Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.d. Pavement Management Project: Communication AuditAGENDA ITEM: Pavement Management Project communications audit AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Alan Cox, Communications Coordinator AGEN i !3. 2 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A list of communications; Appendix B comments of property owners telephoned by City staff; Appendix C letter to property owners for December 2005 meeting APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and direction 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: December 14, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on the comments of citizens who spoke at the October 18, 2005 hearing conducted before approval of assessments for the 2005 Pavement Management Project, a Council member suggested that City staff conduct an audit of the communications efforts that accompanied the project. This memo summarizes the City's efforts at com-numcation, an informal survey of residents in the neighborhood affected by this year's project, and changes that staff proposes for future communications on projects that involve an assessment. CITY COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THE 2005 PROJECT Efforts to inform the pubhc about the 2005 street reconstruction project began in mid- December 2004 with a mailing to notify property owners that the Council had authonzed a feasibility study. This was the first of 14 instances of public communications about plans for and progress of the project. A table detailing those items is attached to this memo as Appendix A. Of those items, nine included a reference to an assessment that would be charged to property owners. The first came during presentations at the open houses on the project m mid January. Written references to the total estimated assessment came m the legal notice distributed m February. Mailings during the process were sent to a hst of property owners drawn from the county database. The mailing hst was updated five times during 2005 by Engineering clencal staff. During the year, there were six instances in which a letter was returned to the City because the addressee could not be found; a replacement letter was sent to the new addressee when possible. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS During the Council meeting of October 18, three property owners out of 272 affected by the project asked to speak during the public hearing on the assessments. One speaker, from the 3100 block of 146 Street, said he had been unable to attend the previous pubhc meetings on the subject, and did not know until he received the letter for the October 18 hearing that a cost to him was involved. Another speaker from the same block complained about damage and inconvenience during the project, and mennoned the size of the assessment in passing. A third speaker', from the 3300 block of 146 Street, said the bill for the assessment "caught me off guard," complained that his bill was the same size as others' whose property seemed to benefit more from the project, and asserted that the same contractor seems to get most of the City's work. To gain insights about the oprmons of other affected property owners, the communications coordinator telephoned a few owners hsted on the assessment roll. Seven residents answered general questions. The sample cannot be considered scientific; among the factors that could affect how representative it is of all owners was the time of day when calls were placed normal business hours. Ten other households were phoned but could not be reached during those hours. The participants' comments were generally neutral or positive. Two participants said the assessment came as a surprise, although one of the two did not seem disturbed by that late realization. Three participants questioned the need for the project or the way it was carried out. Three of the seven attended one or more meetings on the project. The comments are described in more detail m Appendix B. CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF FOR FUTURE COMMUNICATIONS The City has followed legal requirements for the wording of notices required by law to be sent to property owners. Staff has attempted to provide extra information, particularly having to do with the status of the project while it is underway, that is not required by law. To enhance the clarity of commumcanons for future projects, City staff has a few proposals. The untial marling to property owners affected by a proposed project will include a sentence, ".A brief presentation will be given explaining the proposed improvements, estimated costs, and proposed assessments that you may be charged for the project." The language was included in a letter, included here as Appendix C, sent last month to property owners likely to be assessed for the 2006 project. About 12 owners attended the meeting on December 7, which is roughly the same percentage of property owners who attended the previous year's informational meeting. For property owners who may not recognize their property i.d. numbers in a list within a legal nonce, mailings of those notices, such as the one announcing the Council hearing in mid February, will include a cover letter from the City Engmeer making it clear that the notice applies to the recipient of the mailing. To make sure that updates on project status also reach renters, additional copies will be addressed to "OCCUPANT" for properties that are hsted as non homesteaded. One difficult problem is to reach buyers of property that changes hands during the process. The City Attorney has indicated that notices to property owners must be addressed to a specific owner A general address using "PROPERTY OWNER" in place of a name does not meet the legal requirement. The City uses county property records, which are not updated for a penod of time after the closing date of a real estate transaction. 