Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC January 18, 1983 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-January 18, 1983 AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Adoption-MSA Assessment pOlicy 5. Public Hearings a. Hanson Boulevard/Co. Rd. 116 to CSAH 16/NO. 82-16 (continued) b. Hanson Boulevard/CSAH 16 to CSAH 20/No. 83-1 6. Discussion Items a. Hanson Boulevard Right-of-Way Acquisition/Condemnation b. Junkyard Licenses c. LGA Resolution 7. Non-Discussion Items a. ApPointment-Metropolitan Council Waste Advisory Committee b. p&Z Interview Date 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 9. Approval of Minutes 10. Approval of Claims 11. Adjournment CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, STAFF . ~ FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ~ '----IY . DATE: JANUARY 13 , 1983 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - JANUARY 18, 1983 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please delete Item No. 6a (Hanson Blvd. ROW Acquisition) . Also add Item No. 6c (LGA Resolution) ; Item No. 7a (Appointment-MCWAC) ; and Item No. 7b (Date for P&Z Interviews) . Item No. 4a - MSA Assessment Policy Enclosed is the resolution covering the revisions/additions to the MSA Assessment Policy. You will note I have rescinded the previous resolution in order to have just a single statement without a number of amendments.. Section 5d was developed by the City Attorney and contains those items discussed and on which there was agreement at the January 4 Meeting. Item No. Sa - Public Hearing/Hanson Blvd. - MSA82-16 This is the continued public hearing for that portion of Hanson Blvd. between Bunker Lake Blvd. and Andover Blvd. Inasmuch as there was not a full Council present at the December 7 Meeting, the hearing was continued to January 18 for a decision. Attached is information from the City Engineer; and I have prepared ·a resolution incorporating all action required to-date, i..e., accept Feasibility Report, order project, accept assessment roll, and set date for the assessment hearing. Item No. 5b - Public Hearinq/Hanson Blvd. - MSA83-1 Attached is a copy of the Feasibility Report and other pertinent data from Jim Schrantz. This covers that portion of Hanson Boulevard to be constructed between Andover Boulevard and Constance Boulevard. Jim has been working with the County and City Attorney to determine the right-of-way requirements. Also attached is a resolution ordering the improvement. At this time we do not have the right-of-way costs, so the assessment hearing will not be until at least mid-September. Item No. 6a - Hanson Blvd., ROW Acquisition/Condemnation The City Attorney has just advised that he does not yet have all the legal descriptions, nor has the property been appraised, therefore this item will have to be deleted and placed on another agenda after the attorney has secured the above information. Agenda Information January 18, 1983 Page 2 Item No. 6b - Junkyard Licenses Applications have been received from the following: 1 ) Anoka Au to Wrecking, 2)Bob's Auto Parts, 3 ) Mom's Salvage, and 4)Rite-Away (Batson) . All insurances and bonds for the above are active and the full renewal application fee has been paid. The above yards had their 1982 licenses reinstated. The yards have been checked and appear to be in compliance; however, due to the heavy snow, it is somewhat difficult to determine the condition of some of the parking lots; therefore, I would recommend approval of the above applications for 1983 Licenses, subject to review in June for full ordinance compliance. This would have the effect of putting them on notice that should the yards not be in compliance on June 1 , the licenses would be revoked. Three yards with active 1982 licenses have not reapplied, i.e. , Commercial, K&K, and Wilbers. Andover Auto Body and Rite-Away (Imre) are with the City Attorney for court action. Attorney Hawkins is researching the Order on Mom's Salvage to determine what type of action the Council may take reo compliance as far as the fence and junk cars outside the gate. Item No. 6c - LGA Resolution Attached is a memoradum from the Association of Small Cities requesting support of a revision in the State Aid Formula. The resolution attached to the memorandum can be adopted as written. Item No. 7a - Appointment-MCWAC There has been considerable misunderstanding on whether or not a Councilmember has been appointed to this Committee. In October, 1982, Councilman Orttel was appointed to a Waste Advisory Committee; the majority of the Councilmembers assumed this to be the Metro Council committee. In volunteering to serve, Councilman Orttel thought this to be the Anoka County Committee. I understand he has been attending those meetings. In view of the above, representation by Andover is still required on the Metropolitan Council Waste Advisory Committee. Councilman Elling has been doing considerable research into the hazardous wastes and is Chairman of the HWC; he has also volunteered to serve on this Committee. Item No. 8 - Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff No items have been received to-date. Item No. 9 - Approval of Minutes January 4, 1983. Item No. 7b - Interview Date/P&Z Two applications have been received for membership on the p&Z, i.e. , Richard Schreiner and Chester Conger. Applications are open until January 30; therefore, interviews would have to be after that date. ~ ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 18, 1983 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on January 18, 