Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Public Hearing CR 12 Reconstruction Project MEETING DATE: JANUARY 19,2010 AGENDA #: SA PREPARED BY: LARRY POPPLER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE 2010 IMPROVEMENT FOR COUNTY ROAD 12 DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to hold the Public Hearing to consider approval of a resolution ordering the 2010 Improvement Project for County Road 12. A 4/5ths vote of the members of the Council is needed to approve the resolution. Councilor Erickson will not be participating in the discussion of this item or voting on it as his property abuts County Road 12. Historv On August 16, 2004 the Prior Lake City Council adopted a resolution approving the County Road 12 layout and design from Highway 13 to County Road 17. At the June 6, 2005 City Council meeting, the Council adopted a resolution approving a Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for Phase I which was constructed by a Developer. Construction commenced in 2005 and 2006. On April 16, 2007 the Prior Lake City Council adopted a resolution approving a Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for Phase II - IV. Construction commenced on phase II in 2007. At its August 17, 2009 meeting the City Council adopted Resolution 09-107 authorizing staff to prepare a Feasibility Report for the 2010 Improvement Project area as outlined in the CIP. The completion of the Feasibility Report as well as the Public Hearing are necessary steps required in the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 process. If all or a portion of a public improvement project will be paid through the use of "special assessments" the City is required to follow the procedure set out in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. Normal County Roadway projects that are not funded in part by special assessments would not need to follow this procedure. The project area considered in the report includes portions of Butternut Beach, Sunset Shore, Spring Lake Townsite, Auditor's Subd #12, and Christies 1st Add'n. A map of the project area (Exhibit 1) is included in the Feasibility Report and includes County Road 12 (Spring Lake Road) from Walnut Ave to 900 feet west of Howard Lake Road. The proposed improvements include street reconstruction, storm sewer, storm water quality improvements, concrete curb and gutter, and appurtenant work. City utilities under the street are also proposed to be repaired or reconstructed based on need. Selected sections of sanitary sewer are proposed for replacement. Watermain is proposed to be replaced for certain street segments. The design, bidding, and construction for this project will be coordinated by the Scott County Highway Department. www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 On December 7, 2009 Council adopted Resolution 09-173 accepting the Feasibility Report and calling for a Public Hearing to be held January 19, 2010 for the 2010 Improvement Project. The Council also adopted a resolution amending the 2007 Cooperative Agreement with updated costs. Current Circumstances In order for the City of Prior Lake to issue bonds to finance the City's share of reconstruction costs and to assess a portion of those costs to the benefiting properties it is necessary to follow the statutory public improvement process. The City's participation in the project has been previously approved in the Cooperative Agreement with Scott County. The Public Hearing will cover the reconstruction of County Road 12 from Walnut Avenue to 900 feet west of Howard Lake Road including sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, storm water improvements, and appurtenant work. The properties deemed to specially benefit from the improvements, in most cases the properties abutting the streets located in the project area, are subject to assessment. Each of the affected property owners have been notified in accordance with the statute regarding tonight's Public Hearing. Conclusion While this is the official approval of the plans and specifications for this project for the purposes of issuing bonds and assessing the project to benefiting properties, the consultant for the Scott County Highway Department has already completed the preparation of the plans and specifications and acquisition of most of the right of way required for the improvements. City Staff has worked closely with the consultant during the design so that the improvements meet City Standards. On County Road projects, once we approve the geometric layout, the County can begin final design. In this case the City approved the geometric layout on August 16, 2004. On normal County Road projects, the next time the City Council reviews a project is when they are accepting the final plans and authorizing the cooperative agreement. It may seem that the process is out of order on this project, but because we are assessing the City portion of this project, the City must follow this additional process in order to assess for the improvements. This additional financing process must follow the Minnesota Statute 429. Part of the 429 process includes the preparation of a