Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP August 29, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEFTING - AUGUST 29r 1984 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on August 29, 1984, 8:03 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW for the purpose of meeting with the Coon Creek Watershed Board to discuss the proposed assessment for regional ponding, the proposed cleaning of Ditch #57, and the boundary map for assessing the ditch cleaning. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Engineer, James Schrantz; Coon Creek Watershed Attorney, Frank Murray; Coon Creek Watershed Engineer, Harold Israelson; Chairman of the Coon Creek Watershed Board, Mel Schulte; Coon Creek Watershed Board Members, Gary Beck, Loren Hen~ges, Virgil Hogdal, Al Sannerud, and Ken Slyzuk . Mayor Windschitl asked the first item of discussion to be on the map issued from the Watershed Board with the boundaries to be assessed for the cleaning of Ditch #57. The Mayor stated the problem the Council is having with the map is that it encompasses an area that is in another watershed. He stated the areas west of Round Lake Boulevard are in the Rum River Watershed. Mr. Schulte stated the Board has not formally adopted any boundary change. Mr. Israelson stated the contours indicate that area would drain toward Coon Creek. He stated the area was not originally assessed for Coon Creek. Mayor Windschitl stated the drainage from Round Lake goes to the northwest, not toward Coon Creek. There are no ditches to the east from Round Lake, and this area has never drained into the Coon Creek Watershed area. And there is no high waterlproblem on Round Lake. After further discussion, the members of the Watershed Board generally felt there would be no reason to include that area west of Round Lake, noting the viewers will probably reach that same conclusion and recommend eliminating that area. Mr. Schrantz pointed out that the developments of Chapman, Northglen and Quickstrom have had their storm drainage piped to the west across Round Lake Boulevard and out of the Coon Creek district. One of the proposed changes is to include those areas in the Rum River Watershed and take them out of the Coon Creek Watershed district. Mr. Schulte stated - the viewers will also find that'out. Mayor Windschitl then reviewed the problem Andover has with the proposed regional ponding assessment procedure. One of the major concerns with the policy is not having a provision for optional ponding. Given the natural terrain in the City, it is rare to have a plat in Andover without some natural ponding or lowland on site. The City's understanding of the policy is that no credit would be given for the lowland of natural ponding, and the Council has great difficulties with that. Mr. Schulte stated Item 2A in the August 29, 1984, memo from Mr. Israelson allows credit for natural ponding if zero run-off after development can be demonstrated. Mayor Windschitl asked if five acres of an 80-acre plat would drain into the creek, what would be the policy. Mr. Israelson stated he looks at where the other acreage goes. If it is ponded on site, some of the water will go back into the atmosphere, and the remaining water has to go somewhere. Unless it goes into another watershed, it goes underground and ultimately outlets into the creek. Mayor Windwchitl didn't feel that would harm anyone, that the problem is the runoff after a big rain. Mr. Schrantz thought the City would be more comfortable with using "surface runo£fn.. versus zero runGff including seepage. He believed the consensus of the engineers at a meeting discussing the policy was zero surface runoff;. -- Special City Council Meeting August 29, 1984 - Minutes Page 2 Mr. Israelson then stated if five acres of a development would drain into the creek and the remaining 75 acres of surface runoff would have zero runoff from a 100-year- storm, he guessed they would assess only the five acres for the regional ponding purposes. But he is talking about natural ponding, not excavated ponding. Mr. Hendges stated if the pond is constructed and is 2, 3, or 4 feet above the level of the ditch system, the hydrologic pressure will put that water into the ditch system. Mayor Windschitl stated the City does not want a policy which the developers can take advantage of either. It must be such that the ponds would hold the water and be acceptable engineering wise. Mr. Hendges stated the Board spent years working with the cities to come up with an acceptable plan, and it is uncomfortable for him now to meet with the cities to work out a different balance with each city. It's like starting allover again. Mayor Windschitl noted he was at any number of meetings objecting to these items because the proposal is unfair to the City of Andover. Council discussion also noted the City prepared the Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan to maintain storm drainage within the City at the directive of the Watershed Board, which was costly for the City at that time and which now appears to be unusable. Members of the Watershed Board did not recall giving that directive to the City; Mayor Windschitl stated the staff will search the files to find that directive. Mayor Windschitl stated the Council is trying to get some equity in the plan, that Andover's density/acre is considerably less than some of the other cities and the City isn't contributing water at the rate some of the other cities are. But yet because Andover is relatively undeveloped, the City will end up paying a disportionate share of the ponding costs for the entire district. He didn't think there would be a problem if the Watershed Board asked the City to pay Andover's share, what Andover in a developed state would contribute to the watershed. Councilman Lachinski stated another issue is that the Watershed Board is not assessing the developed property for these regional ponds. Mayor Windschitl proposed the Board take the costs of the