Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP September 30, 1980 I ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on September 30, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting assessment hearings and discussing the Municipal Well and the 1981 budget. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilman absent: Jacobson Also present: TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others ASSESSMENT HEARING/1979-2 STREET IMPROVEMENT Mayor Wi ndschi t 1 read letters of comp lai nt on assessments from the fo llowi ng peop Ie: Joe and Diane Weber, 16260 Xenia Street NW, Parcel 4440, Plat 65917; Jan Hvidsten and Linda Batten for Parcels 4230 and 4220, Plat 65917; Robert Derro, 16028 Xenia, Parcels 5410 and 5420, Plat 65917; and Rodger D. Loberg, 15830 Xenia Street NW. Mr. Winner also noted that he has inspected three parcels which are shown as being assessed in the assessment roll but which are actually drainage areas which he felt were low enough to be unbuildab1e lots. It was his recommendation to remove those three parcels from the assessment roll, those parcels being 5430 and 5440 of Plat 65917 on Xenia, which would eliminate 300 feet of assessable footage from the project, and Parcel 3900, Plat 65917, off Enchanted Drive, which would eliminate another 62 feet of assessable footage from the project. That would then mean that the amount of money assessed would be over $5,000 less than the project costs. The assessment was based on the actual project costs for this particular project as the contingency for the project was used. He also noted that the total assessable footage for the project is 20,632, which includes the elimination of the three drainage parcels and would then come out to $15.50 per assessable front foot on the project. The actual costs for the project exceeded the amount of the bond; however, monies were used from the other projects bonded at the same time to make up the difference. Apparently the bond did not include those engineering costs incurred the first time the plans were done and bid out. Mr. Schumacher indicated that the engineering fees were higher due to the fact that the plans had to be redesigned and rebid since the City changed the street design standards between the time the plans were originally speced and bid and this last set of plans and specs which were rebid. Those engineering costs were re- negotiated with the City. Mayor Windschit1 questioned the engineering fees on this project and on what was agreed to by the City. Jan Hvidsten, Parcels 4220 and 4230 - the lots are approximately l~ acres each. Parcel 4220 has 130 feet of actual frontage and is being assessed for 207 feet, and Parcel 4230 is 170 feet of actual frontage and is bein9 assessed for 239 feet. She objected to the assessment procedure used for odd-shaped lots versus that used for rectangular lots. She compared another rectangular parcel of approximately 2~ acres being assessed at $2,550 and her two lots amounting to almost 3 acres totals $6,800 which she felt was very inequitable. She felt that the road services everyone equally regardless of the amount of frontage they may have, as they have a good road to get out on now. The purpose of the road is what should be considered, not how much front footage they have. She asked why a unit assessment isn't cOnsidered. (t~r. Wi nner stated he has reviewed Ms. Hvidsten's assessment; and based on the existing assessment policy, which adjusts the frontage if the side lot lines vary more than 5 feet, the assessment is accurate. The average depth used in this area is 304 feet. Discussion continued On applying the current assessment policy, with some on the Council feeling that in this case the policy works to the disadvantage of the irregular-shaped lot, as it appears she may be paying more than an equivalent rectangular-shaped lot. The Special City Council Meeting September 30, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (Assessment Hearing/1979-2, Continued) Engineers were directed to determine the area of the lot and to compare it to a rectangular-shaped lot. It was also noted that in this project, there are so many different sized lots that a unit assessment is difficult to be fair as well. The assessment policy attempts to equate the irregular-shaped lots to a rectangular lot in an effort to be fair. This will be discussed again after the Engineers have made their computations.) Rodger LOberg, 15830 Xenia Street NW - is on a straight part of the road but has 150 feet of frontage, goes back 361 feet, but is wider in the middle, that being 240 feet. He contested the adjustment procedure. They are being charged for 210 front feet, but he was told by the City Clerk earlier in the year that his assessment would be for approximately 185 feet. It is 1.71 acres with a total assessment of $3,200. He also felt the unit-price system would be more adequate for everyone. (Mr. Winner stated he had checked that computation and felt that 210 feet was correct based on the assessment policy. He explained that the assessable frontage is determined by the area 304 feet back from the front lot line and divided by 304 feet. Deliberation continued on the equity of the current assessment policy, with some questionjng whether the formula actually equates the odd-shaped lots to a rectangular lot or whether the irregular-shaped lot is, in actuality, being charged more. The Engineers were directed to determine the area of the lot and to compare it to a rectangular-shaped lot. This will be discussed again after that is done.) Robert Derro, Parcels 5410 and 5420, Plat 65917 - agreed with the previous speakers and some of the letters read in the beg1nn1ng. He purposely didn't sign any petition for