Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP October 1, 1981 , ~ 01 ANDOVER ~PECIAL CITY COUNCIL MeETiNG - OCTOBER 1, 1981 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on October 1, 1981, 7:33 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, for the purpose of continuing the Southwest Area Assessment Hearing and discussion of the 1982 budget. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: TKDA Engineers, John Davidson and Mark Schumacher; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/SOUTHWEST AREA IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS Mr. Oavidson explained they prepared a packet of information dated October 1, 1981, relative to the. information asked for at the September 29 meeting on the costs and assessments in the various areas of the project. Mr. Davidson referred specifically to the letter from Springsted, Inc., for dealing with the earned interest on the bond issue for the Southwest Area only, that the unassessed portion of the trunk sewer costs can be reduced by the amount of that earned interest without requiring the City to levy for that unassessed portion. That in effect is providing everyone a credit from that earned interest since everyone in the project area is being charged for the trunk sewer line. However, the earned interest should relate to the proportionate share of the improvement as the interceptor sewer relates to the total project. The $95,000 that would come from the earned interest is very closet to the proportionate share of the trunk sewer costs of the entire project. The remaining earned interest can be used to cover any of the other un assessed portions in the water system, storm sewer, or streets or any designated areas the Council may choose. It is TKDA's and Springsted's recommendation that the unused portion of the earned interest go back into a sinking account. To simplify auditing, he recommended the Council take the necessary action designating that that portion of the earned interest be used to cover the unassessed portion of the project. The unused portion of the bond can be used for other like projects in the following years. Mr. Davidson also reviewed some of the documents and changes made during the project which ultimately increased the final construction cost over the bid costs; however, the compensating change order to the contractor for actual costs was slightly less than the overall original contract. No unusual costs have been added to the project in its total. Mr. Davidson also explained that because of the different standards used in each sub- division and the decision to assess each one on an individual basis, there is not the advantage of spreading costs as there would be if the assessments were spread equally over all those benefitted. He didn't believe that the engineers were responsible for any significant overrun of contract costs. The topography in the Chapman's area is flat and the estimate was not based on detailed designs. During the design stage of the storm sewer, they didn't point out changes because they didn't feel it was any significant part of the overall project costs. The fact that they had to work with the County to establish the outlet facilities through their right of way and because of the time involvement, they authorized the County to put in the pipe outlet, which raised the County cost from the estimated $71,000 to $147,000 including the signal. That was brought to the Council's·attention at that time. At the time of acquiring the ponding facility, they were interfacing with the City of Anoka procuring studies tosatisfytheir citizens on the south side of Bunker Lake Boulevard that the system would not cause them any undue hardship. He didn't believe there was justification for the engineer participating in the costs of this improvement. He has no authority to authorize TKDA to reimburse the City for engineering services provided; however, if the Council feels they should take some responsibility, he would take it back to the Board of Directors and discuss it further. Special City Council Meeting -October 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Continued Public Hearing/Southwest Area Improvement Assessments) Discussion noted that the cost of the storm sewer system in the Chapman's area was approximately 8 percent of the total Southwest Area project costs, with the suggestion that approximately 8 percent of the earned interest then be used to help offset the shortfall in the amount being assessed that area for storm sewer, which would amount to approximately $16,000. This is applying the same logic toward the storm sewer as was used for recommending the earned interest be· used to offset the unassessed portion of the sanitary sewer costs. The suggestion was also that that logic be carried still further to use the earned interest to reduce the costs for the streets, the other storm sewer systems, and th~ water system. Discussion was also on the staging and assessing of the water system, noting that the entire area to be eventually serviced is being given an area assessment; that a second well will need to be drilled when the demand on the existing system warrants; that the demand for a well will be determined by watching the consumption and projecting when that will be; that the actual funding for that well is paid for by user fees and connection charges from new homes; and that the project costs for storage and an additional well to service the entire 480 acres was estimated to be $850,000 with $600 per acre being assessed and a $600 per unit connection being charged to pay for those faci lities. Once the shortage is paid