HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-20 PACKET 12.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING ITEM # ��
DATE 11 /20/2013 • .
PREPARED BY Community Development Jennifer Levitt
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD
****�*****�**�****��***********************�*��*
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST:
Workshop: 2014 Pavement Management.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
❑ MEMO/LETTER:
❑ RESOLUTION:
❑ ORDINANCE:
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
� OTHER: Feasibility Report from Bolton and Menk.
��►I ► :� •: •►I►I_►
,
� �i ,� ����
City Ad inistrator ��� Date
*************�****�***************�* �**�*�*****
� � � .� � � �
,
���������������������������������������������������������
Cottage
J Grove
� Pride and PrOSPerity Meet
Feasibility Report
for
2014 Pavement Management Project
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
November 2013 �
Project Number N15.106799
�
��
�
_�
o�� � ��z
m��
�. �
.,�„� �ssa'
BOLTON 8� M�N K, I NC�
Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
2035 County Road D East • Suite B• Maplewood, MN 55109-5314
Phone (651) 704-9970 • Fax (651) 704-9971
www.bolton-menk.com
November 20, 2013
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Cottage Grove
12800 Ravine Parkway South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
RE: 2014 Pavement Management Project
BMI Project No. N15.106799
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Enclosed for your review is the 2014 Pavement Management Project Feasibility Repart. The project scope
includes street rehabilitation and utility repairs within pavement district F 1 and a portion of F4, as
identified in this report
This report describes the improvements necessary within the project area. Cost estimates for the proposed
improvements are presented in the Report.
We would be happy to discuss this report at your convenience. Please contact me at 651-968-7674 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
BOLTON & MENK, INC.
Mike Boex, PE
DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
Bol[on & Menk is an equal opportuniry employer
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
FEASIBILITY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tableof Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i
Certification............................................................................................................................................ ii
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Existing Conditions — Disctricts F 1& F4 ................................................................................................. 2
Streets............................................................................................................................................... 2
SanitarySewer .................................................................................................................................. 5
WaterN1ain ....................................................................................................................................... 5
StorxnSewer ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Proposed Improvements — Districts F 1& F4 ............................................................................................ 5
Streets............................................................................................................................................... 5
SanitarySewer .................................................................................................................................. 6
WaterN1ain ....................................................................................................................................... 6
StorxnSewer ..................................................................................................................................... 6
StormWater Quality ......................................................................................................................... 6
Proposed Improvements — Trail ............................................................................................................... 6
Permitsand Easements ............................................................................................................................ 7
EstimatedCosts ....................................................................................................................................... 7
CostAllocation ................................................................................................................................. 7
Financing.......................................................................................................................................... 9
RestorationOptions ................................................................................................................................. 9
PublicHearing ....................................................................................................................................... 10
ProjectSchedule .................................................................................................................................... 10
Conclusion And Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 10
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota Table of Contents
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page i
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
APPENDIX
Appendix A— Existing Pavement Condition Photos
Appendix B — Figures
Figure 1 — Location Map
Figure 2— Streets - Year Constructed
Figure 3— Pavement Condition Rating
Figure 4 — Proposed Improvements
Figure 5 —Utility Repairs
Figure 6 — Assessable Parcels
Appendix C— Cost Estimate Summary
Appendix D— Preliminary Assessment Roll
Appendix E Pavement Condition Overview
Appendix F Pavement Cores
Appendix G —Falling Weight Deflectometer
Appendix H —Milling Test Areas
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or repart was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
IC
Michael J. Boex, P.E.
License No. 44576
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Date: November 20. 2013
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota Certification
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page ii
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Heritage Estates Addition, Ridgewood ls` through 7"' Additions, and the Knollwood ls` through 3`
Additions have been identified as candidates for rehabilitation during the 2014 construction season as a
part of the City of Cottage Grove's ongoing roadway rehabilitation program. The City Council authorized
preparation of this Repart to determine the feasibility of rehabilitating those streets as a part of the 2014
Pavement Management Project.
These residential neighborhoods are located east of Jamaica Avenue and south of 90 Street and are part
of Pavement Management District F 1 and a portion of F4, as shown on Figure 1 located in Appendix A
There are thirty-seven residential streets within these neighborhoods totaling approximately 26,000 lineal
feet
The purpose of this report is to fixrther evaluate the wark required far this street rehabilitation project, to
provide an estimate of cost, and to establish a method of cost allocation or assessment in order to
determine the physical and economic feasibility.
This feasibility report examines the following street segments:
District F 1:
1. 91�` Street So. from Islay Avenue So. to Jareau Avenue So.
2. 91�` Street So. from 91�` Street So. to cul-de-sac (8802-885�
3. 91�` Street So. from 91�` Street So. to cul-de-sac (8862-8900)
4. Jane Avenue So. from 90 Street So. to 91s` Street So.
5. Janero Avenue So. from 90"' Street So. to 91�` Street So.
6. Jareau Avenue So. from 90 Street So. to 91�` Street So.
7. Jareau Avenue So. from Jareau Avenue So. to cul-de-sac (9021-9069)
8. Jareau Avenue So. from 91s` Street So. to 91�` Street So.
9. 91�` Street So. from Jareau Avenue So. to Jeffery Avenue So.
10. Jasmine Avenue So. from 90 Street So. to 91s` Street So.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Jasmine Court So. from Jasmine Avenue So. to cul-de-sac (9002-9018)
Jasmine Avenue So. from Jasmine Avenue So. to cul-de-sac (9047-9085)
Jasmine Avenue So. from 91s` Street So. to cul-de-sac (9103-9140)
Jarvis Avenue So. from 91�` Street So. to 92n Street So.
92n Street So. from Jarvis Avenue So. to Jeffery Avenue So.
Jeffery Avenue So. from 90`" Street So. to 93r Street So.
17. Jeffery Avenue So. from Jeffery Avenue So. to cul-de-sac (9029-9069)
18. Jeffery Avenue So. from Jeffery Avenue So. to cul-de-sac (9103-9153)
19. Jeffery Avenue So. from Jeffery Avenue So. to cul-de-sac (9203-922'n
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Jeffery Court from Jeffery Avenue So. to cul-de-sac.
93` Street So. from Jeffery Avenue So. to Jergen Avenue So.
Jergen Avenue So. from 93r Street So. to Jergen Bay So.
92n Street So. from Jergen Avenue So. to cul-de-sac
Jergen Court from Jergen Avenue So. to cul-de-sac
Jergen Bay from Jergen Avenue So. to cul-de-sac
Jergen Avenue So. from 90`" Street So. to Jergen Bay So.
Jergen Avenue from Jergen Avenue So. to cul-de-sac (9061-9083)
Jensen Avenue So. from 90`" Street So. to Jeffery Avenue So.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014PavementManagementProject Page 1
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
District F4:
1. Jareau Avenue So. from to 91�` Street So. to dead end (9499)
2. Jarrod Avenue So. loop from Jareau Avenue So. to Jareau Avenue So.
3. Jarrod Avenue So. from Jarrod Avenue So. to cul-de-sac (9337-9473)
4. 93r Street So. from Jareau Avenue So. to Jasmine Avenue So.
5. Jasmine Avenue So. from Jeffery Avenue So. to cul-de-sac
6. Jeffery Bay So. from Jeffery Avenue So. to cul-de-sac
7. Jeffery Avenue So. from 93` Street So. to cul-de-sac
8. Jergen Avenue So. from 93` Street So. to dead end (9495)
9. Jergen Place So. from Jergen Avenue So. to cul-de-sac
EXISTING CONDITIONS - DISCTRICTS F1 & F4
STREETS
The streets within District F 1 and F4 are urban-residential and were originally constructed in the late
1980's and early 1990's. The exceptions are the Ridgewood ls` Addition (1979) and Ridgewood 7"'
Addition (199'�. Generally, the streets are 32 feet wide (from face of curb to face of curb) with concrete
curb and gutter. Prior to the Wal-Mart development, Jeffery Avenue ha d been classified as a collector
roadway between 90 Street and its southernxnost sbxb with the intent that it would be �tended in the
fubxre. As a part of the Wal-Mart project, a permanent cul-de-sac was constructed on the southern plat
line of Ridgewood 5`" Addition and the collector classification effectively removed. This former collector
street is approximately 44 feet wide (from face of curb to face of curb) with concrete curb and gutter.
Avisual inspection was performed in 2013 to evaluate pavement surface conditions. The inspection
determined the pavement rating of these streets generally range from 50-60. Pavements in the lower end
of that range are considered fair and generally have major distress. In contrast, the 1994 Pavement
Management Plan depicted PCPs (Pavement Condition Index) in the range of 74-100. Per that plan,
PCPs in those ranges are classified as "Very Good" to "Excellent". Since 1994, pavement condition has
continued to deteriorate and much of the pavements have distress and are "Fair". Figure 2 depicts the age
of the streets within the neighborhood and Figure 3 depicts the visual pavement rating for each street
segment In addition, there are sections of existing curb and gutter that have settled, cracked, or have
other defects that will require replacement. Appendix A contains some representative photos of the
existing pavement condition.
It should be noted that the visual surface rating is a preliminary indicator of condition and potential
rehabilitation techniques; it should not automatically dictate the final maintenance or rehabilitation.
Factors such as traffic projections, pavement strength, and pavement structure condition should also be
considered.
PAVEMENT CORES
Coring of the pavement was performed to determine the thickness of the �isting street section and
evaluate pavement condition. From the cores, it can be seen that the average section consists of 3-4
inches of bituminous over 7-8 inches of gravel.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page 2
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Existing Street Section
No. Location Bituminous (in) Aggregate Base (in) Condition
1 8859 91�` Street 4" 6" *(Upper 1.5'�
2 9099 Janero Avenue 3.25" 6.5" Good
3 9088 Jareau Avenue 3.75" 10.5" *(Upper 2'�
4 9019 Jasmine Avenue 4.5" 8" Good
5 9022 Jeffery Avenue 4.25" T' *(Entire depth, broken)
6 9063 Jensen Avenue 3.75" 10.25" Good
7 9044 Jergen Avenue 3" 8" Good
8 9150 Jarvis Avenue 3.75" 8" *(Upper 2'�
9 9154 Jeffery Avenue 4.5" 9" *(Upper 2'�
10 9128 Jergen Court 3.75" 5.5" Good
11 9279 Jergen Avenue 3.25" 7.75" *(Entire depth, broken)
12 9247 Jeffery Avenue 3.75" 8" *(Upper 2.5'�
13 9334 93` Street 3.25" 7.5" *(Entire depth, broken)
14 9444 93` Street 3.25" 6.25" *(Upper 2'�
15 9116 Jergen Bay 3.75" 6.75" Good
16 9487 92v Street 2.38" 7.13" *(Bottom 1'�
17 9337 Jeffery Court 4.00" 6.00" *(Entire depth, broken)
18 9170 Jareau Avenue 3.13" 8.88" *(Entire depth)
19 9411 Jareau Avenue 3.25" 7.25" *(Entire depth, broken)
20 9340 Jarrod Avenue 3.00" 9.00" *(Uppe�' 1.5'�
21 9373 Jasmine Avenue 3.50" 8.00" *(Uppe�' Z", lnoken)
22 9426 Jeffery Avenue 3.13" 7.38" *(Entire depth, broken)
23 9448 Jergen Place 4.25" 6.25" *(Entire depth)
24 9338 Jergen Avenue 3.50" 7.50" Good
Average 3.58" 7.60"
* Asphalt strippmg observed (varymg severity), depths noted.
