HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150319 PW&P packetNotice of Meeting & Tentative Agenda
City of Jefferson Public Works & Planning Committee
1) Introductions
Thursday, March 19, 2015
7:30a.m.
John G . Christy Municipal Building , 320 East McCarty Street
Boone/Bancroft Room (Upper Level)
TENTATIVE AGENDA
2) Approval of the February 19, 2015 Committee meeting minutes
3) New Business
1. Union Pacific Railroad Crossing Replacement Update (David Bange)
2 . Ohio Street and Edgewood Drive BEAP Studies (David Bange)
3 . Request for Suspension of Rules for Stadium, Monroe, Christy Construction Project
(David Bange)
4. 2015 Milling and Overlay List (Britt Smith)
5. Cultural Arts Foundation Lease of City Property for the Fountain of Hope at (200
Commercial Way/High Street Walk-Through between 227 and 231 E High Street) (Janice
McMillan)
4) Other Topics
1 . Planning & Protective Services Monthly Reports Link (Janice McMillan)
2. Water Main Leak Report (Britt Smith)
5) Citizen opportunity to address Council/Staff on Stormwater and Other Public Works Issues
6) Adjourn
NOTES
Individ uals s hould contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634 -6570 t o req uest accommodations or alternative form ats as
required under the Americans with D isabi lities Act. Please allow three busi ness days to process the request.
Pl ease call (573) 63 4-6410 with questions regarding agenda items .
MINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY
PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
Boone/Bancroft Room
Committee Members Present:
Glen Costales
Larry Henry
Rick Prather
Bob Scrivner, Chairman
Laura Ward
Staff Present:
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Street
February 19, 2015
David Bange, PE, Engineering Supervisor
Janice McMillan, Director of Planning and Protective Services
Steve Crowell, City Administrator
Britt Smith, PE, Operations Division Director
Eric Seaman, PE, Wastewater Division Director
Mark Mehmert, Transit Division Director
Larry Burkhardt, AlA, PE, Building Official
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
Drew Hilpert, City Counselor
Brenda Wunderlich, Administrative Assistant
Attendance
8 of9
2 of2
8 of9
9 of9
6 of6
Chairman Scrivner called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. A quorum was present at this time.
The f()llowing guests .were present: Councilman Rick Mihalevich and Madeleine Leroux with News
Tribune.
1. Introductions
Introductions were made at this time.
2. Approval of the January 22, 2015 Committee meeting minutes
Councilman Costales moved and Councilman Prather seconded to approve the January 22,
2015 minutes, motion carried.
3. Old Business
1. Vacation of Alley Way and Permissive Use of Right-of-Way for fence for Capital
Region Medical Center (David Bange)
Mr. Bange explained the vacation was to expand a parking lot and the permissive use of right-
of-way was to install a chain link fence.
Councilman Costales moved and Councilman Henry seconded to refer the vacation and
permissive use to the City Council with recommendation to approve, motion carried.
2. Jefferson City Police Department HVAC Update (Britt Smith)
Mr. Smith explained MECO Engineering is working on the preliminary design.
Minutes/Jefferson City Public Works and Planning Committee
February 19, 2015
3. Public Works Project Work Plan
a. %cent CIP Sales Tax
Mr. Bange explained the CIP work plan.
b. Wastewater CIP
Mr. Seaman explained the Wastewater CIP project plan.
4. Amendment to After Hours Club Regulations, Section 17-33 (Janice McMillan)
Ms. McMillan explained the amendment.
2
Councilman Prather moved and Councilwoman Ward seconded to refer the amendment to the
City Council with recommendation to approve, motion carried.
5. Amending Chapter 21, Defining Landowner Responsibility Pertaining to
Nuisance Abatement (Janice McMillan)
Ms. McMillan explained the amendment.
Councilman Henry moved and Councilman Costales seconded to refer the amendment to the
City Council with recommendation to approve, motion carried.
6. Transit Report (Mark Mehmert)
Mr. Mehmert reported that Transit will be working on a grant to replace three Handiwheels
buses. He also stated the advertising on the buses brought in $2,500 this month.
7. Proposed Ground Lease at the Jefferson City Memorial Airport (Britt Smith)
Staff requested this item be tabled to a future meeting.
4. Other Topics
1. Planning & Protective Services Monthly Reports (Janice McMillan)
Ms. McMillan referred Committee members to the reports included in the packet
2. Water Main Leak Report (Britt Smith)
Mr. Smith explained the street cut and right-of-way report
5. Citizen Opportunity to address Council/Staff on Stormwater and Other Public Works
Issues
There were no citizens present to address the Committee.
6. Adjourn
Councilman Prather moved and Councilman Costales seconded to adjourn the meeting at this
time (8:10a.m.), motion carried.
Memorandum
320 Ea st McCarty Street • Jefferson City, Mi sso uri 6 5101 • P: 5 73.6 34 .6410 • F: 57 3 .63 4.6562 • www.j effcitymo.org
Date : March 16, 2015
To : Public Works and Planning Committee
From : David Bange P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Railroad Crossings along Industrial Drive
In January staff reported that Union Pacific railroad had contacted the City about the possibility of
sharing in the cost of replacing the rail crossings of Industrial Drive at McCarty and the crossing of Dix
Road at Industrial. At that time staff indicated that we had spoken to MoDOTto better understand the
responsibilities associated with these crossing and to determine if their condition warranted repair or
replacement.
MoDOT has now completed an inspection of all the crossings along the rail corridor and has provided
the following information :
• Crossings at Brooks , Hughes , Jaycee , and Main were in compliance
• 179 Hwy./Rockh ill Rd . recomm e nd for removal
• Hart St. recommend for replacement
• Argone has hole can be patched
• Industrial #1 plank re placed or patched in west bound lane
• Industrial #2 p lank can be replaced or patched in west bound lane
• Dix Rd . inspection was filed in 201 3 (2013 -3 3) needs to be replaced will file violation report on
this crossing
Given the information from the inspection and MoDOT's indication that the railroad should maintain the
crossings, it appears that the railroad should be responsible for making the repairs or replacements .
With this information and the comments that were made at the January PW&P meeting Staff is
prepared to allow the process betwe en MoDOT and the railroad to work through its normal course
which should lead to the repair or replacement of the crossings as noted , however, it will be without a
c learly d efined timetable .
DB:db
U:\Public W orks\Engineeri ng\dbange\PUBLI C W ORKS & PLANNING\2015\03-19 -15\Union Pacific Ra il C rossi ngs.docx
Memorandum
320 East McCarty Street • Jefferso n City, Mi ssouri 65101 • P: 573.634.6410 • F: 573.634 .6562 • www.jeffcitymo.org
Date:
To :
From :
Subject:
March 13, 2015
Public Works and Planning Committee
,\ ;?0
David Bange P.E., City Engineer ,_.../
Ohio Street and Edgewood Drive Bridge Engineering Assistance Program
(BEAP) Reports
City staff have received the final BEAP reports on two bridges over Wears Creek . The first of these is
the bridge carrying Ohio Street and the other the box culvert under W . Edgewood Drive near Creek
Trail Drive . The former was pursued due to the condition of the existing bridge and the latter to assess
the hydraulic capacity of the structure in preparation of future road improvements.
The Ohio Street Bridge is load posted at 15 tons with the deck rated in poor condition and a
substructure rating of satisfactory . The report indicates that it is likely that the entire bridge may be
rated as structurally deficient in the near future . The report evaluates the option of rehabilitating the
bridge as well as a full bridge replacement and concludes that the replacement of the bridge while more
expensive at $280,000 represents a more cost effective solution then reconstructing the deck.
The W . Edgewood Bridge is a triple cell box culvert with each cell measuring 16' x 8'. The bridge was
designed to carry what is commonly referred to is the 25 year storm , or a storm which has a 4% chance
of occurring in any given rain event. The design of the road anticipated a larger storm and was
constructed with a depressed section so that the excess water could flow over the road . This has led to
the road being flooded a number of times since its construction . The report looks at the possibility of
expanding the bo x culvert by the addition of one or more cells and the possibility of replacing the bo x
culvert with a clear span bridge structure as a way of reducing or eliminating the road flooding, and to
make allowances for some changes in the elevation of the road in conjunction with the construction of a
roundabout at Creek Trail Drive which was proposed by a recent traffic study . The report indicates that
a decreased frequency in road flooding can be realized with the addition of one or perhaps two
additional cells while allowing the road elevation to be raised . The cost for these improvements was
estimated to be $611 ,000 for the construction of a single cell and an additional $167,000 for the second
cell.
