The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPH January 8, 1976 CITY 01 ANDOVER PUBLIC HEARING - JANUARY 8, 1976 MINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Hearing on the proposed construction of a sanitary sewer collection system to serve the Northwoods Addition, Green Acres Addition, and Red Oaks Manor Area; and the construction of a storm sewer collection system and bituminous streets in the Northwoods and Green Acres Additions, was called to order by Mayor Richard J. Schneider on January 8, 1976, 7:30 P. M. at the Meadowcreek Baptist Church, 2937 Bunker Lake Boulevard, in the City of Andover, Minnesota, Anoka County. Councilpersons present: Holasek, Rither, VanderLaan, Windschitl Coun::i1persons absent : None Also present: City Engineer, D. R. Kasma; City Attorney, W. G. Hawkins; City Fiscal Consultant, K. D. Forness; City Administrator, N.J. Werner, and City Clerk, P.K. Lindquist. Also, approximately 150 residents. Mayor Schneider introduced the City Council and Staff; and read the Notice of Public Hearing. The hearing was then turned over to the City Engineer, D.R. Ka sma. Mr. Kasma reviewed the informational letter sent previously to all the affected residents, and explained briefly the progress to-date on the 75-1 Sanitary Sewer Improvement in the Crooked Lake Area. It was noted that the City Council had decided not to consider the question of public water this year; and therefore, the State Law (passed in November, 1974) requiring that there must be a 20 foot separation between the sanitary sewer lines and the existing private well would mean that somle residents will have to come out the side or back of their house with the sewerl, thus causing a certain amount of additional expense and inconvenience. Mr. Kasma stated that if public water were installed, the lines could be side by side. He further informed the residents that he was not aware of any wells needing redriUing in the area of the present project to meet these requirements; and stated that the enginelering staff would work with the people in placing the sewer stubs at a location to c~use the least amount of expense to the resident. Maps were diS1played showing the results of the petitions recieved to-date. Results of these petitions indicated the following: Green Acrels - 87 buildable lots Red Oaks 1st Addn. - 20 buildable lots Sanitary Sewer 37 for, 11 opposed Sanitary Sewer 11 for, 4 opposed I 22 " o opposed Red Oaks 2nd Addn. - 16 buildable lots Storm Sewer Bituminous Stre ets 30 " o opposed Sanitary Sewer 11 for, 3 oppos ed Red Oaks 3rd Addn. - 26 buildable lots Northwoods Addition - 109 buildable lots Sanitary Sewer 6 for, 13 opposed Sanitary Sewer 43 for, 20 opposed Red Oaks 4th Addn. - 118 buildable lots I Sanitary Sewer 19 for, 31 opposed Public Hearing - January 8, 1976 Minutes - Page 2 Mr. Kasma outlined thoroughly the various methods of financing, as well as the actual cost estimate to each homeowner if the project starts on schedule with conventional monies as opposed to delaying the project in order to secure F.H.A. monies at a lower interest rate, (see attached "Exhibit A", Springsted, Inc., 1/8/76). The hearing was'then opened to the residents for testimony. (Staff responses are shown in parentheses, following each citizen's comments. ) Alfred Fulton - 2643 - 139th Lane N. W. Asked why the street costs were different in Northwood than the estimates shown for the Green Acres Addition; and if it is contemplated that water is coming in within the next ten years, would it be cheaper to lay the pipe now. (D.R. Kasma - The reason for the higher cost in the Northwoods Addition is because of the increased number of corner lots-actually, we are taking the front footage only, therefore, the added costs have to be spread into the front footage to cover this. Yes, the pipes could be placed now, however, with the proposed 60' right-of-way and a 32' roadway, we would be able to install the water pipes without disturbing the blacktop; in January, 1975. the Council looked to the people for guidance and took samples of the wells-most of the shallow wells were in the Crooked Lake Area, but the majority of the people with the shallow wells that showed contamination stated that they would rather put in a new deep well than go with public water-the Council may never want to put water in this area.) James Harvell - 2644 _ 144th Lane N. W. Asked why Andover is trying to borrow all the money and not use Federal Funding; and why doesn't the City pay the Engineer's bill out of the General Fund even if the project is ordered. Also asked if the estimated $16.00 per front foot charge ÚCH sanitary sewer was for residents on both sides of the streets; and do vacant lots pay for any of the trunk sewer charges. Noted that the map indicated that he had had a septic system failure, which he had not. Requested a cost figure' as an alternate for repairing or replacing a septic system; and , asked where the estimated 31,000 people were going to live in the Urban District. I Stated that he was opposed to sanitary sewer in the Northwoods Addition. , ! (D. R. Kasma _ We- are looking to Federal Funding for both a grant and a loan. Insofar as th~ grant, there are many qualifications which Andover cannot meet, such as low income benefit, unrealistic improvement costs, etc. - we should have an ansvJer back by March 15 from the Housing and