HomeMy WebLinkAboutPWC Minutes 2024-09-17Town of Ithaca
Public Works Committee
September 17, 2024, 9:00 a.m.
Minutes
Present: Rod Howe, Joe Slater, Mike Beach, Dave O’Shea, Justin McNeal, Marty Moseley, Hilary
Swartwood, Joe Talbut, Travis Mills, Mike Smith, CJ Randall, Rich DePaolo, Chris Herbert, Rob
Rosen, Becky Jordan.
Approval of Minutes:
Approval of the August 20, 2024 minutes was motioned by Rich DePaolo, seconded by Rod Howe.
Carried.
Member Comments/Concerns
2. Consider Modifications to Agenda Member Comments/Concerns
a. Consider Modifications to Agenda – Moved King Rd W Culvert up to #4
3. Gibbs Cemetery
Mr. Howe reported that the town received an email from David George, town historian, with items
the town may address. These include a required fence for the cemetery, the future burials of Phyllis
and James Baker, security camera, and plans for grant funded gravestone repair. The Town has no
plans to erect a fence around the cemetery nor install a security camera. The town has already
authorized the burials of Phyllis and James Baker. Willing to apply for a grant to do gravestone
repair. There will be no further burials beyond aforementioned.
Mr. Talbut reported that he spoke with Bangs funeral director about the burial process. The last grant
applied for was upwards of $40k for headstone repair and involved many headstones as well as the
arch. It was a big project that was hired out.
Mr. DePaolo asked what we currently do for the cemetery.
Mr. Slater replied that we mow, clean up felled trees and repair ruts from vehicles.
Mr. Howe suggested bringing this to the town board for questions and/or concerns. He also
mentioned that David George has decided not to continue being the town historian so if anyone has
any thoughts about who the town should consider for a new historian, do share.
4. King Rd W Culvert (Attachment 1)
Mr. O’Shea stated that B&L has been hired to evaluate the old concrete box culvert under King Road
just west of Stone Quarry intersection. A failing end section broke off and is eroding along the ditch
line along the road. B&L’s analysis produced three options. Options are 1. Rehab for just under
$300k 2. Slip line for just over $500k, and 3. Full replacement of box culvert at $1.2m. The rehab
and slip line do not increase hydraulic capacity at the pipe so right now the pipe is undersized for
DOT standards. Had B&L look at the hardier storm to see how high the water gets and whether it
would impact adjacent homes. It will not. Adjacent homes are roughly 20’ above top of water and
the water would only get to about 10’above the invert. Since we’re not seeking grants or federal
funding, we do not have to adhere to DOT standards. Recommend moving forward with the rehab
option which comes with a $20k design fee. Includes improving guiderail which is now too low.
Suggest reusing box culvert. Wants construction done this winter or early spring to stay ahead of the
paving schedule.
Mr. Howe inquired how many years the rehab will last.
Mr. O’Shea replied that the existing box culvert he imagines has been there since the 40’s or 50’s and
it’s solid. The only reason it separated is because it got undermined so it flexed. Post rehab, it should
last another 40-50 years.
Mr. Slater emphasized repairing the end section of the box culvert and stabilizing the concrete ditch
line which has suffered erosion for the past several years.
Mr. DePaolo inquired about any impacts on the road.
Mr. O’Shea replied that its erosion of the ditch line has needed multiple repairs.
Mr. Howe inquired whether this is a CIP we budgeted for this year.
Mr. O’Shea replied that it is a CIP budgeted at $300k. We explored repairing in house but once we
discovered the broken end section, we knew that wasn’t an option.
Mr. Rosen commented that the B&L study is excellent, and the report is very detailed, clear, well
done, and cost effective.
Mr. Howe moved to make a recommendation to the town board.
5. Green Fleet Policy
Mr. Slater started by saying, like many policies, there is a statement in the green fleet policy that it
will be reviewed annually.
Ms. Swartwood shared that there was an analysis done this year. There are Federal and State tax
credits and incentive programs. Challenges include heavy duty EV adoption. The goal is to reduce
carbon emissions from the town fleet of vehicles by 50% from 2010 levels by 2025 (10% reduction
in fleet emissions and offset the other 90% with renewable energy credits.
Mr. Howe inquired of fluctuation of fuel use from year to year
Mr. Slater replied that over a five-year period there is not much fluctuation, typically within 10%,
especially if winters remain consistent.