These reports are be ing brought to your attention as these bridges could be candidates for future sales
tax projects.
DB:db
U :\Public Works\Engineering\dbange\PUBLI C WORKS & PLANNING\2015\0hio and Edgewood BEAP Reports .docx
February 26, 2015
Mr. David Bange
C ity Engineer
City of Jefferso n
320 E. McCarty Street
Jefferson Cit y MO, 65 10 I
Re: O hi o St. over W ears Creek Bridge-Bridge No. 2180020
B rid ge Engineerin g Ass ista nce Program (BEAP) Report -15TTT AP-14
Dear Mr. Bange,
We were approached to in vestigative t he poss ibility o f rehabilitati o n or replacement of the Ohio
St. over W ears Creek v e hi cu lar bridge as part of a Bridge En g in eerin g and Ass istance Program
(BEAP) stud y. The scope of the s tudy in c lu ded investigating replacement and repai r options and
developing budgetary leve l estim ates. T h e sco pe did n ot include hydraul ic modeling and plan
production. T h e following report in c ludes our in vestigation and su b sequ ent recommend a ti o n s .
EXISTING CONDITION-BRIDGE NO. 2180020
The Ohio St. bridge is a s in g le -s pan s tructure w ith a s uperstructure con s istin g of adjacent
re in fo rced concrete deck g ird ers. The g ir ders re st on a s u bstru cture consistin g of a concrete pil e
cap on the south abutme nt, the n orth abutme nt is a wa ll type ab u t ment. It is unknown exactly
how th e n orth abutment is s upported , but it is ve ry poss ibl y supported on pi le s encased in
concrete or the wa ll rests directly on a footing located on rock. The sp ill s lope on the sou th
abutment appears to be approxim ate ly I : I with co ncrete po ured und e rnea th the bridge to he lp
stabi li ze the s lope. T h e bridge is a pprox im ate ly 46 feet long and 22 fe et w id e and is Load Posted
at 15 tons. There a re no safety barrier c urbs on the structure, o n ly c h a in link fenc in g attached to
both s id es. Fro m the past inspection compl eted in January 20 14, the superstru ctu re was rated as
a Cond iti o n 4 (Poor), and the substructure was rated a Conditio n 6 (Sat isfactory). T hese rat in gs
ind icate that the bridge s h o uld be add ressed by eith er repair or rep lacement in th e near fut ure as
it w ill li ke ly be categorized as structurally defic ie n t in a future b ri dge in s pection. A
s uperstru ctu re rating of Conditi o n 3 w i II lead to s uch a c lass ifi cation .
Figure I -Spa/ling and Exposed Reinforceme/11 on
G irders
F ig ure 2 -Exposed Pi ling on South Abutment
REPA I R/REPLACEMENT OPTIONS
After rev iew in g the s ite and overall conditions o f the current structure , two o pti o ns we re furth er
rev iewed. With the s uperstructure bein g in th e conditio n it is, w ith exposed re inforce me nt in the
concrete g ird e rs, it will m ore than like ly be dow ngraded to at least a Condition 3 (Serious) by the
tim e the next inspection cycle is compl ete . Since t he current ra ting of the s ub structure is a
Condition 6, as stated earli er, there is a pos s ibility of reusin g the current abutments.
At a minimum the superstructu re s hould be re placed , and th e s ubstructure s ho uld be
rehabilitated. Since hydrau li c mode lin g was not in cluded in th e sco pe o f the BEA P s tud y, any
sup erst ructure prop osed w ill have a s imilar depth o f the ex isting deck g ird e rs (2 '-0") to
co nceptua ll y match the hydraulic cond iti ons o f the new brid ge. During a futur e design stage , a
detail ed hydraulic mod e l cou ld be c reated to further in ves ti ga te the hydraulics and po ss ible
superstructure depth s. However , thi s brid ge is in a des ignated floodway , mea nin g no -ri se
certification will be required. Furthermore, th e bridge is ove rtopped in a I 00-yea r fl oo d as is the
s urroundin g area , so matching the ex istin g grad e and hydraulic openin g is lik ely a goo d
assumption as either raising the roa dway grad e o r decreas ing th e o pe nin g si z e to any s ignifica nt
deg ree w ill no t likely create a ri se in th e water s urface pro fil e.
Optio n I : S uperstructure Replacem ent w ith Subst r ucture Repair (A pproxima te Co nstruc tion
Costs-$20 0,000)
Th e ex is ting concrete d eck g ird e rs don't lend them se lv es to re pair. The condition o f the girders
is s uc h th a t s pot repair s is no t rea ll y an o pti o n. Furthermore, beca us e the girders mak e up th e
e ntire s uperstructure , any sub s tantial rehabilit a ti o n consists of re movi ng the sup e rstructure in it s
e ntirety .
Figure 3 -Spo ilin g of Abutm elll Beam Cap Fig ure -1 -Diffe remia/ Se tt/emem of Stone Masonry If! a//
Any s ub structure repair wou ld in c lud e repai r o f the concrete beam caps to address the issue of
s palling o n the top bearin g beam. Also th e beam caps s hou ld be sea led w ith an epoxy or
urethan e co ncrete protective coating, whi ch wi ll reduce further deterioration of the a butment.
The expose d piling under the so uth abutment s ho uld also be addressed as it a ll ows them to be
ex pose d to the weather and stream. Thi s ca n be ach ieved by excavatin g a nd coating the pilin g
with an epoxy ma s tic ty pe pa in t a nd back fillin g with grout. The s tone ma so nry wa ll adjace nt to
th e no rth a butment s hould be considered fo r re paired as wel l si nce it has s ignifi ca nt differe nti al
settlem e nt issues . The masonry wall is settling w h e reas th e s tone p la ced o n the bridge a butme n t
h as n ot.
If the existin g s ubs tructure is m a inta in ed, new g irde rs could be set o n t h e exis ting co nc rete
b e am s . This o pti o n m ay utili ze a pre-en g in ee re d s upe rs tructure , s uch as adjace nt rei nfo rced
concrete beams di stribute d b y manufacturers s u c h as Oden En terprises. The s pan le ngth of t he
O hi o S treet bridge (rou g hl y 46') is w ith in th e ran ge of a 2 '-0" deep Oden b ea m (maximum s pan
of 52').
Another g ird er optio n is a 17" spread prestressed vo ided b ox beam w ith a traditional s la b o n
g irder t y p e cons tru ction. T h e prestressed b ox beam is s imilar in cost and would likely in c rease
d urab ility of the s upe rs tructure but al so in creases con s truction time . A dow n s ide to t h e Oden
b eam s uperstructure is dete ri o rati o n t ha t b egin s at th e j o in t between th e b eams. A so l id sl ab o n
t he p restressed concre te g irde rs e li min a tes the j o int a nd a rea t o s tore water. However , when
u s in g a n ex is tin g s ubs tructure, additional lo n gev ity of t he s uperstru cture m ay not be a s ign ifi ca nt
benefit.
A di sad van tage to going w ith a s upe rs tructure replace m e nt, wo uld be to ha vi ng t o use t he
exist in g bridge w idth. T he ex istin g w idth is n arrow a nd if sa fe ty barrier cu rb s a re added , the
w idth w ill o nl y get r educed m o re. T e n foot w id e lane s would m o re than li ke ly be uti l ized.
Option 2: New Bridge (A pprox imate Co ns tr uction Cos ts -$285,000)
A second o ptio n is repl ace the bridge w it h a comple tel y ne w s tructur e. This opti o n has the
a dvantage of prov idin g m ore optio n s fo r the s tructure type as wel l as in c reas in g the lifes pan o f
t h e so luti o n ove r try in g to save po rt io n s of the ex istin g b ridge.
As di scu ssed above, th e n ew bridge wo uld li ke ly be constru cted w it h a s imi la r profi le grad e at its
c urre nt locatio n. U nl ess the c urre nt s to ne maso nr y wall is co m pletely re m oved, t h e n ew
a butme nt o n t h e no rt h s ide woul d n eed to b e a s imil ar wa ll t y p e ab utm e n t c lose to th e ex istin g
locatio n , w hi ch was assum ed for t h e purposes of thi s study. O n the so u t h s ide, t he n ew a butm e nt
coul d be pus h e d back behind the ex is ti n g s tru cture a nd a m o re s t able 2: I s pil l s lo pe co uld b e
p laced w ith a roc k bl a nket protectin g t he e mbankment.