1983, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Bouelvard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Peter Ramse{, 14540 Drake - asked several questions on the contaminated water found around the andf1l1. How often are the test wells tested? Have any residential wells been tested lately around the landfill? Who is responsible for maintaining the test wells and test schedules? Are the residential wells around the dump the same type of soil as the dump area itself? Is the City going to publish the results of these tests in the paper or in a newsletter to the residents? Council discussion was the control and monitoring of the landfill is that of Anoka County and the PCA. The PCA is responsible for monitoring the wells and evaluating the results. The testing of the wells has been done, and the City receives copies of those reports. There is some confusion as to when the contamination first appeared and just what was being tested for previously; but since the July test results, two reports have been prepared on the entire situation. At this point, there is no knowledge of contamination in residential wells, with the latest tests taken last spring. It is not known what the PCA's position is going to be for either permanent monitoring or sample testing of the surrounding areas. These records are public documents that can be viewed at the City Hall. It was also felt that the most effective method of informing the residents of the situation would be a direct mailing. It was thought the soil conditions in the area are similiar to that of the landfill. Well No. lla has shown the most contamination and is located just north of the existing hazardous waste pit. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we approve the Agenda as published with the deletion of 6a, Hanson Boulevard Right-of-Way Acquisition/Condemnation; and the addition of Item 6c, League Resolution; Item 7a, Appointment to the Metropolitan Council Waste Advisory Committee; and Item 7b, P & Z Interview Date. Motion carried unanimous ly. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimous ly. ADOPT! ON -MSA ASSESSf1ENT POll CY There was a lengthy discussion on the proposed MSA assessment policy suggested by Mr. Schrant¿ in his January 12, 1983, memo. Item 5. b. Discussion was that the intent of the section is for any MSA roads constructed by the City through commercial or industrial districts, 50 percent of the unit cost would be assessed back, with MSA funds used for the remaining 50 percent. This policy would not affect the Hanson Bouelvard project because those construction costs are being borne by the County. It was agreed to clarify this section to: Only 50 percent of the unit costs by the City for all other construction and expenses shall be assessed to commercial and industrial districts. Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 2 (Adoption - MSA Assessment Policy, Continued) Item 5. c. There was considerable discussion as to whether or not any assessment should be levied against property which has donated the right of way, arguing the administrative time and cost to process such donations are considerably reduced over that time and cost to process actual acquisition of that right of way, especially if condemnation proceedings are involved. It was also argued that should property be developed along County roads, the 50-foot right of way is required to be donated free of charge, and a 30-foot donated right of way is required along City roads. It was finally agreed to allow a credit for the value of the property which is donated plus a proration of the acquisition costs involved in the project, which would reduce the assessment on property which donated right of way to almost nothing. It was also suggested the acquisition costs and value of the donated property be included in the overall project costs and then the credit be given against the donated property, which means the City would be absorbing some of those acquisition costs, although it was felt that amount would be minimal. It was agreed to the following: A credit not to exceed the assessment on the property shall be given against the assessment for a proration of the right-of-way acquisition costs and for the appraised or negotiated value of any property which has been donated as necessary for the project construction. Item 5. d. Discussion was that improvements on a property, which is defined as an activity upon the property which requires the need for a permit, would trigger the deferred assessment only if such improvement would access to the State Aid road. An existing farmhouse would not be assessed if it did not access onto the State Aid road. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard - presented another name for the petition opposing an assessment for Hanson Boulevard which was given the Council at the January 4 meeting. He believed that represented 75 percent of the landowners between Andover and Crosstown Boulevards. Percy Tomlinson, representing Santa's Tree Farm - asked for an explanation of 5. b. Council explained it applies to areas zoned commercial and industrial which would pay for half of the construction costs as well as the acquisition costs when the City has expended the money for such construction costs. It does not apply when County funds are used for the construction. Mr. Holasek - felt it isatotally unfair concept and stated a deferred assessment is unacceptable. He explained in essence what the credit implies is if he donated the 3/4 acre for the project at the rate of $1400/acre, totalling $900, it would cancel his assessment of $7200. But if he gets paid for the property as he is entitled to