HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-18 Meeting PacketAgenda
Transportation Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
VIRTUAL MEETING
This meeting will be held electronically using Webex software. The meeting will be streamed
live on the City's YouTube channel, YouTube.com/EdinaTV or you can listen to the meeting
via telephone by calling 1-415-655-0001 with Access Code 133 367 9295.
Thursday, March 18, 2021
6:00 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A.Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 18, 2021
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Welcome New Commissioners
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.Street Funding Task Force Final Report
B.Metro Transit Projects Update
C.Commission Resource Portal Concept
D.2021 Work Plan Updates
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Sta1 Comments
IX.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the
public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli4cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: March 18, 2021 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of February
18, 2021
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the minutes of the Transportation Commission regular meeting of February 18, 2021.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached draft minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft Minutes, February 18, 2021
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
WebEx
February 18, 2021
I. Call To Order
Chair Richman called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Answering roll call were Commissioners Ahler, Johnson, Kane, Lafferty, Plumb-Smith, Richman, Atri, Clark
Khariwala.
Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni, Traffic Safety Coordinator Nick Bauler
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Plumb-Smith and seconded by Commissioner Lafferty to
amend the agenda by moving Annual Elections to Item A under Reports/Recommendations.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kane and seconded by Commissioner Ahler to approve
the amended agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to
approve the January 21, 2021 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. Reports/Recommendations
A. Annual Elections
Commissioner Lafferty nominated Commissioner Johnson as Chair. Motion was seconded
by Commissioner McCarthy. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ahler nominated Commissioner Plumb-Smith as Vice Chair. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith.
Ayes: Ahler, Johnson, McCarthy, Plumb-Smith, Richman
Nays: Kane, Lafferty
Motion carried.
B. 2020 Traffic Safety Summary Report
Traffic Safety Coordinator Nick Bauler presented the 2020 Traffic Safety Summary Report. Comments
from Commissioners included:
• The year-to-year breakdown is helpful to see, could help identify growing problems or track
progress in certain areas.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
• More requests might mean more people are reporting a problem rather than the problem
getting worse.
• It would be helpful to see a breakdown and A-, B- and D-items by quadrant to see if there are
patterns in what gets approved. It’s also worth noting that one or two quadrants are more
diverse than others.
• The mechanisms by which requests come in are also important to track. Differences in
mechanisms used by quadrant may indicate a difference in access to the submission tools. Maybe
the City can promote the submission tools better.
• Staff Liaison Scipioni clarified that the Transportation Commission only reviews and comments
on the Traffic Safety Reports, not approves.
• It is interesting to see how many more requests are made in the northeast quadrant; this seems
to be a consistent trend over the last few years. Staff should consider tracking requests per
resident in each quadrant.
• The northeast quadrant was buzzing with activity this year; it is not surprising to see more
requests in this area given the density and observed activity.
• Coordinator Bauler clarified that the members of the Traffic Safety Committee are himself,
Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni, Director of Engineering Chad Millner, Traffic Safety
Specialist Save Snaza, Public Works Director Brian Olson, Assistant City Planner Emily Bodeker,
and Police Sergeant Nate Mandel.
C. Traffic Safety Report of January 26, 2021
The Commission reviewed the Traffic Safety Report of January 26, 2021.
Commissioner Plumb-Smith left at 6:59.
D. 2020 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Summary Report
Liaison Scipioni presented the 2020 Pedestrian and Cyclists Safety Fund Summary Report. Comments
from Commissioners included:
• Staff clarified that the City’s Conservation and Sustainability Fund also contributed to the City
Hall improvement project and that the new electric vehicle charging stations are meant for
visitors and city vehicles.
• It is disappointing not to see anything proposed for 2021 or 2022 on Valley View Rd under
Highway 62. Staff explained that MnDOT has a bridge redeck project scheduled for 2026 and
that the City is advocating for improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities under the bridge.
• Staff clarified that the City regularly repairs pavers at 50th & France and assesses the costs back
to the business district.
• The variation in cost per lineal foot from project to project seems extreme. Staff explained that
there are several factors that impact project cost, including scope, topography, when the project
is bid and whether is it combined with similar projects. Commissioners suggested that staff
include a comment with each project to explain the costs that were included.
• Staff explained that the equity criteria will be applied later this year.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
E. 2021 Work Plan Updates
• #1 Organized Trash Collection – Kick-off meeting with the VANTAGE team is tentatively
schedule for the first week in March.
• #2 Street Funding Task Force – Commissioner Scherer resigned from the Commission and
will conclude his work with the Task Force next month when the final recommendations are
presented to City Council. Two options will be recommended to Council; replacing 50% or
100% of assessment costs with City taxes. The Task Force will also recommend that subcut and
retaining walls costs no longer be assessed.
• #3 CloverRide – No update.
• #4 Traffic Safety Reports – Commission commented on the 2020 summary report.
• #5 Capital Improvement Projects – Commission commented on the 2020 annual report.
• #6 Traffic Impact Studies & TDM – Staff is awaiting studies for projects at 4917 Eden Ave,
4040 W 70th St and 4660 W 77th St. The project application for 6600 France Ave was
withdrawn.
VI. Chair and Member Comments
Commissioner Ahler thanked Commissioner Richman for her years of service as Chair.
Commissioner Johnson noted that there are some benefits to virtual meetings and that a hybrid model
should be considered if Commissions go back to in-person meetings.
Commissioner Kane thanked Commissioner Richman for her service as Chair. Kane noted that it is great
that the Commission is open to serious discussions. Kane congratulated Commissioner Plumb-Smith on
being elected Vice Chair and lamented Commissioner Scherer’s resignation.
Commissioner Lafferty noted that the virtual meetings have been very effective but has no comparison to in-
person meetings. Lafferty also appreciates that the Commission is discussing costs.
Commissioner McCarthy thanked Commissioners Richman and Johnson for their leadership and looks
forward to working with Commissioners Johnson and Plumb-Smith.
Commissioner Atri thanked Commissioners Richman and Johnson for serving as Chair and Vice Chair.
Commissioner Khariwala thanked Commissioners Richman and Johnson for serving as Chair and Vice Chair.
Commissioner Richman thanked all of the Commissioners and looks forward to working with new leaders.
Richman noted that she received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and thanked Liaison Scipioni for his
assistance with the Commission.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
VII. Staff Comments
• City Council approved staff’s recommended approach for lowering local speed limits last night. Staff
will begin preparing an implementation plan with Police, Public Works and Communications.
• Chris Brown was appointed to the Transportation Commission last night and will begin serving in
March. An alternate will be selected to fill Commissioner Scherer’s seat.
• Hennepin County has an overlay scheduled on France Ave between W 50th St and Excelsior Blvd in
2022 and is interested in adding bike lanes.
• The next meeting is Thursday, March 18.
VIII. Adjournment
Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Kane to adjourn
the February 18, 2021 meeting at 7:49 p.m.
Ayes: Ahler, Johnson, Kane, Lafferty, McCarthy, Richman
Absent: Plumb-Smith
Motion Carried.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance %
Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 2
NAME
Ahler, Mindy 1 1 2 100%
Johnson, Kirk 1 1 2 100%
Kane, Bocar 1 1 2 100%
Lafferty, Peter 1 1 2 100%
McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 2 100%
Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 2 100%
Richman, Lori 1 1 2 100%
Atri, Nihar (s) 1 1 2 100%
Clark, Anna (s) 1 1 50%
Khariwala, Anand (s) 1 1 2 100%
Scherer, Matthew RESIGNED 0 N/A
Date: March 18, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Welcome New Commissioners Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Commissioners Andy Lewis and Chris Brown have been appointed to serve on the Transportation Commission
through March 1, 2024.
Date: March 18, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Street Funding Task Force Final Report Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
The Street Funding Task Force met between June 2020 and March 2021 to discuss alternative ways to fund
street reconstruction. As part of their 2020 and 2021 work plans, T he Transportation Commission appointed a
representative to serve on the Task Force. Staff presented the Task Force's final report to the City Council at
their March 2, 2021 regular meeting. It is anticipated that Council will use the recommendations to inform future
discussions on the 2022/2023 budget.
See attached report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Street Reconstruction Funding Recommendations
CITY OF EDINA
STREET
RECONSTRUCTION
FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
February 22, 2021
City of Edina, Engineering Department
www.EdinaMN.gov
Street Funding Task Force
1
Table of Content
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………….2
Purpose Statement……………………………………………………………………..5
Objective / Goals………………………………………………………………………5
Vision Statement……………………………………………………………………….5
Task Force Initiation…………………………………………………………………...5
Subcuts (i.e. Sub-Soil Quality)…………………………………………………………7
Task Force Understandings…………………………………………………………....7
Historical Data………………………………………………………………………....8
Engagement…………………………………………………………………………....10
Funding Options: Local Residential Properties……………………………………….13
Funding Options: Municipal State Aid Street Reconstruction………………………..17
Assessments: Other Property Classes………………………………………………..17
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….18
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………19
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………….20
2
Executive Summary
The Street Funding Task Force was created by the City Council in response to concerns regarding
assessments. The concerns became more apparent during public hearings for potential 2020 street
reconstruction projects.
Over the course of ten months and sixteen meetings the Task Force did in-depth data gathering and
discussion with area experts regarding:
1) Historical reconstruction costs by neighborhood.
2) Composition of specific costs included or excluded in prior special assessments.
3) Funding alternatives used by other Twin City metro communities, including special assessments,
tax levies, and franchise fees shown in Appendix M.
4) Legal and financial obstacles to changing the policy with respect to both residents previously
assessed and properties that have not yet been assessed.
5) The concept of equity, should the Task Force conclude that a change needed to be made.
6) Edina’s use of a 100% assessment strategy was clearly an outlier.
7) State statute chapter 429 which requires assessments financially benefit those assessed and again
clearly realized the current 100% assessment strategy was no longer legally and financially
sustainable.
Ultimately, the Task Force concluded that a change in policy did need to be made.
This report presents two recommendations for the City Council to consider with respect to funding
street reconstruction. Each option assumes the costs of subcut will be paid entirely by city taxes
beginning in year one, and that the new option will begin in year two and transition over a 15-year
period.
• Option 1 replaces the current 100% special assessment with a 50% assessment and 50% city
taxes.
• Option 2 replaces the 100% assessment with 100% city taxes.
In addition, the Task Force recommends that:
1. The cost of subcut (sub-soil correction) should no longer be included in special assessments but
rather be paid entirely by city tax levy beginning in year one (fiscal year 2022).
2. The cost of boulevard retaining walls in the City right-of-way should no longer be included in
special assessments but rather be paid entirely by city tax levy beginning in year one (fiscal year
2022)
3. City staff should draft, and the City Council should approve, a street light policy. At a minimum,
the policy should establish a standard for location and quality of lighting which would be paid for
by the City (example: Active Routes to Schools for Safety).
3
4. The City Finance Department should draft a policy to earmark a pool of dollars from the annual
tax levy for street reconstruction. The purpose of this pool would be to fund specific costs
including 1) the City’s portion of future street reconstruction, 2) subcut, 3) retaining walls, and
4) street lighting. And, if so determined by the Staff and the Council, the funding of MSA street
reconstruction above that funded by the State.
When considering a change in taxation policy, “equity” or “fairness” is an issue that must be addressed.
In this case, fairness to those who have experienced a special assessment but also fairness in terms of
future taxation policy. To that end, the Task Force recognized that the current method of street
assessment is both fair and unfair at the same time. It is fair in that all residents are subject to the same
rules. It is unfair in that a resident may pay significantly more or less based on A) the density of their
particular neighborhood project, as defined by the City, B) the quality of the street’s sub-soil (“subcut”)
and/or C) the possibility of retaining wall replacement on City owned boulevard. It is also unfair that
some people may live many years in Edina and never experience a special assessment, while others may
relocate within the City and experience more than one special assessment.
The Task Force believes both Option 1 and Option 2 are more fair than the current system, though we
realize either will seem unfair to those residents who currently reside in Edina and have previously
experienced a special assessment. The Task Force sought advice from legal counsel on what could be
done to lessen the financial impact on those residents if a change is made. Unfortunately, there is no
legal method to refund or apply different tax rates to those previously assessed. In an attempt to lessen
this burden on current residents who have had special assessments, the Task Force has recommended a
15-year transition period for both options.
Via Better Together Edina, the Task Force surveyed residents and, not surprisingly, the most
common comment from those previously assessed was that they had paid, did not want to pay for
others’ assessments and were due some compensation to avoid being doubly impacted. Those not yet
assessed similarly commented on a need to slowly transition homeowners who have been assessed or
find some way to adequately treat those who have paid assessments, and also advised the City to use or
raise other monies for road reconstruction.
Consistent with our vision statement, the Task Force recommendations are in alignment with the City
of Edina budget goals.
City of Edina budget goals
Strong Foundation: Maintain physical
assets and infrastructure. Livable City: Plan for connected and
sustainable development.
Reliable Service: Maintain service levels
that best meet the needs of the community. Better Together: Foster an inclusive
and engaged community.
4
Staff would like to thank the Street Funding Task Force community member volunteers for their
contributions. The unique points of view that each brought to the process added value and influenced
the recommendations.
Ann Swenson (chair), Concord Neighborhood
David Alkire, Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood
Chip Howard, Countryside Neighborhood
Kathy Kelly, Normandale Park Neighborhood
Hamid Mohtadi, Prospect Knolls Neighborhood
Matt Scherer, Edina Transportation Commission and Indian Hills Neighborhood
Ralph Zickert, Lake Cornelia Neighborhood
5
Purpose Statement
Develop recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding.
Objective / Goals
The Task Force will provide recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding and
recommend a transition plan from current methods. The recommendations will be considered by the
City Council and changes could be incorporated into an update of the assessment policy.
The Task Force has come to understand that the 2016 increase to street maintenance funding is
adequate and did not require analysis.
Vision Statement
To develop a funding solution that A) is viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable, B) is able to
maintain Edina’s roadways to an appropriate standard, and C) is financially and legally sustainable.
Task Force Initiation
The special assessment of Edina residents for roadway reconstruction costs began in late 1990’s and
early 2000’s. From the beginning, residents of all property classes and values have expressed concerns
with assessments. During the public hearing for a scheduled 2020 street reconstruction project, it
became apparent that the City’s ability to justify the benefit of a projected $32,000 assessment to each
property owner, as required by State statute 429, would likely not survive a legal challenge. Further,
due to the numerous cost variables imbedded in the current assessment policy it was evident that a re-
evaluation of the City’s street reconstruction funding policy was necessary.
This initiative is not related to only high value properties, it is a concern for all properties.
To address the issue, Council asked the City Manager to form a task force to review the issue. The
Street Funding Task Force charge was developed and approved by the City Manager. A copy of the
charge is included in the Appendix A.
Contrary to the perception of some residents, the impetus for the Task Force and a reevaluation of City
policy was not to ease the financial burden of street reconstruction on large, high value properties. In
fact, both Task Force recommendations ease the future tax burden on low to median value housing in
relationship to properties above the median value.
A call for Task Force members was issued and 7 members were selected from 19 applicants. The
members of the Task Force are listed below with notation as to whether they have personally
experienced a special assessment for street reconstruction.
Ann Swenson (chair), Concord Neighborhood (previously assessed)
David Alkire, Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood (previously assessed)
6
Chip Howard, Countryside Neighborhood
Kathy Kelly, Normandale Park Neighborhood (previously assessed)
Hamid Mohtadi, Prospect Knolls Neighborhood
Matt Scherer, Transportation Commission and Indian Hills Neighborhood (previously assessed)
Ralph Zickert, Lake Cornelia Neighborhood
The Task Force conducted 16 meetings since June 2020. The Task Force was provided data from
experts in the fields of engineering, finance, assessing, and legal. These experts were internal staff and
outside consultants. Discussions were related to the following.
1. Historical reconstruction costs by neighborhood.
2. Composition of specific costs included and excluded in prior special assessments.
3. Methods of taxation available to raise sufficient funds.
4. Funding alternatives used by other Twin City metro communities, including special assessments,
tax levies, and franchise fees.
5. Alternative methods of allocating costs back to residents.
6. Fairness and equity issues should the Task Force conclude that a change is needed.
7. Legal and financial obstacles to changing the policy with respect to both residents previously.
assessed ad propertied that have not yet been assessed.
From these meetings, the Task Force has come to understand that:
1. The current method of street assessment is both fair and unfair at the same time.
a. It is fair in that all residents are subject to the same rules.
b. It is unfair in that a resident may pay significantly more or less based solely on the
density of their neighborhood, the sub-soil quality (“subcut”) and / or the need for
retaining wall reconstruction on City owned boulevard.
c. It is unfair that some people will live 30 or more years in Edina and never experience a
special assessment.
d. It is unfair that some people will experience more than one special assessment.
e. It is unfair that the current policy assumes all properties within a neighborhood
reconstruction project benefit equally and that properties outside of the project are
assumed to receive no benefit. Example, the current policy allocates all the costs to the
residents that live on the street while other residents get to use the same street free of
charge.
2. Edina’s current method of allocating 100% of street reconstruction costs as special assessments
is an outlier among the Twin Cities metro communities.
3. Any change to the current system will be unfair to those residents who have previously
experienced a special assessment and still reside in Edina.
7
Subcuts (i.e. Sub-Soil Quality)
Street reconstruction standards and uses have changed significantly since the 1950’s and 1960’s when
many of Edina’s streets were initially constructed. These changes now require removal of the poor
subsoils during reconstruction.
A key learning of the Task Force was the inherent unfairness of subcut costs on assessments.
Assessments to a homeowner can be up to 52% higher on an individual project depending on extent of
improvement needed to the sub-soil or subcuts. The discussion centered around the randomness of
purchasing a property that has bad subsoils, which is something the homeowner would not know.
Task Force Understandings
The Task Force members had general agreement on the following items.
1. The proof of benefit required by Minnesota state statute 429 will make it increasingly difficult for
Edina’s current policy of 100% special assessment to withstand legal challenge, and therefor
Edina’s current policy needs to be changed. Edina has been an outlier as compared to other
cities in this regard.
2. To not use franchise fees as a payment method. Edina already uses franchise fees for the
Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) & Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) funds. We have
reason to believe it would be difficult and unacceptable to increase those.
3. If special assessments were to continue, that assessments do not exceed 50% of the cost so as
to A) easily meet the benefit criteria of state statue 429, and B) be more aligned with other
metro community taxation policies.
4. To use a longer transition to reduce the impact on residents that have already been assessed.
The 15-year transition matches the typical payback period for residents that choose to finance
their assessment.
5. To no longer have subcut and retaining walls in the assessments, if assessments continue at
some level.
6. That removing subcuts alone will not be sufficient to meet the objectives of the task force.
7. To suggest the council direct staff to create a streetlight standard or policy. The policy could
detail where streetlights should be installed (example: Active Routes to School for safety) as a
standard or locations where the residents could suggest streetlights. If the city creates a
streetlight policy, streetlight installations that meet that standard should not be assessed.
Streetlights requested by residents outside the policy should be assessed, if assessments
continue at some level.
8
8. Excessive debt for street reconstruction is not an appropriate use of the City’s debt capacity
and could have negative bond ratings implications.
Historical Data
Edina’s transportation system provides the public pathways to key destinations. Trips along this system
occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in a variety of modes for a variety of reasons. Residents,
businesses, emergency services and others expect that this system will meet their mobility needs safely,
efficiently and effectively. In order to achieve these goals, regular evaluation is needed to rehabilitate
existing components and ensure these systems meet future demands.
Since approximately 1998 to 2019, 80 of the 164 miles of local streets (or ~50%) have been
reconstructed and funded by special assessments. If this pace continues, all local streets will be
reconstructed in a period of 50 years since commencement of reconstruction. Although a majority of
these streets were initially constructed in the 1950s and 1960s with a design life of 30 years, many have
surpassed their intended design life due to reactive maintenance operations. Our goal with the street
reconstruction program is to level out annual street reconstruction needs to better align with an
industry-standard 50-year design life. A key component to reaching this goal was our recent fully-funded
street maintenance program.
Since approximately 2001 to 2019, 13 of the 42 miles of Municipal State Aid (MSA) designated streets
(or ~30%) have been reconstructed and funded by a combination of MSA and special assessments. MSA
streets are funded with 20% assessments and 80% MSA funding from the state highway users fund.
Current funding allows 0.5 mile of MSA reconstruction every year. At this pace, it will take an additional
60 years to reconstruct the remaining 29 miles of MSA designated streets.
The pavement condition index (PCI) is a measure of the pavement condition on a scale of 0 to 100 with
100 being a brand-new street. The historical network average PCI can be found in Appendix F. Each
year, one quadrant of the city is field inventoried to update PCI ratings. Staff uses PCI information as one
of the main data points to develop the 5-yr street reconstruction program. This program is updated on
a yearly basis.
Local street reconstruction has been funded entirely with special assessments to benefitting properties.
Assessments are levied against properties that benefit from the project on a Residential Equivalent Unit
(REU) basis; one REU being equivalent to one single-family residential property (not based on street
frontage or lot size). In recent years, Edina property owners have challenged the property benefits of
these assessments under MN State Statue Chapter 429.
A consultant (WSB) was hired December 2020 to review and analyze historical street reconstruction
data from 2007 to 2018. They reviewed the itemized bid tabulations, final payments, residential
equivalent units (REUs) and assessment calculations for local reconstruction and municipal state aid
(MSA) street reconstruction. There were 54 local and 7 MSA street reconstruction projects,
9
respectively. The data was adjusted to 2019 dollars with an inflation rate of 2%. A summary of the data
is shown below.
Local Street Reconstruction Data
The data revealed the following for 54 local street reconstruction projects.
a. Average Assessment per REU = $9,100
b. Average Assessable Project Costs = $4.13 M
c. Subcut Range 2019 Dollars = $1,500 - $1,700,000
d. Subcut % of Total Assessable Project Cost Range = 1% - 52%
e. Subcut Average 2019 Dollars = $200,000
f. Subcut Average Percent of Assessments = 15%
g. Subcut 90th Percentile = $420,000
h. Average Aesthetics = $13,100 (0.5% of total project cost)
i. Inflation since 2007 = 2%
The subcut totals per project adjusted to 2019 dollars for all 54 projects is included in Appendix B. The
actual average assessment per year per REU is plotted and compared to the average assessment in 2007
of $8,000 with a 2% inflation rate in Appendix C. Aesthetics include irrigation systems, pet fences,
landscaping, and fence repairs located in the right-of-way and within the construction limits.
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street Reconstruction Data
The data revealed the following for 7 MSA street reconstruction projects.
a. Average Assessment per REU = $4,300
b. Average Assessable Project Costs = $265,000
c. Subcut Range 2019 Dollars = $10,000 - $60,000
d. Subcut % of Total Assessable Project Cost Range = 3% - 18%
e. Subcut Average 2019 Dollars = $29,000
f. Subcut Average Percent of Assessments = 9%
g. Average Aesthetics = $1,100
10
Engagement
One of the City’s goals is to “Foster an engaged and inclusive community.” The City does this by using a
strategy to guide engagement work. In addition, City Council has established a Community Engagement
value statement which reinforces our strategy.
Community Engagement Statement
As the Edina City Council, we are dedicated to fostering an engaged community built on a foundation of trust.
We will do this by intentionally focusing on equity, diversity and inclusion and creating a dialogue of perspectives.
We will build trust by demonstrating our engagement principles of Relationships, Equity, Inclusivity, and
Accountability.
• Relationships: make relationships foundational; strengthen relationships and build new ones; develop a
trust between the City and residents
• Equity: engage with residents where they are; remove barriers for participation; provide multiple options
for participation
• Inclusivity: strive to provide meaningful engagement opportunities; invite underrepresented groups to
participate; make all feel welcomed and valued
• Accountability: make a plan; do what we say we are going to do; don’t change the rules; make a
decision; communicate how participation influenced decision
The value statement and the City’s overall Community Engagement Strategy guides plans and
implementation of public engagement.
The City’s community engagement strategy utilizes best practices by the International Association of
Public Participation (IAP2). Due to COVID, the Task Force used virtual methods to communicate and
engage residents with the project. The engagement conducted was at the consult level on the IAP2
spectrum. The promise to the community was to keep them informed, listen to, and acknowledge
concerns and aspirations and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. City staff
and the Task Force did this by making meeting videos available, answering questions and publicly
providing responses, making documents and information on the project available, and providing an
opportunity for individuals to submit feedback using Better Together Edina. This report will also share
the input received, what we heard and what we did.
Equity Statement
We are dedicated to creating an environment in our community where residents have equitable opportunities to
participate in their city government and access the City’s institutions, facilities, and services.
Our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion will be a continuous process of learning and adapting to the
multiple needs of all in our community, while consistently applying an equity lens in all decisions and interactions.
Our vision of a welcoming Edina involves removing systemic and institutional barriers to create opportunities for
all in the community to thrive.
11
Public engagement does not mean that everyone will always agree on decisions that are made. Edina is
made up a of a diverse population with very different interests and approaches. The City will listen to all
the different opinions and, where possible, incorporate them in the decision-making process in a
strategic and balanced way.
Public Engagement Feedback
The public was notified of the engagement portion of the project with the following.
1. Press release issued Dec. 18 and pushed out on all social media channels.
2. Story in early January episode of “Agenda: Edina,” filmed Dec. 17, aired Jan. 1-14
3. Article in January issue of Edition: Edina, dated Jan. 1. Mailed first week of January.
Social media push to remind residents to provide feedback week of January 11 prior to Jan. 19 deadline
The website had 2,100 total visits and 324 engaged, 966 informed and 1,600 aware users, respectively.
The feedback form was active from December 18, 2020 until January 19, 2021 at noon. 313 feedback
forms were collected. All feedback forms are provided in Appendix G. Some members of the
community choose to submit comments directly to the city council and/or staff by email. The emails that
have been made available to staff have been included in Appendix H. Approximately 10 questions were
received and answered at the site. The data from the feedback forms were sorted in 3 ways – all forms,
forms from residents who have not been previously assessed for street reconstruction and forms from
residents who have been previously assessed for street reconstruction. A summary of the three data
groups is provided in Appendix I.
What We Heard
The following summary of comments made on the resident feedback form are presented in a subjective
order of priority based on the perceived frequency of being made. The first comment in each section is
far and away the most common opinion expressed.
Comments from Previously Assessed Residents
• I have paid for my street and it was very costly for me. How is it fair for me to have to pay for
other streets? They didn’t help me pay for mine. Can I get a refund or have my future taxes
adjusted for what I have already paid in or will be paying over future years? There must be
some creative solution so previously assessed residents are not doubly impacted. Many
expressed anger in these comments.
12
• Now that wealthy neighborhoods are getting their streets reconstructed the system is being
modified. Big lots and big homes should pay more.
• We should keep the current system in place until all the streets are reconstructed. Wouldn’t
this be the fairest way to proceed? Why not provide more extended financing options to repay
future assessments?
• Neither option is fair and equitable.
• I don’t like either option, but I have to choose one of them to complete the survey. The 50/50
option is the less unfair one.
• All the tear-downs and garbage collections bring heavy trucks into the neighborhoods. Get
these parties to pay their fair share of the reconstruction costs.
• Tax the residents that have not had assessments first and then phase in residents that have
already been assessed.
• Residents bought their homes knowing that potential assessments were part of the cost. It is
unfair to change the rules now.
• The current system is broken and never should have been instituted. There doesn’t seem to be
a truly equitable solution, but getting away from assessments is the right thing to do.
• The rising cost of reconstruction should cause the City to cut its own costs and manage the
projects more effectively in order to keep the costs down.
• Only fund the subcut through tax levy. Leave the rest of the projects under assessment.
• Create a special tax district encompassing all the non-assessed areas and have these taxes pay
for the reconstruction until all roads are redone.
Comments from Not Previously Assessed Residents
• Find a way to transition homeowners who have been recently assessed by charging them a
lower tax levy position to start and work up to a full share after a few years.
• There needs to be a way to adequately treat those who have paid assessments recently or in the
past five to ten years; suggestions included delaying tax increases, assessing a lessor tax,
exempting them from the new approach.
• Reduce permitted large truck and garbage haulers on our streets, and charge them for the wear
and tear on the roads. This will prolong the useful lives of the roads.
• Everyone should contribute, have some “skin in the game” as road reconstruction is a basic city
function. Streets are used by everyone and we as a community should bear the costs.
• Scrutinize the City’s budget to cut unnecessary costs, including staff costs, and use funds to pay
for some of the reconstruction costs.
• Increase fees and taxes on teardowns and new high-density buildings and use funds for street
reconstruction.
• Concern that commercial and leased properties are not paying their share, questioning if their
taxes will be raised.
• Assessments can be devasting to an unsuspecting homeowner. Putting the cost into the tax
rolls eliminates ugly surprises on this score.
• The biggest equity issue is the fact that people may live in the City for many years and never pay
anything for reconstruction. Sharing in the cost relieves this inequity.
13
• The City should improve communications to residents so that they understand assessments and
also be more transparent about upcoming reconstruction projects if assessments in some form
are to be retained.
• Different options for retaining assessments were offered, e.g., replace REU with lot size, vary
the percentages paid by residents.
Funding Options: Local Residential Properties
Historically, street reconstruction special assessments have averaged $4.1M and $0.4 M per year for
local and MSA street reconstruction, respectively. Continued funding of reconstruction at that level
with inflation will achieve the quality of roadways targeted by the City. The total funding needed going
forward is $4.5M per year with a 2% inflation rate. The Task Force would recommend the funding be
flexible to either local or MSA street reconstruction as staff sees fit based on the street reconstruction
program. The assumptions with respect to inflation and levy increases have been applied consistently
across the options presented.
The Task Force is recommending 2 funding options for consideration with a 16-year transition time for
both options. These are the same options presented for public feedback. None of the options
recommend keeping the status quo. In anticipation of council questions, the Task Force also would like
to present the estimated financial impacts of faster transition periods. These are shown in Appendix J.
All the options listed in the table below propose removing subcut costs from the assessments
immediately in year 1 of the transition. The funding options below assume a subcut annual expenditure
of $950,000 per year. Subcut occurs every year but the actual amount is dependent on the sub-surface
soils. The Task Force recommends creating a “street improvement fund” or “right-of-way improvement
fund” to carry the balance of subcut dollars for years of less need. The name and type of fund should be
decided by staff. This fund could be used to fund new and replacement retaining wall and streetlights
along with other street or right-of-way improvements. The fund could also be considered to accelerate
MSA construction if fund balance allows. The Task Force recommends creating a policy to define eligible
expenses for this fund.
14
Table 1. ESTIMATED Funding Option Impacts to Assessments, Levy & Taxes
Impact to City Tax Levy Impact to Taxes Paid by Median
Value House (5)
% Reduction in
Special
Assessments
by Year
Annual $$$
Increase
in Levy (3)
Annual %
Increase
in Levy (3)
Annual $$$ Tax
Increase to
Median
Value House
(1)(3)
Annual % Tax
Increase
to Median
Value House
(1)(3)
Option # 1 --- 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years
Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46%
Year 2 - 16 1.9% $100k -$211K (4) 0.2% $4.28 0.28%
Option # 2 --- 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years
Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46%
Year 2 - 16 5.3% $260K-$510K (4) 0.6% $10.49 0.67%
(1) Increase on City portion of property tax levy only. Median Value Home = $551,300
(2) $950,000 is an estimated subcut amount for year 1.
(3) All values are estimates with a 2% annual inflation factor. Estimated impacts are related to the
future market value of the city. Increases or decreases in market value will impact the values
shown in the table.
(4) The ranges reflect the estimated impact of the decrease in assessments and impacts of inflation
during the transition period. Typically, the levy increase gradually during the transition period to
account for these forces.
(5) See Informational Flyer on Proposed 2020 City of Edina Tax Levy in Appendix N for a
Comparison of 2019 City Property Tax to other Cities.
15
Table 2. ESTIMATED Cumulative Tax Impacts Compared to Assessment Reductions
YEAR (s) 1 (2022) 6 (2027) 11 (2032) 16 (2037) Total Tax Collected
During Transition
Option
#1: 50%
City Tax
Cumulative Tax Impacts
on Median Value House
(1)
$37.90
$292
$652
$1,120
$1,120 (3)
Estimated Assessment During Transition:
(A) If median value home
is in average assessment
neighborhood (2)
$7,890
$6,925
$5,960
$5,000
(B) If median value home
is in high assessment
neighborhood (4)
$19,720
$17,315
$14,910
$12,500
Tax on Median Value
Home in Final Transition
Year
$102
Option
#2: 100%
City Tax
Cumulative Tax Impacts
on Median Value House
(1)
$37.90
$385
$994
$1,865
$1,865 (3)
Estimated Assessment During Transition:
(A) If median value home
is in average assessment
neighborhood (2)
$7,890
$5,260
$2,630
$0
(B) If median value home
is in high assessment
neighborhood (4)
$19,720
$13,150
$6,575
$0
Tax on Median Value
Home in Final Transition
Year
$195
Difference in Cumulative Tax Impacts Between Options #1 and #2 $745.20
(1) Median Value Home = $551,300
(2) Started with a $10,000 Assessment with subcut reduction.
(3) All values are estimates with a 2% annual inflation factor. Estimated impacts are tied to future
market value of the city. Increases or decreases in market value will impact the values shown in
the table.
(4) Started with a $25,000 Assessment with subcut reduction.
16
Advantages and Disadvantages of Funding Options (Not in Ranked Order)
Questions to consider when creating advantages and disadvantages.
1. Does it prove or provide benefit?
2. Do we have a policy similar to neighboring communities?
3. What level of impact to taxes does it have on residents?
4. How does it affect current and recently assessed residents?
Option #1: 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars with 16-year transition
1. Advantages
a. Eventually all residents will have some assessments
b. Property owner can see what the assessment funds
c. Legal and accepted process used by other cities
d. 50% funding directly corresponds to specific project costs and location
e. Keeps street reconstruction portion of the tax levy lower for all residents than 100%
option
f. Tax-exempt / non-profits are still part of the funding solution
g. Reduction in potential challenges regarding the benefit of improvements
h. Gradual movement to 50% tax funded which reduces financial shock to homeowners
2. Disadvantages
a. Long transitions subjects property owners to bear uncertainties with project costs
b. 50% of local streets have been completed under 100% Special Assessment Policy
c. Recently assessed properties do not support
Option #2: 100% Tax Levy Dollars with 16-year transition
1. Advantages
a. Stable revenue stream
b. Smaller monthly or annual fees instead of assessment
c. No need to prove benefit to property owner
d. Gradual movement to 100% tax funded which reduces financial shock to homeowners
e. Easy to understand and administer
f. Legal and accepted method used by other cities
2. Disadvantages
a. Long transitions subjects property owners to bear uncertainties with project costs
b. Change in policy doesn’t benefit previously assessed properties
c. Greater tax levy amount
d. Funds are not directly tied to specific project costs or location after 16-years
e. Cannot include tax exempt / non-profit into funding solution. There are 557 tax exempt
properties out of 21,344 properties or 2.6%, of which 450 are city properties.
17
f. 50% of local streets have been completed under the 100% Special Assessment Policy
g. Recently assessed properties do not support
Funding Options: Municipal State Aid Street Reconstruction
The current assessment policy splits funding with adjacent property owners at 20% special assessments
and 80% MSA funding. The MSA funding is distributed to the city from the State’s Highway Users Tax
Distribution Fund to assist local governments with the construction and maintenance of streets on the
state aid system. These funds are generated from fuel tax, vehicle registration and vehicle sales.
The Task Force funding recommendations account for the assessment portion of MSA streets. The
recommendation for MSA streets is to mirror the option and transition period the council would
consider for local street reconstruction.
Assessments: Other Property Classes
The current assessment policy details how to assess other property classes such as multi-family
residential, industrial and utility, commercial – office and retail, institutional – city owned buildings,
institutional – city owned open space, institutional – schools – public and private, institutional – places of
worship, and mixed use. These other property classes are calculated per unit, per 1000 SF gross floor
area from the assessing department, or a combination of methods for mixed use sites.
A table of the recent assessments to other property classes in shown in Appendix K. This method for
other property classes has historically been legally sustainable most of the time. Legal challenges have
not occurred. Recent adjustments to the policy have been made to other property classes to ensure
continued legal sustainability.
There are two specific examples using 100% assessments that may have been challenging to defend. In
one case the project did not go forward and in another it is scheduled for a 2021 street reconstruction.
These are Lincoln Drive from Londonderry Road north to the cul-de-sac and an apartment complex
within the 2021 Melody Lake A & B, Grandview A, Birchcrest C Neighborhood Roadway
Reconstruction (Melody Lake).
Recall the Lincoln Drive project had an estimated assessment of $1,145 per REU’s with a range of
assessments over the 7 properties of $7,900.50 to $133,782. This project only had assessable properties
on one side of the street due to Nine Mile Creek. A benefit letter was provided by an appraiser that
provided an average benefit range of $25,000 to $60,000. The benefit would have been met if properties
lined both sides of the street or if the assessment was lowered to 50% as proposed with Option #1.
Recall the 2021 Melody Lake Project had an apartment complex within the project area with an
estimated assessment of $290,400 with 12 REU’s using $24,200 per REU. This project had much subcut.
Without subcut the estimated assessment was estimated at $17,200 per REU or $206,400.
A benefit letter was provided by an appraiser that provided an average benefit range of $60,000 to
$108,000 for this apartment complex. If subcut is removed and the assessment is lowered to 50% as
proposed in Option #1, this assessment would fall within the benefit range. The issue with this example
is the timing as it relates to the potential construction in 2021 and the 16-year proposed transition.
18
Conclusion
The Task Force’s work has reinforced the understanding that street reconstruction funding is a difficult
and challenging topic, especially when moving from an existing strategy to a new option. Priorities of the
city change over time as does the understanding of methods to fund street reconstruction. These
changes in priorities and understandings require changes to funding methods that may not align with
infrastructure replacement schedules or resident expectations. The two funding options presented meet
the objectives stated in the Vision; A) is viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable, B) is able to
maintain Edina’s roadways to an appropriate standard, and C) is financially and legally sustainable.
19
Acknowledgements
Staff would like to thank the Task Force for their contributions. The unique points of view that each
brought to the process added value and influenced the recommendations.
Ann Swenson (chair), Concord Neighborhood
David Alkire, Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood
Chip Howard, Countryside Neighborhood
Kathy Kelly, Normandale Park Neighborhood
Hamid Mohtadi, Prospect Knolls Neighborhood
Matt Scherer, Edina Transportation Commission and Indian Hills Neighborhood
Ralph Zickert, Lake Cornelia Neighborhood
The Task Force would like to thank the following staff or consultants for their contributions.
Chad Millner, Engineering Director, Co-Staff Liaison
Don Uram, Finance Director, Co-Staff Liaison
MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator
Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications Director
Liz Moore, Engineering Administrative Coordinator
Bob Wilson, City Assessor
Scott Neal, City Manager
David Kendall, City Attorney, Campbell Knutson Law
Justin Bossert and Erica Odegard, WSB Consulting Engineers
League of MN Cities Research Staff
20
Appendix
Appendix A: Street Funding Task Force Charge
Appendix B: Subcut Totals Adjusted to 2019 Dollars for 54 Local Street Projects from 2007 to 2018
Appendix C: Actual Average Assessments Compared to Inflation Impacts
Appendix D: 50% Assessment / 50% Tax Option Graph of Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation, Starting
with an $8,000 assessment in 2007.
Appendix E: 100% Tax Option Graph of Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation, Starting with an $8,000
assessment in 2007
Appendix F: Network Average Pavement Condition Index Graphic
Appendix G: Better Together Feedback Forms
Appendix H: Emails Received Feedback
Appendix I: Data Summary of Better Together Edina Feedback Forms
Appendix J: Tables of Financial Impacts of Other Transition Periods
Appendix K: Historical Assessments of Other Property Classes and Impacts with Option #1
Appendix L: Frequently Asked Questions Brochure
Appendix M: Table of Funding Methods for Neighboring Communities
Appendix N: Informational Flyer on Proposed 2020 City of Edina Tax Levy
Appendix A: Street Funding Task Force Charge
EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I STREET FUNDING TASK FORCE I CITY OF EDINA Page 1
CITY MANAGER TASK FORCE
CHARGE
PROJECT: STREET FUNDING TASK FORCE
PURPOSE
Develop recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding
OBJECTIVE / GOALS
The Task Force will provide recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding and recommend
a transition plan from current methods. The recommendations will be considered by the City Council and changes
would be incorporated into an update of the assessment policy.
METHODOLOGY
- Review current policies and practices of the City
- Review policies and practices of other communities
- Review available funding tools
OUTCOMES
- The Task Force is asked to provide City Council a report including recommendations for street
reconstruction and maintenance funding along with a transition plan for moving from the current to the
new process. The report will support City Staff in updating the assessment policy and developing an
implementation plan.
TIMELINE
March 2020 through March 2021
KEY DATES
March 2020 City Council approval of Task Force Charge
April-May 2020 Outreach and recruitment of applicants
May 2020 City Manager appoints Task Force members
November 2020 Task Force presents update to City Council (work session)
January 2021 Task Force presents draft recommendations to City Council (work session)
February 2021 City Council considers adoption of the recommendations
March 2021 Recommendations incorporated into assessment policy
COMMITMENT
EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I STREET FUNDING TASK FORCE I CITY OF EDINA Page 2
- Appointed members will be asked to fulfill their work until Council considers final
recommendations in February 2021
- Appointed members should expect to meet at least monthly with additional off-line work
- Appointed members should consider project timeline prior to accepting an appointment
MEETINGS
- The Task Force will establish their schedule including meeting times and dates as needed to complete the
work
- Conclusion of work must fall into the indicated timeline
- Meetings will be open to the public
LEVEL OF AUTHORITY
CITY MANAGER
The City Manager has the authority to:
- Establish and appoint Task Force members
- Appoint/remove members
- Designate the Staff Liaison and any additional staff support needed
- Authorize financial resources
- Enter into a service contract with subject matter experts/consultants
TASK FORCE
The Task Force has the authority to:
- Conduct public engagement and collect input using the City’s public engagement protocols
- Provide input on the recommendations
- Develop a report and make recommendations which will be presented to City Council for consideration
TASK FORCE LEADERSHIP
The City Manager will designate a member of the Task Force to serve as the Chair and another member as the Vice
Chair. The role of the Chair will be to:
- Prepare the meeting agenda
- Lead meetings and facilitate discussions
- Maintain meeting decorum
- Encourage participation of all members
The Vice Chair will support the Chair as needed and perform the Chair duties if the Chair is unavailable.
STAFF LIAISON
The City Manager will designate the Staff Liaison(s) to the Task Force. The role of the Liaison(s) will be to:
- Support the Task Force Chair in preparing agendas and meeting materials
- Provide technical expertise and access to City resources
- Relay information from City Manager to Task Force and vice versa
- Submit packet materials for City Council review
The Task Force will not direct the work of the Liaison(s).
EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I STREET FUNDING TASK FORCE I CITY OF EDINA Page 3
RESOURCES AVAILABLE
The Task Force will have access to City resources available to other advisory groups (i.e.
marketing/communications, meeting supplies, etc.). Other resources may be allocated at the discretion of the City
Manager.
MEMBERSHIP
APPLICATION
The City of Edina’s Volunteer Edina program will manage the recruitment, application and onboarding process.
CONSIDERATIONS & COMPOSITION
The composition of the task force will be up to 7 members with a variety of perspectives, experiences and
geographical locations. Composition will include members that have and have not been assessed for street
reconstruction.
Members must be residents of Edina.
The Transportation Commission will select one commissioner to be considered for appointment.
Members, Chair and Vice Chair will be appointed by the City Manager.
B
Appendix B: Subcut Totals Adjusted to 2019 Dollars for 54 Local Street Projects from
2007 to 2018
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Subcut in 2019 Dollars by Chronological Order
2007 to 2018
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Subcut in 2019 Dollars by Project by Year
C
Notes: Graphics shows the dollar value of subcuts in 2019 dollars by project year and in chronological
order. Graphics also show the % cost of the subcut as compared to the total assessable project costs in
2019 dollars by project year and in chronological order.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Subcut % of Total Assessable Project Cost in 2019
Dollars by Chronological Order 2007 to 2018
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Subcut % of Total Assessable Project Cost in 2019
Dollars by Project by Year
D
Appendix C: Actual Average Assessments Compared to Inflation Impacts
Notes: Graphic created to compare actual average assessments per year to the 2007 average
assessment per REU of $8,000 increased yearly with a 2% inflation rate.
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Actual Assessment per REU
vs Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation
Actual Inflation
E
Appendix D: 50% Assessment / 50% Tax Option Graph of Assessment per REU w/ 2%
Inflation, Starting with an $8,000 assessment in 2007
Notes: Graphic created to show impacts of inflation on an average assessment beginning in 2007
including a change in policy to the 50% assessment / 50% tax option in 2021. Assumptions include:
1. Average assessment per REU in 2007 $8,000 per REU
2. 2.00% Average Inflation
3. 15% Reduction for Subcut Yr 1 in Year 2021
4. 4.83% Reduction in Assessments Transitions over 2022 to 2037
$0.00
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,000.00
$8,000.00
$10,000.00
$12,000.00
$14,000.00
200720092011201320152017201920212023202520272029203120332035203720392041204320452047204950% Assessment / 50% Tax Option
Local Streets Impacts of Inflation
F
Appendix E: 100% Tax Option Graph of Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation, Starting
with an $8,000 assessment in 2007
Notes: Graphic created to show impacts of inflation on an average assessment beginning in 2007
including a change in policy to the 100% tax option in 2021. Assumptions include:
1. Average assessment per REU in 2007 $8,000 per REU
2. 2.00% Average Inflation
3. 15% Reduction for Subcut Yr 1 in Year 2021
4. 7.67% Reduction in Assessments Transitions over 2022 to 2037
$0.00
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,000.00
$8,000.00
$10,000.00
$12,000.00
$14,000.00
100% Tax Option
Local Streets Impacts of Inflation
G
Appendix F: Network Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
H
Appendix G: Better Together Feedback Forms
Feedback Form
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
30 January 2019 - 20 January 2021
PROJECT NAME:
Street Funding Task Force
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 1 of 51
Q1 Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina?
168 (53.7%)
168 (53.7%)145 (46.3%)
145 (46.3%)
Yes No
Question options
Mandatory Question (313 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 2 of 51
Q2 What type of property was assessed?
168 (100.0%)
168 (100.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Residential Commercial Retail Non-residential
Question options
Mandatory Question (168 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 3 of 51
Q6 Is your property listed in our "Anticipated Roadway Reconstruction Map?"
94 (30.0%)
94 (30.0%)
219 (70.0%)
219 (70.0%)
No Yes
Question options
Mandatory Question (313 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 4 of 51
Q9 Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease
special assessments and raise city taxes faster?
131 (41.9%)
131 (41.9%)
182 (58.1%)
182 (58.1%)
No Yes
Question options
Mandatory Question (313 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 5 of 51
Q10 How many years would you be comfortable with?
6
6
38
38
20
20
67
67
5 years
8 years
10 years
16 years
Question options
25 50 75 100 125 150
Number of years to
transition.
Mandatory Question (131 response(s))
Question type: Likert Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 6 of 51
Q10 How many years would you be comfortable with?
16 years : 6
10 years : 38
8 years : 20
5 years : 67
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of years to transition.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 7 of 51
Q12 The Task Force's vision statement is to develop a funding solution that is:A) viewed by a
plurality of residents as equitable,B) is able to maintain Edina’s roadways to the City’s
standard, andC) is financially and legally sustainable.Do you feel v...
46
46
107
107
89
89
42
42
74
74
24
24
104
104
140
140
Definitely disagree
Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Definitely agree
Question options
100 200 300 400
Option 1 is equitable.
Option 2 is equitable.
Mandatory Question (313 response(s))
Question type: Likert Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 8 of 51
Question type: Likert Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 9 of 51
Q12 The Task Force's vision statement is to develop a funding solution that
is:A) viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable,B) is able to maintain Edina’s
roadways to the City’s standard, andC) is financially and legally sustainable.Do
you feel v...
Option 1 is equitable.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 10 of 51
Definitely agree : 46
Somewhat agree : 89
Somewhat disagree : 74
Definitely disagree : 104
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 11 of 51
Q13 The task force reviewed funding options including special assessments, city taxes, and
franchise fees. They also discussed that approximately half of the streets have been
Definitely agree : 107
Somewhat agree : 42
Somewhat disagree : 24
Definitely disagree : 140
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Option 2 is equitable.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 12 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 08:56 AM
I recently paid $18,000 for my new street. How is making me pay for others
new streets in the future equitable to me or anyone else who recently paid? I
don’t see any way you can make changes to this system. It’s not good, but
changing it scr$ws many residents with recently new streets. I guess you
could give me a refund.
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 09:15 AM
Just get it done ! Catch up on the deferred maint, please . Edina should not
have worse streets than Richfield and other cities . Edina is the best .
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 09:45 AM
Look, even if we don't live on the road that is assessed we ALL drive on
these roads multiple times daily and ALL benefit in maintaining our property
value if infrastructure is kept up in Edina. The fairest is to use all of taxes to
repair streets and not charge individual residents just because they happen
to live on a street that needs repair.
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 10:07 AM
Given so many have already paid in raising taxes (result of 2) is not
equitable. The only ones on task force that wanted this were a couple that
are up for assessments soon. They seem to be only responding for their own
interest. Most of the members were thinking on behalf of the entire city.
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 10:18 AM
Take monies being devoted to low-income housing development.
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 11:17 AM
A dedicated special street fund yearly. These assessments have become a
hardship on many long time residents who are on fixed incomes and live in
modest homes.
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 11:56 AM
This issue was raised by one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Edina when
it came their turn to be assessed. I'm a retiree living on a modest fixed
income and am paying my assessment in full. Now because you live on an
outsized street to accommodate your large, expensive homes, you say "the
system is unfair". Now you want me, with both options, to subsidize your
assessment with my taxes. I oppose both options. Pay your assessment in
full like all the rest of us have done. I reject both options even though I have
to choose one to register my comments. I support a valid 3rd option: No
change.
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 01:16 PM
In November 2020 I sent $10,300 check to the city for my street (Zenith)
reconstruction but now you want to change the rules?! What a load of crap. If
parkwood knolls can’t pay like I did LAST MONTH too bad. Sell your house
for the 6 figure price appreciation that no doubt occured THIS YEAR!
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 01:32 PM
I have already had to pay the full price for street repair. It was a struggle and
I do not feel I should pay for someone else's street through taxes. I do not
reconstructed and that there is no legal way to refund past assessments. Are there other
potential ideas to fund street reconstruction or considerations the Task Force may have
missed?
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 13 of 51
have a lot of money at this point in my life.
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 07:04 PM
I have already been required to pay my entire assessment. I will not be
paying down someone else’s assessment after being assured that mine will
not be refunded. Sounds like poor planning by the city. Either refund all who
have paid for their assessment already and figure out a new plan or only
charge those affected by the “new” project. Completely ridiculous and
discrimanatory against those that have already paid for their assessments. I
would never choose or vote for either of your options that are unfairly
affecting others financial stability
Screen Name Redacted
12/18/2020 08:59 PM
So, we just paid 100% and now you want to give the next guy a mostly free
ride ? Boy, that sure sounds fair. Not!
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 07:20 AM
While Option 1, of the two options , is preferable, it is still unfair to those 50%
of Edina residents that have already paid the full assessment to have their
street done. People have had to remortgage their homes to pay the
assessment and now your asking them for a tax increase to help decrease
the load for others. This does not seem fair or equitable.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 10:36 AM
What about residents who have already paid? Will you give a rebate? Less
taxes? Wipe out the loan they are currently paying? We are still paying for
our street assessment done in 2012. At the time the cost was 6% of the
value of our home. I think you need to also think of those that have already
paid. You can’t change mid stream and expect everyone to be happy. Please
consider loan forgiveness or better yet a rebate or decreased taxes for those
that have already paid.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 10:47 AM
We paid an assessment that was over 6% of our home value at the time
which is significant. Additional assessments placed on individuals like me and
other homeowners who paid an assessment is not equitable or fair.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 10:58 AM
We paid our assessments, (being part of homeowners who already had their
street reconstructed) other homeowners can and should pay for theirs. We,
and others, were given the installment payment options. We will not support
this unequal treatment of the past residents. The 100% plan asks those who
have paid their fair share, to pay again --with our tax dollars -- for street
reconstruction of others. Harsh as it sounds, if you can't afford city
assessments, perhaps you are living in the wrong city. As for 7. (below);
Option 3, leave well enough alone.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 11:30 AM
Go ahead and change the rules for those who have not had their street
redone yet. Leave those of us with current assessments out of it. Doesn't
really matter which plan would be used, but those of us with recent redos
need to be exempt! As for question 7, neither is acceptable.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 12:01 PM
Do not raise taxes (or the proportion needed to cover the costs of the streets)
on those who have already been assessed. We were assessed 13K for our
street that was not in disrepair in the first place. I do not think it is fair to ask
people who have already been assessed to pay even more.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 14 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 12:24 PM
Keep it 100% assessment as individual homeowners have been already
paying so why should people now get the city to tax and receive a discount.
