen that this method is less expensive than to reconstruct a street in its entirety. "Patch and Seal Coat" - This method of street improve- ment is accomplished through preventative maintenance. Some of our streets are rough, have large cracks, depressed areas, or possible potholes. If these areas are not taken care of Memorandum Mayor McDowell, City Council & Street & Alley Committee February 16, 1984 "rage 3 within the next few years, then these streets will become prime targets for total street reconstruction. If a "Preventative Maintenance Program" can be initiated along with the "Street Reconstruction program", then the estimated life expectancy of all streets within the City can be maintained. We should keep in mind, that the objec- tives of the "Preventative Maintenance Program" are to seal the pavement, improve surface texture, strengthen the struc- ture, and to increase the life expectancy. Therefore, the City should concentrate not only on street reconstruction, but also on preserving and protecting the existing streets through preventative maintenance and rehabilitation. Attached is a detailed report of cost comparisons for the three different operations. - I - - In conclusion, it is hoped that this report will stimulate consideration of appropriate balances among initial con- struction costs, operating costs, maintenance costs and replacement costs, thereby encouraging an overall look at a "Street Reconstruction and Street Maintenance Program". In addition, perhaps this report will stimulate our decision making to help conserve material, construction labor, and environmental values. KWH:cf 0 LcRoy E. McDowell Mapor P.O. Box 1035 ZIP 59901-1035 Tcicphonc (4o6) 755'5457 THE CITY OF K A L I S P E L L, M O N T A N A M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 6, 1984 TO: Street and Alley Committee and, Kalispell City Council, Mayor McDowell FROM: Ken Hammer/Director of Public Works SUBJECT: "Proposed 5 Year Street Reconstruction PFolram" The Public Works Department has reviewed the street system in regard to street reconstruction and feels that an "Analytical and Comprehensive Approach" must be taken in order to be more productive, efficient, and • responsive to community needs. The purpose for a Comprehensive Plan is to achieve the City's goals and needs with the following objectives: 1) Coordinate the activities of the divisions; 2) Improve employee effectiveness and moral by improving an environ- ment conducive to "team building"; 3) Encourage coordination and cooperation among the department and all other City departments and agencies; 4) Establish procedures and guidelines for consistency in implementing projects; 5) Inform the general public of the projects being performed by various departments; 6) Requisition of capital equipment in conformance with the various projects. Through this "Analytical and Comprehensive Approach", scheduling will be responsive to community needs, i.e., 1) Streets adjacent to schools will not be reconstructed during the school year, 2) Streets will not be left unpaved through the winter months, is3) The public will be notified before projects are started so as to cause the least inconvenience to the residents, "Vacation City" Memorandum Street S Alley Committee and, Kalispell City Council, Mayor McDowell March 6, 1984 Page 2 4) There will be no duplication of services by various departments. 