Seventeen of the twenty-four cores displayed degradation due to stripping, which is generally described
as the separation of aggregate from the asphalt due to moisture. The stripping found degrades the strength
and durability of the pavement. Seven of the cores were noted as broken, meaning the stripping was
severe enough that the top layer of bituminous fell apart as the core was extracted. The locations of
stripping coincided with areas where Public Works has performed extensive maintenance via temporary
overlays and patching. The stripping appears to occur in irregular patterns, however it appears to be most
severe in the pavement of the 1990's. Pictures of two sample cores can be seen in Appendix F.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page 3
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
ADDITIONAL TESTING
Due to the results of the cores and previous maintenance expended, the City decided to perform additional
testing of the pavement to evaluate strength and condition of the pavement strucbxre. Two additional
testing methods were perforxned:
1. Falling WeightDeflectometer (FWD)
2. Milling of test strips
The falling weight deflectometer (F WD) is a non-destructive process used to evaluate pavement structural
condition by providing an in-situ characterization of the pavement layer stiffness. The FWD applies
dynamic loads to a pavement surface, simulating the magnitude and duration of a single wheel load. The
downward movement (vertical deflection) of the pavement at various distances from the loading plate are
measured with various sensors. These measurements help determine the overall pavement load rating,
pavement layer characteristics and material properties (modulus), and subgrade strength characteristics
(in-situ R-value). Detailed FWD results are listed in Appendix G.
Milling of test strips was performed in order to evaluate the feasibility of a mill-overlay. Twelve test
areas were milled to a depth of approximately 2-inches. These test strips were approximately 7.5-feet
wide and 25 to 50-feet long. The purpose of the test strips was to determine the quantity and severity of
cracking below the pavement surface and visually evaluate the underlying pavement condition. Ideally,
milling the surface pavement will remove surface distress and reduce both the number and severity of
cracks in the remaining pavement, reducing the need for joint repair and subsequent reflective cracking.
Picbxres of the test mill strips are located in Appendix H.
ADDITIONAL TESTING SUMMARY
The FWD testing provides a pavement stiffness quantified as a modulus. With a few minor exceptions,
the modulus of the bibxminous layers intact (and without stripping) was much higher than those with
severe stripping. However, due to the sandy subgrade soils and good aggregate base, the pavement
structure as a whole tested structurally sound. Therefore, the issue facing the City is fixnctional and not
structural — meaning the recurrence of maintenance issues due to the relatively weak stripped pavement
material raveling and breaking apart.
The risks typical of all mill overlay projects, i.e. reflective cracking and the associated maintenance
required were evaluated to determine acceptable risk levels. In nine of the twelve test mill areas, milling
was performed to evaluate the feasibility of removing the upper 2" of stripped material which was
typically the most severe. In eight of those nine areas it was determined that the remaining pavement
posed risk for excessive cracking, thin pavement layers, or raveling in the base course. In the three
remaining test areas where stripping was not present, two displayed more severe cracking in the
bituminous base course increasing the potential volume of reflective cracking.
2013 IMPROVEMENTS
In the summer of 2013, permanent cul-de-sacs were constructed at the ends of Jasmine and Jeffery
Avenue. The parcels adjacent to the new cul-de-sacs are considered a part of this pavement management
project, are receiving benefit, and are therefore participating in the assessment. The costs to construct the
cul-de-sacs are not included in this repart and are therefore a cost savings to the project and subsequent
assessments.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page 4
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
SANITARY SEWER
The sanitary sewer system within the District F1 consists primarily of 8-inch VCP and PVC. The only
exception to this is a 12-inch reinforced concrete pipe on Jasmine Avenue between 91�` Street and 90`"
Street. The existing sanitary sewer has been televised to evaluate pipe condition. The televising reparts
show that the pipe is in good condition. However, some problems encountered in the existing sanitary
sewer were root intrusion, cracked pipe and sags. Miscellaneous structure repairs including patching,
lining, and other repairs were noted during the inspections.
WATER MAIN
The water mains within the project area consist of 6, 8, and 24-inch diameter ductile iron pipe. The mains
were insta lled in conjunction with the development of the neighborhoods. The water mains are believed
to be in good condition. However, a valve within Heritage Estates recently had the bolts replaced due to
excessive corrosion and iYs believed other valves in the area may be in a similar condition. Additionally,
there are expected to be some valves which are not operational and will need to be addressed with the
project. The valves will be operated and evaluated by Public Warks priar to the start of the project.
STORM SEWER
The existing storm sewer has been televised to determine pipe condition and necessary repairs. In
addition, storm structures were also inspected. Storm sewer mains are generally in good condition.
However, some problems encountered in the existing storm sewer were cracked or broken pipes and dirty
lines. Miscellaneous structure patching, lining, and other repairs were noted during the inspections.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - DISTRICTS F1 & F4
STREETS
Due to the range of pavement ages within Districts F 1 and F4, two primary rehabilitation methods would
typically be proposed, pavement replacement and mill-overlay. However, due to the observed depth and
extent of the pavement stripping in the cores, the results of FWD and test milling, and �tent of previous
City maintenance, a mill and overlay is not recommended at this time. While some streets may be able to
successfully accept a mill-overlay, there does not appear to be a logical break within the project limits
since the stripping is relatively random and severity of cracking in the base course varies greatly.
Therefore, the project area was viewed as a whole for future maintenance and system management. If
broken up into individual segxnents, each roadway segxnent would perform differently and require
different maintenance at different times since each rehabilitation has its own lifecycle.
Due to the types of distress present in the existing pavement, the anticipated acceleration of deterioration
due to asphalt stripping, and risks presented in previous sections of this report, the streets within F 1 and
F4 are proposed to undergo a full pavement removal and replacement with 3.5 inches of new pavement.
Since the concrete curb and gutter is generally in good condition, it is proposed to undergo spot
replacement. The curb in poor condition will be evaluated for removal just priar to construction, but
preliminary estimates indicate that 8-10% will need to be removed and replaced. Where conditions are
favorable, the goal is that the concrete curb and gutter last two pavement 1'ffecycles. The wear course is
proposed to be virgin mix, excluding the use of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP).
In locations where curb is replaced in front of driveways, curb will be removed and replaced and each
driveway would be patched the entire width with in-kind materials as a part of the street rehabilitation
process. Due to the nature of spot curb replacement, this patch typically �tends a few feet behind the
curb. Concrete pads for the community mailboxes will also be replaced as a part of this project.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page 5
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Traffic signs are proposed to be replaced as a part of this project to meet federal retroreflectivity
requirements. In addition, signs will be evaluated for conformance to the adopted City sign policy and
signs will be removed or supplemented as required.
SANITARY SEWER
Inline repairs are recommended to address cracks within the pipe. Where there are sags with a history of
back-ups, it is recommended that the pipe be removed and replaced. The sanitary sewer manhole castings
will be salvaged and reinstalled. The existing concrete adjusting rings will be replaced with new HDPE
adjusting rings conform to current City standards.
WATER MAIN
It is proposed that broken valve top sections be removed and replaced as a part of this project. In the
Heritage Estates Addition, it is proposed that the valves be dug up and checked for bolt corrosion and
replaced if necessary. As a part of this process, the valve box should be replaced in conjunction with that
wark. Also, there are some hydrants that should be adjusted. It is proposed to extend the hydrant barrel
on each of these hydrants. Fina lly, concrete hydrant access pads are proposed to be installed at all
hydrants in accordance with current City standards.
STORM SEWER
Generally speaking, the intent of this project is to rehabilitate the streets and not change existing drainage
patterns. In-line repairs are recommended to address cracks, and leaking or offset joints. Structures in
poor condition will be replaced to conform to current city standards. Adjustment rings for manholes will
be replaced with FIDPE rings. Catch basin rings will not be replaced unless the curb adjacent to them is
removed, or failure of the rings has occurred. The existing castings will be salvaged. Miscellaneous
structure patching, lining, and other repairs will be performed as needed.
Public Works staff provided input on areas with historic drainage concerns. No major flooding or
drainage issues were noted; therefore only minor curb grade modifications and valley gutter installations
are proposed to facilitate drainage.
Drainage immediately adjacent to 90` Street will be addressed as a part of a future 90"' Street project
STORM WATER QUALITY
Storm water quality improvements are not required in this neighborhood due to no increase of impervious
surfacing.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS-TRAIL
To be consistent with past City pavement management projects, parks or green spaces within or
immediately adjacent to the pavement management district typically receive upgrades. Therefore, the
wood-chip trail planned for the green space between the residential neighborhood and Wal-Mart is
proposed to be constructed at this time.
Trail Cost
Segxnent 1
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect
$38,483.45
contmgency + 3p% md�rect costs
Page 6
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Like the drainage issues along 90"' Street, improvements to the bibxminous trail adjacent to 90 are
anticipated to be addressed when 90 Street is rehabilitated.
�»:�1�1��r►�_�1����_�►��1�1��1�r►�
Because the roadway construction is considered a maintenance project that would not create any new
impervious surfaces and would not change the existing grade, hydraulics, or purpose of the roadway, the
Phase II General Storm Water Permit from the MPCA would not be required far that portion of the work
In addition, since the project is proposed to include trail construction and new impervious areas that are
less than an acre of disturbance, the project will most likely not trigger the need for the Phase II Storxn
Water Perxnit. If, during final design it is determined that a permit is needed, one will be obtained.
This project will require the following permits:
• Northern Natural Gas Pipeline encroachment agreement or permit for trail construction
• MCES encroachxnent agreement or permit far trail construction
No additional drainage and utility easements are anticipated in the neighborhoods, however, this will be
evaluated during the fmal design phase of the project.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Cost estimates far the improvements have been prepared and are included in the Appendix of this repart
All costs for items to be constructed are based on anticipated unit prices for the 2014 construction season.
All costs include a thirty (30) percent allowance for indirect costs associated with the project
(engineering, administrative, financing, and legal) as well as a ten (10) percent contingency. No costs are
included for capitalized interest during the construction period or before assessments are levied.
Following is an overall summary of the estimated costs:
Estimated Cost Summary
Location
Pavement Replacement
Trail Improvements
Total Estimated Project Cost:
xde 10% contineencv + 30% inc
COST ALLOCATION
Estimated Project Cost
$3,635,789.28
$38,483.45
$3,674,252.73
costs
Assessments far this project will be based upon the "Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force Special
Assessment Policy For Public Improvements," dated September 30, 2005, Revised August 8, 2012. All
adjacent benefiting properties are proposed to be assessed. Per the Urban Residential policy, 45% of the
project cost for both surface and subsurface improvements would be assigned to each individual
residential lot on a unit basis. The intent of the City's policy is to treat all properties within a residential
development as similar individual units regardless of lot frontage. The amount assessed is based on the
City standard street section even if the width is greater. City funds would be responsible for the
remaining 55% of the project costs.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page 7
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Per the policy, City-owned property was evaluated in the same manner as commerciaUindustrial lots
where 100% of the project costs adjacent to the property are assessed. In areas where residential property
was on the opposite side of the street of City properly, half of the street width was assigned to the
residential area and the other half to the City. The estimated project assessments are as follows:
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY:
Estimated Cost Allocation
Total Estimated
Estimated City Street Adjustment C ��
Location Street Property Cost for Half of Property
Costs* Front Adjacent Assessment
Street**
($/1� Footage (Itj to City (100% of
Pro ert Total
F1 &F4—PavementReplacement $97.68 20 $1,953.51 $976.76 $976.76
Totals: $976.76
* Total Project Cost, includes Street & Utilities
** lncludes 50%reduction Yor property on one side oY the street
URBAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE:
Location
F 1& F4 — Pavement Replacement
Trail Improvements
Totals:
S ee
C
Estimated Cost Allocation
Other Funds *
$2,080,774.54
$38,483.45
$2,119,257.98
Assessed Amount
(45% of TotaD
$1, 554,994.74
$1,554,994.74
Estimated
oiect Cost
$3, 635, 769.28
$38,483.45
$3,674,252.73
Estimated Cost Per Unit
Assessable Assessed Amount Assessed Cost Special Benefit
Location RBLE (45% of Total) Per RBLE Unit Appraisal
Units Per Polic
F1&F4—PavementReplacement 513 $1,554,994.74 $3,031.18
SingleFamily: $3,03118 $TBD
However, due to the special benefit appraisal, the single-family assessments are proposed to be capped at
$TBD. If needed, City funds will cover the difference between the calculated assessment and the benefit
appraisal.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page 8
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
FINANCING
Assessments are proposed to be levied based on the City's current assessment policy. The remainder of
the project would be financed through a combination of City funds such as the General Tax Levy and
Enterprise funds for itexns such as storxn sewer improvements. General Levy funds will be utilized for the
proposed trail improvements. Figures 7& 8 depict the assessable parcels far the project.