regional ponding and put that out over a general levy with the exception of those who originally paid for the ditch system. Mr. Schulte stated the Supreme Court has just ruled that Coon Creek is a ditch, and those who own it have a right to have it maintained. They have done a redetermination of benefits, and those people will be placed on the tax rolls for its maintenance. Councilman Orttel stated that is the point -- the same thing will be done for Andover residents, plus an assessment for ponding will be levied as well to the undeveloped property. The City's point is that vacant property wouldn't need ponding if the others had developed, so the cost should be shared by all, including by those who never paid into the district for drainage purposes. Mr. Murray stated the redetermination of benefits for the cleaning of the ditch is unrelated to the benefits of creating reservoirponding. Mr. Schulte also argued the system works good now, and nothing would have to be done if there never was any new development. Many of the developments did pay for the ditch and could in turn say they do not want any more water coming into the ditch. They are cleaning the ditch system because there is development in Andover, Ham Lake, and Blaine, and they have to do something with the water. Mayor Windschitl stated Andover's new developments have not contributed to the water in the ditch systerl; the City has been operating under an approved engineering plan that doesn't contribute water to the ditch system. Mr. Schulte stated they are looking at future development. There was also discussion on the assessment po~icy for the cleaning of the ditch, with Watershed Board members pointing out it is assessed according to the use of the land on a formula determined under State law. Special City Council Meeting August 29, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 Councilman Elling asked how much was assessed for the drainage into the ditch in the vacinity of Highway 10 and Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Schulte stated that area has not yet been assessed because there has been no plat filed. When it is platted, there will be an assessment. The street put in there that drains to the ditch was a city project. Councilman Orttel stated the City has not been allowed to dump directly into the ditch for years. Mr. Schulte stated the City has been allowed to do so as of last January when their new policy took effect. If the City doesn't want to abide by the new rules established, those who own the ditch have the right to cement off the ditch to the remaining developers in the City. Councilman Orttel stated the City has an approved storm drainage plan and wanted credit for it when the new plan was developed by the Watershed, which he didn't believe the City received. The City spent a lot of money for that plan and has also purchased ponds in some parts of the City that could be used for future development, noting the Red Oaks ponds in particular. Mr. Hendges pointed out that any problems or suggestions to the plan should have been made while the plan was being made up. Mayor Windschitl stated he did that on many occasions making the same arguments being made this evening. The Mayor ~ëÜn suggested putting the entire proposal in one package, taking the amount of reservoir costs for the entire watershed and distributing the cost among everyone in the district except those who originally paid for the system. Discussion returned to the on-site ponding which the City has been doing. Mr. Schulte stated Item 2A in Mr. Israelson's memo talks about natural ponding, not something that would be dug; and Item 3, no provisions for optional ponding, was added because the first five plats they saw after these regulations became effective all came in with a pond. Before that they had a difficult time getting developers to pond on site. Council thought it was because on-site ponding is less expensive than the regional ponding costs proposed. Council asked if all developers would be treated the same. The Watershed Board stated the assessments for ponding are applied equally among the cities for developments coming in. Mr. Schulte asked their attorney if they could bond for the ponding across the entire watershed district. Mr. Murray stated there are three sources of money available to the watershed: 1) For work and common benefit, the monies can be taken from the administrative fund. 2) The district can spend on its own motion up to $750,000 provided it isn't for a drainage project. He didn't think the reservoirs would be considered a drainage proj~ct. 3) All the municipalities would petition and the matter would be spread on an ad valorem tax across the district. Mr. Murray also thought the policy just developed by the Watershed Board was the most equitable, that new development pays for the additional ponding it would need. Assuming there isn't enough money to go ahead with the development of the reservoirs, that's when the ad valorem tax levy would be spread and all the developments would participate with the extra amount needed. Mayor Windschitl stated the City's attorney has always advised that, property cannot be assessed more than the equivalent benefit. If the Watershed is trying to collect dollars from a relatively small number of parcels of land, a developer challenges the assessment, and a judge rules in favor of the developer, where is the Watershed then? The district is in a worse position than before. Mr. Murray stated this is not an assessment of any kind. Either the developer builds his pond or he contributes to the watershed reservoir. Council stated according to the policy, that is not true that there are no provisions for optional ponding or allowing the developer to dig his own pond. Mayor Windschitl made another suggestion that the engineers determine the amount of the reservoir ponding needed for each city in a total developed state. Each city would then be assessed its percentage share of the total