Ms. Swartwood stated that challenges to EV adoption are vehicle availability, increased costs and
uncertainty, operational challenges, and lack of charging infrastructure.
Mr. Slater explained the ACT (advanced clean truck) Rule in which the state has implemented that
dealers have to sell so many electric vehicles before they can sell a diesel truck. The challenge for
Dealers is they don’t have electric options to sell. The grants and incentives are super specific. For
one grant we didn’t have a battery that was sized enough for storage capacity to qualify. We solicit
dealers through NYS OGS vehicle marketplace, and we happened to purchase a plug-in hybrid
vehicle from a dealer eligible to bid but located in New Jersey and because of location alone we were
denied rebate(s). What are the operational expectations? Sometimes we operate snow removal
vehicles 24 hours. What are the expectations if we need to return to the shop to charge for 8-10 hours
during snow removal operations? There are propane fleet options.
Ms. Swartwood pointed out that electric vehicle batteries are so large and heavy they add weight to
already heavy vehicles. In our rural area we are faced with hills that draw more battery power
causing the need for frequent charging. This could drastically change the level of service currently
provided.
Mr. Howe asked if this is starting to be a topic at the annual highway school.
Mr. Slater replied yes, Indiana is running fleet on propane and is starting to look at on street
charging. There are electric box trucks, but the challenge is outfitting with municipal equipment such
as the dump box and salt spreading.
Ms. Swartwood reported there are talks about keeping gas for charging on board generator so the
battery can be smaller. Federal and state tax incentives are available but not made easy to access.
Renewable energy credits are complicated. Since we are Bolton Point’s biggest user (about 51.9%)
do we include their light duty fleet in our Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Green Fleet
Inventory? With 2025 being a big year for the Green New Deal goal for fleet and government
operations, it may be a good time to review both green fleet and green procurement policies as we
move forward. In comparing 2010 fleet data to today our fuel usage went up, but our emissions went
down which is hard to explain.
Mr. Beach suggested it could have something to do with advances in technology.
Mr. Howe suggested Ms. Swartwood meet with the Engineering and Operations committee.
Ms. Swartwood stated if we’re going for a 10% reduction, and we offset the rest by renewable energy
credits (REC’s) we have already met our 2025 goal. An entity not yet at its goal can purchase RECs
from another entity having surpassed their goal. Our current focus areas are light-duty ZEV adoption,
EV charging infrastructure development, and a new local law to make said development easier in
most zones (passed August 2024).
Mr. DePaolo inquired about the necessity of RECs to reach our goal and cost.
Ms. Swartwood stated she is meeting with finance to understand what it looks like and where to
purchase REC’s. She found a 2015 bill from a REC purchase but nothing more recent Not sure if it’s
included in NYSEG bill or how REC’s are purchased, paid for, cost, and how long they last.
Mr. O’Shea commented that we purchase electricity through Constellation, there may be a CO2
offset there for an internal REC.
Mr. Howe inquired of the differential in cost for basic trucks if there were options to buy.
Mr. Slater replied that the cost differential is at least double. Think of IFD’s electric fire truck price
tag.
Mr. O’Shea commented that the only fleet accessible right now is the engineering fleet. There is not
an alternative for DPW’s main fleet of Single axle ¾ ton and up right now. Vehicles are being made
more fuel efficient and advances in electric options to come.
6. Sewer Agreements -
Mr. DePaolo took a look at the five sewer wastewater agreements to see if any efficiencies could be
achieved by rewriting or combining agreements. As they all serve a different purpose none can be
combined. Looked at who is involved, when they expire, who can bail and under what terms, what
the agreement is designed to do. The blue type are issues to pay attention to, haven’t been done, or
questions to ask collectively. Some items needing to be addressed are with respect to ownership
share and capacity which is determined by a combination of metered water usage and flow. There are
a lot of data gaps in the flow so concern for integrity of data. There’s soon to be an analysis from the
main interceptors to determine contribution entering the city versus showing up at the plant. This
should help determine who is responsible for I&I and recalibrate ownership share and associated
costs as well as capacity. What and where is the operating and maintenance manual referenced in the
agreement that is supposed to be reviewed periodically? Interestingly the Operations Review
Committee (a subcommittee) is supposed to review one city department per year to determine
whether the overhead cost being charged to us is accurate and this hasn’t been done. We need to
prioritize reconciliation of flow data and water usage to determine who is contributing to the plant
and how that affects the future. As plant operations are now contractual, we should renegotiate the
percentage. Klein Rd may be the only bypass with a plant-to-plant agreement which is renewable in
May 2026. Allows for rate adjustments according to I&I. There are supposed to be service maps with
the agreement which may need updating.