5) Projects once completed will not require work the following year. To carry out this approach one step further, I have requested that the sanitary sewers, storm sewers and water lines be scheduled for a 5 Year Replacement Program in conjunction with the "5 Year Street Reconstruction Program". In addition, I am requesting that the private utilities furn- ish the City of Kalispell, a 5 Year Comprehensive Plan that will enable the City to better coordinate projects. With this in mind, we are request- ing that the City Council review and consider adopting the attached "5 Year Street Reconstruction Program". The street project selection process was simply a thorough field inspection of each street within the City limits. The criteria used to determine the year in which each street.would be reconstructed was as follows: 1) Deteriorated surface and subbase. r 2) Heavily traveled streets. • 3) Hazardous conditions. 4) High maintenance costs. 5) Drainage problems. 6) Other construction projects. This list is not all inclusive, in that other factors may contribute to a rearrangement, deletion, or addition of selected streets. In addition, I would like to solicit any input from the Street and Alley Committee, City Council, or May, since you receive input from the residents. And, finally, I would like to recommend that the City Council adopt the "5 Year Plan" and review it annually so that any changes could be reflected the November or December before the construction season begins. 40 • ST-0005-87 �\ 3 A _ .i John "Ed" Kennedy, Jr. Mayor n CITY OF DATE: March 13, 1987 TO: Ed Kennedy, Mayor City Council Members FROM: Ken Hammer, Director of Public Works RE: Street Reconstruction Costs Per Block Drawer 1997 Kallsrall, Mo.^.Panc 59902-1997 The Public Works staff has researched the -subject of per block costs of street reconstruction and presents the following actual costs (*) for the completed blocks listed. 0 Center Street - LHC, Inc. - 1985 • Street Excavation - Lump Sum (2293 C.Y.) $ 44,279 Plant Mix Bit Surfacing (11,265 S.Y.) 76,039 $120,318 *$120,318 + 5 Blocks = $24,063 Per Block 5th Avenue West - Pack & Comnanv - 1986 CITY PACK & COMPANY Asphalt $47,564 Excavation $ 69,632 Cushion 9,298 Fabric 10,444 2" Base 138,223 $56,862 $218,299 $5,686 Per Block $21,829 Per Block *$27,516 Per Block for the combined efforts of the City and Pack Pack & Company's bid for doing the complete street (without City participation) was $374,971 or $37,497 Per Block. Therefore, the difference ($374,970 - $275,161) of $99,809 is the amount that the City taxpayers saved by the Street Department's participation. • ST-0005-87 Street Reconstruction Costs Per Block March 13, 1987 Page 2 West Arizona Street (SID 335) - American Asphalt - 1982 Asphalt and Cushion $14,146 *$14,146 - 2.3 Blocks = $6,150 Per Block NOTE: City,Crews excavated street and installed pit run, provided engineering and surveying. llth Avenue West - City Crews - 1983 *$4,500 Per Block 2nd Avenue West - American Asphalt - 1979 Street Excavation, Pit Run, Cushion, Asphalt $45,768.90 *$22,884.45 Per Block . NOTE: City performed engineering, surveying and inspection. ai g • SC-0022-87 John "Ed" Kennedy, Jr. Mayor 0 • n CITY OF Drm•rer 1997 Katis, ett, t.toa,_= 59903d997 DATE: March 9, 1987 TO: Ken