or against the project when it all began. He was personally opposed to putting in the road but did not want to stand in the way of those in favor. At that time he thought that the cost of the road would be equalized among the units on the road. He strongly felt that the benefits of the road are shared by everyone and felt that there is an inherent unfairness in getting involved with irregular-shaped lots, front footage, etc., arriving at different figures for different people. Since he has two acres (two one-acre lots) with a single residence on it, he felt his assessment should be adjusted. He questioned whether the paved streets increased the value of property, as they had their house evaluated by several real estate people. The figures for all three ana lyses were exactly the same before and after the streets were put in. He didn't accept the validity of the road increasing the value of the home and lot. He also asked the mechanism of payment. He felt that more of this information ought to be made available to people circulating the petitions. (Discussion was that the State Law dictates the method of payment and the City has no control over it. The two lots in question are the "typical" lot of 150 by approximately 300 feet. Since each lot is buildable, they must then be assessed separately. No action was taken by the Council.) Discussion was again on Parcels 4220 and 4230. Mr. Schumacher stated that Parcel 4230 has approximately 54,689 square feet; Parcel 4220 has approximately 62,625 square feet, for a total of 2.67 acres. Using the typical rectangular lot 300 feet deep, he determined the assessment to be 5 cents a square foot, which then relates to $2,927 for Parcel 4230 and $3,178 for Parcel 4220. It was noted that using this calculation, the assessment would be approximately $800 less for the two parcels and that it appears these two parcels are being assessed for more than their fair share. Those figures then relate to 192 feet assessable frontage for Parcel 4230 and 207 feet for Parcel 4220. No decision was made on these parcels at this time, with deliberation over what, if any, change should be made in the assessment policy to equalize the odd- shaped lots to rectangular lots more fairly.) Gail Stutelberg, 16129 Genie - stated they had been given two different front footages. There was a 15-foot d1fference from what they were told at one of the public hearings to what is actually being assessed. She has about 30 feet in the back with 200 feet of Special City Council Meeting September 30, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Assessment Hearing/1979-2, Continued) frontage. (Discussion was that since the first meetings, the Council changed the policy to using the average lot depth with the intent of making more equitable assessments. Ms. Stute1berg provided the Engineer with her plat and parcel number, and he is to calculate the assessable footage again.) Discussion continued on a recommended change to the assessment policy regarding the irregular-shaped lots; that changing the procedure for those registering objections this evening would be unfair unless it is done to all lots in similar situations; and that using the square footage method equalizes the irregular lots to rectangular lots. Counciman Lachinski suggested that for irregular-shaped lots, look at the difference between the actual square footage of the lot (calculating the square footage of the property and then dividing it by the average lot depth) and the adjusted front footage (currently used in the assessment policy), and that the benefit of the doubt be given with the lesser figure being assessed. Discussion was on determing the equity of Councilman Lachinski's suggested assessment method. Mr. Schumacher ca1cuated that by actual lot area on Parcel 4220 (62,625) divided by 304 feet, equals 206 assessable front feet, versus the 239 feet currently being assessed. Parcel 4230 would equal 190 assessable front feet versus 207 feet currently being assessed. Council generally agreed to the square footage method for determining front feet as another means of equalizing irregular -shaped lots, but noted that this would also affect the many other irregular-shaped lots in the project. It was also noted that to change the assessments at this time cannot be done due to the requirement of legal notices, etc., and the fact that the assessment roll has to be into the County Auditor's office by October 11. It was also suggested that the current assessment roll be assessed and that a supplemental assessment hearing be held to amend the roll either this fall or next year to be placed on the 1982 tax rolls with any changes incurred. Discussion continued on what action should be taken relative to those complaints received this evening. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that the front foot assessment for Parcel 4220, Plat 65917, be revised downward from 239 feet to 206 feet; and that Parcel 4230, Plat 65917, be revised downward from 207 feet to 190 feet. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion on those lots being recommended by Mr. Winner to be removed from the assessment roll was to defer the assessment. If a building permit is applied for on those lots any time during the time of the 10-year bond issue, the assessment would be due and payable. Mrs. Morris, 16116 Enchanted Drive - noted that her house is on Enchanted and is on highland but Enchanted goes down 1nto the swamp area, which is trees and slew on Parcel 3900. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Windschit1, that Parcel 5430 and 5440 of Plat 65917, that the assessment for these properties be deferred until such time that a building permit is taken out on either property, and a clarification would be that at that time the assessment would be the normal assessment for the property plus accrued interest that would be required to be paid at the time of taking out the building permit. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to amend the Motion to state that the interest only accrue during the period of the bond issue. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that Parcel 3900 of Plat 65917 have the assessment deferred under the same conditions as the parcels previously mentioned, 5440 and 5430. Motion carried unanimously. Special City Council Meeting September 30, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 (Assessment Hearing/1979-2, Continued) It was noted that to defer an assessment means that the City would pay for it during the bond issue. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to reconsider the Motions on Parcels 5440, 5430, and 3900. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to change the word in the previous Motions from "deferred" to "cancelled". Motion carried unanimously. Bill Bottineau, 15911 Xenia - is being taxed for a road easement on his property, plus he also has a gas line easement across his property. (After looking at the deed, it was felt that the easement described is for the 33-foot easement for Xenia Street. The Clerk was directed to check with the County Recorder's Office to verify the easement. The easement for the gas line is private between himself and the gas company and which the City cannot address.) Mr. Bottineau - also complained about the debris in the black dirt that was laid down in the project, as there are pieces of pipe, rocks, etc., in it. He also asked what happened to the culverts that were removed from under the driveways during the project. (Mr. Schumacher stated he would have someone check into the quality of black dirt that was laid down. All salvaged culverts were brought to the City. Mayor Windschit1 also noted that in previous projects, if the property owner paid for the culvert and the City removed it as a result of the project, the property owner could get it back if he so desired. Mr. Bottineau was told to check with Mr. Winner on this matter.) Discussion returned to the parcel at 15830 Xenia Street. Mr. Schumacher calculated that the area calculation comes to 194 feet of assessable frontage, taking 58,990 square feet divided by 304 feet. Ihe :assessment roll is currently for 210 feet. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we reduce the assessment on Parcel 6070, Plat 65917, from 210 feet to 194 feet. Motion carried unanimously. Rosaria Boeme, 3932 158th Avenue NW, Parcel 6140 - her actual front footage is 70 feet. They are be1ng assessed for 250 feet but was told that the width of the property is 216 feet. (The Engineers will recalculate the frontage.) Discussion returned to 16129 Genie Drive, Lot 6 of Block 1. Mr. Winner computed the area to the 253-foot average depth at 29,799 square feet. Using the revised policy of dividing the square feet by 253 feet equals 157 feet. The assessment roll shows 177 feet. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we change the assessment on Parcel 16129, Plat 66045, from 177 feet down to 154 feet. Motion carried unanimously. Rod Vacek, 16058 Xenia - with all the changes the Council has made, he suspects the cost has gone up to over $16/FF. When will they get the final assessment and what is the process then? And what happens if you want to payoff the assessment within the 30 days? (It was explained that the supplemental hearing will be held either later this fall or next year. This is what will be certified to the auditors now. To payoff the assessment prior to October 30, he would payoff the amount being certified now, but would then have an opportunity to payoff any supplemental amount after the supplemental hearing, assuming there is an additional assessment. The assessment can be paid off at the City Hall.) It was agreed that any remaining items for this project will be held until later in the meeting. Special City Council Meeting September 30, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 ASSESSMENT HEARING/1980-1 STREET IMPROVEMENT Lester McLaughlin, 2868 135th Lane NW - has an assessment for frontage that was not done. The same situat10n has occurred w1th the neighbors, ,but they received no assessment._: (Discussion was that the lot is 100 feet square; the house faces 135th Lane, and is on the southeast corner of the intersection of 135th and G1adio1a. Mr. Winner recommended that to be treated equally, the assessment for this parcel be dropped.) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we cancel the assessment on Parcel 2870, Plat 66092, on 135th Lane because it would come under the side yard exception portion of the assessment policy. Motion carried unanimously. Connie Johnson - has a 94-foot lot but is being assessed for 100 feet of frontage. (Discuss1on noted that the minimum assessment in the project is 100 feet and that that is the correct assessment. It was agreed by the Council that the 100-foot minimum should be used in all cases as has been done in the past; and to be consistent, several other parcels would have to be raised to 100 feet of assessable frontage as well. ) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Engineer be directed to readjust Parcels 300, 310 of Plat 66718, and Parcels 100, 200, 300, 600, 700, 800, and 900 of Plat 67630. VOTE ON MOTI ON : YES-Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Ortte1, as he is affected by the project. Motion carried. Mr. Winner stated he received a call from Bob Lee of Parcel 2800 on 135th Lane. He was assessed for 130 feet, which is the same as the sewer assessement. But the street is actually only constructed in front of 40 feet of his property. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that Plat 66092, Parcel 2800, be adjusted to 100 frontage feet because that is the minimum allowable. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Ortte1, as he is affected by the proj ect. Motion carried. ASSESSMENT HEARING/1980-2 STREET IMPROVEMENT Mayor Windschit1 read a letter into the record from Herbert and Jeanette Moore related to 2439 and 2441 138th NW, and 2451 and 2453 138th NW, two double bungalows, protesting the assessment for those two lots. Mr. and Mrs. Moore - addressed the Council reviewing their complaints as noted in the1r letter. They asked if the road would ever be extended along the easement along the south of their lot lines. They would not be willing to pay for the street project at this time and then again if the road is ever extended in the future. They also asked if they would be able to construct a garage on that road easement. (Discussion was that if a road were ever constructed along the easement, the property could not be assessed for it if it is being assessed for full service at this time. But as of now there are no plans to extend the road. It was also felt that there would be nothing to prohibit the Moores from building a garage on their property; however, it could not be constructed on the road easement.) Mr. and Mrs. Moore - didn't feel the assessment they are receiving is fair. They are on the curve, the traffic is outlandish and reckless, and they can't back out onto the street. They are being assessed for 210 feet for the two parcels instead of the 84 feet they feel they have on the paved street. They have long driveways, must back out onto the street, and the way it is situated, no one can park their cars on the street. (Mr. Winner was directed to look into the possibility of putting a stop sign on that corner to help the traffic problem. Discussion was also that each unit has its own driveway in which cars can be parked, and each unit has the same benefit by use of the street improvement as anyone else. With the four units, based On approximately 52 feet Special City Council Meeting September 30, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 (Assessment Hearing/1980-2, Continued) per unit as is being done with the Bunker Lake Estates units, they are being assessed for virtually the same amount as those units. If a street goes past their property in the future, they will not be assessed again. It was generally felt that they are receiving the same benefit as everyone else. The easement is not maintained by the City but is used as a driveway by the occupants of the units.) Mr. Moore - the Clerk has just researched the abstract, which states that the easement 1S for road purposes. They feel that in 10 or 20 years if a road goes through that they would be assessed for it again. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Council recognizes that the building on 2439, 2441 138th Avenue, and 2451, 2453 138th Avenue are being assessed for their access to 138th Avenue at this time and should not be assessed for any other road improvements for the life of this bond issue. DISCUSSION: There was some discussion On whether the parcel being assessed for 110 feet should be reduced to 100 feet, as the lot is only getting access and use of the road and should be charged only the minimum frontage. The additional 10 feet would be assessed under normal policy if a road were constructed past the lot at some future time. Councilmen Orttel and Peach WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that Parcel 2808, Plat 65933, be reduced from 110 feet to 100 feet. Motion carried unanimously. It was also agreed to discuss the problems the Moores have about the project in general at the October 21 Regular Council meeting. Discussion returned to the 79-2 project, Parcel 6140. Mr. Schumacher reported that the lot averages out to be less than the 304-foot average depth. Using the square footage method of assessing discussed this evening, the front footage calculates to 200 feet versus 216 feet shown on the assessment roll. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we reduce the assessment on Parcel 6140, Plat 65917, from 216 feet to 200 feet. DISCUSSION: Ms. Boeme didn't understand how one can go from 70 feet actual footage to being assessed for 200 feet. When she purchased the house, nothing was told to her about using an adjusted frontage if roads were put in, especially having to pay for more than 100 feet more than she has in frontage. She also asked if there is a legal process she must go through to contest the assessment. Council explained the theory is that she uses the road about as much as everyone else and the assessment formula attempts to equalize the lot sizes so that each parcel is paying the same per square foot. If she wishes to contest the assessment, she should contact her own lawyer on the matter. Also, she needs to write a letter to the City prior to adoption of the assessment roll if she wishes to contest the assessment further. Motion carried unanimously. , representing Bunker Lake Estates - questioned the formula used to determ1ne the assessable frontage for Bunker Lake Estates. There is actually only 30 feet of frontage on 138th, which is the driveway, but they are being assessed for 312 feet which is the full width of the lot. The lot is actually T-shaped when considering the 30-foot strip accessing onto 138th. Also, they are not getting all the benefits of the street since they can't park on it nor have any snow plowed. (Discussion was that the assessment was figured using 52 feet per unit times 6 lots, equals the lot width, which was also used