09 - Church Street Reconstruction ProjectItem No. 9
TO: Mayor & City Council
John Godwin, City Manager
FROM: Carla Easton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: 2017 STREET BOND FUND — CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD
FOR CHURCH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
DATE: June 29, 2018
BACKGROUND: In May 2017, voters authorized the sale of $9.5 Million in bonds to improve
city streets. Church Street was ranked at the top of the list for reconstruction. The proposed
improvements include new sanitary sewers, water lines, storm sewers, full depth pavement
replacement, curb and gutters, sidewalks, curb ramps, decorative crosswalks, and street lighting.
The contract plans and specifications were prepared by Grantham & Associates, and the bid
documents were structured with a base bid and alternate bids A & B to establish pricing for both
asphalt and concrete pavement. Additive alternates were included for decorative pavement
design in the Kaufman intersection, as well as decorative street lighting from Kaufman to
Clarksville.
STATUS OF ISSUE: The City advertised for bids and conducted a bid opening on June 14,
2018. A single bid was received for the project from Richard Drake Construction (RDC) in the
amounts provided below.
Bidder Bid A: Asphalt Bid B: Concrete Add Alt 1 Add Alt 2
Richard Drake Cst. 2,922,117.65 2,946,091.82 16,450.00 41,390.50
The bid was reviewed and references checked in accordance with the contract documents. The
engineer of record has provided a recommendation to award the contract to RDC. While only a
single bid was received for the project, both the engineer and city staff recommend award of this
contract based on the following considerations:
1. There were 45 plan holders, 22 of which are registered general contractors and
subcontractors, while the others were suppliers and plan rooms. This indicates a
successful advertisement with significant initial interest in the project.
Item No. 9
2. RDC has won the last 2 street project bids, which were competitive with multiple bidders.
On both projects, RDC was significantly lower than other bidders. This can affect
interest in future projects if a local contractor repeatedly outbids the competition.
3. RDC performed well on past projects for the City, and they are qualified to perform the
work on Church Street.
4. A rebid could result in higher prices due to rising material costs and lack of competition.
Staff recommends award of the base bid plus materials alternate A, to provide an asphalt street
with concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, for an amount of $2,922,117.65.
After the bid opening, the city received a request to change the sidewalk design by removing the
existing grass strip between the sidewalk and back of curb, which currently exists today. The
concern is for long term maintenance/mowing of the grass along some properties. The current
plan for sidewalks on Church Street is to replace them in their original, existing configuration,
meaning sidewalks along the commercial areas would be replaced behind the curb, and
residential lots would retain the traditional grass strip. The current design considers the
following constraints, which are further explained in the attached summary:
a. Limited ROW
b. Franchise utility pole location
c. Accessibility requirement of the ADA
d. Safety
e. Historical appropriateness
Simply relocating the 4' sidewalk to be directly behind the curb will reduce pedestrian safety
through the corridor, particularly for small children, and will compromise project compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to utility poles and other appurtenances
within the ROW. Therefore, in order to remove the 2' grass strip between the curb and sidewalk
for the entire length of the project, the concrete must be widened accordingly, which results in a
cost increase of approximately $70,000.
Staff has considered cost saving strategies in order to meet the needs of the project, address the
residents' concern, and to minimize impacts on future street projects. We propose the following
design modifications to address the mowing concern while balancing cost and aesthetics.
1. Widen the sidewalk to 6', and remove the grass strip from Hearne to Washington where
the ROW is narrow. (+$32,000)
2. Keep the existing grass strip from Washington to Sherman, and along the west ROW to
Kaufman, where the ROW is wider, to reduce cost.
Item No. 9
3. Use asphalt pavement, removing the proposed enhanced paving in the intersections and
crosswalks.
These and other cost reducing factors will be considered in order to keep the construction cost
down. A formal project change order can be brought before the City Council, if so needed for a
contract increase once all cost saving options can be fully evaluated. Please note, this design is
consistent with many existing residential streets, including Church St. It has been used on our
other street projects like 7t' SW and 3rd SE, and it also follows the advice of the Toole Design
Group.
The contract documents require this project to be completed within 365 calendar days after
issuance of the notice to proceed. Construction is anticipated to begin in late August.
BUDGET: Funding is available in the 2017 Street Bond Fund.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the city manager to execute a contract with Richard Drake
Construction for completion of the Church Street Reconstruction Project and related change
orders for an amount not to exceed $3,100,000.00.
Church Street Sidewalk Design Considerations
Constraints:
7-4-2018
1. Limited ROW - The ROW is 40' wide from Hearne to Washington and from Kaufman to
Clarksville. It is 45' to 50' wide from Washington to Kaufman. With a proposed 28' street,
approximately 6' of parkway is available for sidewalks, utility poles, water meters, etc.
2. Franchise Utilities — AT&T and Oncor Electric both own and operate overhead utilities along
Church St. Many of the old, existing poles encroach into the street curb, and were often hit by
vehicles. Early in the design process, we considered relocation of the poles to the back side of
the sidewalk to improve clearance to the poles. After an onsite project walk with the utility
companies, it was decided that moving the poles would not be a desirable option because it
would require the "topping" of many large trees in the front yards along Church. The poles
must remain in a similar alignment to the existing poles, so all parties agreed that 18" from the
back of the proposed curb could be achieved, optimizing the distance from the street while
meeting ADA requirements for the sidewalk. For the areas with the most limited ROW width,
the section below is proposed.
