Consider Policy on Turf Establishment Related to City Improvement Projects

On every City improvement project turf establishment is always the most contentious matter when it comes to residents and business owners.  The infrastructure (street paving, utility installation, etc.) portions of project are fairly straight forward; is runoff being directed where it's supposed to go, do the utilities pass all required testing criteria, are things working as designed.  Turf restoration always draws the most attention, as this work is taking place outside the roadway in the boulevard area and people believe that this directly impacts their property, but is the least scrutinized in the project scoping phase.  While a majority of the restoration takes place within the right-of-way residents are still required to maintain this area and consider it an extension of their property.  Other areas of restoration occur within easements, either along front or side lots as dedicated on the plats, or as acquired (temporary or permanent) during project implementation.

Staff continues to hear comments that we should be following our own rules related to topsoil requirements, but the current ordinance is only triggered by the construction of a new principle structure.  During the development of project scope on all City improvements staff reviews the potential areas of impact on a case-by-case basis and makes a decision on what would be the most appropriate means of restoration.  Following are some considerations in that decision:

• Is the overall area a highly manicured urban type neighborhood or is it a more rural type setting
• Is it City land or private property
• Is the area used strictly for public purpose (drainage ditches/ponds vs. boulevard that drains to street)
• Who is responsible to maintain the area
• What are the current soil types in the area

From this gathered information we determine what would be an appropriate means of restoration, and include this information within the project feasibility study and estimates.  We always evaluate the entire project as one; we do not attempt to perform different types of restoration for different areas - everyone gets the same treatment within the project area (except steep slope/highly erodible areas).

Over the past couple of years we've had considerable problems with turf restoration, and received numerous complaints.  With all the recent topsoil discussions people believe that they will be receiving a high quality material for restoration.  They do not look into the details of this portion of the project, but are more concerned with how the area will drain, does it impact their access, will they lose any trees, will their landscaping, etc. be impacted.  Once the project is nearing completion and turf restoration is being established then several issues are brought forward as a concern; where is the topsoil, why didn't you sod vs. seed, why didn't we get what that other project received, how long will it take to grow, who's responsible to maintain (water), etc.

This item was discussed with the Public Works Committee in June of 2011, and it was the consensus of the group to develop a turf establishment policy for use on all public improvement projects.  In the past staff would choose the appropriate turf establishment requirement for a project on a case-by-case basis, but we have now formulated a City-wide standard for Council consideration.  We are seeking input on the following items:

• Topsoil requirements - no more salvage of on site material; all topsoil will be imported and meet MnDOT topsoil borrow requirements.  See attached difference between various MnDOT topsoil specifications. 
  • If the area of restoration is within a rural ditch section reserved for stormwater management, salvaged topsoil can be used to promote infiltration.
  • 4" uniform depth of installation.
• Turf requirements - sod will be used exclusively 
  • Do we want to consider seeding in ditch and/or ponding easement areas, to include low maintenance native seed conducive for sandy soils?
  • Require the contractor to water for 30 days and establish root growth, at which point it becomes the obligation of the property owner.  Resident notification letters to be delivered as the project is nearing completion to remind them of their responsibility for long term maintenance.

One thing is very clear as it relates to turf establishment on public improvement projects going forward; we need to be as descriptive as possible in the feasibility study phase of the project so residents can fully understand what is being proposed.  We may also want to discuss the use of public right-of-way in general to discourage the installation of planter beds, irrigation lines, landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc.), retaining walls, and other obstructions.  All of these items add costs to the overall project, and by replacing them to "as good or better condition" we are setting ourselves up for future impacts with subsequent projects.

Development of the policy is being handled with staff time.  Funding for the actual implementation will depend on the specific improvement project and could include enterprise funds, general fund, property assessments, state aid, TIF, etc.  Regardless of the final policy developed there will be cost considerations for each project, which must be identified and communicated prior to construction so there is no confusion during the approval process or installation.

Staff requests feedback on the outlined turf establishment policy so it can be advanced for formal adoption at the Council level prior to the start of 2012 construction season.

Based upon discussion.