Loading...
062496 CC WS Min . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK STUDY SESSION JUNE 24, 1996 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD FOLLOWING REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Bean called the meeting to order at 9:02 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Bean; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, Benson and Shaw; Administrator Hurm, City Engineer Brown, City Attorney Keane, Bridge Advisory Committee consisting of Marcia Arnold, Patrick Delaney, Rob Sotirin, Bert Monten and Dave Greer; Paul Hornby and Bob Kilgore of OSM Consulting Firm. Review Agenda B. There were no changes to the agenda as noticed. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE OPTIONS AND FEASIBILITY City Engineer Brown reviewed the matter stating the critical nature of the bridge has increased severely. Paul Hornby addressed the group and stated information and suggestions regarding the bridge had been sent to the Bridge Advisory Committee. He described the types of bridges available as well as the feasibility of each. A feasibility report reflecting an opinion of estimated costs for each of the alternates was distributed. The Bridge Advisory Committee felt the bridge being proposed was too wide in comparison to the existing bridge and they would like to see some amenities attached to that. Brown stated the concerns of the Advisory Committee center around construction of the bridge, the profile of the bridge and changing elevation of the bridge. Hornby explained a single span bridge was considered, however, the channel would need to be reconstructed which would involve filling the area and the addition of slope protection. Mayor Bean asked for a description of the differences between the double tee bridge and the timber three span bridge. Kilgore stated the issues would be cost and time of construction. Reinforced concrete is expensive and would take a considerable amount of time to construct. The pre-stressed double tee has a lower cost and would be easier to construct. A single span bridge could be placed in one piece with the use of a crane. Ms. Arnold inquired if there would be an additional cost in utilizing a crane and Kilgore stated the use of a crane will be required on this project. He further explained that a timber bridge would be easy to construct in winter, however, the cost is significantly higher. In addition, the durability and longevity of the timber bridge is not as good as a concrete bridge. . . . WORK STUDY SESSION JUNE 24, 1996 - PAGE 2 Mayor Bean asked what the comparative life expectancy would be of the two bridges. Kilgore stated a timber bridge would need replacement at approximately 40 years, while a concrete bridge would be more in the range of approximately 50 to 70 years. He noted that the existing bridge is approximately 40 years old. In addition, variables such as ice conditions, traffic counts and salt conditions would affect the life expectancy. The existing bridge is constructed with steel beams which have begun to corrode. The cost of a bridge consisting of steel beams would be closer to a mid-range price. Mayor Bean asked City Attorney Keane to address the liability to the City with respect to the size of the bridge. Attorney Keane explained he had consulted with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. There is a fire code which requires a minimum 20-foot width which is a public health/safety/life issue. He further explained the City will not be insured for anything which is constructed in violation of any law or code. Attorney Keane stated his understanding that MSA design standards would guide the City that the road section should be on the order of 30 feet and a total structure in the area of 36 feet. He stated that state aid design standards are typically applicable to collector, minor arterial and arterial roadways which would be higher volume thoroughfares. City Engineer Brown clarified that the standards being considered were not state aid, but rather the standards of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Attorney Keane encouraged the group to consider as a base line the code requirements of fire, life and safety codes when compromising the design standards. Mr. Delaney stated there had not been any incidents of danger or injury on the bridge. He felt the wider bridge would encourage a higher speed of traffic. Mr. Sotirin pointed out the traffic in this area would not increase. He felt the 30-foot width would result in a massive structure which would not be necessary. The Advisory Committee provided pictures of the Shady Island bridge as well as other bridges in the area. Their main concerns involve the scale of the bridge being proposed with regard to the profIle of the structure in addition to the width and height and the concern the project will be more costly than necessary. The Committee also felt there was an aesthetic value as well and they would like to maintain the quaintness of the area. In addition, they expressed their belief that the existing bridge is safer than what is being proposed and that there is a long proven history of safety. The Committee would like to replace the existing bridge with a like structure. Mr. Delaney explained that expansion of the bridge would require road expansion which would adversely affect his property which is adjacent to the bridge. He distributed handouts with regard to the bridge as well as its impact on his property. He also displayed pictures of the roadway area. Mr. Delaney stated he would like to have his property appraised before and after reconstruction of the bridge to ascertain the impact it will have on the value of his property. The Advisory Board requested a review of Alternate No. 7 which most closely matched the interests of the Board. Hornby noted that particular proposal would push the bridge closer to the Delaney property since a new abutment would need to be added. Mayor Bean inquired if the bridge were to be constructed during the winter time, if the City would be able to create a temporary passageway across the ice. Engineer Brown did not feel the insurance company would allow that type of detour. . . . WORK STUDY SESSION JUNE 24, 1996 - PAGE 3 Brown explained the process of reconstructing the bridge by utilizing one side to accommodate a lane of traffic and perfonning the reconstruction on the opposite lane. He stated the decking could be removed from the existing bridge, however, the main support members would still be present at the end of the bridge, therefore the new bridge is constructed essentially over the existing bridge and profIle. When one lane has been completed, traffic would be detoured onto the