The URL can be used to link to this page

06/02/1994 - City Council Public Works Committee AGENDA Public Works Committee Meeting Thursday, June 2, 1994 3:00 P.M. City Hall 3:00 I. Call To Order/Adopt Agenda 3:05 II. Project 661R, Sibley Terminal Industrial Park/Yankee Doodle Road (Street Rehabilitation) -Review Assessment Financing Options 4:15 Ill. Project 667, Cedarvale Drive (Street Reconstruction) - Review Public vs. Private Responsibilities 5:30 IV. Project 643, Timberline Addition (Street Rehabilitation) - Status Review/Field Inspection 6:15 V. Adjourn • II. Project 661 R, Sibley Terminal Industrial Park/Yankee Doodle Road (Street Rehabilitation) - Review Assessment Financing Options On April 19, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss the proposed improvements of rehabilitating the streets within the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park. As a result of that public hearing, the scope of the project was reduced to that portion of Yankee Doodle Road only from TH 13 to Terminal Drive, and the staff was directed to prepare a revised feasibility report accordingly. On May 18, the City Council held a special meeting/workshop to review various alternatives for financing this reduced project. Enclosed on pages 2 through /3 is a memo prepared by the City's consulting engineer (MSA) describing the four alternatives and the estimated assessment rate for each along with an area map and proposed assessment rolls for each alternative. Enclosed on page iv and /5 is a letter sent to all affected property owners informing them of the Public Works Committee meeting and the various assessment alternatives. In response to this notice, the City has been contacted by Dunn & Bradstreet, owners of Comsery #1 Addition, who have stated their preference for Assessment Method #3. Enclosed on page is a copy of a letter from that company regarding that preference. Also enclosed on page /7 is a copy of a letter from Diesel Service Company. The City Council requested the Public Works Committee to review the options with the affected property owners and to arrive at an alternative that would address the needs of the reconstruction/rehabilitation CIP as well as an equitable method of financing the proposed improvements. If the Public Works Committee can forward a recommendation to the City Council on June 7, a public hearing can be held on July 5 with a contract awarded in August and construction completed by October 15 yet this year. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To define and recommend the scope of the proposed improvement and an appropriate assessment method. EAIStlTISG EIGIIURS MEMORANDUM TO: Eagan Public Works Staff and City Council FROM: Steve Gatlin, P.E. • SUBJECT: Sibley Terminal Ind trial Park Area FILE: 112-005-10 DATE: May 27, 1994 INTRODUCTION Our firm has been asked to review the proposed street improvements and potential = assessments for work within the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park area. The City Council recently held a public hearing to consider this project, and at that time cancelled the _• improvement. Since that date, Eagan City staff has contacted our firm and asked us to evaluate the original project, the revised project, and several different assessment scenarios. ._ L- The results of our assessment investigation are summarized on the attached table. Also, a map of the proposed project area is included for your review. DISCUSSION For our analysis, we have considered both the original project and the amended project. These were analyzed in detail and feasibility reports prepared by our firm and presented to the City in March and May respectively. The original project included street improvements to Terminal Drive from TH 13 to Yankee Doodle Road and Yankee Doodle Road from Terminal Drive to TH 13. Work included milling and overlaying on Terminal Drive and a combination of milling and overlaying, 1326 Energy Park Drive pavement reconstruction, and storm sewer installation on Yankee Doodle Road. The revised St.Paul,MN 55108 project included no work on Terminal Drive and involved the work on Yankee Doodle Road as described in the original report. Again, this project included reconstruction and 612-644-4389 overlaying sections of Yankee Doodle Road from Terminal Drive to TH 13 and the Fax:612-644-9446 installation of storm sewer in the low area near Yankee Drive. 9800 Shelord Parkway Minneapolis,MN 55441 112/005-2511.may 612-546-0432 Fax:612.544.6398 a_ The following table summarizes the original project cost, assessments, and City cost sharing. Table 1. Project Cost Summary Assessable Project Total Cost Amount City Cost Original $379,000 $306,500 $72,500 (Yankee Doodle/Terminal) Amended 196,600 134,600 62,000 (Yankee Doodle) We have also been asked to analyze four assessment scenarios. These are detailed as follows with a brief description of each assessment method. 1. Origjnal Prnjert• This assessment would include a uniform assessment against all properties benefitting from the original project, including all properties on Yankee Doodle Road and Terminal Drive abutting the improvement. 2. Revised ProjePt. This scenario involves improvements to Yankee Doodle Road only with assessments levied equally on a front foot basis against only abutting property. Assessments would be charged against only those properties having frontage on Yankee Doodle Road from Terminal Drive to TH 13. 3. This scenario includes improvements only to Yankee Doodle Road. Under this assessment model,the assessable costs would be spread 50% equally on a front foot basis against all properties having abutting frontage and the remaining 50% would be equally levied on a front foot basis to all properties that could potentially use the Yankee Doodle Road/TH 13 entrance. These properties would include all properties on Yankee Doodle Road from TH 13 to the west deadend, on Yankee Drive from Yankee Doodle Road to TH 13, and on Terminal Drive from Yankee Doodle Road to TH 13. 4. This scenario includes improvements to Yankee Doodle Drive only and the assessable costs would be spread on a 100% basis uniformly on a front foot basis against all properties that could use the Yankee Doodle Road/TH 13 entrance. This would include all assessable frontage on Yankee Doodle Road, Yankee Drive, and Terminal Drive within the project area. The following is a summary of assessment rates against affected properties for the various scenarios. 112/005-2511.may Table 2. Summary of Assessment Rates Assessment Method Assessment Rate 1. Original Project $33.45 2. Revised Project $69.44 3. a. 50% Abutting $34.72 b. 50% Uniform (All Remaining) $6.00• • 4. Uniform (All Properties) $10.22 SDG:tw „zioos-zs,,.my 11 v, , °.I.!5 �‘"ti 4410*Ak • 2 .. oIESEI. SERVICE . � 3207 HWY 13 6 40 cT C 1 4 t 4ritt'Alir 7 - 3256 4 -1. 