S imil ar s upe rstructure o pt io n s co uld be used as th ose d isc u ssed in Option I, b ut the Ode n
Enterpri se be am s co uld n ot spa n a le n g thened s t ru cture if the a but m e n ts a re s et back fro m t he
ex ist in g abutm e nts . The prestressed vo id ed b eam s s labs, h owever , could span the addi t io n a l
dista nce, a nd they wo ul d be re comme nded o n a new s tructure to maxim ize th e longev ity. The
a dditi o n a l spa n le ngth cou ld prov id e additi o na l hyd ra uli c cap a city to a ll ow fo r a s l ig htly dee pe r
s upe rs tructure , s uc h a s s h a ll ow w id e fl a n ge beam s . T hi s o pti on m ay b e able to re du ce costs a nd
co uld b e in vest igated d urin g future d e s ig n stages .
SUMMARY
A fter lookin g at a cost co mpa ri son be tween th e t wo o pti o n s, Bart le tt & West wo u ld recommend
a new brid ge at thi s locati o n. The pri ce is hi g he r than the s u perstruc ture replacement, b ut t he
o ptio n prov id es a dd it io na l lo n gev it y. A typica l rul e of thu mb used is t ha t when re ha bi litation
exceed s 67% of t he cost of a re p lacem e nt t he to ta l re p lacem e nt s ho u ld be con s id e red, and
re hab ili tatio n costs in t hi s case a re 70% of the total rep lace m e n t. Fur t h erm o re, re h a bi li ta t io n
costs a re n oto ri ous fo r be in g vo la til e w it h a dditio nal costs occ urring durin g con stru c ti o n due to
unfo reseen c irc um s ta n ces. A n o th e r bene fit o f a new brid ge is th e ab i I ity t o in creas e th e bridg e
w idth a nd possibl y add s id ewa lks o n th e b ri d ge , w hi c h m ay be d esirab le g i ve n th e prox im it y o f
the c urren t g re e n way tra il a nd ba ll pa r k ; howeve r, the estim a tes given fo r a new bridge d o not
include sidewa l ks at t hi s t im e . It s h o ul d a lso be no ted that the costs p rov id ed are co n stru c t io n
costs only and don 't include ri g ht-of-way, utility re location, engineerin g or o ther total project
costs .
Bartlett & West appreciates th e opportunity to serve the C ity of Jefferso n through the BEAP
prog ram , a nd looks forward to future o pportunities for work. Please feel free to contact us w ith
any comments, questions o r conc ern s .
Sincerely,
David Straatmann, P.E.
Attachment
Cc: Jamey La u g hlin -MoDOT Bridge Divi s ion
Je nnife r J o nes -M o DOT Central Di strict
. ',I ! 1/
' I I ·>' OF Mls. 11
1 .' :\~ So ~-,. ~~ -·-~--:-. C:> DAVID ANDREW v -:
STRAATMANN
-o NUMBER
-:P PE-20 04000848 l r; ·
/ ~ -·-~"' •, '·. (<' ~~
'; ~~f!ONA\. t.~,.,.
THIS SHEET HAS BEEN
SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED
ELECTRONICALLY.
Sealed 02/26/20 15
Bartlett & West, In c .
Certifi cate of Autho rity No. 000167
(Engi neerin g)
BARTLETlV.-J ·
-CSl.fNEBT
Cost Estimate: Conceptual
BEAPReport
171. DOu-t'HAIDD& o•ev& DUITtt 100 a .ICI"P'E.-DDH CITY MO OOIDO • ., .... 2 .... a 1m' • ,.,. ... .,:a.e:a4 • .,9D4 • aeA.aGe.aaa •
WWW.aAAT'Wit8T.CDM
Option 1: (46' Span) Pre-Engineered Superstructure Replacement
OhioSt
Over W(.-ars Creek
City of Jefferson
Item
No.
Bridge Items
216-05.00 Removal of Bridges
704-01.01 Substructure Repair (Formed)
705-60.41A Pre-Engineered Superstructure
703-42.15 Safety Barrier Curb
Description
711-02.00 Protective Coating -Concrete Bents and Piers (Epoxy) Note: Clear appearance
Bridge Total (Cost per square foot) (-1,200 square feet)
Item Description No.
401-12.09 Pavement
304-05.04 3" Rolled Stone Base (Type 5)
609-10.10 Type A Curb and Gutter
608-60.04 Trail/Sidewalk
203-50.00 Roadway Excavation
726-10.30 30" RCP
202-20.10 Removal of Improvements
806-10.17 Seeding and Restoration
806-41.20 Erosion Control
617-36.00 Traffic Control
Masonry Wall Repair
Roadway Total
618.10.00 Mobilization (5%)
Contingency. (20%)
Total
· .. ·)':r,' I' 1,1! I .'• j 1 1':\-',, . '
Date: 2/26/2015
Project No.: 18654.100
Quantity Unit Engineer's Estimate
Unit Price Extension
1 LS 6,000.00 $6,000.00
132 SF 140.00 $18,480.00
1200 SF 70.00 $84,000.00
100 LF 68.00 $6,800.00
792 SF 6.00 $4,752.00
$100 SF $120,100.00
Quantity Unit Engineer's Estimate
133 SY 50.00 $6,650.00
133 SY 8.00 $1,066.67
100 LF 30.00 $3,000.00
71 SY 45.00 $3,200.00
1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000.00
20 LF 75.00 $1,500.00
1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000.00
1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000.00
1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000.00
1 LS 3,000.00 $3,000.00
1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500.00
$40,000.00
1 LS 8,005.00 $8,005.00
1 LS 32,020.00 $32,100.00
$200,300.00
,,,. '' '' ( I 'l
BARTLETlV.-' ·
-C5lf/VEST
Cost Estimate: Conceptual
BEAP Report
I? 1. GGUTH.IOD& DAIVK DUIT& I 00 e .I&I"IP'C ... ON QIT'Y MG o• I 09 • .,:a.a34.atat • rAK o'7a.ea4 • .,~ • ooe .. aoo.cu:~••
WWW.QA .. Y.,.,C.T.GDM
Option 2: (60' Span) 21" Spread Box Beam
Ohio St.
Over Wears Creek
City of Jefferson
Item
No.
Bridge Items
216-05.00 Removal of Bridges
206-10.00 Class 1 Excavation
Description
705-60.43A 21 in., Prestressed Concrete Spread Voided Slab Beam
702-10.12 Structural Steel Piles (12 in.)
711-02.00 Protective Coating -Concrete Bents and Piers (Epoxy) Note: Clear appearance
703-42.13 Slab on Concrete Box Girder
703-42.15 Safety Barrier Curb
715-10.01 Vertical Drain at End Bents
716-10.03 Laminated Neoprene Bearing Pad (Tapered)
703-20.03 Class B Concrete (Substructure)
Bridge Total (Cost per square foot) (-1,560 square feet)
Item Description No.
401-12.09 Pavement
304-05.04 3" Rolled Stone Base (Type 5)
609-10.10 Type A Curb and Gutter
608-60.04 Trail/Sidewalk
203-50.00 Roadway Excavation
726-10.30 30" RCP
202-20.10 Removal of Improvements
806-10.17 Seeding and Restoration
806-41.20 Erosion Control
617-36.00 Traffic Control
Masonry Wall Repair
Roadway Total
618.10.00 Mobilization (5%)
Contingency (20%)
Total
~ I
24'-0"
Quantity
1
10
240
160
240
160
120
50
8
60
$116
Quantity
133
133
100
71
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Date:
Project No.:
Unit
2/26/2015
18654.100
Engineer's Estimate
Unit Price Extension
LS 10,000.00 $10,000.00
CY 43.00 $430.00
LF 240.00 $57,600.00
LF 50.00 $8,000.00
SF 6.00 $1,440.00
SY 240.00 $38,400.00
LF 68.00 $8,160.00
EA 45.00 $2,250.00
EA 400.00 $3,200.00
CY 850.00 $51,000.00
SF $180,500.00
Unit Engineer's Estimate
SY 50.00 $6,650.00
SY 8.00 $1,066.67
LF 30.00 $3,000.00
SY 45.00 $3,200.00
LS 10,000.00 $10,000.00
LF 75.00 $1,500.00
LS 5,000.00 $5,000.00
LS 2,000.00 $2,000.00
LS 2,000.00 $2,000.00
LS 3,000.00 $3,000.00
LS 10,000.00 $10,000.00
$47,500.00
LS 11,400.00 $11,400.00
LS 45,600.00 $45,600.00
$285,000.00
February 26, 2015
Mr. David Bange
City Enginee r
City of Jefferson
320 E. McCarty Street
Jefferson City MO, 65101
Re: Edgewood Drive over Wears Creek Cu lvert-Bridge No . 2180040
Bridge Engineering Assistance Program (BEAP) Report-15TfTAP-14
Dear Mr. Bange,
After the years of dealing with flooding, the City of Jefferson has requested Bartlett & West to look into
th e potential to alleviate frequent flooding of Edgewood Drive near Creek Trail Drive due to the storm
events exceeding the capacity of the Wears Creek reinforced box culvert. The City is utilizing the Bridge
Engineering Assis tan ce Program (BEAP) through MoDOTto ascertain effective and cost efficient options
to increase the usability of the roadway in large r storm events. The scope of the study is to provide
conceptua l hydraulics using the HEC-RAS model that Bartlett & West used on the Frog Hollow Road
project to analyze options, and provide a budgetary estimate for a replacem ent st ru cture.
Figure 1: Proj ect Lo cation Map
EXISTING CONDITIONS-BRIDGE No. 2180040 2
The current crossing of West Edgewood Drive at Wears Creek is comprised of a triple 16'X8' cell
reinfo rce d co ncrete box culvert (RCB) which is 101'-0 " lo ng. Th e existing structure has a condition rating
of 7 for the culvert itse lf and 6 for th e chan nel protection cond ition. These numbers are represent goo d
and sa tisfa ctory co ndition , r espective ly, and indica t e that the existing culvert has little deteriorat io n and
does not ne ed any signifi ca nt repairs in its current state. These numbers are derived from the inspectio n
in January of 2014.
The existing road way along Edgewood Drive is frequently inundated by Wears Creek. Hydraulic
mo deling showed that a 10-year (10% annual cha nce) st orm event was overtopping the road way. A site
vis it revealed that sedi ment has acc umulat ed in the t wo wes t e rn cells of the RCB as the channel
currently fl ows th rough the eas t ern side of the RCB. From experience of vis iting the site over the las t five
years, it is apparent that the se diment d epos it is pushed downstream d uri ng a large storm event and
then build s up in slightly different variatio ns during the lower even t s. Upstream of Edgewood Dr ive,
Wears Cre ek is constrained on the left bank by Frog Hollo w Roa d. Several businesses are located along
Creek Trail Drive and are show n outsid e t he Fed e ral Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 100-year
(1% annual cha nce) Floodplain. Downstrea m of the Ed gewood RCB , there is a large rock outcropping on
the right bank of the st re am , w hi ch blocks a portion o f the ove rban k and spl its the flow in large storm
events for over 500' downstream.
Figure 2: Ed gewood Drive box culvert showing sediment looking north
HYDRAULIC STUDY
The hydraulics for this location were studied by Bartlett & West recently on the Frog Hollow Roadway
Improvements Project. To begin that project, the existing Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Wears Creek
was obtained from the City . That model was then updated with additional topographic data surveyed for
the roadway project. During the design of Frog Hollow Road, the shortcomings of the existing Edgewood
Drive box culvert were noted.
The current study utilized the model from the roadway project. The model was then adjusted in the area
of Creek Trail Drive to analyze potential solutions. Each option was investigated to increase the level of
service of Creek Trail Drive. A minimum sugge sted level of service to keep the roadway dry in a 10-year
storm eve nt is suggested, and therefore, th e options were tailored to that requirement. Further
improvements to the level of service were also investigated.
It shou ld be noted that the 100-year storm threaten s seve ral bu sinesse s along Creek Trail Drive. While
the model indicates that these bu sine sses are currently sa fe in the 100-year flood, freeboard to the low
openings is minimal. Therefore, any options presented in this report were checked to provide no-rise
conditions in this flood event. Not only will no-ri se certification be required if the City moves forward
with design, increasing any backwater in the 100-y ear event would expose the City to liability for future
flooding.
PROPOSED OPTIONS
Option 1: No Structural Improvement (Minimal Costs)
The first potential option would be a modification of the roadway without any change to the structure.
Hydraulic options were evaluated, and w ithout adding capacity to the crossing, the roadway cannot be
raised without backing up additional water and creating a rise in the 100-year water surface profile
upstream of the crossing. However, there is a high area which acts like a natural berm that could provide
so me protection to the roadway. The 10-year storm event does not overtop this natural berm, so it
appears that any flooding that happens in those events are from water backing up through the existing
storm se wer system. This is not effective flow along Wears Creek and could be stopped without
affecting the hydraulics along the creek. The system could be retrofitted with a flap gate at the storm
se wer outlet immediately so utheast of the bo x culvert inlet to increa se the protection to the roadway.
According to the hydraulic model, this would provide a 10-year level of se rvice for Edgewood Drive.
However, a localized storm event occurs w hile Wears Creek is up, the storm sewe r syste m will still
backup to the same level and even slightly higher than Wears Creek. It is assumed that most storms that
create flooding on Wears Creek also feature rainfall around the local storm sewer sys tem, so this would
not help the majority of the flooding occurrences . A flap gate also creates an additional maintenance
item, and an item that could create additional iss ues if it does not open appropriately.
Option 2 : Add One Additional Box Culvert Cell (Approximate Construction Costs -$611,000)
The next potential option consists of adding another cell to the RCB . A 16'X8' cell was assumed as it
match the ex is ting structure and appears to fit with adequate cover to the roadway. Because the
existing culvert is currently silting in on the west side, it is suggested that the additional cell is placed on
the east side of the current box cu lvert to align properly with the stream.
The additional capacity of the fourth cel l allows the roadway to be raised to provide better level of
service to Edgewood Drive. The low point e levation in Edgewood Drive is currently 582.42', which can be
rai sed by 2.34' to and elevation of 584 .80 without raising the 100-year water surface elevation upstream
of the crossi ng. This provides over 1' of freeboard in the 10-year event for Edgewood Drive.
A challenge for any option that increases the width of the exist ing Ed gewood Drive crossing is the
location of the rock knob downstream of the road . This knob wou ld block any f low from this add itional
cell, and therefore, will need to be cut back for this option. The cut is expected to be on the order of 20'
in height.
Option 3 : Add Two Additional Bo x Culvert Cells (Approximate Construction Costs-$778,000)
The third option investigated wa s the addition of a subsequent 14'X7' cell (giving a tota l of four 16'X8'
ce lls and one 14'X7' ce ll) under the roadway . Th is second added cell allowed the road elevation to be
raised by 3 .04' to 585 .50', or an additional 0 .70' above the second option, which wou ld provide 0.81' of
freeboard in the 25-year (4% annual chance) storm event . This is achieved without any increase in the
100-year flood elevation, but does r equire additiona l removal of the rock outcropping. This removal is
required due to the reduction in flow over the roadway, wh ich necessitates a significant rock cut to open
up the channe l downstream to accept the additiona l flow through the box culvert instead of east of the
knob.
Option 4 : Replace the Structure with a Bridge (Approximate Construction Costs -$1 ,010,000}
The final option investigated was the replacement of the existing RCB with an open span bridge . For the
purposes of this study, a three span (30'-40'-30 ') pre-stres sed concrete 1-gird e r bridge wa s investigated .
Thi s bridge provides the same hydraul ic benefits and ability to ra i se the road as the third option.
Therefore, this option wou ld also provide protection of Creek Trail Drive in the 25-year event. Th is
option also requires the remova l of the rock knob in similar amount as the third option .
SUMMARY
Four different options were investigated , including so lely adding a flap gate to the existing system,
adding bo x cu lvert ce ll s or replacing the existing structure with a bridge. After analyzing the costs , it is
recommended that additiona l ce ll s be considered for the bo x culvert during any future work along
Edgewood Drive, such as future intersection improvements. Adding a flap gate likely would not remedy
the flood i ng in very many events, and a bridge is the most expensive alternative and requires more
maintenance than a box culvert . A single box culvert cell cou ld be added on the east side of the existing
bo x with a cost of approxim ate ly $611,000, and this would provide a 10-year level of service . For an
additional $167,000 another ce ll cou ld be add ed to increase the level of service to a 25-year storm. It is
recommended that at lea st the 10-year storm be accommodated, and budgetary constraints could be
used to evaluate the ability to provide the additional level of service .
Bartlett & West appreciates the opportunity to serve the City of Jefferson through the BEAP program.
Please feel free to contact us with any comments, questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
7~¥
Todd Kempker, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Jennifer Jones-MoDOT Central District
Jamey Laughlin-MoDOT Bridge Division
THIS SHEET HAS BEEN
SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED
ELECTRONICALLY.
Sealed 02/26/2015
Bartlett & West, Inc.
Certificate of Authority No. 000167 (Engineering)
BARTLE
EST
I 7 1 V aDUTHR I OOE DR I VC O UITit I 00 • .n ::,.,.ERa ON C I TY M O f\0 I 0 9
·7 ~.6:1 ... 3 I 0 I • rA X •7:t •• :I A 700• • ft6fi.O &O .DO:II
WWW,OARTWE .T.CDM
Construction Cos t Estimate
Edgewood BE t\P S tud y
O pti o n 2: t\d d O ne Additional Box Cul vert Cdl
Item Description No.
1 Mobilization
2 Construction Signagerrraffic Control
3 Removals
4 Clearing and Grubbing
5 Culvert Excavation
6 Rock Excavation
7 Fill
8 Erosion Control
9 3" Roll ed Stone Base
10 Asphal t Base (8 .5" Thick . AC Ba se)
11 Aspha lt Surface (1.5" Thick , AC Surface BP-1)
12 Asphalt Milling
13 Concrete Commercia l Drive Approach
14 Type A Curb and Gutte r
15 Sidewalk (4" Thick, PCC)
16 Sidewalk Ramp (4" Thick , PCC)
17 Truncated Domes
18 Partial Removal of Existing Box Culvert
19 Class B-1 Concre te (C ulverts-Bridge)
20 Reinforcing Steel (C ulverts-Bridge)
21 Rip Rap (MoDOT Type II)
22 Seed and Mulch
Total Cost
U nit
LS
LS
LS
LS
CY
CY
CY
LS
SY
SY
SY
SY
SY
LF
SY
SY
SF
LS
CY
LB
CY
AC
Engineer's Estimate
Date:
Project No.:
Quantities
1
1
1
1
806
4,167
1,474
1
2,948
2,948
2,948
196
188
1,290
670
25
40
1
225.5
47,820
267.0
0 .5
I :cb rua ry 26 , 20 15
1865 4.100
Engineer's E s timate
Unit Price E xtension
15,000.00 $15,000.00
5 ,000.00 $5,000.00
10,000.00 $10,000.00
5 ,000.00 $5,000.00
20.00 $16 ,120.00
40.00 $166 ,680.00
7 .00 $10,318.00
3 ,000.00 $3,000.00
5.00 $14,740.00
30 .00 $88,440.00
6 .50 $19,162.00
25.00 $4 ,900.00
55 .00 $10,340.00
20 .00 $25,800.00
40 .00 $26 ,800.00
75 .00 $1 ,875.00
50.00 $2,000.00
10,000.00 $10,000.00
500.00 $1 12,750.00
1.00 $47,820.00
50.00 $13 ,350.00
3,000.00 $1 ,500.00
$610,595.00
This project cost opinion was prepared u sing bid tabulation information available at the ti me of preparation and is prepared in good faith usi ng engineers jud gment
an d experi ence . The engin eer makes no guarantee as to the actual costs for constru ction. Other project costs such as right-of-way and easement acqui si tion,
engineering , contract admi ni strat ion an d construction observation are not induded .
W·\P roj\18000\18654\16654.100\0oc uments\Cost Estimatos\18654 100 Edgowood cos t oslirna tos.x lsrn Pago 1 ol 3
BARTLE
EST
1 ? 1 Q D DUT t-H"IOOE OAIVC OU ITII; 1 00 • .J I:,.,.ER 8 0 N CITY MD O tt I OU
S7:1 .• 3 ... 2 10 1 • ,.AX 5?:1.624.'7QO<t • Qtll\,0 1\0,0 03 I
WWW.0AATWE 8 T .COM
Co n struc tion Cos t Estimate
l·:dgcwood BEt\ I' St uoy
Oprion 3: t\Llo T wo t\o di ri o nal Box C ulvt:rt· C:d ls
Item Desc ription No.
1 Mobilization
2 Construction Signage/Traffic Control
3 Removals
4 Clearing and Grubbing
5 Culvert Excavation
6 Rock Excava tion
7 Fill
8 Erosion Control
9 3" Rolled Stone Base
10 Asphalt Base (8.5" Thick, AC Base)
11 Asphalt Surface (1.5" Thick , AC Surface BP-1 )
12 Asphalt Milling
13 Concrete Commercial Drive Approach
14 Type A Curb and Gutter
15 Sidewalk (4" Thick , PCC )
16 Sidewa l k Ra m p (4" Thick, PCC)
17 Tru ncated Domes
18 Partial Removal of Existing Box Culvert
19 Class B-1 Concre te (Cu lverts-Bridge)
20 Reinforcing Steel (Culverts-Bridge )
21 Rip Rap (MoDOT T ype II )
22 Seed and Mulch
Total Cost
U nit
LS
LS
LS
LS
CY
CY
CY
LS
SY
SY
SY
SY
SY
LF
SY
SY
SF
LS
CY
LB
CY
AC
Engineer's Estimate
D ate:
Projec t N o.:
Quantities
1
1
1
1
1,460
5 ,278
2 ,103
1
3,154
3,154
3,154
196
188
1,494
717
25
40
1
396.8
72 ,500
423.0
0.5
1:cb ru ary 26, 2015
18654.100
E n g inee r's Estimate
Uni t Price Exten si on
15,000.00 $15 ,000.00
5,000.00 $5 ,000.00
10,0 00.00 $10,000.00
7,500 .00 $7 ,500.00
20 .00 $29 ,200.00
40.00 $2 11 '120.00
7.00 $14 ,721 .00
3,000.00 $3 ,000 .00
5 .00 $15 ,770 .00
30 .00 $94,620.00
6 .50 $20,501 .00
25 .00 $4 ,900.00
55 .00 $10 ,340 .00
20 .00 $29 ,880.00
40 .00 $28 ,680 .00
75 .00 $1 ,875.00
50 .00 $2 ,000.00
10,000.00 $10 ,000.00
425.00 $168,640 .00
1.00 $72 ,500 .00
50 .00 $21 ,150.00
3 ,000.00 $1 ,500.00
$777 ,897 .00
This proj ect cost op1nion was prepared using bid tabulation information avail able at the time of preparation and is prepared i n good f aith using engineer's judgment
and experience . The engineer makes no guarantee as to the actual costs for construction. Other project costs such as ri g ht-of -way and easement acquisition .
eng i neering , contract administration and construction obse rvation are not inCluded.
W \PI OJ' 18000\1865-4 \ 1865_. 100\0ocumonts\Cos t Eslimat QS\ 186>c. 100 Edgewood cost esttmates xlsm Page2 of3
BARTLE
EST
1 71 V •oUT HRIOO tt OIHIVC IIU ITC I 00 • .JE..-.. ~R-DN C I TY MO 6 ~ I 09
$?3.63•.3 I 0 I • ,.A X $73.63A.7 9 D• • 000.06'9.003 I
WWW.OI\ATWEIIT .COM
Constru ctio n Cost Estimate
Edgewood BE,\1 ' Srud y
O ptio n 4 : Replace the Struc ture w it h a Bridge
Item Description
No.
