The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10 16 2017 Public Presented PaperworkASSESSMENT APPEAT relative to City Project TRN17-00005, presented to City Council on October 16, 2017. To: Mayor and City Council, City of Prior Lake From: Residents of Sycamore Trail, Prior Lake It is our understanding that City Government wishes to assess us, the underslgned homeowners, who live on the section of Sycamore Trail that is being reconstructed under City Project TRN17-000005, 59142.22 each for the cost of the improvements. We object to this amount of assessment for the reasons outlined below- BACKGROUND: Prior to initiation of reconstruction, Sycamore Trail consisted of two sections of asphalt roadway. The southern-most section is in reasonable repair and most of it is not in the reconstruction area. The opposite end of the street, where the assessed homeowners live, has been in disrepair for decades, because City Hall claimed that it was a private street and therefore performed no maintenance. The asphalt that was in place was paid for by the neighborhood in contracts with private companies. ln 2009 the City Council by resolution acknowledged that it is a public street and therefore that the City was responsible for maintenance. Because of its condition, it was placed into the City's Capital lmprovement Plan for reconstruction. At the Council's November 28, 2015 regular meeting, the Council received and approved a Staff feasibility report that estimated a total cost for the project (option 1 that is the currently approved design) of 5640,300 with 5151,348 to be assessed to property owners. The estimated assessment per homeowner for this option was s9459.25. At its May 22, 2017 meeting the City Council accepted a bid of 54,742,010.90 for a package of 5 reconstruction projects including Sycamore Trail. This bid was 10.2% lower than the original cost estimate (S5,280,632.60) upon which the November 2016 assessment estimates were based. This bid also included a turn-around at the end of Sycamore Trail which has been subsequently removed. The Staff report presented to the Council included some erroneous information and inexplicable recommendations. 1) Based upon the fact that the accepted bid was considerably lower than earlier Staff estimates, new proposed assessments were considerably reduced for four of the 5 street projects by 22% to 38%. But the proposed assessment for Sycamore lrail was increased. The report states erroneously that the new proposed Sycamore assessment was a reduction of 5211, but the proposed assessment in the report is S10,738, which is 5211 higher than the S10,527 included in the feasibility report. 2) The report also states that even though the total package bid was substantially reduced as compared to earlier engineering estimates, the cost for the Sycamore Trail proiect was not reduced because Sycamore required "increased quantities" and required "additional desiSn expenditure". Further comments indicated the Sycamore project was difficult "because of terrain near the lake". Undoubtedly this was known when the project was initially estimated, and we suspect the additional design costs may have been related to staff and consultant costs to study options that had no support from Sycamore Trail residents or residents in the adjacent Willows neighborhood. 3) lt's also noteworthy that while this report shows the total cost of the Sycamore project (based upon the selected vendo/s bid) to be 16% less than the estimate in the Capital lmprovement Plan, the recommended assessment was actually increased by 5211. 4) While the neighborhood had requested by petition that the City include burial of the currently overhead power lines, the Staff report made it clear that they did not support the neighborhood's wishes. They were able to enumerate all kinds of barriers including lack of a City policy, a possible delay in the Sycamore project until next year, and cost. Most unsettling was the recommendation that the cost to the neighborhood for power line burialwould be an additional assessment of 590,000, and all neighbors would have to cons€nt in writing to waive their rights of appeal, not only lor the line buriol costs but all othet costs associated with the street rcconstruc,;lon prcied. ln our opinion this demand was unreasonable and puzzlin& knowing that the stipulation would fail to gain approval from all neighbors. lt raised questions about whether the neighborhood was being treated fairly. Because ofthe above position taken by the City, the neighborhood neSotiated directly with Xcel, and signed a contract on September 20 to have the power lines buried at a cost of 512,680, not 590,000. We have little doubt that if the City had made an effort to satisry the neighborhood's wishes to have the lines buried, that a similar Xcel price would have resulted. and the amount could have been included ih the assessment. 5) AccordinB to the Notice of Hearing on Proposed Assessment for the Sycamore Trail proiect, the total proposed assessment is S146,275, with individual property assessment of 59,142.22. For comparison purposes it needs to be noted that the cost figures included in the report of May 22 included a turn-around at the end of Sycamore, while the current design has this eliminated. The currently proposed assessment of 59,142.22 is only 5317.03 less than the feasibility report estimate, even though the vendo/s bid reflected a more than 10% reduction from the feasibility report estimate. OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT AMOUNT: We understand and accept the CiVs long-standing policy for assessing 40% of the cost of reconstruction to the neighborhood, and we understand that assessment cannot exceed the market value improvement for the benefitting properties. lntegrity in the assessment process requires validity of the project cost data, and fair assessment of the tangible benefit to property owners. We do not believe the currently proposed assessment meets this criterium, and therefore object to the amount of the proposed assessment. We offer the following factors for consideration: 1) Project cost data: Based upon the estimated assessment of59459.25 included in the feasibility rcpoft of fU28/!5 (that Staff verbally indicated they believed was conservative). and a total project bid (projects in 4 areas) that was 10.2 % less than estimated, one might expect the assessment to be reduced by 10.2% to 58494.18. Or noting from the May 22 report that the estimated cost for the Sycamore Trail project (with bids in) was 16% less than the amount included in the Capital lmprovement Plan estimate, one might expect the assessment to be reduced from the feasibility amount by L6%to 57945.77. lnstead of 57945.77 or 58494-18, we are asked to accept 59L42.22. Zl Benefit to Propefi owners: Prior to reconstruction, the Sycamore neighborhood had an asphalt surfaced street, albeit in serious need of repair. While the new street with curb and gutter will represent a welcome improvement, we are skepticalthat a new roadway surface with curb and gutter will result in a tangible market value increase of 59142.22' we the undersigned are filing this objection to the proposed assessment, and are requesting that the city Council reconsider and reduce the proposed assessment in light of the factors cited above' Respectfully: Name William and Ellen Hackett PISEIITACCIESS 3508 Sycamore Trail Signature Rob and CheriWarrnka 3498 Sycamore Trail Kevin and Laura Robinson 3486 Sycamore Trail Griff and Nancy Davenport 3478 Sycamore Trail Wesley and Charlotte Mader 3470 Sycamore Trail Dan and Mickey Choudek 3454 Sycamore Trail Chris Short 3442 Sycamore Trail Ron and Peg Johnson 3420 Sycamore Trail ) P o*J* filaau) C Ron and Kathy Curry 3402 Sycamore Trail a w) Josh and Katie Sutherland 3415 Sycamore Trail John and Darla Bauchle 3437 Sycamore Trail Tim and Tammie Hanson 3469 Sycamore Trail Mike and Kathy Spanier 3483 Sycamore Trail fuYa.a--