Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH January 12, 1978 C'TY 01 ANDOVER PRAIRIE ROAD PUBLIC HEARING - JANUARY 12, 1978 - MINUTES A Public Hearin~ on the review and discussion of the items from the Prairie Road MSAH Project was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on January 12, 1978, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilpersons present: Lachinski, McClure, VanderLaan Councilperson absent: Orttel Also 1Jre!'!ent: City Engineer, Rex Stockwell; TKDA Consulting Engineer, D. R. Kasma; City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interestsd residents. Mr. Kasma explained the project history of Barne·s Rolling Oaks Second Addition in relation to the Prairie Road Project, explaining why there was an overrun of dirt to bring the elevation of the roads from the Addition up to meet Prairie Road and why the developer wasn't required to design his roadways to meet Prairie Road. Mr. Kasma also presented a map showing where the soil borings were done on Prairie Road to anticipate where problem areas would be. The problem was there were other places along the ditches where silty sand was not usable. Mr. Kasma also presented a January 11, 1978, memo from Robert Spurr, TKDA accountant, showing the total fees for services rendered for this project billed to the City (117,719.93) and the total fee value but not billed to the City because of services rendsred beyond the basic servicee due to project changes (18,746.40). He also noted the 112,000 engineering cost overrun on this project are for the field costs working with the contractor. Mr. Stockwell exp1ainñ the road was shifted 30 to 40 feet east of the Barnes property because of the hill. If it would have bsen possible to keep the elevation of Prairie Road lower, it would have given additional dirt to use someplace else. The three things that affected the elevation of Prairie Road were the location of the gas station, the requirement to have three feet of dirt over the gas main in the backs10pes, and because of the MSAH design speed requirement for a 50 mi1e-per-hour road. Originally Barnes had to cut his road down 10 feet because of the hill. Then, in order to match the new Prairie Road elevation, it had to be filled in. This overrun occurred because of the timing 1Jrob1em. Mr. Stockwell felt it was the City's obligation to bring the road in Barnes Ro11in~ Oaks up to the elevation of Prairie Road rather than making the developer redesign his road. Testimony was then open to the public. Russ McGlenn. 14861 Prairie Road - stated that he did not receive a letter notifying him of this meeting (Several others in the audience also had not received notice). He questioned the depth Of the pipeline across the road and didn't understand why the extra dirt had to be brought in to build up the road. Mr. Stockwell exp1ainñ originally Prairie Road was 6 feet above the gas line. In moving the road over, the ditches were designed ~ the bottom of the ditch waa a minimum of three feet abeve that line. Mr. Kasma also noted the construction costs are covered under State MSAH funds; the discussion is whether or not to have an assessment on the non-eligible coats, approximately 120,600 aa explained in TKDA's December 27, 1977, memo estimating project costs. Winslow Holasek. 1159 Andover Boulevard NW - asked how far the bottom of the ditch is above the pipeline, aa he felt it was at least 6 feet above the pipeline. Mr. Stockwell didn't recall but felt that possibly b1acks10pe of the ditch played the bi~gest part in determin- in~ the road elevation. They must maintain a three to one maximum backs1ope. If the elevation was lowered another foot, the backslope would have had to have gone out farther in order to maintain the slope. An additional temporary easement was not feasible because of the gas station there. - - ,"->-. Prairie Road Public Hearing January 12, 1978 - Minutes ~p2 John Ura~~is. 15300 Prairie Road - didn't understand why consideration wasn't given to the estimated $6,500 legal costs that are not reimburable from MSAH funds when the project was ordered. He was not a resident at that time. Mr. Kasma explained when the project etarted, a number of informal hearings were held. On October 19, 1976, a Public Hearing was held, and it was known at that time that there would be some non-eligible MSAH costs. At that time he recommended an assessment to the benefited residents for these costs. Leslie Johanson, 15451 Prairie Road - stated before that Hearing, the residents wers ~efinitely given the impression there would be no cost to them. Then the letter came asking people to ~ive their land away, which was highly unlikely. She was at that meeti~ and didn't recall anyone saying they wanted that road or were willing to pay for it. Mayor Windschitl thought the question of the donation of the land was dropped shortly after that meeting. Even so, if we had not gotten into the condemnation problem, by in large the legal fees would not be as high. The $6,500 is a projection of fees that would incur in the future. If the property owner is not satisfied with the District Court settlement and appeals to the Supreme Court, there are substantial additional fees in- volved. Mr. Hawkins noted the actual legal cost to date is $ 4,600, which includes all legal expenses including negotiations for all right of ways and the condemnation procedure and $1,200 for Commissioners' fees plus $600 appraisers'fees. Ms. Johanson - from the very beginning she felt the benefit Of the road would be for the City as a north-south road. The residents are not being benefited by a 50mph design speed; the City is. The residents didn't ask for the road, didn't have anything to do with it, and she didn't feel the residents should have to pay for it. This is also the opinion Of her mother who couldn't be here tonight. Larry Resterer. 