Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutres_7321 13;)-1 Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Roseville Ramsey County, Minnesota February 22, 1982 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, was held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, February 22, 1982, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Tne following members were present: Mayor Demos and Councilmen Curley, Kehr, Franke and Johnson; and the following were absent: None. Also present were James F. Andre, City Manager; Robert Bell of Peterson, Bell & Converse, City Attorney; David Drown of the City Public Works Department; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultants. MAYOR DEMOS: The next hearing is Improvement No. P-81-24, concrete curb and gutter and bituminous paving for Brenner Avenue between Patton Road and Highcrest Road. MR. ANDRE: We have the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing on file. MR. DROWN: This improvement was also initiated by a petition. In this case by 72% of the owners between Highcrest Road on the west and Patton Road on the east. This petition also requested the improvement of the existing roadway, bringing it up to City standards. The existing road-mix street is again 29 to 30 feet in width, generally centered in the right-of-way. The roadway grades vary from 1/2% to 3%, generally downhill toward to the east. Again, there is very little crown in some locations along the roadway. Present pavement condition would probably be termed "fair". Drainage facilities and catch basins are at some of the intersections and mid-block locations. We investigated these and they appear to be adequate. No major modifications are planned for the drainage system. Driveways and boulevards along both sides of the roadway generally have moderate grades but, as in previous discussions on projects under consideration this evening, there are a couple of cases where there are some steep driveways. We propose the same type of action here - that is, to raise the roadway grades slightly at the steep driveways to provide them with a little flatter driveway condition. The proposed new street construction is again the City standard seven ton residential street, concrete curbs and gutters on both sides of the road, with the faces 32 feet apart and with an asphaltic concrete surface. The new roadway grades will again closely match the existing grades of the driveways except for tho'se couple steep driveways we talked about previously. There are trees and shrubs on both sides of the roadway and while the trees are set quite a way back from the edge of the street, there are, in a couple of locations, some shrubs that are just a few feet off the asphalt today. We've taken a look at those and it looks like with a little trimming they could be transplanted further back into the yards. That is our proposed action for those. There are also a couple of drainage swales. I'm not certain as to between which houses they come, but we have been careful to look at the top of the curb elevations to make sure that the drainage through those swales can still get out in the street. Again on this street we have some corner lots, which we talked about in previous hearings. We have some odd lots. Those same formulas we talked about previously govern here as well. Finally, we do have an improvement that we just passed on Patton Road and in the event Brenner is also approved, the Council may wish to give consideration to consolidating these two projects for assessment purposes. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: I take it that lot 3065, because it's part of both improvements, will pick up the frontage on Patton and (inaudible) on Brenner. MR. DROWN: That's correct. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the total published cost of this improvement is $90,9-76.63. There are 1869.97 assessable feet according to the formula. If it was 100% assessed it would be $48.65 per front foot. Using the recommendation of only 25% being assessed, it works out to $12.16 per front foot, which again I would recommend be done over the ten year period as we discussed before. If you were to combine this improvement later - you don't have to do it tonight, you could order this improvement tonight and, of course, the assessment hearing is later - but just so you have the figures before you, based on the engineer's estimate - if you were to combine this improvement with the Patton improve- ment - the one that was just done - this one has 72% of the affected property owners and the other one was 50% plus with the gentleman that came up tonight with an additional 85 feet - you add those two improvements together and the total cost would be $153,129.65. You would then have 3361.57 assessable feet, for a total of $45.55, which works out to $11.38 per 2 front foot based on the 25% approach. That would mean that this $12.16 would come down to the $11.38 and the other one, which was $10.42, would come up to the $11.38. It's an equalizing factor. That's not a decision you have to make tonight, but it does have some impact and that's why, based on the engineer's recom- mendation, we thought we'd give you those figures so in case anybody wants to comment on that they can. MAYOR DEMOS: By the same token, when those bids are let together, they may come in a little cheaper. MR. POPOVICH: That's right. MAYOR DEMOS: As long as there are two being done together. MR. POPOVICH: That's right. It just makes sense that normally, on this type of thing, you do them together, but since the petitions were separate they have to be handled separately. MAYOR DEMOS: That's right. we would let the bids out as one. ments? We price them separately but Are there any written state- MR. ANDRE: There are none. MAYOR DEMOS: I will open this hearing to the public and ask that each person come to the microphone and give your name and the address of the property to which you're referring. MR. GARY HOKENSON, 2461 Brenner Avenue: I guess I am opposed to this improvement. L'm afraid I have to disagree with Mr. Drown. The road surface is a little bit better than "fair". It's not broken, there are no potholes and there isn't any mud or anything along the