Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 02-23 EBNHACMMINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 23, 1993 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee was called to order by meeting Chairperson Jody Brandvold. ROLL CALL Committee members present at the meeting were Chairperson Jody Brandvold, Robert Torres, Pamela Frantum, and Dolores Hastings. Also present were ten guests, including Council Liaison Barb Kalligher and Councilmember Kristen Mann. Staff members present included Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector and City Engineer Mark Maloney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1992 There was a motion by Committee Member Dolores Hastings and seconded by Committee Member Torres to approve the minutes of the November 5, 1992 meeting, as submitted. It was approved unanimously. EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER Chairperson Brandvold noted that the latest issue of the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee newsletter was in the mail. Chairperson Brandvold invited guests attending the meeting to give suggestions to the committee members as to future topics for the newsletter. RENTAL TO OWNER CONVERSION PROGRAM Chairperson Brandvold noted since EDA Coordinator Tom Bublitz was not in attendance this evening that this item would be tabled, but additional information on the program would be available in the next newsletter. Director of Public Works Sy Knapp noted that at its meeting February 22, 1993, the City Council heard a report on this proposed program. City Council approved the program in concept. CONSIDERATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT Chairperson Brandvold introduced Director of Public Works Sy Knapp. The Director of Public Works reviewed action on this concept to this point. He reviewed the original map showing 11 one -mile square areas in the southeast neighborhood. He noted that it was a previous decision of the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee to limit the southeast neighborhood study to the area of 55th Avenue, due primarily to storm drainage needs on 57th 2 -23 -93 -1- Avenue. He noted that the City survey crew has done all work needed on the area south of 55th, all the sanitary and storm sewers have been televised, and staff has now evaluated the condition of those sewers. In addition, conditions of water main in the area have been checked. Engineering staff have tabulated the results of this study. In reviewing the results of this study, the engineering staff have determined that the area west of Logan Avenue is a lower priority than the area east of Logan, and therefore have not included that area in this feasibility study. The Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed schedule for implementation of a possible street improvement program for 1993 and noted that the schedule was very tight. Chairperson Brandvold inquired if the proposed schedule covered the entire area or selected areas. The Director of Public Works replied that City Engineer Mark Maloney has identified two areas, areas A and B, which he considers as "doable" in 1993. The Director of Public Works stated that if the schedule cannot be met, then he would recommend against doing anything in 1993 because it would not be possible to guarantee completion of any improvement project in 1993. The Director of Public Works introduced City Engineer Mark Maloney, who was to discuss the technical aspects of the feasibility study. City Engineer Mark Maloney reviewed areas A and B. He stated each contained approximately two miles of streets. He reviewed individual maps of proposed improvements in these areas. He noted that sanitary sewer and water utility main would be replaced on approximately eighty percent (80 of that street mileage. He explained that area B ends at Logan Avenue because west of Logan Avenue was recently sealcoated. He also added that the water and sanitary sewer utilities in that area are in better shape than the utilities east of Logan Avenue. He explained that both areas exclude streets with properties abutting the recently improved alleys. A guest attending the meeting inquired why the streets abutting the alley properties were excluded. The Director of Public Works replied that this exclusion was done at the request of the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee and at City Council direction. The City Council believed that residents may not be able to afford additional special assessments. The Director of Public Works stated that he would prefer to include those streets, but honored the request of the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee and the City Council in preparing this feasibility study. City Engineer Mark Maloney reviewed proposed street improvements in the area. He noted that the proposed street width was very close to the existing width, except on Dupont and Logan. He explained that initially he had hoped to salvage some existing pavement and 2 -23 -93 -2- do overlays, but on review of the existing conditions it was found that these streets must be totally reconstructed. Chairperson Brandvold inquired as to the existing width of Dupont Avenue. The City Engineer replied that the existing width is now 31 -32 feet. He explained that the width of Dupont and Logan as reconstructed would be either 32 feet or 38 feet, depending on whether there would be parking on one or two sides. He also explained that Dupont would have an on- street bicycle trail, consistent with the City's proposed trail system. A guest at the meeting inquired if 2Z" blacktop pavement would be strong enough for these streets. The guest noted that he had a 21/2" driveway which had cracked which he was forced to replace with a 6" driveway. The City Engineer replied that all of the streets in the feasibility study were studied by the consultant which is preparing the City's pavement management program. This consultant recommended the 21/2" pavement cross section. The City Engineer expressed confidence in the