15505 Prairie Road - asked what happens if the road is left the way it is at present. Mr. Kasma stated the right-of-way problem would still have to be re- solved. He estimated about S8,ooo could be eliminated for legal and engineering costs if the condemnation procedure would be settled. All construction costs will be covered by the State. Gordon Nordeen. 15357 Prairie Road - stated originally it was to be a 9-ton road all the way through. Now it is 9-ton in the urban section down to his driveway and 7-ton the rest of the way. He felt with the heavy trucks using the road that the blacktop will not lsst. He can tell drivers to come in from the north, but are they going to do that? He felt it would be worth the extra blacktop. Mr. Kasma stated the road is designed for a 7-ton, ultimate 9-ton. The traffic projected on there for the next 10 years does not justify it being 9-ton at this time. When it is justified, it will be done as a State- Aid project. The road is meeting the Highway Department's design. His intent was not to post it for 7-ton unless there was a problem. Seven-ton does provide for some heavy trucks, and the only time it is critical is in the spring because of the thaw. It would cost about $20,000 to $25,000 to put the extra It· inches of blacktop on the road. Henry Johanson. 15451 Prairie Road - asked the traffic count on Prairie Road. (250 vehicles per day) He questioned how the 10 to 12 families living on that road drive 250 times a day to justify paying for it. Just the traffic count is justification that the community as a whole should be paying for it rather than the residents. The decision was made to put the State Aid road where it would be in the best interests of the City, not of the residents. He asked then why come to us to pay it? Mr. Kasma stated the problem is once a project is taken out of General Funds, where do we stop? In the past two years about S3 million worth Of improvements have been put in on a pay-as-you-go basis. If the City pays all projects in the coming years from the General Fund, you, as a resident, pay for those projects too. Prairie Road Public Hearing January 12, 1978 - Minutes Page ~ Mr. Johanson - stated his property taxes will go up; and if he is assessed too, he will be paying for the project twice, Most of the traffic on Prairie Road is through traffic now and now it will also become a speedway, Mr, Kesma stated the speed limit cannot be reduced, according to state regulations, until the housing density increases. Mr, Holasek - stated the rural section will have l~ inches of blacktop with a 24-foot driving surface, and the urban section will have 3 inches of blacktop with a 44-foot driving surface. This uses 4 times the amount of blacktop per running foot in the urban area. He questioned if it wouldn't have been cheaper to buy the easement on the northern end rather than make that séction with curb and gutter. He also felt it should have been a decision for the City Council to make. Mr. Kasma explained there would have been a problem with the intersection meeting Crosstown Boulevard, and it would havo made the 14- acre lot an unbuildable one, Another consideration is if the northern end had been left rural, all trees in front of the homes there would have had to have been removed and their front yards taken. Mr, Holasek - suggested possibly the road could have been moved to the west in that 300- foot parcel of land and atill not have to take down those trees. Or some other considera- tion be looked at, Mr. Kasma said the problem would have existed with the intersection, and it couldn't be done to maintain the 50 mph design speed. Mr. Stockwell stated a number of things were involved and alternatives were looked at; the State Department preferred the urban section in that northern area, Bonnie Coenland, owns property at 15520 Prairie Road - felt it is a community project and didn't think specific people along that road should pay for it. She felt the community æ a whole will benefit from it as well as future roads; therefore, the community should pay for this and any future projects such as this. The residents on the road should not have to nay for this project plus the increase in their taxes, She also didn't want the same thing to happen to people along other projects such as this, A special assessment is something that is to benefit the individual, not