HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH September 29, 1981
i
~ 01 ANDOVER
PUBLIC HEARINGS - SEPTEMBER 29, 1981
MINUTES
Pursuant to notice published thereof, the Public Assessment Hearings on the following
improvements were called to order by ~1ayor Jerry Windschitl on September 29, 1981,
7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota:
Smith's Rolling Oaks area, White Oaks Country Estates area, Suppelmenta1 Hearing for
the unassessed lots in the Northwest area improvements, and the Continued Hearing for
the Southwest area.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
Councilman absent: None
Also present: TKDA Engineers, John Davidson (arrived at 9:25) and Mark
Schumacher, and interested residents.
SMITH'S ROLLING OAKS AREA IMPROVEMENTS (81-2)
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, entering a Resolution adopting the Assessment
for the improvement of bituminous streets under Project Number 1981-2 for 146th Lane
from Prairie Road to Evergreen Street, and all those streets in the Southeast quarter
of Section 24-32-24 and the Northeast quarter of Section 25-32-24, excepting University
Avenue Extension, as prepared by the City Clerk and presented at the meeting this
evening. (See Resolution R78-81) Motion carried unanimously.
WHITE OAKS COUNTRY ESTATES AREA IMPROVEMENTS (81-1)
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution adopting the Assessment
for the bituminous streets under Project Number 1981-1 for 172nd Avenue from County
State Aid Highway Number 9 to White Oaks Country Estates Plat, all those streets within
the White Oaks Country Estates Plat, and 171st Avenue Extension within Section 9,
Township 32, Range 24. (See Resolution R79-81) Motion carried unanimously.
SUPPELMENTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR UNASSESSED LOTS/NORTHWEST AREA IMPROVEMENTS (80-4)
George Beaving, 3734 174th Avenue - explained Block 1, Lots 3, 6, 8, and 9 now belong
to the County. Block 2, Lot 1 belongs to Stanley Johnson, who is letting that go back.
Lots 3, 4, 7, also belong to the County; and he owns Lot 9, stating it will be going
back to the County as well. On Block 3, Lots 6, 8, and 2 now belong to the State.
On Block 4, Lots 1, 3, and either 8 or 9 belong to the State; and Lots 5 and 6 have
been j oi ned. There are only two people that own the lots. (Mayor Windschit1 explained
that there is a possibility of granting a variance to declare a parcel buildable if
two lots are combined.)
Mr. Beaving - thought that was Lots 8 and 9, and he thought the neighborhood would be
fighting that. Those lots were sold at the public auction; but when he looked at the
records, it is shown as reverting back to the State. The payoff for the assessment
is 15 years, and most of these lots now belong to the State. The proposal for sewer
and water to the area is not before 20 years at which time the lots would become build-
able. He asked what if nobody purchases the lots prior to the 15-year bond payment
period. What happens to the assessment if the bond is already paid for before anYbOdY~
purchases these lots? (Discussion was that the Attorney's opinion was by assessing th m
now, the City can collect the assessment at the time the property is sold; although it'
was not known if the assessment could be collected beyond the bond assessment period.)
Mr. Beaving - understood in talking with an attorney that once the bond has been paid,
the unpald assessment against those parcels would be null and void. (Discussion with
Mr. Beaving was on the question of collecting the assessment even past the bond payment
period, it being noted that the Council decisions have been based on the Attorney's
opinion, but the assessments against these lots are only partial assessments, and that
those lots can be used for permanent accessory structures, drainage fields, etc.)
-
Pub 1 ic Hearings
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 2
(Supplemental Assessments for Unassessed Lots/Northwest Area Improvements, Continued)
Mr. Beaving - was upset because this assessment really only affects the two of them who
actually own the adjacent lot, alleging the entire project was forced upon them because
of the drainage problem on Blackfoot, also noting that the unbui1dable lots are really
unsightly and a nuisance, with weeds, junk etc. He has been maintaining the lot he
owns plus sharing maintenance with a neighbor on the other adjacent lot, but he stated
he will no longer continue to do so. (Council noted that the City does not have the
authority to go onto those parcels; but if the County owns them, they should be responsi-
ble for cleaning them up.)
