Loading...
05/18/1999 - City Council Special AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday May 18, 1999 4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. CONSIDER NORTHVIEW PARK ROAD EXTENSION & SHARED PARKING/PATRICK EGAN PARK & METHODIST CHURCH IV. DISCUSSION RE: STREET RECONSTRUCTION & OVERLAY POLICY V. OTHER BUSINESS 6:00 p.m. VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: MAY 14, 1999 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1999 A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 18, to discuss two items: 1) further consideration of Northview Park Road extension and shared parking and 2) continued discussion regarding the street reconstruction and overlay policy. The meeting will adjourn no later than 6:00 p.m. allowing for a light lunch to be served in the second floor lunchroom facility between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. CONSIDER NORTHVIEW PARK EXTENSION & SHARED PARKING/ PATRICK EGAN PARK& METHODIST CHURCH Scheduled as a Consent item for the May 4, 1999 City Council meeting was an item entitled "Northview Park Road Extension & Shared Parking." Unfortunately, part of the information that was to have been provided as background information in the City Council packet was omitted and cause for some confusion and an appropriate continuance of this agenda item. Enclosed on pages y through " is a copy of the memo and support information that was to have been provided for the May 4 City Council meeting which should help clarify the public policy issue that is before the City Council ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To consider the recommendation of the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission which is recommending Option C with a shared parking agreement as discussed at the April 19 APrC meeting. This item is scheduled as Department Head Business on the regular City Council meeting agenda for May 18, 1999. DISCUSSION RE: STREET RECONSTRUCTION & OVERLAY POLICY At the May 4 Special City Council work session, Councilmembers agreed to review the special assessment policy at the May 18 work session and asked staff to prepare the following information and/or provide for the following: 1. Staff was directed to try to have an appraiser in attendance at the meeting. City Attorney Sheldon has arranged to have Mr. Tom Metzen or a representative from his office present at the meeting. Mr. Sheldon will also be at the meeting. I 2. Staff was directed to prepare information and to provide a copy of the original motion when the street reconstruction/overlay policy was first adopted. This information was to include any alternatives and background that was considered at that time. It is important to note that policy was developed and implemented as projects were being proposed and completed beginning with the Cedar Grove reconstruction projects in the early 80's. The formal policy documents were approved in 1989 and 1991. The following information is selected from a much longer list of material and is presented as representing the key elements in the policy formation: a. Minutes of a June 7, 1983 meeting at which time the assessment policy for Cedar Grove I t and 2nd was approved and the information that went to the City Council as part of the packet are enclosed on pages I Q through I_. A summary related to Project 342 (Cedar Grove V and 2nd Additions) which provides information on surveys and public hearings used to formulate policy on the first street reconstruction is included on pages-2b through_&_. b. A summary of the City assessment policy on reconstruction of existing streets dated November 15, 1985 that had evolved as projects were completed is enclosed on pages _and _. c. Minutes of a September 12, 1989 meeting at which time the assessment policy for the reconstruction of streets was approved as a comprehensive package and the information that went to the City Council as part of the packet are enclosed on pages *2zLMi— through 60- d. Attachment D from the Special Assessment Policy that was approved on February 19, 1991 and the related City Council minutes are enclosed on pages 5—and 5'2 —. 3. If City Councilmembers have ideas suggesting a change to the street reconstruction policy, they should bring those ideas to the May 18 work session, present them at that time, and allow staff ample time after the work session to review those ideas 4. There was also agreement that the Finance Committee's recommendations will be placed on the agenda and presented at the meeting. Minutes of the two Finance Committee meetings are enclosed on pages M_through S( a N 5. Staff was given direction to list the policy considerations that were given consensus at the April 6' special work shop session to be later presented and addressed by the City Council as a matter of formal policy. The minutes of the April 6 meeting are enclosed on pages .51 through(Ib. There appeared to be consensus on the following issues: 1. Final assessment hearings should be held at the time of the public hearing for approval of reconstruction projects. 2. Appraisers should not enter houses to complete their appraisals. 3. Assessment notices should include the anticipated assessment amount based on the cost and the results of the appraisals and not simply the amount per application of the assessment policy. The cover memo for the agenda item and the response to City Council inquiries memo, without the attachments, that were sent to the City Council for the April 6, 1999 special City Council meeting are enclosed on pages (&I through (&,S In the event any City Councilmember would like the complete packet, please contact the office of the City Administrator. The complete agenda item and supporting memo for the May 4, 1999 City Council meeting are enclosed on pages _through OTHER BUSINESS There are no other items proposed for Other Business. /S/Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3 s MEMO ' - city of eagan TO: TOM HEDGES,CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA,DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: MAY 13,1999 SUBJECT: NORTHVIEW PARK ROAD ACCESS AND SHARED PARKING ISSUE: The issue before the City Council is to approveldisapprove the extension of Northview Park Road to the west of Lexington Avenue into Patrick Eagan Park and an agreement for a shared parking lot with Advent United Methodist Church. BACKGROUND: In anticipation of plans for expansion of the church,the City received a request from Advent United Methodist Church at the June 1998 Park Commission meeting for a shared driveway and parking at Patrick Eagan Park(letter attached). At the suggestion of City staff,the church notified adjacent property owners of their intention to expand and held a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, August 6. This item was also referred to the Acquisition/Development Subcommittee,which met on Monday, August 10 and has appeared at two Park Commission meetings and a workshop since the beginning of this year. This item also appeared at an earlier City Council workshop with direction given to hold another neighborhood meeting to illustrate a shared parking lot. This meeting occurred on March 8, 1999. Currently the church has 104 parking spaces and needs 24 more to meet code. The proposed parking lot would contain 55 spaces. A total of 159 parking spaces would then be shared through this proposal. This is less then the original proposal when the church had a larger church building proposed. HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE: At the time Advent United Methodist Church was built,Joe and Lillian McCarthy owned the property south of the church across from Northview Park Road.It was understood that at a firture time,a modified access to the church would be desirable. Since that time,the City has acquired the McCarthy property as part of Patrick Eagan Paris. Construction and safety concerns have prompted the decision to act decisively. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A portion of the former McCarthy property is currently being used as a tree nursery. The proposed extension of Nordiview Park Road and shared parking lot will affect the north half of that nursery.Trees will be relocated within the park where feasible and options for an alternate site will be explored. The McCarthy house is cunwdy being used for art classes and by the church.This proposal will have no immediate impact on this use. 1 " DESIGN ALTERNATIVES: As part of the review process,the Commission looked at three basic options associated with this request. ■ Option A Provides driveway access connection with Lexington Avenue and curb radius for fiture expansion.'ibis option would provide minimal construction and disturbance.Construction limits are defined by the amount of grading to meet expected grades.To accomplish this,a limited portion of the tree nursery will need to be relocated.The project cost for Option A is$30,000. The advantage ofthis approach is its relatively low cost.It would improve traffic safety for the church, for vehicles on Lexington Avenue,and is consistent with the long held perspective that this location will be the ultimate public access for the park. However,it would mean that a"shared Pig men" would not be achievable since the church's need for additional parking would then occur completely on the church site.This would require the loss of green space on the west side of the church property,which the neighbors have strongly expressed a desire to maintain. ■ Option B Extends the alignment of the mad through the park to the west and allows for connection to the wester edge of the church parking. The advantage ofthis approach is that it provides for better traffic flow from the church parking lot. The only immediate benefit to the park is if park users were to use the church parking until the City developed its own parking facility within the park. Another advantage of building this now is that there would be a cost savings as opposed to phased construction and the installation of storm sewer pipe, should that be required. The probable additional cost to construct this would be$100,000.(Assuming storm sewer pipe installation) • Option C Provides all of the aboveIp nes provides parking for approximately 55 vehicles,all on City property to be shared with the church. A shared parking lot with the church would seem to provide enough parking for fihture park needs,given that the church has 104 spaces.This alignment also allows for additional parking expansion to the south on park land with a second parking bay,should that ever be required, potentially adding another 55 stalls. The advantage of constructing all ofthis at this time is that it is cheaper than phased construction,allows for shared parking(and consequently less asphalt for both sites),and residential impact to the neighborhood on the west is minimized. The disadvantage of constructing all ofthis at this time is that it commits the City to a design that keeps the parking at this location. However,this is the most logical location for a parking lot and is consistent with the rational for acquisition the McCarthy property. Plan for Patrick Ea Park has not been done Parks staff is confident this is the Although a Master Eagan , best location for a parking lot to serve firture park needs.The following are some criteria in that decision making process. 1. Vehicular access at Northview Paris Road and Lexington Avenue will enhance safety for those entering Patrick Eagan Park and United Methodist Church. 2. The County would like to have the City close the existing park entrance road at some point in the fiture;potentially tied to the park's full development plan,or sooner. H ' 3. No other vehicular access point offers as much space,shared packing potential or room for expansion. 4. Other locations would be more difficult for the public to find and could be more difficult for police to supervise. 5. By constructing 55 spaces and an access road,Patrick Eagan Park gets the use of an additional 104 spaces at the Church. 6. Underground utilities are relatively easy to access resulting in a lower installation cost along Lexington Avenue. PROPOSED DESIGN ELEMENTS: C.J.Lilly,Parks Planner,prepared a concept plan and cost estimate.The cost to develop this plan is estimated in the$175,000 to$200,000 range,and includes the following elements. 1. Relocate select nursery trees 2. Storm water detention pond 3. Erosion control 4. Catch basins&storm sewer 5. Concrete curb&gutter 6. Bituminous parking lot paving 7. Parking lot lights(2) 8. Pedestrian trails 9. Turf establishment 10. Landscaping The cost to develop the parking lot does not include engineering and an estimate for soil correction or quantity of fill required. Soil borings with cut and fill calculations will be needed to estimate those costs. LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS: The design includes a low landscape berm between the Church parking lot and the proposed new parking lot. This will provide space to separate and soften the expanse of asphalt. Additional perimeter landscaping will also enhance views from Lexington Avenue. COST SHARING The church has offered to share the cost of some of the parking construction(see attached letter).The offer is for$25,000 ofthe cost and a willingness to share in the cost of storm water control,once that is a known. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Advisory Parks Commission recommended at its April 19 meeting that Option C be incorporated with a shared parking agreement. RELATED ISSUES The Church has secured a contractor to begin construction beginning in June and has petitioned the City to install a new sanitary sewer line to serve the project and to review storm water needs.This project would be assessed to Advent United Methodist Church who are in agreement with the assessment and is scheduled on the May 18 City Council agenda under Department Head Business. _ �P BRUCE A. MAUS 1586 Sherwood Court Eagan, MN 55122 Home Phone: (612)452-3164 May 29, 1998 Adviso Parks Commission 3830 Piot Knob Road Eagan Minnesota 55122.1897 ' Advisory Parks Commission: This is a request to be added to the Agenda of the next Advisory Commission meeting on Monday, June 15,to discuss shared parking between Advent United Methodist Church, touted at 3945 Lexington Avenue South and the City of Eagan,and to review our preliminary design. Advent United Methodist Church is a steadily growing congregation whose continued expansion is anticipated well into the future. We are current x in the Design Developpment phase of a new 5o0-ser Sanctuary building project. Additional parking is needed to accommodate this growth,and while wt are able to meet these parking requirements,entirely on our own site,we see mutual benefit in sharia parking. Therefore,we propose building a portion of our parking on the adjacent property owned 1 the City of Eagan to serve both Patrick FAgan Park and Advent United Methodist Church. We believe there are significant benefits from this shared parking concept. The most important bent is safety. This plan allows the access off Lexington Avenue to be relocated. The new entrance woul be located to the south on City property directly across from Northview Park Drive,where there is a' turn lane available. Our plan also provides adequate circulation which makes access into and out of 'shared Parking both safe and efficient. Finally,this plan allows for more green space on both properties than would be available if each owner built a separate parking facility. If accepted,we hope to move ahead promptly with this plan. Our goal is to begin Construction's Documents this fall (1998)and to begin construction in the spring of 1999. We also want to discuss the financial and logistical aspects of this project to best meet the needs of bt parties. Advent United Methodist Church will abandon the existing entrance off Lexington Avenue once the City of Eagan has completed construction of the new entrance. At this point,we will both t ready to proceed with the construction of the new shared parking. Exactly how this will finally be realized still needs to be reviewed. We look forward to discussing this with you further at the lune l: 1998 meeting. Thank yo to much for your attention to this matter. Since y Brut Maus Buil ing Committee Chairman cc: Toa Egan,Mayor,City of Fagan Toa Hedges.City Adminisuator.City of Fagan Rus:Matthys.City Engineer.City of Fagan Auschments: Reduced site plan-not to scale dk • 1 I 1 \wry,\ ,-• -_ ' . 11Yn in 1 `.y K 7. 1 1 �'�► — _ _ _ uer � 1 �� 0 0 � t� I MrA. 1• . � 1 � t t 'f w ;; f t7Yti- I ! •I• •• •. 1 I I ' ! 1 ,,I `� i Ur' W, saw uj *Tcow CIO � V v 4Ttnr1A ! �� NO[TWYIEN' l'ARK f OO f t I I I I I ( I I I I I i ! I l i I•I nll , loll , I I11 II 1 IIIll I Il ! 1111 !I . �"s�'�'T's 1 1 1 Y 1 1 ' � 1 O RNI NAIL. PLAN MAY 199 8 I I � 1 • i �1 v.► tt3��i t' Y OC i s 3' 3 s 3 .