09-22-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Page 3 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council meeting, approximately 90 residents attended (over 450 flyers were sent out notifying residents of the meeting). Several things were discussed at the informational meeting including the possibility of MSA funding and status on both Spring Lake Road and County Road I and what the standards for the construction were in regard to street width, etc. Other issues discussed were the city's trailways plan, the current assessment policy, funding sources (including tumback funds). The residents were asked at that meeting if there was any street width preference - 26 feet wide with no parking on either side, 32 feet wide with parking on one side, or 38 feet wide with parking on both sides. A second meeting was held on August 19th, and Barry Peters, Project Manager with SEH, used the existing city policy and an estimated cost on a 32 foot wide street to put together some mock assessments of the project. Many issues were brought up at the meeting and Ms. Haake volunteered to get together with some of the neighborhood residents and present a survey to the affected residents on the various questions. Ms. Hawke presented a copy of the survey results to members of the City Council as well as a copy of the questionnaire that was distributed. The majority of residents wanted the repair or resurfacing of the road, and 58% wanted a 26 - 28 foot wide road. Forty percent desired a 30 foot wide road. Fifty-six percent wanted a curb installed, 44% did not want a curb installed. An overwhelming 86% of the residents did not want the sidewalk trailway. If a painted trailway were proposed, they would only want it on one side. Eighty-nine percent of the residents have specifically asked for the tumback money and the MSA funds to be applied to the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. . Ms. Haake explained that she had called some road re-surfacing companies. Residents have been told that they can expect to pay approximately $40.30/running foot for the roadway. For two miles of roadway with a nine ton capacity, no curb and gutter, 26 feet wide, asphalt roadway with 25-30 year durability, she was given three estimates. These came in at $200,000, $225,000 and $290,000 (to reclaim and resurface). The Ramsey County turnback funds are $580,000. Ms. Haake stated for that amount, everything should be able to be done. She noted that she did talk with a civil engineering firm that specializes in watershed, water quality/quantity issues to ask about curb and gutter. There is some feelings that if water is allowed to run off the road naturally, there is a process in which that water can be cleaned and of good water quality. If the turnback funds were applied to this type of project, MSA funds would not need to be used at all and the residents would not have to pay for it. Ms. Mary Mahick, 8289 Spring Lake Road, was present and talked about the turnback money issues. She explained that when the city calculates the assessments, the turnback money is never entered into that assessment. The assessment policy states that the residents must bear one-half of the total cost of the construction. Because no credit is being given for the turnback money, the residents end up paying for improvements that are already paid for by Ramsey County. She feels this is unfair. She would like to see the tumback funds taken off the top of the construction costs. When one goes back to what Ramsey County is giving for this project, residents are losing $290,000. She feels this issue needs the Council's attention. As the policy is set up now, the residents are not seeing any monetary benefits from the turnback funds. Ms. Mahick noted that she called several other communities to see what there policy is. She found that other communities assess well below the 50% fee. She asked that the Council review the assessment policy to see if changes are appropriate. Mike Hegland, 7604 Spring Lake Road, explained that the residents are generally happy with the size of the road as it is now. Smaller roads limit the amount of traffic and keep the neighborhood more desirable. With regard to the sidewalks/trailways, the residents felt it takes a large amount of the property to add these things in. • It adds maintenance issues and very little benefit (except on County Road I where there is already an