RESTORATION OPTIONS
Restoration concerns have prompted the review of restoration materials used on pavement management
projects. The 2005 MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction identify three typical topsoil
specifications in Section 3877-Topsoil Borrow. They are: 3877.2A— Topsoil Borrow, 3877.2B — Select
Topsoil Borrow, and 3877.2C — Premium Topsoil Borrow. As a baseline far the purposes of depicting
costs, Topsoil Borrow was used in the table below. Grade 2 Compost was also depicted as a standalone
cost since it can be mixed with topsoil at various ratios to create a blended product. TopsoiUCompost
mixtures are typically 70/30 or 50/50 ratios. Typical unit costs and corresponding impacts to the
assessment are depicted below:
Estimated Cost
Scenario A* Scenario B**
Unit Percent Construction Assessment Construction Assessment
Item Price Increase Q Cost Im act*** Q Cost Im act***
Topsoil
38772A—Topsoil $15/cy - - - - -
Borrow
38772B—Select $25/cy 67% +$5,000 +$627 +$52,000 +$6522
Topsoil Borrow 500 5,200
38772C—Premium $30/cy 100% +$7,500 +$9.40 +$78,000 +$97.84
Topsoil Borrow
38902B—Compost, g32/cy 113% +$8,500 +$10.66 +$88,400 +$110.89
Grade 2
Restorafion
Seed & Hydromulch $1.50/sy - - - - -
B1ownCompost& $1.80/sy 20% 2,300 +$690 +$0.87 23,975 +$7,192.50 +$9.02
Seed (1" Top-dress)
Sod $3.50/sy 133% +$4,600 +$5.77 +$47,950 +$60.15
* Cost impactto this specific project restoration quantity relatively small due to spot curb replacement
** C;ost impact on a Yull curb replacement pro�ect.
*** Total Project Cost Includes 10% Contingency + 30% Indirect Costs
To illustrate an order of magnitude, specifying Premium Topsoil Borrow versus Topsoil Borrow would
add approximately $80,000 to the conshuction cost of the project 'ff full curb replacement occurred. The
primary differences between the three standard topsoil specifications are changes in gradation (allowable
material size), material composition, and pH. In addition, Premium Topsoil borrow is specified to be
screened and pulverized.
The benefits of adding compost to topsoil are to increase the organic content, nutrients, and moisture
capacity of the soiL It should be noted that miYbxres containing compost have been known to settle over
time. This results in having to initially place the material high in anticipation of future settlements. In
addition, uneven settling can sometimes occur.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014 Pavem ent Managem ent Proj ect Page 9
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Because the properties within the project area benefit from the proposed improvements, and the project
will be partially funded through assessment, it will be necessary far the City to hold a public
improvement hearing to receive comment on the proposed project and to determine further action to be
taken.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Below is the proposed schedule assuming starting construction in 2014:
• 09/04/2013 Council Orders Feasibility Report
• 11/20/2013 Council Warkshop
• 12/12/2013
• 12/18/2013
• O1/15/2014
• 03/OS/2014
• 04/03/2014
• 04/16/2014
• Spring 2014
• September 2014
• September 2014
• October 2014
Hold Neighborhood Meeting
Council Receives and Approves Feasibility Report
Council Sets a Public Improvement Hearing Date
Council Holds Public Improvement Hearing
Council Orders the preparation of the Plans and Specifications
Council Approves the Plans and Specifications
Project Bid Date
Contract Award
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Council sets Assessment Hearing Date
Council holds Assessment Hearing
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that this report be used as a guide far the layout, design, and cost allocation far the
public improvements. It is further recommended that the owners of properties within the project limits be
notified of the proposed improvements in order to provide comment.
To determine project feasibility, a comparison was made between the costs estimated herein and the costs
experienced for other similar projects within the City. These comparisons, on a per linear foot
construction cost basis (no indirect project costs), are shown in the following table:
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014PavementManagementProject Page 10
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Cost per Unit Comparison
2014 Pavement Management Project (Estimated) $97.68
2013 Pavement Management Project (Bid Results)
District Cl & District C2 — Pavement Replacement Area $151.18
District C2 — Mill & Overlay Area $94.09
2011 Pavement Management Project (Bid Results)
Pine Coulee/Countrywood $68.49
Howard's Addition $63.18
2010 Pavement Management Project - River Acres (Bid Results) $69.14
2008 Pavement Management Project (Bid Results) $96.00
From the tabulation above, it can be seen that the cost to rehabilitate in the pavement replacement areas
are less than the costs from the 2013 Pavement Management Project. This is primarily due to the fact that
the existing concrete curb and gutter is in better shape with less anticipated replacement and therefore less
impact to existing driveways and boulevards. In addition, because the curb is being left in place, placing
street light wire in conduit is not being proposed. In fact, curb damage is estimated to be less than 2013's
mill & overlay area.
In contrast, the costs are slightly higher than 2011 due to the fact that this project includes streets with
concrete curb and gutter and public sanitary sewer, storxn sewer, and water main repairs. In addition, the
street widths are significantly wider than the rural residential streets from 2010 and 2011.
The project is financially feasible, with funding sources identified from the City as well as the benefited
properties adjacent to the project Financial responsibilities have been determined based on estimated
project costs as well as adopted City policy.
From an engineering standpoint, this project is feasible, necessary, and cost effective.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2014PavementManagementProject Page 11
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Appendix A
Existing Pavement Condition Photos
Cottage
� Grove
� Pride andPCOSPerity Meet
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 Pavement Management Project
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
District Fl
Approximate Location: 91�` Street cul-de-sac.
Irregular block cracking with open cracks (approximately 1.5'�.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
District Fl
Approximate Location: 91�` Street cul-de-sac.
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
District Fl
Approximate Location: 91 Street west of Janero Ave.
Blow patching present along street to patch deteriorating pavement
���;_.,
�igp'. � `��
��t—
District Fl
Approximate Location: Jareau Ave cul-de-sac.
Early signs of stripping (small holes of seal coating strippuig of�.
�
��„''.:'' ` _ _ : :
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
District Fl
Approximate Location: Jeffery Avenue approaching 90`" Street
Thin overlay along right curb line performed by Public Works.
. � - -
S,
<�
�
�2 .. _�
District Fl
Approximate Location: Jasmine Avenue cul-de-sac
Extensive cracking due to pavement aging is evident
� ,, � ,�,. �---•
- ;. , ,,
� s;;; ,. :, _ � ,� �,,,� .
!�'_ _ " V�. f �
� �
rrw ,{ �.1. x r • � ��. -wn � � -- . � -',�
_'-_— ` , .. � � . ..
- 'i� _
.. �. _ - . �3; .. .,
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
District Fl
Approximate Location: 9032 Jareau Avenue
Block cracking and occasional blow patching. Some joints are open.
$F_ �
�y. 1. ��e� - .',' _. v<:..
ai
- -_ '?:. " � - .
a w �h.;' .
��
L °-,-
-.o.._ : - _ . '. .. ..
� :� � . . � . . . ! �_ .
'�. �� . � ��'-"� _
* '� . . � �: •;:'�.
. - 5 -, ' � _�.'r
7 . �� '"'��-
�_ �
� J T
) � ry
� � j '
� l' / a
�
�:�- -..t.Af ��:.,'8 . . .. . , iF `{* , f��.-:.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
� ^.�'�,�.7
� -
. i z.
t ". ,r
District Fl
Approximate Location: 93` Street east of Jeffery Avenue
Thin overlays attempting to hold together areas of extensively
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
District Fl
Approximate Location: Jeffery Court
Blow patching of stripped pavement.
�� �<�
�� .
s
.
F �➢
�
t ��,
ft�i " v�, .,. , ,
I'� '
��"�st . �:�
� .n
$�= _
,. ,.6 �:.
-.- �'.�
_ �
r. '
:-� ��r:'�
__�
District Fl
Approximate Location: Jergen Court
Regular transverse (thermal) cracking with subsequent block cracking present.
t ;\ . ��� f
*�` y- � ;�—��y � yi;T �.%�
.,� � �� d �
�
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
` � �=:r= :
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
District F4
Approximate Location: 93` Street and Jasmine Avenue intersection
Stripping and patching of the existing pavement. Seal coat peeling off pavement
i
F -
�=' __,,,�,:� ,-
. .�.°
�
�` -: .
�
�
. V e � . . . � � � .}�
District F4
Approximate Location: 9301 Jareau Avenue
Extensive stripping and patching of the existing pavement.
- _ -�� -
a `�
.,+'�'�0;� � � I ! � ; �
�� �I � � � � ll 11 �
..._ ',�. . �
� �.. ..::�. -�..�. � �
�
.
Pr-'- _
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
� -•�
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
District F4
Approximate Location: 9336 Jeffery Avenue
Extensive stripping and multiple patching/overlays of the existing pavement over time.
t� �
� �
� � �; � � ,.
< ��. � � �
��,il�'� V ,x�;1w
. 'i►
District F4
Approximate Location: 9492 Jarrod Avenue
Stripping and patching of the existing pavement.
� ; �
� _ �
� �
a
., .. _
i "
� �1� C - . . __ . � _. ` �.
4 '
� _ � . .. . �'' . _ . .
�: �
�_
� I
x
�'- . . ' .. . _ . . _ .. _._
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Curb to remain
Crack is tight and there is no settlement or differential movement. Curb is functional.
� :...- a �- k >.:` �,.y r, c +r`��V' � .�:.'. `, F , P,��i'�', vr� �_ _ ^T- - t' ; aT; �
e
��` � 13 �.._.'� n, v�Gh �_`^/':� v .� �k � %'ti-,it
Curb to be replaced
Curb that is cracked in multiple locations, has settled, or has raveled and open joints is proposed to be
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
�J
� 4' _- � _ � :,,i.`hy.s'"'t".e. _ . . . . � .
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Appendix 6
Figures
Cottage
� Grove
� Pride andPCOSPerity Meet
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 Pavement Management Project
�
�i;
�,
�" � � �
I l�' l ��� ,
w1�L(� /
� v /� �
�
_i ,J�
/
"o� /
,``/ /
P�
� /
P/
,�.
, %
� � �
/
� /
r \ �
°
�
0
=
0
F
\�
90TH AREET 50.
_ �
1 4"/1.5" I
� T
Q
p
z.
¢
�,
O
,
JAREAU
PAVEMENT DISTRICT F1
I s
� � �
\ �
�
— � a '�
� a
3 ]5
o �l.��..,-.�a I ��
� '8 �r _ I�
'a Il k- _. _ i
I� � � �
� � �
�
� �
a�
\ �
\ ] °
} _
o!
� �
� a
� 4
� —I r ai
__ z ' �
�
w� „ „
. 3 /0
s
��,,� o
,�5
P
S � J
jk� � :9 � ..
�� . , �
,
�6fE0.V 6P� � � �.
12F
�, ���3.
� <
9 �
� m
Ro�sTREE �� �
t `
o�3^d5' 21 :�. � .y�`f
�... � 3.5"/2 ` 37 _
i
/� ��
�� ��
5 ��►.:.. �$""'.,�`� �
r �
� � � �
,� �
13 930.0 . '
fl �� 1 24�.
6
� 6
9 JERGEN PL50 "
¢
'..« �.-�..�r-.s-�,--ia-ww-w-�r-w ��a-w-wrsn � �: sr*; s+. �-ir �..
_0� �(�, ��,
�� i ��
— — .—
_
AIA BOLTON 8c MENK� INC_
,1I11 Consul}ing Engineers & Surveyars
I + I MHNKHTO�MNFHIPMONTMNSLEEWEVE�MNWILLMPP�MNBVPNNLLE�MN
0 qIP5Kf1MNPHMSEVMNMHPLEWOO��MNBPHINEP��MNHME5IH
90TH AREET 50.