consultant's recommendation. A guest inquired if the streets which are MTC bus routes would receive any special treatment. The guest stated that on Bryant Avenue in Minneapolis, the recently reconstructed street was damaged by MTC buses starting and stopping. Had the City given any thought to constructing concrete bus pads? The City Engineer replied that this might be considered if there was a guarantee from the MTC that the bus routes would not change. The Director of Public Works noted that information on existing bus routes would be given to the City's pavement management consultant to review and to take into account the southeast neighborhood and elsewhere in the City. The City Engineer noted that the street improvement included installation of concrete curb and gutter. He explained that without curb and gutter, edges of bituminous streets break off because poor drainage undermines the edge of the street. The edge of the street then freezes and thaws and breaks off. The City Engineer briefly reviewed storm sewer and sanitary sewer needs in the area. He noted that at a previous Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee meeting, a person in attendance brought up the existence of Orangeburg services in the southeast neighborhood. The City Engineer explained that City records do not show which houses have Orangeburg services. It is his hope that property owners have some information regarding these services. Chairperson Brandvold inquired of the City Engineer if there were any builders which may have records from that period. The City Engineer replied that he is working with retired public utility staff to see if they may remember where they may have encountered Orangeburg services. He is also reviewing plumbing permits which were issued during the late 1950s, when the Orangeburg services were installed. 2 -23 -93 -3- The Director of Public Works noted that if this project would proceed, the City would work with property owners in the area to assist in the possible replacement of the Orangeburg services. He explained that, under existing conditions, if there is a sewer service collapse it can cost the property owner $3,000 -$5000 to repair that sanitary sewer service. He believes that the City may be able to work with a contractor to get these sanitary sewer services replaced at a much lower group cost. He noted that this would only be done at the owner's request; it would not be a requirement. He also stated that at informational meetings which may be held in the future, the City would definitely ask for information from property owners. Committee Member Bob Torres inquired if at the informational meetings there would be cost estimates for owners to consider. Director of Public Works Sy Knapp replied that they would try to have this information available. A guest asked the City Engineer what was the breakdown on the percent of utility mains which were being replaced. He replied that about eighty percent (80 of the sewer main would be replaced and about twenty percent (20 we could live with. He noted that in looking at the data he classified the sanitary sewer main in three categories: The first was the main must be replaced because it is in imminent danger of collapse. The second category was main which would need to be replaced within the next ten years. The third category was main which was in acceptable condition. The eighty percent represents the first two of these categories. A guest inquired as to why the sanitary sewer cost on James Avenue was high but the water replacement cost was not. The City Engineer replied that there are two sanitary sewer mains on James, one in the middle and one along the boulevard. Those two mains would be replaced with a single main. He also noted that the water main is on the opposite side of the street and is in good condition and therefore will not need to be replaced. The City Engineer then briefly reviewed the water main needs in the area. Committee Member Bob Torres asked the City Engineer if homeowners with galvanized water lines would also be able to get them replaced. The Director of Public Works replied that he was not aware that there were any galvanized water lines in the City. He believed all water services were copper, however he would also ask about this at the informational meeting. The City Engineer reviewed the estimated costs for the improvements. Chairperson Brandvold asked if there was a difference between areas A and B or were they of equal priority. The City Engineer replied that prior to the television inspection of the sewers, he would have said that the area of 4th Street and Camden was of higher priority. After reviewing the television information, he now believes that the worst sanitary sewer mains in the City are on 2 -23 -93 -4- 2 -23 -93 James Avenue. Those sewers require a high level of maintenance, have many roots in the joints, and are all -in -all in very bad condition. The Director of Public Works added that each area has approximately two miles of streets, which would be the most the Department of Public Works believe it would be able to tackle as a pilot project. Committee Member Pamela Frantum asked if there was any reason why the project could not encompass simply the worst streets in areas A and B. The Director of Public Works replied that that might be one way of approaching this, however his approach was not doing a block at a time but improving the entire neighborhood. From a construction standpoint, it would be easier for a contractor to do improvements on an area rather than on a block -by -block basis. There would also be a slightly better price. A guest noted that since some of the blocks under the areas A and B, as currently defined, would be left out, it still seems as if this would be done piecemeal, rather than area by area. The Director of Public Works noted that that was true, and reiterated that from a technical standpoint he would like to do the entire area. A guest asked that if this program were adopted would other neighborhoods get the same level of information