Eagan council approves four street revitalization projects after debate over drain tile on Forceaway

The Eagan City Council on Jan. 21 approved four street revitalization projects—project numbers 1566, 1567, 1571 and 1572—authorizing staff to prepare detailed plans and specifications and proceed toward bidding and construction.

The projects together cover about 6.76 miles of streets and affect 834 properties. City staff told the council the total estimated cost for the projects is about $4,900,000, of which roughly $3,600,000 would be covered by city funds and about $1,300,000 would be assessed to property owners under the city's assessment policy. Assessments will be offered with 5- and 10-year terms; unpaid balances will be placed on Dakota County property tax rolls and would appear on taxes in May 2026.

The most contested portion of the hearing involved project 1571 (the Ridgecliff/Covington/Forceaway area), where staff proposed installing a perforated drain tile behind curb and gutter and optional pump connections that residents may use to discharge sump pumps into the city system. Assistant City Engineer Ben Perkey and City Engineer Aaron Nelson said groundwater is damaging curbs and pavement on Forceaway and that the drain tile is intended to capture groundwater before it reaches the road section, extend the pavement's usable life and avoid an earlier, costlier full reconstruction.

"The purpose of the drain tile's main pipe'is to capture that groundwater before it gets into our road section," Assistant City Engineer Ben Perkey said. "We're trying to protect the city asset, the curb, and the pavement."

Residents who live on Forceaway told the council they support resurfacing the street but opposed the drain tile and worried it would increase pumping at the low end of the street, require cutting new driveway ends and disrupt yards. Tom Haller, who lives near the pond at the downhill end, said, "I'm okay with the street reconstruction, but we're not okay with the drain tile." Doug Hogan, another Forceaway resident, said most homeowners currently pump to the backyard and questioned whether adding a drain tile would materially reduce the neighborhood's overall water issues.

"I would like to clarify a couple things about some of the pictures," Hogan said, noting some standing water shown in staff photos could come from private pools or other sources. Catherine Hogan said she opposed the drain tile and asked whether the city could prohibit dumping pool or chemically treated water into the street.

Councilors and staff addressed technical points: the drain tile would be set below the pavement surface and embedded in porous rock to carry groundwater by gravity to existing storm sewer structures that discharge to a downstream pond; the city said similar systems installed in other neighborhoods reduced winter ice and complaints. Staff also said the drain tile for Forceaway would be funded from the utility fund and would not increase the assessment amount property owners pay for the mill-and-overlay component; property owners pay only the assessable mill-and-overlay portion while the city pays 100% of curb, gutter and the utility (drain tile) work.

"This would give an opportunity for those homeowners to connect their system and basically pipe it into the storm system," Nelson said, adding the city had previously used the approach on other streets and that those neighborhoods reported reduced complaints after installation.

Council discussion repeatedly framed the proposal as a trade-off between short-term yard disruption and a long-term, cost-effective approach to preserving public infrastructure. Several council members said a failure to install drain tile now would likely lead to a full reconstruction within about 10 years that would be substantially more expensive and would carry higher assessments.

The council first moved to close the public hearing and approve projects 1566, 1567 and 1572 and authorized plans and specifications for those areas. Later the council voted to approve project 1571, including the drain tile and the option for residents to connect sump pumps. Both actions were approved by voice vote; the meeting minutes record the motions as carried.

Staff said the timeline calls for final plan approval Feb. 18, a bid date March 13, construction expected to begin in May and completion anticipated in August.

Why it matters: the council opted to prioritize long-term preservation of city streets and opted to fund the groundwater mitigation work through utility funds to limit immediate assessments to property owners. Residents retained the option not to connect their sump pumps to the new drain tile, but the city-staffed system aims to reduce groundwater saturation that staff said has already damaged curb and pavement.

What's next: staff will return with plans and specifications in February and, if council proceeds, the projects will be bid this spring and constructed in the summer.