Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 02-28-1983 f ...... Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Village of Arden Hills Monday, February 28, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. Village Hall " Call to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ') . Roll Call Present - Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmen Dale Hicks, Diane McAllister, Thomas Mulcahy. Absent - Michael Christiansen Also Present - Bond Counsel Peter Popovich, Treasurer Donald Lamb, Clerk Administrator Charlotte McNieah, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm Approval of Minutes Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that the Minutes of the Reg- ular Council Meeting of February 14th be approved as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Business from the Floor None Improvement No. P83-1, Lexington Avenue Between County Road F and County Road G2 (See attached minutes of Public Hearing) After it was determined that there were no further questions or comments from the floor, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:08 p.m. McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council adopt Resolution No. 83-14 ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT NO. P83-1, as per plans dated 2/28/83. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mulcahy moved, seconded by Hicks that Council authorize execution of the Agreement between the City of Arden Hills and the County of Ramsey relative to construction and cost sharing, as presented. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council authorize execu- tion of the Agreement for Project S.A.P. 62-651-16 for relocating the detached path north of County Road F to the west side, as pre- sented. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council adopt Resolution No. 83-15, RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON WEST SIDE OF LEXINGTON AVENUE. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). . Request to Change Public Hearing date to March 14th for Improve- ment No. SS-83-2, Red Fox Road Sewer Extension. McAllister moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council adopt Resolu- tion No. 83-16 RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-11 AND RESCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-83-2. Motion carried unanimoualy (4-0). Revised Use of Federal Revenue Sharing Monies The Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m. and Clerk Administra- tor verified that the Notice of Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on February 17, 1983. A transparency of MCNiesh's memo was displayed showing the Adopted Proposed Use of revenue sharing money for 1982, the Actual Coat and MeNieah's Suggested Revised Use. After determining that there were no comments or questions from the floor, the public hearing was closed at 10:30 p.m. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting February 28, 1983 Page Two .... ., After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Coun- cil approve the Revised Use of &ederal Revenue Sharing Moniea as follows: Ordinance Codification Government Buildings Public Safety,Car Replacement Public Works, Pickup Truck & Other Misc. Equipment Parks, Groundmaster & Other Equipment Parks, Summer Playground Leaders Parks, Skating Rinks Civil Defense Siren Adopted Proposed Actual Use Cos t $ 600 $ 5,637 3,000 2,652 7,000 5,990 10,100 5,244 12 ,665 9,123 4,630 5,282 6,005 18,443 $44,000 Motion carried unanimously (4-0). S ugges ted Revised Use $ 600 2,652 5,990 5,244 9,123 4,630 6,005 9,756 $44,000 . Revised Landscape Plan - Land O'Lakes Corporate Offices Bill Thompson, Land O'Lakes, presented a revised landscape plan for the Land O'Lakes site at Lexington/County Rd. F/ 1-694. Thompson explained that they experienced considerable plan't loss as indi- cated in Landscape Inspector Oelke's final inspection report. Thomspon reviewed the proposed changes in concept, which trans- plants the existing live shrubs from the parking lot islands to the southeast portion of the site; is~ands will be mowed grass with trees as indicated. Thompson said they propose to replace Sugar Maples with Ash, and they propose to change their planting methods; will replace soil around the balled and burlapped plant- ings with black dirt. Thompson said they intend to replace lost shrubs with dogwood and arrowwood. Thompson noted that the revised plan replaces some of the natural prairie with traditional landscaping and sod; cost estimate of plantings proposed is $12,000, not including sod. After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Coun- cil approve the revised landscape plan as presented (pages L-l and L-2). Motion carried unanimously (4-0). (Thompson will provide City with a copy of the plans and specifi- cations). REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER DONALD LAMB Investments 2-17-83 - $1,533,562.50 @ First Federal for 6 months @ 8.90% interest, maturing 8-16-83. 2-22-83 - $463,010.03 at First Federal at ~ 8.40% interest, maturing 4-22-83. 2-28-83 - $104,676.39 at Twin City Federal at 8.30% interest, maturing 8-29-83. Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council ratify the Treasur- er's investments. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mounds View Cit Council Re uest for Joint Meetin' re Anoka County Blaine Airport Council generally concurred that Arden Hills will try to have Coun- cil representative at a joint meeting (preferably not on Mondays or Fridays); would appreciate any available information prior to the meeting. Public Works Supervisor Request to Purchase Truck Council was r~ferred to Johansen's memo of 2-23-83. -2- . . " Minutes of Regular Couneil Meeting February 28, 1983 Page Three After diseussion, Hieks moved, seeonded by MeAllister, that Coun- eil approve the purehase of a truek at $7800 and authorize the se1e of the 1911 Dodge about Sept. 1st, as outlined in memo. Motion earried unanimously (4-0). Report on Meeting with Riee Creek Watershed Board of Governors re Water Pollution Woodburn reported that he met with the RCWD Board of Governors, Engineer from New Brighton, Mayor of Shoreview and Steve Lee, PCA; reported that PCA has applied for Super Fund Money; has identified some sites outside the arsenal. . Woodburn reported that $1,700,000 is the estimated eost of the study to determine where the pollution goes; PCA feels it ean get the 10% neeessary to supplement the 90% Federal Super Fund money. Woodburn reported that RCWD offered its assistanee where needed. Junior Mustan Basketball Leaders Couneil was refered to Buek y smemoof 2-25-83. MeAl1ister moved, seeonded by Hieks, that Couneil approve the Junior Mustang Basketball leaders as designated in memo. Motion earried unanimously (4-0). Other Business MeNiesh (non-agenda items): a) Inquirv from Juran and Moody re Industrial Revenue Bonds. MeNiesh asked if Counei1 wants to eneourage or diseourage applieations. ~ ----,._._.__.~ In discu88ion~ it! t:&S 8'.le8 1il._l ~__.._!i~+.liay utaR te ~ ..1 ....I .tel' 1.14. B. .... Y.<IR it. fflv.''q..Hfl''t:t~,''''rpn,rA_t.,nf'~_:t-~..AQ'At'l";" generally eoneurred to eontinue po1iey to diseoura~. ~ _ applieations for warehouses, small offiees ete. ~~~. b) Hall Rental by RCWD reported that RCWD has determined to eontinue rental of the Arden Hills Village Hall for its meetings. e) Letter from Mounds View with suggestions re eivie eon- sortiums. After review of listed items and diseussion, Hieks moved, seeonded Jw.~tl-~M-,U!'.t.!lr that Couneil author- ize MeNiesh to notifY~'~hat Arden Hills does not wish to beeome an aetive member of the eivie eon- sortium. Motion earried unanimously (4-0). d) Sne1ling/Hamline Interehange MOdifieation. MeNiesh re- ported that MnDot representative eannot attend the Coun- eil meeting on Mareh 14th or 28th; ean arrange an alter- nate meeting with any Couneil members interested in re- viewing the plan proposal. ... REPORT OF CLERK ADMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE MC NIESH O'Meara Letter re Feasibility Report for Hazelnut Park Addition, Phase I Counei1 was referred to MeNiesh's memo of 2-16-83. After diseussion, Council concurred that O'Meara's letter of 2/16/83, agreeing to pay for the eost of the feasibility report even if the projeet is sborted, seems to satisfy the eontingency p1aeed on Council's action on February 14th to order the prepara- tion of a feasibility report. MeNiesh was requested to reiterate to O'Meara that Council's autho- rization for Engineer to proceed with the feasibility study is based on Counei1's understanding that all costs will be reimbursed by O'Meara, should the projeet be aborted, and that a development agreement will be executed by O'Meara prior to Council ordering actual preparation of plans and specifications. -3- Minutes of Regular Council Meeting February 28, 1983 Page Four . " . Report of Use of PilRrim House McNiesh reported that Pilgrim House has reported minimal use of their facility for meetings, have reported four meetings, three of which involved members of their congregation. After discussion, McNiesh was requested to reiterate the con- ditions under which Council granted deferral of connection to sanitary sewer. Claims and Payroll Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council approve the Claims and Payroll, including four checks totalling $10,34&.11, as sub- . mitted. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Clerk Typist Position Council discussed staffing, and hiring replacement for Velda. Council authorized McNiesh to proceed as she sees fit to fill the vacancy. Adjournment Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that 12:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously the meeting adjourn at (4-0). C2i;aI~&J)fzl~ Charlotte McNiesh Clerk Administrator ~~A~~A-- ~ert L. Woodburn Mayor Notice of Meeting The next Regular Council Meeting will be held on Monday, March 14, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. . -4- . ,.. . .. ,. Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: February 28, 1983 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of ~~.h; Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, February 28, 1983, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilma--n Hicks, McAllister and Mulcahy: and the following was absent: Councilman Christiansen. Also in attendance were Charlotte MCNiesh, City Clerk Administrator: Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk: Donald Lamb, City ...