Mr. Beaving - again expressed his opposition to the assessment, feeling he is really the
only person the City will be collecting the assessment from; and he stated he would let
it go back to the County instead. He originally purchased the lot as an investment to
.build on in the future once utilities are available. (Discussion with Mr. Beaving was
also on what took place at the pUblic auction of those lots and on how the opening
bid prices were determined on the lots by the County.)
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution adopting the Supplemental
Assessment for those parcels not assessed in 1980, payable 1981, for the improvement of
bituminous streets under Project No. 1980-4 for those streets in the west half of
Section 5-24-32, the east half of Section 6-24-32, and the west half of Section 8-24-32,
with reference to the Acting City Administrator's memo to the City Council dated
September 10, 1981, pertaining to the 1980-4 assessment roll. (See Resolution R80-81)
Motion carried unanimously.
KELSEY PARK GRANT APPLICATION
Because Mayor Windschit1 may be directly affected by the proposed land acquisition,
he stepped down to the audience and did not take part in the discussions. Actin9 Mayor
Ken Ortte1 conducted this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Schumacher requested the Council approve a Resolution for the filing of the final
grant application. The appraiser's figures will not be available until Friday, and
he will insert the correct appraisal fi9ures prior to submitting the application.
Discussion with Mr. Schumacher was on the location and amount of land considered for
acquisition. Mr. Schumacher explained the maximum amount of the grant would be $29,000,
which would be a 50-percent grant. The land being considered for acquisition is
approximately 8 acres of lakeshore in the 40 owned by Mayor Windschit1 and approximately
30.5 acres west of that 40. Also, he was told there would be no impact on the grant
if the 8':acres would be dropped from consideration. The City is reimbursed with grant
funds once the property is purchased, and it is issued for the years 1982-85.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, introducing a Resolution for authorizing the
signing of an application and execution of grant project agreements to acquire. and
deve 1 op open space under the provi si on. oJ State Natural Resource Fund; in paragraph 6
where there is a blank dollar sign, that the amount of the appraisal for ·said land lshall
be in¡erted in that place. (See Resolution R81-81)
Vote on Motion: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; PRESENT BUT NOT VOTING-
Windschit1. Motion carried.
NORTHWEST AREA IMPROVEMENTS DISCUSSION
Gary Anderson, 3943 172nd Lane - stated the cu1 de sac was eliminated at the time of
the original improvement. With the new improvement in the Norhtwest area and because
of the slope, he stated he is now receiving more drainage and runoff through his yard.
He is presently three feet .from the blacktop, that he does not abut any blacktop.
----., " - --" .n
Public Hearings
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 3
(Northwest Area Improvements Discussion, Continued)
Council discussion was that the cu1 de sac was not vacated at the time of the original
surfacing and that his assessment is only a partial assessment for the benefit of
being able to exit from his property via blacktop streets. Mr. Schumacher was directed
to investigate the drainage question and to make whatever corrections are necessary.
Mr. Anderson was told if he and his neighbors are interested in having that cul de sac
easement vacated, the proper vacation forms can be obtained at the City Hall.
Ress at 8:22,; reconvene at 9:01 p.m.
SOUTHWEST AREA PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED
Rosella Sonsteby: Plat 65929, Parcel 6660, 6925, and 7001 - Ms. Sonsteby read portions
from the January 20, 1981, and Aprll 7, 1981, Council Meeting Minutes to substantiate
her position that water was not being provided those lots and no work was done in
there. Because of that, she objected to being assessed for water on those parcels. .
(Discussion was that the water assessment is an area assessment for those properties
having availability to the water trunk line. No lateral assessment was made.)
Ms. Sonsteb~ - stated in meeting with the contractor, only one stub was placed in that
area, but s e is being charged for $3,000. (Mr. Schumacher explained the assessment
is a partial assessment for those services. She is assessed for the 15 services put
in part way out to the property line because the sewer line through the easement was
constructed prior to her dropping action on the proposed plat. Since the sewer is deep
there, risers were required, and the partial assessment is the stubs part way to the
property line at $200 per service.)
~s. Sonsteby - in the four lots along Woodbine, storm water now runs to the back of
those lots and over the buried telephone line easement.
Most of the discussion then centered around the storm water costs and assessment for
the Chapman's Addition area, the Grace Lutheran Church properties, and the Chutich,
Meadowcreek Associates, and Chapman's commercial properties, and the undeveloped
Carlson property, and on the engineer's alternative methods of assessing the storm
sewer proposed in their September 28, 1981, memo. (Also reference Minutes of the
Public Hearing of September 24, 1981.)
Mr. Schumacher reviewed the alternative proposals for assessments, the properties
involved, and a comparison between the estimated costs presented at the public hearing
and the final assessment amounts. The comparisons were an estimate of $3,010 for
sanitary sewer but an assessment rate of $3,083.46; an estimate of $26.40 FF for
streets with concrete curb and gutter but an assessment of $26.13 FF; and an estimate
of 10 cents per square foot for storm sewer drainage but an assessment of 6.5 cents
per square foot for residential. The actual storm sewer costs if spread evenly
between the different land uses amount to 11.79 cents per square foot. An estimate
of $6,258 per typical lot was given at the public hearings which did not include
concrete curb and gutter; the actual assessment sent out was $6,874.75 per typical
lot. Mayor Windschit1 again noted that anyone considering an appeal on their assessment
must submit a written notice prior to the Council adopting the roll.
John Quick, 13459 Round Lake Boulevard - asked if he is included in the storm sewer
dralnage area and what lS the difference in the rate from Chapman's Addition. (Mr.
Schumacher stated that area was included in the drainage district. It is an area
assessment, as shown on the proposed assessment.)
. --.-., . - -< -.,
Public Hearings
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 4
(Southwest Area Public Hearing Continued)
Lyle Fletcher, 3501 135th - asked what the amount is now. (Discussion was on the two
proposals and the affect the increase would have. Raising the square foot cost to 10
cents would increase the average residential lot by approximately $780. Also, the
proposal to raise the assessment to 10 cents per square foot is no more than the
original amount proposed for storm drainage.)
Dale Jones, 3532 136th Avenue NW - thought the proposal to raise the rate to 11.79
cents per square foot would mean an increase of $2,007 for him on his 100 x 150-foot
lot. (Discussion was that the increase over the 6.5 cents per square foot would be
approximately $840. Councilman Lachinski was concerned that at the public hearing, no
cost differential for storm sewer was stated for the differing land uses, but the
assessments went out at 6.5 cents for residential and 43 cents for commercial, putting
the Council in a rather awkward position of having to equalize that assessment.
Discussion with the engineers was that the storm sewer cost was slightly over that
estimated, as reflected in the 11.79 cents per square foot overall cost.)
Karen Jones, 3532 136th Avenue - asked what the costs were for, stating they weren't
told about all the other costs that they would be charged. (Mr. Schumacher explained
it was the cost of getting the pipe across the county road and the purchasing of the
ponding easements at a compatible lower area which was not contemplated at the time
of the assessment hearing. The estimate for purchasing the pond easement was not given
because of the difficulty in making that estimate. The number given at the public
hearing did not include concrete curb and gutter. If that had been included, the
estimate for a typical assessment would have been $7,400.)
Ron Burgess, 3531 135th Lane - understands the assessments are because of the commercial
property wanting to be equal with the residential property. This is only for the storm
sewer itself. He asked if the commercial property has expressed their feeling and
why wasn't the percentage known previously since it was known that this was commercial
property. This should have been determined before the assessment rolls went out.
(Discussion was that the problem is the disproportionate share of the costs to the
commercial on the assessment and on what a fair difference should be. The Council has
received letters and heard testimony from Mr. Boeh1and prior to this evening. At
the original public hearings, everyone was told approximately 10 cents per square foot
for storm sewer costs. It was noted that the Council was not aware of the change
made by the Engineers as to the differential between residential and commercial land
uses and that this problem could have been prevented had the Council and Engineers
discussed this beforehand. Several on the Council felt that the intent is to assess
the commercial properties more than the residential; the question is what that ratio
should be. Also, by law, only the increased benefit can be assessed.)
John Fritz, 3522 135th Lane NW - felt they will be appealing something they don't even
know what it is yet. He thought that this should be continued and some decisions made
first; then they should have the right to appeal. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the
process is to take public input, the Council will set the rate, hopefully tonight, and
the residents will have the appeal process.)
Pat Alatorra, 3522 135th Avenue - asked why the 6 cents a square foot was sent to the
residents in the first place. Why wasn't it done first at the 10 cents?
Mr. Jones - asked if they are being assessed for a portion of the service road. (The
serVlce road is being assessed entirely against the properties that front on it.)
Dean Keller, 13547 Heather Street - representing Grace Lutheran Church - stated at the
orlglnal hearings the Church property itself was told they would not be charged anything
for the storm sewer, feeling the records should be checked as to whether or not that is
true. (Mr. Schumacher stated the Church properties still contribute drainage into
the storm sewer system that has been designed. They have two parking lots, one paved
and one gravel; however, he felt that the entire parcels contribute to the system.)
"-... . -,
Public Hearing
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 5
(Southwest Area Public Hearing Continued)
Mr. Davidson explained that the improvement hearings are held without the benefit of
detailed plans and specifications, but the specific costs are based on the final
design as it relates to the service the residents were told would be provided. And
that is not always exactly the same as the original intent in the feasibility study.
The division of assessing those costs are made through an assessment roll, and then
heard via public hearings, at which time the Council and residents work out the division
of actual costs. In this instance, they took the purist approach of basing the storm
sewer assessment on specific rates of runoff for the varying land uses. The storm
sewer has been designed for the use of the properties being assessed at saturated
development, to be able to use the system when it is needed. The fact that the benefit
is not taken advantage of immediately does not make the benefit any less. The
assessments are levied against the land, not against the owners. They did not inten-
tionally impose an assessment on anyone, but have given the Council what they think are
viable alternatives, agreeing that it would have been much easier to originally assess
the 10 cents for everyone. But it was a value judgement they made at the time, which
he apologized for. Perhaps they should go through a work session with the Council
prior to sending out the assessments so the Council is aware of what is being done.
Marnell Wilber, 3510 136th Lane - stated the amount is levied against the land value,
present and future use. She felt that the church and commercial property have a higher
value than residential property. Also, church property can be changed to some other
use. Because it is worth more than residential, it should also be charged more. (r·1ayor
Windschit1 stated he agrees, but the question is what is that differential.)
L~nn Boeh1and, owner of the commercial property - challenged that statement, as he is
wllling to have those homes and commercial property valued. He believes that by
splitting that commercial property up into residential, they could get as much or more
for that land being residential as being commercial. He'd be wi lling to go along with
a real estate agent's appraisal, but felt there would not be any value in commercial
property over the residential. Another technicality is everyone was told at the
original meetings that it would be 10 cents a square foot, and there was no differenti-
ation between commercial and residential at that time. He didn't think the methods of
assessing that value should change midstream. (Councilman Ortte1 felt that Mr.
Bohe1and's comments on the value of commercial versus residential property were
correct because of the amount of residential lots that could be split from that
property. Also, the commercial property may have less hard surface for the size of
his lot than most of the residential parcels. If there was a difference in value,
it existed prior to the storm sewer system. He didn't think the storm sewer added
any more value, dollar wise, to the commercial property than to anyone e1ses. In a
shopping-center type development, he agreed there would be consider1y more run off;
but he felt the mistake was this was rated as that type of property, which it is not,
and by City ordinances only 30 percent of ground coverage is allowed.)
Mr. Boehland - stated the City of Anoka makes no differentiation between the land uses,
as everyone is charged the same per-acre costs. He again stated everyone was told 10
cents a square foot one year ago and felt the City should stand behind that. He is
willing to pay some small percentage point more, but he is not willing to pay four
times more, or even double.
Mr. Keller - stated the Church went from zero assessment to $37,500, and is hearing that
the others are increasing an additional $800. They are willing to pay their share, and
he asked the figures that were told at the hearings and the actual cost. (Discussion
was the original price quoted was 10 cents per square foot; the actual costs, if spread
evenly, would amount to 11.8 cents, or a 17-percent overrun.)
~. -,-~.. . -- ."
Public Hearing
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 6
(Southwest Area Public Hearing Continued)
Gerald Domino, 3422 135th Lane - asked the reason for the overrun. (The Engineers
explalned that the estlmates were not based on final plans and specifications or bids.
The prices given at the hearings were their best estimates and were not a guaranteed
price; however, in this one case, their estimates were off. Most of the increase
was the acquisition of the ponding easement plus some additional cost in getting the
pipe through the county road construction and the City's construction at the same time.)
Mr. Domino - still didn't understand the reason for the overrun. Normally working
wlth estimates, a contingency is built in, usually a minimum of 10 percent. He asked
what happened to the 10 percent contingency and why is there a 7 or 8 percent overrun
on top of that. He didn't feel they, as taxpayers, should have to pay for someone
else's mistake whether it was the City's or engineering firm's mistake. (Discussion
was that the final figures were not here at this time, but it was estimated the pond,
which is located west of Underclift and north of Bunker Lake Boulevard, cost $15,000.
Also, the water from Chapman's Addition had to outlet there because there is no adequate
ponding area in that Addition.)
Carol Levercom, 3541 135th - asked if the easement acquisition was estimated at the
tìme of the public hearing. (Mr. Schumacher stated that at the time of the public
hearing, any land acquisition that would be required was not included in the estimated
costs due to the difficulty of determining a figure because of varying factors involved.)
Mr. Domino - was told the residents have a right to know what the figures are and how
they were based originally, plus the right to see the final figures and make a com-
parison between the two. He felt that if it was known the City would have to acquire
land for a ponding area, some provisions should have been made for that. He asked to
see, in writing, those figures. (Councilman Lachinski also felt the Council needs
to know the proposed assessment area for storm sewer at the public hearing compared to
what it is now. He stated the project didn't come in that much more, but a larger
area is now being assessed at a higher rate. Mr. Schumacher stated the easement
acquisition for the outlet in Chapman's Addition was shown on the feasibility report
but no costs were given for that acquisition.)
Ms. Levercom - asked who else is using the ponds for drainage. And are they being
assessed the same as Chapman's is. (Mr. Schumacher stated the pond is a natural
drainage from some of the surrounding area. A small portion of the cost was assessed
to the 138th and Underc1ift area. A portion of that was also assessed against the
vacant property to the east of Chapman's Addition as well, which is also paying a per-
acre assessment for their ability to use the storm sewer system. The reason their
assessment is somewhat lower is because they are just paying for the ability to use
that system, for their capacity reserved in the system for that future development.
No internal storm sewer laterals were constructed on that property under this project.)
Mr. Domino - stated the pipe size was increased to provide that property drainage and
asked lf they are paying for that cost totally. (Chapman's Addition is not being
assessed to accommodate the oversizing for the 15 acres to the east of the Addition.
The pond acquisition cost was against all properties being assessed for storm sewer.
It was also pointed out that the proposed assessment against the vacant land is one
cent less than what is now being proposed in Chapman's Addition, yet none of the internal
lines have been constructed and is not yet draining into this system. The reason for
the higher rate is because of the higher density zoning over a portion of that area.
Also, all documents are public records and can be viewed by anyone who is interested.)
Mr. Jones - then understands when the 15.9 acres to the east develops, those in
Chapman's will be reimbursed for their usage of that sewer system. (No; that property
is being assessed now for the right to use that storm sewer system and the residents in
Chapman's Addition are not being assessed for Carlson's property's right to use that
system. A review was again made of the proposed alternative assessments and the costs.)
.-_.. "' -,
Public Hearing
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 7
(Southwest Area Public Hearing Continued)
Ms. Wilber - stated that the property to the east is being charged a higher rate because
of higher usage and asked if that wouldn't also apply to the church and commercial
properties. (Mayor Windschit1 agreed. Councilman Peach felt that assessing 10 cents
a square foot as originally proposed for residential property is fair, noting the
drainage problem he experienced in that area several years ago.)
Mary Gilbertson, 3521 135th Lane NW - asked whether the Council would accept a higher
prlce than origlnally quoted wlthout questioning where the money is spent. (Discussion
was that the prices originally sent out to the residents as assessments were sent by
the engineering firm; the Council did not set the amount. Also, the Council is
generally considering charging the 10 cents per square foot as originally proposed.)
Ms. Gilbertson - felt the entire problem has been caused by the engineering firm and
their inability "to produce the work at the rate quoted. She thought the land acquisition
should have been considered, wanting to find out where the mistake lies and why the
people have to pay for someone else's error.
Council discussion was on the questionof why there is the discrepancy between the
original figure quoted and the actual costs and on the area being assessed compared
to what was thought to be assessed atthe·pub1ic hearings, possibly expecting the
engineering firm to pay for any mistake they may have made. It was explained that
the Council is caught in the dilemma of having to set the assessment rate this year
to avoid the increased cost to the residents of another year's capitalized interest.
Ms. Wilber - asked if the ponding area will serve any other area in the future at
thelr cost of paying for it. (Mr. Schumacher stated the only other area that drains
into it currently is the natural area tributary to it which is basically undeveloped.)
Mr. Domino - understood that the discussion is strictly on the storm sewer, but asked
the dlfferences between the estimates and costs for the sanitary sewer and streets.
(Mr. Schumacher again reviewed those figures and again explained the estimates and
reasons for the storm sewer costs overrun.)
Mr. Domino - asked how the contingency was used and why is there still 10 percent above
that, asklng where the fault lies and who is going to pay for it, stating it won't be
him. (The Engineers were asked to prepare a breakout of those figures for the Council
and interested residents.)
Mr. Quic~~- reviewed the findings in TKDA's feasibility report as to the tributary
areas for storm drainage, asking why Chapman's drainage is going west of Round Lake
Boulevard and north of Bunker Lake. (Mr. Schumacher explained this was the closest
outlet for the storm water.)
Mr. Boeh1and - was not so concerned about the overall overrun in the storm sewer costs,
but is concerned about the residential facing a 17 percent increase and him being
charged a 400 percent increase over what was originally told him. He would have had
other alternatives if they had known originally what the assessment would really be.
He stated it would be nice if it would be kept down to 10 cents and that it would be
nice if TKDA would pick up some of that cost.
Ms. Gilbertson - asked if the assessment rate is set tonight, that is what they will
pay, and if their only alternative is to appeal. (Right, again noting the State Law
to provide written documentation of an objection to an assessment before the roll is
certified.)
Councilman Lachinski suggested assessing the residential properties at 10 cents per
square foot, the remaining properties 12 cents per square foot, leaving a shortfall
of approximately $38,840, which he felt could be made up with the high interest rate
. -..., , "
Public Hearing
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 8
(Southwest Area Public Hearing Continued)
being charged over and above the bonds. Also, he wanted to pursue the difference
between what was estimated at the public hearing and the final costs to see if the
engineering firm did make some mistake in their calculations.
Mr. Domino - asked if everyone was aware of the cost increase in storm sewer system
when the bids were received. (Councilman Lachinski thought the only thing he was
aware of is that the ponding area would cost slightly more, but he felt the final cost
is a gross difference from the original estimate to the area actually being assessed.)
Mr. Domino - thought those questions should be answered before the levy is set. Also,
why were they told the bond issue would be approximately 9 percent and now it is 11.5
percent. (Discussion noted the bonds were sold approximately one year ago, and that
1~ percent is charged for administration over the 20 year period and to cover
delinquencies.)
Ms. Wilber - asked the difference in the tax rate between commercial and residential
properties, which should come into determining the ratio in assessing the storm sewer
costs. (No one was familiar with the differing rates, if there are any, that are
used by the County.)
Council discussion was then on alternatives available, the intent being to assess the
benefit to the properties involved but to determine an equitable ratio between
residential and commercial properties, asking the approximate square footage cost for
storm drainag~éfor the Andover Shopping Center directly across from the Boeh1and
property. Mr. Schumacher explained that situation was entirely different, their having
some agreement with Good Value Homes.
Ms. Sonsteby - stated the pipe for that storm sewer system from the Good Value property
comes out 25 feet from her ditches, and she is getting all the water, stating something
will be done about that later on.
Council discussed the administrative charge, noting the City policy has always been
to assess an additional one percent over the bond interest. General consensus of the
Council was to set the interest rate at one percent over the bond rate.
Councilman Lachinski stated the project must be assessed, the information from the
engineering firm must be received showing the discrepancy in the figures, and he would
be looking to TKDA to assist in part of the overrun. If that cannot be justified, he
suggested holding a supplemental assessment the following spring on the additional
parcels.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to assess the residential property at 10
cents in Chapman's Addition, assess the commercial property and the Church at 12
cents and leave the Carlson assessment as proposed by the engineering firm. DISCUSSION:
Concern was on the large shortfall then being created. A suggestion was to charge the
commercial and church at 15 cents, or 1~ times the residential rate, which would make
the shortfall approximately $23,277. It was also noted that the commercial property
does have the potential of splitting off lots, which would create more intense
development with more surfacing. Councilman Lachinski's suggestions for making up
the shortfall would be to look to the engineering firm or to hold a supplemental
assessment on the commercial property. Mayor Windschit1 felt the question of any
oversizing of the pond for future development areas should be investigated.
Ms. Alatorre - asked if the property southeast of Chapman's is being assessed and
where the runoff from that will go. (The engineers noted that property is being
proposed for residential, and the drainage will not go into this storm sewer system but
probably will go toward Crooked Lake and Anoka. At the time of the public hearings, it
was not known where the drainage districts would split in Chapman's Addition; but in
doing the final designs, the grade was so critical, the split was made at the point where
they ran out of pipe grade. So it was determined that all of Chapman's would drainc_ north.
Public Hearing
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 9
(Southwest Area Public Hearing Continued)
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we change the rate for the
commercial fDom 12 cents a square foot to the rate of 15 cents per square foot.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Ortte1, as it has
not yet been determined how to recover the shortfall and he doesn't want to have a
supplemental assessment. Amendment carried.
Because of the confusion as to what the original motion said, Councilman Lachinski
remade the motion: To assess the residential property at 10 cents per square foot and
the commercial property and church property at the rate of 12 cents per square foot
with the full understanding that first we would look to the engineering firm to make
up the difference, the shortfall, and second of all, if that could not be justified,
then we would have to hold a supplemental assessment next spring to make up the
balance against the commercial property.
Mr. Boeh1and - asked the Council to go with the 19 cents against commercial right now,
feeling they will eventually be assessed that amount any way. They were originally
told 10 cents; why not leave it at that?
Council discussion was that this needs to be discussed further with the engineering
firm to see if they did indeed error. Councilman Orttel opposed assessing any shortfall
totally against the commercial, questioning what justification there is for that
proposal and feeling it is merely an arbitrary assessment. Discussion was with members
of the audience as to what the motion is saying, that any court fees would be paid
for by the residents, and the intent is to assess the maximum benefit and hopefully
avoid the expense of court trials.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the supplemental assessment
would be equally assessed to the entire area. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach felt
it would be more fair to assess it back against everyone rather than against one land
use. Mayor Windschit1 had trouble assessing the residential properties more than
the 10 cents per square foot as that is what was originally estimated at the public
hearings. Mr. Davidson stated that the two-to-one factor of commercial to residential
land use is a reasonable ratio, from the standpoint that the rate of runoff for
commercial is at the rate of 70 to 90 percent and the rate of runoff for residential is
between 25 to 30 percent. This relates to saturated development. This is and has
been justifiable in the courts to assess commercial at a higher rate based on the
runoff.
Mr. Boehland - again stated they were not told of this differential at the original
publlC hearings, that the City of Anoka does not differentiate; and he made his
decisions based on the assumption the assessments would be spread evenly at 10 cents
per square foot.