I’m fully paying for my assessment
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 12:31 PM
Calculate a lessor tax for the homeowners that have had an assessment in
the last five years and gradually increase the tax amount for the next five
years until it’s equal to current levels. If home ownership has changed they
are not eligible for a five year reduction.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 02:01 PM
Is there a way to transition those who have been assessed with lower taxes -
with an "opposite" transition?
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 02:27 PM
There may be other options I'm not aware of, but I do think it's extremely
necessary to get away from special assessments as they are a HUGE
burden on taxpayers. In addition, from an individual federal income tax
perspective, special assessments are (often) considered non deductible taxes
and so less attractive than city taxes. IMO, Option 2 is somewhat rather than
definitely equitable because as you indicate, there is no way to make this
completely equitable. But spreading the cost of all street repairs over all
homeowners/taxpayers is the most equitable, given we all drive on many
streets in Edina and thus contribute to their degradation.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 02:39 PM
There should simply be a maximum assessment amount residents are
responsible for. Like $25,000. Anything above that is payed by taxes. It also
gives the city an incentive to keep costs low.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 03:48 PM
The option you already ruled out, leave as is until you finish the city. The fact
that it has been over 20 years and it isn't done, people who are residents
and paid amounts that are likely similar with inflation to the levels people are
upset about now it is frustrating to think that we will now need to pay for their
work. The underlayment concerns, it's basically like saying we are going to
pay more for someone who happened to buy a house on the creek where
there may or may not be flooding. I do not mind tax increases in general but
would rather other things be addressed, like failing sidewalks, support for the
parks systems, maintaining the new plantings on France near Southdale.
Switching midstream to have it covered by an increase in taxes for everyone,
especially with so little area left to complete, because one group was able to
complain loudly enough this time, when it hasn't worked before despite trying,
is difficult to stomach as a long time resident who did what it took to make it
happen (we both got second jobs) when we had ours. It feels the most fair
and transparent to move to a fully tax model AFTER the remaining
neighborhoods are done. This is then transparent going forward as part of
your taxes as a current or future home owner and spreads out the onus in the
future, rather than doubly penalizing all of us who have already quite
significantly paid our dues.
Screen Name Redacted
12/19/2020 06:52 PM
Using revenue from municipal owned businesses such as the liquor stores
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 15 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 02:52 AM
Borrow the funds. To raise my taxes now after having severely socked me for
years for our neighborhood’s projects is an affront. I already paid for my
roads. Why should I have to pay again to fix someone else’s. Changing your
approach now is the epitome of unfair. Forcing me to choose between two
bad options is wrong but I will vote for the least unpalatable of the two.
Shame on you for not having a “leave our current harebrained scheme alone”
choice.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 05:25 AM
I think the City should implement a better communication system that will
ensure that all current and future homeowners are made aware of impending
special assessments in their area. Even though this information is currently
available on the City of Edina website, I would venture to guess that 90% of
current and future homeowners don't know how to locate this information. If
homeowners were aware of these special assessments at least 5 years out,
it would allow them to make better preparations for that future special
assessment so that they aren't financially blind-sided by an assessment.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 07:58 AM
So, The City of Edina failed to think ahead, charged the poorer
neighborhoods in excess of what they now want to charge the wealthier
neighborhoods, and is now asking US (those of us who do not have a large
voice to complain because we don't live in mansions) to tell the city how to
rectify the city's lack of prudence and economic justice?!! Unbelievable. So, I
as a single retired person paid (borrowed to pay) what makes the city
"uncomfortable" to charge those wealthier than myself. I am outraged.
Shame on you!!!!! How do you sleep at night? You ask me to choose
between the two options below and probably this note will not go through
without my choosing one. I choose neither. This is an economic travesty.
Now I have to pay extra taxes because the city is "uncomfortable" charging
the Parkwood Knoll folks for any more than what most of us have already
paid, and in addition our increased taxes have to finance the Parkwood
Knolls folks pockets and the city's discomfort with the Parkwook Knoll's folks
complaints? You have failed most of your citizens. You ask me what to do?
Check with other cities. What have they done to prevent this? (So you will
know how to manage this better for next time). What to do now: what is fair.
If someone owns a million dollar house, that would say to me they might
have to consider expenses needed to upkeep that mansion's obligations (if
they live in the city of Edina). What should not happen is that the folks who
already paid have to pay for those who have not paid yet because their
houses are way too big for them to pay up.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 08:01 AM
Would it be possible to delay tax increases (due to road construction) for
those who have already paid assessments in the past 10 years? i.e. Those
who have paid assessments would not see their road funding taxes increase
for 10 years? The rest of us would likely pay more during the 10 year period
but it would be more fair for those who have already paid.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 08:41 AM
The home I purchased included specific road qualities based on it’s
affordability. I do NOT believe I should be responsible to pay for larger
homes (having a larger road footprint) with more amenities (sidewalks, street
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 16 of 51
lighting etc.) when I don’t have those features. I’m not sure what communities
this proposal is including as having similar policies as the two options being
proposed but I do know that the bordering city of Minneapolis assesses
residents for their own streets/sidewalks. This proposal appears to be the
more wealthy homeowners in Edina attempting to have lower income earners
help them pay their bills. I vote NO.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 11:52 AM
The large number of garbage trucks passing over each street each week
would seem to be on of the contributors to the long-term degradation to the
city streets. The introduction of increased fees to trash haulers could be a
way to generate additional revenue for street reconstruction while also
providing an incentive for haulers who have a smaller customer base to
discontinue their business in Edina and thus reduce total heavy truck traffic
on city streets. Alternatively, I would personally love to see the city take over
trash service or license specific operators to specific neighborhoods to
reduce truck traffic further.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 12:18 PM
It will never be completely fair. Our road that we live on has had poor
drainage issues has looked terrible for many years. The main reason
neighbors did not want it done in the past was due to the assessment. I
agree it is a lot of money but it does need to be done sometimes and we do
have to maintain these areas if we want to preserve our city's standard.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 01:50 PM
We own a 1952 house that has had some remodeling. Like most of the
houses in our neighborhood we have a tiny lot: Our house is 5 FEET from the
property line to the north and south and our house is 10 FEET from our
neighbors house to the north and 15 FEET to our neighbors house to the
south. We have an alley in back. Our house is assessed around $500,000
and we sent a check to Edina 1 month ago for $10,300 or about 2% of our
houses value. Many of the homes in our neighborhood have been torn down
and now they sell for a million dollars so we have paid a higher percentage of
our homes value than many. What is 2% of the median home value in
Prospect Knolls? What is the average lot size and how many feet between
the homes? If you are not going to refund us our money then KEEP THE
ASSESSMENTS THE WAY THEY ARE! The price appreciation in Prospect
Knolls in 2020 ALONE will more than make up for a $30,000 assessment.
Give me a break, Edina! This is the most regressive taxation switch I can
imagine. I am checking option 1 below but I want I further analysis regarding
percentage assessment that you are so concerned about and keep the
current system in place. If they can't afford it they can sell their home and
move 10 feet away from me.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 02:23 PM
Since my street (Bernard PL) in Melody Lakes will be reconstructed in 2021 I
support the new assessment program to begin immediately. I also believe
there should be some adjustment for the projects completed in 2020 and
2019
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 07:56 PM
For those who have paid for reconstruction, the increase in property taxes
should be increased at a lower rate to offset their past payments. Also, some
may still be paying off or are about to be assessed several thousands of
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 17 of 51
dollars for street reconstruction. If assessments haven't been done (i.e. 2020
street reconstruction projects), the assessments should be delayed pending
the decisions adopted by council from this taskforce.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 08:06 PM
I am still paying off my over $20K + road assessment. If you shift to 100%
city funded streets, then I fully expect the remainder of my unpaid
assessment to be waived. It is absolutely so unfair for you to select some
residents to pay tens of thousands of dollars and others not to pay. I live in a
rambler on a street with multimillion dollar homes. I had to pay the same
amount as all of my million dollar neighbors. And our street is a "cut through"
to all the schools and Hwy 100. Literally hundreds of people drive down my
street daily, yet I was assessed to pay for the street. If you have the city pay
for the new streets going forward and raise taxes to do so, then you are
giving DOUBLE the negative impact to me and my neighbors. This is horrible
and unacceptable. The ONLY fair options are to 1. provide property tax
credits in the amount of the full assessments back to all of us who have
already paid and waive the unpaid portion of the assessements owed, or 2.
charge other residents for their streets. Please do the right thing. If you have
the city pay for the streets and raise taxes, I will not be able to afford to live
here anymore.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 08:17 PM
Sure. Excuse those who have paid the assessment in the last eight to ten
years from paying the increase in tax for roads for next eight to ten years - or
what is deemed fair. Otherwise, you are unfairly taxing those who have
already paid their assessment to pay for those who have not. Tax us all
equally when you get to the break even point.
Screen Name Redacted
12/20/2020 09:06 PM
My street was redone a couple years ago and I am paying off the
assessment year-by-year. To raise my taxes to pay for other peoples streets
does not seem equitable. I’m living off my savings as I am retired now and an
increase in taxes would be a burden for me. We had no say when our streets
were redone and so I have a little hope that the citizens will have any say in
any more financial burdens that the city decides we should pay for whether it
be organic recycling or streets on the other side of town. And don’t get me
started about sidewalks that are put in so close to the street that the resident
shovels it and then the snow plow goes by and fills it in with heavy thick
street snow. The sidewalks are poorly thought out. Just a place for people to
toilet their pets. Very disappointed in city planning and administration.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:13 AM
As a transplant to MN, I was shocked to see that Edina assessed for roads.
We looked at houses that were passing the assessment fees on to the buyer.
We promptly rejected those homes. Sadly, they also appeared to be homes
of older residents and I’ve always wondered if these assessments force sales
and then drive prices down. We definitely mention this to other transplants
moving to MN for our company.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:45 AM
We are in the group that has already been assessed. It doesn't make sense
that we paid for 100% of our assessment and in effect now thru Option 1 or 2
would pay for everyone else's construction through general tax. A creative
funding approach must exist.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 18 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:57 AM
Asking citizens who have already paid for 100% of road projects in front of
their own home to then take on responsibility for other road projects is
nonsensical. The City should expect legal challenges should they attempt
this.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:58 AM
The only way to accomplish, " A) viewed by a plurality of residents as
equitable", would be to find a legal way to make whole the current residents
of Edina that have already paid 100% of a street assessment for their
property or that currently owe 100% of a street assessment for their property.
I believe this could be accomplished if you limit it to current residents only
that have either paid 100% of a street assessment or that owe some
remaining portion of a street assessment. Rather than provide a refund, the
city could provide future tax credits for those residents in an amount
proportionate to what future residents would be paying for street
assessments. This could apply to both residents that have paid assessments
entirely or that currently have an outstanding balance. Any prior resident that
has paid an assessment but is no longer a current resident of Edina because
they have sold their property would not be eligible for any future tax credits.
The same could apply for anyone that sells a property - the tax credit could
expire or go away upon sale. I understand the city would want to avoid
litigation, but there are ways to make this legally feasible and equitable for all
current Edina residents that have already been subject to 100% of the street
assessment fees.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:05 AM
I live on a corner lot and our streets/ neighborhood was completed 9 years
ago. I’ve been paying my assessments each year since, painfully, but
appreciative. Now you’re telling me I get to help pay for everyone else? Not
happy, no one has been there for me and my financial obligations. Living
among millionaires and I’m helping them pay their contributions to this city.
BS! Better come up with a plan that is less of a financial burden for those
already dutifully paying in!
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:06 AM
If you cannot legally refund those who have paid for street construction then
you certainly should not tax those residents. All residents who have already
paid should receive tax relief and not pay for other road reconstruction
through their taxes. I would not move forward with either option. And you
need to create a third option for the question below because I wouldn’t vote
for either 1 or 2. This is pure marketing 101!! It’s like you’re forcing those who
disagree to agree to one of your options.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:07 AM
Since past payments cannot be redressed, it is grossly unfair to tax these
citizens again under Option 2. Option 1 is a much more equitable to share
the burdern with those most directly benefitted.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:09 AM
Look to special assessments for private developments that tear down existing
homes and rebuild out (near to) setbacks. The continued process of
redevelopment in neighborhoods is destroying/ reducing lifespan of recently
reconstructed streets that existing homeowners are being assessed for
currently. For example, our ‘new’ street has been dug up twice for utility
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 19 of 51
connections for private home rebuild projects. Along with the stress of
continuous stream of heavy trucks on our neighborhood streets. There needs
to be compensation for existing homeowners in these situations. Also, an ‘of
value’ street cut fee for developers by City to help costs with quality repair of
the street (ie not just patching).
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:12 AM
Instead of either of these options, I suggest that the city delay the change
until ALL streets have been rebuilt. After that, then switch to having ALL
reconstruction costs borne by city taxes. I do not support either currently
proposed option because neither option is equitable. Those property owners
who have already been subject to assessments would also incur costs for
other reconstruction in the city under both proposed plans, paying in full for
their own properties AND for the properties of those who are now crying
crocodile tears about their proposed assessments. It was a hardship for me
to pay the assessments but I did it without complaint, knowing that this is the
system Edina uses. Don’t change the system until the current reconstruction
plan is completed.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:13 AM
It seems very unfair for those who have already been accessed and
paid.Now my taxes go up to help the wealthy in Park.Knolls.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:17 AM
As someone who was just assessed thousands of dollars for road work in
2019, I strongly object to Option 2. These largest properties presumably
have the largest property prices and are therefore owned by some of the
more affluent members of Edina. They must be asked to pay their fair share
for road work. If their fair share is greater than what we were assessed, they
should have the same options for deferred payments that we did, and they
are in a better position to afford it. Please don’t let this be yet another
example where those who have more than enough financial resources get a
better deal than those who are less financially secure. If the price tag is $30k
for a house valued in excess of $1mill, that’s a one-time assessment of 3% or
less for roads that will last decades. If the new roads will last 30 years, that’s
$1000 per year, very manageable for people who can afford these properties
in the first place. It is grossly unfair to expect those of us who have paid for
our own roads to also have our tax burden increased to support the most
affluent in our community. THAT is downright unjust.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:22 AM
When contemplating putting this burden on low income seniors in Edina the
City is acting downright mean and malicious. The City of Edina at this point
should stop and look at what this excessive spending is doing to residents.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:33 AM
We are among those have previously been assessed 100% for our street
reconstruction, so now having to pay part or all of other streets is more than
a little irritating.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:34 AM
I assume businesses are also assessed the same as residential homes.
Screen Name Redacted In your communication about the options, make it very clear upfront that all
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 20 of 51
12/21/2020 08:47 AM current assessments must be paid before the change in funding and before
those families have their taxes increased. Otherwise it reads as though
people must pay their current assessments (yes, I have two in “teacher town”
50/50 on two separate projects) and pay higher taxes at the same time to
reduce the cost for those in bigger houses and bigger lots and likely bigger
incomes. That’s where people will stop reading and stop supporting. Put it in
fourth grade reading capability. The public needs vote on this. I support 100%
funding with taxes after I’m done with my assessments. And yes I understand
that that means I pay my assessment and I immediately start paying for
other peoples assessments even though it comes in the form of taxes. I’m a
team player And believe in the good of the community.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:47 AM
Why not keep the current system but increase the repayment period. If a
home is sold the remaining assessment due can be paid out of the home
sellers profits.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 09:05 AM
As someone who has already paid in full for my street to be repaved, these
new proposals are extremely upsetting. With two kids in college, finding
money to pay IN FULL for our street was a huge hardship. Now, future
residents are getting off the hook on the backs of those of us who have
already paid. This is extremely unfair. My taxes will not be used to fund
streets when no one helped us. i would move to a different city if this is how
my taxes are being used in the future. This is unfair and unjust.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 09:08 AM
Per street - First time around. the residents pay 100% special assessment.
Next time 50% assessment, and 50% taxes.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 09:14 AM
Higher tax on new construction of multi unit (more than 5) rental properties.
As population increases with higher density housing they should bare more
of the burden of financing road repair.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 09:17 AM
Those of us that have recently had a special assessment from road
construction must be considered for a grace period in the transition to avoid
double "taxation". I believe our neighborhood just started paying on the
assessment and any additional requirement to pay taxes on additional
reconstruction would be inequitable while we are still paying for the recently
completed work.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 09:30 AM
Please all require the City of Edina to make readily available the special
assessment information to residents and potential buyers of property.
Currently my annual Hennepin county tax assessment comes w/ an Edina
flyer advertising our "low" tax rates yet it doesn't include any information
regarding the large assessments. I feel this is false advertising.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 09:31 AM
Calculate an average lot size for Edina. Have the city pay the cost of that
average and pro-rate the cost required by lots larger than average. Also look
at the charge to high density dwellings, as they likely increase street traffic
volume and frequency.
Screen Name Redacted The city should use tax money from all residents and companies to pay for
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 21 of 51
12/21/2020 09:40 AM street reconstruction. The city is collecting money from so many condo
projects and tear down projects and this should be used for the streets.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 09:41 AM
What will you do for those of is who had to pay $25,000 only a few months
ago?? If these neighborhoods get a break on the costs, then I will iij insist
one one as well (reteoactive). Totally UNfair
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 10:18 AM
As a resident that just recently had his street reconstructed and is now
paying the special assessment, I feel that is completely unfair and
unequitable to make a change to pay for the reconstruction fully via levy. One
option might be to take the median special assessment value over the past
five years, adjust it for inflation and use that figure as the amount assessed
to the individual property owner. Or, figure out that figure by linear foot of
roadway and use that as the assessment cost. The linear foot option might
be the most equitable.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 10:26 AM
No.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 10:39 AM
Require contractors to warranty their work so homeowners don't receive
numerous solicitations to buy sewer line insurance. Sewer line insurance is
merely an attempt to shift cost of shoddy work (e.g. improper backfilling) to
homeowner.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 11:00 AM
I think those residents that are balking at paying their assessment (Fox
Meadow +) should be fully assessed for the roads in front of their property,
just like the rest of us. In light of arguments for keeping the single family front
lawn history of Edina and not developing multiple family units through the
city, there should be a price for status quo. Maybe they could pay into the
affordable housing fund for the city to develop.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 11:02 AM
My assessment 2 years ago was about $15K on a home valued at less than
$45K. That is about 3% of home value. A $30K assessment on a $2M home
in Prospect Knolls would be about 1.5% of the home value. I realize not all
homes in that area have those values, but it is important to what I am about
to suggest. Those of us who have paid the full cost should not now have to
pay for much or all of everyone else's future assessments. I suggest a 3rd
option: Home owners pay the full assessment up to a percentage of their
assessed home value, after which one of the options you are considering
(preferably 50/50) would kick in to pay for the balance. The only way to
make either of your options equitable for the many who have paid for their
full assessment is to refund either 50 or 100% (depending on which option
you choose) of what we have paid for any homeowners who were assessed
during the last 10 years.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 11:30 AM
Our street underwent reconstruction approximately 10 years ago. Since
there, there have been MANY tear-downs & rebuilds on our street. The
residents who lived on the street paid for the reconstruction via special
assessments, but we have absolutely no control over the extreme use our
street has seen with all of the heavy-duty construction vehicles required for
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 22 of 51
tear-downs & rebuilds. If we were paying for assessments via taxes, it would
mean that residents would not be unfairly held accountable for excess usage
of a street they are paying to reconstruct. Also, I believe it would especially
help protect lower-income residents because it would not slap them with a
costly reassessment that they have no choice or control over!
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 11:59 AM
it is difficult, but laws and such change all the time. It is unfortunate that some
residents were assessed 100% before this change but that's just how the
world works.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 12:18 PM
You can provide us with a tax credit or reduce the special assessment taxed
against our home for the property street reconstruction that occurred within
the past two years in our Countryside neighborhood . We're paying for as an
addition to our property taxes over TEN years. Why should we have to pay
for other property owners' special assessments at 50% through an increase
in our taxes AND pay for our own property special assessment? This
proposal is greatly inequitable. Either provide us the same discount as the
other property owners or require everyone to pay 100% of the street
assessment.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 01:03 PM
The special assessments put in place during these past few years include an
interest charge on any amounts not paid up front. I propose eliminating that
interest charge during the transition period which could help offset the double
charge for the work already done and covering future work at the same time.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 02:03 PM
Leave it the way it is. Can’t change it now without extreme unfairness. I won’t
vote for either of these stupid options!
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 04:43 PM
Wondered why Rolling Green streets are so bad. Now I know why- they
wanted to wait and have all the residents pay for their streets. Guess wealth
still talks when it comes to Edina. Keep the system as it is!
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 06:18 PM
We were NAILED with a $20k bill in 2018 that was greater that 6% of our
home value. The project took 4 months, with most of the time with
ABSOLUTLEY NO PROGRESS. The job was pure crap. We have pooling at
the end of our driveway, because the contractor - the one that provided the
biggest kickbacks to City Clowncil members and their families - didn't know
how to grade a street. The re-seeding of the yard was weed infested.
Everyone in the city should get to enjoy the complete incompetence of the
City Clowncil, and PAY FOR IT just like we did. The richest of the rich don't
want to pay. They can go pound sand. They can't pay for their kids
education.... They can't pay their fair share in taxes, they rape the general
public . . . All so they can enjoy their mid 6 figure income with no
responsibility to society.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:04 PM
Don't you dare make me pay for any other residents assessment while I am
still paying mine from several years ago. You can not change funding now!
You should have thought this out before starting these projects over a
decade ago.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 23 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:21 PM
Have you not considered only spreading the new “shared” taxes from those
that have not had a recent special assessment? Or just sticking with status
quo? As a homeowner who was recently assessed this seems like a load of
baloney to basically for my own and then someone else too. Of course you
are going to get people who haven’t recently paid saying that having the
general tax base cover it all is a great idea, but it is also ridiculously unfair to
those that just did pay for such a project. Phase in as slowly as possible and
charge at least 50%.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:39 PM
When new construction vehicles destroy streets. Charge the builders a fee.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:42 PM
I am really disappointed in the task force just know looking at this. There
were city town halls back when our neighborhood was being assessed and
the fees were extremely high. We were told at that time that this is the way it
is done and that since this has been the way we can not change it as it is not
fair. We are still paying off our special assessment that was over $15,000
and now you want me to pay even more to pay for someone else’s road that
they will only be assessed for 50% of that cost? I just don’t understand why
this was not looked at before the city undertook this huge road redo project in
the city. May suggestion would be a gradual phase in of 80% property
owner/20% city tax over the next 5 years then drop that to 75% owner/25%
tax for 5 years and so on until you get to the 50%/50% mark.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:46 PM
Add the special assessment to the properties individual property taxes and
amortize for some time period, 16-20 years. No roads get redone within 20
years (this might change if we stop doing subcuts.) Houses with longer curb
lengths will have a known higher tax value. We have the data to do this
accurately.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 07:47 PM
A period where a previously assessed homeowner doesn’t have to pay for
new streets
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:09 PM
Take the average of past assessments and add inflation costs, and the
homeowner would be responsible for that amount, and the remaining funding
would be spread out over the total tax payer base of Edina. Residents should
not be responsible for the Subcuts, a special fund should cover those costs.
As a homeowner who paid their full assessment in the past, it would NOT be
fair to change how this is assessed after 50% of the homeowners already
paid their assessment in full. The city started this special assessment
program and has only completed 50% of the projects. The city should
complete 100% of the reconstruction before changing how it is funded. Once
all residential streets have been completed under the current plan, a better
more equitable plan can be introduced. It is not at all equitable to ask 50% of
your residents to pay over and above their property assessment.
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 08:36 PM
Tax tobacco and alcohol more. Also, I am still paying off my special
assessment and still have $11,100 left. I’m a teacher and a single parent of 3
kids 100% of the time. This is a huge expense for me! Now you want to raise
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 24 of 51
my taxes to pay for streets while and I’m still paying off my special
assessment? That doesn’t make sense! Why can’t you tax people who have
not had a special assessment immediately and then phase other people in
based on how recently they were assessed and based on if they have
finished paying off their assessment? That would make a lot more sense and
would be equitable!
Screen Name Redacted
12/21/2020 09:36 PM
Continue with the status quo. I do not understand why people who paid for
premium homes are getting special treatment. I think $35k is 100%
acceptable on a $1M plus home - it's less than 3.5% of a million $ home.
Proportionally, my reconstruction bill was more than 12% of my home value
(done within the last 5 years). So, why should we have paid a higher
proportion? Please do an analysis relative to home value rather than dollar
value. Also, Q7 isn't an accurate way to represent the data as you're not
allowing for a response that is neither. This is going to get A LOT of people
upset.
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 05:33 AM
Find other areas in the budget to shrink to pay for it. I do think the people
who live on the street use it most and benefit most from added sidewalks so
it makes sense to have to pay more personally for my own street that I use
multiple times each day but agree that are public streets are used by all and
we should all be contributing
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 07:22 AM
neither of these options are equitable to those who have paid assessment
recently
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 08:45 AM
Data regarding what large lot land holder pay in city taxes otherwise is not
present in the discussion above. If the street assessments are proportional to
the taxes otherwise, then phasing in full city tax for the street assessments
makes sense. If not proportional, it does not, and penalizes small home/small
lot land-holders. Lot size is directly correlated to land value, housing value,
and strongly associated with high income. So if taxes otherwise are truly
based on land/home values, then it makes sense.
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 09:03 AM
100% based on the size of the street you’ll benefit from. If you have a larger
home, you pay more, if you’re not having work done on your steeet you don’t
pay anything. If you have retaining walls etc...then that’s the risk when you
buy a property. I’m NOT paying for someone else’s assessment having just
paid my own with zero help.
