Loading...
05-14-91 ws_ _, ; a Y' ~ ~" M 1 N UTES O F TH E MAY` 14, 1991 COUNCIL WORKSESSION The Hopkins City Council held a worksession in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall on May 14, 1991 at 7 p.m. Present were Mayor Berg; Councilmembers; Chuck Kritzler, Chuck Redepenning, Bob Anderson and Jim Shirley. Also present were City Staff: City Manager Steve Mielke, Community Development Director Tom Harmening, Public Works Director/Engineer Lee Gustafson, and Engineering Supervisor Jim Gessele. I. PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MAINSTREET PROJECT This hearing was for the Mainstreet Improvement Project which extends from 5th Avenue to Shady Oak Road. Dick Koppy, Project Manager gave a'brief presentation. He listed the events which preceded the hearing as follows: - May, 1988 - A Commercial Market Study was prepared by Laventhol and Horwath which found that the Mainstreet business environment needed improved accessibility, better short term on-street parking, and enhanced street amenities to better serve the existing convenience orientated shopping behaviors. - May 1989 - The City's Comprehensive Plan revised in 1989 contains a section on the revitalization of the downtown CBD area. - May 1989 - A Mainstreet Improvement .Concept Study was presented to the City Council - January 1990 - The City received a petition from property owners and business people between 6th Avenue and 12th Avenue adjacent to Mainstreet requesting improvements to Mainstreet. March, 1990 - The City Council ordered the preparation of a Feasibility Study for the Mainstreet improvement project. August 1990 - The completion of the Engineering Feasibility Study was accomplished. - September, 1990 - The City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed project. - November, 1990 - The City Council authorized the detailed design process to commence. - December, 1990 - The Design Review Committee is organized and the first of 10 meetings is held to discuss elements of the detailed design. - March 1991 - The City Council receives the f final design plans, specifications and cost estimate and directs the advertisement for bids. ~- April 16, 1991 Bid tabulations results are brought to the City Council. The City Council directs staff to schedule the assessment hearings. - April and May, 1991 - Property owner meetings are held with the property owners along Mainstreet who are proposed to be assessed for part of the project. - May 14, 1991 - Mainstreet Assessment Hearing. In meetings with the property owners, the following concerns were found 1. Many of the property owners in Segment Three and Segment Four felt that it was unfair to assess the utility work when the extent of the necessary repairs are unknown. 2. Several property owners questioned the fairness of the assessment rates and the benefits that would be received by the adjacent property. 3. There were several detailed design issues that were brought up by the property owners that questioned the merits of the construction plans. 4. Work activities on the side streets were questioned with respect to the impact on the corner properties. Mr. Koppy explained that 70% of the costs of the project are for the refurbishment of the underground utilities, the installation of new traffic control signals, and the paving/curbs/sidewalks of the street. The remaining 30% of the project costs are for landscape amenities, street lighting and the plaza at 9th Avenue. The funding for the project is predominantly from funding sources other than special assessments. Approximately 75% of the costs are funded by Tax Increment Financing, Municipal State Aid, and the City's Utility Fund. The remaining 25% are funded by front foot special assessments and service replacement costs for the sanitary sewer and water connections between the street and the buildings. The assessments to property owners have been calculated as follows: If the property adjacent to Mainstreet lies between 5th Avenue and 11th Avenue (Segment 3), the price is $63.20 per foot. If the property lies between 12th Avenue and 20th Avenue (Segment # 4) the price is $59.65 per foot. Assessments for the block between 11th and 12th Avenues are $61.50 per foot. The utility assessments are based upon the actual costs of replacing the sewer and water connections between the buildings and the utility main lines in the street. Tax Increment Financing and Municipal States Aid assistance of $250,000 resulted in utility assessment rates being reduces from the full cost by approximately 45%. If a property has a water service that needs to be replaced because it is a lead pipe or in a deteriorated condition, the replacement cost is $1,405. This cost includes a new copper water service from the main in the street to the face of the building or the property line. ~ 4 The sanitary sewer replacement cost is $3,507. This cost includes a new sanitary sewer line from the trunk sewer line in the street to the building connection. It has been very difficult to determine the replacement needs of the properties along Mainstreet and the City does not have records of when the services were" placed along Mainstreet. Therefore, it was recommended that the assessment hearing to the utility service be cancelled and reconvened when the exact details of the utility assessment are available. The Public hearing for utility services opened at 7:45 p.m. The following comments were made by the public: Jerry Wille, speaking for St. Joseph's Parish said they would like to see what the sewer and water services look like before they are assessed for replacement. Francis Helmer, 1200 Mainstreet said his utilities come from 12th Avenue and he should not be assessed. Don Pagelkopf, 1715 Mainstreet said he already had copper connections. He also said he is being assessed for a new sidewalk which he does not have. He also feels that his property is over-valued. Bernie Ostrow, 1714 Mainstreet said he already has copper connections. He feels that segment 4 property owners should not be assessed for the project until next year, since their part of the project will not be started until next year. ' Paul Swanson, 1842 Mainstreet said his services come off 19th Avenue and asked if the cost for replacement of services is to the property line or to the building. He was told that the cost is to the property line. Brad Johnson, 1023 and 917 Mainstreet said that MSAS funds cannot be used for utility hook-ups. He wanted to be assured that he would not be charged more because MSAS funds cannot be used. Mr. Koppy explained that the money for utility hook-ups would come from other sources. Council felt that property owners should be encouraged to upgrade their water systems to allow for sprinkling the building. If this was done when the project is underway, the cost would be much less than having it done later. Mr. Koppy said they will let property owners know what the extra cost would be to upgrade their water line to accommodate sprinkling. Mr. Redepenning moved and Mr. Kritzler second the motion to close the public hearing. The motion carried. The hearing closed at 8:19 Mr. Redepenning moved and Mr. Shirley seconded the motion to delete the utility portion of the assessment roll and to instruct staff to notify the property owners of this change. The motion carried unanimously. Assessment hearing will be held when the exact details of the utility assessments are available. +., The hearing for street improvements opened at 8:20 p.m. The following comments were made by the public: Eunice Taylor, 1719 Mainstreet felt that they should not be assessed until the project started in their area. Paul Swanson, 1842 Mainstreet said he was told that they would be installing curb and gutter on the 19th Avenue side of his property. He does not wish to have a curb installed. He would like his customer to be able to park in that area and feels it will take parking spaces away. Staff was instructed to meet with Mr. Swanson to see what could be worked out. Mr. Swanson also felt that the project should not be assessed to his area this year since the work will not start until next year. Staff informed the property owners that, if the weather is right and everything goes well, it is possible that the project will start in segment 4 this year. Mr. Wille, representing St. Joseph's church felt that assessment should be delayed until the project begins in their area. Mr. Anderson moved and Mr. Redepenning second the motion to continue the public hearing to give staff time to look into some of the concerns of the property owners. The motion carried. II. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Redepenning moved ~ r. Anderson seconded the motion to adjourn th me ing. The adjourne,„~~.wby~~unanimous consent. elson W. Berg, Ma Councilmembers: