CR 88-114 Petition Street Reconstruction - Campbell
.
~
.
.
4'
June 14, 1988
, 0
-
"" '"
o p tC \ ~
;:~''1;
Council Report: 88-114
PETITION FOR ENGINEERS REPORT
STREET RECONSTRUCTION - CAMPBELL ADDITION AREA
Proposed Act~on.
Staff recommends the followlng motion: Move that ResolutioU. 88-~Q,
~eso!ution Ordering Preparation of Enqineers Report on ~treet
Im9rove~ents oe adopted~
This action could start t.he process of an overall street and storm
sewer proj ec"t in the Campbell Addition area. The pAti tion is for I1n
Engineer's Report only.
~e~i~. "
A petition has been received fro. Herman Terrace, Herman Court, Althea
Lane and Campell Drive for an engineer's study conducted to identit.y ,
advantages, disadvantages and relative costs of improvinq the aJ:tOv.e
streets.
A normal petition would be for an improvement. This petition is tor
an engineer's study only. If a project is initiated as a r$sult of
this study, the Council could order the project construct.ed, af'ter
public hearing, but it would take a 4/5 vote of the Council ~o order
the proj~ct constructed.
p-rill.&rv Issues to Con!1ider.
o Should the petition for a study only be honored?
o How should the Council proceed if the petition is honored?
o What are the current conditions of the roadway and storm
drainaqe?
o Timetable for improvements?
Suo~orting Information.
o Typical Petition
o Map showing location of petitioners property
o Resolution
, .
\
.
.
.
Council Report: 88-114
Page 2
Background.
The homeowners have been concerned about the status of the streets in
their area. They have been discussing alternatives with City staff
for several months. After the City adopted the Roadway Improvement
Policy whereby the City shares 40% of the cost of a complete
reconstruction, there has been mora acceptance of a possible project
in their area.
The petition, as presented, asks to have an engineering study
conducted to identify advantages and disadvantages and relative costs
of improving the streets in accordance with Hopkins Roadway
Improvement Policy #7-D Sec~ion 3, Roadwavs
Present policy is for the City to install storm sewers where needed
out of the storm Sewer Fund. storm sewers are needed to control the
drainage and to protect the street surfaces and subqrade. storm
sewers would be installed based on the forthcoming storm Water
Management Plan.
The street Reconstruction policy calls for the property owners to pay
60% of the costs with the City paying 40'. This is for complete
restoration, which restoration will include the installation of
concrete curb and gutter.
Analysis.
In response to the petition, the Council has the following primary
issues to consider:
Should the petition for a study only be honored?
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I I"ocal Improvements, Special
Assessments, sets the guidelines and rules for special assessment
projects. All costs for an improvement, including engineering costs
can be assessed. Nothing in the statutes addresses the cost of
preliminary engineering and plans if the project is not ordered
constructed. These costs may have to be borne by the city as it may
be difficult to prove benefit to properties for a study only. The
estimated cost for the study as petitioned is $2,500.
Projects that have been initiated by petition or by Council have been
denied in the past by the Council but no co::;ts for the studIes for
those projects were assessed.
\
.
.
Council Report: 88-114
Page 3
How should the Council proceed if the p$tition is ho~ored?
If the petition is honored, the Council, by resolution, should request
an Engineeres Report. This will set up the project for an assessable
project. As the petition did not ask for the project but only the
report, the C~uncil could proceed under the provisions of the statute,
where, if 'there is less than 35% in trontage of the real property
abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the
improvements, the resolution adopting the project may be adopted only
by a vote ot four-fifths of all members of the Council.
.
What are the current conditions of the roadway and storm drainaqe?
The streets In the petition were constructed about 35 years ago. The
City has no record of the amount of base material or the type of
asphalt surface constructed. The streets were constructed without
c.urbing. This type of construction allows surface water to infiltrate
into the base material, weakening the base and causing failure ot the
asphalt surface.
Storm sewers Gxist only on Herman Terrace. All surface water drains
on the road surface or leaves the road toward the edqes, eventually
soft.ening the base. No curbing exists 011 the streets which would
control the sterm waters.
Timetable for improve~ents?
