Melody Lake A & B, Birchcrest C and Grandview A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Consultation has concluded

Melody Lake A & B, Birchcrest C and Grandview A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction updates will be hosted on this project page. Check back for updates!

This project, scheduled for construction in 2021, includes:

  • Complete reconstruction of the asphalt pavement,
  • Complete reconstruction of the concrete pavement with asphalt pavement,
  • Full installation or replacement of concrete curb and gutter,
  • Complete replacement of watermain and water services,
  • Improvements to the sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and
  • Construction of a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along
    • Hansen Road between West 60th Street and West 56th Street, and
    • West 56th Street between Hanson Road and Normandale Road
  • A preliminary assessment amount of $17,200 per REU (Apr 2021)
  • A revised preliminary assessment amount of $13,600 per REU (Assess Policy Revision Jul 2021)

Melody Lake A & B, Birchcrest C and Grandview A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction updates will be hosted on this project page. Check back for updates!

This project, scheduled for construction in 2021, includes:

  • Complete reconstruction of the asphalt pavement,
  • Complete reconstruction of the concrete pavement with asphalt pavement,
  • Full installation or replacement of concrete curb and gutter,
  • Complete replacement of watermain and water services,
  • Improvements to the sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and
  • Construction of a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along
    • Hansen Road between West 60th Street and West 56th Street, and
    • West 56th Street between Hanson Road and Normandale Road
  • A preliminary assessment amount of $17,200 per REU (Apr 2021)
  • A revised preliminary assessment amount of $13,600 per REU (Assess Policy Revision Jul 2021)

Public Hearing Comments

All comments are reviewed by the governing body to gain insight into community perspective and values. This information in addition to other factors like legal requirements, infrastructure needs, long-term strategy, cost, etc help inform the decision. The feedback collected is not considered a "vote". 

Everyone has the right to share their opinions and comments on the related project. While individuals may have varying opinions, respect each person's experience and insight.

Comments are considered part of the public record. When making a comment:

  1. provide your full name
  2. let us know your relation to the project (i.e. physical address, neighborhood, visit the area often, etc)
  3. respect the views of other participants even if they don't agree with you

If you have questions, please use the Q & A tool.

Consultation has concluded
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

As crews were removing the concrete street yesterday, there was a temporary loss of access to/from driveway. We noticed it coming and moved a car out before it was a problem. That would have been something for which I would have expected notice.

TomLaForce over 2 years ago

Geoff Kleinman - 5916 Bernard Place

What a rude awakening this morning?? I am blown away that the City Council approved this project LAST NIGHT and not 12 hours later they are digging up my yard, driveway, and street. Yes, you all exempted yourselves from communication with all the disclaimers about following the website, and stating that construction "could start at any time". Seriously though. Your residents deserve a touch more notice don't you think???

geoffreykleinman over 2 years ago

Keith Curtin - 5525 Code Ave Edina, MN

Resident of Melody Lake neighborhood and live on 56th Street. I find the majority residents are against this sidewalk proposal. The sidewalks are unwanted and unneeded on our narrow streets. I would request the city listen to the residents on this issue.

I have not talked to not a single person that lives in the neighborhood and wants this sidewalk to be added. There are concerns with the assessment to add these sidewalks and also having to maintain the sidewalks.

Please listen to the people who live on this street and walk it every day and vote NO on the sidewalk proposal

Curtis Allen almost 3 years ago

I was born and raised in Edina since 1976. I say NO to adding sidewalk in the Melody Lake neighborhood. Currently there is no issue and when you add sidewalks you are creating a cost to maintain the sidewalk (to either homeowner or city) and the sidewalk is not wanted or needed.

Curtis Allen almost 3 years ago

As a family that walks 56th Street and the other roads in the neighborhood 2-3x/day, we are opposed to the sidewalk with a narrow road. The city does an excellent job of removing snow now and the roads are safe to walk on year-round. There is a low chance that all homeowners will be able to remove snow and keep the sidewalk free of ice and snow and people will then be walking on narrow streets which are less safe. Keep the street as it is now so we can have safe walking throughout the year.