the entire community. The traffic count also shows that it is a benefit to the City. Mayor .TIindschitl stated the value of land per acre for assessment purposes is given to the City by the County, He felt the increase evaluation will come from the house, not from the land. Mr, Kasma then discussed possible future MSAH project cost estimates for the City of Andover assuming the southern portion of Prairie Road (Andover Boulevard to Bunker Lake Boulevard) and Hanson Boulevard (Bunker Lake Boulevard to Andover Boulevard and Andover Boulevard to Crosstown Boulevard) are done relating to right-of-way and construction costs on these projects. He suggested right-of-way purchases begin as soon as possible so it is completed before construction begins. Ms. Johanson - questioned who are you going to assess on Hanson Boulevard to cover the non-eligible costs, Councilperson VanderLaan noted the precedent will be set by what- ever decision the Council makes on this project, If the costs would not be assessed back to the property owners, the dollars would have to come out of the General Fund. Doug Steele. 643 l40th Lane NW - stated the criteria has to fall on "benefited property ðwners." In talking about a sewer project of blacktop project in a residential area, the property owners are definitely benefited, But in a municipàl thoroughfare system, you move away from benefited property owners, The road on the south end will not benefit hi~ as he already has a road that he can get to his house; a 50-mph road is not needed for the people living on it. This road was planned and conceived as a benefit to the City. There has been almost total resident dislileof the entire situation. The property owners are not better for something that is benefiting¿ the City. He felt that according to the State of Minnesota, a road like this actually decreases property value because very few people are going to buy a house along a 55-mph road. He didn't feel it could be compared with sewer and blacktopping in residential areas such as Red Oaks. Hanson Boulevard falls within the same criteria -- it is of no benefit to the people who own that property; it Prairie Road Public Hearing January 12, 1978 - Minutes Page 4 (Doug Steele, continued) is a benefit to the City. He felt that Prairie Road really is a benefit to the people of Ham Lake because they use it more. If it is a benefit to the community, the community should pay for it. If it is a benefit to the property owners, then the property owners should pay for it. A 55-mph highway benefits no one except the peop1ecommuting to work. Mr. Resterer - asked were the people asked if they wanted the road at the Public Hearing of October 19. Mr. Kasma noted it is up to the City Council to make that decision. Ms. Coenland - asked what would happen if the residents refused to pay the special assess- ments. Mr. Hawkins stated the rssidsnts have the right to appeal the assessment to District Court within 30 days after it is levied. They will make the determination as to whether any special bsnefit to your property. Mr. McGlenn - asked if some of the $70,000 overrun was covered by MSAH funding and why some of the staking for blacktopping has already been done. Mr. Kasma explained $20,600 is non-eligible !{SAH costs; the rest is covered. The State does not allow blacktopping past November 1. When putting in rural roads, staking is done several times. Final staking for the blacktop will be done next year. Of the $70,000 overrun, $25,000 was for right-of-way purchases. Mr. Kasma then reviewed the estimated final costs of the project presented to the Council previously. He noted that dirt-moving projects such as this are extremely difficult to estimate, and they very seldom stay within the 10 percent contingencies. He stated when doing the southern portion of Prairie Road, a 20 percsnt contingency will be used because of anticipated soil problems in that area. Dick Schneider. 1343 Andover Boulevard. Mayor at the time ths project wa~ ordered - noted ths people were definitely told in the beginning there would be no assessment to the property owners and that it would be a 9-ton road. The Council wasn't given the choice to decide whether or not it should be a 9-ton road. Mr. Kesma stated it could still be a 9-ton road for an additional $20,000. On October 19, a Public Hearing was called to tell residents about the non-eligible MSAH costs, which could run from one to ten thousand dollars. Mr. Schneider - expressed disappointment in the work of the engineering firm because of the large overrun in the project and because engineering costs did not stay within the 15 percent but have gone up to 19 percent of the project cost. Mr. Kasma stated the agreement calls for them to work within certain restrictions, and all of the changes made to the project increased the cost. He felt if they didn't have to go through right-of- waYf engineering costs would be under 13 percent. When doing relatively small projects, the percentages go up, especially when working with things that cannot be controlled. Mr. Schneider - felt the Council had not been kept informed