{. ... - uJ Ctt �•I � i I � z Wil a ' J i( l W 2 Y 2 4 + J 41 co ZL IV, . i i 10 'O/ ilial j+ �li 0- ;j =I Alt ' 1 i i i o s s ® f C t 1 t •1 , •/�/ r ``�� - `t\ r\t 1t It Ittl:-ate . l 1 i Council Minutes June 7, 1983 ��1'��ZI. PARK RIDGE ADDITION - VACATION The next public hearing convened by the Council concerned the vacation of Public drainage and utility easement in Park Ridge Addition. Mr. Colbert explained that the reason for the vacation is to provide for rededication to conform with the proposed development of Park Ridge 1st Addition and recom- mended approval of the vacation. There were no objections and upon motion by Wachter, seconded Egan, it was resolved that the public hearing for the vaca- tion project be closed and that the -Council approve the vacation of the easement and, order its implementation. All voted yea. R 83-37 PROJECT #371. - S.R. TREATMENT PLANT - TRUNK STORM SEWER The public hearing regarding Project #371 Treatment Plant, Trunk Storm Sewer improvements was convened by the Mayor. After review by the Public Works Director, noting there were no objections, Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to close the hearing and to order in Project #371 S.R. Treatment Plant including preparation of plans and specifications. All voted in favor. E--'1 CABLE TELEVISION - FRANCHISE ORDINANCE P"R ' r Mr. Hedges introduced the draft cable television franchise ordinance to the Council and noted that an ordinance summary had been distributed to all Council members prior to the meeting. Also, comments made by the Eagan City Attorney, Paul Hauge, and Mr. Tom Creighton, the Burnsville/Eagan Joint Cable Committee Attorney were discussed. Paul Wood, the Chairman of the Commission and Roger Frank of Group W, appeared and answered questions of the Council, as did Tom Creighton. After discussion, noting there were no objections, Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance as submitted by the Council, subject to any changes that may be recommended by the staff and City Atorney. All voted in favor. CEDAR GROVE IST & 2ND - STREET RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #83-9 �'��a�► Mr. Colbert stated that the bids were opened for Contract 9 covering Cedar Grove 13t and 2nd Addition Street Improvements. The bid tabulations were submitted to the Council and alternates were bid for concrete curb and gutter or bituminous curbing with patching overlay process. The staff was asked to review the potential contribution from the City of approximately 25% of the cost of the installation of the curb and gutter and a comparative tabulation showing the revised estimated assessment per lot, based on the actual bids received, was submitted for Council review. Staff recommended the installation of concrete curb and gutter and recommended to the Council that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, McNamara Vivant, with a low bid of -i lei i Council Minutes 00,15(2-141 June 7, 1983 $692,594.95 under the total base bid, and that the assessment be spread over a 15 year period. A number of affected residents appeared and asked questions about the project and the alternate. It was noted that the Council has adopted a Resolution to install concrete curb and gutters for reconstructed or new installation of street improvements are made throughout the City. Councilman Smith stated that he favored the reconstruction of the streets in the Cedar Grove area for two to three years and was originally opposed to concrete curb and gutter. He noted that the assessments had been reduced about $500.00 per lot with the recommendation that the assessments be spread over a 15 rather than a 10 year period, with the alternate of paying the assessment in full and avoiding interest on the assessments. The estimated assessment based on the low bid for 15 year spread With 25% city participation would be $1,250.00 per lot, rather than $1,716.00 per lot originally estimated in the preliminary report. A large number of persons indicated they favored the concrete curb and gutter primarily because of the reduction in assessments. Councilman Wachter was concerned about the precedent that would be set if concrete curb and gutter was not installed, including the long-term impact in other areas. Mayor Blomquist indicated she would abstain from voting because the Council had indicated residents could make their own decision as to whether concrete curb and gutter was to be installed, and noted that residents at earlier meetings had generally favored concrete curb and gutter, but }; persons responding to a recent survey generally were opposed. Smith moved, r Wachter seconded the motion to approve the low bid of McNamara Vivant Construction Co. in the sum of $692,594.95 to provide for the installation of concrete curb and gutter with the City paying 253 of the cost and the assess- ments spread over 15 years. All voted in favor except Blomquist who ab- stained. COUNTRY STANDARD - SERVICE STATION RENEWAL The application of Country Standard for renewal of its conditional use permit for service station located on Highway #13 was next discussed by the Council. Tom MacIntyre, together with his attorney were present, as well as other neighboring property owners who were objecting to the extension of the conditional use permit. It was noted there had been no basic changes in the Ordinance and a report prepared by Dale Runkle dated June 2 was distributed and reviewed by the Council. Also, a Petition objecting to the alleged exten- sion of the use of the property from neighboring property owners, was dis- cussed. The attorney for MacIntyre indicated that the tractor/trucks do not turn off their engines in the winter for fear of freezing, but no trucks are permitted overnight. New diesel fuel pumps and tanks have been installed and it was indicated that they may be an extension of the current use. The uniqueness of the site being a low depression adjacent to single family homes was discussed and various possibilities for screening Were also reviewed. Mr. MacIntyre indicated that he would not allow tractor/trailers to be running all night on the site. Ron Miller of 3217 ,Donald Avenue spoke on behalf of neighboring property owners who objected to the view of the trucks and also y 13 Agenda Information Memo June 7, 1983 City Council Meeting Page Twenty-One CEDAR GROVE IST & 2ND STREET RECONSTRUCTION B. Cedar Grove 1st & 2nd Additions , Street Reconstruction/Reha- bilitation -- Consideration of Bids (Contract 83-9) -- On Thursday, May 26, the bids were opened for Contract 83-9 which provided for the street reconstruction and rehabilitation to the streets within the Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Additions . Enclosed on page „TT-q is a bid tabulation showing the results -of that bid opening. As the Council may recall , the base bid includes the installation of con- crete curb and gutter prior to the patching and overlay process . The alternate bid provides for replacing only those sections of bituminous curbing designated along with the patching and overlay process . You will note that there are two different low bidders depending upon whether the base bid or alternate bid is selected. As the Council may recall , at the special City Council meeting of May 10, the staff reported back to the Council after reviewing the cost estimates for this project together with justifications of cost savings to future City maintenance programs in consideration of additional cost participation by the City toward the installation of concrete curb and gutter. As a result of that research, it was determined that the City- could justify the contribution of approxi- mately 25% of the cost of the installation of concrete curb and gutter. Enclosed on page is a summary comparative tabulation showing the revised estimate assessments per lot based on actual bids received with various comparisons to the original preliminary report presented on February 1 along with the impact of various percentages of City participation towards the concrete curb and gutter. You will note that , based on the longevity of the improve- ment incorporating concrete curb and gutter, the staff is recom- mending that consideration be given to spreading that assessment over a fifteen year period . However, it is the staff opinion that without the installation of concrete curb and gutter, the improve- ment could not be expected to last longer than a ten year assessment period. For your information, enclosed on pages S7 through -5S is a copy of a letter that was sent on May 25 to affected property owners regarding this project . Also enclosed on page _9 is a reply received from a resident . Based on information presented at previous public hearings and in- formational meetings combined with the results of the bids received , it is the staff ' s recommendation that Contract 83-9 be awarded on the base bid with the installation of concrete curb and gutter to the low bidder of McNamara Vivant in the low bid amount of $692 , 594. 95 and that the assessment be spread over a fifteen year period. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the bids for Con- tract 83-9 and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder based on the alternate selected. Our File 11o. 49229 CEDAR GROVE. NO. 1 AND NO. 2 STREET REHAl3I1.ITATION PROJECT NO. 342 - CTTY CONTRACT 83-9 EAGAN, MINNESOTA BID TIME: 10:30 A.M. , C.D.S.T BID DATE: Thursday, May 26, 1983 ALTERNA_ BID CONTRACTORS TOTAL BASE BID ALTERNATE BID POSITIO1 1. McNamara Vivant $692, 594.95 $420, 046 .20 2 2. Concrete Curb Company 695, 310. 50 484 , 757. 50 6 3. Lund Asphalt Construction 726 ,867.00 419 , 920. 00 1 4. Alexander Construction Co. 742, 734.65 436 , 656 . 15 4 5. Bituminous Roadways, Inc._ 760, 772. 82 436 , 136 . 75 3 6 . Northwest Asphalt, Inc. _ 806 . 031. 50 466 , 615.25 5 7. Arcon Construction Co. - 8. Ace Blacktop Co. - 9. Pine Bend Paving ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE------------ BASE. BID - $780,850 ALT. BID - $468,850 FEASIBILITY REPORT (F.R. ) 764 , 550. 00 417, 965 . 00 LOW BID 692, 594 . 95 419, 920 . 00 % OVER (+) OR UNDER (-) F.R. -9.41% +. 47% 5001b 4 (FOR CITY COUNCIL) CEDAR GROVE NO. 1 AND NO. 2 PROJECT 342 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS/LOT BASED ON LOW BID ( Alternate Bid - 110 yr. Spread ( Using Existing Base Bid - 15 yr. Spread Asphalt Curb Using Concrete Curb b Gutter Prel. Report 2/1/83 ( $670/Lot $1,716/Lot Conc. Curb Cost Share by City 02 0% 25% 30% 35% Est. Assessment based on Low Bid I $673/Lot $1,471/Lot $1,250/Lot $1,195/Lot $1,149/Lot City Cost Participation $308,890 $308,890 $405,374 $430,983 $451,971 Assessment Payment /Yr.' First Year $134.60/yr. $245.17/yr. $208.85/yr. $199.12/yr. $191.50/yr. ' Last Year $ 74.03/yr. $107.88/yr. $ 91.71/yr. $ 87.62/yr. $ 84.26/yr. Assmt. Payment/Mo. First Year $ 11.22/mo. $ 20.43/mo. $ 17.40/mo. $ 16.59/mo. $ 15.96/mo. Last Year $ 6.17/mo. $ 8.99/mo. $ 7.64/mo. $ 7.30/mo. $ 7.02/mo. 5083b 0 C k' cltv OF czagan 3705 PILOT KNOB ROAD.PO.BOX 21199 EAGAN.MINNESOTA 55121 BEA Mom( �5T ovor PHONE:(612)454-8100 THOMAS E;AN ,AMES A ;%CH May 25, 1983 APPY THS MAS THGCCCRE:•jArpjTcR Counci mft-cws THOMAS HEC GES COW Aar mstro!^r EUGENE VAN CVEo9EKE Cay C e,. Re: Project 342, Cedar Grove lst and 2nd Addition ' Street Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Dear Property Owner: On February 1, 1983, the City Council formally closed the public hearing pertaining to the proposed reconstruction of the streets within the above-referenced subdivisions. In addition, they author- ized the preparation of plans and specifications incorporating the installation of concrete curb and gutter as an alternative for bid- ding purposes only. On May 3, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and ordered the advertisement for bids to allow a bid opening to be held on Thursday, May 26 , 1983. Based on the unit prices provided by the lowest responsible bidder, the City Council has directed the staff to prepare a revised pre- liminary assessment roll for both alternatives (bituminous or con- crete curb and gutter) to be presented at the June 7th Council meet- ing prior to the award of the contract for either alternate of the type of curbing to be installed. In addition, this revised prelim- inary assessment roll will take into consideration additional funds that may be available to apply towards the assessments associated with the alternate of installing concrete curb and gutter with the reconstruction of the streets within these subdivisions. This revised preliminary assessment roll will be presented to the City Council for their review and consideration at the June 7th Council meeting. Because of the short amount of time between the bid opening on May 26th and the June 7th consideration of the bids by the City Council, we will not be able to provide the individual assessments to each affected property owner prior to the meeting. However, this information will be available at the City Council meeting of that evening. The City Council has been very concerned that the residents affect- ed by this proposed improvement continue to be informed of the process being followed, and this meeting on June 7th will constitute the fourth public meeting held pertaining to these proposed improve- ments. It is hoped that any residents who have any concerns or THE LONE OAK TREE ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Project 342, Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Addition/Street Rehabilitation May 24, 1983 Page two questions would continue to provide their input through this public meeting process. Sincerely, ele Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack cc - Mayor Blomquist City Councilmembers Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator Mark Hanson, Consulting Engineer 18 May 27, 1983 ` City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN. 55121 Attn: Thomas A. Colbert { Re: : Project 342, Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Additon Street Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Gentlemen: I do not understand the above referenced letter. I attended the public hearings for the roads and filled out the survey. I believe, in all cases, the public voted against the concrete curbs. So, why, may I ask, is the subject being brought up again. Doesn't the public opinion count. The state is raising our taxes this year, the county has re—evaluated my property, we voted for a new city hall and a new water treatment plant. Don;t you feel this is enough for one year. Why ask us to pay for something as unnecessary as concrete curbs — the blacktop ones have certainly served us very well. I do not feel the council had any right to continue to keep this quos tier. open, especially w1hen you say the public hear=-:_s ere cicced on t1--is `atter. %ie should certainly have :♦:e io Lr�'. if we want our :ax money to spenz for this. pu_r-osc-0 i.cncy s:2�.tS12c:E:: � 1 Cora! r4.... .:afor MEMO TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 26, 1983 SUBJECT: PROJECT 342 , CEDAR GROVE 1ST AND 2ND ADDITION STREET REHABILITATION On December 14, 1982, a public informational meeting was held at Rahn Elementary School to discuss the proposed rehabilita- tion/reconstruction of the streets within the Cedar Grove lst and 2nd Addition. Because of the considerable amount of ques- tions and concerns that were raised regarding the extent of the proposed improvements combined with an inadvertent omis- sion of six property owners of the public hearing notification, the public hearing was continued until January 4 . At the January 4th meeting, the presentation was again made per- taining to the proposed improvements within these Additions. was discussed pertaining to the installa- tion of concrete curb and gutter prior to the rehabilitation/ reconstruction of the streets within these Subdivisions. Also, detailed discussion pertaining to the proposed elimination of the Nicols Road Service Drive north and south of Sapphire was discussed. The major discussion at both public hearings related to the proposed concrete curbing issue. When a poll was taken of the people in attendance at the December 14th meeting, approximate- ly 2-1- were in favor of the concrete curbing alternative. At the January 4th continued public hearing meeting, when a simi- lar show of hands was requested, 50% of the people in atten- dance were in favor of the installation of concrete curbing. Because of the confusion pertaining to the people who left the December 14th meeting under the assumption that concrete curb- ing would be installed and subsequently did not attend the Jan- uary 4th meeting to again express their desires, the City Coun- cil directed the staff to mail out a survey questionnaire to get a general feeling of all of the affected property owners. Subsequently, on January 13th, the attached survey was mailed to 476 property owners requesting their response by January 21. As of this date, 219 (46%) questionnaires were returned with responses. The attached summary analysis dives an indication of the respondents' feelings to the various questions asked and comments solicited. The Public Works Department feels very strongly in regards to having the concrete curb and gutter installed prior to any street reconstruction being performed. This is based on the fact that it is questionable whether the City will be able to eliminate all the drainage and resulting future street deter- ioration problems by just performing an overlay. Subseauently, 90 Thomas L. Hedges Project 342, Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Addition January 26, 1983 Page two we feel that the end product of an improvement constructed with- out the installation of concrete curb and gutter will result in some unresolved problems that will be very difficult to satis- factorily explain and respond to at a final assessment hearing. In addition, the extended life of the pavement will be much shorter than what could be provided with a concrete curbing in- stallation. In addition, we are quite certain that if concrete curbing is installed, that the ratio of benefit received in relationship to the estimated costs of the assessment will be greater even though a total assessment amount would be less without its in- stallation. It will also help to reduce long-term maintenance which is the General Fund responsibility. To summarize the benefits of installing concrete curb and gut- ter as previously discussed, the following advantages and dis- advantages are listed. ADVANTAGES 1) Permanent correction of birdbaths, intersection cross slopes and other miscellaneous drainage problems. 