Jon Engman almost 3 years ago

The portion of roadway that is adjacent to the railroad on 56th Street and Hansen Blvd is the reason for my comment. I've been told that the city cannot assess the railroad for their portion because the railroad doesn't receive any benefit from the roadway. I've also been told that since the city can't purchase that property and sell it that they also won't pay for that portion of the assessment. So it's the responsibility of the other homeowners to pay for it. The problem is that we also can't buy the property and sell it so I don't think we should have to pay for that portion. The city should have a policy that treats railroad property the same way it treats public property and assess that to the city/general population rather than individual homeowners in the area. The difference for each homeowner would be a few hundred dollars I believe. That still leaves us with an exorbitant amount, but may help some.

Jon Engman almost 3 years ago

Dear Engineering Department / City Council:

I live at 5716 Bernard Pl. I have some questions re the project. I’m not familiar with what type of comment needs to be submitted before today’s noon cut off so I submit my thoughts to date here. If I think of more later you all can decide if I’m too late.

I realize what the Living Streets study recommends sidewalks at several locations around town but shouldn’t the reason for sidewalks or stripped areas on the road for walking should be focused predominately around safety?

We want to be good stewards of the money available in the sidewalk fund. Just because this money exists and spending $’s from the fund will not generate as much push back from residents it is still the money that was paid by citizens in taxes. Please focus on a more fundamental role of government.

If you all feel something for pedestrians couldn’t we skip the sidewalk and have a bike/walking lane labeled on the street - something like this exists on Benton Ave. Of course incorporating lessons learned by bike lanes added on Wooddale that took from traffic lane and that were then removed.

Parking along Hansen at Yancey Park:
Parking, Drop off and collection along Hansen Rd during sports events.
Do we want to address this issue in this project? During sports events cars will park along Hansen near the railroad tracks. I’m not sure why this is done - maybe to be able to get away quicker after the game - but what ever the reason this is a common occurrence and it does effect traffic. Maybe some kind of a solution as was done at Countryside School along Tracy would be practical?

Hansen Rd:
Am I correct that at one time Hansen Rd was managed / owned by Hennepin County and that it sections of it was built for commercial traffic. If this is so, wouldn’t we want to retain as much of the commercial sub grade that is still in good condition?

Engineering Report discusses that all roads will have a minimum of 8 inches of sub grade replaced. Is it possible that some sections of road might not need all of this replaced? There will be a lot of Proctor tests taken?

Recourse / Warranty:

The fact that Braun was retained and that poor soil conditions will be addressed is very comforting. However, If after the project is done road is not flat oolong its length (I believe the word is undulating) will we have recourse?

Do we have a program in which condition of new streets are monitored so if this happens that it can be addressed straight away?

An example of this condition can be seen on 56th St from Hwy 100 frontage road to Code.

Not just flatness of road but another example would be: Speaking with residents where other projects were done folks were not impressed with the work of seeding contractor.

Schedule / prompt completion and coordination:

Please learn from your experience with previous road projects? What have been the issues that have caused problems or delay’s in previous projects? Have you all found that including some kind of carrot or stick in the contract encourages more complete attention and more prompt completion?

Utility organizations seem to be notorious for causing delays and poor coordination with other parts of a project. What have you all found to be the best things to set up at the front end to reduce coordination problems like this during the project?

56th Ave between Dale and Hanson
Looking at the area last night afresh it sure looks like given maybe a little give and take with residents and railroad that there is room to wind a street through there that is a little wider than 20 ft. Especially when you all are considering adding sidewalk. I’ve grown up here and this area has always been tight and precarious.

I realize this near the railroad right of way but this certainly seems a good opportunity to clean up the North side of the roadway. Remove some of the brush and weeds and end up with a nicer street.

