Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH December 2, 1982 ~ o¿ ANDOVER PUBLIC HEARING - DECEMBER 2, 1982 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Engineer's Review of Project (Schrantz & Schumacher) 3. Council Comments 4. Public Testimony 5. Close Public Portion 6 . Council Discussion 7. Adoption of Resolution/Continue Hearing/Close Hearing SPECIAL MEETING - DECEMBER 2, 1982 1. Call to Order 2. Formally Approve policy for MSAH Streets 3. 4. Adjournment --- -- ~ o¿ ANDOVER PUBLIC HEARING/CENTRAL AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS - December 2, 1982 MII'UTE.' Pursuant to notice published thereof, the Continued Public Hearing on the Central Area Utility Improvements was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Ortte1 on December 2, 1982, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski (Mayor Windschit1 was in the audience, as he is directly affected by the project) Councilman absent: Peach Also present: TKDA Engineers John Davidson and Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others Acting Mayor Orttel explained this item came before the Council earlier in the year by petition, and this meeting is the Continued Public Heraing of July 28, 1982. Mr. Davidson gave a brief review of the 429 Statute procedures and the assessment procedure, noting the reason for the hearing is to receive public input so the Council knows the wishes of the residents. Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the revised feasibility report, pointing out the area assessment boundary, noting that the work will take place within existing or acquired right of ways, that sewer construction is expected to be completed by September 1, 1983. They are recommending a one-year delay on the street construction to allow the streets to settle following the construction of the sanitary sewer. He then reviewed the estimated cost of the sanitary sewer: Trunk, $227,290; Laterals, $188,615; Services, $35,625; for a total of $451,530. The lateral assessments are estimated at $3,042/ unit and $440/unit for service stubs. The different subdivisions would have a different assessment rate for the trunk line based upon the area ($670 per gross area) and number of units in the subdivision. The estimated assessment for Woodridge would be $363/unit, for Shady Knoll, $586/unit, and for The Oaks, $536/unit. Testimony was then opened to the public: Jerry RObb, 14314 Crosstown - stated personally even if the minimum project went through, he could not afford to live here any more. Secondly, they live in the vacinity of the dump that is on the EPA's toxic waste list. And that could mean tearing up the new streets to put in water in a few years. (Mr. Schumacher explained the minimum project is for sanitary sewer only with no street surfacing. If public water becomes necessary, it can go down the boulevards or go under the road like the gas and phone companies do. There are options other than tearing up the blacktopping. The only existing public water facility in the City is in the area of Round Lake and Bunker Lake Boulevards. Acting Mayor Orttel also explained the City is aware of the problem with the hazardous waste. The water in that area is monitored very carefully, and there is no indication of any pollution in the deep well levels, the thinking being it shouldn't penetrate to the deep wells because of the impermeable rock layers. However, if it does, it is the feeling of this Council and the City that people and agencies other than the City created the problem. The City is looking to them now to remove the hazardous waste. And in the event City water is needed, it is not intended that the residents would have to pay for it. State and County agencies allowed the waste to be there, and it is felt that is not the responsibility of the people of Andover. Acting Mayor Ortte1 also stated that the City's position is because the deep wells in a majority of the residences, those people should not be burdened with the additional expense of City water.) Mr. Robb went on record opposing sanitary sewer, as it is a personal burden to him. Hë also stated he has not signed any petition, nor has he been approached to sign any. -- - Public Hearing/Central Area Utility Improvements December 2, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 John Blattman, 14320 Partridge - wanted to see the petition that began this process. Nobody living in The Oaks has ever seen a petition. Can they petition to close the dump? He is opposed to the project. (Discussion was a petition from 35 percent of the land area is required by Statute to begin the procedure. No petition has been received from The Oaks; however, it was included in the project realizing once a project is begun, the size can be decreased but it cannot be increased to include additional areas. The dump is controlled by the State and County, and the City has virtually no authority over it; however, the City has been attempting to have it closed. ) Richard Okerlund, 14317 Crosstown - is opposed to the project and felt it is not needed. He can't afford It. Dan Lizakowski, 2355 South Coon Creek Drive - is opposed to the project. Acting Mayor Orttel noted a new petition was not received from Shady Knoll, but the previous petition had a vast majority in favor of the project. Another petition was received from Woodridge. He asked the feelings of those present from The Oaks. It was noted three lots in that subdivision are owned by Jerry Windschitl. Mike Hayes, 14315 Partridge - is against the project. Lars Anderson, 14357 Partridge - is against the project. T. Palmquist, 14310 Partridge - is against the project David Hays, l436D Partridge - disagrees with the project. Violet Erickson, 14351 Crosstown Boulevard, The Oaks - is opposed to the project. (?) , 2340 Uplander, Shady Knoll - is in favor of the project. Council discussion was the most recent petition from Woodridge Acres indicates 12 opposed and 8 in favor of the project. It appears the only area in favor of the project, based on the old petition, is the Shady Knoll area, asking if it is feasible to do just that area without