Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH September 24, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER PUBLIC HEARING - SEPTEMBER 24, 1981 MINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Assessment Hearing on the 1980 Southwest Area Improvements was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on September 24, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard, NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: TKDA Engineers, John Davidson and Mark Schumacher; and interested residents Mayor Windschit1 pointed out that for anyone anticipating challenging the assessments, the State law requires filing a written document this evening specifying the objection to the assessment. Mr. Davidson explained the assessment is for resident input relative to the levying of the special assessment for the improvements in the Southwest Area, which is done through a uniform 'assessment policy established by the City. He also explained the area assessment and connection charges for the sanitary sewer trunk line and the reasons the policy was established. The assessment roll must be certified and to the County Recorder by October 10, and residents have 30 days to payoff the assessment without interest. John Zil1hardt, 3753 145th Avenue NW - asked why the sewer charge was done in two different printouts. (Mr. Davidson explained the area charge for the oversizing of the trunk sewer line was $600 per acre based on two units per acre. The $150 is a connection charge which is being placed on the assessment roll for those who have already connected to the sanitary sewer. From this point on, the connection charge will be paid at the time the connection is made and will not be an assessment. The Council's reason for charging a connection fee is to have the higher-density developments pay a greater share of the costs since it has a greater use for the sewer.) Kenneth Evans, 13520 Poppy Street - asked the average assessment. (Mr. Schumacher explained each area or subdivision has a different typical assessment based on the improvements, the street standard used for that area, the cost of the storm sewer for that area, etc.) Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the typical assessment for the Chapman's Addition for a 100-foot lot and how that figure was arrived at: total sanitary sewer assessment, $3,083.46; total street improvement, $2,613; total storm sewer, $1,178.29; for a total typical assessment of $6,874.75. Pat Alatorre, 3433 136th Avenue - asked if anything is going to be done about the seeding on the curb, as there lS nothing but weeds along there now and it takes away from the area. Also, why wasn't sod replaced where it was taken out. (Mr. Schumacher noted that the contractor will be required to do any additional reseeding necessary, that it is difficult to establish seed when it is planted in the middle of the summer, and that seed was placed for restoration rather than sod in the interest of keeping the costs to the residents as low as possible. Any questions or complaints about the project itself can be asked of the Engineers or at City Hall during normal office hours.) Mayor Windschit1 read the following letters of formal objection to the assessment into the record: John A. Quick, 13459 Round Lake Boulevard: Plat 65932, Parcel 8200 George Ado1fson: Plat 65929, Parcel 9000; Plat 65932, Parcels 10 and 1800 -- Public Hearing - Southwest Area Assessments September 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 141st Avenue NW; Plat 66091, Parcels 650, 1750, 1740, 1730, 1720; Plat 65929, Parcel 5400; Plat 65929, Parcel 6660; Plat 65927, Parcel 7000; Plat 65929, Parcel 7001 Lawrence B. Carlson: Plat 65932, Parcels 7200 , 8400, and 9000 Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the typical assessment for the 138th and Underc1ift area, which amounted to $3,365 for sanitary sewer, $1,981.23 for streets, and $337.55 for storm sewer, totalling $5,683.78. Joe Caskinette, 13852 Round Lake Boulevard - didn't understand the two charges for sanitary sewer. (Mr. Davldson again explained the difference of and reasons for the $600-per-acre assessment charge for the sewer trunk costs and the $150-per-unit connection charge, noting in the future all connection charges will not be placed on the assessment rolls but will be paid at the time of connection. The connection charge is not the same as the SAC charge, the SAC charge given to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to pay for the sewer treatment facilities.) Mr. Caskinette - noticed the street deteriorating on the north end where it turns to Round Lake, with cracks up to 1/4-inch wide. He thought it would be breaking up quite a bit in the spring. (Discussion noted the contractor has an obligation to repair it.) Terry Nugent, 13857 Vintage Street NW - felt the storm sewer costs were high, especially when the County only lncreased the pipe by two inches. (Mr. Schumacher explained the additional cost is the County's cost for oversizing the line down Round Lake Boulevard that picks up the homes on the frontage portion and allows for the areas beyond the County's right of way. That cost was between $2,000 to $2,500.) Mr. Caskinette - noted that the pipe was plugged up prior to the placement of sod until Mr. Deden cleaned it out. Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the typical assessment for a 102-foot lot in Quickstrom's Addition, which amounted to $3,168.14 for sanitary sewer, $1,726.86 for streets, and $841.50 for storm sewer, totalling $5,736.50. There were no resident comments from the Quickstrom area. Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the typical assessment for a 105-foot lot in Auditor's Subdivision No. 82, which amounted to $3,246.08 for sanitary sewer and $2,781.45 for streets, totalling $6,028.53. Mr. Schumacher also recommended the following changes to the assessment roll: Parcel 1150 and Parcel 040: There has been a change in ownership that is not recorded ln the Auditor's office, and he has been provided with documentation concerning the torrencing of Parcel 040. Parcel 1150 should actually read 109.9 feet and . Parcel 040 should be 100 feet of frontage. Parcel 1800: It was determined in the field that it would not be feasible to construct curb and gutter in front of the parcel because of the T-shaped turnaround. The parcel has street frontage of only 66 feet. The curb was eliminated in front of that particular house, and Mr. Schumacher recommended the curb portion be deleted from the assessment, resulting in an assessment of $17.27 per front foot on that parcel in lieu of the $26.49 FF. Mayor Windschit1 read the letter of appeal from John Johanson, 14349 Xenia Street, Plat 66091, Parcel 1800. John Zi11hardt, 3753 145th - felt he has a simi1iar situation to Parcel 1800, as he doesn't have curb past the front of his parcel, requesting that his parcel be treated in the same manner as just recommended for Parcel 1800. (Mr. Schumacher noted that a T-turnaround was not constructed in this case, but he will review the matter more closely during the recess.) -, Public Hearing - Southwest Area Assessments September 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 Robert Has1ip, 14269 Vintage - explained he lives on a deadend street, that the street comes ln 85 feet from hlS property line, that there is only approximately 55 feet of curbing, and asked if he would be assessed for 100 feet when there is only 85 feet of street. No T-turnaround was constructed, as they use his driveway to turn around. It is planned that Vintage will eventually be constructed to the south, and he was concerned about who pays for the rest of the street past his property if he pays the entire 100 feet now. (Mr. Schumacher explained they were looking for logical places to end the deadend street and not incur any additional costs of construction. Also, the minimum assessment of 100 feet has been used in the urban areas. He will look at that matter more closely during the recess.) Mr. Has1i~ - asked about the sewer construction in the property to the south, asking lf he lS eing assessed for that line. (Mr. Schumacher explained the trunk sewer came through that field. He is being assessed frontage on the sewer line for that parcel he owns to the south.) Mr. Has1ip - stated he didn't ask for sewer service and asked about the City combining parcels to make a buildable lot. (Discussion noted that the City has no authority to combine lots, that it is a buildable lot at this time subject to a road improvement up to the parcel.) Council discussion with Mr. Schumacher was on the questions raised by Rosella Sonsteby in her letters: Plat 66091, Parcel 650 - has 33 feet of curbing and is being assessed for 100. Mr. Schumacher stated he informed Ms. Sonsteby that 100 feet is the minimum assessment. Plat 66091, Parcel 1750, 1740, 1730, 1720 - questioned the bui1dabi1ity of the lots. Mr. Schumacher exp1alned he told Ms. Sonsteby that they did not have the authority to declare a lot unbui1dab1e, that they were lots of record; and if they were provided the fill and brought up to City standards, they would be considered buildable lots. He felt they are not so low that it would never be possible to make them buildable. Plat 65929, Parcel 5400 - felt that 20 of the 38 acres are buildable, asking that the high land should be served with the Coon Rapids Interceptor, feeling it would not be able to be served by the CAB coming from Seventh Avenue because of the terraine. Mr. Schumacher explained when putting the sewer in Xenia, a provision was made to serve the area beyond for approximately five lots fronting on Xenia Street. She is assessed on that basis. The area is designated as the CAB area, and it is a pOlicy question if the City wants to change that to be served by the Coon Rapids Interceptor. They have done no detailed feasibility study of the routing of the CAB, but it is not being picked up at Seventh Avenue. Discussion also noted that the CAB area is beyond the 1990 development area, and that moving the divider line involves taking away other acres in the pre-1990 development area in the Comprehensive Development Plan. General consensus of the Council was that the CAB Interceptor line be changed. Plat 65929, Parcel 6660 - questioned the size of the parcel because of the land taken by the County and the 33-foot easement through it. Mr. Schumacher explained the area was calculated based on the County-acquired right of way plat. Also, area charges are charged over an entire area éinc1usive of streets, easements, etc. Plat 65927, Parcel 7000, Plat 65929, Parcel 7001 - questioned the size of the assessment on that area. Mr. Schumacher stated the assessment was for the area included in her plat minus the lowland area. He also noted that a water line has been run across Round