Mr. O’Shea commented that base rates were obtained from micro study done in 2023. Trying to do a
contract this winter or early spring to quantify our efforts in I&I removed. May have to re-meter.
Mr. DePaolo, if there is infrastructure, we no longer need, we should look at conveying it back to the
city. Ownership share was established 20 years ago. The question remains whether the percentage
changes should ownership share change as well. The overhead charge of 10% referenced in the Joint
Interceptor Agreement is identical to the percentage that used to apply to the wastewater treatment
plant before it was reduced after questions were raised as to its accuracy. Should the overhead
charge in the Joint Interceptor Agreement be similar?
Mr. Slater said current bills still reflect 10%, should there be an addendum to the reduction? Recently
there’s been a general adherence to the agreement.
Mr. DePaolo referred to the plant-to-plant agreement. We assume village of Cayuga Heights and our
peak flows have been measured. May be appropriate to check on quality of flows prior to agreement
renewal. Do we know, when there’s been a diversion of flows, the quality of the flows coming from
VCH? How do we know they are following the pretreatment agreement.
Mr. Slater replied there are no industrial waste contributions from Lansing to VCH enough to trip
threshold. While we’ve never tested it, we have no reason to believe they aren’t following the
pretreatment agreement.
Mr. Howe suggested keeping on October’s agenda for further discussion.
7. Town Board Tour -Scheduled for Friday, October 25th
8. Project Updates
Streetlights – NYPA contacted us with almost two dozen streetlights not aligning. Quintilla system
is exiting. NYPA has offered a full system replacement. John Little and I had a small presentation of
the new system. Their system would change from a gateway to all standalone lights which is
favorable based on our topography. Follow up meetings to come. This is a no cost change order.
CIP’s
Paving is complete on Holly Creek, Kings Way, Larissa, Ridgecrest, Schickel. Asphalt Recycling
(mill) and topcoat asphalt laid on King Rd W.
Mr. O’Shea reported that one project was removed from the joint City interceptor projects. Southhill
generators are complete. Ridgecrest will be completed in two weeks. Forest home will be complete
with landscaper finishing up. Sewer rehab project bids are due next week for the 3rd time! Three
building projects remaining. Working on standardized contracts. Architect Bell and Spina have
submitted to City for town hall windows. Looking to bid December -January time. Will be seeking
grant funds.
Mr. Slater reported there is one more asset download to go on Cartegraph. Contractual things owed
are information on integration of our new fueling system and 811 integrations (utilisphere). Hoping
to wrap up in the next six weeks.
Mr. O’Shea issued a memorandum for the planning board stating we do not have sewer capacity to
accommodate the proposed Maplewood II. After refining the model and checking calculations a new
memo of capacity of about 10% was issued. It will be close. Hoping to gain capacity in 2025.
Mr. DePaolo inquired how much the Maplewood II projected usage is.
Mr. O’Shea responded that Maplewood II projected usage is 46 gallons per minute, which will leave
us with 10-15% so future development will be an issue without upgrades.
Adjourn 10:22 a.m.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 15, 2024.
Submitted by,
Becky Jordan
Barton & Loguidice
W. King Rd - Design Memo (ID 3177881)
Memo To: David O’Shea, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Town of Ithaca
Date:September 13, 2024
From:Wendell Buckman, P.E.
Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C.
Project No.: 2071.011
Re:Alternative Analysis Memo
King Road West
Background:
This memorandum serves to detail the Alternative Analysis for the repair of the culvert carrying King Road West
over an Unnamed Stream in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY. The existing crossing consists of a 5’ x 5’-
2” concrete box culvert. The downstream fascia and wingwalls have separated from the main box likely due to
the hydraulic pressure from the surrounding soils. There is a large scour pocket behind the east downstream
wingwall where water drains from a roadside drainage ditch into and impacting the backside of the wingwall,
causing scouring and separation of the wingwall from the main box. The upstream wingwalls show advanced
spalling.The fascias and interior of the box show minor isolated efflorescence from moisture penetration but
are still of sound concrete. The intent of the project is to address the deterioration of the downstream fascia and
repair the upstream wingwalls to increase the lifespan of the existing culvert
Inspection:
An inspection of the existing culvert was conducted on Thursday July 18th, 2024 to determine the extent of
deterioration. The face of the upstream wingwalls were widely spalled. Throughout the interior of the culvert,
there were a few isolated locations of efflorescence along the top and walls, as well as calcification at the
construction joints. The majority of the interior was of sound concrete and not to be of any structural concern.
The downstream fascia and wingwalls were found to be separated from the main box and completely failed.
Behind the east downstream wingwall, there is a large scour pocket where water from a concrete drain along
King Road West drains into and during high volume rain events, water rushes into the back of the wingwall. This
has caused it to scour and is likely the cause of separation from the main box.
Hydrology/Hydraulics:
A hydrologic/hydraulic analysis has been completed on the Unnamed Stream and the concrete drainage ditch
along King Road West.
Unnamed Stream:
The hydraulic analysis of the Unnamed Stream was conducted using HY-8 modeling software and the
design criteria in the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 8. Design flows were determined using
StreamStats data and increased by 10% in accordance with NYSDOT Hydraulic Design Criteria for
NYSDOT Region 3, Tompkins County. Analysis of the existing crossing results in a 50-year flood elevation
7.35 ft above the invert, providing an AHW/D ratio of 1.42. The 100-year flood elevation is 9.14 ft above
the invert, which results in -4.14 ft of freeboard. The existing culvert does not meet NYSDOT’s hydraulic
requirement of having an AHW/D maximum of 1. Hydraulics are not a controlling factor for the
proposed work as the structure is not being replaced.
item #1
David O’Shea
Town of Ithaca
September 13, 2024
Page 2
W. King Rd - Design Memo (ID 3177881)
A desktop review of the surrounding buildings/structures using LiDAR indicates that the nearest
structure to the culvert is approximately 20 feet above the invert of the culvert and will not be impacted
by the 100-year flood event.
Drainage Ditch:
The hydraulic analysis of the drainage ditch was conducted using TR-55 methodology and determined
the calculated flows, which are shown below. The drainage area of the ditch will be further analyzed
during the design process.
Storm Event 2-year 10-year 50-year
Peak Flow (cfs)13.82 29.91 48.62
Time of Concentration:45 minutes
CN:83
Alternative Analysis:
Three alternatives were evaluated to determine the best solution.
Rehabilitation:
The alternative of rehabilitating the culvert would involve refacing the upstream wingwalls and replacing
the downstream fascia and wingwalls. The downstream fascia and wingwalls would be removed back to
the next construction joint, approximately 14 ft, and replaced with a new concrete section 6 ft from the
construction joint with 45° wingwalls coming off the fascia and tying into the existing bedrock fascia. The
drainage ditch would be regraded into a catch basin placed in the scour area behind the east wingwall
and outlet through the back of the wingwall. Check dams would be placed along the length of the
concrete drainage ditch to slow the flow of the water before entering the catch basin. It is estimated
that this alternative would cost approximately $291,590.
Slip-Line:
The alternative of slip-lining the culvert would involve the same work as the rehabilitation alternative as
well as also utilizing a Glass Reinforced Plastic Liner or similar composite system to line the interior of
the culvert. Due to the varying geometry of the culvert, this system would be custom produced for this
culvert. The interior of the culvert is generally in fair condition, therefore a full slip-line alternative is not
determined to be advantageous to the Town. In addition, the structure is already hydraulically
undersized. Therefore, any reduction in open area is not desired. It is estimated that this alternative
would cost approximately $530,790.
Replacement:
The alternative of replacing the culvert entirely would involve closing the road and excavating down to
bedrock, removing the existing culvert and replacing it with a new culvert that would meet hydraulic
standards. Along with this alternative, the drainage ditch would be regraded into a catch basin placed in
the scour area behind the east wingwall and outlet through the back of the wingwall. Check dams would
be placed along the length of the concrete drainage ditch to slow the flow of the water before entering
the catch basin. This alternative would have the highest cost compared to the other alternatives. In
David O’Shea
Town of Ithaca
September 13, 2024
Page 3
W. King Rd - Design Memo (ID 3177881)
addition, the roadway would be closed during construction, impacting residents. It is estimated that
this alternative would cost approximately $1.2M.
Recommendation:
Our recommendation is to rehabilitate the culvert, as it presents the best cost-to-benefit ratio compared
to the other alternatives. The replacement alternative would increase the service life of the culvert and
improve the hydraulic capacity compared to the existing culvert, but it comes with a high a construction
cost and greater impact to residents. A majority of the length of the culvert is still in good condition, and
the culvert has no history of flooding.
