Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 07-28-1980 . \ Minutes of Regular Council Meeling Village of Arden Hills Moaday, July 28, 1980 - 7::0 p.m. Village Hall Call to Order Pursuant to-due call and netice thereof, Mayor Crepeau called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Pre:;ent - Mayor H.nry J. Crepeau, Jr., Councilmen Robert WOodburn, Charlie Crichton, Ward Hanson, James Wingert . Absent - None Also Present - Attorney James Lynden, Engineer Donald Christoffersen, Treasur.r Donald Lamb, Fiscal Consultant Peter Popo- vich, Pirks Director John Buckley, Clerk Administrator Charlotte McNiesh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm Approval of Minutes Wingert moved, seconded by C-ichtan, that the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting af July.14, 1980 be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Business from the Floor None REPORT OF VILLAGE PARK,) DIRECTOR JOHN BUCKLEY Park Planning Consultant Buckley reported that the Perks Committee discussed pros and cons of employment of a Parks Planning Consult.ant; determined that a concept plan can be developed by the cooperative efforts of the Parks Committee and Director, but feeltl that detailed engineering plans should be done by a professional for three reasons: 1. Guarantees that the facilitiea desired can be accommodated in the park. 2. Plan can be uciliz.d for development over a series of years (not necessary to develop entire perk at one time). 3. Plan can be uBed f~r preparation of plans and specificationf' . Buckley reported that the C~m:!lli.ae.e recommendE the hiring of Orlyn Miller (Wehrman-Chapman & Assoc.) to prepare the plan for Hazelnut Park at $2,600 to $3,000 co~t. Hanson moved, seconded by Crichton, that Council authorize the hiring of Wehrmsn-Chapman & A~soc. to prepare detailed plan and engineering drawings, including gr~dinl, for Hazelnut Park at a maximum cost of $2,700; plans to be cotlpletc!d in tit:le to complete the grading this fall season. . In discussion, Wingert asked if there is B "special problem" at Hazel- nut Park; is not aware that the City parks are not prope;cly soLted or graded at present; queried tbu aeed for tbe expenditure at this partic- ular park. Motion carried (Hanson, Cricbton, Woodburn votiug in favor of the motion; ~l1nge.rt, CrepeE.a v,":ing in "ppo:sition). (It was Council's undezst&nding that the Planner costs viII be included as part of the Hazelnut Park improvement, paid from Park Fund No. BDl.) REPORT 0' VILLAGE ATTOFNEY JAMES LYNDEN Easement - Shorewoed Drive Council Vas referred to Lyndea'. letter of 7/28/80 and attachud letter of 11/7/'18. ~ Minutes of Regular CouDcil Me~ting -2- July 28, 1980 After review of hie findings and after examination of the Certificate of Title to the Presbyterian Homes, Lynden r~commended that the City obtain a new road easement from the Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota: noted that the intent of a 66 foot wide roadway easement, connecting Shorewood Drive and County Road D, is indicated, and was granted but not re corded. In discussion, Council asked if the sasement extends behind the houses on the west side of Shorewood Dr~ve as shown on the plat map. Lynden explained that there ia no recorded easement; said he was not aware that this was part of Council's concern. . After discussion, Crichton moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Council authorize Attorney Lynden'to implement a new roadway essement fr~_->"-c. ~ian Hom~s, on behalf of the City, for Shorewood Drive.~~ Clerk Adm~qUested to advise affected Shorewood Drive residents of the apparent non-existence of a recorded road easement behind their properties. Case No. 80-18, Special Use Permit for Two-Family Residence - 1895 West County Road D Lynden referred Counci~ to draft of special Use Permit - Case No. 80-18, a certified copy of whtch ha recommended to be recorded., Woodburn moved, seconded by Crichton, that Council approve the Special Use Permit - Case No. BO-18, and authorized the recording of same. Kotion carried unanimously. - Agreement - Bethel College Trail In discuBsion, Council noted that the Bethel College trails,as delineated on the map submitted are existing: noted that additional traiis are anticipated to be constructed in the south area of the campus. Council advised Lynden that the City desires public use of the traila as they exist and that Bethel uaintsin the rtrails. Council concurred that a survey of the trails ,woul~ be expeosive and not warranted since they could change aa the campus develops. Council authorizea Lynaen ~o proceed with preparation of the Agreement on this basis. It was noted that .this Agreement would satisfy park dedic.tLon requirements. Public Hearing - Proposed County Road E Improvement No. 80-1 The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. and the Clerk Administrator verified that Notice of.Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin and mailed to affected property owners on July 10, 1980. (Seeat~ached Minutes of Hearing). The Public Hearing was closed at 9:49 p.m. Hanson moved, seconded by Wingert, that Council adopt Resolution No. 80-38, Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans for the Interim Design with Underground Utilities for Couoty Road E Improvement No. 80-1. Motion carri.ed ,(Hanson, Wingert, Crepeau voting in favor of the motion: Crichton. Woodburn voting in opposition). ... (Estimated cost of project is $538,500.00; 1981 construction). (Planner to be requested to investigate possible avenues of revenue from grants, etc. to fund the project and report to Council). Land O'Lakes Park Dedicatio~ After a brief discussion, H,ln:ool1 and Christoffersen agreed to negotiate the park dedication with La~d O'Lakes and report to Council. Request to Vacate Pede~trian Way- Karth Lake Estates - Marcel Eibensteiner Council was referred to lette~ from Eibensteiner and plat of Karth Lake Estates. -2-. Minutes of Regular CouDcll Meeting -]- July 28, ).980 Eibensteiner explained that Lots 12 and 24 have been impossible to sell with the pedestrian way easement through the lots; asked that this easement be vacated; noted that the residents of Karth Lake Circle are not interested in the easement, and do not use it. Eibensteiner was asked if he had an alternate location for the easement, if this one were vacated. . Eibensteiner explained that originally the residents of Nursery Hill Lane were opposed to the pedestrian easement on the sewer/water ease- ment (from Karth Lake Circle to Nursery Hill Lane), which runs between Lots 12 and 13, across the south of Lo t 12 and acros s the wes t edge of Lot 24, because of a atan~ of pine trees in this area. Eibensteiner reported that these trees were removed when the sewer and water lines were installed; suggested this would consequently be a better pedestrian psthway at this point than as platted. Hanson reported that Parks Director Buckley feels that the walkway is essential and that alternatives should be sought if this easement is vacated. After discussion, it was the concensus of the Council that a walkway easement is needed; appropriate location would be between Lots 11 and 12 (1280 and 1281 Karth Lake Circle), over the sewer and water easement and extending to Nursery Hill Lane over the sewer and water easement along the west side of Lot 24. Council action was deferred pending an amended plat detailing the ease- ment to be dedicated to the City. REPORT OF VILLAGE PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR HANS JOHANSEN Approval of WorkinR Foreman Woodburn moved, seconded by Crichton, that Council approve the appoint- ment of Mike McKinney as working foreman as per Johansen's memo of 7/28/80, effective 7/29/80. Motion carried unanimously. Request for Temporary Full-Time Public Works Maintenance Employee to Check Lift Stations Johansen repowtad'the need for an additional person on the rotation liat to check lift stations; recommended Todd Langenbach as a full- time employee until regular employees return to full-time work. After discussion, Crichton ~oved, seconded by Wingert, that Council approve the ~Alary for temporary full-time employment at $6.59/hr (70% of basic contract rate of $9.42/hr.), effective when he performs standby duties. Motion carri~d unanimously. REPORT OF YILLAGE TREASURER DONALD LAMB Investments $100,000.00 at Minnesot.a Federal @ 8.65% interest for 6 months. $300,000.00 at American National Bank @ 8.50% interest for 6 months, maturing 1/19/81. 4It Crichton moved, seconded by Wingert, that Council ratify the report of the Treasurer. Motion carried unanimously. (Mayor Crepeau left the meeting at 10:50 p.m.) Final Landscspe Inspection Reports Council was ~eferred to reports of Landscape Inspector Kruckenberg. A. Arden Manor Crichton moved, secouded by Hanson, that Council accept the lar,dsca?ing and ',authorize relesse of the $5,000 Letter of Credit. Motion carried unanimously. -3- Hinutes of Regular Cou..H.:l.l Heeting -{,- Jllly 28, 1980 B. Mlltllal Servic~ Insurance Company ~ingert moved to accept the landscaping and authorize release of the maintenance bond for the main MSI bllilding; seconded by Crichton. Motion carried unanimollsly. C. lloseville State Bank Wingert moved, secon'ded by Hanson, that COllncil accept the landscaping and allthorize release of the maintenance Letter of Credit. Motion carried Ilnsnimously. . OTHER BUSINESS Hunters Park Apartments - Landscape Performance Bond and Utility Rate Council was referred to letter from Bailey Enterprises, Inc. (7/24/80) and to letter from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (7/30/80). A. Landscape Bon~ After discussion, Wingert moved, seconded by Crichton, that Council waive the performance bond requirement for the Hunters Park apartments, contingent upon receipt of copy of bond furnished to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency assuring plantings in place as per approved plan prior to occupancy. Motion carried unan- imously. B. Utility Rate After discussion of current utility rates charged by the City and memo from McNiesh, Hanson moved, seconded by CriChton, that Council adopt