Other thoughts that came to mind listening to the meeting on Monday night are:

Porous side walks / pavement: Solid to walk on yet water is absorbed though it.

Fabric Membranes as part of Road Foundation: This type of thing used maybe with poor sub grade or barrier so cracks in pavement don’t migrate down into sub-grade.

Grinding up existing pavement to use in sub grade - is this saving up money or are we just trying to be green?

Attention to approving line of site as in case of intersections with Benton is a very good idea.

Shared Path and Facility? As discussed associated with Benton Ave. Please clarity I don’t know what this is and I sense that others are not clear as well. Sidewalk Facility - seems an odd term. Maybe include a legend in future reports?

Respectfully Submitted
David W Clynes, P. E.
5716 Barnard Pl, Edina

dwclynes almost 3 years ago

In regard to installing a sidewalk on W 56th, we feel a sidewalk is totally unnecessary; it would basically be a sidewalk to nowhere. The money would be much better spent on completing the Benton Ave sidewalk even before the Benton Avenue rebuild. We don't walk along Benton Ave because of the traffic, where we walk along W 56th all the time because of the lack of traffic.

swjepsen almost 3 years ago

Greg and Susan Keane, 5105 West 56th Street. PLEASE listen to our collective inputs, think it through. We are part of the No sidewalk petition. We agree with comments below on no value to a sidewalk...The tone of the Council's Dec 7 sidewalk discussion felt dismissive. The City and staff are clearly wedded to a theoretical Plan--despite input from residents most impacted by it. Few if any people outside our neighborhood will walk across Benton/highway bridges/Vernon to cut down the 100 Frontage Road to seek out this new sidewalk on West 56 so they can cut through to where? Yancey Park? Hansen Road? Think about it. It's ridiculous!...Related, the City clearly has a cost problem with the $24K assessment estimates; eliminating a sidewalk on W 56 saves money and would show good faith. A simple lane-striping option is a win-win--it saves money AND aligns with the City's plan, it supports connectivity...Any connectivity that exists is a result of a wide street on W 56 and already-existing walking and biking patterns--on both sides of the street. To achieve connectivity for all abled and differently-abled residents, the City needs to build sidewalks everywhere on both sides, not just on W 56. The lane-striping idea would be a net add......Also, a council member at the close of the meeting said residents were saying W 56 went "nowhere". That word doesn't reflect our petition or talking points. In 2012, City Council voted unanimously that a sidewalk wasn't necessary on W 56 because we do not easily/directly connect to schools, churches, shopping areas. No residents voted by way of questionnaire (as suggested by staff)--City Council made the decision. We have been through this process. Nothing has changed. Benton was considered and is the obvious connectivity choice--please focus first on improving that busy throughway asap.

We don't see the greater good of a sidewalk on W 56. What's very clear and tangible is we clearly don't want it--30 separate households in the petition say No. The known pieces are a sidewalk will cost more, will disrupt another full summer for those on the east stretch of W 56, and will take a third of many of our front yards (yes we know it's the City's right away but we are the City, aren't we? and it was our yard when bought our home!). The unknown piece is whether a lone sidewalk will magically draw people over to W 56 and add to the greater good beyond the pain we're incurring. We say No, please, don't simply align with a Plan, apply your judgement and vote No a sidewalk on W 56. It's important to us. We went through this in 2012.

Thank you.

Greg K almost 3 years ago

Aleksey Derevyanko - 5113 W58th St - affected by the Melody Lake A & B, Birchcrest C and Grandview A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction.

I am writing my comment to completely oppose the mind blowing proposed assessment amount of $24,000. I don't understand how this number can even be considered and find the recommendation comments made by the city staff quite disrespectful calling the project "feasible” and “cost effective”. There is nothing cost effective or feasible about this project when you are the one writing the check. Don’t get me wrong; I understand that city infrastructure is important and therefore we are already paying some of the highest property taxes in the state due to the higher value of homes. I’ve owned dozens of properties throughout Twin Cities and I’ve never seen assessments over 11K - which was for a major road reconstruction project in a comparable neighborhood of Wayzata school district part of Plymouth (Starting in 2021 also by the way).