~ Treasurer: and Peter S. popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll begin the hearing with respect to Lexington Avenue - 800 feet north of County Road F to north of Highway 96 to G-2. Mrs. McNiesh, did you publish the notice? CHARLOTTE McNIESH: Yes, I have an affidavit of publica- tion that the notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on February 17 and 24 and I have anoth~r certificate of mailing that certifies that the notices were deposited in the post office at New Brighton on February 17. MAYOR WOODBURN: We have the engineer, Mr. Leonard, from the County with us and may I ask first if there is anybody here that wasn't at one of the other meetings or hasn't met with Mr. Leonard or one of his representatives? (One person indicated he had not been at any other meeting.) Most every- body here has, so perhaps we could have Mr. Leonard go over it rather quickly and then perhaps he could answer any ques- tions any of you have. That way we might proceed a little expeditiously. Mr. Leonard, would you like to explain the project. MR. WAYNE LEONARD, Coordinating Engineer with the Ramsey County Public Works Department: In talking about the proposed 1 . . . , " improvement for Lexington Avenue from 800 feet north of County Road F - that's the Control Data south driveway, where the present construction project (inaudible) - up to County Road G-2. The primary cost for the project is proposed to be paid for through the County/State aid highway gas tax funds receipts dedicated for Ramsey County. The overall cost of the project, including signals and miscellaneous other aspects of it, is estimated to be $1,700,000 and we feel that the majority of that money, with the exception of approximately $150,000 which we're asking to participate in from the municipalities and another $20,000 from county road and bridge funds set aside for path construction - the remaining portion is proposed to come from the gas tax dollars. A brief overview of the project - I've papered the wall up here behind the Council with the latest plan. We had a plan up earlier which - some decisions were made on a path. Maybe I should start with that. The plan encompasses both the roadway of the improvement and the construction of the detached bituminous path - eight feet wide from end to end - associated with the path construction. The original plan was here that some of you might have seen - it involved the path. In some places on the east side - we met with path committees, park committees and whatnot in public meetings. The present plan, as being presented here at the public hearing, has the path entirely on the west side, from County Road F to 'County ~ Road G-2, plus the addition of a little bit of path .on the east side in the vicinity of Trunk Highway 96 - from the service road on the south to the shopping center on the north. Also, there was a second plan which was an intermediate plan that we had here at. an informational meeting, prior to meeting with some homeowners. I don't think you could see that detail in that plan - I do have a detailed plan here for your investigation if you want to look at it. We have shifted the road slightly - just north of Victoria, between Amble and Pleasant Circle - and moved a proposed retaining wall off of private property onto the County Road right-of-way. Also, this present plan reflects - across the low land north of 96, in the vicinity of G-2 - approximately a foot and a half grade raise, which was recommended by the Minnesota Department of Transportation soils section. So with the exception of those changes and probably some other minor ones that I've overlooked, the plan here then is what has developed out of the prior two plans that we had before you. Basically the concept is still the same. We're proposing a 68 foot roadway at the south end - to continue the existing section that is now under construction to the north driveway of Control Data and there tapering it down into a S2 foot wide section and carrying it through to G-2, with the exception of some widening in the area of 96 to provide left turn pockets and left turn actuations for the signal modification at Trunk Highway 96. -2- " . . . ~ It is proposed to be an urban section with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer system, bituminous roadway. All areas that are disturbed with construction will be topsoiled and sodded. I believe those are the major features of the project. In the course of the project, we have specifically asked, through a proposed agreement with the City, that 75% of the cost of the concrete curb and gutter, except those needed for medians, that are constructed within the City, be paid for by the City, that any storm water contribution from outside the roadway which creates an additional cost to the storm sewer system being constructed in the roadway, be participated in by the municipality. In the case of Arden Hills, I believe that that would be pretty much limited to the very south end of the project, south of Victoria. As the County ~oad and bridge budget for detached path construction is limited to $20,000 for the year 1983, we have proposed that that limit be assigned to this project.and the remaining cost be split evenly between the community of Arden Hills and 5horeview. Upon completion of the construction, the path system will be the ownership and operation of the community - that is, the County wishes to see the paths con- structed for pedestrian facilities off the roadway - but we don't have ordinances and things that govern that type of facilities. Also, the storm sewer system, when completed - ~ the County will maintain the catch basins and leads - that is, the part that physically drains the roadway- and the trunk line sewer which carries the main body of the water or which may be extended into other areas in the future will become the property and responsibility of the City. i believe, your Honor, that that takes care of it. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll be able to come back to any questions. At this time we'll ask Mr. Popovich to explain any financing that may be required. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the County is expecting the City to participate by paying 75% of the cost of the concrete curb and gutter and part of the cost of the bituminous walkway. When you break those costs down, as the engineer has, it's $34,500 for the curb and gutter and $7,700 for the walkway. You're expected to get the right~f-way and easements, which is estimated to be another $10,000 and then a share of the storm drainage facility is estimated at $5,000. That totals $57,200. There's a percentage added for contingency, legal - it's a contingency matter - of $8,800. 50 the total estimated cost is $66,000. While this is proceeding under a local improvement code, so that if the Council decided to assess, you could do so. Whether you want to or not depends on -as you well know - -3- '. . . . . some of the past practices of the City and the availability of other funds. That's one of the purposes of the meeting tonight - to determine whether there will be any assessments at all or whether part of it will be assessed. If we have to go out into public financing, however, a minimum of 20% must be assessed. If you don't need any public financing and no bonds, then obviously, if you have cash on hand or other sources, you could handle the improvement like any other improvement - no bonds would be issued and whatever other funds you receive would be utilized for it and no assess- ments would have to be made. It's a judgment call that the Council would have to make on thats~ore. But in order to protect ourselves - that's the reason that we went this route - so that if we ran out of money or some assessment had to be made, the procedure was correct to do so. MAYOR WOODBURN: Thank you Mr. Popovich. Mrs. McNiesh, do you have any written comments? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, we did have one. I had one telephone call last week from Sue Knudson who lives at 1130 Pleasant Circle. She stated that she very strongly recommends that when Lexington Avenue is improved, the center lane be stripEld for left turns in both directions, as it is in Roseville. She explained that she was very close to being involved in a three car accident at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Pleasant Drive. Her car was stoppEld, with the left turn signal on. Another car was behind her, also stopped with the turn signal on. A car coming from the south apparently didn't see the two stopped cars, hit the car behind her and ended up in the oncoming lane of traffic from the north. It's very dangerous the way it is now. Cars are traveling at least 45 miles per hour. That's the only statement I have your Honor. - MAYOR WOODBURN: Thank you. I will now open the meeting to the audience for comments or questions. I think we can perhaps just do it all at on~e this time. Are there any comments or questions? MR. JEROME MEYER, 4414 Amble Circle: I had been resigned to the fact that Lexington was going to be widened and create all kinds of havoc along there, but I was not aware that Snelling- not Snelling, but Hamline - was also going to be improved. Do both of them have to be? MAYOR WOODBURN: They don't both have to be, no. There have been thoughts expressed that both deserve it and should be. There are no firm plans for Hamline at this time. We've asked for coopElrative agreements to see what the State can do with us - on the south end of Hamline. Are you aware of that? -4- , , -, t' MR. JEROME MEYER: I just noticed this thing November of 1981 - talking about Hamline Avenue. aware that something was in the mill there. about I was not . MAYOR WOODBURN: It's a widening (inaudible). There are a lot of steps to go through. That would be a widening from the super highway - 694. MR. MEYER: Not all the way through . . . MAYOR WOODBURN: future, but it's not next year. Not at this point. Perhaps in the in the plans for this year or probably MR. MEyER: That certainly gives me a different perspec- tive (inaudible). MAYOR WOODBURN: Any moce questions or comments? MR. ANDY HOLEWA, 4480 Pleasant Drive: In the notice for public hearing, there was a statement in regards to assessing and it gave an area. I don't understand what area that is. MR. POPOVICH: The area that was given by the engineer would be