If the petition is honored and an engineer's study and feasibility
report is ordered, this report could be done by the second meeting in
JUly. A hearing on the report to order the project constructed could
not be held before the first meeting in August. This would be too
late in 1988 'to construct a project of this size. The homeowners
have been told that if a project is ordered in, that it would not
begin before early 1989 and would be completed and assessed in 1989.
They are agreeable to this timetable.
~...,.,.
.\
...
.
.
Council Report: 88-114
Page 4
Alternatives.
1. Accept the petition and order an enqineer's stUdy made.
This action would be the first that is necessary tor an
assessment project. For the project to be ordered, a
subsequent public hearinq would have to be called, and a
4/5 vote of the Council would be required.
2. Deny the petition as presented. This action would return
the petition to the petitioning homeowners for further
action based on the fact that the petition is not a
standard petition.
3. Deny the petition as presented. There is no provisions
in the State Statues for the Council to accept a petition
for an engineer's report only.
.
4. Order and Engineer's report as the first step in a
.councU, initiated Public Improvement Projeot. This
action would acknowleqe the request for a study but would
follow the city's improvement pOlicy.
:1
.
,....
.
-.\
....
CITY OF HOPKINS
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
To the Counc i I of' the City o~ Hopk ins:
We. the unders I gned. be I ng the owners o~ rea I property
abutt I ng on the I mprovement hereby .3nd here I nafter
petitioned for. do hereby .1I'1~1. "'!7A~ -,W" ;~rv-\rI",
.h'lll've"- ~"""'b.~r<I ""~.-t r-^n"'t-r~t
RfG0fST AW lli6tNEf(ltNG- ~TobY Tt", Ct~IAlf.
m2ll2tUTY OF A 51QtfT IMPrWVEfY!.fuIT "ftZoJ€QT
along the fol lowing street. avenue. alley or thoroughrare In
the following location in the City of Hopkins:
,ftfLMA~ ~
. .. ..
'w. "t' .
~r..;.l'-""
<< :>. (. I .
~.!!.I.L I..L. f
. VI,.. .--... .......-... ......... k....._...~I~_.... t/"-.....J7...-..,. .....~ _......._-1iP
.a., .~ ~~ f~pv- ..~.~iT piQf1fIR.. ~-r -~d
· - ---...,_....a........... ...1 foR... .., ..~_"'....+... c:......t-..+-ae A"O nil l~
TI.... ..._____....8'1. ta lu rn .!~.LJa.R.1l ..lb." fL..-'.L._
t p~ I f 9~r It .,. n D__...... ._,,, 1 -W-_u--l,ts.
Assessable roadway improvement projects shall conForm wIth
the procedura 1 requ i rements of Minnesota Statute Chapter
429.
i'
NA~ES OF PETITION~S
/l<x:t. ~J. tl.~~. )a-~
. I ~/~~i'V-
PROPERTY ADDRESS
~~-wx~
5.~t.- ~~ J;vJ
34-' J~~ 7'~-GL-
~ ~~{dli
-~ /1 ~.=-, ~ ~i-/ -
3!J.R iJ ~y ~'^ Terr
3:3~'7~ /tli1
3I~~_~M/.
\..1.1/5"" Ilel'/?1t//J kIf',
. .,.,. ~
Typical of Petition Signed by
homeowners as shown on attached map
.
. --
Q
~ 2
(5 =
.
,
-0
m ....
I~ .:;
I -I
.J -
-t
-
0
Z
..m
:0
(f)
~
..,
eo
....
N
," . .', \::, ,:~,,'
: NbR ,",'" ,'.,
. ~L,,...'., '.,
0,.. r-.."
. '
., ( , .
, i
. '
'\
" -
.
It
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-50
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
ENGINEER'S REPORT ON IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS a petition has been received requesting that
consideration be qiven to the improvement of campbell
Addition by street reconstruction thereon and the assessment
of benefiting property for all or a portion of the cost of
the improvement pursuant to M.S..A., Secs. 429.011 to
429.111, as amended.
NOW I THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTAf that the proposed
improvement be referred to Gordon Anderson, Director of
Engineering, for study and he is instructed to report with
all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary
way as to whether the proposed improvements are feasible and
as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in
connection with some other improvement, and the estimated
cost of the improvements as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins,
Minnesota this 21st day of June, 1988.
JAMES A. GENELLIE
City Clerk
JERRE A. MILLER,
City Attorney
DONALD J. MILBERT,
Mayor