HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01-03-2012 SpecialAdopted Minutes
Special Council Meeting
January 3, 2012
Deputy Mayor Bildsoe called a Special Meeting of the Plymouth City Council to order at 6:00
p.m. in the Medicine Lake Room, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on January 3, 2012.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Bildsoe, Councihnembers Black, Willis, Stein, Wosje,
and Johnson. Mayor Slavik arrived at 6:25 p.m.
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Ahrens, Public Works Director Cote, Parks Director Evans,
City Engineer Moberg, and City Clerk Engdahl.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Representatives from SRF Consulting Group and WSB and
Associates, and two residents, Vernon Peterson and Steven Roell.
Proposals for the Peony Lane/Lawndale Extension Project
Public Works Director Cote stated the Council considered proposals received from two
consulting engineers at the December 13, 2011 Council meeting, related to alignment selection,
environmental documentation, design engineering, and acquisition of right-of-way for the Peony
Lane/Lawndale Lane corridor from Schmidt Lake Road to the northern City limits. This roadway
project and installation of trunk watermain is identified in the Capital hnprovements Program for
construction in 2014. Because the two engineering proposals are very different in process, scope
of work, and outcome, the Council should provide direction to staff on the desired process for the
project. He stated staff desires direction on the following questions:
1. Does the Council wish to select an alignment or eliminate one or more of the four
alignments currently identified?
2. Does the Council support the roadway type recommenced in the technical memorandum?
3. Does the Council wish to revisit the greenway plan in order to assist in making the
alignment decision (staff would consider alternative layouts for the trailhead site to better
consider the easterly alignment)?
4. Does the Council wish to consider whether to do an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW)?
5. Does the Council want staff to proceed with the geotechnical work (soil borings) now?
He stated the options before the Council is to select one of the consulting engineer proposals or
reject both proposals (reissue a request for proposal (RFP), proceed with the EAW, select an
alignment and issue an RFP for design, or do nothing).
Adopted Minutes 1 of 4 Special Meeting of January 3, 2012
He then explained the four alignments that have been considered. Alternatives 1 and 3 are
variations of the same alignment and it basically comes down to tradeoffs between impacts to the
City -owned property versus impacts to the property located at 5705 Lawndale Lane. The fourth
alternative originated out of the neighborhood's suggestion to run the proposed alignment more
in line with the existing MCES Interceptor Line and its associated easements. A request by the
neighborhood to align the road further east of Alternative 4 was not pursued due to the major
impacts to the large wetland complex which would not be acceptable to the wetland permitting
agencies due to other alternatives being available.
Councilmember Willis asked if there is any data on the soil tests when the MCES Interceptor line
was constructed. City Engineer Moberg replied there is data that shows the soil borings and logs
for that project which is closest to Alternative 4.
By request of the Council, City Engineer Moberg addressed each of the four alignments. All
alignments would have a speed limit of 45 mph. He stated that Alternative 2 is the most
expensive alignment as there is more length to it.
Councilmember Johnson asked what the engineering firms could do to assist the Council with
this process and to narrow down the alternatives in order to get the most efficient alignment.
Public Works Director Cote replied if it's the Council's desire to lean towards more of an easterly
route, the focus of the RFP could be narrowed and the soil borings could be taken.
Councilmember Black asked if it's envisioned for a trail on the roadway for bikers. City
Engineer Moberg replied the CIP contains trails along the Peony Lane corridor (three lanes with
trail). However, the trail could be removed if the road is expanded to four lanes in the future.
Councilmembers Black and Willis stated they could support Alternatives 1 or 3. Councilmember
Willis further stated that Alternative 4 is very close to the wetland and could damage the potential
of a trailhead off the Northwest Greenway. The entire Council stated they don't support
Alternative 2.
Resident Steven Roell, who resides off County Road 47, asked if the City has undertaken a study
on the people who travel east on County Road 47 to Vicksburg Lane to Highway 55 as the traffic
and congestion is terrible in the mornings. Mayor Slavik stated the focus of this evening's
discussion is on the selection of a consultant for this project to traffic issues on County Road 47.
Therefore, she requested any questions be directed on that aspect.
Resident Vern Peterson asked who petitioned for this road. Councilmember Bildsoe replied
nobody petitioned for the extension of this roadway. This project has been in the City's
Comprehensive Plan since 1971.
The Council requested the consultants to provide comments related to their proposals. They
noted that SRF Consulting Group's proposal was $480,550 and WSB and Associates' proposal
was $390,068 for a difference of $90,482.
Adopted Minutes 2 of 4 Special Meeting of January 3, 2012
Representative from WSB and Associates stated if the Council narrowed the RFP to a couple
designs, the cost of their proposal would essentially be the same. The only things that change are
the alternatives that are looked at, whether an EAW is prepared, and the number of parcels that
would be impacted with the right-of-way. A lot of preliminary evaluation was done without the
fieldwork. They feel their proposal responded to the City's RFP, and they're comfortable
proceeding.
Representative from SRF Consulting Group stressed the need for a thorough transparent process
for residents which is what their proposal contained. He also spoke of projects that they have
worked with the City previously near this area, so they have data they are able to utilize and are
very comfortable with this type of project. There would be a lot of impact with the wetland on
Alternative 4 which would be difficult. They also agree that Alternative 2 wouldn't be the best
alignment, and Alternatives 1 and 3 are the best alignments. He noted that other considerations
have to be considered with the alternatives such as protecting the wetland and the trailhead qff
the Northwest Greenway. In addition, there is value in their firm having the data and resources
from similar projects in the City.
Councilmember Stein questioned the difference in price between the two proposals and what that
could be attributed to. One item was the cost of the title work for the acquisition of property for
right-of-way. WSB and Associates didn't include that cost in their proposal as their experience
has been allowing cities to work with their city attorneys while SRF Consulting Group would
take care of the title work and assume those costs.
Public Works Director Cote went through the five questions noted above with the Council in
order to receive direction. Below are the answers to the questions:
1. Eliminate Alternative 2.
2. Yes.
3. No, not really, but input is needed from the Parks Department. It's not a problem with
Alternatives 1 or 3, but it is with Alternative 4.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
The Council raised the question with their answers above and the discussion held this evening,
how does that affect the consultants' proposals.
Public Works Director Cote recommended that the consultants respond in writing how the
discussion on the five questions affect their proposals. Councilmember Stein also requested the
attorneys' costs for the title work of land acquisition.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she feels both firms can do this project. She noted that SRF
Consulting Group has done other projects in relation to this project and that's value. However, if
the City is looking for that value, how can other firms compete? Why were the RFPs sent to
more than one firm.
Adopted Minutes 3 of 4 Special Meeting of January 3, 2012
Mayor Slavik stated another big difference in the cost in the proposals is the public process. A
transparent, public process is what the Council strives for with every project and SRF Consulting
Group has included that type of process in their proposal.
As recommended by Public Works Director Cote, the Council requested the consultants to
respond in writing how the discussion on the five questions affect their proposals as well as
Councilmember Stein's request for the attorneys' costs for the title work of land acquisition. This
item would be on the January 24 agenda.
Future Study Sessions
The Council moved the fire study item from the February 21 study session at 6:00 p.m. to March
20 at 6:00 p.m. The Council scheduled the following items for the February 21 study session:
1. Parkers Lake Cemetery.
2. Streamlining street lighting rates.
3. Noise Ordinance.
4. City Manager update.
Adjournment
Mayor Slavik adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m.../ " ( /
l I'r'L!/" ,/
andra R. Engdahl, City erk
Adopted Minutes 4 of 4 Special Meeting of January 3, 2012