as the Earle Brown neighborhood, or would the City automatically do projects? The guest asked if other neighborhoods shouldn't also be notified of the informational meetings. The Director of Public Works replied that the City Council would have to discuss what amount of public participation it would like to have in any such program. The Director of Public Works noted that it was his hope that this would be the beginning of a twenty year program. He explained that any improvement project is required to go through the feasibility study and public hearings and that he hoped any new project which would be initiated would go through the same level of public information as this project (i.e., public informational meetings, hearings, etc.) for every project. The Director of Public Works explained that the reason why this project concept started in the southeast neighborhood was that several sources, including the Maxfield Study, recommended that the City look at ways to help the southeast neighborhood to upgrade its facilities and its image. He explained further that the City's pavement management program was currently rating the condition of all City streets. Out of that analysis should come a report of where the worst streets in the City are. This report would provide a technical basis for street improvement decisions. The City Council also may consider other factors, such as the recommendations of the Maxfield Study, which would guide where any street improvement projects would take place. The Director of Public Works introduced Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector to discuss proposed project financing. -5- The Public Works Coordinator noted that all utility costs of the proposed project would be paid from the respective utility construction funds. She explained that street construction would be funded from special assessment bonds that would be financed approximately thirty percent (30 from special assessments and seventy percent (70 from general revenue bonds. A pie chart was presented which showed that forty -one percent (41 of the total project cost would be paid from bonds and municipal state aid funds, nineteen percent (19 from the water utility, fifteen percent (15 from the sanitary sewer utility, seven percent (7 from the storm drainage utility, fifteen percent (15 from special assessments and three percent (3 from the proposed assessment stabilization program. The Public Works Coordinator explained that the estimated special assessment, per residential property for this program would be $1,523 with a monthly payment of about $23 per month the first year, reducing to about $14 per month in the tenth year. In addition to special assessments, bonds would be financed through general revenues which would result in additional property tax payments of, for average properties, about $4.50 to $6.50 per year. The Public Works Coordinator explained that a number of persons had raised concerns about showing an increase in value as a result of this project. She explained that at the City Council meeting on February 22, 1993, the City Council had preliminarily approved hiring an independent appraiser to evaluate this increase in value. This approval was contingent on the approval of the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee. She explained that the information from an independent appraiser is important because by law it is only possible to levy special assessments if it can be demonstrated that the property increased in value by at least the amount of the special assessment. The Public Works Coordinator explained that there were also raised questions of fairness. For example, should any assessments be made using the existing policy of a per unit basis or should assessments be made on a front footage basis or perhaps on some other basis? For example, per unit the special assessment, as currently proposed, would be $1,523 per buildable lot. On a per front footage basis, for a forty foot lot that assessment would be $1,040, but for a seventy -five foot lot it would be $1,950. A second question would be how to reduce the impact of special assessments on low and fixed income homeowners. To address this question, staff proposed that the City Council consider adopting an assessment stabilization program. Under the proposed assessment stabilization program owners would pay a portion of the special assessment on a sliding scale based on income. The City would buy down the remainder of that special assessment by paying the property owner a lump sum. Two options have been suggested for consideration: Under the first option, the 2 -23 -93 -6- City would pay a prorated amount for all households with incomes less than the HUD moderate income limit. This option would affect an estimated sixty (60) families out of approximately two hundred (200) properties in area A. Under a second option, the City would pay one hundred percent (100 of the special assessment for all households with incomes less than the low income limit and a prorated amount for households with incomes within the moderate income range. Under this option, the City would pay the full assessment for an estimated thirty (30) families and a prorated amount for an additional estimated thirty (30) families. The Public Works Coordinator explained that the estimated cost of the first year of the assessment stabilization program would be $40,000 $70,000, depending on the option chosen. The Director of Public Works concluded the presentation by noting that staff was requesting immediate direction from the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee. Chairperson Brandvold reminded the committee that consideration of the proposed neighborhood street improvement concept could be stopped at any time. She summarized the decisions which were before the committee this evening as: 1. Whether the City should go ahead with further consideration of the neighborhood street improvement concept and whether at this time area A or area B should be selected for further consideration. 