September 12, Mr. Harry Doyle Glengarry Road Canton, MI Glengarry Village Glengarry Boulevard Assessment. Dear Mr.

Transcription

1 September 12, 2014 Mr. Harry Doyle Glengarry Road Canton, MI Subject: Glengarry Village Glengarry Boulevard Assessment Dear Mr. Doyle, Enclosed is a report provided by Sole and Materials Engineers, Inc. (SME), on September 5, This report is based on a visual evaluation of Glengarry Boulevard south of the Glengarry Boulevard/Glengarry Road Intersection. Also included is a cost estimate for repairs to said roadway. This estimate must be combined with the estimated construction cost of Pavement ID: A from the SME report dated June 4, 2014 (less the Danbury Road piece). If you and your fellow Glengarry Village home owners in all phases would like to move forward to an SAD that is different in scope to the one referenced in my letter dated June 12, 2014, please contact me. It will require a new petition and Exhibit of parcels. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (734) Regards, CANTON TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING SERVICES Charles Larocque, P.E. Staff Engineer II Enclosures Cc: Ms. Terry Bennett, Canton Township Clerk Ms. Debbie Janice, Canton Township Finance Department Mr. Doug Shaw, Canton Township Assessor

2 Glengarry Village Glengarry Boulevard Repair and Reconstruct Estimate of Costs Construction Construction $612, Contingencies (20%) $122, $734, Engineering Design/Geotechnical $48, Contract Adm/Const. Engineering $42, $91, Canton Administration 5% of Construction and Engineering $41, Bond Isuance Publishing General $30, Hearing Notices $ Construction Bids $80.00 $ Total Estimated Project Cost $898, Total Cost Per Parcel $1, Number of Parcels 512 9/12/2014

3 Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc. The Kramer Building Plymouth Oaks Blvd. Plymouth, MI tel (734) fax (734) Kenneth W. Kramer, PE Founder Mark K. Kramer, PE Timothy H. Bedenis, PE Andrew J. Emmert, CPA Chuck A. Gemayel, PE James M. Harless, PhD, CHMM Dave J. Hurlburt, PE Larry P. Jedele, PE, D.GE Cheryl A. Kehres-Dietrich, CGWP Gerard P. Madej, PE Michael S. Meddock, PE Timothy J. Mitchell, PE Robert C. Rabeler, PE Daniel O. Roeser, PG Larry W. Shook, PE Melinda L. Bacon, PE Christopher R. Byrum, PhD, PE Daniel R. Cassidy, CPG John E. Dingeldein, PE Sheryl K. Fountain, SPHR Mark A. Halloway, OHST Anthony L. Jarem, PE Laurel M. Johnson, PE Jeffery M. Krusinga, PE, GE Jeffrey R. Lanier, PE Louis J. Northouse, PE Rohan W. Perera, PhD, PE Joel W. Rinkel, PE Jason A. Schwartzenberger, PE Thomas H. Skotzke Michael J. Thelen, PE, D.GE Anthony B. Thomas, PE John C. Zarzecki, CET, CDT, NDE September 5, 2014 Mr. Charles Larocque Department of Municipal Services Canton Clerk s Office 1150 Canton Center South Canton, Michigan Via charles.larocque@canton-mi.org Re: Dear Mr. Larocque: Glengarry Village I Pavement Evaluation/ Construction and Engineering Cost Estimate Glengarry Blvd. Canton Township, MI SME Project No Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc. (SME) was requested on August 12, 2014 to include Glengarry Blvd from Phase 1 to Palmer. PROJECT BACKGROUND We understand that Canton Township Engineering Services is working with Glengarry Village I to establish a Special Assessment District (SAD) for rehabilitation of the subdivision streets and drainage infrastructure. We understand that the Township SAD policy requires an estimate of construction and engineering costs prior to finalizing the SAD. SME was authorized to perform a second cursory visual review of the pavements and develop an opinion of construction and engineering costs. The road evaluated in the subdivision consists of Glengarry Boulevard from Glengarry Road to Palmer Road. Based on the Intersection Details and Sign Location plan dated August 27, 1990 by Warner, Cantrell and Padmos, Inc, the existing concrete is 7 inches thick. There was no indication on the plan of any aggregate base or subbase. FIELD EXPLORATION SME visited the site on August 20, 2014 to perform a visual evaluation of the condition of the pavements within the Glengarry Village I utilizing the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system. The PASER system was developed by the Wisconsin Transportation Information Center OFFICES Michigan OFFICES Indiana Michigan Ohio Ohio Passionate People Building and Revitalizing our World

