Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIM April 29, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON PROPOSED SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS APRIL 29, 1980 i~INUTES An Informational Meeting on the proposed construction of sanitary sewer, water supply and distribution, streets, and drainage improvements for the Southwest Area of the City of Andover was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on April 29, 1980, 7:37 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, LaChinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Engineers John Davdison, Mark Schumacher, Larry Bohrer; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others Mayor Windschitl explained that this is an informational meeting for the Ílilprovements as they may affect the various developments, noting that the proposed subdivision involved include: Auditor's Subdivision No. 82 Quickstrom Addition Chapman's Addition, Nos. 1-5 Weise's Additions, Nos. 1 and 2 Good Value Homes Proposed Plat Woodland Terrace Proposed Plat Rademacher Proposed CQlfU11erC i a 1 Deve 10pment Unplatted areas within the vacinity The Mayor explained that various neighborhoods have petitioned to be included for sanitary sewer and streets, and the entire proposal is being consolidated into one hearing process in an attempt to present everything at one time. At the end of the hearings, the Council will make the decision as to which areas will receive which improvements. He then introduced the Engineering firm and Engineers present. Engineer Davidson reviewed the Preliminary Report on Proposed Southwest Area Utility Improvements, City of Andover, Commission No. 7375A, dated April 15, 1980, relative to the location; the proposed improvements; initiation; special conditions; abutting parcels; right of way; feasibility; estimated project costs and assessment rates; a proposed project time schedule anticipating the underground portion of the project to be completed by December 19, 1980, with street construction in the spring of 1981; and noting that assessments to the residents would be levied in October, 1981, payable with the first one-half taxes in 1982. He then reviewed the proposed sanitary sewer service improvement, noting the trunk line terminiating at 143rd and the laterals within the subdivisions. Joe Caskinette, 13852 Round Lake Boulevard - didn't understand the costs of the sanitary sewer and assessment procedure. (Eng1neer Davidson explained the preliminary assessment rates for the sanitary sewer, with total estimated cost of $2,054,000; direct benefit charge of $21. 50 per front foot; an area assessment for trunk at $1,045 an acre; a service stub charge of $425 each; a suggested connection charge of $60 each, with a typical lot assessment for a 100-foot lot totalling $3,056. He also explained the suggested assessment for 20 years for the sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer at 10%, 11%, and 12% interest and 10-year street assessment at those same interest rates. At 10 percent interest, an annual assessment on a typical lot for sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer is estimated to be $829.15. He also explained the City's assessment procedure and noted there would be more detailed costs at the public hearing.) Karen Jones, 3532 136th Avenue, Chapman's - asked what the $3,066 per typical lot 1ncludes. (Mr. Davidson explained that that is the cost for the sanitary sewer only, and that the costs will be adjusted subject to those portions of the project that are Informational Meeting on Proposed Southwest Area Utilities Improvements April 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 ordered. Mayor Windschit1 explained that it is not the City's intent to install an improvement in a neighborhood unless the neighborhood requests it. This meeting is to find out what the people in the various areas want in the way of utility improvements.) Lawrence Carlson, 17750 Aztec - stated that the costs shown are only those for the 1mprovement on publ1c property. He asked what the additional costs would be to a property owner to hook up to the house itself. (Mr. Davidson estimated that assuming a normal 30-foot setback from the lot line, it would cost approximately $400 to run the line from the house to the street stub. The Mayor also noted that there is an additional SAC charge that goes directly to the Metropolitan Wastewater Control Commission, which is presently $425. The Clerk noted that most of this area was outside of the SAC area and estimated about 90 percent of the residents have not yet paid that SAC charge. The City has accurate records of those who have paid the SAC charge already. Mr. Davidson then explained that this sewer availability charge is put on the interceptor system and collected from each new dwelling connecting to the system. ) Mr. Caskinette - asked that all costs be listed so that residents can see the total cost to them for sanitary sewer. (Mr. Davdison stated that they will have that information for the public hearing.) Dan Bonneville, 3608 143 Avenue N - stated his lot is 300 feet on the front and asked 1f h1S assessment would be tr1ple. (Mr. Davidson explained the method of assessment relating to the narrow side of the lot, explaining the corner lot side-yard benefit that generally relates to the average depth of the lot within the subdivision, and that the policy on irregular-shaped lots relates it back to the rectangular lot. Mayor Windschit1 