under the law, he would be assessed the $7200, a concept he could not agree with. He stated Hanson Boulevard would not be raising the value of the land even if the property were subdivided, feeling instead it is doing the exact opposite. It is a main thoroughfare with a lot of traffic, noise, and nuisances, which does not raise the value of a residential lot. Without that throughfare, he felt when the property is subdivided, it would be a nice large residential area with matching streets, etc. Plus the road results in the loss of almost 37 acres for the easement which could be used instead for lots. It was his opinion the road would not increase the value of those lots in Hartfiel's which will back onto it. It is a County road, and to just assess abutting landowners is a totally unfair concept. Mayor Windschitl explained the Council is not going to take the position of subsidizing developers. Any other developer is required to construct the roads at their own expense and then donate it to the City. If Mr. Holasek would bring his property in with a plat, he could be required to donate that easement for Hanson Boulevard, as this has been in the County thoroughfare plan for years. Councilman Lachinski also felt it would be difficult to Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 3 (Adoption - MSA Assessment Policy, Continued) justify requiring developers to donate the right of way for MSA roads elsewhere in the City if that right of way were paid for on Hanson Boulevard but not assessed. Walter Vosika, 1414 Bunker Lake Boulevard - began to review figures he received from City Hall as to what was paid and what is assessed for right of way along Hanson between Bunker Lake and Andover Boulevards. Mayor Windschitl stated this item will be discussed during the next Agenda item, which is the public hearing for that project. Mr. Tomlinson - also didn't feel there should be an assessment for County thorough- fares. But 1f there is, it has to be on an equitable basis. He felt the policy discussed will create an administrative nightmare. Discussion with Mr. Tomlinson was on the City's attempt to adopt an equitable assessment for all parties concerned, questioning if it is fair to assess someone who donates the right of way. Ken Heil, 1425 Andover Boulevard - stated a person is paid for the land and must claim it as an 1ncome; then he 1S assessed which cannot be deducted as an expense. And the pOlicy states if a person gets paid for his land, he then gets assessed for the same amount plus any additional costs, which isn't fair either. Council explained if the land is donated, a credit in the amount of the donation plus costs will be applied toward the assessment. It is probable there will still be some assessment. Mr. Hei1 - stated if this is a County project, why should only the abutting property owners be assessed. Councilman Lachinski explained the policy applies not only toward Hanson Boulevard but to all MSA road projects in the City, and there are very few MSA roads that will get County funding. Mr. Heil - stated there is a difference between a City-planned thoroughfare and a developer coming in. In the case of a thoroughfare, it benefits the City, County, and the State, not just those people abutting the land; and they shouldn't be taxed for something they don't even want. Council discussion was in agreement, the road benefits everyone, but again explained that the City policy has been not to subsidize the developer who could now divide his property as a result of the new road going through. The policy is that developable land would be subject to an assessment. Undevelopable property would not be assessed. Mr. Tomlinson - asked if there is a legal process which determines whether or not a parcells buildable or not. Mayor Windschitl stated it is an engineering question as to its buildabi1ity, and each question would be addressed at the assessment hearing. Walter La~tuta, 15026 Crosstown Boulevard - asked what would happen if the road would devalue h1S property. Attorney Hawk1ns stated he is not qualified to determine whether or not the project will devalue his property; but the law states if the City assesses the property and it is appealed, it must be shown that the market value of the property has increased in value at least equal to the amount of the assessment. Mr. Laptuta - stated he has been informed by legal counsel that when his property is developed, Hanson Boulevard will not increase the value of his property, feeling it will go down in value. He stated the road is not needed and they shouldn't be assessed for it. Mayor Windschit1 again explained the assessment is only for right-of-way acquisition costs and is deferred on unimproved property until a designated year or until the subdivision of the property or the construction of improvements are made which have direct access to the State Aid roadway. If the road is not used within 15 years, the assessment is cancelled. Mr. Heiì - asked for an explanation of the 15-year deferment, and will the assessment have to be paid if it is sold before the assessment is cancelled. Council again explained the determent, that as long as the State Aid road is not used for access, there would be no assessment. It is not intended that the assessment be paid if the - Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 4 (Adoption - MSA Assessment Policy, Continued) property is sold, but only if access is onto the State Aid road. Discussion with those in the audience was that the assessment is recorded at the County; but it is deferred, no money is owed, until there is access onto the road. Members of