doing the rest of the project. Mr. Davidson stated it can be phased to a certain extent to any of the subdivisions, but it should be recognized that the sewer trunK would have to be provided. Whatever portion of the trunk that would be constructed would be sized and at a depth to serve the balance of the service area, and that oversizing is probably the largest part of the cost. It would mean the City would have to carry a larger portion of that trunk until the rest of the service area is brought in or that the trunk line be assessed on the acreage basis to the entire service area without the benefit of laterals to those subdivisions opposing the service at this time. Mr. Schrantz noted the $670/acre trunk charge inflates to something under $700/acre beginning January 1, 1983. Mr. Schumacher stated the boundaries of the service area have been pulled in by the landfill cutting back approximately ten acres on the Eveland property. Janet Eveland - owns 46 acres along Crosstown which is used for agricultural purposes. She has no desire to have sewer on it at all. If sewer did come in, she would have to sell the property, and she doesn't want to do that. She asked why she was being included at all. (Discussion was the land is high developable property and is proposed only having the trunk line assessment at this time and nothing for laterals. There was then a short discussion with the residents living in The Oaks about the landfill, as they were concerned about the future plans of the area, when it will be closed, the irritation of having the machines running at six in the morning, and wondering if a trunk line will ever be run into that area. Council noted it is not known exactly when it will be closed, but the City's contract with the owners call for a termination date of July, 1985. The landfill is privately owned and the City has virtually no control over it at this time. The County and the PCA have that authority. Future Public Hearing/Central Area Utility Improvements December 2, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 plans are not certain, but it is not intended to run trunk lines to it at any time. That area cannot be developed into any residential area. The City has negotiated with the owners to keep them from dumping closer to Crosstown Boulevard, agreeing to stay behind the tree line. The residents were also told that the modification of the contours to the landfill is on the December 7 Agenda, and Mr. Roth and County representatives should be at that meeting as well.) Jerry Windschitl - stated his position on the open land he owns is that he doesn't want to stand in the way of the project if a majority of residents want it. At the same time, he didn't want to use the land to force a hardship on someone either. If a majority of the people in The Oaks do not want it, he does not want the lots he owns to show in favor to force a hardship on them. Council discussion was on the amount of area trunk assessment within each subdivsion if the project were phased. Mr. Okerlund - since he is not part of any subdivision, he has not signed any petition. (Council noted his statement this evening at the hearing is the same as si9ning a petition.) Kathy (?) , 14314 Crosstown - didn't feel it made a lot of sense to go by old informa- tlon from the Shady Knoll Addition. If those people haven't carried through to say they want the sewer, perhaps they were petitioning to talk about it and not to go ahead. She'd like to hear more from those people before going ahead. (Councilman Lachinski felt there were so few people in that Addition that he would have to be shown a real problem there before he would go any further with the project. Mr. Schrantz stated every year there will be some people for and some against the project. He suggested just putting in the trunk and assessing it so there is the capability of having it available when it is desired or needed in the subdivisions. That would amount to a $400 to $600 assessment per unit at this time. Councilman Jacobson was not in favor of such phasing, feeling it may be a number of years before the laterals are put in and people may move away without ever receiving benefit. He also noted the costs amount to approximately $1,300 more than the assessment for the sanitary sewer project because of the SAC charges, connection charge, and plumber costs.) Mervin Meyer, 2358 Uplander, Shady Knoll - is opposed to the sanitary sewer. He put ln a new cesspool in 1974. Councilman Lachinski felt the support was not there for this project, except for Shady Knoll; but the timing is not right to be asking anyone to make any kind of sacrifice. There is also such a large area of open property that would need to be assessed for the trunk but is not yet ready to be developed. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to close the public input portion of the public hearing. DISCUSSION: Dave Johnson, Quinn Avenue, now Osage - wanted to know the City Council's position on thlS project. Acting Mayor Orttel noted the motion is just to close the public input portion. The Council will discuss this further. He also read three letters into the record of residents opposing the project: Dave and Shelly Johnson, 14404 Osage Street; Arnie and Mary Hatlestad; and Ken Nystrom, Shady Knoll. Motion carried unanimously. A brief discussion continued on the project. Acting Mayor Orttel again noted there is a clear majority in favor of sanitary sewer in Shady Knoll. He was aware of the economic times, but felt when things turn around, construction costs will go sky high. And if this is something that will happen in two or three years, even with lower interest rates, he felt it will be substantially more expensive. He felt the people asking for sewer in Shady Knoll are doing it because of sewer problems in that area. What is the Council going to do about that? Councilman Lachinski felt if it is clearly a health problem, the Council would have to look at it further. He wasn't sure that was the situation at this time. Public Hearing/Central Area Utility Improvements December 2, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we abandon Project 82-3 sewer and street projects for Shady Knoll, Woodridge, and The Oaks. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '1\~:ïrQ4~L Mar· llaA. Peach Recor ing Secretary ~ o¿ ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 2, 1982 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on December 2, 1982, 9:00 p.m. at 1685 Crosstown Boulevard, Anoka, Minnesota, to consider the contour modifications of the ,landfi 11, the Senior Citizens Center, and the MSA Assessment Policy. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel Councilman absent: Peach Also present: City Engineer, James Schrantz; and City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist CONTOUR MODIFICATIONS/LANDFILL Council's concern was of getting the hazardous waste barrels removed from the pit in the landfill, feeling this should be addressed immediately because the pollutants are beginning to show in the test wells. Discussion was on suggestions to accomplish this such as talking with the County and negotiating with the property owner. It was suggested Councilman Orttel talk with George Steiner at the County as to what can or cannot be done in getting the hazardous waste barrels out of the landfill and what can or cannot be negotiated with the property owner. Councilman Lachinski also suggested the City attempt to require traffic to the landfill to be changed to Hanson Boulevard rather than Crosstown Boulevard. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER Discussion was on a request from Allstate Builders of Minnesota for a 30-day extension to complete the Senior Citizen Center. (Letter dated November 26, 1982, from Gary Rohweder, Allstate Builders of Minnesota, Inc., to the City of Andover) It was generally agreed not to take action on the request until the second regular meeting in December to see if any response has been made on the building between now and then, though dissatisfaction and frustration was expressed by the Council on the lack of progress to date. MSA ASSESSMENT POLICY Discussion was on the proposed resolution revising the policy for assessing County highways and State Aid Street improvemetns and on various suggestions to make such assessments equitable. The Council also agreed that some incentive should be provided to encourage people to donate the right of way rather than holding the project up by court actions, etc. The suggestion was the value of the land donated be added into the total cost of the right-of-way acquisition which is divided among all property owners benefitting from the project. However, that value would be deducted from the assessment of the owner. There was some question as to whether the value could be included in the total cost as it is not an actual cost incurred. It was also generally felt it is equitable to assess commercial and industrial property twice that of the residential rate, as the value of the land acquired was approximately twice that of residentially zoned property. Mr. Schrantz felt assessing the area rate is the most equitable, but felt that the area considered for assessment should not go beyond one-quarter mile from the roadway. It was also argued that the construction of the road provides a direct benefit to the adjoining property owners because it opens up the landlocked property, increases the value of the property, and makes it easier for the owner to develop the property. Councilmen Lachinski and Orttel argued the road is worth far more than what is being assessed in the project. It was agian felt that some provisions should be made for people who are willing to donate property, though there wwould be a minimum assessment because of the legal and engineering costs involved. ~- - -~ Special City Council Meeting December 2, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 (MSA Assessment Policy, Continued) Discussion was then on the proposed resolution. The following change was agreed to in 5, State Aid Streets, b: Only 50 percent of the unit cost of all other construction costs and expenses shall be assessed to commercial and industrial parcels. There was a lengthy discussion on the wording of a proposed Section c to the Resolution to provide a credit for donated property. Because the Attorney was not present, it was not known on what basis such credit could legally be given, suggestion that the appraised, negotiated, or market value of the property donated for a project be credited against the owner's assessment on the project. That value wouJd also be used in the total cost of the right-of-way acquisition to be spread among the benefitted properties. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that on MSA projects where the City assesses right-of-way costs, that the property owner be provided direct credit for any donated property at the appraised valuation or market value of the property. DISCUSSION: was again on whether appraised valuation, negotiated valuation, market value, or purchase value would be the correct legal terminology. Councilmen Orttel and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution revising the policy for assessing County and State Aid Street improvements, and not a change under Item Sb to change Section b to read: Only 50 percent of the unit cost of all other construction costs and expenses shall be assessed to commercial and industrial parcels. ,DISCUSSION: was again on the addition of Item Sc to provide direct credit for any donated property at the appraised or negotiated value of the property, questioning the correct legal terminology. It was agreed the Attorney should review the wording for legal purposes. Councilman Orttel ADDED TO THE MOTION; Item c, a credit will be given against the assessment for the negotiated or appraised value of any land donated necessary for the project. Second Stands. (See Resolution R106-82) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we send the adopted resolution amending our assessment policy to the City Attorney for his review and comment to be presented back to us on Tuesday, December 7. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~L Ma ella A. Peach Recor ing Secretary