1 Mobilization
2 Constru ction SignagefTraffi c Contro l
3 Removals
4 Cleari ng and Grubbing
5 Rock Excavation
6 Fill
7 Erosion Control
8 3" Rolled Stone Ba se
9 Asphalt Base (8.5" Thick, AC Base)
10 Asphalt Surface (1 .5" T hi ck, AC Surface BP-1)
11 Asphalt Mill ing
12 Concrete Commercia l Dri ve Approach
13 T ype A Curb a nd Gutter
14 Sidewalk (4" Thick, P CC )
15 Sidewalk Ramp (4" T hick. PCC)
16 Trun cated Domes
17 Vehicular Bridge
18 Rip Ra p (MoDOT T ype II )
19 Seed and Mul c h
Total Cost
U nit
LS
LS
LS
LS
CY
CY
LS
SY
SY
SY
SY
SY
LF
SY
SY
S F
S F
CY
AC
Engineer's Estimate
Date:
P ro ject No.:
Q u a ntities
1
1
1
1
6,334
1,777
1
2,665
2,665
2,665
196
188
1,29 4
606
25
40
6,000
556 .0
0 .5
h .:bruary 26 , 2015
18654.100
E n g ineer's Estimate
Unit P rice Extens io n
25,000.00 $25,000.00
5,000.00 $5 ,000.00
20 ,000.00 $20,000.00
2 ,500 .00 $2 ,500.00
40.00 $253,360.00
7.00 $12,439 .00
3 ,000.00 53,000.00
5 .00 $13 ,325.00
30.00 579,950.00
6 .50 517 ,322.50
25 .00 $4 ,900.00
55 .00 510,340.00
20 .00 525,880.00
40.00 $24 ,240.00
75.00 $1 ,875.00
50.00 $2 ,000.00
80.00 $480,000.00
50.00 $27,800.00
3 ,000.00 $1,500.00
$1 ,010,431 .50
This project cost opinion was prepared using bid tabu lation informat io n available at the time or preparation and is prepared in good f aith using e ngineer's judgment and
experience . The e ngineer makes no guarantee as to the actual costs for construction. Other project costs such as rlght·O f·way and easement acquis~io n , eng ineering ,
contract admi nistration a nd con struction observation are not included.
T \Ptof\18000\1&65-4 \186 5-4 100\0ocuments\Cost Eslimates\186$4 100 Edgewood c:osl esllmates xl sm Page 3 ol 3
...
..,
g
j
! ""'
.,..
"'
'""'
Frog Ho1ow Plan: I ) EJOSTING 212512015 2) Prop Add One 212512015 3 ) Prop Add Two 212512015 4) Prop Bndge 2125120 15
'NMI'tCrM-k~~
w
<!
0::
0
0
0
~ w
(!)
0 w
"00 oeoo '""' '""' >OOO
M 1CII).yf·Pro9Add0N
WS u:O·Jf •Pro,AddT-
WS 1Q:).yf ·PfOPBr4;>e
"'""""
Memorandum
320 East McCart y Street • Jeff er son City , Missouri 65 10 1 • P: 573.634 .64 10 • F: 5 73 .6 34 .6562 • www .jeffcitymo .org
Date:
To :
From :
Subject:
March 16 , 2015
Publ ic Works and Planning Committee
David Bange P .E ., C ity Engineer I . ;p J3>
Stadium, Monroe and Christy, Request for Contract Approval at the April 61h
Council Meeting
Staff is requesting that the Committee support the suspension of t he rules to allow the construction
contract for the Stadium , Monroe and Ch risty project to be first read and approved at the Council
meeting on April 6 , 2015.
This project will be the first phase of the planed improvements to the Highway 54 and Stadium
Boulevard Interchange . In particular this project will widen Monroe Street from Stadium to Woodlawn
Avenue to provide improved access to the Capitol Reg ional Medical Center e x pansion which was
provided for in a development agreement.
Approving the contract on April 61h will provide greater opportunit y to complete t he work on Monroe
Street to provide access to CRMC p rior to the s u mmer break when work w i ll need to s hi ft to Stadi um
Boulevard.
DB:db
U:\Public W orks\Eng ineeri ng\d ba nge\PUBLI C WORKS & PLANNIN G\20 15\03-19-15\Stadium , Monre and Christy.docx
Department of Public Works Memorandum
320 E . McCarty Street • Jefferson City , Missouri 65101 • P 573-634-6410 • F 573 -634-6562 • www .jeffcitymo .org
Date :
To:
From :
Subject:
March 16, 2015
Public Work and Planning Committee
Britt E . Smith , P .~
2015 Street Resurfacing Program
Staff requests the committee's endorsement of the attached street resurfacing plan for
the coming year. As the committee will note, the plan includes the streets scheduled for
work in the coming year, as well as a working plan for streets to be considered in the
future years of FY2016 and FY2017 . The list is also represented in map form at
http ://www .midmogis .org/StreetResurface/.
This year's plan includes the bidding of diamond grinding for two concrete streets
(South County Club Dr. and Stad ium Blvd .). Diamond grinding is a construction
technique used to smooth the ride quality of concrete streets . The cost estimate for the
d iamond grinding portion of the project is approxi mately $100 ,000 or 8 % of the total
program .
Also new this yea r, staff proposes hiring an outside firm to conducted quality control
material testing of the asphalt product. Services would be provided by a lo cal firm and a
preliminary estimate of cost is estimated to be less than $20,000 or approximately 1.5%
of the overall program costs .
In the % cent sales tax, the City allocate s $1 .2 million each year for the street
resurfacing program . To carry out this program , staff gathers information from various
sources including personal observation , as well as concerns raised by citi zens . The
result ing list is then evaluated against other factors such as condition , use , and ride
quality as well as planned future project by the City , developers and/or utility companies
in an effort to determine the most cost effective plan , meeting the gre atest needs .
With approval from the committee , staff intends to bid th is work in the coming weeks .
Ultimately two proposed construction contract will be brought to the full council for
approval.
cc: Matt Morasch , P .E.
Attachme nt
Street Overlay List Summary
as of March 16, 2015
LOCATION WARD SEAL DIAMOND FROM TO Lane COST COAT GRINDING Miles
Cochise Ln 1 Tomahawk Rd. Mohawk Dr 0.65
Constitution Blvd 3 Truman Blvd Wi lli amsbury Way 0.83
Delong Way 2 Atchison St. W Hess Way 0 .04
Dunklin St. 2 Jefferson St. Madison St. 0.27
Foxboro Dr 4 Nob Hi ll Concrete 0.15
Guehlman Way 2 Atchison St. W Hess Way 0 .04
Hess Way 2 Jefferson St. Wash i ngton St. 0 .10
Leslie Blvd 5 1 000 Leslie Blvd Chestnut 0 .64
Leslie Blvd 5 Moreau Dr. Rosevalley Dr 0.64
Leslie Blvd (WW doing 1/2 Street) 5 Rosevalley Dr 1 000 Leslie Blvd 0.2 1
Madelines Park Cir. 3 Section 1 1 .11
Madison 2 Capital Ave . State St. 0.33
Marshall St. 1 State St. Cap ital Ave . 0.19
Miller St. (Edge Thic. S. Side Only) 2 Broadway St. Mullbery St. 0.43
Mohawk Dr. 1 Tomahawk Rd . Ind ian Meadow Dr. 1.6 5
Monroe St. 2 Dunkli n St. E Hickory St. 0.63
Nob Hill 4 Fairway Dr Concrete 0 .92
Redwing Dr. 1 Mohawk Dr. Dead End 0 .66
Rosevalley Dr 5 1323 Rosevalley Dr. Carol St. 0 .30
Rosevalley Dr (WW Doing 1/2) 5 Leslie Blvd 1323 Rosevall ey 0 .12
Schmidt Way 2 Washington St. Broadway St. 0 .11
South Country Cl u b Dr. 4 y Edgewood Dr. 475' N of Fairway 2 .01
Southwest Blvd(Drive Lanes Only) 5 Cedar Ridge Rd Stadium Blvd 0 .9 1
Stadium Blvd 4 y Edgewood D r. Satinwood Dr. 0 .99
State St. 2 Mad ison St. Marshall St. 0 .92
Tanner Way E. 2 Monroe St. Adams St. 0 .10
Tomahawk Rd 1 Algoa Rd End 1.5 0
Virginia Trail 3 Constitution Dr 41 7 V i rginia Trail 0.70
Total2015 $1,177,788 .73
