Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH July 28, 1982 ~ o¿ ANDOVER PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 28, 1982 MINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Hearing on Project 82-8/Central Area Utility Improvements was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Orttel on July 28, 1982, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, ~1innesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Peach Councilman absent: Mayor Windschitl, as he is directly affected by the project, although he was in the audience Also present: TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents Acting Mayor Orttel explained the purpose of the hearing, after which Mr. Schumacher reviewed the Feasibility S~udy covering project area, costs and proposed assessments for the installation of sanitary sewer and options available for street imrpDovement in each subdivision. Mr. Schumacher stated if the project is ordered this evening, the intent is to complete the sanitary sewer construction late this fall, although its completion cannot be guaranteed because of this late date and unknown fall weather conditions. The street improvement would be done in the Spring of 1983. F or the option of sanitary sewer with bituminous street, the proposed assessment would be $6,49S/lot in Woodridge Acres, $6,373/lot in Shady Knoll, and $S,SS8/lot in The Oaks based on tearing up and replacing the existing blacktop streets. It is not yet known whether or not the existing blacktop in The Oaks will need to be torn up during the installation of sanitary sewer in that area. Craig Willy, 14400 Quinn Drive - asked how current are the comparables relative to figures used to develop the costs and asked what the proposed bonding rate would be. When would the bonds have to be sold? (Mr. Schumacher explained they work with current bid tabulations from similiar communities and comparisons. Generally speaking, the bid costs are lower than the engineering estimate. Acting Mayor Orttel stated the City's fiscal agent has predicted an interest rate of approximately 13 3/4 percent over a 20-year period, or one percent higher for ten-year bonds. The bonds would have to be sold by October 18 when construction is proposed to take place.) Dan Lizakowski, 2355 South Coon Creek Drive - stated there are only 11 homes in Shady Knoll, but 17 lots. Who pays for the empty lots? He was under the impression those living in the area now would be paying the entire costs . (Mr. Schumacher explained the owner of record pays the assessment for that property. The owner of the property is responsible for the assessments whether there is a house built there or not. He also explained the undeveloped property also pays its own way. It doesn't pay for laterals now because none are being constructed for the vacant property; that property will pay for the laterals when it is developed and laterals put in.) Ron Gerken, 2343 Uplander Drive - noted the sewer line through a field between Crosstown and Thrush. Is that property divided into lots? What happens when that property develops? Will it have the same assessment they are having now? He also understood that the existing home owners would be paying for the vacant property and wondered when the property develops if they would be reimbursed. Also, are they planning to extend Uplander to Crosstown? (Mr. Schumacher stated that parcel will be assessed for the full ten acres. The City's assessment policy differentiates between parcels fronting on local platted streets and where the project would be cutting through a field, obtaining easement in the interest of saving costs on the entire project. In that case, the person doesn't receive any direct benefit at this time and wouldn't be assessed for units until it is developed. The assessment will be determined by the City Council based on an indexed cost figure. Acting Mayor Orttel also explained the vacant property is assessed an area charge for the trunk line, but does not receive Public Hearing July 28, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 lateral assessment at this time because no laterals are built for the property. In the mean time, the cost is not created nor is it paid by the other property owners in the project. Further discussion with Mr. Gerken noted that the assessment to him would remain the same whether the property now vacant were developed or not, that he is not paying any more than to service his own property. Eventually all property in the project area will pay both trunk and lateral charges. Mr. Schumacher stated they may not necessarily bring the lateral line through the vacant field to Shady Knoll but may find in the final design it would be most cost effective to run the line down South Coon Creek Drive. They looked at locating the lateral through the vacant property in a logical location for a street in that property. But there are no plans to extend the street from Shady Knoll to Crosstown Boulevard at this time.) Kath ? , 14314 Crosstown Boulevard - asked what the assessment for their property wou e. he nglneers ound her parcel number and related those figures to her.) Discussion was also on informing the audience of the other charges involved with the installation of sanitary sewer that would not be assessed but would be paid up front by the property owner. Those costs include a $40 permit fee to the City, a $425 SAC charge to Metropolitan Waste Water Control Commission to homes built before 1972 if it was not paid when the building permit was taken out, a $170 connection charge to the City, plus the cost of a private contractor to make the connection between the stub in the street and the house, which runs approximately $10 a foot. Clarice Kabacinski, 2350 Uplander Drive - asked if there is a possibility of more than one stub to a parcel. She also asked if their streets will be closed during construction. When will construction begin, as she has two weddings in October. (Mr. Schumacher stated there could be