The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090420 - Special CC Workshop on Bridge ProjedctMEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Osberg, City Administrator DATE: Apri116, 2009 SUBJECT: Special City Council Workshop on Bridge Project City Councilmembers are reminded of the special City Council workshop on the Highway #61 Bridge project scheduled for Monday Apri120, 2009 at 6:00 PM in the Volunteer Room at the Hastings City Hall. Agenda topics, and a brief discussion include: Staging Area Power Line Relocation: Staff will present further illustration of the relocated power line near the staging area, and also will be present additional information on the cost projections for the replacement of the steel pole in the area of the trail near the northern end of the project area. East Lattice Tower Replacement/Monopole: Further discussion on the City's preference regarding the replacement of the east lattice tower with a monopole, and the impact on the aesthetics budget for the project, which is the third topic proposed for discussion at the meeting on Monday. Hastings Bridge Project Budget Discussion: Staff has attached the same information distributed at the last workshop session on April 6, 2009. MnDOT staff will be in attendance to discuss this further, and in particular the significance of the Hastings bridge being designated as a Type "A" Bridge project as it relates to the MnDOT aesthetics participation factors. Special City Council Meeting: Staff would ask that the City Council consider scheduling a special City Council meeting for Monday June 29, 2009 at 7:00 PM (5th Monday of the month) for purposes of reviewing the entire bridge/road layout, to address any immediate questions or issues, in advance of the Municipal Consent needed from the City Council, a few months later. Future Workshop Topics: City Council direction on the level of interest in addressing certain other topics relating to the bridge project, as suggested in other meetings such as, but not necessarily limited to the following: a.) Relocation of the channel: would require significant interaction with a variety of other agencies, including, but not necessarily limited to the ACOE, DNR etc. and likely delay the bridge project. b.) Bridge naming rights: letter forthcoming from MnDOT on this issue, addressing the legalities. c.) Substation relocation: significant cost that both MnDOT and Xcel Energy have stated will not be borne by either of them, due to the fact its relocation is not needed for the bridge project. d.) Spiral (bridge) trail connection: Staff understood from the last workshop that this should be pursued at a later date, with the understanding it could be added to the bridge at a later date, and that funding could perhaps be linked to additional trail projects throughout the City. David M. Dsberg City Administratg Mn/DOT's Metro Program Update a) Cut $22 million from Fisca12010 State Funds b) Cut $44 million from Fisca12011 State Funds c) Metro investment staff and CO investment staff are meeting today d) Mn/DOT's 5 year STIP (Capital Improvement Plan) normally due Apri115 is now due in May e) Hastings and Lafayette are the big Projects f) Hastings R/W and Lafayette R/W and Federal Match is funded by State Funds g) $66 million represents a significant percentage about 1/Z preservation type projects h) Federal Funds? SAFETLU & Federal Transportation Fund i) Stimulus Projects: 2 large projects & 50 projects ~^-1 large project and 39 small projects 9~v j) We'll know more in May Hastings Bridge Project a) $225-$265 million 2013 dollars (Bridge type and estimates) b) Scoping Level Bridge Only Cost (2009 dollars) not showing range 1. Twin Girder $99 m 2. Cable $114 m 3. Arch $106 m c) Roadway, R/W, Risk, Pre-design, Design, Project Management d) New Estimated Bridge Prices soon Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Local Units of Government http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/ProjDeliv/ds 1 l .pdf //~ The Commissioner may expend trunk highway funds only for trunk highway purposes. For example: a) The highway itself b) The reconstruction of a local road that was necessary to build the highway Project c) Locally owned utility relocation/reconstruction if only needed for highway construction Not for example: a) Locally owned utility upgrades or_ betterments b) The addition of local roads for local purposes c) Adding sidewalks or betterments to local sidewalks d) Local participation in replacing a signal system Aesthetic Enhancements a) Context Sensitive Design producing aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sensitive project consistent with other programs b) Purpose to establish a reasonable and equitable limit to aesthetic elements not to establish a required level of spending c) Expenditures for aesthetic elements need to be balanced with the recognition that there is not sufficient funds available to meet growing needs of highway system d) Aesthetic enhancements must have substantial relationship to truck highway system Items Considered an Aesthetic Element a) View from .the trunk highway or to the trunk highway b) It facilitates transportation function, such as pedestrian walk c) Design elements (grade, alignment, g-section) chosen strictly to enhance aesthetics d) Treatments such as colored pavements, landscaping, special utility relocation e) Upgrades to standard wall treatments, standard lighting, or upgrades to standard railings Items Not Considered an Aesthetic Element a) Standard treatments or rustication of structures and walls b) Legally required mitigation including 4(~ regulations, noise and wetland requirements, guidelines of SHPO and the DNR c) Warranted standard street lighting d) Essential Pedestrian facilities Aesthetic Participation Factors a) Level of impact of the project on -the setting b) Specific Items (bridge, retaining walls, noise walls) c) Project Type other than bridges and walls Level of Impact a) Level A High level of visual impact on existing setting such as projects in a historical location b) Level B Moderate visual impact on surrounding setting c) Level C Little negative impact on surrounding setting Project Type Categories a) Category 1 Major reconstruction increasing capacity b) Category 2 Reconstruction not increasing capacity c) Category 3 Preservation and Safety -°R~ ,.}y` ~~ ~~ .. ~~y} tE •~ ~~ r -. f{ae~i '~! i^i ~~/~~./~ Yii '" r ~w ~~ ~ ~~ ~ )( ~ ~+~IL' y ~y i~ ~ %~i 15d!H!~ t.: ~: ~ ~: ~".~ AY7 ~^q n ~ }y ,.~. ~y t,.T' ~y rx' u P^~'~ ~ ~ ~ ^'~ ~yuq E~~. ,~pp}}~ '~1/ ro f ar . .. GI ~ ~~ . ~ ~~ ~ , ~~ rll! ~ ,~~.{ ~ 4 ~ h,~ ,~wk. ~ ~ f' I E ~!y 5.+! ~ ~q y ~hy 3' ~ ~ ! ~ f~l ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~y ~ ~ iW ~_ l~j y i, AA Y ~ ~ (~ ~ L~Jx iyla ~ +xrj ~j ~e~+v 1 v ~J ~~yy ~~ yr, 'M 1r slf apt n\f ~ .~ i`t~ y3 pyf 1' T' ~ ~ ~ ~ /Qy~~ r1 cya,~ ~ ~1 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ty~ +~I' ~ §)~ ~~q~ /L 'A~' ~~ M S :~ ~~ ~~ a~ e~ ~~ ~~ Restrictions to Aesthetic Enhancements a) Bridge and wall aesthetics are not transferable to other project elements b) Roadway aesthetics based on project type are computed using roadway construction cost c) Aesthetics costs beyond this policy will be 100% Local d) Projects may be segmented into categories Typical Roadway Aesthetic Enhancements a) Landscaping b) City Monument c) Stamped or colored concrete walks d) Non warranted or non standard ornamental railing e) Parking Bollards or Parking Striping f) Form liner (stone look) and painting of retaining walls Estimated Maximum Aesthetic Budget Based on Estimated Quantities and Estimated Bid Prices a) Bridge $3,000,000 b) North Retaining Wall Estimate 0.9 m at .05 = $45,000 ~~~/ ~~ c) South Retaining Wall Estimate 0.2 m at .10 = $20,000 d) North Roadway Estimate $13.4 m at .03 = $400,000 >~ ja~~~~ e) South Roadway Estimate $6.5 m at .05 = $325,00