street. There is adequate drainage and the storm sewers were placed there, I believe it was three years ago. To me, the road surface looks in good shape. I've lived along that street for 14 years and there has been almost no deterioration to the street. It's my opinion that it could go for another five to ten years without any improvement to it. I feel that at this time this improvement is not necessary. There are a number of other residents along the street who are of the same opinion. I have a question on the petition that was sent around. It was represented as a petition to survey the street and not to improve it. I think if you were to go back and ask the people whether or not they want to pay for it, you would not get 72%. When they brought the petition around to me, it was for a survey - not to improve. MR. POPOVICH: Here's the petition. It's very clear - to be improved by, etc. The petition says one thing and obviously, if something else was said. MR. HOKENSON: Something else was said. 3 MR. POPOVICH: But this is the petition that the people had to sign. MR. HOKENSON: I did not sign that. MR. POPOVICH: If you read it, it's very simple - it was very clear that it was to be improved. MR. HOKENSON: I guess there are 26 people along this street. Do we have 72% of all 26 people living along there? MR. POPOVICH: 72% of the front footage. MAYOR DEMOS: Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard? MRS. LINDA BURKHARD, 2467 Brenner Avenue: I would just like to say that I agree with Mr. Hokenson. First of all, about that survey - when the young man came around asking us to sign the petition, he must have talked to me at least 45 minutes and he definitely did say that this was for surveying purposes only. Again, I did not see that petition. In fact, 9.fter I found out how many neighbors were opposed to this, we called this young man back and he again assured me over the phone that it was only to be surveyed and not at all to say that we were going to go ahead and spent $91,000 on a road. Another thing I have to agree with, I think the road is in very good shape. It doesn't have any potholes. We don't have any exits to the north. We have a dead-end really to the west. It's travelled only by local traffic and as far as I can see, the only reason to improve Brenner would be for aesthetic reasons only. I think we can spend $91,000 of our taxes in better ways than putting it into a street at this time that we don't need. I think our economy is in such a shape that we can do - each individual, whether it be $1,000 we spend or $91,000 - we can use that money in a better way than putting it into a street that doesn't need it. .Also here with me tonight - I have neighbors that signed the petition that thought just like I did - that it was for survey purposes only. Thank you. MR. THOMAS GILES, 2498 Brenner Avenue: The young people that approached me on this explained the thing thoroughly. I understood that it was something that we would have to pay for. I've been a homeowner for a long time in more than one loca- tion and I know that anything you get you have to pay for. There's no free ride and there are less of them today than when I moved in in 1967. I will say that I think Mayor Demos hit on something very important when she talked about the improvement in the neighborhood. I moved into a bright and shiny neighborhood in 1967 and age has taken its toll somewhat on the neighborhood, including my house and my property (inaudible) not as nice as they were when they were brand new. I happen to be a jogger and I jog in the morning and I go up Patton and I look at the tremendous improvement that the new curbs and the extra extension of cement driveways up to join 4 the driveways' that previously had tar and things in there - it really contributes to the neighborhood and we're all concerned with home values and the important thing in real estate - I'm not in real estate although I did study it for quite awhile at one time in my life - the appearance and the neighborhood and the location - that's everything when it comes to value. We are talking about a tremendous improvement in the values of our property because of this. One gentleman mentioned that the road i~ in good shape -.I agree with him. It was resurfaced not too long ago - a couple of years ago. It was a temporary job though and five years down the line, no matter what we talk about - the economy going downhill, people making less money - but I don't see anything coming down in price. This road, in another five years, will probably be 50% higher. I don't know, but you can talk to the experts and they don't know which way the economy is going, but anything you can bet on - I happened to be around in the last depression and I never saw things get cheap until everything went to heck and they were expensive then by the standards of the salaries. No matter how bad con- ditions get, things will always be higher than you can afford. Believe me. I think to buy this road at this price "is a bar- gain compared to what it might be later. Looking at the 'aesthetic values and the values of our property - I think we're all going to be better off in the long run by putting in this road. I want to reiterate - there was no question in my mind, when the young gentleman approached me - they told me exactly like it was - that they were asking for an improvement that was going to cost money. They didn't know what it was going to cost, but they felt that there were enough people interested in it. I hear all these people that signed the petition and I say that we are in favor of it and I'll go with the majority anytime. MRS. SHERRELYN HOKENSON, 2461 Brenner Avenue: Just to reply to the gentleman that was just up here - having the job done now because it will probably be cheaper than in the fore- seeable future - I was just wondering about all the tax dollars thrown out the window to put (inaudible) a good serviceable street that was just resurfaced. Also, with re- gard to the misrepresentation of the petition circulated - there are people here - I did not sign the petition - there are people here that I've spoken with that are probably ernbar- assed to say that they didn't read it, but who looks to a neighbor, someone that