2) An extended pavement life resulting from better drain- age. 3) The streets will be brought up to present day City stan- dards for a residential construction. 4) The elimination of future damage to bituminous curbing from snow removal, heavy vehicles, etc. 5) The overall improvements of the aesthetics of the neigh- borhood resulting in increased property values and com- munity pride. 6) The ability to set a positive precedence in the future long-term street rehabilitation/reconstruction program that the City will be undertaking in addition to having a standard subdivision for comparison of future subdi- vision projects. DISADVANTAGES 1) An additional estimated cost of $1,000 to be spread over 10-15 years. 2) A minor increase in property owner inconvenience during the construction period. at • J Thomas L. Hedges Project 342 , Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Addition January 26 , 1983 Page three Many comments and concerns of the affected property owners per- tain to the cost of the proposed assessment during this present economy. However, it should be noted that the first payment with the real estate taxes would not come due until May of 1985. It is anticipated that the economic situation will be reversed by that time. In addition, because of the present economic con- ditions, the City will receive excellent construction prices to perform this work if the project can be approved and advertised for bids during early spring of 1983. Please inform me as to how you would like the additional infor- mation presented at the February 1st Council meeting in addition to any possible repeat presentation of the facts pertaining to the proposed improvement. Respectfully submitted, '00e 7homas A .. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jach �a • v Please fold, staple or tape closed and return to: Place 20� Postage Here CITY OF EAGAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P 0 BOX 21-199 EAGAN M'IDi 55122 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - fold — here = PRW= 342 - SUWE'Y Q=IM&UM Please review this questionnaire and answer all questions to reflect your concerns and return it by January 21, 1983 by mail or drop it off at City Hall. 1. Did you attend the informational hearing on December 14, 1982 or Jan- uary 4, 1983? ❑ yes ❑ no 2. Based on the present condition of the streets in the Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Additions, which proposal would you like to have the City con- sider? ❑ Repair and/or replace existing deteriorated sections of bituminous curbing with the resurfacing. ❑ Install new concrete curb and gutter prior to the resur- facing. ❑ Do nothing/leave in existing condition. ❑ Undecided. 3. If an assessable project is approved, how long would you like to have the assessments spread on your tax statements? ❑ 5 years ❑ 15 years ❑ 10 years ❑ years 4. Do you feel that adequate information was presented pertaining to the problem and the proposed solutions? ❑ yes ❑ no S. If another public informational hearing was held, would you attend? ❑ yes ❑no ❑ not sure 6. OOMM NI'S: �3 ti dNNP F+ W � 1 En H H rr dP M A W� OP r H `k s H 41 • U) N N w mLB LM0Ln ' r-I N P7 er tl1 Lf J W � d' > } J g _ !L W N .J. W � F=- J } US = -5 LM w w V) w0 z N w N W ( LL o a W Z O •- Wa U U W w F- ~ 3o w W � 3 Q Z Q O N � ~ w= >- Q 'I U~��ry ~ N ~ QZ FN N � Z3p a NOZ C7 w O F- QQW t� ►- Q N N N L~nCL z UJZ Y CL Z L7 uj N Q w •- w a •- N F- x �3 = ui m H« F--. Na W I1-- , OJ Z W A W N Q ~ Z ~ LLN NJW Y Y U J ... ZZ QQ Q N ~•p ►- wwIL Ln w IS3 LZ } O Sv N W Uj co > ui U � Y � Q' N N o ,, UCL LLJ O Lng LLJN c9 } v~i Z } y: Q p Q F- 3 3: CL LU Q LU W Wp 0 to F- ww L. Q W = Q � ~ �W W NZ •-+ Jm N C�• w Ni 3 - >- FN- O W wLL ca � ce w J w w F- d "' U. W � o w N � a w m Q w u � > Q w 01-- W U F- H F- F- a m •� N O O N ► w «• N N N W a p U N F- wZF- QN = W U p N W W � LL > �-- Sty (n =) p J w ~ QY7w- �. .., p F- W � _� J � W Q � F- � UW O W OLIN J O Jw Fm O F = N m O ZW W N WH m � C=9 Q Uf W � 3Q H �-+ C• W Z Q .. 3 c=.� S� ,� Owot- wp� uiLu w p ; w f- ww a — n N Q Q * F- = I- 8 > Z >- N N 2 m to q: � p _N N Fa- c~� �p w u w Ln -- w LL U Z LL w F- S = W = 3 N Z J O a (Y U) >- I-- O J z op ~ w a .. ~ F ~ w Q Q N wo w � � >- N pZ F- O N ,LU Z U U a xQW W F- O w F- J Q .. N w z w F- N m �- U i W'— > a w 0 3 LL lc a_ � x = -� �- ~ J N J -i I F- Jo v p OC w W J w O W F- F- N > J W J W c7 J N F- F- a �ry Q U a O Q > �- I- �c >- zO N � Z 3 w w � ZO UO >- w3 Ow z J rj., .-. Luw «-+ H F~- f- ca C w O U F- Ln w H CD LLJ L) .-+ a OZLUU , �N- IFN J •.-' W � t~!f � � � � w W � O z LwiU.J Lu O } W W W W c'cl, % Q OU d w F- ui Z Y F- w 1- BUJ ~ ocW L75 W Ln _2 W •z-• ocp U U >- � W Sa Q3 U W3 a �U�,$$ Q N U w to ""' Q I' Q '' O �- N U N LQL W a U W O J F- w w w F- u zW N U- N Q 9 L�� N O w ` W U p ¢p� x Z W U N a r ZZ O 0 O U. W H I- N F}- + N J z N 2 Q w N O W O >- w W �-+ Q p QQ O Y Q �-+ LL W F- w W �y F- 3 w Q Q � _J U �' J >pp- F�-I W F- LL 2 w Y- >- N F- p 3 F- m m m O > ~ } W O F- ~ LYr� N (3omop> }Z F- s `Qnw o F- w � 3 aW N FQ- w tn 0 "" w W J Q ~ W U- J F- ! �-" w 0 z J W pJ J Q� Q, Z N w ? N � Z L W Z Ln Ln N U Q uj p O Q N _ w w Wp ren 3 � � � T � � F=- 9 ;j 03 >- wu 'n v� U NO Ow tZ- ZZO w S Li -J- LL woauQJ m Q = 6 LL O Om -• QW J O F- U I- U F- 3 U a a 0 O W 21 -4 N M N1 O N %0 00 CP .r M UN W CVIL J H LL ui � 0. W > w F- Q J m 'J -I U7 V) R W w d O f u ? U. a w aw z LU o 0 = 1:LU w cn Q Q U. w °• Z QQ w O a w ~ �n 0 ui L) `n w S a ZZU co� c w � w w Li w 1L O F- pZLU �' N Q' 0 CD ui o _ N Q.' N U g ce LU F- Q w z a m w w '� N I- (%a• O w WZ W Z N ~LLJ W*N O Q ti m a LU Ln ui CN z CL co Q z iQ- 3 H N w Y m ~ Q N �.• c.� C%4 } u W ZW Z O ZwI-- m o f w wC13 ., �- w = F- N F- w w Z cn Y <L O d W O w > Z = 3 m a «-� Q = W Z W Q Y z d 4i LL w NN w z Oo tQ-- z ZO ? w J w w Q Q o F- o J o o a a z V) o w Q 0 zFU- LLL. } J O N �•+ Z W W O J 0 } W W W O i R to O J C7 to } O W W ►+ • ♦V) o a w f- a a ~ z o �' 3 w H -j w 3 >- O O W o S Q H O vi F LLI O �r m Q w w S F- W U WF- a O a ~ O O F- z O N 9j: > O w w -• w 1L U F- � z QQ w z Q O SOY U Q IQ F- t~!1 m W. O C=7 laL Y U w U Q m N Cj Q�Q 3 ? Qat W F- ZZp —M •• Z w �, J Q LL. w N = < J rU+ o m N J p �-+ U w Q LL W m ,Q w ~ 0 8 0 � OU -jQ } FQ- w 0 O L) F-~ cn � ZZ } g o iZZo w a o 0 0 o a. - w o 15 w C N O � N O w w Za w z w O U U- 3 g � o w = o w o a z W LL Uj 9 g M U U •-• w w I- w w w z � w F- - w o _ D O LQ m I m Ln F- 0 pp w w 3 O w F- F- u I L N } _ .. !p Q F- W Z Q w cn = O w w W Q Q 3 U m N cO� a - m W uuO,�� ~ Fpp- V 3Q3 ~ E Z =ry 3 = vz� _ ? w Q Z O N Q Z } > Z W �pn Z O d}7 S 3 _� m >- F- w F- a3 w f " Q 3 q m 3 O to N Z w w O N o O of Q co to O V) O O •-• en F- cn Q z o O m Z to 2 O w w O' U to . _ ""' — >- w W F- U QW O f w tow O Q Z g o O F- W Q w � t►J w 3 W ~ o S z = m WQ g -» w w w 2 .� 1 a " w � �' o - J I- � w w w w ZZ In J Z ►-� 1 N F- •-- p w �• �-. w w 0 U > Z �-- Q w m F- o= o } -- F- U W 3 N w o F- o_ w I- Q Z mm a = z U- � � i 3 V) ca z s ? Zw t0 T .+ M -T a% 1l� 00 CTi 1.0 T N M QN rr N N N M M M M M M 1 M M 1.0 Lp LD _ acs ,4 r 1- F- W ww W w U ~ W wZ Z N J �» V W O H W W W w w w w p F- ... ... F=- � Q LL N Z u w N O Ln Z J wz Qg w0 u ZoZg J N co F- Z W -jr Q H 3 3 D ` wO 1- q� w N x r N u Q w LLJ �- � > O � � m „Q� � O a Q 0oU. 4�. Ln ZZ 1w > Z W 0 � p O o a m a w w �' 1- a ' N w S w 8 F- W Y ZZp N O = li Ln O 3 g 6 � w � N v N w Lpu ~ O a O O 1 u 0 _ V_1 J p 1- V Q > d p �1 u H viQ W 3 l Uj Z Q Wh- V m w W Q u J > Q O ►r Q U w J w w .N- ~ _ _. p Ln Q N N ZZ Y N z _ > f11 = O - Z O p O _ O Q _W v F- 3 J Z J J o ~ a F- O F w < � N L l � FW-- � w = Q O F- w 1-4 a ►r- w m 2 �5 o Q � B _ � z w gcw E o a w v .. N W _ � w v (n x J1=- N w N ~ I-- W QZw ~ ZF- U a. W U_ f .� IL Z V) w N H W W N ►� W. oW U- Ln LLJce Ln - dz CL 3der a > Lauf � 0 w d°� N w O W = N N •- Lu N w w 09 O N L) H a wl-- m c� g * N 0w w wm 1 1- Q w O is N 3 No w Z3Z ,=U., ? 0wwO 3H w v~iZ Z pp x W 3 N N Ln a �ry Ix _N p O 1 w w Ln CL �j 1- CO( 3 W Ln ? Q w Z W w W Ln a w W O p _N «- LL .-� p08 w W r W � 1W� N `.. NtWz § c2 Ln LnN � �' � V) Q Z J W O� E C� m O g w Ln w O o Ln O cc W = Q' O JO �O W 0Fes- CF- w > w > ►- NH 3 Lnco LU ��u' a X�X F WO m LW Z 'C W J Z mWco LU LLI > Q OZ W H N J O F- 0O ZZO H J W m J �-- W N J w V V) O W C�7 w O Ul .fir Q LZLJ O 3 Z � w _ S f O W W m U. H cz N •-- N w L- F- v p Z 1 > w w Z Z 3 H Z VN O F- ZJ ~ - N w O WLLN Z1- Z W N ►+ Z ��J QO ~ w w ~ Q a O w O S.� N w] p J 0 N Z 2 Z O V N O LZ N O QJ Q > Z o_ Z O � O 1- _ I ov w F wwo. JO r ww Z O W owe J � O Y = 1- Y Q = O W O o x O - W Q �- Z Q �- C7 N J 1p- Y 3 w N C7 Q S W LZY o � J = C Ix Ln O � Z ? J W a w w w Ln LLI 3 N Q F- 3 0 �- Q �- Z 3 Q 1- 3 O o ~ N a Ln ce Q I.- w - N = J H w Ix _ -� w W �-- O 111 tD P. M -T UN %D n m M -TM .? 1, f� 1� r.. 00 00 00 00 00 00 C'+ Q� Q� Q� T O O O O a� J' p Uj Z LLJ LL) m ~ ~ W - FO O J Q Y 3 0 p 3 ~ N O m .. N 3 9 •U LD Ln N W J a m N O p a w N U H H W g oLLJ r uW ° ~ N ui w COQ �a S a a N N N- p W LL O �. Q r U' LL 3 o -1 Z N � _N N p p t- h- «-• o ,,,LL Lu m w ►� w W W U LL w N LU V) 6 a0 N w a W Ix Uj J W = C� H W < LL O ... LC. L M U O LLI a' Q Q S N N O H m m r. � U Z F- N V N w W �. 3 Q w O �- W > > w r t- Z 3 0 O J 3 U m W � w cc W W N !_- W ~ _ N p W W p l N n• 3 Q N N > 3 w W Z as ' D i o o W � a o Q C) w p w o 0 ? o o N r S ui N o g o _ a N°U o } � o g o O W f L]i LO N w p N W cwr) N J Z 3 z `= H- p J zU U � (dZ� z a w w � � N opLn _ LLJ � Z m U J ® w W H CL Z x t.7 O 3 J «� a w a 1- ~' �- C%- v~) p w dQ' w • m w i a. N m J N. F Q U- � J �N= W 0- O I= d �j } 3 co F=- N B O N N W � O p p .-� F- O Q O C p U W N �-. p w W W W = f- U J J O N in 0 (%. H •-+ W a 2 ~O J F- -k Q m ce - J U Q •• N •.. F- z W > ce w ? O = p ~ p N Q O J Z o ... N a a 2 2 W w VI f- O J Q a tt. O LLN LL Q a NLD LU w u � r > 1 Q 0 W w W Zr ° (n F=- N HQN W W N _N N oe > Q �-- W Q W O W Q Q zQ D "" ra wr w F- U w J N N " ' W W O = W W Z W H J W Q U mw a U U- O aa > e N3 w H W p W w H W p J a LU 0 � zdo N U- wv^f-iw > m )-- F- N _ _ 1L,! U W 3 •-� W J H Z J .- W O t9 .., Q J J o •-- o N m a Ana. w � o �? � ice 0 8 oo � 'w0 00 N1 %0 00 S Ul% N w T O .r SP1 O a � N N N N N M M M M M 7 V . Q D J W O J a F- p 0 m > OCD Q LY W D W O •^ S I J w ZOw I- z mw J OOOa u 3 Lna O aOL Oaf Z -- S m SJQO >- =) 0 } LuO N O } I- F- Q Ln =) O w Ln w Q lG Ln Ln 3 J = F- LU LLJ O QIY Z Oaa OS CL I-- Lu ZI- f SZ Om 20 O z OF- w pwOp W �- ►- O w LL 0 >- } z Ln S J p .m !- -• Y a H - H 1- E - 0 F- u O S 0 Z of-- U O z } Ln I- Q z f Z O a Z F- z .- Ln LLiZV) Q -- Z W QS =) LL O ►- J wQw - Q �- W - Lu F- C9 Q O oc F- 0 0 F- 3 w 0 g F- U w 0 0 D 1- z w O' w u -• w w w LnQw a0 Ow w m -- wZ QZaQ cc W zJ N Qw a r ZLL O > z J •- W JI- 1- LAJO wJ a W O Ln0 •-• J ZW Ca ccF- zcn ZNW 1: LU Q Lnz LL z Q W a OW w0LLJ �-- -• 0 NLA w m Ow > w L) LL S » zEw 0 •-- N >- a F- I-- U W 3 Z LL I- u C9 -- W S Z Ln w LY 0 0 Ln Z S u W w «- S U I- wo 1 NW O UZ Cb w HF- - S w Np ZLn 0E- Q CL Ln .- Ln S N z g O •^ U. !- m0 J 30zW J -� NJ QH a0 Ln mW LL } W WO 000Ea --I Q } W (9 O O I- Ln Q W W F- F-' z Z O W ••- Z a aS W 0 w w aUZ 0 L w 0 •- mLntY3 Q • W W 3 > W W 0 >- Ln F- Z O J w W w S f a S0 > S O F- 3 f Ln Q >- f a wm 3 > > w0c� I- w F- a Q Q 3Q WLn WLU S F- 000z Z Ow I- S W S3S W wF- 30 W � LL. LuO ce •-• 0 ZZ Ln I- a SF- Gw aZ >- -1 0mw W -J Lu Q w Q 3 Q O H Z .- 0 � O a 0 O I- W Z SF- Ln O J J Q 0 0 x F- WO SW wU 3 I- ZO JW W0 LL SF- > >- NW > 3 HSa -- 0O Q - wf 0 w O w Z Om W F- U3Z = w< Ln W O J U- ► ]G 0 W Lu n < U O W Z F- - f -• LL S O O C7 w -D 0 Ln Z 0 w 0� F- S O m ^ F- O F- LA Z O Q '> OQO JJ > W 01- Uzw U } w •-• O S O 3 f QJ z QDO HS J - Q = LU F- N zLn Ln ZuJw F- Ooc wF- 3 W SUx 7 a' w . a Ln IL Q -J a 0 3 a w >- S I- W 0 w a w Ln >- O w 1.- F- 0 N 0 0 0 1- a fY z w0: F- Ln J an_ U JO w OW z a U LnZ «- Q F- 3 w � wOm 0- 0Z coo S X w w I- z 0 z Ln0 > QOa00 a0 Q ►- F w F > > - LU0NI-- Ln z waz0za L1Jau F- w 31- N O O f W Z ZX W < X - a > Ln O u Q Ln Q 0 3 -- I-- W O O w 0Y x • LL U- -D - %Z w LA u I- Ln Z z U o w O o >- O Ln Lnz LL LU I-- cn S Z W wwm0Q ZO > w LL W L-- QF- �- z O •- LL > Ln u � 7 tomo •- 3 w •.- on = 1.0CL - S wW0 Z Q OL, Q O w - SF- aNF- QQ LU I-- mF-' a m Z w a w Z x m F- 0 0 N F- w u> Q F- S E >- X � Ln m F- C9 •-- W I- w 0 W O LL Z O Q LL F- S W S W 0a > S I- w0 HZOZ W >- w Oa Ln - N3SF- J Q 0 W O --1 I-- Q •- G' - J W LL. W O F- �- I- O S } J J QJ z 0- 2 U » O in F- z w U 3 NOLs fO F- O 0 OF- W F- QZJ Q J F- w Se-s L.0Z 03 00 F- wLL a •. W -D -• S0D w Q z 1- N0W J f H Z3 UO O Ln ai- CO In O SZ OU Z ^ SQ F- Ln O J LL 0 Q O W Lu 3 1- m LY w Q •" 3 w w u 0 u0 LL F- LL Z } NLnZF- Low LLQ CO +h 0 S W U W -• Ln O Ln Q Z w - 00 - F- «- D w to 0 F- -3 Q «-• O H Q I- N > Q U Z Z F- a w F- w 0 OW wa S o• Lnu I- w gQ •-• F- LY 0 = 0 00 000vnQF- a a S S H F- 1- O w «- •- w >- Z h- Z w Z f W O W 0 a F- F- LA O z w Z f O LY 0 = 7- < ••+ F- 0 F- >- u >- Ln LL Z S O W W Z a Q I- I- w m W W S 0 Ln 0 a0 Z -- F- 0S 0 Of QO 0 < - tYw > a a NLA CD 44 00 0LLJ w w •-- I- r-• LJ' J O a a S w w F- w O U Q > > N N S QS Sm 3 LL LnU. a I- ZOQ — UZ m0 OF- LY I- 3HLn 3 w LilS O fa >- •- W J p CO Sa w Z W �-- Q F- Ln J w U CC O Q H F- O Ln 0 W W U W N N LL 0 0 SW w F- W Q ZZ ZUZZ •- mF- mW ►- W LL Ln C) w w N of 0 w O •- OQQO W W W > S 1-- Z O ^ W OJZ Z W F- QI- -• Z } u OLL Uw 0w = 0QF- zwF- JM > a Q F- 0 a N W 3 Q W N u w I- t-- U F- J S W m Ln Y-+ O F- P• N F- O >• S O W •-• UJ U-% %W Z O Z E Q Ln F- WO'wLn I- w Ln U F- z 0 S w QSrnw0 a0 LL. 000 0w J LYL�• Q Sw WI- z O ►-» W H SLY F- z LY U - SJ LnU Q w z H x WN w w N3Ln w Ham- F- SQ >- Q NO Ln wZOww m 3 O NQ O 2 0 •" a Q QOF- JJ = OLn Ow Ln -- J >- CD w •OOU w O F- N F- O LL 0. SH •- 1 Y Z0 1- 3 -• 000 ZI- JSZ cc >- Q • Z W Ow F- 3 -• U F- Q Z I- Q OOOJ Q N N d W w W O a' W a' Z m W •-+ - W J Q E LA Q F- a a J a f w W W F- Ln C7 f U w a 1 CLzw WQ 0 w w < 0 w •- Ln F- w > uwOr 0 Z 0 Ln S00U-%dpw 0 - Sw S3 3 wSz a I- D LYS- LLJ0 Z - Z Ln a F- SZ o m Z3Hw I- a LL Ln r- Q QW 00ZQJ •-• m -- WW W -- F- u1 O w W W >- X 0 u a Q Z J LL a F- 0 w = >- U Ln 1 >- LnSF- S I- S w S wLLQ W Q WF- W 00 •-+ D Ln0 F- e-% < < < nQ QLnQ3 QF•- 14 3 30E- 3 m mV) -- mU1h3 •- ua QE0 r- a LLJNZ r-L M 111 n 00 •••L 00 ••- LA L� n r ? S S tr Lr% LO %0 -D �0 W H F- W m •-• 3 N N -T O Zw m S d Q S F d w 3 a< 0 LL w Z 00 Q Q Q ' _ cn Z7L) LLJ n� w a � d °" w 3 ~ m Z w s N O w T F- LU suj W M ` Q Z� d 9 Z a D aYQ W m Q J !Y U N Q LUJ O O Z Z ( V W w Q coOO 5 C) ZN _8 •-• w w U W N 3 N N Q N W d J 9 Zd N O ce o dC'4 LU Z ~ O 3 w Q w w Z Q +1* F O w w W O o c07 N Z F- Z w � � �5 •=- a z I-- o w Z in 9 w J Z r c V 0000 p = m 0 co : Li z g U �- O= W � tY N d NccZ�h W LLJ W J _ O w N N N Q Q d ui W •p-• m W m Z cwn - F w Q W GQ. X >- w0ZH m o } >9 ZQww _ LU p N W OJ N U i- w r W } Z IL N N = . Z I Z o Q Z cx dJ Q Z {3� d d �.. ... p o «-� a w a w > >- w Zd w 3 w V d d Ln w wL) o L) W r a W 5 Q Ul g W � Z Q U J O N m H m O ►-• Q ••- N N Z w w c wpNfo ° U w �- w �-• N w c zao w 0 3 I-- w I- w D c F- J U ►-� N m N -- LL, I- N r1 �-+ r-. O F- N O Z • g % w o3 _I pow z '� � a w NN w i � � _ • ogL ~ ~ L) o o Zw ww LU � a ad d 000 •, Q Z ��w'ryj d wg _ r a "" O o > of W d N W O H Z } = N W N d w I W w Z i JCSm V) w � r F- u VV33 N �-- w Zg Q Z Q r Q IL , F- N O m m w cc�� P-. I- _ry �u cc,,�� aw O m U =' 1- c7 O Z Z O Z U Z LLJ f- Ct r i 1- cNn pC a�q LLJ a 0 J LLL 0 H � C=7 F~- � QQQw � pb�� m Uo g wo v � � `Z � W H w W 3 ]L WW Q W Z W _Z O O O f- W Q_' m � IYLA � Ow O twn F- Z Q Q � N W Z •- Z � Q U ~ I % ZZF CIO w U o � w 5 0 I' a ~ ~ 3 FW- � � rS 0- f- w ur r w F �- w LU L) D! � �Zry .