4 Construction and Engineering Cost Estimate - SME Project Number Glengarry Village I Part 2 September 5, 2014 Page 2 at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and is in use by many agencies throughout the world, including most cities and counties in Michigan. This method has been adopted by the Asset Management Council of Michigan. A copy of the PASER rating system is attached for reference. In general, the method consists of dividing the pavement into sections based on the type of pavement, age, condition, usage, and other factors and assigning a condition rating from 1 (Failed) to 10 (Excellent). A schematic diagram depicting the PASER evaluation results is included. VISUAL CONDITION SURVEY The existing pavement generally consists of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC). The condition of the PCC pavement ranged from a 2 (Very Poor) to a 6 (Good). A breakdown of the visual ratings is shown in Table 1 below. The roads in the subdivision were divided into 9 areas based on our visual condition survey. Table 1: Pavement Inventory Section ID Road Pavement Area, SF Paser Rating K East half of Glengarry Blvd. from 3,650 4 Glengarry Rd. to Turnberry Dr. L West half of Glengarry Blvd. from 17,440 4 Glengarry Rd. to Lothrup Ct. M East half of Glengarry Blvd. from 15,330 5 Turnberry Dr. to Lothrup Ct. N Lothrup Ct. median cross-over O P East half of Glengarry Blvd. from Lothrup Ct. to Thornhill Ct. West half of Glengarry Blvd. from Lothrup Ct. to Thornhill Ct. 8, ,000 5 Q Thornhill Ct. median cross-over R S East half of Glengarry Blvd. from Thornhill Ct. to median cross-over north of Seabrook drive 17,130 5 West half of Glengarry Blvd. from 68,600 6 Thornhill Ct. to Palmer Rd. and East half of Glengarry Blvd. from median cross-over north of Seabrook drive to Palmer Rd. Total 141,150

5 Construction and Engineering Cost Estimate - SME Project Number Glengarry Village I Part 2 September 5, 2014 Page 3 Figure 1 below presents the pavement area (per 1,000 sf) for each PASER rating category. A PASER rating of 1 represents a Failed condition and a rating of 10 represents Excellent condition. Figure 1: Pavement Condition by Area PASER 10 PASER 9 PASER 8 PASER 7 PASER 6 PASER 5 PASER 4 PASER 3 PASER 2 PASER Square Footage (Thousands) Figure 2 depicts the percent of pavement area by PASER rating category (based on the total area of pavement reviewed). As shown in Figure 2, approximately 84% is rated between 5 and 8 (Fair to Good), approximately 15% is rated Fair and another 1% is rated between 1 to 3 (Failed to Poor).

6 Construction and Engineering Cost Estimate - SME Project Number Glengarry Village I Part 2 September 5, 2014 Page 4 Distress in 5 and 6 rated areas generally consist of relatively frequent, tight transverse cracks, some joint spalling, cracked slab corners, and some tight longitudinal cracking. Distress in 4 rated areas consists of similar distresses as in 5 and 6, but with more progression, including larger crack widths and slab faulting. Distress in 2 rated areas include extensive patching in fair to failing condition, wide crack gaps, and significant spalling or failed joints. It is evident that several attempts have been made to patch these areas. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pavements with a PASER rating of 5 to 6 should be scheduled for preventative routine maintenance. Pavements with a Paser Rating of 4 should be scheduled for aggressive maintenance. Areas with a PASER rating of 3 or below should be scheduled for near future replacement or major rehabilitation. Area N: Area Q: Areas K and L (Taken in Area L): Areas M, P, and R (Taken in Area M): Area N (Lothrup Ct. median cross-over) and Area Q (Thornhill Ct. median cross-over) are in poor condition and were given a PASER rating of 2. Typically, pavements in this condition are