8 419 2 VACANT 'C/ AAGARD 5 ,N,/ 3291 J AO, ( � 9 VACANT 0-s" 10 ?�` ,3320 �� 4 8 •4^441 M'KAYS 4 9 1 1767 1 Ohs VACANT RIVER PARK bb OFFICE BUILDING , 06 , 011-01 i gamma 1 f It C41� L. 4 4'O,_ , 1750 1 VALLEY LOUNGE 012-01 R.L JOHNSON dip 2N0 ADDITION of 3450 VACANT 013-01 010-01 ASSESSMENT AREA (("3500 VACANT 020-00 a' 4 4`4 %..5.- MSt SIBL.EY TERMINAL IND PARK cni CF EA C PAO.. NO. a ass AREA city of ecigci n 5/31/94 ea005eYr Revised May 27, 1994 ASSESSMENT METHOD #1 March 1994 Feasibility Report Project 661 NOTE: Assessment calculations for Method#1 uses footage in Columns 3 and 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Legal Property Frontage- Frontage Frontage Street Driveway Total Assess. Descr. ID No. Terminal - Yankee - Yankee Assess. Assess. Drive Doodle Drive Road and 33.45/ 2,042.00 East of Yankee FF EA Terminal Doodle Drive Road West of Terminal Drive Block 1, Lot 1 10-68050-010-01 256.07 0 0 8,565.54 2,042.00 10,607.54 Block 1, Lot 2 10-68050-020-01 200.00 0 0 6,690.00 6,690.00 Block 1, Lot 3 10-68050-031-01 271.97 0 0 9,097.40 9,097.40 10-68050-032-01 Block 1, Lot 4 10-68050-041-01 255.00 0 0 8,529.75 8,529.75 10-68050-042-01 Block 1, Lot 5 10-68050-050-01 286.63 0 0 12,263.77 12,263.77 10-68050-062-01 80.00 Block 1, Lot 6 10-68050-061-01 447.07 0 0 14,954.49 4,084.00 19,038.49 Block 1, Lot 7 10-68050-070-01 343.44 0 0 11,488.07 4,084.00 15,572.07 Block 1, Lot 8 10-68050-080-01 315.33 0 0 10,547.78 2,042.00 12,589.78 Block 1, Lot 9 10-68050-090-01 " 304.68 0 0 10,191.55 10,191.55 Block 1, Lot 10 10-68050-100-01 270.00 0 0 9,031.50 9,031.50 Block 1, Lot 11 Parcel A 0 0 284.65 0 0 0 Parcel B 281.48 0 271.91 9,415.50 2,042.00 11,457.50 Block 2, Lot 1 10-68050-011-02 250.00 0 0 24,440.91 24,440.91 10-68050-010-02 480.67 Block 2, Lot 2 10-68050-020-02 348.57 0 0 11,659.66 11,659.66 Block 2, Lot 3 10-68050-030-02 260.88 0 0 8,726.44 4,084.00 12,810.44 10-68050-031-02 10-68050-032-02 10-68050-033-02 Block 2, Lot 4 10-68050-040-02 280.00 0 0 9,366.00 112/005-2513.may 6 1 Revised May 27, 1994 ASSESSMENT METHOD #1 March 1994 Feasibility Report Project 661 NOTE: Assessment calculations for Method#1 uses footage in Columns 3 and 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Block 2, Lot 5 10-68050-050-02 265.00 0 0 8,864.25 8,864.25 Block 2, Lot 6 10-68050-060-02 225.51 0 0 7,543.30 7,543.30 Block 2, Lot 7 10-68050-070-02 316.71 0 0 10,593.74 2,042.00 12,635.94 Block 2, Lot 8 10-68050-081-02 390.20 0 0 13,052.19 13,052.19 10-68050-082-02 Block 2, Lot 9 363.20 296.02 22,050.90 22,050.90 Best Brands; 0 363.64 12,163.75 4,084.00 16,247.75 Lot 1, Block 1 Government SE 1/4 Section 8 0 161.00 0 5,385.45 5,385.45 Lot6 011-76 Government SE 1/4 Section 8 0 297.63 0 9,955.72 9,955.72 Lot 6 020-76 R.L.Johnson 10-39901-010-01 0 640.13 1,925.58 21,412.35 21,412.35 2nd Addition Comsery No. 10-18200-011-01 0 180.00 569.37 6,021.00 6,021.00 One (Partial) Mardelann 10-47285-020-00 0 0 434.10 0 0 Outlot B Comsery No. 10-18200-012-01 0 0 905.70 0 0 One (Partial) Comsery No. 10-18200-013-01 0 0 279.00 0 0 One(Partial) Valley Acres 10-81180-010-01 0 0 66.00 0 0 TOTAL FRONTAGE 6,492.44 1,938.42 4,736.31 ASSESSMENT RECOVERY 282,011.21 24,504.00 306,515.21 112/005-2513.may Revised May 27, 1994 ASSESSMENT METHOD #2 May 1994 Feasibility Report Project 661R NOTE: Assessment calculations for Method#2 uses footage in Column 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Legal Property Frontage- Frontage Frontage Street Driveway Total Assess. Descr. ID No. Terminal -Yankee -Yankee Assess. Assess. Drive Doodle Drive 0) @ • • Road and 69.44/ 2,042.00 East of Yankee FF EA Terminal Doodle Drive Road West of Terminal Drive Block 1, Lot 1 10-68050-010-01 256.07 0 0 0 0 0 Block 1, Lot 2 10-68050-020-01 200.00 0 0 0 0 0 Block 1, Lot 3 10-68050-031-01 271.97 0 0 0 0 0 10-68050-032-01 Block 1, Lot 4 10-68050-041-01 255.00 0 0 0 0 0 10-68050-042-01 Block 1, Lot 5 10-68050-050-01 286.63 0 0 0 0 0 10-68050-062-01 80.00 Block 1, Lot 6 10-68050-061-01 447.07 0 0 0 0 0 Block 1, Lot 7 10-68050-070-01 343.44 0 0 0 0 0 Block 1, Lot 8 10-68050-080-01 315.33 0 0 0 0 0 Block 1, Lot 9 10-68050-090-01 304.68 0 0 0 0 0 Block 1, Lot 10 10-68050-100-01 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 Block 1, Lot 11 Parcel A 0 0 284.65 0 0 0 Parcel B 281.48 0 271.91 0 0 0 Block 2, Lot 1 10-68050-011-02 250.00 0 0 0 0 0 10-68050-010-02 480.67 Block 2, Lot 2 10-68050-020-02 348.57 0 0 0 0 0 Block 2, Lot 3 10-68050-030-02 260.88 0 0 0 0 0 10-68050-031-02 10-68050-032-02 10-68050-033-02 Block 2, Lot 4 10-68050-040-02 280.00 0 0 0 0 0 112/005-2514.may 7 Revised May 27, 1994 ASSESSMENT METHOD#2 May 1994 Feasibility Report Project 661R NOTE: Assessment calculations for Method#2 uses footage in Column 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Block 2, Lot 5 10-68050-050-02 265.00 0 0 0 0 0 Block 2, Lot 6 10-68050-060-02 225.51 0 0 0 0 0 Block 2, Lot 7 10-68050-070-02 316.71 0 0 0 0 0 Block 2, Lot 8 10-68050-081-02 390.20 0 0 0 0 0 10-68050-082-02 Block 2, Lot 9 363.20 296.02 20,556.04 20,556.04 Best Brands; 0 363.64 25,250.43 4,084.00 29,334.43 Lot 1, Block 1 Government SE 1/4 Section 8 0 161.00 0 11,179.52 11,179.52 Lot 6 011-76 Government SE 1/4 Section 8 0 297.63 0 20,666.83 20,666.83 Lot 6 020-76 R.L.Johnson 10-39901-010-01 0 640.13 1,925.58 44,449.35 44,449.35 2nd Addition Comsery No. 10-18200-011-01 0 180.00 569.37 12,498.83 12,498.83 One (Partial) Mardelann 10-47285-020-00 0 0 434.10 0 0 Outlot B Comsery No. 10-18200-012-01 0 0 905.70 0 0 One(Partial) Comsery No. 10-18200-013-01 0 0 279.00 0 0 One(Partial) Valley Acres 10-81180-010-01 0 0 66.00 0 0 TOTAL FRONTAGE 6,492.44 1,938.42 4,736.31 ASSESSMENT RECOVERY 134,600.00 4,084.00 138,684.00 112/005-2514.may 7 Revised May 27, 1994 ASSESSMENT METHOD #3 Project 661R NOTE: Assessment calculations for Method#3 uses footages in Column 4 to calculate Column 6 and footages in Columns 3 and 5 to calculate Column 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Legal Property Frontage Frontage - Frontage- Street Driveway Street Total Descr. ID No. -Terminal Yankee Yankee Assess. Assess. Assess. Assess. Drive Doodle Drive and @ @ Area Road East Yankee 34.72/ 2,042.00 Benefit of Terminal Doodle FF EA @ Drive Road West 6.00/ of Terminal FF Drive Block 1, Lot 1 10-68050-010-01 256.07 0 0 0 0 1,536.42 1,536.42 Block 1, Lot 2 10-68050-020-01 200.00 0 0 0 0 1,200.00 1,200.00 Block 1, Lot 3 10-68050-031-01 271.97 0 0 0 0 1,631.46 1,631.46 10-68050-032-01 Block 1, Lot 4 10-68050-041-01 255.00 0 0 0 0 1,530.00 1,530.00 10-68050-042-01 Block 1, Lot 5 10-68050-050-01 286.63 0 0 0 0 1,719.78 1,719.78 10-68050-062-01 80.00 480.00 480.00 Block 1, Lot 