Loading...
05/18/1999 - City Council Special 00155 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA May 18, 1999 A special meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, May 181999 at4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Eagan Municipal Center Building. Present were Mayor A wada and Councilmembers Blomquist, Masin, Carlson, and Bakken. Also present were City Administrator Hedges, City Attorney Sheldon, Director of Public Works Colbert, Senior Planner Ridley, Director of Finance VanOverbeke, Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa and Intern to the City Administrator Rathmann. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION Coucilmember Bakken made a motion for approval of the agenda. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. All CouncUmembers voted in favor of approval of the agenda. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Mayor A wada acknowledged visitors to be heard. There were no visitors present interested in speaking on items not listed on the agenda. CONSIDER NORTBVIEW PARK ROAD EXTENSION & SHARED PARKING/PATRICK EGAN PARK & METHODIST CHURCH Administrator Hedges provided a brief presentation of the Northview Park Road extension and shared parking with Patrick Eagan Park and the Methodist Church. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa provided an short overview of the shared parking for Patrick Egan Park and the Methodist church stating that discussion ofthe project dates back to when the City received a letter from the Methodist church expressing an interest to expand on their property. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa presented maps displaying the difficulties with the intersection, stating there is a safety issue for the traffic traveling northbound on Lexington A venue, that wish to turn into the church. The traffic will cross into the turning lane for southbound traffic creating a dangerous situation. The road has needed realignment since the church was built and since then, the City has acquired the land, and the project becomes more achievable. He presented three alternatives associated with the Methodist Church's request. Option A is to provide driveway access with Lexington Avenue and curb radius for future expansion. Option B is to extend the alignment of the road through the park to the west and allow for connection to the western edge of the church parking. Option C is to develop option A and option B and addition, provide parking for approximately 55 vehicles, all on City property to be shared with the church. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa stated that providing 55 parking stalls is the most economical option since grading would need to be done regardless of the number of parking stalls. He further mentioned that the Methodist Church is offering to contribute $24,000 to the project. Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 Page 2 00156 The Advisory Parks Commission recommend option C to the Council since it is the most logical sequence of development and there would be a reduction of the overall asphalt installed between the park and the church, therefore preserving green space. Councilmember Masin commented on the good design and concept, but questioned why 55 parking spaces is necessary, since it would involve more cement than necessary. Director of Parks and Recreation stated that constructing 55 stalls is more economical since grading will still be necessary if 24 stalls are constructed, the site prep will be more inexpensive and the costs of the project will increase with time. She commented that the park will have a master plan and that maybe the decision regarding the parking of the park needs to be done at that time. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa stated again that it is currently more economical since costs will increase with time and it is a logical extension of development. Councilmember Carlson stated that this location for parking is also the most obvious location for long term parking at the park. Director Parks and Recreation Vraa stated that the problem with the current parking is that it is hidden and this location will give the parking more visibility. She further questioned if a paved path could eventually be constructed to the McCarthy House since currently, it is just a dirt parking lot. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa agreed and stated that if the traffic would increase, this may be an option. Councilmember Blomquist stated that the location is the logical place for parking since the topography is poor surrounding the park and other locations would be difficult, and the parking is on a major collector road, Lexington Avenue. Elsonheimer, a neighbor to the project was present and stated that the parking behind the church is an ideal location which is what would take place if the City's options don't develop further. He further stated that the parking must accommodate both facilities at any given time. Director of Parks and Recreation stated that the park would make of point of not scheduling major events on Wednesday evenings or Sundays. Advisory Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Joe Bari stated that the Commission considered that the Park and the parking lot is quite far away, but if they waited until the Park is fully developed, the construction costs may be an additional 15-20% rather than construction of the parking lot today. In addition, the church has agreed to share the parking stalls when the church is not being used. Councilmember Bakken moved to recommend option C. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Carlson. All members voted in favor of option C. DISCUSSION RE: STREET RECONSTRUCTION & OVERLAY POLICY Administrator Hedges introduced Larry Danich, an appraiser Metzen's Appraisals, and City Attorney Jim Sheldon. In addition, he provided an overview of the street reconstruction and overlay policy. He further stated that there is a lot of information and history on the topic and invited the Council to request any additional information that is not included in the packet. Councilmember Masin stated that the appraisal process is critical to this discussion and stated she is interested in hearing a detailed explanation of the appraisal process. Larry Danich Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 Page 3 00157 stated that his office is responsible for providing preliminary reports on the field conditions that affect home valuations. When there is an assessable project, their office gets a feasibility report from the City's Engineering Department, which details the cost and extent of the project. Councilmember Masin questioned why a report from the Engineering Department is necessary. Mr. Danich stated that the feasibility report explains the types of improvements and includes the cost of the project. Councilmember Masin questioned if this process maybe bias since the cost of the project is listed on the report. Mr. Danich stated that he gathers information and then makes a recommendation using all gathered information from the City and the County. As a consultant, he only provides his opinion based on gathered information. Councilmember Masin questioned if Mr. Danich appraises homes in similar developments or only in the development of the home being appraised. Mr. Danich responded that he does an analysis within the community first and then may need to look beyond the community for additional information. Councilmember Masin asked if Mr. Danich checks with the sale of homes before and after improvements and ifit coincides with the figures after the improvements. Mr. Danich stated that they do not go back after the improvement is made, rather they just indicate the market value increase that can be expected. COUncilmember Blomquist questioned why information is gathered from the County to determine the assessed valuation. Mr. Danich stated that the County is contacted to review the certificate of real estate values and the certificates will show what was paid for the property and how it was paid. Contact may also be made with the developer. Councilmember Blomquist stated that the County doesn't increase the value of the house per appraisal. Mr. Danich stated that the County is required to use a mass appraisal system that is different than what it used by the private sector. Councilmember Blomquist stated that she has seen two different appraisals done by Mr. Danich's firm. In one example, a house sold for more after a road was improved and she stated she would be interested in seeing a before and after analysis of that project. She questioned how to separate the fact that the same house sold for more if it had improvements, and what actually contributed to the increase. Mr. Danich stated the analysis is based on the individual sales, the assessments assumed, and the curb appeal of the streets. Councilmember Blomquist stated that the data on improvements is not listed in the appraisal and there is very little detail included in the report. Mr. Danich stated that all homes are analyzed and a fully comparative analysis is completed. Councilmember Masin questioned why appraisers need to go into the house to determine if the house is worth more because of a new road. Mr. Danich stated that they are required to enter the home to make the report legitimate. The requirements come from the governing body and the appraisers are following the laws and guidelines. Councilmember Masin stated that when a home is purchased it is expected that the road will be in good condition and there is no subtraction for a poor road. Mr. Danich stated the report shows the sale price and the buyer assumes the assessments. Mayor Awada stated that the house is devalued if the road is poor. Councilmember Carlson stated that a bad road decreases the value and road maintenance will only add value. Councilmember Blomquist requested a copy of the street reconstruction and overlay policy. She gave a brief summary of the finance committee report stating that the committee has no thought regarding other ways to fmance street reconstruction and overlays. The fmance committee discussed where money could be put into the budget for only road maintenance, redo's 00158 Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 18,1999 Page 4 and overlays. Administrator Hedges commented on an additional $800,000 additional levy and stated that the market value will increase each year as street rehab changes are made each year. Mayor Awada stated that $800,000 is only the average over the next five years. Councilmember Blomquist stated that the City generates revenue in which, some neighborhoods are charged more than others. If a particular neighborhood is not receiving the maintenance that it should, the neighborhood will be eventually charged more for reconstruction. Councilmember Blomquist commented that the current process is unfair. Mayor Awada questioned Director of Public Works Colbert for clarification asking if the city has ever provided zero maintenance for a neighborhood. Director of Public Works Colbert stated that the City has not done that in the past and explained that the seal-coat program was set for certain intervals and it is not automatic. If the neighborhood falls within the range of maintenance, then the City will proceed with the program. If the streets in a neighborhood need more rehabilitation other than just a seal-coat, the neighborhood will be eliminated from the maintenance program and put in the reconstruction program. Every three years the streets are evaluated, unless it is included in the 5- Year CIP program then, the streets will be done each year. Councilmember Blomquist stated that if that situation arises, it costs the homeowners more. Councilmember Masin questioned why the City doesn't research the records to determine if there is an increase in the property after the improvements. Mr. Danich stated that the appraisals are not that specific. Councilmember Masin stated that there is no evaluation and isn't sure if appraisals are valid or accurate since there is no consistency or validity in any type of evaluations. Administrator Hedges stated that there is the public hearing process that is used as a mechanism for evaluation of the project. In addition, Director of Public Works Colbert's ten year statistics will show the parcels assessed and the formal objections that the City has received, but there is no evaluation program at this time. Councilmember Blomquist faxed a memo to Director of Public Works Colbert inquiring about several questions regarding the assessment policy. Director of Public Works Colbert distributed a packet of information regarding the requests of Councilmember Blomquist. The packet includes the history of public improvements and special assessments for street rehabilitation since 1988 (based on the final assessment hearing date). Councilmember