those properties that if assessments were made, he considered would be benefitted by the improvement. If the"'" Council determines to assess any portion, all or part of the property within that legal description could be assessed. MR. ANDY HOLEWA: I don't unde!:'stand what that means. Are you talking about all the lots that border on that road? Is that what you're saying? MR. POPOVICH: Yes. MR. KOLEWA: So if you're across the street and your property doesn't border on it, you'ce not included. MR. POPOVICH: (inaudible). MR. HOLEWA: Like across. Pleasant Drive or something like that. Your property does not bo!:'der upon Lexington - then you're not included in that assessment that came out in the notice. . MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) but if any part of your property borders on Lexington, you will be - theoretically at least - eligible. MR. POPOVICH: I might say, Mayor, in the notice - what the engineer gave us was the east 1/4 of Sections 15 and 22. That runs alongside the highway - Section 15 and section 22 - so any or all portions within there could be assessed if the -5- , . . , I Council determined to go ahead. Obviously, those that abut the property could be assessed one rate and those that are farther on back at another and it's a question of whether they're benefitted or not - if you decided to go ahead. This is the general geographical term. You could have used the language - any property abutting the property between so and so and so. MR. ANDY HOLEWA: When he was giving the description for the financing, he mentioned policies that the Council may have had for other types - do we have any precedents in that area for what you would do for assessments? MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: It seems to me we didn't assess for curbs and guttez:s. (Inaudible) abutting property owners. MR. HOLEWA: As a property owner whose property abuts on that - I think it's great for the City to have Lexington enlarged. I don't feel that I get any personal added value to my property by having that road enlarged. I think the City as a whole does, but I don't feel that I do. As a matter of fact, I feel the opposite way. I think it detracts because you're taking away some of the land that you have right-of-way On. Personally, I don't feel that it adds anything to the value of my property. My comment would be - I don't think it would be appropriate to assess the individual owners. - MAYOR WOODBURN: That's the type of comment, of course, that we're here to hear - to see how you feel about things. We don't expect you to be enthusiastic. I believe the Lexington Avenue pz:oject was quite a small piece of curbing - a few thousand dollars worth is what that amounted to. MR. WILLIAM ROE, 4542 Pleasant Drive: I would like to echo his comments. As far as improvement, I feel that I've already paid for my curbs and gutters by the front of the house. By having curbs and gutters at the rear of the house, it really doesn,'t add anything to my home. If I lived on the other side in Shoreview, perhaps I might feel differently about the front of my house having curbs and gutters. I really don't feel that it improves the property at all as far as assessing lot owners. MR. JEROME MEYER, 4414 Amble Circle: As another property owner, I guess I would like to echo that sentiment. I don't believe there's any benefit to myself and my property values by bringing that road quite a bit closer to my house. I would be upset with assessments. MR. PIERRE LIPPERT, 4466 Pleasant Drive: I have to agree with everybody else. I'm sure most of the homeowners along Lexington Avenue feel that the improvement to the road would not benefit them in anyway, being that it is -6- , . . , I in the back of their homes and, again, it's going to create probably more hassles for them than they would want by the improvement. Certainly it's going to be something nice for the City and it's probably going to make the street a little bit safer, but as far as assessments, I think if it came down to a choice of either leaving it the way it is or improving it, I think you would probably end up with 99% saying that they would prefer to leave it the way it is, especially with taxes the way they are right now - they don't need any further assessments. I would like to just ask if you know how this is determined or when you would determine whether it would be assessed - how you would go about doing this. MR. POPOVICH: That's one of the purposes of the meeting tonight - to get a feel for it. Obviously, at some point - if the Council was able - if somebody walked in and gave' you $66,000, then you'd have the money on hand. That would be easy - you'd.determine to use it. While you may look at the past as to what may have been - things that have happened in the past don't necessarily bind Councils in the future, particularly with project costs and what have you and there are greater expenditures involved. At some point the Council will have to make a decision as to how they're going to do this. If they find that there are no funds on hand - from other sources - that.they can use to put in the improvement- assuming they order the improvement tonight - then at some ,~ point there will be an assessment hearing - usually it's a year later - and at that point at least 20% will be assessed, if you decide to go that route. That's one of the things tonight - to talk about how we can do this without assessing, where ~an we get the mbney to do it, do we have to assess, if we have to assess - 100%, 50%, 20% - the Council wants your input on that. But at some point they will have to make a decision and the questions is - where do we get $66,000? MR. PIERRE LIPPERT: But the question is - even though - I guess I'm trying to figure out how you would determine it's an improvement to our property, even though it's not really even ~n our property - it's all on the County's right- of-way - and why it's an improvement to our property, being that it's in our back yards and not in our front. MR. POPOVICH: That again is a judgment call. The fact that a road is on the back of property rather than the front, in of itself wouldn't be the deciding thing. I can give you an example. About 30 years ago, when France Avenue was widened over in Edina, that went all the way up to the Supreme Court. People felt there was no benefit to have that big 60 foot wide street in there. Most of you are familiar with where France Avenue is in Edina. The Council determined that there was a benefit and the Supreme Court sustained them. It's a judgment call as to how much. We know we're bound by the fact that we can't assess more than -7- , . what the market value of the property would go up. You can ascertain that by appraisers and what have you as to whether the property has increased in value or not. That's why the Council wants to hear from you. MR. STEVEN MINDLIN, 4526 Pleasant Drive: I agree with everybody. (Inaudible) on France. MR. POPOVICH: That's true on France (inaudible) similar to this. MR. MINDLIN: But the thing is, that is quite a bit different. I don't think it's fair to compare that with this project. Not on the Arden Hills side anyway, because most of us have our driveways (inaudible). MR. DONALD EATON, 4472 Pleasant Drive: I might as well throw in my two cents worth too. I agree with what everybody else says. My property does not exactly front on Lexington Avenue, although the back of my house is looking out over Lexington Avenue. I see that in no way can it improve the value of my property or the property of my neighbors. In fact, in my opinion, it does decrease the value of that pcoperty. I understand that that's up for debate here. The way that we approached dealing with this situation with the County Engineer was largely on the basis of a statement that was made in the first meeting by the City Council that.there probably would not be any assessments, based on the individual property owners. I think had we been working under the assumption that there was, there might have been a much stronger opposition to any improvement on Lexington. MR. ANDY HOLEWA, 4480 Pleasant Drive: I don't quite understand the 20% assessment involved with bonding. MR. POPOVICH: It's very simple. If the City has to finance it by issuing bonds - say they have no funds - they have to come up with '$66,000- they have to sell bonds. You have to assess at least 20% to avoid having a public election. This is a small piece of property in the whole City. MR. HOLEWA: You have to assess 20%. Whoserequirement is that? . MR. POPOVICH: That's State law. MR. HOLEWA: And who do you have to assess? MR. POPOVICH: The benefitted property - that abuts the property. MR. HOLEWA: So that would be 20% of $66,000? MR. POPOVICH: Right. -8- MR. HOLEWA: Do we know how many properties there are involved? . MR. POPOVICH: I'm sure the engineer does. How many notices did you mail out? MRS. McNIESH: I have it somewhere. MR. POPOVICH: The Clerk mailed out a certificate (inaudible). MR. HOLEWA: How would an assessment like that be handled? Would it be by a formula or what? MR. POPOVICH: Yes, it's a formula that would be arrived at and then at the assessment hearing that formula would then be explained. It could be a front foot cost - that's usually what it is - you take the total amount and divide it and come up with a front foot cost. Or it could be, if they were all lots, a lot unit charge. There are a number of ways to come up with it, depending ,on what the engineers would recommend. MRS. McNIESH: There were 22 notices that. I sent out. Of course, some of them have gceater frontage than others. MR. HOLEWA: Is that 22 that abut Lexington or in the proximity? - MRS. McNIESH: I assume that they are ones that abut. MR. POPOVICH: They may be behind. They're within that legal area that the engineer gave us. MR. HOLEWA: Now you said that they would have to assess 20% according to State law, or they would be able to do some- thing else - have an election or something. . MR. POPOVI'CH: \'ou can always have an e1e<::tion - Shall we issue bonds to improve Lexington Avenue in the amount not exceeding $66,000 - but no City ever does because you have to pull in your whole big City to vote on a little project. That's the reason the legislature gave Councils the authority to issue bonds without a vote, if they assess 20% and had the public hearing and had input from the people. That's what the Council is doing here. The question is, where do