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 09:18 AM
Continue the 100% assessment w/ finance options!
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 10:01 AM
There needs to be a way to adequately reimburse those that have paid for
assessments in the recent past. Recent is a relative term, I’ll leave that up to
those on the council. To people who say it’s not my street or I don’t want
sidewalks, you chose to live in a city. That comes with the knowledge that
there will be streets and sidewalks in various places. Those will need to be
maintained. In my research, most cities don’t charge the homeowner for the
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 25 of 51
full construction of a street in front of their property. I was shocked to find out
that was the case here, after moving from Minneapolis. It was not mentioned
by the realtor, and I guess I made assumptions. Taxes were lower, which I
thought was unusual, but, I did not realize the implications of that. To all of a
sudden to get hit with a $20-$40,000 bill, payable over a decade or more,
doesn’t change the fact that it might be catastrophic for some families.
Homeowners have no control over when that bill comes due, and who can
set aside $40,000 for a possible upgrade of the road, when they aren’t even
able to fix up their home? When people choose to live in a city or suburb,
they choose to have all of the resources available, and they have to
understand that it comes with financial implications. But we need to make it
affordable, or at least have it built into the cost of the home via the taxes
when someone purchases a home in Edina. That way there are no surprises.
It should not be something that forces someone to move because they lost
the lottery on road improvements that year. IMHO
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 10:17 AM
Streets are used by everyone. We as a community should bear the cost of
streets. The current method of having homeowners pay for the street is not
how this is done in 99% of cities. Just make the switch and stop worrying
about hurting feelings.
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 11:40 AM
Special assessments on Home Builders. How about taking the average
assessment cost over the last 10 years or so, and that is the baseline that
residents pay. Any cost above that is city funded. It is completely unequitable
to have a home that had had the worst streets (60+ years old) be forced to
pay 100% of them, whereas streets with the least urgent need (2020 and
beyond) get the benefit of ALL Residents paying for it.
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 02:07 PM
I don’t have any great ideas.
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 05:48 PM
As a resident who has already been charged a full assessment within the
past few years and who also lives in a rather middle-class part of town, it
comes as no shock that once these new rounds of assessments have now
come upon the more affluent neighborhoods that, all of a sudden, these
100% resident-paid assessments may no longer be legally binding and,
(whoops!) those residents that have already recently paid theirs, there's
nothing to be done. Let me ask the council this - are you governing on behalf
of the entire Edina population? Or are you governing only for those affluent
individuals that would benefit from such a beneficial change in policy? If you
to actually move forward with a policy change in this regard, a special
consideration needs to be done for those residents that have been recently
affected by the old policy. Otherwise, I'm afraid the council is choosing to
show their true colors and loyalties, and it's not to the whole of Edina but
rather to the few influential and affluent amongst us.
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 06:31 PM
I would like the working group to take into consideration the variation in lot
and street frontages across the city and that the concerns leading to the
working group are disproportionately from larger lots with greater street
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 26 of 51
frontage and therefore higher assessments. While it is reasonable to seek
alternatives to the current approach, especially in benchmarking other cities
with similar development patterns, moving to a partial or full city-tax paid
approach would in effect provide a subsidy to those homeowners at the
expense of those with smaller lots and street frontage. While it is true that
those lots may have higher property tax assessments, it's unlikely that that
would fully offset the cost borne by other homeowners and especially renters
in the city. I do believe it would be reasonable for a prospective homebuyer
to consider future street reconstruction and assessment in their buying
decision - as noted above, we were aware going in to purchasing our home
in 2018 that we would be up for assessment in 2023/2024 and would need to
begin saving to that end.
Screen Name Redacted
12/22/2020 07:05 PM
The City is collecting enormous hidden fees and surcharges from our
Centerpoint, Xcel Energy and cable TV bills. Also collecting organic recycling
fees from 100% of residents, that 70% of residents do not use. Use these
fees to pay for street repair. Maybe get rid of some of the many supervisors,
coordinators and other non-essential bloat at City Hall, and use their former
employment expenses to pay for street repair.
Screen Name Redacted
12/23/2020 06:42 AM
Rip the bandage off faster and make the change now. The phased in
approach just creates more angry residents who will still pay significant
assessments over the next 5 to 16 years and then have their property taxes
go up. If you're worried about the people who have already paid, why create
a lot more of them? Because I'm likely to be assessed in Jan '23, it would be
in my financial interests to maintain the current system if using a phased
approach, as a change will likely only reduce my assessment by 1/16 or 1/32
(And hopefully 100% of the subcut costs). Still, the current system is
problematic because it creates a major equity issue that's as serious as the
one that will be raised by folks who've already been assessed. There are
many people who lived in Edina for 30 or more years and then moved who
never paid for streets. If I left now, I'd have enjoyed 34 years of Edina
residency without ever paying. Nearly every home within a block has turned
over, some multiple times, since I've been here, and none of those folks
contributed to street reconstruction. That's a lot of 10-30 year residents not
kicking in their share. This is not equitable. Instead it's like lottery nobody
wants to win. Whoever happens to live on a street when it needs to be
reconstructed pays for it. Everyone else need not contribute. Let's spread the
cost out to everyone who lives in Edina and makes use of city-provided
infrastructure. Thanks to the task force for its work. This is a thorny issue that
I'm glad you are working to resolve.
Screen Name Redacted
12/23/2020 09:13 AM
Having no expertise in this area and not having studied the practice of other
cities, I have nothing to add. I feel for residents that, in the past, have borne
the full cost of such improvements; on the other hand, I think policymakers
have to look forward and residents have to understand that policy changes
will often create backward looking inequities that cannot be compensated.
Seems to me that option 1 has the best mix of assigning responsibility for
road improvements to those that 1) most directly benefit from them and 2)
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 27 of 51
indirectly benefit from them (all residents of the city).
Screen Name Redacted
12/24/2020 07:36 AM
Laws and regulations are changed all the time, and there will always be
groups that feel disenfranchised. The Federal government implements taxes
on things that didn't used to be taxed (i.e. Soc. Sec.) and removes tax
credits with great regularity. Things change! In the past, Edina has spent
large sums to benefit select groups (i.e. bike lanes) that we all had to pay for
whether or not we benefit from them. This is no different. The council needs
to be courageous to correct this long-standing problem, and incorporate
street repairs into the tax budget, a cost that should be shared by all,
because all our streets are used by all.
Screen Name Redacted
12/24/2020 08:10 AM
Why do we have to use city taxes on this? I don't see what the value of a
home has to do with the cost of repairing a road. If the assessment is less
than $30k, then charge the higher income houses that total fee instead of
doing a 50/50 split? Additionally, can you provide documentation to those of
us who have already paid these fees that the value of our houses has
increased by what we have paid? Seems odd that we are now running into
this issue when it should have clearly been identified and communicated
before these projects began
Screen Name Redacted
12/24/2020 11:06 AM
No comment.
Screen Name Redacted
12/24/2020 11:13 AM
To have the street in front or side of your home paid for by the people who
use and live there every day is the most equitable. It is a part of home
ownership and a consideration when purchasing or choosing to stay in a
home. I find it interesting that Parkwood Knolls with its very expensive homes
and large lots became the issue over this. I have paid off street assessments
on 2 different homes within Edina and in less than 10 years. We aren’t
wealthy and these were small lots. Assessments were sizable!!! Now the
suggestion is that I should pay for Parkwood Knolls and other new street
construction as well? This truly doesn’t seem fair. The city taxes have gone
up every year as homes have been re-assessed and assessed. However, I
know of homes (newer) that have not been assessed near their current
market level. So, I see Parkwood Knolls, as an example, with their property
values not being re-assessed and we would pay for their new roads? This
does not seem fair at all.
Screen Name Redacted
12/24/2020 11:18 AM
If you change the funding from assessment to tax based, and you cannot
legally refund those of us who have already paid an assessment, then you
should at least exempt us from paying even more through the taxation. You
should also convert any unpaid assessment balances on which you are
charging a hefty finance charge to being funded by the tax.
Screen Name Redacted
12/24/2020 03:22 PM
No
Screen Name Redacted After reading the website, it does seem odd that a special assessment is
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 28 of 51
12/26/2020 04:08 PM used at all. It is like the city hiring a contractor to repair a city road and then
sending the bill to the homeowner that lives there. I think city taxes make
more sense. It seems that maintaining roadways and infrastructure should be
a basic city function and paid for by taxes. Then the city doesn't have to
spend all this time debating how much each homeowner owes, they just raise
or lower city taxes, make a budget and pay for the roads.
Screen Name Redacted
12/27/2020 07:38 AM
Unify city garbage service under one contractor like recycling and compost.
City can add a surcharge to the garbage service fee paid by all residents.
Garbage trucks are some of the largest and heaviest loads that our streets
carry and we currently have 5+ contractors driving their trucks over the
streets on a weekly basis. This will reduce the load, and damage done to our
streets and provide a revenue stream to the city.
Screen Name Redacted
12/27/2020 11:29 AM
We do not think so.
Screen Name Redacted
12/27/2020 12:02 PM
Our street was reconstructed in 2007. We were charged close to 100% of the
reconstruction costs which was $8,000. The $8,000 worked out to $128/foot
for our lot. I would prefer a funding option where the city establishes a fixed
charge per foot that would cover an average of 80% of the costs with the city
paying the rest. I am assuming that Edina has records covering past
reconstruction and associated costs that could be used to come up with the
fixed charge. The fixed charge could be reviewed every three years and
adjusted as needed. The advantage of this approach is that homeowners
(prospective buyers) will know what future assessments will be for their
property with the city paying for any unknowns such as subcuts.
Screen Name Redacted
12/27/2020 01:54 PM
Keep as is-this is not fair to those who have already paid huge amounts and
will now see our taxes increase as well.
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 05:21 AM
I have seen some proposal of an assessed value caps? This certainly seems
more reasonable to all of us who have paid in FUll our assessments. Came
up because of costs on big lots and expensive properties. I am sur that the
rich will stay rich and the poor will pay for it/
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 08:19 AM
Special assessments are ok when they are reasonable but $15,000 is too
much especially on a $400,000 house.
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 09:21 AM
Having paid $12,000 out of pocket it seems residents should be assessed for
at least some of the project.
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 09:22 AM
How does residential construction contribute to roadway deterioration? Is sign
off on roadway restoration a condition of final permit approval?
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 02:48 PM
Should not have to pay for special assessments. City should figure out how
to budget more Eddie fly. Perhaps we have too many frivolous people on the
payroll.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 29 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 04:43 PM
Option #3: Use the current system up to a percentage of the property's
assessed value, after which either the 50/50 or 100% proposition would kick
in. An example of how it would work with a $30K assessment and 3% of
home value, the 100% option for paying the assessment in excess of the 3%
cap. As others have noted on Nextdoor, there is a wide variety of home
values in neighborhoods such as Prospect Knolls, which has from around
$500K to $2M, and this system would take that into account to provide the
most equitable solution. For example, Home assessed at $500K pays $15K (
$500K X .03) leaving $15K ($30K - $15K) paid by the city. Home assessed
at $750K pays $22.5K ($750K X .03), with $7.5K ($30K - $22.5K) paid by the
city. Home assessed at $1M will pay the full assessment ($1M X .03 =
$30K). Thus, the higher the home value, the lower the percentage of the
home's value that will be paid. For example, the owner of a $2M home will
only pay 1.5% of their home value ($30K/$2M). Thank you for giving this
your serious consideration. We appreciate the work you do for the city, and
hope you can help maintain a financially diverse citizenry by having the city
pay for street assessments for the lower priced homes, while higher priced
homes pay some or all (see above examples) of the assessments in order to
keep property taxes relatively low.
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 05:11 PM
Should have thought of this before you did half the streets and charged us
the full amount! That was a tremendous hit when the dollar was worth more.
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 06:01 PM
I was assessed the full amount of the street reconstruction a number of years
ago. Our neighborhood asked the city for relief but were turned down
because it was considered our street (versus a city street). People in other
neighborhoods felt that we should pay the full amount because it is "our
street" even though we are a big cut through area with people from other
areas of Edina, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis cutting through. If people are
receiving relief I am wondering what the City will do to make it equitable for
us,
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 06:19 PM
I’m curious what options were discussed to ensure that businesses operating
within Edina help pay for roadways. Commercial traffic tends to be larger
vehicles (heavier) which by far is most impactful on roadway longevity.
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 07:07 PM
For those areas where lots size may vary resulting in difficulty in
demonstrating a special benefit- could the city set up a district to better
distribute costs among immediate users of the roads? It seems incredibly
unfair that areas of the city where perhaps owners have less access to legal
services were assessed full cost of reconstruction. It is my understanding
from our neighbors that with the assessments came an associated result of
some older homeowners being unable to pay, needing to sell quickly, and
then loss of “affordable” housing when homes were sold for under market
value for tear down.
Screen Name Redacted
12/28/2020 08:43 PM
Less than 50% funded by taxes. More than 50% funded by property owner.
Having already paid 100% for street construction, it is tough to have taxes
raised to pay for others.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 30 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 05:20 AM
I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of fairness. I chose to to buy
my specific property and I agreed to a specific price knowing roads, city
services and taxes are part of the deal. For the Task Force to suggest
otherwise is stunningly ignorant. Changing the deal I agreed to initially is a
possibility I acknowledge but don't tell me it's fair or equitable.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 06:25 AM
those that purchase homes, know there is the potential for assessments - it's
the standard way of keeping their neighborhood in good condition - it's part of
home ownership. to be equitable would have been to have this conversation
prior to any street work to be started - i paid for mine, it is not FAIR for me to
also pay for others - if you raise taxes, i would expect to be reimbursed. are
the people on the task force, are their neighborhood assessments coming up
- why is this coming up at this time....pay your own way. people do not have
to live in Edina or own a home.... to the question below, why is not there a
3rd option of owners pay for their own street improvement this is very bias
the way this survey is written. also being i have to choose one - i don't agree
with either
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 07:20 AM
The modest Edina neighborhoods have already paid the full amount for their
streets. Now you are suggesting that these people also pay increased taxes
as the wealthy neighborhoods are excused from paying the direct
assessment. Consider changing the process after the second half of the
streets have been done. This would be more equitable. Charging the modest
Edina neighborhoods twice in effect will open up the City to litigation as well.
Another approach would be to increase the taxes only in the neighborhoods
that need new streets.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 08:54 AM
Faster tax change implementation to coincide with areas about to be
assessed for road repairs. Delaying tax changes for areas that were recently
assessed. Hybrid approach for soon in time road repair. Elongate the
repayment term until the tax change is implemented. Buy back the debt for
recent assessments.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 09:08 AM
Keep current plan, owners pay 100%, but allow them better financing options
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 09:28 AM
I have paid for 3 assessments. I paid for 6929 Hillcrest and lived there 2005-
22008- $10,000. I then moved to sig. others home at 5905 Tamarac lane and
paid that $10k+ assessment. Then we moved to a condo at 4075 W. 51st st.
and paid that $3k assessment. If you are going to stop assessing then first all
of the homes in edina have to go through the remaining street reconstruction
and be assessed or we should get a partial refund. Only after every street
has had to pay for one should the burden be switched over to taxes 100%.
Maybe you could get rid of some of the totally unnecessary large salaries at
the city such as the "builder supervisor" for new construction, and the
"economic development director" and apply those to the infrastructure and/or
police.
Screen Name Redacted Do what the people who have already been assessed---have the property
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 31 of 51
12/29/2020 11:26 AM owners pay their share---not half and not zero. I did not get to pay half or pay
zero when my streets were fixed. Come on, you can't change the rules in the
middle. The poorer sections of Edina had to pay their share. Now the richer
sections want a break. No way. Neither option is acceptable.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 02:49 PM
I live in the Creek Valley neighborhood on Creek Valley Road. As you are
aware, the high school construction project in 2019 resulted in an abundance
of industrial equipment and heavily loaded dump trucks to travel up and
down Creek Valley Rd 8 – 10 hours each day for more than a year. This has
caused severe degradation of our road, and its contour in some areas, where
large pools of rainwater, and snowmelt that freezes, causes slippery
conditions for motorists and pedestrians without any drainage capability. And
according to the City of Edina Anticipated Roadway Re-construction 2020 –
2025, there are no near-term plans to correct these conditions on our road. I
am completely opposed to 100% city funding of road projects that will likely
raise property taxes on all Edina residents with little to no benefit to those
residents that will use or enjoy those street improvements. I believe in public-
private partnerships where residents that benefit from a public project have
some skin in the game. By sharing half the cost of street improvements with
the city in exchange for a better road and a minor improvement in their
home’s market value, this puts less of a financial burden on those residents
that will not use or enjoy that benefit.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 04:59 PM
City is responsible to provide average road condition for all Edina not just
taking care of municipal main streets. I feel ashamed on the condition of the
road in my area. It is not the responsibility of the residents to decide when
their streets need road construction and repair. Of course, due to the high
special assessment fees, residents may decide not to agree to re-construct
the road. Hence the road condition in my area is worse than some village
roads in the 3rd world countries. Taxing everyone the same amount is very
fair, and Edina will finally the mainstream of Twin Cities surrounding Towns.
A 16 year transition is way too long for a solution to this major issue.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 05:33 PM
Will commercial and leased property taxes increase to cover road
construction? People using or visiting commercial properties use the roads as
do people who are renting. Under the current method of only assessing
homeowners when their street is repaired a fair number of people are never
assessed even though using the roads. If the task force could show how
much in additional taxes will be collected from sources not currently funding
roads (but using the roads) that may help Edina citizens feel better about the
change. An additional funding option would be a hybrid approach. Pause
road construction for three years and begin collecting additional taxes for
road repair. After three years, Implement option 1 with a three year phase in
and then move to option 2 with a five year phase in. (Or some combination of
the above.). I realize this may not keep Edina roads at the desired standard
for a short period of time but may be more acceptable to more people.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 06:29 PM
Those who have been assessed in the past ten years could be exempted
from tax increases for a period of time, perhaps to compensate those
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 32 of 51
homeowners for the costs they have already incurred.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 10:22 PM
We are long time residents in Parkwood knolls and had our assessment
years ago. I cannot remember the number exactly, but it was between
14000.00 and 16000.00. We paid this in full which was a burden to our
family. I understand that things change, but this is completely unfair to the
homeowners who have already been charged their assessment prior to this
proposed change. Taxes did not help us with our bill and now we will be
taxed to pay other's bills. I know you have heard this from many others and
rather than doling out excuses, you should find a way to solve this
inequitable situation for the people who have paid their assessments in full.
Screen Name Redacted
12/29/2020 11:36 PM
Perhaps this is already done, but I’d hope reconstruction isn’t done until
absolutely necessary. It should not be done just to make our twon look nice!
Screen Name Redacted
12/30/2020 07:19 AM
Is there a way to temporarily reduce property taxes in those neighborhoods
where the streets have already been completed, for example over 5 years? If
a 5 year plan is approved, This tax reduction would provide them some relief
and alleviate their sense of paying not only for their own streets but also the
rest of the city. Yes, this temporarily would increase taxes for the remaining
properties, then after the 5 year period all taxes would be returned to status
quo.
Screen Name Redacted
12/30/2020 08:10 AM
My concern is that we are now paying for other neighborhoods'
reconstruction costs when they did not contribute to any assessment costs in
the 2008-2009 road construction in the Country Club project. Any special
assessments should be paid for by the residents of the neighborhood in
which construction is being completed. I.E. Prospect Knolls Neighborhood
residents should pay for 50% of the street reconstruction by special
assessments. The remaining 50% would be paid for by all Edina residents
and businesses with city taxes.
Screen Name Redacted
12/30/2020 08:58 AM
Stop building all these high rises and use funding for street maintenance.
People in these high rises will not be paying the large assessments but are
using the streets.
Screen Name Redacted
12/30/2020 03:57 PM
It seems that since half of the streets have had reconstruction and
assessments already, that history could be used to develop a hybrid model
that uses such historical data to develop a direct assessment that would be
then capped using a reasonable calculation from the history, with the rest of
the cost covered by city taxes. The capped assessment should likely
eliminate the cost of the subcut from the equation.
Screen Name Redacted
12/30/2020 06:21 PM
***Neither option is fair.*** If it is not possible to do anything retroactively for
those who have paid their street assessments in full during the last 5-10
years, then figure out a way to adjust their city taxes in the future. There are
other options that should be considered that may be a bit messy until they
are figured out, but it is not impossible to do so. What if residents sue the city
for their past street assessments being discriminatory ? ** I strongly believe
that option one or two are NOT the only equitable choices we have. **
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 33 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
12/31/2020 09:10 AM
The people who are currently paying off the assessment would be exempt
from tax increases until their assessment is paid.
Screen Name Redacted
12/31/2020 09:19 AM
No additional ideas.
Screen Name Redacted
12/31/2020 09:24 AM
Seems like there are a lot of legal ways/reasons not to make the people
whole that have already paid. That should of been looked at when the street
repair started. I will take a $ credit on my city taxes. My house value did not
increase by anything due to the road repair. Now you want me to subsidize
all the people with big valuable lots? Does that mean I can sue the city? This
is so typical of government. It is a joke. It is so slanted. Your questions are
asked in a way that you get the answers you want. Question # 7, which
option do you prefer? How about none of the above? Has the task force
looked elsewhere to see what other cities in the US have done with this
issue? Edina can't be the only city in the US that is this bad. Go back to the
drawing board and do what you were elected to do.
Screen Name Redacted
12/31/2020 10:12 AM
I had to pay for my street reconstruction that I did not ask for. I was
assessed and expected to pay without the help of everyone else in the city.
Why should I now be forced to pay 50-100% of someone else's street
reconstruction? I am not benefitting from them having a smoother street?
Screen Name Redacted
12/31/2020 10:39 AM
Everyone that has already been through this and has Paid tens of thousands
of dollars to pay 100% of the fees and now you would like us to pay for other
people to have this done. It is completely unacceptable.
Screen Name Redacted
12/31/2020 10:52 AM
Do not tax or assess those addresses that have already been assessed or
taxed. Don't make this harder then it is. The city was wrong in the way they
did this in the past and those that believed in the City should not be penalized
for that. To me neither option is an option. This needs a lot more attention
then a "task force" we need to find out how this was illegally pushed through
and what can be done for those that already paid. People are not happy!
Screen Name Redacted
12/31/2020 12:17 PM
Why not complete the rest of the streets under the current assessment rules
with the city covering the sub par soil and then switch to option2. There is no
fair or equitable option to those that have already paid the assessment. We
should not have to subsidize other taxpayers who have no been assessed.
Double taxing is wrong. Where was the city council when the many of us
thought the assessment was unfair before? No other city assessed that way
plus it is a very regressive tax.
Screen Name Redacted
1/01/2021 01:30 PM
Keep the system as-is. You have stacked this survey to only give two
options, both of which require increasing taxes on those who have already
paid 100% of the assessment. This is a biased and un-fair survey and it is
wrong not to include the ability for citizens to indicate a preference for leaving
the system as-is. It is unfair to increase taxes on properties that have already
paid past assessments. The cost of street re-construction should be paid by
the properties who benefit from the work. Don't change the game half way
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 34 of 51
through once have the people have already paid the 100% assessment.
Screen Name Redacted
1/02/2021 07:53 AM
Classify cost of road construction according to the amount of public use
Screen Name Redacted
1/02/2021 08:54 AM
can't think of any
Screen Name Redacted
1/02/2021 09:25 AM
We paid in full our assessment in Birchcrest and it is not fair that we are now
being asked to pay for larger more expensive streets on larger lots. we have
a small lot and had to budget and save in order to pay for the assessment -
not fair that we are now penalized and need to pay for others. I'd like less
than 50% option suggest a 25% paid by City option which requires other
homeowners to pay at least the amount that we paid.
Screen Name Redacted
1/02/2021 04:00 PM
Why should those of us assessed 100% in the past pay taxes on those that
do not need to pay? We pay twice they pay zero for the same benefit.
Otherwise give us our assessment back which was around $13,000 in 2010.
We pay to live in this beautiful city.
Screen Name Redacted
1/02/2021 04:46 PM
My comment does not pertain to this question but shouldn't the curb and road
improvements currently scheduled for Spring 2021 be put on hold until this is
resolved?
Screen Name Redacted
1/03/2021 08:24 AM
Please coordinate and standardize on a single garbage hauler per address to
reduce wear and tear from 6x as many garbage trucks as necessary. I
believe the City of St Paul recently did this while preserving the current
amount of market share to each of their haulers.
Screen Name Redacted
1/03/2021 08:41 AM
While this is not necessarily a funding option, the residents of Edina need to
know, at least 5 years in advance, when the next major reconstruction of
neighborhood streets will occur. That would give residents a somewhat
adequate amount of time to build a reserve or accrual in their savings or
checking account to pay for their share of neighborhood street construction
at the time of project completion. The only fair system, in my opinion, is to
continue to pay 100% of the costs of the construction project. Unfortunately,
the way this new system is presented, it appears that there was some dollar
threshold hit for street project assessment where those with the largest
pieces of property would be subsidized by the residents of the rest of the city.
I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but homebuyers need to be aware of
special assessments and how they are assigned. Before buying a house in
Edina, we checked how street assessments were assigned, so we knew
what to expect. There are positives and negatives to living in Edina. For us,
the positives outscored the negatives. We were able to accumulate/save
much of the assessment over a 3 year period by saving a certain amount
each month, so we were prepared. I think the 50% option allows a break for
those with larger pieces of property, but also holds them somewhat
responsible for what they own. It appears to be the fairer of the two options
as presented.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 35 of 51
Screen Name Redacted
1/03/2021 09:20 AM
Street and sewer reconstruction has been a point of contention since 1998
when the project began. As each street has been accessed, the residents
have voiced their concern about the expense. Until 2020, residents have
basically been told that they must pay the entire expense to maintain the
roads and services. I believe each home owner has felt that the expense has
been high. As the city is now working on the streets with larger lots, it stands
to reason that these homes have more street to be responsible for. If they
had smaller lots, there would be more homeowners to cover the cost of the
roads. It is a price they pay for having a larger lot. Back in 1998 it was
predicted that the assessments for a home could run as high as $26,000.