- J J H 3 O m � U W 00 m J Z U � •- = WO •- Q Jw Z �p N J N F- Z J H � Ww J I- !L Q' I- W N w 0t ►� Q N N N d w r N U w S Q Z 3 0 w of Q w o _ Z w w w w LL F- U 0 w w w m 3 u- f t- � F- U w LL 3 1 UZa - w p LL ww w o ppZ w0 U- Ln Q �-- F•- •-- 3 Z N •- F- J Z F O IL •-• Z 3 — Q A ON o "-I N Lr% tC P. O M -T tD I*l 00 1l� I� I� Il� 00 00 00 00 00 00 30 0 LAJ LLJui cic H 7 m o uj Ln Q U w 3 L D O . > U W H U O J Z J O N r.r z J N LU w w H 6 LL N Ln 0 _ g z z 0 Li LLJ C13 CD NOLL in g } z LU LU J LL � 0 Q Q D LU N N ~ uj Z g 1 3 L w 14 > W g I Q W U U mLL LU w33 r- ... g 0 O O O w z Z Q O w rW aZ N .-. �--� N Ln w LL u� �. ►- 9 LL Q Q Y J w 3 O w � J w0 Q m ~ «-� m N Ln z N wW zJ w ~ _J W d w z O w U- 3 w_ �l �L'j N W W O i U ui m Q a _ _ Ln 3 CD N 0 pQ > w 3in ~ w QZ gg w w w .. w N Q W IBJ 3 a w a.w >- O N S N w ~ O J Z U 0 O' J O S N w > ~ age ., w gyp- Z M .O .4 N S 1!\ %.p 00 Q) N Lr% C T O O O O O O O .-4 1-4 r+ N N N N N N N N N 31 MEMO TO: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR "-- FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1985 SUBJECT: CITY POLICY - RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING STREETS During 1983, the City initiated the first major program of recon- structing existing City streets under project 342 which incorporated all of Cedar Grove 1st 'and 2nd Additions and a portion of the 3rd and 4th Additions. This project was initiated due to the rapidly increasing repair costs being incurred by the City' s Maintenance Division while taking into consideration the age of the streets in relationship to their life expectancy and evaluat- ing their load bearing capabilities resulting from their original design standards as compared to today. In addition, periodic soil samples were taken and a "road rating" analysis program was performed by an independent consulting firm used to evaluate various cost effective methods to prolong the life of the streets. After evaluating all information, it was determined that it would be the greatest benefit to the homeowners and in the best interest of the City to "reconstruct" these streets. This reconstruction consisted of the following five major areas: 1. Patch and repair, with appropriate subgrade correction, those areas of structural failure. 2. Installation of additional storm sewer facilities where . required by design standards or change in grade. 3. Installation of concrete curb and gutter . 4. Installation of a 1h" overlay. 5. Boulevard and driveway -restoration. Since 1983, the following streets have been included in street improvements that involved "reconstruction" of existing streets to some degree: Cedar Grove Addit.ion Silver Bell Road Coachman Road/Four Oaks Road Pine Ridge Drive Because- street reconstruction is a relativey new problem for a young growing community, each project was evaluated in detail to determine benefits and responsibilities. As a result of these projects, an envolving policy has subsequently been established. 3a - . •MEMO TO TLH RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING STREETS NOVEMBER 15, 1985 PAGE 2 The ORIGINAL policy (Cedar Grove Additions) provided for 50% of all reconstruction costs to be assessed along with 75% of the new concrete curb and gutter installation. The City would then pick up the remaining 50% of street reconstruction related items (nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 listed previously) and 25% of the concrete curb and gutter installation (no. 3 ) . The PRESENT policy is to assess 100% of the costs associated with the overlay and any identifiable subgrade correction that should have been performed as a part of the original street con- struction. The benefitted properties would also be assessed 75% of the costs associated with the installation of concrete curb and gutter (where none previously existed) and the related boulevard/driveway restoration. The City then would be responsible for the remaining 25% and 100% of all costs associated with patching and repairing the existing deteriorated surface and any leveling bituminous course necessary prior to the final overlay. The justification for this policy is based on the fact that the property owner should be responsible for all costs associated with constructing a street to standards required for residential development. Due to the life expectancy of a street being 18 - 25 years, the overlay provides additional life to the street which results in a direct benefit to the property owner by extending their original investment . However , it is recognized that the City has a responsibility to perform all required patch and repair operations to "maintain" the property owners original investment through the expected life of the street. The 25% contribution by the City for the curb and gutter installation was determined as being an equitable credit for the existing bituminous curbing that may have originally been installed. This policy -should be considered as a baseline policy to be used in evaluating each project on a case by case basis to determine - what is fair and equitable to the benefitting property owners in relationship to the responsibility of the City's short and long term maintenance operations. If you would like further clarification regarding this policy, please let me know. Sincerely, t•v4w Thomas A. Colbert TAC/jbd cc: Richard M. Hefti, Assistant City Engineer _ _ 33 i MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL September 12, 1989 A special meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, September 12, 1989, at the Eagan Municipal Center building. Present were Mayor Ellison and City Councilmembers Egan, Gustafson, McCrea and Wachter. Also present were Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works, Dale Runkle, Director of Community Development, Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Finance, Kristy Marnin, Planner I, Jim Sheldon, City Attorney, and City Administrator Hedges. MULTI-FAMILY PRESENTATION City Administrator Hedges stated that a comprehensive study to examine all land parcels, either comp guided or zoned multi-family, has been completed. He stated that the study was directed as a result of the top goal identified at a strategic planning session held earlier in 1989 that suggested a change in land use designation of certain R-3 and R-4 properties to either a lower residential density or commercial designation. Director of Community Development Runkle reviewed the purpose, scope and methodology of the study that was completed by his department. He reviewed eleven (11) criteria used in the analysis stating that after each of the twenty (20) parcels were studied, certain determinations in land use recommendations were concluded by the staff. Kristy Marnin, Planner I, reviewed all twenty-one (21) study areas concluding.each of the presentations with a recommendation of staff regarding a proposed change in land use designation. City Councilmembers raised questions and provided input on several of the study areas during the presentation. Two (2) parcels were removed by the City Council for additional review, and they include study areas C and M. City Attorney Sheldon reviewed the legal parameters if the land use designation for certain study areas is to be changed by City Council action. Director of Community Development Runkle stated that with the exception of study areas C and M, the City staff will proceed with contacting the landowners for all other study areas to determine whether they are in agreement with the City's findings. He further stated that after initial review with the landowners, a public hearing scheduled at the Advisory Planning Commission meeting would be appropriate. Mayor Ellison and members of the City Council thanked the City staff for the report and asked that the Director of Community Development proceed with the contact of the landowners to review the proposed changes as identified in the study entitled, "Multi-Family Residential Land Study". STREET RECONSTRUCTION/SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY Director of Public Works Colbert stated that a survey of other suburban communities was completed for the purpose of reviewing special assessment policies relating to reconstruction of City streets. He further stated that from review of the survey results, it is apparent that other communities have not adopted such a policy. Director of Public Works Colbert presented a policy for street construction that includes 1008 financing on the part of the benefited property owner for new street construction, 758 funding 3y by the benefited property owner for reconstruction, 508 financing for overlays and no cost participation for the sealcoating maintenance application. He stated that cost participation by the property owner is according to the approved rate by the land use or zoning classification for each property. City Councilmembers referenced certain aspects of the survey, and after further review and a general consensus on the policy recommendation for financing new street construction, reconstruction and general maintenance of all City residential and collector streets, the Director of Public Works was asked to utilize the proposed policy in determining the method of financing of the Rahn Road reconstruction project. 1990 PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET The City Administrator provided a recap of the special studies that he is coordinating for the 1990 General Fund Operating Budget and stated that he would prepare a memo on the study for distribution and consideration at the September 28 City Council work session. There was a limited discussion by members of the City Council regarding the high increase in legal costs and further direction was given to the City Administrator regarding specific points to be included in that special study. AUTHORIZATION TO PAINT THE LEXINGTON AVENUE/DIFFLEY ROAD RESERVOIR Director of Public Works Colbert asked for consideration by the City Council to allow for the painting of the water reservoir that is currently under construction and located at the intersection of Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue. After a brief review and in a motion by City Councilmember McCrea, seconded by Councilmember Gustafson, with all members voting in favor, the Director of Public Works was given authorization to proceed with the painting of the Lexington Avenue/Diffley Road water reservoir. ADJOURNMENT There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. TLH September 12. 1989 *4L,�Lu.- Dated City Clerk 35 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. REVIEW MIILTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND STUDY III. CONSIDER ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF CITY COLLECTOR STREETS IV. UPDATE ON PROPOSED 1990 BUDGET V. OTHER BUSINESS 3G [EMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS 40 FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: SEPTEMBER 8o 1989 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/SEPTZXBER 12, 1989 As a reminder, the grand opening of the Waters Project is 4:30 to 7:30 on Tuesday, September 12. I contacted Rick Burger and RSVP'd that the entire City Council will be attending. Members of the City Council are welcome to bring a spouse or significant other to the event. The Special City Council meeting is scheduled at 7:00 p.m., which is in keeping with our normal starting time, however, the time is slightly flexible depending on your involvement at the Waters grand opening. XULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND STUDY Several weeks ago the final study entitled "Multi-Family Residential Land Study" as prepared by the Community Development Department was distributed for Council review. Hopefully, each member has had an opportunity to review the narrative and parcel by parcel descriptions. The Director of Community Development and the City Administrator would like an opportunity to review the study and receive direction from the City Council at the meeting von Tuesday. If any member of the Council has misplaced their study, feel free to contact this office and a duplicate copy will be made available. ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF CITY COLLECTOR STREETS At the direction of the City Council a survey was completed soliciting information from several suburban communities as to how they finance the reconstruction of City collector streets. For a copy of that survey, refer to the attachment. For a copy of the recommendation prepared by the Director of Public Works, refer to the attachment. Staff would like direction on this matter so the feasibility report regarding the Rahn Road reconstruction can be completed this fall and the proper public hearings scheduled during the early winter months. PROPOSED 1990 GENERAL FOND BUDGET UPDATE The City Administrator will provide further update on the proposed 1990 general fund budget as directed by the City Council at the meeting on Tuesday. Most of the specific studies that were directed at the last special meeting considering the budget have • not been completed and will be presented at the September 28 work session. J MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, C/O THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, P.B. , DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1989 SUBJECT: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY - RECONSTRUCTION OF CITY STREETS PROJECT 584, RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION During the Fall of 1984, a feasibility report was prepared discussing the issues associated with reconstructing Rahn Road from Shale Lane to Beau De Rue Drive. During the public hearings held in January and February of 1985, several objections were made from adjacent properties pertaining to the cost associated with the reconstruction project as well as the concern for a potential for encouragement of increased traffic volumes. They felt that, if the street was left in its present deteriorated condition, community related traffic to the Cedarvale Shopping Center area would use the recently completed improvement of Nicols Road. There was also concerns from property owners whose existing landscaping would be disturbed by the continuation of the sidewalk from Beau De Rue to Diffley Road. Subsequently, the City Council closed the public hearing and cancelled the proposed improvement/project. Since that time, this portion of Rahn Road, designated as a community collector street, has continued to deteriorate at an accelerating rate. The City continues to receive an ever increasing number of complaints and demands to have this roadway improved to City standards. The maintenance division of the Public Works Department is no longer able to perform cost effective minor repairs as we are presently "patching patches". Recently, the City Council has recognized the deteriorating condition of this roadway and, in response to the increasing concerns of the community, has requested staff to proceed with reevaluating the feasibility of reconstructing Rahn Road. Also recognizing that the growing number of older streets in our community are reaching a point where they should be reconsidered for reconstruction, the City Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive reconstruction assessment policy that can be applied to the proposed improvement of Rahn Road as well as the future reconstruction of streets as a part of the City's long range capital improvement program. In trying to create a uniform long term special assessment policy, staff reviewed past reconstruction projects and surveyed 11 other suburban communities for similar policies and situations. This report will address three specific areas as follows: I) past City reconstruction projects; II) survey results; and, III) proposed special assessment policy. 38 PART CITY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS There have been four specific projects where existing City streets have been reconstructed for various reasons. Accordingly, they have all had different assessment policies based on the individual projects summarized as follows: A. Cedar Grove ist and 2nd Additions-Street Rehabilitation Project #342) During 1983, the internal local residential streets for the Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Additions were rehabilitated through various combinations of reconstruction, patch and repair, overlays, storm sewer modifications, concrete curb and gutter and related boulevard/driveway restorations. This project was initiated due to the deteriorating condition of those streets. Those streets were approximately 24 years old having been originally constructed in 1959 and were one of the first streets built to an urban section in the City of Eagan. The cost participation formula for this project resulted in the cost of the street surface reconstruction/rehabilitation, driveways, new storm sewer facilities and subgrade correction being assessed on a 50/50 basis. The replacement of the old bituminous curb with new concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and catch basin reconstruction and related boulevard restoration being assessed at 75% of the cost with the City picking up the remaining 25%. The net result was that the City financed 40% of the total cost ($973,000) of the improvements with the remaining 60% being assessed to all benefitted properties within those developments. B. Silverbell Road Vparadinc (Project #399) During the early 80's, Silverbell Road was starting to experience structural failure and pavement deterioration. Subsequently, in 1984, this road from Beau De Rue Drive to Blackhawk Road was rehabilitated and upgraded to its ultimate 9 ton design standards. This project entailed extensive subgrade correction (up to three feet deep) , patch and repair, storm sewer reconstruction, bituminous overlay, sidewalk installation and related restorations. Silverbell Road was originally built as a 24' wide bituminous surfaced rural roadway section in 1969 and widened to a 44 ' urban roadway with concrete curb and gutter in 1973. However, it had never been brought up to its ultimate 9 ton design standard for this community collector street. Subsequently, all costs associated with upgrading this roadway to its 9 ton community collector standard was assessed against all adjacent high density residential and commercial property (48.4%) . Costs associated with half the bituminous overlay, bituminous removal, and miscellaneous curb and gutter replacement was the responsibility of the City (51.6%) . 