Street Overlay List Summary
as of March 16, 2015
LOCATION WARD SEAL DIAMOND FROM TO Lane COST COAT GRINDING Miles
Adams St. 2 McCarty St Miller St. 0.23
Alley (W. High 1000-1200) 2 Brooks St. Hart St. 0.34
Ashley ST. 2 Madison St. Jefferson St. 0.22
Bolivar St. 2 Main St. W . Hig h St. W . 0.61
Broadway St. 2 High St. McCarty St. 0.40
Captial View 1 Dead End Lanwehr Hills 0 .84
Cedar City Dr. 2 Viaduct City Limits 1 .18
Commericial Way 2 Bolivar St. C lay St. 0 .11
Edgewood Dr 4 Harpers Ferry Fa irgrounds 4.41 -Green Berry Rd 5 Hough Park Ellis Blvd 1.34 -tn C1) Ha rpers Ferry 4 Edgewood Dr. End of Concrete 0.09
C1) ...J .... Harpers Ferry 4 End of Concrete Gettysburg PI 0.25 -~ en ns Harpers Ferry 4 Concrete Gettyburg PI 0.25
CD 'i: Hutton Ln 1 Exp ressview Dr. Scenic Dr. 1.96 ~ C1)
0 > Landwehr H ills 1 McCarty St. Capital View 1.93 N 0
Moreau Dr. 5 Leslie Blvd . Hough Park Rd 0.40
Roland Ct. 5 Roland St. Dead End 0.09
Roland St. 5 Lafayette St. Jackson St. 0.57
Rolling Hills Dr. 4 Southridge Dr New Concrete 1.03
Rolling Hills Rd . 1 Capital View Highway 50 0.38
Satinwood Ct. 4 Edgewood Dr. End 0.44
Shermans Hollow 4 W ildwood Dr. Gettyburg PI 0.98
South ridge Dr 4 Rolling Hills Dr End 0.59
St. Marys Blvd 4 Missouri Bl vd . Heisinger Rd 1.13
St. Marys Blvd 4 Heisinger Rd End 0.73
Total 2016 $1 '168,342 .15
Street Overlay List Summary
as of March 16, 2015
LOCATION WARD SEAL DIAMOND FROM TO Lane COST COAT GRINDING Miles
Belair Dr. 3 Twin Hills Boonville Rd 0.95
Belmont 3 Norris Dr. Boonville Rd 1.35
Briarwood Dr. 4 Frog Hollow Dr. Dead End 0.29
Cherokee Dr 1 StLouis Rd Mohawk Dr 0.73
Geneva 3 Sue Dr. Lola 0.56
Gettyburg PI 4 Shermans Hollow Shermans Hollow 1.23
Glendale 3 Belmont Be lmont 0.52
Greentree Rd 0.50
H igh St Ash St. Jackson St. 1.83
High St 2 Jackson St. Adams St. 0.45
lhler Rd . 3 Lola Dr. Westley St. 0.61
lhler Rd . 3 Sue Dr. Lola Dr. 0.60
lhler Rd . 3 Sue Dr. Lola Dr. 0.60
Indian Meadow StLouis Rd End 1.36
Kenwood Ct. 4 Kenwood Dr. Dead End 0.10
Kenwood Dr. 4 Briarwood Dr. Concrete 0.64
Manassas PI 4 Shermans Hollow Gettysburg PI 0.25
McCarty St. 2 Jackson St. Missouri Blvd . 3.56
McCarty St. 1 Lafayette St. Jackson St. 0.85
Miller St. E 2 Jefferson St. Madison St. 0.23
Oil W e ll Rd . 2 y 1600 Block City Limits 1.05
Royal Air Dr. 3 Belair Dr. Airview Dr. 0.26
Shiloh PI 4 Shermans Hollow Gettysburg PI 0.16
Standford 3 Sue Dr. Garden View 0.38
Strasburg Ct 4 Shermans Hollow End 0.17
Sue Dr. 3 Geneva Rd . Rt179 0.72
Sumter PI 4 Gettysburg PI End 0.39
Total2017 $1,191,192 .4 3
To: Public Works and Planning Committee,
The Jefferson City Cultural Arts Foundation would like to create a local, permanent tribute to
those impacted by cancer.
The Cultural Arts Foundation is focused on enhancing Jefferson City with green areas of
respite for its residents. One special area of interest is located downtown between Saffees and the
Monaco Law Firm. The walk-through area between the buildings was originally planned to
connect High Street with additional parking. Our proposed plan is to create a "Fountain of
Hope" using one of the existing planters and outdoor artwork to beautify this spot. Plumbing for
a water fountain feature already exists because of the water fountain feature. The paved, park-
like area is perfectly situated to be a place of reflection. The owners of Saffees Clothing Store
have offered to underwrite the water and electrical costs for the life of the fountain in honor of
their mother, Loraine. (See attached support letter) We will enlist the Master Gardeners to create
a planting design plan for the fountain area. In addition, the long-term maintenance would fall to
the City to oversee.
The Breast Cancer Care Project and the Jefferson City Chapter of the American Cancer
Society will partner with the Cultural Arts Foundation to create a new restful destination for
downtown shoppers and tourists. The water fountain and memorial art honoring cancer-impacted
persons will contribute to the overarching design theme. Local architect, Cary Gampher has
offered a design (see proposed tile order form) which includes a steel art sculpture within the
fountain. Bids for the fabrication of the steel HOPE Fountain water element are being sought
from several sources including the MVE who utilize MO prisoners. Additionally, the fountain
design will include no standing or easily accessible water for misuse.
Andrea Cleeton, a local glass artist will decorate the wall behind the fountain with
personalized, colored glass ribbon tiles to represent courageous battles with cancer. Metal
recognition plaques will accompany the glass ribbon tiles. Each tile will be made available for a
donation of $1 00.00 to anyone wishing to participate. Freeman Mortuary and Millard Family
Funeral Home both wish to donate monetarily to the building of the fountain. One of Jefferson
City's leading oncologists, Dr. Tamera Hopkins MD has also signed on to the project as a
primary sponsor of the initiative. Monaco Law Firm, along with the Downtown Business
Association has been apprised of the proposed fountain and supports it.
Over time, the sale of the tiles will underwrite the majority of the fountain's construction
costs. Order forms for the tiles will be available in local doctors' offices, downtown businesses
and other relevant venues.
We hope to publically launch the project in conjunction with other cancer related events
this spring and begin the construction of the fountain after the sale of the first 1 00 tiles. We are
hoping this will be this summer!
Thank you for your consideration!
Lucia Kincheloe
Chair-Cultural Arts Foundation
March 13, 2015
Hello!
Thank you for considering the addition of an artistic water venue in the walk-
thru between our building, Saffees and the Inglish Monaco Law Firm next
door.
As we understand it, the fountain will be designed to fit into the existing
cement planter that is adjacent to our clothing store. We are excited to have
this area made more attractive by the Cultural Arts Foundation. The HOPE
Fountain project has been designed to become a "destination" due to the
personal aspect of memorializing loved ones and its changing nature as it
artistically grows. We are thrilled to draw more traffic close to our store and
at the same time offer a beautiful area for persons to take a moment to rest
and reflect.
Our family is honored the Foundation will publi~ally recognize our mother as
a long time, downtown business owner on the fountain, itself-should you
approve its construction.
Our family is pleased to donate water and electricity for the lifetime of the
fountain. r:::J /_ .
Thank You!~
tJf~
~
~ • jfrr~m.arr
I
--~-
"'"'
\I llml r .anuh ~~ ,~("...,.. ' .. .,..:"!:!~~ 1:.;
> r-~~rJc -~:;~ltl·~~~~~~~iT t(
·.
c-o..,rn>~ur Til r O Ril lP.
COlOR: __ ~
:1 ---~ \.