Urban Development people. The: money that is allocated for additional fees in the project is not , just for engineering-it includes legal and administrative costs as well; these costs take care of everything but putting the pipe in the ground. The City wauld have a difficult time assessing you for preliminary costs if you received no benefit, however, this could be done, but is not practical-the City has adopted a policy of "pay as you go" and you pay only for what you receive in your area. Public Hearing - January 8, 1976 Minutes - Page 3 (D. R. Kasma - continued) The trunk sewer is the large pipe that other sewers connect into. This trunk is 36" on Crooked Lake Boulevard to Bunker Lake Boulevard to allow for the 31,000 people that will ultimately be using this system-you do not need a 36" pipe on your streets-you will pay for an 8" pipe and just a small portion of the costs for the oversizing (36" pipe). There are 924 homes in the urban area now, and each house pays $1,000 to help cover costs of the trunk. We are figuring 10 persons per acre in the urban district-we must plan for the ultimate, that is, the projections for the next 25 years. The costs of repairing , or replacing a private system depend on many factors; this could vary from $200 to $2000, and it must be kept in mind that you may not have the room on your lots to replace a system. The arrows on the handout show the route of the sewer, and yes, some areas could be deleted.) R. E. McClure - 2130 - 138th Avenue N. W. Asked why all the lots in each area were not marked as to their feelings on the improvements; and noted that it would not be accurate unless all owner opinions were recorded. Also asked if soil tests had been made in the area. (D.R. Kasma _ The petitions were presented to the City Council as shown_ the Council did not request them or do any surveys of their own. No soil testing has been done: extensive work and cost expenditures are not usually made until a :project has been ordered. There have been serious problems with the duplexes in Red Oaks Addition and those owners do want sewer, however, it is not feasible to go through public hearings etc. for just a , very small project, therefore, we generally increase the tótal proposed project area in order to get the feelings of everyone- projects or parts of projects can be deleted, but cannot be added without another public hearing. ) (Coundlpersbn Holasek - We did not solicit this improvement - the petitions were circula~ed by the residents.) I Kim Mahrer - 2949 _142nd Avenue N. W. Asked for the type of construction proposed for Green Acres Addition storm , I, sewer Improvement. (D.R. Kasma 1- Open ditches and some closed system; ditches would be left I through Menkveld's property and filled in the other area. ) I I Jerome Elfert - 2039 - 139th Lane N. W. Asked, with reference to the law covering weIr/ sewer separ .ation, how many residents had to expend additional money for re-routing, etc. Also inquired as to whether or not another 100/, increase in project costs per year could be expected for 'each year that the project is delayed; and who covers the charges I on vacant lots. Also asked who would be locating the stub placement; and how the Council would make their decision. Inquired as to whether the residents could expect to recover the costs in increased valuation of their property. Stated that he was in favor of sanitary sewer in Red Oaks Fourth Addition. Public Hearing - January 8, 1976 , Minutes - Page 4 (D.R. Kasma _ No wells had to be re-drilled-some inconvenience was created by having to go around houses. We have looked at the past building permit records, and are estimating how many homes will have to be built each year to pay the trunk charges. Many people will prepay their assessments-that money goes into a fund and helps payoff the bonds each year. The prices will go up approximately 10% each year as evidenced by reports through the years of 1965-1975. You locate your own stub with our help. Valuations usually do increase with sanitary sewer. (Mayor Schneider _ My feelings have always been that if the majority do not want an improvement, I will go with them; and if the majority do want it, I'll go with them. It is the democratic way, and going by the petitions, it would be no for Red Oaks Third and Fourth-the only way I would go against the majority is if there were a health hazard.) (Councilperson Rither - It is difficult to sit up here and assess what direction the community should take. I would like to refer back to my statements on January ,23,~,1975 and February 10, 1975, the Public Hearings for this very same area; and in which I noted when voting on sanitary sewer and water for the Red Oaks area - the City Council could be problem oriented or solution oriented. My statements were: I. The City Council could wait until the situation gets so bad that we have to do something. 2. The City Council can sit back and analyze what is there and try to head off a problem. 3. The City Council can consider the entire scope of the program-the system that we are addressing here as it relates to a whole, i. e., 36" pipe, the Pig¡¡ Eye Treatment Plant, etc. 4. The City Council can consider the benefit to the property owner- the enhancing of property value. 5. In looÍdng at the entire system, again, we must look at costs, ca pac itie 5, and feasibility. 