lives just down the block from you, misrepresenting something like that? If you really want to know what people want on our street, we would ask for an extension so that we could recirculate a petition now that everybody here knows what it is about. There was even an instance last week where one of my neighbors called the gentleman in and he said oh no, this is just for a survey - this is just so we can keep the costs in mind. It hasn't been accurately represented. The people should have read it but many of them didn't. 5 COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Mrs. Hokenson, are there some people here tonight that want to change their vote - who feel they were misrepresented at the time? MRS. HOKENSON: Would anybody like to change their vote? Also, with regard to the aesthetic value - they have no curbs in North Oaks, they don't have them in Mendota Heights, they don't have them in Edina. While we wouldn't mind having them on a street that needed to be replaced, we don't want our street replaced until it shows at least some signs of wear. I can't see any and many of my neighbors can't either. MAYOR DEMOS: It's a seal-coat - it's not a new street as such. We seal-coat every four to five years. MRS. HOKENSON: It's still fine now. MAYOR DEMOS: Is there anyone else? MRS. DELORIS BEVACQUA, 3065 Patton Road: I agree with my neighbors and think we should have another petition sent around. We had another petition four years ago that we were not in favor of. INDOO MISI, 2473 Brenner Avenue: I would like to see another petition go around. I am against this proposed improve- ment and I think another petition would be a good idea. MAYOR DEMOS: I'll be real frank - we're not here to propose petitions. I think, very frankly, that people should be responsible for what they sign. We are bound by those that come in. We did get reverse petitions last summer four times on the same street. This could go on every meeting. We received a petition and we're holding the hearing. It is not a lengthy petition, it is not written in small print, it is easily read and I guess -' I don't sign anything that I haven't read. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor, there's another point - that's the reason for the ten day notice. Everybody does get ten days. They did have ten days to go out and circulate a petition during that period of time. MAYOR DEMOS: They have the right also to follow up and get any information they want. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Did the young man, when he carne around - did you not get a pamphlet on street improvements? PEOPLE IN AUDIENCE: No. MAYOR DEMOS: He doesn't pass that out. He merely has that if there are any questions. 6 MR. THOMAS GILES, 2498 Brenner Avenue: Several years ago there were some improvements in the same area - on the lower end of Brenner - some people had some serious drainage problems and this new road - I shouldn't say new road, you're absolutely right, it isn't a new road - it had a recapping job - and they put in these sewers and at that time someone in attendance - I believe it was the City engineer - and this is why I'm asking this question - he mentioned the fact that at some point, if all the ro~ds aren't upgraded to a certain standard, they're not going to be able to receive certain City services. Is anyone here familiar with this statement? Why this would be stated at that time - that they had to be brought up to certain standards? I remember that was part of the hearing at that time. I bring this up at this time in case someone could reinforce this to explain to the people that are against this. MAYOR DEMOS: We provide services to all of them. MR. GILES: No matter what the condition of the road? MAYOR DEMOS: As long as it's dedicated. COUNCILMAN KEHR: You're going to get your streets plowed whether they're gravel or . . . MR~ GILES: I'm happy to hear that because maybe this will never come about. I feel, from what it looks like, that it's going to go. There's something else I'd like to mention - at that time, when they put in certain storm sewers and things - I happen to live up on the higher part of the street and I raised a question about the possibility - what benefit do the people get up there? They said if I wanted to I could send in something asking to be forgiven from that. MAYOR DEMOS:' At the assessment hearing, if you feel you do not have any benefit, then you have the right to . MR. GILES: I pay about $90.00 a year; Whatever it is, I didn't feel that that was important enough. I feel that the neighborhood is the main thing. That's what I'm thinking of when I speak for myself at this time - I'm speaking for the neighborhood and I'm speaking for what I assume is the majority of the people that signed this petition. If I thought that a lot of people were against it and thought it was going to impose a financial burden or something they really felt strongly about, then I wouldn't have signed it. But again I want to say that that young gentleman - I don't know what he told the other people, but I know exactly what he told me and I knew what I signed and it was there for everyone to read and as far as I'm concerned, the majority of the people signed it and we should go. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Mr. Giles, may I ask you a question? Were you given a pamphlet? Do you recall, at the time. . . 7 MR. GILES: No, I wasn't, but I don't think the pamphlet would have made one bit of difference because I wish we could have had curbs from the day I moved in. Every year I've lived there I've said - whatever they do from now is going to cost me more money and that has proven to be true. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: It's my understanding that the person that brought the petition also had pamphlets to hand out. You didn't get one? MR. GILES: No, because he had no argument with me. I was completely in favor of it. Maybe if he had thought I was in doubt and needed some reinforcement or something - I don't know if the pamphlet (inaudible). COUNCILMAN FRANKE: There is a pamphlet that we put out in the City that explains street improvements and explains our assessment policy. Then the question is - if they got them would they read them? Sometimes people listen but they don't hear. MR. GILES: If he had given me one, I wouldn't have read it because I was for this improvement from day one. MAYOR DEMOS: Anyone else on Brenner? WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I live on Patton but we did get the pamphlet. MR. RALPH FLOWERREE, 2505 Brenner Avenue: I'm not acquainted with all of the advantages of curbs and gutters and such except that they certainly help the lawn and they do aid in street maintenance and that sort of thing. I was rather pleased when a couple of young men came around with the peti- tion. I congratul,ated them for being public spirited citizens and so forth. They handed me - I was the third person, I believe, on Brenner - there were not many signatures - but when they handed me the petition, it was brief, 'it was suggested that I read it, it was for an improvement and the conversation - one of the young men did mention to me that the first thing done would be a survey. But the petition was for an improve- ment. They didn't give me a pamphlet - they referred to one and they had one with them, which was offered to me to read. I read a portion of it, but since I was highly in favor of the improvement, I didn't take the time to read the pamphlet in its entirety. I do wish to do all that I can to correct the impres- sion that the two men who originated and circulated the peti- tion falsely represented it. To my knowledge - or at least the impression given to me was that they were entirely open about it and there was no misrepresentation at all. I would hate to see that feeling cause a negative reaction to the project. MAYOR DEMOS: Thank you. MR. ROBERT OLSON, 2453 Brenner Avenue: It was presented to me properly and I understood what it was and I knew that 8 it would cost~ They didn't give a pamphlet to me either. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: The pamphlet explains also that it only costs you 25% - that 75% of the people of Roseville pick up the rest. My point is that you were for it so you didn't read the pamphlet - by the same token, someone who was against it said I'm not going to bother reading it either. They do have the option to call City Hall to find out about it. You speak of a survey - wha~ we call a survey - but I'm sure what they were referring to is that it calls for a feasibility report, which sets forth what Mr. Popovich and the engineer set forth tonight. This hearing is the time for the people to express themselves. we're very grateful for impressions for as well as against. MR. PAUL CHEN, 2474 Brenner Avenue: I live on the corner lot - Lydia and Brenner. The improvement is just on one side. I wonder how they are going to assess for the cost. I might pay for Brenner right now and later on - when they decide to improve Lydia - then I have to pay twice. MAYOR DEMOS: It's not the whole thing. Mr. Drown, would you explain that to him. MR. DROWN: Looking at your lot, and Mr. Strong can correct me if I'm wrong - the longer side is abutting Brenner Avenue. That, in this case, will be considered your side. Your assess- ment will be based on ten percent of the length of that side. MR. STRONG: 12.5 feet. MR. DROWN: That would be on Brenner. At such time in the future that Lydia Avenue is improved, the short side of your lot abuts Lydia. That would be your front and that whole frontage will be a. full assessment. MR. CHEN: Okay. At the 'moment, it is to my advantage. MAYOR DEMOS: That's right. MR. CHEN: (This gentleman spoke poor English and was very hard to understand. He had some questions on the cost and basically wanted to know why Lydia wasn't being done at this time also. He favored the improvement.) MAYOR DEMOS: Highcrest is what is known as a Minnesota State Aid road. Actually the people on Highcrest were assessed nothing because of that. In other words, we get the funds from the State of Minnesota. Streets that carry a heavy amount of traffic to a County road or a State road or what have you - that was a joint project with the City of St. Anthony. I think you would agree that Highcrest was terrible. Why Lydia is not for this, I cannot tell you. Only the people who live on Lydia can answer that for you. 9 COUNCILMAN FRANKE: If the people would like it, we'd like to do it. MR. CHEN: (Mr. Chen again stated that he was for the pro- posal but thought that Lydia should be done at the same time.) MAYOR DEMOS: But is it right to hold up the other people then if the people on Lydia never went for it? MR. CHEN: No. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Did you sign the petition? MR. CHEN: I did not. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: But you are for this project? MR. CHEN: Right now I favor it. MAYOR DEMOS: I'm going to close this hearing and ask the Council to make its determination. COUNCILMAN CURLEY then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 7321 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT NO. P-8l-24 UNDER AND PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 429 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville, 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-81-24 consisting of the installation of bituminous paving, concrete curb and gutter and necessary appurtenances on Brenner Avenue from Patton Road to Highcrest Road, as described in the Notice of Hearing at a cost presently estimated at $90,976.63, and substantially in accordance with the preliminary report as to the feasibility thereof which is now on file in the office of the City Manager; 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 Public Works Director is directed to prepare and submit to the Council the final plans and specifications. 10 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Kehr and upon roll call vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said r~solution was declared duly passed and adopted. 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Manage~ of the City of Roseville, 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 origi- nal 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 No. P-8l-24 under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this -'3~ c:.7'\' day of March, 1982. ~ /' j~/ /~/C~" . ( ~-UL- (/ y Manager (SEAL)