Resolution No. 80-39, Establisning that rates for 3 or more housing units, which are controlled by a common meter and connected to municipal water be considered the same as commercial for billing purposes for mlln1cipal wate~ and aewer and that Council deny the requested rate change to 60C/l,OOO gallons. Motion carried unanimously. Public Safety Committee Recommendation re Additional Civil Defense Sirens Council was referred to Minutes of the Public Safety Committee meeting of 7/21/80 re Civil Defense Sirens. Woodburn noted that the Committee recommends that $20,000 be incorporated in 1981 budget for a~ditional Civil Defense sirens. Council concurred that the placement and types of sirens needs more study, concurred to budget for one additional siren at $10,000. In order to determine if sirens are heard by Village residenta, Clerk Administrator was requested to ask residents, when they call the office on various matters, if they hear a siren and to nete the approximate location of the residence on a map of those who do hear a siren. . REPORT OF VILLAGE CLER~ ADMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE McNIESH August Council Meetinl\:!. Wingert moved, seconded by Crichton, that August Fegular Council Meetings be scheduled on August 11th and 25th and a Special Council Meeting be held on August 18th at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 80-37, Approving Proposed Special Assessment Rolls and Scheduling Public Hearing for August 18, 1980, 7:30 p.m. for Improvements Nos. 78-3, 78-4, 78-6 and 79-1 Wingert moved, seconded by Ranson, that Council adopt Resolution No. 80-37. Motion carried unanimously. -4- . Minutes of Regular Cou~cil Meeting -.5- July 28, 1980 Health Insurance Coverage for ~ Council was referred to memo from McNiesh (7/24/80). Wingert moved, seconded by Hanson, that Council authorize coverage of part-time CSO employee Robert Perry by the City group policy, with the City paying 1/2 the premium, as outlined in McNiesh's memo. Motion carried unanimously. Rate Change - Ace Solid Waste - Wingert mov~d,.seconded by Crichton, that Council accept the rates of Ace Solid Waste. Motion carried unanimously. . Claims and Payroll Hanson moved, seconded by and Payroll as submitted. Crichton, that Council approve the claims Motion carried unanimously. Schedule Public Hearings for Caae Nos. 80-30, 80-26 and 80-28 before the Planning Commission Wingert moved. seconded by Hanson, that Council schedule the following Public Hearings before the Planning Commission on Wednesday, August 6th at 8:00 p.m. at the Village Ball: 1. Case No. 80-30, Preliminary Plat of Giere Addition 2. Case No. 80-26, Special Use Permit for Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks - Columbia Transit, 1901 West County Road F 3. Case No. 80-28, Special Use Permit for Boarding Bouses~ Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Janet Estates - Loren Kjirstan and Paul Larsen. Motion carried unanimously. Park Dedication - Elk Construction Hanson reported that tha warehouse under construction by Elk Construction involves 4.3 acres after dedication of .82 acres to Ramsey County (original acreage was 5.12 acres). After discussion re estimated value of land at time of application, Council concurred that psrk dedication be negotiatad at 10% of value at estimated $40,OOO/acre. Adjournment Crichton moved, seconded by Wingert, that the meeting adjourn at 11:58 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ~!JJJf~ Charlotte McNiesh Clerk Administrator . Notice of Meetings Regular Council Meeting - August 11th at 7:30 p.m., Village Hall Special Council Meeting - August 18th at 7:30 p.m., Village Hall Regular Council Meeting - August 25th at 7:30 p.m., Village Hall . . .f'/R"i'~) iZC! X/~{",C(/ ;<, ..---- . " Extract of Minutes of Meeting of city Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota July 28, 1980 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, July 28, 1980 at 8:00 o'clock p. m. The following members were present: Mayor Crepeau and Councilmen Woodburn, ,Crichton, Wingert and Hanson; and the following were absent: None Also present were Mrs. Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Mr, Donald Christoffersen of Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc., city consulting engineers; and Mr. Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City bond consultants. MAYOR CREPEAU: It being 8:00 o'clock, we will open the public hearing for proposed Improvement of county Road E from Lexington to Highway 51. Does the Clerk Administrator have the affidavits of publication? MRS. MC NIESH: Yes, I have the affidavit stating that the Notice of Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on July 10 and July 17, and I have the Certificate of Mailing indicating that the Notices were mailed to affected property owners - that is, who would be affected by the assessment - mailed on July 16. MAYOR CREPEAU: Thank you. At this time I'd like to ask our village engineer, Mr. Christoffersen, to briefly explain the improvements involved. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I'd like to defer part of the explana- tion to a traffic engineer from my firm, Mr. Glen VanWormer. He will discuss the aspects of the road itself and the traffic related thereto, and after he has completed I will discuss the burying of the underground utilities and miscellaneous details. MR. VAN WORMER: What I'd like to do this evening is present a report to you that we were authorized to do six months ago. In preparing the report we did meet with the county Road E Task Force on a number of occasions and tried to work with them to understand their concerns and make sure their viewpoints were represented in our report. . . , . I 2 I'd like to present the report - assuming you have had time to refer to it and review it, rather than go through it in detail - to concentrate on those areas of concern - traffic and roadway treatment and costs which are also a concern. At the end we'd be happy to answer any questions. We looked primarily at the ,roadway at County Road E from Trunk Highway 51 interchange to Lexington and found it's working well. There have not been a large number of accidents. Twenty-eight accidents in 1979 which may seem like a high number, but in proportion to the volume, it's low. Sixteen occurred at the west end near Highway 51 interchange, seven at Lexington, which means only five accidents in between which means the road is operating well now. In getting this information from the county, we also talked to the people in Traffic Operations and they have received few complaints about the operation of the roadway; We also obtained some volume information and found out the present traffic volume in April of 1980 is 14,000 vehicles per day, almost three times'the volume of 1962 so it carries a high volume, and looking at the delays and general operations (inaudible) of the accidents, it operates well so our task is not to solve an operating problem, but to make sure we don't make one. We looked at some off ramp of Highway 51 pinetree Drive carries direction, or close to cross streets and found the northbound carries 3000 vehicles a day and 1700 vehicles a day in the northbound (inaudible) cars a day total. We read some of the reports and found out some of the Committee's concerns, and they are basically speed, pedestrians, vehicles (inaudible), aesthetics and expansion of the roadway, and signs and poles, etc. The speed limit is set by the Transportation Department. The city has no control over speed. All we can do is ask the county to ask the state to revaluate the speed limits. We have found the speed is close to posted speed limits and they will probably not lower it. If they did, it probably wouldn't make a great deal of change. The drivers are going to drive what they feel is reasonable for them and the heck with the signs, so we almost entirely neglected speeds because it's something we probably can't control. We looked at the vehicle problems at crossings and noted that other than noon hour at McDonalds and the time when Mutual Service lets out there's not much delay on approaches to the roadway. The volume on pinetree Drive (inaudible) program of staggering working hours which allows the traffic to be spread out which has a (inaudible) on the roadway. 50 we can handle quite a volume of traffic without incurring more than a short delay. The lines are increasing and there's quite a bi~ of land available near MSI in the present driving range and (inaudible) then we're going to have some problems of getting . . 3 vehicles out. We checked with the Transportation Depar~ent. They have made some counts at the intersection of (inaudible) of Highway 51 and they say the traffic signals are justified and last year they said they were going to program for 1980 or 1981 and they don't have them proposed this year. With their financial situation they may put them in next year, but we should continue to put pressure on them because they say they're justified and if they say 1981, maybe. they'll build by 1982 and in 1983 we will have the equipment. When we look at Pinetree Drive and the land available for development, today perhaps traffic signals are not needed, but they will be needed in the future. We look at the volume on County Road E of 14,000, look at the available land and feel that 18,000 to 20,000 vehicles a day are possible by 2000 or earlier depending on when the open spaces are filled in. You get 18,000 or 20,000 cars a day here and you get perhaps twice the 1700 a pproachingPine Tree - we will have a definite need for (inaudible). We're looking at (inaudible) signal at County Road E and Highway 51 east ramp and a potential signal at Pine Tree Drive. There are not a lot .of pedestrians because of no facilities. We know a lot of the pedestrian activity is oriented noon hours toward McDonald's or perhaps across Pinetree Drive toward anyone of the businesses along here from the MSI location (inaudible) the pedestrians, if you could concentrate them, would be at the east ramp of Highway 51, at pinetree Drive, somewhere in the vicinity of the Arden Plaza and in conjunction with Ramsey