they get the money to cover the approximate estimated cost of $66,000. If they have it on hand, of if they get a gift, or if they have interest earnings - there are a number of places - MSA funds or tax funds - if they have extra unappro- priated balances, they may want to use them. MR. HOLEWA: The last item on your finances - I didn't quite understand that. -9- " . MR. POPOVICH: A contingency - whatever might come in - that's what we call a contingency. There's always a 15% amount thrown in for contingencies. Once you arrive at all the other (inaudible) you just put a blanket amount in there. MR. HOLEWA: Does the City Council have any - I know it's hard, it's one of the things you're here for tonight - but do we have any idea about whether we have that amount of money or not or if we can get it? Can you share with us anything on that? When it comes to being assessed, we don't want any secrets. MAYOR WOODBURN: Yes, we have the money, if we spend it on this and don't spend it on something else. MR. HOLEt'i'A: Are there al:'e a few things on the pl:'iority list that we might spend it on? Are there things that you had in mind? COUNCILMAN HICKS: I don't know exactly what projects we talked about (inaudible) on Hamline Avenue. Hamline - it was mentioned a while ago the possibility of improving fl:'om 694 north to Eide Circle. I don't remember what the cost estimate was on that but it was a fair amount of money. Most of that would be borne by the City - some State highway moneys up to a certain portion of that distance. That's one alter- native for the excess money we have. - MR. HOLEWA: While you're on that - are there any plans to add any access on or off of 694 involved with that? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: The State doesn't have any money. MR. HOLEWA: So basically there's nothing forthcoming. MAYOR WOODBURN: It would be a minimal improvement on what we have. In going up to 96 - you mentioned for Hamline - would be another thing that we're looking at in long range plans, plus there are several encumbrances on that - current . lawsuits. . MR. HOLEWA: Against the village for widening Hamline? MAYOR WOODBURN: No, on other projects that have gone through, which is a fairly routine item (inaudible). Any other questions? MR. HOLEWA: Where there any other major items - there was some talk about the park. MAYOR WOODBURN: The funds that most of us are talking about are permanent improvement revolving funds, which have been gained from road projects in one way or another and more or less they go back into permanent projects like this. -10- , The park fund is a separate fund (inaudible) which comes mostly from dedication, developers and industry. . MR. HOLEWA: those funds that for roadways. So the funding that would be used would be are already set aside pretty much exclusively MAYOR WOODBURN: Capital improvements (inaudible) that roadways are in. There are a couple of sewer projects that we'd love to have money for too. MR. JEROME MEYER, 4414 Amble Circle: I keep hearing references to the engineer - I don't know who that person is - but has the engineer looked into the potential cost of these 22 property owners on a $66,000 basis? Is that Mr. Leonard? MRS. McNIE5H: No - the City Engineer, Mr. Christoffersen, isn't in town. I don't have a front foot figure from him. MR. MEYER: (Inaudible) mile and a half. MAYOR WOODBURN: I see that your letter does not officially give an unofficial per foot cost - not that that would necessarily be put against properties right next to the road alone. - MR. WAYNE LEONARD: The road improvement is essentially a mile and a half long, which is 5280 and 2640, so that would. be - say 7900 feet. 800 feet of that is already constructed so that leaves roughly 7100 feet of road improvement. However, there are exceptions for 96, Amble and Pleasant Circle, so there's probably - let's just take 300 feet off of that. So you're looking at 6800 lineal feet. I guess what's in. my mind is that there are all kinds of - one of the portions, for instance, might be the storm sewer, which probably wouldn't be handled - might be handled in a different manner because you would look at the benefit for storm sewer. I guess I'm reluctant to just say okay, (inaudible), roughly corne up here with 6500 or 7000 feet, divided into $13,000 and we could get $2.00 a foot. MR. JEROME MEYER: Approximately how much of that belongs to the arsenal? . MR. LEONARD: About 2600 feet, less about 150 feet (inaudible) so about 2500 feet. MR. JEROME MEYER: In round numbers, though, we're talking $10.00 a foot - 7000 feet at $66,000. I guess my other comment was going to be - I think it's fairly unanimous - at least with the property owners represented here - that we don't see any personal benefits from this improvement, but there are certainly some to the village and probably the most -11- , . proximate would be the businesses served by the improvement to Lexington, which would be places like Deluxe Check and Land O'Lakes and Control Data and Cardiac Pacemakers. Would it be inappropriate to assess those companies for the cost of this improvement? To avoid public financing. MAYOR WOODBURN: It's not possible. They're off there and we didn't notify them either, for that matter. I don't think that would carry through if it went to court. MR. MEYER: So does that mean there's less footage to go around? MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) . MR. MEYER: One of them is my dear employer. MAYOR WOODBURN: I think we will cut this short here pretty soon - see if we can at least. The bituminous walkway (inaudible) is of some benefit. It's not just curb and gutter that we're talking about. Sidewalks are often assessed in other places. The drainage facilities do drain your property and that's another $5,000. Not necessarily your particular property, but the property along there. If I could just stop here. for a moment - without closing the hearing - to discuss with the Council what their feelings are, whether they might want to assess this, and whether we should keep the public hearing going, or do you have feelings that you might not want to assess this, in which case we won't have to keep it going. - COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I really think, if it came to a court case, that we could prove benefit to the property because of the walkway and the fact that th~widening, . including (inaudible) provides better ac~ess to your homes. It's a definite selling point - you can get there, it's plowed and all that. However, as I said, we did not assess for curb and gutter for the other part of Lexington. I was . opposed to the impcovement of Lexington farther south - where I live - but now that it's there - I signed that. petition - but now that it's there I like it. It's a lot nicer to drive on and you drive it every day. It does make a difference. From what has been said here before, I think we probably - my vote will be to find the $66,000 and maybe postpone another project somewhere else. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Councilman Mulcahy, do you have any feelings on this - that could maybe help shorten it up? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Yes, I think we want to shorten it up. I have quite a bit of sympathy for the residents - we all do - who don't understand why they were summoned out here tonight for the prospect of paying for curb and gutter and -12- , . a pathway and they don't see an advantage to that. I think Mr. Popovich explained - or tried to explain - that what we're going through is a procedure that notices the public that we can at least consider this - this possibility. I think Councilman McAllister has kind of signalled our basic view of this, but what we want to hear from you - and I guess we already have pretty well - is whether you feel at all benefitted by a curb, a gutter and a path. The Mayor said a moment ago - some people really like sidewalks and are willing to pay for them and ask for them - and we had some people a couple of weeks ago asking for street lights and wanted to pay for them and that kind of thing. We, on the other hand, have a problem because Mr. Leonard comes offering us a tremendous improvement in the street - obviously there may be some disagreement - but at any rate Lexington Avenue probably needs improvement and if:'we're going to get paths and we have to have some curbs and gutter - he explained to us a couple of weeks ago the advantages of curb and gutter over a wider shoulder - and we could hear that again, I suppose, if we wanted to. I think the village is fairly convinced that - on an overall basis - we'd like to have a path on our side - on the west side of the street - the County is going to put it in - and the curb and gutter sort of comes with it. It's a real problem for us paying for it north of 96 because we have nobody to assess there. As you know, we can't assess the federal government. - . . I think our feeling is pretty strong that it's a village-wide advantage - if it's an advantage - and that we ought to 'take village general funds for.it. The Mayor hasn't explained that he has, in my opinion, the best back- ground to do this, but we have some options and they involve trade-offs of this first and this second as to where we can go. I think, your Honor, that that might be the most help- ful - for you to suggest the State moneys for that portion- we might even consider some park funds - and where we'd be and how long we might have 'to wait to do it. . MAYOR WOODBURN: I started into it before. I guess, briefly, we maybe have some money squirreled away for Hamline, for lawsuits that are against us, and for capital improvements. Hamline - both in the short term, perhaps, a lower improvement, towards 694 - and then a longer term improvement 'towards 96. Some of the park funds are desig- nated (inaudible) but could go towards the pa'thway. We have a little money left in the State aid funds, which come basi~ally out of your gas tax, for some of these improvements. If we put that all together, we could probably come up with something. The most that it would do would be to delay Hamline Avenue for half a year, if that was to go forward, which is not decided but much talked about. Councilman Hicks? -13- . COUNCILMAN HICKS: (Inaudible) agree with both Tom and Diane regarding the assessment question. I would like to hear some comments regarding striping the left turn lane. We talked some about