7 Construction and Engineering Cost Estimate - SME Project Number Glengarry Village I Part 2 September 5, 2014 Page 5 not considered for maintenance type repairs because there is little or no service life remaining to maintain. These areas warrant a major reconstruction initiative. A short term option consisting of joint repairs, patching and installing a hot mix asphalt overlay could be considered; however, we would expect joint reflection cracking through the overlay within the first year. Areas K & L; M, P, R; O & S: Areas K and L were rated a 4 (Fair). Areas M, P, and R were rated a 5 (Fair). Areas O and S were rated a 6 (Good). Typically, pavements in this condition can be maintained with preventative maintenance, such as joint repairs, partial or full depth patching, and joint and crack sealing. Areas K and L (rated as a 4) will require more aggressive patching and joint repairs. The condition should be reviewed every 2 to 3 years to assess the condition and perform additional repairs as warranted to prolong the life of the pavement. Areas O and S (Taken in Area S) The pavement repair programs will require a Project Level review. A Project Level review should include pavement coring and subgrade sampling to determine the existing conditions and develop pavement design recommendations, a survey of the existing site features to develop grading information, a review of the storm sewer system to evaluate need for underground repairs (we recommend cleaning and videotaping the storm lines), development of plans and specifications, etc. CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATES Based on the conditions observed and our experience with similar projects, we have developed the following estimated construction costs. This estimate was prepared based on the estimated pavement areas based on field measurements and a review of available aerial imagery. This estimate may not include all items that may be included within the scope of the project. Actual construction costs will vary based on final project scoping and project phasing. The cost estimates include 20 percent for construction contingencies, 8 percent for engineering (site survey, plan development, and preparation of bid packages), 5 percent for permitting and 8 percent for construction administration and material testing and project closeout, punchlist and

8 Construction and Engineering Cost Estimate - SME Project Number Glengarry Village I Part 2 September 5, 2014 Page 6 contractor invoicing. The estimated construction costs are for the current year and do not consider inflation or a multi-year phasing program. The cost for installation of underdrains, curb inlets and catchbasin repairs, sidewalk and curb repairs are included with the rehabilitation costs for the major rehabilitation option. We assumed that Glengarry Boulevard would be performed in 2 phases to maintain access to the site. We assume the county will not require an upgrade of the stormwater management system if pavement surface is not increased. The cost estimates provided in Table 2 are intended for preliminary budgeting purposes. Table 2 Engineer s Opinion of Probable Construction and Engineering Costs Pavement ID K L M Road Name East half of Glengarry Blvd. from Glengarry Rd. to Turnberry Dr. West half of Glengarry Blvd. from Glengarry Rd. to Lothrup Ct. East half of Glengarry Blvd. from Turnberry Dr. to Lothrup Ct. Pavement Area, SF 3,650 17,440 Rehabilitation Option Aggressive Maintenance Aggressive Maintenance Estimated Construction Costs $ 3, $ 17, ,330 Maintenance $ 15, N Lothrup Ct. median cross-over 900 Reconstruction $ 9, O P East half of Glengarry Blvd. from Lothrup Ct. to Thornhill Ct. West half of Glengarry Blvd. from Lothrup Ct. to Thornhill Ct. 8,200 Preventative Maintenance $ 4, ,000 Maintenance $ 6, Q Thornhill Ct. median cross-over 900 Reconstruction $ 9, R S East half of Glengarry Blvd. from Thornhill Ct. to median cross-over north of Seabrook drive West half of Glengarry Blvd. from Thornhill Ct. to Palmer Rd. and East half of Glengarry Blvd. from median cross-over north of Seabrook drive to Palmer Rd. 17,130 Maintenance $ 12, ,600 Preventative Maintenance $ 34, Construction Costs Subtotal $ 112, Contingency (20%) $ 22, Design Engineering (8%) $ 8, Construction Engineering, Administration, Testing, Inspection, Project Closeout (7%) $ 7, Contingency and Engineering Subtotal $ 39, Total $ 151,763.63