6 10-68050-061-01 447.07 0 0 0 0 2,682.48 2,682.48 Block 1, Lot 7 10-68050-070-01 343.44 0 0 0 0 2,060.64 2,060.64 Block 1, Lot 8 10-68050-080-01 315.33 0 0 0 0 1,891.98 1,891.98 Block 1, Lot 9 10-68050-090-01 304.68 0 0 0 0 1,828.08 1,828.08 Block 1, Lot 10 10-68050-100-01 270.00 0 0 0 0 1,620.00 1,620.00 Block 1, Lot 11 Parcel A 0 0 284.65 0 0 1,707.90 1,707.90 Parcel B 281.48 0 271.91 0 0 3,320.34 3,320.34 Block 2, Lot 1 10-68050-011-02 250.00 0 0 0 0 1,500.00 1,500.00 10-68050-010-02 480.67 2,884.02 2,884.02 Block 2, Lot 2 10-68050-020-02 348.57 0 0 0 0 2,091.42 2,091.42 Block 2, Lot 3 10-68050-030-02 260.88 0 0 0 0 1,565.28 1,565.28 10-68050-031-02 10-68050-032-02 10-68050-033-02 Block 2, Lot 4 10-68050-040-02 280.00 0 0 0 0 1,680.00 1,680.00 Block 2, Lot 5 10-68050-050-02 265.00 0 0 0 0 1,590.00 1,590.00 112/005-2515.may /' Revised May 27, 1994 ASSESSMENT METHOD#3 Project 661R NOTE: Assessment calculations for Method#3 uses footages in Column 4 to calculate Column 6 and footages in Columns 3 and I 5 to calculate Column 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Block 2, Lot 6 10-68050-060-02 225.51 0 0 0 0 1,353.06 1,353.06 Block 2, Lot 7 10-68050-070-02 316.71 0 0 0 0 1,900.26 1,900.26 Block 2, Lot 8 10-68050-081-02 390.20 0 0 0 0 2,341.20 2,341.20 10-68050-082-02 Block 2, Lot 9 363.20 296.02 0 10,277.81 0 2,179.00 12,457.01 Best Brands; 0 363.64 0 12,625.58 4,084.00 0 16,709.58 Lot 1, Block 1 Government Lot SE 1/4 Section 8 0 161.00 0 5,589.92 0 0 5,589.92 6 011-76 Government Lot SE 1/4 Section 8 0 297.63 0 10,333.71 0 0 10,333.71 6 020-76 R.L.Johnson 10-39901-010-01 0 640.13 1925.58 22,225.31 0 11,553.48 33,778.79 2nd Addition Comsery No. 10-18200-011-01 0 180.00 569.37 6,249.60 0 3,416.22 9,665.82 One(Partial) Mardelann 10-47285-020-00 0 0 434.10 0 0 2,604.60 2,604.60 Outlot B Comsery No. 10-18200-012-01 0 0 905.70 0 0 5,434.20 5,434.20 One(Partial) Comsery No. 10-18200-013-01 0 0 279.00 0 0 1,674.00 1,674.00 One(Partial) Valley Acres 10-81180-010-01 0 0 • 66.00 0 0 396.00 396.00 TOTAL FRONTAGE 6492.44 1938.42 4736.31 ASSESSMENT RECOVERY 67,301.93 4084.00 67,372.02 138,757.95 112/005-2515.may /7 Revised May 27, 1994 ASSESSMENT METHOD #4 Project 661R NOTE: Assessment calculations for Method#4 uses footage in Columns 3, 4, and 5 to calculate Column 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Legal Property Frontage- Frontage Frontage Street Driveway Total Assess. Descr. ID No. Terminal -Yankee -Yankee Assess. Assess. Drive Doodle Drive !B? Road and 10.22/ 2,042.00 East of Yankee FF EA Terminal Doodle Drive Road West of Terminal Drive Block 1, Lot 1 1O68050-010-01 256.07 0 0 2,617.04 0 2,617.04 Block 1, Lot 2 10-68050-020-01 200.00 0 0 2,044.00 0 2,044.00 Block 1, Lot 3 10-68050-031-01 271.97 0 0 2,779.53 0 2,779.53 10-68050-032-01 Block 1, Lot 4 10-68050-041-01 255.00 0 0 2,606.10 0 2,606.10 10-68050-042-01 Block 1, Lot 5 10-68050-050-01 286.63 0 0 2,929.36 0 2,929.36 10-68050-062-01 80.00 817.60 817.60 Block 1, Lot 6 10-68050-061-01 447.07 0 0 4,569.05 0 4,569.05 Block 1, Lot 7 10-68050-070-01 343.44 0 0 3,509.96 0 3,509.96 Block 1, Lot 8 10-68050-080-01 315.33 0 0 3,222.67 0 3,222.67 Block 1, Lot 9 10-68050-090-01 304.68 0 0 3,113.83 0 3,113.83 Block 1, Lot 10 10-68050-100-01 270.00 0 0 2,759.40 0 2,759.40 Block 1, Lot 11 Parcel A 0 0 284.65 2,909.12 0 2,909.12 Parcel B 281.48 0 271.91 5,655.65 0 5,655.65 Block 2, Lot 1 10-68050-011-02 250.00 0 0 2,555.00 0 2,555.00 10-68050-010-02 480.67 4,912.45 4,912.45 Block 2, Lot 2 10-68050-020-02 348.57 0 0 3,562.38 0 3,562.38 Block 2, Lot 3 10-68050-030-02 260.88 0 0 2,666.19 0 2,666.19 10-68050-031-02 10-68050-032-02 10-68050-033-02 Block 2, Lot 4 10-68050-040-02 280.00 0 0 2,861.60 0 2,861.60 112/005-2516.may /92 Revised May 27, 1994 ASSESSMENT METHOD #4 Project 661R NOTE: Assessment calculations for Method#4 uses footage in Columns 3, 4, and 5 to calculate Column 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Block 2, Lot 5 10-68050-050-02 265.00 0 0 2,708.30 0 2,708.30 Block 2, Lot 6 10-68050-060-02 225.51 0 0 2,304.71 0 2,304.71 Block 2, Lot 7 10-68050-070-02 316.71 0 0 3,236.77 0 3,236.77 Block 2, Lot 8 10-68050-081-02 390.20 0 0 3,988.05 0 3,988.05 10-68050-082-02 Block 2, Lot 9 363.20 296.02 6,737.23 6,737.23 Best Brands; 0 363.64 3,716.40 4,084.00 7,800.40 Lot 1, Block 1 Government SE 1/4 Section 8 0 161.00 0 1,645.42 1,645.42 Lot6 011-76 Government SE 1/4 Section 8 0 297.63 0 3,041.78 3,041.78 Lot 6 020-76 R.L.Johnson 10-39901-010-01 0 640.13 1,925.58 26,221.56 26,221.56 2nd Addition Comsery No. 10-18200-011-01 0 180.00 569.37 7,658.56 7,658.56 One (Partial) Mardelann 10-47285-020-00 0 0 434.10 4,436.50 4,436.50 Outlot B Comsery No. 10-18200-012-01 0 0 905.70 9,256.25 9,256.25 One (Partial) Comsery No. 10-18200-013-01 0 0 279.00 2,851.38 2,851.38 One(Partial) Valley Acres 10-81180-010-01 0 0 66.00 674.52 674.52 TOTAL FRONTAGE 6,492.44 1,938.42 4,736.31 ASSESSMENT RECOVERY 134,568.36 4,084.00 138,652.36 112/005.2516.may /3 _ s • • City of acicj 1n THOMAS EGAN Mayor PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER Council Members May 24, 1994 THOMAS HEDGES City Agrrlinistrator E.J. VAN OVERBEKE Re: Project 661 R, Sibley Terminal Industrial Park/Yankee Doodle Roadity Clerk (Street Rehabilitation) Informational Neighborhood Meeting Thursday, June 2, 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Dear Property Owner: As a part of the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the streets within the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park (Yankee Doodle Road & Terminal Drive) were evaluated for rehabilitation to correct current deficiencies and extend their life cycle. On April 19, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss these proposed improvements and presented a preliminary assessment roll in discussing the financing of this public improvement. As a result of that public hearing, the City Council reduced the scope of the project to include only that portion of Yankee Doodle Road from TH 13 to Terminal Drive and deferred consideration of Terminal Drive until 1996. In preparing the revised feasibility report to discuss this reduced project,the City Council directed staff to prepare four different financing options using special assessments. They directed the Public Works Committee, consisting of Councilmember Wachter (Chair) and Councilmember Hunter,to meet with interested affected property owners to review these assessment options so that one can be formally presented at a newly scheduled public hearing. The four assessment options are summarized as follows: 1. Consider the original report which provided for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Yankee Doodle Road from TH 13 to Terminal Drive, and Terminal Drive from Yankee Doodle Road to TH 13, and spread all costs equally on a front foot basis to all properties having frontage on the streets to be improved. 