43 a3 El W
<br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
<br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON MONDAY,
<br />DECEMBER 15, 1975
<br />7:OO P.M.
<br />Answering roll call.were members Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw and Mayor Van
<br />Valkenburg. -
<br />MINUTES of November 17, 1975 and December 1, 1975, were approved as corrected by
<br />motion of Councilwoman Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried.
<br />Correction in November 17, 1975, Minutes, page 20, paragraph 1, line 10, should
<br />read "residential" street instead of 'Ithrough" street. In the December 1, 1975,
<br />Minutes, page 30, paragraph 1, line 11, Mr. Phil Riveness' name should be deleted
<br />as he is not a member of the Advisory Board, but rather he is a resource person.
<br />PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED ON VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. Affidavits of Notice
<br />were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Due
<br />notice having been given, public hearings were conducted and action taken as
<br />hereinafter recorded.
<br />A. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. P-BA-213 IN THE FOLLOWING:
<br />Xerxes Avenue from West 66th Street to Washburn Circle
<br />Mr. Dunn presented total estimated construction cost at $116,271.08, to be assessed
<br />at $19.05 per assessable foot. He advised that if approved, Edina would enter into
<br />an agreement with Richfield, on a cost-sharing basis, to construct the 36 foot wide
<br />street with portland cement concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing,
<br />along with the City of Richfield Southwest area improvements during the 1976 con-
<br />struction season. As Edina does not have State-Aid funds involved, as does Richfield,
<br />Mr. Dunn commented the assessment to affected Edina property owners would be hieher.
<br />Mr. Hyde, however, remarked that the Richfield general tax mill rate was 17.197 as
<br />compared to Edina's 6.956 for this year and special improvements are not paid for
<br />out of the Edina general fund. He also noted drainage problems in the area would
<br />make it advisable to reconstruct the entire street concurrently. In opposition
<br />to the project were Charles Morrison, 6624 Xerxes Avenue South; Ted Anderson,
<br />6612 Xerxes and Dale Halaway, 7708 Xerxes. Bob Offenstein, 6716 Xerxes, was not
<br />in favor of the lighting project. In answer to Councilwoman Schmidt's question
<br />if ornamental street lighting could be eliminated (see Ornamental Lighting Improve-
<br />ment following), Mr. Dunn replied that street lights in the Richfield plan are
<br />on the East side of the street and Edina will benefit from same.
<br />of Edina would normally construct a thirty-foot street, he recommended a proposal
<br />to Richfield of a fifteen foot width instead of eighteen feet on the Edina side
<br />of the street.
<br />Councilman Courtney's motion authorizing the street improvement with the attempt
<br />to reduce the cost in any way, including the reduction of width to 15 feet, was
<br />seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and on roll call, there were five ayes and no
<br />nays and motion carried.
<br />B. CONSTRUCTION OF ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. P-L-15 IN THE
<br />As the City
<br />After much discussion in regard to cost and traffic control,
<br />(See Resolution ordering improvement later in Minutes).
<br />Xerxes Avenue from FJ. 66th Street to Washburn Circle.
<br />Mr. Dunn advised that ornamental street lights are proposed to be installed at
<br />approximately 225 feet intervals on the East (Richfield) side of the street for
<br />a total estimated cost of $19,085.90, or $3.13 per assessable foot, to be constructed
<br />concurrently with (A) Improvement P-BA-213. Councilmembers Schmidt and Richards
<br />suggested the.possibility of Richfield deviating from their City policy by using
<br />the existing lighting and eliminating ornamental lighting on either side of the
<br />Richfield requests installation of ornamental lights for their side, adequate
<br />lighting could be obtained from NSP for the Edina side, and there would be no
<br />assessment to affected Edina property owners. Councilman Courtney's motion that
<br />Edina not take part in the Ornamental Street Lighting project died for a lack of
<br />a second. He remarked that lights would not be effective on one side of the street
<br />and Edina should not pay for lights located in Richfield. If Edina is going to
<br />benefit by the installation, it was Councilman Richards' opinion that Edina should
<br />share in the expense. Mayor Van Valkenburg then recommended checking on the
<br />lighting effect on the Edina side, the feasibility of lights on each side of the
<br />street and the effectiveness of one-side lighting in Richfield. Councilman Shaw
<br />requested that information be presented to the Council in January on a light-meter
<br />reading comparison between ornamental lights and higher elevation mast aim lights.
<br />He then moved that the improvement be continued to January 19 to give the Engineer-
<br />ing Department the opportunity to discuss the matter with Richfield. Councilwoman
<br />Schmidt seconded the motion and motion carried.
<br />C. CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. P-WM-300 IN THE FOLLOWING:
<br />To serve undeveloped property in Southwest Quadrant of 66th Street and T.H. 100
<br />D. CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. P-SS-329 IN THE FOLLOWING:
<br />Southwest Quadrant T.H. 100 and West 66th Street
<br />The two above listed improvements affecting the same property owners, public hearings
<br />In answer to Councilman'Shhw's inquiry, Mr. Dunn replied that even though