for the sanitary sewer assessment. The purpose of the adjusted front foot is to equalize the cost of the entire project back to the people using the street. The theory involved is that those living in the six units use the street as much as those directly on the street. It was felt that the lot without the driveway is rectangular-shaped, which has then been used for the assessment. Each unit is receiving approximately one-half the assessment of the regular minimum assessment. No action was taken by the Council.) Special City Council Meeting September 30, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 (Assessment Hearings, Continued) Discussion was on whether to certify the assessment rolls as is or to ask the Engineers to recalculate the roll, which would result in a time problem with the legal notifica- tion to the residents, holding another hearing, and getting the roll to the County by October 11. It was generally agreed to adopt the assessment roll next Tuesday and to have the Engineers make the revisions by that time. Discussion was on the interest rate to be charged for the projects, asking whether setting the interest rate at the maximum could compensate for the difference that will occur when the roll is recalculated, thereby eliminating the need for a supp1mentary assessment. Discussion was on the problem of adopting the rolls on October 7, as Councilman Lachinski will not be at that meeting, Councilman Jacobson is absent this evening and will not be able to vote on the adoption, Councilman Ortte1 is directly afrected by the 1980-1 project, then having only two votes for that particular project which is less than a majority. Councilman Ortte1 felt that there would not be a conflict to vote for adoption of the assessment roll. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that Parcel 4500 of Plat 65933 in the 1980-2 proJect be changed from 50 feet to the minimum assessment of 100 feet. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 10:23; reconvene at 10:34 p.m. Jerry Johnson, 13522 G1adio1a - has just received his letter and submitted that that 1S 1nadequate notice for an assessment hearing. (It was later determined that the letter received was an adjustment to his assessment and that the original notification was received several weeks ago.) If the minimum frontage has been changed to 100 feet, it is obvious that the front footage cost will decrease, which he doubted was computed at this point and which should be. He also felt that because of the late notice that the October 30 date of being able to pay off the assessment without interest be extended. (It was noted that State law specifies 30 days after the adoption of the roll, which would then be changed to November 7 to pay the assessment without interest.) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to extend the assessment hearings for the 1972-2 Street Improvements, 1980-1 Street Improvement, and 1980-2 Street Improvements until next Tuesday, the 7th of October at 9 o'clock. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the Engineers to recompute the unusual-shaped lots in the 79-2 assessment area On the basis of the assessment policy for the area decided upon at the September 30 meeting, and to recompute the front footage costs for the area. Motion carried unanimously. MUNICIPAL WELL REPORT Mr. Schumacher stated that they have run into problems on the municipal well site. The cOntractor could not advance the 20-inch casing any further, which is approximately 160 feet deep. They have reviewed what they felt was going on and talked with the State Health Department about the options and possible solutions. Their recommendation is that the most cost-effective solution would be to approve a change order to allow for additional mobilization items to bring in some rotary equipment to the job site. There will also be a deduct for not putting in 90 feet of 20-inch pipe, as the specs called for 250 feet of 20-inch casing. The net change in the contract would be a net deduct of $900. Steve Hartley, TKDA Engineer, then gave a lengthy explanation of the problem which has occurred on site; illustrating the original proposal for the well construction as well as the options available to correct the problem; noting that at 160 feet, they ran into boulders and were unable to move the casing fearing that to force it any further down would cause the casing to buckle at the top which would then require abandoning the well; Special City Council Meeting September 30, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 (Municipal Well Report, Continued) reviewing some of the options available and the costs involved; suggesting that they go with a rotary drilling machine that would drill the hole in which the casing would be put in afterward which a110~s th~m to see what the problems are; and noting that the well drillers have been con ac e bout putting in a temporary well at the proposed Bill's Superette on the northeast corner of the commercial property which could possibly provide some geological information. Council questioned whether that well would be of any value as a test well since it is apprxoimate1y 1/2 mile away. Mr. Hartley noted that there are no wells close enough in the vacinity to provide any geological information; that putting in a test hole next to this well first would be an additional cost but would relieve some of the risk; that approximately $20,000 has already been invested on this well, but if it is found that sufficient water cannot be found, it would have to be abandoned and started over again in a different location; and that there is only one large rotary in the State which Renner & Sons has. Ra1 and Rog Renner, represented E. H. Renner & Sons, the