6. The City Council must consider the petitions and opinions of the public. 7. Finally, we must consider the financial impact now, but if we wait, the co'sts will increase 100/, per year. (COUnCilPersJn VanderLaan _ I wish to review, also, my notes from the January 23, 1975 and February 10, 1975; and answer the question asked by a gentlemen ~t this meeting, "is it only the petitions that determine the Council's decision". We must also address these items: I. Numbe'r of sewer failures 2. Polluti\:'n of Crooked Lake and Coon Creek 3. Commènts from the individuals at the Public Hearing 4. Future: of Andover in relation to commercial and industrial development 5. Preservation of the wetlands 6. Concern for the preservation of ground water 7. Inflated costs 8. Health Public Hearing _ January 8, 1976 , Minutes - Page 5 Councilperson VanderLaan (continued) 9. How much pollution are we willing to accept. We must also consider the comments from this public hearC,ng. I have heard that the FHA and Veterans'Administration are turning down home loans because of lack of sanitary sewer. Another concern that I had at the first public hearing in 1975 was that our City had never handled a sewer project before_now I am pleased, and wish to extend my gratitude to our engineer and our City Clerk and Building Official who have worked with him in doing an excellent job with the project in the Crooked Lake Area.) (Councilperson Windschitl - Unles s I am faced with a health problem, I would go with what the majority wants. I believe that everyone know my voting record. It is very unfortunate that we do not have complete data from Red Oaks 3rd and 4th Additions - it would be very well if we get the petitions as soon as pos sible. I would like to note that a petition was not presented for blacktop in Northwoods Addition and the Red Oaks petitions are not well enough represented to indicate the feelings of the people. I believe the voting should be done by sections; and, we cannot use economic considerations in our voting-the projects must be voted on by its merits. ) i (Councilperson Holasek - We represent the people-that means the majority. This area should be taken by sections, and as stated by Councilperson Wirrlschitl, this is not 350/0 in some of the sections, so those areas would require a 4/5 vote. If you would have a small project, for example, Red Oaks Third Addition, who after Red Oaks 1 and 2 were done came in with a petition saying that they wanted the sewer, but Red Oaks 4th did not, it would not be favorable at all for prices at that time to just do the one small project; so we must look at this and decide what the chances are for the people in that 3rd Addition to need the project in the very near future and make our decision on that. Another thing I is that after the City reaches 10,000 population we will not , be able to get, F. H. A. financing.) Greg MCClaid - 2110 - 138th Avenue N. W. Asked if the City would maintain the system, and noted that he hoped it would , not be maintained in the same manner as the City S:treets. I (D.R. Kasmal- This is a gravity system with no mechanical parts, and therefore. should not require extensive maintenance. We now qualify for State Aid Highway Funds which ~ill mean some City streets will be constructed under this program. Next year we :are considering the construction of 139th Avenue, and with the State Aid Funds we could come in to build a 44' street with curb and gutter, however, we will not dJ this work unless that sanitary sewer is in. i , Public Hearing - January 8, 1976 Minutes - Page (S Ron Edwards - 2054 Osage Street N. W. Stated that he felt that the $3,000 per lot figure quoted as an estimate for the sanitary sewer would be $5,000 to the homeowner before it was done; and for the $5,000, the people who are having problems with their septic systems could get them replaced or repaired. Noted that he was concerned for the environment, but also concerned with just existing; and that he certainly did not want any industry here. Steve Nichols - 2634 - l40th Lane N. W. Noted that he did not feel that storm sewer was needed in the Northwoods Addition; and that if the roads were blacktopped, something would be needed to slow the traffic. Stated that he wanted blacktop but nothing else. Char les Plowe - 2849 - l42nd Lane N. W. Asked if any soil tests had been taken, and where; and when the law was passed requiring the 20' separation. Also asked where his sewer stub would be. Inquired as to whether or not a tax increase could be expected within the next two to five years. Also asked why the cost for bituminous as shown on the handout we re lower now than in 1975. , I (D. R. Kasma:-No soil tests have been taken-this is not done until the final , stages after a project is ordered inasmuch as they did cost approximately $100 each. The engineers will work with you on the placement of your stub to cost you the least amount of money. There would be no direct increase in your taxes, however, the next time the area is revalued, a higher valuation would probably be placed on your residence. The street costs , dropped because we are now doing a larger area. ) Ray Sayles 113838 Quinn Street N. W. Stated that h~ had not recieved a public hearing notice; and that he had received notice from the gas company saying that they would not hook up anã more homes. Asked why would be done with the estimatJd 31 000 people; an if