Laserfiche WebLink
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 />FOLLOWING: <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 />street. <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