St. Francis council approves modified 2025 street reconstruction plan after residents press to preserve trees and avoid sidewalks

The St. Francis City Council voted Feb. 18 to move the 2025 street reconstruction project to bid after directing staff to revise the plans to avoid sidewalks in the historic core and to reduce certain proposed widths.

Councilors instructed staff to remove sidewalks from the project, set 229th Lane to a 28‑foot minimum and set Woodbine Street to 32 feet except for the block in front of the fire station (which will remain 38 feet). The council also directed inclusion of curb and gutter, replacement of the aging water main, and signage to prohibit on‑street parking where appropriate. Council members recorded the motion as passed "as amended" by voice vote.

The decision followed a lengthy public hearing and detailed staff presentation of the project scope and preliminarily estimated costs. City staff presented a $1.546 million project estimate broken down by funding source, noting $784,000 from municipal state aid, $269,000 from the water fund and $223,000 from stormwater funds; preliminary assessments were shown to affected property owners (staff presented a preliminary assessment example of $1,930 per parcel and an estimated homeowner service‑line contribution of $2,478).

Residents who live on the streets slated for reconstruction repeatedly urged the council to drop sidewalks and avoid widening that would require removing mature trees. "This new road is going to take all the trees out and make us look like we live in a field," said Heather Hagerman, who said she has lived on Woodbine Street for more than 50 years. "We don't need a sidewalk," another resident added, arguing the neighborhood has little foot traffic and that sidewalks would create additional snow‑shoveling and maintenance burdens for older homeowners.

Staff responded that the water main was installed in 1973 and has shown signs of deterioration—particularly failing service saddles—which has led some homeowners to incur three‑ to five‑figure emergency repair costs. "If we're going to work on that road, it makes the most sense to do the piping," staff said, arguing delaying water‑main replacement would likely require digging the newly rebuilt street in the near term.

Council members said they sought a practical compromise: protect neighborhood character where possible while replacing critical underground infrastructure to avoid repeated repairs. "If the sidewalk can stay off and we can save the trees, I'm supportive," one council member said during discussion.

The council also noted the statutory process for assessments: final assessments will be set at a later §429 assessment hearing (scheduled as part of the project timeline in October), when property owners may challenge the assessment under state law. Staff committed to mailing formal notices to affected property owners before the assessment hearing and to providing appraisal or valuation work after this hearing to clarify assessed benefits.

With the amended direction approved, staff will finalize plans and specifications and advertise for bids on the schedule presented (anticipated bidding and award steps were outlined in the staff presentation). The council emphasized that removing sidewalks and narrowing sections would be incorporated into final plans prior to solicitation.

What happens next: staff will prepare plans and specs reflecting the council's direction, advertise for bids, and return to council with bid results and final assessment numbers at the subsequent hearings and the October assessment hearing.