Loading...
06/01/1999 - City Council Special AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY JUNE 1, 1999 4:30 P.M. EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION H. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. REVIEW STREET REHABILITATION POLICY IV. CONSIDER DATE FOR COUNCIL RETREAT V. DISCUSSION/CAROLYN RODRIQUEZ DISTRICT 15 MET COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT z MEMO - city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: MAY 28, 1999 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/TUESDAY,JUNE 1, 1999 At the May 18 City Council meeting, a workshop was scheduled for June 1 to; 1.) Provide further review of the street reconstruction/overlay policy, referred to as the street rehabilitation policy, and to meet with Carolyn Rodriquez, our newly appointed District 15 Metropolitan Council Representative. In addition, the City Administrator has added an item to consider a date for the next Council Retreat and in addition provided the list of goals that were prioritized at the May 25 Retreat. STREET REHABILITATION POLICY At the May 18 workshop there were several points made by the City Council for additional staff input and/or Council direction that would require an additional work session on the subject of the street rehabilitation policy. There was consensus by the City Council at the May 18 workshop to consider the following process changes, subject to fin-ther Council review at the June 1 Special City Council meeting. 1.) The final assessment hearing should be held at the time of the public hearing for approval of reconstruction projects. Please refer to a memo prepared by the City Attorney enclosed on page 4t-- 2.) 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 in the assessment policy. The Director of Public Works will institute this process change for future projects beginning in 1999. 3.) Information/education display case illustrating the history and status of street rehabilitation should be placed in City Hall for use by the public. Staf, under the direction of the City Administrator/Director of Public Works,will prepare a display case for the purposes stated. 4.) Consider an evaluation process for public improvement projects and provide some backup as to how the City is doing with this major street rehabilitation on a project by project basis. The Director of Public Works will research option and provide an evaluation format to implement this process during 1999. The evaluation will be completed by property owners who were assessed for the public improvement. 5.) Review the process within the assessment policy manual for assessing private driveways within a multiple residential neighborhood. City staff will need finrther direction from the City Council on this c item due to the fact that it will create a policy change for how multiple residential neighborhoods are assessed for collector roads. 6.) Originally there is one additional process consideration that appraisers should not enter houses to complete their appraisals for street rehabilitation projects. However, according to Larry Danisch, a certified appraiser for the City, appraisers are required to enter homes as part of the appraisal process in order for an appraisal to be valid. There is additional information on this item contained in the City Attorney's memo enclosed on page A—. 7.) There is also motion directing City staff to check with an appraiser/consultant to review the City policy and do a cost/benefit analysis and validate the report. This action provides a scoping mechanism to provide a backup as to how the City is performing special assessments/public improvement projects and action was taken at the May 18 Special City Council meeting. For additional information and a response to this directive, refer again to the City Attorney's memo enclosed on page AL. 8.) OQption/Special Assessment Committee: Another process for the City Council to consider as long as the street rehabilitation policy is partially funded through use of special assessments is to reconsider the Special Assessment Committee. During the late 1970's and early 1980's this Committee, consisting of residents of the community, members of advisory commissions and members of the City Council,would act as an appeal board for property owners who had questions or objections about their special assessments. This Committee would meet independent of the City Council and hold meetings that would allow the property owner to appear and state their case, review their findings and make a recommendation back to the City Council. This process allowed a third party to evaluate the special assessment objections and in several cases provide findings that was later given consideration by the City Council. At the present time, when a special assessment is certified by the City Council there is no appeal mechanism with the exception of District Court. The Special Assessment Committee provided another option for property owners to present their concerns between the time the City Council levied the assessment and the thirty day window to appeal the assessment. This process was mentioned in information provided to the City Council as part of the ongoing research, however, has not been discussed as an option at any of the workshops addressing special assessments for street rehabilitation projects. If the City Council would like to further discuss this item, staff can respond or it can be listed as an option at a future workshop. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide staff with further direction on all the proposed process changes that are listed for the street rehabilitation policy. CONSIDER DATE FOR COUNCIL RETREAT At the Retreat held on Tuesday, May 25,the main focus was prioritizing a list of goals. For a copy of the list of goals and their ranking, refer to page �. The City Administrator would like further direction on whether the list of goals should be kept at eleven or at some higher number as determined by the City Council. l There was also discussion regarding Council process and, with the exception of discussion on the Consent Agenda, round table and order for considering motions at regular City Council meetings, there was not time to address the other items. It was suggested by the City Council that another Retreat be held to review the Council process issues. The City Administrator has conferred with the City's facilitator and the following dates are available for the next Retreat;either Tuesday,June 8, or Wednesday,June 9. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction regarding the list of goals as to what number the goals should be kept at and further, select a meeting date for the next Retreat. DISCUSSION/CAROLYN RODRIQUEZ, DISTRICT 15 MET COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE The City Administrator, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council, has extended an invitation to Carolyn Rodriquez, our new District 15 Met Council Representative, to attend the June 1 City Council workshop at 5:30 p.m. to have an informal discussion about any questions the City might have relative to the Met Council and hear some general comments from Council Representative Rodriquez as she begins her new appointment to the Met Council. A couple of topics that may be of interest to both Council Representative Rodriquez and the City Council are 1.) Status of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and 2.) Met Council transportation issues. For additional informati non the TAB/Met Council transportation issues, refer to a copy of a fax on pages to through that was distributed by Leslie Vermillion to Public Works Directors in Dakota County about various Met Council transportation issues that could impact Dakota County. OTHER BUSINESS The meeting will be adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. affording a half-hour recess for the City Council before the regular City Council meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. /S/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Administrator FROM: City Attorney's Office RE: Council Workshop Questions DATE: May 27, 1999 You have asked the following: 1.May the final assessment hearing be held at the time of the public hearing for approval of the reconstruction project. Yes. The public hearing on the feasibility of the improvement project may be held at the same City Council meeting as the hearing on the final assessment for the project.The Feasibility hearing and the ordering of the project should come first. The Feasibility Report must contain the estimated cost of the project.Upon ordering the improvement project, it will then proceed in the normal fashion;plans and specifications will be ordered and a contract awarded. Since the Feasibility report has been received and the project ordered, the expense to be incurred in making the improvement is determined.The City then may fix the amount that property owners will be specially assessed for the improvement. That final assessment hearing may be held immediately after the ordering of the project.Property owners who object to the special assessment retain the same rights as they always had and may appeal within thirty days of the levy if they have filed the proper paperwork. The City Council will know prior to awarding the contract whether the assessments have been accepted and if not,what specific amount of the special assessments are in question. 2.The appraiser for the City stated that in order for an appraisal to be valid,appraisers are required to enter the building as a part of the appraisal process,citing Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.The law in Mnmesota on the determination of value for special assessment is the difference between the market value of the property before and the market value of the property after the public improvement project.If you take a step back and think about it,no one would accept an appraisal on property without the appraiser entering the property in order to give an accurate reflection of the value.Without a before and after value of the entire piece of property,the legal standard for the benefit by reason of the special assessment is not met. After review of our understanding of the Council action regarding a cost benefit analysis,the initial consensus amongst the City Staff and attorneys is that the cost is prohibitive to go back and check the 3,500 properties in the city which have assessed. However,it is not an unusual practice to have a review appraisal done of the appraisals that have been received.We are in the process of making arrangements for review appraisal of some of the appraisals done to date in compliance with the City Council's wishes.As soon as we have this information, we will forward it to you. EAGAN CITY COUNCIL GOALS May 25, 1999 Goal Total Points Status 1. Better promotion/communication by City 90 Policy/currently in motion by staff 2. Use of North Park/soccer fields & City 90 In motion/staff level celebrations 3. Special project evaluations 88 Begin re search/staff for examples 4. Ethics Policy 87 Begin research/staff for examples 5. Community entry monuments 77 Needs City Council direction 6. Building community golf course/ 74 Needs City Council direction 3-hole practice/driving range 7. Election signs 73 Review previous report/Planning Comm 8. Consider City-wide strategic planning/ 69 Community partnership/research Burnsville community visioning 9. Building community indoor soccer/ 68 Under review by EAA/District 196 other rec facilities 10. River development/public space for 67 Planning fireworks & community festivals 11. Police call repeat charge 67 Begin research/staff for examples 12. Prepare administrative procedure for 64 Develop ordinance/Planning staff handling lot splits 13. Street beautification for freeways/ 59 County roadways 14. Ag zoning rehabilitation 58 15. Street reconstruction overlay policy 56 Under policy review by City Council 16. Fax and e-mail to City Council 55 17. Establish Youth Council 52 18. Guthrie Theater relocation 44 19. Second teen center relocation 42 20. Election Task Force 40 21. Adopt a park program 38 22. Prepare development plan for 37 Patrick Egan Park 23. Tobacco shops 29 24. Dog run parks 24 25. Propose one or two wading pools 12 @ locations within City *Inactive unless otherwise directed by the City Council Tom Hedges From: Tom Colbert Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 1:58 PM To: Tom Hedges Cc: Russ Matthys Subject: FW: TAB/Met Council Transportation Issues This is quite lengthy but worth reading as it appears that Ted Mondale is trying to remove transportation funding oportunities from the suburban area and concentrate them within the 1-494/1-694 ring which would leave Eagan out in the cold. The Council's meeting with Carolyn Rodrigues on June 1 should be very pointed about the direction of the Met Council under Ted Mondale regarding the suburban, and specifically Eagan's, interests.We hope to be making application for STP Funds for the improvement to Hwy 149 as well as future ring road improvements. It would be nice if our Council would take a very active position in contacting our Met Council