Loading...
3/15/2021 - City Council - Work Session - Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 15, 2021 – 6:00 PM SPRING PARK CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Present: Jerome P. Rockvam, Mark Chase, Jeff Hoffman, Pamela Horton, and Gary Hughes Mayor Rockvam chaired the meeting. 6:00 – West Arm Road West Phase II Improvements a. Attorney Memo Regarding West Arm Road West Access Council reviewed the attorney memo regarding West Arm Road West Access. Rockvam stated a couple main positives: 1. that we can use the grant money for the improvements 2. that the turn handle will greatly improve safety. But Rockvam stated there are a couple hurdles we must cross. We need to get approval from the rail authority, and we need to move utility poles. Hoffman asked if we had to acquire land to do the improvements. Tolsma stated that the City does not because the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) owns the trail and right-of-way on both sides. b. Phase II Draft Feasibility Study Presentation Tolsma introduced Corey Bergman, City Engineer with Sambatek. Bergman updated council on the draft feasibility study. He stated the City would put together a lease with HCRRA for the land that would be needed for the hammerhead turn around. The City would also need an additional two feet of land and stated we would take from areas with the least amount of impact to property owners. Chase inquired about the required width of a new road. Bergman stated from a fire standpoint it is twenty feet if there are no hydrants, and twenty-six feet if there is. West Arm Road does have hydrants but there are requirements where you can be grandfathered in. State code if you were to build a new road would be 26 feet. Further discussion was had on the width of the road. Discussion was had on utilities relocation, Bergman stated they will work with the electric company to come up with the best option. Discussion was had on modifying the current bridge structure. We would work with HCCRA and Hennepin County Bridge in finding the best and most cost-effective solution. Hughes inquired about drainage issues. Bergman stated the project will include installation of new storm sewer pipe and catch basins. We will work with the watershed to meet current requirements. c. Project Funding & Timeline Horton asked about construction costs compared to a year ago. Bergman stated construction materials have in- creased 10-15% and there has been a drain on materials, but everything is accounted for in the study. Discussion was had on the cost of raising the bridge and other bridge options. Rockvam stated we are going to run into resistance from residents and asked what our readings are compared to last year. Chase asked if twenty feet was wide enough to do a full height curb and gutter. Bergman stated they are looking at a more surmountable curb. The project timeline was reviewed. Ordering plans and specifications and approval of final feasibility report will be in April. The open house, bid timeframe, and construction completion was discussed. The open house will be held at Seton Hall. Further discussion was had on the hammerhead turn-around, trail access points, and parking. Bergman stated there will be no parking signs along the road. Tolsma inquired if it would make sense to have one or two areas where it is wider. Discussion was had on possible “bump-outs” and the hydrant locations. d. Next Steps Tolsma stated the final feasibility report and authorize moving forward with plans and specifications will be up for approval at the first meeting in April. Horton asked about the grant financing and Tolsma updated Council on the grant funding. Hughes asked about receiving any additional revenue from residents for the project. Tolsma stated assessments will need to be discussed later. It is part of a larger question of assessments in general and our attorney will need to be involved. Tolsma stated this is a unique situation as we have been granted money from the State. Tolsma stated we also do not have a petition from residents. Changing the assessment policy in general could be looked at later. 6:35 – Discussion of Other High Priority Areas for Reconstruction a. Black Lake Road Tolsma brought forward a discussion on the Black Lake Road project. It would be our next priority because we are waiting on the county for the Sunset Drive project. Tolsma would like Council to start thinking about the Black Lake Road project and we will have to look at some high-level engineering. Future discussions will be had on the feasibility of the project. Chase stated he lives on Black Lake Road and detailed some of the issues of the road. Rockvam stated in the past when the City tried to improve the road the residents did not want the improvement but now there are new residents. He stated the water and sewer are a must so now would be the time to improve the road as well. Dis- cussion was had on platting of the road and the best options moving forward. Tolsma would like the engineers to give a rough idea and cost estimate which would give the City a preliminary concept. b. Sunset Drive & Adjacent Areas Tolsma discussed reaching out the County in order to update Council and get concepts and overall plans for Sunset Drive improvements. Rockvam talked about how to do the project with less intrusion to the businesses along that road. He also talked about possibly putting a walking trail on one side of the new street because right now it is not safe. Bergman stated the County is planning a virtual open house in May/June and in July/August there would be an open house in Spring Park. He stated from the open houses they would come up with preliminary design and phasing. Some discussion was had regarding financing projects on a local level and State financing. 6 Adjourn There being no further discussion, Horton motioned, being seconded by Rockvam to adjourn the meeting.