Lake Boulevard, and Ms. Sonsteby's open land is receiving an area assessment for water. Mayor Windschit1 read a letter of appeal into the record from Robert Has1ip, 14269, Vintage, Plat 66091, Parcel 1580. Public Hearing - Southwest Area Assessments September 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the assessments for Northg1en and the Andover Shopping Center. Wayne Anderson, representing Mr. Rademacher for the Andover Shopping Center - explained they dld not receive notice of this meeting and stated he will write an appeal on the assessments. There are a few questions on the assessment, and he would like to have an opportunity to have their engineers review the numbers. Council then reviewed some of the assessments against the unplatted properties. Discussion was first on the George Ado1fson property. Robert Munns, 403 Jackson Street, Suite 102, Attorney representing Mr. Ado1fson - asked if the lowlands have been deleted to calculate the acreage. (Mr. Schumacher stated the lowlands on the property were deleted.) Mr. Munns - explained Mr. Ado1fson has been farming the land since 1950 and has every lntentlon of continuing that practice for the immediate future. He feels very strongly that he should not be forced into development of his land, which he would have to do with these very high assessments. Mr. Ado1fson has requested the land be placed in Agricultural Reserve, asking what steps the City has taken in that area. (Discussion noted that the issue of Ag Preserve in the City is still before the Planning and Zoning Commission.) Discussion was on the Larry Carlson property. Sylvia Britton, representing Mr. Carlson - indicated they have not yet had a chance to review the assessment figures and are wanting to keep options open at this time. Mayor Windschit1 read a letter of appeal into the record from F10~d D. Sheppard, 14325 Round Lake Boulevard, Plat 65929, Parcel 8140. Mr. Schumac er noted an error was made in the $150 unlt connection charge for this parcel. The assessment should be for one connection charge instead of two. There are two stubs to the property, but only one house exists at this time. Mr. She ard, 14440 Round Lake Road - asked if he had sanitary sewer to hook up to. lSCUSSlon note that thlS lS a ifferent parcel, and that this parcej, Parcel 1550, was assessed an area assessment only for sanitary sewer and does not have sewer service available at this time. Mr. Schumacher indicated the logical method of serving the property would be once the Hou1igaard property is developed.) Mr. Zi11hardt - questioned the 30 days to payoff the assessments without interest. (D1ScusSlon was that residents have 30 days from the time the assessment roll is adopted to payoff the assessments without any interest charge. Any time the assessment is paid off following the 30 days, one full year's interest is charged. If paid off between October 24 and November 15, 1981's interest must be paid.) Dale Gelling, 3430 136th Lane - asked when a partial payment can be made. (There is no provision for making partla1 payments.) Mr. Anderson - asked if there was any possibility that their assessments could also be pald off over a 20-year period. (Discussion with Mr. Anderson was on the assessment policy and why the 15-year period was used. It was questioned whether it is that critical that the sanitary sewer can't be paid off in 20 rather than 15 years. It was noted that the bonds for this project have a mandatory prepayment clause; but that the City is also holding 15 percent of their assessment in cash which is not receiving interest for them. Suggestions were made that possibly the assessment· could be reduced by the amount of the cash escrow, but that the escrow is to protect the City against one year's payment for the bond in the case of default. Another suggestion was to convert the cash escrow to a Letter of Credit where he could then co11êct his interest on his cash. Or to take that amount and pay a year in advance on the installments.) ., r Public Hearing - Southwest Area Assessments September 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 Mr. Anderson - stated he would rather do that to reduce his debt and lower the lnterest expense. (Mayor Windschit1 suggested the City pay interest on the escrow money. It was agreed that this matter should be a separate agenda item.) Recess at 8:50; reconvene at 9:07 p.m. Discussion was then on Mr. Zillhardt's request that he not pay for curbing because no curb was placed past his house. Mr. Schumacher explained the road comes down 145th where a T-shaped turnaround was proposed but was eliminated by Council decision upon Mr. Zi11hardt's request. The street was then brought to the end of 145th, which abuts Mr. Zi11hardt's driveway at the 32-foot width. Part of the frontage of the width of the road is taken up by the driveway and the remaining portion of the yard was left as plain street, with the curb not being brought around the corner. There is no curb directly in front of the property because of the odd frontage situation and is different from Johanson's situation because there is no T-turnaround in this instance. A suggestion was to assess both the Zi11hardt and Johanson properties the 100-foot minimum, which would include concrete curb and gutter since that is the street standard in the area and which has been the policy in all projects. Mr. Schumacher explained the recommendation to