Hammer, Director of Public Works FROM: Ben Van ➢yke, Construction Inspector RE: Street and Utility Construction Expenses Paid to the Private Sector Between May 1985 and January 1987 The following information is a conservative list gathered from the City of Kalispell's computer vendor list. MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTORS Harp Line Construction Kalispell Rental Sun Rental C. Powell Electric Total ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS Architects Design Group Billmayer Engineering Carver Engineering HNB Consulting Engineers Sands Surveying Thomas, Dean & Hoskins Total CONTRACTORS. GRAVEL AND ASHPHALT SUPPLIERS Big Montana Concrete Marriott Concrete Holm Sutherland LHC, Inc. Lyford Plumbing Sandon Construction Tabor Excavation A-1 Paving McElroy and Wilken Pack and Company Total GRAND /TOTAL 17,661.74 145.00 10,957.65 $ 39,441.32 $ 68,205.71 $ 4,152.50 35,761.10 162,201.94 11,165.00 628.55 245,934.41 $ 459,843.50 $ 36,729.36 99,790.64 562,572.05 754,407.24 119,774.45 11,387.79 15,087.00 84,101.85 139,163.75 1,455,902.66 $3,278,916.79 $3,806.966.00 KALISPELL STREET DEPARTMENT COST PER BLOCK (320' X 30') • STREET RECONSTRUCTION MATERIALS: 2' Sub -base: Pie Fur, Gravel 720 cubic vamp @ S1.50 5 1, OB 0. 00 3" Cushion: 5/8 Gravel 135 Tons @ $4.50 607.00 3" Asphalt: 173 Tws @ $1.8.00 3,150.0D Sub -Total 4 S3 -.00 LABOR: (Excavare and Baskfi.11) :.hat of Personnel Rate Hours 'aai EXCAVATION BY CONTRACTOR 80.00 10 BG0.00 City True6s 3 2.36 1,0 -'.t0 Truck Drivers 3 10.20 10 30-00 SUPERVISOR 1 S 12.16 20 243.20 Truck Drivers 4 10.20 16 0�2.90 Operators (Roller) 2 11.17 8 179.71 Grader Operator 1 10.83 32 3-6.56 _ Sub-Iocol 2,593.0E LABOR: (Finish Grade For Paving) Truck Drivers 4 10.20 8 3^_6.40 Finish Grader Operator 1 11.74 8 93.92 Roller Operator 1 11.12 8 89.36 Water Truck Driver 1 10.09 4 40.3e Laborer (Rake, Sweep, Handwork, Spot 1 10.20 8 s1.60 Trucks) Sub-Iotal 531.64 _ LABOR: (Paving) Paving Machine Operators 2 11.17 4 _9.36 Truck Drivers 4 10.20 4 163.20 Roller Operator 1 11.17 4 68 r Sub -Total EQUIPMENT: Trucks 5 2.36 192 453.11 Grader 1 7.36 40 -94.40 Rollers 1 3.12 12 37.44 • Water Track Paving Machine 1 L 2.36 14.1111 4 4 9.44 Sub -Total 30.4 85J. 5o'4 Total $9,214.80 STREET OVERLAY MATERIAALS: 270 Gallons SS-1 Tack Oil - .25 Gallons/square yard @L.DD 2-0.OJ 2" Asphalt - 120 Tons @ $18.00 2,160.00 _ Sub -Total 2,430.00 LABOR: SUPERVISOR 1 12.16 4 48.6-' Truck Drivers 4 10.20 4 163.20 - Paving Machine Operators 2 11.17 4 89.36 Street Sweeper Operator L 11.17 2 22.34 Roller Operator 1 11.17 4 44.68 - Sub -Total 368.22 E UIPDIENT: Trucks 4 2.36 4 37.76 Paving Machine 1 14.11 4 56.44 Street Sweeper 1 10.11 2 20.22 - - - - Roller 1 3.12 4 12.48 _- Oil Distributor 1 4.12 2 8.24 - Sub -Total 135.14 Total $2,933.36 CHIP SEAL - MATERIALS: h" Washed Stone Chip - 25 pounds/square foot - 14 tons @ 18.50 259.00 - 350 Gallons CRS-2 Oil - .33 gallons/square yard @ S.90 315.00 - Sub -Total 5;4.OG LABOR: SUPERVISOR 1 12.16 1 12.16 Truck Drivers 2 10.20 1 20.40 _ Operators 5 11.17 1 55.85 Sub -Total 82.41 • E UIPSffNT: Trucks 2 2.36 1 4.72 Loader 1 8.30 1 d.30 Oil Distributor 1 4.12 1 4.12 _. Roller 1 3.12 1 3.12 _ Street Sweeper 1 10.11 2 20.22 ---- Chip Spreader (County) 1 N/C 1 0.00 - -- Sub -Total -40.45 Total $ 702.89 L J 0 STREET RECONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET 1987 Tax Increment District Si HLII SELECTION START/STOP ELKS LENGTH WIDTH ASPHALT (TONS/$) CUSHION (C.Y./$) SUB -BASE (C.Y./$) EXCAVATIO14 (C.Y./$) 2nd Street W. lst Ave - Sth Ave � 4.0 1392 44 1000 475 3400 $800/Blk. $18,000 $3,046 $6,056 $3,200 3rd Avenue E. 1st St - 5th St 4.0 1464 30 675 350 2450 $12,150 $2,244 $4,364 $3,200 3rd Avenue W. 2nd St - 4th St 2.0 666 30 325. 