12-08-1997 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 7 Page 5 November A mber 24, 1997 d a �� Li" • Mounds View City Council 1 alternative to the option presented by Mr.Peters would be to purchase a vacant lot and create a holding pond 2 there. 3 4 Ms.Haake stated she would request that the council not to expand the project of upgrading Spring Lake 5 Road/County Road I beyond what is really needed to provide a smooth driving surface for movement of traffic, 6 maintain good water quality/quantity by letting the water run off remain where it is and minimize the cost to the 7 city and its residents by budgeting the road improvements with everyone and the city 8 within all of their meens and what is best everyone. 9 10 David Jahnke,8428 Eastwood Road,noted that in regard to water run off,each tree requires 55 gallons of 11 water to grow and there are plenty of trees on that street to take care of this. 12 13 Mary Malrick,8289 Spring Lake Road read a statement in regard to the proposed project. According to State 14 Statute 429,an assessment must not exceed the benefit it brings to the property. She noted that she is not 15 certain that the increase in value to her property would be equivalent to the improvements assessed to her 16 property. She believes this project,which started out as a simple road project,has turned into a water 17 management fiasco. She wonders if any other viable options have been explored,such as routing the water to 18 another area. Furthermore,she questioned how much responsibility she must bear in paying for the water 19 treatment project of Spring Lake(this is a tri-city resource). She stated she is not sure that her assessments 20 reflect improvements only to her road-she would like to see a detailed cost analysis for each road. She • 21 asked when the assessments will be adopted. She noted that if the residents vote down the project by petition, 22 the project will be put last on the list for reconstruction-she stated this offends her belief of the democratic 23 process. She stated if the city cannot adequate address concerns raised by residents,she respectfully would 24 request that the Council postpone the project until sufficient information is available. 25 26 It was noted that the assessment hear is proposed to be in October of 1998. 27 28 Brian Kaden,7675 Spring Lake Road,noted that the county turn back funds are put into a city fund for the 29 repair of city streets and therefore are not directly applied toward the repair of the turn back road According 30 to the currently policy,the$590,000 in turn back funds is going towards the city's share of the project costs,not 31 toward the resident's share. He feels the council should take the funds and the MSA funding and use it to 32 directly reduce the assessments to residents on the affected roadway. The city should not be making profit at 33 the expense of its residents. Mr.Kaden read a letter that he received from Bonnie Hagel,a Real Estate Agent, 34 in regard to the value that the future road improvements would bring to the residents. It is her opinion that the 35 cost benefit to his property would be$0. Additionally,he is located on a corner lot and therefore is being 36 assessed for the two roadways. He objects to this as it does not make his property any more valuable. He 37 noted that if the city is paying engineering fees at a percentage of the total construction costs,there are no 38 incentives for the engineers to keep the cost of the project down. In regard to the proposed removal of the 39 Stop Sign on Spring Lake Road,Mr.Kaden asked that the city re-consider this. He would like to see a three- 40 way stop at every intersection to provide a safer roadway. If the proposed trailway will be on the other side of 41 the street,he asked that the city provide a crosswalk at the intersection. He noted that he is against the 42 proposed curb and gutter. He asked that the city council review the survey once again and give the residents 43 what they really want. 44 45 Doug Thompson,7841 Spring Lake Road,noted that the current Assessment Policy,especially with regard to 40 46 MSA and turn back funds,tends to increase the cost of the project. The assessment policy essentially ends up 47 giving the city an extra dollar for every two dollars that are spent(the MSA funds go into the city's fund plus 48 the residents are assessed). This allows the city to increase the funds available for the entire reconstruction,