County's bike trail and the people coming from the industrial park to the north. The other concern that the merchants and business people expressed was aesthetics. If you look down County Road E you look at 72 feet of bituminous pavement and that is not aesthetic to anyone. It's hard to say that's beautiful, yet if we look at how much it's needed, there isn't much we can take back. If you're carrying 14,000 and possible 18,000 to 20,000 vehicles a day you have to have two lanes in each direction or you will create a lot of congestion. If you look at the roadways carrying 12,000 a day now you can see the problem. We also can document many cases where left turn lanes have created a much safer environment for motorists, especially where there are a lot of cross streets. It takes the left turn vehicle out of the traffic and puts him in a stop position and allows him to decellerate outside of the through traffic so he's not creating a problem. He, in turn, if he slows down, creates a weaving problem. You can see that on some of the four-lane streets in St. Paul where they don't quite have enough room tobIild up turn lanes and have a lot of lane changing which breeds accidents, so in looking at the roadway, we need the two lanes in each direction plus a left turn. Is there a way we can reduce the two left turn lanes to only one. Right 4 .. now there's 24 feet in the center devoted to left turn lanes and if you look at the dirt patterns it's not quite clean - there's some room there. (inaudible) concept known as two way left turn. It operates very well. That would allow us to reduce the roadway width from 72 to 64 feet or 62 feet - a savings of ten feet. We'd have 14 feet in the middle for left turns. Now that we reduced it, we can pull ,in five feet on either side or ten feet on one side (inaudible) room for a bicycle trail, but with 18,000 vehicles a day, do we want a bicycle trail. (inaudible) We thought we could pull the curbs in five feet on each side or ten on one, but the cost of doing that is very high. The cost benefits aren't there. We felt that was one alternative and we took that to the Task Force and they agreed that the returns are very poor for the costs. We had a second concept in which we placed a number of median islands along the roadway and we feel median islands have a number of advantages and disadvantages and we tried to present both and come up with a concept of what would work. (inaudible) if you have a very wide roadway you have an opportunity for pedestrians to cross half a road at one time. They don't have to watch both directions and make a dash - you have a raised refuge area in the middle where you have some physical protection. You can do it on County Road E by running out in the left turn lane and hoping that no left turn person doesn't see you so you can make somewhat the same maneuver (inaudible) you can use a median island concept to tell drivers where they might be expecting a left turn to come from the opposite direction. Presently almost any place where there's somebody in that left turn (inaudible) you can regulate the number of left turns so you have them at specified locations where you want them. In other words, try to, instead of having a quarter or half a mile of continuous left turns, spot them along the roadway. As far as access to the highway you can regulate where the crossing can be made which is important where you have a number of driveways adjacent to one another or crossing one another and this will provide a safer environment on the roadway because you only have to look for three motorists. In certain, locations you also have to look to the north-northwest and north-northeast to see if anybody is coming out the driveways on the other side. A median island has been found to provide the best control because it's physical. Any other plans are still subject to where is the driveway going to come in on the roadway itself. . Lastly, an advantage is that you take that 72 feet of pavement and reduce it by placing something visual, vertical in the middle of the roadway even though not much more than a raised island with some (inaudible) or something like that which is kind of a bituminous product that has an appearance of grass. You . . 5 also put something out there (inaudible)as long as it wasn't a hazard where some driver could run into it. I made a suggestion which was laughed at that maybe we could buy some of the plastic trees and bushes I see in service stations and they have a much higher rate of survival but a horticulturist frowns on that. Just as there are a number of advantages, there are disadvantages to a median. It restricts access. If there were no properties developed out here, the best plan would be to put a median in and say you go around it. Here you're trying to develop a median around a lot of existing businesses which creates a problem so (inaudible) restricting in where they can get access on to the road. If we put in the median it would force a number of changes and I will plan to explain some, but it would force perhaps two adjacent property owners to share a driveway which creates a problem of cost and easements and how do you design it to fit two people's needs and intents. We're not saying the greatest thing that ever came down from the mountain is'the guy who designed medians. We came up with a concept design which we call ultimate in the report. Basically it provides a series of medians and left turn lanes from Connelly Avenue to Lexington. Some things we have included which aren't related to the median. As you go west approaching Highway 51 you note that the curb comes out and we lose the one lane on the right side. We think we can extend that right lane down to Connelly Avenue and sign it as a right turn only lane. If you can envision two cars going down the roadway, somebody ahead puts on his blinkers because he's going to merge, and then turns right, and that creates confusion and we know if we sign.it saying right turn, some clown will not see the sign and try to go through the intersection in the right land (inaudible) which again is not a major expense and wouldn't create a hazard, but is something that hasn't been proven. We would build a raised island so the west bound left turns would come down (inaudible) pull into the left hand turn lanes ,and loop to Highway 51. We show a pointed island on the west side to channelize the (inaudible) to try to provide traffic turning right an opportunity to do so at the stop sign or right turn on the red light. . We can provide a right turn lane into McDonald's but are hesitant to provide a median at this location and again, are concerned about the guy that might be coming down and try to sneak by on the right lane, forcing somebody in the left lane into the island. The painted island should work with the potential for a traffic (inaudible) That's the simple one. Now it gets harder. At Connelly, the driveways don't line up. The east (inaudible) of Standard is not across from Connelly, and the entrance to the Steak Inn is to the east, so you have a driveway and a street and driveway. We tried to merge the Standard and Steak Inn to a 6 . single entrance to line up with Corrnelly Avenue and provide left turns at each. The existing entrance to the service station could be left open or closed, depending on how it's developed. The west entrance from St. Paul Book would be provided with amedian opening and an east bound left turn lane. It could or could not have access into the service station, depending on how it's developed ,and how the two owners feel. We don't think it's essential that you have access to the two. (inaudible) this person to develop with access to Connelly and a right in and right out driveway which presently exists. Pinetree Drive is probably going to have a signal in the future and there should be some type of island (inaudible). We did run into a problem on our original concept to try to take care of Carroll Furniture. We later met with Mr. Engelbert and Mr. Carroll and came up with a concept which all three of us think will work, and that is to have the entrance from Carroll's, instead of coming in on his property, come in on an easement across St. Paul Book and across from pinetree Drive. We would modify this island to provide an east bound turn lane so the traffic from Carroll's could come into the left turn lane (inaudible) had a problem with Northwestern National Bank because they are heavily landscaped and they are oriented from their bank tellers out to the roadway. We don't want to send the Arden Hills customers to Shoreview (inaudible) recognizing it's a one way driveway, the bank customers are generally repetitive customers so we wouldn't have much of a problem of wrong way movements allowing them to make a turn to the west. . We had a problem in trying to take care of the west entrance to McGuire's and east to Carroll's which has the access to serve the businesses behind them and we were able to line these up slightly different from what is shown on this driveway so there could be west bound turn lanes into McGuire's or Carroll's or the businesses behind. It does provide a major opening for access to Flaherty's Golf and whatever is built in that area. The final major access point would be the existing Arden Plaza driveway. It would require us to move McGuire's driveway slightly to the west. The existing island the county has built to provide for left turns to Lexington would be modified so it would provide for left turns into Arden Plaza and a mirror image which would allow left turns into McGuire's. It does require Sitzmark to develop (inaudible) to the Plaza entrance. It's possible to build in such a way so it will be far enough back so there's not a couple of cars stacked blocking Sitzmark entrance. We tried to resolve a lot of problems, but we recognized there are disadvantages to two medians. The disadvantages are cost, problems of Mr. Carroll and Mr. Engelbert getting the legal documents and easements, and the design of how you resolve Standard oil and Steak Inn Inn entrance where there are some grade problems. We think the design and grade problems can be