LEGEND:
� CONSTRUCTED 1979
CONSTRUCTED 1987
CONSTRUCTED 1988
CONSTRUCTED 1989
CONSTRUCTED 1990
CONSTRUCTED 1991
� CONSTRUCTED 1993
� CONSTRUCTED 1994
CONSTRUCTED 1997
-!!.-..-�! NEIGHBORHOODBOUNDARY
— — — PAVEMENT DISTRICT
NOTE:
HERITAGE ESTATES ADDITION AND RIDGE WOOD STH
ADDITION WERE CONARUQED IN TWO PHASES
PAVEMENT CORES:
X"/Y": EX. BIT. THICKNESS / DEPTH OF STRIPPING
X � � PAVEMENTCORE
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECr
c�� or
� Cottage Grove ° 2 �°
Horizonbl Scale In Feet
Minnesota
/; � ,
,��i
�" � � �
I l�' l ��� ,
w1�L(� /
� v /� �
�� �
/
/
"o� /
,``/ /
P�
� /
P/
,�.
� ' . /
�� , �
\ �
�%
°
�
0
i
O
F
\ �w
90TH AREET 50.
1 I
1 I
1
����-� ��� ' ..�.
. \ /
' I� � I
� W W
� . ��_N. . �F
915T
� � � � � � �
��
�
O
I wQ I QI
.�. - ���I .. JAREAU
. .z. .- -¢- .
Q �
�
� �-w' 1
� o '
� � __ J w '
7 C
� I � � ' �
� �
1
� �
C . ' -
a c�� � �
�. �
� �
\ �
1 � ~
� w __
'
0
' Q� JARROD.
1
\
� (
6
y
�
¢
� � � � �
� o
'
c
2 .
915T AREET SQ � -
Q
PAVEMENT DISTRICT F1
; o
��
a
a
yF
��
, �
i
���
�IE�R� � �'�
O '
¢ �
z '
z '
�
1
�E, I
9L '
1
- �
F � �I
C�
y _
9L
F
, ���� � �_�
; { ;_ T ,,�i �
• , .y �
� � � . ,�_
�
♦ � � . �- � � � � _�
,
� , 9 �^ ° I i �
o > =�
� 9seos7eeeTSg. �I � \ ys\osT�EFrso �� �
g � �
� � . ��� �� � � � � �
� `
1 Q `� � � .. _ .,��� , �
�� $� � � . I � � � � �.�1�� � �i �
� '
a
-, �.. , �____ . .
. . . ., �6 i / o . . �o �
. �Q - 'j JERGENPLSQ �� ��
Q
.. .z �r� ,.' . . Z .
AVE SQ � . . _ . � „� r w �
� � LL �
_ � w �
. �., � � � ,�� � � a � � � �- �-� � � ��� � � � fft� I�-.r� � a �
i� li ..�,.. ..��.
AIA BOLTON 8c MENK� INC_
,1I11 Consul}ing Engineers & Surveyars
I + I MHNKHTO�MNFHIPMONTMNSLEEWEVE�MNWILLMPP�MNBVPNNLLE�MN
0 qIP5Kf1MNPHMSEVMNMHPLEWOO��MNBPHINEP��MNHME5IH
90TH AREET 50.
LEGEND:
XX: PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING
50
55
60
65
� � � PAVEMENT DISTRICT
� �'
I
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECr
City of
� Cottage Grove ° 2 �°
Horizonbl Scale In Feet
Minnesota
/; � ,
,��i
�" � � �
I l�' l ��� ,
w1�L(� /
� v /� �
�� �
/
/
"o� /
,``/ /
P�
� /
P/
,�.
�-.. �
\ ^ /
\ �
/�
°
5
�
0
=
O
F
\ �w
90TH AREET 50.
1
1
� ���
�� � � � � � � �'
■ `�
� �
� ,11I'�_ � f�
� ��N �N
915T STREET 50.
�� � �� � � � � ��� � �■
�
u ^
Q
p _
.. .�. .z. I
¢
O
JAREqU AVE. S�
�
"k
�
� �-,. �. � w � �'-
��I 6 '
� � >
Q �
� W �
., . . .. �� a �� �
� ' 1
� � �� �
�
� ��
C . �
1 � �
a ; :;��
,
�
,,
�
, �'
,a
0
,�
Q JARROD
�
1.
% / � J iARROD AVE 50
�-� �-rfa...E,�
� �i II 1� h�l� , '
r, �
-
—
_
— —
_ � � � _ � �
PAVEMENT DISTRICT F1
.
O
¢
z
�
90TH AREET 50.
�
1
1
LEGEND:
' PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED TRAIL
FUTURE TRAIL
� � � PAVEMENT DISTRICT
Q � 0 ..._ II � ' /� . ;
� i
� m � O � � /
_ W .� Q JERGEN PL50. Q '
. . . ..r ,. . .
� � w
. _ _ . ... � LL .... . � � �.
_ . G LL� .� � . . .__ _..... _.__.__ _..__. .._
�_ I I�- - I -�� � � � �-� a � � � � � �ff� � � �� � �' a � .� ..
-- ---.- _- .;:,,._�_ �.,.�"—...�-= . - ..
'
-
I
AIA BOLTON 8c MENK� INC_
,1I11 Consul}ing Engineers & Surveyars
I + I MHNK4TO�MNFHIPMONTMNSLEEWEVE�MNWILLMPP�MNBVPNNLLE�MN
0 qIP5Kf1MNPHMSEVMNMHPLEWOO��MNBPHINEP��MNHME5IH
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECr
City of
� Cottage Grove ° 2 �°
Horizonbl Scale In Feet
Minnesota
AOTH AREET SQ .. .� .... � �� �� .. .
LEGEND
� REPL4CE VALVE B0%AND BOLTS
� STORMSEWER:
PATCH STRUCTURE (WALL, INVERT, OR DOGHOUSE)
STORM SEWER:
ADD 1-FT BARREL SECTION
SANITARV SEWER:
ADD 1-FT BARREL SECrION
� SANITARVSEWER:
PATCH STRUCTURE (WALL, INVERT, OR DOGHOUSE)
� SANITARVSEWER:
4'CIPP REPAIR
• SANITARVSEWER:
REMOVE & REPL4CE 50' SEGMENT
� SANITARVSEWER:
CHEMICALROOTTRFATMENT
� STORMSEWER:
4'CIPP REPAIR
�
..�.... _.__ _..... ___._ _.._.__..
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECr
Cityo( � BOLTON 8� MENK� INC_ �
� Cottage Grove 0 200 400 Consul}ing Engineers & Surveyars
�
Horizontal Scale In Feet MAmKAro, mm FAwmomr mm s�eew eve, mm wi�umPa, mm eoamsnue, mm
Mil'1f1@50�0 cHasKq mm aAms�v, mm mAP�ew000, mm eaAweao, mm Ames iA
��,� ��
� ��
�11 � i
�I /
;/
O
Q
5,
° c
�
o:
O
0
H
Z
�
4.
90TH AREET 50.
LEGEND:
RESIDENTIAL
CITY PROPERTY
� �'
I
� �1�Y Of
Cottage Grove
Minnesota
90TH STREET 50. n � � � � � � � 1_i _� � �. �., �. � �_�-� �..s � � � � �. �.. � � � �. �. � �. �. � � �J � �. � �_y
� s000 ' sooi i sooz ' � sooa yooa � yoos � � �
, � � �� sovi , sovi � sooi
O sooa / sooa soos ooe sooa
' 9016 0 901� 9018 �' I 9019 - 0 . �.9021 9029 903� \ .�' � 901� .. � 9 .
�.� � 9018 v� I 900Q �h 9019 9011 9009 . 900] .
9032 � 9033 903Q Q� 9035 I w 9013 I /�� J � .� 9010 .. 9012
� a � I o � soaz � a I - � �soas sooe �,O' � � �� sooe - �
90a8 90Q9 9050 � w 9051 I I� . 9018 � /� � 90Q� . 90 � � 901Q 901� � 9016 9019
� z z JAREAU 50 i -, '� � s°zz _ __ �
2 so�n ` ' soai i �
sow ¢ soes � soee a soci 90 °e �"g � � sooe � ,. � � � �lson � soze
son y soao �� sozv � soza ' soai
� �$� _ lc I yme soaa � � soaa �� _ I O
9080 9081 I 9082 9083 I I 9060 Ig069 9053 1 /� � 9035
906i � I. _ 9038 � � 903L '
J \ r� 909 Y 9039
� soae J EFFERY `� I >
���. �����! soss sos� I sose soss I soes I soio ^oi soia � so�e JASMINE'wE ;'AV /— I ¢
so�a
' / Oi E soai � — soao
8826 883L � 8886 g g113 911Q 9115 90Ai / � _� '�, \ �' � � 9058 O' � 90Q6 Z 90Qi '
� BBlQ . � BBaQ 88]Q ` 9088 �.. � I 912Q 9130 / Q�9085 � 069 9055 I 90Q9 � '
y I � W 91aQ � 9100 106 91Q 90T1 ,'�_ ` 905L � '� 90aQ w
I I � / 9088 � 4I 906] .. 5 9
N _ fl900 � I91� 9088 � � r � . 909
HI `I8910�, 9129 9130 g131 g100 / I 9190 Z y ? 9062 9051 905Q � '
8820 ' 8838 8880
W 906H Q �
� f � sias � sias sia� I ._ � 1 so� �a � ;' _ , . _
y 8
; 8808 885� 8868 � �� 9161 � 9161 9163 9110 : _ f1ST $TREET SO Q 9091 � a \90'Z ���' J�S� 9060 � 90
.�'. �/+ 392P8938 9115 .9108 W ... W 9103� :� 9099 09Q 9086 \ . �P 905] � � .
l 9198 l 9098 . 59 '
� O siu si� sisi� soseA �__ ' 6. .�. � , soei , I
8803 Q� 8856 8863 p� � 91]] 91]8 91]9 9130 9135 9113 � 9108 O ;�5�90]1��063 � �908� ]0�.
91AAREET50. � sizz > sizv � T V �` soea �" � - .' ��
v
c so�s �A AG � soes
I _ _ - . � � �� 0 � � Q -- w _1 siss � �soss Isoe� ( � �, sos�. � ; LF ENl
�8803�.881]' 9013 903] e 91Q0 Q 9135 g136 � 91a5 ', 9166 9153� 91Q0 Z y123/ F 9309 ,/� T I 9 �� 9 ,�% \ g10Q �' � g083 \� �� 1
i siso ". s � w � a sn2� Q � sne �iioa Bni Isns7VI � s �� � '� '� so7i �.
171r� r � - r1 � � � � uY �7 � q w I siso siei � siai :L �..._ � �siis v �. �i ��siii soei � �I
� . � � 0 9�55� � _ s�36 . i � s��s . �`, — � .
sisc � siw � sm � i si� �/' �EFFE 's'izi / � i sias �
� 916] I 9188 91 9161 �( 915Q A�/E I 9122 \� g188 �
9168 ' J318] �� /' 9151 �� � \ � gp6Q�9a�6 9Q98'
Q 91�8 91Ai 1 ' \ � \ �) / 9182 � �'919�
I . . siea, i i. I�, sin�' si�➢ \��sios�iawr ysf� , s o�siii9sioo � Isass
� � sno � sns . �— , � � si�e c, ..
� �isi I siaa� �sise � szoaA �L � � �� � 92N� . �snsass�
� � siai � sizo i size siaz�si3 � �siso �V/ b' TREET 50.
sicc � siaa
� � 9�8 . I I � i I
� sisa � sisi 92N �AREET50 szm, / � siao ' i� < { ti � F`
9105 . . . . . I � I 916 \/ 9218 �A . 92TL Cm �
� � � � ' �� sme � szos� siis siis siai sias sies •'� �E �4zia � — �� _� J�'' siee �L % �-�
� R szu� sia� eiaa EE EPV P siae ,' i szia �o . sne m�� szei
C � szze 9z � �Ile yf s�� � � sus � sisz sise � 2 szeo l ' �
szao sze� � rlil �zio sme � sia���szi�.� \�� � saai ��szao C��` _ Y szea � szes�
�
926 9289 � 920, 922� 2 I
� .. 9Z ; 9301 � 9329 _ {. 925Q I i I -
C 9262 � . . . . � r � : 92fl9 ��
sz� � saz3 szie 1FFFE0.V 0?� F , szas � �� sa � szae szae szso
� 928Q O 9238. 9325 �2Q2 .
