The Cottage Grove City Council held a public hearing at the Feb. 7 regular meeting to review city plans for the 2024 Pavement Management project, allotting time for public comments and discussion. Since 1994, Cottage Grove has planned and executed Pavement Management projects in specifically targeted areas of the city each year to maintain roads, infrastructure, and property values for residents.
City Engineer Amanda Meyer gave a presentation to the council outlining this year’s objectives. She listed the methods the city employs to maintain and rehabilitate the city’s roads, including crack seal, mill-and-overlay, reclamation, pavement replacement, and reconstruction.
Meyer noted that seal coating has been used by the city in the past, but crack seal - targeted repairs of cracks - is currently favored going forward. Mill-and-overlay and reclamation are used to remove and grind the existing asphalt and aggregate base to be processed and reused for new pavement. The goal is to lengthen the life cycle of city roads from 27 years to 40 years. There is some planned pavement replacement, as well as instances of full reconstruction, which entails removal and rebuilding from the subgrade level.
Previous workshops had labeled a stretch of Jamaica Avenue South, between 80th Street South and 90th Street South for mill-and-overlay. While that project will now not be targeted for the 2024 Pavement Management plan, it is still projected to be completed this year using funds from the city’s Street Reconstruction and Overlay bonds as a separate project.
The area scheduled for 2024 Pavement Management is the Prestige Estates neighborhood, a development built between 1990-1994, located south of Kingston Park and north of 80th Street South. The neighborhood has been reviewed by the city multiple times since 2011, with mill- and-overlay and full curb replacement recommended to be completed in the near future.
Core samples from the neighborhood show notable asphalt stripping, undermining the structural stability of the roads.
“We’ve for sure reached the end of the life cycle for this pavement,” said Meyer. She added that at a recent neighborhood workshop, “One of the residents mentioned they had seen one of the street sweepers come by, and the road was degrading so much that the street sweeper actually started picking up some of the roadway.”
The city is recommending full pavement replacement and full curb replacement for the neighborhood. Meyer noted that the curb work is planned to be done by machine, instead of by hand, both to minimize costs as well as create a more uniform line throughout. The new curbs will be changing to a more gradual rollover style, as opposed to the more abrupt, V- shape that was used when the development was built. Curb alignment and curb height will remain the same, to avoid any grade differences with current sod and driveways.
Also planned are utility maintenance, such as pipe and manhole structural repairs, street light wire replacement due to expected damage from the curb replacement, and fire hydrant reconditioning. The streetlights will be swapped out with new LED lights, replacing the existing high-pressure sodium lights.
There are 79 homes included in the project. The city has assessed the final cost at $6,647.65 per home, lower than an initial third-party benefit appraisal that estimated the maximum cost at $7,500 per home. Neighborhood residents will be allowed to pay that amount at 1.5% interest above the bond rate (currently estimated at 5.6%) over a period of 15 years at $647.84 annually. They can also choose to pay in full within 30 days of project completion at no interest, or make partial payments ($500 minimum) within 30 days. Deferrals are available for residents with disabilities, military service, and those age 65 and older, though interest will still accrue over any deferral period.
The total estimated cost of the project is $1,170,018.26, including $591,067.82 from general levy and $525,164.35 from assessments. Additional utility costs include $15,001.24 for Sanitary Sewer Utility, $12,266.36 for Water Utility, and $26,518.65 for Storm Water Utility.
Meyer said, “If council does decide to order the project this evening the assessments become pending on the property. The assessments would not become final until the project has been completed and we have our final assessment hearing. At that time, if council chooses to adopt the assessment rule, that is the time at which those assessments would become finalized.”
An initial neighborhood meeting took place on Jan. 30 to discuss the plans.
“We had a really great turnout,” said Meyer. “I was really thrilled, actually, by the number of residents we had come out. They were very engaged, and they had a lot of really great questions. That was nice to see and hear. A lot of their questions were related to access and parking, and rightfully so, as a full curb removal and replacement project.”
Upon approval, bids will open on March 21, with the council awarding winning bids on April 3. A second neighborhood meeting will then take place in April offering more details as they fall in place, with construction planned to begin in April or May. The project is expected to be completed in September, with the final assessment hearing taking place in October.