2. Improve Yankee Doodle Road only (from TH 13 to Terminal Drive) and spread costs equally on a front foot basis against adjacent frontage only. MUNICIPAL CENTER THE LONE OAK TREE MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN,MINNESOTA 55122.1897 'EAGAN,MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE:(612)681-4600 PHONE:(612)681.4300 FAX:(612)681-4612 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer FAX:(612)681-4360 TOD:(612)454-8535 /(l TDD:(612)454-8535 Page 2 3. Improve Yankee Doodle Road only and spread 50% of the costs equally on a front foot basis against adjacent frontage, and the remaining 50% to be spread equally on a front foot basis to all other property that could use Yankee Doodle Road to gain entrance to the TH 13 intersection. This would include all property fronting on Terminal Drive and Yankee Drive. 4. Improve Yankee Doodle Road only and spread 100% of the costs equally on a front foot basis against all property that could use Yankee Doodle Road for access to the TH 13 intersection. This Public Works Committee meeting will be held at 3:00 p.m., on, Thursday, June 2, 1994, in the City Council Chambers at the Eagan Municipal Center. All of you are invited to attend this informational meeting to learn about the different assessment options and to provide your input. While detailed assessment obligations were not available at the time of this notice, they will be made available at that meeting for further discussion. We look forward to your input. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj cc: Councilmember Ted Wachter Councilmember Shawn Hunter City Administrator Tom Hedges Assistant City Engineer Mike Foertsch Enclosure: Map /S RECEIVED MAY 3 1 19yt LaB OVA 1 v TA 3400 Yankee Drive, Eagan, MN 551221042 55121 (612)681-7eoo- 686-5505 31 May, 1994 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 Re: Project 661R, Sibley Terminal Industrial Park/ Yankee Doodle Road (Street Rehabilitation) . Dear Mr. Colbert: In response to your letter of may 24, 1994, regarding June 2, 3:00 P.M. meeting on the above referenced street rehabilitation, I am unable to attend due to a prior commitment. Dun & Bradstreet Software, Inc. (DBS) agrees that the subject street is in bad need of repair and further delays would only result in more expense. DBS is in favor of Option No. 3 which appears to be fair to all concerned based on the fact that everyone uses this street and not just the adjacent property owners to gain access to Highway 13. However, if the property owners R.L. Johnson and Best Brands were in favor of Option No. 2 we would join in with them and support it also. Sincerly, DUN & BRADSTREET SOFTWARE SERVICES, INC. L4frAelv Gerry Faehn Property Manager CC: Karen Shelton, Assistant General Counsel • Dun&Bradstreet software carponuon /6 RECEIVED MAY 31 1994 612-644-0124 o�� DIESEL SERVICE COMPANY AE.4 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTORS FOR LEADING MANUFACTURERS 55 x o FUEL INJECTION-ELECTRICAL-CARBURETION ° � '� 2565 KASOTA AVENUE • P.O.BOX 8009 • ST.PAUL, MN 55108-0009 } WATS 1-800-899-0150 FAX 612-644-4095 t11.111. ta 5/27/94 T. A. Colbert Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd . Eagan MN 55122 1897 Dear Mr . Colbert, Regarding yours of the 5/24 concerning Project 661R, it should be clear that there is not benefit to our property at the corner of Terminal Drive and Hwy 13 arising out of any improvement to Yankee Doodle between Hwy 13 and Terminal Drive as our traffic never gets beyonf the first twenty feet of Terminal Drive after the turn. Thus I prefer and certainly expect that our property will not be specially assessed or otherwise charged for any such improvements . I hope this is responsive to your inquiry and that you will keep us posted . Sinc rely, Bill Lahr, C Ill. Project 667, Cedarvale Drive (Street Reconstruction) - Review Public v. Private Responsibilities On March 15 and May 18, the City Council held public hearings to consider the reconstruction of Cedarvale Drive from Rahn Road to the Cedarvale parking lot. At that time, Mr. Mark Parranto, representing the affected property owners, requested the City Council to consider vacating this public street and allowing it to be upgraded privately. The Council directed the Public Works Committee to review this request taking into consideration the following factors: 1. If the public right-of-way were to be vacated, could an association be formed that would ensure cross easements to all property owners who relied on this road for public access. 2. Could an association be formed that would guarantee that it would be maintained to a satisfactory condition on a continuous basis. 3. A preliminary engineering report was to be prepared identifying the scope of improvements to be performed privately to ensure adequacy to City standards. As of the date of this document preparation, the City staff has not received any information from Mr. Parranto. The public hearing has been continued to June 7 awaiting a recommendation from the Public Works Committee. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To review the legal and engineering aspects of reverting public right-of-way to private ownership for private roadway improvement and forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration at the public hearing on June 7. / v IV. Project 643,Timberline Addition (Street Rehabilitation) -Status Review/Field Inspection On February 1, the City Council closed the public hearing and denied Project 643 which provided for the rehabilitation of the streets within the Oslund-Timberline Addition and related drainage improvements. Enclosed on pages O through ,.74/ is a copy of the minutes from that meeting. At the time, it was suggested that the project be reevaluated in approximately 4 months (June 7) to determine whether it is prudent to defer the project further. There were three basic issues that the Council wanted to give further consideration to: 1. The realignment of McCarthy Road as it approaches TH 13. 2. Review by the City Attorney's Office regarding the legal questions raised by Sven Borgerson. 