/425Q I I g310 9]30j f� "� � 9295 `
� j 9291 /92�6' ,92Zt ! < � � � � ���� �
�. 9306 Q � 9335 9226` 9 � T �
� M1 �_ � a3Q2 � � G 92�9 � �3�3 ti / \ 35 � \ 9aQQ � � �
�'� IL � 9319 � 9258 (�` j� 933h� 9Q21� � 9299
P 9328 � i � 9258 � � O i 9388 9Q02
� m � 936a 93n 9na 9296 ` �O �9293 V � � 9336 � .. 93m �
t � saao a saa� sass � � ' "
��
sav °3 � �
/ 93�6 93RD STREET50 �� � � . 933a � �0. �REET50. s3oa � � g3i3
��' PAVEMENTDISTRICTF4 � � ���� s ' s ' . u , saai' o " �
��� IARRODAVE50 sase p saes "� � � 9 �
� s3is
� —�-�� N 9265 928� 931Q -� 9395 9a15� ,. . 932�
938Q , 9a19 9361 � � 93�9 �
9Q]3 �`.... I 9Q00 � 9a11 �..... � �_ 935��. 9338 9339 �
� j� � 5ao5 5ass 5aa� � . Q � 5a�a �5a7i � 5aa5 5a15 � 5azs 5aw .. � l��► �� � 93az
� � 9Q22 � 9Q33 —' -� 9358 I I �� 9a16 9Q06 — 93 A
n 9a28 1 9an w 9396 9385 . ` � 9a2a 93sz I
u \ 9aaa " 9a55 � 0 9Q0� 93�0 9399 ..�9398 . _ 9359 �
N 9Q60 � 9a89 9Q91 9Q95 9a12 - 9Q15 � � O
v 9a85� �
/ i . 9Q66 � j 9Q29 9Q02 J 9Q]1 9Q32 9382 93�Q W 9365 �
Y 9aT/ 9Q38 Q J� 9390
w � ' 9Q33 7
I � IARROD AVE SQ � � saw z 9 aa 3 � 9a26 Q �- saao -- z 93 �� ■
yQai . � � -.. seei � . � , IERGEN PL 50 ,
p � � . . 9Q�0 9Q65 9a5Q — LL . ' 9aQ8 . . �. W 9a83 �
9a8Q 9a86.9a88 9Q90..9Q93.9Q96 9Q98 9Q99 a� 9a88 LL 9a56 �9Q6Q.9a80 9Q90 �
9a8Q 9Q99 � 9Q9] 9Q95 p
�\ �OC����QD.C.�.C..CC�C�O����G�-�J6C_�J..O���-�CCC���C��C�S�-����Ci
0 200 400
�
Horizonbl Scale In Feet
AIA BOLTON 8c MENK� INC_
,1I11 Consul}ing Engineers & Surveyars
I + I MHNKHTO�MNFHIPMONTMNSLEEWEVE�MNWILLMPP�MNBVPNNLLE�MN
0 qIP5Kf1MNPHMSEVMNMHPLEWOO��MNBPHINEP��MNHME5IH
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECr
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Appendix C
Cost Estimate Summary
Cottage
� Grove
� Pride andPrOSPerity Meet
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 Pavement Management Project
Indudcsl0%C�nhngenry+30%IndireRCC�s6
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Appendix D
Preliminary Assessment Roll
Cottage
� Grove
� Pride andPCOSPerity Meet
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 Pavement Management Project
reliminary Assessment
District F4 Pavement Replacen
2202721220
2202721220
2202721220
2202721220
2202721220
2202721220
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
F4
MER6ENS VWCENT R& DIANE M
MORROW SHANNON
BACON BRADLEVT& KIMBERLVA
SEN6ER LAURENE R
OLSON DEBRA E& JANET L
IOLLV KURIAKOSE & MARIAMMA
PEDERSON LORI & LAVALLE JEROME
COMO CHERVLA
IENNIN65 RONALD R& PATRIOA A
iHOR VEN6 & XIO N6 VAN6
EBERTTHOMASJ & MARV6
STANDFlELDIEANETTE B
CONS�ABLE RICHARD CJR & DARLA D SENN
LEMAV PAUL W& VALERIE E
BANA4E WSKI RICHARD T& AN6EUA M SLAVIK
BOE DONALD T& LINDA 1
IOHNSON NICOLE L
W ILSONJOHN R& MICHELLE M
CEKALLA DONALDJ &JUIJEA
RAVMOND KENTA & NICOLE M
6EAR ALAN W& KATV L
EHLER KEVIN A& CHRIS�INA LZELLER
STEINM ETZ ERIK & KATIE STENSETH
KUJOSHUA W & LEE XION6
SCHULTZ NOEL P& KIM M
HOFFMAN STEVEN 1 & KIMBERLVA
HALVORSON SUSAN
RO BERTS SHI RLEV M
IARVIS ERBAVNE W& DEBORAH S
SEVERSONJOSEPH & AIJOA SEVERSON
HAMILTON EFREM M &TRACIE M
W ENNER THOMAS E& KAREN A
VENTRELUADAVIDA& WHRNEV-&CLAUDETTE
PETERSON RON R& 6AIL CORSON
LEE DAVID E& MARTHA I
NASBV KEITH A
SAUERER PATRICKJ & KATHRVN
KAMNIKAR BRIAN D& KAREN D
STACHOW IAK ROBERT & KATHLENE L BRO W N
MCCONNE WAMES & SHIREEN
iALLARICO SEAN P
MAWN6ERJOSHUAJ
MILLS MARTIN B & ROBBINA
KOHL BRVAN 1& ADRIANNE E
VROMAN RVAN D& FAVE M
RUUD CVNTHIA
ZINS SCOTT W& J EAN K 6ARDNER ZINS
BER6EJASON & LAURIE
POMMERENIN6 V WCENL & MARV C
iOPP BRVAN J& CHENILLE J
SCHAFF KEITH A& BETTV A
NEUMANN SCOTT 6& SUSAN C
COUNTRVWIDE HOME LOANS WC
MCKEA6UEKARLT
NELSON KENNETH B& KARRI C
BAC HOM E LOANS SERVION6 LP
MURRAVTIMOTHV P 1R & LISA K MURRAV
ARCHAMBEAU DO NALD A& AIJSON M
EIXES CORV L& PAULW E M
CHESLO6 BRIAN D& DANIELLE D
MEIERIAMES B & MARV PAT
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE
JARFAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JEFFERV BAV
JEFFERV BAV
JEFFERV BAV
JEFFERV BAV
JEFFERV BAV
JEFFERV BAV S
JEFFERV BAV
J EFFERV AVE S
93RDST
93RDST
93RDST
93RDST5
93RDST
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JASM W E AVE
JAREAUAVES
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARROD AVE S
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARROD AVE
JARROD AVE
JARROD AVE
JARROD AVE
JARRODAVES
JARROD AVE
F4 C�SEMANAN6E� K&ROBBVDKORNMANN
F4 LEVDE MARKA & KATHLEEN M
F4 6ARCIA DAVID
F4 KAULJESSEA&REBECCALBAHR
F4 CLAUSEN MARVI
F4 MVERSDENNISJAMES&JOANE
F4 0'NEILLANN M
F4 SAND WADE K& NATALIE K
F4 DAIXSCOTTT&AUDREVA
F4 SCHWARTZCARLP&MICHELLEJ
F4 MCDONALD CHARLES M& DEBORAH
F4 WALDOSCOTTA&JANETR
F4 WESTON RVANJ & MELISSA L
F4 VO6ELCHAD
F4 HOLMSTADTGALE&SANDERS&LEIUANIKSANDER
F4 DUSHBRADLEV&THERESA
F4 SCHRANKLERJAMES P & PAMEUA
F4 JUN6WIRTHCVNTHIAL
F4 COLEMAN RVANJ
F4 SVVERSONJEREMVP&AN6ELAJ
F4 ANDERSONKENNETHL&KATHLEENAANDERSON
F4 MEDINA LISA R
F4 VOWERRICHARDR&JOANA
F4 WOLKERSTORFERRONALDR&LORI
F4 SCHUETH LON D
F4 RIEPE WAVNE W& NANCVA
F4 JOHNSON MICHELLE R
F4 FRANKLM LVNETTE 6& MICHAELI
F4 6LPSSDENNISM&AN6ELL
F4 WACHTLER PAULJOSEPH & CARINA
F4 WILLOWSANDREAA
F4 PRALLMICHAELT&HEATHERE
F4 ANDERSONJEFFREV W & MICHELLE
F4 NOLAND ELLEN M
F4 BACHOMELOANSSERVION6LP
F4 OLSON BRADLEV D& MELISSA K
F4 CHAVIESHAWNJ
F4 WCKMANNKATHLEENA
F4 BRUCEMICHAEL&NANCVCANDV
F4 KALIS MATTHEW A& KELLV M
F4 BHAKTA KIRIT
F4 MUELWERIOEL&KRISTWELEMIRE
F4 USBANKNATIONALASSOCTRS
F4 KORBELBRENTD&EMILVL
F4 KLEINSCHMIDT KEVIN T& LISA M LANCRAIN
F4 CARMODVTRIOAA
F4 S�ADLER KEITH M& SARAH A
F4 KOUBELE BRIAN & SHERVL
F4 WALKERDUSTINJ
F4 CONNERBRADLEVC&KATHLEENM
F4 BUI VU HUV
F4 SMITHKERI&JASONJEIJNEK
F4 IJNDS�RO M JON C& TINA M
F4 LENZMICHAEL6
F4 THOMAS BRENDA 1& ROBB P
F4 ZVWIECJOSEPHJ
F4 CARROLLALONA
F4 PEPER6LENC&SHARIL
F4 PLETSCH THOMAS 6
F4 WILLOWSDOU6LA56&ANDREAA
F4 UARSENTRAOAK&WIWAMD
F4 HAWKINSCHRISTOPHERJ&CHRIS�INAAHAWKINS
JARRO D AVE S
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE S
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARRO D AVE
JARFAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JAREAU AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JARRO D AVE
JARROD AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JARROD AVE S
JEFFERVAVE
JEFFERVAVE
JEFFERV AVE S
JEFFERVAVE
JEFFERV AVE S
JEFFERVAVE
JEFFERVAVE
JEFFERV AVE S
JEFFERVAVE
JEFFERV AVE S
JEFFERV AVE S
JEFFERVAVE
JER6EN AVE S
JER6EN AVE S
JER6EN AVE S
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Appendix E
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Overview
Avisual inspection was performed in 2013 to evaluate pavement surface conditions by identifying
various pavement defects.
Pavements can deteriorate at different rates due to many factors, including: original construction
procedures, construction materials, traffic volume, drainage characteristics, and subsequent pavement
maintenance. Due to this, pavements constructed at the same time may not deteriorate at the same rate
and may have different usefixl lives.
It should be noted that not all pavements with the same or similar PCI will look exactly the same.
Various types and amounts of distress contribute to a particular PCI rating. Identifying the cause of the
distress (load related vs. non-load related) is impartant in understanding the current pavement condition
and potential rehabilitation methods. In addition, segments of the same street may in vary in condition
and a representative ratingfor the majority of the segment is determined.
Generally speaking, pavements deteriorate slowly over the first ten years and then tend to deteriorate
more quickly. As pavement ages and surface cracking occurs, additional moisture is able to enter the
pavement structure and accelerate deterioration. Early preventative maintenance can �tend the life of
pavement by protecting the pavement structure from the effects of moisture and weathering. If a
pavement is left without maintenance, the pavement condition can deteriorate very rapidly towards the
end of the lifecycle. This deterioration is illustrated in the following figure from the City's 1994
Pavement Management Plan:
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
2014PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Figurel-Ppvsfige
I NUMBER VERBAL CON�ITION nP '
�. RATING $97�yp j9RWPING NUTABER RATING AI
—�nn______. . COST/LIn.Ft.