2. Whether the City should consider the adoption of an assessment stabilization program. 3. Whether the City should move forward with hiring an appraiser. 4. What should be the basis of special assessments. Chairperson Brandvold inquired of the Director of Public Works whether a decision was needed on item number 4 this evening. The Director of Public Works replied no, a decision was not necessary. However, he would like to add that staff would prefer some indication from the committee if staff should also consider looking at additional items, such as plantings, lighting, etc. Chairperson Brandvold opened up discussion on item number 1. Committee Member Dolores Hastings said that she thought further consideration of the street improvement concept was a good idea. She believed that information should be provided to the entire City, perhaps by way of an article in the newspapers. She noted that she must have had 35 -40 calls from persons in other parts of the City regarding this concept. The Director of Public Works said that he understood the need to get information out to other residents, that there was a need to get information prepared for 2 -23 -93 -7- the feasibility study out. Chairperson Brandvold noted that it was appropriate to include feasibility study information in the Earle Brown Neighborhood newsletter. There was a motion by Committee Member Hastings and seconded by Committee Member Frantum to recommend to the City Council that the City go forward with further consideration of the neighborhood street improvement concept with the understanding that further consideration could be stopped at any time. The motion was approved unanimously. Chairperson Brandvold opened discussion on the second part of item number one, the selection of area A or area B. Committee Member Hastings inquired of the Director of Public Works whether, based on the sanitary sewer information, area A or area B would be preferable. The Director of Public Works replied that area B looks like it has the worst sanitary sewer. Chairperson Brandvold suggested that the selection of the particular area wait until at least informational meetings. Committee Member Frantum moved and Committee Member Hastings seconded the recommendation that no decision be made on the selection of the specific area until after the informational meetings and the public hearing. It was approved unanimously. Chairperson Brandvold opened discussion on item number 2, the assessment stabilization program. Committee Member Torres moved and Committee Member Hastings seconded the recommendation to the City Council that the City consider the adoption of an assessment stabilization program. It was approved unanimously. Chairperson Brandvold opened discussion on item number 3. Committee Member Frantum moved, and Committee Member Hastings seconded, a motion to recommend that the City move forward on hiring an appraiser. The motion was approved unanimously. Chairperson Brandvold initiated discussion of possible amenities to the project. Committee Member Dolores Hastings inquired as to the possibility of getting a nursery to agree to give a discount on trees to property owners in the neighborhood. Director of Public Works Sy Knapp described the approach taken to landscaping on other street projects, such as West River Road and 69th Avenue, where landscaping was done as a follow -up contract to the street improvement. He stated that if this project were to go ahead, he wold recommend looking at using that type of approach, but would handle it as a separate issue. Chairperson Brandvold described an experience she had with construction where the roots to a large oak were disturbed and the tree eventually died. She inquired if it were possible to include in such a project a requirement that if the City needs to disturb trees to do the utility work that it would not be the owner's responsibility to replace the tree or to take down the tree if it were to die. The Director of Public Works stated that the Council could look at instituting a policy, such as if a tree is disturbed and dies within a specified amount of time then the City would take down the dead tree and would replace it with a new one. 2 -23 -93 -8- 2 -23 -93 A meeting guest noted that his front yard has a grade about ten feet above the street. He inquired as to how a situation like his would be handled. The Director of Public Works indicated that the proposed grade changes on the streets are not that substantial, perhaps one foot at most. He stated that every effort would be made to match grades. A meeting guest inquired if the City would be looking at installing additional street lights. The Director of Public Works explained that the City's current street light policy is to have a street light at every intersection, and if the block is longer than 700 feet to have a mid -block street light. He noted that in this area the blocks are shorter than 700 feet, therefore there are no mid -block street lights. He explained the committee could recommend that the City consider installing additional mid block street lights in this area. A guest in the audience inquired if police note that additional street lighting increases security. Director of Public Works Sy Knapp replied affirmatively. Committee Member Frantum noted that the Maxfield Study stated that there was no distinction between Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center. She stated that ornamental lighting would make such a distinction. Chairperson Brandvold requested that staff obtain cost estimates of installing mid -block lighting. The Director of Public Works stated that such estimates would be included in the feasibility study, along with some options. Committee Member Frantum moved, and Committee Member Hastings seconded, a recommendation that staff obtain these estimates on ornamental street lighting. The motion was approved unanimously. Committee Member Frantum moved, and Committee Member Hastings seconded, a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Spector for Tom Bublitz Recording Secretary -9-