representatives as well as our TAB representative to lend them our support. ----Original Message---- From: Vermillion, Lezlie[SMTP:Lezlie.Vermillion@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US] Sent: Tuesday,May 25, 1999 11:08 AM To: 'Tom';'Dennis';'Chuck';Tom';'Lee';'Gary';'Keith';'Bud' Cc: Theisen,Donald;Breimhurst,Lou;Richardson,Brandt;Moratzka,Lynn Subject: TAB/Met Council Transportation Issues The following is some information for you to share with your city administrators regarding the upcoming Federal Highway Funding solicitation through the Met Council. The solicitation was scheduled to be mailed out on May 28, 1999, Mr. Mondale the chair of the Met. Council has directed staff to review this from agenda for action on Thursday, and for information only. The indication is he would like to change the package and emphasize more land use issues for determining the points. For the past year and one half the TAB (Transportation Advisory Board) made up of local elected officials and the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee to the TAB) have been working on revising and putting together the Federal Highway Funding solicitation package. This package has the support of the TAB and TAC. It has many hours of work and negotiation in putting together a package that represents the needs of the entire region. Rural, Suburban and Urban. It includes funding opportunities for highways, transit, bikes and pedestrians. The criteria are based on the Met Council's regional blueprint. Last Thursday, at a TAC subcommittee meeting it was brought to our attention that the solicitation package was being delayed by Mr. Mondale, Chair of the Met Council. We were told that he had been lobbied extensively by the Ramsey County, St. Paul and Citizen Transit Rep. from St. Paul. They did not feel the criteria put enough emphasis on land use or the core cities. Staff explained that the only people Mr. Mondale was hearing from was this group and not from the cities, counties or Mn/DOT who support the process. This process is an accumulation of 9 years of work and trust building at the Met Council to devise a solicitation that the Fed. Highway Administration uses as a model. It appears that Mr. Mondale's goal was to keep the highway funds within 1-494-694 ring. Lynn Moratzka attended an event last Thursday evening with the Chair of the Tab, Don Wiski who also expressed his concern about the process that Mr. Mondale was using. Besides stopping the solicitation he was discussing reorganizing the TAB to emphasize membership that would represent inside the 494-694 ring. The following is a summary of Lynn's conversation with Don. 1 "Don had testified for 2 hours before the Council Thursday evening defending TAB and the process used to develop the criteria for the TEA 21 Solicitation Package. The Council is due to receive the package for approval prior to releasing it to the local units of government. The return date on the package sometime in July. Don indicated to me that Ted Mondale does not want to release the package-he wants to change it to have it reflect more closely the goals of the Metropolitan Council Blueprint- focusing more on the needs of the core-less roads-more transit. One of the St. Paul Citizens representatives-Barb Thommen-and the City of St. Paul representative and Ramsey County-are also really pushing this concept. Don was also told by Ted Mondale that he would like to do away with the TAB all together and have the Council serve in the role of TAB. Don said he didn't believe he could do that but he will do what is necessary to complete is goal." On Friday Lynn, and I worked with Com. Harris, Com. Branning and Com. Turner to set up meetings with our new Met Council members. John Conzemius from Douglas Township and Carolyn Rodriguez from Apple Valley. Lynn, Don Theisen, and I met with Com. Harris and John on Monday morning, going over the Dakota County transportation issues and the importance of the process used at TAB. Emphasizing the importance that the Met Council process continue to have input from all parts of the region. Lynn, Don, and I met with Com. Branning, Com. Turner, Com. Krause and Carolyn on Tuesday morning to review the Dakota County issues. Since these are both new members to the Met Council we felt it was important to communicate our Transportation Plan issues prior to their meeting on Thursday at the Met Council to vote on the solicitation. It now appears that they will not be voting on mailing out the solicitation. Lynn and I talked to Bob Erickson, Lakeville City Manager-The Lakeville Mayor is a TAB member. Mayor Zaun and Bob Erickson are meeting with Mr. Mondale on Tuesday afternoon. We also contacted Brad Larson (Scott Co. Engineer), he was going to work with their TAB members and Met Council Member, Jules Smith. The following are some points of concern Dakota County has with the process that is taking place. ISTEA/TEA 21 Process Started in 1991, eight-year process of building trust Joint development between TAC/TAB, in partnership with local elected officials Existing Solicitation Package Process has been under development for the past year and one-half Many hours of joint staff and elected officials time Negotiations for issues such as livable communities Time to develop a 2003 or 2004 project, need to begin in 2000 Attempts to change the process at the eleventh hour are not respectful of the efforts of many agencies and will not build long term positive relationships. All parts of the region must work together and not focus on just one areas needs. This has been a process with geographic balance. TAB process is designed to meet needs of entire region-follows Blue Print * Categories under STP are designed to reach the needs of all parts of the region. Rural, Suburban and Urban. The projects submitted follow criteria that meet good transportation planning for that part of the region. Expansion projects for example would not score well in the rural area. * * Met Council Solicits Federal Highway Funds for: * STP-Surface Transportation Program * Principal Arterials z • A-minor arterials • Transit Bike/Pedestrian 1 Enhancements CMAQ-Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Programs A couple of questions would be. What is Mondale's vision for the region and why does this package not support that vision. What proposal is he putting forward that will help lead to that? How does changing the regional solicitation get to that vision? This was as brief as I could get the summary. Please contact me at 612-891-7104 or Lynn at 612-891-7033 with any questions you may have. Lezlie 3