the audience stated assessments are usually required to be paid off at the time of a sale of property, feeling that would be required by FHA or other lending institutions. . The Attorney advised that that may be required by lending institutions, but the law does not require it be paid off at that time. The requirements of the lending institutions were not known relative to deferred assessments against unimproved property. Bob En~leking - felt that point was an integral part of the hearing and should be 1nvest1gated because everyone has been lead to believe that under no condition will the deferred assessment be paid unless the property is improved and has access to the road. Council noted there is no requirement by the City to do so. If a financial institution would have such a requirement, the City would have to escrow the money. Again the Council pointed out the intent is to be fair to the residents of Andover and not to subsidize development. Discussion with those in the audience was also on their question of whether or not the County will allow access onto Hanson Boulevard or if frontage roads will be required. Council stated according to their response, an access would be allowed every 300 feet. The City controls the access in platting situations. Mr. Vosika - stated he tried to apply for AgP, but was turned down without a reason. He didn't feel it was right to be paid $2,000 for his land but assessed almost $11,000. If he had been under AgP, he stated he would not have this assessment. He .also stated the assessment would be due once sewer and water are run down Hanson Boulevard. Council stated there are plans for sanitary sewer up Hanson Boulevard, which is one of the reasons for AgP request was denied; however, that would not trigger the payment of the assessment. Mr. Engleking - didn't understand the City's comparison of this County thoroughfare with the developer who wants to develop and sell residential lots. The City has a petition that 100 percent of the landowners do not want the road, and yet they are the only ones the cost will be assessed to. He felt it was absurd to compare this situation to a developer who wants the land, wants to sell lots, and will benefit by this road. The people who will be benefitting from it are not being assessed. Council again explained if his property is not developed, he would not be paying an assessment on the road, which in turn will be picked up by the City of Andover. What can be more fair? If the road is not used, the assessment will not be paid. The benefit of the abutting property owners is greater than the benefit to those who just drive on the road. If the property is developed, access would be allowed onto Hanson Boulevard. Councilman Orttel stated if Hanson were not there, the developer would have to build up to 1/2 mile to make up that difference. Chances are frontage roads will not be required, as that has generally not been done in the City. This policy in essence taxes everyone in the City for the road, unless an abutting property owner develops the property. Then he would pay for the additional benefit of the road. Councilman Knight also reported he contacted many cities of similiar size and character on their MSA assessment policy. None of them have a policy of assessing only right-of-way acquisition. All of them assess MSA streets and most assess for the total cost of a road at a rsidential or commercial rate and the remainder is paid with MSA funds. Eden Prairie defers assessments for up to 25 years but also assesses for residential or commercial rates. Those policies amount to a considerably higher assessment than what Andover is proposing. In view of that, this proposal is not at all out of line for what is being done in other suburban areas with similiar situations. Some of the roads done were county roads; in some cases the cities were not involved with the county and in some cases they were. Mayor Windschitl stated it is standard practice that Anoka County requires the municipalities to acquire the right of way on their roads. Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 5 (Adoption - MSA Assessment Policy, Continued) Mr. Gugisberg - was nervous at having to hold onto his property for 15 years with a deferred assessment. With inflation, would the assessment devalue his property over that time period? Council noted that because there is no interest, the assessment remains the same throughout the deferred period, and inflation would actually reduce the percentage of the assessment as it relates to the value of the property over a period of time. This policy leaves the options open to the property owner. If he doesn't use the road, no assessment is paid. Mr. Gugisberg - felt that not very many people would opt to use the road when developing, which reduces the value of that road. He is anti-road, not necessarily anti-assessment. Mr. Vosika - stated with the power line easement and tHe City easement, he actually has no property adjacent to the road, asking why he should then have an assessment. Council noted this item can be discussed at the public hearing later this evening. Mr. Holasek - with virtually all the landowners opposed to the road and the assessment, yet the City proceeds with this policy. Dick Schneider couldn't be here this evening, but also agrees with the others. The Council is elected to listen to the people; the people are talking; and this should have been resolved in one hour at one meeting. But instead there have been 12 to 15 hours of discussion on a policy that should be totally dropped. He stated the Council is not listening to them. In further