150 1100 $ 5,850 $ 962 $1,959 $1,600 3rd Street W. 3rd Alley- 3rd St 5 142 30 75 50 250 $ 1,350 $ 321 $ 445 $ 400 2nd Street E. 1st Ave - 2nd Ave 1.0 355 44 250 125 900 $ 4,500 $ 802 $1,603 $ 800 1st Street W. 3rd Alley- 5th Ave 2.5 872 41 550 275 1800 $ 9,900 $1,763 $3,206 $2,000 16th Street W. 5th Ave - 6th Ave 1.0 300 Avg 47 225 125 800 $ 4,050 $ 802 $1,425 $ 800 (East Montana l Main St - 2nd Ave WN 2.0 732 41 475 250 1500 $ 8,550 $1,603 $2,672 1,600 2nd Avenue E.N.- W. Montana Idaho 1.0 300 41 200 100 625 $ 3,600 $ 641 $1,113 $ 800 SUBTOTALS 18 6234 Avg 38.67 3775 1900 12,825 $800/Blk $67,950 $12,184 $22,843 $14,400 11 IS 0 STREET RECONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET 1987 r STREET SELECTION START/STOP BILKS LENGTH WIDTH ASPHALT (TONS/S) CUSHION (C.Y./$) SUB -BASE (C.Y./$) EXCAVATION (C.Y./$) loth Street W. 5th Ave - lst Ave 4.0 1398 34 l 725 375 2325 $800/B1k $13,050 $ 2,405 $ 4,141 $ 3,200 _499& - 04 }83&- _ $--2700- Meridian Road Idaho - Center 4.5 1670F39 1050 525 3800 $18,900 $ 3,367 $ 6,769 $ 3,600 Kinshella Husky - Two Mile 3.0 800 475 250 1750 $ 8,550 $ 1,603 $ 3,117 $ 2,400 Husky Kinshella Meridian 2.0 600 52 525 250 1600 $ 9,450 $ 1,603 $ 2,850 $ 1,600 3rd Avenue E. 18th St - Hwy 93S 3.5 1300 26 525 275 1900 $ 9,450 $ 1,763 $ 3,384 $ 2,800 SUBTOTAL 20 6866 Avg 37 — I $800/Blk 16$74% $+173£* fr i6 808— *Plus continge cies T4� tom, I FI AOI 2b1 T3,bca • • ST-0007-87 C:TY CF y--�— John "Ed" Kennedy, Jr. My Yar DATE: March 16,'1987 TO: Ed Kennedy, Mayor City Council Members FROM: Ken Hammer, Director of Public Works RE: Maintenance and Street Reconstruction Funding Drm;er 1997 Kalispeli, 'Mont= 59903-1997 Please note that all figures provided in_this memo apply only to the period between February 28, 1987 and June 30, 1987. FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR MATERIALS 2420 - GAS TAX Gravel $ 22,275 Asphalt 31,969 Sub -Total $ 54,244 8200 - SPECIAL MAINTENANCE Road Oil $ 8,526 TOTAL $ 62,770 Available FUNDS ALLOCATED TO SALARIES THROUGH JUNE 30, 1987 1000 - GENERAL FUND 421 - Street Department $ 22,249 2420 - GAS TAX 421 - Street Department 64,029 8200 - SPECIAL MAINTENANCE 421 - Street Department 7,626 TOTAL $ 93,904 *Salaries to be paid through June 30: 71,566 Funds available in salaries account: $ 22,338 *See attached sheet for breakdown. • ST-0007-87 Maintenance and Street Reconstruction Funding March 16, 1987 Page 2 EMPLOYEE NEEDS THROUGH JUNE 30, 1987 Construction Crew 8 full-time employees 1 surveyor's aide 1 seasonal employee Maintenance Crews - Street Sweeping 1 full time employee Patch Crew 1 full-time employee 2 seasonal employees Crack Sealing Crew 1 temporary employee 2 seasonal employees • Surveyor's Aide (April 20 - June 30) The column on the left shows a need for the following employees IN ADDITION to the Street Department employees presently working plus those laid off. After calling all laid off employees back to work there