sanitary sewer comes through, how long will the resi ents 'be given to connect. I (D. R. Kasma - The capacities in the pipe are not definite. You will be allowed , One year if your system is conforming, and 30- days if it is not a conforming system. ) I I . I MIchael Morrow - 14013 Yukon Street N. W. Asked what the Council's feelings would be as far as financing if the project , were order tonight; and if the Council felt that the petitions represented a cross- section of the area. I , (D. R. Kasma - Whether the Council decides to do with F. H. A. or conventional , money will ~ave to be a decision made at the time of bids-we will give the Council all the facts to aid them in their decision. ) Public Hearing _ January 8, 1976 Minutes - Page 7 (K. D. Fornes s - If you can get a spring bid and can hold that bid until you receive word on the F. H. A. financing in July, you are not going to experience a great deal of increase in cost, however, if you start any later than this you will see a definite increase. The cost in the spring, 1976 going conventional for twenty years would be approximately $308.00; if you have a July, 1976 start and receive F.H.A. monies, the cost will be $233.00 annually for thirty years; and if you wait until April, 1977, with F. H. A. Funding the cost would be $240 annually for thirty years or $344 annually for twenty years if you do not get F.H.A. and end up going conventional. It would appear that an April, 1976 start would be the most probable way to go-the annual cost would be more, however, the total cost would be considerably less. (Mayor Schneider - the petitions appear to represent a cross-section except in Red Oaks Third and Fourth Additions. ) James Griswold _ 13916 Crocus Street N. W. Stated that his system had been in for four years and had not failed, however, did not know ,;"hen it would go. I Dan McIntrye' - 2939 - 142nd Lane N. W. Asked if there was any feasibility in putting the streets through land containing peat or marshland. Also asked if sewer hookup would be mandatory. I , (D. R. Kasma' - I am aware of the peat in the area-we are planning to put in , the sanitary sewer and use the excess dirt to fill in the bad spots. We will need soil borings on this, and if necessary, may have to put in pilings.) I (Mayor Schneider - Sewer hookup will be mandatory. ) , Wayne Eng ìish _ 13917 Uplander Street N. W. Stated that the man who was supposed to do the petition in the Red Oaks Fourth Addition did ~ot show up, however, maybe someone else would handle this. Ross Ericksol- 2649 - 140th Avenue N. W. Asked if the $16.00 per front foot was computed by the number of persons in the home, and stated that he thought it should be based on this. , (D. R. Kasmal- This is just a proposal for financing for the project-the Council has the option to do whatever they want as far as assessment policy. We think that this is a fair way to do it.) Jim Harrvel 12644 - 140th Lane N. W. Stated that he was having trouble reading the Council's reaction to the citizen input; and that he was not opposed to the whole package. Asked if Crooked Lake Boulevard was an example of the type of streets proposed for Northwoods. Public Hearing - January 8, 1976 Minutes - Page 8 (D. R. Kasma - No, the new streets will not be as Crooked Lake Boulevard is now. Crooked Lake Boulevard will have more bituminous later. ) Tom Day - 14030 Crosstown Boulevard N. W. Would like to have an opportunity to circulate a petition. Noted that he had a pie-shaped lot with a 200' front and 75' rear, and using the present computations his assessment would be approximately $6,000. (D.R. Kasma - The Council is considering the assessment policy which our firm has recommended-this has provisions for odd shaped lots. The assessment will be done in the fairest way possible, so that in your case you would not being paying twice the cost of the 100' lot estimate.) Don Halblade _ 14165 Ivywood Street N. W. Asked if an'improvement were not orderEd for Red Oaks Third or Fourth Addition at this time, and then sometime in the not too distant future, a petition would come through requesting the project arod we could not get this low financing, and if the Usary Law was not repealed by that time, would the people come under the limits of the Usary Law. (W. ¡ G. H~wkins - The limit governing this assessment percentage would be set by Minnesota Statutes under Assessments, Chapter 429, and the , Usary L:;w would not enter into it. ) I Lloyd Riemann- 2813 - l42nd Avenue N. W. Stated that Dahlia Street was a very bad street and probably would not , be worth ~onstructing to give another entrance into Green Acres. Asked if a State Aid Highway could be built. I I (D. R. Kasma - The rules covering State Aid Highways are strict, and you must have' them going from one S. A. H. road through to another-we would , have to figure out a way to come through Green Acres and probably over to No. 9. ) I Robert Dukerson - 2135 _ 138th Avenue N. W. Asked Councilperson Vander Lann for her reference regarding F. H. A. and G.I. loans; and asked the Council if they were going to vote tonight. Stated that he had received an F.H.A. loan with no problems. I (Councilperson VanderLaan - I have received this information from various , realtors who have sold several homes in the area.) I AlFultonl- 2643 - l39th Avenue N.W. Stated that if an area is known to have sewer problems and the F.H.A. comes out to inspect the property, that if they are made aware of the problems, they can and sometimes do condemn the entire area.