completed side and then reconstruction could be completed on the remaining portion of the bridge. Councilmember McCarty inquired as to the degradation of the steel beams. Kilgore stated the steel beams would be comparable to timber, however, they would not last as long as concrete. Mayor Bean stated City Council would need to discuss the fact that Alternate No. 1 would achieve a 50- year life while Alternate No.7, which is approximately $20,000 less, would achieve a 40-year life. Councilmember McCarty asked if there were any standards or codes with respect to the roadway. Hornby stated 30 mph was the general engineering practice. Councilmember Stover commented the speed limit is currently 20 mph and Hornby explained that as a professional engineer, he would be required to design for a 30 mph road. He further recommended that advisory signing be posted. Brown stated if the City is willing to take on the risk, they are permitted to do that. He further stated the engineers would need a letter from the City authorizing them to design a bridge which does not meet their standards and that the City will accept that liability. Mayor Bean clarified that to the extent a road was built before the ordinance or .MNDot requirements were in place, the road would be grandfathered in. Once a change is made, other standards come into play. Current policy will not allow for the reconstruction of a street which is less than 20 feet. Councilmember Stover inquired if it would be possible to repair the bridge rather than reconstructing it. Kilgore stated the bridge is held together very poorly at the present time and needs to be replaced. The Advisory Board would like the bridge to remain at the current width of approximately 20 feet, however, current MNDot code would require 32 feet. Brown stated the City has the latitude to consider whether or not they want to take on that liability, however, for insurance purposes, this would be placing the City in a less defendable position in the event of a lawsuit. Councilmember Benson stated in rebuilding the bridge, the City is dealing with another set of liabilities and must meet the current codes and standards. If the City does decide to deviate from those codes and standards, it must be very specific how and why this was done. Benson also stated the tendency would be to keep the bridge rural, however, it would need to be changed to a standard which could be defended. Councilmember Benson did not see a need for a 30-foot bridge and would be in favor of rebuilding at a 20-foot width if the City could limit its liabilities. Foust suggested increasing the liability coverage. Mayor Bean explained the League of MN Cities is where almost all of the Minnesota municipalities obtain their insurance and they have rules which each city must abide by. He stated inquiry would be made with regard to increasing the coverage, however, this is not an area in which the City has a great deal of latitude. Mayor Bean felt there would be consensus that the Council would entertain a 20-foot bridge constructed of timber and steel and make a decision with regard to the degree of elevation of the slopes and approaches. He stated there would be a commitment to keep this to the lowest number possible. Councilmember McCarty stated she would be in favor of keeping it as narrow as possible, however, with regard to elevation, she would not be able to give the engineers the direction to design something which would be substandard. . . . . . WORK STUDY SESSION JUNE 24, 1996 - PAGE 4 Foust stated when a situation does not fit the code as it is written, it can be challenged through the use of a variance. Kilgore stated the reasonable accepted standards are dictated by MNDot. If the City were to take on the liability, the engineers can design it, however, they have an obligation to advise the City the plan does not meet design standards. Mayor Bean commented the Council would need to decide what type of variance they are prepared to agree to, listing the specific reasons and rationales for granting the variance. He did not feel aesthetics could be a consideration in that regard. Administrator Hurm expressed a concern with regard to timing. The engineers have reported the bridge is deteriorating quickly. Engineer Brown also expressed this concern and added that the bridge had recently been inspected. The inspecting engineer conducted a bridge rating and reached the conclusion the bridge is failing quickly. The steel beams are severely corroded. Repairs which were made a couple of years ago are deteriorated. The abutment on the peninsula side is ineffective. In its present condition, the weight restriction on the bridge has been changed from 2 ton axle weight to 2 ton total vehicle weight which would prohibit fire trucks from utilizing the bridge. Councilmember Benson expressed his belief the City is facing an incredible liability which needs to be resolved immediately as well as a major safety concern. Mayor Bean stated he would like to see staff come back before the next Council meeting with a proposal which would outline a 20-foot bridge along with alternatives as to the minimum elevations necessary on the approach to the bridge. This would assume the road width would be maintained at 20 feet and the bridge being constructed of timber and steel. Kilgore pointed out the cost would be approximately 60 percent higher than the low cost alternative. Brown stated the original plan had been to approve the feasibility study and to proceed with plans and specifications as early as the last Council meeting. He further stated the window of the season is approaching. Kilgore acknowledged that a significant amount of time is lost in the bidding process. In the event of an emergency situation, the City could negotiate with one or two bridge contractors and have the contractor order the necessary materials. Mayor Bean noted the City would probably not be able to obtain competitive bidding once an emergency has been declared. Administrator Hurm asked about the possibility of the City purchasing the materials prior to obtaining a contractor. Kilgore stated that could be done, however, he did not feel this would save much time. He stated he could recommend some reputable bridge contractors. City Engineer Brown stated his appreciation to the Bridge Advisory Committee for all of their input in this matter. . . . . . WORK STUDY SESSION JUNE 24, 1996 - PAGE 5 3. ADJOURNMENT Shaw moved, McCarty seconded to adjourned the Work Session Meeting at 11: 07 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wall at, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: ~ ROBERT B. BEAN, MAYOR c. C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR