HomeMy WebLinkAbout77-051
77-$7
.
.
.
Ihctract of Min~t:." of Mee'btns
of City council
City of kdlltn Bills
Ramsey COunty, Mim\8sota
September 19, 1977
I
Pursuant to due call and notice 'tlheS'eof, a special meeting
of the CUI:y council of the city of kden Billa. Minnesota, was
held in the City Ball in said City on Monday. the 19th day of
September, 1917, at 7.30 o'clocK p.m.
The follOllfing me!lIbeJrs ~. present: Mayor Crepeau and
Councilmen Woodburn, Crichton and Hanson.
and the following were '8beent:: Councilman Wingert
Also present were: Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator
Don Lamb, City Treasurer, Don Christoffersen. City Consulting
Engineer, and Peter S. Popovich, City Bond Consultant.
The City Clerk AdIIII.~8tnt:or presented an aftidavU showing
. publication of notice of hearing on proposed lmpI'oVement I/Q.
P-77-4 in accordance with the resolution adopt:e<t August 29,
1977. which affidavit was examiDedend found to be satbfactory
and was directed to be filed by the Clerk Adlld.nistrator. The
City Clerk Administrator also exhibited a Certificate of Mailing
Notice of Hearing to all affeA:ted property OWDl!l&'S, which certifi-
. cate was examined and found to be satisfactory and was directed
to be filed by the Clerk Administrator.
,
All plIW80fts present were then afforded opportunity to be
heard. and tln n....s and addresses ..f the persons appearing and
heard by 'the council, and the substance of the views presented
. by them were as follows:
.
Mayor Crepeau asked the consulting engineer to explain
the scope of the project and its alternates.
I
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The proposed Harriet Avenue
Improvement is located between Snelling Avenue and Lexingtoft
Avenue. south of County Road E. and it extends southerly
approximately 1200 feet to the existing Harriet Avenue
which is shown on this drawing at this point. Existing
Harriet Avenue ends in a cul-de-sac. The proposed Harriet
Avenue extension will be a northerly extension from this
road to County Road E.
The improvement consists of concrete curb and gutter.
bituminous surfacing. roadway excavation. and a pedestrian
underpass. and drainage required to drain the site. The
drainage is shown on a smaller map in this area. approximately
a half of the length of the road. and it' s primarily installed
to drain the road. We find the project to be feasible.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: Storm drainage running which
direction?
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: SOutherly_ It picks up the
roadway drainage and carries it southerly.
.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: Discharges out in the open?
MR. CHRIS'l'OFFERSEN: Right.
MAYOR CREPEAU: OUr fiscal consultant. Mr. Peter Popovich.
will give us the costs and the financing_
.
MR. POPOVICH: As you know. in a feasibility report the
engineers have given several alternatives for purposes of the
hearing tonight. We published a cost that was the highest of
all alternatives. which was $122.616. The alternatives
relate to a 36 foot roadway or a 44 foot roadway. and under
I
.
.
each whether there should be an aggregate or bituminous base.
Depending on which way you go, those costs range from
$109,983 on a 36 foot aggregate base to $112,550 on a 36
foot bituminous base. Xf it goes to 44 feet, it's $122,616
for the aggregate base, and $121,263 for the bituminous base.
I
Included in those costs are certain contingencies and
extra costs that are explained in the report which are in
line with current standards in approaching it. The one thing
that is left out is the acquisition of right-of-way so far
as the cost, but there is a 15% overall extra cost plus a
10% contingency so within those figures the costs of the
right-of-way, depending on what it would be and what you do
with the underpass, it will come out approximately at the
figures that we end up with. On the other hand, even if
you included all of these things and added the right-of-way.
we can still exceed this cost by 25% without starting over
again, but X wish to point it out so that you know of the
contingencies.
.
There are certain aspects to be considered in view of
what we did on County Road F. Number one, what should be
the assessment charge? Should it be 100% or something less.
If the cost is based on 100%, and we want to give the worst
figure, if it's a 36 foot eggregage roadway it would be
$49.99 a foot. If it's a bituminous 36 foot roadway, it's
$51.16 a foot. If it's a 44 foot roadway with aggregate
base it's $55.73 a foot, and if it's bituminous it would
be $55.12 a foot. If the council" and that depends on
how the hearing goes - would reduce that to 80/20, those
costs would be reduced accordingly, but for purposes of the
feasibility hearing we have been assuming 100% costs.
.
The second aspect to consider would be the length of
the assessment. As you know, we had quite a discussion on
County Road F - 10, 15 or 20 years, and perhaps we should hear
from the people who petitioned as to what period of time
they prefer. Xf you follow what you did on county Road P,
I
.
I
it would be a 15 year assessment with one-fifteenth of the
principal each year and interest as we have been charging,
at 8%. If it went 20 years, it would be that much more
(inaudible). If it goes to 10 years, it would be one-tenth
of the principal and interest on a 10 year basis, and the
length of time is normally one that should be dependent upon
- will the improvement outlast the collection of assessments,
because obviously you don't want to have an improvement in
where the improvement begins to disintegrate before you
have collected the assessments. We should hear again from
the petitioners probably on that point, but as you know,
normally on street improvement prog'rams they're 10 years,
unless it's an extraordinary street. I have seen them 15
years as here. Seldom have we gone to 20, and never in
this city. Some of the other cities may, but that's rare,
and I think that's something' that we should hear from the
petitioners which goes to the feasibility of the program.
Whether you cut it to 10 years at 100% assessments or
whether 20 years at 100%. So far as the feasibility is
concerned, those costs remain the same except the interest
goes on, and that can be taken care of by the petitioners
any time by prepaying in any year during the course of the
assessment.
.
.
I assume that no assessments could be spread this year
because the improvement isn't done. The projeet would be
completed next year. We would have an assessment hearing
in the fall, and first installments collected in 1979
because they would be spread in 1978, with the right of
prepayment guring that 30 day period.
.
Whether we have to issue bonds to do this - at this
particular point of time, in view of our current bond issue
that's underway on October 11, we're assuming there's enough
flexibility that the matter could be taken care of internally
next year from the proceeds of other funds, or tlhether we
issue temporary or long' term bonds would depend on the
market, but from a bond issuance point of view, obviously
I
.
.
,
.
.
I
.
you can sell the bonds. If you can get away without selling
bonds - it's only $122.000 - unless we do it in connection
with other improvements. it would be preferred to handle it
internally if we could. so the long term financing is not
the immediate concern of the council tonight except you have
the flexibility of going next year. whichever way you do go.
If there az:e any questions. I will be happy to try to
answer them.
MAYOR CREPEAU: The next thing we should have is questions
from the floor. Statements pro or con. Does anyone care to
make a statement? Anyone present?
MR. ROGER BAUCK. 4152 North Victoria: I represent
Mutual Service Insurance COmpanies. Flaherty's Arden BOwl
and us joined in a petition for the street. I did not talk
about the length of the street. I guess the only comment I
would like to make - Mr. Popovich mentioned the possibility
of a bond issue. We would be willing to cash our part out
to eliminate that bond issue.
MR. POPOVICH: That would be fine, because during that
30 day period. once we have the assessment hearing. if they
prepaid. and knowing in advance that they would probably
do that. that's a matter for us to consider whether we do go
into financing next year.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: It's my understanding that the
term of the assessment would not be determined actually until
we have the assessment hearing.
MR. POPOVICH: That' s correct. But the only reason I
bring it up tonight is in the event somebody thought it might
affect the feasibility as to, the yearly cost being so high.
This is particularly true when you have a lot of people
inVOlved. but so the record is clear, it's on the record.
We do not have to make that decision until the assessment
hearing.
.
,
.
.
,
.
MAYOR CREPEAU; Any other questions or statements?
COtlNCILMAN HANSON: It was my ~derstanding the last
time we discussed this, it so~ded like the Co~cil had
decided not to have the pedestrian ~derpass provided for
this, and it was included in the feasibility study.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I think what was determined at that
time was that it would be placed in there as an option so we
could see what the prices were one way or another, so you did
the right thing in preparing what your estimate was. I agree
that night there were some eomments from the Co~cil that
perhaps it wasn't a good idea, and as a result of that, your
Honor, I asked the Public Safety Committee what their comments
were on that and they concurred that they would discourage the
building of any underpasses except where absolutely necessary.
It might create more difficulties than it would solve. I
took that information to the Parks and Recreation Committee
and indicated to them I would withdraw my support of the
pedestrian ~derpass at the CO~cil meeting unless they had
some heavy feeling for it. They aqreed they were not overly
anxious to have it. It would be nice but (inaudible) I
would withdraw the request. SO far as I'm concerned. we
can take the underpass out at this time.
MAYOR CREPEAU: Any other comments?
COtlNCILMAN WOODBURN: I think there may be something to be
said by Mr. Hauck or Mr. Christoffersen about the land. Are
you prepared to say anything for the record or not?
MR. ROGER HAUCK: Mr. Christoffersen ard I talked about
this and there is a question as to whether the city should
buy the land or we deed it to the city, and I guess the easiest
thing to do in the interest of saving time is to deed the land
to the village, and we're willing to do that.
,.
.
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: 'l'here is one thing that when :t
talked to you last week, :t was under the impression we may
have to go through another hearing if it were to be purchased,
and that is not the case. :tt was advertised at that time so
:t did want you to be aware of that situation.
I
COtlNC:tLMAN WOODBURN: Regardless of whether the land is
donated, likely the assessments have to be equal. Mr.
popovich can collUllent on this.
.
MR. POPOVICH: %t's difficult because the assessment
should be according to benefits, and theoretically the benefits
are equal on both sides of the street to the benefitted property.
We have had (inaudible) where if the Council makes a fact
finding that one parcel got more benefit than another. you
give them a reduced assessment. That's not the case here so
that the matter of being able to reduce the front footage
would be decreased accordingly. :t might say to Mr. Hauck,
:t ran into the same situation in my village, and we donated
the land and arrived at a price, and Internal Revenue gave
us an income tax deduction for a charitable contribution.
My neighbor and :t were audited and the amount was sustained
by the :tnternal Revenue auditors. If you were to acquire
it by condemnation. what have you, or even if you agreed on
a price, then obviously that's a cost that would be part of
the improvement and would have to be included in and it would
be added to both parties so at least you know you'd be picking
up half anyhow and you m~9ht come out all right on the contri-
bution part so I suggest you look at that.
COUNC:tLMAN WOODBURN: Another point is that the insurance
cOJl\pany, and :t believe Flaherty's, have asked for a 44 foot
wide road. (:tnaudible) conceivable. :t suppose, to put a 44
foot road into Mutual Services.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I would like to look at the alterna-
tives. I believe it would be to some benefit to indicate a
narrow street at the southerly end. BOw that would be achieved
at this time I really haven't gotten into the design criteria.
One thought I had was to come around the curve at the south
end and then show a narrow road and then widen to a 44 foot
street, perhaps even keeping the west side of the road as a
narrow portion, or the 18 foot from the centerline until you
reach the driveway of Mutual Services, and then from that
point making it wider, but keeping' the east half the 22 foot
width type of roadway all the way through. There is certainly
potential fOr more traffic from the property on the east side
than that on the west side. The west side - we know where
the control will be. The east side we c;lo not at this time.
MAYOR CREPEAU: Mr. Christoffersen. the Mutual Insurance
Service Company drive that you have on the map on the wall,
is that 250 feet south or is that 400?
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That unfortunately scales about 200
to 300 feet. The drawing' up on the board there is 450 feet.
We have received a copy of a letter from Mutual Insurance
Company. We agree the statement in the report of 250 feet
was incorrect. It should have been 450 feet. Our main map -
that's not - this is a schematic drawing'. That main map is
drawn at 450 which is correct.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: At this point in time there's
nothing' sacred about where that driveway will be. I realize
Mutual Services plans placing' it about 450 feet. but it hasn't
been settled. That's one of the reasons why I questioned
narrowing at the south end and then widening it because we
don't know what will happen on the east side of the street or.
theoretically. where their drive is going to come.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I'm not certain what their plans
are. Have you definitely located that driveway?
MR. ROGER HAUCK: . No, we haven't. We'll be bringing
that before the Planning Commission the first week of
October.
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I know the initial plans - I believe
I scaled off 450 feet.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I think there's some general desire
on the part of us that it be fairly far north which would
reduce the (inaudible) of people going out (inaudible).
MR. ROGER HAUCK: In answer to Mr. Crichton's question,
and bringing it farther to the north, I think that suggestion
came from the Village Council and we're working on it. It's
very possible that we will wind it through from the north a
little closer to County Road E. I think one of the concerns
we have, as I pointed out in my letter, is keeping good
faith with the residents of Hunter's Park. Primarily it's
a real concern to us and I'm afraid that if we went two.lane
or three, more of our people would be forced to (inaUdible)
that area for exit - not entrance, but exit.
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: One thing in mind about locating
and crowding it to the north too much is the fact that we
would like to have some area or build-up for your traffic at
the time of departure.
COUNCILMAN CRICB'l'ON: I don't kpow where the magic point
is. One other point I wanted to make sure of, again referring
to the letter from Mutual Service. Their petition did ask,
of course, or expect that the cost would be offset by Minnesota
State Aid funds, and I assume that it will be. Again, that
will be settled at the assessment hearing. But I did want to
mention that the amount of Minnesota State Aid funds that we
have for the roads that are earmarked is not enough to pay
for them, so we will not necessarily be using the full amount
even if we have that left, but from my standpoint, I am sure
some of it will be.