9 Construction and Engineering Cost Estimate - SME Project Number Glengarry Village I Part 2 September 5, 2014 Page 7 We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services for your project. If there are any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Very truly yours, SOIL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS, INC. Jeremy S. Friedley, EIT Staff Engineer Digitally signed by Jason Schwartzenberger DN: cn=jason Schwartzenberger, o=sme, ou, =schwartz@sme-usa.com, c=us Date: :55:20-04'00' Jason A. Schwartzenberger, PE Senior Consultant APPENDIX: PASER Diagram PASER RATINGS General Comments

10 Indiana Michigan Ohio Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc. Detroit The Kramer Building Plymouth Oaks Boulevard Plymouth, MI ph (734) fax (734) SEAL PROJECT NAME FACILITY NAME & LOCATION FILE LOCATION: \\Smefile\work in progress\ \cad\dwgs\rev0\paser (South Half).dwg SHEET NAME REVISIONS REV ISSUED FOR DATE SME PROJECT NO PROJECT MANAGER JAS DESIGNED BY JSF DRAWN BY JSF Aug 25, :21pm - friedley CHECKED BY JAS DRAWING SCALE 1" = 120' DATE 08/25/14 FILE NAME PASER (South Half).dwg SHEET NO. 1 1 PLOT DATE: OF c 2014 NO REPRODUCTION SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF SOIL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS, INC. BY

11 16 PASER Concrete Rating System Rating pavement surface condition Rating system Surface rating Visible distress* General condition/ treatment measures 10 Excellent None. New pavement. No maintenance required. 9 Excellent Traffic wear in wheelpath. Slight map cracking or pop-outs. Recent concrete overlay or joint rehabilitation. Like new condition. No maintenance required. 8 Very Good Pop-outs, map cracking, or minor surface defects. Slight surface scaling. Partial loss of joint sealant. Isolated meander cracks, tight or well sealed. Isolated cracks at manholes, tight or well sealed. More surface wear or slight defects. Little or no maintenance required. 7 Good More extensive surface scaling. Some open joints. Isolated transverse or longitudinal cracks, tight or well sealed. Some manhole displacement and cracking. First utility patch, in good condition. First noticeable settlement or heave area. First sign of transverse cracks (all tight); first utility patch. More extensive surface scaling. Seal open joints and other routine maintenance. 6 Good Moderate scaling in several locations. A few isolated surface spalls. Shallow reinforcement causing cracks. Several corner cracks, tight or well sealed. Open ( 1 4 wide) longitudinal or transverse joints and more frequent transverse cracks (some open 1 4 ). First signs of shallow reinforcement or corner cracking. Needs general joint and crack sealing. Scaled areas could be overlaid. 5 Fair Moderate to severe polishing or scaling over 25% of the surface. High reinforcing steel causing surface spalling. Some joints and cracks have begun spalling. First signs of joint or crack faulting ( 1 4 ). Multiple corner cracks with broken pieces. Moderate settlement or frost heave areas. Patching showing distress. First signs of joint or crack spalling or faulting. Grind to repair surface defects. Some partial depth patching or joint repairs needed. 4 Fair Severe polishing, scaling, map cracking, or spalling over 50% of the area. Joints and cracks show moderate to severe spalling. Pumping and faulting of joints ( 1 2 ) with fair ride. Several slabs have multiple transverse or meander cracks with moderate spalling. Spalled area broken into several pieces. Corner cracks with missing pieces or patches. Pavement blowups. Needs some full depth repairs, grinding, and/or asphalt overlay to correct surface defects. 3 Poor Most joints and cracks are open, with multiple parallel cracks, severe spalling, or faulting. D-cracking is evident. Severe faulting (1 ) giving poor ride. Extensive patching in fair to poor condition. Many transverse and meander cracks, open and severely spalled. Needs extensive full depth patching plus some full slab replacement. 2 Very Poor Extensive slab cracking, severely spalled and patched. Joints failed. Patching in very poor condition. Severe and extensive settlements or frost heaves. Recycle and/or rebuild pavement. 1 Failed Restricted speed. Extensive potholes. Almost total loss of pavement integrity. Total reconstruction. *Individual pavements will not have all of the types of distress listed for any particular rating. They may have only one or two types.

