Public Improvement & Transportation Committee

MINUTES PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 25, 2025 2:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Schafer (Zoom), James Lozinski, John Alcorn (Zoom/early departure) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jason Anderson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Eric Hanson, Assistant City Engineer; E.J. Moberg, Director of Administrative Services OTHERS PRESENT: None Call to Order Schafer called the meeting to order at 2:04 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes MOTION MADE BY SCHAFER to approve the minutes of the January 23, 2025 meeting as presented, SECOND BY LOZINSKI. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED 3:0. 2. Project ST-001-2025: Chip Sealing on Various City Streets Anderson presented the item indicating the base streets and alternates, and the 2025 budget includes $165,000 for the project. The goal is to prolong the life of the streets as long as possible, delay future mill and overlay maintenance, and chipseal those streets that meet the some of the criteria-new blacktop, good shape to the road so that is sheds water, good drainage and not a lot of ponded water. History of street by Ashley Furniture/Hobby Lobby discussed whereby when the street was rebuilt it was by agreement in conjunction with the Hobby Lobby project, described a public roadway easement around the outside and exercised our right to maintain the street going forward and turn it essentially into a public route. Schafer indicated he is not against the chip sealing project, but he is in favor of taking a year pause due to the other projects coming up. Lozinski gave history of streets and used S Whitney as an example of a street that was never sealcoated, and its condition is not much different than E Marshall which was sealcoated. Lozinski noted he does not see the value of sealcoating, and he has read cities are going away from this process. Anderson commented that most cities and counties in our region are still sealcoating but there are some that choose not to. Discussion was held regarding multiple counties that own their own equipment and do their own chipsealing. Anderson indicated City looks to MnDOT for guidance and LRRB research and we look at routes that would cause premature failure. Anderson noted that MnDOT is not saying don’t chipseal and are still doing it as well but are also studying other options. Schafer noted would like to go on record he is not against chipseal but with the projected $165,000 budgeted amount, which is just short of 2% of the levy and would like to take a year off due to multiple projects and being mindful of levy and revisit the project again in 2026. Anderson reminded the Committee we have 80 miles of local streets, and in order to keep up with that on a 20-year life cycle, results in 4 miles/year of resurfacing (overlay or reconstruction) and we are resurfacing 1.5 miles to 2 miles/year and that is if we are not capping it, so we are already low. This maintenance effort (chip seal) costs about one-tenth of the amount of the mill and overlay and is something that can help the roads to last longer. Anderson cautioned the Committee that pulling back on street maintenance at the same time that we pull back on street reconstruction and street resurfacing could put the City in a difficult position in the future. Lozinski indicated we must keep levy down this year. Moberg provided levy increase amounts over the last three years. Anderson reiterated the importance of reconstruction and maintenance projects. Alcorn inquired what happens to the budget savings and the monies we do not use. Moberg confirmed it could go into budget reserves and utilized in the next year so that it does not impact next year’s levy. Alcorn asked if these dollars could be used to offset other expenses or are they earmarked just for streets. Moberg confirmed the monies would remain in the General Fund. Alcorn commented that projects are not going to get cheaper and so hesitates to put off projects and trusts the judgment of PI/T – 03/25/2025 -1- the City staff making these decisions, as well as the judgment of the Committee due member history. Schafer again reiterated his desire to take a one-year pause. MOTION MADE BY SCHAFER, SECOND BY LOZINSKI to recommend a one-year pause on the chip seal project to come back and revisit the exact plan again next year. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED 3:0. 3. Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) Review - Consider Revocation of and Establishment of State Aid Streets Anderson presented the removal and establishment of the two routes. Schafer inquired regarding the crosswind runway. State aid routes can cease at airports and seaports. Lozinski inquired on the MSAS negative balance. Anderson indicated slightly more funds received with a negative balance and provided summary of State Aid activity and strategies. MOTION MADE BY SCHAFER, SECOND BY ALCORN that the Committee recommend to City Council the approval of the attached resolutions making revisions to the State Aid routes. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED 3:0. 4. Project SWM-003: Legion Field Stormwater Improvements Project-Phase III Anderson gave a summary of the project. Schafer inquired if this would be a dry pond. Staff indicated that the pond is normally dry, with the western portion of the pond being an infiltration cell for stormwater treatment. Lozinski inquired if this would alleviate some of the flooding by Bladholm site. Schafer inquired on agreement with Turkey Valley storm water permit. MOTION MADE BY SCHAFER, SECOND BY LOZINSKI that the Committee recommend Council approval of the plans and specifications and authorize City staff to advertise the project for bids. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED 3:0. Alcorn departed from meeting at 2:35 pm. 5. Project PK-011 / (SAP 139-090-006): C Street/Southview Drive Trail Project Eric Hanson presented the item. Hoping for potential June letting. Project has a TA grant that is 80% federal and 20% local. Staff later received an AT grant to cover the 20% local costs. May use State Aid to cover engineering fees. Lozinski inquired on effect to property owners. Anderson indicated City has obtained easements from all property owners. Worked getting information out there and getting grant funding and remain budget conscious. MOTION MADE BY SCHAFER, SECOND BY LOZINSKI that the Committee recommend City staff to advertise the project for bids once plans and specifications are ready. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED 2:0. 6. Project ST-034: Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for Intersection of Susan Drive and US 59 Frontage Road The intersection of Susan Drive just east of US 59/Main Street is an important and busy intersection in our community. The intersection is quite wide and there are numerous travel lanes designated on each leg of the intersection. The intersection is further troubled by the “free” movements into the intersection coming off Main Street. At the 09/26/2023 meeting, the City Council authorized City staff to work with Bolton & Menk to complete an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) and to offer the City design options for geometric improvement at this intersection to help ensure good traffic flow, while also considering safety for all users of the intersection. As part of the study, Bolton & Menk conducted a traffic analysis that included the usage of video cameras and traffic movement counts in this area. Though the ICE Report was not yet finalized at the time, this item was presented to the PI/T Committee at their 11/28/2023 meeting. At the 11/28/2023 meeting that evening, the City Council adopted Resolution 23-074, which is the “Resolution of Support for LRIP Application”, authorizing City staff to submit an LRIP grant application for an intersection improvement project. Because staff was unable to come to agreement with the property owners of the adjacent 1200 Susan Drive property, staff did not submit for an LRIP grant in 2023-2024. The ICE Report is now complete and staff would like concurrence regarding options for this intersection. With guidance from the PI/T Committee and ultimately the City Council, City staff will re-engage with our pursuit of grant funds to help cover costs of a future project in this location. Hanson presented the item providing a description of each of the options in the report. Anderson indicated the process started with the search of grant opportunities for this area and how to improve the condition of the intersection and wanted to identify Susan Drive (State Aid route) as the primary route with the skewed angle that makes Susan Drive the through road with Margaret (Walmart access) connecting at a near 90 degree angle, but it is a significant change. This would move the access only approximately 200 ft. to the north. The current business (old Shopko building) was PI/T – 03/25/2025 -2- not in favor of losing access to the intersection while trying to lease out the building. After staff review, first goal would be to lose access and move it to the north. Or, secondly, cut Margaret access to Wal-Mart, but this would never be pursued on its own and only with a grant to put in a mini-roundabout on Boyer and Margaret by Tall Grass Liquor because there would be way too much traffic pressure on the Boyer accesses. Discussion was held on possible shrinking of the intersection and removal of the access. Lozinski inquired regarding the possibility of a roundabout. Anderson indicated it would not fit as it is too tight of a segment between the traffic signal and the roundabout, and there would be queuing of the traffic at the signal going into the roundabout. The only way to get a roundabout would be on the trunk highway at a cost of $4-$5 million and MnDOT would not be funding that. Anderson indicated multiple funding roadblocks have occurred. If grant funding cannot be secured, it would probably result in just a mill and overlay the intersection. Schafer inquired if it was a mill and overlay and putting curb in and restrict the stop light. Anderson it could be discussed but also indicated that MnDOT just funded a large 4-lane concrete project in the area. Schafer indicated in favor of thinning down the intersection, but it is not favorable without grant funding. Other options were discussed for guiding traffic through the area. Anderson indicated the next step would be to bring the ICE Report to City Council for their approval. Schafer and Lozinski both indicated they are not in favor of closing Margaret access, which would hurt businesses and citizens. Moberg inquired regarding the traffic impact of the apartment construction in that area. MOTION MADE BY SCHAFER, SECOND BY LOZINSKI that the Committee recommend approval of the ICE Report with the exception that the closing of the Margaret Avenue access is not an option. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED 2:0. Other Business None. Adjourn Being no further business, MOTION BY SCHAFER, SECOND BY LOZINSKI to adjourn. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED 2:0. Meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lona Rae Konold, Administrative Assistant PI/T – 03/25/2025 -3-