during the entire project, and was critical of the way the Council and staff acquired the right of way. He especially felt more consideration should have been given in Mr. Holasek's case. I~yor Windschitl understood that four out of the five Councilmembers did meet with Mr. Holasek to try to reach an agreement. Mr. Hawkins also noted he had met and talked with Mr. Holasek severà times. Mr. Holasek - wanted to avoid the loss of the trees and noted the wind erosion in his fields right now because the trees are gone. He mst with Mr. Hawkins two or three times but didn't recall any negotiation other than the offer of $1,000 for the temporary ease- ment. No allowance for the trees was offered. He felt he should get compensated for his trees, and his position has never changed on that. Mayor Windschitl felt the Council couldn't get itself in a position of negotiating one price for Mr. Holasek that was sub- stantially higher than what was paid to the rest of the people. People with similiar types of property have to be paid the same for the land. One appraiser estimated it at $1,000 an acre and three court-appointed appraisers estimated it at $1,200 an acre. The question the Council faces is if it is decided to pay the non-eligible costs from the Prairie Road Public Hearing January 12, 1978 - Minutes Page 5 General Fund, how much is it going to be as the situation with Mr. Ho1asek is not settled. If it goes as far as the Supreme Court, it could be carried over into a future Council's operating budget. Mr. Schneider - felt the trees were valuable for agricultural purposes. A settlement could be made on the value of the trees alone, and the cost for the trees would have come out of State Aid funds. He also asked if the aerial maps were used and monies applied to pay for that project. Mr. Kasma stated it was not used for this project because of the type of construction. Aerial topography can't be used for a State Aid project because more detail is needed. It will be helpful in storm sewer construction projects for figuring storm sewer assessments, and it was used in Red Oaks and Northwoods projects. Mr. Steele - felt that the unknown figure because of the negotiations with Mr. Ho1asek does not deter from the fact that this is a City improvement for the benefit of the City, and whether or not it goes to the Supreme Court is extremely irrelevant. It is a case of whether or not a small number of people pay for something that is going to benefit the entire City or is the whole City going to pay for it. He personally felt it should come out of the General Funds as it is a benefit to the City and the County, not to the individual prpperty owners. Mr. McG1enn - agreed with Mr. Steele in that it is a benefit to the City as the sand road worked fine for him and the blacktopped road will make it worse for him to bring his farm equipment across for farming. He felt there was a credibility gap between the City and the residents as to what was said and what has happened. Mr. Ho1asek - Noted the tree count on his land was 600 trees. He stated anytime he gets a fair amount for the loss of the trees plus his costs, he will settle. He asked ap- proximately $10 a tree. Had he been offered compensation for the trees, that money would' have come from the MSAH fund. He also felt other people along ~he road were paid more than $1,000 an acre for their land. Mr. Hawkins noted that residential lots are worth more and additional amounts were paid for trees on residential lots. Basic agricultural land was paid $1,000 an acre. Mr. Resterer - when he was selling his right of way, he was told they are allowing $200 extra for trees. There is a difference between the price paid for the land and that paid for the trees. Mr. Hawkins explained the point of contention is whether or not a tree is worth more because it is sittin~. in front of a house rather than in a field. He felt losing the trees in front of a house is a substantial loss. Mr. Holasek's land was appraised by 4 appraiser~ and Mr. Ho1asek's own appraiser stated at the Hearing he did not separate land from trees on that type of property. Lynn Mortenson. 1065 132nd Lane NE - the problem would be settled with a flat rate on the land and a flat rate for the trees at the same time. At the time most people settled, it was understood that there would be absolutely no assessment. He felt the City would have an extreme problem negotiating any future project right of ways because they stand to pay more. Assessments on this project would be more than what was received for easements in terms of property settlement. Mr. Holasek - related to points brought up on a discuseion of Prairie Road at a previous meeting: 1) He had 7 driveways originally and then asked for two additional ones. Durin~ construction extra driveways were put in; he didn't know why. The driveways were not fenced because of the lateness of construction, and he assumed the fences will be put back after construction is completed. Re didn't feel that it should cost that much to TIut in hie driveways in terms of dirt fill. 2) It was ¡",own all along that the culvœt was to be lowered. He informed them it was to be on the bottom of the ditch on the west side because there is at least a foot of silt built up on the other side. Ris statement was misunderstood and the culvert was lowered only ~ inches deeper than the original. Prairie Road Public Hearing January 12, 1978 - IUnutes Page 6 (!