solved, but it also is a matter of are the people willing to 7 ~ . work cooperatively on each of these problems where it does require each property owner to somehow get involved in a change of his access. We have met with some of the individual businessmen such as Mr. Carroll and Mr. Engelbert and the man at the back and tried to resolve some of their individual problems. We haven't met with them all, and we haven't a total success at selling medians. We're trying to come up with the best concept. With that in mind our recommendation is similar to what we (inaudible) that you look seriously at same concept plan that involves medians to assure that we have a means for regulating opening and left turn lanes. That (inaudible) help Mr. Decoster and Mr. (inaudible) because they will know where they have to go to get their access. We also know it's hard to say we're going to change the medians after you have lived with this for a long time and you have to work it out between you. The Task Force said, why don't you come back with three islands. We agree the one at Highway 51 is essential and we should have it in because of the signal and pedestrians. Modification at Lexington is desirable because it allows us to get the first entrance away from the main intersection and provides a good means of sheltering this left turn lane. We have also prepared a concept drawing for a third median which the Task Force asked us to put in which provides for a median on the west side of pinetree and you can have it either as a solid median or to develop a left turn lane in the west bound direction to either the existing entrance or the one recently closed or (inaudible) St. Paul Book. We feel pinetree Drive signalized is necessary. . We have one further concern and that is if pinetree is signalized or if development increases here, the left turns going .down there will stack up and anybody going east that wants to go to Carroll's will have to wait for a good samaritan to swing through so this driveway concept is not something that is wishful thinking, but perhaps the only way to solve the problem for Mr. Carroll so we recommend we consider this as a concept design and a (inaudible) tool for the future. (inaudible) island for Pinetree Drive. The problems are we have to (inaudible) the county and they may have something about left turn lanes and a median and two left turns and a median. I don't know that it won't work but I might have a tough time selling it to the county. We tried to develop concepts and tried to be reasonable on costs and tried to work with the business people and Task Force and we have come to this point. Similarly when we worked on utilities, on street lighting, and so forth, and rather than my trying to go into that, Don has done most of that. If you have questions on this I would be glad to come back. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Glen has covered practically everything, 8 . I think, except a few of the minor items, but a major item such as burying major utilities. There is a major power line along County Road E along the south side and the north side. Northern States Power has given an estimated price on lowering that which we will cover later. For street lighting that is indicated in the report and is summarized on your page 27 - there were three different concepts considered.- ultimate design and interim design. There are two concepts on the interim, and both based on the recommendation of the Task Force. Obviously the roadway is one of (inaudible) consideration. Concrete sidewalks proposal in all cases in the interim and ultimate is a six foot wide sidewalk. They're shown in blue on the drawings. The intent (inaudible) sidewalks were somewhat placed on the recommendation of your planner. There are six foot along the green area, and areas where it's difficult to place a sidewalk such as the service station when it's developed, the sidewalk could be developed where they could use the bituminous surfacing - and St. Paul Book and then Carroll's it's impractical and you can use the drive- way, and also in front of McGuire's. On the south side it's similar - placing sidewalk in the green areas and using the existing bituminous surfacing. sidewalk along this area across from St. Paul Book to pinetree Drive, sidewalk in front of the bank and (inaudible) assuming that Flaherty's Golf will sometime in the future be developed, maybe a sidewalk placed there or utilize existing surfacing, and in front of Sitzmark use existing surfacing and an additional sidewalk out to Lexington Avenue. In the case of placing the sidewalk, additional right-of-way will be needed. Right now there's approximately seven feet from the curb line to the right-of-way line and it's desirable to have the sidewalk removed from the curb line, so approximately ten feet on each side of the street would be required for pedestrian traffic. . Underground telephone is very minimal. Just a few places they'd have to bury. The street lighting concept is to place street lights on either wood or metal poles, concrete poles, 35 feet in height. The concept we were using was a rectangular box type that would provide one foot candle over the surface of the street. This is according to the Illumination Society (inaudible). The placement of the street lights would be 100 feet apart, staggered, however, starting from Lexington there'd be a light at the intersection and 100 feet across the street another street light so on each side of the street the lights would be spaced 200 feet apart. The street lighting plan that's proposed is the ultimate design. However, if underground utilities were not installed, the Task Force recommended a walkway lighting (inaudible) 9 . We have only shown a cost of landscaping in the median islands in this area. We didn't show a cost even though we show them on the picture and we didn't figure the cost in the interim designs. We find that either of the concepts is a feasible undertaking. MAYOR CREPEAU: I'd like tQ, at this time, ask our fiscal consultant, Mr. Popovich, to briefly explain the finances. MR. POPOVICH: The published notice of the project was rounded off to the total cost of $630,000. The reason we had to have that..figure is to have the highest figure that you could possibly go based on the engineer's estimates. On page 27 of your report the mat ter is broken down into the Ultimate Design and the two aspects of an Interim Design. The cost of the ultimate design was $601,400. That's the figure we added 5% to, not knowing about the cost of issuance of bonds or easement costs, if any. The interim design with the under- ground utilities comes to $538,500 without the excess that we added on the first amount, and with overhead utilities it's down to $274,400. You can see the various items that were left out on each one of these matters, so the purpose of the hearing tonight - being a feasibility hearing - is to determine the feasibility of which approach and also discuss as part of the feasibility, some methods of financing. While it's not required to commit yourselves tonight to the method of financing, I notice the Task Force recommended 50% of the cost be assessed and 50% be borne by general taxes. If, for example, the entire improvement was put in, which would be the ultimate design of $630,000, that would run approximately $150 a foot. If you use the interim it's approximately $135 a foot, and if you use the one with overhead utilities that's down to approximately $70 a foot. Those are approximate figures because, as the Council knows, these are based on engineering estimates and you don't know until you have your bids in hand and can compute the actual costs. . While we should discuss the financing, obviously the assess- ment hearing will come at a later point in time, at least a year from now assuming you can complete the whole project this year, and then next year the assessment hearing would be held before the middle of next September. Depending on how the Council is then organized and intervening facts, that Council determines the percentage to be assessed - whether 50% or 75%. The law requires that you assess a minimum of 20% and you can't assess more than the cost of the improvement so it's 100% of whatever the cost of the improvement is. The law also permits you to incur costs up to 25% more than what you estimated. We have run into that where it's estimated at $100,000 and you end up at $125,000. That doesn't vitiate the fact that you're that much over. We won't know until next year if we're at the $630,000 or $650,000 or $595,000, 10 ., assuming the complete ultimate design. On the other hand, in order to avoid lawsuits, I have always recommended to the Council that they somewhat decide in conjunction with the input from the people, and that's why you have the feasibility hearing so people can give you their input as to how much should be assessed and how much spread on general taxes, but that's not binding on you. It's up to the,Council's discretion at a later date to make that decision. In addition to the percentage - whether 100% or something less - you also have to determine over what period of time you want to assess. For example, under our law, you can go from one year to 30 years. It might not be feasible to have a one year assessment because the financial burden might be too great. On the other hand, if you go out the full 30 years you're paying a lot of extra money for interest, plus the fact that sometimes the assessments are going beyond the time of the improvement itself. We used to have a rule of thumb that streets should be assessed a 10 year period, sanitary sewer and water about 20 years, and long term buildings like a village hall 30 years so you get a blend with all of the various taxing districts if they use that kind of formula of having kind of even (inaudible) well, the schools don't have any problem at this time so we don't have any tax levies for that. I would not recommend the Council go 30 years. Our recommendation, if you decided to go, would be not more than 20 years, but you should consider in today's market and what is happening to interest rates that as you start