Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streetscape Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palatka CRA authorizes geotech study after stretching repairs reveal failing permeable pavers
Summary
After months of merchant complaints and visible settlement at several Saint Johns Avenue intersections, the CRA board voted to fund a Phase 1 geotechnical investigation (surveying and borings) estimated at $15,000–$20,000 to identify permanent repair options. Debate centered on permeable pavers versus asphalt and whether a retention pond could meet stormwater treatment requirements.
The Palatka Community Redevelopment Agency voted June 22 to proceed with a Phase 1 engineering investigation of deteriorating intersections on Saint Johns Avenue after staff told the board that visible settlement, cracked pavers and depressed utility structures suggest a structural failure rather than cosmetic wear.
Staff presented a preliminary memorandum prepared by the city’s in‑house engineer, Caitlin, concluding that isolated paver replacement would not address the underlying cause. Staff recommended a phased approach beginning with surveying and geotechnical testing to confirm subsurface conditions and produce a reconstruction strategy and refined construction estimate; Phase 1 was estimated at about $15,000–$20,000. Staff said it would seek to identify $15,000 in the budget and return to the board with procurement documents and an implementation schedule.
Why it matters: the intersections combine aesthetic paving with a stormwater treatment function; changing material or drainage location could trigger permit changes with the St. Johns River Water Management District. That means the choice of pavement ties directly to regulatory requirements and long‑term maintenance costs.
Commissioners and stakeholders pressed staff on likely causes and alternative fixes. Board members and the deputy noted apparent construction defects—insufficient compaction and a destabilized base—plus repeated heavy vehicle traffic. The engineer said contractors normally compact those installs with hand‑operated compactors and that the existing cross‑section may lack required geotextiles and layered rock beneath the paving.
Public commenters who run downtown businesses urged replacing the permeable pavers with asphalt, arguing that permeable bricks allow sand to wash out and will quickly re‑create the same problem. Others suggested locating a retention pond on city‑owned property near 11th Street to meet water‑quality obligations without use of permeable pavers. Staff responded that the pavers were chosen explicitly to provide on‑site stormwater treatment and that finding suitable space for a pond would require additional permitting and expense.
Board action: Commissioner Campbell moved, and the motion was seconded, to proceed with Phase 1 geotechnical surveying and design; the board approved the motion. Staff will return with test results and cost estimates before authorizing reconstruction.
Context and next steps: staff flagged that the original contractor warranty would typically be one year and has lapsed; that limits immediate contractor recourse. The study will inform whether a reconstruction approach should retain permeable treatment (and where) or switch to alternate surface/traffic‑calming designs such as tabletop intersections. The board also asked staff to evaluate potential impacts on ongoing downtown projects and event schedules when planning construction windows.
Ending: Staff expects to present the geotechnical findings and refined costs to the CRA board for approval before issuing construction procurement documents.
