The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/24/1987 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 24 , 1987 Mayor Reinke presiding 1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Assembly Room 111 of the Scott County Courthouse. 21 Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) 3 ] Informational meeting concerning proposed storm drainage improvements within the Upper Valley Drainage Basin. *41 Res. No. 2693 , Requesting support for funding of design of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge from the Minnesota Congressional Delegation. *5] Res. No. 2694, Requesting support for funding of design of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge from the House and Senate Conferees on the Surface Transportation Act. 61 Other Business: 71 Adjourn. John K. Anderson City Administrator J MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Upper Valley Project DATE: February 20 , 1987 INTRODUCTION: A public meeting is scheduled for 7 : 00 P. M. , Tuesday , February 24 , 1987 in the Assembly Room 111 of the Scott County Courthouse for the purpose of discussing the proposed Upper Valley drainage project. Attached are copies of the public meeting notice and accompanying map that went out to property owners within the drainage basin. BACKGROUND: At their February 17 , 1987 meeting, Council discussed various issues relative to the proposed project. Council determined that the special benefit utility rate shall be $11 .08 per REF per acre per quarter versus the $15 .70 rate indicated in the notice . Another issue discussed by Council was the drainageway alignment in the area between 4th Avenue and C . R. 16 . Two basic options were presented as shown on Attachment 1 ; Alternative 1 : A longer, circuitous route which does not subdivide individual parcels of property ; and, Alternative 2 : A more direct route that would disect the Lenzmeier farm. Council directed staff to do a detailed analysis of the cost difference between the alternatives . In general , the cost of construction is higher for Alternative One due to the longer length of the route and bank protection at the numerous 90 degree turns within the route. The area of easement acquisition for Alternative One is greater also because of the longer length but I would expect that the damages be considerably greater for Alternative Two. For the short time allotted for this additional analysis , a detailed estimate of the easement cost and damages cost was not accomplished. The following is our estimate of costs for just the routing area indicated in Attachment 1 . Alternative One ; approximately 5 , 000 ft. long. $778 , 000 + 9 .6 acres easement Alternative Two ; approximately 3 , 200 ft. long. $284 ,000 + 6 .2 acres easement + damages Upper Valley Project February 20 , 1987 Page 2 From an engineering perspective , Alternative Two is the logical route with the least initial construction cost , least construction and maintenance problems due to the reduction of direction changes . Without appraisals , I would only be speculating that the overall cost would be less for Alternative Two because of the added variable of damages to the remaining property . If and when this property is platted, I would expect that the City could recover any easement costs through the platting process as systems charges. I recommend that the City Attorney verify this and that systems charges be recorded on the affected property . I believe the damages to the Lenzmeier property can be minimized by the following actions : Work with the Lenzmeiers to place channel crossings such that the property can continue to be farmed efficiently. Design the open channel such that it can be replaced by pipe in the future. The additional estimated cost to install pipe through the Lenzmeier ' s property is $1 .6 million. At the present, I do not believe that piping the flow through the Lenzmeier property is cost effective . Perhaps in the future it would be since the width of the easement could be reduced. RECOMMENDATION: At the completion of the public meeting , if there are no outstanding issues other than the alignment determination , I recommend that Council order plans and specifications for the Upper Valley Project from the Mill Pond to County Road 79 at an estimated cost of $3 .0 million. I further recommend that Council direct staff to pursue alignment Alternative Two through the Lenzmeier property as well as a direct route through the Scherber property which lies immediately east of the Lenzmeier property. REQUESTED ACTION: 1 . Move to direct staff to obtain appraised easement costs and to pursue the most cost effective routing for drainage improvements through the Lenzmeier and Scherber properties. 2 . Move to order plans and specification for the Upper Valley Basin project from the Mill Pond to County road 79 as recommended in the "Upper Valley Drainageway and Outfall Study" at an estimated cost of $3.0 million. w // —MINNE r HAKO �DI ST �0� s ST- 5 Tr c , � tElop — 0 E �� z+ 111D� - ° ♦ &Nh Y 1D E w.D� 46- .�Dc�aao" • SNS ALTERN� v� w o i� a DDD v -j�� I %bCANTERBURY DOWNS D j D VALLEY PARK �LJ^1 � � ♦ tf_Itl._ i I UM j`� .IE. D � Et �v- TI � ¢ 4q m& SHAKOPEE Ave F °R. Ry�s o f r`--- HPVEI X ; a 7 NORTHERNLL ..IPS _ i I KILLARNEY HILLS AOD`N I �9e \ hpRr II 1 9i \ HF o �h o2F \\ OJ I a Ig 17 16 f� 9 GLEN HILLSIDE HILLSIDE ESTATES K• i CO RD 77 r C U Alf I ti i i •, � : tea. t \ CO M -I O CJi r� �Gq 4�n Gq fQq I Q A � C Ul N U1 O m m O O O O O O O O O O O O M 0 0 0 0I -- - m co m CPo rn I �.