-this is what happened in Northwoods Addition. Public Hearing - January 8, 1976 Minutes - Page 9 Earl Sigfrid - 14003 Yukon Street N. W. Asked why cast iron pipe must be used; if a layer of gravel on the street prior to blacktopping would help. Asked Mr. Kasma, his feelings on the storm sewer for Northwoods and also the depth from the surface in front of the homeowners house; and the possibility of measuring each lot individually and using a perimeter measurement to obtain the front footage. (D.R. ,Kasma _ The Health Standards specified cast iron pipe, however, if the sewer/well separation is more than 50 feet, then you may use CXangeburg, plastic, or asbestos. If blacktop streets are ordered for Northwoods, storm sewer would be neces sary inasmuch as water left sitting on the streets would completely ruin the bituminous surface. The stubs would be placed at various depths, depending upon the individual house and sewer outlet pipe; the basement elevations, and those that are really low are the critical ones. We have a,policy and method for the Council that has been used in the City of Bloomington where there are several off shaped lots, and this method has worked out satisfactorily. ) Fred Walz - 13808 Quinn Street N. W. Asked if the estimated costs for streets in Red O<.:<s would be similar or the same as those estimated for Northwoods Addition; and also on the storm sewer. (D.R. Kasma ~ Yes, we hope to have a little better figure after the Storm Sewer Drainage Plan has been adopted,. however, this should not change the figures a lot. ) MOTION by VanderLaan, seconded by Rither, to close the public input portion of the Public Hearing for tonight. Motion carrie:l unanimously. , i I MOTION by VanderLaan, seconded by Rither, that the City Council split the proposed improv~ment projects into specified areas as follows: I. Sanitary Sewer - Northwoods Addition Red Oaks First Addition , Green Acres Addition Red Oaks Second Addition Red Oaks Third Addition Red Oaks Fourth Addition 2. Storm Sewer and Streets , Northwoods Addition Green Acres Addition I Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by vandlrLaan, seconded by Rither, that the City Council order construction of th~ sanitary sewer for the Northwoods Addition, and instruct the , City Engineer, Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson, and Associates, Inc. to proceed with final plans and specifications, and direct the Clerk to seek bids for the improvement. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing - January 8, 1976 Minutes - Page 10 MOTION by VanderLaan, seconded by Rither, that the City Council order ,......., construction of the sanitary sewer system for the Green Acres Area, and 'y' instruct the City Engineer, Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson, and Associates, Inc. to prepare final plans and specifications, and to direct the Clerk to seek public bids. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by VanderLaan, seconded by Rither, that the considerations of the remainder of the project be moved to a meeting of the Andover City Council to be held on January 14, 1976, at the Andover City Hall, 7:30 P.M. This to include Sanitary Sewer in Red Oaks 1,2,3,4, Storm Sewer and Streets in Northwoods Addition and Green Acres Addition. Motion withdrawn. MOTION by Holasek, seconded by Windschitl, to order the construction of storm sewer and streets in the Green Acres Addition, and instruct the City Englneer, '};' Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. to prepare final plans and specifications, and direct the Clerk to seek public bids. Motion carried unanimously. 1 , 1 seconded by VanderLaan, to order the construction of sanitary MOTION by Rlther, / sewer in Red Oaks First and Second Additions, and instruct the City Engineer to ~.'-' \} ?repare final plan~ and specifications, and direct the Clerk to seek public bids. , Motion carried unanimously. I MOTION by Rither, seconded by Windschitl, to continue the Public Hearing for / Storm §ewer and Street Construction in the Northwoods Additions and for {'y ~' Sanitary Sewer Construction in Red Oaks Third and Fourth Additions to February 3, 1976,17:30 P.M. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Cros stown Boulevard. I I Hearing ContinueJ to February 3, 1976. 11:30 P.M. I , (:) Patricia K. Clerk CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD. N.W. ANOKA. MINNESOTA 55303 (612) 755-5100 December 22, 1975 Dear Residents: PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City Council of the City of Andover has scheduled a public hearing for January 8, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. at the Meadowcreek Baptist Church, 2937 Bunker Lake Boulevard N. W., Anoka, Minnesota, to present information on a major issue now under consideration: ! Should the City proceed with the construction of sanitary sewer collection facilities fdr the Green Acres, Northwood and Red Oaks Manor Areas and constniction of storm sewer collection facilities and street improve- ments for the Green Acres and Northwood Areas. The City cluncil is aware of the increasing number of individual sewage disposal system failures, surface water drainage problems and sand street problems within these areas