running on beyond 15 years the interest rates are up to 7% and, we don't have any way of knowing what the interest rates will be a year from now. . You know the last session of the legislature amended the bond code to permit you to issue bonds up to December 31 of 1982 to a maximum of 12% and after that at 9% with the idea they'll look at it in intervening legislative sessions. It also provided in the same tax bill that when you determine what the assessments would be that you also, at the assessment hearing, determine the interest rate and the law gives you ,the right to have whatever the average interest rate is on your bonds plus 1% - the greater of that - the interest rate or the basic law. That's the Local Improvement Code which is Chapter 429 which says the Council may charge interest up to 8%. On the other hand, if the bond rate came through where you issued 8% bonds, you could have an assessment rate on the unpaid assessments at 9%. On the other hand, if our bonds came through at 5%, obviously you could then add 1% and have 6% on the carrying charge of the assessments or use Chapter 429 and go back to 8%. On recent bond issues, because of the nature of the market, we had generally been in this area at the 8% rate. The reason is that you should always have something between your bond interest rate to cover the administrative costs each year that get picked up and that's the reason you always have the over-ride on special assessments. That's 11 ., normally been computed at 1% and that's the reason the legislature allowed that 1% this last session. I think the public tonight should not only address the Council on how they feel it should go because these figures are given to you at 100% and if this were to go at 100% over 20 years, assuming an 8% charge; obviously they can relate it back to their property so if they had 200 feet, $150 times 200 hundred would produce the total assessment. If you divide by 20 years you know what the principal would be and add 8% to the full amount with a declining balance and they know what the assessments would be. If you shorten to 15 years or 10, and you would not recommend going under 10, but many of the communities now in the last four or five (inaudible) have been going not to exceed 15 years. We have recommended not going more than 20 if that will make it more palatable if you go up to the 100%. The Council can get some input from the public, but you don't bind the public. The future Council will make the decision, but I have found from experience that there's been some consensus the future Councils will go along with that unless some real intervening fact presents itself a year from now. A year ago when interest rates were low a lot of the communities had feasibility hearings saying since the law didn't permit you to go over 7% on interest rate money, that it would cost so much and anticipate so much on our bonds, add another 1% and we'd go ahead and issue bonds. They would order the improvement and selling the bonds and everything was so much higher that's a big intervening factor that the Council has to take into . consideration in firming up the final figures as such so the percentage of assessments, the length of the assessment, of course are two mat ters that we should get some in put from the public on as such. . . Now, the Council may inquire, on what basis do we determine what that split might be. Normally you move toward 100% of the immediate abutting properties more than other people in the general area. But if you feel there's a general benefit to the people in the area you take that into account. In spite of what I said, when we have our assessment hearing next year, and you know the people have the right to come up and they have a right to appeal to the District Court, the Council can never assess, even 100% for the full cost, more than the benefits to the property owner. And the benefits have been construed as the increase in the market value of that property. If it's $100,000 today and you give them $100,000 assessment next year, is the property worth $200;000, and that's what we determine at the time of the assessment hearing. If it isn't worth $200,000 because the benefit hasn't gone up that much, then obviously there's a chance for somebody to appeal to the Court. If an appeal were taken - and you decided tonight to have 100% assessments and nothing on general taxes - then an appeal were taken and they could show the property wasn't benefited that much, you would 12 .. have to have a supplemental hearing, depending what the Court ordered, giving the assessment (inaudible) what the benefit was based on and the rest would go on general taxes unless you got grants in aid or used revenue sharing or got something from the county. Any of those extras could be used (inaudible) but absent that, it would automatically fall on general taxes. For example, if you decided to go 50/50 and the total cost is $630,000 it would mean the $315,000 would have to be spread on the tax rolls, and if it's spread over a 20 year period, roughly that's $15,000 a year together with a calculation as to the 8% or so carrying charge because the city can't charge itself that kind of money because it's on general taxes, but in determining the amount to be levied we have to take into consideration the unpaid assessments and the general tax levy and we would have to increase that so we'd get our 8% out of that as well so the final computations made after we know what the to tal assess- ments will raise - after we've had the assessment hearing. I don't know if that's anticipated some of the questions that may corne from the audience, but I know what the Task Force recommendation is, but it's a judgment of the council what it should be and that's a judgment of the Council at the time of the assessment hearing and not tonight, but if you have some feelings we should get some input from the people.. The pur- pose of the feasibility hearing is not just the driveways and entryways, but is the method of payment (inaudible) as well. MAYOR CREPEAU: Are there any written communications? MRS. MCNIESH: I have no written communications. ~~YOR CREPEAU: At this time I would like to open the meeting for questions and comments and anyone that,has a question or comment I'd like to have them come to the microphone because this meeting is reported on tape and stenotype and it's a public hearing, so anyone that has a comment or question give your name and address. . MARGE ERICKSON PETERSON, Co-Chairman of the Task Force: The Task Force, for those who served on it, it doesn't seem like 21 months ago but it was. At the time we started we concerned ourselves with developing an atmosphere that would do three things. First to retain the businesses that are already established and, second, to increase the safety and the pleasure of shopping and doing business in Arden Hills, and third, to attract new compatible business in the remaining spaces along County Road E to be developed. We held a lot of meetings and met with the City planner and worked with him and the engineers and representatives and, as has been stated, our number one problem was speed. We met with county people and have not given up on that and we think it's a major issue, but we knew it was a difficult mat ter to get the speed limit reduced so we proceeded on the philosophy 13 .. that a change in the design of the road could reduce the limit and we do come with recommendations from our commit me for your consideration. You have received a memorandum from the Committee but the Committee recommends to the Council that you approve the County Road E downtown concepts in your Packet No. 3/4 and 4/4 which have been referred to as interim design. We feel very strongly that the ultimate design - while it may work - would, in fact, be detrimental to the businesses in Arden Hills, and we feel these businesses must be retained. Our second recommendation is that the elements of lighting, underground utilities, walkways, traffic channelization and landscaping in our report of December 21, 1979 should be approved in total and if any single element would be considered to be left out of that package, we recommend no action be taken at this time. Our third recommendation to the Council is that the City participate to a minimum degree of 50% in the cost of this improvement. It's our only downtown area in Arden Hills and we feel this responsibility of the city to participate to some extent. . These are the recommendations we present you and everyone who has been a part of this. recommendations will be accepted and acted on Thank you. to you We do by the and we thank hope the City. MAYOR CREPEAU: Anyone else? DIANE MC ALLISTER, 1200 Ingerson Road: What did Northern States Power say it would cost? MAYOR CREPEAU: $358,000. MRS. MC ALLISTER: Did I understand you - if my taxes go up $300 over the next 10 or 15 years and I feel this improvement doesn't improve my house $300 worth, I can take them to Court? . MR. POPOVICH: Any aggrieved taxpayer who is assessed has a right to appeal. Those that are assessed have the right to challenge. When it's spread over the City there is no way. That's Council discretion. MAYOR CREPEAU: That's general taxes. Anyone else a comment or question of any type? 14 .. MRS. KRISTINE POELZER, 1870 Indian Place: I'm a member of the Finance Committee and I chatted brei fly last night with Dean Crockman who is a member and unable to attend this evening. He asked me to bring up two concerns of ours. One is that tonight we'd like to have some feed back from the officials who worked with the Task Force and also the Council in general as to the way in which this would be financed. I think at least this is what Mr. Popovich was indicating, is that we'd like to have some kind of idea, if that's possible, even though we're aware that the Council could not be held accountable for the next year. The other thing we'd like to discuss is - we have reviewed the report of June 2, 1980 and on page 20 it indicates that the extension of the pedestrian walkways across property such as Flaherty's Golf Range and the Texaco station (inaudible) In looking (inaudible) County