►. C/) m n i Rti- m m m m 0 m m D m D D Cn Cn m —1 I Z .' /s. §` 6 1 m r Z D m -< D D -DI � ; (il m M M z D D I D D r r i (nCO / l _ Y! •! oo / INFORMATIONAL MEETING WBAT: nFOINMON9. MEEMM COWYMEW PICPWM TE UPPM v&M DRAINAGE BASIN WERE: say m oouwy 0ovmvm; woM m WEN: FEW&AM 24, 1987; 7:00 P.M. BACKGROUND As a means of planning and cor:structing needed storm drainage facilities, the City of Shakopee initiated a storm drainage utility in 1986 which provides for the funding of such improvements. Enclosed is a map showing nine major drainage basins within the City that has storm drainage improvement needs. The Holmes Street Basin Project (Area 3) was constructed in 1986. The City is now planning for improvements to the Upper Valley Basin (Area 5) . The informational meeting is scheduled for the purpose of presenting the proposed improvements, phasing alternatives, and estimated costs. PROJECT FUNDING Storm drainage inprovements are funded by City-wide utility charges, special benefitted utility charges, and tax increment financing. If you have developed property within the Upper Valley Basin, you have been receiving a utility charge reflecting the City-wide storm drainage charge only. Properties within the 1986 Holmes Street improvements similarly received a City-wide charge but also a special benefit charge for the 1986 improvement. If City Council approves the Upper Valley Project, developed properties within the Upper Valley Basin will begin to receive a special benefit charge. As in the past, vacant properties will incur storm drainage utility charges when the property is developed. ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated cost of tl;e storm drainage improvements for the Upper Valley system is $3,600,000.00. The storm water runoff characteristics for all properties in Shakopee are compared to single family residential runoff characteristics. This comparison is termed Residential Equivalency Factor (REF) . The special benefit rate as a result of the proposed project is $15.70 per REF per acre per quarter. The City-wide charge is not expected to increase with this project. The estimated utility charge to single family residential lots is $5.23 per quarter. The estimated utility charge for commercial and industrial properties range from $19.62 to $78.50 per acre per quarter depending on the amount of impervious surface constructed for a particular development. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolutions Requesting Minnesota Legislative Support of Demonstration Funds for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge DATE: February 20 , 1987 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: Congress is now considering a four year extension of the Surface Transportation Act which provides funding for highway maintenance , construction, and transit operations. Attached to the bill now being considered is a request for demonstration funds in the amount of $2 .75 million for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge Replacement . The funds would finance the Location and Design Study and the final contract document ( plans and specifications) . If these demonstration funds are approved , this is seen as a major step in the advancement of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge Project. It is expected that the construction funds would come from the FHWA Bridge Discretionary Fund which funds bridge projects costing in excess of $10 million. It is much easier to compete for these limited funds if those funds are used for physical improvements that the public can see and use versus "paper improvements" such as plans and specifications. Council should be aware that this request for demonstration funds does not have unilateral support . If and when the Surface Transportation Act is extended, each state receives a portion of the total funds . Demonstration funds come from the State ' s allotment and would be earmarked specifically for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge . Mn/DOT is not supportive of demonstration projects because they lose control over where certain funds will be used. Resolution No . 2693 and No. 2694 is requesting support for the Surface Transportation Bill from the Minnesota Delegation. Based on the fact that Governor Perpich has publically supported any efforts to obtain funding for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge, I recommend adoption of Resolution No . 2693 and No . 2694 . I do not see this action as jeopardizing the City ' s working relationship with Mn/Dot. Bloomington Ferry Bridge February 20, 1987 Page 2 REQUESTED ACTION: 1 . Offer Resolution No. 2693 , A Resolution Requesting Support for Funding of Design of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge from the Minnesota Congressional Delegation , and move its adoption. 