Fol.fNTAI'N OF HOPE
~
0
~ uJ
"'"' :;
~ < ~
"' z .... ~ "' 0 0 5 0 u .... -(
AB OUT TH E f OUNTAlN OF HOPE
Cul tural Arts Co m m issi on
The Jefferso n Clty Cultural
~ Arts Commi~IOfl exlsu 10 ".L_ ·, e ns ure lhe arts ore in tegr•l to
VULll..RAI.. ARrS our communr1y 's qua lit y of lrfl',
U>~M SSIO'I ctonomic vlw lrtv •nd Cf'nt ra l
ldenuty. The f oun t•ln of Hoi)('
15 one su d• example. The Co mmi11lon 1 ~3ds
In prorn oUna wllfbo r:a tlon amons the arts and
bus •ness. gO\Iel'nmen L, edoc31iona l mstitunon•
and comn1 unltv residen t s
http //WwN ••t"'ruc com
.lr ltlnJC AmlniC
n>c ltf!rrwn 0,., (!4;rofNt.l C""""Ju10n b "tJ ro
.,.we tit• on. 01w llt r:eprol to twtr c.ommumt)''•lfWI;ry o/
/;ft. t«Momlc lf(coiJryan d uooolldwntloy
TILE ARTIST
Andre> fNIII't l Ot«ton h as bMn t<pl1 n<11tntl nl in t;4au ftnoo n
lor • dt<llde ""d Mr W!>rl< c:on be t~ 01 t he An S.w•.•
locll1 o1 tO.Op on leflorwn c;'~y. MO llfr OIIC'M itflbiii O ~lass d in
a n be puodlo:c d •nd p co monenl'v di•PY'I'fd bel\ nd t he n~r
Founn•:t
FOUNTAIN DESIGN
Ti l E COST; SlOO 00 ea th nles are llll< d eductible
MAKE CH ECKS PAYABlE TO : Cultuloil AtU Fou ndau on
MAl l TO CITY HA ll:
310 E. McCJ r tY, Jefferson Coty, MO 651 0 1
PI-IO N F• 1~71) HR·R8 00
...
0
"' ~ .:.; g z
!2 .?: .;:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Public Works and Planning Committee
Janice McMillan , AICP, Director ~
March11 ,2015
PPS Monthly Reports
Please find atta c hed , Bu ildi ng Permit and Food Service Inspections for February 2015.
Building Permits may be viewed via : http://www.jeffcitymo .o rg/pps/in s pect io n s/perm its.ht m l.
Please direct questions to Larry Burkhardt, Building Official.
Building Permit Type Feb Jan Dec FY2015 FY2014
2015 2015 2014 To Date Actual*
Nonr eside nt ial -New 0 0 0 0 10
Nonr eside ntial -Ad diti ons , A lte rations 10 10 10 40 133
Resid entia l-New 1 2 2 7 63
Re sid ential-A lterati ons , Add it ion s 12 10 11 42 184
Total Building Permit s* 23 12 23 89 390
Dem olition s -Nonres id enti al 0 0 0 0 11
Dem oli tio ns -Res ide ntial 1 3 0 7 25
*Does not inc lude el ectrical, plumbing or sig n permits issued
Th e Food Establishment Report may be viewed via th e following link :
http://www.jeffc ity mo.org/pps/in spe cti o ns/re st aurantin s pec tion .html. Please direct questions to
David Grellner, Environmental Health Manager.
Number of Food Inspections Violations
Period Food Servic e I Critical Noncritica l
Retail Food
Feb 201 5 43 0 59
Jan 2015 56 5 90
De c 2014 70 9 137
No v 2014 6 1 28 107
FY2015 To Date 230 42 393
FY2014 Actual 664 76 787
:;i:>!l"te wc;~rk D~te c~ll~d .. D ~t~· .
. a o n·e in · . ·!;:ompleted
11 14113
11 14113
1115113
11 113113
11113113
11 113113 11 115113 51141 13
11 114113
11 11 4113
11 119113
11127113
11 128113
1213113
1213113
1218113
12110113
12110113
1211011 3
12111 113
12111113
12118113
12118113
12123113
12126113
111114
111114
112114
113114
115114
117/14
1112114
1112114
1120114
1120114 1120114 516114
214114
213114
211 1114
2113114
2118114
2118114
2121114
2124114
2128114
317/14
3118114
412114
4/2/14
4/7/14
4116114
4116114
4116114
4123114
4/24/14
4128/1 4
4/26/14
Missouri American Water
St reet Cut and Righ t-of-Way
November 1, 2013 -March 16 , 2015 .. . ...
:f~r"t~ l::::::·:r::::·>:·.>:~~~~~i:~~:.·: .\·:::::-::. :: .i: ~~~it . . . . . ........ . .. .. . .·:·::::::-... ::~~sc.rrj:;ti<>:n ~:::::::::::::;:::::::::;
·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· .. •.·.· ..
2207 Sch ell Ridge 20720 Closed
1822 Cedar Ridqe 20721 Closed
Satinwood Drive I Melody 20722 C losed
3032 Oak Valley Drive 20723 Closed
1901 Bassman 20724 Closed
316 Ash Street 20725 C losed -New Main
603 Meir 20726 Closed
Westwood I Wood Cliff 20727 Closed
13 10 East Hiqh Street 20728 C losed
1210 Edgewood 20729 C losed
636 Belmont 20730 Open-Yard Continue to Wash
2109 Edqewood Drive 20731 C losed
11 19 Darlene 20732 C losed
7 19 W icker Lane 20733 C losed
709 E McCarty Street 20734 C losed
2107 Rear Mo. Bl vd. 20735 C losed
200 B lk Filmore 20736 Closed
1306 Emmience 20737 C losed
623-625 W McCarty Street 20738 C losed
1505 Southwest Blvd . 20739 C losed
Marilyn I Oakview 20740 C losed
1122 East Atchison 20741 C losed
1504 Bald Hill Road 20742 C losed
McCarty Street I Manilla 20743 C losed
P ie rce I Ed wa rds 20744 C losed
710 W icker Lane 20745 C losed -New Main
708 Wicker Lane 20746 C losed -New Main
1515 Rosewood 20747 C losed
1120 Carol Street 20748 C losed
D ougl as I Wayne 20749 C losed
130 Boonville Road 20750 Open-Waiti ng hot mixj)lacement
1314 Moreau Dri ve 20751 C losed
106 3 11 E High Street 20752 C lo sed
138 Forest Hill 20753 C losed
1225 Hiqh Cl iff 20754 Closed
1551 Bald Hill Road 20755 C lo sed
216 -218 McKi nley Street 20811 C losed
14 08 East Hiqh (Alley) 20812 C losed
3 17 Stadi um 20813 C losed
100 B lk East Ashl ey 20814 Closed
306 N Li ncoln 20815 C losed
P ondarosa Street 20816 C losed
2708 Twin H ill s 20817 C losed -Driveway question
Edmonds I Dulle 20818 C losed
Locust I Walsch 20819 C losed
HiberiaiMokane Road 20820 C losed
104 W. Franklin 20821 C losed
1215 Edqewood 20822 C losed
1801 Notre Dame 20823 Closed
2940 Vall ey View Drive 20824 C losed
2107 Buehrle Dr 20825 C losed
1010 Holly 20826 Closed
Maryland and Lowell 20827 C losed
606 W ashington Street 20828 C lo sed
300 B lock E ast High 20829 Closed
700 Block SW Blvd 20830 Open -Waitina asohalt reolacement
206 John St 20831 C losed
Page 1
Page 2•
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right-of-Way
November 1, 2013 -March 16,2015
::~~·t~~~rit > pa~~ ~~~j~~ ·. . oci~~· .<::: :· i>av5 .:: :: ·:
· · :do.i'J'e · in · ~ompleted ; :~ctlve : : · ·
. ······ .. ... . .. .. ... . .. . . . ... . . -·· ................... . :~;6tiauti~ ·./H}\.:(:. ::ftt::f /:.:/:/:·>)::~~s~·~~~~o~~: :··:(>::·:. ·
1/19/2015 1/21/2015 2/6/2015 14 319 Meier 20964 Closed
1/21/2015 1/21 /2015 1/30/2015 7 400 E Hess Way 20965 Closed
1/25/2015 1/26/2015 1/30/2015 4 104 N. Tavlor 20966 Closed
1/29/2015 1/29/2015 Dunklin and Jefferson 20967
2/9/2015 2/9/2015 3/3/2015 17 1924 Havselton 20968 Closed
2/9/2015 2/9/2015 525 E Hiah 20969
2/11/2015 2/11/2015 3/12/2015 22 2717 Lola Dr 20970 Closed
2/22/2015 2/23/2015 1212 Moreland Ave 20971
2/24/2015 2/25/2015 719 Jefferson 20972
3/3/2015 3/3/2015 1808 Crader Dr 20973
3/3/2015 3/4/2015 110 block Jackson 20974
2/27/2015 3/4/2015 Boonville and Norris 20975
2/27/2015 3/4 /2015 W. McCartv and Hart 20976
3/5/2015 3/6 /2015 VOID 1104 Madison Stlin allv \ 20977 VOID
3/6/2015 3/9/2015 3/12/2015 5 909 Indiana 20978 Closed
Pa ge 3.