discussion with Mr. Holasek, the Council felt they had listened given the fact that two months ago the policy was to assess all costs without the deferment or credit provisions. It is recognized no one wants an assessment, but the Council has an obligation to everyone in the City. This policy also allows the City to acquire property where future roads are needed without having to go against the general fund to do so. The City has the obligation to plan MSA roads for the future and to get the property needed. Mr. Holasek - again stated the policy is unfair, and he does not accept it. He sees a legal cost to the City that may far outweigh any benefit received. This is a different concept than other improvements because the entire County benefits from it, not just abutting property owners. Again in discussion with Mr. Holasek, the Council stated the City's policy has always been that the general fund would not subsidize improvement projects. And assessments were placed for projects at the time Mr. Holasek was on the Council. It was thought the property owners were loosing sight of the fact that if the road is not used, the assessment is not paid. Recess at 9:06; reconvene at 9:26 p.m. Council reviewed the proposed assessment policy again, agreeing to the provisions as noted in these Minutes on Pages 1 and 2. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 106-82, adopted the 2nd Day of December, 1983, entitled a Resolution revising the policy for assessing County highways and State Aid street improvements in the City of Andover; and adopting a new revised policy for the assessing of County highways and State Aid street improvements in the City of Andover, as prepared by the City Staff and amended this evening by the Council. (See Resolution R002-83) Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - HANSON BOULEVARD/NO. 82-16, Continued Discussion centered around the assessments that were questioned at the previous hearing, that of Mr. Hupp, Mr. Vosika, and the landfill property. -- -" Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 6 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard/No. 82-1~, Continued) Mr. Schrantz explained the proposed assessment has not been changed since the initial hearing, reviewing the costs of the project. The total amount proposed for assessment is $42,200. The total cost of the project is $43,641. The difference in those amounts is the amount of the crediit to UPA for donated property. Mr. Schrantz suggested assessing all the property; and if some is not developable because of lowland, the changes could be made at the assessment hearing, but those differences would not be divided among the remaining developable property. In that event, the property owner could make the decision as to whethe ror not he thinks his property is developable. Council generally felt the lowland should be predetermined and no assessment proposed, with the City picking up that portion of the assessment. The criteria to determine bui1dabi1ity would be the current zoning, which is 2~-acre lots with at least 39,000 square feet above the water table in non-sewered residential areas. In discussing the Hupp property, Mr. Schrantz stated it would be his opinion that Mr. Hupp's property is not buildable; however, Mr. Hupp has not been willing to say it is unbuildable. Mayor Windschitl felt if he could not get a building permit, the property is not buildable and there are no sewer plans for this area before 1990. Council also questioned the bui1dabi1ity of the property because of its proximity to the landfi 11. On the other hand, placing an assessment against the property and deferring it allows Mr. Hupp to make the decision as to whether or not the land should be brought up to buildability standards. Mr. Hupp - reiterated his statements made at previous meetings of the inconsistencies and lnequities he has seen in this project. Council again discussed the alternatives on the assessment of the Hupp property. Mr. Schrantz explained he took the soils as a criteria and eliminated those areas with similar soi 1s. If those low soils were zoned general business or industrial, he assumed the low areas would be filled; he assumed residential areas would not be filled. Councilman Orttel stated the general agreement was the costs for the low areas would not be spread among the remaining assessable land, but the City absorbs that. Discussion then proceeded to the assessment for the landfill area, returning to the Hupp property later. There was general agreement that because there is a Special Use Permit for commercial purposes on the landfill property and because the land was valued at commercial rates for acquiring the right of way, it should be assessed at a commercial rate. The Engineer was directed to prepare the assessment roll with Waste Disposal Engineering being assessed at a commercial rate. Discussion was then on the Vosika property. Mr. Vosika - presented a map of the area indicating the lowland on his property, stating there is standing water on Parcel 3000. He is also being assessed an industrial rate, but the land has always been farmed. The zoning has been changed several times, stating he has never had any input into these decisions. Mr. Vosika also reviewed the figures given him by City Hall of what was paid for right of way and what is proposed to be assessed for the project. He stated Mr. Hupp was paid $1865 for 3.7 acres and assessed $2,420. Mr. Scherer received $2200 for 1.52 acres and is assessed $1830. He was paid $2,000 for .7 acres but is being assessed for $10,933, for a loss of $8,933. The landfill was paid $7,966 for .79 acres but is being assessed only $4,477. Mr. Sorenson was paid $7,580 for .38 acres and assessed $10,816. Wayne Smith was paid $18,960 for .448 acres and is assessed $9,704. Mayor Windschitl explained the Waste Control issue has been changed, and they will return to the question on the Hupp property. He asked that Mr. Vosika address his objections to his property only at this time. - . Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 7 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard/No. 82-16, Continued) Mr. Vosika - felt the Council should determine another type of tax to pay for the road 1nstead of assessing those along the road. He is receiving the largest assessment, but he doesn't use it. He complained that when the landfill reopens, the trucks will be using Hanson Boulevard, noting the problems that would entail. Mayor Windschitl stated the landfill closed voluntarily; and if it does reopen, he felt there is very little life left and that it would not remain open very long. Council directed Mr. Schrantz to look at the merits of maintaining Mr. Vosika's assess- ment or reducing it. The property should be looked at from a commercial development standpoint and determine how much of the wetland is interfering with potential develop- ment, taking into consideration the City's capital improvement plan to run City sewer past the property. Discussion returned to the Hupp property. It was felt if there were no assessment placed on the property because of the lowland, a lot split or subdivision of the property would not be allowed unless the property is brought up to a buildable standard. Mr. Hupp - asked if any consideration is given in the assessment for the fact that his property was valued lower than the others. Mayor Windschitl stated that would justify his argument for not having an assessment against the property, as the appraiser apparently looked at it as not being buildable. Mr. Hupp was asked if he felt his land was unbuildable. Mr. Hupp - stated he did not know. He asked if this would be permanent so that even if he sold the land it could then never be filled in and developed. Council stated that the buildability status only has a bearing of whether or not the property is assessed for Hanson Boulevard. He clearly has the right to build on the property assuming he would comply with the buildability requirements, at this point meaning digging out the peat and filling to obtain 39,000 square feet. The Engineer was directed to treat the Hupp property as nonassessable property because of the lowland. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we close the public input on Project 82-16. Mot1on carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, enter a Resolution accepting the feasibility report ordering the improvement, accepting the assessment roll, and setting date for Assessment Hearing for the improvement of bituminous street under 82-1~ for Hanson Boulevard between Highway No. 116 and County State Aid Highway No. 16 with the public hearing date to be February 15, 1983. (See Resolution R003-83) Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - HANSON BOULEVARD/CSAH 16 TO CSAH 20/NO. 83-1 Mr. Schrantz reviewed the feasibility report for the project, estimating the total project cost to be $80,000. He also pointed out that at the meeting the feasibility study was first presented, the Council had agreed not to assess Parcel 5400 because it does not abut the proposed road. Mr. Schrantz also noted the areas of marginal soils. The philosophy he used was to assess all land and allow the landowner to say the land is not buildable. The lots in Hartfiel's Estates would not have an assessment. Those lots have been included in the area, but the City would be picking up those costs. The Hearing was then opened for public testimony. Winslow Holasek - suggested the Council ask the property owners, most of whom are present, whether or not they want the road. This is a public hearing, and they do not want the road. Mayor Windschitl stated that any way this is looked at, part of this is going to end up coming from general funds. Council also again noted the · Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 8 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard/No. 83-1, Continued) City is under contract with the County to build the road, that it has been in the thoroughfare plans for years, that this is the legal procedure required by State Statute to assess the project, and that this is for the feasibility report for the right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Tomlinson - asked when the feasibility report will be presented. Council discussion was that is what was done this evening and at the second meeting in December. Mr. Gugisberg - asked how they can stop the road. Council felt it would be very difficult, as the City is under agreement with the County, and the funds are in the County's 1983 budget for construction. Attorney Hawkins briefly reviewed the joint powers agreement with the County and the 429 procedure for assessing the cost of the right of way for the project. Mr. Gugisberg - stated everyone is getting carried away over the overall master plan of the road, but the County isn't really sure that the road is needed or economically feasible for the City. He asked if the County can afford the road. Council stated the item is in the County budget for this construction year and they are in the process of preparing the plans. It is also the County's procedure to have the municipality acquire the right of way for County State Aid roads, which is consistent with what has been