HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.f. Approve Project/Order Plans & Spec's T.H.3, Street & Utility Improvements, City Project #318f CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 20, 2001
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Project /Order Plans & Spec's -T.H.
AGENDA SECTION:
3 Street & Utility Improvements, (CR42 to145th Street), City
Consent
Project #318
PREPARED BY: Bret Weiss, Interim City Engineer
AGEN 6 ,
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
APPROVED BY:
lr-- Vv.
At the February 6, 2001 Council meeting, Council made and passed a motion to approve the
above project and order the plans and specifications. In order for funding for this project to
move forward and to address State Statute Chapter 429 requirements, the City needs a
certified resolution approving the project. Therefore, as a formality, we are bringing the
attached resolution for ratification.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT
AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRUNK
HIGHWAY 3 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (COUNTY ROAD 42 TO 145 STREET
WEST), CITY PROJECT #318.
COUNCIL ACTION:
c
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2001—
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT AND ORDERING THE
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
TRUNK HIGHWAY 3 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
(COUNTY ROAD 42 TO 145 STREET WEST)
CITY PROJECT #318
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount ordered a feasibility report for Trunk
Highway 3 Street & Utility Improvements (CR 42 to 145' Street), City Project 9318; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and accepted the Feasibility Report on December 19,
2000 for City Project #318; and
WHEREAS, the City Council ordered and held a public hearing on February 6, 2001 to receive
input on this project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount
hereby orders the improvements of the Trunk Highway 3 Street & Utility Improvements (CR 42
to 145 Street), City Project #318.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Rosemount hereby orders the preparation of plans and specifications for the Trunk Highway 3
Street & Utility Improvements (CR 42 to 145 Street), City Project #318 described in the
aforementioned Report.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Rosemount that a Construction Contract will be awarded for all phases of this project by
February 20, 2003.
ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2001.
Cathy Busho, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
t
a : ]�- r) (0, F
After the public hearing, I decided to do some additional research regarding the
streetscape project. I just couldn't figure out why this project didn't get tabled
for more information. Since Councilor Edwards stated that he was personally
offended by the fact that several speakers had accused the city of "selling" their
driveways for funding, I decided to call MnDot for more information.
I spoke with Mike Kowski, who is the Manager of the Co- operative Agreements
Program. He explained a lot about the funding process that MnDot uses. He
told me that there is a limited amount of money that is available for locally
initiated projects and that there is an approval process that each project goes
through. Basically what he said is that all the proposed projects are reviewed
and then rated. These projects have to benefit the local area as well as the
trunk highway and are typically something that MnDot would fully fund at a later
date, like road maintenance or construction of a frontage road. The more people
that benefit from the project, the higher the rating and the more likely it is that
MnDot will contribute to it. He said, for example, that if construction of a
frontage road was proposed and only 3 or 4 homes would benefit from it, it
would be put much lower on the list than a project that rebuilt a bad section of
the highway.
I asked him if a project that proposed to simply resurface a section of highway
would be given less consideration than a project that proposed to resurface the
highway and close some driveways. He said that it would. He also said that
there is not a specific dollar amount that would be tied to each driveway closing;
however, a project that included driveway closings would be ranked higher than
one that didn't and would more likely be funded by MnDot.
Mr. Kowski also revealed another interesting tidbit: The amount of funding to be
allotted for the 30 projects now before them will be decided sometime in March.
So there we have it. The truth of the matter is that you are proposing to close
these driveways to make this project look better to MnDot and therefore more
likely to receive funding from them. You aren't collecting a specified amount for
each driveway, but you are using them as a bargaining chip in the funding
process. It also explains why you didn't table the matter for further information.
You needed to act on it as soon as you could in order to be considered for part
of the available funds when that decision is made in March.
Not only am I personally offended by the decision to proceed to the next step of
this project but, I am appalled by the lack of consideration that has been shown
for the economic well being of the downtown businesses and for the community
as a whole. There are several costs, over and above the projected assessments,
that will be incurred by the downtown businesses. Some were brought up at the
public hearing, but none are mentioned in the feasibility report. I am also
PO fiem (o. F.
Madam Mayor;
I would like to pull item 6F from the consent agenda and that is to approve project/order
site plans & specs for project #318- Streetsca.pe.
I am uncomfortable moving forward on this project. Here are some of my concerns:
1.) I strongly believe that we need to put in place a healthy, established business
community. I don't believe that there are enough businesses located downtown to
support the costs of this project at this time. So I believe that we need to first
concentrate on re- development and to be pro- active in getting new business to the
downtown area so that we might create a healthier tax base to help with the funding
of this 3.8 million dollar project. As it is, we will need to raise property taxes in order
to cover a very large portion of the costs. We already have the highest property taxes
in Dakota County. I don't support a tax increase.
2.) We need to have the support of a majority of the businesses and residents. I don't
believe that we have that at this time. The poll in the February 0' Rosemount Town
Pages, the official city newspaper, asked if people thought we should put this plan on
hold. 73% of the people who responded said that it should be put on hold_ People
need to get their arms around this project, they need to feel like they are a part of it
and, quite frankly, I don't see that happening here.
3.) I believe that there are too many unanswered questions about the costs involved,
changes that need to be. made, and just how this project is truly going to affect the
business community.
4.) I don't believe that we should start a streetscape project when we still haven't decided
what the future downtown area should look like. The timing of a development like
this is everything. When the vision is clear, then we should proceed because that's
when we all share in the common goal!
5.) I am confused about who exactly determines the final plan for this project_ There
are currently 3 drafts in the feasibility report. Just which one are we ordering?
6.) There may be a conflict of interest with one of our members who operates a business
that is located along the Highway 3 corridor. Shouldn't that be investigated before we
vote on this issue? y
7.) What is MnDot's perspective on this? Are they going to require that we widen the
road in the future as the population increases? If so, shouldn't we be planning for that
now?
I know that if we table this for further discussion, we will be doing right by the citizens
and business owners of Rosemount.
So with that, I make a motion to table project #318 for further discussion at a work
session.