Blomquist stated that she would like time to review the information and then evaluate the policy and look for areas of necessary improvements. Councilmember Masin suggested that an appraiser or consultant be hired to evaluate the City's policy and process, including an evaluation with all major projects and determine a flat rate for all projects. Mayor A wada suggested reviewing the memo that she submitted to staff from herself. The memo listed five options to better frame the discussion on the street assessment policy. Councilmember Bakken stated that it doesn't make sense to change the rules at the end of the cycle. He stated that he would prefer to wait to change the specifics of the policy for the next development stage. He further stated that he prefers option A, leave the current process and policy intact. Councilmember Masin stated that the Council is aware of the problems with the policy and she prefers option D, make both minor policy and process changes, because the problem needs to be solved. Councilmember Blomquist stated that she would prefer option D, make both minor policy and process changes, removing the word "minor" from the statement until the Council gets a chance to analyze what the policy entails. Then a policy may need to be rewritten based on the findings. Councilmember Carlson stated that more research is needed, and then further discussion may begin. Since there is only one more reconstruction project and the City is at the last step of the cycle it is too late to make any changes, although she agreed that an Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 Page 5 00159 analysis of the policy may need to be done after this cycle. To change the policy now would be unfair and inconsistent. She suggested redefining multi-residential streets and better educate the citizens as to what they are paying for, such as an informal display case at City Hall. Councilmember Carlson suggested option C, leave the current policy intact, making minor process changes such as those six items listed below. Mayor A wada also suggested option C and stated that the Council has already agreed to minor process changes. She stated that she has read the policy and it has addressed many of the neighborhoods and the City is nearing the end of the development stage and stated that the controversy is in the reconstruction projects, not overlay projects. Director of Public Works Colbert stated that the maintenance program begins before reconstruction. Mayor A wada stated that there is one more reconstruction, and there will be overlays continuing in the next coming years. She commented that no one likes assessments including the Council, however, she believes the policy is fair and there is only one reconstruction remaining and any further analysis would be a waste of staff time. Councilmember Masin stated that it is not too late to change, it is irresponsible to not evaluate the process, because people are upset. Councilmember Blomquist stated that she would like to see the Council come to a consensus since the entire Council agrees the process needs to be changed: Councilmember Bakken stated that he has seen the policy and is interested in doing back-up checks, however that process can be problematic since it can only happen after a transaction and it is also very expensive. He further stated that there must be better education by the individual Council members, not at Council meetings. Changes in assessment costs are . political, but that does not necessarily mean the policy is unfair. Councilmember Carlson stated that she would like to see changes and better education for residents. She further stated that legislation on how a city can operate may be invalid by the time it is actually implemented and she isn't interested in spending Council workshops on this subject. Councilmember Masin made a motion that staff check with an appraiser or consultant to review the City policy and do a cost/benefit analysis and validate the report. She further stated that she will not vote for any assessable public improvements until more information is received. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Blomquist. Councilmember Carlson stated that nothing can be determined until there is a transaction. Councilmember Masin stated that the appraisals can be reviewed. Mr. Danich stated hat someone could be hired to review the appraisals as a second opinion. All Councilmembers voted infavor. Mayor A wada stated that there may need to be minor process changes. Councilmember Bakken stated that he would like to direct staff to bring the subject back to a special meeting to make a decision about the minor process changes. Councilmember Blomquist stated that there needs to be more detail in the process changes. Mayor A wada made a motion to bring back the six process issues that the Council agreed are concerns to a Council workshop and there will be no further discussion on any issues other than the following and the policy will remain as is. The agreed upon items include: 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, 4) information/education display case illustrating the history and status of street rehabilitation should be placed in City Hall for use by the public, 5) consider an evaluation process for public 00160 Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 Page 6 improvement projects that provide some backup as to how the City is doing with its major street rehabilitation and 6) review the process within the assessment policy manual for assessing private driveways within a multiple residential neighborhood. Councilmember Bakken seconded the motion. Councilmember Blomquist agreed with the six issues, however disagreed that the Council will not bring back other matters since there has been no timeline established in which the policy will be changed and could happen at any time with any set of circumstances, therefore, will not support the motion. Mayor A wada commented that the Council has not said that the policy will change. Councilmember Carlson stated that when the development cycle is completed, there may be discussion, however not until the cycle has been completed. Councilmember Masin stated the cost of the project does not make a difference to what the assessed value is. The motion passed on a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Masin and Blomquist opposmg. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 6: 15 p.m. May 18, 1999 Date