off, the City will be accumulating funding for the next facilities. Discussion was also that the chemical consumption in the City's water system is higher than anticipated. Mr. Schumacher was directed to look into this matter further. Discussion was then on the amount of the connection charge, reviewing how that $600 figure was arrived at. It was suggested that if it should be determined to be excessive, it is easily refunded in an equitable fashion by lowering the water rates to those residents. Mr. Schumacher also projected recovering approximately $250,000 based on 23- or 25-cents per thousand gallons of the 75-cent user charge. The remai nder goes for operation and maintenance of the system. It was felt that after the water system has been in operation for about a year, more accurate decisions can be made as to the connection charges, water user rates, etc. Councilman Lachinski felt it was understandable that the project may have progressed differently than what was originally planned or in some instancesc cost more; but he felt the engineering firm made a tactical error by setting the assessment rates in such a manner that it made it totally unbearable for some and lower than originally proposed to others, resulting in a disturbance from the residents in that project area. He was concerned that the assessment now proposed by the Council may be excessive, probably resulting in court actions. Mr. Davidson stated any time the City takes on any capital improvement of this nature, it is exposed to the likelihood of appeals and lawsuits; and they have stood behind the City as the engineer , in those cases. They didn't intentionally antagonize anyone, noting it would have been better to review the assessment roll with the Council prior to it being sent to the residents and wishing they hadn't made that value judgement as to the ratio used between residential and commercial land uses for the storm sewer system. If there are courtroom proceedings that evolve as a result of actions specifically caused by them, he felt they would stand by that error for whatever amount it might be. Mayor Windschit1 then explained to those in the audience the earned and capitalized interest on the project, what it means, and the proposal to use the earned interest . to offset parts of the unassessed portions of the project. It was thought that if some court action would reduce the assessment, the monies would come from the General Fund but may eventually come from some fund balance toward the end of the bonding period. - --~~ ... Special City Council Meeting October 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Continued Public Hearing/Southwest Area Improvement Assessments) Discussion returned to the assessments for the Chapman's Addition area, noting that a typiGal assessment in Chapman's including concrete curb and gutter was originally estimated at $7,566, and the assessment under the Council's proposal of 10 cents per square foot for storm sewer would be $7,640. Scott Foyt, 3443 136th Avenue - asked why wasn't the storm sewer system considered when the improvement on County Road 9 took place several years ago since they were serving the County road with storm sewer already. Secondly, he understood a lower bid was received from another contractor to do Chapman's Addition than what was bid by the contractor who received the award, asking why wasn't the lower bid accepted for Chapman's Addition. (Mr. Davidson explained that they reserved the right to award the contract in the best interests of the City. The contractor receiving the award tied his bid such that if he received all three parts of the work, he would reduce the entire project by three percent. That made him the low on the total project and lower than any other combination; therefore, the City awarded him the contract in the best interest of the overall project. He wasn't sure it was higher for Chapman's Addition after subtracting three percent of the initial bid. He would be willing to go over the bid or send the bid tab sheets to Mr. Foyt. Councilman Lachinski also explained that the engineering firm had prpposed the City consider using the County system when County Road g was improved; unfortunately at the time the City choose not to do so because of the lack of funding. If it had been done, the benefitted area, including those in Chapman's Addition, would have had to be assessed for it at that time.) Mr. Foyt - felt that was a mistake on the City's part as the problem of spring flooding already existed at that time. He felt they are still ending up paying more for the storm sewer even using the accrued interest to pay the unassessed portion, plus their increased assessment. (Discussion noted the 10 cents per square foot is what was originally quoted at the public hearings.) Rus Horbul, 3502 136th Avenue - wondered if tax wise the value of commercial property versus residential differs. (The Clerk stated she would have to check with the County as to the rates used by them.) Phil Levenhaqa, 3513 134th - asked what is going to be done to improve their yards. (Mr. Davidson stated the seeding was done in the middle of summer, which is not generally condusive to germination. They would like to wait until spring and have the contractor reseed those areas. The one-year warranty starts at the time the City formally accepts the project, which has not yet been done.) Janice Quick, 13459 Round Lake Boulevard - stated the trouble with the hay blown on the seed is that it plugs up the storm sewer. (Mr. Davidson acknowledged that this is a problem, but stated the hay is put over the seed to keep the ground moist for greater germination. The