0
z
0
Z
¢
d
50
40
30-
20
'. `` �Typl o ol Street Llfe
oat (f�.a5-0�.so)
vny ceoa CVe � \
som -- \\�
•�ai �1
�
lave reloleE. Ore Ia (tm.004ao.00
/m `1
re �
voo� ml��auimxe.
\\\
A.�e.,�.�.,�o. �� a.o.00-s.s.00�
� ar �la. ei.�.e...
I-10 '
� � (Y:ARS�..� I
�3 15 120 25
— — —
CityofCOPZgeGOVe,Miemuola
2013Pavar��tMaragar�mtR%ect
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Appendix F
Pavement Cores
Pavement Cores were extracted to determine the thickness of the existing street section and evaluate
pavement condition.
Based on the condition of the cores, we selected two extremes for an initial comparison by FWD analysis.
Both roads were built during a similar timeframe (1993 and 1994) and should have similar traffic. With
a minor exception, the backcalculated modulus ofthe bituminous layer (E1) is much higher where the
layer is intact (Jergen Bay, Core 15) than where top-down stripping/raveling is observed and additional
stripping was noted throughout the core (Jeffrey Court, Core 17).
Core 15 — Jergen Bay
Layer Modulus (ksi)
Station Bituminous AgBa eate Subgrade Value
0 459 43 18 30
118 411 54 18 30
226 475 36 20 33
309 683 9 31 54
429 175 19 35 62
Core 17 — Jeffery Court
Layer Modulus (ksi)
Station Bituminous AgBa eate Subgrade Value
0 200 43 31 54
106 251 39 26 45
205 I 247 I 61 I 37 I 65
297 282 56 39 69
Cottage
� Grove
� Pride andPCOSPerity Meet
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 Pavement Management Project
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Pavement Core #17: Jeffery Ct, core broken, eevere etripping at top of core, extending entire depth.
Ciry of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 Pavement Management Roject
Pavement Core #15: Jergen Bay S, core irRact.
�� �
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Appendix G
Falling Weight Deflectometer
Cottage
� Grove
� Pride andPCOSPerity Meet
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 Pavement Management Project
Report of Pavement Testing and Repair
Recommendations
Various City Streets
Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Prepared for
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Professional Certification:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Matthew S. Oman, PE
Associate / Senior Engineer
License Number: 43893
November 13, 2013
�
Project SP-13-06655
Braun Intertec Corporation
November 13, 2013
Mr. Michael Boex
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
2035 County Road D East, Suite B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Report of Pavement Testing and Repair Recommendations
Various City Streets
Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Boex:
Project SP-13-06655
We are pleased to present this Pavement Testing Report for various Cottage Grove streets. The purpose
of the testing was to characterize the existing base and subgrade and to evaluate the strength of the in-
place pavement should a mill-and-overlay be performed.
Please see the attached report for a detailed discussion on the test results and our recommendations.
The report should be read in its entirety.
Thank you for making Braun Intertec your pavement consultant for this project. If you have questions
about this report, or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date, please
call Amy Grothaus at 651.261.7122.
Sincerely,
BRAUNINTERTECCORPORATION `
`
Amy J. Grothaus
Senior Project Manager/Engineer
Matthew S. Oman, PE
Associate/Senior Engineer
Pavement Testing Report
Table of Contents
Description Page
A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
A.1. Project Description ..............................................................................................................1
A.2. Purpose ................................................................................................................................1
A.3. Background Information and Reference Documents ..........................................................1
A.4. Scope of Services .................................................................................................................1
B. Results ..............................................................................................................................................2
B.1. Pavement Core and Hand Auger Results ............................................................................2
B.2. FWD Data Tabulations .........................................................................................................4
B.3. FWDResults ........................................................................................................................4
C. Basis for Recommendations .............................................................................................................7
C.1. Design Details ......................................................................................................................8
C.1.a. Potential Pavement Repairs ...................................................................................8
C.1.b. CurrentTraffic ........................................................................................................8
C.1.c. Anticipated Grade Changes ....................................................................................8
C.1.d. Precautions Regarding Changed Information ........................................................8
C.2. Design and Construction Considerations ............................................................................9
C.2.a. Pavement History ...................................................................................................9
D. Recommendations ...........................................................................................................................9
D.1.a. Pavement Repair ....................................................................................................9
D.1.b. Design Sections ....................................................................................................10
E. Procedures ......................................................................................................................................10
E.1. Pavement Coring and Hand Augers ..................................................................................10
E.2. Falling Weight Deflectometer ...........................................................................................10
E.2.a. FieldTesting .........................................................................................................11
E.2.b. Deflection Data Analysis .......................................................................................11
�. E.2.b.1. Input Data ................................................................................................11
E.2.b.2. Adjustment Factors .................................................................................11
E.2.b.3. Analyses ...................................................................................................12
F. Qualifications ..................................................................................................................................13
F.1. Use of Report .....................................................................................................................13
F.2. StandardofCare ................................................................................................................13
AppendixA—Core Location Sketch
Appendix B— Detailed FWD Results
Appendix C — Modulus Summary
A. Introduction
A.1. Project Description
This Pavement Evaluation Report addresses approximately 4.8 miles of bituminous City streets. The
evaluation of the above streets included pavement coring and hand augers, followed by Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) testing.
A.2. Purpose
The purpose of the testing was to characterize the existing base and subgrade and to evaluate the
strength of the in-place pavement should a mill-and-overlay be performed.
A.3. Background Information and Reference Documents
To facilitate our evaluation, we were provided with or reviewed the following information or documents:
• A project location map, provided by Bolton & Menk, Inc (Bolton & Menk).
• Pavement core and hand auger data provided by Bolton & Menk, and conducted by Northern
Technologies, Inc. (NTI).
• Aerial maps available from Google Earth.
• Traffic data and construction history data provided by Bolton & Menk.
• Soil maps available from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil
Survey.
A.4. Scope of Services
Our scope of services for this project was submitted as a Proposal to Mr. Michael Boex, dated October 4,
2013. We received authorization to proceed on October 22, 2013. Our scope of services was performed
under the terms of our September 1, 2013, General Conditions. Tasks performed in accordance with our
authorized scope of services included:
-:�auN
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 2
• Performing pavement coring and hand augers on project area streets not previously cored.
This included the southern 1.3 miles (the northern 3.5 miles was cored by NTI).
• Performing Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing on 4.8 miles of city streets at an
approximate test interval of one test every 100 feet.
• Preparing this report containing a project location sketch, a summary of all pavement core
and hand auger results, FWD deflection data and analysis results, including spring load
capacity (tons per axle), subgrade R-value, granular equivalency, and layer modulus. Also
included is a discussion regarding the strength of the in-place pavement should a mill-and-
overlay be performed.
B. Results
B.1. Pavement Core and Hand Auger Results
�.
Exploration locations 1 through 14 were performed by NTI and locations 15 through 24 were performed
by Braun Intertec. All locations are shown on the attached sketch. For locations 15 through 24, the
bituminous and aggregate base layer thicknesses were measured in the field. Thickness data for
locations 1 through 14 was provided to us by Bolton & Menk, Inc. On average, the streets had
approximately 3.6 inches of bituminous overlying 7.6 inches of aggregate base material. A summary of
the data is provided in Table 1 and was used in the analysis of the FWD data.
Cores 15 through 24 were returned to our office and were examined to assess bituminous material
conditions. Conditions were also reviewed with Bolton & Menk staff. Material stripping or loss of
material was observed in several of the cores. For the most part, this phenomenon was confined to the
upper 1 to 2 inches of the core in the bituminous wear course; however, in some instances, stripping was
present in both the wear and non-wear courses. In several of the cores, the material loss had
deteriorated to the point of causing a separation or break in the upper 1/2 to 2 inches of the core, as
noted in the Table.
Where present, this loss of material may diminish the life of an applied maintenance treatment,
depending on the extent and severity of the stripping. Bituminous layers with low-severity stripping can
often support pavement overlays, while more severe stripping may present problems during
construction (such as the milling train breaking through the bituminous layer on thin pavements) and
reduced support for overlays over the long term.
� I �aii�
�� �� `+. ; : ,a'=�
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 3
Table 1. Bituminous Core and Hand Auger Results
Bituminous Aggregate Base
Location Street Thickness (in) Thickness (in) Core Condition/NOtes
1* 91st Street 5 4.00 6.00 Stripping in upper 1.5 inches of mre
2* laneroAveS 3.25 6.50 Goodmndition
3* lareauAveS 3J5 10.50 Strippinginupper2.0inchesofmre
4* lasmineAveS 4.50 8.00 Goodmndition
5* leffreyAveS 4.25 7.00 Corebroken;strippingthroughoutentiremre
6* lensenAveS 3J5 10.25 Goodmndition
7* lergen Ave 5 3.00 8.00 Good mndition
8* larvisAveS 3J5 8.00 Strippinginupper2.0inchesofmre
9* leffrey Ave 5 4.50 9.00 Stripping in upper 2.0 inches of mre
10* lergenCourtS 3J5 5.50 Goodmndition
11* lergen Ave 5 3.25 7J5 Core broken; stripping throughout entire mre
12* leffrey Ave 5 3J5 8.00 Stripping in upper 2.5 inches of mre
13* 93rd5treet5 3.25 7.50 Corebroken;strippingthroughoutentiremre
14* 93rd Street 5 3.25 6.25 Stripping in upper 2.0 inches of mre
15 lergenBay 3J5 6J5 Goodmndition
16 92nd Street 238 7.13 Stripping in lower 1.0 inch of mre
17 leffreyCourt 4.00 6.00 Corebroken;strippingthroughoutentiremre
18 lareauAveS 3.13 8.88 Strippingthroughoutentiremre
19 lareauAveS 3.25 7.25 Corebrokenattop;strippingthroughoutentiremre
20 larrod Ave 5 3.00 9.00 Stripping in upper 1.5 inches of mre
21 lasmineAve 5 3.50 8.00 Core broken attop; stripping in upper2.0 inches of
mre
22 leffreyAveS 3.13 738 Corebrokenattop;strippingthroughoutentiremre
23 lergenPlace 4.25 6.25 Strippingthroughoutentiremre
24 lergen Ave 5 3.50 7.50 Good mndition
Averege 3.6 7.5
��ores 1 tnrougn la were perJormea oy �v n.
r �� � i;
�.� �, _ . ., ^E,
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 4
B.2. FWD Data Tabulations
A summary of the deflection data is available in Appendix B. For all tested routes, spring load capacity,
effective GE, and effective subgrade R-value are shown.
Section E.3.b.3. provides a summary of the data analysis methods used to obtain the above information.
Included in Appendix C are backcalculation results using the Evaluation of Layer Moduli and Overlay
Design (ELMOD) analysis tool. The ELMOD tool provides a layer modulus (kips per square inch) for each
of the pavement layers by analyzing the pavemenYs response from the FWD.
B.3. FWD Results
The deflection data analysis results are statistical estimates representing values calculated for the test
locations along the roadway. The MnDOT TONN method is a conservative approach to assessing load
capacity. The method takes the 15th percentile of spring-load capacity values (given in tons per axle) for
a given segment of roadway, which means that 85 percent of the test points have a load capacity higher
than the presented values. Effective R-value and GE use the same standard.
Table 2 provides a summary of the input data provided for each test route. Thickness data was obtained
from the bituminous core and hand auger results and traffic data was provided by Bolton & Menk. For
streets that were not cored, construction history and proximity to cored streets were used to provide
likely assumed thicknesses.
Table 3 summarizes the results for each of the roadways using ELMOD. Bituminous layer moduli ranged
from 118 to 980; aggregate base moduli ranged from 24 to 65; and subgrade layer moduli ranged from
10 to 33. Given the testing rate, variability in the raw and processed data is possible.
The overlay requirement provided in Table 3 is the equivalent bituminous thickness that is required for
20 years of the anticipated traffic. This is what is needed to prevent failure-level fatigue (bituminous) or
rutting (aggregate base/subgrade). Since most values are 0.0, the structural demand is generally very
minor for the given traffic levels. In this case, functional issues, such as materials problems and
associated surface distresses, are more likely to occur.