3. The relative Pavement Condition Index (PCI). A field inspection can best address the need to realign and soften the curve of McCarthy Road as it approaches TH 13. The City Attorney's Office will be providing a response regarding the legal issues at the Public Works Committee meeting on June 2. Enclosed on page cpr is the PCI map of the development. Since the public hearing, the Public Works Maintenance Division has reviewed the evaluation forms resulting in the PCI ratings and have found a few errors that change the ratings. These changes are noted on the attached PCI map. If the Public Works Committee would like to tour the present conditions of the streets in the Timberline Addition, staff will be able to provide you with the background methods and procedures used to evaluate the pavements. The schedule is such that there is no longer an opportunity to consider this subdivision for construction during 1994. If the project is to be reconsidered, new notices would be distributed for a new public hearing and, if then approved, plans and specifications would be prepared for competitive bid solicitation during the early winter months of '95. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To review the status of Project 643 (Timberline Addition - Street Rehabilitation) and provide recommendations regarding the scope and schedule for proposed improvements. /7 00030 Page 3/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 1,1994 - - --- - R-94.10 PROJECT 643/OSLUND-TIMBERLINE ADDITION•STREET REHABILITATION Mayor Egan introduced this item as Project 643,Oslund-Timberline Addition (Street Rehabilitation). Director of Public Works Colbert provided background on this item and noted that the City's five-year capital improvements program had identified the Oslund-Timberline Addition as part of that program. He said staff had evaluated the condition of the streets and performed a historical analysis of the storm sewer,sanitary sewer and trunk water main. He reported that after the preliminary report was prepared, an informational meeting was held on November 30, 1993. As a result, the feasibility report has been finalized and the public hearing scheduled. Mark Hanson of Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates,made a slide presentation illustrating the condition of streets in the project area and noted that 80 percent of the streets warranted reconstruction and 20 percent warranted an overlay. He stated there were no streets where only sealcoating would be cost effective. Mr. Hanson then explained the proposed improvements and their installation. During his presentation, Mr. Hanson noted a proposed change to the access onto Highway 13 and discussed several areas where erosion is severe and should be addressed. He explained two alternatives which are not at this time included in the project which could be employed to deal with some of the overland drainage. In dosing,Mr.Hanson discussed the total cost of the project and the properties proposed to be assessed. John Gustin,3061 Woodlark Lane,said the project is not appropriate and he especially does not want curbing installed. He noted his opposition to repairing streets in his neighborhood before the Country Home Heights Addition even has pavement. In answer to a question,Director of Public Works Colbert explained the pavement condition index and its implications. He reviewed each of the streets in the project area and their PCI rating and noted that while Pine Ridge Drive is in good condition after having been replaced in 1985,all others are in very poor condition and will soon need major reconstruction. Neil Kveberg,1590 McCarthy Road,expressed his opposition to the project,especially the installation of curbing. He said there has been no problem with drainage. Darren Doheny,representing his mother,Marian Doheny,3070 McCarthy Ridge Road,indicated that they prefer the natural and rustic setting. He said the curbing was unnecessary because of the natural runoff which he said was not causing erosion problems. In referring to water standing on the roads, Mr. Doheny advised that it had never caused an accident. He also referred to the fact that soil is sandy in that area and stated that any diversion of the runoff could cause overdrying and subsequent brush fires. He then addressed the proposal to ease the curve that leads down to Highway 13. He noted that the curve helps slow traffic down 00031 Page 4/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 1,1994 before entrance onto a major highway. He discussed the cost to the property which he said would make the property less desirable because of the higher taxes. Mr.Doheny said his mother is a widow and cannot afford an assessment,especially one that provides no benefit. Mayor Egan noted for Mr.Doheny that the City will hire appraisers to insure that the assessments do not exceed the benefit to the property. City Couna'lmember Hunter asked why,if there were only three accidents,it was necessary to straighten McCarthy Road just before Highway 13. Director of Public Works Colbert said with a curve as sharp as this one,motorists tend to cross the centerline. He said the danger is if one can't see oncoming traffic. In this case, the curve is not being straightened,just being made more gentle. Mr.Doheny pointed out that the sharp curve keeps speeds down and changing that may raise speeds and the number of accidents at this intersection. Pat McCarthy, representing James McCarthy, 3004 Woodlark Lane, said they were opposed to the project and said the street is in good shape as it is. Sven Borgersen, 1529 McCarthy Road, indicated serious problems with the proposal. He said the Engineering Division had not done its homework because he owns his property outright and it cannot be modified without his agreement. He also said he would not accept any overland drainage on his property. Mr. Borgersen then referred to a number of natural springs in this area and said the project should be reconsidered. There was additional discussion about Mr.Borgersen's claim that his property was purchased under tax forfeit and he cannot be assessed. The City Attorney will research. Richard Gaworski,3052 Cherrywood Court,spoke against the project and noted that cracking pavement was not justification for the project. He said there is limited traffic in the project area and alternatives should be considered. He said they have bituminous curbing along his street which is in excellent condition and asked that the City Council not replace the curbing just because it does not meet current standards. He too asked that the curve just prior to Highway 13 not be straightened because of the danger of the increased traffic and speed. Mr.Gaworski questioned the City's repair and maintenance of the street. Director of Public Works Colbert indicated that routine maintenance,sealcoating and cracksealing,is performed every seven to ten years. He said if the "alligator" cracking is beyond what can be repaired with aracksealing,it calls for improvements beyond sealcoating. When the larger cracks fill with water,the constant thawing and freezing begins to affect the road base. Mayor Egan also addressed the question of fairness. He referred to the