straw does eventually decompose and disappear.) Rus Michelson, 3512 136th Avenue - stated that whatever was put in front of his house was destroyed when they came back in to widen the strip. And the area is filled with rocks. They also finished his driveway after it was seeded, which then destroyed the seeding on both sides of his driveway. (Mr. Schumacher will investigate this further.) The following discussion and actions were taken on the Southwest Area improvement assessments: Discussion was on the question of installing curb, taking off the curb assessment, or leaving the assessment as proposed for the Zillhardt and Johanson properties in Auditor's Sub. 82. (Reference Minutes of the September 29, 1981, Assessment Hearing and TKDA's September 29, 1981, memo on the assessments.) Mr. Schumacher explained that the lots do not easily fall into any of the City's odd-shaped lot assessment policies, - ---. ., Special City Council Meeting October 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Continued Public Hearing/Southwest Area Improvement Assessments) stating it is up to the Council to determine if something besides a minimum assessment should be applied. It's also the Council's decision as to whehter Mr. Zillhardt has any benefit from the curb and gutter and whehter it should be assessed. The proposal was a 100-foot minimum assessment with full curb and gutter. Mr. Davidson also stated that the benefit is not related to the curb in front of a house but is related to a curbed street being available looking at the improvement in total. Councilman Lachinski felt that in this case no additional roadway was required because of the odd-shaped lot. But by the same token, his lot is much larger than many lots who are receiving a larger assessment than the 100 feet. Therefore, he could not see reducing the assessment below the 100-foot minimum. John Zillhardt - in looking at the lot there is an obvious inequity because of the gap or no curb by his property. If the assessment isn't to be reduced, he would request that a curb be put up to the driveway. (Councilman Peach stated in viewing the property, he agreed that it does look peculiar to see the road stop at his front yard. Discussion was on the feasibility of installing curbing; along his property, the impact on the storm drainage and on a turnaround for road equipment, and the cost. Mr. Schumacher also repeated his discussion with Mr. Johanson when the decision was made to delete the curbing from the T-turnaround in that instance. The curbing was left off the T-turnaround due to the constraints of the site to make it easier to negotiate a plow in the turnaround.) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that the property owned by Mr. Johanson on Xenia Street, that Mr. Johanson be offered the choice of taking a 130-foot assessment and putting the curb in on the T-turnaround or accepting the minimum of 100-feet and leaving the road without the curb as it currently is assessed. DISCUSSION: There was concern that this policy could then affect many other simi1iar situations and also on leaving the question open until some future date. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski; NO-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1 Motion failed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that Mr. Zi11hardt's property be curbed where it abuts onto 145th Avenue with concrete curb. DISCUSSION: Councilman Pe~h felt that the two cases are separate and should be treated,lseparate1y. He felt in this case it is not a great deal of curb, feeling it would equalize the looks of the lot along with his neighbors. Mr. Schumacher estimated it would be a couple hundred dollars to put in the curb. Ms. Sonsteb~ - on the south side there is a 16-foot easement, wondering if that is being talke about for curbing. It was deeded to Johanson. (Mr. Davidson stated wherever there is driveway Or access, they knock the curb down and lay the concrete gutter through. It could be done in both cases if the Council chooses to do so. He felt that the contractor would not come back to install the curb at the same price quoted in the bid, but some price would have to be negotiated, assuming it would be $10 to $12 a foot. Mr. Zi11hardt - stated he has talked to Mr. Johanson, who is willing to give up that easement as lt has never been used to anybody's knowledge. The end of that easement is his driveway, so the flat spot in his driveway would serve as the end of the easement. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ortte1, Peach; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski, Windschit1 Motion failed. Discussion returned to this matter later in the meeting. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we change the assessment rate on the service road that borders Bunker Lake Boulevard from the rate set forth in the assess- ment roll of $30.83 per front foot to a rate of $29.63 per front foot. Motion carried unanimously. --~._. -. -, Special City Council Meeting October 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Continued Public Hearing/Southwest Area Improvement Assessments) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we authorize the engineers to determine the costs of putting the curb on the end of 145th Avenue for the Zi11hardt property and for the Johanson property so that a decision can be made at the next City Council meeting as to what the actual assessment for the properties will be. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach felt that this is changing the assessment policies for special cases and felt it is improper. He would be willing to put in the curb but not to change the assessment. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Peach Motion carried. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that Plat 65929, Parcel 8140 in the name of Floyd Sheppard be changed in the assessment roll to note the charge for only one sewer stub. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was then on the questions raised by Rosella Sonsteby on the assessment on Parcel 5400, the question of the bui1dabi1ity of the four lots west of Woodbine, and the question of the watermain assessmect. Ms. Sonsteby - stated that the storm water is being run on the back of the four lots, with the storm water pipe coming out 90 feet from the front of the lot; and there is no easement through them. (It was noted the storm drainage is another question and separate from the assessment roll.) Ms. Sonsteby - felt that nothing was put in for water in the property being assessed for water. And if she is being assessed, those in Auditor's Sub. 82 should also be assessed for their potential use of the water facilities. (Council discussion explained that she is receiving an area assessment for the water main trunk line as is all other undeveloped property that will eventually be served by the water system. City ordinance also requires city water to be installed in all new developments which have accessibility to water; and any development on her property, whether it is multiples or single-family residential, will be required to have water. The Council policy has also been not to install municipal water in existing developments; therefore, no provisions have been made to service Auditor's Sub. 82 nor have they been assessed for the water system. There is an area charge against Ms. Sonsteby's property, and when the property develops, the lateral lines will need to be installed and the unit connection charges paid.) Ms. Sonsteby - understood that Good Value Homes built the municipal well and turned it over to the City free of charge. (Discussion was that this is not correct; the City constructed the well.) Discussion was then on the area sewer charge for Parcel 5400 and Ms. Sonsteby's petition to include the entire parcel in the sewer assessment. She felt that it would be best to service the parcel through the Coon Rapids Interceptor rather than through the CAB Interceptor as proposed. She also noted that as it is, ,the entire parcel is being shown as having a sanitary sewer assessment against it because it is all one piece. Mr. Schumacher explained there is no water assessment against the parcel; but the sewer assessment is intended to be against the tier of property directly adjacent to Xenia Street which was provided sewer service and streets for which approximately four or five lots could be established. Discussion was that because the lots are not yet established, the assessment against that portion of the parcel cannot be distinquished from the entire parce 1 and that the assessment wi 11 show and may be,1construed as being against the entire parcel rather than just a portion of it. It was suggested that the assessment be deferred or deleted at this time and that it be assessed per lot as the lots are developed. Council also noted that the policy has been not to change the sanitary sewer district. - --' -, -- -- -., Special City Council Meeting October 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Continued Public Hearing/Southwest Area Improvement Assessments) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to delete all sewer assessments against Parcel 5400 until such time as that property is developed. DISCUSSION: It is understood that a portion of that land will be serviced by the Coon Rapids Interceptor in the future. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we change in Auditor's Sub. 82, Lot Number 1150 to indicate a front footage of 109;9 linear feet and Parcel 040 to 100 linear feet. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that Parcel 1850 and Parcel 1595 have its front footage assessment for street reduced by the amount of 15 feet. Motion carried unanimous 1y. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that on Lot 1160, the second connection charge be deleted for Mr. William Goudy. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the question of extending the service road along Bunker Lake Boulevard to the Grace Lutheran Church property line. Mr. Davidson stated they could bring the costs for cutting the curb to the Council when the other costs for installing the additional curb in Auditor's Sub. 82 are determined. Council questioned how some assessment could be made to the Church at this time if the road were extended to their property line. The suggestion was that the assessments against the commercial properties could be lowered at a supplemental assessment hearing held when the service road is made available to the Church, and the Church would be assessed for that benefit at that time as well. Possibly nothing should be done there until the Church feels the service road is needed, which is likely once the County puts in the divider. The Engineers were asked to study the matter further and render an opinion at the next meeting. Dave Hahn, representing Grace Lutheran Church - asked if a letter has been filed on behalf of the Church. (Yes.) He stated at the time the service road was being considered, they talked with the engineers in the parking lot about the possibilities; but the engineers never came back to them with the final proposal. (Mr. Schumacher understood from that meeting that the Pastor was extremely negative about any connection to the service road, feeling