HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH October 8, 1979
~ o¡ ANDOVER
STENQUIST ADDITION/1S9TH AVENUE PUBLIC HEARING - OCTOBER 8, 1979
MINUTES
Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Assessment Hearing on the 1979 Street
and Storm Drainage project in the area known as Stenquist Addition and lS9th Avenue
from Makah Street to Roanoke Street was called to order by Mayor Windschitl on
October 8, 1979, 7:34 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Engineers John Davidson and Mark Schumacher; City Clerk,
P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents
Mr. Davidson explained that the special assessment will be levied for the principal
amount of the contract plus all additional costs including legal, administrative,
engineering, and contingencies. It will be levied at equal annual installments over
a period of 15 years with interest of 7.66 percent, which is one percent over the
interest rate paid for the bonds for City administrative costs. He went on to explain
that the assessment will be added to the real estate taxes; however, it can be prepaid
in full without interest within 30 days after the assessment is levied. There is no
provision for partial payment of assessments. In any succeeding year, the balance of
the assessment can be paid off with only one year's prepaid interest.
Mr. Davidson also explained the City assessment policy and how assessable front footage
is determined, including a 200-foot credit on the long side of corner lots. At this
point in the project, the assessment cost is $16.17 per assessable front foot for street
construction and storm drainage. At this point they don't have an actual cost for some
- of the uncompleted work or changes that may have to be made yet, but Mr. Davidson was
sure that any additional cost would be sufficiently covered by the contingency factor
built into that front-foot cost. The law does allow for an appeal procedure of an
assessment, and he went on to explain that procedure.
Mayor Windschitl stated that he met with Mr. McCloskey and three residents on Friday
morning, showing the problem with the bus stop site on Potawatomi. The Mayor thought
that Mr. McCloskey is of the opinion that there is a safety problem there. Mr.
McCloskey is going to be sending a recommendation to the school Superintendent, but
the Mayor reported that their preference would be to turn the bus around on the east
end of 162nd. Mayor Windschitl stated that any change is going to have to be argued
on the safety factor. Mr. Davidson stated that the prima facie speed zone in any
residential area where driveways are closer than 100 feet is 30 mph, and he felt that
the general character of this neighborhood would indicate a prima facie speed limit
of 30 mph even though he recognized that the driveways were farther than 100 feet apart.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to authorize the City Engineering firm to contact
the Department of Transportation with regard to establishing a 30 mile-an-hour speed
ZOne in the Stenquist Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Windschitl also commented that the T-turnarounds that are to be constructed in
the project are not anywhere near their finished status yet, as the contractor is
trying to get the class 5 on the road and finish up the turnarounds after that.
Testimony was then open to the public.
Fred Hamacher, 4755 162nd - got the impression the assessment figure given is not a
valid number, as lt seems that the costs aren't yet determined. So how were these
numbers arrived at if the total cost is not yet determined? Mr. Davidson reviewed
the two change orders to the contract,with the first change resulting in an approximate
$500 increase and the second one resulting in an approximate $6,600 decrease to the
contract price. The total contract price plus 17 percent legal, engineering and
. ~ ... .. ."
,
Stenquist Addition/1S9th Avenue Public Hearing
October 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 2
administrative costs plus 10 percent contingency was divided by the total assessable
footage in the project to obtain the $16.17 front foot figure. If a substantial
decrease in the net costs of the project is found after it is completed, the City has
the prerogative to call a supplemental assessment hearing at which time a further
reduction in assessment can be made.
Leon Struwve, 4613 lS9th Avenue NW - asked if $16.17 is the most they will ever pay.
Mr. Davidson felt that with the 10 percent contingency factor, the cul de sac can be
added for the bus turnaround, provided there are not a lot of additional costs to the
contract. He pointed out there still are a number of unknowns in the project. The
City would call a supplemental hearing only for just cause, as the Council has to
weigh the costs of the hearing against any savings there may be to the residents. At
the end of the construction project if the cost savings is substantial where each
would receive a rebate, an additional hearing would be held and the assessments would
be reduced by any part of the 10 percent not used. If anyone had prepaid the assessment,
they would be re-imbursed by that amount.