Mayor Myron Bailey asked City Attorney Kori Land for clarification on whether the assessment is the maximum amount, or if that may change.
Land responded, “This is a little different than a levy question. When you adopt a levy in September, that’s your maximum amount. You can go lower, but you can’t go higher. Tonight you have a preliminary assessment. It’s just an estimate. It actually can exceed it by the time we get to the final assessment. I’m guessing it would be frowned upon by members of this neighborhood if that happened, but it could happen.”
Land also clarified that the $7,500 benefit appraisal cannot be surpassed, so that would be the maximum amount if there were cost overruns and the final assessment was above the city’s estimated $6,647.65 per home.
Bailey also noted that because Cottage Grove has achieved a AAA bond rating, the interest rate offered to Prestige Estates residents is lower than it would be otherwise, passing on that benefit to the homeowners in question.
Councilmember Justin Olsen said, “There’s no question that this is a necessary project. All the testing has proven that.”
He then asked Meyer for details about any potential damage that may be done to driveway aprons. She stated that there would be a two to three foot minimum from the curb to make sure they can best achieve compaction and match up with the existing driveways and not create additional joints.
“I think it’s important for folks to understand the chain of events as it relates to these kind of projects, and then moreover that the numbers that we’re seeing tonight are estimates,” said Olsen. “We won’t have a firm handle on that until we bid it, and then until it’s finished. It could very well come in under budget and that final assessment number will exist only when that has been established.”
One resident, Eli W., spoke to the council against the project being ordered, based on the difference between an improvement versus maintenance.
He said, “In the Minnesota Constitution, Article 10, one of the sentences in that is that the legislature may authorize municipal corporations to levy and collect assessments for local improvement, upon property benefit and thereby without regard to cash valuation. So, the key word there is improvements. There have been other cases recently in neighboring cities that have fought special assessments that did not improve, instead they maintained.” He cited First Baptist vs. St. Paul as an example.
He continued, “If we started with gravel and we got a paved road, that’s an improvement.”
He suggested that a degraded road being restored to its original site should be considered maintenance, not an improvement that can be assessed. “This is not an improvement, this is a return to baseline.”
Another resident, Dan S., said, “When we do things, and we buy things ourselves, we get our prices ahead of time. $6,700 is a ridiculous assessment. I’m going to just say, I expected $4,000 or $4,500. I’m not saying we don’t need roads, I’m not saying we don’t need curbs. But what I am saying is the number that we are being thrown as neighbors is obscene.”
He gave an example from a similar project in an Oakdale neighborhood completed last year that came in at a $4,200 assessment. “If we come back in and you’re going to tell me we’re going to now bid this, and we come back to a number, say, about $4,800, okay. That’s good. But right now, to hear it could go as high as $7,500, that, I think is really, really, high.”
Mayor Bailey stressed that while they can’t make any guarantees, the city is very good at erring on the high side on projects, and cited a recent assessment that came in less than the estimate.
“Ultimately the goal is to get the deal as cheap as we possibly can, but obviously get a quality street out of it,” Bailey said.
Councilmember Dave Thiede asked how the benefit appraisal number was determined. Land replied, “Appraisers have different methodologies on how they appraise properties. Whenever we do a road project we ask them to look at the various different kinds of lots.” She added, “We ask them to take the look at the category of property, and then base it on their expertise on how they appraise properties for the value of the new street and the infrastructure that that provides, comparing from the original value of the home or property to what that improvement brings to it.”
Thiede asked if the way the appraisal was conducted could be viewed by the homeowners affected by it. Land suggested the second assessment hearing in the fall would be the time for any objections to the assessment amount, and the details of the appraisal could be made public.
Olsen then inquired about the bid process, and reminded the public that by law the council is bound to take the lowest bid.
Councilmember Tony Khambata asked if the Minnesota statute raised by Eli W. gives a definition for the word improvement.
“I’m sure there is a definition,” said Land. “I haven’t been faced with the particular aspect of a challenge to the 429 statute. It’s usually about the special benefit, and that ‘my property did not see that much improvement for the value.’ As far as his argument that this isn’t an improvement, therefore you shouldn’t order it, I guess he’s asking you not to order the project.”
Olsen made a motion to adopt the resolution to order the project, which was seconded by Councilmember Monique Garza. The vote passed unanimously.