done in Andover. It was not known the legal ramifications of breaking the contract with the County. It was again noted the traffic plan has been carefully thought out and this road has been in the plan for quite some time. And it was again noted that the City cannot assess an amount greater than the appreciated value of the property. If anyone does not believe their property appreciates as much as the assessment, there is a method of contesting it. It was stated that the Council is convinced they are doing the right thing and that the property value is being increased. Mr. Holasek - asked the purpose of the hearing if it is not to decide whether or not to construct the road. He felt the public hearing should have been held before the contract was entered into with the County. He didn't feel things were being done in sequence. He alleged the hearing is just to meet the letter of the law but that every- thing is cut and dried and the Council has no intention of listening to the people. Council explained this is the legal hearing for assessing the right-of-way acquisition costs. The road is being looked at as a benefit for Andover. The County hired a firm to do their thoroughfare plan, and the proposal to extend Hanson Bouelvard appeared in the County's plan in published documents around 1972, the exact year was not specifically known. Mr. Tomlinson - stated the proposed allocation of these costs is based on the square area opened up. Is that the most common method of assessing versus front footage? Mr. Schrantz stated when the other project was done, the front foot method was considered. A unit method could also be used. This idea is used by other cities. In this particular project the front footage method would be similiar to the area method proposed; but in the previous project, there was a significant difference. Mayor Windschitl asked if the gentleman from Hartfiel's got his questions resolved as to ditching, etc. Gene Paschen, 14632 Drake Street NW - stated nothing definite has been resolved yet, Düt he has met with the City Engineer. Mayor Windschitl felt his questions need to be resolved completely before final approval of the plans and the letting of the con- struction contract. Mr. Schrantz stated the current plans do not call for any construction on his land. Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page g (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard/No. 83-1, Continued) Mr. Gugisberg - stated the road is between the power poles, which leaves little room for variation of the road. He asked if the construction of Hanson would have any -impact on the City park in Hartfiel's. What is that park designated for? Mayor Windschitl stated the park is included in the overall park plan for the City, and each park has specific recommendations as to its future use. That information is available in the office. The Mayor also felt that some birming along the property lines in that area would be appropriate to minimize the impact to those residents affected. Mr. Tomlinson - asked when it would be known if the plans include consideration for fen~ing their property. The Mayor stated that would be known as soon as the County completes their construction plans. These questions should be addressed at that time. Mr. Engleking - asked if the City has any input prior to those construction plans. The Mayor stated if there are specific problems, the City Engineer should be made aware of them as soon as possible. Mr. Engleking - stated one of their questions is whether the City or the County will absorb the cost of fencing along their properties to protect the stealing of their trees. Either the County will have to provide the cyclone fencing for creating the hazard or the City will have to pay for it in addition to acquiring the land. He stated that is an item that has to be paid one way or the other. The Mayor stated he didn't know the County's position on the matter, but the City Engineer can raise that issue with them. Mr. Paschen - asked if they will be notified when these plans are finalized. Council stated normally there are pre-construction meetings with people that are affected, but it was suggested names be left with Mr. Schrantz, who can in turn contact them when the City receives the plans. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, entering a Resolution to order the improvement of Hanson Boulevard between County State Aid Highway No. 16, Andover Boulevard, and County State Aid Highway No. 20, Contance Boulevard, and authorize the right-of-way acquisition for same. (See Resolution R004-83) Motion carried unanimously. Council also informed the residents there will be a meeting where the Council would act upon the construction plans, after which the bids would be let. The County is looking at a summer bid letting on this project, and the County will control the construction of the project. Discussion with members of the audience was also that the right of way must be acquired before the construction bid is let. Costs per acre for the acquisition were also discussed, with the Council indicating that the costs cited by Mr. Vosika this evening were incorrect. Mr. Holasek - expressed his disappointment over the actions of the Council this evening, as virtually 100 percent of the people affected by the road were opposed to it. JUNKYARD LICENSES MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve renewals for the following 1 icenses: Anoka Auto Wrecking, Bob's Auto Parts, Mom's Salvage, and Rite-Away, for the year 1983, subject to review in June, 1983, to insure full compliance with the Junkayrd Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. LGA RESOLUTI ON MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution supporting changes in the State A1d Formula as presented by the Minnesota Association of Small Cities. (See Resolution ROO5-93) Motion carried unanimously. -. Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 10 APPOINTMENT - METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Council discussion was this is a Metropolitan Council committee on solid waste, and Andover is allowed a representative on that committee because of the proposed landfill in the Bunker Hills area. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we appoint Jim Elling to the Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously. P & Z INTERVIEW DATE Because the ad in the papers runs to the end of January, it was agreed to table the item to the February 1 meeting. LANDFILL DISCUSSION Mayor Windschitl stated a motion was passed by the Anoka County Board this morning for the County Attorney to get involved with the situation at the Waste Disposal Engineering Landfill in Andover. He stated he requested of Anoka County copies of their bonding and insurance requirements plus additional information, but to date nothing has been received. He felt that with the absence of the bond from the owner/operator, the question of termination of the landfill is the County's responsibility. At the moment the County is extremely concerned about a trespass situation and will not go on the property without permission. But the landfill has to get the final cover on as rapidly as possible. Council discussion was on the events that have taken place at the landfill the past few weeks, that some of the equipment has been taken off the premises by the owner/ operator, that there is an area that must be covered as soon as possible, and that there is an impression of some significance there. Mayor Windschitl felt some time should be given to the new Anoka County Board to make some decisions. Absence of some action, he felt the City should do whatever can be done to prompt some action on the entire situation. He suggested the Attorney be authorized to investigate what the City can legally do, the options available from a public health standpoint. Council agreed. Councilman Elling also reported he has been told by Commissioner Haas that EPA has 90 percent of the funds necessary to remove the hazardous waste pit at the landfill, but the problem is getting the other 10 percent required by the EPA, which must come from either the County, City, or State. Mayor Windschitl also noted the reports from the EPA and PCA, which indicate the landfill is in tough shape and the test wells are indicating contamination. It was his opinion, as well as that of the other Councilmen, that the City should not be the one to fund the remaining 10 percent to remove the hazardous waste pit. But the question was if it means getting the required dollars into Andover to get the pit removed, should the City use its Community Development Block Grant Funds to do so? Again, the Council generally felt it wasn't the City's responsibility to use City funds to have the hazardous waste removed; but if it meant the use of Andover's CDBG funds to do so, the Council would give it further consideration only as a last resort. It was also suggested the County be made aware that the City expects reimbursement for any possible damages as a result of the landfill and the hazardous waste pit located in it, and that the County and State are totally liable for the situation. Attorney Hawkins advised that there is a question as to whether or not the County is liable just because they are the regulating agency. There is no question that the responsible party is Melron, the owner/operator of the landfill. Council also agreed to demand to be informed of the County's plan to solve the questions of the landfill termination, removal of the hazardous waste pit, etc. - Regular City Council Meeting January 18, 1983 - Minutes Page 10 (Landfill Discussion, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the City of Andover demand a schedule from the County of Anoka showing the staged termination and dates for action on the Andover landfill, along with the stages of the program for the abatement of the hazardous waste problem that exists there. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the reports requested of Anoka County be prov1ded the City by February 20. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl asked the Council's opinion as to whether or not the consulting engineering firm or City Engineer should be directed to prepare a contingency plan in the event City water will be required in the residential areas around the landfill site. After discussion it was generally felt that action would be premature at this time, although a rough cost figure would be helpful at this time. Discussion was also on the testing of private wells in the area. It was suggested if the City Engineer does any work in this area, the time should be 109ged and expenses reimbursed by someone. It was also suggested that private shallow and deep wells be tested, but no decisions were made on the matter. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve Checks No. 6158 through 6200 for a total of $18,221.86. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 4, 1983: Correct as written. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we approve the Minutes of January 4. Mot1on carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:24 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ èc~~ Mar lla A. Peach Recor ing Secretary -.-