contractor of the municipal we 1. They stated that the purpose of the test well would be to assure the City whether they will spend $70,000 for this well or $140,000. There are many house wells that are 450 feet deep in that area, but it is a completely different strata altogether. And this may very well be a spot where a well cannot be drilled. Without running a test well, they don't know if this well should be abandoned. If they started with an 8-inch test well, it could be reduced to 4 inches, which would be able to get down to 600 feet, the area at which it is hoped will have sufficient water. A straight 4- inch well is approximately $8 a foot. They would recommend setting up over the existing hole with the rotary equipment rather than abandoning the well at this point. The rotary would allow them to drill even through soft formations and to be able to make headway without casing. In this case, the hole is at 160 feet and the hole is sluffing in below and the pipe is wedged in the hole. Council discussion with the TKDA Engineers and the Renners was that the risk of not finding water is no more of a risk than what was originally taken; that geologically it is felt that water will be found, but the amount of water needed for 750 gpm is the question; that a 14-inch casing at the bottom of the well assures that any sized pump will fit into it, but a 12-inch is acceptable; that if the hole is there, there would be no problem getting the 14-inch casing down to the 600-foot depth; and questioned if it would be better to ask for a variance to put in a 16-inch casing at this time in the event another reduction in size would be needed farther down the hole. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve a change order on the 1980-3 proJect to allow for mobilization of rotary equipment at the municipal well site. Motion carried unanimously. A lengthy discussion continued on whether or not a test hole should be drilled at this time; that a test well would provide a better idea of the water that may be found; that the Hinkley is the last water-bearing formation and is approximately 600 feet down but which may not be sufficient enough at this spot to provide the amount of water needed. Mr. Renner felt it may be better to drill farther down to where they feel water is available. If it is found it is not sufficient, they would seal off the casing and put a test hole close by down to the Hinkley to determine if there is enough water there to warrant continuing with the well. Every time it is sealed in, however, a smaller pipe size must be used to continue on. They also explained the State Health Department requirements for pipe sizes. A legal reduction after the 14-inch casing would be 8 inches, but that is not sufficient in size to produce 75D gpm of water. Councilman Peach indicated he would not be willing to accept anything less than 750 gpm. Discussion continued that even a test hole won't tell whether there will be 750 gpm of water; on the options available as to the type of test hole that could be drilled; that there are just no guarantees as to what will be found in the ground; and that an 8-inch Special City Council Meeting September 30, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 (Municipal Well Report, Continued) to 4-inch test hole would cost an additional $12,000; and that continuing down with the 18-inch rotary hole uncased would cost about the same as a test hole and would yield virtually the same geologic information. After further discussion, Council generally agreed to drill the 18-inch rotary hole. The contractors also agreed to ask for a variance from the State Health Department to go with a 16-inch casing at this time rather than the 14-inch. PUBLIC/PRIVATE LIQUOR - BUDGET Councilman Lachinski stated that the Council should possibly be considering resolving the question of public or private liquor and do some budgeting next year for that if it is decided to set up an off-sale or split-liquor situation. He felt that some revenues could be considered if that were done. Councilman Lachinski was also of the opinion that whatever time Mr. Winner gets involved in the projects around the City, that some income from that be put into the general fund to help offset the costs. The Clerk indicated that there are revenues being shown for that. Mr. Winner was asked to keep track of any time he spends with residents, etc., for the various projects, and that that time would then not be charged to the City by TKDA. DISCUSSION ON CITY ENGINEER'S POSITION Mayor Windschit1 stated that a number of problems have arisen regarding Mr. Winner's position, and he felt that the Council needs to decide how or who should direct the priorities of Mr. Winner's job and what is expected of him. Mayor Windschit1 also questioned Mr. Winner having an unlisted phone number, as he felt Mr. Winner is the person residents should call. Mr. Winner stated his phone number is 753-4688. The other Councilmen indicated they did not see the necessity for him to change the phone number, as residents can contact the Councilmen who in turn can contact Mr. Winner. Or residents can also call Central Communications as an emergency, who can then contact Mr. Winner. Discussion was also that most of Mr. Winner's work to date has been on projects, leaving little time to direct Public Works, and questioned whether the Council, the Acting Administrator, the Road Committee, or whomever, should be directing the activities. Mr. Winner was then asked to submit a list of priorities and those responsibilities he feels he is able to take on. The Council will then discuss this with him again. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~r,~~~~ ~~ Mar e11a A. Peach Recording Secretary