HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-058 Council Resolution•
AGENDA ITEM 7F
STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Powell, City Engineer
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 14, 2001
TOPIC: Resolution No. 01 - 58, Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Study
for the 2002 -2003 Street Reconstruction Program.
VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority
BACKGROUND:
On March 12, 2001, the City Council directed staff to review the proposed street
reconstruction program to determine whether or not alterations to the priority ranking
should be made. Staff has reviewed the existing land use, the existing MUSA line, the
draft - proposed MUSA phasing, and the existing utility system. We do not recommend
altering the Street Reconstruction Program order.
The attached resolution orders the preparation of a feasibility study to investigate the
reconstruction of the following streets located in the City:
Street From Segment
Rice Court
Hokah Court
Hokah Drive
Totem Trail
Arrowhead Drive
West Shadow Lake Drive
Lamotte Drive
Lamotte Circle
Marilyn Drive
Barbara Lane
Totem Trail
Hokah Drive
Totem Trail
Arrowhead Drive
Ware Road
Birch Street
County Road
Lamotte Drive
77th Street
Marilyn Drive
To Segment
Cul -de -sac
Cul -de -sac
Birch Street
Birch Street
Tomahawk Trail
Northern End
City Limit
Cul -de -sac
Highland Meadows West
Cul -de -sac
This listing recognizes that Ware Road has already been reconstructed, that Elm Street
will likely be reconstructed as a Municipal State Aid roadway; and that two years worth
of construction is to be considered.
The study will consider utility issues, wetland impacts, road section and other matters
related to reconstructing the streets. Public information meetings and other public
participation is planned to familiarize residents and other property owners on the City
Charter and public improvement process. A preliminary schedule has been attached.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and the Lino Lakes Charter, Council is
required to order the preparation of a report studying the proposed improvements.
OPTIONS:
1. Return to staff for further review.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 01 -58, Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Study for the
2002 -2003 Street Reconstruction Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Option No. 2 - Staff recommends that Resolution No. 01 -58 be adopted.
t
•
Council Member Carlson
adoption:
introduced the following resolution and moved its
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 01 -58
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF STUDY FOR THE 2002/2003 STREET
RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the following roadways by reconstructing the
street, constructing curb and gutter, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer:
Street
Rice Court
Hokah Court
Hokah Drive
Totem Trail
Arrowhead Drive
West Shadow Lake Drive
Lamotte Drive
Lamotte Circle
Marilyn Drive
Barbara Lane
From Segment To Segment
Totem Trail
Hokah Drive
Totem Trail
Arrowhead Drive
Ware Road
Birch Street
County Road
Lamotte Drive
77th Street
Marilyn Drive
Cul -de -sac
Cul -de -sac
Birch Street
Birch Street
Tomahawk Trail
Northern End
City Limit
Cul -de -sac
Highland Meadows West
Cul -de -sac
and,
WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the benefitted property for the cost of the
improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and Chapter 8 of the Lino
Lakes City Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA:
1. That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and
that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising
the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is
feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection
with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as
recommended.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 14th = = of May, 2001.
Jean • er, Deputy City C
J '/ . Ber• eson, Mayor
T otion for adoption of e foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
Member Reinert and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favorthereof:John Bergeson, Donna Carlson, Caroline Dahl, Jeff O'Donnell and Jeff Reinert
The following voted against same: None.
Whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and
approved by the City Council on May 14, 2001.
can V g - r, Deputy City
•1.
Preliminary 2002/2003 Street Reconstruction Schedule
Initiation of Project -Order Preparation of Feasibility Study May 14, 2001
Instituted by either:
a. A petition of at least 25% in number of the benefitted property owners together with a resolution adopted
by an affirmative vote of the majority of all of the Council (3/5 vote), or
b. A resolution adopted by a 4/5 affirmative vote of all the Council
2. Receive Feasibility Report and Call Hearing on Improvement
June 25, 2001
a. Resolution shall be published twice, at least one week apart, in the official newspaper of the City no Tess
than two weeks prior to the date of hearing, and
b. A copy of the resolution, including estimated unit prices and estimated total price, shall be mailed to each
benefitted property owner at least two weeks prior to the date of the hearing.
3. Public Hearing
4. Petitioning Process
July 23, 2001
A period of 60 days shall elapse after the public hearing before any further action shall be taken by the Council on
the proposed improvement. During this 60 day period, the following petitions may be filed:
a. A petition against the improvement signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed (if
initiated by 1.b. above)
b. A petition against the improvement signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed at least
equal to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement (if initiated by 1.a. above)
If either of these cases apply, Council shall not make the improvement at the expense of the property benefitted,
unless
a. A petition for the improvement, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed at least equal in
number to those who signed the petition against the improvement.
5. Election November 6, 2001
When less than 100 % of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by a funding source
other than the City general fund, the Council shall within 120 days after the conclusion of the hearing, submit the
proposed improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City. If a majority of those voting on the
improvement are opposed, the Council shall not proceed with the improvement.
6. Order Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications
November 26, 2001
When a proposed improvement has been allowed, at any time between 60 days and one year after the conclusion
of the hearing, the Council may proceed on the improvement.
7. Approve Plans and Specifications and Order Advertisement for Bids January 14, 2002
8. Council Accepts Bids February 11, 2002
If the proposed contract exceeds the estimated cost stated at the Public Hearing by more than 10 %, the City
Council may not award the contract.
When a proposed improvement is disallowed, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement for one year
after the hearing.
• 9. Assessment Hearing February 25, 2002
10. Begin Construction on 2002 Project May 1, 2002
11. Begin Construction on 2003 Project May 1, 2003
05/09/01