they could have access to the County Road from the easterly end of their parking lot. The Church also felt they could get permission from the County for a driveway at that location and that they did not have any benefit from a serv i ce road. Mayor Windschit1 asked if the Church would want access to the service road. ) Mr. Hahn - doubted the Church wants access to the service road. (Mr. Davidson stated they talked with the County Engineer at the time of doing the design. The County gave a configuration of how the divider will be placed, stating it was strictly a matter of choice as to whether the Church wanted to drive into the medium strip, in which case only right turn exists would be available. The County didn't think it affected the County Road. Mayor Windschitl suggested to Mr. Hahn if the Church is interested in discussing the service road, that they contact TKDA before Tuesday night.) Ms. Sonsteby - stated she was not aware and was never told that water would be needed on her parcel before it can be developed. She understood water was needed only if twin homes were constructed; not for residential homes. (Discussion was that the requirement has been in effect for quite some time, feeling this was pointed out at the time she withdrew her plat.) Ms. Sonsteby - stated she is being assessed $3,000 for sanitary sewer on Parcel 6660 and didn't think anything was constructed on that lot. (Mr. Schumacher stated he will provide Ms. Sonsteby with the location of those services.) - . --. .. ~- . ~. , Special City Council Meeting October 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Continued Public Hearing/Southwest Area Improvement Assessments) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson that the earned interest on the bond funds prlor to the certification of the levy in the Chapman's Addition, Carlson property, Boeh1and property, Chapman's property, Chutich property, and the Church property, that those funds be returned in a proportionate share as their project cost would apply to the overall project costs in the area of storm sewer, and that interest amount be used to pay the unassessed amount in the approximate amount of $23,000. Councilmen Jacobson and Ortte1 WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that the earned interest on the Southwest Improvement project prior to certifying the roll be applied with the exception of the portion of the project which was for water improvement, be applied to the project costs. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we set the interest rate for the improve- ments on the Southwest Area project at 10.7 percent. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we continue the meeting on the assessment roll for the Southwest project to Tuesday nigh~ with the exception of Mr. Zillhardt and Mr. Johanson, that the meeting on Tuesday to be confirming and set the assessment roll. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:42; reconvene at 9:56 p.m. 1982 BUDGET DISCUSSION The Clerk noted there is an error on the Total Revenues on Page 6, the 1982 proposed total revenues should be $840,636. The original figure shown inadvertently included the over1evy amounts as well. The 1981 mill rate was approximately 13.02 mills which includes the general levy plus the overlevy for a total levy of $460,000. The City's maximum base levy for 1982 is $433,000, to which she added $85,146 for bonded indebtedness, for a total of $518,466. Based on an estimated assessed valuation of $39,565,545, it amounts to a mill rate of 13.1. Ms. Lindquist also recommended the following overlevies: $8,700 for aerial mapping; $257.50 for 75-2 project; $2,846.20 for the 1980-1 and -2 projects; and $14,723 for the 1980-3 and -4 projects; $2,431.15 for the 1981-1 project; and $61,313 for the Fire Department equipment. Council questioned why an overlevy is needed for the 1980 and 1981 projects if there are excess funds in the bond fund to meet the payments. There was concern that monies from general fund would be used for improvement projects, when they are supposed to stand on their own and as those projects are bing 100-percent assessed. The Clerk was directed to talk with the fiscal consultant on the matter. She is also to determine if the general fund can now be reimbursed for any overlevy made in the past on previous projects. Council felt that there should be sufficient funds to meet the aerial mapping bond rather than over levying for it. Discussion noted that the budget has approximately $159,000 worth of requests over the projected revenues. It was also noted the major reasons for the increase in the estimated 1981 revenues over the budgeted amount was because of including SAC charges, which is a pass~through figure, and including the reimbursement for the Hanson Boulevard project. Also, the City could over levy for the equipment bonds, which would amount to approximately $40,000. - _._~. __ -0 ~. , Special City Council Meeting October 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (1982 Budget Discussion, Continued) Council agreed to set the levy and the over1evies for the Fire Department equipment and the 75-2 project. The Clerk will determine if the others are necessary to be overlevied; and if so, they can be acted upon at Tuesday's meeting. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we set the 1982 levy at $433,380. (See Resolution R82-81) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we over1evy an amount of $61,571 for bonded indebtedness. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:48 p.m. ~'tfUl1Y "brn1tt,d, /' ~~--~~\ Marc l1a A. Peach Recording Secretary - --..-, -, ""'