of the City. The continuing growth and concer~ of the Community makes it apparent that an extension of the sanitary sewer system and construction of storm sewer and bituminous stre,ets in the areas should be considered at this time. We have pJepared current information and are sending every homeowner a copy of t1lis letter to explain the facts about the proposed project. The Council w6uld like to know what YOU, the homeowner desires for your area within the Community. Plan to attend this meeting and express your views to the Council. PROJECT IAREA The atta chld maps show the area of the Community that is proposed to be included it\. the project. Figure No. 1 shows those areas to bè included in the sanita~y sewer project and Figure No.2 shows the areas to be included in the stoim sewer and street improvement project. , I WHAT WILL BE THE COST? Our engiJeers have prepared preliminary cost estimates for the I I December 22, 1975 Page Two construction of the proposed projf'ct, which includes 100/0 contingencies and 15% engineering, legal and administrative costs: Sanitary Sewer System $ 1,452,200,00 ) Storm Sewer (Green Acres and " ~ ; Northwoods) 108,000.00 "1', ,c Bituminous Street (Green Acres and Northwoods) 133,400.00 Estimated Total Cost $ 1,693,600.00 HOW WILL THE PROJECT BE FINANCED? , The City is considering financing th",se projects by applying for a loan from the Farmers' Hom", Administration. If the loal} is ¡lpprQved, we would anticipate a 30 year repayment schedule and a 50/0 interest rate. If the loan is not approved, we would have to borrow money in the open rnarket under State Statutes authodzing st¡ch financing. PROPERTY OWNER'S COST FOR SANITARY SEWER A, Estimated Assessments Based on estimates prepared by the Engineer, one proposed method of financing being considered would produce the following estimated assessment rates for sanitary sewer: I. Front footage assessment (per foot) $ 16.00 2. U nit a sse ssment for lot with house( Ú '/?;t 1050.00 3. Sewer stub line ~ /1.--7' 300 00 . \ Under that plan and based on the Eflgifleer's estimated cost, a typical home owne r who ha s a horne on a 100 foot lot would have the following a,ssessments: I. Trunk connection charge $1050,. 00 2. Front footage 100 ft. @ $] 6.00 ]600.00 3. Sewer stub 300,,00 Total $~950, 00 The total assessment may be paid in full or in annual installments. December 22, 1975 Page Three We have prepared alternate financing costs for (a) Farmers' Home Administration loan and (b) Conventional Municipal Bonds. The following is the annual costs based on the two methods: C onve ntiona 1 FHA ~rs.@87?_ 30 yrs.@60/0 I. Ave. annual payment w/interest $ 308,00 $ 21500 2. Sewe r se rvice charge @$5. 00 pe r month 60,00 ___60.~£_ 3. Total $ 368.00 $ 275, 00 B. Othe r! Costs Paid by Prope rty Owne!. 1._ Direct Connection Costs The, prope rty owne rs would hire a contractor to instaJJ the sanitary sewer lines from the siubs near the property line into the hou se. The cost of the house service installations vary depending on depth of s£'rvice, availability for con- tractor to work in yard and the re storation requirements of ~ ..8 the property owners. 3-;3 pf+t \ 2. I Metropolitan Sewer Availabilit~harge The property owners that have not previously paid a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) at the time the house was constructed will have to pay a connection charge. The purpose for this cha rge is to collect revenue to finance the Interceptor Sewer lines and Wastewater Treatment Plant that was constructed to serve the Metropolitan Area. The current and estimated SAC charges as established by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for single family dweJlings are: 1975 - $325.00 1976 - 350.00 1977 375, 00 3. Sanitary Sewer Connection Permi!.. The property owner must obtain a permit prior to connectIng to the public sewer system. The permit and inspection fee for residential property is $25.00, I December 22, ] 975 Page Four PROPERTY OWNER'S COST FOR STORM SEWER AND BITUMINOUS STREETS IN GREEN ACRES AND NORTHWOODS A. Estimated Assessments (Northwoods) 1. Storm Sewer Area Assessment $ .04 per sq, ft. 2, Street Front Foot Assessment $6.00 per foot A typical lot size of ] DO' x 200' in the Northwoods Addition would be assessed: Storm Sewer $ 800,00 Street 600.00 Total $]400.00 The total assessments may be paid in full or in annual instalJments. We have prepared alternate financing costs for (a) Farmers' Home Administration loan and (b) Conventional Municipal Bonds. The following is the annual costs ba sed on the two methods: Conventional FHA 20 yr.@80/0 30 yrs.@60/0 ]. Storm sewer ave. annual payment w/interest $ 84.00 $ 59.00 2. Street ave. annual payment w/interest 63.00 44.00 $ - 3. Total 147,00 $ 103.00 B. Estimated Assessments (Green Acres) ]. Storm Sewer Area Assessment $ .03 per sq. ft. 2. Street Front Foot Assessment $5.25 per fOQt A typical lot size of ]00' x ]67' in the Green Acres Addition would be assessed: Storm Sewe r $ 552.00 Street 578.00 Total $1110,00 December 22, 1975 Page Five The total assessments may be paid in full or in annual installments. We have prepared alternate financing costs for (a) Farmers' Home Administration loan and (b) Conventional Municipal Bonds. The foI1owing is the annual costs based on the two methods: Conventional FHA 20 yr.@80/0 30 yr s.@60/0 I. Storm sewer avec annual payment w/interest $ 58, 00 $ 41. 