I also believe the project scope/numbers needs to be reviewed. Even with the proposed solution of paying for soil corrections/curbs by a general fund, the number of assessment will come down to only $17,000. This is divided among 300 properties. This high number is more suitable for neighborhoods with less homes and made up of acreage lots with million dollar properties on them.

There are numerous questions of lesser importance that surround the project as well, but should be addressed and possibly help with bringing down the costs. . 1)The so called “Benefit Estimate” that is right at the values that the city staff needs (For both of the projects in question by the way). Very strange and unnecessary. You are not selling to an investment fund or CEOs –this is family neighborhoods and real families you are dealing with. 2) I think the Yencey Park being assessed at 8 REUs only when it’s the same size of a block consisting of 24-30 homes is disheartening and could help with the costs if properly adjusted. 3) The rail road entity not contributing anything to the cost is wrong. No matter the frequency, they still pass through and the vibrations can cause potential deterioration of the roads over the years. I am sure there are extra costs associated to properly work around the railroad crossing also (specialty aprons etc).

After watching the Council Meeting on December 7th, it was very encouraging to see that the Mayor and the Council Members recognize the burden this record setting assessment number would put on the families living in our moderate neighborhood. I count on the City Council to continue representing the people’s interests and making the right decision of finding alternative financing routes if the proposed scope of project is absolutely necessary. Thank you Mr Mayor and Members of the City Council.

Aleksey Derevyanko almost 3 years ago

Tom & Judy Forker
5109 West 56th Street
• We would like to provide some additional comments based on the comments by the Council members following the meeting on Monday night
• First, the graphic used by a Member and the Engineering Department to argue in support of the need for a sidewalk on West 56th Street; second, the so-called Option 3 on the plan.
• The graphic contained four destination points that allegedly show destinations within the neighborhood that require a sidewalk. We believe this graphic is misleading.
o First, there is no mention of the #1 requirement for a sidewalk on the Safe Streets Plan – safety – that’s because there is none
o It’s safe and easily walkable now.
o The first destination point on the graph is Southview Middle School
o We believe the neighborhood middle school remains Valley View not Southview so that’s not an actual destination point to support the sidewalk
o Also, the City agreed that West 56th is not a school access street when discussing the driveway issue at Ruth Ann Metzger’s house at 5600 Dale.
o During that discussion, the City engineer stated that West 56th Street is not designated a school access street so the City will not be responsible for clearing snow from this sidewalk.
o If it’s not a school access street, it’s disingenuous to cite Southview MS as a destination point requiring a sidewalk.
o You can’t have it both ways.
o Second, the City cites Melody Lake Park as a destination point
o Melody Lake Park is a beautiful park just south of West 56th Street consisting of about ¼ acre of land and a single park bench – no other facilities
o We truly appreciate the fact the City is restoring the shoreline at this park but this small lot with a single park bench can hardly be considered one of four destination points requiring a quarter mile long sidewalk.
o Third is Yancey Park.
o Yes, Yancey Park is located on Hansen at the end of West 56th Street. However, this park is already surrounded by sidewalks to the east and north of the park and a bike path on Vernon. Also, the sidewalk on Hansen is being extended to Benton.
o Those are the connectivity points for Yancey
o People will not, and currently do not, go out of their way to walk down West 56th Street to get to Yancey
o They could now, and they don’t.
o Finally, the inclusion of Highlands Park as a reason for the West 56th Street sidewalk is a complete overreach on the City’s part.
o There is no safe crossing on Vernon to make a crossing near West 56th Street.
o Also, Highlands Park is not right across Vernon, it is quite a distance from Vernon and most of those streets in Highlands have no sidewalk leading to Highlands Park
o In fact, there are no sidewalks around the park itself, which is a very large park.
o Arguing that a sidewalk is needed on West 56th so people can dangerously cross Vernon to walk a long distance on streets without sidewalks to get to a park without sidewalks is totally arbitrary and unsupportable as a reason for the West 56th Street sidewalk.
• Lastly, we would like to comment on the City’s inclusion of an Option 3 on the sidewalk plan.
o During the City’s comments regarding Option 3, they stated that Option 3 is not really an option at all, and they would never recommend it for this project
o The comment was that the City has done no research or gathered any data or statistics to determine the safety of such a proposal as compared to a sidewalk
o It seems to us that that’s not an option at all – so why include it?
o It’s seems to be included to support the argument that a sidewalk is the better option than a designated shared path in the roadway
o Either do the research and decide on whether it’s a viable option or remove it.
o To include it as an option, the City engineers would never recommend, is not an option at all. It is also misleading and creates false hope as a true and valid alternative to a sidewalk.
• Thank you, and we ask that you please think long and hard before voting on this sidewalk proposal, the result of which will negatively impact this neighborhood forever.
• It’s currently a safe, modest, walkable neighborhood – a sidewalk simply isn’t needed.
Tom and Judy Forker