� s l' `^, ,. '�,
�is
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 5
fable2. FWDlnputData
Aggregate
Bituminous Base
Length Thickness Thickness
Street From To (ft) AADT (in) (in)
91st Street 5 Cul de 91st Street 5 Cul de sac 95 300 4.00 6.00
sac, West
91st Street 5 Cul de 91st Street 5 Cul de sac 107 300 4.00 6.00
sac, East
91st5treet5 IslayAveS lareauAveS 1401 500 4.00 6.00
92nd Street 5 lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 176 300 238 7.13
92nd Street 5 larvis Ave 5 leffrey Ave 5 612 300 3J5 10.50
93rd5treet5 lareauAveS lasmineAveS 320 300 3.50 8.00
93rd Street 5 leffrey Court lergen Ave 5 818 300 3.25 6.88
lanero Ave 5 91st Street 5 90th Street 5 697 500 3.25 6.50
lareau Ave 5 Cul de �areau Ave 5 Cul de sac 194 300 3J5 10.50
sac
lareau Ave 5 90th Street 5 91st Street 5 510 1700 3J5 10.50
lareau Ave 5 91st Street 5 Dead End 2326 1700 3.25 8.06
larrodAveS lareauAveS�North) lareauAve5�5outh) 1378 300 3.00 9.00
larvisAveS 91st5treet5 92nd5treet5 583 300 3J5 8.00
lasmineAveSCulde �asmineAveS Culdesac 209 300 4.55 8.00
sac West
lasmineAveSCulde �asmineAveS Culdesac 83 300 4.50 8.00
sac East
lasmine Ave 5 Dead End leffrey Ave 5 715 500 3.50 8.00
lasmineAveS 90th5treet5 Culdesac 1207 500 4.50 8.00
leffrey Ave 5 Cul de �effrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 161 300 4.50 9.00
sac (2)
leffrey Ave 5 Cul de �effrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 104 300 4.25 7.00
sac (3)
leffrey Ave 5 Cul de �effrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 24 300 4.50 9.00
sac�1)
leffrey Ave 5 93rd Street 5 Dead End 420 1700 3.13 738
leffrey Ave 5 90th Street 5 leffrey Court 2259 1700 4.20 8.00
i
�i �, � �"� �,-.� 7 �
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 6
leffrey Bay leffrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 92 300 3J5 8.00
leffrey Court leffrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 297 300 4.00 6.00
lensen Ave 5 leffrey Ave 5 90th Street 5 1200 500 3J5 10.25
lergen Ave 5 93rd Street 5 Dead End 714 1700 3.50 7.50
lergen Ave Cul de sac lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 38 300 3.00 8.00
lergen Ave 5 lergen Bay 5 90th Street 5 1118 1700 3.00 8.00
lergen Bay 5 lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 429 300 3J5 6J5
lergen Court 5 lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 329 300 3J5 5.50
lergen Place lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 345 300 4.25 6.25
lanie Ave 5 91st Street 5 90th Street 5 748 500 3.25 6.50
lergen Ave 5 93rd Street 5 lergen Bay 5 907 1700 3.25 7J5
91st Street 5 lareau Ave 5 leffrey Ave 5 1220 500 4.25 9.20
Table 3. ELMOD FWD Results
Bituminous Aggregate Subgrede
Layer Base Layer Layer Overlay
Modulus Modulus Modulus Requirement
Street From To R-Value (E3) (E2) (E3) (in)
91st Street 5 Cul glst Street 5 Cul de sac 34 268 45 20 0.0
de sac, West
91st Street 5 Cul glst Street 5 Cul de sac 33 341 43 20 0.0
de sac, East
91st5treet5 IslayAveS lareauAveS 29 406 65 17 0.0
92nd Street 5 lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 38 359 32 22 03
92nd5treet5 larvisAveS leffreyAveS 37 760 30 21 0.2
93rd5treet5 lareauAveS lasmineAveS 43 371 47 25 0.0
93rd5treet5 leffreyCourt lergenAveS 51 337 59 29 0.0
lanero Ave 5 91st Street 5 90th Street 5 32 522 41 19 0.2
lareau Ave 5 Cul �areau Ave 5 Cul de sac 35 807 33 20 0.0
de sac
lareau Ave 5 90th Street 5 91st Street 5 41 566 32 24 0.1
lareauAveS 91st5treet5 DeadEnd 42 520 42 24 03
i
�i �, � �"� �,-.� 7 �
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 7
larrod Ave 5 �areau Ave 5 lareau Ave 5 54 495 51 31 0.0
(North) (South)
larvisAveS 91st5treet5 92nd5treet5 37 325 47 21 0.0
lasmineAveSCul �asmineAveS Culdesac 32 238 26 19 0.0
de sac West
lasmineAveSCul �asmineAveS Culdesac 16 631 38 10 0.0
de sac East
lasmineAveS DeadEnd leffreyAveS 54 206 48 31 0.0
lasmineAveS 90th5treet5 Culdesac 30 285 24 17 0.1
leffrey Ave 5 Cul �effrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 41 183 27 24 0.0
de sac (2)
leffrey Ave 5 Cul �effrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 44 469 45 25 0.0
de sac (3)
leffrey Ave 5 Cul �effrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 35 321 42 21 0.0
de sac (1)
leffrey Ave 5 93rd Street 5 Dead End 51 236 55 29 0.1
leffreyAveS 90th5treet5 leffreyCourt 52 331 42 30 0.1
leffrey Bay leffrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 43 118 32 25 0.0
leffrey Court leffrey Ave 5 Cul de sac 58 245 50 33 0.0
lensen Ave 5 leffrey Ave 5 90th Street 5 42 915 26 24 0.4
lergen Ave 5 93rd Street 5 Dead End 40 372 39 23 0.6
lergen Ave Cul de �ergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 25 980 28 15 0.1
sac
lergen Ave 5 lergen Bay 5 90th Street 5 48 626 33 27 0.8
lergen Bay 5 lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 42 440 32 24 0.2
lergen Court 5 lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 32 198 48 19 0.0
lergen Place lergen Ave 5 Cul de sac 55 246 24 32 0.2
lanieAveS 91st5treet5 90th5treet5
lergen Ave 5 93rd Street 5 lergen Bay 5
91st Street 5 lareau Ave 5 leffrey Ave 5
C. Basis for Recommendations
4:.1.._ ._, .
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 8
C.1. Design Details
C.1.a. Potential Pavement Repairs
Based on our discussions with Bolton & Menk and the variable conditions of the streets within the
project area, for ease of construction and equipment mobilization, we recommend that full-removal of
the existing bituminous be performed on the tested streets. This is based on a number of factors and
concerns regarding mill-and-overlay including:
• Several of the locations were observed to have material stripping throughout the entire core
in both the bituminous wear and non-wear courses. There is a possibility that the remaining
in-place bituminous will not support construction equipment.
• It is possible that underlying bituminous layers that exhibit stripping will negatively affect the
life of the overlay.
• Bolton & Menk performed several test mills in the project area. These areas were found to
be very thin and were easily broken apart.
• The City's Public Works Department has had to perform numerous spot repairs throughout
the project area. There is a good possibility that the underlying distresses will reflect
through the new bituminous overlay.
C.1.b. Current Traffic
Traffic data was provided by Bolton & Menk and is shown in Table 2.
C.1.c. Anticipated Grade Changes
We expect that grade changes will be minimal for this project.
C.1.d. Precautions Regarding Changed Information
We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed issues to the extent they were
reported to us by Bolton & Menk. Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may
have been made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or
interpreted the project details, we should be notified. New or changed information could require
additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations.
� s l' `^, ,. '�,
�is
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 9
C.2. Design and Construction Considerations
C.2.a. Pavement History
Based on the information provided, the tested streets were constructed between 1979 and 1997 and
vary between 16 and 34 years in age. Since that time, we understand that the streets have had frequent
localized maintenance performed on them that includes patching and crack filling. The City is currently
seal coating streets using a seven-year cycle. We understand that the tested streets have all been seal
coated at least once, with some having been seal coated multiple times. To date, none of the tested
streets have received a major repair, such as an overlay.
We did not review condition data as part of this project; however, we understand that the tested streets
likely have multiple distresses that are being concealed by the seal coat treatments.
Given the age of the pavements and the likely distresses, we assume that most of the streets are within
the major repair maintenance category. Pavements in this category are likely beyond benefitting from
further preventive maintenance. Additionally, without repair, pavements within this repair category can
deteriorate rapidly into the reconstruction category. Restoring these pavements now will be more cost-
effective than further prolonging maintenance.
D. Recommendations
D.1.a. Pavement Repair
We recommend the full removal of the existing bituminous pavement over the entire project area to the
top of the aggregate base. This type of treatment can be expected to last about 15 to 20 years while
reusing in-place materials and eliminating the potential for reflective cracking in the bituminous layers.
Performing a full removal of the existing bituminous pavement will eliminate the potential for
construction issues with milling. It also provides the benefit of fully removing the stripped bituminous
layers and the potential for future issues.
Following removal of the bituminous pavement, we recommended that the in-place aggregate be
regraded and compacted. Following compaction, the aggregate base should be proof rolled to check for
the presence of localized weak areas. The proofroll should be performed with a fully loaded truck. The
proofroll should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or qualified observer. Any detected weak areas
should be corrected prior to the placement of the new bituminous pavement.
� s l' `^, ,. '�,
�is
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 10
D.1.b. Design Sections
For the residential streets with a reported ADT of 300 to 500, the projected 20-year Bituminous
Equivalent Single Axle Loads (BESAL) ranges from approximately 31,000 to 56,000 ESALs. The average R-
value derived from FWD testing for these streets is 38. For these sections, the average in-place
pavement section includes 3.8 inches of bituminous overlying 7.6 to 8.0 inches of aggregate base. Using
this projected traffic and an R-value of 38, the required granular equivalency (GE) is approximately 10.0
inches. Following full removal of the existing bituminous pavement on these streets, a design section of
3.5 inches of new bituminous is recommended. This follows the City's standard for residential streets.
Underlying the bituminous is approximately 7.6 to 8.0 inches of existing aggregate base. This provides a
GE of 15.88 inches.
For streets with a reported ADT of 1,700, the projected 20-year BESALs is approximately 181,000 and the
average R-value derived from FWD testing is 45. For these sections, the average in-place pavement
section includes 3.5 inches of bituminous overlying 8.1 inches of aggregate base. The required GE for
these streets is 10.14 inches. Following full removal of the existing bituminous pavement on these
streets, the City's standard design section of 3.5 inches of new bituminous is recommended, overlying
approximately 8.1 inches of existing aggregate base. This provides a GE of 15.88 inches.
The above designs are based on a 20-year performance life. This performance life assumes maintenance,
such as sealcoating and crack sealing, is routinely performed. The actual pavement life will vary
depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance.
E. Procedures �
E.1. Pavement Coring and Hand Augers
Core locations 15 through 24 were selected by Bolton & Menk and were conducted by Braun Intertec on
October 11, 2013. All cores were performed using a 4-inch core barrel and the bituminous pavement
was repaired with a cold-mix bituminous patch immediately after coring. The cores were measured to
obtain approximate bituminous thickness and their material conditions were noted based on visual
observation.
E.2. Falling Weight Deflectometer
�I : .l .. _ , _, ,. .
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 11
E.2.a. Field Testing
A Dynatest Model 8002E FWD was used for deflection testing. This equipment is a trailer-mounted
device that measures the pavement deflection due to an applied impulse load. Four impulse loads were
applied at each test point in a single direction of travel at an approximate interval of 100 feet.
Field testing was conducted on October 9, 2013. Data collected by the FWD during testing include the
deflections, impulse loads, pavement surface temperature, and the ambient air temperature.
E.2.b. Deflection Data Analysis
E.2.b.1. Input Data
The following data are utilized as analysis inputs to generate structural information from the deflection
data:
• Traffic loadings (provided by Bolton & Menk)
• Pavement layer thicknesses (core and hand auger data, provided by NTI and Braun Intertec)
• Subgrade soil type (Braun Intertec)
• Pavement temperatures (Braun Intertec)
• Previous day temperature (National Weather Service) �
• Pavement deflection data (Braun Intertec)
E.2.b.2. Adjustment Factors
Flexible pavement systems consisting of bituminous layers, aggregate bases, and subgrade soils, are
normally frozen during winter and very weak during spring thaw. Deflection testing is normally not
recommended during either season. Measured deflections in summer and fall seasons are adjusted to
reflect spring season condition when the pavement system is in its weakest state. Seasonal correction
factors recommended by MnDOT are used for this purpose.