reconstruction of virtually all the streets in Cedar Grove and the installation of concrete curbing even where bituminous curbing currently existed. The Mayor said the decision was made to bring all neighborhood streets up to current City standards as reconstruction became necessary. Tom Winkel, 1575 McCarthy Road,said his property was an example of major erosion. His property gets major runoff from Red Cedar Road and he has spent approximately$6,000 rebuilding his lot lime. He said something has to be done to take care of the problem. Mr.Winkel said a comment was made by one of the City's consulting engineers that the road was not graded properly when it was constructed; therefore, he is vehemently opposed to paying for something that was not done properly in the first place. He added,however, that Director of Public Works Colbert had recommended a solution to erosion to the lot line but his neighbor had refused to allow the City onto the property. Marilyn McNurlin, 3036 McCarthy Ridge Road, said she could see no need for the improvements, especially the curbing. She said the roads were in good condition and there was natural drainage causing no water problems. She too mentioned that straightening the curve would cause more danger than if left as it is. Ms.McNurlin said the road improvements would not improve her property at all and she was opposed to the entire project. c2 00032 Page 5/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 1,1994 Dick Kirch,3020 Woodlark Lane,said he didn't want the project forced down the residents'throats and noted that Woodlark Lane is a beautiful street and only needs sealcoating. Mr.Kirch said that the City's snow plows have ruined the curb,however they are not needed anyway. In addition,if people need streetlights,they should move back to Minneapolis or St.PauL Mr.Kirch stated that streets should last forever and,in dosing, be suggested that the City help Tom Winkel but leave the rest alone. „ George Stevenson,3030 Sibley Memorial Highway,asked that his property be excluded from the project. Eleanor Keegan,3034 Sibley Memorial Highway,said they have to maintain their own street and don't believe they should be assessed. Don Giblin,1498 Red Cedar Road,said the City shouldn't be telling the residents what they need,rather they should be going to the City with any problems. He questioned the project when there is only one person who has a problem and asked who was pushing for the project. Mr. Giblin complained that their street has never been sea/coated and said that if their streets had been maintained,they would still be in good shape. He referred to the streets in St.Paul that are still there after 75 years. He then questioned where the project was coming from and stated that if this is a consulting engineering error, they should not have to pay to fix it. In dosing,he said Country Home Heights should put in their streets first. Director of Public Works Colbert advised that nobody was pushing the project and the City is only trying to evaluate all of the infrastructure in the City and its maximum longevity. He noted that sealcoating will do nothing to prevent the further deterioration of these streets. In response to a question,Mr. Colbert indicated he did not have a lot of information on St.Paul streets, however he did note that all St.Paul residents pay a street assessment each year. Because of this policy,the City of St.Paul has had the money to do repairs on an annual basis. Right now, St. Paul streets are being reconstructed as part of the sewer separation project and being paid for with State and Federal dollars. He said he couldn't help but wonder, if all St.Paul streets are is such good condition, why so many residents want to be the next street reconstructed. Mr. Giblin then questioned the maintenance his street has received and Director of Public Works Colbert said the issue would be researched. Dan Sovinski,3044 Highway 13,indicated he owns the whole corner and is opposed to the project. He stated that Mr.Winkel's problem should be corrected,however,the rest should be left alone. Mr.Sovinski has two lots and said the assessments would not be fair and the money could be spent more wisely. Gene Miller, 3061 Loon Lane, agreed that the streets were in poor condition but said they haven't received any maintenance. He said the only maintenance received has been when the snow plow damaged the curb and the City has sent a crew to fix it. Mr.Miller said he could not afford the improvements as he lives on a limited income. Karl Kassulke,3030 McCarthy Ridge Road,said the present road is adequate and while a sealcoating might be necessary,no major reconstruction is. Mr.Kassulke,who uses a wheelchair,said that he does not want curbs because for him,they are an obstacle. He said he wanted to go on record as being opposed to the project. Diane Severe,1544 McCarthy Road,stated that the streets are in poor shape and the CSty's professional staff must have reasons for wanting to reconstruct them. Sven Borgersen spoke again and agreed there has been some maintenance on McCarthy Road. He said Tom Winkel's property has to be fixed because of the serious problems he's encountering, however,any thing further would present a problem because of the natural springs that have been plugged in the past by builders. Mr.Borgersen again alluded to his purchase of tax forfeit property and its affect on all assessments then and in the future. He also suggested that all easements on the property were canceled with his purchase. ael- 00033 • Page 6/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 1, 1994 Mayor Egan then closed the hearing to public input. City Coimcilmember Hunter noted the number of comments regarding the PCI (pavement condition index) rating and said more goes into arriving at that number than just looking at the road. In addition, he stated that he had not heard a compelling reason to straighten the curves on McCarthy Road. He then asked Director of Public Works Colbert whether research had been done into the natural springs mentioned by Mr. Borgersen. Director of Public Works Colbert said staff is aware of the springs and advised that Pine Ridge Drive had been constructed with attention to that detail. Mayor Egan stated his major concern was the economic viability of the project. Councilmember Awada agreed and asked whether it might not be appropriate to remove the O'Dell Addition from the project. Councilmember Wachter suggested that the project be deferred three or four months to resolve the outstanding issues. Councilmember Masin noted that Cedar Grove is essentially the same age as this project area. With less traffic, she questioned why all the PCI numbers in this project were so low. Director of Public