Tom Forker almost 3 years ago

Judith Hawley
5013 W. 56th St
I spoke at last night’s meeting on the subject of a sidewalk on 56th St from Code to Normandale Rd. I was involved in the petition against a sidewalk which is before the Council.
After I spoke, several city staff as well as the Mayor and several council members incorrectly paraphrased a number of my comments. As it was late in the evening and others had spoken I assume this was unintentional.

1. I know the city has a 15 ‘ right of way into my property and am not questioning the legality of the city’s right to take the land for a sidewalk. However, it remains my home, my front yard, my privacy, my security and my responsibility to maintain. As such, I consider all of it my property.

2. The major correction is the statements made by staff that I did not support a shared path. I am one of the circulators of the petition and the petition clearly states the signers endorse and would welcome a shared path. In my remarks I did reference Benton as a future project where the plan calls for a shared path and no sidewalks. Benton is the direct connector from East Edina to West Edina. It connects Southview, Concord, Normandale and the Edina community center/football field and basketball court with Countryside School. It is a very busy street unlike 56th St. Using the connectivity logic on which the 56th St sidewalk is based one would think that Benton would also get sidewalks.

3. I listened carefully to the discussion about a shared path option and noted that staff provided scant if any reasons for deeming the option unworkable. It has not been studied in any way. One staffer opined that residents with low vision and/or disabilities would have difficulties navigating a shared path. As a 71 year old woman I totally endorse city efforts to make spaces open for us. However, using your connectivity rationale, persons with low vision would only get to 56th St from East Edina if they were able to use the highway bridges over 6 lanes of traffic or come across on Vernon, Eden Ave or Benton. Those who live here expect few visitors from the neighborhoods of east Edina.

4. Finally, this sidewalk will present maintenance for the properties abutting the sidewalk. City staff selected the wrong side of the street. As we face north removing snow and ice from our driveways, porches and roofs is a constant problem. We watch the driveways, porches and roofs of our across the street neighbors melt quickly while we suffer a melt/refreeze, ice cycle for months. So, we can anticipate much time and effort and possibly money to try to keep this sidewalk safe for winter walkers.
I have lived in my home for 22 years and want to stay aging in my home for as long as possible. Removing ice and snow from a sidewalk adds an unnecessary burden when other options are available and are less expensive.
Please carefully consider these and other comments before voting on this issue. It is our neighborhood and we love it just the way it is.