~. Holasek's statements, continued) He and Hr. Stevè Slyzuk notified the engineers. The problem was then resolved with the culvert lowered to the proper elevation. Mr. Holasek stated he had not changed his mind but that he was misunderstood in the beginning about the elevation. !~. Stockwell stated the point is he didn't know what the proper elevation was or how far the ditch was going to be dredged down. No blame for the increased costs was intended. Mr. Holasek - 3rd point) He didn't feel the cost incurred because the contractors had to do both sides before the middle was his fault because he is only exercising his rights. The City was aware of this and proceeded with the project any way. If the contractor was done with both ends by August 26, then Mr. Holasek wondered why the City ',waited until September 1 to ask him to sign the waiver that day or the contractor would pullout the next day. At that time he asked this to be put on the September 6 Council Agenda and was told it could not be. So he felt the City didn't think it was important enough to be placed on the Agenda. Mr. Holasek felt it is the City's failure to offer a fair amount for the trees on his property and the ultimate decision to condemn and force emirent domain proceedings against him that increased the cost for which he is not responsible. If he gets paid for trees, he'll drop the suit. Negotiation can be done through his attorney any time before the District Court trial. Mr. Mortenson - felt it doesn't matter what tho cost will be, the decision is on whether the City or the property owners on the project will pay. Mayor Windschitl explained there is only a limited dollar amount to..work with in the City's budget; arriving at a settlement with Mr. Holasek will give us a known figure to work with. Mr. McGlenn - felt it was unfair to blame Mr. Holasek for these costs and noted that culverts are very important, as he has the same problem on his land with the pipe on University Ave. Ms. Coepland - felt it is easier for the entire community to pay for this project than just the individuals along it. If we get specially assessed for this project, it is going to put a bad light on the City Council and on the City, and the City will have a difficult time trying to get easements from other people because they won't want to go through the same things we are. Mr. Steele - agreed with Ms. Coepland in that there is greater hbility for all 8,000 residents of the community to pay than it is for th~ 26 parcels along the project, especially since it is a City project. Mr. Schneider - stated he voted for the project with the understanding there would be no special assessment to the people and stated the City lead themselves into something and the City should be responsibile for it. Mayor Windschitl stated it was known that them would be non-eligible MSAH costs when the project was ordered. There has never been a descen!1ng Council vote on the project itself. Ms. Coepland - asked if the City doesn't have enough in the General Fund to cover these non- eligible costs, what would they do to get enough money? Mayor Windschitl explained right now there is enough money to cover the costs from the carry-over surplus from prior years. If the aqtion would carry into next year and the court action brings up additional engineering and legal fees and there was no operating funds to pay it, the only choice would be to borrow the money and to increase the tax levy the following year assuming you weren't at your levy limitations. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by McClure, to close the Public Input portion of the Public Hearing on Prairie Road. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:35; reconvene at 9:47 p.m. Mayor Windschitl read a letter dated January 8, 1978, from Gary C. ~ggenstoss, Fairmont, Minnesota, landowner on Prairie Road, noting his opinion that the overrun costs for Prairie Road be paid out of the General Fund. Prairie Road Public Hearing January 12, 1978 - Minutes Pege 7 Council Discussion Councilperson Lachinski's opinion was that there was not agreement on the Council that we were doing a fair negotiation with Mr. Holasek. Mr. Holasek could split Off a 5-acra plat of land at any time. If there's no trees on it, may be it isn't worth more than $1,000 an acre. If there is a row of trees in front, than it is possibly worth more. He felt when the motion was made to proceed with condemnation of Mr. Holasek's property that the attorney was being directed to come back with some kind of fair amount. To his knowledge, we never made Mr. Holasek any kind of counteroffer. He would like to see this settled. Councilperson Lachinski commended the work of TKDA within the City but felt there have been many problems on this project; and if this is a