Discussion with the audience was again on the proposal, with those in the audience
angrily stating that all the facts from the engineers should have been determined for
tonight's meeting and presented to the people and that this information should be
known prior to the Council setting the levy. Audience suggestions were that the
engineers pay for the additional amounts, or the commercial properties, the undeveloped
land to the east, or any properties to potentially use the pond.
Linda Sinarke, 3522 136th Avenue - felt everyone is dealing with so many if's this
evenlng, not knowlng who made the mistake, and what would then be proposed. (Mr.
Oavidson stated no mistake was made, again explaining that the estimates are not
guaranteed prices and the steps for establishing the assessment rate.)
Public Hearing
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 10
(Southwest Area Public Hearing Continued)
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Windschti1
Amendment carried.
Mayor Windschit1 explained the main motion now reads 10 cents for residential
properties, 15 cents for the church and commercial properties, and 8.9 cents to the
Carlson property with the provision that the shortfall be assessed against all
properties in the event it is determined there is no liability on the part of the
engineering firm.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Windschit1 as he does
not think it is fair to assess the residents above the 10 cents per square foot
originally estimated, feeling that the balance should be assessed against the
commercial since the Engineers feel they can justify a 2-to-1 ratio. Motion carried.
Residents were told that the assessment will be at the 10 cents per square foot and
documentation must be presented prior to the certification of the assessment roll,
probably on Thursday evening, to protect their right for appeal. If there is a
supplemental assessment, the same procedure will be followed and residents will have
a right to appeal any additional assessment.
Council discussion with Mr. Davidson was on the question of the $600-per-acre
assessment for sanitary sewer. (Reference the September 24, 1981, Public Hearing
Minutes) Mr. Davidson stated he talked with King Forness of Springsted about the
$95,603 shortfall for the sanitary trunk sewer line, explaining the Council decision
was to assess the $600-per-acre figure rather than the $870 and to collect a $150
connection charge per unit. The reason for the shortfall is because of the approximately
60 acres taken out of the project area and because the 16.11 percent capitalized interest
was not used in making the $600-per-acre determination. Normally when determining
assessments, the total cost including capitalized interest is used and the current
interest earned in the interim is subtracted. The earned interest was not subtracted
in this case and the $600-per-acre figure did not have the 16.11 percent capitalized
interested, which is where the real difference comes in. It is their suggestion that
rather than taking the $95,000 shortfall from connection charges, that it be made up
by the some $200,000 of earned interest. In that way, everyone in the area would then
be benef itted.
Mayor Windschit1 was concerned that by adding it this way, the City will have to levy
a general levy to cover the first year's unassessed portion because the unassessed
portion of the roll will have to be serviced by a general levy. Mr. Davidson stated
that the earned interest is in the construction account. The unassessed portion is
a legitimate part of the construction costs and can be paid from the earned interest.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we continue the public assessment hearing
for the Southwest Area improvement project to Thursday, October 1, 7:30 p.m., at the
Andover City Hall. Motion carried unanimously.
The engineers were directed to determine if the earned interest on the bond can be used
to serve the unassessed portion of the construction cost of the sanitary sewer project.
Also, it should be determined if the drainage pond easement for the Chapman's area has
been oversized; and if so, which additional areas should be included. Mr. Davidson
stated the area was acquired to an elevation that would provide for a 100-year storage
for the areas, taking into account there is a natural drainage that already goes into
it. None of the area that already goes there was assessed. If those properties
expand or change the rate of runoff and additional ponding is needed, either that pond
. _.~.. "' ----
Public Hearing
September 29, 1981 - Minutes
Page 11
(Southwest Area Public Hearing Continued)
would have to be dredged or additional area purchased. Mr. Davidson also stated
that he does not have the authority to make the decision as to whether or not the firm
would participate in the cost overruns. Council generally wanted to see what
attributed to those overruns.
Hearing continued to Thursday, October 1, 1981. 11:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
"~~~-:~
Ma e11a A. Peach
Recor ing Secretary
- . ...-., -,