R2000-182 AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS

Home Browse Search

Page 3 � WVP's recommended Alternate 1 as a feasible solution to the problem as it addresses the problem and is less costly than the other options WVP considered. City staff generally agrees with this being a feasible solution from an engineering perspective. However, this recommendation has a number of non-engineering factors (i.e., easement acquisitions, impacts to private properties, etc.) complicating the timely implementation of this project that may make this solution impractical and/or not cost effective to construct. It is anticipated that acquiring an easement from the property owner on the west side of Charles Street will be difficult. Staff has in the last year tried to obtain an easement from the property owner for the purpose of City crews constructing a swale similar to that proposed by WVP in Alternate 1 to address the drainage problem in Charles Street. Staff was unsuccessful as the property owner considered the easement to impose undue hardships and extra cost on the future development of the property. Alternate 2 may be less objectionable to the property owner because it may be considered to have a lesser impact on the property's future development. In conversations with the property owner's representatives it was commented that the natural drainage path may have been obstructed in the past by work on the property. It is City staff's opinion that the project would meet with unacceptable delays by the public if either of these two basic options were pursued. In addition, it is anticipated that the construction cost estimates for this or the other options would lower than prices obtained by the City from private contractors. The easement acquisition costs are also likely to be more costly than estimated by WVP. City staff reevaluated the option of routing the storm water from the Springfield Electric site and determined it to be a more practical approach. It will avoid having to disturb the yards of the residents along Charles Street and possibly interfere with private septic systems. In addition, the acquisition of easements will be less involved as the storm sewer would be primarily located in public right-of-way, except as it is installed along the north side of Springfield Electric's property. This option is estimated by City staff to cost about $55,000 to $65,000 subject to the final design of the improvements. City staff after its review of WVP's recommendations and the "Woodford" options recommends that the City proceed with this project in the following manner: 1. That the water from the Springfield Electric detention pond be routed to Woodford Street through a storm sewer to connect into the existing storm sewer in Woodford Street. � 2. That Springfield Electric be contacted by City staff and asked to share in the cost of the new improvements and to provide the necessary easements for the work to be done.