would be a need for: 1 temporary employee @ $8.95/hour 1 surveyor's aide @ $8.77/hour 5 seasonal employees @ $4.61/hour 1 employee X 2.5 months @ $8.77/hour $ 3,508 Temporary Employee (April 20 - June 30) 1 employee X 2.5 months @ $8.80/hour $ 3,520 Seasonal Employees (April 20 - June 30) 3 employees X 2.5 months @ $4.61/hour $ 5,532 Seasonal Employees (May 20 - June 30) 2 employees X 1.5 months @ $4.61/hour $ 2,212 TOTAL $ 14,772 FUNDS AVAILABLE IN SALARIES $ 22,338 LESS ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES 14,772 BALANCE OF SALARY FUNDS $ 7,566 RECOMMENDATION Hire the above additional employees and purchase a crack sealing • machine with the balance from the salary funds of $7,566. • ST-0007-87 Maintenance and Street Reconstruction Funding :larch 16, 1987 Page 3 FUNDS NEEDED TO PAY SALARIES MARCH 20 - JUNE 30 Brady 3.5 months X $1,976 $ 6,916 Overn 3.5 months X 2,022 7,077 Barnhart 3.5 months X 1,886 6,601 Hogan 3.5 months X 1,874 6,559 Scovel 3.5 months X 1,786 6,251 Gamma 3.5 months X 1,845 6,458 Murray 3.5 months X 1,786 6,251 Dofelmire 3.5 months X 1,895 6,633 Brusell 3.5 months X 1,776 .. 6,216 Swanson 3.5 months X 1,825 6,388 Cunningham 3.5 months X 1,776 6,216 . TOTAL $71,566 • • ST-0008-8.7; CITY OF John "Ed" Kennedy, Jr. Mayor DATE: March 16, 1987 TO: Ed Kennedy, Mayor All City Council Members FROM: Ken Hammer, Director of Public Works RE: Street Reconstruction and Maintenance Drmver 1997 Kalispell, Mon'eana 599C3-1997 The City of Kalispell has83 miles of streets and alleys. Of this total mileage there are approximately 63 miles of paved streets. This is equivalent to 1033 block of paved streets. • Since the year 1973, 352 blocks of streets have been reconstructed or overlayed. Therefore, at least (1033 - 352) 681 blocks of streets need to be reconstructed and 352 blocks should have annual maintenance and partial reconstruction. In addition to the 38 blocks to be reconstructed this year, the following is a list of chip and seal and overlay which should be considered. (See attached sheet) The program the Public Works Department is offering in the March 16, 1987 memo could accomplish the 38 blocks of reconstruction plus crack sealing of the 88 blocks to be scheduled for chip sealing the following year. The amount of maintenance to be accomplished for the 1987 construction season would depend on approval of the 1987-88 budget. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 1987 CONSTRUCTION SEASON: Reconstruct 38 blocks, rebuild 5 major intersections on the east side, crack seal and repatch list of 88 blocks of streets, and prepare 1987-88 budget for chip seal during the 1988 construction season. In addition, if possible, chip seal 25 blocks during the 1987 construction season. 0 ajg ST-0008-87 March 16, 1987 Page 2 OVERLAY CHIP SEAL With Minor Repair Blocks Ponderosa 3.1 Summit Ridge 7.2 Northridge Drive 5.8 - Crestview 3.0 Hilltop 2.0 Hilltop 3.1 Sherry Lane 3.0 Wedgewood 2.0 Liberty 3.0 Garland 9.0 Ashley Court 1.0 Sherry Lane 5.0 Sub -Total 14.8 Liberty 2.0 Kristen_, 3.Q- With Major Repair Claremont 4.0 Northridge Drive 2.1 Conway 2.7 Crestview 2.0 - 7th Avenue West 11.7 Wedgewood 3.0 1st Avenue West 13.0 Garland 1.0 1st Avenue East 5.0 Sherry Lane 1.0 Center Street West 6-.0 Sub -Total 9.1 Center Street East 3.0 llth Street West 6.0 TOTAL 23.9 TOTAL 88.1