The slip-lining alternative would structurally line the existing culvert, however this alternative would
decrease the hydraulic capacity of the structure. Due to the condition of the main barrel of the culvert, a
slip-line alternative is not recommended.
The Rehabilitation Alternative addresses the structural and drainage needs of the project at the most
effective cost, therefore it is the preferred alternative.
Work Zone Traffic Control:
The west-bound lane will be closed over the culvert crossing during construction. Traffic will be maintained using
a single lane of alternating traffic controlled by temporary traffic signals throughout the duration of
construction.
Right-of-Way:
The existing culvert extends past the highway boundary and will require temporary easements. It is anticipated
that the Town will obtain releases to complete this work. A detailed plan outlining the area of disturbance will
be prepared during final design to present to the adjacent landowners.
Environmental & Permitting:
Based on a desktop environmental review, the following permits will be required for construction for all three of
the alternatives:
1.NYSDEC Water Quality Certification
2.NYSDEC Stream Disturbance
3.ACOE NWP #3
KTR/
Item Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
201.06 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS 12,000.00$12,000.00$
203.21 SELECT STRUCTURE FILL 530 CY 65.00$34,450.00$
553.030001 TEMPORARY WATERWAY DIVERSION STRUCTURE 1 LS 5,000.00$5,000.00$
555.97130016 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 20 CY 1,500.00$30,000.00$
580.01 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 25 CY 500.00$12,500.00$
595.50000018 SHEET-APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE 50 SF 6.00$300.00$
603.9824 SMOOTH INTERIOR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE CULVERT
AND STORMDRAIN 24 INCH DIAMETER 100 LF 115.00$11,500.00$
604.02010011 CATCH BASIN - TYPE 1 (NYC)2 EA 10,000.00$20,000.00$
606.10 BOX BEAM GUIDE RAILING 675 LF 40.00$27,000.00$
606.120102 BOX BEAM GUIDE RAILING END ASSEMBLY, TYPE I 4 EA 1,100.00$4,400.00$
606.73 REMOVING AND DISPOSING BOX BEAM GUIDE RAILING 675 LF 10.00$6,750.00$
610.1601 TURF ESTABLISHMENT - ROADSIDE 160 SY 3.00$480.00$
611.0111 PLANTING - MAJOR DECIDUOUS TREES - SIZE AS SPECIFIED BALL
& BURLAP, FIELD POTTED OR FIELD BOXED 10 EA 500.00$5,000.00$
619.01 BASIC WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 5,000.00$5,000.00$
619.04 TYPE III CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE 2 EA 55.00$110.00$
619.1301 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1 ELOC 10,000.00$10,000.00$
619.1302 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1 ELOC 10,000.00$10,000.00$
625.01 SURVEY OPERATIONS 1 LS 20,000.00$20,000.00$
699.04001 MOBILIZATION 1 LS 8,600.00$8,600.00$
SUBTOTAL 223,090.00$
ENGINEERING 35,000.00$
CONTIGENCY (15%)33,500.00$
TOTAL 291,590.00$
REHABILITATION COST - KING ROAD WEST
Item Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
201.06 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS 12,000.00$12,000.00$
203.21 SELECT STRUCTURE FILL 530 CY 65.00$34,450.00$
553.030001 TEMPORARY WATERWAY DIVERSION STRUCTURE 1 LS 5,000.00$5,000.00$
555.97130016 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 20 CY 1,500.00$30,000.00$
580.01 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 25 CY 500.00$12,500.00$
595.50000018 SHEET-APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE 50 SF 6.00$300.00$
603.9824 SMOOTH INTERIOR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE CULVERT
AND STORMDRAIN 24 INCH DIAMETER 100 LF 115.00$11,500.00$
604.02010011 CATCH BASIN - TYPE 1 (NYC)2 EA 10,000.00$20,000.00$