cost of ponding, and Andover could Special City Council Meeting August 29, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 then worry about how its share would be collected. Mr. Hendges stated he wou~d have no problem with just about any formula as long as all the cities agreed to it. Mr. Slyzuk asked how many acres the City has left to develop. The Council Iguessed about 10,000 in the entire City, with approximately 2,000 of that developable into small lots, though those specific numbers have never been determined. And a large part is not in the Coon Creek Watershed district. The City's development is not nearly as dense as that of other cities. Also, the City's comprehensive plan states the City will not develop in the lowlands, asking what problem would be created if those lowlands were allowed to develop. Mr. Slyzuk predicted eventually the City will allow the lowlands to be filled and developed when the need is there just as the City of Coon Rapids is doing now. Mr. Israelson stated they did consider the developable acres of each community from their comprehensive plans. Councilman Orttel asked if then it wouldn't be a simple procedure to divide the cost of the pond by the proportioned share of total acreage. Council suggested a possibility of the elected officials from all the cities meeting to discuss the problems in an attempt to work out an equitable solution. Mayor Windschitl then suggested another alternative of using the theory that the watershed is half developed and half undeveloped, and any new development would pay at half rates. At such time as a pond was needed and there wasn't sufficient money in the fund for the pond, then the watershed could levy for the extra money across the entire district. He felt that would bui ld some equity into the system. Mr. Slyzuk stated then those who paid for the system originally would have to pay again. Mr. Schrantz suggested giving credit for those who originally paid for the system. Mr. Murray stated they cannot do that. On an ad valorem tax, the entire district or city must pay. He also felt the Mayor's,proposal was not fair. Mr. Schulte stated the ditch has never been cleaned in its entirety since it was con- structed, and it is believed after it is cleaned the system would work just fine if no more water is added to it. The purpose of the reservoir ponding policy is to take care of future development in the district. He stated after the redetermination of benefits is completed, everybody that is determined to be benefitting from the main ditch or its tributaries is then also an owner of that ditch and are included in the system. Mayor Windschitl again asked what happens if the regional ponding assessment is challenged successfully. Mr. Murray stated the money is given voluntarily. It is a policy. The developers are making a choice to spend the money for on-site ponding or to put that money toward the reservoir. If they are given the privilege of full develop- ment of their property, the developer will not lose any money at all. It will be a better development as far as everyone is concerned, and there will be no maintenance of ponds to contend with. He also stated it is a fallacy to argue that Andover will be paying more. The people who put their ponds in before were basically on a different cost structure because of inflation. These developers are spending more money but are not putting in a pond but are putting the same amount into a kitty. Mayor Windschitl stated he would agree with that argument as it relates to the people who originally paid for the ditcl¡. He did not agree with that argument for people who never paid anything toward the system. It is also the Council's understanding that the Watershed Board will not approve the plat if the fee is not paid. Mr. Schulte stated the Board may have to change that requirement to allow for optional ponding if no water runs off after development. He thought the provision 2A in the memo from Mr. Israelson was relating to surface runoff. Councilman Orttel felt it is not fair that the policy treat all property the same, notiQg that low areas that ultimately develop contribute considerably more runoff to the system than does higher property further away from the creek. They do not benefit or contribute to the system the same. Special City Council Meeting August 29, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 Mr. Israelson stated it would not be difficult to compute the undeveloped property for each community. He also explained how he arrived at the assessment rates for commercial and residential properties based on the previous six years of plats in the watershed. Councilman Elling stated it seems that the residential rates are higher than the commercial rates, and he thought it should be just the opposite. He also thought the square footage of development for 2~-acre lot developments was extremely high. Mr. Israelson stated most of the developments in Coon Rapids and Blaine are 1/3 to 1/4 acres in size, and most of the commercial areas are 45 to 65 percent developed. Any- thing above a duplex is considered multiple housing. Mayor Windschitl then explained his conversations with Dave Torklidson of the Anoka County Park Board about their desire to get mor,e water into Bunker Lake. There is a dried up lake just north of Bunker Lake. He asked if there was any way of getting overflow water out of the creek and into that other area where it could then be pumped into Bunker Lake, thinking the County may be willing to participate with some of that cost. The Question is if the watershed is going to spend a lot of money on the reservoirs, can it be done such that the County could benefit as well. Mr. Hentges reported several years ago the County wanted to dredge Bunker Lake, and the watershed engineer advised against it stating that could spring a leak in the lake. The lake had a lot more water than it does now. Since they have dredged it, the water level has been down to where it is