Bill Hem~, 4756 161st Lane - wondered why he has a ditch in the middle of his driveway.
Also, be ore gettlng to the cul de sac, he had a driveway to get his camper, boat,
etc., in there. He now has no way of getting them out. He wondered if that could be
graded out. Mr. Davidson explained that a 2\-foot ditch was needed to put in the
culverts under the driveways, and in modifying the ditch sections and removing the
culverts, it would necessitate a dip in the driveway. He did feel that the dip could
be adjusted, and stated the Engineers should meet with Mr. Hemp to resolve the problem.
Art Stenquist, lS9th - asked if he couldn't make a partial payment towards the principal,
as hlS assessments are so large, approximately $21,000, that he couldn't pay it all off
at once. In the discussion that ensued between Mr. Stenquist, the Council, and the
Engineer, it was noted that if his large lot is divided, the assessment would follow
the individual parcels; if Mr. Stenquist could tell the City how much of the principal
he could pay prior to sending the assessment roll to the County, the roll could be
spread on the basis of the balance of the principal, showing a prepaid credit from
his parcel only. Mr. Stenquist indicated he could probably pay $10,000 on it. Mr.
Stenquist was told to talk to the Clerk and the Engineer prior to leaving this evening
to decide what he wanted to prepay and that the Engineers could then spread the roll
based on that.
Jim Halter, 16100 Potawatomi - asked what date the project was approved or first
ordered. They moved ln the middle of July and believed it was approved previous to
that. Would that determine pending assessment at the time? The Clerk stated not
necessarily, but the Halter's were told to contact their own attorney relative to who
would be responsible for these assessments. They can also obtain the exact dates from
the Clerk.
Mr. Halter - asked if they are being assessed for moving some of that material twice.
Asked for the percentage as to what the increase was to do the extra movement of dirt.
He was curious what the total price would have been had it been designed that way in
the first place. Mr. Davidson explained that they are paying for the moving of the
dirt because the contractor had adjusted the price to include anything that he excavated
and replaced. The unit price agreed upon compensated in full for any work in the project
to that point. However, the total project price was reduced by approximately $6,600.
Mr. Davidson reviewed the change order: original Class A excavation was at $1.10 a
cubic yard for 24,000 cubic yards and the revised contract was $2.15 for 15,200 cubic
yards of dirt.
Mr. Halter - moved in the middle of July and missed the original hearings. Asked if
the Council asked the Engineers to talk to each individual landowner to try to alleviate
any problems that might come up. The Mayor stated he wasn't aware of it. Mr.
Davidson stated that generally at the time of the project they try to give informational
sheets with people to contact, etc., and try to make themselves available as much as possible
Stenquist Addition/1S9th Avenue Public Hearing
October 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 3
Georåe Kerr, 4544 161st Lane - his driveway also has a dip in it at this time. Mr.
Oavl son stated they wlll have to meet with Mr. Kerr to work this out.
Mr. Halter - also has the same problem. They are going to try to hold some of the
water up on the north side of his driveway, and have eliminated the culvert. He
assumed it would be filled in, but as of today there is a dip. Mr. Davidson stated
that some of the driveways have not yet received the class 5 surfacing.
John DeRoches, 16014 Potawatomi - wondered if they have the option on the number of
years to pay the assessment. He would prefer to pay it in 10 years rather than 15
years as there is a savings of interest. There is only a difference of $10 a month to
spread it over 10 years rather than 15. Discussion on the years of payment noted
that the bonds have been purchased for a 15-year period; 15 years was chosen by the
Council in an attempt to lower the annual payment as in some cases there were unusually
large assessments and a number of people indicated it would be a hardship; that the
balance of the principal can be paid off in full at any time with One year's prepaid
interest, and that the City is responsible for that road and the residents cannot be
reassessed for the road or drainage for the duration of the bond, 15 years. If Mr.
DeRoches wanted to payoff the principal after the tenth year, he would save
approximately $400 in interest.
Mr. DeRoches, Parcel 5500 - his driveway also has a dip in it.