3q C. Coachman/Four Oaks Road Upgrading (Project #348) With the progression of development of high density residential property adjacent to these roadways, it was necessary to upgrade the previous 24 ' wide bituminous rural roadway section to its ultimate 44 ' wide urban street section with trailways. Subsequently, in 1984, the above-referenced project was completed. Based on the City's policy of high density multiple residential property being responsible for all costs associated with constructing a 44 ' wide 9 ton urban street, 100% of the $318,000 improvement cost was assessed to all adjacent properties. This project not only included the upgrading to its ultimate design standard, but, also, the necessary revisions to the existing storm sewer system to accommodate this upgrading. D. Blackhawk Road Maradinq/Widening. Diffiey Road to Deerwood Drive (Project 488) As a result of the development of the Blackhawk Plaza and the increasing traffic volumes of this community collector street, the previous 24 ' wide bituminous surfaced rural roadway section was upgraded and widened to its ultimate 9 ton 44 ' width community collector standard with the exception of the approach to Diffley Road where it was widened to a 68-74 ' section with raised concrete medians to provide proper channelization to this future signalized intersection. Of the total $537,000 cost, 34% was assessed with the City financing the remaining 66%. The assessable obligation for the respective zoned property (single family, high density residential, commercial) was calculated at its appropriate zoning equivalent rate with credit being applied for previously levied assessments associated with the pre-existing street improvement. In- addition to the street surfacing and widening with curb and gutter, this project also included the installation of trailways, storm sewer modifications and related boulevard restorations. As can be seen, each specific project had its own unique set of improvements resulting in different assessment philosophies and City cost participation rates. JJ.L SURVEY RESULTS Rather than trying to "reinvent the wheel", it was suggested that a survey be done of other suburban communities in different stages of maturity to determine if any particular assessment policy stood the test of time and seemed appropriate for the City of Eagan. With the assistance of the Administrative Intern, Jeff Weldon, 11 communities were surveyed. Attached to this memo is the report summarizing the results of that survey. Surprisingly, there does not seem to exist a clean neat assessment policy that can readily be adopted. It appears each community is in the process of 10 preparing a policy that best fits their individual circumstances taking into consideration availability of major street funds and the communities different philosophies pertaining to cost participation. The following is a summary of the various assessment/city participation ratios: 1 City 0/100% 3 Cities 30/70% 1 City 60/40% 1 City 50/50% 2 Cities 100/0 3 Cities no program/information available Similarly, the survey specifically researched which communities assessed for bituminous overlays with the results indicating 4-yes, 5-no, 2-no program/response. Based on this information, it appears that the final policy adopted by the City of Eagan will be as good as any other community and most likely will be used as the basis for reviewing and/or modifying other communities policies. SII. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT POLICY In trying to prepare a standard policy, it is appropriate that all potential variables be identified so they can be properly entered into any subsequent formula. The four major variables are identified as follows: A. Land Use • Agricultural Zoned/Undeveloped Property • Single Family/Duplex Residential (R-1 and 2) • - Low Density Multiple Residential (R-3 Townhomes) • High Density Multiple Residential (R-41 Apartments/Condos) • Public Facilities (Churches, schools, parks, fire stations, etc. ) Commercial and Industrial B. Street Functional Classification • Local Residential (32 ' wide) • Neighborhood Collector (44 ' wide) • Community Collector (52 ' wide) • Arterial (64+1 wide) C. Lot Configuration • Single Frontage • Double. Frontage (Front and Back) • Corner Lot D. =0 of Street Improvements • Patch and Repair with Overlay (Street Life Extension/Maintenance) • Remove and Reconstruct with Overlay (Street Life Extension/Maintenance) • Concrete Curb and Gutter with Driveway Aprons and Related Restoration • Sidewalks and Trailways • Structural Strength Overlays • Sealcoats • New Storm Sewer System Installations • Existing Storm Sewer System Extension/Modifications As can be seen by the number of variables, the creation of a generic uniform special assessment policy to fit each potential combination is not practical. Subsequently, it must be approached with the understanding and realization that any subsequently adopted policy must be used as a general guideline with -'allowances being provided for unique circumstances associated with any particular project. Therefore, recognizing the complexities associated with the numerous variables, the attached matrix (Table I) is proposed for consideration. The attached matrix will identify the assessable portion of any project to be allocated against benefitted "frontage" based on the existing or designated land use/zoning, whichever is higher. Additional consideration of the assessable obligation of a particular property should take into account the configuration of the affected lot in accordance with the following chart: LOT CONFIGURATION OBLIGATIONS STREET CLASSIFICATION NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY TYPE LOCAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR ARTERIAL Single Frontage Full Access 100$ 100% 50% 25% Corner Lot 50% 50% 25% 0 Double Frontage so% 25% 0 .0 These factors would be applied against the assessment calculation based on the attached matrix labeled Table I. � a The assessment rate calculation would take into consideration the entire cost of the improvement divided by the frontage of all adjacent property resulting in a cost per front foot. Once the assessment rate (cost/front foot) has been determined, appropriate adjustments can be applied taking into consideration the zoning equivalent factors (32' vs. 441 , 32' vs. 521 , 44' vs. 521 , etc.) and then applying the assessment policy ratio from Table I further adjusted by the lot configuration obligation matrix to arrive at the assessment obligation of any particular piece of property. The City's net financial obligation would then be all unassessed costs after the assessment revenues had been applied. Due to the great variations in assessable properties, lot configurations, and land use classifications, the City's cost participation would have to be estimated based on a detailed evaluation of any particular street. It is recommended that a definitive 5 Year Capital Improvement Program should have a specific analysis performed to determine assessable properties and ratios to be applied against the estimated cost of the improvement. Long term capital improvement programs will have to have an assumed percentage applied against the estimated cost based on the average experience of the 5 Year CIP evaluation to help determine long term City financing obligations. I realize that the information as presented in this report may seem confusing and overwhelming. However, it was simplified as much as possible -without oversimplifying such a complex issue. Therefore, I would sincerely appreciate an opportunity to discuss this information in further detail to arrive at a workable policy allowing us to proceed with Project #584 and any other future projects. .rte Thom A. Colbertf E. Director of Public Works Attachments TAC/jf y3 TABLE I e 4 e o e o 0 0 ai r+ C 0 Y b 0 0 O ► �. t Or .. O �+ N W A no Im OR -CW w v � n � r h N � r 6 h W C V a .. u r C t y Gal N A C .a, C ' A M a c .� 3 s �s .. .� s w V Wor p w •a tr h N A ft sLs 1� •O � � x ►r W cor M O W W M y V Im C s A M b m � �► y u i � A V � N qqee C N IV e oa r 8 H NIn 'In w W t Y N an t O ti [EMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS COLBERT FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN JEFF WELDON DATE: AUGUST 17, 1989 BUBJECT: RECONSTRUCTION SURVEY ?OR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY COLLECTOR STREETS As you requested on July 27, I have completed a survey of several metropolitan area municipalities to ascertain their policy for the reconstruction of neighborhood and community collector streets. While the survey contained a wide variety of engineering specifications, the essence of the survey was to determine their general policy regarding street reconstruction. The communities surveyed were classified by three categories: growth-oriented (Plymouth, Maple Grove, Burnsville, Blaine and Brooklyn Park) ; established communities (Richfield, St. Louis Park, West St. Paul, Brooklyn Center, and Minnetonka, and one community that has characteristics of both (Bloomington) . I attempted to secure copies of written policies from the communities of which five were able to oblige. (Plymouth, Burnsville, St. Louis Park, Brooklyn Center, and Bloomington) . The other communities did not have written policies. To the greatest extent possible, I attempted to complete the survey through telephone interviews. One commonality that existed with each community is that nearly all are facing the same problem to varying degrees. The initial response of many I talked to was: "We were about to contact you with the same questions!" Many such communities requested a copy,. of our policy once completed. The following is a brief synopsis of major findings of each community surveyed. Plymouth (Fred Moore) Plymouth is just beginning to develop a reconstruction program. They will need to reconstruct 96 miles over the next 20 years at an anticipated cost of $32 million. Assessments may be made on either front footage or unit area depending on the specifics of the project. All benefitting property owners will be assessed 30 percent of the estimated cost of the project. The remaining 70 percent is financed by the City through a revolving Infrastructure Replacement Fund. The City levies one mill (will be raised to. 1.5 mills) to support the fund. The program is part of their C.I.P. and the 30/70 split applies to all street classifications after a residential equivalent is applied. Overlays are assessed on the same 30/70 formula but sealcoats are not. They have not yet determined how to allocate 45 J CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT AUGUST 17, 1989 PAGE TWO front footage assessments for corner or double frontage lots. Benefit appraisals will probably be conducted on an "as needed" basis to establish legal foundation. Maple Grove (Gerry Butcher) Has not yet done any reconstruction and is just beginning to develop a reconstruction policy. Have not yet determined assessment procedures but expect to use a pre-determined set rate with the city's percentage being paid from the general fund. They currently do not, nor do they expect to assess for overlays or sealcoats nor do they expect to differentiate the assessment procedure on different street classifications. They have not yet determined how to assess corner or double frontage lots and have not addressed the "benefit" appraisal issue. Burnsville (Chuck Siggerud) Burnsville uses a computerized Pavement Management System as a method of street inventory and analysis for the purposes of preventative maintenance, reconstruction, and rehabilitation. The system utilizes data such as structural and surface conditions, traffic volumes, rideability, age, and maintenance history. Reconstruction is financed by assessments, ad valorem taxes, enterprise funds and MSAS funds and is part of a five-year C.I.P. The assessment rates vary with zoning and are as follows: R-1 and R-2: , $28.50/assessable foot R-3 and Up: $60.00/assessable foot C/I: $81.00/assessable foot The assessment for reconstruction utilizes 50 percent of these rates. The general fund (ad valorem taxes) and G.O. bonds pay the balance as well as 100 percent of the cost of sidewalks. Burnsville does not assess for overlays or sealcoats. Random selection at "benefit" appraisals are made to establish legal foundation. Blaine (Chuck Lenthe) They do not have a policy and plans to begin looking at the issue. Mr. Lenthe would not assist with the survey. Brooklyn Park (Neil Johnson) Brooklyn Park has not yet developed a policy but recognizes they must address the issue soon. They are currently debating whether they should use in-house staff or consultants to develop their y(� K .. CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT AUGUST 17, 1989 PAGE THREE policy for an estimated $14 million of needed reconstruction over the next two to three years. They will definitely use assessments to supplement a $900,000 fund that is set aside to begin recon- struction. They have not yet determined assessment percentages nor have they determined to use a percentage of total project cost or a pre-set rate as the amount to be assessed. In addition, they have not yet determined if there is to be a difference in the assessment formula for different street classifications. While they have not conducted a cost analysis, they estimate the cost of residential street reconstruction at $3,200 - $3,400 per lot or $140 per foot. They anticipate assessing corner lots as a one-half lot unit and treating double frontage lots as one lot units. The City Assessor will verify feasibility of conducting "benefit" appraisals but anticipates conducting an appraisal only if there is an appeal. Richfield (Mike Eastling) Richfield does not have a reconstruction policy because they have not reconstructed many streets. Instead, they utilize a pavement management program. During the early 19701s, Richfield paved 140 miles of gravel streets. Preventative maintenance such as sealcoating has so far precluded the need for extensive reconstruction. What little reconstruction has been done was assessed 100 percent but they realize this will not be universally feasible in the future. It is unclear whether this assessment was for collector streets or arterials. Richfield has not done any overlays and do not know if they would assess for them if they were done. They do not assess for sealcoats. When an assessment formula for reconstruction is developed it will probably be based on a percentage of the total cost as opposed to a pre-set rate so it is consistent with assessments for other public improvements. With regard to corner lots, assessments would be made on the longest side with the shortest side assessed to all benefitting property owners of the project. Richfield's grid system of streets and avenues preclude the existence of double frontage lots. Alleys frequently provide rear-lot access within blocks. They probably will not perform "benefit" appraisals unless an appeal is made. St. Louis Park (Craig Knutson) St. Louis Park uses a pre-set rate of 60 percent assessment ($16.00 per front foot) for the estimated actual street reconstruction cost of $25.00 per front foot. The remaining 40 percent is part of a five-year C.I.P. and paid by the general fund. This assessment rate does not differ with respect to street classification. They have not conducted any "benefit" appraisals. While only a few overlays have been conducted, they have been for arterial streets. y7 CITY ADMINISTRATOR KEDGES PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT AUGUST 17, 1989 PAGE FOUR Sealcoats and future residential overlays would be subject to assessments. In this case, the total cost of each street main- tained during a year would be divided by the number of assessable feet of abutting properties to determine cost per front foot. For corner lots, a side street improvement of 25 percent is assessed against the