1 This speaker is not listed as the property owner for the address given, letters to this property would not have Included lus name 2 DATE METHOD CONTENT INFORMATION ON ASSESSMENT 12/15/2004 Mailing Notice to residents that Council authorized feasibility report, return postcard for owners to give City information on drainage and utility issues 12/15/2004 Website Section about project created on City websue under "Public Works Engineering" 1/6/2005 Mailing Notice ofmfonnational open house (some invited to Jan. 19, some to Jan. 20); map included 1/19/2005, Meetings Open houses Estimated assessments 1/20/2005 presented orally at meetings 2/4/2005 Newspaper; Legal notice by City of Total estimate cost of posting at City Council hearing set for Feb. $1,620,800; "The area Hall; mailing to property owners 15 (mailing hst updated 2/2) proposed to be assessed for the foregomg improvements would be [list of property i.d. numbers and lot descriptions]" 2/11/2005 Newspaper Legal notice repeated Information repeated 2/15/2005 Meeting Pubhc heanng on projects Estimated assessments presented orally at meeting 2/22/2005 Website Property hsting Lisung of proposed assessments posted, arranged in order of property Ill and house number 5/19/2005 Mailing Notice to residents that contractor was selected and expected dates for project (mailing hst updated 5/23) Separate version of letter to Darhng Path residents that "there will be no assessments as part of these improvements" 6/13/2005 Mailing Notice to 146 Street residents that temporary water mains will be required 7/8/2005, Website Project updates (mailing hst 7/22/2005, postings, updated 6/28, 7/13) 8/18/2005 mailing by request 9/7/2005 Website Revised property listing Revised proposed assessments posted APPENDIX A LIST OF COMMUNICATIONS 3 9/21/2005 Mailing Legal nonce of assessment hearing (mailing list updated 9/12) Total amount proposed for assessment, $393,370; "The area proposed to be assessed consists of every lot, piece or parcel of land benefited by said improvements, which has been ordered made and is as follows [hst of property id. numbers and lot descnpnons]" 10/18/2005 Meeting Hearing before City Council Assessment process described 4 APPENDIX B COMMENTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS TELEPHONED BY CITY STAFF The calls summanzed below were made during Thanksgiving week. Respondent A, 3200 block 145 Street Felt City's information was fairly good, that if residents wanted to know something, they had ways to find out Major complaint was questions about whether the project was really needed this year; could not get answers about why specific things had to be clone, felt questions about necessity of work were ignored Crew members doing work seemed poorly informed about what was scheduled next in project Had to follow up with crews several tunes to make sure work near house was done adequately Felt it was a waste of ume to get involved with process because City had already decided to go forward with the project Did get needed information about assessments up front. Respondent B, 3200 block Lower 150`" Street Felt City kept informed Attended meeting when first talked about Had questions about piecemeal way curbs were marked for replacement, but didn't ask anyone about it Mailings were good Felt assessment mformatton was okay because was told $1,500 at meetmg but final bill was a little lower. Respondent C, 14900 block Camfield Avenue Felt City kept informed, answered questions when appropriate No other types of information needed Couldn't attend meetings, but got letters and saw coverage m newspaper Found out what was needed about assessments at appropriate tune. Respondent D, 14500 block Canada Avenue Felt City kept somewhat informed Chose not to "dig into" details of project Got mailings that had information Missed meetings because of night shift employment Would be nice if crews could knock on doors to say work is about to begin near the property Heard about estimated assessment, knows it came in lower. Respondent E, 15000 block Charleston Avenue Didn't know much about project, all of a sudden found crews working here Did get a couple of letters Don't know whether any other information was needed or if there were better ways to cominuntcate Thought project was done sooner than needed but maybe that's what City has to do to stay on top of street maintenance Chose not to attend meetings Found out early enough about assessment. Respondent F, 3300 block Upper 147`" Street Felt City kept pretty much informed about project except for cost Went to a meeting, but did not hear about cost or the way the work would be done "all at once" Receivmg phone calls about project would have been nice, but perhaps there were too many people to phone Did not see anything in mail about costs, and neighbor said the same thing Crews did good job. After calling was complete, one resident in the 3200 block of 148 Street who saw the City Hall telephone number on caller i.d returned the call and complained about the amount of the assessment, coming on top of property taxes already due. The caller was aware of the assessment before street work began. The caller was concerned about a recent inaihung on a park improvement, worried that an assessment would also be charged for that work. The caller now feels suspicious of any mailing from the City. 5 APPENDIX C LETTER TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR DECEMBER 2005 MEETING To: Property Owners From: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer Date: November 21, 2005 Re: Public Informational Meeting Notice 2006 Pavement Management Project City Project #396 City of Rosemount, Minnesota The City Council has authorized the preparation of a feasibility report to review the proposed improvements of streets within your neighborhood. The proposed project area is shown on the enclosed map. The proposed improvements are as follows: removal and replacement of bituminous pavement and spot curb repair within the Broback 10` Addition; complete street reconstruction, including new storm sewer, curb and gutter, bituminous pavement, and the replacement of fire hydrants that do not meet current City standards within the Edwin Rahn 1s 2' and 3r Additions. You are invited to attend an Informational Open House regarding the project on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 from 6:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. m the Banquet Room at Rosemount Community Center, 13885 S. Robert Trail City staff and representatives from the City's consultant will be available to answer any questions or concerns you may have regarding the proposed improvements. A brief presentation will be given at 6:45 p.m. explaining the proposed improvements, estimated costs, and proposed assessments that you may be charged for the project. This presentation will be followed by an informal question and answer session. We look forward to seeing you at the Informational Open House on December 7, 2005. If you have any further questions regarding this meeting, please feel free to call the Engineering Department at 651 -322- 2022. cc: Honorable Mayor City Council Members Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator 6