MINUTES OF GARDEN VIEW DRIVE TRAFFIC AD HOC COMMITTEE
October 16, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.
Apple Valley City Hall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lloyd Lawrence, John Bergman, Mark Nelson, Gary Shade, Denise Louis, Jeff Loch, Mark Heieren, Arthur Zimmerman, Peg Smith, Neil Evers, Nathan Koering, Dave McKeag, Ruth Grendahl, Mary Hamann-Roland, Richard Berg
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Integrated Process Management Facilitator Marlene Libby, SEH Traffic Engineer Glen Van Wormer (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), City Administrator Lawell, Public Works Director Heuer, Police Department Captain Merle Lohse, Administrative Assistant to the City Administrator Andy Pederson, Ron Olsen, Dave Steadman
Meeting Facilitator Libby called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
MOTION: of the Committee to approve the July 31, 2000 Meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
Administrative Assistant Pederson indicated that the Meeting minutes would be posted to the City of Apple Valley's web site.
Meeting Facilitator Libby distributed a letter from Public Works Director Heuer to Ms. Donna Steadman dated October 10, 2000, (Attachment 1) and also distributed a memorandum from Dakota County Commissioner Branning to Apple Valley Councilmember Ruth Grendahl dated October 4, 2000 (Attachment 2).
FINANCING OPTIONS
Committee Member Shade stated that he met with City Administrator Lawell and City Finance Director George Ballenger to discuss potential financing options for the costs of this project. Committee Member Shade stated that three financing options were discussed: (a) Municipal State Aid, (b) general revenue bonds, and (c) an 80 percent / 20 percent special assessment.
Municipal State Aid
Committee Member Shade stated that the Municipal State Aid funds available to the City are spoken for for approximately the next two years for various other City and County projects currently under construction.
General Revenue Bonds
Committee Member Shade stated that a general revenue bond is a form of financing that would require voter approval by the residents of the City at an election. Committee Member Shade stated that the City would quite possibly need such a long-term funding mechanism to address the various needs of streets throughout the community. Committee Member Shade stated that this form of financing could potentially be addressed by the City Council approved standing committee on traffic. Committee Member Shade also stated that this committee should examine policies as well as funding for the City.
80 percent / 20 percent Special Assessment
Committee Member Shade stated that a special assessment would require the directly impacted homeowners to raise 20 percent of the funds, and the remaining 80 percent could then be funded as an additional levy for the entire City with City Council approval. City Administrator Lawell stated that the City Council would have to determine if the remaining parts of the City not directly impacted by this project would warrant payment of 80 percent of this project. City Administrator Lawell also stated that the City Council would have to determine and authorize the percentage to be raised by the directly impacted. The 20 percent figure is a minimum threshold to be met in order to utilize such a funding alternative.
Committee Member Shade stated that those directly impacted would have to sign a legal waiver to accept the special assessment. Committee Member Shade also stated that anybody could compose the 20 percent amount, whether it be 5 individuals or 500 individuals, the importance and emphasis is placed on obtaining 20 percent of the entire project amount in order to utilize this funding alternative. The Committee also discussed the fact that those would compose the 20 percent would also be included in funding the remaining 80 percent. City Administrator Lawell stated that once the Committee's recommendation was acted upon by the City Council, a bond attorney could assist the City in insuring the proper language and legal details for the special assessment waiver were covered. Committee Member Shade presented the Committee with Dakota County based GIS information on the number of households in specified areas on and near Garden View Drive (Attachment 3). The Committee also discussed various hypothetical figures for the cost of the project as well as cost per individual household for such a special assessment.
The Committee discussed various other financing alternatives, including available grant dollars, community celebrations, and saving the money.
The Committee discussed the preliminary costs associated with the project. Mr. Van Wormer showed the construction costs associated with these projects as presented at the open house totaled, which $870,000. Mr. Van Wormer stated that this figure did not include design, inspection, engineering, and administrations costs, which Mr. Van Wormer estimated would be an additional 30 percent. Mr. Van Wormer also stated that right-of-way acquisition, landscaping, utility relocation, and traffic calming costs for streets such as Harwell Avenue or Harmony Way were not included in this total.
The Committee discussed the presentation and rationale of an 80 percent / 20 percent special assessment. Committee Member Hamann-Roland discussed the potential creation of an unfunded mandate for the City.
MOTION: of the Committee to present to the City Council the following possible financing options:
The Committee also stated that if these options were not viable, the Committee would request that the City Council allow the Committee to reconvene to explore other funding possibilities.
Motion passed unanimously. Committee Members Grendahl and Hamann-Roland abstained in the voting.
Meeting break at 8:27 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Meeting Facilitator Libby stated the Committee has examined this recommendation as a system and therefore has not broken the areas down in sections. Meeting Facilitator Libby stated that the Committee may want to focus first on implementing measures directly adjacent or related to the schools along Garden View Drive to ensure the safety of the children, and then in the next phase focus on the rest of the system.
Mr. Van Wormer stated that the County will soon need to know what Apple Valley intends to do at County Road 46 in order to design the future traffic signal at the intersection of Garden View Drive and County Road 46.
The Committee discussed the potential for these phases to overlap depending on the construction season and various other factors. Public Works Director Heuer stated that the Committee might look to the engineers and construction season for guidance on when certain elements of the project could take place. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the Committee first needs to focus on whether the City Council and general public think the recommendation is good idea or bad idea, then consider and obtain funding for the project, and finally, concern themselves with phasing and implementation.
ACTION ITEMS
The next meeting date of Monday, October 23, 2000, was established to practice the presentation for the City Council meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.