Agenda - Public Works Committee - 06/17/2008

Home

Chair Elvig stated that the question is who on Andrie Street will participate and if, for example, the residents on 159th Lane would participate. City Engineer Jankowski stated that 159th Lane was not included, but the cuI de sacs at Halas Circle, Fortman Circle and Driscoll Circle would be included. Chair Elvig stated that in past discussions, it was the Consensus of the Committee that the City would charge the homeowners an assessment consistent with an overlay and that the remaining costs will be picked up by MSA funds. City Engineer Jankowski stated that the. impression he got from the discussion at the May 13, 2008 Council meeting was that if the project did not include sidewalks, there would be a different funding mechanism offered to the residents. He reviewed possible project costs and noted that he had assumed 68 units would be assessed and that there would other funding sources for sidewalks and storm sewer. He stated that most other cities assess 100% for concrete curb and gutter. Councilmember Olson stated that in looking through the petition from homeowners, she is not sure how to decipher if people voted for or against the project. City Engineer Jankowski stated that the petition has not been officially received, but it will be verified in time for the next Council meeting. Bill Kingston, 15760 Andrie Street, stated that' the homeowners association surveyed residents . and then he created a fact sheet based on that information. He stated that they sent out 78 surveys and 37 were returned and that 18 of those supported reconstruction with no sidewalks. He reviewed the other information included in the fact sheet. He stated that using the survey - results a petition was put together. He stated that pages 5, 6, and 7 in the packetbroke homes into three quadrants because there were three people doing the canvassing. He stated that the column labeled petition were the number of people who signed the petition, the column headed Non-C were those that are not on a cuI de sac and the last column reflects those that are in cuI de sacs. Councilmember Olson asked about the discrepancy of 68 properties versus 78 petitions. Mr. Kingston stated that the original overlay project had 78 properties affected, but the reconstruction project would have approximately 68 properties affected. He stated that they wanted to present both views and show that they have .50% signatures for either scenario. He stated that one of the signatures is from the president of the homeowners association because of the homeowner's park. Chair Elvig stated that starf will look over the petition and make sure everything matches up and that there are 50% of the necessary signatures to do feasibility study for a larger project. He stated that what the Committee needs to discuss whether the assessment of approximately $1,500 for each homeowner with the remainder to be paid in MSA funds was still the route the City s]:lould go. Public Wor.ks Committee! May 20, 2008 Page 5 of 9