more than one stub on some of the larger parcels that would be subdividable. He also explained that it is the contractor's responsibility for maintaining access to the homes, and generally a driveway would be blocked for only several hours while the equipment is laying sewer pipe down the middle of the road. They do not generally allow the contractor to leave an uncovered area over night. Construction would begin around the middle of October.) Jerry Robb, 14314 Crosstown Boulevard - asked if construction begins in October and stops for the winter, wlll they be assessed for the six or eight months until con- struction can begin again. Also, will they be required to hook up to sanitary sewer? If easement is needed, are they compensated for it? (Mr. Schumacher felt that realistically the project could not be assessed until next fall, with the assessment first showing on the Spring, 1984, tax statement. The City requires hooking up to the sanitary sewer facility within two years of its availability unless an emergency exists creating a health hazard. Discussion noted the normal procedure is to compensate for easement but it is assessed back into the project, also explaining the eminent domain procedure.) Ken Nystrom, 2245 South Coon Creek Drive - asked why hasn't water been considered at this tlme. He felt the septic field he has can be replaced for $2,000, and this will cost almost $12,000; so he didn't understand the reason for this hearing. This would put $120 a month more on his payments. He also wondered why the lateral through Shady Knoll couldn't go up the back yard to save on pipe rather than going .all the way around the streets in a loop. (The Engineers explained water is not available in the area at this time. Water would have to be requested by the people before the City would even consider it. The water system in the City at this time is not large enough to service this area. The City has no capability to extend water to this area nor does it have a stated policy of serving this area with water. By going up the back lot lines in Shady Knoll, lines would still have to be constructed to service the lots on the south side of the road. They are lots of record and are buildable even though there are no houses on most of them at this time.) - Public Hearing July 2ª, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 Mart¥ Kramer, 2319 South Coon Creek Drive - with the improvement, he asked how much lt wlll raise his taxes. Plus he felt there will be a monthly charge for the use of the sanitary sewer. He was concerned that he wasn't given the total cost picture. (Discussion noted that the increase in taxes is very complicated and variable, but assuming an $80,000 house with homestead credit raised in value by as much as the project, that being approximately $12,000, the increased tax could be approximately $55 a year. The current sewer usage charge is $6/month; however, that fee will probably be increased as of the first of the year, with the figure being talked about at this time of increasing it to up to $lO/month. It was also clarified that the interest rate for a 10-year bond is estimated at 13 percent, for a 20-year bond it is estimated at 13 3/4 percent.) Mr. Kramer - understood that pipe run through platted and unplatted areas would be ·assessed differently. He also asked if there will be a lift station. (Mr. Schumacher explained the assessment rate will not be affected whether the laterals to unplatted properties are there or not. The cost of the project may be affected having to do with the cost of acquiring easement or tearing up road. Mr. Schumacher stated a gravity service system has been designed, explaining they looked into the possibility of a lift station and ruled it out because of the expense and maintenance costs involved.) Mr. Kramer - didn't realize the decision was going to be made tonight and felt pressured into making that decision. (Mr. Schumacher explained the intent is not to pressure anyone, but explained the need to make a decision because of the lateness of this hearing in the construction season.) Mr. Lizakowski - lives on Block 3 in Shady Knoll, which is half way up a 20-foot hill. He asked how gravity service will service his home. He is currently watching a $1.5 million sewer project, and stated if a decision has to be made today on this project, he felt it would be better to wait. He felt it is difficult to work with contractors in October, November, and December. (Others in the audience verbally indicated agreement with waiting on the project.) (Mr. Schumacher stated the sewer line at that point will be better than 20 feet deep. They have looked at the elevations and have figured the depth of the pipe. He also noted a similiar incident in the 1980-3 improvement project, which was completed on time with a lot of people working and doing inspections.) Mr. Lizakowski - based on the bidding climate today, he didn't feel it was necessary to rush into the project. He was still concerned with gravity service to his lot because of the hill and asked how much street would be open at anyone time during the construction. (Mr. Schumacher stated they have looked at the pipe depth and based their costs on that. He stated approximately 100 to 200 feet of street are in different stages of being opened up and backfilled behind as the construction moves along.) Jerry Windschitl, 2312 South Coon Creek Drive - asked the total cost of the project, as the City has money left over from last year's construction project which was purchased at a lower interest rate and could be used in this project. That would save a considerable amount on interest rates. (Discussion noted there is approximately $425,000 to $450,000 at 10.7 percent interest. The project cost is $491,610 for sanitary sewer and restoration of the streets to class 5.) . Mayor Windschitl - felt the use of those bonds should be considered by the Council. He also asked the possibility of installing sanitary sewer in The Oaks without tearing up the existing blacktop, as that is three inches of blacktop. It would also save about $1,500 per lot. (Mr. Schumacher stated that is a possibility, although more information is needed before making that determination, such as location of trees, cost of private property damage, etc. The cost estimate for running the trunk along Crosstown Boulevard has been revised, figuring about one-half of it will be run off the road. Any routing along Crosstown would not be routed onto private property.) Public Hearing July 28, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 Milton Glass, 2311 South Coon Creek Drive - asked what would be the cost difference between completion this fall or next year. If it is done this fall, a lot of overtime costs will be involved to complete the project within two months. Those costs might not be involved if it is done next spring. (Mr. Schumacher explained it is difficult to make that estimate, although the construction costs generally have increased between five to ten percent between last year and this year.) Mr. Glass - asked how long it will be before Andover has water for this area. (Acting Mayor Orttel explained because most of the homes in the City have deep wells, it is the City's policy not to go into existing,developments with water as long as they have a potable water supply. As long as he has some vote, he felt it is not even a possibility that water would be going into this area if there is good water. The City has no intention of putting in water where exiting potable water exists. Mr. Schrantz also stated that water can be placed in the boulevard.) Councilman Jacobson asked for a show of hands of those who originally signed the petition asking the Council to look at the improvement. (Many people raised their hands.) He asked after hearing the costs, etc., how many are in favor of having the project go ahead this year. (About 1/3 to 1/2 raised their hands.) He then asked how many are for the project either this year or next. (Approximately 12 raised their hands.) He then asked how many are opposed to the project. (14-15 people raised their hands.) Geor,e Lobb, 14410 Quinn Drive, Woodridge - stated generally the majority of the peop e attending a public hearing are already against something, and there are quite a few who signed for the project who are not here this evening. Harry Stockhausen, 14314 Thrush Drive - was originally in favor of the project and was told the cost would be approxiamtely $10 a foot. But they have been given a lot of figures this evening. If the project were sewer and street improvement with concrete curb and gutter, he would end up paying $160 a month plus increased taxes, plus the $lO/month usage fees, plus $170 connection charge, $1,000 to put it in the yard, plus $40 for a City permit. Because of all the hidden charges not previously known, if the project is ordered too hastily, someone else gets the money. Mr. Stockhausen noted if a house was purchased five or six years ago, the house payments are probably very low; but if a house was purchased the last few years, the payments can be as high as $700 to $800. By adding $200 a month to an $800 house payment, he would have to clear $350 more a month just to keep even with the house, which he felt was ridiculous. Mr. Nfstrom - asked if the roads would be brought up to standard or put back the way it lS. here are a lot of trees that would have to be removed if the road is widened. Are those costs figured in? (Mr. Schumacher stated they are proposing grading the road 32 feet wide with gravel on it. The figures include the cost for tree removal. He felt they may be able to work within the right of ways and not take that many trees, as that is always a sensitive issue in any project.) Mr. Nystrom - stated he is not completely against the project, but with all these flgures, he didn't feel there was enough facts to make a decision tonight. Ms. Kabacinski - felt the decision should not be made until next spring. She stated a ~of things were mislead as to the costs when the petition was brought around. She also felt that by time the overtime figure is calculated for doing the project this fall, it may be the same cost next year. Mr. Gerken - wasn't clear why they want the project done this year. (Acting Mayor Ortte1 stated the meeting is being held as a result of a petition to the Council.) Mr. Gerken - also had his doubts about a gravity system working on that low end of the street. What would be the extra cost for a lift station? Who makes the decision and what is that decision based on? Is any attempt made to canvass the people not here this evening. (Mr. Schumacher stated that was looked at, but it is a considerable Pub 1 i c Heari ng July 28, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 extra cost plus considerable annual maintenance cost for lift stations. They generally try not to put lift stations where a very small area would be served by it. Acting Mayor Orttel stated the decision is made by a 3/5 vote of the Council, and it is based on the petition and the hearing. Letters were sent to the residents of the public hearing, and this hearing is the attempt to canvass the people.) Cheryl Keller, 14356 Quinn Drive - stated from the letter send out, she didn't know the decislon was going to be made tonight, as she was lead to understand that they would get a vote. She knows there are people not here who would vote against the project. She and her husband are against it because of the financial burden it puts on them. Those purchasing their house recently with larger house payments, adding $120 more for assessment forces a lot of mothers to go back to work to pay that assessment who would not otherwise do so. Pam Peterson, 14352 Crosstown - stated she called City Hall about a year ago asking when sanltary sewer would be available and was told it would be at least four or five years. So she took out a home improvement loan and did a lot of improvements including a new drainfield just last year. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated there is an overall sewer plan, but no specific dates are placed on the sewer extension. The City reacts to petitions from its residents and projects considered on an individual basis rather than extending the sewer during a specific time frame. And that is the reason she received the information she did from City Hall. But he understands her situation with the new system.) Councilman Jacobson stated he feJt the people need time to get used to the idea of having a sewer system and to gain a better understanding of the costs involved. He also felt that construction costs may not be that much more if the project is done in th" spring. Plus, if it is done this fall, there would be capitalized interest to be pa~d because it cannot be assessed until the Fall, 1983. That would not have to be paiL! if the project is done next spring. MOTION uy Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, the matter of the Central Area Utility Improvements Project, 82-8, move that we continue the public hearing to the last regularly scheduled meeting in December of 1982. DISCUSSION: Acting Mayor Orttel noted it is not known what will happen to construction costs for next year, but the one consideration is the money the City now has that could be used toward this project at 10.7 percent interest. That money may not be available for this project next year. If that money were used versus bonding at today's interest rate, it would be a difference of about two percent interest on the assessments. Mayor Windschitl - questioned if the public hearing could be held open that long. He suggested holding it until Tuesday and asking the Attorney's opinion then. (Council noted the City Clerk is calling the Attorney at this time.) Terry Lindquist - asked how much it would lower the project cost if the money that the City has at this time was used. (Discussion noted it would lower the interest rate to the property owners by approximately two percent, assuming the Council decided to use all of it in this project. However, there are other projects coming up that may get some of that money as well.) Paul Gengler, 14440 Crosstown - if the project were done this fall, when will he be bllled for it and at what pOlnt can it be paid off without interest. (Discussion noted it would be on the Spring, 1984, tax statement. Payment can be made without interest 30 days following the adoption of the assessment rolls, which generally is in October, although the Council has the option of assessing in the spring as well. After that there is a minimum of one year's interest.) Mr. Stockhausen - stated when the petition was brought ..around, there was no written estimate of the cost, stating it would be $8 to $10 a foot. If a petition were passed around next spring including legitimate estimates, he felt there probably wouldn't be Public Hearing July 28, 1982 - Minutes Page 6 a petition. The petition is for a hearing and a feasibility. He felt it is being treated as a vote to proceed with the project. Since there are more people who don't want the project this year, it should be cancelled until a new petition appears. He originally signed the petition and was in favor of it, but not at the costs being presented this evening and on this short notice. (Council noted petitions will be accepted up until the time the project is ordered. If this is postponed until December, it provides time to pass new petitions with more accurate cost figures to consider.) Mr. Stockhausen - stated even in the letter sent to the residents, the hidden costs weren't brought out. He was concerned with the actual dollar outlay. (Acting Mayor Orttel noted the costs aren't necessarily hidden but" the costs presented were the amounts to be assessed, which are as accurate as it is known today. The Council also takes petitions seriously because of the costs involved of preparing feasibility studies, holding the hearings, etc., prior to ordering any project.) Mr. Stockhausen - didn't mind holding the hearing over until December. If that cannot be legally done, he felt the project should be dropped until a new petition is received. Discussion noted that the Attorney advised that action must be taken either to order or to terminate the project within six months of the public hearing. If the hearing is held over to December, the decision must be made within one month of that time. Acting Mayor Orttel noted that six months brings them to the end of January, and he felt action on this project should be taken by that time for an early spring bid. Ms. (1) ,14314 Crosstown - requested that before the December meeting they have a more accurate figure. The figures brought out tonight have been very confusing to her to take in verbally. She asked for specific written information that doesn't rely on petitions as a means of getting the information to the people. Mr. Lizakowski - asked if the people in Woodridge want the project and the people in Shady Knoll do not, does that mean they cannot have it unless Shady Knoll gets it. There are three or four homes for sale in their area, asking whether they are moving because they want to leave or because they do not want to pay $100 more a month to live here. He left Minneapolis to come out here because he wanted some freedom and didn't want things shoved at him. He doesn't want another $100 added to his payments. Councilman Jacobson AMENDED HIS MOTION to direct the City Clerk to mail individual notices to the property owners as to the date of the continued public hearing and to clarify all potential costs that could be incurred in the project with an update of any additional information that we have at this time, thirty days before the continued hearing; and that it not be held on a regular meeting night but the date to be determined in the future, but still hold it in December, 1982. Second Stands. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing carried to December, 1982. 9:08 p.m. Marc la A. Peach Record Secretary