Feasibility Report, conducting a Public Hearing, and a resolution ordering the improvements. The City is using estimates generated by the consultant for the project to compute the assessment. These estimates can not be obtained until after the County has completed a portion of the design. Once the project has been awarded, the City can compute the final assessment rate based on the selected bid. The purpose of this Public Hearing is to determine whether the project should move forward to the next step in the financing process. The City Council can request modifications to the plans based on tonight's public input. However, since the County already has a Cooperative Agreement in place, has already completed the design of the plans and has acquired the majority of the right of way, any major design changes may not be incorporated by the County or only at 2 additional cost to the City. Tonight's Public Hearing is also an opportunity for property owners to voice their opinion on the inclusion of their property in the proposed assessment although there will be a separate special assessment hearing for this purpose in May. ISSUES: The Assessment Review Committee met on November 17, 2009 and again on January 12, 2010 at which time the following issues were discussed and recommendations made: Street and Storm Sewer Reconstruction Pursuant to the Assessment Policy, the street and storm sewer reconstruction should be assessed at up to 40% of the total project cost against the benefiting properties. The remaining amounts should be recovered through the general ad valorem property tax. Assessment MaD The Assessment Review Committee recommends assessing the properties as shown on the assessment map. 2490 Spring Lake Road - The property located at 2490 Spring Lake Road was part of a lengthy and contentious right of way negotiation in 2007. In 2007, the City staff agreed to support a recommendation to City Council waiving the assessment for this parcel. The waiver of the assessment originally estimated to be between $6,000 and $7,000 in 2006-2007 was a factor in determining compensation during negotiations between the County and the Property Owner. County staff and the Assessment Review Committee support the recommendation to waive the assessment for this property owner and work with the County on splitting the cost of this assessment. Creekview Circle - Creekview Circle is a private driveway whose only access is off of County Road 12. The four properties off of the gravel driveway are proposed to be assessed one unit each. City staff has met with the property owners and they are not interested in upgrades of their private driveway and do not feel that a full assessment to each property is fair. The benefit appraisal completed on Creekview Circle indicates that the benefit test is being met. In similar situations in the past, the City has assessed for this somewhat unique situation. West End Properties - Seven properties on the west end of the project have already had the improvements completed in front of their homes. In 2007, the County added the work in this area as a late addition to the County Road 12 work near Highway 13 to correct a tight horizontal curve in the roadway. Because this was a late addition to another project, the County has not billed the City for this work, consequently the City has not assessed the property owners in this area for their portion. In 2007, the City sent a letter to each of these residents indicating that the City would assess for this work in connection with the current construction phase. Two benefit appraisals were conducted in this area and the benefit supports the proposed assessment. Again this is a unique situation but the 429 process does not restrict assessing for parcels outside the current construction zone so long as the benefit test is being met. 3 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Assessment Method The Assessment Review Committee recommends the unit method of assessment for the 2010 Improvement Project due to the fact that the lots in the project area are of similar size and/or value. The estimated assessment rate is proposed at $3,434.00/unit. Orivewav Reconstruction Prooram The Assessment Review Committee agreed to continue the driveway reconstruction program for the County Road 12 project. Sidewalk / Trail Construction As a part of the project, the County will be constructing sidewalk or trail on both sides of County Road 12. The decision to have sidewalk or trail on both sides of this roadway was made on August 16, 2004 with the layout approval. The County has proceeded with design, right of way purchasing, and construction of previous segments based on the 2004 layout approval. In an effort to be responsive to input they have received without impacting the design, Scott County has decided to widen the sidewalk width on the north side to a seven- foot sidewalk instead of a five-foot sidewalk. The boulevard widths will be reduced to facilitate the sidewalk width change. In the fall of 2010, the City Council will approve its annual winter maintenance policy. By that time, both sidewalk and trail should be completed