that and I'd be particularly interested in what their comments are regarding that versus the four lane stripe. MAYOR WOODBURN: There are a number of comments we'd like to hear from the audience about yet. We are open yet - the public hearing is open for any comments. It seems like the Council unanimously - those who are here - feel that we can get the money without assessing, but don't yet close the hearing. That is not a vote and that is not official, so if you want to stay here until Timbuktu and find out (inaudible) and then we could have questions about specific portions of the ~oadway that you might like to address. MAN IN AUDIENCE: I have one quick question. I just heard a couple of minutes ago that we can't assess the arsenal property, which is a half mile, and we can't assess Control Data, which has to be several hundred feet. If it were to come to an assessment, would that mean that the assessment would be divvied up between three or four thousand feet of property owners? MAYOR WOODBURN: It's possible, without working on the - percentages - that 20% - it's possible to assess part and pay for part on the general taxes or other funds. Itdoesn't mean it all has to go against any certain set of parcels. I think you heard the Council say they had a great deal of sympathy for (inaudible). MAN IN AUDIENCE: First of all, I'd like to thank you for your viewpoint on the assessment. Secondly, as I understand it, we have two lanes going in each direction right now and the question is whether or not there should be one lane going in each direction, with a turn lane in the middle. I think those of us who pull out.onto Lexington from either Amble or Pleasant Circle feel that it's probably easier to make a left turn if there was one lane in each direction versus two in each direction. It can be very difficult making a left turn. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Leonard, would you like to go over this? . MR. WAYNE LEONARD: If I could digress just a moment - starting at G-2 - from G-2 to 96 - I would see no advantage personally to a three lane road in that area (inaudible) there's nothing there and it would bring in Highway 96. Of course, once we get to Control Data's north driveway, we're talking about two lanes in each direction at that point, (inaudible) left turn down the middle. I believe, what with the tapers involved and we're talking three lanes - I'm -14- thinking the 96 to Victoria area - that's all there really is realistically to talk about. I hope that I'm correct in presuming that. . I guess, because of traffic northbound that might be experienced in Roseville, Shoreview and Arden Hills - a three lane road coming through north, going through a commercial area with two lanes in each direction and retaining the center left turn lane and then entering at Victoria into one lane each direction, with the center left turn lane. We don't see any problem with the traffic flow in that kind of a set up. Probably the driver coming from the north - 96 - comes down - he may experience this three lane road and there will be some confusion for a period of time. Our experience tells us that it will work though, if that's the desire of the people. . I think what I'd like to say about the three lane and four lane design is simply this - that given a three lane design - that is, a center left turn and prohibited from passing in that area - you enter that area for turning move- ments - it is a protected turning area - you have then determined that all cars that are going south or all the cars that are going north are going to get into line to drive through this area. Now, the effect of that is no different than what you have out there right now - the two lane road. I'll grant you that - it's exactly the same. Essentially no one passes out there, you all get in line to drive through there. However, if we construct a road sufficiently wide for four lanes and allow two lanes in each direction and eliminate the left turn thing in the middle, we now have an opportunity for someone to slow down and make a right turn and you'll be able to go around or if someone makes a left turn you'll be able to go around. The end result of that activity essentially - as I will try to explain it briefly - is that there will be larger numbers of gaps in the traffic on a four lane road than there is - on two lanes going in one direction instead of one lane in each direction. What you are trading off then - you're getting more gaps but you have a little farther to go to cross two lanes and you have to make sure there's a gap coming from the other direction if you're going to make a left turn and get into the line of traffic, whereas you take your chances with everybody in one line, fewer gaps, but I can get through it and get into that center left turn area and then proceed. Either one of them work satisfactorily. I believe it's the choice of the Council - that we can stripe it in that manner and attempt to operate the road in that manner. There's no reason it shouldn't - it's operated to the south in that manner. I do think that you're going to see everybody lined up - which is what you're accustomed to now - I just think if you take that and put it into two lanes, you'd spread it out a little bit and it would seem - -15- , . like less traffic and it would flow smoother, but it's really - as long as they're talking about this area between 96 and Victoria - I think it's a local preference. There's also Shoreview that has to be considered in this thing - the other half of the street. I guess that's kind of where I'm at. I think that our department is quite satisfied with the way that the three lane road is working to the south. We've had complaints where somebody passes another car and gets a ticket for passing in the center and there are other - some people that are not familiar with the area get real upset with it when they first drive it - but essentially we think it would probably work. I think that our department feels that the four lane road - if you would give it a fair chance - you might be quite satisfied with it. If you haven't been able to get along with the one you have out here now, I'm sure that the four lane is going to be a tremendous improvement. some of the fears I hear about this turning across these two lanes - we hear this frequently at public hearings - it doesn't seem to be a problem once the roads get built. We don't hear about those problems but there are some problems at this stage. I would encourage you to study it very seriously before you determine that you're going to go with a three lane design. But it probably would work. - MAYOR WOODBURN: Your recommendation then is four lane, and the 52? MR. LEONARD: I think so. And I think another thing - to (inaudible) this same issue - there's not a significant cost in putting the paint down. Once we get the paint down, there's quite a cost in eradicating - taking up the lines. However, periodically we do seal-coat the roads. At the time that we would propose to seal-coat a road - that destroys the lines and we'd go out and put the paint on again. It's quite easy to change it at that time. You might want to consider a trial period type thing - one way or the other as a trial for a period of time until the County determines that the road should be sealed or something and re-evaluate it - there's also that possibility. I would hate to see it be approved that way forever and ever and ever. There should be some flexibility. MAYOR WOODBURN: Do you seal-coat about every four years? . MR. LEONARD: Yes, and after the initial - about two years hopefully, it generally turns out to be three - after it's initially constructed - that is, the pieces under construc- tion - we'll put the final wear surface on them next summer and then two to three summers later we will attempt to seal it. MR. WILLIAM ROE: Me Leonard, I'd like to clarify some- thing. Hypothetically, if you did stripe it for one lane each direction and a center lane - wouldn't that open up into two -16- . . lanes, plus a turn lane still at 96 though? MR. LEONARD: Yes, those geometries - I would propose that they remain exactly the same. What would happen - when you come around that - let's say that you're headed north and as you come onto 96, there would be a white line about five to six feet away from the curb and then your 14 foot lane and then a 14 foot lane for the turners. That would open up first - at the nose - into two lanes - and ~he white line alongside of you would disappear on the outside - and then as you came past the piece of median there, then they would all become a third lane for that left turn lane and you would proceed that way until you got - however far north - and that would be the end of it. Coming south, you would again have the two lanes coming down 96 - the left turn and two through lanes - and then as you came through there where that bulb is - it's 26 feet through there - there we would pick up a line. In other words, we would get the cars through the intersection and then channel them into that one lane - with paint, if you will. Those features (inaudible) would essentially remain the. same. MR. ANDY HOLEWA: I would like to state that I would agree that it ought to be-four lanes and if it doesn't work out, then change it. My understanding and my experience agrees with what Mr. Leonard said - that it's going to work out - and it will be better for the City and for all the people. MR. WILLIAM ROE: I could live with either one, but if it was up to me, I'd like to see it striped three lane. Granted, Mr. Leonard has a pretty valid point about in the Roseville area where it's three lane -we're talking about a very long stretch of highway there. I know - I travel that quite frequently myself. If you get behind somebody who's pretty pokey, it can seem like forever. However, the area that we're talking about - we're talking only several hundred feet at the most. I guess I would say that - because of the number of children in the neighborhood and also the houses whose driveways come out onto Lexington Avenueton the other side - Shoreview - I would like to see it striped three lanes with the center turn lane because it would give them a little added safety feature and would also tend to slow the traffic through - if you want to call it a residential area - down somewhat. Once it gets beyond 96 to the north, that's mostly all commercial anyway until you get up to Shoreview - and the same