2. Offer Resolution No. 2694 , A Resolution Requesting Support for Funding of Design of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge from the House and Senate Conferees on the Surface Transportation Act, and move its adoption. KA/pmp BRIDGE ,rJ�S RESOLUTION NO 2693 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING SUPPORT FOR FUNDING OF DESIGN OF THE BLOOMINGTON FERRY BRIDGE FROM THE MINNESOTA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee and the people of the City of Shakopee have sought a new crossing over the Minnesota River for more than twenty years ; and WHEREAS , the existing temporary bridge on CSAH 18 (Bloomington Ferry Bridge) is subject to frequent flooding for more than two months annually ; and WHEREAS, congestion on alternate highway routes during closure of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge causes traffic backups in excess of seven miles ; and WHEREAS, the cost to the public of the closure of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge crossing due to floods exceeded $4 . 6 million in 1986 alone ; and WHEREAS, replacement of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge is essential to maintain the existing economic activity in the City of Shakopee as well as to ensure the continued growth and economic vitality of the region ; and WHEREAS , the existing Bloomington Ferry Bridge is a temporary structure operating under a U . S . Coast Guard permit valid until 1989 ; and WHEREAS, the Environmental impact Statement for the CSAH corridor, which cost more than $600 ,000 and took in excess of six years to complete, is approaching its final approval date, from which date significant progress toward replacement of the bridge must be shown within three years ; and WHEREAS, traditional sources of funds for the design of a major bridge of this nature are unavailable because the Bloomington Ferry Bridge is not on the state highway system ; and WHEREAS, funding for the CSAH 18 river crossing has been recommended in the committee report accompanying the Surface Transportation Act as drafted by the Public Works Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives ; and WHEREAS, funding for design of the CSAH 18 river crossing has been included in the Surface Transportation Act as passed by the United States Senate ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota , hereby requests support from Minnesota Congressional Delegation for federal funding of the $2 .75 million Location Design Study Report and the preparation of detailed plans for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Congressional Delegation is hereby requested to seek such funding for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge in the Surface Transportation Act. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19 City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 2694 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING SUPPORT FOR FUNDING OF DESIGN OF THE BLOOMINGTON FERRY BRIDGE FROM THE HOUSE AND SENATE CONFEREES ON THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee and the people of the City of Shakopee have sought a new crossing over the Minnesota River for more than twenty years ; and WHEREAS , the existing temporary bridge on CSAH 18 (Bloomington Ferry Bridge) is subject to frequent flooding for more than two months annually ; and WHEREAS, congestion on alternate highway routes during closure of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge causes traffic backups in excess of seven miles ; and WHEREAS , the cost to the public of the closure of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge crossing due to floods exceeded $4 . 6 million in 1986 alone ; and WHEREAS , replacement of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge is essential to maintain the existing economic activity in the City of Shakopee as well as to ensure the continued growth and economic vitality of the region ; and WHEREAS , the existing Bloomington Ferry Bridge is a temporary structure operating under a U . S . Coast Guard permit valid until 1989 ; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Statement for the CSAH corridor, which cost more than $600 ,000 and took in excess of six years to complete , is approaching its final approval date, from which date significant progress toward replacement of the bridge must be shown within three years ; and WHEREAS, traditional sources of funds for the design of a major bridge of this nature are unavailable because the Bloomington Ferry Bridge is not on the state highway system; and WHEREAS, funding for the CSAH 18 river crossing has been recommended in the committee report accompanying the Surface Transportation Act as drafted by the Public Works Committee of the U .S. House of Representatives ; and WHEREAS, funding for design of the CSAH 18 river crossing has been included in the Surface Transportation Act as passed by the United States Senate ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, hereby requests support from the House and Senate Conferees for federal funding of the $2.75 million Location Design Study Report and the preparation of detailed plans for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the House and Senate Conferees are respectfully requested to provide such funding for the Bloomington Ferry Bridge in the Surface Transportation Act. Adopted in session of the City Council of the Ciity of Shakopee, Minnesota , held this day of , Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 19 City Attorney