Carol Kerr - asked why the contractor is hopping around. Isn't this costing us more
money? She also complained about their paying for the error made in the design of
the project. She indicated they were at every meeting and were never told they were
going to have 2~-foot ditches, as storm sewers were always talked about. She also
,
, didn't think the people were represented very well. Mr. Davidson stated the contractor
is paid only for the cost of materials and it is up to him how to complete the project.
Councilman Lachinski stated that what the contractor is saying is that if he were going
to bid a project like that in the first place, the price would have been higher on a
per-yard basis, and that's why he justified giving the price change as he did. It is
questionable whether the contractor or the City came out better in terms of the changes
made. Discussion followed on the events of the project thus far relative to the changes
made and on the misunderstandings about the total design of the project. Mr. Davidson
stated the typical cross street section showing ditches was showed at all public
hearings, with several in the audience responding they had not seen that sheet before.
It was also noted that the Engineers were merely designing the road to the City's
established street standards. Mayor Windschitl then stated if there is any question
as to what took place at the public hearings, anyone can listen to the tapes of the
meetings.
Dan Schumacher, 4631 161st - didn't believe the city road standards should be to change
the grades where homes are already existing, as these homes were built according to
the existing street. On 162nd the street was changed when the home was already there.
Mayor Windschitl indicated that TKDA has done a calculation as to the affect of drainage
On Mr. Schumacher's lot. Mark Schumacher reviewed their findings privately with him.
Mrs. Halter - asked the difference between the type of streets in Kiowa Terrace and
thelr streets. Mayor Windschitl explained that when Kowa Terrace was built, it was
done as a new plat and all street construction and storm drainage was built into the
plat as it developed.
Mr. Hamacher - seemed to him the roads in Kiowa Terrace are the right type of approach
to put lnto an existing development and that the roads they are putting in Stenquist
seems to be the right kind of roads into a development just beginning -- that there
might be two sets of standards for each type of project. Mayor Windschitl stated
that the one problem with putting in the roads with bituminous birm in Stenquist and
going underground with the storm sewer is that the project costs would have increased
substantially, which is what the Council was trying to avoid.
Stenquist Addition/1S9th Avenue Public Hearing
October 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 4
Mr. Kerr - stated the problem is they were under the impression that storm sewer was
gOlng to be put in. He didn't want ditches and didn't think ditches were mentioned
at any of the meetings he attended.
Helen Hemp~ 4756 161st - asked for the final figures of people in favor of and opposed
to the proJect at the meeting the Council made the decision to award bids; as she had
done a calculation using the Clerk's figures and determined that according to assessable
front footage, which she felt the decision should have been made on since that is what
the people are paying for, a majority (over 1,000 feet more) was opposed to the project.
She felt it was the Council's responsibility to state that a judgement error had been
made when the decision was made because a majority was not in favor, although she did
realize that the Council can order projects without a majority in favor and that nothing
further can be done at this time. It is just that they had been promised the project
would not go in until a majority was in favor. She felt the decision was hastily made.
Council discussion was on what happened that evening as best as anyone could remember;
that the Council acted on what information they had available that evening; that the
front footage calculation that Mrs. Hemp did was not done at that meeting; that it
came down to how each Councilmember interpreted the figures given, as even now there
was a difference of opinion as to what the numbers given represent; that the petition
was modified during the meeting; that there are duplicate names on the list; and that
there probably was some sentiment by some of the Council that the amount of property
owned by Mr. Stenquist made the difference, that given the number of times this had
been petitioned for, it was questioned if it is fair to the rest of the residents to
have one property owner defer it year after year and possibly cause the price to increase.
Mr. Hemp - suggested that people going around with petitions be accurately informed, as
there was a lot of misinformation told about the project. Councilman Orttel stated that
using Mrs. Hemp's figures, going with each person, a majority was in favor; using one
vote per lot, there is one more in favor; and going assessable front footage, there
is a majority opposed.
Mrs. Halter - was under a purchase agreement and closed on the 13th of July. The
agreement says the seller is liable to pay all pending assessments. If this were the
case, then these assessments should have been paid by the seller. Who would tell them
that they owe the assessments? The Mayor stated t~e~ that is a civil matter and the
City cannot enter into it. All of the City records/ ilable for them to view. They
should get actual dates from the City Clerk. The Clerk did state that legally the City
is required to bill the current owner as shown on the tax records. All assessments
are levied against the land irrespective of the owner. They would be liable for that
assessment. Any action against the prior owner would be a civil matter.