thing happens at Victoria. You can open it up there to the four lanes also because that's all industrial down there too. So we're talking about a very minor section of roadway here and I think just the idea of slowing traffic and making everybody bunch up a little bit more would be better. Also, as far as exiting from Amble or Pleasant - crossing one lane of traffic, I think, would be a little bit easier -17- '. . than it would be to cross two lanes if you were turning out onto the north, plus the fact that - even though it might be illegal - you could turn into the center lane and kind. of merge over there then. I've seen people do that too in the area of Roseville. I think that would work out the best for the area residents. Just that if you have it two lane each direction - you're talking about vehicles probably driving - at that point where they come out at Amble or at Pleasant - at the maximum speed limit of 45 miles an hour which, if somebody gets hit there, could cause a very serious accident, whereas I don't think they'd quite reach that speed if it was just a single lane in each direction. MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) down on Lexington and backing out because they can't turn around in their driveways. MR. LEONARD: I believe the design speed of the road would be limited to 40 miles an hour - it won't be 45. I think it's posted 40 right now and it will be 40. The reason for that is quite simple - in accordance with the gas tax provisions, if we exceed that design speed, we have to have a 30 foot (inaudible) 60.. feet wider for all practical purposes so far as the construc-. tion is concerned. We will limit the speed to 40 miles an hour. MR. WILLIAM ROE:. I'm sorry - did you say that's five miles an hour less than what it currently is? - MR. LEONARD: I don't know what it currently is. You mentioned the 45. The plans will not show (inaudible) the design speed is 40 miles an hour. You're free to have it checked and if everyone is going faster than that, it might get raised or lowered. MAYOR WOODBURN: Does the speed on a three lane road vary much from that on a four lane road? . MR. LEONARD: I have what is not a popular opinion on speed (inaudible) that essentially goes like this: that we experience areas where the driver has frustration with the road. We also experience that driver when he devotes all of his attention to the road and is apt to go faster than the guy who is on a nice, comfortable road, who is not irritated nor his attention demanded on the road all the time. So what can happen if a road is improved - which was in bad condition before - we'll actually anticipate - and once the kids get through trying it out to see how fast you can go and that all settles down - that people will be more comfortable and more satisfied and probably drive slower than they were before. I think then, what that means to me - if I'm irritated at being behind a driver that's slow or something on a three lane road - if he gets out of my road, I'm inclined to speed up as a result of that irritation. If I don't have that irritation, maybe I won't speed up like that - I can just drive through smoothly. I'll be more inclined to stay within reasonable limits. You've got the guy who slows down and you can't -18- " . . , I pass (inaudible) and you've got the guy who, once he gets past there, he's going to make up for lost time. I really think that the three lane design is not going to significantly reduce the speed out there. MR. ANDY HOLEWA: Mr. Leonard, are there any studies on this? MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) Fairview Avenue. MR. LEONARD: It hasn't posed a problem for us. MAYOR WOODBURN: By Rosedale. (Inaudible). MR. LEONARD: We've added some signals and lanes. MAYOR WOODBURN: Do you have any speeds before and after? MR. LEONARD: No. The speeds in that area are - nobody goes very fast very far. There are studies that will show that when a driver's attention is required to be on the road, he will drive faster than if the road is a nice, pleasant thing to drive and he doesn't have to pay all his attention to it and he'll slow down and look around. But he'll fight with the road if you force him_to. - MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) quoted before and after speeds and the after speeds were two miles less when it was four lane than when it was two lane. MR. LEONARD: The piece up around Cleveland (inaudible) coming down that hill and across the railroad tracks. People behave in there a little better now and it's a result of it being more comfortable to drive - not irritating. MR. HOLEWA: Your Honor, could Mr. Leonard speak to people getting out from the Shoreview side? MR. LEONARD: ~ve recommend that they have these hammer- head type turn-arounds in their driveways. We don't recommend backing out onto the highway. Again, if a person is to back across the street and come out - he lives on the east side and he's going to go south - he has to not only have a hole in the traffic northbound, but he has to have a considerable gap in the traffic headed the other direction. Presuming he is satisifed to back out into that center strip and take off - it is probably, in some respects, safer for that maneuver. However, he's going to have smaller holes, or fewer holes - fewer opportunities - because all the cars are concentrated in one line instead of being spread out. I guess, were I to live there and back out of one of those driveways, I'd almost as soon have the wider road because I would afford the people coming from the north an opportunity someplace to go to get around me. I think I would have more gaps to work with and -19- " I'd have more road for the cars to utilize to avoid me. That's my personal opinion. . MAN IN AUDIENCE: the roadway.) (Asked a question regarding parking on MR. LEONARD: I would recommend that parking be banned on the roadway entirely. I think the reason for that is that again, (inaudible) talking about the three lane as the only place where anybody has been apt to park. To our knowledge, there hasn't been much parking on the road - along the road - and I don't know that there's anything to be gained by at this time starting to encourage it. Having reviewed those things, we'd ask the Council to pass a no parking resolution with the project if they choose to approve it. (Inaudible). MR. ANDY HOLEWA: Mr. Leonard, do you have any information from Shoreview as to what their preference is - three lanes versus four lanes - and whether they're apt to go along with the no parking? MR. LEONARD: I guess I have no reservations about. the no parking. I don't see that that's a problem - I don't have any knowledge that it is a problem and I don't anticipate it to be a problem. So far as the three lanes - I haven't heard from them. On the other hand, we have not had informational meetings with the property owners - we did invite them to come to this one. We haven't proceeded as far through that community as we have here. There may be some thoughts in that area - I haven't heard them. If they come from Shoreview, I'm sure they'll come from the same immediate area as Arden. Hills. MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there any further comments? Is everybody satisfied with the design of the road as far as (inaudible) . MR. ANDY HOLEWA: Some of the people whose property abuts on Lexington have had some conversations with Mr. Leonard r€garding what it's going to look like after you get finished. It has occurred to me that - in the course of events - that the only record of that is our memory. perhaps - is there any method that is commonly used or anything, where we can capture that data someway without going through a lot of expense and hassle, that's better than just peoples' memories? . MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Leonard, do you have any plan here? MR. LEONARD: First, as I understand the desires of the people in the area right now - the majority of them will be involved in the construction. That is, they will have to sign some document to allow us to get on their, property to perform (inaudible) planting and transplanting and this type of thing. When that is the situation, then that document - that construc- tion easement we call it - or slope easement - does address what we're going to do there, how and what not. I feel that -20- '. . in those cases it's well documented what the property owner is to expect and what will be provided. In another broad area - from Pleasant Circle north to 96 - we have a real wide right- of-way. In that area, we have met with some of the people and they've indicated that they wanted the boulevard dressed up in such a way that it would be more readily able to mow and that sort of thing. The plan, as it's presented here, has a note on it which says - grade top soil and sod the right-of-way suitable for adjacent property owner maintenance as directed by the engineer. All I can tell you is that that is a part of the set of plans, which is of record at this hearing, and that this is the plan that we're talking about adopting. That note means to me that we are directing that work be done out there to make that suitable. That's from Pleasant Circle north. There is essentially then possibly two locations where we're not talking about the construction easement - between Amble and Pleasant Circle - those are two north lots. The south lot of the two has, in the cross sections - which I have in that set of plans there, detailed in it - a wall; a barrier wall, five feet high, three feet back of the path. That is to be carried through all the way to Pleasant Circle. That replaces a pile of dirt that's in there now that acts as a site barrier - and the pile of dirt comes out. As we approach your lots, the plan provides for a minimum of three and a half feet of wall to be exposed on the west side, and a minimum of five feet of wall exposed on the path side - the east side - to provide a combination fence on your side and a barrier on the path side, which comes into 450. That's incorporated as a part of the plan just as much as that median is, or the lift of the roadway or anything else, and the only way that I can address your assurance that it will be done is to say to you publicly that it's apart of the plan. t~en the project is constructed, it would take some kind of a significant change to get out of it. One of the things, for example - we are talking about the BOO feet of bituminous path from County Road F north, which was originally improved on the east side. We're now talking about moving it over to the west side so that this path (inaudible). The Council has before it a proposed agreement, agreeing to that change. We also have a similar agreement with Shoreview - what they're going to do with the path (inaudible). It addresses all those issues and people are kept informed. . I feel that you understand what's going to be done, for instance, in front of your place. It's addressed in the plan, and if it didn't happen, I would come on back to this Council and I think that you would have it corrected, although your property is not in any way really being touched. It's part of the plan. MR. PIERRE LIPPERT: Addressing Mr. Leonard again - how long is the project now scheduled to take? We did determine -21- . . t. \! that it would be July 1 - approximately - that initial would begin. what does the completion date look like? do have another question. work Then I MR. LEONARD: As we envision the project at this time, we would anticipate somewhere after the first of July that con- struction would start. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect that the entire project would be built in the year 1983. It's also been our experience that even if it could be done, we probably wouldn't put the final wear course on until it had gone through one winter and put it on in 1984 anyway. Also, there will be certain tree planting, sod and this type of thing, which has to go through one growing season before it's accepted. Realistically, we're looking at a project that may start in July and may not be completed until August or September of the following year. One thing that we need to keep in mind is that the County will not allow them to take up any bituminous surfacing that they won't get a bituminous driving surface restored to by winter. It's doubtful that the contractor, then, would come in and tear the whole thing up under those obligations. What I'm trying to say is that maybe the piece from G-2 north - for instance - could be the only thing that got built in 1983. The other part might not get touched.' Or, vice-versa, maybe the south piece or some other piece would get constructed, which would not mean the entire project would get built, but some portion of it. - It's very, very difficult, until you have a contract and a contractor, to identify which piece will be torn up when. The overall project could well go a year, but not in front of anyone particular location. MR. LIPPERT: to the Council, so it. My second question may not be of interest maybe I could talk to you afterwards about MR. ANDY HOLEWA: Mr. Leonard, do you plan on putting any trees or shrubs between the pathway and the property owner's line - between 96 and Pleasant Circle? MR. LEONARD: Yes and no. We have dealt with a couple of property owners where they presently have trees and, in developing the section that they seem to favor - that is, a boulevard adjacent to the path on their side and then slope down into their yard - would require picking up or trans- planting or replacing their trees. So in that area, we have proposed to either replace trees. and/or transplant what is there. Some of those trees, when they're transplanted, will be - for all practical purposes - right on the property line, but probably not out in the public right-of-way. As we go north of Pleasant Circle, the present plan does not call for any trees to be scattered out through that wide right-of~way beyond the path. -22- '. MR. HOLEWA: Did I hear you right - that what you're saying is that where the property owners' trees that need to be moved because of the construction - you will move them? . MR. LEONARD: Yes. MR. HOLEWA: But other than that, you don't have any plans for planting anything but sod? MR. LEONARD: That's essentially the plan at this point. There hasn't been added to the plan - let's say from 96 to Pleasant Circle, in that area - any extra plantings. I think, once you go south of Pleasant Circle, there isn't enough room to worry about. I guess there's no significant reason for that other than the fact that we did get the path now 20 feet instead of eight feet away from the curb because we were nearing that busy intersection and we had the room to do it. We kind of wanted the path out in the middle rather than leaving the wide right-of-way and plant trees. MR. HOLEWA: If the City Council has the opportunity, I would recommend that they suggest - or whatever the right word is - to the County that development along the property owners' borders be completed along with the road in that area, as opposed to a year later or something like that. - that it? MAYOR WOODBURN: If there is development along the would be developed, or finished, within that year, The grading and sodding. property, wouldn't . MR. LEONARD: What the normal operation, as I have exper- ienced with contractors in these types of projects - he's going to go out (inaudible). He's going to concentrate his thoughts on the road and he's going to put in the curb and gutter and he's going to put some blacktop between them and the storm sewer and ground and he's going to get that built. In the process of doing that, he's not going to disturb the areas out beyond that any further than he needs to, for whatever his operation is. Probably, then, the detached path is the last operation - paving operation - finishing operation - prior to the sodding - that he's going to be involved in. I guess what I'm telling you is that that's a likely occurrence - that the center of the road is going to get torn up, they're going to put in new curbs, they're going to pave this, and there's going to be a road out there - and the part right immediately behind your house is going to still be left uncompleted. On the other hand, it's probably going to be relatively undisturbed too, until he comes into that area to do his boulevard work and do his path construction, which is - as you might observe on the piece south - they haven't put in the first foot of path yet. It hasn't been started. That's the typical operation. The last thing that's going to happen is -23- " . that path is going to go on there and the sod is going to go down. The trees will be planted in the fall or else early spring. The majority of the construction is going to be kept within the center of the road. MAYOR WOODBURN: Do you have any completion date in your contract? MR. LEONARD: We can, if one is essential for a purpose. However, we would probably specify working days - which are calendar days when he could possibly proceed with the work, and I'm sure that that will get over into 1984. Even that does not cover us when it comes to planting trees and sod. There are certain seasons of the year when those things have to be done. We could have the road completed by August 15 of 1984, but maybe have to wait until September 1 to put the sod down. MR. ANDY HOLEWA: One of the things I'm concerned about, your Honor, is that - number one, there are some trees along there and some dirt. Looking at where Mr. Leonard was n~ce enough to mark off where the curb is going to be, I can see they're going to cut down the trees, leave the stumps, they're going to move the dirt out of there, they're going to build their road and we're going to have another year before that bikeway and the retaining wall and the rest of that gets done. That's of a little bit of concern to me. - MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything further? MR. HOLEWA: I have all kinds of things. It's of a little bit of concern to me relative to $35,000 for that path- way. I won't object to the pathway, because I think there are some people that can make use of it to get to the park, but that's a lot of money and I'm concerned about that. I under- stand that you haven't got any say over what the County spends - and $20,000 of that is going to be County money - but that's a lot of money in this day and age to put in a pathway. MAYOR WOODBURN: I think the pathway is $10,000. . MR. LEONARD: for the entire mile cost of $35,413 for Arden Hills, $7,700 County. The total estimate is $34,000 some hundred and a half. Excuse me - a total estimated the detached pathway system. $7,700 for for Shoreview, and $20,000 by the MR. HOLEWA: (Changed Tape) . . . when the pro path people are talking about it, that somebody points out to them the fact that it is $35,000 of their taxes that's paying for it, plus the maintenance. Do we have any estimates on the maintenance costs for this? -24- " MAYOR WOODBURN: No, I can't say that. We've made no move toward saying that it would be plowed in the wintertime. . MR. HOLEWA: I doubt whether you could plow because of the snow build-up. MAYOR WOODBURN: They're not generally plowed. MR. HOLEWA: Also, in terms of maintenance - some repair work is going to be needed. One should think about asking Shoreview if they want to pay for it, seeing how - from my understanding of what's going on - that Shoreview wants the path but they expressly do not want it on their side of the street. So maybe it would be appropriate to ask Shoreview to enter into an agreement. with regard to the path north of 96 - having listened to the explanation and having discussed it with Mr. Leonard - I personally can see no reason whatsoever that the pathway should be on the Arden Hills side. I would like to voice my objection to any plan that it be on the Arden Hills side. MAYOR WOODBURN: What's wrong with it on Arden Hills side? MR. HOLEWA: Unless there's some payment by Shoreview for maintaining it, you're going to have to maintain that. - MAYOR WOODBURN: They will maintain it. Our golden- tongued negotiator worked that out. MR. HOLEWA: Then I guess I don't have too much of a problem. Does that pathway - on the Shoreview side - still empty into the middle of the parking lot? MR. LEONARD: Shoreview has proposed the path from that service drive south of 96 to the signal and from the signal to what I would call the northwest corner of the gas station there. I've asked them to review that and take responsibility for exactly where it comes in there. I'm sure - when the issue comes before Shoreview - that we're going to deal with the safety of the path entering into a parking space. I think that that issue will be covered. . MR. HOLEWA: If the Arden Hills City Council has anything to say about that to Shoreview, I would urge them to ask that that be reviewed. I think that's a