606.10 BOX BEAM GUIDE RAILING 675 LF 40.00$27,000.00$
606.120102 BOX BEAM GUIDE RAILING END ASSEMBLY, TYPE I 4 EA 1,100.00$4,400.00$
606.73 REMOVING AND DISPOSING BOX BEAM GUIDE RAILING 675 LF 10.00$6,750.00$
610.1601 TURF ESTABLISHMENT - ROADSIDE 160 SY 3.00$480.00$
611.0111 PLANTING - MAJOR DECIDUOUS TREES - SIZE AS SPECIFIED BALL
& BURLAP, FIELD POTTED OR FIELD BOXED 10 EA 500.00$5,000.00$
619.01 BASIC WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 5,000.00$5,000.00$
619.04 TYPE III CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE 2 EA 55.00$110.00$
619.1301 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1 ELOC 10,000.00$10,000.00$
619.1302 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1 ELOC 10,000.00$10,000.00$
625.01 SURVEY OPERATIONS 1 LS 20,000.00$20,000.00$
XXX.XXX GLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC LINER 1 LS 200,000.00$200,000.00$
699.04001 MOBILIZATION 1 LS 16,600.00$16,600.00$
SUBTOTAL 431,090.00$
ENGINEERING 35,000.00$
CONTIGENCY (15%)64,700.00$
TOTAL 530,790.00$
SLIP-LINING COST - KING ROAD WEST
Item Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
201.06 CLEARING AND GRUBBING NEC LS 20,000.00$20,000.00$
203.02 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL 240 CY 50.00$12,000.00$
203.03 EMBANKMENT IN PLACE 2815 CY 35.00$98,525.00$
203.21 SELECT STRUCTURAL FILL 860 CY 75.00$64,500.00$
206.01 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION 600 CY 35.00$21,000.00$
207.26 PREFABRICATED COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL DRAIN 355 SY 20.00$7,100.00$
209.13 SILT FENCE-TEMPORARY 200 LF 6.00$1,200.00$
304.12 SUBBASE COURSE, TYPE 2 108 CY 75.00$8,100.00$
404.0983 9.5 F3 TOP COURSE ASPHALT, 80 SERIES COMPACTION 32 TON 140.00$4,480.00$
404.1989 19 F9 BINDER COURSE ASPHALT, 80 SERIES COMPACTION 50 TON $ 135.00 6,750.00$
404.2589 25 F9 BINDER COURSE ASPHALT, 80 SERIES COMPACTION 70 TON $ 150.00 10,500.00$
407.0102 DILUTED TACK COAT 367 GAL $ 4.00 1,468.00$
418.7603 ASPHALT PAVEMENT JOINT ADHESIVE 160 LF $ 1.00 160.00$
553.030001 TEMPORARY WATERWAY DIVERSION STRUCTURE 1 EACH 20,000.00$20,000.00$
555.97130016 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 19 CY 1,500.00$28,500.00$
595.50000018 SHEET-APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE 3340 SF 6.00$20,040.00$
603.63180615 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT (FILL HEIGHT 2 FT OR
GREATER)115 LF 4,500.00$517,500.00$
603.98240000 SMOOTH INTERIOR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE CULVERT AND
STORMDRAIN 24 INCH DIAMETER 100 LF 115.00$11,500.00$
604.02010010 CATCH BASIN - TYPE 1 (NYC)1 EA 10,000.00$10,000.00$
606.10 BOX BEAM GUIDE RAILING 675 LF 50.00$33,750.00$
606.120201 BOX BEAM GUIDE RAILING END ASSEMBLY, TYPE IIA 4 EAC
H 2,100.00$8,400.00$
606.71 REMOVING AND DISPOSING CORRUGATED BEAM GUIDE RAILING 675 LF 3.00$2,025.00$
610.1601 TURF ESTABLISHMENT - ROADSIDE 367 SY 3.00$1,101.00$
611.01 PLANTING - MAJOR DECIDUOUS TREES - SIZE AS SPECIFIED BALL
& BURLAP, FIELD POTTED OR FIELD BOXED 20 EA 500.00$10,000.00$
619.01 BASIC WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL NEC LS 30,000.00$30,000.00$
619.04 TYPE III CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE 14 EA 55.00$770.00$
620.05 STONE FILLING (HEAVY)10 CY $ 150.00 1,500.00$
620.0801 BEDDING MATERIAL, TYPE 1 4 CY $ 100.00 400.00$
625.01 SURVEY OPERATIONS NEC LS $ 20,000.00 20,000.00$
627.50140008 CUTTING PAVEMENT 60 LF $ 3.00 180.00$
646.32 STEEL POST, 2.0 LB/FT 8 EA 100.00$800.00$
699.04001 MOBILIZATION 1 LS 38,900.00$38,900.00$
SUBTOTAL 1,011,149.00$
ENGINEERING 40,000.00$
CONTIGENCY (15%)151,700.00$
TOTAL 1,202,849.00$
REPLACEMENT COST - KING ROAD WEST