along County Road 12 in this area. Because of the unique aspects of this corridor, City staff will likely recommend that the City perform the snow removal for the sidewalk and trail on both sides of the roadway. The construction of sidewalks on both sides of CR 12 was a very contentious issue as part of the original design and layout approval made by the City and County in 2004. Residents did not feel the impacts to their property by the second sidewalk were justified by the additional safety benefit. The City Council and County Board disagreed and approved the design believing that sidewalk/trails on both sides were warranted based on the future traffic volumes and connection to numerous City and County park facilities. In accordance with the layout approval and Cooperative Agreement, the County has acquired the necessary easements and ROWand designed the project accordingly. Were the City Council to request the elimination of sidewalk on one side, the City would be liable for any costs incurred by the County for the original design and the change in accordance with the Cooperative Agreement. Additionally, based on previous approvals, the County is not obligated to make any changes to the plans to proceed with the project. The 2010 Improvement Project is proposed to be financed by special assessments, tax levy, municipal state aid, water quality fund, sewer and water fund, Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District grant, private funding, and Scott County funding. Tonight's approval does not approve any payments to the County for the project. Those costs will be approved by the City Council after the project is bid and the City is invoiced by the County for actual costs. 4 Funding sources and amounts are as shown below: ITEM COST ASSESSMENT TAX LEVY ESTIMATE MSA SEWER & WATER WSD PRIVATE COUNTY WATER QUALITY GRANT FUNDING FUNDING FUND FUND $2,519,583 I I $710,225 $72,823 $72,823 County Rd 12 $3,300,914 SidewalklTrail $97,465 Watermain $710,225 and Sanitary Sewer Watermain $145,646 Quality Improvements Private $102,225 Driveway ProQram TOTAL $4,356,475 $312,494 $343,837 $125,000 $97,465 #102,225 $312,494 $441,302 $125,000 $710,225 $72,823 I $72,823 $102,225 $2,519.583 I ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives are as follows: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing and approve a resolution that orders the 2010 Improvements for County Road 12. 2. Table the Resolution for a specific reason. 3. Deny the Resolution. Reviewed bY:( ~ .~ Frank Boyles, City M Alternative No.1, A 4/5ths vote of the members of the City Council is required to pass this resolution. I RECOMMENDED MOTION: '--"'" J 5 ~o~ P1l~ u ~ ", ~ WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 10-XX ORDERING 2010 IMPROVEMENTS FOR COUNTY ROAD 12 Motion By: Second By: The Prior Lake City Council on its own initiative has determined that the public health, welfare and safety of City residents and the traveling public are best served by completion of the 2010 Public Improvement Project; and On December 7,2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 09-173 accepting the Feasibility Report and calling for a Public Hearing to be held on the 2010 Improvement Project which includes the reconstruction of County Road 12 including sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, storm water improvements, and appurtenant work; and Ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held on the 19th day of January, 2010, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and The project was initiated by the City Council and therefore the resolution ordering the project must be approved by 4/5ths vote in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 429.031 Subdivision 1 (t). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the Feasibility Report. 3. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the City Council resolution adopted December 7,2009. 4. Plans and specifications prepared by Bolton and Menk on behalf of Scott County for such improvements pursuant to council resolution, is attached hereto and made a part hereof and shall be filed with the city clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010. YES NO Myser Erickson Hedberg Keeney Millar Myser Erickson Hedberg Keeney Millar Frank Boyles, City Manager www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Jailllary 19, 20 1 0 '\J~~e.. l PUBLIC HEARING Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the 2010 Improvement for CR 12 SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK Name "- v\. '..--L... - .:J ,~\SovJ 01 ~(S~ 1\ 'u~llJ~cR .t\ (j tAl ~ M i Nj. r;;: ftl ~C=-U{ F 7 .:(~ ~~ W~-11.~_ _ - C;C~~ )~ '. (. A -y , I tJ~Je Ji W\ Address ~V6C) C~)G1J'1~0 c,R.<-10 S~ l I ,"'\ 50/9 ~ G.