Judith Hawley

Judith Hawley almost 3 years ago

Janet Knox - resident living at 5621 Code Ave - affected by the Melody Lake A & B, Birchcrest C and Grandview A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction. I agree with Chris Gorney’s comment that Edina’s funding of roadway improvements through special assessments should be “put to bed”. I am looking forward to the task force’s recommendation about future funding of these types of projects and hope they see the wisdom of sharing those costs across the entire community. Assessing residents based on REU’s that treat every residence on a street equally, is unfair and counterproductive to creating neighborhoods that are diverse and affordable. On our block there are houses of all shapes and sizes with market values that vary between $400K to over a million. We like that about our neighborhood. After many years of being a “gray-hair” neighborhood, we finally have some young families moving in. It is unreasonable to expect that everyone on our block has the same ability to pay an assessment of $24,000. And it is really unreasonable to think that everyone will benefit the same. The market value of a house is only useful as a measure of benefit when you sell - or to assess property taxes - which benefits the city and not the resident. As far as the Melody Lake reconstruction project goes I am glad you are considering waiting to decide on the assessment until after the task force finishes their work.

JLKnox almost 3 years ago

David Preis, 5816 Hansen Rd. I called into last night’s council meeting and I’d like to follow up on comments that I made.

I was very glad to hear so many council members and the mayor himself express that they would like to not impose the burden of a $24k assessment on our neighborhood. Even an average assessment would be a hardship for many households in our neighborhood.

I was very encouraged to hear the idea of creating a fund to cover extra costs when they arise, e.g. challenging soil quality. I think a comparison was made to the fund for gutters, which sounds like is paid via property taxes or such. That would be a method to get to where I heard the council speak of: more equitable assessments across neighborhoods.
One way to approach this with an average. Since recent assessments have been in the $5k to $13k range, the process would be more equitable if any costs above $10k would be paid for via a “Roadway Assessment Overage Fund” that is paid for essentially by all residents of the city, e.g. property taxes.

One reason I’m commenting here is because there was discussion about lower bids bringing down the cost. It is good that the Dept of Engineering is looking into that, but even if that reduces the assessment from $24k to $20k, that is still way more than the average. I mentioned last night that I heard that the assessment of the work further down Hansen was just $12k. It isn’t equitable for us further up Hansen to pay so much more.

At the end of the day, as all the presentations state, these special assessments are “assigned to benefitting properties of public improvements”. We all know that the quality of Hansen Rd benefits the whole citizenry, not just our residents. There are citizens driving on Hansen to H100, to Jerry’s, to Normandale Lutheran. So the overage needs to be assigned to all the benefitting properties, not just the residents of our neighborhood. As others have stated, the use of special assessments has its flaws in equitability, but if they are to be used, please use a “Roadway Assessment Overage Fund” when necessary.

Thank you to the city for giving us this forum for input, and to the council for taking this matter seriously! Our neighborhood appreciates it!

David Preis almost 3 years ago

Chris Gorney – 5812 Eastview Dr. – I have lived in many cities across the country and have never heard of street repair paid for by residents via special assessment until now. This model is unfair as we are witnessing here. Everyone has equal rights to every road within the city—they are all of ours and we should share the costs across the town. Our neighborhood is one of the more modest in the entire City of Edina yet suddenly we are staring down the largest street assessment in history because of our dirt. Makes no sense.
In addition, your use of so-called increased valuation as a means to justify the cost is suspect as the high end conveniently falls within range of the estimate. What’s another few thousand dollars to the hard working folks of this neighborhood, right? And then in a couple of years when the county decides to align with those valuations, the City gets to put their hand in the pockets for a second time with a tax increase, no? It’s a win, win, win for the City and a win, lose, lose for its residents. Not to mention this is all happening during unprecedented times with the pandemic, flustering economy and unstable job market. The burden of this project is going to be real heavy for many people.
Lastly, regardless of the final decision, might it be possible to offer interest-free payments to those who cannot afford to payout the entire balance instead of another stick in the eye?
I don’t know when the City originally decided to pretend their taxes were lower by creating this path of special assessments but it’s time to put that to bed. Maybe this current council can be the welcomed agents of change. As tough as it’d be, I’m willing to wait another year for construction if that’s what it takes.
Thank you.