now. He felt a lot of money could be spent trying to fill the lake which has a leak on the other end, and there is a danger it would come back into Coon Creek eventually, which should be looked at before a lot of money is spent on it. Mayor Windschitllstated if there is something to be done, possibly the Watershed Board and the County'Park Board could pursue it further. Council then asked the assessment policy for cleaning Ditch #57. Mr. Schulte explained the project is the cleaning of Coon Creek from Highway 242 through Andover and part of Ham Lake. The viewers are doing a redetermination of benefits on it, the hearings will be held, and the system will be cleaned. In their last project, the benefit for a single-family house was $80. Everything that drains into the system, including those areas that originally paid, will have a land determination of benefit on it. Council asked if the cleaning is done on a tributary, do the property owners pay both assessments for the main ditch and for the tributary. Mr. Schulte stated a property owner would pay for the cleaning of the ditch system it drains to plus would also pay for the cleaning of any minor ditch into that main ditch system. The theory is the repair is spread among all the property owners benefitted, and they pay for any cleaning of a ditch or tributary in the ditch system. Therefore, there can be more than one assessment for ditch repair, although the watershed can establish a ditch repair fund for the minor cleaning of tributaries so they would not have to be assessed. Mr. Schulte also noted that Ditches #57-1 and 57-3 will not be cleaned. Those contributing to the cleaning ~of the ditch will then become owners of the ditch, including raw land. Mr. Murray stated private ditches are not a part of the watershed. Councilman Lachinski asked if the developers would be charged again for ponding even if they are included in the ditch area. Mr. Schulte stated yes. Councilman Lachinski couldn't see how they could be charged again. Mr. Murray stated under the law, each party would have to appeal the assessment on his own; it could not be done as a class action suit. He stated it is a fact that the drainage system is out of repair. The duty by case law and statute is on this Board to repair it. If this ditch fails to be repaired, all that will happen is that it will eventually get repaired, which will then be more costly. So anyone stalling this program by challenging a small assessment will be responsible to a lot of people for a lot of money. Special City Council Meeting August 29, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 Mayor Windschitl asked if there is a reasonable basis for a petition for the rest of Ditch #57 to be cleaned or is it being done at the petition of just one person. Watershed Board members thought there were five signatures on the petition, but the Board is allowed to act on just one request. Mr. Murray stated this is not a referendum; it is a findings of fact and conclusion. Mr. Schulte stated the Board has requested Andover to appoint residents to a citizens' committee to be involved with the cleaning project. Mr. Sannerud asked that the residents be appointed as soon as possible to expedite matters. They are working on a time line; and if those dates are not met, they know the cost of the project will increase by $68,550. Mr. Schulte explained when they get the petition, the engineers review the ditches; and the Board then determines whether or not it should be repaired. It's a findings of fact. Mr. Murray stated under the law and statute, the Board is required to act. And if they don't any of those property owners along the ditch could bring action against the Board and make them do it. Mr. Hentges also noted the work done on the ditch in Andover several years ago cleared out the debris to allow for a free flow. But it did not restore the ditch to its original configuration. After some discussion with the Board on their public hearing process, the Council generally stated they did not wish to formally appoint anyone at this time without the project actually being ordered, not wanting the appearance that the cleaning is a foregone conclusion. That is not how it is done on the City level. It was felt there shouldn't be a committee until after the public hearing and after the project is lega lly ordered. Mr. Schulte explained the people doing the viewing for the redetermination of benefits for the cleaning of the ditch are totally independent from the Board. They are State certified independent appraisers. The assessment is based upon the land value. He stated for Ditch #54, the viewers found the benefit per lot to be $95; but the pro- portioned share of the total cost for the repair was only $50 per house and that is all those homeowners were assessed. Mayor Windschitl asked who pays if the viewers made an error in the redetermination of benefits. Mr. Murray explained property owners are notified, hearings are held, and there is an opportunity for all owners to question the benefit. If there is a correction to be made, the viewers can make a recommendation to the Board, and the Board can make the changes. And the costs would then be redistributed among the rest of the people in the project. Mr. Schulte suggested the Watershed Board meet to discuss the ponding fee policy again; but he thought if any changes are going to be made, all four cities should meet again and come to an agreement on it. Mr. Hogdal thought the Board could make some adjustments, possibly accepting some of the ponds the City has already purchased for drainage purposes. But they frown on ponding because it isn't as effective as they hoped it would be, they are unsightly, and maintenance is a problem. Mayor Windschitl stated the City does not want preferential treatment and that it is in everyone's best interest to resolve this problem as soon as possible. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \0~~~ Marc la A. Peach Recor ing Secretary