♦' SIDEWALK 6 1 1.6' 2-
3.5, o rP u
I SIDEWALK
14 II
"� � -,�.� � as � • I�. ;. �
1.
3. Accessibility Requirements of the ADA —The minimum clear width required to meet accessibility
standards mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (enforced locally in the Texas
Accessibility Standards) is 4' for a standard run of sidewalk, with turnarounds located every 200'.
Where necessary, a width reduction is allowed for 32" minimum width for up to 24" maximum
distance (considered a point constraint, such as a utility pole). Due to limited ROW, the sidewalk
design utilizes this allowance.
7-4-2018
4. Safety - Sidewalk design must consider the safety of the pedestrians who are to use it. Urban
design concepts encourage as much separation as is available for a buffer between pedestrians
and vehicles. In residential areas, where small children and families routinely walk or ride bikes,
a healthy buffer creates a physical barrier between the sidewalk and the street. Even TxDOT
design criteria considers the importance of pedestrian safety in urban design. The following is
an excerpt from the TxDOT Roadway Design Manual:
Sidewalk Width. Sidewalks should be wide enough to accommodate the volume and
type of pedestrian traffic expected in the area. The minimum clear sidewalk width is 5 ft.
Where a sidewalk is placed immediately adjacent to the curb as shown in Figure 2-7(B),
a sidewalk width of 6 ft is recommended to allow additional space for street and
highway hardware and allow for the proximity of moving traffic. Sidewalk widths of 8 ft
or more may be appropriate in commercial areas, along school routes, and other areas
with concentrated pedestrian traffic.
5. Historical Appropriateness — And finally, while sidewalks are not typically considered as
historically relevant regarding preservation or other design requirements, staff felt it was
important to maintain/improve the look and feel of the residential historic district by replicating
the original sidewalks as much as practicable. The sidewalks along Church Street consist of both
the commercial type, located at back of curb along the First Baptist Church, the parking lots and
the funeral home, as well as the typical residential type, with a grassy strip provided for a buffer
between pedestrians and vehicles along residential properties. These strips are in place in many
other areas as well, including Clark Ln, South Main, 1st SW, South Collegiate, Grand Ave, 6th SE,
81h SE, etc.
Opportunities:
1. Flexibility —A separation between curb and sidewalk allows the contractor to match the existing
ground at the ROW line, without further grading into the front yards. Minor differences in slope
can be achieved across the grassy strip while avoiding an increased slope in the front yard.
2. Utility Location — Because the utilty poles cannot be moved to the back of sidewalk, a grass strip
provides a camouflaged space for poles, without affecting the look of the sidewalk.
3. Intersection/Curb Ramp Design — A separation between curb and sidewalk improves the
constructability and appearance of the curb ramps located at intersections. Where no
separation is provided, the street curb must transition with the sidewalk, creating a more
commercial look and feel to the intersection.
7-4-2018
Below are examples of real street/sidewalk projects, for comparison.
1. 3`d Street SE — Paris, Tx
Replaced sidewalks in commercial and residential areas with appropriate design concepts.
Grass strips were left throughout the residential areas, allowing for buffer space and utility
infrastructure.
2. Pine Bluff — Paris, Tx
Replaced sidewalks with a buffer separation, as was existing pre -construction.
7-4-2018
3. Church Street — Historic Downtown McKinney, Tx
This is the commercial district along Church St in McKinney. Sidewalks were paved around
utility poles. Not a preferred look or feel for the area, and the sidewalk is not inviting to
pedestrians.
4. N Church Street— Historic Downtown McKinney, Tx
This is the residential area of the historic district in McKinney, also Church St. Note the buffer
on the left side, providing separation for pedestrians and also space for utility poles, while
sidewalk on the right is behind the curb.
2017Street Bond Improvements - Proposed Project List
Rank
STREET & LIMITS
PROJECT COST
1
1
Church, Hearne to Clarksville
3,145,562
4
E Cherry,25 N E to 20 NE
5
3rd SE, Sherman to Provine
2
6
7NW, Graham to Center
805,758
7
7 SW, Washington to Bonham
2
Collegiate, Lamar to Clarksville
3
3
33SE, Lamar to Clarksville
848,912
9
Graham, 3rd to RR
8
24 SE, Clarksville to Lamar
4
3,725,000 '
m��
VAN)
10
17NE, Clarksville to Pine Bluff
11
1st SE, Kaufman to Pine Bluff
220,000
emu �i
ryWn
�r
12
Clement, Loop to Main
400,000
R
13
Kaufman, 3rd SE to 7th SW
230,000
14
Washington, 7th SW to 1st SW
140,000
15
Fitzhugh, Pine Bluff to Hickory
960,000
16
Hickory,20th to 25th
40,000
17
25th NE Lamar to Ballard
290,000
18
25th NE Ballard to Hickory540,000
Z
19
E Price 20th to Collegiate
290,000
20
Hickor Main to Fitzhu h
260,000
21 Tudor, 3rd to Fitzhugh 280,000
Z 22 Graham RR to 19th NW 320,000
23 Stillhouse Road 350,000
24 31st SE Lamar to Clark 250,000
25N Colle date Lamar to Loo 250,000
Total Sum 13,345,232