The city did not feel it was necessary to change the process at that time. It is
unfair that the homeowners who have paid the assessment for their own
streets should subsidize the construction of the homeowners that have not
paid yet. In the articles and the overview of the project, you mention briefly
that the present policy of a special assessment is still on the table. It appears
to me that you have already decided that option one or two are the only
choices available. If you insist that these are the only options, why not
consider charging these homeowners the maximum amount that
homeowners in the past have been charged, and then go to your option one
or two for the remainder of the assessment.. Change the assessment policy
after all the homeowners have paid the first round of upgraded streets and
sewers.
Screen Name Redacted
1/03/2021 11:30 AM
I would love to have the city step in and determine one garbage hauler for
the whole town. This would substantially reduce the wear and tear on our
streets.
Screen Name Redacted
1/03/2021 05:02 PM
There has to be a way to partial refund some of the previous assessments.
Screen Name Redacted
1/03/2021 07:18 PM
It seems we should continue with the same process as in the past - that is
what would be equitable. Giving future property owners whose property is
now being assessed a break is not fair to those of us that have already had
to pay. If you have a bigger lot, then you should have to pay more, that is
how the system was set up. You can't change it halfway through, and then
send the additional taxes back on people that already paid. I know the
committee is wanting to go a different direction. If the concern is that the
"market benefit" is no longer being met, I would question how it was met in
the past when property values were more stagnant than they are now. Now
they are rising, so the market benefit argument does not seem as valid as it
once may have been. I do not believe a legal challenge would be successful
(non-lawyer).
Screen Name Redacted
1/04/2021 07:31 AM
I assume these ideas have been addressed, but just in case: - Additional fees
on new and rebuilt construction, particularly tear-downs. The city has an
explosion of high value new builds. It seems reasonable to assess these a
fee to help underwrite road construction. - Commercial fees based on traffic
volumes. Southdale, the hospital, Galleria etc have real estate value, but their
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 36 of 51
impact is likely much larger on surrounding roads than the proportional value
of a house on a quiet street. This may already exist...
Screen Name Redacted
1/04/2021 10:57 AM
Possibly those households get taxed at a lesser amount. However most
residents use many of the city's streets so the cost is shared to some degree.
Screen Name Redacted
1/04/2021 06:11 PM
Streets should be funded by taxes within the city's budget. The city should
manage the overall budget to keep tax increases low.
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 08:34 AM
As this is the only space for comments I offer the following: Provide an
example of typical assessment cost per year using the 15 payable period
with the specified interest. Compare that to the annual cost of the two
options. This tax should be dedicated to street reconstruction, not made part
of the general fund. This is to ensure that the funds are used for the intended
purpose and that the infrastructure is maintained. Can that be specified?
Investments by property owners in the right of way areas should not be
covered by either option. Property owners should be aware that they assume
the risk of having to rebuild personal property if they choose to invest in the
public right of way. The current assessment policy uses a REU that based on
traffic generation of one residential lot, regardless of lot size or amount of
street frontage. It might be fairer or less regressive to change the REU going
forward to be based on lot size. If you choose to live on a large lot, your
taxes for street maintenance will be higher.
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 10:18 AM
Your search for "fairness" mostly ignores those who have recently paid
assessments. They need to be treated more fairly.
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 10:54 AM
Build another liquor store.
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 02:53 PM
What percent of the streets that need to be rebuilt have the high
assessments? How does this compare to the past areas , when the full
assessment has already been paid? I would imagine that with the downturn
in oil prices, the estimates from last year may now be high- has this been
considered? If the street repair does not equitably increase the value of the
house, maybe the street does not need to be repaired?
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 02:57 PM
The volume of heavy trucks in neighborhoods from tear down/new
construction activity are destroying residential streets. Assess tear downs with
a fee to help cover road repair/construction. $10-$20k minimum.
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 06:29 PM
I don't think that people who have already paid should be included in the tax
increase. They would be paying twice. I agree with no refund.
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 06:31 PM
One way is to look at ways to lower the city's budget and use those dollars
for the roads given the current need and broken system. cutting back. for
instance, any of the social issues that are being funded (special interest, etc),
would in my opinion, NOT belong in the public square and should lose
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 37 of 51
funding. Any other areas where city government is duplicative or inefficient
would be eyes to keep on the budget. I saw you changed this Feedback
Form (since Sunday when I had prepped my reply and not saved it--). I will
restate what I intended to say: I strongly believe the REU model and private
pay for public roads is a broken model as the public roads belong at the
public city tax level (vs in personal home budgets). I have observed and
known neighboring communities who are astonished that we have such an
archaic and dysfunctional method to pay for are roads in Edina. The REU is
entirely a myth and should never have been deployed as its not equitable
nor, again, does it belong in a personal budget. Other cities have never
experienced the breakdown we currently are experiencing, so it's time to
make the correction. With that said, there will always be those behind the
curve of needed change and those in front of it. To attempt to "pay back"
past payor parties is a recipe for disaster as it will never be satisfied. It's time
for a HOLISTIC change of placing this ALL back into the city's hands and not
take a 'halve-sey" approach as portrayed in Option 1. That's like trying to
walk down the old road that is already broken; while attempting to find a new
road, the one that can be effective. Let's do this right this time and head
straight down the effective road~~ the one we should have been on all along.
I highly encourage the Task Force to NOT walk down two roads and
therefore, enlist option 2.
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 07:13 PM
Utility credit and or prioritize and or subsidize cost of burying and or cleaning
up utility lines. Or provide street lighting or other amenities to make up for
past cost that would add value and accessibility to the area.
Screen Name Redacted
1/05/2021 07:23 PM
Cut expenses from other city services to fund road construction. This city
wastes so much money on unnecessary expenditures, it should be easy to
fund the road construction without new taxes.
Screen Name Redacted
1/06/2021 05:14 AM
Are home rebuilds /remodels assessed additional tax for wear and tear on
streets? Does those funds make it to the street budget?
Screen Name Redacted
1/06/2021 07:38 AM
I think that maintaining our city streets is a shared responsibility regardless of
the location of the project and should be budgeted and managed like any
other city project. If funding is not available, then the project should be held
up until it is. I will see no benefit from the current street work scheduled for
our street. It will not increase the value of my home and actually may
decrease it if changes are made the detriment our property. Unless a street
is in a horrible state, it has no impact on my purchasing of a home. However,
the payment of a large assessment that is current or forecasted in the future
would change my view of purchasing a home. So, when I sell my home it
most likely will be a negative.
Screen Name Redacted
1/06/2021 10:41 AM
How much will home builders be paying to replace our streets? There are
currently four new homes being built within one block of my home. Four. The
strain on our roads from all the heavy trucks is far more than I contribute. I
live alone and have worked from home for the last 10 years. How is it
equitable to have residents carry the burden of replacing the roads when we
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 38 of 51
are not solely responsible for their wear and tear?
Screen Name Redacted
1/06/2021 01:29 PM
People who have paid an assessment in previous few (5?) years should not
pay any additional taxes for a few (5?) years.
Screen Name Redacted
1/06/2021 02:43 PM
If past special assessments can't be refunded, you need to continue the
same system for those homeowners who haven't been reconstructed yet until
we reach the end of the cycle
Screen Name Redacted
1/07/2021 07:47 AM
No further ideas that I know about
Screen Name Redacted
1/07/2021 09:00 AM
How the solutions can be seen as equitable I don't know. What make you
think those that have already had their streets done are not going to sue? I
have talked with many neighbors and friends, and no one sees the task force
as being fair. It is just being run by the rich. something really fair needs to be
done. Edina did not think this out before they started the road project initially.
Other suburban areas are a lot smarter. Do not tell me a refund is not
possible. Anything is possible and we have lots of tax money with all these
Macmansions being built in Edina. Come up with a better plan for a "better
Edina". I am not voting on #7 because neither option is acceptable.
Screen Name Redacted
1/07/2021 11:39 AM
The city pays for curb and gutter. In the case of Down Road, there is not
need for curb or gutter, so why doesn't the City donate those funds into the
construction cost to lower the assessment? Also, Down Road is a major thru
way, the cul de sacs that are part of the Parkwood Knolls project are not. Is it
possible construct the thru roads as a "best" job, and do a 'lesser' job on the
cul de sacs?
Screen Name Redacted
1/07/2021 03:42 PM
I DO NOT support a local Sales Tax
Screen Name Redacted
1/07/2021 06:26 PM
1. Grants or other areas that the City has extra funds should be used to pay
for the higher street assessments. 2. Taxes for frontage of parks, and other
properties utilized by the public to be paid with municipal taxes. 3. Reduce
taxes for residents that have already paid the assessments in full. This
should have been thought through prior to the project start. Re-bid the project
with additional contractors. 4. It seems that there have been items included in
the street construction on some streets that should not have been and should
be city responsibility, such as the pump station on 62nd Street. 5. The city
should be more transparent as to what items are included in a the street
repairs if it is outside of the basic scope and the residents of the street
should be able to vote on accepting the additional costs or not, especially if it
exceeds the estimates by more than 7%. The city needs to closely monitor
the bids and put a cap on the contractor for change orders. 6. I do not like
either of the options that are being proposed. 50% is a large % to be taxed by
the Edina residents that have already paid the full assessments, even though
it is being implemented over several years. Maybe it should be capped at the
highest assessment charged to date with a 3% annual increase each year.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 39 of 51
The difference on costs should be paid with grants, other street funding
received by the city or extra funds form other departments. I know this takes
more work, but it's the city's job to work on behalf of the residents. 7. With all
of the new development, there should be new taxes received from street that
have already been completed to add back to the street coffers. I also feel
there is too much development and the charm of Edina is disappearing. I am
happy to see that you are trying to focus commercial development to the
Southdale and 50th and France areas. Stop approving the cheaply built
apartment buildings everywhere. Too much density in residential
neighborhoods.
Screen Name Redacted
1/08/2021 08:25 AM
I sustained the financial burden of paying my assessment on my own.
Making me now pay for others with no back compensation assessments is
totally unjust. I do not accept just a blanket statement that legally there is no
way to compensate those that have already paid. 1) I believe you owe it to
us to give a full explanation as to why it is illegal. 2) There needs to be
transparency to show a real effort has been made to find a way to legally
compensate those who paid the full assessment in the past. In the past 20
years my property taxes have more than tripled. Maintaining the streets
should be a high priority for the city and you should have enough money to
maintain our streets with the funding you have provided you prioritize
correctly. Additional levies are not acceptable. As to those who bought
houses where streets are longer and more winding, etc. This situation has
been known for many years, they should have done their due diligence when
they bought those houses. The big lots in prime areas are a premium and
they should pay for it. Not expect those of us who can't afford those
properties to subsidize them when they did not subsidize us. I am saying I
prefer option 1, but strongly object to any change in the process without
compensation to those who have paid.
Screen Name Redacted
1/08/2021 09:20 AM
I do not perceive either of the currently proposed options to be even remotely
equitable or acceptable. I will answer survey question 7 regarding preferred
option only because this electronic survey can only be submitted if one of the
2 options is selected. Property owners in neighborhoods with recently
reconstructed streets have already paid $1,000’s more than what will be
assessed to neighborhood property owners in either of the proposed options
for future street reconstructions. I admit to not being a city legal/finance
expert but as a voter I see little in the proposed options that addresses the
significant overall tax inequity I perceive in these 2 options. The stated finding
that there is no legal way to refund past assessments does not change the
proposed neighborhood inequity in net past/future assessed taxes that still
needs to be addressed. If past neighborhood street assessments cannot be
adjusted, then some equitable adjustment to future city tax assessments
needs to be developed to credit those who have recently paid in full for street
assessments.
Screen Name Redacted
1/08/2021 10:50 AM
Some consideration must be made for neighborhoods that have already
been assessed. Our streets were done in 2019. It would not be equitable to
raise my taxes for other people's streets when we are paying for our own.
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 40 of 51
Perhaps a tax break could be given to those who have paid for their own
assesment. Interesting that City government wasn't sensitive to this issue for
neighborhoods with smaller lots like ours!!!
Screen Name Redacted
1/09/2021 08:18 AM
Due to Covid19 my husband lost his job & since he's an immigrant he cannot
claim unemployment (no Permanent Resident can receive unemployment if
work under 10 years). We are silently struggling & receive no public
assistance. I have lived in this house for 40+ years & always paid all taxes on
time & in full. We've watched our street crumble to pieces as truck after truck
enters daily to teardown 7+ houses on our street in past 2 years. Then cracks
appear in the street & our home as the construction teams pound steel
beams deep into the ground during winter months. Do they have to pay for
any of this street destruction? They certainly never paid for our windows
cracking or things that fell from shelves & broke from all the pounding. There
is no way we could afford to pay $30k or even $15k out of pocket by 2022 or
2023. You would put us under due to social-economic inequities.
Screen Name Redacted
1/09/2021 02:04 PM
I was assessed $10K 4 years ago. Neither option is fair.
Screen Name Redacted
1/09/2021 04:28 PM
I am 100% behind the idea of transfering the cost of road construction to city
taxes. I would imagine most people would gladly pay an extra $16 per month
to avoid getting hit with an unexpected bill of several thousand dollars. I
would personally like the change over to happen as soon as possible rather
than phase it in over 16 years, but I worry about those that have already
been assessed and are currently paying in full for the road repairs. From the
FAQ it sounds like there may be no legal way currently to repay some of the
costs they are currently paying. Could this be something that could be done
via a ballot measure?
Screen Name Redacted
1/10/2021 10:41 AM
I don't have expertise in this area. I hope that the options under consideration
were informed by doing rigorous research on what best-in-class cities across
the nation have in place.
Screen Name Redacted
1/10/2021 11:44 AM
Dear Edina City Council Street Task Force, Thank you for engaging the
community for input on the future of street reconstruction in Edina. From the
information provided, it is clear the Edina City Council has thoughtfully
considered the complex issue at hand and provided two options for
consideration, while omitting the option to retain the current process for
funding street reconstruction in Edina. • Option 1: Half of the street
reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half paid with
municipal taxes. a. Having half of the street reconstruction paid for by special
assessments and the other half paid with municipal taxes appears
problematic for the following reasons. i. Many property owners have paid for,
or are in the process of paying, assessments imposed under a differing cost
schedule. What will be done for property owners have already paid
assessments at an incrementally different rate? ii. It appears this change
could potentially result in higher taxes or corresponding cuts in services both
of which are issues worthy of thoughtful consideration and discussion. iii. The
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 41 of 51
proposed 50% special assessment benefiting primarily the owners of large
lots doesn’t seem quite fair to the rest of the city with modest sized lots. It
doesn’t seem inherently unfair that residents with larger lots should pay more
given the larger size of their frontage just as a larger house often cost more
than a smaller house. Additionally, although the cost cited (e.g. ~$30,000.00)
may seem eye popping at first glance one must keep in mind that these
costs will be amortized along a substantial timeline at a low interest rate
which will support a sustainable payment structure. iv. Increased density is
often cited as a means to mitigate climate change. The proposed change
primarily benefits larger lots which would appear to run counter to the city’s
important efforts to do our collective part to mitigate climate change. • Option
2: All street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes. a. Having all street
reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes appears problematic for the
following reasons: i. This change may result in higher taxes or corresponding
cuts in services both of which are issues worthy of thoughtful consideration
and discussion. This would be a substantial change to the current funding
mechanism for future of street reconstruction in Edina. It would be helpful to
understand in greater detail where the existing process is deficient before
implementing such a substantial change. ii. Many property owners have paid
for, or are in the process of paying, assessments imposed under the current
special assessment process. What will be done for property owners who
have already paid assessments at a different incremental rate? Street
reconstruction is a never-ending critical infrastructure undertaking. A detailed
and well communicated transition plan may be appropriate for a change of
this magnitude. iii. 100% funding of street reconstruction through municipal
taxes will substantially strain the current municipal tax base potentially
making the city less competitive as compared to neighboring municipalities. A
change of this order could also potentially result in tax increases or reduced
services to address potential funding shortfalls. iv. Increased density of often
cited as a means to mitigate climate change. Moving to a system where
street reconstruction is 100% funded through municipal takes may not be well
aligned with climate goals. “Option 3”, though not explicitly listed, is to
continue with the status quo. With a substantial portion of street
reconstruction in work, or complete, it is unclear how substantial changes to
the funding process can be equitably implemented at this juncture. It’s
understood that street reconstruction is a never-ending process, therefor
substantial changes to the funding process must be carefully considered by
all community constituents. We sincerely believe, in the interest of fairness to
all the city’s residents, it is best to continue with the existing process for
funding future of street reconstruction in Edina. With interest rates at record
lows, and Edina’s AAA credit rating it’s clear the existing process for funding
future of street reconstruction in Edina is working well, sustainable, and
fundamentally fair to all the city’s residents. The current process for funding
street reconstruction in Edina has served the city and its residents well for
decades and will continue to meet future needs. The two proposed changes
appear unnecessary and could potentially have unintended consequences
for our community. Sincere thanks to the Edina City Council for engaging the
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 42 of 51
community on this important topic.
Screen Name Redacted
1/10/2021 12:57 PM
Is there a way to identify properties that have already paid the assessments
for their streets, and decrease the added tax burden to those households?
What are the new multi household dwellings contributing to support the
infrastructure of our roads? A $32k assessment is simply not an option for
ANY single household!
Screen Name Redacted
1/11/2021 04:08 AM
Increase taxes for only those that have their streets updated.
Screen Name Redacted
1/11/2021 10:53 AM
First thanks for tackling a tough challenge. I think your 50/50
recommendation and more importantly the phasing is a creative solution for a
solution that does not have a perfectly equitable path. The only alternative I
would want clarity on is whether simply removing the amount of subcut from
the assessment and leaving the rest of the funding as is was considered? I
think many who have already paid assessments would consider this
acceptable with a sense that households are still carrying the same cost of
the linear feet of road reconstruction except when subsoil was a challenge. I
think based on the past assessment policy, people would expect that people
who choose to live in less dense areas would pay a higher amount based on
a somewhat consistent rate of linear feet of roadway.
Screen Name Redacted
1/11/2021 11:26 AM
My understanding is that street assessments are calculated on the total
property assessed value and don't take into consideration the distinction
between improvement value and land value. If that is in fact correct, I would
suggest assessing the tax in a pro-ratable manner consistent with the
improvement value of the property paying the assessed tax as being the
most equitable outcome. While assessments are already based on a
percentage of the overall property value, the value of the improvement itself
is not always weighed in conjunction with the special assessment itself.
Logically, larger parcels are worth more as are larger improvements and as
such, the assessment they pay should be greater. But if the total assessed
value is the overall calculating factor with no consideration to the AS IS value
and utilization of the improvement upon it, then I think the assessments can
be inequitably skewed in certain circumstances. For example, if Property A is
a 10000 sq ft lot with a tax assessed value of $400k and an improvement
value of $175k, and Property B is a 7000 sq ft lot with a tax assessed value
of $200k and an improvement value of $375k, assuming otherwise
comparable lots and street frontage, but for the size, the value of the street
improvement is going to have a more significant impact on the improvement
value of Property B, but a more substantial cost in relation to the
improvement value of Property A. Arguably, the street improvement has
somewhat less significance in relation to the benefit for Property A than it
does Property B. In the above example, the special assessment could be
levied at an equal rate based on land value, but then pro-rated to account for
a different rate in relation to improvement value, with a forgivable balance if
the property owner of Property A does not undertake any major
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 43 of 51
improvements on the property within the assessment period. If a property
with a pro-rated tax assessment is sold, either the prorated balance can be
paid at closing with the forgivable balance following the property for the
duration of the assessment period, or negotiated to be assumed or paid by
the new owner with the same restriction: if the new owner undertakes any
major improvements, the un-prorated balance becomes due and payable
prior to assessment period expiring. Taxation, in general, should be uniform
and in accordance with the benefit directly received by the tax payer. To
increase the indirect tax on all tax payers in a community for a benefit they
won't directly realize, is the opposite of equitable and arguably unlawful. For
this reason, I would completely object to Option 2 where all the street costs
are paid with city taxes. I would also object to Option 1 with an overall
indiscriminate 50% of the cost be paid by city taxes for the same reason, as I
don't find the argument behind that reasonable or supported, because then
ultimately we are increasing the tax burden on all residents, most likely those
with smaller lots covering a difference for those with larger, more valuable
lots, which affects the lower value properties more negatively and inequitably
as the burden ultimately becomes greater on them. However, realizing that
there are instances of higher cost street improvements on certain parcels vs.
other parcels as noted in the above example, I would be open to considering
that the forgivable portion of an assessment on lower valued improved
properties after the assessment period expires, be transferred back to the
city and paid with city taxes at that juncture. In this proposed scenario, albeit
more complicated for assessing and collection purposes, the increase in
overall city taxes would presumably be less in the long run, but it still
provides for a reduction and more equitable distribution of the higher cost
incurred by some properties overall. I'm not sure what savings the above
consideration might actually result in, and perhaps it would be so nominal
that it wouldn't be worthwhile, but if it would result in significant tax payer
savings, then I think it's worth entertaining as the most equitable outcome.
Screen Name Redacted
1/11/2021 06:05 PM
I think homeowners can provide funding for repaving streets - accessment
should be spread out over 10 years. City should bear the cost of all
infrastructure improvements which might be made at the time the street is
redone like: waste sewer, rain sewer, water and other utilities under the
street. When streets are redone if practical all power should move
underground to reduce damage to power lines etc...
Screen Name Redacted
1/12/2021 09:26 AM
When assessing property taxes, consider those that have paid or are paying
assessments to have a "break" in property taxes vs others who have not had
to shoulder the assessment fee!!!
Screen Name Redacted
1/12/2021 01:28 PM
WElive on 58th Street. Will your recommendation be retroactive, as we have
not been assessed yet.
Screen Name Redacted
1/12/2021 01:43 PM
Street Funding Task Force January 12, 2021 City of Edina Ladies and
Gentlemen: We have been reviewing the Street Funding Task Force
questions and answers and find several issues on which to comment. We are
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 44 of 51
owners (since 1968) who experienced the previous assessments for street
improvements (circa 1970+) at a time when the old assessment policy was in
effect. As we own a corner lot, we at that time had to pay 133% of the
assessments of similar sized lots which we considered to be grossly unfair,
with protests ignored. However we were assured that the street assessment
was a one-time cost item. All future street improvements would be paid by
general taxation. . At some time following, the City Council made the
decision that property owners would be assessed for street
improvements/replacement. About that time the streets in the Country Club
Addition were to be improved/replaced and the owners would be assessed. A
protest ensued and it was said, at the time, that the City paid the cost without
assessments. We are whole heartedly in support of city wide taxation for
future street improvements since by virtue of residence wherever the
location; we all use city streets for one purpose or other. Our reasoning for
this opinion follows. 1. Rebuilding streets does not necessarily mean that the
assessments increase a property value equal to the assessment. We concur
with the Task Force on this conclusion. 2. The inequity of assessments
generally comes from existing owners who pay the cost of the improvement
assessments at the time of a property sale. The assessments then become a
bargaining point, often effectively reducing a net sale to the existing owner
and thereby negating the theory of property value improvement. 3. Short
term single family residential property owners, multiple family property
renters, condominium owners, and commercial/industrial tenants all depend
on the use of streets. Annual payment of property taxes for street
improvements, do not allow those residents and street users to escape from
street maintenance contribution. Commercial/industrial, and multifamily
tenants, in one way or other in periodic rentals are then required to pay
equally the cost of street maintenance. 4. General Taxation for street
maintenance and replacement by the City requires all resident street users to
contribute to the cost of maintenance. This is basically no different than
paying a pro rata share of the cost of general operating expenses. A concern
is that the taxes collected for street maintenance might be considered a
general fund item without designation and then used for other purposes. This
tax allotment should be designated for the specific function. The issue of
equity for residence owners who have already paid assessments in full may
possibly be addressed in the following manner. With computer records, or by
resident application, identification should not be difficult. 1. We are of the
opinion the number of residents falling into this category are few and could
easily be identified by assessed properties. A process of refund for property
assessed owners still in ownership, without interest, is a possibility except for
normal annual installments if paid through property taxes. Previous
installments would be considered a use tax. 2. Residents currently paying
assessments in annual installments could receive an assumption of all future
assessment payments by the City without refunds of previously paid
installments which would be considered a use tax 3. Recognizing the need
for capital to assume prior assessments, The City might have to collect larger
tax payments for one or two years, or defer some future projects by one or
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 45 of 51
two years. Berge and JoAnn Hansen 5120 West 58th Street Edina, MN
55436 Cell Phone 612-201-9575 bergehhansen@gmail.com
Screen Name Redacted
1/12/2021 07:43 PM
I do feel bad for those Edina residents that have paid special assessments in
the past few years, but I am very glad the city/task force is making a change
now. Putting 100% on the special assessments that seemed to keep getting
higher and higher each time seemed quite burdensome. This new policy
decision affects us all. High value homes, low value homes, big lots, small
lots...however I strongly believe that not ALL expenses should be taxed. The
neighborhoods with special assessments will benefit more, thus they should
pay 50% (or some other percentage). Eventually each street/neighborhood
will have it's share.
Screen Name Redacted
1/13/2021 07:56 AM
I do not believe it is fair to the residents, including myself who had to pay
100% of our reconstruction. I believe the residents who have not had to pay
for their own reconstruction should have to pay their fair share. We were
assessed for our roads that were based on future use, even though
Interlachen Country Club was on the one who drove wear and tear to the
streets based on historical use. That wasn’t fair either.
Screen Name Redacted
1/13/2021 09:37 AM
Remove the subcut costs from the assessments and continue assessing the
property owners for 100% of the remaining costs.
Screen Name Redacted
1/14/2021 11:46 AM
We have already paid for our street reconstructions in the past 5 years. We
hope we do not have to pay for other peoples' street constructions.
Screen Name Redacted
1/14/2021 02:32 PM
Why not credit the assessment plus given rate of interest (3.25% October
2017) to the utility bill for the properties impacted by assessments. Yes, this
will raise everyone’s utility rates but it will be no different than the increase to
everyone’s property taxes to support future road improvements. To help
resolve the stress and anxiety caused by this issue, neighborhoods paying
road improvement assessments should have snow plowing/salting prior to all
other streets in the city, including those of the mayor and town council. Start
with 2021 assessments and work backwards to the early 2000s to set the
priority. Once these neighborhoods are snow free, the roads department may
begin plowing the remainder of the city. Subsequent plowing will also occur in
this order. We paid more, we should receive more services. This has been
very stressful, show us some love! Finally, start investigating options to
reduce future roadway reconstruction. Are all those trash hauling trucks,
recycling trucks and now the organic deposal truck helping us reduce the
costs of maintaining our streets?