00 2. Street ave. annual payment w/intere st 61.00 42.00 3. Total $ 119. 00 $ 83.00 PROCEDUR~ I The CounCIl istaking the first step to proceed with sanitary sewer, storm sewe r and stre~t construction for 1976 by conducting a public hearing on January 8, 19716. At this hearing all interested parties will be heard by the Council" Aftel,' the hearing, the Council must determine whether they are going to proce~d to construct the sanitary sewer, storm sewer and street improvements or drop the project. The Council wJU1d then order detailed pJans and specifications for the entire proposed const1ruction or part of the construction as ordered and then caB for construction bids. It is possible bids couJd be received and construction contracts ente'!ed into by April, 1976 and the actual construction couId be , compJeted by Octobe r, 1976. After the contrkct is compJeted, an assessment roll will be prepared, and a second public Hearing wiIl be heJd at which the Council will hear and pass on all objections tb the pl'oposed assessments, If the assessment roIl is adopted prior to Octob~r 14, 1976. the fjrst installment would be payabJe with taxes in 1977. TECHNICAL lNFORMA nON SESSION The City CJerkand City Engineer will be at the Community Center, 1976 1685 Crosstown Blvd. N. W. from 1:00 p.m, to 6:00 p.m. on January 8, I I December 22, 1975 Page Six to answer questions on the project. This information session is to provide time for asking questions áf the City Staff prior to the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. CONCLUSION Every citizen included in the project area should become thoroughly familiar with the sanitary sewer, storm sewer and street improvement project and attend and participate in the public meeting set for January 8, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. at the Meadowcreek Baptist Church, 2937 Bunker Lake Boulevard N. W., Anoka, Minnesota. THIS LETTER IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND NOT A PART OF THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS. THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND FINANCING ARE NOT GUARANTEED METHODS, BUT ARE PROVIDED TO INFORM THE COUNCIL AND CITIZENS OF THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROJECT. Respectfully submitted, Mr. Richard Schneider, Mayor Mr. Winslow Ho1asek, Councilman Mr. Robert Rither, Councilman Mrs. Mary VanderLaan, Councilwoman Mr. Gerald Windschitl, Councilman Mr. Norman Werner, Administrator Mrs. Patricia L. Lindquist, Clerk \ o ~ .... . E - CD _((J ¡¡ CD ~ .,.p ~ ~ CD c: !!I'D ~ .... CJ) 0 ~ (J $ () -- ~ OJ "'== § E -0 .. C ...=- I - 1ii "...:;) ... o -0 Q) 0 ... _ C =_ ¡ o c () _ 4- ._ = o 0 - _ Ow. E ~== 4\JOU " ]j 0 () () . _ E"":" · ;¡ Q." c: >- _ , g I ec:OO µ~ ! C. C .Õ .. ! ; . ¡ ......61 : -~I' r ~ i "I : "'1. C\J i " \-. - , , . .. ' 'I 1 I . i ... i 0 I , 'bcrn 1 ; I, --."...".u...."'D c: ! -1~ L .u"..._.. .. Q) I 'j; "u .U' , ~-:tL' 1 __ r- 'U' <-- ... i ~:J't1-lt'-1i .!. --.- .. _ , . .~.. :;) I ~~'. , -\W' · ,. ; CI i lp ¡ r eo"-- , ,I I ;;: ¡ '. , ; cc- . ~L__ ~ / :" ..._ 'I .. i - --- - --'> '.. .. -- ", f-- ~, -. ----- \-_.. _ .. i 1 ~ _ -Le ~m1 -' , ~-+-_. , ~ ~ ,,: - ! c: :::0.. __ ::J ¡ ~ ". , L '1 ,..,cC. , I~ ¡} . " .I..b,-, r'f.. . I : .. . ", , þj~ :.~,,: ;, t. : ',-17 Y . . " ! . ....'-U /-1><-.\ . ~'T ~~.. . ""'.~v.. ·r.",.. · . "_.. r '___ Iì ~ ...¡ -,-T. 'IS " .. 'r, r -. J !-,-,-' _ I " · ~ A· """/t.r.'-.ì.. ~ ".. ,__ . '& . ~ .rr., .' .¡. ' .1..1--. ~"" . '.,.\ ,.. .-~" ",' .\, .. , r-= / /.-.'7' ..x.... . . '.:1' "-'_ j ,?(.:".L:. ~ ~ .;',.,." -co/ .. 4'>" ~Þ."þ .. _ - t-('y~ G: : 1- t-; c .. ·-1 ~ ~'J:-j .' Ih .' ·ff/f~~ --i: ~ , '1 . .. " . . . -- ~ i .. , "" ,'1'/..... --'1 "I I · .'. ,f,'iR. .'. . ~ /-.. ~ 0 , A;',,_ù· , . ~ I ¡fr :.LI : . \ '-0~ L~. -1-. , \"\"\~,1~ ¡ t I I 9i \ ' -~ \ J ;. ~ :;:'\'. '_ ~?1 ~ '.-1 'I' c.;;, -- '. 1-- I /. · :" :f;- "-., ." '7,_ . >_ ~ " :; .:....",... '" I .. 1 - _ I -"-'-'. . ~. ~. . -". '. -. ~: . \. " \~:.. . '. .... I!'~\ 1 "~ a... -- I -'. .'-.,. ,I Î -K. ii-. . ' \ '-. . ~. , . - - II L " '..L- - , : _ '/ _ _ I . ~ '- .~. . . " , .. j '! rtt;l.¡'.:._ /1 't¥/ !~, I 1 ,_I i-~ ' '~,' '·1-., 11f / f/ - 1~1 r::1 __ -r _" , "", T Ó. .'., ' , '. . . . c' '" \ . ~ ·-,·~·'è'I···· , ,.';Z :c: (:., :¡, . ::10\: ' \ ¿ j --- t-"}'l y./, /::,::¡ -Il-I'" -. > _ .1,\'\', _If - I- \ 1 Jt?~ fí :'=::::---:,.. ~~.l.;--~ ..- ---. I ," if... ,.. r--.. _ i"I-}-. :~_--->- ---- I " ... 0 ... " i - 1T T , 7 I l~0, ,1,HlliT\: I î1 , \ I _ ! rI"" ti : ~~\ \ ¡ ..~' + . .If [ líl ~,[¡ I~ " > . I I..! . ' II 1'1 , \ "I - 7\\ i ,-- I \.. t--.. .. / \ \ , I ,- - ' - ---i --- ,-' : \ - \ ~J. t I 1···· ili'c.lLU L~l l¡ì .&_ "JI1 :ti "" I ", ~ ,i~, 11 ~ ilL :£t';. J.!¡ rc ~ l·· .",. · ¡;= \llil. -_ I ,q - 'f ~ì3ii';}IJtr::!; - -1:1 !: lV I 'w. . Jl ~ 7" . i I -- - - -I' 0 ~ . - =- ~" -', -'c- .-. -OJO'" ", ''':Ed (I';-!/f"" ., . .. . '.'''''~. : : ~ I r..:. . . = {f' / I' r.f ','[' deli· . ¡' I I:i±t ~ . . . L"- > " . R : ~., , . . - '. " ~ c. . ---- . -. . '. "'. . -.: ~ - ., °E'-._. '.- ICO>(. ....:\i ";,.. I I ' b" _ t, ". ~, . ,_ . "In J "''''T I '" . ¿ r _ ," ! I ;t; c " \. ... ~ ' I 11' -<-il . ,:'>:-._~' ' . , ~ .~. I .... , I I.. '[.It..... . :. . -L¡ . . . . " - , . .. L: ~"'a" c. ' I::~ ~CI f(. .... B ' " ..' . """, 41" .--.J R' ~, ~ . 't:7 . .,..., -~~ ~ ,.