The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11A - CR 12 Street Reconstruction Project O~ PRio~\ A (" f.., ';P ..... ~ U h'J ~~~ESO~~ MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: ISSUES: 1< i';..J 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FEBRUARY 16, 2010 11A LARRY POPPLER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE CR 12 RE- CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SIDEWALK COSTS Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with information related to their request at the January 19, 2010 meeting that Scott County bid the south sidewalk on County Road 12 as an alternate. Histor{ At the January 19, 2010 City Council meeting a Public Hearing was held. Two individuals spoke at the Public Hearing in opposition to the south sidewalk. On January 26, 2010, Scott County received the bids on the County Road 12 project. The low bid was roughly $275,000 less than the engineer's estimate. Current Circumstances In talking with County staff, since the City's request for bidding the south side- walk as an alternate was received after the bids had been sent out, this could not be done within the timeframe of the bid opening without additional expense. As a second option the City requested the sidewalk costs be identified based on quan- tities for the south sidewalk construction. Scott County has responded to that request and has indicated that the south si- dewalk costs are $133,791.00. As a part of the County response, they indicated that they feel that the right long-term decision for a roadway of this magnitude, is to build sidewalk/trails on both sides of the roadway. Because the City's request was for costs to delete the sidewalk and not a directive to have the sidewalk de- leted from the project, the County did not indicate whether there would be any additional costs to pursue this option. Past Decisions The decision to have sidewalk or trail on both sides of this roadway was made on August 16, 2004 with the layout approval. The County has proceeded with de- sign, right of way purchasing, and construction of previous segments based on the 2004 layout approval. In an effort to be responsive to input they have re- ceived without impacting the design, Scott County has decided to increase the sidewalk width on the north side to a seven-foot sidewalk instead of a five-foot sidewalk. The boulevard widths will be reduced to facilitate the sidewalk width change. If the south side is removed from the design, sidewalk segments previ- ously constructed would remain "dead end" sidewalk segments. FJd r\,:;V...i1 www.cityofpriorlake.com ! ';,' .. '\; ,": :~"d:~_~,,,-.,c;;~\ (;".l',',~ j~_~i..--:: I 'C~1.}!,1; l,I)\.)\.> Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 R\Councii\2010 Safety The construction of sidewalks on both sides of CR 12 as part of the original de- sign and layout approval made by the City and County in 2004 was a very con- tentious issue. Residents did not feel the impacts to their property by the second sidewalk were justified by the additional safety benefit. The City Council and County Board disagreed and approved the design believing that sidewalk/trails on both sides were warranted based on the future traffic volumes and connection to numerous City and County park facilities. Even though development has slowed, this roadway provides a key link between the annexation area and High- way 13. Because Spring Lake and Prior Lake bisect the City, the available road connections from the east and west sides of the lakes are limited. Current and future residents living west of CR 17 will use CR 12 to get to downtown Prior Lake, Savage, the High School, Interstate 35 and other destinations. Currently, CR 12 experiences between 4,000 and 5,000 trips per day with traffic volumes projected to grow to near 11,000 trips per day by 2030. Other City streets currently experiencing volumes of 11,000 trips per day includes segments of CR 21, TH 13 and CR 82. It should also be noted that these roadways have very limited direct residential access. Having sidewalks on both sides of CR 12 will help move pedestrians to intersections or safer areas before the pedestrian crosses the street. On collector-type roadways, motorists are more used to pe- destrians crossing at intersections or dedicated crosswalks. The south sidewalk will provide a safe route for pedestrians to get to dedicated crosswalks or inter- sections on CR 12. Future Sidewalk Construction Waiting for a future date to construct this sidewalk presents future problems. Each driveway along the future driveway alignment would need to be cut to install the sidewalk. The costs for impacting/damaging each driveway are difficult to quantify, but it will be more expensive in the future than constructing the sidewalk now. It is only a matter of time before property owners install landscaping, irriga- tion, driveway modifications, or some other type of improvement along a future sidewalk alignment. These issues are difficult to deal with on sidewalk projects because the property owner has invested significant dollars or time on these fea- tures. For example, in 2005, the City added a one block segment of sidewalk on 150th Street between Fairlawn Shores and the Fish Point Park entrance. The landscaping, irrigation, and driveways were difficult to manage as property own- ers had emotional ties to the items impacted by construction. 2030 Vision and Strateaic Plan Removal of the south sidewalk from the project would contradict two of the goals under the transportation element of the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan. "Goal: Work with local and regional partners to plan and construct roadways that will meet future needs." "Goal: Implement alternative vehicle and pedestrian safety improvements to ma- jor arterials connecting schools, neighborhoods, downtown, parks and trails." 1 1U\CF:: 12 sidi:)'ivalk 2 CooDerative AGreement In accordance with the layout approval and Cooperative Agreement, the County has acquired the necessary easements and ROWand designed the project ac- cordingly. Were the City Council to request the elimination of a sidewalk on one side, the City could be liable for any costs incurred by the County for the original design and the change in accordance with the Cooperative Agreement. Addi- tionally, based on previous approvals, the County is not obligated to make any changes to the plans and can proceed with the project as designed. If the City Council would now pursue the removal of the south sidewalk, the issue could damage the City's relationship with the County whether or not the County decides to remove the south sidewalk. Conclusion Based on the information set out in this report, City staff recommends that the City Council accept this report and take no further action on this issue. FINANCIAL IM- PACT: The City's cost share for the construction of sidewalks/trails on this corridor has been determined to be $112,766.70 based on the low bid. Based on the Coop- erative Agreement the City and County share sidewalk and trail costs 50/50. Most likely this change, if authorized by the County, would reduce the City's costs by up to $67,000 depending on whether or not the County required the City to reim- burse any related easement acquisition or design costs changes. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives are as follows: 1. Accept this report and direct staff to pursue the removal of the south side- walk from the County Road 12 construction. 2. Accept this report and request no further action be taken on this issue. RECOMMENDED Alternative NO.2. MOTION: ReViewe~ If/ Frank Boyles, CD mjer r~\C:ouncii\2010 16 1 O\CF: '12 sidC:~'vVEllk 3