eliminate the curb assessment for Mr. Johanson was based on the discussion with him at the time of construction when the curb was eliminated. More curb would have had to be put in all the way around the turnaround, and money was saved on the project by eliminating some of the curb. Mr. Johanson would have paid for curb, but he then wanted it all the way around the T-turnaround. Discussion also noted that the Zi11hardt and Johanson lots are substantially larger than the other lots in the area, as are several other lots, yet they are receiving the same assessment, a minimum of 100 feet. The fairness of that practice was questioned, Mr. Schumacher noting the assessment policy does not cover an adjustment for larger rectangular lots. Councilman Lachinski felt they could be adjusted the same as a cu1 de sac lot is done. Because of the lot lots, Councilman Peach suggested assessing the minimum 100-feet for street including concrete curb and gutter, arguing more benefit is received because of the larger lots; but he couldn't justify a reduction in assessment to those lots. Mr. Zi11hardt - had no arguments with the original proposal of blacktop with birm and sodding, feeling the reason for adding the curb is for asthetic purposes since it is not needed for drainage. Since he doesn't have curb going past his house, he didn't feel he should pay for that asthetic value, feeling it didn't add any asthetic value to his property. Council discussion was then on Mr. Has1ip's problem, with Mr. Schumacher explaining the curb goes to the driveway, the street is paved just past the driveway, with a small frontage section of approximately 15 feet of the lot left unimproved. The same situation exists directly across the street. It was questioned who pays for the additional street and curb when it is eventually run from the driveway to the end of the property line. The Council generally felt th~:in the future the pavement should be ending at the property lines. Mr. Has1ip - stated he'd just as soon have the contractor come back to do the remaining 15 feet Or receive a partial assessment for the actual street constructed. Council agreed to assess the actual street frontage on Mr. Has1ip's lot and the one directly across the street, that of Ken Seifert. Mr. Schumacher will determine the actual frontage of the street, including the driveway, and make a recommendation. Mr. Has1ip would then be subject to an assessment when the road is eventually extended for that remaining 15 feet. . ----. . - -., Public Hearing - Southwest Area Assessments September 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 Mr. Davidson noted that Janice and William Gaudy, 14319 Woodbine, Plat 66091, Parcel 1160, were inadvertantly charged two services, but only one connection was made. He recommended that change be made to the roll. In returning to the Johanson/Zi11hardt questions, it was suggested the Engineers review the assessment policy and determine the assessments if these lots, and all the other large lots in the area, were treated like cu1 de sac lots, after which the Council can address the street question in these two instances and make some allowances for that. There may then be a question of the cost of putting a curb on the T-turnaround. Mr. Zi11hardt - thought the subject was discussed and voted on by the Council at the earlier hearlngs. (Discussion was that the Engineers will review the item and make a recommendation to the Council.) Council then discussed the assessments to the commercial property of Lyn Boeh1and and to the Grace Lutheran Church. Lyn Boehland, Meadowcreek Associates - first, objected to the service road assessment, not understanding what happened in that matter. He explained the meetings he had attended with the Engineers and Church representative as to the service road location, generally coming away with the opinion that the agreement was to construct the road to the property line. The reason a service road was needed, he was told, is because of the amount of traffic coming out of the driveways and because of the closeness to the intersection. But what happened is he got the service road, but the Church, which is closer to the intersection and has more traffic than he does, did not. Also, there is more potential problems for the Church if a divider is placed on Bunker Lake Boulevard. He stated he was never contacted again as to the change made, but felt if it is just to service his property, the service road could have stopped closer to his east property line and would be less costly to him. He also noted he cannot exit onto that back street, whereas the Church can. Council discussion was on the service road, with Mr. Davidson explaining the Church would not and did not provide the easements necessary to construct the service road for their use. Mr. Boehland stated an easement from the Church was not needed, as the service road was to run straight to their lot line, and they would have then had to bring a private driveway up to that road. He does not object to the service road; but he does object that he was never told of another meeting and was surprised at what happened. After further Council discussion on what happened and what should have been done, the Council generally felt the Church will be needing the end of that service road in the future, that an outlet for the Church via the service road should be provided now with the Church bearing some assessment