learning process for both the City and for TKDA, then both should share part of the blame and part of the costs. He felt TKDA should bear the 8 percent cost on the overrun portion because TKDA's decision has increased the total cost of the project. He felt several decisions made could have been made in a different way that might have kept the costs down. The engineer told the City there would be no problem finishing the project because of the condemnation. He felt possibly the project should have been postponed until the right of way had been settled. Councilper son Lachinski also felt the engineering costs on this project were well above and beyond normal. He also stated he felt the costs should come out of the General Fund rather than be assessed back to the property owners. Mr. Kasma stated this would be the 8 percent engineering costs for plans and specifications between the ~172,OOO starting costs and the ~200,000 estimated total construction costs. He noted TKDA has already absorbed $8,OOOl~ fees for changes made to improve the project. He explained the grade of the road could not have been lowered. The change and redrawing of the plans and getting approval for them could take several months as the entire pro- cedure would have to be gone through again. V~en the project was started, the problems envisioned were not over the 10 percent contingencies allowed. It was rot known until October 10, 1977, that it would run over the contingency. Comparing engineering costs to other projects done in the City, it is higher for this project; however, Mr. Kesma noted other communities normally charge 25 percent to 34 percent engineering costs. Mr. Kasma felt he could justify paying that 8 percent of the $28,000 increase in the project cost, amounting to approximately $2,000. Councilperson McClure stated several different items were discussed this ewning, but the basic issue is whether the non-eligible costs, whatever they are for whatever reason, should be assessed to the property o,vnrs who neither petitionednor fought for the project or whether it shoUH come out of the City's General Fund. He didn't feel assessments should be made for a City project when the residents do not petition for it. This project has clearly been a municipal project and not a neighborhood project, and he believed it is the City's responsibility to pay the overrun costs. If that means additional increase in the tax levy at a later date to the City as a whole, he believed it has to be followed through with. Councilpœon Vanderlaan felt one needs to look at how the¡word "b~efit" is being used in ,r) 'I l.....,-r~ making the final determination. Testimony is often heard 1he ÇÖá , water, sewer, etc. does not benefit me. The Council has to determine-<Ìs the word "benefit" being used as improve- ment of the project ss determined by a real valuation increase placed on that land. The word "use" could also be substituted for the word "'benefit" when talking about how it affects the entir&City. It is true the entire City is going to use this road, and it is one of the proposed thoroughfares in the over-all City plan; but also there are substantial City dollars being contributed. The origin of the MSAH funds do come from taxation from all residents in the State, including ourselves. While the total project costs $272,000, $251,000 of community dollars have already gone into this project, which comes from the State. Another word to stress is "responsibility." All who sat on the Council prior to Prairie Road Public Hearing January 12, 1978 - Minutes Page 8 (Council Discussion, Continued) 1977-78 terms were fully and thoroughly informed each step of the way. The key vote and date to note in this whole procedure is in December when the final plans and specifications were approved. At that time we not only approved the drawings, we approved the entire concept and were aware of the issues we would have to deal with. To determine why she voted for the project and why it should be Prairie Road, she asked if there were many complaints about maintenance on the road and are we going to improve the condition of that road, At that time there were a substantial number of complaints as to the condition of the road, and it was considered to be one of the worst roads in the City. The assessment procedure adopted by the City must be thought about when deciding the issue.' of whether or not General Fund dollars or an Assessment procedure will be made tò cover non-eligible MSAH costs for the project, While it appears that it would be improper to assess, one has to examine what that assessment policy really says, If the City is to pay for roads as it doee for the City Hall, parks, etc" that means anY time any kind of roadway is done, it is going to come from the General Fund, which means everyone in the City. If this would continue, continually spreading the costs year after year, we're looking at a much more significant dollar amount than when someone is given an assessment of ~lO a foot, Once the assessment is paid for, it is finished; and the resident doesn't have to look at paying for someone elses'road, She