Cgorney almost 3 years ago

Jana Hoffmann, 5217 W. 56th Street
RE: Melody Lake A & B, Birchcrest C and Grandview A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction.
I listened to the full meeting last night and I would like to acknowledge that the council did speak up in regards to the excessive and grossly high assessment that is currently proposed to residents for this project. I 100% agree with the comments called in by residents in the neighborhood that expressed their concerns with the cost, as well as the strong preference to not have a sidewalk added on W 56th Street. I ask that you fully listen to the feedback the residents are sending. Thank you,

jh almost 3 years ago

I am really not for the idea of having the streets less wide. But if it is to be so I think measures need to be taken to help it work better. The figure on Page 13 C of the 2021 neighborhood roadway reconstruction package seems to indicate parking on just one side of the street for all options. Will streets like Bernard Pl be signed to limit parking to one side of the street?

The Nov. 19 Transportaion Commission notes state: “The proposed 27 foot street width only provides one travel lane if vehicles are parked on both sides; this is not in the benefit of safety.”

This seems to be a conflict to me.

Respectfully submitted
David Clynes, P. E.
5716 Bernard Pl

dwclynes almost 3 years ago

Dear City Council,

We have been presented with an updated project for road and utility repairs in or our area. The mailed notice of Nov. 20th reminded me and lead me to extensive project documentation available on the web site. Thank you.

The new estimate seems much higher than the first proposal shared with us - I believe 2 years ago. I understand that a significant part of the increase is addressing the poor soil quality encountered in the southern section of the new project area. The Nov 30th posting on also mentions that this cost includes a 15% contingency but wasn’t this contingency included in the first estimate? I realize that the actual cost will not be known until after the project is complete and contractor has submitted their final bill.

The Nagell Appraisal report dated Nov. 3rd. was quite helpful. I see their statement on Page 5: "Given the scope of the project, the age/quality/condition of houses and buildings, properties in the area with newer street improvements could see an average price benefit of: Single-Family Residential $15,000 to $25,000 per buildable lot."

I also notice their comment: "Higher value buildings/homes or larger lots are on the upper end of the range.” My home is not a “Higher Value” or a “larger lot” so per Nagell’s professional opinion, non high value homes on regular lots like mine will not be able to recoup the costs of a special assessment in the range of $24,200.

I am encouraged to learn of that the Street Funding Task Force exists and has been meeting. To clarify, it is my understanding that experience is showing that, in addition to not being palatable to the typical home owners, that the full amount of the special assessment for roadway replacement is not being fully recouped in an increase in the property value of a typical house. I understand that this Task Force will provide recommendations for street reconstruction funding and recommend a transition plan from current methods.

I think that sharing any information that you can re the progress of this committee’s efforts and a range of the expected date they might present their recommendation to council would be helpful to those of us being faced with this increased assessment.

Respectfully Submitted,

David Clynes, P. E.
5716 Bernard Pl, Edina

dwclynes almost 3 years ago

O. C. "Joe" Hognander, Homeowner 5729 Hansen Road. I think we can all agree that this is an exceptional and unsettled time in our history that could not have been predicted even 10 months ago. A $24,200 assessment for improvements in this neighborhood in less than a year seems excessive and merits further review with an eye toward reducing the scope/cost. Deferring decision on this matter until after further study/consideration is prudent.

Joeisme almost 3 years ago

Renae DeBates
Homeowner - 5712 Bernard Pl

I attended the neighborhood meeting on 8/12/19. At that time our estimated assessment was $13,000 - $19,000. Now the estimated assessment has ALMOST DOUBLED from the low end and is 25% higher than the high end. How can that increase have occurred in one year? Have the # of units changed or is it the total cost? And either way - why? In looking at the historical assessment history - all estimates fell between $3K and $14K except White Oaks. Need to understand this huge variance.

Renae DeBates about 3 years ago