.
,
.
.
,
.
COUNCILMAN HANSON: On that same subject, I wonder if
I'm misunderstanding, or the petitioners were, that regardless
of whether State Aid funds are used, I don't think that would
affect the assessment against the property.
COUNCIIWIN CRICB'l'ON: It would appear, Mr. Hanson, as I
understand it, because the Council will presumably decide it
will assess 90% or 80% or 50% to the benefitting holders,
presumably the existence of State Aid funds to the Council
might make it possible for us to state 80% or 65% instead of
90%. If we only assess 80% we know the other 20% (inaudible).
MAYOR CREPEAU: Any.other questions, statements or comments?
The Council then could adopt a resolution approving the project
and ordering the engineer to prepare the plans and specifications
and close the hearing and delay the decision to a later meeting.
What is the pleasure of the COuncil?
COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: I'd like to ask Mr. Christoffersen
if he wants to study this IIIOre in relation to narrowing it
or widening it because I think that's a 900d idea. I think
we must have IIIOre width of roadway on the north, if not on
the south.
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The cost of the overall improvement
will cover any cost from 90ing 36 to 44 feet, and the cost will
be in between 36 Doot width and 44 fOot, so as far as costwise,
I would think it would be better determined as the plans and
specifications are drawn up. And you have a chance to review
the plans and specs befOre you order the advertisement fOr bids,
and I think that would be the appropriate time to make a final
determination.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: It appears that the difference
between the two widths for the entire length is about $10,000
so if, in fact, we're going to widen it half way - something
like half way - then the difference is like $5,000. perhaps
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
the action the council might want to consider tonight is to
approve the project 44 foot roadway narrowing to 36 as it
approaches the turn of existing Harriet, leaving the exact
point (inaudible). That's one possible way the Council may
approach this. As a non engineer, I need to ask the engineer
the relative merits of aggregate base versus bituminous base.
MR. CHRIS'l'OFFERSEN: In some cases the aggregate base -
this particular case I would prefer utilizing the bituminous
base because it's an industrial street. You can drive on it
(inaudible) while they're paving and also during (inaudible)
the weather conditions. A bituminous surfacing is more
driveable than an aggregate surfacing. Contractors have
problems with this at times, particularly when you have
,
potential traffic coming through, and in this case it would
be construction traffic and it tends to contaminate the base
and foul up the sub base materials. so the bituminous base
is a better base to use on this road.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: What did we use on county Road F?
MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: We used some aggregate and some
bituminous because we had a final wear course, but the final
wear course was installed this year. The rest was installed
last year and I think this brings a better product in the end.
It allows some time for settlement to occur, if there is any,
and in Arden Hills you can always expect some.
Councilman Crichton then introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
Resolution No. 77-51
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
IMPROVEMENT NO. P-77-4 UNDER AND
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA S'rATUTES, CHAPTER 429
B;E IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Arden Hills,
Minnesota, that in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes 1961, Chapter 429, as amended, the COuncil held a
..
,
,
public hearing pursuant to published notice. on the proposed
construction of Improvement No. P-77-4. consisting of the
construction of bituminous surfacing of a 44 foot roadway,
concrete curb and gutter. necessary drainage. right-of-way
acquisition. and necessary appurtenances generally in the
area bounded by Lexington Avenue on the east. Snelling Avenue
on the West. county Road E on the north. and 1400 feet south
of County Road E on the south as described in the notice of
hearing at a cost presently estimated to be approximately
$103.262. and substantially in accordance with the preliminary
engineer's report as to the feasibility thereof which is now
on file in the office of the City Clerk Administrator, and
having considered the views of all interested persons and
being fully advised in the premises. the Council does hereby
determine and order that said improvement shall be constructed
and financed. and special assessments shall be levied therefor.
pursuant to said Chapter 429. and that the area proposed to be
assessed therefOr shall include the property as described in
the notice of hearing, and that Short. Elliott. Hendrickson
& Associates are hereby directed to prepare and submit to the
Council final plans and specifications for the construction
of said imp:rovement.
.
.
The motion for the adoption of the fOregoing resolution
was duly seconded by Councilman Hanson and upon roll call
vote being taken thereon. the following voted in favor
thereof: All,
and the following voted against: None,
wharQupon said resolu~ion was declared duly passed and adopted.
.
,~
@wa.:!l/{)d
.
A