also explained that the City has a Lot Split Ordinance to deal with large lots within small developments to allow them to be split. The Mayor also noted the potential changes the City is considering in the rezoning for the Comprehensive Development Plan, especially removing the R-5 and M-1 zonings west of Round Lake Boulevard, presently owned by Good Value Homes, and changing the zone to an R-4 zone.) John Berry, 3755 143rd - asked if bringing the sewer system to Round Lake Boulevard has been coord1nated with the County's road construction. (Mr. Davidson explained that the City is working with the County and has asked the County to install the sewer pipes across Round Lake Boulevard under the County's contract for the improvement of the roadway, so the pipes would be installed prior to the surface going on the road. Where the trunk is running along Round Lake Boulevard, the City would be asking for easements so the line wi 11 not be in the traveled roadway. It is intended that the trunk line would be extended along the east side of that road because that would give the most direct service at this time. It is also intended that the laterals would be extended down the center of the street within the subdivisions. The ~tayor a 1 so noted that the intent is to try to center the roads.) John Zi11hardt, 3753 145th - asked what is done if the road deadends against your property. (Mr. Davidson explained the line would be extended to the deadend with a manhole placed at the end, which would be available if the road should extend to the undeveloped property. If it deadends onto a private lot, it is preferred that the service come in ahead of the manhole to facilitate maintenance. The assessment would be equivalent for some reasonable average width of the lot just as it would benefit anyone else.) Lloyd Reimann, 2813 142nd - asked if the trunk charge is a set charge or an actual cost. (Mr. Dav1dson explained that it is based on the estimated cost of construction of that piece of trunk sewer, and actual cost will be based on what the cOntractor bids for each part of the work. In previous projects, the cost of the oversizing was based on a per-lot charge. The Council is suggesting to change that policy to a per- acre cost for this project, relate those costs back to thosepr~viou~y assessed areas Informational Meeting on Proposed Southwest Area Utilities Improvements April 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 to an area charge as well, trying to equalize the costs among all residents being served by the trunk line, making a refund to those previously serviced districts. Mayor Windschit1 explained that when Green Acres was done, it was a small area with large oversizing costs. As the project builds itself out and costs can be more readily seen, the intent is to make a refund to those areas paying the $1,000 connection charge initially so that in the end everyone will have paid equally for the same benefit.) Bob Dilley, 12309 Vinta~e - asked if this is going to be approved because of the petition presented or w111 the people be given a chance to vote on it. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the project started with the petition. After residents see the costs, etc., they can either re-petition the area, write to the City Council, testify at public hearings, etc., to let the Council know the majority feeling in the neighborhood. There will be a public hearing and the Council will be receptive to petitions, etc., at that time. The State Law doesn't allow the City to hold an election on projects.) Mr. Dilley - didn't see the petition that went through his neighborhood. Some people were assuming water would be coming through as well. He felt there was some confusion about what was on the petition. Rosella Sonsteb{, 4151 141st Avenue NW - noted that the Engineer stated that an area assessment of $ ,045 an acre would apply to unplatted areas as well. She asked what land was involved. (Mr. Davidson reviewed that area within the dashed line on the overhead map which defined the service district which can be serviced with the gravity sewer and would pay its proportionate share of the trunk line. They are excluding defined wetlands from that assessment.) Ms. Sonsteby - felt that that was a lot of money for unplatted land; as once the property is platted, there will still be additional costs to get service to the property lines. (Mr. Davidson stated that theoretically the value of the sewer increases the value of the land. Mayor Windschit1 stated that is the cost of getting the trunk to the property and that the Council has not yet made a decision on assessing that property to the north of this area. This entire assessment policy will be discussed by the Council this Thursday evening.) Mr. Dilley - asked if there has been a study done to see if it would be more feasible to wait until there are more people and tax base versus doing it now. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the Council cannot consider economic factors when considering these projects. The City is simply trying to provide information to developers and homeowners of the costs and feasibility of the project. It will be up to the individual neighborhoods to inform the City whether or not they want the projects. Mr. Davidson also stated that there would be no difference in cost because the total area that could be benefited by the trunk line is being charged for its extension.) Engineer Schumacher reviewed the alternate water supply and distribution projects. A lternate A looked at a system with a 500-gallon-per-minute well and hydropneurnatic pressure tank to serve the two petitioned areas with domestic supply. It would not provide a true1y adequate fire fighting supply. Alternate B relates to extending water main extensions into the existing subdivisions, and Alternate C would be an entire municipal water supply system where the City would build an overhead storage tank, provide a well, provide a trunk line, and provide fire protection and domestic flow for the entire area. Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the costs for the three alternatives relative to estimated total costs, direct benefit for water lines, area benefit for Alternate C, service stub charge, connection charge, and user charge of the three alternatives. He also compared the user rates and cOnnection charges with that of other communities, including a typical quarterly billing for each homeowner. Informational Meeting on Proposed Southwest Area Utilities Improvements April 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 Mr. Schumacher noted that the City of Anoka has denied Andover's request for a shared water system; and though the City of Coon Rapids had indicated they would have available water supply for a portion of Andover, their trunk line is located where it would be at least three to five years before it would be extended so that Andover could take advantage of that availability. Mr. Schumacher went on to review the estimated assessment for watermain ona typical 100-foot lot totalling $3,156, and the assessment over a 20- year period at various interest rates. The pressure tank would operate between 20 pounds per square inch and 150 pounds within the system. The system in Alternates A and B could be used for fire fighting purposes, but it wouldn't qualify for fire underwriters rated fire fighting system which is used to reduce insurance rates. Alternates A and B would be domestic service only. Danny Stevens, 14345 Underc1iff - what will determine which option the City will take. W1th option C, w111 everyone in Andover be able to connect to the system? (Mr. Schumacher stated the City Council will make that decision depending on the areas asking for water service. The total system proposed relates only to this service area of 557 acres, not the entire City. Assuming this area wanted water, they would start out with an overhead storage tank which would have capacity to go beyond this area. Mayor Windschitl explained that in the past the position of the City has been not to run city water into areas where they have deep wells if the residents didn't want it put in. If there are shallow wells or some water problems, now would be the time to consider central water. If a subdivision puts in sanitary sewer and streets, water would not be required. The intent is to present the information to the residents and have the neighborhoods inform the Council which utilities they, by majority, are interested in.) Melvin Niska, 3737 143rd - asked if there is water in the entire area, is a water tower needed, otherwise it is not. If water was put in Auditors Sub. 82, who would pay for the tower? (Mr. Schumacher stated that would strictly be a decision by the Council. The people who actually hook into the system pay for those improvements. Mr. Davidson stated that normally the water department becomes a private business. As the system is enlarged, the equipment is capitalized and a sinking fund is retained. Normally the production, storage, and some of the distribution is paid from water revenue. Those that use the water are, in effect, paying for the expanded facility. As people come into the system, they are being charged connection charges, etc., for the specific lateral benefit, etc., for their area. For the purpose of establishing a district, they suggested the area established for sanitary sewer can be serviced with adequate fire protection using Alternative C. That could also be expanded in the future, it being a growing entity in the government service; and that expansion is consistently assessed against the benefited participants. r~r. Schumacher stated that the pumping and pressure system would not be assessed directly but would be recovered through a usage charge -- people buyin9 the water.) Mr. Carlson - speaking for Woodland Terrace, they did not petition for water but petitioned only for a feasibility study of the water. He felt the cost of $3,100 is not complete, as there still is a connection from the property line into the home, assuming that is several hundred dollars, plus the service charge. In the case of Woodland Terrace, they are facing the financing of this improvement long before it may be in use. He felt that the cost on a per-lot basis would be more than double that of using an individual well system; and his inclination tonight is they would not pursue this. Mr. Caskinette - asked where the well would be located and at what depth. (Mr. Schumacher stated they haven't done the detailed design for the location of the well but felt it would be around the commercial area. The engineers stated that the well would be cased down into the Jordon Formation acquifer, which is required by the State Health Department, estimating it would be 300-400 feet deep, and the entire water Informational Meeting on Proposed Southwest Area Utilities Improvements April 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 supply would come from that formation and not affect anybody else's wells. Mr. Davidson advised that when the deeper sewer line comes through and some areas have to be dewatered, the very shallow wells may be temporarily drained and the contractor will provide water during that interim.) Mr. Berry - at what point do they quit using the Coon Rapids water hookup? (Mayor Windschitl thought that the Coon Rapids waterline is not far enough along that the City could viably consider it at this point.) Pat Peterson, 3427 141st - our area has petitioned for everything excluding the water, but she felt they assumed that the water lines would still be run under the street. If they don't want water, would the City put water pipes under the street now for future hookup? (Council and staff answer was no. If water is wanted in the future, the streets may have to be torn up; however, they may be able to run the water lines on the easements, but that would naturally be at a higher cost. Water doesn't have to go as deep as the other lines.) Dan Schu1ist, 14319 Underc1iff, Auditor's Sub. 82 - has there been any testing of the water for quantity and quality to determ1ne whether water is needed? (Council and staff answer was that the City has done no testing of private wells; and if the residents feel there is a problem, either the University of Minnesota or Anoka County has water sampling kits for their use. Residents were advised to call City Hall for further information.) Mr. Schulist - stated he didn't think they had a problem with their water and felt the maJor1ty 1n the area felt their water was adequate for supply and quality as well. Mr. Dilley - assumed a lot of the people never saw the petition, including himself. He wondered if the true feeling of the population is coming through tonight, as he didn't think this was the proper way to go about this. He wondered if another petition could be presented, letting the people have a chance to vote on it. (Mayor Windschitl stated the petition was initiated by the residents, and it is a public document. The petition from Auditor's Sub. 82 indicated 43 in favor and 26 opposed to sanitary sewer and street improvement.) Bill LeFebvre, 14278 Undercliff - stated only three people in Auditor Sub. 82 were not contacted with the petition. Recess at 9:14; reconvene at 9:33 p.m. Engineer Bohrer reviewed the street and storm sewer improvement project, noting the city street standards, the type of streets that would be installed in the various areas; that a detailed hydrologic study will be done for drainage of the entire area; reviewed the proposed assessments for storm sewer and streets noting that Auditor's Subdivision 82 already has storm sewers; and noting that storm sewer for a typical 100-foot lot would be $812 and bituminous street would be $1,380. Mr. Caskinette - asked if it is possible to put in speed bumps on the frontage road he llves on, complaining about the speed in that area. (Discussion was that it is possible engineering-wise, but it is not recommended due to liability, etc.; noting that the City has not had problems in other project areas once the project is completed, even in those areas where speed was a great concern prior to the project. Traffic can be controlled with traffic signs. Also, if there are speed problems at the present time, the Deputy can be asked to patrol the area.) Mr. Stevens - asked which areas are subject to curb and gutter. (Mr. Bohrer explained the area receiving curb and gutter are the high-density areas, particularly the quad- homes in Woodland Terrace Plat and the commercial area around the proposed shopping center. In residential areas, the bituminous mat would be 28 feet wide with grass shoulderc Informational Meeting on Proposed Southwest Area Utilities Improvements April 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 Mr. Berry - asked if 143rd, which serves most of the people north and south of the area, would be subject to curb and gutter. (Discussion noted that it would be a standard seven-ton road without curb and gutter, possibly with a bituminous birm or reverse shoe.) Mr. Zi11hardt - has been told that the storm sewer has a detrimental affect on the lake qual1ty and asked what effect future storm sewers would have On the lake. (Discussion noted that sediment is carried from the street, possibly composed of fertilizers, organic matter, etc. Most of the runoff from Quickstroms and below is being piped to the low area west of No. 116. There will be some built-in sedimentation effect by providing storm drainage ponds to provide for storage of a 100-year rainfall, which would be given emergency overflow to drain down between storms. It has also been found that by regular cleaning of the streets, the nutrients going into the lake as a result of storm water can be significantly dimished. All storm sewers are also designed with a sump in the catch basins so it would settle out some of the sediment.) Ms. Sonsteby - stated she offered to give the City land to put in a storm drainage pond when the storm drainage was done in Auditor's Sub. 82, and it was turned down. She felt Round Lake is being polluted. Mike Alexander, 14311 Round Lake Boulevard - asked if utilities will be put underground at the same time the project lS done. (Discussion noted that that is handled by the utility companies themselves and that the City has no control over that.) Art Speaker, 14346 Woodbine Street - asked the actual front-foot cost for streets and san1tary sewer in