Memo- Interlachen Park Special AssessmentsCity of Hopkins
Memorandum
Date: May 8, 1998
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Gessele, Engineering Supt.
Subject: Interlachen Park Special Assessments
Issues have arisen out of the May 5 assessment hearing concerning reconstruction projects on
Preston Lane and Holly Road. Staff, with supporting documents from the City Attorney, will
present discussion items in a question- answer format. Some issues will require further research
and staff will return with more comment on Monday and Tuesday, May 11 -12.
1. Will the contractor offer an extension on his bid bond and thus assure the City a contract at
the bid prices?
Yes. The consultant engineer has had a verbal confirmation of this. A signed agreement is
in the making. The contractor has however indicated that should Council fail to award the
contract at all or award at such a late date no project could be started in 1998, then he will
seek compensation.
2. Why weren't the project streets in Interlachen Park maintained in 1997?
Actually, the City stopped maintenance in 1996 when the decision was made not to sealcoat
the project streets. Staff reviewed the 1995 pavement management street condition survey
in 1996 and based on that report, decided to withhold seal coat procedures on certain
Interlachen Park streets. Staff proceeded with the hope of undertaking Interlachen street
improvements in 1997 but first needed to address the issue of revisions in Roadway Policy
#8 -B. That issue was resolved in 1997, and staff began gearing up for preliminary project
work in 1997 with construction in 1998. All the while staff held maintenance on Preston,
Ashley and Holly to a bare minimum in 1997. Seal coating of the project streets would not
have enhanced their structural integrity.
3. The City has not demonstrated through property appraisals the benefit enjoyed from the
project.
Normally the City does not use the appraisal approach until such time an appeal is filed in
district court. That has occurred once in the past ten years. The City Attorney will provide
a separate memo concerning the issue of benefit and what role that plays within M.S. 429.
He will attempt to answer whether the City is adequately justifying its assessments without
using benefit as a factor.
May 8, 1998
Page 2
4. What is the City's obligation or liability should it delay construction to another year?
The City is not obligated to complete this project in 1998. However, it may be prudent to
press on with a project in the current year in light of expectations raised and the fact that
construction costs may go even higher in 1999.
By delaying a year or more, the City's liability is no more acute than with other streets it
maintains to keep them in a safe, passable, and drivable condition. In other words, the City
meets the test of providing safe conditions by continuing to patch potholes, other safety
issues not withstanding.
5. Does the City have a long -range plan for street upgrades and maintenance in the Interlachen
Park neighborhood?
No, not in the sense of treating all the streets in that neighborhood as a cohesive project over
a two or three year period, let alone over a year's time. The use of the pavement
management program discourages neighborhood projects such as was customary in the past.
That does not preclude staff from ignoring program recommendations and taking on more
global projects.
To be continued