Mr. Schumacher - asked how the matter of drainage to his lot will be settled. Mr.
Uavldson explained that from their study it was their opinion that additional drainage
from the project would not materially affect Mr. Schumacher's lot. At this point in
time, the difference cannot be seen on a contour map because 1/2 feet is negligible
compared to the rest of the drainage area. If in time that area silts over and begins
to hold water, which may cause some problems for Mr. Schumacher, and that siltation
might never take place, the City may have to open it up, put in a sand drain or put an
outlet and overflow pipe to control it to a specific elevation.
Mr. Schumacher - stated in putting culverts under everyone's driveway, is there any
water that can be stopped, or are culverts high enough so that each property owner is
going to hold some water. Mr. Davidson stated it is designed to drain continuously
with the storm up to the capacity of the culvert. He didn't expect any immediate
damming effect; but tentatively there will be some siltation within all culverts to
the pOint where eventually they'll have to be cleaned. So some damming may take effect
with that siltation. Also, with the design modifications and removing some culverts,
there will be some damming effect off each driveway.
Stenquist Addition/1S9th Avenue Public Hearing
October 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 5
Mr. Schumacher - asked why the culvert wasn't raised so the property owner across the
street would get some of the water. Mr. Davidson stated there is still going to be
some ponding effect in back of the property across the street. The culvert previously
existing was replaced at the same elevation. His recommendation was to review the
drainage again after everything has settled and at that point determine whether
additional drainage work needs to be done, easement acquired, or whatever. The City
is responsible for any damage to Mr. Schumacher's lot as a result of additional
drainage, and the fact that there may be some damage when conditions change in the
future is also a factor for any future damage claims. As for the immediate effect of
the construction, he was fairly confident that Mr. Schumacher will not be immediately
damaged. The studies indicate there isn't going to be any immediate inflow of water
beyond what he had before.
Mr. Halter - assumed he would fall under the same classification for water damage as
Mr. Schumacher. He also requested that a study be done on his property as far as
increase in water, as they have been made aware that their lot is low and takes on
water. And they are going to be gaining some water in the back which they didn't have
before due to a culvert going across 160th. Mr. Davidson stated they have done a
run-off calculation which can be made available to the Halters. The culvert at 160th
was put in at the existing low spot; so a change hasn't been made but it allowed the
water to run under the road. From the inception of the project, the Engineers have
reiterated they are using the existing drainag epatterns. There is a slight increase
in water flow because of the 20 percent hard surface being added to the area, but more
water isn't being added. Normally they calculate water runoff on the basis of a summer
rainfall frequency; because the normal spring snow melting is considerably less than
the 100-year storm frequency.
Mr. Kerr - stated the lot next to them was all filled in and a valley created between
the two lots, and he wondered if that would create a problem for them. Also, on the
corner of 161st Lane and Potawatomi there is a culvert that is very deep. Is anything
going to be done to that corner, as he felt it was a dangereous situation. Mr.
Davidson stated they are aware that it is a hazard as it relates to the bus stop, etc.,
and they did consider putting in a catch basin on that corner.
Mrs. Kerr - wanted the record to show that they don't have water problems yet. But
the contractor also buried trees in the lot next door (east side) and there was a
culvert leading across 161st Lane from the Bush property to the vacant lot which they
just ran over, smashed in, and never took out. Water stood in a hole on that vacant
lot in the spring. Since it has been filled, if they have any water problems, they will
be back before the City and the Engineer. Mr. Davidson stated they looked at that
and it wasn't a natural outlet. There was a culvert under the road but it was just a
balancing thing, and at the last meeting, the design was modified to eliminate that
sag in the road without replacing the culvert.
Bill Bush, 4613 161st - stated previously he had no problems with the existing culverts
and the way the road was. It has now been changed and the other end is sealed off.
He thought that should be changed. He doesn't want the water that naturally went to
the south side of the property to run from the build-up back into his lot. Mr.