Road E, we were wondering if we could be given a date or some insight as to when the old Texaco Station in particular will be (inaudible). We'd also like to know if there's some possibility of further consideration for bike paths. This is my personal point of view as a resident of Arden Hills. We bike quite frequently from where we live at Lake Johanna beach to McDonald's to have breakfast and it's horrible to cross the (inaudible) to McDonald's and for some reason this has caught my eye and I'm looking forward to having some kind of traffic signal there so we could easily cross the left hand turn into McDonald's. I'm concerned about a bike path along County Road E and (inaudible) at Lexington there would be (inaudible) continuing it but a left hand turn lane would be helpful for the bikes too that are going to the YMCA and I'm (inaudible) the bridge - it's very narrow and I don't know what can be done but I feel that because the bridge is narrow and because the east side of Lexington is not necessarily beneficial for a bike path that shouldn't eliminate doing something about a bike path on County Road E.Maybe with the sidewalk area there could be something there dividing that area for bikes. I have some concern also about channeling walkways through a parking lot with cars backing out and what not, and people walking by there. If there's room for a sidewalk I would prefer a sidewalk rather than having people going through a parking lot. If someone can give us some insight as to the redevelopment of the Texaco station that would be helpful. . MAYOR CREPEAU: Anyone else have a question? 11R. ROD SCHUMACHER, 3140 NO. Hamline: I'm a little concerned about the tone of this meeting. It doesn't seem whether the public approves or not, but how far do we go and how do we finance. I personally have never heard that we needed a downtown area and I'm not sure we need one now. In fact, the location is quite removed from the center of the village. The first gentleman, I thought, did an excellent job about the condition of that road, which is a beautiful road. Now we want to destroy the whole thing, yet he's telling us there's no real traffic problem .. . 15 there at all, and it seems to me down the road we could eliminate another lot of cost by putting in some signals, possibly an island at both ends, and I think we could stop there because we're talking about a lot of cost, especially the burying of utilities, and I'm not sure the general public would really approve it. , MAYOR CREPEAU: Anyone else? MR. DECOSTER, St. Paul: I have a little lot down there as you come to the access of Steak Inn next to the Standard Oil station, and this question is self serving. I wonder if there had been any consideration made to the feasibility that refers only to a front foot assessment, and it would appear that some of us who have 200 foot deep or (inaudible) or whatever, like Mr. Carroll and the ski house and (inaudible) and maybe Standard Oil, maybe they have a little less to gain than a gentleman like Clayt Rein and Mutual Service, and should there not be, or could there be a question raised as to the assessments based on an area charge and a front footage charge to affect what might be greater improvements to the larger size developments? As an example, if you were to take the $358,000 underground electric, assuming we have 107 feet that would be about $10,000 and there would be considerable question in my mind whether the value of that lot would be increased anywhere near that. It would be almost $90 a front foot and you can get some awfully good brand new roads in for $60 a front foot commercial. Thank you. MR. POPOVICH: The question was raised whether the City could consider an area assessment in addition to justa front foot assessment, and the answer is yes. The purpose of the feasibility hearing is to give you an approach. It's most commonly utilized that it's front footage on streets. The Supreme Court, a week or so ago, had the occasion to review that in a case that came down, and sustained using front foot as a method or criteria if in the end result the property ends up being benefited to the extent of the assessment. That's always the caveat. If you notice, the legal notice that was published had an area description so that technically if that was the inclination you could have an assessment if you felt there were benefits, by area, by front footage, greater front footage immediately abutting, lesser as you go back. Those of you who have read the papers know the assessment considerations in downtown St. Paul have a (inaudible) on that new tower. The problem as you get on back, there's always a question - are they benefited at all, and that's why normally if it's 100% assessment you might go that route, but if you decide to put some on general taxes those people who are away are picked up on general taxes and you don't have a declining assessment where you spread it on general taxes and assessments, but if it's 100% assessed (inaudible). We describe an area based on what the engineers recommend and we can't now increase that area, but you can decrease, but that's up to .the Council at the time of the assessment hearing to take some of those matt ers into consideration. 16 . MAYOR CREPEAU: Anyone else have a question or comment? Anyone from the Council have a question or comment on any subject? COUNCILMAN HANSON: I have some information that hasn't been discussed that I'd like to add. In discussing these matters with our engineer, Don Christoffersen, he informs me that County Road E is a county State Aid Road and as such, we could expect to get some help from the state on the variety of improvements on that road, mainly they would (inaudible) to pay partially the cost of traffic signals and any street. lighting at intersections, sidewalks that were added for safety, and cost of relocating driveways, the cost of building the medians, and any acquisition of right-of-way cost. Looking at the Interim Design that the committee recommended, the three items that are appropriate within that grouping would be the roadway expense of $28,500, the sidewalk of $31,900, and the street lighting of $110,000 which adds up to $170,400. 1& The other information I would like to add is that con- sidering all of those things are necessary from a safety standpoint, that we could utilize our Municipal State Aid account of Arden Hills if the county didn't see fit to participate and at the present time our account with the state includes an amount of $223,000, rough figures, which is available at this time. I don't know how much greater it might be next year by the time the project would be paid for, but it would be considerably higher. We have some plans to use that money, but we're getting to the point in that relationship where we're going to lose some (inaudible) if we don't proceed to (inaudible) so I think it looks practical to use part or all of that aid money for those three items which would be roughly one-third of the total cost, and then if we followed the recommendation of the committee .to share the balance, it would end up about $184,000 that we would be paying out of the general taxes and if we got it down to that (inaudible) I'd certainly recommend 15 years rather than 20. MAYOR CREPE1'.U: Thank you. Anyone else? COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I had a couple of questions. One of them is to Mr. Van Wormer. In the (inaudible) of disCUssion of the potential new road into (inaudible) out of Mr. Carroll's, through the St. Paul Book (inaudible) I think that both Mr. Carroll and Mr. Engelbert indicated a general agreement. MR. VAN WORMER: I said as a concept (inaudible) agreement. COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: The other question - I didn't quite . 1& 17 understand - perhaps the engineer or commitee can tell me - I gathered that if this total package were to include the underground utilities which the committee feels are essential, it's okay to have walkway lights, but if we have overhead lights which they don't want, then they want the walkway lights. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I believe that recommendation came prior to them having full knowledge of the cost. I included that - the walkway lights - I was surprised when I figured it out myself. I included that to show what the cost would be if they did not have the street lights per se, and just used walkway lights every hundred feet. COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: In any of these plans you will have street lighting. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The Interim Design, assuming that you do not bury the overhead utilities, with that plan the Task Force indicated they would like to have just walkway lights and I believe their intent was to keep all of the high type pOles off of the street and just use walkway lights and no street lights. . COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: Walkway lights alone are $210,000 and street lights are $110,000. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Because there are more walkway lights. FROM THE AUDIENCE: I don't think that's what the committee intended. If we don't go with the whole plan the committee is recommending no action at all. MAYOR CREPEAU: If no underground utilities being buried, they recommend no action. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: Mr. (~naudible) and said he contacted at least six families in the neighborhood who, along with him, were against the project as he understood it, and I thought I'd give that information for the record since he asked me to. COUNCILMAN HANSON: I'd like to add a few comments that disagree slightly with what has been presented. My recollection of how this project started was that we were concerned about the lack of uniformity or aesthetic appearance of signs and landscaping rather than the traffic. By the time we had our first meeting, which has incidentally been the only expense outright for the city - I believe the city popped for lunch that day - at that point the people that work along the street there brought out the fact that they were concerned about the speed, and from there, when the committee started working on it, traffic circu- lation became an important consideration also so that those of us that have been alarmed at the way the costs have developed and have reflected responsibility on the part of city participation, have to remember that shortly after the committee began its work it became a different project - not just the initial one where . - 18 we figured we might finance the planning of maybe $5,000. At that point it was a fair amount of money and a good share of that was already spent by the time we had that luncheon because (inaudible) Miller brought the initial plan for the landscaping (inaudible) to encourage people to really see (inaudible). My other comment, pointed at my good friend on the Planning commission and Finance Committee, is that as I recall our early days, Rod and I were (inaudible) to the original planning by a planner at that time which did designate this area for development along county Road E for anything but residential purposes and he took on the project that Arden Hills meant to have a concept for it and he showed how it might be parcelled into different size parcels of property and how they might relate to each other, just hoping and praying that somebody might like it and take advantage of that little pre- liminarysketching that he did, but it was a nice looking plan and most of us were rather skeptical (inaudible). I think we're still basically conservative as far as spending money of the city. MAYOR CREPEAU: Any other comments or questions? Anyone at all? We try to answer anybody's questions and listen to the pro or con. MARGE ERICKSON PETERSON, Co-Chairman of the Task Force: I think the question of bike paths has been discussed by the Committee and sidewalks wide enough (inaudible) and I think that's a valid question that needs to be addressed, and we're concerned that the bike path at Johanna Boulevard and down to Lexington - there's nothing there, but there's also a county plan to bring bike paths to Lexington through Shoreview and then turning north on Lexington to get up to the "Y" and we'd like to explore the connection of those two bike paths as they either start or end at the two points on County Road E as it exists now so that's a mat ter before the Commit~e. MAYOR CREPEAU: Don Salverda is supposed to give us an answer as to their plans but we haven't heard yet. If there are no more questions or comments it's up to the Council to decide whether to proceed with the project. If the Council decides to proceed, the motion would be ordering the improve- ment and preparation of plans. The improvement was petitioned by at least 35% of the property owners and a simple majority is needed to pass of 3/2 and if the Council wants to abandon the project, this can be done by a simple motion and to close the hearing. Final action can be delayed up to six months from this date. What is the pleasure of the Council? COUNCILMAN HANSON: I would like to add one further piece of information. This is a little bit difficult in some respects (inaudible) got some information with respect to fiscal disparities which enabled her to calculate what our tax base is really going to be for 1981, and on that basis, taking half of the $601,000 to be put on general taxes - in other words, $300,000 - for 20 years, and she took a high percent of interest at 10% - that . 1& 19 would amount to $14.00 on the first year on the taxes in addition to the taxes on the market value of a home of $80,000. If you took that figure that I was talking about earlier, half of $368,000, not putting the $107,000 from the State Aid for roads, into the picture, I just made a rough calculation. Taking (inaudible) 184 over 300 would be $9.00 the first year on a typical priced home in Arden Hills so that gives you an idea of what we're talking about.. Later on we will' (inaudible) today's cost that one of the people that hauls garbage in the city is going to raise the rate from $5 to $6 per month so that's the relative expense that we're talking about (inaudible). Saying that a different way, the $300,000 under those combinations I spoke of amounts to $45,500 that would be due the first year and that's .78 mills. That's another way to look at it. We have been in the ballpark of 8 or 9 mills on our taxes so that increase would be about 8.7% so it's not a trifle percentage. The total dollars may be small, but it's a substantial increase. Getting that.out of the way I'd like to move that we authorize the improvement. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: May I ask him to yield? I wonder if it would benefit us to discuss this among ourselves. .We may have some consensus. COUNCILMAN HANSON: How can we do that - in front of every- body, like we always do. MAYOR CREPEAU: Any more comment before you make your motion? Let's have the comment. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: Mr. Hanson has the floor. I give it back to you at this point for your decision. COUNCILMAN HANSON: It's back to me already? I'm ready to make it. MAYOR CREPEAU: Before you do, I want to reiterate what Dr. Woodburn said. Leafstra gave me a figure of $14 on an $80,000 home and was opposed to it and that's the only call I got. COUNCILMAN HANSON: I'm surprised we didn't hear that (inaudible) car pool. COUNCILMAN WINGERT: We did, your Honor, get a number of letters a month ago (inaudible) There were a few people I remember as opposing. it - some people on Chatham, so we've heard from a few people (inaudible) COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I have had some comment from people by telephone calls, and other than the businessmen themselves, those comments were for not using tax money for such a thing as burying electric cables under the ground. Just a general . II 20 feeling. In one sense, in my mind, the committee recommending that the City pay half implies that every tax payer in Arden Hills will benefit to a heavy extent and even though I guess I would agree that the power lines are not as beautiful as I would like to see sitting there, I'm very hard pressed to feel that burying those underground would be worth $182,000 to the taxpayers of Arden Hills. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: Is this open now to discussion? I'll agree with Mr. Crichton rather strongly. I thi~ the idea originally was to put seed money in - at least that was my idea and it was stated at some meetings (inaudible) I think we did that to see what kind of interest we could generate, and I remember some conversations about if it's a worthwhile project we (inaudible) benefited people (inaudible) it's like without any further money from the village. Such a thing happened on Nicollet or downtown Minneapolis on the Malls and it's happened elsewhere where it's seemed to be of interest to the local people in that area and is not going on general tax rolls and I don't think this should either. As far as using the State Aid Road money, I think we could at least for part of it. The engineer describes the lights as decorative. However, I guess we could change them into functional and a few things like that and use some of the money. However, that money will be used somewhere and I think the question is, is this the best place. Is this more important than the up-grading of Hamline or (inaudible) I think the benefit of using State Aid Road money elsewhere would be better. We have not yet seemed to have a village-wide general policy of street lighting, whether it be for personal safety or some of the other reasons (inaudible) I don't think the simile to garbage collection is quite apt except as an idea of magnitude. Garbage collection, I think, is a most essential thing one can do in a village whether the village does it or not. Nothing more important to the health of the people than collection of garbage and I don't think we can compare garbage to County Road E. I just have to say .I am unalterably - from this point, from what I have heard - to date think it's too much of an expenditure to the village with too little benefit to the non County Road E taxpayer people - too little benefit to the others for them to have to share to any significant degree, and without sharing a significant degree I have heard they shouldn't put it in (inaudible) I have to be against village participation any further in this project. COUNCILMAN WINGERT: I guess I'm as loath as anybody to raise taxes. I tend to look for ways to knock them down and I object to a lot of the tax raising that's going on in the name of benefits, but it also occurs to me that we have made some decisions already that there are some benefits to the city and it's intangible, such as burying power lines. We say right now to the new developers who come into the city - you must bury your power lines so somehow along the line we were persuaded that . -' 21 there was something to gain in new development by forcing those lines to go underground. Yes, I guess it's some benefit to those people. I don't know whether every home owner gets his money back out of his share of burying power lines to his house. It's more expensive than hanging them on poles (inaudible) is higher to bury them, I don't know, but at any rate I think we have recognized, and I agree ,there is a benefit to get some very unsightly things out of the way although it's an intangible, to be sure. Whether it's worth the money or not, I don't know. That appeals to me in this project of (inaudibl~) and when Glen laid his slides on us of County Road E at an unflattering time of year - winter - the poles were very evident. They're isolated and certainly there's an improvement in the street, certainly it (inaudible) a little more pride in the conununity. That's got to be worth a few bucks (inaudible)I look at another of the. important benefits of this project and that is the potential for improving County Road E (inaudible) 28 accidents a year, and how much is an accident worth. I don't know the price of human life now and I don't want to go through the arguments of trying to determine it, but our residents use County Road E so they benefit directly. If we make it a little less hazardous to turn left into some place of business it's got to be worth something, soI'm persuaded there's a benefit. I guess I'm not persuaded how you establish the cost of it other than what we've got right now as an estimate of the cost today. If that cost is going to go down by waiting, let's wait~ If it's going to go up, let's go right now. I'm looking at the plan from the Task Force as being Step 1. I have seen some very beautiful downtowns that have developed. That plan doesn't do that. It's a no (inaudible) no frills plan. There is none of the conversion to the walks and this stuff you see in Mankato and St. Cloud, and to a lesser extent our own Mall in Minneapolis. Those are much more mature plans than this one. I guess if we have that kind of plan presented to us now I have to agree I really don't see the need for going that far, but this Interim Plan certainly .makes a lot of sense and I think perhaps in the future it can grow to the Ultimate or some other Ultimate as we see how it works, so I guess I'm in favor of doing the minim~ at this point - the Interim plan. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: I'd like to confirm or unconfirm as far as burying street lights. I helped do that in 1950 and was told it was as cheap as to put in overhead so you might as well put in (inaudible) and the maintenance was less from lightening storms (inaudible) and third, I think that's a benefit to the local people and the local people pay for it entirely, which is what I'd like to see here. Is the expense equivalent (inaudible) . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I'm reading from a report - kind of a pencilled report that Northern States Power provided to me. . - 22 I have an operation and maintenance figure that is included in that $358,000 of $114,500 for operation and maintenance and that's over the periOd of life of the buried underground cable and I do not have what they estimate that life to be. They indicate that the depreciation credit on the overhead was 40% of the cost of placing the overhead at that time - apparently it was $21,000 so the depreciated 'credit was $8,400. I'm not sure that helps you but that's all the information I have or that I can recall. I would like to add that on the underground utilities, they are buried and it was mentioned in the report that there would be switching boxes - several of them along the street - and two of them - one on each end - would be rather large, and each building would have its own switching box - a three by three green box that you would see in all underground systems,so.you're not entirely getting rid of the overheads but you're.putting something on the ground at each location potentially. COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I just wanted to comment on Mr. Wingert's (inaudible) about underground. I would agree with him - I prefer things being underground. I think there's a benefit physically as well as aesthetically and I agree we require all new developments to be underground, but we're not going to go to all existing places and saying we will pay half of the cost of putting it underground. It would be desirable, but it's a lot of money. There must be something wrong with my eyeballs, but until I saw those pictures Mr. Engelbert showed us (inaudible) I wasn't aware the power lines ran overhead. MAYOR CREPEAU: I know there are a lot of women in the village that do business in that area, and one of them I live with, and she really has trouble getting out of Arden Plaza. I know a lot of other gals in the village do too. COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: Because of the overhead power lines? MAYOR CREPEAU: No. (inaudible) I know the business community and I know them well, and they're doing a great service for Arden Hills and I too feel like Mr. Wingert does and Mr. Hanson that we have to start with something, and I agree the Interim Design is my choice also. The business community have picked up the tab for many years. I can remember'back 23 years now that I've been on this Council and one of the companies that came into this village we made love to and took them away from Roseville. That was Control Data. They at one time paid about 40% of the taxes in Arden Hills and so the business community does pay a tremendous amount of money toward the tax base here in Arden Hills. You will find there are a lot of them in the audience this evening that have a (inaudible) tax bill. I went to lunch this noon with a man who owns some property in Arden Hills and he told me his tax bill is $220,000 a year. That's more than mine on my house, but I'm in favor of this. I think 23 . the Task Force has done a tremendous job. They have worked 21 months - days and nights - and I for one want to go public in congratulating them on this tremendous job they have done and I for one appreciate it and I'm going for it. AXlyone eLse? COUNCILMAN HANSON: One thing that hasn't been said - and it's obvious - but the business people are concerned about going ahead with an improvement piecemeal. They all know that con- struction costs are going up and they have never seen a project yet done piecemeal that didn't require re-doing some of the pro- ject so by putting sidewalk in now and burying things later it would be more expensive (inaudible) no way they can visualize something like that being coordinated with any kind of efficiency (inaudible). Other than that I don't know what the proportion is today but you can assume the business and industry pay half the cost of our taxes, they're going to continue paying half the cost of this improvement on general taxes, as well as the assessments and the people on County Road E have never winced at that (inaudible) It isn't as though the home owners are going to be paying half (inaudible) part of the half. . COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I do agree that (inaudible) and I agree the committee has worked hard and diligently. I do have concerns and have expressed them, but if we're going to do something, then I concur with you we don't want to go piecemeal. I for one if we do or don't (inaudible) of the roadway work and sidewalk and lighting being done as part of our State Aid program whether or not we go ahead with the whole thing. My problem, as you know, is with the underground burying. ~1AYOR CREPEAU: Anything further? - COUNCIL~mN WINGERT: I think I'm not settled yet. I hear Charlie and Woody say let's use State Aids and I'm in the mood not to do it because I guess I've got the safety things (inaudible) when you compare to some of the roads ~round here that we need to do. It matters a lot on how much too. If you're talking about minor improvements (inaudible). I think I just destroyed my own point, but the point is, before we bind ourselves to using the State Aid moneys, let's find out where this project is according to the priority projection around the city. I just don't know. MAYOR CREPEAU: Ahyone else? Anybody out there have anything to say? COUNCILMAN HANSON: I just want to make one observation. That is the Council's attitude here tonight is exactly as I predicted. It's no easy thing to come out a year in advance and . .- . 24 ,- and indicate how you're going to assess a project like this, but the biggest concern from the committee's position was we're in the period of recession. Nobody knows where the bottom is and if I were a businessman I'd be very concerned about that - much more so than I am as an employee of a large company. I'd be very concerned if I was faced with this kind of an expenditure entirely on my own under these circumstances, so I think it's desirable from their point of view if the Council proceeds with the project that they be reassured somehow that they're not going to have to foot the entire cost of this project, and I think they would be (inaudible) they haven't had this information prior to tonight about the State Aid money. I think they would be relieved to some extent if they thought the worst that could happen would be if they (inaudible) to pay $368,000 with no further participation from the city (inaudible) if they didn't have the feeling that would be where they're at, you'd see a bunch of jumping jacks that would be hollering let's do nothing. Councilman Hanson then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resol ution No. J2J - 3i RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT P-80-1 INTERIM DESIGN WITH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES UNDER AND PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 429 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS BE 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 on the proposed construction of Improvement P-80-l including all that property on County Road E from Lexington Avenue, west to Highway 51 by the installation of underground power and telephone facilities, decorative lighting, walkways, traffic channelization and landscaping, and necessary appurtenances as described in the Notice of Hearing at a cost presently estimated at $538,500.00, and substantially in accordance with the preliminary 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. Special assessments shall be levied therefor, pursuant to said Chapter 429, and the area to be assessed therefor shall include the property as described in the Notice of Hearing. Short, Elliott and Hendrickson, Inc., the city consulting engineers, are hereby directed to prepare and submit to the Council the final plans and specifications. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Wingert, and upon roll call vote . - . . 25 being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Hanson, Wingert and Crepeau; and the following voted against the same: Woodburn and Crichton; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date therein indicated with the original of said minutes on file in my office and that said extract is a full, true and correct transcript of said minutes, insofar as they relate to the proposed construction of Improvement P-BO-l under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, ~Lt&Wr!~ C~ty Clerk Admin~strator (SEAL)