~2~ -r; r fU' " LAJ }( f2 YLcJ "2. ,q I Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 www.cityofpriorlake.com Page 1 ofl Larry Poppler From: wacabroback@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:59 PM To: Larry Poppler Subject: Public Hearing Larry Poppler, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Larry, Regarding the Public Hearing tonight, thank you for meeting with me today again to discuss the proposed improvements and assessments for City of Prior Lake Project #10-010, CSAH 12. After accumulating the previous improvement timelines and facts I must respectfully disagree with the City of Prior Lake's decision to assess my property for improvements that had already been completed before the assessment letter for this project was mailed out. Therefore, very little benefit to my property was added with further projects. It is my understanding that the improvements made abutting my property in late 2005-early 2006 were paid for by the developer of the large housing development on the West side ofthe park. Those improvements included all necessary grading, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous street paving, sewer and water main extension, new road alignment around the park, and driveway and yard repairs. In the April 2007 project, (with construction in 2008), some of these brand new improvements were torn out and then replaced. These items consisted of the concrete curb, street paving, driveway, yard refurbishing, and all necessary grading. If the City intends to assess my property for improvements in this project, only a representative percentage of the costs of' actual new improvements including sidewalk extension, new lateral service, and storm ponding should be assessed. It is my contention that the other improvements were already completed and paid for by the developer, that these items were neither worn out nor obsolete, and that they cannot and should not be assessed to me. The costs for the vast majority of benefit to my property had occurred under a project previously paid for by the developer. This change would naturally reduce the amount of assessment to my property to a figure less than the $3,434 proposed. I would be happy to discuss this lesser amount at any time convenient to you. Thank you in advance for reading this letter to the City Council during tonight's meeting. Regards, William. A Broback 1/19/2010 Thank: you city council members and mayor for this opportunity to provide public testimony. My name is Emily Farah-Miller. My husband, Jonathan Miller, and I own 3050 Creekview Circle SW in Prior Lake. A letter from the City of Prior Lake dated November 18,2009, indicated the Assessment Review Committee determined the four properties on Creekview Circle are applicable assessable properties for the County Road 12 reconstruction project. Creekview Circle is a private street that is maintained by the four homeowners residing in Creekview Circle. The benefit of the proposed improvements (grading, storm sewer, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, etc.) to the four homeowners on a private street clearly do not match the benefit of those properties located directly on County Road 12. The Creekview Circle properties should not be included in this assessment. Additionally review of the 2005 Fish Lake Road improvement project found a similar situation in which Flint Road, a private street maintained by Flint Road residents, was not included in the Fish Lake Road project assessment. In response to January 18, 2005, public comments on the inclusion of Flint Road residents in that assessment, the Assessment Review Committee / City of Prior Lake Staff responded with the following available on the city's web site: Flint Road is a private street with a Flint Road address and they must maintain Flint Road. The benefit received by Flint Road residents would most likely not support the proposed assessment. Including Flint Road as assessable properties would not be consistent with City policy. Staff and ARC recommend not including Flint Road as part of the project assessment. htto:/ /W\N\v.cityofjJriorlake.com/pdf/hearing _comments. pdf Based on this decision and the lack of direct benefit from the proposed improvements, Creekview Circle properties should not be included in the assessment. Thank: you. Emily Farah-Miller Jonathan Miller 3050 Creekview Circle SW Prior Lake MN 55372 01/05/2010 10:07 FAX 9527076042 SENIOR CA~IPUS @l002 Larry PoppleI', City of Prior lake, I first want to apologize for beIng not being in attendance for the hearing. I am currently training with the Army National GUt!(d at Ft. Benning, Georgia. I am writing my appeal because the assessment placed on Cteekview Circle Is unfair to the residents. I am completely agaInst the proposed assessment. I have lived at 3070 Creekview Circle for th~ pas.t three years. During that time the residents and I have been held r'espollslble for plowing our entrance to 170th street. Keeping the snQw off the road is important because la(ge trucks such as the Waste Management and Lakeville sanitatIon S~l'VIce must use Creekview Citele in order to access our garbage and recycle. The road must also stay free of snow in ordet for emergency vehicles such as police, ambulances and fire trucks to have access to our homes. If there i!l a pot hole we are held respomJible for fixing it. The assessment placed on residents will be funding sidewalks on both sides of the roads, curbs and sewer systems. NOM of these additions will be placed on Creekview