benefitting property owner while the remaining 75 percent is treated as an indirect benefit and assessed on a front footage basis to all other benefitting owners abutting the street improvement. Double frontage lots are assessed only on the side where the property is addressed. The cost of driveway aprons is 100 percent assessed as well as curb and gutter installation. West 8t. Paul (Bill Price) Most streets in West St. Paul that are reconstructed were either bituminous surface only or had bituminous surface with bituminous curbing. West St. Paul 's assessment is a predetermined/pre-set rate of 30 percent with the City's 70 percent paid from the general fund with ad valorem taxes. Estimated reconstruction cost is $50 per front foot. They assess 100 percent for overlays estimated at $15 per foot, but do not assess for sealcoats. For corner lots both sides are added together and credit is given for 100 feet. For double frontage lots one side is eliminated. The assessment policy is uniform regardless of street classification. Brooklyn Center (Sy Knapp) Brooklyn Center frequently reconstructs residential streets most of which were either bituminous surface only or bituminous surface with bituminous curbing prior to reconstruction. Such streets in "good" condition (needing only overlays and curb and gutter installation) would cost $225,000 per mile. Streets in "poor" condition (needing soil corrections and drainage improvements as well as overlays and curb and gutter) would cost $350,000 per mile. Residential collectors (constructed to five-ton design) would be assessed approximately 28 percent with the city paying 72 percent through the general fund. The predetermined assessment rate depends upon zoning. R-1 - $1,200, R-2 - $16/foot with a minimum of $1,200, R-3 - Assessable front footage X $16 divided by number of residential units, R-4, 5, 6 i 7 - case by case determination. Curb and gutter assessments are made at a standard rate of $28. per assessable foot. Brooklyn Center has used real estate appraisers to determine benefit to a variety of properties but normally use appraisals to arbitrate on appeal. y$ k ti CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT AUGUST 17, 1989 PAGE FIVE Minnetonka (Dave Sonnenberg) Minnetonka has not reconstructed any residential streets but will begin a two-year demonstration project next year where streets with five-ton standards will be upgraded to a seven ton design. This program is part of a five-year C.I.P. with the absence of a reconstruction policy, they have not determined any assessment formula. Of all communities surveyed, Minnetonka seemed least likely to impose any assessments for street reconstruction because the city has an $18 million assessment fund surplus and receives over $1 million annually in MSA revenue. Most streets to be reconstructed have either a bituminous surface only or have a bituminous surface with bituminous curbing. Overlay and sealcoats are considered routine maintenance and paid by the City 100 percent. Bloomington (Charles Honchell) Bloomington assesses 100 percent of the cost of public improvements to benefitting properties so the city absorbs none of the cost. The assessment is computed by dividing the total assessable cost of the improvement by the total number of assessable units. All property, regardless of use, is assessed in the same manner. Bloomington uses an adjusted front footage method for determining assessments. Under this method, odd-shaped lots are adjusted to an average frontage that would be the equivalent to the frontage of a rectangularly shaped lot of the same area and depth. For corner lots, the first 150 feet of the side street is negated in the calculation. If the depth is over 150 feet, a secon4 frontage lots, 150 feet or less in depth, a single adjusted front footage is computed. If the lot is more than 150 feet in depth the area within the first 150 feet of depth abutting the primary access is divided by 150 to arrive at the first adjusted front footage. The balance of the lot is then used in computing the second frontage by using one of four different formulas. (Refer to Bloomington's policy) . Bloomington does not assess for overlays or sealcoats and did not have any cost estimates. Virtually all streets reconstructed have bituminous surface with bituminous curbing. Projects are not part of a C.I.P. There is no differentiation between street classification in terms of assessment except for streets that receive Municipal State Aid. Benefit appraisals are typically not conducted except for random samples for purposes of verification. Curb and gutter installation also utilizes the adjusted front foot method and assessments are spread over a ten- year period. yq w CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT AUGUST 178 1989 PAGE SIX conclusion Many of the communities surveyed are in the same situation as Eagan; they are just now facing the problem and trying to develop solutions. As evident in the surveys, there seems to be no genuine consensus in implementing and financing a reconstruction policy for neighborhood and community collector streets. Financing ranges from 100 percent assessed in Bloomington to 100 percent city funded in Minnetonka. A few trends do emerge, however. First, most communities utilize a financing combination of city funding and assessments. Most cities prefer to base the assessment on a predetermined/pre-set rate as opposed to a percentage of total cost. In addition, most cities do not differentiate assessments among street classifications. Most City Engineers overwhelmingly preferred this method of uniformity for internal reasons such as assessment calculations and engineering reports as well as external reasons such as political acceptance. In addition, most municipalities do not assess for overlays and sealcoats since they are considered "maintenance" and should be paid by the city. If streets did not have to compete with water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer for "assessment capacity" assessing for overlays and sealcoats might be more feasible. This survey was completed well in advance of its scheduled presentation to the City Council slated for September 12 to allow sufficient time to do any further research on this issue before preparing the final staff report. If any further information is needed, please let me know and I will prepare a supplemental report. I have copies of the completed surveys from which this memo was prepared as well as the street reconstruction policies of the five communities that have them. Interestingly, these policies also contain information about their assessment procedures as they relate to other public improvements such as water mains, trunk storm and sanitary sewer. The Special Assessments Committee might find this information helpful. e4i trative n ern JW/j eh J Page 8/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 19, 1991 Councilmember McCrea said it was a 1.5 foot variance and the hardship,from her standpoint,would be avoiding encroachment on the drainage and utility easement. In addition, Mayor Egan noted the unforseen shape of the lot. He said the applicants had already reduced the size of the house substantially. Wachter moved, Gustafson seconded, a motion to approve a 1.5 foot variance to the 10 foot sideyard setback requirement located on Lot 1, Block 1, Whispering Woods Third Addition subject to all applicable Code requirements. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 REVISED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY MANUAL Gustafson moved,Wachter seconded,a motion to approve the revised Special Assessment Policy Manual as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 COUNCIL NOTES City Administrator Hedges asked for an Interpretation of action taken at the February 5 City Council meeting regarding acquisition of capital equipment. It was Council's direction that acquisition of select pieces of equipment be authorized according to that which the City Administrator deems necessary for the conduct of City business. DAKOTA COUNTY BURN FACILITY Mayor Egan said there had been two meetings scheduled with the DCCAB(Dakota County Citizens Against Burning) organization and they had asked him, as an elected official, to sign a form that has stopping the Dakota County garbage Incinerator and maximizing waste reduction and material reuse as its objectives. Mayor Egan said he did not feel comfortable signing it as an individual but brought it to the Council to see if they wished to do anything collectively or individually with respect to this issue. Councilmember McCrea said she supported the Mayor's signing the letter and said she would prefer to spend the dollars earmarked for the bum facility on other waste reduction and reuse programs. Councilmember Pawlenty agreed with the objectives of the document and added that mandatory recycling may be the next step. Councilmember Gustafson said he respected the opinion of those who oppose the bum facility as well as those who say it Is necessary. However he said he could not sign something that said 'stop the Dakota County garbage incinerator+'because, as of this moment, he Is not sure It's the right decision. The Councilmember said he would prefer to reiterate the resolution previously passed by the Council. Councilmember Wachter said he felt similarly. He said he was very strongly in favor of recycling but believed there were still some things that may have to be burned. City Administrator Hedges said the Solid Waste Abatement Commission has toyed with taking on this issue at various times but Mr. Hedges has cautioned them against involving themselves in what really Is a County Issue. However, he asked If the Council would like the Commission to focus on this Issue. Mayor Egan said he thought it inappropriate for an Eagan committee to'watchdog'the County. He said the City Council did have an obligation to represent its constituents as they felt appropriate and suggested adding a caveat to the petition that the bum facility not be built 'if prudent and feasible economic and environmental'attematives are available.' • J � � . ------ ---------------- - ------------ — --. --- --- ---. � . _ § A ■it $ § � � ^ V � --- ----- --- - -- - ._. __ a § J § % � ® � � � � UE 0 § § Ln a a t a 4 LU / k k § $ 2 § Z O E k ` � CL 0 « 2 CO U. E j @ 0 0 k k 0 0. . k at a a # g 2 $ 2 # J � ■ LU e © a w O § ■ 2 & s � a 2 ~ g § � K 0 2 K w w w / k © Q d Q § m a Q 2 § Cr c 2 w f. -- ---— � - � 0 k � E EG E © 2 LU § i § § co 2 2 § } 2 LU _Uj t ® § C © 8 2 § E � $ . 2 � � 2 � _ § 7 3 % � 77 % § - « z I « Q (n1 Q r MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan Minnesota February 23,1999 A meeting of the Finance Committee of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday,February 23, 1999 at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Councilmember Blomquist, Chair, Councilmember Masai, City Administrator Hedges, Director of Public Works Colbert and Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke. Chair Blomquist called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. Chair Blomquist opened the meeting by explaining her desire for the City to stop using assessments for road repair. Those assessments generally include the costs of reconstruction, overlays and recycle projects used to extend the life of City street infrastructure. She suggested that the cost of$1,000,000 per year of this type of assessment included in the CIP could be reduced through certain cost savings generated by not using the assessment process on these types of projects. She expressed her desire to find revenue sources to make up the net loss of special assessment revenue without increasing the City's tax capacity rate. Chair Blomquist shared her idea of using the potential savings on sales tax expenditures,if the State Legislature again makes Cities tax-exempt. It was pointed out that only a share of the savings would be available for street maintenance,as a significant amount of the savings would belong to the utility funds and to construction funds. It was agreed that there should be no subsidies from utility funds to street repair. Chair Blomquist suggested the possibility of redirecting appropriations from certain programs to street maintenance. It was agreed that this could work for programs that had a definitive end point such as the Eagan Forever Green program to which$68,100 was appropriated in the 1999 budget. However, it was noted that the full Council would need to address the reallocation of appropriations through the normal budgeting process. General discussion followed concerning the current and appropriate balance in the City's Major Street Fund and what the best use of that balance is both in the short-term and in the long-term. Chair Blomquist suggested earmarking some or all of the interest earnings on the current balance to replace the subject assessments. It was noted that currently the interest earnings are returned to the Major Street Fund to finance the overall street portion of the CIP. If certain amounts were to be designated to replace special assessments,the CIP would have to be prolonged to match the level of funding available. A general discussion followed about why the current financing method for street renewal and replacement was implemented in the first place. It was explained that the City has a long history of trying to maximize all revenue sources before turning to property taxes. It was noted that assessments allow the City to recover some revenue from the tax-exempts. It was also explained that the City Council that instituted the policy wanted to effect a public private partnership between the City and the residents to maintain the streets. The funding arrangement is one way of doing that. A concern about equity in application of the policy across the City was discussed. It was pointed out that equity should be addressed with the same types of projects across the City and caution should be used when comparing different types of projects between or among subdivisions. 573 1 r There was some discussion about transitioning to a new financing arrangement either in a given time frame or in a manner to be applied after each subdivision had been assessed once for renewal and replacement. There was also discussion about a slightly different assessment process in which the probable final assessment amount,rather than the estimated amount per the policy would be presented to the property owners earlier in the hearing process. The possibility of using annual predetermined assessment rates depending on the type of construction was discuss6d. Staff was directed to complete the following: 1. Determine an estimated amount of potential general fund sales tax savings,if tax-exemption is restored. 2. To look through the budget for any other programs such as Eagan Forever Green that might have a sunset and be available to free up dollars. I To continue working on the questions raised at the Special City Council meeting held on February 9,,1999. Another meeting of the Finance Committee was scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on March 10, 1999. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. February 23, 1999 Date City Clerk EN Sy y MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan Minnesota March 11, 1999 A meeting of the Finance Committee of the Eagan City Council was held on Thursday,March 11, 1999 at the Eagan Municipal Center.Chair Blomquist called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Present were Councilmember Blomquist,Chair,City Administrator Hodges,Director of Public Works Colbert and Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke. Councilmember Masin joined the meeting at 5:18p.m. Chair Blomquist opened the meeting by reviewing the minutes of the February 23, 1999 meeting. The overall objective of trying to identify potential revenue sources to replace special assessments on reconstruction,overlays,and recycle street improvement projects was reiterated as the purpose of the meeting. Due to expected cost savings through elimination of the assessment process, Councilmember Blomquist estimates that replacement funds of approximately$800,000 per year would be needed to accomplish her desire to eliminate that type of assessment. In response to the direction from the earlier meting,staff reported potential General Fund sales tax savings of approximately$90,000 based on the 1999 operating budget,if cities again become tax-exempt. Staff reported that they had found no other programs beyond Eagan Forever Green that are scheduled to sunset and thereby free up resources to become a funding source to replace the assessments. Any other reallocation of funding sources is a matter for the full City Council to determine through the normal budgeting process. Staff was directed to summarize information as part of the report to the full City Council for the special meeting to be rescheduled from March 16, 1999. The following six areas are to be included with particular attention being paid to noting the difference between"new money"and money being reallocated from other uses: 1. Sales tax savings ($90,000), 2. Sunset program(s)e.g. Eagan Forever Green($68,000), 3. Project cost savings(already estimated to reduce the requirement for annual new money from$1,000,000 to$800,000), 4. Tax impact on various property types to raise additional money, 5. Designation of money within the Major Street Fund to generate interest earnings,and 6. Report on the additional money levied in 1998 to be collected in 1999 for the Major Street Fund. There is a question as to whether that money was levied to begin the replacement of special assessments or if it was levied to enhance continuation of the current policy. The full Council will ultimately be required to make that determination. City Administrator Hedges reported that a resolution sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities supporting tax-exempt status for cities would be on the March 16 City Council agenda for Council consideration. J r r Although,no additional meetings were scheduled,there was discussion about meeting again to review the draft of the staff report to the City Council for the special meeting. Councilmember Masin questioned the timing of any change and the potential impact on projects that are currently being approved. It was agreed that the critical time is at the point of assessment,although to the extent that there would be cost savings through elimination of the assessments those saving could not be fully realized as projects are undertaken based on the premise that they will include assessments. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. March 11. 1999 Date City Clerk EN v ' MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA APRIL 6, 1999 A Special City Council meeting was held on Tuesday,April 6, 1999,in the Council Chambers of the Eagan Municipal Center Building at 4:30 p.m. Those present were Mayor Awada and City Councilmembers Bakken, Blomquist, Carlson and Masin. Also present were Director of Public Works Colbert, Director of Finance VanOverbeke, City Engineer Matthys, Streets Superintendent Erhart,Public Works Coordinator Struve, Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa and City Administrator Hedges. AGENDA ADOPTION In a motion by Councilmember Carlson, seconded by Councilmember Bakken,with all members voting in favor the agenda for the April 6, 1999, Special City Council meeting was adopted. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. STREET RECONSTRUCTION/OVERLAY POLICY City Administrator Hedges provided an overview and background on a special study that was directed by the City Council at a meeting on February 2,to research and address specific questions in regard to the City's street assessment policy. He further stated that staff was directed to prepare answers to five specific questions agreed upon by the City Council after considerable discussion on the various issues related to special assessments. In addition,the City Administrator commented that the Finance Committee met and discussed ideas for funding road repair including reconstruction, overlays and recycling projects. That report was also completed and included for City Council review. Public Works Director Colbert provided detail on each of the questions that were directed by the City Council at the special council workshop on February 9. Mr. Colbert provided background on the difference between special assessment and non-assessed project costs stating that there are other costs associated with special assessment improvement projects such as administrative costs, interest,bonding, legal fees,county recording fee and with some projects appraisals. The Director of Public Works further commented on the second question relating to the number of miles for private streets stating that in 1999 there are about eighteen miles of private streets. He further commented on special assessment versus tax impacts by referencing a table showing the tax impact on various properties for each$100,000 of additional tax levy and what the impact would be if an additional$800,000 were to be raised each year to replace the current special assessment revenue for the street rehabilitation program. Mr. Colbert stated that the burden for commercial/industrial property tax is greater than residential if the tax levy is to pay for street reconstruction. He also noted that commercial/industrial property pays 100 percent of street rehabilitation costs under the current assessment policy, so it is difficult to determine which would be the greater burden. S1 Special City Council Meeting Minutes April 6, 1999 - Page 2 v Mr. Colbert also commented on a question that was related to townhome versus single family assessment ratio stating that single family/duplex rates are higher due to the greater number of trips per weekday generated on an average by these zoning categories. Referring to the study,he stated that the average number of trips per week day for single family/duplex units are 9.55,while condominium/townhome average number of trips are 5.86 and apartments are 6.4. thereby,creating a premise for the reduced rate for town home and condominium dwelling for street reconstruction. Mr. Colbert commented on the final question relating to surveying other communities, stating that there is a great variance as to how cities finance their overlay or street reconstruction projects. He gave examples that Cottage Grove bases their assessment rating in direct proportion to the market value of each individual property,while other cities have a fixed and predetermined policy for their special assessment costs. Director of Public Works Colbert also provided a matrix of nineteen street rehabilitation public improvements that have been assessed over the past six years stating that the assessment revenue associated with street rehabilitation since the policy has been in affect in 1993 totaling $4.5 million. City Councilmember Masin asked about information on the differing assessment policies for roadway reconstruction giving the example of Lakeville. She also asked for clarification on how cities estimate the average percentage of construction projects recovered through assessments which varied from 25 percent in Minneapolis to 70 percent in Brooklyn Park. City Councilmember Blomquist asked if the average percentage of construction projects category took into consideration curbs and other improvements. She questioned the total of costs for special assessments versus non-assessed project costs suggesting that principal and interest and other expenses should be included in the study. City Councilmember Blomquist stated that it would take less staff time to levy for costs associated with street reconstruction overlays as opposed to all the requirements for implementing the street assessment policy. City Councilmember Bakken asked for further explanation on whether cities have had assessment appeals. Public Works Coordinator Struve stated that many cities have not experienced any appeals. Mayor Awada stated that Eagan has had three(3)appeals in six years, all from the Oak Chase neighborhood. City Councilmember Carlson questioned if the$8,000 listed as administrative costs is a cost savings if special assessments are not levied and,further,asked for staff explanation on cities whose costs are based on a predetermined rate adjusted annually. She further asked for more information on the predetermined base rates and how do the cities of Burnsville, Plymouth and Maple Grove arrive at the flat rate. Mayor Awada asked when the second wave of overlays would occur,at which Director of Public Works Colbert stated the readjusted schedule for Cedar Grove has been extended to approximately 2005. Mayor Awada questioned the City's previous practice of noticing residents of pending assessments based on the assessment policy for reconstruction stating that appraisals seldom allow for that amount to be assessed. She further commented that this practice misleads homeowners and she would prefer to represent a more accurate amount when the original notice is sent to property owners receiving a special assessment notice. Director of Public Works Colbert stated that a fixed amount could be established which would eliminate this issue. Mayor Sg Special City Council Meeting Minutes April 6, 1999 Page 3 Awada suggested that the appraisal could be made before the project is authorized to determine a cap amount. City Councilmember Blomquist stated that other than Champlin,Eagan is the only city in the eighteen city report that requires appraisals and if this practice is to continue,the public should be able to see the appraisals. City Councilmember Carlson stated that it would be helpful to review the list of street reconstruction projects that remain under the City's current policy. Director of Public Works Colbert stated that according to the five(5)year C.I.P.,there are no additional reconstruction projects planned beyond those the Council has already considered this year. City Councilmember Carlson further stated that why spend the amount of time on revising the policy if there are no streets planned for reconstruction in the foreseeable future. Mayor Awada stated that since the policy has worked for the past eight to nine years, it is her opinion that the City can continue with the current policy, but when the second round of overlays occurs in four to five years,a new policy should be given consideration at that time. City Councilmember Carlson stated that she would prefer to keep the policy as is with some small changes and consider a new policy in the future. City Councilmember Bakken agreed with City Councilmember Carlson stating that it would not be fair to the community to make any changes to the policy at this time. City Councilmember Masin asked for clarification about the City's responsibility to repair streets. Director of Public Works Colbert gave the history of Rahn Road and the limited liability and responsibility the City incurs with the condition of roadways before improvements are authorized by the City Council. Mayor Awada summarized the discussion stating that there appears to be a consensus of the City Council to continue with the current policy for street reconstruction/overlays with the understanding that there will be a pre-project appraisal for the last street reconstruction projects. She also asked for additional information on blended rates and would like additional information for consideration of the predetermined base/adjusted annually as to how costs are determined in Burnsville, Plymouth and Maple Grove for later consideration by the City Council. Mayor Awada further suggested that refinement to the existing policy and answers to questions raised by the City Council be further addressed at a future work session on the street reconstruction policy. Mayor Awada addressed Lang Poppler who commented that he believes the City and property owners would benefit if smaller projects were included in larger construction projects. He further suggested more consistency in project costs and raised a question as to why can't Oak Chase Road and Wilderness Run Road improvements be given a blended rate and would like that example to be considered when the Council further reviews the policy. City Councilmembers commended staff on an excellent report. DISCOVERY PARK City Administrator Hedges stated that City staff have had several meetings in recent weeks with the owners of Skyline Displays,Inc. regarding a proposal to develop Discovery Park, located adjacent to Skyline Displays at the intersection of Lexington and Yankee Doodle Road, for public use on their property. He further stated that there have been meetings held with the subcommittee of the Rotary Club to further consider their plans to participate in the funding of a 51 J Special City Council Meeting Minutes April 6, 1999 Page 4 r band shell to be located in Discovery Park. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa reviewed some of the points that would need to be addressed in a legal agreement if the City and Rotary Club and others-are to invest in the park. The property would continue to be owned by Skyline Displays until it is gifted to the City at some future date. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa further reviewed the plan for Discovery Park. City Councilmember Masi asked questions about liability and if Skyline Displays can continue to own the property and how does this differ from the Caponi Art Park? Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa stated that the difference is that Skyline Displays intends to dedicate Discovery Park to the City in the future at no cost. City Councilmember Carlson asked how the park will be developed until it is turned over to the City. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa stated that it is the intention of Skyline Displays to use their employees for park development. City Councilmember Bakken stated that he is in support of the plan for Discovery Park with the understanding that the City enter into a legal agreement providing protection for any investment and that the property will be dedicated to the City in a period of time no longer than fifteen (15) years. City Councilmember Blomquist also suggested that some property be retained for setback due to its location at the intersection of Lexington and Yankee Doodle Road. Mayor Awada thanked the Director of Parks and Recreation and City Administrator for the update on Discovery Park and stated that there appears to be a consensus to proceed with the legal negotiations necessary to work on a public/private relationship with Skyline Displays to develop Discovery Park with the understanding that the property will be dedicated to the City at some future date under an agreed legal document. OTHER BUSINESS There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. TLH Date City Administrator h K MEMO city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: APRIL 2, 1999 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/APRIL 6, 1999 A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 6,beginning at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. There are two items on the agenda: 1) Street Reconstruction/ Overlay Policy and 2) a brief update on the status of the Discovery Park proposal by Skyline Displays. In keeping with City Council policy, the special work session will be adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. to allow the Council to eat a light lunch in the upstairs lunchroom. STREET RECONSTRUCTION/OVE i Y POI ICC At the January 19, 1999 regular City Council meeting, staff was directed to schedule an agenda item for the February 9 Council work session for the purpose of defining what information should be prepared for future discussion on the City's assessment policy. At the regular City Council meeting on February 2, it was suggested that if any member of the City Council had specific questions in regard to the City's assessment policy, they should be forwarded to City staff and included in the information packet for the February 9 meeting. At the February 9, staff was directed to prepare answers to five specific questions agreed upon by the City Council after considerable discussion on the various issues related to special assessments. That material was to be presented to the City Council at a special meeting scheduled for March 16, 1999 and subse uently postponed and rescheduled for April 6, 1999. Enclosed on pages._through is a copy of a memo prepared by Director of Public Works Colbert including a number of attachments that address these specific questions. During the round table discussion at the February 16, 1999 City Council meeting, Councilmember Blomquist proposed that the Finance Committee meet with City Administrator Hedges and Finance Director VanOverbeke to discuss ideas that have been proposed for funding road repair (reconstruction, overlays and recycling) projects. Following that direction the Finance Committee has met on two occasions; the first on February 23, 1999 and the second on March 11, -1999. Director of Public Works Colbert also participated in the meetings. A memo summarizing those discussions as well as meeting minutes are enclosed on pages throug . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to the staff regarding the City's special assessment policy. < , MEMO city of eagan TO: MAYOR& CITY COUNCIL C/O THOMAS L KEDGES,CITY ADMININSTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 1,1999 SUBJECT: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY COUNCIL INQUIRY RESPONSES On February 9, 1999, a Special City Council Workshop meeting was held to discuss the special assessment policy as it pertains to street rehabilitation public improvements. As a result of that meeting,the City Council collectively directed staff to respond to the five following questions: 1. What is the difference in cost for a special assessment public improvement project vs. a general fund public improvement project? 2. How many miles of private streets are in the community and where are they located? 