05-29-07 Item 6A, 2007 PMP Assessment Hearing

Home Browse Search

2007 PMP 5/24/2007 Page 4 6) Oral comment: 1537 Briarknoll Drive, Mark Jedlinski Mr. Jedlinksi echoed previous concerns regarding notification. He stated that he owns property in Fridley, which was assessed $1800 last year for a complete street reconstruction project. The sanitary sewer repair is right in front of his house; he commented that the contractors indicated the quality of the original construction seemed substandard. Staff analvsis of notification concerns (3-6): Many of the residents who spoke were concerned about notification. Since the feasibility report was ordered by City Council on October 30, 2006, we have mailed out three notices regarding the project. City staff held a neighborhood meeting on December 12, 2006, which eleven people attended. The notice for this meeting was mailed out on November 29, 2006, to all residents currently listed on the proposed assessment roll. As this was not an official public hearing, an affidavit of mailing was not generated. A public hearing for the project was held on January 29,2007, which was then continued to the February 12, 2007 City Council meeting. The public hearing was posted in the City's legal newspaper on January 24, January 31 and February 7, and individual letters were mailed to the residents on January 12, 2007. The affidavit of mailing is attached. Eight residents spoke on behalf of nine properties within the proposed project. The notice for the assessment hearing was mailed out to residents on April 26, 2007. The affidavit of mailing is attached. Copies of the letters sent to the residents are attached. While the correspondence did not provide specific assessment rates per unit prior to the notice of assessment hearing and amount of assessment, the letters did state that estimated assessment rates were available in the feasibility report and would be discussed at each meeting. The correspondence also directed residents to the feasibility report on the City's website or fDr review at City Hall, or to contact staff with questions. This is consistent with correspondence the City has had on past pavement management projects. In regards to the tone of the correspondence, we use notices and language for public meeting mailings as recommended by the League DfMinnesota Cities Local Improvement Guide. Because of the legal nature of these proceedings, we would be concerned about deviating from what is recommended as standard language. Since the project began, we have mailed out two newsletters, and provide an update on the web site as new information becomes available, or on a bi-weekly basis. Staff recommendation: Based on the comments received, staff is willing to include estimated rates in earlier correspondence on future pavement management projects. However, the City Attorney has expressed some concern in doing this, because the scope ofthe project and