~ "'" ì" ~ . I.l- . -I.:.r~~. .' '.' "'1 ... , -"+'" .. ''I! ¿:, - ':-r -- . . "'1--..- _ . -, , . f;1, -¡; "' , - . ,'. ,1, c ". '-\- . 11 ,,~,¡:,. , " . '-r., "~ f " "œH '" . , E .. , ~ "-' . - . ".c Ji'/:J:" , ~ ,. 8 .- .- , -' 'm_ _ --,- = . , "·,.t ß --- - -, . - ''--' ----- - ¡ ~ ,-j . . ,- '=8 . . . [ï 1- t:'j - '! ' . ..-' J ' -. ! I _.._~ --" j:¡" ' to . . r ' , - : c '-!-. . , ., '._ _, '-,-,"Ai>, . ãI . n I" "'r ' , .--- , ""= tl '""""", . Q ~ - ' 5 'f-""" ,-,,,,,, .--' ,,' '. . .. .lJJ.l.c~ L . j-- - '. ---, . ~')I -- t - 1'4- - " + - øø"'C '<~Õ UI 0 0 == !:.CD"'O 0 -- UI iÞ ct CD ... 0 0 .=.: north ø ~ -'< 3 n CD ::;: 0 II ., -=~ 3 - 0 oc.. '< 0 ::~ -'&-n UI 0 - CD 0_ -ø ~ -= :J ~ CD Q CD ., =;tJ 16:! n ::J _0 ~ .... -- CD -- .... UI -- m o c ~~ g~ ::I ... '< rn-= ~ I - - r , r , -- -, ,. - ... -, .--,;;;- ¡ /""" " - , ------ V SPRlNGSTED INCOR?ORATED ìViUf'-JiClPAL CONSULTANTS SUITE 813 OSBORN BUIU¡INij . S,\ttl1 'AUl. Mli.¡rH ',orA 55102 . (612) 227-831R P.O. BOX 62 . OR00KrtHo, WI8C()~SN 5'JO(I<; . (>\14) 184 -m<\2 ME M 0 R,A ~ DUM TO: File 2105, City of Andover FROM: KDI" DATE: 8 January 1976 RE: Comparison of Special Assess~ent Costs for 1976 Sewer Construction Program if Project is Delayed As a result of conversations that D2wey Kasma and Springsted lncorpol""\ t"'d have had with the local FIlA representatives, it is app"rcnt that t}¡pre is a good possibility that FfIA loan funds will not be available for t ¡ ~ . project for the balance of this fiGcal year ending June 10, 197(; . ï:¡'-'J·'-_' is a possihility that funds may be available and that they might ohta ii a commitment in July of 1976 or they may not be able to get a COF:.m ¡ t;,1;'ld. if any until 1977. In order to assJst the decision rnakin~ process aA it relates t\' ·...-:1\.' t ;,(' ¡' they should proceed in the spring of 19ì6 even \ofithout FHA funding ,~:, opposed to delaying rhe project in hopes of élO FHA commilmf'lIl, ¡"'(: .,.,'-...' "run a pr~liminary comparison of the <,ctual total assessmcllL co.::; t·~ lur .,¡, average lot on the SAme basis as used in tll€ engineerin¡; rt'p0rt. I tile total per l_ot aSse3S~C:lt figure of $2,9~O ¿IS fplInl¡ Ive have used j]1 till' engineer's report. In the ('xam;>l'-=, w:lich Sh0HS <1 90 nay cil~;:I/ ¡,-, i::.. project ¿e have assumed an inCTt.'3se¿ construction and project cost 0J.- l/. per month or a 3% increase. Also, sincQ ¿} 90 day delay in sLartlw~ ·:t·'" proje~t will result in comp]2tjon of tht2 project too late in thl' r.. . 1976 to file ,the assessment rolls, ti1~ intcrila financing of the projcci.. wIll theb have to include capitalized interest to cover a sufficiPllt p.-,ril1d uhtll the assessments are filcd in the f'Ül of 1977. ror ,L"'~," "'C oftl<('se/calculations \,'e havp i:1c1uò~d an ;¡òdition"l ten \fIr"!1,, (',c." i(t('r(...~:t at 6% on the follo\,¡in:; hilS;_:'>. Ii hÜls ill'£' taken on til" ¡J, ancl contf<lcts awarded in ear]y l\pri~. ~'Jitll bonds heing sold d.a.,.! .¡'iI' 1, then taPitalized interest throug:: DCl'r>mber 1976 or seven montl!.' . 'I, : I. h;Jve to e included. If the proje.::t r~"'l:ci'.'es ; ts go ala~ad .July 1 t IHJud:-; are sold I dated August 1, interest "Q~ld have to be iocludeci throo;gi, December of 1977 or a period of lì :Jonths. This resultr-; in an aùdir h'tl-'( 10 months interest having to be included. - Page 2 As a third option ~e have also considered the possibility of deferring the project to the spring of 1977 and in that example have increased construction costs, for a one year delay, by 10% and also the trunk connection charge ~hich is increased according to the $1,000 base plus a 5% interest factor from 1975, then becomes $1,100. The following three examples indicate the total amount of assessment against a 100 foot lot in each of the three cases. A. Project Starts April, 1976 Total assessment costs (per engineer's report) $ 2,950 B. Project Starts July, 1976 Assessment costs (per engineer's report) $ 2,950 3% increase for 90 day delay 89 10 months interest @ 6% 152 Total Assessment $ 3,191 C. Project Starts April, 1977 Assessment costs (per engineer's report) $ 2,950 Construction cost increase, (one year delay @ 10%) 295 , , 50 Connection charge lncrease I Total Assessment Cost $ 3,295 I To determine the annual and total cost effect on the individual homCo\ú1cr of each of the above options, we offer the following comparison: I 30 Years @ 6% 20 Years @ 8% April, IT"'" $ 215 annually $ 308 annually $6450 total cost $6160 total cost July, 1976 Start $ 233 annually $ 333 annually $6990 total cost $6660 total co'H , April, 1977 Start $ 240 annually $ 344 annually $7200 total cost $6880 total cuaL Page 3 It would appear that the most probable comparison is that of conventional financing with the project starting in April of 1976 compared to, at a minimum, the FHA financing starting in July of 1976. The annual cost is approximately $75 per year greater; however, the total cost over thc "life of the project is $830 less. Unfortunately, to many homeowners the savings of $830 beginning 20 years from now is not enough of an incentive to spend $75 a year more at this time. The problem, however, compounds itself if the project is delayed and it is then found that FHA monics will still not be available and conventional financing must be used. Not only does the annual payment increase substantially but the total cOSt over the life of the program does as well. :dw