Deflection is inversely proportional to the stiffness of flexible pavements. Since stiffness in flexible
pavements is temperature dependent, measured deflections are adjusted to the standard 80 degrees
Fahrenheit for deflection data analysis using MnDOT procedure. The FWD equipment is equipped with
an infrared temperature sensor for measuring pavement surface temperature. Using the BELLS model
developed from FHWA-LTPP test sections, the mid-depth asphalt temperature is estimated from the
surface temperature and previous day average air temperature. The resulting factor is used to convert
the calculated mid-depth temperature to the standard 80 degrees Fahrenheit mid-depth temperature.
� s l' `^, ,. '�,
�is
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 12
The Temperature Adjustment Factor (TAF) and Seasonal Correction Factor (SCF) are then used to adjust
the measured deflection to an equivalent spring season deflection at the reference temperature of 80F.
E.2.b3. Analyses
The Braun Intertec Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) program was used for analysis of the deflection data to
estimate the effective subgrade R-value and the effective GE. NDT incorporates flexible pavement
thickness design relationships from MnDOT, along with those from the 1993 Guide for Design of
PavementStructures, published by AASHTO. The following briefly defines the parameters presented in
this report:
TONN SqrinQ Load Caqacitv -The MnDOTTONN method (revised from MnDOT Investigation 603) is used
for spring load capacity estimations. The TONN method uses pavement section information (bituminous
thickness), FWD center deflections (normalized to 9 kips), and seasonal and temperature adjustment
factors to provide an estimate of load capacity for a given pavement segment.
Effective R-value - Effective R-value provides a measure of the stiffness of the pavement subgrade soil.
R-value calculations are computed using the Hogg Model, which represents the subgrade as a soil mass
of finite depth over a stiff layer. Hogg Model resilient modulus values are corrected for seasonal effects
and for congruence to backcalculated resilient modulus values, and finally converted to R-value by the
method described in MnDOT Investigation 201.
Because Hogg Model-calculated R-values are relatively conservative compared to methods where an
infinite half-space is considered, and seasonal adjustments are also used, we make no further reduction
of the results for design purposes.
Effective Granular Epuivalent (GE) - Effective GE provides values for the design of pavement structures in
inches of MnDOT Class 5 aggregate base equivalent. GE requirements are based upon anticipated 20-
year traffic loadings (ESALs) and the effective R-value of the subgrade.
Laver Moduli - To estimate pavement layer moduli, we used the ELMOD backcalculation software from
Dynatest, Inc. Moduli values were backcalculated for a three-layer system by the Deflection Basin Fit
method. This method uses Odemark-Boussinesq equations to fit the measured deflection basin to
that a theoretical pavement system using set convergence criteria. The overlay requirements are
then calculated using these layer stiffnesses, ESAL estimates and rutting or fatigue failure criteria
pravided in ELMOD.
� s �' `^, ,. '�,
�is
INTERTEC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Project SP-13-06655
November 13, 2013
Page 13
We converted the subgrade moduli values to R-value using relationships established by AASHTO. Note
that the raw backcalculated moduli presented in the report are not corrected for air and pavement
temperature at the time of testing or seasonal variation, and the results could vary considerably if testing
takes places during other seasons or times-of-day. Overlay requirements, however, do account for
seasonal variation of pavement moduli.
F. Qualifications
F.1. Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written
approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses
and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.
F.2. Standard of Care
In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No
warranty, express or implied, is made.
�
sRAUN
INTERTEC
�
,
BRAUN
�
INTERTEC
�
Appendix B �
BRAUN
INTERTEC
/
Appendix C
IJ
BRAUN
INTERTEC
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
�����������o��������
��������������������
�����������o��������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
� aa���m����mm�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
� �a���m�����m�����
���a����m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�a0��
��a����m����mm�����
��������������������
�������������������
�������������������
��o����������������
�������������������
���o����������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
���o����������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
�����������o�����a��
��o�a��������������
����a��������������
����a��������������
����o������������o�
��o����������������
�������������������
���o����������������
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m���������o�
���a�a��m�����m�����
�����a��m�����m�����
�����a��m�����m�����
�����a��m�����������
�����a��m���m�m�����
�����a��m�����������
�����a��m����mm�����
�����a��m��0��m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����������
��������m�����m�����
��������m���mmm�����
��������m����mm�����
��������m�����m���a�
���a����m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������������������
���a00��m�����m�����
����o���m�����m�����
����o���m�����m�����
����o���m�����m�����
���o����m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����������
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����������
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
���o����m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m��o��m�����
��������m�����������
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m�a���m�����
��oa���m�����������
���a���m�����m�����
���o����m�����������
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����������
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
��������m��o��m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����������
����a���m�����m�����
����a���m����m������
����a���m�����m�����
����a���m��m��m�����
����a���m�����m�����
����a���m�����������
����a���m�����������
����a���m�����������
����a���m�����������
����a���m�����������
����a���m�����������
����a���m�����m�����
���a����m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����������
��������m�����������
���a����m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
��������m�����m�����
���a����m�����m�����
��������m��m��m�����
��������m�����������
��������m����mm�����
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Appendix H
Milling Test Areas
In order to evaluate the feasibility of a mill-overlay, twelve test areas were milled to a depth of
approximately 2-inches. These test strips were approximately 7.5-feet wide and 25-feet long. The
purpose of the test strips was to determine the quantity and severity of cracking below the pavement
surface.
Pictures are included for each mill area, prior to and after milling.
Cottage
� Grove
� Pride andPCOSPerity Meet
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 Pavement Management Project
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area A
Approximate Location: 9044 Jergen Avenue
�w �
.- J
�� �
Ma� _
'�C �.Y�
E�� � _y _-`�
. . _ �+.��{���
II+ �
� .:����' � "' �
��� �
� - ��_ ` � �
��� k - ��-��e
'� u• ] d
� « � � ��
i � `' � ��
F _- i :
' ` �"'��
F _ i +�
� .� ,
�_� . _�. . _ -......
i . . . � : � , � .
,:�_'v .• . s � , � .ma-._... . ._.,
Pavement cracking pattern more evident after milling potential for reflective cracking.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
°' ; �
- . . � ='- : .i. , Y -� a
C � y
r Q '
.. - . ,1• : `'�,
. . � . . . ,. �� }±-ic�
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area B
Approximate Location: 9334 93`� Sheet
x n
;'� �
r
, , ��.-�a,, ,
� �$ � �.
w '� . '�.�'u` a�'�fi�'�.a'.w^'�'..
1 ��
' 4 \' � '� �� ��
' � .. 4 �^
'��l - _ ` '`��.,z� �,
r�- � ,\ � �
1�
, X �
n' . ����
` t
iJ: �.
� �
h { 4 1
y ��A��. � .' .yi �c �� � .
._ _-:Ie �. a •� Y p �� x .�f
s1 � ' .
� - �s T j
. + •. •'w�f.;:f•F �
��_'.�.��f (.. _T
Pavement stripping extends down into the bituminous base.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area C
Approximate Location: 9058 Jeffery Avenue
-a� '> - � -J
Y � �T
' �, � ���-' +, '_ �
'�...a �. . —��t�+��
.�. � �
�
� � �i�
� .�!•;�, �
� rp A./ '
...��'. , W, .
� �� I &$� 1y. I• ' �
i,
�ij� � . ' �4ii /
� i �. , .
� .. � �
�
lF _ . _ __ _ �_` .
s "
��..
� � N��.� .. .
�
y•l " 1
e f C �(�`
�' � i '� : S �?.t
q X�
:�. ," _�- �� .`z G .. �
Pavement stripping extends down into the bituminous base.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area D
Approximate Location: 9138 92°d Sheet
r
�
. . ..,� �.... ..
� � _ ��
�`.t
� . --`�-:..�. R �.� �
- . .. �. . � ��l � _
� .. � . i ._� a- .. . • -_
... . .. . .
�;. _ . . . . . . -
. ..- ..�..�. .i . •
�.p ... . _� .�� �
F i .. . � . � �; .
, �,,,,r, . i � r/ '.' . . .., .
� � � � w
e �� ,,�� o� a
x` ,'��G �r , W .a . � �
1 1 " �
■�M
--•a_ ��rt�. .,���,-, � �
?! '�':�. - - �=?�h
��
� �:
,m
•:�
� � ��
��/ �4 .
N•_' !
Y R.�` �. ��l.•".�.
� i.�� • � ¢ e''ti. �� . ,,�- ..�.,
• '�•�d :
Mill exposes gravel base due to thin pavement layer.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area E
Approximate Location: 9096 Janie Avenue
�
�( :.�a
� �
s'
✓
,i',L.SFWIIf19d1Q�fi'.t . :
Majority of pavement shipping removed, some transverse and longitudinal cracks exposed.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
.� -.
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area F
Approximate Location: 9019 Jasmine Avenue
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
��_ -
. _ - '��.;��'
- � �.
��x-'- � - ��
, � "' °" aE'_ . .. - . . . ;�
Transverse cracking andjointrepairrequued.
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
��
_ _,. �(,�,�g�
� ci�':2
��.:h"'� - .
/'
�- ��i�.��.
r• =s
. : �a�:5': �.:.
�,,
�
:;�
, ii
.. . ......:;a'�'.,� s .
_ � _ y
. �� f � / n ( .
� � i
�
\`
`. Y
.:
L :�
�
2
Majority of pavement shipping removed, thermal crack present but base in good condition.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
Area G
Approximate Location: 9235 Jeffery Avenue
... .`. i.
�� ,.
`y .., � .�.. :".
�7%:� L.
�i .
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
r7� - r
' � �..p � :/:
� `^- �� �..�
�: �
t
s�
,. ,
,�. ,
�
, . � i; � � : ,. -,.
� �,
. ti �_ � �'��
. j . i . �i'�� ��:..
Milling surface reveals cracks in bituminous base, illustrates volume of potential reflective cracking.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
Area H
Approximate Location: 9295 Jergen Aveune
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area I
` . -s�;
� - ,.:,„ , � i . . .
,��i n �L. � � ` . �..
E°"° _.
�,. � � ` I ��`�:,.•-� .
F: �
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
Approximate Location: 9189 Jergen Aveune
� ' �
.�
r
Normal thermal cracking present.
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area J
Approximate Location: 9328 Jarrod Avenue
� s� . n: --"'*'Y . ` ,�" . �"��
v ���r�l�l�� Y ��
_ _ -*— -�_ _
s"�, � _ �a
�'
- �
. �` .
�� ,
z.:
�
�,
' 4 :r
r' , � y �..��
� '
_, � , � �
Y .NA
`YF
1,
_ � $Iy +! � -�
� �:
. ' _ n �� .,��' . r • .. • C+
Some pavementholding moisture, patchy asphalt stripping in bituminous base present
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area K
Approximate Location: 9433 Jareau Avenue
��' �t� _ __{• __ ''�� —
� �
��� � . �
..�,'R' . . .- .
._-r..
a '_
- r�'� � � � >.
. � - ��:
_ ` :, - ,
^7
�. ,
��i.aEw. ai� . _r . ... . ... . . -,.. x .` a, ?....,�'v.. -:3�
Pavement stripping extends down into the bituminous base, weak pavementnoted in areas of stripping.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
��• /�i�
2014 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Area L
Approximate Location: 9415 Jeffery Avenue
�. �f �
' � � � %, 'm':1, .
. ��
�.V�
_ t' .��i.:,�yl �
� .. . . � _ � ' . . . � _ _
. ' I 3� ..' . ..
�. ..�
� •:'�� '
�-'L
�
. `�'
`�
< �
� • ♦�
� F
�
}
� r
�
`
j' '
. . . . .�j
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
2013 PavementManagementProject
�
Pavement stripping extends down into the bituminous base.