very definite hazard to have a pathway enter into a parking lot that people have to go through, because that's a danger to bikes and kids. ,The most dangerous place in the world to drive - as far as I'm concerned - is inside a parking lot. MAYOR WOODBURN: Parks and Recreation (inaudible) . I think that's up to Shoreview. Committee has already recommended The -25- '. . MR. PIERRE LIPPERT: I guess if we're done here, I'd just like to express my gratitude to Mr. Leonard for being so cooperative. I'm sure the majority of the neighbors who spoke to him would like to thank him tonight. I guess we're all a little suspicious at how cooperative Ramsey County was. We would just like to thank him for making himself available and coming out and physically marking our properties in such a manner that we knew exactly where everything was. I'd just like to say thank you very much. It was very nice of you to come out and help us out. MAYOR WOODBURN: I'm sure that the Council feels the same way. Ramsey County does a very good job. I've come to trust them in the last couple of years - almost. Anything new? If there's nothing new, I'll close the public hearing at this time and just ask if there's anyone here for the other public hearing on the federal revenue sharing? Seeing that we're not holding anyone up, we'll continue with this project - continue, rather, with a resolution on this matter perhaps. Back to the Council. Does the Council have any pros and cons or any questions about the project? We really have two items here - several items that go together. A resolution ordering construction of the improvement - if the Council so deems - and the resolution which you have in front of you (inaudible) cost sharing (inaudible) and restricted parking. The construction and cost sharing - I think we've read that as it has been outlined and I see no surprises in it. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: While we're pausing, would Mr. Popovich go over that breakdown of that $66,000? MR. POPOVICH: It was $34,500 for the concrete curb and gutter, $7,700 for the walkway, $10,000 for right-of~way and easements, $5,000 for drainage facilities. That totals $57,200. Then the engineer put 15% contingency, legal, engineering and miscellaneous of $8,800. That totals $66,000. MAYOR WOODBURN: I'd like to ask Mr. Leonard a question - will it be possible to hold off the construction - would it be feasible - what would it do to the neighbors - and would it be feasible to hold off construction of the bituminous pathway until 1984? . MR. LEONARD: Yes. It could be a condition of special provisions to the specifications that the pathway and the disruption of the private property be delayed until 1984 - no problem. I would make one exception to that and that is - in the event that we elected to put a catch basin or storm sewer facility on private property. None are proposed yet in the plan. One could be added if it became a desire of someone. We could follow that policy. -26- It. ) I MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) that might happen anyhow. . MR. LEONARD: Yes, but it won't hurt to emphasize it if it's a desire of the City. MAYOR WOODBURN: The reason I bring that up is that there may be bikeway funds available, depending on what this legis- lature does. They're not available for 1983, I believe - they're not available at this time. will they become available in 1983 (inaudible)? MR. LEONARD: It's my understanding that any bike grant funds which may become available have to be appropriated by the now in session legislature. When those become real money, I don't have the slightest idea. MAN IN AUDIENCE: Is there going to be a bituminous path- way and also a sidewalk? MAYOR WOODBURN: It's called a bike path, but if you want to call it a sidewalk you could. MAN IN AUDIENCE: Where is the bituminous pathway? Is that right next to the road? MAYOR WOODBURN: (Indicating on plan) It's this stripe all the way along here. MR. LEONARD: The walk and path are the same thing. Essentially there are eight feet of grass behind the curb and then the eight foot wide bituminous path. I sometimes refer to it as a path and sometimes as a walk and sometimes as a bikeway. MAYOR WOODBURN: Some minimal maintenance required for 20 years but not a great deal. A little patching, a little seal-coating about every five years. MAN IN AUDIENCE: That will probably be four inch (inaudible). MR. LEONARD: I believe it's two and a half inches with six inches of gravel. Excuse me - four inches of gravel and two and half inches of bituminous. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Does the Council feel it's of any interest or not to hold off the walkway until we have the possibility of at least applying for funds if they become available from the 1983 legislature? COUNCILMAN HICKS: there would probably be owners there during the I like that idea. I think it's a good idea. I think less disruption to the adjacent construction period. (Inaudible). -27- 4'1' . J COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: do that - how much nuisance You said the County could certainly - will it cost more? . MR. LEONARD: I want to point out to you that in the area north of 96 - it's almost essential to grade through that swamp all in one piece. It's not feasible - I don't think - in that location - to stage it. In the other area, I don't see this as being a big handicap for the contractor not to construct the bituminous path until 1984. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I don't see what the difference is one way or the other. MAYOR WOODBURN: If he starts any funds available to apply for. summer, there may be state funds. this summer, we may not have If he starts the following MR. LEONARD: In the course of funding the project, we will ask for 90% of the City's participation (inaudible). We will be asking for 10% after the job is finally and entirely completed - the final 10% or whatever the remainder is. Also involved in that is some 5% engineering costs and 5% on the tail-end. The (inaudible) anticipated by your City on the path is relatively in those numbers - that is the 10% plus the 5% engineering. I don't feel that it would be a problem - whether it's covered in the agreement or not - at the tail-end of the project to incorporate - let's say approval of bike grant funds and utilization of bike grant funds for participation. I think we could work that out informally without a great deal of difficulty, even though it may have meant refunding certain (inaudible). If you get the money, we'll take it. MAYOR WOODBURN: But when do we owe it? After it's done? We discussed this a little bit last time (inaudible). If it's already built, are we eligible to apply for the funds after the fact? MR. LEONARD: I think it would be in your best interest to make application as soon as practical, whether there be funds or not. You would have the application in. I don't know how the thing is actually physically proposed to be constructed and then you're asking (inaudible) is going to affect your application (inaudible). I don't think it will be a problem - at the tail-end if you have the money - we'll figure out some way to get it. . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: -28- ," , '. Resolution No. 83-14 . RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT NO. P-83-l UNDER AND PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 429, AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFOR 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 No. P-83-l consisting of the installation of aggregate base, bituminous surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous walkway, storm drainage facilities, necessary excavation, acquisition of construction easements and necessary appurten- ances on all that property on Lexington Avenue between County Road F and County Road G-2, as described in the Notice of Hearing at a cost presently estimated at $66,000.00, and sub- stantially 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, 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. The City Consulting Engineer is directed to prepare and submit to the Council the final plans and specificat.ions. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Hicks and upon roll call vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All Present; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. . -29- . . , STATE OF MINNESOTA . COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RESOLUTION NO. 83-15 . RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON . WEST SIDE O~ LEXINGTON AVENUE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Councll of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was duly called and held in the Council Chambers in said City on the 28th of Feb ruary ,1983. The followil€ members were present: Robert Woodburn , Mayor Dale Hicks , Councilman Disne McAllister Councilman Thomas Mulcahy , Councilman , Councilman The following members were absent: Michael Christiansen Councilman Hicks its adoption: WHEREAS, the County has planned the improvement of Lexington Avenue Crom 790 feet north of County Road F to County Road 0-2. introduced the following resolution and moved WHEREAS, the County will be expending County State Aid Highway funds on the improvement of said street, and WHEREAS, said improvement does not conform to the approved minimum standards as previously adopted for such County State Aid streets and that approval of the proposed construction as a County State Aid street project must, therefore, be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions, and . WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be a necessary prerequisite to the approval of this construction as a County State Aid project in the City, has been determined. . NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City requests the County to restrict the parking of motor vehicles on the west side of Lexington Avenue from 790 feet north of County Road F to County Road 0-2. Seconded by Councilman Mulcahv Nays 0 . . Ayes 4 ". ~ $ . . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 5S 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 with the City Council of said City held on the date therein indi- cated 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 con- struction of Improvement No. P-83-1 under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this l~:z1..day of March, 1983. ~~~ (SEAL)