Screen Name Redacted
1/14/2021 08:32 PM
I prefer neither of the options. If various residencies with lots that could fit 4
houses in other municipalities are complaining for their roadway construction,
how is that our problem? In an age of housing shortages, wouldn't we want
to make it easier to subdivide a lot which would allow multiple residences to
bear the cost of a special assessment? This is blatantly unfair for people who
are paying for other citizens with higher property values and much larger lot
sizes to reduce their overall tax liabilities. How has this been fine for 20 years
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 46 of 51
and all of the sudden it's not fair? I read the FAQ's and don't buy it. In my
opinion a select few people with large lot sizes are complaining because they
have more of their individual roadway to bear the cost. How can municipal
governments carve out special tax incentives for businesses or sections of
commercial districts but not make accommodations for certain residential
sections? Would it not be feasible to provide a reimbursement of property
taxes paid for residential addresses that had already had a special
assessment? If it's easy enough to tax citizens on residential roadways that
they'll drive on then it has to be easy to provide some form of credit or
reimbursement.
Screen Name Redacted
1/15/2021 09:35 AM
When you aren't able to retroactively refund an assessment, you have
basically made any option not fair. I was financially strapped with my
assessment, which was higher than most of the previous years. I am still
paying for it. Why does someone now get to have their assessment halved
or totally paid for by me. Neither option is fair to all past residents who have
had to pay for their streets!
Screen Name Redacted
1/15/2021 09:46 AM
None. Glad we're getting to it now, but Option 2 should have been
implemented a long time ago.
Screen Name Redacted
1/16/2021 01:14 PM
Yes, the status quo which is to require those that are impacted/benefited by
reconstruction to be required to pay their share of that. I'm directly impacted,
but do not think it is equitable or fair for people in other areas of Edina to
have to fund these projects. Let's think with common sense.
Screen Name Redacted
1/16/2021 01:18 PM
There should no change in the tax assessments. Everyone should pay
whatever it costs for their portion of the road construction whether it be
$30,000 or $60,000. Those people have lives most of us can only dream
about. Their land is worth millions, in many cases, and there is no reason that
the rest of us should subsidize their lifestyle. We are so tired of the
entitlement mentality. Now we are being asked to subsidize these people.
Our assessment was $13,000, but the real cost to us was more like $20,000
with everything we had to fix after the city refused to pay for much of what
they damaged in the process. The airborne spores, from the digging, ruined
the stain on the house. It was full of black mold all over the outside. That
alone cost 4500.00 to repaint. We had to pay to have our driveway put back
to the original state since the city balked at the 3200.00 cost. They only
covered 1800.00. We had to pay for sod and sprinkler parts since the city
only wanted to spray seed and not put in the same Toro parts we had. That
was about $1000.00. The construction loosened all the top stones on our
walls. We had to dig up our Lilies to protect them, only to have a contractor
dump all their toxic chemicals where the Lilies needed to be replanted. We
caught him in the act and reported it to the city. Mohammed came and
cleaned out a lot of it. These people with all their land won't have the same
impact on their houses. They are often much farther from the street, so I fail
to see how $30,000 is too much for them to pay. There should be a 3rd
option for question 7, no change at all. You claim you cannot refund those of
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 47 of 51
us that have already paid our assessments. Then any changes should be a
nonstarter. In the future people should be taxed on the value of their land.
That is the fair way to do assessments. Rich people should not be
subsidized.
Screen Name Redacted
1/16/2021 02:28 PM
Yes, definitely. For those areas that have not had been assessed, a special
taxing district should be created, and the cost of the road repairs be
assessed in those areas - not with assessments but with a special tax. 100%
of the costs should assessed in those areas. It would be less than actual
assessments, and have the benefit of assessing the road costs equally
among all residents who live in Edina, even for short periods of time.
Someone complained that they had lived in Edina for 30 years, and people
had come and gone and never had to pay for the roads, and now if you live
in Edina in one particular time, you get a big assessment. As for the
assessed areas, those areas would be added to the special tax district at the
end of the of their 16 year periods, and begin contributing to the special tax.
Asking assessed homeowners to pay 100% of their assessment AND
additional taxes to pay for other neighbors road is manifestly unfair. I will
answer #7 below as Option 1, but I don't think either option is fair.
Screen Name Redacted
1/17/2021 09:11 AM
Edina is seeing massive turnover as our residents age and sell and expand
their homes. This evolution & growth could be used to finance part of the
roadway modernization efforts. There are several ways to raise revenue that
could be earmarked for public roadway improvements. 1) create zones
perhaps based on neighborhood boundaries and collect revenue to offset
future repair and reconstruction costs in that zone 2) increase fees for new or
modified curb cuts, driveways, utility lines that access City roadways 3a) use
general fund monies to prepare preliminary plans for future road/curb/
sidewalk layout 3b) require developers/homeowners to install new curb,
gutter, sidewalks etc. on the property when homes are torn down and rebuilt
or when they are remodeled at more than 50% of value 4) implement a 'tear
down' tax to support improved roads that serve this new generation of
families 5) obtain state approval to apply a small tax/fee (0.5% to 1.0%) to
real estate sales and earmark those new fees to maintain and improve public
roadways 6) have City general fund pay for ALL extra-ordinary costs (major
retaining walls, bridges, bike trails, etc) but have local property owners pay
for street reconstruction In November 2020, our family paid to have our
streets rebuilt. This was a fair investment in our property. When we moved to
Edina, we were aware of the street assessment policy and chose to
purchase a home in a neighborhood that we loved and was affordable to us.
It seems extremely unfair to basically make our family pay twice. We urge
the City Council to think about other creative ways to provide safe streets in
a fair and equitable manner.
Screen Name Redacted
1/17/2021 02:09 PM
An additional way to mitigate the cost of street reconstruction is reducing the
actual cost, but the process of arriving at the cost of road repair is
nontransparent. How extensive is the City's evaluation for competitive
bidding? Does the City primarily work with 1 service provider? Note regarding
the transition period: Long transition periods of 8, 10, and 16 years are
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 48 of 51
postponing the inevitable. The transition period should be short enough to
leave no doubt that the new funding mechanism will be 100% in place
whenever the next round of assessments takes place.
Screen Name Redacted
1/17/2021 06:58 PM
1) Assessing home owners disadvantages households of average or below
incomes. Retirees and those on fixed incomes are especially hard hit. If it is a
property tax, folks have a chance of recouping some funds back on their
Property Tax Refund. 2)When I was assessed for Wooddale years ago the
terms of the assessment were horrible. You could pay it all up front or extend
it out with interest. There was no prepayment option. I financed it elsewhere
to pay in advance rather than agree to those hideous terms. 3) Streets are
used by many folks not just those that live on the street. They are a public
good and should be paid for by the public.
Screen Name Redacted
1/18/2021 06:22 PM
Street funding methods should have been brought up before construction
began 14 years ago, and not change after half the streets have been redone
and property owners on them have paid 100% of the cost. We view the 50%
proposal as unfair, and the 100% proposal as grossly unfair, to those of us
who have already been assessed and paid the assessment.
Screen Name Redacted
1/18/2021 08:32 PM
--Do not assess those residents who have already paid for their street
reconstruction...only spread the cost to those 50% who still need to have
reconstruction done...or, do a "higher percent" for those residents who need
to have the road reconstruction done vs those residents who have already
paid.for their road reconstruction.. --Also, set a maximum that a resident can
be assessed...for example $10,000 or $15,000, or $20,000...above that
seems excessively high to the respective resident...especially if a resident is
retired and on a "fixed income"....I am confident very few residents budget for
this cost/expenditure. --I feel very strongly that it is inappropriate and
inequitable to spread this over 16 years...that is too long and is has very little
benefit to those residents who have their road reconstruction done over the
next 5 years or so
Screen Name Redacted
1/18/2021 09:00 PM
Thank you to the task force and staff for this difficult project. No doubt many
options have been explored. I do wish there was a clear-cut best answer and
I just wonder if scenarios have been considered from outside the state of
Minnesota? Could there be another hybrid that has yet to be considered?
Given the two options presented and given that some residents are already
paying 100%, it seems like the most equitable of the two options is #1. That
said, I'm wondering if after all Edina streets have gone through replacement,
if moving towards option #2 (100% city tax) would be the best long-term
solution. It's my understanding that the proposed new tax would be a
property tax levy which currently is allowed as an income tax deduction (in
most cases, depending upon tax filing status). Assessments, however, can't
be deducted. So, in theory, there is more benefit to property owners in
option#2--at least eventually. For now, however, option #1 may be the way to
go. Good luck, city council, with this decision!
Screen Name Redacted
1/19/2021 08:15 AM
Special benefit must be the controlling consideration in setting special
assessments. The city can assess 100% of project costs, up to the special
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 49 of 51
benefit amount. The starting place is a fair, accepted, best practice method
for determining special benefit. One option is having representative appraisals
done for projects and setting the assessment at no more than the lowest
special benefit. This makes assessments uniform. The controlling
consideration for the 50% recommendation is project cost, not special
benefit. The hope is it would put the assessment within the ballpark of special
benefit if special benefit were actually determined by an accepted method. It
is as arbitrary as 60% or 40%. The fact that about 50% of streets have been
reconstructed is beside the point. Again, the controlling consideration is
setting assessments must be special benefit, not whether people were
untreated unfairly in the past. Question 4 required an answer. I do not
support any phase in. The option of no phase in was not provided and so
answers to this question will not capture those who share this view. Question
7 required an answer. I chose option 2 but support what I said above, which
is that the city can assess 100% (or any %) of project costs UP TO the
special benefit amount. I thank the task force, staff and consultants for the
time they put into this project. I am not confident the council will choose a
course of action that I support. The concern about "fairness" to those who
have paid special assessments in the past has been too primary in this
process. Council members who levied excessive assessments are unlikely to
say "I'm sorry. We were wrong. We over-assessed some (most) of you,
knowing you weren't likely to fight it and the city needed the revenue. Now,
we're worried some of you are getting savvy and successful challenges seem
more likely. We've been told we need to make a change. We know it doesn't
seem fair, but it's not fair to continue to over-assess residents. It wasn't fair of
us to over-assess you. We take full responsibility and we're sorry."
Screen Name Redacted
1/19/2021 09:36 AM
Increase city sales taxes
Optional question (212 response(s), 101 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 50 of 51
Q14 This is not a vote, but a way to gauge the general preference between the two options
the Task Force has recommended. What option would be your preference?
183 (58.5%)
183 (58.5%)
130 (41.5%)
130 (41.5%)
Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes
Option 1: Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes
Question options
Mandatory Question (313 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021
Page 51 of 51
I
Appendix H: Emails Received Feedback
1
Liz Moore
From:MJ Lamon
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:40 AM
To:
Cc:; Chad Millner
Subject:RE: Street Reconstruction Proposal
Hello , I received your email and have shared with the Engineering department. MJ
MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator
952‐826‐0360 | Fax 952‐826‐0390
MLamon@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov
Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit
BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19.
Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: <
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 6:10 PM
To: MJ Lamon <MLamon@EdinaMN.gov>
Cc: <
Subject: Street Reconstruction Proposal
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I have comments but could not find how to include them in the survey, so I am sending them directly.
First, Option 1 proposes 50% be assessed. I assume this means to the adjacent properties.
Second, under both Options basically the same amount of funds needs to be spend, although some timing differences
will occur.
a. If bonding will be required, Option 2, 100% City Funds, will incur greater expense for underwriting and placing the
bids.
b. I like Option 1, if operating expenses can be reduced sufficiently to cover some or all of the up front 50%. It may
require some “nice to have” items on the Capital Improvement Plan to be deferred or eliminated.
c. Assuming operating expenses can not be reduced enough to provide funding for either Option, then the City
needs to increase taxes. This can hurt 2 groups in Edina:
1) Senior Citizens, not all, on fixed income, and
2) Affordable Housing…any increase in Housing Expense makes these unit more difficult to develop.
Final observations ‐
a. “Means Test” should be considered. Possibly credit homes valued at $XXX,XXX or less to off set the increase in
real estate taxes due to their road reconstruction.
2
b. Streets benefit more than just the adjacent property which is why I favor Option 1. Share the benefit and share
the expense. I think I incorrectly marked my survey. Please change to Option 1.
PS ‐ please acknowledge receipt, thanks.
1
Liz Moore
From:Chad Millner
Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:07 PM
To:
Subject:RE: Street Reconstruction Funding Meeting Response Before 1-19-2021
Thanks you the email. I will add it to our correspondence. Have you visited the project site and submitted a feedback
form?
https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/street‐funding‐task‐force
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov
Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19.
Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org.
From: <
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:59 PM
To: Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>
Subject: Street Reconstruction Funding Meeting Response Before 1‐19‐2021
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Chad,
I am sending you our thoughts on your upcoming meeting, asking for residents' input on any changes that might be
made. Below, I am copying the City of Edina's email, so you are sure of what I am addressing.
and I live on the corner of . Our streets were reconstructed
over a few years, one street in 2015 and the other street in 2017. Since we are on the corner, we were under
construction for a few years.
We are retired and on a fixed income. We did pay for our assessments in full.
Approximately 13,000.
Of course, we do not want to pay for other folks' streets being reconstructed. Please consider that we certainly do not
want to be taxed more or pay for anyone else's responsibility.
Here is what the City's email stated:
"Option 1: Half (50 percent) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other 50 percent
paid with municipal taxes. Option 2: All (100 percent) of the street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes. The
Council might approve one of the options or continue the current special assessment policy. If the City Council approves
a change, the task force recommends the preferred option be phased in."
2
I hope that by taking the time to send this email, our concerns will be taken into consideration.
Thank You, Chad!
1
Liz Moore
From:Chad Millner
Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:42 PM
To:
Subject:Future Street Funding
Thanks for your comments noted below. I will include them with the rest of the communications on this matter.
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392
7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov
Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19.
Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org.
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:19 PM
To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov>
Subject: Alternatives for for Future Street Funding
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings to whom it may concern,
Since I have been unable to access the Better Together Edina website, I wanted to relay this way, my thoughts about
future street funding. Option 1: Half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half paid
with municipal taxes is a viable option.
My husband and I have resided in Edina a bit over one year. It was a struggle to find a "retirement" style home that
didn't have a street reconstruction assessment with a hefty price tag. As my husband and I were searching for a home,
we noted numerous streets in Edina in need of repair, but the cost to residents bordered on prohibitive. Other cities
have lesser expensive alternatives for their residents.
Fortunately, for us, we did not purchase a home with a street repair assessment.
I would appreciate your forwarding this information to the staff working on this issue. Thank‐you.
Sincerely,
Edina
1
Liz Moore
From:
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:22 PM
To:jhovland@hovlandrasmus.com; James Hovland; James Pierce; Carolyn Jackson; Kevin Staunton; Ron
Anderson; Scott H. Neal; Jennifer Bennerotte; Chad Millner
Subject:Edina Street Reconstruction feedback
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Hovland and members of Council
On 12/21/2020 I received an email asking me to provide feedback on the funding for street reconstruction "through Tue.
Jan 19". I took this to mean through the close of business. This afternoon I discovered that the feedback form had been
closed at noon. Why is this? This gives the appearance of the time being improperly described or changed, and with no
notice to the residents.
For what its worth, the City embarked on the current financing program and should continue to do so. To do otherwise is
manifestly unfair to the residents who have already paid for the reconstruction of their streets. To change the system now
is an admission of the complete lack of foresight at the outset, and to identify and manage the risks involved. When did
the current program of street reconstruction start?
If I had to pick between the two options which were presented (we were not told if and what others were discussed), I
would reluctantly choose the 50% option as the lesser of two evils.
Please also consider this letter as a formal request for information about the reconstruction of the 5400 and 5500 blocks
of Kellogg Avenue, and the 5400 and 5500 blocks of Oaklawn Avenue in Minnehaha Woods. The streets were
reconstructed in about 2013. They continue to settle and crack. Please address three questions:
1. Why is the settlement and cracking taking place?
2. How and when is the City of Edina going to repair the streets?
3. Who is going to pay for any street repairs?
I should also point out that Chad Millner, the City Engineer, worked as a site engineer on the project, having been working
directly or indirectly for S.E.H. at that time. I leave it to you to decide who should perform any assessment.
Thank you and sincerely
tel
cc. S. Neal, City Manager
J. Bennerotte, City of Edina
C. Millner, City Engineer
1
Liz Moore
From:
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:48 PM
To:Chad Millner
Cc:MJ Lamon
Subject:Re: Your question on Street Funding Task Force
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Chad,
I was going to fill the feed back page (this afternoon at 4:45) but it came back telling me: CLOSED: This survey has
concluded. The text I read said feedback would be taken through January 19.
I’m sending this note because I want to be sure that my comments submitted in the Q & A part of the
bettertogetheredina page are considered.
I received this email below with my comments which I forward to you.
Thank you for all the good work done by you and your team.
On Jan 19, 2021, at 4:40 PM, Better Together Edina <notifications@engagementhq.com> wrote:
Better Together Edina
Hi
Thank you for your question on Street Funding Task Force.
Feedback / Question re Edina Street funding options. Why did City of Edina set up
street replacement project ( ~ 12 years back? ) with adjacent home owners
participating in the funding? I think it would be helpful to know this reasoning as we
consider other options. In my inquiry with another professional involved in this field of
municipal roads. I am told that it is not common for owners of adjacent properties to
2
be assessed for the cost of street replacement. I’m told it is most common that this
cost is usually payed by city funds. City funds of course supported with property taxes
of all property owners. Whether this is true or not I think it would be helpful to learn
what it was that caused our city of Edina to implement this plan of having adjacent
property owners participate in funding major street replacement. We are now hearing
reasons why adjacent property owners don’t want to pay - what were the reasons that
our city decided to have them pay when this whole effort of street replacement
began? 2) How do other successful cities our size handle this issue and why? There
are may cities similar to Edina across the country, and professional organizations
involved in sharing experiences and good policy ideas. There are progressive and
conservative organizations and I think it is important that we consider input from both.
The working group has likely researched this topic with other cities and these
organizations and I am likely remiss in not seeing it among group’s supporting
documents but if not, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we can learn a lot from the
experiences of other cities. i.e. what is it about cities like Minneapolis that the causes
the quality of their streets to be so poor, or what policies are implemented by other
cities that causes the quality of their streets to be so well maintained. 3) With the
proposed 16 year phase in and the map showing street replacement projects for only
the next at most 4 or 5 years, property owners will continue to pay some through out
the rest completion of the street repair project - we will address again in 50 years.
Respectfully submitted
We aim to get back to you as soon as possible with a response.
Thank you,
City of Edina
Other projects that might interest you
Public Hearing: Right of Way Vacation - 5932 Abbott Avenue South
An application was received on November 30, 2020 from Bellin Construction,
requesting that the...
View Project
Bright Lights Edina
'Tis the season to brighten up the night!Despite the challenges of 2020, the Edina
community...
View Project
COVID-19 Virtual Memorial Wall
Behind every COVID-19 statistic is a person. Someone's grandfather. Your favorite
teacher from...
View Project
3
View all projects
You are receiving this email because you participated on Better Together Edina.
Powered by EngagementHQ
1
Liz Moore
From:Edina Mail
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:36 AM
To:Chad Millner
Subject:FW: Proposal to allocate the road improvements
Hi Chad,
I did forward this email to council but wanted to make sure you had this for this deadline and your possible reply to
resident.
Lynette Biunno, Receptionist
952‐927‐8861 | Fax 952‐826‐0389
lbiunno@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov
Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit
BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From:
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 3:39 PM
To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov>
Subject: Proposal to allocate the road improvements
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Edina City Council:
Concerning the proposed change in who pays the cost of the road improvements
Around Christmas I read about the committee and their proposal as to how they wanted to allocate the cost of the road
improvements in Edina. I read about it in Nextdoor and then briefly on the Edina website. I was kind of busy during this
time…
I understand, some people have larger lots than others. And because of this, their improvement costs will be greater
since the cost is based on their lot size. And it sounds as if they have already hired an attorney to litigate their
grievances.This is a concern going forward. And so the ideas are that the cost either totally comes out of our taxes or
partially, 50%, comes out of our city taxes. So, either way, I would be paying for their improvements.
I’m sorry, I am still paying for my road improvements! I’m at a loss as to why I should pay for theirs, just because their lot
line is larger. And the question seems to be if the improvements would increase their property value. No one asked us if
there would be an improvement to our property value when our road work was done.. And I believe our street also
hired an attorney because we were upset that the road width was being decreased by 3’. There was a petition signed by
all the neighbors asking that this not be done; but it was. Still is annoying.
Anyway, to the point. No, I do not want to pay for someone elses’ road improvement costs. I don’t believe they helped
pay for mine.
2
Finally, I know you have a 5 or 10 year plan as to when and how this construction is going to take place. But I would ask
you to STOP and take a look at things. There is a pandemic going on! There are many people who have lost their jobs
and are trying to pay their mortgages, stay in their homes and pay their taxes. In Edina! This is not the time to say, oh,
these people feel they are being charged too much and they want our help. Doesn’t sit well. Please think about this!
Perhaps delay this work a year and think very carefully what you are asking for in the future.
Sincerely,
1
Liz Moore
From:MJ Lamon
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:52 AM
To:
Cc:Chad Millner
Subject:RE: Email in response to the proposed change in Edina street assessments.
Hello Confirming I received this email. Passing it to Engineering. MJ
MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator
952-826-0360 | Fax 952-826-0390 MLamon@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov
Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19.
Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org.
From:
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 4:16 PM
To: MJ Lamon <MLamon@EdinaMN.gov>
Subject: Email in response to the proposed change in Edina street assessments.
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
The task force for Edina street assessment has shared information,, but more information is needed to make
an informed decision. An example is: “In order to do so, the assessed properties need to see a benefit in their
property values equal to or greater than the assessment.” How is this statement measured? According to the
Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis For The City of Edina, Minnesota: The Edina home resale price was
lowest in 2011 when it decreased to $339,900. Between 2011 and 2017, the median resale value increased 30%
($102,725). The median home resale value in 2018 was $440,500, a decrease of -0.5% from 2017 ($443,625).
Through September 30, 2019, the median resale price was $465,000, an increase of 5.6% from 2018 ($440,500).
Can street improvements only be done then when property values are rising? That would make some of us now go
back and see if our assessed value has added value to our home? The Prospect Knolls neighborhood is not an
example I would have chosen to make my point if I was on the task force. According to Zillow and Realtor.com The
single family homes currently for sale are asking 1,850,000, 2,395,000 and 2,725,000. Home prices do not need to
increase but barely 2% to cover the 30,000 mentioned by the City Council (That they are NOT COMFORTABLE
WITH)
The task force mentions the percentage of people who pay upfront, early, and the 15 year plan, but does not
mention what portion of Edina residents are currently paying assessments on their own properties.
Also according to the Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis For The City of Edina, Minnesota Of Edina’s owner
households, 22% are cost burdened (pay 30% or more of their income for housing costs). Most owner households
that are cost-burdened are age 65 or older. The proportion of cost burdened owner households in Edina (22%) is
higher than the Twin Cities Metro Area (20%) and Remainder of the PMA (17%).
The Task Forces Vision Statement is to develop a funding solution that is:
1.
2.
3. viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable,
2
4.
5.
6.
7. able to maintain Edina's roadways to the City's standard, and
8.
9.
10.
11. financially and legally sustainable.
12.
1.Unfortunately you pointed out that legally the city can not alter assessments which are in progress which makes
an equitable solution unattainable. The 2 choices: pay for all or pay for ½. Both are unequitable especially to the
22% stated above that also deserve the task force’s consideration. The fact that some people may be financially
hurt by your decision makes me uncomfortable.
2. Of course, we all want our roadways maintained. Maybe the task force needs to think of a creative way to
accomplish this. ½ or all is this the best we can do?
3. More information is needed
I hope more information will be forthcoming for the citizens of Edina before the City Council votes.
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may
contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message
or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and
then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any
use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.
1
Liz Moore
From:
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:55 PM
To:Chad Millner
Subject:Street Funding Task Force input
Attachments:Informational Sheet_Maple Road to White Oaks_Early 2003.pdf; 2004-10-19_COUNCIL PACKET_Street
Recon_Maple to White Oaks, pp.29-41.pdf
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Chad,
I entered a Q&A on Jan 8 regarding final date for input. After submitting that, I found the answer in the FAQ
section:
“Comments and questions are being collected on this page through Tuesday, Jan. 19”
2
So, I read about it more, and considered the material. This evening, I went back and found that the BT feedback
form is closed, and that a different, earlier deadline was stated as noon on Jan 19. And now I see that there are
more pieces of info that have been posted. So it goes.
Since my understanding from the FAQ was that I had the entire day, I am submitting some comments to you via
this email.
The info at BT seemed a bit scattered, so it was a little hard to work through, like there were too many places to
have to look in order to try to piece things together.
First, under the tab “Learn About the Project”, Heading: “Fairness and Tax Impacts”, Para 2, Sentence 4:
“The current policy that assesses 100% of the costs was adopted by council in the early 2000's.”
My response: I don’t believe that is correct. I don’t think it was new in the 2000’s. I seem to recall complaints
about the assessment back then, and that the City Council was reluctant to examine alternatives, I seem to recall
that it was because that’s the way it Edina had always done it, and the Council had the same concerns then, that
have continued since then, about fairness to properties assessed in the past.
It seems to me that in the Maple Road to White Oaks project in 2003—which included 49th Street among others—
was the first in which any amount of curb and gutter was paid for out of the utility fund instead of through the
special assessment. I live on the corner of 49th and France, so I was part of that project.
See attached PDF: Informational Sheet_Maple Road to White Oaks_Early 2003
You can see in Para. 1, that White Oaks Road and Meadow Road had opted out of any curb and gutter at the very
beginning of the project planning process, and that curb and gutter was going to be added to Maple Road.
The project was completed in 2003.
See attached PDF: 2004‐10‐19_COUNCIL PACKET_Street Recon_Maple to White Oaks, pp.29‐41
Oct 19, 2004 was the Assessment Hearing. In this PDF is the spreadsheet which broke down the assessment
components by address, and the components additional to the base assessment were apportioned only against the
applicable properties (Street lights; curb and gutter). You can see that the only properties being assessed for curb
and gutter were on Maple Road.
The water main used to break periodically on 49th St, down around the low area at the intersection with Townes
Road. Local ducks appreciated it! The water main was replaced on 49th St, along with the other utilities, so this
meant trenching on both sides of the road. I seem to recall something about the sandy base, that 49th was sand,
and maybe something about soil stability combined with the utility work. I have not yet found a specific statement
about paying for the 49th St. curb and gutter, but I am quite certain that the decision was made to pay 49th St curb
and gutter out of the utility fund. I made that statement in the passive, because I don’t know if it was strictly an
Engineering decision, or if the decision was specifically vetted with the City Council (CC). Both sides of 49th got all
new curb and gutter, and, as you can see in the assessment spreadsheet, none of the 49th St properties were
assessed for it.
I could be wrong on some aspect, but this memory would make sense if there was an issue of soil instability + the
necessary utility work, such that replacing curb was not due to the quality of any given curb segment, but due to
the utility work, so maybe that led to a rationale to pay it out of utilities.
3
After that, my memory was that CC later built on that precedent and formalized the practice. Maybe it had
something to do with the high cost of assessments back then! Residents complaining about street recon
assessments is nothing new! Or maybe with utility replacements, it just made sense! Maybe a little of both!
Recently, when watching a CC video, I saw the CC comment on street funding. I don’t recall which CC meeting it
was. Was it a recent meeting? Maybe. I have watched so many, I just don’t know, feeling bug‐eyed. In any case,
Mayor Hovland said that he thought the change was made in 2005. That is possible, given the timeline that it
would fit into. Our project was completed in 2003, the assessment hearing was late in 2004, so it would make
sense if the CC built on the precedent as early as 2005.
I hope this info and the attachments are helpful. I am happy to help in any way that I can.
Now to move on to some other comments.
Regarding the street recon funding, I think we first need to have a firm base to work from, just like a street!
Q1: What is that base? A: I think that is the Statutes. The Statutes tell us that the City can assess properties for
the work, but that the amount of the assessment is limited.
Q2: Does the City want to comply with the Statutes? A: If so (and I cannot answer that, the CC must answer that
question), then the City must try to devise its assessments to at least reasonably comply with the Statutes.
We know some things about assessments.
1) Many if not most people who have been subjected to a street recon assessment, would have liked for the
assessment to be smaller.
2) Residents have complained about the amounts of the assessments for a long time.
3) The assessments have presented a financial hardship for some, but are hardly a blip on the radar for others.
Q3: How can the City ensure that it is complying with the Statutes? A: By making sure that the assessments are
low enough so that the City is not straddling the line, so to speak.
In the case of the White Oaks C project, a subset of the project area residents appealed the assessment to the
courts. The City’s own 3rd party appraiser determined a project market value that was less that the assessed
amount. The court remanded the case back to the City to reduce the assessment from roughly $24,000 down to
$21,000. The City made the adjustment only for those 6 properties which appealed. Either way, that is a lot of
“special benefit”, and a very large assessment.
One question I have is why the White Oaks C was not combined with the Morningside A. I would like to see some
discussion of that. White Oaks C was an incredibly small number of properties, 18 in total, so it just seems
odd. Actually, I was surprised back in 2003, that it was not included in our project area.
Q3a: Oh, and that is another matter, which is, is the chosen project area large enough? I will leave it at that for
now
Also, in the judge’s court order, the assessment as a percentage of “average home value” was described, but the
Task Force did not delve into the matter in this way. Maybe this could help guide the city? Reading through the
White Oaks C materials, it looks like the City’s 3rd party appraiser might be able to contribute a good deal of
information to help with this matter.
4
Q4: Is it reasonable to have some amount of citywide tax? Except for those who don’t drive, we all
drive/walk/bike on roads for which we were not assessed under the current policy. And most people have family,
friends, and service vehicles come to their homes using roads for which the property owner was never
assessed. A: So, yes, it is reasonable from this perspective to distribute at least some amount of the cost
citywide. Further, the City already distributes some costs across the City, including curb and gutter, and lesser
forms of street maintenance (right?).
Q5: Again, is it reasonable to have some amount of citywide tax? A: Does the improvement in one project area
provide a market value improvement to homes in other areas? If you consider a citywide tax in the abstract, that is
to say, if one were to consider a citywide tax as an abstract form of an assessment for the purpose of discussion,
what could one say about it? Some areas have no traffic other than within their own neighborhood, or their own
street, so it really doesn’t matter to anyone but them as to how bad their roads are. But for the rest of us, I think it
is fair to say, that if the nearby roads that we use are in good condition, even if they were not in our project area, it
is good for our home’s value. It enhances the quality of life in our own area.
Over in Mpls, nearby, there is a stretch of road that is in very poor condition, it is either or both Drew or Chowen
between 49th St. and 50th St. With the current snow and ice pack, you can’t clearly view it right now. I am not
sure if either one of those roads is paved. I know that in the old days, Mpls just oiled the roads, that was the old‐
timey finish. I am sure some have never been paved, but I don’t know which ones those would be. In any case, if
Edina’s roads looked like whichever is the worst of those two stretches, I am pretty confident that it would have a
negative impact beyond those particular street portions. I am speculating, but you would have to see the poor
road condition to really understand.
Q6: Is fairness a primary consideration for the base material, the issue of subcuts? A: I personally don’t think so. I
think the issue is the statutes, and getting the assessments comfortably below the project market value to the
affected/assessed properties. And, beyond that, nothing prevents the City from further reducing the assessments,
right?
I don’t recall that the matter of curb and gutter was controversial. It might have been, I might have just missed
it. But I just don’t think it was. Maybe there is something in the 2005 records that would clarify this. All I can say is
that it was not controversial in our project.
Personally, I wish that the City had periodically examined the funding issue, and maybe removed some aspect or
percentage from the assessments every 5 years or so. Just think, 2004 is nearly 20 years ago!
In reading BT, I was not comfortable with the statement that removing the subcuts ‘might not be enough’. First, if
the subcuts are highly variable in cost, then how was the estimation of a 24% assessment reduction
made? Second, if it is not enough, then why not, and how much would it take to be compliant? I just did not see
the discussion that I would have expected. The suggestion is, that if only the cost of subcuts is removed, that the
street recon projects next in line are going to be over‐assessed. Is that correct? Basically, this is just hanging
unaddressed. So it is hard to give an opinion about Choice 1 or Choice 2, when the Task Force has not provided the
detail as to at what point does the City fall comfortably within the project market value constraint. I think the task
force should address this directly.
Maybe there is some discomfort in openly addressing it? We have a project waiting, right? In Prospect Knolls. Has
that been postponed indefinitely? Is there an upcoming project, or projects, that the task force and the City could
examine? I think it is good to consider real examples. In other words, let’s say the City removes subcuts, then does
the Prospect Knolls project. Based on whatever historical data the City has accumulated, and whatever the project
cost at this point might be estimated at, is the City afraid that Prospect Knolls might still go to court and succeed, or
just that someone whom the CC does not want to offend will be angry? If there is a concern that the 24% is not
5
enough, then maybe we should talk more about getting the assessment amount down lower, and sooner. And I
want to clarify, that it should not be a matter of fear of being taken to court. I think the City is best positioned if it
is sincerely attempting to conform to the project market value constraint.
Q7 (a collective of questions): Is it appropriate to include in the street recon assessment, the cost of restoring
private property located within the City easement? Could the communal cost of private property restoration be
assessed separately from the street recon? In other words, what does the project market value constraint apply
to? Does it apply to restorative work, or does it just apply just to the street project itself? It seems to me that it is
different. If you are restoring private property, that is fundamentally different from the project market value that
might occur when the street itself is reconstructed. I think I read that the Task Force is planning to work more on
the matter of private property in the easement, so I just want to offer these questions.
Q8: Regarding retaining wall/assessments/citywide tax, are there retaining walls in the City easement that were
not installed by the City? I would like to see more info about the status of this matter in Edina. I am thinking of the
recent (a few years ago) lawsuit by a nearby resident up on 47th and Drew in Mpls. That case was decided by a
jury, which determined that Mpls was responsible for the wall restoration. I am sure you are aware of it. So, for
now, I just want to say that I hope this will be discussed in much greater detail in the future when the matter of
personal items in the City easement is further explored.
Q9: Can the dread of street recon assessments and the financial impact be seen as a Quality of Life issue? A: I
think so, not for everyone, but at least for some.
As to the Options that the Task Force is weighing, I do like a gradual transition. I like the goal of 50‐50. However,
does 16 years get the City where it needs to go soon enough? I would really like this question to be directly
answered, and I would like to see some other options laid out. Again, I think that changes should have been made
periodically over the years past, and I think that it would be good to periodically examine the issue and make
changes going forward.
Thanks Chad. Thanks to you and to the Task Force for working on this matter.
1
Liz Moore
From:MJ Lamon
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:40 AM
To:
; Chad Millner
Subject:RE: Street Reconstruction Proposal
Hello , I received your email and have shared with the Engineering department. MJ
MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator
952‐826‐0360 | Fax 952‐826‐0390
MLamon@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov
Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit
BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19.
Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 6:10 PM
To: MJ Lamon <MLamon@EdinaMN.gov>
Cc:
Subject: Street Reconstruction Proposal
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I have comments but could not find how to include them in the survey, so I am sending them directly.
First, Option 1 proposes 50% be assessed. I assume this means to the adjacent properties.
Second, under both Options basically the same amount of funds needs to be spend, although some timing differences
will occur.
a. If bonding will be required, Option 2, 100% City Funds, will incur greater expense for underwriting and placing the
bids.
b. I like Option 1, if operating expenses can be reduced sufficiently to cover some or all of the up front 50%. It may
require some “nice to have” items on the Capital Improvement Plan to be deferred or eliminated.
c. Assuming operating expenses can not be reduced enough to provide funding for either Option, then the City
needs to increase taxes. This can hurt 2 groups in Edina:
1) Senior Citizens, not all, on fixed income, and
2) Affordable Housing…any increase in Housing Expense makes these unit more difficult to develop.
Final observations ‐
a. “Means Test” should be considered. Possibly credit homes valued at $XXX,XXX or less to off set the increase in
real estate taxes due to their road reconstruction.
2
b. Streets benefit more than just the adjacent property which is why I favor Option 1. Share the benefit and share
the expense. I think I incorrectly marked my survey. Please change to Option 1.
PS ‐ please acknowledge receipt, thanks.
1
Liz Moore
From:
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:16 AM
To:Chad Millner
Subject:street finance future funding
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Chad Millner,
I am writing to comment on the City Council proposals to finance future street funding in Edina that were presented in
the january 2021 community flyer sent to city residents. I live on Idylwood Lane in a neighborhood that paid the full
assessment costs of reconstruction, $10,800, in 2010. The options presented in the January 2021 community flyer
represent a double taxation that is being proposed for me and all others in my neighborhood. The streets involved in the
2010 project extended from Blake Road to Schaefer Road and included:
South Knoll Drive
Knoll Drive
Idylwood Lane
Parkwood Road
Schaefer Road form Stouder to Westwood Court
I, and my neighbors, are therefore seeking an exemption from any additional taxation to fund street projects having
already paid the full costs, $10,800, of street reconstruction in our neighborhood. The proposals for funding
street projects represents a double taxation and I protest.
With kindest regards and best wishes,
Street Funding Task Force
Better Together Edina
Feedback Form
It is the Street Funding Task Force charge to provide City Council with recommendations. The Task Force has created two options
possible option that the City Council may consider. Before the Task Force submits their final recommendations to the city council, they
would like feedback on what option individuals prefer and why. The Task Force may decide to send one or both to Council for
consideration.
• Option 1: Half (50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (50%)
paid with city taxes
• Option 2: All (100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes
Reminders: Both options are shown with a 16 year transition period and subcuts will no longer be included as part of the assessment.
(Choose any one option) (Required) 0, vo.
61u.L.el ./i 7)/L' .01i g a 744;7
,ts
1d ell-le
a
6 11),e-StA-L-te-A--).aa
Page 1 of 3
Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina?
g
L11-2-1
t ) zte,,
4e1 zdz424
e-41
(717)
,e4/tttl
Street Funding Task Force
Better Together Edina
Answer this question only if you have chosen Yes for Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina?
What type of property was assessed?
(Choose any one option) (Required)
pOriesidential
q Commercial
q Retail
q Non-residential
Is your property listed in our "Anticipated Roadway Reconstruction Map?"
(Choose any one option) (Required)
111 Yes
y•No
Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special assessments and raise city taxes faster?
(Choose any one option) (Required)
q Yes
0,2 No
Answer this question only if you have chosen Yes for Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special
assessments and raise city taxes faster?
How many years would you be comfortable with?
(Required)
Questions 16 years 10 years 8 years 5 years
Number of years to transition.
The Task Force's vision statement is to develop a funding solution that is:
A) viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable,
B) is able to maintain Edina's roadways to the City's standard, and
C) is financially and legally sustainable.
Do you feel vision statement A is achieved in the options?
Required)
Questions Definitely agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Definitely disagree
Option 1 Is equitable.
Option 2 is equitable.
Note: Option 1: Half (or 50%) of the street teconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes Option 2: All (or 100%) of the
street reconstruction paid for with city taxes
The task force reviewed funding options including special assessments, city taxes, and franchise fees. They also discussed that
approximately half of the streets have been reconstructed and that there is no legal way to refund past assessments. Are there other
potential ideas to fund street reconstruction or considerations the Task Force may have missed?
-Aeket46,e-
A44-)
c)
Me- " 11/Lee--7?
Page 2 of 3
Aettipz-7
0-ed ar-4-€AY
Street Funding Task Force
Better Together Edina
This Is not a vote, but a way to gauge the general preference between the two options the Task Force has recommended. What option
would be your preference?
(Choose any one option) (Required)
...)
...ErOptIon 1: Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes
El Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes
aso to
r/t.e J42:24}.4A,Ldi
eike LGA ,t ,t )db -2
GG Ljto-tt-- ab--"A-
oi-c-1
•7<7 lte4zeevosizi-i-4
s o jil Le_a_J 7
,0
1
Page 3 of 3
Street Funding Task Force
Better Together Edina
Feedback Form
It is the Street Funding Task Force charge to provide City Council with recommendations. The Task Force has created two options
possible option that the City Council may consider. Before the Task Force submits their final recommendations to the city council, they
would like feedback on what option individuals prefer and why. The Task Force may decide to send one or both to Council for
consideration.
• Option 1: Half (50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (50%)
paid with city taxes
• Option 2: All (100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes
Reminders: Both options are shown with a 16 year transition period and subcuts will no longer be included as part of the assessment.
Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina?
(Choose any one option) (Required)
2'lfes
r] No
Page 1 of 3
OA)
° ''-'110(-)1-,
Street Funding Task Force
Better Together Edina
Answer this question only if you have chosen Yes for Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina?
What type of property was assessed?
(Choose any one option) (Required)
residential
q Commercial
q Retail
EI Non-residential
Is your property listed in our "Anticipated Roadway Reconstruction Map?"
(Choose any one option) (Required)
q Yes
EI115
Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special assessments and raise city taxes faster?
(Choose any one option) (Required)
q Yes
laKlo
Answer this question only if you have chosen Yes for Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special
assessments and raise city taxes faster?
How many years would you be comfortable with?
(Required)
Questions 16 years 10 years 8 years 5 years
Number of years to transition.
The Task Force's vision statement is to develop a funding solution that is:
A) viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable,
B) is able to maintain Edina's roadways to the City's standard, and
C) is financially and legally sustainable.
Do you feel vision statement A is achieved in the options?
Required)
Questions Definitely agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Definitely disagree
Option 1 is equitable.
Option 2 is equitable. 4.•'''"
Note: Option 1: Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes Option 2: All (or 100%) of the
street reconstruction paid for with city taxes
The task force reviewed funding options including special assessments, city taxes, and franchise fees. They also discussed that
approximately half of the streets have been reconstructed and that there is no legal way to refund past assessments. Are there other
potential ideas to fund street reconstruction or considerations the Task Force may have missed?
Page 2 of 3
Street Funding Task Force
Better Together Edina
This is not a vote, but a way to gauge the general preference between the two options the Task Force has recommended. What option
would be your preference?
(Choose any one option) (Required) t'L
Option is Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes
El Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes
9 d it—c
A -I e<
S -I
c
c-i
Lae de4 ec 5 it i 4
A,)--,
e-ot 64 01' -
c /
14:0,1 170 77
AiLyzi-Pd_
04-51 ,:=297-51 -Art
o-t-7-40-d
Page 3 of 3
Street Reconstruction in Edina
Dear Edina City Street Funding Task Force,
Thank you for engaging the community for input on the future of street reconstruction in Edina.
From the information provided, it is clear the Edina City Council has thoughtfully considered the
complex issue at hand and provided two options for consideration, while omitting the option to
retain the current process for funding street reconstruction in Edina.
Option 1: Half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other
half paid with municipal taxes.
a. Having half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the
other half paid with municipal taxes appears problematic for the following
reasons.
i. Many property owners have paid for, or are in the process of paying,
assessments imposed under a differing cost schedule. What will be done
for property owners have already paid assessments at an incrementally
different rate?
ii. It appears this change could potentially result in higher taxes or
corresponding cuts in services both of which are issues worthy of
thoughtful consideration and discussion.
iii. The proposed 50% special assessment benefiting primarily the owners of
large lots doesn’t seem quite fair to the rest of the city with modest sized
lots. It doesn’t seem inherently unfair that residents with larger lots
should pay more given the larger size of their frontage just as a larger
house often cost more than a smaller house. Additionally, although the
cost cited (e.g. ~$30,000.00) may seem eye popping at first glance one
must keep in mind that these costs will be amortized along a substantial
timeline at a low interest rate which will support a sustainable payment
structure.
iv. Increased density is often cited as a means to mitigate climate change.
The proposed change primarily benefits larger lots which would appear
to run counter to the city’s important efforts to do our collective part to
mitigate climate change.
Option 2: All street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes.
a. Having all street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes appears
problematic for the following reasons:
i. This change may result in higher taxes or corresponding cuts in services
both of which are issues worthy of thoughtful consideration and
discussion. This would be a substantial change to the current funding
mechanism for future of street reconstruction in Edina. It would be
helpful to understand in greater detail where the existing process is
deficient before implementing such a substantial change.
ii. Many property owners have paid for, or are in the process of paying,
assessments imposed under the current special assessment process.
What will be done for property owners who have already paid
assessments at a different incremental rate? Street reconstruction is a
never-ending critical infrastructure undertaking. A detailed and well
communicated transition plan may be appropriate for a change of this
magnitude.
iii. 100% funding of street reconstruction through municipal taxes will
substantially strain the current municipal tax base potentially making the
city less competitive as compared to neighboring municipalities. A
change of this order could also potentially result in tax increases or
reduced services to address potential funding shortfalls.
iv. Increased density of often cited as a means to mitigate climate change.
Moving to a system where street reconstruction is 100% funded through
municipal takes may not be well aligned with climate goals.
“Option 3”, though not explicitly listed, is to continue with the status quo. With a substantial
portion of street reconstruction in work, or complete, it is unclear how substantial changes to
the funding process can be equitably implemented at this juncture. It’s understood that street
reconstruction is a never-ending process, therefor substantial changes to the funding process
must be carefully considered by all community constituents. We sincerely believe, in the
interest of fairness to all the city’s residents, it is best to continue with the existing process for
funding future of street reconstruction in Edina. With interest rates at record lows, and Edina’s
AAA credit rating it’s clear the existing process for funding future of street reconstruction in
Edina is working well, sustainable, and fundamentally fair to all the city’s residents.
The current process for funding street reconstruction in Edina has served the city and its
residents well for decades and will continue to meet future needs. The two proposed changes
appear unnecessary and could potentially have unintended consequences for our community.
Sincere thanks to the Edina City Council for engaging the community on this important topic.
From:Edina Mail
To:Chad Millner
Subject:FW: Street assessments curbs
Date:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:36:12 AM
Attachments:image001.gif
Lynette Biunno, Receptionist952-927-8861 | Fax 952-826-0389lbiunno@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov
Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? VisitBetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:37 PM
To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov>
Subject: Street assessments curbs
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We've paid for our curbs via an assessment and now the city wants to reimagine manner of funding
for curbs going forward. I strongly disagree with this change. If the city chooses to make such a
significant change, again, I disagree with, is the city prep8to reimburse us? Thank you for your
consideration.
From:Edina Mail
To:Chad Millner
Cc:James Hovland; Kevin Staunton; Mary Brindle; Mike Fischer; Ron Anderson
Subject:FW: Assessment on Future Street Funding
Date:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:26:31 AM
Attachments:image001.gif
Lynette Biunno, Receptionist
952-927-8861 | Fax 952-826-0389lbiunno@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov
Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? VisitBetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:49 PM
To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Assessment on Future Street Funding
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am not going to write another note. states my sentiments exactly.
I do have a couple additional comments.
I have heard the original home owner assessments were illegal, is this the case?
If yes, this needs a lot more attention before anyone moves forward and should be reviewed by an
attorney that is not on the Edina payroll.
I feel as if the Edina citizens have been misinformed.
Please address this matter before any vote or action takes place.
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: January 19, 2021 at 4:35:14 PM CST
To: mail@edinamn.gov
Subject: Assessment on Future Street Funding
To the Mayor and the City council members,
My understanding is that this needs to be in today 1/19.
I was shocked regarding this topic of the new type of assessment you are considering.
When Wayne Houle and the City Council proposed all of us paying out of pocket for
our assessments years ago, the question was raised “will we all be assessed the same
way?”
Clearly this is switching horses in midstream and not fair to all of us who have paid our
complete assessment.
I am in complete disagreement with this proposal and would like to know how we will
be kept out of this additional assessment or reimbursed for 50% of our initial
assessment.
What you gave me a choice of was City pay all and we all get reassessed or property
owner pay half. None of those choices are acceptable. This should be treated the
same for all. Everyone pays in full until the city is completed.
Sincerely
January 8, 2021 Chad Millner, Director of Engineering Edina Street Reconstruction Task Force Mayor Hovland Edina City Council Re: the three cited options put forth for citizens to “vote” on regarding future street reconstruction in Edina. Long story short: None of them work for me because none of them are equitable Dear All- I am a resident who has already paid, in full as a single-person house owner soon to be retired when the street repair was done in my neighborhood. I gather from the three options put forth that my particular circumstance means about as much as it did when I was anxious about the final amount: I was told I had time to think about it and this is why the city had warned us all in time, so we could pay for it when the bill came due. My story, I am sure, was not at the top of the heap for hardship already caused (my bill is still on a Home Equity loan). My neighbors moved, trying to avoid the repair cost. There are others who were trying to put kids though college, just trying to keep family expenses within the budget. Do you have any idea how that feels to me to now be asked to pay for others’ bills while they pay nothing?!? Astonishing to me that anyone would even have the audacity to present this to community members who have already paid. But more to the point toward full transparency: how was it decided, and at what point, did it become “too much”? (It was too much for me when the reconstruction was done in my neighborhood, but I was not heard). Though I spoke at the time. If this new attempt to re-arrange the whole system of payment mid-stream has any sense of fairness, I think there should be an open explanation about what prompted this turn-around when others were not heard, and why such a drastic relinquishment of the future would-be payers to contribute their fair share. So there are two problems to address, it seems to me: 1) How this happened in the first place? Who is responsible for the short-sightedness? I urge whomever it was, and whomever it is that feels it is ok to put this on the backs of residents who have already paid to reach out to other communities to be educated on how other suburbs have done it (and yes, they have done it differently and not one of them had a portion of their residents pay for themselves and again for everyone else whose reconstruction came after). My point is, there are people who can figure this out. Go find them and ask questions. I would say do that right now, as the three options offered are unacceptable. 2) What to do about the mounting and extraordinary expense going forward:
A) NO ONE SHOULD PAY LESS THAN THE BIGGEST AMOUNT ALREADY PAID. B) There should be a formula that figures in square footage of the homes, with larger homes paying incrementally more, and in addition to the largest sum already paid to date. Again, I would urge the city to seek help with financial projections this time, and not to rely on whomever did the original formula. C) The city may have to cut back on what it wants to do if it cannot afford it. There is an adage that many of us try to live by and I think it appropriate here: if you cannot afford it, don’t buy it. (For example, the grand plan of sidewalks connecting throughout Edina…..sounds very pretty. But several neighborhoods including mine have nixed that idea as we were never asked about it, don’t want to shovel the sidewalks, maybe think the city is again dreaming too big if they cannot even get through this needed street reconstruction without getting into dire financial difficulty). I shutter to think about what our taxes will be if these beautifying ideas come before the needed street concerns. And again: who did the calculations for the sidewalk vision? Will that also be something that the city begs from its taxpayers as the expense is seen to have been miscalculated? And lastly, I would advise to just say plainly: we are in over our heads. Please do not attach the word equitable to the three options cited. There is always, I think, loss of credibility when people don’t present the truth. Most of us can see this is not equitable. I would advise stopping (which you have) without continuing until you can arrive at something significantly more equitable than what has been presented thus far in these three options. Sincerely,
J
Appendix I: Data Summary of Better Together Edina Feedback Forms
The data from the feedback forms were sorted in 3 ways – all forms, forms from residents that have not
been previously assessed for street reconstruction and forms from residents that have been previously
assessed for street reconstruction. A summary of the three data groups is provided.
• All Feedback Forms
o 100% residential properties
o 94 or 30% included in 5-yr Reconstruction Plan
o 131 or 42% in favor of faster transition
o Options equitable?
Option #1: 135 or 43% agree
Option #2: 149 or 48% agree
o Option Preference
Option #1: 183 or 58%
Option #2: 130 or 42%
• 145 forms from not previously assessed properties
o 100% residential properties
o 78 or 53.8% included in 5-yr Reconstruction Plan
o 107 or 73.8% in favor of faster transition
o Options equitable?
Option #1: 74 vs 71 (disagree vs agree)
Option #2: 32 vs 113 (disagree vs agree)
o Option Preference
Option #1: 44 or 30.3%
Option #2: 101 or 69.7%
• 168 forms from previously assessed properties
o 100% residential properties
o 16 or 9.5% included in 5-yr Reconstruction Plan
o 144 or 85.7% not in favor of faster transition
o Options equitable?