Auditor Sub. 82. ($3,066 for sanitary sewer financed for 20 years and $1,380 for street improvement, financed for 10 years; annual assessment of $584.72 based on 10 percent for 10 years; and $360.13 for the remaining 10 years.) Steve Wood, 3723 145th - asked the charges for a 100x170-foot corner lot. (Mayor Windsch1t1 noted 1t would be the same charge because of the assessment policy.) Mr. Zil1hardt - what happens if you own an acre lot but it is obviously only one lot wh1ch cannot be divided. (Mayor Windschitl stated that unusual lots will be part of the discussion with the assessment policy, as the City has an obligation to assess as fairly as possible.) Ken Susal1a, 14288 Vintage - asked what the recent interest rates have been. (Mr. Davidson stated that the bids opened last week in White Bear Township were 8.103 percent, and the City's pOlicy is to add one percent administrative charges to that.) Lee Nordstrom, 14401 Underc1iff - asked how much it is going to cost to bring the sewer from the lot line to the house. He felt most p~op1e had more of a setback than 30 feet. (Mr. Davidson estimated $400 based on an average 30-foot setback from the lot line. Each property owner would hire a contractor to do that work.) Mr. Nordstrom - felt bcause of the setbacks and location of the sewer that $1,000 might be a more reasonable figure. Council and staff reminded those present that th~se are only preliminary estimate figures to inform the residents, which will change either upward or downward as a more detailed feasibility study is done and bids are taken. In the past, if bids come in more than 10 percent of what was estimated at the public hearing, the Council has rejected the bids. Because of the expense of doing a detailed feasibility study, it was asked that anyone totally opposed to the projects inform the Council so that area can be removed from the proposed project. Mr. Berry - didn't sign the first petition, but is in favor of sanitary sewer and streets. He stated the roads are a mess now and felt it would be worth the expense to have them improved. He asked if they are going to be notified again about the dates of the meetings. (Yes, mailings are made to current owner at addresses involved in the project.) Informational Meeting on Proposed Southwest Area Utilities Improvements April 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 Mr. Schu1ist, Auditors Sub. 82 - is in favor of sanitary sewer and streets; not water. Mr. Susa11a - is in favor of streets and sanitary sewer; opposed to water. Mr. Stevens - is in favor of streets. Ms. Sonsteby - is in favor of sanitary sewer and blacktop for the areas in which she owns property -- some lots in Auditor's Sub. 82 plus some unplatted land. Harry Moberg, 142379 Woodbine Street, Auditor's Sub. 82 - is in favor of streets and sewer. Robert Ammond, 14411 Underc1iff, Auditor's Sub. 82 - is in favor of streets and sanitary sewer. Stan Deden, 13836 Round Lake Boulevard - is in favor of streets and sanitary sewer; not water. Larry Wines, 3409 135th Lane, Chapman's Addition - is in favor of streets and sanitary sewer; opposed to water. Lola Fortner, 13808 Round Lake Boulevard - is in favor of streets and sanitary sewer; opposed to water. Wes Mand, 13457 141st Lane - is in favor of streets and storm sewer. Mr. LeFebvre - is in favor of streets and storm sewer. Mr. Wood, Auditor's Sub. 82 - is in favor of streets and sanitary sewer. Asked if it 1S feasible to put 1n the water pipes when sanitary sewer is being installed and not connecting but leaving them for possible connection with the Coon Rapids system. (Mr. Davidson stated that it would be costly without receiving benefit and that it could result in legal complications.) Mr. Nordstrom - asked if this will allow the City to get money from the Metropolitan Council for parks, as they have been turned down because there was no sewer. (Mayor Windschilt explained the problem with the urban and rural zone in the past, noting the Metro Council has favored the urban in the past. There has been no problem getting grants in the urban area.) Mr. Nordstrom - would like to see more grants for Round Lake. He is in favor of streets. Joe Rusicka, 13827 Undercliff Avenue NW - asked if the costs of the streets and storm sewer were inclusive together. He 1S in favor of streets and sanitary sewer. (Mr. Schumacher explained the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and street table on the bottom of Page 6 of the Feasibility report, which would be the one to affect their area.) Joanne Jablonic, 14269 Woodbine, Auditor's Sub. 82 - is in favor of sanitary sewer and streets. Mr. Zi11hardt - noted that some people are paying high mortgages on their homes and d1dn't need the additional assessment. He felt there were other ways of making the roads acceptable such as putting gravel on them. And many people have recently improved their drainage fields, so this project could be postponed. Michael Harris, 14278 Vintage, Auditor's Sub. 82 - is in favor of sanitary sewer and streets. Don Houle, 13516 Poppy, Chapman's - is in favor of sanitary sewer and streets. Asked 1f the homeowner can hook up from his house to the sanitary sewer. (Mayor Windschitl stated yes, as long as the required inspections can be passed.) Informational Meeting on Proposed Southwest Area Utilities Improvements April 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 Ms. Sonsteby - has 280 feet on the lake. About a year ago she stated she would cons1der a small amount of money for the worth of the lot to be used as parkland, but she wanted credit for the rest when she developed her property. The offer is still open. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that this is something that should be taken up with the Park Department.) Mr. Davidson reviewed the storm drainage system, indicating the intent is not to change the drainage system as they exist but proposing a system to carry the water where it is presently going within existing subdivisions. In new subdivisions, shopping center, etc., a more sophisticated storm drainage system is needed to carry the water away, which is more costly as well. Mr. Mand - asked if the minimal amount of storm sewer pipe will be reflected in their assessment. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that each of the areas will be broken out with the storm water, looking at what is done in each of the developments or drainage districts.) Frank Voth, Good Value Homes - stated they would like to proceed with the detailed feas1b1l1ty study and have their engineers work with TKDA to see what can be done with the water. They share some concern with Mr. Carlson over the cost of the water system; however, they feel it is best for them to have some type of public water system. Any type of water pressure system being developed would also be done in cooperation with the Rademacher development to try to supply the water pressure that will be needed by the shopping areas. Their engineers are also working with Rademacher to present a storm drainage plan to the City Engineers. Mr. Carlson - didn't feel he was in the same financial position as Good Value Homes. He felt before proceeding any farther, he would like an opportunity to talk with the engineers again relative to city financing, costs, etc. He felt he is not in a financial position of meeting the City's financial policy of 35 percent up front, particularly with the housing market as it is tOday. He had some questions that need answers to before making a decision, which he hoped to find out in a few days; or he would have no choice but to back his plat completely out of the study. Relative to water, his figures indicate a total water cost of $4,449, which is double the cost of putting in individual well systems. That makes an enormous difference in the resale cost of that lot. He felt there is no risk to the health, safety, welfare, and didn't feel that in his situation that he had any choice yet except to say he is against the water, unless the cost figures were to change drastically. Relative to sanitary sewer and streets, it is his opinion he should not pursue it any further until he knows how he can pay for it. He asked for a chance to discuss this in detail with Mr. Davidson. (Council discussion was that the financial policy will be discussed this coming Thursday evening.) Mr. Voth - felt this is a very unique situation with such a large project involving so many d1verse groups, in that it has been a very cooperative effort on everyone's part that this shou1 d happen. Good Value wants to be good for the City of Andover. He respectfully suggested that the City 9ive the security deposit by developers serious consideration. He felt that both Mr. Carlson and themselves are good risks, which should temper the Council's decision on Thursday. He is unable to attend Thursday's meeting. Council discussion was that certain engineering phases have to be designed in total; some can be designed in parts; that there appears to be a desire to have streets and sanitary sewer for all areas with the exception of the question of Mr. Carlson's plat; water is requested in Good Value and the Rademacher property. Mayor Windschit1 noted that the Grace Lutheran Church wants to be a petitioned in this project. He also noted that there has been verbal request on the properties north of Auditor's Sub. on both sides of Round Lake Boulevard, which was not included in the engineer's scope of the project. Informational Meeting on Proposed Southwest Area Utilities Improvements April 29, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 On discussion of phasing in the project On Mr. Carlson's Plat, Mr. Carlson felt it would make more sense to phase in 1/3 or 1/2 of the plat; but the initial charges are so large that they have to have a means of getting some of that money back. r~r . Schumacher stated that if Mr. Carlson backs out of the water project, the direct benefit would still be approximately the same and the user charge would go UPfrömthe 90 cents per 1000 gallons. They may then have to change their method of assessment. Council directed the engineers to investigate this matter further; hopefully so the Council can make a decision on it at the May 6 meeting. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the City Council authorize TKDA to develop the detailed feasibility study for streets, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer for the Southwest Area as defined at the informational hearing on 4/29/80, with the exception of the Woodland Plat and with the exception of the water system, both of which shall be developed after further direction from the City Council. (See Resolution R38-80) Discussion: Mr. Davidson stated he would present a workscope on Thursday outlining estimated costs of the detailed feasibility study. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:44 p.m. ~ Respectfully sUbmitted':L- \ ~-. ~~c~Æ;;: Marc 1a A. Peach Recording Secretary .-- .