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