for it, and that it is essentially a curb cut to provide access since where it turns out to meet the County Road the road is just on the property line. There was some question as to the logistics of assessing the Church for the frontage road now, given the time factor for certifying the assessment roll. Mr. Boeh1and - then expressed his objection to the storm sewer cost, explaining the optlons that were open to him at the time the project began, finally choosing the storm sewer system installed with the impression it would be approximately 10 cents a square foot assessment or approximately $8,000. He is being assessed over $60,000 for his approximately two acres and was shocked that the amount was so large, never being told the assessment amount had been changed. He originally had three acres until he gave all the easements to the City, which took approximately 1/3 of the property. He felt that with giving all the easements and the addition of the assessments, that the value of the property has not increased to that amount. He also stated that in talking with the Anoka City Manager, they do not assess commercial any differently than residential for storm sewer. . ----, "' - -.. r - Public Hearing - Southwest Area Assessments September 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 Discussion was on the storm sewer assessment, with most of the Council expressing the opinion that the storm sewer assessment for commercial was out of line, questioning why it was different for residential, the Church, and for commercial. The Engineers explained that the difference in the percentage of the storm sewer costs assessed the commercial, Church, and residential properties was based on the run-off factor on each type of land use, which relates to the imperviousness of the surface. Where residential development might be 25 percent, developed commercial property runs 70 to 90 percent. The table of the Soil Conservation was used as a basis for determining the assessment calculations. Mayor Windschit1 questioned the reasonableness of assessing the commercial property twice that of the Church, and the Church being assessed almost three times higher than residential development. He questioned the ability to sell the land for the assessment values. It was noted that the residents in Chapman's were told an estimated 10 cents per square foot for storm sewer at the public hearings but are being charged approximately 6 cents a square foot, with the commercial properties being charged approximately 40 cents a square foot. Mr. Davidson estimated the total cost for the storm sewer averaged 11.79 cents per square foot if it were evenly divided between all properties benefitted. Council generally felt that the Church and commercial properties have a greater run-off factor and should be paying a greater share of the storm sewer costs, but questioned the fairness of the formula used; however, no decisions were made as to what percentage that should be or how to accomplish that since reducing the percentage for the commercial properties and the Church at this time would subsequently result in an increased storm sewer assessment against the residential properties in Chapman's Addition as well, again noting the time factor for certifying the assessment roll this year. Discussion was on the suggestion that the residents in Chapman's be assessed for storm sewer at the rate of 10 cents per square foot as presented at the original public hearings, and spread the difference of approximately two cents per square foot among the commercial properties and the Church, which would mean approximately a $1,000 increase to the residents in Chapman's for storm sewer assessments. Ms. Alatorre - asked if the figures presented are not the final figures and could vary as much as $1,000. (Discussion with several residents in the audience noted the problem of what is felt to be an inequitable storm sewer assessment against the Church and the commercial properties, reviewing some of the previous discussion on the issue as to what was originally proposed, what is shown on the assessment rolls, and possible changes to levy a more equitable storm sewer assessment on the differing land uses. Questions from the residents were also on the events leading to the installation of concrete curb and gutter placed in that subdivision, noting it was done based on the majority of residents indicating a desire for that street standard after the public hearing. It was also noted that streets are included in the area assessment.) Mr. Boeh1and - stated he would like to see the figures for Mr. Davidson's suggestion to spread the two cents per square foot and assess 10 cents per square foot for residential use as they were told at the public hearings. He also saw no reason why the Church and commercial property should be treated differently, feeling they are not legally required to use less of the land than commercial. In his situation, the maximum land coverage he could have would be 80 percent because of the 40-foot setback. (Councilman Lachinski questioned if that suggestion would have any significant change.) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we continue the Assessment Hearing on the Southwest Improvement Project area unti 1 Tuesday, the 29th of September, at 9 o'clock. Motion carried unanimously. . --" - -., Public Hearing - Southwest Area Assessments September 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 Mr. Davidson stated if the storm sewer assessment for the residents in Chapman's was raised to 10 cents, it would make the commercial rate 13.5 cents per square foot. Or the high density residential could be charged something less than 13.5 cents with commercial charged something higher than 13.5 cents per square foot. Council again noted that it appears the ratio used is out of line, that commercial should be paying more than residential land use, but a more reasonable ratio should be used. Dale Ge11inå' 3432 136th - noted that the east end of Chapman's is basically low, and has been un er water many times. He stated there is quite a bit of drainage from the Church property, the commercial property, plus from the entire Chapman's area. Other residents taking part in the discussion were Alice Gelling and Rus Horbu1, 3502 136th Avenue. Council discussion was then on Page 9 of TKDA's letter relative to the $200,000 of unassessab1e costs for the sanitary sewer and water in this project. Mr. Davidson explained that going into the public hearing all the areas were notified; however, the Council chose to delete the area north of South Coon Creek Drive, which removed approximately 50 to 60 acres which has not been assessed the area assessment at this time. Thatareawil1 ultimately be served by this system and will be assessed $600 an acre at that time, which is approxiamte1y $36,000. Also, by including the connection charge of $150 per unit based on two units per acre, the area charged was reduced to $600 per acre. As the density increases, the amount from connection charges increases. Mr. Davidson stated that the amount from connection charges can be used for debt service if it is needed; however, he felt that with prepayments coming in together with annual installments, the initial bond payments can be met. During further discussion, the Council was disturbed that the $600 per acre would not be enough to cover the construction costs and that the project is not being fully assessed, as this is not what was understood at the time the trunk sewer assessment policy was established. They noted the idea behind the connection charge was to keep that amount separate to be used to refund the previous improvement areas, which was agreeable to the City's fiscal agent; and the understanding was that the $600 per acre would be sufficient to cover actual construction costs. When discussing the shortfall in the water system, Mr. Schumacher stated it was designed based on not assessing the total cost. The acreage charge for the water was in excess of $1,000 an acre. It was decided that a part of that amount be collected in connection charges, a small portion to come out of the user fees, and the rest to be assessed on an area basis. The area assessed has water available to it; it's a matter of who starts hooking up first. When the demand on the system indicates.,a need for a new improvement, the money coming from the connection charges accumulated, which is $600 per connection, plus the cash revenue from the system and selling revenue bonds, can be used to improve the system. The present system can service 160 acres without any additional work. They would recommend another well at the time the 160 acres is saturated, which amounts to approximately 320 homes. The Engineers were directed to make recommendations on those questions brought out this evening relative to the assessments; and to discuss the trunk sewer assessment policy with Mr. Forness of Springsted relative to the concerns just noted. These matters will be discussed at the September 29 Special Council meeting. Mr. Gelling - asked if the storm sewer system was designed to handle a larger area consldering future development. (Discussion was that it was designed to handle the undeveloped property east of Chapman's plus the undeveloped commercial property, all of which is assessed right now.) - -, r Public Hearing - Southwest Area Assessments September 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 Ms. (?~ - didn't understand why the Church is being assessed different than the commerCla property and asked what happens to the residential assessments if an adjustment is made. (Discussion was that the Engineers will study the matter again and make a recommendation. It was also noted that the other subdivisions did not have storm sewer to the extent that Chapman's did, which is the reason for the difference in assessments, and explained the reason for the extensive storm sewer system in their area. ) If it appears there is going to be some significant changes in the storm sewer assessments for the Chapman's area, Mayor Windschit1 requested the residents receive written notice and explanation of the matter prior to Tuesday evening's meeting. The Engineers were also requested that a report and map be prepared on the water system for the Council. Mr. Davidson stated the project was of an unusual magnitude and expressed his apprecia- tion for the cooperation shown between the several subdivisions, the contractors, the County, and the City in getting the project accomplished. Mayor Windschit1 also thanked Mr. Davidson and the TKDA staff for the effort and work done. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Hearing continued to September 29, 1981. 10:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ /~ ~~~~ Marc 1a A. Peach Recordlng Secretary . --.... -., r'