12 GENERAL COMMENTS 20 soil and materials engineers, inc. Page 1 of 1 Pavement Evaluations Basis of Report This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted pavement and geotechnical engineering practices to assist in the design and/or evaluation of this project. If the project plans, design criteria, and other project information referenced in this report and utilized by SME to prepare our recommendations are changed, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or approved in writing by our office. The discussions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the available project information, described in this report, and the data obtained from the field exploration at the locations indicated in the report. Variations in the pavement system (surface course, aggregate base course, subbase) thickness and materials as well as soil and groundwater conditions commonly occur between or away from sampling locations. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until the time of construction. If significant variations are observed during construction, SME should be contacted to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. SME should be retained to continue our services through construction to observe and evaluate the existing pavement system and actual subsurface conditions relative to the recommendations made in this report. In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures are followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of pavement and geotechnical engineering. Specifically, field logs are prepared during the field exploration that describe field occurrences, sampling locations, and other information. Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and reclassification in the laboratory and differences may exist between the field logs and the report logs. The engineer preparing the report reviews the field logs, laboratory classifications, and test data and then prepares the report logs. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the report logs and the information contained therein. Review of Design Details, Plans, and Specifications SME should be retained to review the design details, project plans, and specifications to verify those documents are consistent with the recommendations contained in this report. Review of Report Information with Project Team Implementation of our recommendations may affect the design, construction, and performance of the proposed improvements, along with the potential inherent risks involved with the proposed construction. The client and key members of the design team, including SME, should discuss the issues covered in this report so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner s budget, tolerance of risk, and expectations for performance and maintenance. Field Verification of Pavement/Geotechnical Conditions SME should be retained to verify the recommendations of this report are properly implemented during construction. This may avoid misinterpretation of our recommendations by other parties and will allow us to review and modify our recommendations if variations in the pavement system or subsurface conditions are encountered. Project Information for Contractor This report and any future addenda or other reports regarding this site should be made available to prospective contractors prior to submitting their proposals for their information only and to supply them with facts relative to the evaluation and laboratory test results. If the selected contractor encounters conditions during construction, which differ from those presented in this report, the contractor should promptly describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and SME should be notified so that we can verify those conditions. The construction contract should include provisions for dealing with differing conditions and contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and pavement construction. We would be pleased to assist you in developing the contract provisions based on our experience. The contractor should be prepared to handle environmental conditions encountered at this site, which may affect the excavation, removal, or disposal of soil; dewatering of excavations; and health and safety of workers. Any Environmental Assessment reports prepared for this site should be made available for review by bidders and the successful contractor. Third Party Reliance/Reuse of This Report This report has been prepared solely for the use of our Client for the project specifically described in this report. This report cannot be relied upon by other parties not involved in the project, unless specifically allowed by SME in writing. SME also is not responsible for the interpretation by other parties of the geotechnical data and the recommendations provided herein.