Davidson stated that there is a one-year guarantee period that he felt would carry
the protection with some of the drainage questions raised this evening. If there is
drainage problems in the future, it would be the City's obligation to take a look at it.
Mr. Halter - stated the lot across the street has also been filled with a lot of tree
stumps, brush, etc., in the back section of the lot behind the existing pile. The
Engineers have told him that it is going to be pulled back, but he didn't know how
far. The lowest portion of that lot as far as he knew was on the northeast corner.
Where the road is now, he didn't feel drainage will go back to the original corner.
Stenquist Addition/159th Avenue Public Hearing
October 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 6
He questioned the benefit of the fill they were putting in there. Mr. Davidson
stated he hadn't seen stumps being buried, but has seen a pile of stumps. If stumps
have been buried outside the building area itself, it is permissible. Most of the
debris was to be hauled away.
Mrs. Kerr - stated on the lot next to them, she watched the contractor dig a deep
trench and put in posts. The Engineers were to investigate this further.
Larr{ Kosola, 4643 lS9th - has two driveways, and the driveway to get to the back of
hlS ot is now a steep bank which would be a problem for him coming in and out. He
asked if the contractor can put a load of dirt in there. Mr. Schumacher will look
at that situation.
Mayor Windschitl requested that TKDA review the assessment on the Ron Smith property,
that to be consistent with assessments in the past, part of the assessment should be
just for storm drainage to handle water from the top of the hill, because all the
water from the top of the hill is being handled through this system. The way the roll
reads is for lot assessments for Mr. Smith without allowing for assessments for handling
the water on the lots past the first lot. Mr. Davidson explained that the assessment
roll as presented is just a front-foot assessment for storm drainage and street
construction; however, the system is picking up storm drainage basically for 700 to
800 feet of Mr. Smith's property, which is several lots. He stated they could break
the storm drainage cost out, separate it from the rest of the project, and pro-rate
that back against a different adjusted front-footage assessment. This effect would
reduce the $16.17 front foot assessment for the property owners in the project and
would create a storm water assessment for the additional lots on Smith's development
that are contributing storm water.
Gary Zavagil, 4530 lS9th Avenue NW - there was a culvert that went across lS9th on
the north side where Mr. Smlth's road came out. It was buried during construction of
that road. ~ere the street standards applied to Mr. Smith's streets as well? Mr.
Davidson stated Mr. Smith used the new urban standards, and he then reviewed the
standards from which a developer usually has a choice to make for new development
roadways.
Mr. Zavagil - asked when street signs are going to be put up. There never has been any
slgns for Mr. Smith's new road. Mr. Schumacher stated signs will be replaced when
the project is completed.
Mrs. Kerr - stated there has been apond in that area since Mr. Smith put that road in,
and water has built up in that corner causing some erosion. Discussion was that that
was done by design to hold the water in that corner until this project was completed.
Mr. Smith will be paying to take care of his water drainage.
Mr. Kerr - felt that the corner of lS9th and Potawatomi should be a four-way stop to
slow down traffic. Discussion noted that it was not designed as such but that the
Sheriff's office should look at it.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, entering the following Resolution, adopting
the Assessment for the Improvement of Bituminous Street for the Stenquist Addition in
the west half of Section 18, Township 32, Range 24, and lS9th Avenue from Makah Street
to Roanoke Street in Section 18, Township 32, Range 24, and storm water drainage only
on Makah Street north of lS9th Avenue NW ... (that such assessment, an amended copy of
which is attached hereto...) (...BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such assessment as amended
shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over 15 years, the first of
the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1980, and
shall bear interest at the rate of 7.66 percent per annum...)
Stenquist Addition/1S9th Avenue Public Hearing
October 8, 1979 - Minutes
Page 7
Discussion: It was agreed to round the interest rate to the nearest quarter percent.
Councilman Orttel CHANGED RESOLUTION To: ...at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum...
Second still stands. (See Resolution R87-9) Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Engineer be directed to amend
the assessment roll in Stenquist Addition and surrounding areas to include a storm
water drainage assessment only for those lots in the Ron Smith property not fronting
on lS9th Avenue but receiving benefit. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, '
'~~~·Cc ~L
Mar ella A. Peach
Recording Secretary