UHills Streets Committee Meeting Minutes, 7/11/05

 

Next Meeting: August 1st at First Presbyterian church at 7pm

John DeHart (Secretary) will not be able to attend the meeting on August 1st. Someone will have to volunteer to record the minutes for that meeting.

 

Attendees:

Committee Members:

Tom Sontag

John DeHart

Adele Tuchler

Claud Eley

Rob Klahr

Tom Keating

Chuck Goldfarb

Bob Boland

Bob Morley

Gary Francesconi

 

Trustees:

Jim Wheeler

 

University City:

Tim Moffitt (Department of Public Works)

 

Review and Approval of minutes from committee meeting of 6/6/05:

Not done. Approval will be assumed unless someone raises a question.

 

REPORT of the Engineering Subcommittee:

The Engineering subcommittee distributed a three page report detailing their activities for the past month. That report is included at the end of these minutes.

 

Bob Boland gave the verbal presentation of the report highlighting the following items:

-        Four alternatives are currently being considered:

1.    Continued maintenance and repair as needed.

2.    Selected curb and gutter replacement in 2 cycles.

3.    100% curb and gutter replacement in 1 cycle.

4.    Reitz and Jens proposal

-        The price for curb and gutter interface repair has been revised

-        The engineering subcommittee's definition of a curb/gutter that needed replacing was one that had multiple chips and/or cracks, where multiple was more than 2.

-        Curb, gutter and interface on Purdue and Overhill have been inspected and marked with temporary white paint.

-        We should not underestimate the value and possibility of following a course of action that followed option #1

-        The subcommittee has met with a the MSD maintenance director for the  U. City region. MSD seems more open to make repairs to our sewer inlets and possibly installing new inlets at MSD's expense.

 

There was considerable discussion about the possibility of following option #1. The committee seems to feel that their original mission was based

 on the premise that the streets, curbs and gutters were in a state of near catastrophe. After a lot of work by the engineering subcommittee that is not prevailing opinion on the full committee.

No committee member in attendance seemed to think that a long-term plan of gradual repair and replacement was in any way a violation of the mission of finding a "long-term" solution.

 

The subcommittee seems to think that one viable option that should be given serious consideration is to do something like this:

a)    Work with MSD to get them to repair and replace inlets and sewer.

b)    Continue to do replacement of curbs and gutters on an as needed basis.

c)    After a and b are completed, have a new chip and seal job done.

Given MSD's schedule they might not be done before next summer and given that a chip and seal can only be done during the summer, then our new chip and seal might not get done until the summer of 2007.

 

Jim Wheeler estimated that we currently spend $35,000 - $40,000 per year maintaining curbs, gutters and sidewalks. (Did this include pavement also?)

 

The consensus of the experts who have been consulted seems to be that a chip and seal lasts on the order of 10 years. The current estimate of the engineering subcommittee is that a new chip and seal job will probably cost around $100,000. The most recent chip and seal job that the neighborhood had done was deemed to be of poor quality.

 

 

 

REPORT of the Finance/Legal Subcommittee:

Letter from U. City to Trustees detailing cost estimates for bringing streets up to City standards.

Summary:

Total	Standards/Recommendations	Measurements	Unit Costs
$4,120,000	City	R&J	City
$3,570,000	R&J	R&J	R&J
$3,710,000	City	City	City
$2,025,000	R&J	City	City

 

 

 

The data used for assessment estimates based on lot acreage has been reviewed and has found that approximately 1/3 of the lots are not accurately represented.

 

A summary 1-page spread-sheet has been developed that gives current estimates for the following:

-        City (Park)

-        Church

-        Multi-party residence

-        Single-party High

-        Single-party Mean

-        Single-party Median

-        Single-party Low

for three project costs ($500K, $1.5M, $3.4M) for each of 4 assessment methods:

-        Lot Size

-        Valuation

-        Frontage Feet

-        Per lot

This summary page will be posted to the web site with some explanatory text.

 

The current view is that for U. City to finance a NID through existing funds (i.e. without seeking financing) would require the project cost to probably be under $300K. (via Frank Ollendorf?)

 

 

REPORT of the Communications Subcommittee:

The subcommittee has begun work on a final report. There is an outline and some text written. It is not in a state that is ready to share with anyone yet.

 

The subcommittee has been investigating Google and Yahoo search engines and how to get the neighborhood web site to show up on their searches.. The best way to get a site to show up with a search engine is to have the site linked from other sites. Search engines gather their information by "crawling" around internet. Web sites can also be submitted for inclusion with the search engines. This has been done for our web site, but there doesn't seem to have been much change yet.

 

It had been suggested that we might put up signs around the neighborhood to encourage residents to visit the web site. This was discussed within the subcommittee which decided it would  be better to do another door-to-door flyer.

