CC 11-09-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 9, 1998 16 . Councilmember Larson asked, comparing Alternatives Band D, why there is such a difference in the storm water utilities and assessments. Mr. Post explained that, regarding the assessment, in the current feasibility study the assessment policy states the rate is 70% of the cost of construction, the previous study assumed an assessment rate of 100%. Based on this, Alternative D is in agreement with the assessment policy. Councilmember Larson asked for confirmation that, during the funding analysis, there was an assumption that more money would come out of the Storm Water Utility fund for Alternative D than for B. Mr. Post stated that this is correct. Councilmember Malone stated the absolute dollars should match but they don't. The assessments are down $50,000 and the Storm Water Utility fund is up $100,000. Mr. Brown stated the assessment numbers went down because ofthe 70% rate as opposed to the 100% rate, which meant the assessment contribution went down. Mr. Post pointed out the cost for the storm waler improvemenl stays the same, the assessment contribulion is all that changes. Councilmember Larson stated it is still not clear why there is such a large difference in cost in the storm water utility between Alternatives B and D. Mayor Probst reiterated that he would still prefer Alternative B. He stated the appearance ofthe . roadway will make a difference in terms of how future projects are handled. He feels it is also important to consider water quality and maintenance cost since, with more pavement, there will be an increasing amount of snow needing 10 be removed. He expressed his frustration that the Council has not been presented with comprehensive comparisons to look at side-by-side. Although Alternative B will be more expensive than Alternative D, the Council is not seeing a fair representation. He made a final plea for the Council to consider Alternative B over Alternative D. Mayor Probst suggested, when considering the action to be taken on the back half of the roadway, if the Council chooses an option that does not include a median, it would be difficult to understand why the City should spend the cosl for a median in Phase I, then go to a non-median condition for the remainder of the road. Mr. Brown stated the median is necessary for the approach to the signal. With the extra width for the double left turn lane, it would become a large expanse which would be difficult to navigate, similar to the approach to the Highway 96 and Lexington Avenue intersection. He indicated that, although the median could be stopped at the first access, he would recommend it remain as suggested. Mayor Probst asked, since a sidewalk will be added along the roadway, why would a trail be constructed behind the buildings. Mr. Fritsinger indicated that Ihey serve two different purposes. The trail behind the buildings is more for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, while the sidewalk is for . more for transit movement. Staff did discuss olher options and two issues were considered. One is the elevation change from the Round Lake trail to the businesses. Additional improvements would need to be made between the trail and the businesses in order to get people up 10 the businesses. The second issue is safety. Foot traffic to and from the businesses often occurs during the dark and the lack oflighting fixtures is problematic.