Option #1: 104 vs 64 (disagree vs agree)
Option #2: 132 vs 36 (disagree vs agree)
o Option Preference
Option #1: 139 or 82.7%
Option #2: 29 or 17.3%
K
The following graphics show the results of all the feedback forms for a few specific questions from
Better Together Edina.
Question 1: Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina?
L
Question 9: Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special
assessment and raise city taxes faster?
M
Question 14: This is not a vote, but a way to gauge general preference between the two options the
Task Force has recommended. What option would be your preference?
N
Appendix J: Tables of Financial Impacts of Other Transition Periods
In anticipation of council questions, the task force also would like to present the estimated financial
impacts of faster transition periods.
Option # 1: ESTIMATED Financial Impacts with 6-year, 11-year and 16-year Transitions.
Impact to City Tax Levy Impact to Taxes Paid by Median
Value House
% Reduction in
Special Assessments
by Year
$$$ Increase
in Levy
% Increase
in Levy
$$$ Tax Increase
to Median
Value House
(1)(3)
% Tax Increase
to Median
Value House
(1)(3)
Option # 1B --- 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 6-years
Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46%
Year 2 - 6 5.8% $284k -$330K 0.6% $11.35 0.74%
Option # 1C --- 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 11-years
Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46%
Year 2 - 11 2.9% $151K-$211K 0.3% $6.05 0.39%
Option # 1 --- 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years
Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46%
Year 2 - 16 1.9% $100k -$211K 0.2% $4.28 0.28%
O
Option # 2: ESTIMATED Financial Impacts with 6-year, 11-year and 16-year Transitions.
Impact to City Tax Levy Impact to Taxes Paid by Median
Value House
% Reduction in
Special Assessments
by Year
$$$ Increase
in Levy
% Increase
in Levy
$$$ Tax Increase
to Median
Value House
(1)(3)
% Tax Increase
to Median
Value House
(1)(3)
Option # 2B --- 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 6-years
Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46%
Year 2 - 6 15.8% $740k -$865K 1.7% $29.65 1.92%
Option # 2C --- 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 11-years
Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46%
Year 2 - 11 7.9% $381K-$530K 0.9% $15.20 0.99%
Option # 2 --- 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years
Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46%
Year 2 - 16 5.3% $260k -$510K 0.6% $10.49 0.67%
P
ESTIMATED Cumulative Tax Impacts Compared to Assessment Reductions
YEAR (s) 1 (2022) 6 (2027) 11 (2032) 16 (2037) Total
Option
#1B: 50%
City Tax
Cumulative Tax Impacts
on Median Value House
(1)
$37.90
$398
$398 (3)
Estimated Assessment
During Transition (2)
$7,890
$5,000
Option
#1C: 50%
City Tax
Cumulative Tax Impacts
on Median Value House
(1)
$37.90
$318
$750
$750 (3)
Estimated Assessment
During Transition (2)
$7,890
$6,440
$5,000
Option #1:
50% City
Tax
Cumulative Tax Impacts
on Median Value House
(1)
$37.90
$292
$652
$1,120
$1,120 (3)
Estimated Assessment
During Transition (2)
$7,890
$6,925
$5,960
$5,000
Option
#2B: 100%
City Tax
Cumulative Tax Impacts
on Median Value House
(1)
$37.90
$672
$672 (3)
Estimated Assessment
During Transition (2)
$7,890
$5,000
Option
#2C: 100%
City Tax
Cumulative Tax Impacts
on Median Value House
(1)
$37.90
$455
$1,253
$1,253 (3)
Estimated Assessment
During Transition (2)
$7,890
$6,440
$5,000
Option #2:
100% City
Tax
Cumulative Tax Impacts
on Median Value House
(1)
$37.90
$385
$994
$1,865
$1,865 (3)
Estimated Assessment
During Transition (2)
$7,890
$6,925
$5,960
$5,000
(1) Median Value Home = $551,300
(2) Started with a $10,000 Assessment.
(3) All values are estimates. Estimated impacts are tied to future market value of the city. Increases
or decreases in market value will impact the values shown in the table.
Q
Appendix K: Historical Assessments of Other Property Classes and Impacts with
Option #1
Assessment
Year
Project Property Type REU's Final Street
Assessment
Impact of Option 1:
50% Assessment
2016 15-3 Church 8.37 $49,887.54 $24,943.77
2016 15-4 Public School 10 $95,377.33 $47,688.67
2017 16-3 City Owned 5 $30,789.94 $15,394.97
2017 16-5 City Owned 20.8 $108,956.90 $54,478.45
2018 17-1 Apartment 59 $33,646.02 $16,823.01
2018 17-1 Office 13.88 $7,918.08 $3,959.04
R
Appendix L: Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ Street Funding
How is street reconstruction in Edina currently funded?
The City’s Utility Fund covers the cost of curb and gutter and other utility improvements in a
neighborhood roadway reconstruction project. Under the City’s current Special Assessment
Policy, residents are assessed the rest of the project cost, or 100% of the cost for the street
reconstruction portion of the project.
Why isn’t the value of a home considered when special assessments are levied?
The courts have been very clear that the assessment must be uniform across the same class of
properties in an assessed area.
Because single-family residences are in the same class of properties and receive the same
benefit of a new street, home valued at $300,000 and $600,000 in a project area would have the
same special assessment.
Why is a change to the City’s Special Assessment Policy being considered?
The current policy may not be financially or legally sustainable.
Recent estimates for special assessments in neighborhoods with homes of all sizes have climbed
to $32,000, a figure that is not sustainable.
Under State Statutes, the City can assess properties for public improvements, but the benefit to
property values must be equal to or greater than the assessment. As assessments climb, it may
be difficult for the City to prove the market benefit.
What are the options being considered?
The City Manager’s Street Funding Task Force is collecting feedback on two options:
Option 1 (50/50): Half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the
other half paid for with City taxes.
Option 2: All of the street reconstruction paid for with City taxes.
If the City Council approves a change, the Task Force recommends the preferred option be
phased in over a period of 16 years. The 16 years represents a transition period during which
the costs each year gradually move from the current 100 percent assessment policy to the new
option.
Due to the high cost of “subcuts” in some projects and to make assessments more equitable,
the Task Force also recommends the cost of any be removed from special assessments
beginning in Year 1 of the transition period. The cost of all subcuts would be paid for with new
City taxes.
What’s a subcut?
Currently, special assessments for street reconstruction in Edina can vary by up to 28 percent
because of the soils underneath the existing street.
Most local streets are built with 4 inches of bituminous or asphalt pavement and 8 inches
of gravel. The soils needed to support those 12 inches vary greatly by location. The material
underneath the 12 inches is called “subbase” and when it needs to be removed, it is called
“subcut.”
When the material has a lot of sand or gravel, no or little subcut is required. When the material
is wet or includes a lot of clay, a large subcut can be required.
How would the City phase in the new policy?
The cost of subcuts would be removed from special assessments in the first year. After the first
year, assessments would be reduced by a certain percentage each year. In the case of Option 1
(half taxes, half assessments), assessments would be reduced each year until it reached half the
cost of a project at Year 16. In the case of Option 2 (all taxes), assessments would be reduced
each year until it reached no assessment at Year 16.
The street by my house was recently reconstructed and I paid a special assessment. Will I be impacted by a change in the policy?
Yes. If the City Council approves Option 1 or Option 2, all taxpayers will begin paying for street
reconstruction each year.
In the first year of either option, City taxes on the median-valued home would increase by
approximately $40 for funding street reconstruction. In the remaining 15 years of the transition
of either option, City taxes on the median-valued single-family home would increase by $4-9
per year for funding street reconstruction. The current estimates based on a 16-year transition
would increase City taxes for funding street reconstruction on the median family home by
either $100 (Option 1) or $175 (Option 2) respectively. Note that higher-valued homes would
pay more in City taxes and lesser valued homes would pay less.
Can the City refund residents who have been previously assessed for street reconstruction?
No; the State Statute that allows the City to assess for public improvements is very clear on
this matter. If the special assessments were validly levied and collected, there is no way for the
City to refund previously paid special assessments. If the City made a mistake in the assessment,
finds the assessment to be excessive, or hears from the City Attorney that the assessment is or
may be invalid, the City Council may reassess affected parcels.
Under the current policy, residents may pay their special assessments up front or over the course of 15 years. What percentage of residents pay up front?
Approximately one-third of special assessments are paid off immediately and do not show up
on tax statements. Another one-third of property owners pay off their special assessment early
during the 15-year re-payment period. The remaining one-third pay it off over the entire re-
payment period.
If a change is made, could residents who are still paying off a previous special assessment be taxed differently?
Minnesota’s power of taxation is found in Article X of the Constitution of the State of
Minnesota. The article states that taxes will be uniform.
The City cannot tax properties of the same class differently based on the fact that they were
previously subject to a special assessment. All single-family residential properties must have the
same tax rate.
What happens with a special assessment that has been levied on a property when it is sold?
Typically during the sale of a home, the buyer and seller negotiate paying off the assessment into
price of the home.
What is the current interest rate for special assessments not paid in full?
The City borrows money to fund street reconstruction. The interest rate applied to unpaid
portions of the special assessments is 1 percent above the rate at which the City borrows.
Prior to 2020, that rate was typically between 3 and 4 percent.
If the 50/50 option is adopted, how would paying off the entire assessment upfront enable the property owner to take advantage of the cost shifting reductions in interest?
If Option 1 is adopted, the costs would be split 50/50 between the property owner and the
City. This split includes the respective amount of interest to fund the project. If the owner
decides to pay the entire assessment upfront (50 percent of the cost), they would not pay the
long-term interest on their portion of the cost. The City’s portion, including the interest, would
be covered by the City as officials see fit.
Approximately what percentage of single-family homes have paid for a street reconstruction project under the current Special Assessment Policy?
The City has reconstructed approximately half of the local streets. Therefore, approximately half
of the properties have paid an assessment. Approximately 4% of properties change owners per
year. If they moved into a neighborhood after street construction, some property owners within
a recently constructed street may not have paid for an assessment. We anticipate it will take
approximately 20-25 years to complete reconstruction of the remaining local streets.
Did the Task Force consider removing the subcut cost from the assessment, but otherwise leave the Special Assessment Policy as is?
The task force reviewed how this would impact assessments and the ability of the City to
continue to assess properties for public improvements. The Task Force felt just removing subcut
was not enough and that it would still be difficult to prove the market benefit required by State
Statute.
Why doesn’t the City consider the impacts of heavy trucks when it comes to funding streets?
The streets are designed to handle expected truck traffic based on current standards. Truck
traffic occurs from garbage trucks, busses, moving and delivery trucks. Many of those provide
services required and requested by residents. The design of streets would not change with small
variations in truck traffic volumes.
S
Appendix M: Table of Funding Methods for Neighboring Communities
Name Funding Method
St. Louis Park Franchise Fees
Minnetonka Franchise Fees
Hopkins Special Assessments - LESSSER of 70% or cap rate of $94.31 / LF (cap used most of
the time) and Property Taxes
Bloomington Special Assessments and Property Taxes: ~25% assessments single family / ~50%
assessments other properties classes
Minneapolis Special Assessments and Property Taxes: ~25% assessments
Eden Prairie Franchise Fees
Richfield Property taxes and/or franchise fees
T
Appendix N: Informational Flyer on Proposed 2020 City of Edina Tax Levy
Date: March 18, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.B.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Metro Transit Projects Update Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None; information only.
INTRODUCTION:
Staff will provide updates on current and proposed Metro Transit projects, including the Orange Line connecting
bus study, Southwest LRT and the E Line BRT.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report: Metro Transit Projects Update
Orange Line Connecting Bus Study Proposed Route Changes
Southwest LRT Route Map
E Line BRT Route Map
March 18, 2021
Transportation Commission
Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Metro Transit Projects Update
Information/Background
Metro Transit continues to expand its offering of transit services throughout the Twin Cities. These services
include local and express bus routes, light rail transit and bus rapid transit (bus services with the frequency
and amenities of light rail transit but that operate on existing roadways and highways.) This memo will
provide updates on three transit projects that will improve Edina’s access to fast, frequent and reliable
transit; two of these projects are currently under construction and one is in the planning stage.
Orange Line BRT
The Orange Line is a 17-mile bus rapid transit line that will serve Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington and
Burnsville along I-35W. It will replace local Route 535 with frequent (every 10-15 minutes), all-day service in
both directions seven days a week. It will also have enhanced station shelters, off-board fare payment and
will be able to utilize MnPASS express lanes on I-35W. The Orange Line is currently under construction and
service is anticipated to begin in late 2021.
Metro Transit has developed a concept plan that details proposed changes to bus routes in the area. The
goals of this plan include linking significant concentrations of residents, jobs and services with the Orange
Line; prioritizing service for communities of color, people experiencing poverty and those who rely on
transit the most; and complimenting existing service. Two scenarios are presented in the plan; Scenario A is
equivalent to resources available in Fall 2020 and Scenario B represents the significantly higher Fall 2019
resources.
The study area included 25 routes. Of those that serve portions of Edina, the following changes are
proposed:
• Route 515 would be simplified from three variations to one with no branches. Route 515B service
on Longfellow Road is proposed for elimination. The 515E branch serving VA Medical Center would
be replaced with a transfer between Route 515 and METRO Blue Line at Mall of America.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2
• Route 537 is currently suspended due to the pandemic. In Scenario B of the concept plan, service
is restored along France Avenue between Southdale, Normandale College and Valley West
Shopping Center.
• Route 538, in Scenario B, would have increased frequency in the midday. No routing changes are
proposed.
• Route 540 would be simplified into one alignment. In Richfield, service would use the new 77th
Street underpass to serve 24th Avenue South and Mall of America. Service would be eliminated on
12th Avenue South and on American Boulevard (alternative service would be provided on Routes 5
and 542).
• Route 542 is currently suspended due to the pandemic. The route would remain south of I-494 to
provide a connection with American Boulevard. Service would be extended west of East Bush Lake
Road and 78th Street to Highway 169, providing bus access to employers located west of East Bush
Lake Road. Scenario B would add midday, night and weekend service.
A public comment period was open between January 25 and February 22, 2021 which allowed transit
customers and other stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback. Due to the pandemic, most
engagement was virtual or electronic with some in-person surveys. Information about the proposed service
changes has been provided to the public in several ways, including newspaper notices; partnerships with
major employers and community-based organizations; virtual meetings, postcard mailers and shelter signage.
The concept plan will be modified based on the feedback received and the Metropolitan Council will be
asked to approve the final plan in mid-2021. Service changes are planned for implementation with the
opening of the Orange Line in late 2021.
METRO Green Line Extension (Southwest LRT)
The METRO Green Line Extension (also knowns as Southwest LRT) is a 14.5-mile light rail line that will
serve downtown Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. Six stations will be
within one mile of Edina, though the accessibility of each station from Edina varies considerably. Southwest
LRT is currently under construction and service is anticipated to begin in 2023. The connecting bus study is
expected to begin in late 2021 or early 2022, with approval by late 2022 to coincide with the beginning of
service. As noted in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, the City will work with neighboring cities to make
pedestrian and bicycle connections to Green Line stations.
E Line BRT
The E Line is proposed to operate between the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood in St. Paul and the
Southdale Transit Center in Edina. It will substantially replace parts of local Route 6 with faster, frequent
service, enhanced station shelters and off-board fare payment. Eight stations are proposed within Edina:
• Southdale Transit Center
• M Health Fairview Southdale
Hospital (West 65th Street)
• West 62nd Street and France
Avenue
• West 58th Street and France
Avenue
• West 54th Street and France
Avenue
• West 50th Street and France
Avenue
• West 47th Street and France
Avenue
• West 44th Street and France
Avenue
Each location would feature two BRT stations (one for each direction of travel). BRT stations vary in size
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 3
depending on anticipated ridership, adjacent land use and available right-of-way. Edina is represented on the
project’s Technical Advisory Committee, which is reviewing traffic and right-of-way impacts as part of
station and corridor planning. Staff is particularly interested in impacts to on-street parking availability and
the inclusion of additional safety and accessibility treatments during construction (including but not limited
to ADA-compliant pedestrian curb ramps, curb extensions, refuge medians, marked crosswalks, or rapid
rectangular flashing beacons).
In summer/fall 2021, Metro Transit will seek public input on a draft corridor plan with specific locations for
planned stations. Following public input, Metro Transit will revise the plan and seek Metropolitan Council
approval of a final corridor plan in early 2022. The construction schedule has been modified to coincide with
anticipated construction on Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis. Major construction for the E Line is
anticipated to begin in 2024 with service beginning in 2025.
Attached:
Orange Line Connecting Bus Study Proposed Route Changes
Southwest LRT Route Map
E Line BRT Route Map
METRO Orange Line Connecting Bus Study Concept Plan
January 2021
536
536
536
536
548
548 548
547 547
547
547
539
539
539 539
539
553
553
553
534
534
534
538
538
538
538
542 542
542
542
540
540
540
540
515
515
515
537
537
537
536
537
537
7
7
7 27
44 18
4 18
44
4
18
18
18
1818 11
11
11
11
21
21
46
46
46
R
e
d
L
i
n
e
Blue Line
Orange Line
Orange Line
Richfield
Bloomington
Minneapolis
Edina
Burnsville
St. Louis Park
66th St66th St
98th St98th St
AmericanAmerican
76th St76th St
46th St46th St
Lake StLake St
Heart of the CityHeart of the City
Burnsville Pkwy
Bde Maka Ska
Lake Harriet
LakeNokomis
Mississippi River Mississip
p
i
R
i
v
e
r
Minnesota R
i
v
e
r
Downtown Mpls
FortSnelling
Cedar PointCommons
FedExUPS
Minneapolis-St. PaulInternational Airport
Mall ofAmerica
NormandaleCollege
NormandaleVillage
Southdale
NormandaleLake Offices
Edina Ind Area
Golden Triangle Jobs94th St Jobs
Southtown
Valley West
SW Bloomington Jobs
BestBuy
Creekside James105th St Briar28th Ave94th St
Lake St
46th St
Ford PkwyNicollet AveLake St
28th St
Lake St
26th St3rd Ave S106th St
111th StHampshireBloomington Ferry RdFrance102nd St
H
y
l
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
n
s
Humboldt110th St 108th St LyndaleNicollet12th Ave SPortlandCedar90th St
86th St
102nd St
82nd St
106th St
American Blvd
American Blvd
Old Shakopee Rd
Auto
C
l
u
b
R
d Normandale Blvd84th St
98th St Old Shakopee Rd
77th St78th St
74th St
78th St
PennE Bush Lk
RdCahill Metro70th St Penn66th St
104th St
68th St
76th St76th St
60th St 34th AveBloomington AveChicagoCedarPortland5th AveCedar1st AveGrandNicollet Bryant50th St
42nd St
58th St 58th St
New 77th St
UnderpassMccauley TrRoute 27
536
536
536
536
548 548 548
547 547
547
547
539
539
539 539
539
553
553
553
534
534
534
538
538
538
538
542 542
542
542
540
540
540
540
515
515
515
537
537
537
536
537
537
7
7
7
27
44 18
4 18
44
4
18
18
18
1818 11
11
11
11
21
21
46
46
46
Re
d
L
i
n
e
Blue Line
Orange Line
Orange Line
Richfield
Bloomington
Minneapolis
Edina
Burnsville
St. Louis Park
66th St66th St
98th St98th St
AmericanAmerican
76th St76th St
46th St46th St
Lake StLake St
Heart of the CityHeart of the City
Burnsville Pkwy
Bde Maka Ska
Lake Harriet
LakeNokomis
Mississ
i
p
p
i
R
i
v
e
r
Mis
s
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
R
i
v
e
r
Minnesota
R
i
v
e
r
Downtown Mpls
FortSnelling
Cedar PointCommons
FedExUPS
Minneapolis-St. PaulInternational Airport
Mall ofAmerica
NormandaleCollege
NormandaleVillage
Southdale
NormandaleLake Offices
Edina Ind Area
Golden Triangle Jobs94th St Jobs
Southtown
Valley West
SW Bloomington Jobs
BestBuy
Creekside James105th St Briar28th Ave94th St
Lake St
46th St Ford PkwyNicollet AveLake St
28th St
Lake St
26th St3rd Ave S106th St
111th StHampshireBloomington Ferry RdFrance102nd St
H
y
l
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
n
s
Humboldt110th St 108th St LyndaleNicollet12th Ave SPortlandCedar90th St
86th St
102nd St
82nd St
106th St
American Blvd
American Blvd
Old Shakopee Rd
Auto
C
l
u
b
R
d Normandale Blvd84th St
98th St Old Shakopee Rd77th St78th St
74th St
78th St
PennE Bus
h Lk R
dCahill Metro70th St Penn66th St
104th St
68th St
76th St76th St
60th St 34th AveBloomington AveChicagoCedarPortland5th AveCedar1st AveGrandNicollet Bryant50th St
42nd St
58th St 58th St
New 77th St
UnderpassMccauley TrLEGEND
Local routes
Rush hour or limited service trips
Route 537 – resume if resources available
METRO Orange Line
Local routes connecting with Orange Line
Other local routes
Park & Ride
Transit Center
0 1
miles
If additional resources are available, higher frequency
service, and/or weekend improvements may be
added to routes 515, 534, 538, 540, 542, 547.
South of the Minnesota River, transit is provided
by Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA).
10-03-167442-20
METRO Orange Line Connecting Bus Study Concept Plan | 44
METRO Orange Line Connecting Bus Study Concept Plan | 48
METRO Orange Line Connecting Bus Study Concept Plan | 49
METRO Orange Line Connecting Bus Study Concept Plan | 51
METRO Orange Line Connecting Bus Study Concept Plan | 52
494
394
35W
94
100
169
62
7
55
212
Shady Oak
City West
SouthWest
Station
Eden Prairie Town Center
Downtown Hopkins
Blake Rd
Louisiana Ave
Wooddale Ave
Beltline Blvd W Lake St
W 21st St
Bryn Mawr
Target
Field
Bassett Creek Valley
Royalston Ave/
Farmers Market
Golden Triangle
Opus
HOPKINS
ST LOUIS PARK
MINNEAPOLIS
MINNETONKA
EDINA
EDEN
PRAIRIE
May 2018
0 1 2
Miles
Southwest LRT Route
Southwest LRT Station
City Boundaries
Rail Support Facility
Southwest LRT (METRO Green Line Extension)
Date: March 18, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.C.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Commission Resource Portal Concept Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Staff and Commissioners have prepared a concept for a Commission Resource Portal using the Better Together
Edina platform. The Portal would provide a comprehensive database of guiding documents, third-party web links
and other documents related to current work plan initiatives. The site would be maintained by the staff liaison and
available only to Commission members with BT E accounts.
If successful, similar sites may be built for other Boards and Commissions, as well.
See attached site concept.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Commission Resource Portal Concept
Staff liaison
contact info
2021
work plan
initiatives
Commission’s
role
Current
roster
Citywide
plans/
policies
Transportation-
related
projects/
agencies
Updates on
new
documents/
links added
to site
Regular
meetings,
joint work
sessions,
other events
Date: March 18, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.D.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:2021 Work Plan Updates Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None; Commissioners will provide updates on the status of 2021 Work Plan initiatives (unless an item is
elsewhere on the current agenda).
INTRODUCTION:
See attached work plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2021 Work Plan Progress Report
Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Commission: Transportation Commission 2021 Annual Work Plan Initiative #1 Initiative Type ☒☒☒☒ Project ☐☐☐☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒☒☒☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Organized Trash Collection Investigate the impacts of organized trash collection while considering the travel demand management objectives, environmental goals and reducing wear-and-tear on City streets. Deliverable Report for City Council Leads Jill Plumb-Smith Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison; periodic support from Recycling Coordinator and/or Organics Recycling Coordinator. Jan: VANTAGE project team prepared a charter; kick-off meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-February. Richfield is looking at switching to organized collection. Feb: Kick-off meeting with VANTAGE team is tentatively scheduled for the first week in March. Initiative #2 Initiative Type ☒☒☒☒ Project ☐☐☐☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒☒☒☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Street Funding Task Force Continue representation on 2020 Street Funding Task Force until task force is complete. Deliverable One Commissioner will actively participate in the Task Force and provide regular updates to the rest of the Commission. Leads Matt Scherer Target Completion Date Q2 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: No staff support will be necessary beyond what has been previously committed to this initiative. Jan: No update. Feb: Task Force will present final report to City Council in March. Two options are recommended; replacing 50% or 100% of assessment costs with city taxes. The Task Force also recommends that subcut and retaining wall costs no longer be assessed.
Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Initiative #3 Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☒☒☒☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒☒☒☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) CloverRide Review and comment on the CloverRide circulator bus service contract operations and marketing throughout the year as it is brought to them from the CloverRide advisory committee. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in regular meeting minutes and staff reports to City Council. Leads Mindy Ahler Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds are allocated in the Engineering Department’s operating budget to cover the service contract and related marketing. These funds are administered by staff. Staff Support Required: 1-3 hours per month by Staff Liaison; periodic support from Communications for marketing and promotional materials. Jan: Commissioners suggest reaching out to Yorktown Continental about resident outreach. The current service contract expires in June. Feb: No update. Initiative #4 Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☒☒☒☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒☒☒☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Traffic Safety Reports Review and comment on monthly Traffic Safety Reports. Deliverable Commission recommendations will be included in staff reports to City Council. Leads Kirk Johnson (Chair) Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Staff will present the 2020 summary report at the next meeting. Feb: Commission commented on the 2020 summary report.
Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Initiative #5 Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☒☒☒☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒☒☒☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Capital Improvement Projects Review and comment on roadway reconstruction projects and projects funded by the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. Commission will also review and comment on staff’s application of the equity criteria. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in staff reports to City Council. Leads Jill Plumb-Smith (Vice Chair) Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-5 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Staff will present the 2020 annual report at the next meeting. Feb: Commission commented on the 2020 PACS Fund report. Initiative #6 Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☒☒☒☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒☒☒☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Travel Impact Studies & Travel Demand Management Review and comment on traffic impact studies and Travel Demand Management plans associated with the proposed developments. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in staff reports to City Council. Leads Bocar Kane, Lori Richman, Bruce McCarthy, Kirk Johnson Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Council reviewed a sketch plan for 4917 Eden Ave, TIS is being prepared. Feb: Staff is awaiting studies for projects at 4917 Eden Ave, 4040 W 70th St and 4660 W 77th St. The project application for 6600 France Ave was withdrawn. Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Neighborhood electric vehicles, boulevard trees