explained she accepts full respansib~ty for the complications involved in the project and was aware of everything that was haÞpenin~ with respect to these items. ~~en looking at the assessment policy and at the ramifications to the City in the future, her decision has to be for assessing the cost to the property ovmers, Mr, Steele - felt it doesn't benefit the property monetarily according to the State of Minnesota because of the type of road it is, Mayor Windschi tl explained he agreed with Councilperson Lachinsld's looking at the possibility of reducing the engineering bills; because in looking at Barne's Rolling Oaks project history, he felt that Barnes Preliminary Plat and the Prairie Road plans had to have both been in the Engineer's office at the same time for at least a portion of time, He agreed one wasn't finalized the same time as the other, but he felt by in large,the statistical data was available for both of them at essentially the same time, Secondly, Mayor Windschitl was troubled by the moving of the road for the gas main as that was there and should have been recognized when the original plans were done. Mr, Stockwell explained the road w",moved over originally because we knew the gas station was there, That portion was never changed, Because that gas station was there on top of.,a hill, it judged what we had to do with Prairie Road, And that is the reason for the big difference between Earned Streets and Prairie Road, Thirdly, the Mayor expressed concern over the lack of communication on some of the major changes that have taken place on the project. If we don't know about some of these things taking place, it is impossible for the Council to make any type of decision, He felt the Council could have been better informed on some of these things. And fourthly, ~fuyor Windschitl stated in looking at the various arguments made and research done, the past practice shows Nightengale, done in 1974, that $11,000 non-eligible right- of-way acquisition costs was not assessed, On the University Extension maintenance project, some of the work was done this year, the remainder to be done next year, SlO,OOO will be ~pent which will not be assessed to the property owners, Out of the 26 parcels involved, -25 have settled in good faith not expecting to be assessed on it. Therefore, he didn't think it waS proper to assess it now after the fact and, in effect, take advantage of the situation on the appraisals, In Mayor Windschitl's opinion it might raise the economic value of the house; but from a road standpoin~, he didn't think the road is a benefit to the property in any substantial amount because of the 50 mph speed limit, This stretch of the road will be providing the basic services such as fire protection, police protection, Pråirie Road Public Hearing January 12, 1978 - Minutes Page 9 (Council Discussion, Continued) and the ability to get emergency vehicles through; it's a substantial improvement for the entire City. In looking at all of the things in balance, Mayor Windschitl stated he didn't think the non-eligible costs should be assessed. MOTION by Lachinski, to pay the non-reimbursable MSAH costs on Prairie Road with the exception of 8 percent of the overrun cost to be borne by TKDA and to direct the Attorney to negotiate a fair price for damages above and beyond the basic land costs on the Winslow Holasek property. Motion dies for lack of a seco nd. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by McClure, that the City of Andover pay the non-reimbursable MSAH costs on Prairie Road project with the exception of the 8 percent of overrun costs to be borne by TKDA. Discussion: Mr. Kasma had no problem with the concept and is agreeable to that to get the problem resolved. Further discussion was on the wording of the motion as tar as the actual amount TKDA is to absorb. CouncilpersomMcClure and Lachinski withdrew the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by McClure, that the City of Andover payout of General Funds the non-eligible MSAH costs on Prairie Road to the extent that the Engineering fees be limited in accordance with our original contract to apply to $172,000. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, McClure, Windschitl; NO-VanderLaan Motion carried. Mayor Windschitl - My yes vote reflects my earlier comments. Councilperson VanderLaan - Reference my earlier comments regarding the assessment policy adopted by the City, which policy, in my opinion, was established to guide the City to be as equitable as possible. MOTION by Lachinski to direct the Attorney to make a fair counteroffer to Winslow Holasek for damages above and beyond the basic land costs. Motion dies for lack of a second. Discussion on Adoption of Budget MOTION by VanderLaan, Seconded by Lachinski, that the 1978 Budget discussion be placed on the January 17 Regular Council Meeting Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by McClure, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, "\'\ ~u , '" :::.... "'- ~2 c"-- '~~c'-<:-/ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary [) !1~ ¡{ ",I/! (') J , <.-\ l