Circle. In addition to that, Creekvlew Circle will not be receiving snow removal during the winter. Also the pot holes will not be fixed when spring t:omes. All these treatments however are going to be Biven to the residents wIth driveways accessing 170'h street. If the city of Prior lake is going to access CreeklJiew Circle residents then they should receive fair treatment. Fall' treatment means curbs with sewer systems installed and sidewalks on each side of the curb that this would ensure safe walking. Fair treatmEll'lt also means snow removal during the winter and maintaining the road when pot holes occur. The tar would have to be the same thickness as 170th street In order to hold up i1gainst the heavy trucks that u~e Creekvlew Circle 01'1 a dally basis. The tar would also need re-tarring over time just like the other city Toads. If the city of Prior lake can't ensure this then the assessment Is unfair to Creekview Circle resldenb. The road conditions on Creekview Cf(cle are currently adequate. there is a fire hydrant thpt Iii currently IOCiilted within safe distance to every house on Creekvlew Circle. The road currently can withstand the welBht of the heavy trucks. The resident!) have the option to finish tarring the road and are able to plow the long road with the help of many snow blowers. It wouldn't make sense for the city to spend money on Creekvlew Circle and It would make less sensEI to give the residents unfair' treatment by accessing them. Thanks for your time and consideration, ~d5.4M Matt Asfeld, ..... ;J \ 3070 Cl'eekvlew Circle Concerns with the Special Assessment Concerning Creekview Circle Properties According to the Special Assessments on the Minnesota Legislature webpage. In order for a special assessment to be valid: . the land must receive a special benefit from the improvement being constructed, . the assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property, and . the assessment may not exceed the special benefit. Special benefit is measured by the increase in the market value of the land owing to the improvement. A special assessment that does not meet these requirements is an unconstitutional taking. Situation: The Creekview circle properties are being assessed at the same level as the other homes on Spring Lake Road. Concern 1: The homes on Creekview Circle do not receive the same special benefit as the other properties assessed at the same level. 1. Homes on Spring Lake Road will receive curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. No home on Creekview circle is Clli.lc,utly slated for any of these upgrades. 2. After completion of the project, Spring Lake Road will be paved, plowed, and maintained by the Prior Lake and Scott County. After completion of the project, Creekview Cir will still be unpaved, unmaintained, and unplowed by the city or county . The homes on Creekview Circle should be in a different class of property than the owners on Spring Lake Road. Concern 2: The special assessment on Creekview Circle puts an unfair burden of street costs on the owners. 1. The owners on Creekview Circle place 2 yards of gravel on the street each year for maintenance. Market value for class 5 gravel: $30/yard. Labor: 8 man hours/year. Total cost: $60/year plus labor. 2. The owners on Creekview Circle provide snow removal for Creekview Circle. Estimated market value for snow removal services for 200 foot road: $50/snow event. Estimate 8 major snow events (2 per month) during months of Dee - March. Total cost: $400/year. This figure does not include salt or sand. 3. Total yearly cost for maintenance: $460/year. Over the 10 year assessment period: $4600 or $1150 per household. 4. Over 10 years, each owner on Creekview Cir will be responsible for the $1150 for maintaining Creekview Cir and the $3500 special assessment for a total of $4650 per household. Which is 33% more than the other households in the assessment. The special assessmerltwill cause the owners on Creekview Circle to pay more for street costs than the rest of the homes in the special assessment. Concern 3: Creekview Circle was included in the special assessment because Spring Lake Road provides their only way in and of their street. 1. Creekview Circle is not the only road that falls into this category. In fact every property North of 170th Street, South of Prior Lake, West of Willow Ave and East of Creekview Cir all use Spring Lake road as their only access. Other city streets that rely solely on 170th Street/Spring Lake Road for access include: a. Pleasant Meadow Lane b. Willow Beach SW c. Bay Avenue d. Elm Street e. Basswood Circle f. Willow Beach Trail g. Walnut Avenue h. Sycamore Trail 1. Vale Circle J. Dewitte Avenue k. Todd Road 1. Monroe Avenue m. Kent Street. eel Creekview was includiRg in the Special Assessment because Spring Lake Road is the only outlet for the properties. By that reason, all of these properties on the streets listed above should be included because they are the same class of property. ~b\ ~ ~V\ ~~l 1010 0t-~vtE-w C\(L. 7<(-\.()~ It\t~ M.N 5537,L 0.. \ II e}.fJ fs'1..1 e 3t'lA; I ~ [PM \oJ..( Y\Ltt \0 ') II ~ W\cu \ - lPW\. ( Q '52 - l-L0 - 3qs l