 

 

TASK LIST for Engineering Subcommittee

1.    Evaluate options for a "pay as you go" plan for continued maintenance and repair.

2.    Continue the inventory of the streets.

3.    Work with trustees to feed the information that is being gathered so it can feed into future plans and priorities.

4.    Continue discussions with MSD

 

TASK LIST for Legal/Finance subcommittee:

1.    Work with communications subcommittee on text to accompany summary spread-sheet

2.    Contact surveyors about the possibility of getting accurate acreage measurements if they should be needed.

3.    Investigate the possibility of increases to the regular assessment.

 

TASK LIST for Communications subcommittee:

1.    Add summary spread-sheet and text description to web site.

2.    Continue work on final report.

3.    Take photographs of sample pavement, curbs and gutters and post on web site.

 

Next Meeting: August  1st at First Presbyterian church at 7pm

 

 

Attached: Engineering Subcommittee Summary 7/11/2005 Report

Reference Material: Engineering Subcommittee support data spread sheet

 

Engineering Subcommittee Summary

July 11, 2005

 

 

Accomplishments, June, 2005

Inspected curb, gutter, and interface on Purdue and Overhill.  Marked Purdue and Overhill with white, temporary, paint.  See summary below.

 

Reviewed storm-water inlet structures and drainage with MSD area maintenance manager.  Obtained unofficial agreement that MSD will repair/replace substandard inlets at their cost over the next year.  Also obtained unofficial agreement that new drainage structures will be installed by MSD.

 

Obtained updated unit costs for curb, gutter, and pavement repair:

Remove and replace curb and gutter and patch interface - $26/ft.

Remove and repave pavement at interface - $6/ft

Remove and replace pavement and base - $4/sqft.

Install chip seal (estimate only) - $100.000

 

Reviewed engineering alternatives.  See below.

 

Prepared 20-year cost for currently-favored alternatives.  See Below.

 

Obtained agreement from Webster Groves maintenance manager to prepare specifications for curb and gutter replacement, pavement patching, and chip and seal installation.  We anticipate that the cost for preparation of these specifications will be covered as a portion of the estimated chip seal cost.

 

 

 

 

Curb, Gutter, and Interface Summary

 

Street	Scaled Length	Aprons	Curb and Gutter Total	C&G Repair	C&G Fraction	Interface Repair	Interface Fraction
Kingsbury	4100	38	3644	983	27%	615	15%
Warren	1600	23	1324	545	41%	240	15%
Purdue	3270	36	2838	1161	41%	480	15%
Overhill	1960	9	1852	890	48%	110	6%
Total	10930	106	9658	3579	37%	1445	13%
Note:	Kingsbury and Warren Interface Length estimated at 15% of Scaled Length
	Apron length estimated at 12 ft.
	Curb and Gutter Total = Scaled length - (aprons x 12)
	C&G Repair = C&G Measured Length
	C&G Fraction = C&G Measured Length / Curb and Gutter Total
	Interface Repair = Interface Measured Length
	Interface Fraction = Interface Measured Length / Curb and Gutter Total

 

Engineering Alternatives

The following alternatives have been considered:

1.         Continued Maintenance and Repair

2.         Selected Curb and Gutter Replacement (2 cycles)

3.         100% Curb and Gutter Replacement (1 cycle)

4.         Reitz and Jens Proposal

 

Cost Evaluation

Costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 are described below:

 

Twenty year costs are estimated as follows:

For 2 cycle C&G Replacement

37% C&G Replacement in year 1, 63% in year 10.

13% Interface Replacement in year 1, 4% in year 10.

0.5% Street Patching in years 1 and 10.

Chip Seal in years 1 and 10.

Selected Street Repair in year 1.

 

For 1 cycle C&G Replacement

100% C&G Replacement in year 1

10% Interface Replacement in year 10.

0.5% Street Patching in years 1 and 10.

Chip Seal in years 1 and 10.

Selected Street Repair in year 1.

 

Costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 are summarized below:

 

	Inlets by MSD	Inlets by UH
2 C&G Cycles
Year 1	404,375	473,375
20 Year	948,865	1,017,865
1 C&G Cycle
Year 1	799,055	868,055
20 Year	938,239	1,007,239

 

Driveway Aprons

The Engineering Subcommittee has considered the subject of driveway apron replacement but has not performed an inventory of apron conditions nor has it included apron replacement costs in its estimates.

 

The trustees have indicated that they have replaced aprons on a case-by-case basis.  The Subcommittee generally recommends that the Trustees continue this practice.  Where that portion of the apron that comprises the gutter is significantly cracked and broken, that portion should be saw-cut and replaced as part of the curb and gutter replacement program.

 

Whether or not a car “bottoms out” on a driveway apron may have as much to do with the vehicle or the street grade as with the apron.  It is unlikely that many apron alignments have changed significantly since properties were purchased.  Realignment of an apron to eliminate “bottoming” while maintaining adequate drainage will be far more difficult and expensive than like-for-like replacement of broken or crumbling concrete.  We recommend that the trustees continue the practice of replacing aprons on a case-by-case basis. 

 

Creveling

The Subcommittee has presumed that Creveling’s curb/gutter will be replaced as required on a like-for-like basis.  Installation of curb and gutter that matches the remainder of the neighborhood would require significant change of the yard grade where it meets the curb.  As residents currently park on the roll curb, replacement with a conventional curb and gutter would effectively narrow the street.

 

The subcommittee has not proposed installation of sidewalks to match the remainder of the neighborhood.  We see little justification for such an encroachment on the homeowners’ front yards.