Works Colbert said it may be the presence of underground water,however, there are other factors such as different paving methods,different construction techniques,and different contractors,which could all have a bearing on a street's longevity. Discussion then took place regarding the five-year capital improvements program. There was some question about whether it should be reprioritized,however there were also concerns that if the project is delayed one or two years,it will only cost more. Councilmember Wachter agreed that the problems are there and the Foject should be looked at again in three or four months to see if the project should be deferred for one or two years. Councilmember Hunter reiterated some of the questions that need to be answered,including the legal questions on the Borgersen property,whether the design on McCarthy Road approaching Highway 13 should be redesigned,whether the storm sewer and drainage issues could be removed from the project,the benefit to the properties and whether the project is overdesigned, the sealcoating and maintenance history for this area, and why Cedar Grove has a higher PCI rating. Councilmember Awada suggested it may be worthwhile to walk these streets and discuss reconstruction further in workshop session. Mayor Egan said that the City Council has already adopted a policy and each project has to stand on its own merits. Councilmember Hunter agreed but indicated he would like more detail on the PCI rating,noting that the eta-de-sacs in this project area had the lowest PCI while in the Cedar Grove project, they were the highest. Councilmember Awada asked how much more it would cost if the streets in question were allowed to continue to deteriorate. Director of Public Works Colbert explained that because of the major reconstruction already proposed, the project cost would not increase much more than the cost of inflation. He added, however,that the Council may want to address how much more the City wants to invest in the area in maintenance dollars and perhaps the dollars would be better spent elsewhere. He assured the City Council that the roads would be maintained in a safe condition. Mayor Egan suggested that the hearing be continued and the project brought back in four months(June 7)with all issues addressed. He said that would give the CSty Council an opportunity to revisit the issue and decide whether it is prudent to defer the project logistically, financially and legally. Councilmember Hunter made a motion to that effect with a second by Councilmember Masin. Director of Public Works Colbert suggested that if the City Council would like staff to do further research and then based on the information received,proceed or not proceed,it may be appropriate to deny the project Then,if the City Council decided to continue,another public hearing could be scheduled to formally present the information or,if based on the information received the City Council decided not to continue,the project could remain denied. Mayor Egan agreed saying if the residents do not receive notice of another public � 3 Page 7/EAGAN CITY COUNQL MINUTES 0 0 0d4 February 1,1994 hearing,they an assume that the City Council has made a choice not to proceed with the project. The motioner and second agreed to this change. Hunter moved, Masin seconded a motion to close the public hearing and deny Project 643 (Oslund- Timberline,McCarthy Ridge,and O'Dell Additions-Street Restoration). Aye: S Na y. 0 / L l 1 l I I i____H1 1 1 1 11 I LONE OAK ROAD (C.S.A.H. 26) 3 2 14� t9 ; Q 4 , lik 3 , aj 16 � 3 3.,„ ,...i... . 022-00 - ! 4 i 2 ' 1 17 04 4 4 070-00 OUTLOT A i1 �i� ` 42 • a,Q 1 5 O`' 1/ 020-00 3 32 ! 41 la 6 ; 6 L t 0 ,, 'i I lirlr' 33 40 Q47 1 O A i 10\17 23 24 > ru 072-00 ,p : 1 �®/ i 2 22 0-1 0 3 6 1 2 1��.77 ' 16,19 , �►`' a 37 i 11 CI 10 Ell r 11 / a� CEDAR R f f 05t-00 i I 13 ; t2 1, ei 5 I whibiqd „ c.,,,,, , , /47 r!�a -'''' 444 .'i'� Rev:s e d �' r 7 is ! j {-lr”. at s rr r t :E'.c.i E_E 1 CC O nisi „w. i , 4k,' ! f FOUR (jyj \% n\\ +S • 0 250 500 liiiii Scale in feet PCl PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX El Bones troo Rosene • EAGAN, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2 VI Associates OSLUND—TIMBERLINE ADD., CITY PROJ. No. 643 49532R01.DWG OCTOBER 1993 COMM. 49532 C:1C- rE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 2, 1994 SUMMARY At 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 2, the Public Works Committee consisting of Council Member Ted Wachter (Chair) and Council Member Shawn Hunter (Alternate for Mayor Egan) held a Public Works Committee meeting in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Center. Also in attendance were Public Works Director Colbert, City Attorney Sheldon, Assistant City Engineer Foertsch, Superintendent of Streets/Equipment Erhart and Superintendent of Utilities Schwanz. PROJECT 661R, SIBLEY TERMINAL INDUSTRIAL PARK (STREET REHABILITATION) Nine property owners were in attendance as represented by the attached sign-in sheet. This item was introduced by Public Works Director Colbert who summarized the process to date and distributed assessment rates and proposed assessment rolls for the four different options proposed by the City Council at its workshop session of May 24th. Two letters from property owners were also distributed and put into the record. One was from Dunn & Bradstreet indicating their preference for Option 3 and concurrence with Option 2 if others had that preference. The second letter was from Diesel Service Company on Terminal Drive indicating their objection to any assessment for the improvement of Yankee Doodle Road as their access is primarily through the Terminal Drive/T.H. 13 intersection. After distributing and explaining the various options, the property owners comments primarily pertained to their contention that the City of Eagan should be responsible for the full costs of any work due to the lack of maintenance performed over the past 24 year life of this street. In addition, they indicated that previous utility cuts and resulting patches accelerated the deterioration of the street. Several also stated that their experience with the roadway through past significant rain storms indicated there were no drainage problems and objected to the estimated cost of storm sewer facilities irregardless of whether the City or the property owners were financially responsible. Speaking on behalf of the group, Mr.Tim Herman (Aagard Services, Inc.)indicated their acknowledgment that the street needed to be repaired but that it should be the City's responsibility with no assessments to any of the businesses. The committee then presented the question of which assessment option the group would prefer if, for some reason, the City