3. If property taxes were used to finance street rehabilitation public improvements, what is the comparative obligation on commercial vs.residential properties? 4. What is the rationale for the City's policy of assessing a townhome unit 75% of the cost assessed against a standard single-family residential property? 5. What are some details of comparable assessment policies of other communities, and are they contemplating moving away from special assessments? The following will provide a response to each of these questions with supporting documentation. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT VS, GENERAL FUND PROTECT COSTS The ability for a City to levy special assessments is authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429. Subsequently, there are several specific steps and processes that the City must adhere to. These steps inherently add extra work effort and additional costs to a public improvement process. These are categorized and summarized as follows: Work Effort Average Cost ' • Feasibility Report $3,800 • Council Resolution $225 • Original Public Hearing/Notices/Meetings $800 • Final Assmt.Hearing/Notices/Meetings sm Total $59075 'Average cost based on a"typical"public improvement contract of$200,000. c,a a In addition, there are other costs associated with special assessment improvement projects categorized and summarized as follows: Work Effort Average Cost ' • Administrative costs(4%) $8,000 • Interest(5 %:%) $11,000 • Bonding(0.5%) $1,000 • Legal fees(1.0% $2,000 • County recording fee($2/parcel/levy/year) $1,000 • Appraisals and other misc. costs b $2.8 Total $25,800 'Average cost based on a"typical"public improvement contract of$200,000. This information is explained in further detail in the attached memo from the Finance Director, Gene VanOverbeke. PRIVATE STREET SYSTEM Currently, there are approximately 18 miles of private streets within our community. These are highlighted in yellow on the enclosed City street map. Private streets only have to meet City standards in relationship to the installation of concrete curb and gutter and current City Code specifies minimum width requirements based on number of units served. There are no structural design standards for private roads required by the City. There is no public right-of-way dedication and, subsequently, no boulevard area from the back of curb to a property line for snow storage, sight distance clear zones, etc. Access rights are conveyed by way of a private easement dedicated on the deeds to all properties using the private roads. Setback requirements are reduced to just 20' from the back of curb instead of 43' from the curb in public right-of-way(30' setback plus 13' boulevard area). These reduced right-of-way dedications provide for greater densities of development within a given area. This reduces the cost of the road system to each unit as compared to a public street system. The reduced setbacks also allow for shorter private driveways to the common street system. In addition, the reduced construction standards lower each dwelling unit's proportionate cost share. In summary, due to the higher densities and lower costs, there is a significant reduction in the cost per dwelling unit in providing a private road access system. GENERAL FT JND VS SPECIAL ASSRSc r*IParTR Property tax revenue is based on the tax capacity of individual properties. It is a progressive tax system. As the market value increases, the tax capacity increases at progressively greater rates. In addition, the formula for calculating the tax capacity of commercial industrial property is greater than residential property. Please see the attached table showing the tax impact on various properties for each $100,000 of additional tax levy and what the impact would be if an additional 2 (�3 Y $800,000 were to be raised each year to replace the current special assessment revenue for the street rehabilitation program. It is extremely difficult to determine whether there would be an overall burden or benefit to the commercial industrial zoned property. While the annual property tax would obviously increase, it is uncertain whether the summation of those annual tax increases would be more/less than the related special assessment (at 100%) for the local C/I street rehabilitation project. In the next 5- Year CIP (2000-2004), the vast majority of the rehab street improvements are local residential with a limited number of C/I properties. TOWNHOME VS. SINGLE-FAMILY ASSESSMENT RATIO Currently, the Special Assessment Policy for street rehabilitation approved by the Eagan City Council in 1991 uses a formula to calculate the assessment obligation for a single-family (R-1) residential dwelling unit. A duplex dwelling unit (R-2) is assessed the same rate as the calculated single-family rate. Townhome and condominium developments (R-3) are assessed at 75% of the calculated single-family rate. High-density apartments (R4) are assessed on a street frontage basis instead of per dwelling unit. The formula for calculating the front foot rate allocates more of the cost to this zoning classification than the single-family formula because of the overall greater traffic generation of comparable street frontage. The premis for the reduced rate for townhome and condominium dwelling units (R-3) is based on the reduced trip generation associated with this land use. The following represents the average number of trips per day per dwelling unit as contained in the 1991 edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual: Residential Type Trips Per Weekday Single Family 9.55 Condominium/Townhome 5.86 Apartment 6.4 The townhome average trip generation rate is approximately 61% of the average single-family rate but the densities are approximately 80%greater. SURVEY VEY OF OTHER CONDMJNITIES A telephone interview was conducted with 15 other suburban communities and the metro's two core cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, as selected by the City Council. Staff found that, while each community obviously conforms to the basic requirements of Minnesota Statutes, their formulas, methods and philosophies for levying special assessments for street rehabilitation public improvements varied widely. Many communities' policies were flexible on a project-by- project basis while other communities have a very fixed and predetermined policy with few deviations. Attached is a matrix summary of the communities' responses. Some of the communities (Eden Prairie, Inver Grove Heights) have not entered into a street rehabilitation program yet. Cottage Grove bases their assessment rate in direct proportion to the market value of each individual property. (Different assessments for next door neighbors on same street.) The 3 � � referenced footnotes within this matrix provides additional insights into the uniqueness of each City's policy. Staff did not receive a response from any community that indicated knowledge of intent to move away from special assessments if the City had a current policy using special assessments. Enclosed is some material from a research memo from the League of Minnesota Cities (February '99) addressing the pros and cons of special assessments for local improvements. HISTORICAL INFORMATION Also enclosed is a matrix of 19 street rehabilitation public improvements that have been assessed over the past six years. It identifies the type of rehabilitation, assessable rates, assessment amounts, percentages and information regarding the number of parcels, objections, adjustments, and appeals resulting from the special assessment process. The assessment revenue associated with street rehabilitation projects in 1998 was $739,000 and estimated at $585,000 for 1999 based on projects that have been approved to date. In the adopted 5-Year CIP (1999-2003), the estimated revenue from special assessments for the 5-year period is approximately $5,100,000 from local access street improvements, and approximately $1,000,000 from collector/arterial street rehab projects, for an estimated 5-year grand total of approximately$6,100,000. Respectfully submitted, y 1+-�1 t irector of Public Works TAC/j j Attachments: • Special Assessment Project Costs • Private Street Location Map • Property Tax Impact Analysis • Assessment Survey • LMC Publication • Street Rehab Assessment History C: Gene VanOverbeke,Director of Finance(W/attach.) Russ Matthys, City Engineer(W/attach.) Arnie Erhart, Superintendent of Streets/Equipment(W/attach.) . 4 VV" A A w This is a typical process for cities hiring top management positions. More than likely, the process will take 90 to 120 days. Absent a Chief of Police, the City Administrator would appoint an Acting Chief of Police by action of the City Council until the new Chief is appointed and can assume his or her duties. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to the City Administrator to proceed with retaining the services the Brimeyer Group, PDI and Macalaster to assist in various phases of the Chief of Police recruitment process. Item 2. Schedule Special Workshop To Consider Street Reconstruction Policy—At the April 6 Special City Council workshop, staff presented a response to questions the City Council had raised at a previous workshop regarding the policy for street reconstruction and overlays. At the April 6 meeting, a request was made for additional information concerning assessment policies for the Cities of Maplewood, Plymouth, Burnsville and Lakeville; that information has now been compiled by the Director of Public Works and is enclosed on pages .=I through 2)3 for your review. Although there was no presentation or discussion of the Finance Committee's meetings to discuss the special assessment policy, the minutes from those committee meetings were enclosed with the April 6 Special City Council workshop packet. As the Council continues to consider proposed changes to the special assessment policy at a future workshop session, the Finance Committee could present their findings as a part of that overall discussion. If so desired, a workshop for the purpose of considering the follow-up responses prepared by staff to questions addressed at the April 6 workshop, address the findings of the Finance Committee and any other information relative to the street reconstruction policy as it exists for street reconstruction and overlays, could be scheduled. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to the City Administrator regarding a date specific for a work session to further consider the street reconstruction policy as presented. Options could be Tuesday, May 11,at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 18, at 4:30 p.m. or at a future date agreed by City Council action. Item 3. Y21K Standing Committee Update and Recommendation for Additional Staff Authorization--The City Council's Y2K Standing Committee met on Thursday, April 29, 1999 to review the City's progress in addressing the various Y2K issues and to provide direction to staff for their implementation. The minutes of that meeting are enclosed on pages :22Yand The Y2K Standing Committee also directed staff to prepare an agenda item adding an intern or temporary position in the Finance Department to work on the inventory, analysis and documentation of equipment that might be impacted by the year change. The temporary employee would also assist regular staff in completing necessary Y2K preparations for the City. The position would be compensated per the usual intern salary scale and would continue until MEMO city of eagan TO: THOMAS L.HEDGES,CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TOM COLBERT,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 30, 1999 SUBJECT: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY APRIL 69 1999 COUNCIL WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP The following is information requested by the Mayor and City Council during the special City Council workshop on April 6, 1999. A request was made to get more information on pavement rehabilitation assessments policies/procedures for the cities of Maplewood, Plymouth, and Burnsville dealing with "annually adjusted pre-determined base" rates and the City of Lakeville's "blended"rates. The Ch), of Maple Grove began planning a formal assessment policy in 1993. The first residential re-construction project with assessments occurred in 1996. They have successfully assessed for reconstruction projects in 3 residential neighborhood developments annually for each of the last three years. After identifying reconstruction needs, the City sends out information regarding rehabilitation and solicits a response with a survey card. If the response is overwhelmingly negative, the project is discontinued. If there is sufficient support for the project, a feasibility report is prepared and neighborhood meetings follow. The Council then holds a public hearing in conjunction with a final assessment hearing. A time frame is allowed for written assessment objections and the project is then awarded if objections are limited. Between 1996 and 1999, 3-4 projects have been discontinued. The original assessment fee was set at$3500 per residential lot equivalent and has increased each year according to the construction.cost index. The 1998 residential assessment rate is $3810 per lot. The City of Burnsville adopted their original assessment policy in 1990. The plan for each.year's reconstruction and overlays is presented to the Mayor and Council in January of each year. The scope of the project is usually one residential development each year. Following preliminary approval by the City Council, a feasibility report is generated and neighborhood and informational meetings begin. The Public Hearing follows in March and the project is advertised (.9 s ti r and awarded. All pavement rehabilitation projects proposed during the last nine years have moved forward. In 1995, the Mayor and Council approved a general revenue tax increase to fund an "Infrastructure Trust Fund" which was established to supplement assessment revenues in financing street rehabilitation improvements scheduled in the future as part of Burnsville's Pavement Management Program. Each year's project costs are estimated using historical data, the previous year's construction information and an estimated increase using the construction cost index and Municipal State Aid funding data. Burnsville pays 60% for all reconstruction and overlays and residential/commerciaVindustrial property owners are assessed for 40%of the costs. The City of Plymouth adopted their original assessment policy in 1988. The rehabilitation areas are identified early each year and, following preliminary approval by the Mayor and Council, feasibility reports are prepared and informational neighborhood meetings are conducted. Following the public hearing, bids are received and the project is approved. Most recently, assessment hearings have been conducted prior to or coinciding with contract award. The assessment fee is a predetermined base which is adjusted annually based on the construction cost index. Assessments are based on an 18,500 square foot lot equivalent. The 1997 assessment fee was $987 and the 1998 fee was $1008 for either an overlay or full reconstruction. Areas needing new curb and gutter are assessed 100% of that cost also. Commercial/industrial assessments are determined using a lower fee of$746 for each lot equivalent calculated by the total square footage of the property. Plymouth establishes the annual rehabilitation program for its 70 maintenance districts based on information provided by its pavement management program. All pavement rehabilitation projects identified since the beginning of the assessment program have moved forward. The City supplements assessment revenues for rehabilitation with a"Infrastructure Replacement Fund" The Cite of Lakeville uses a "blended rate" to assess for pavement rehabilitation. The City's newer infrastructure has not created a need for a formal reconstruction assessment policy as yet. Lakeville's annual rehabilitation projects are planned each year and a "blended rate" is established based on a variety of maintenance strategies. The appropriate maintenance rehabilitation strategy (sealcoat, overlay, resurface) is applied where needed and adjacent property owners are then assessed a preestablished `blended" fee, regardless of the type of repair or rehabilitation actually applied. The City performs the-standard maintenance operation (patching, crackseal, etc.) prior to sealcoats or overlays. Residential developments are assessed at 50%. A typical residential sealcoat/overlay assessment fee is approximately $100 which is payable over two years. 1 Collector roadways that are overlayed are typically assessed at the sealcoat rate. (50% of the cost of a sealcoat) 50% of the reconstruction costs are assessed to property owners. Their first and only reconstruction to date occurred with their downtown upgrade which was declared to be a "special project"with a deviation of the policy resulting in assessments being levied at 20%. Respectfully submitted, Director of Public Works bCI