Council felt that the project had to proceed with some financial participation from the benefitted property owners. Their response was they would object with legal appeals to any proposed assessments irregardless of which Option was selected. The Public Works Committee then thanked the property owners for their input and assured them that it would be conveyed to the City Council. They then requested staff to provide additional information regarding the level of maintenance that has been performed in this area. The Public Works Director indicated that this information ' + Page Two June 3, 1994 would be distributed to the Council as a part of the administrative packet on June 6th. At this time, the Public Works Committee did not provide a formal recommendation regarding this project but did identify Option 3 as appearing to be the most equitable if any assessments were to be levied as a part of this project. The Public Works Committee members along with Public Works Director Colbert and Superintendent Erhart toured the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park inspecting and evaluating the condition of Terminal Drive and Yankee Doodle Road. PROJECT #667 - CEDARVALE DRIVE (STREET RECONSTRUCTION) This next item was introduced by Committee Chair Wachter. Mr. Mark Parranto was the only representative of the area pertaining to this project. Mr. Parranto presented a plan and profile of a reduced scope of improvement to Cedarvale Drive from Rahn Road to Cedarvale parking lot. It basically consisted of a patch/repair with an overlay, a rolled bituminous curb along the south side only, continuous sheet cross drainage from south to north matching existing grades with no curbing and a cross drainage swale just west of Rahn Road. The new bituminous overlay would be approximately 1 1" thick. Mr. Parranto had previously submitted a draft of an association agreement between all affected property owners providing for cross easements and maintenance responsibilities. The City Attorney indicated that a review by that office should be deferred until an agreement has been reviewed and modified to the satisfaction of all property owners. He noted that the agreement lacked an enforcement and dispute resolution process should any of the property owners disagree with the future condition or level of maintenance being performed. The Public Works Committee responded that they felt comfortable with the process of vacating this public street and allowing it to be maintained by the adjacent interested property owners. In regards to the costs incurred to date (approximately$7,500 for consulting engineer and legal plus $1,200 for City staff), the Public Works Committee suggested that maybe the City could absorb these costs in consideration of being relieved of future maintenance responsibilities with this public street turnback/vacation. In response to Mr. Parranto's request to perform minimal patching until the legal paperwork and vacation process can be completed, the Public Works Committee felt uncomfortable with the liability of allowing private maintenance on public streets and directed the Public Works Maintenance Division to perform some minimal maintenance until such time as the street can be vacated and the proposed improvements completed by the property owners (approximately three months). • Page Three June 3, 1994 PROJECT #643, TIMBERLINE ADDITION (STREET REHABILITATION) The City Attorney provided an oral update on the status of the legal issues raised by Sven Borgersen(1529 McCarthy Road)regarding easements and assessments associated with acquisition of tax forfeit property. The preliminary opinion indicated that the concerns raised should not have an affect on the proposed project. The City Attorney will provide a written response to Mr. Borgersen and forward the engineering concerns to the Public Works Director for further research and response as well. The committee members then took a tour of the neighborhood streets with Public Works Director Colbert and Superintendent of Streets Erhart to review the condition of the streets and the proposed realignment of McCarthy Road as it approaches Highway 13. A brief explanation as to how pavement conditions were rated and evaluated in the field was provided by Superintendent Erhart. Upon completion of the tour, there was a consensus that the streets were near the end of their life cycle and were beyond the ability to be maintained through routine maintenance and required reconstruction to provide any reasonable life expectancy. In regards to the proposed realignment of McCarthy Road as it approaches Trunk Highway 13, it was not felt that this was necessary if there was strong opposition to it from the neighborhood. SUMMARY The meeting was then adjourned back at City Hall at approximately 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ide,z44—* Thomas A. Colbert Attachment-Sign-in sheet TAC/je Pe,03- 64 / a . S /igc y 7972-m Af, c. /NO A2le Poat.ic W or2Kc 6144-r � r 4, Diu .z _ 2 P�z-rsvvr/hrI-L...., $ r 'Svs S i..., App la" VAii goAr 190l/4r/evr7 .4 ,6*_. erS-S"eit. ////c2-7*--- . - RoY ) iRT' E 3TRucK i 11 ElZ 77in tf ') 1119611gb AZ A,L_E_ . a.C1 , Z&r,et%t /1't r r/�� 5%L� -�9"rds, -pc. ge„,a- al adva,..._ i /1 ,, .,_ ,/ 0..i._ _so, „0)..,_.,,, 4.-----xec_4i0.70 5X ,a,,, U, 71-wt._ 41 " Puiric;, eehlt40___ M;k.e. 41";q7L6e.k 4.' e e. ,A4`-:-4-- e.'`YC- ft f• ff MEMO _city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: MAY 31, 1994 SUBJECT: INFORMATIVE IN MEMORY OF SANDY STEVENS Our thoughts are with the family of Doug Stevens at the recent passing of his wife, Sandy, last Thursday, May 26. Doug is a partner with Mayor Egan in their law practice. Our thoughts are with Doug and his family along with Mayor Egan and others who work with Doug and Tom. JOYCE PRUITT Our Administrative Intern, Joyce Pruitt, learned that she has received a job as Planner I with the City of Mounds View and will begin her full-time employment with that community on Tuesday, June 14. CABLE COMMISSION'S RATE ORDER Enclosed on page 9 is a copy of a memo from the City's Cable Coordinator acknowledging that the Cable Commission's Rate Order will now take effect. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING As notice to the City Council, the Public Works Committee will be meeting on Thursday, June 2, at 3:00 p.m. to consider Project 661 R, Sibley Terminal Industrial Park and Project 667, Cedarvale Drive in two (2) separate informational meetings on that afternoon. Enclosed on pages through are copies of letters that were mailed out to the affected property owners. The Public Works Committee is planning to tour,the Timberline Addition and review the condition of the streets following those two informational meetings.