Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP October 7, 1985 CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 1985 Call to order 1. Meeting with City Attorney re: Lawsuit 2. 1986 Budget 3. Landfill Surcharge 4. Russell/Stack Addition 5. Warning Sirens 6. Adjournment - \\jvy~/~\ V; ~}~~ ~0:,J /~;y I- ~\v: v,J '{V V:P'~·J ~ rÝ \Y xY . CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ASSESSMENT HEARINGS OCTOBER 7, 1985 - AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. Developed Properties A. 85-1 Cedar Hills River Estates 2nd Addition B. 85-14 Lund's Round Lake Estates Area C. 85-l5 Dehn's Frontage Road 2. Undeveloped Properties A. 85-8, 85-9, 85-l0 - 80-3 (Area Assessments) Water District 1 & 2 B. 85-8, 85-9, 85-l0 - 80-3 (Connection Charges) Water District 1 & 2 C. 85-7 Northglen 5th Addition D. 85-5 Woodland Terrace E. 84-l2 Hm·¡ard-Tempel Addition Adjournment - ~ 01 ANDOVER ASSESSMENT HEARINGS - OCTOBER 7, 1985 r~INUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, Pub1icAssessment Hearings were called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on October 7, 1985, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: TKDA Engineer, John Oavidson, BRA Engineer, Glen~ Cook; City Engineer, James Schrantz; and others PROJECT IP85-1/CEDAR HILLS RIVER ESTATES 2ND ADDITION Mr. Cook reviewed the street construction and storm sewer cost of $66,850 and a proposed assessment for the 17 units at $3,935 each. The estimated cost per year based on a 10-year assessment at 9.5 percent interest would be $625. He explained at the present time the gravel base work is completed on the project and the storm sewer is in. The delays have resulted from the contractor not beginning the job until'August, and now because of the weather. Hóward Olson, 17940 Aztec Street NW - felt they have waited an inordinate amount of time for some actlon on thlS proJect, and expressed his disappointment that the project is not yet complete. Mr. Cook stated they have done everything they can to get the contractor to complete the job. It was supposed to have been completed by September 23. They have not assessed any liquidated damages against the contractor for breach of contract, but he stated that is an option open to the Council. Mr. Cook stated the contractor is aware of the problem and the possibility of a penalty being assessed against him. He also stated the contractor has been set to complete the job for the last week, but rain has been the problem since then. Howard Kirkeeide, 3950 180th Lane NW - thought the cost was $62,120 when the project was flrst explalned. Mr. Cook agreed the original cost is 6 percnet less than what is being assessed. Mr. Kirkeeide - asked if the assessment will take place even if the project is not tlnlshed thlS year. The Engineers explained the assessment becomes effective as of tonight and will be placed on next year's taxes. They also felt the project should be completed yet this fall. Mr. Kirkeeide - stated his concern is with the storm drainage down to the creek. He felt when Aztec is completed, the water will gush from Aztec and down 180th. He questioned whether the storm drain that is constructed will be able to handle the volume of water and who will be responsible to take care of his property if he should lose a substantial portion of it in a washout. He noted a very large washout on Toikka's property. The Engineers stated the washout on Toikka's property is the responsibility of the contractor. The drainage area coming into that storm drain was explained by the eingeers, in thattonly the west side of Aztec will be drained into there, which is not a very lage area. The pipe is sized to take care of any overflow which may occur. The limiting factor is the intakes, which will take about 20 cfs. ~1r. Cook stated the situation will be a lot better when the project is completed. Counci I noted it assumes the project has been engineered correctly. In the event additional work would need to be done on the storm drainage in that area in the future, it could not be assessed back to the property owners for the length of the bond issue. If the City puts water onto Mr. Kirkeeide's property to the detriment of that property, the liability would have to be placed. If it is found to be the City's liability, it would have to be taken care of by the City. The City doesn't have the right of trespass onto his property.. Council also asked that Mr. Kirkeeide inform the City if there appears to be a problem with drainage,'on his property so the engineers can take care of it before it becomes a large problem. Assessment Hearings October 7, 1985 - Minutes Page 2 (Project IP85-1/Cedar Hills River Estates, Continued) Mr. Kirkeeide - asked if the entire assesment': can be paid for. Council noted the amount can be paid for without interest until November 15. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Ellimg, a Resolution adopting the Assessment Roll for the lmprovement of bituminous streets for Cedar Hills River Estates 2nd Addition (IP85-I) for certification, as prepared. (See Resolution R120-85) Motion carried unanimously. PROJECT IP85-14/LUND'S ROUND LAKE ESTATES AREA Mr. Cook stated the project cost for surfacing Lund's Round Lake Estates is $133,800, and the grading and surfacing for Guarani Street north of 149th is $11,958. The 33 units in Lund's Round Lake Estates will be assessed $4,055 each, for an annual payment based on 10 years at 9.5 percent interest of $645. The two units off Guarani Street north of 149th would each be assessed $5,797 for an annual payment of $950. Council directed that a PIN number be assigned to the second lot of Mr. Henry, the lot being assessed off Guarani Street. Mark Schutz, 14745 Guarani Street NW - asked when the project will be completed. Mr. Cook stated the project schedule is to be completed yet this fall, hopefully by October 30. Mr. Schutz - stated he just put in a concrete driveway and asked if the bituminous will meet his driveway. The Engineers discussed the dimensions of the concrete from the easement, noting it will be looked at in the field and discussed with Mr. Schutz. It was felt they should be able to meet the concrete. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution adopting the Assessment Roll for the improvement of bituminous streets for Lund's Round Lake Estates Area (IP85-14) for certification as prepared. (See Resolution R121-85) Motion carried unanimously. PROJECT IP85-15/DEHN'S FRONTAGE ROAD Mr. Cook reviewed the project cost of $12,291.44 for street construction. The five units would be assessed $2,460 each. He stated the driveway construction could also be assessed at $260 each if the Council so chooses. Council agreed to leave it off the assessment roll and let each property owner pay for their driveway construction up front if they choose to have it done. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution adopting the Assessment Roll for the lmprovement of bituminous streets for Dehn's Addition Frontage Road (IP85-15) for certification as presented. (See Resolution RI22-85) Motion carried unanimously. PROJECT IP85-8, 85-9, 85-10, 80-3 (ASSESSMENT AND CONNECTION CHARGES) WATER DIST. 1 & 2 Mr. Davidson explained the assessments are spread over 15 years at 9.5 percent interest and can be paid off without interest prior to November 15. The area assessment is to be certified for collection deferred until 1987; and the connection charge is to be certified with collection deferred until 1988. He also explained the assessment covers the connection charges on vacant properties not assessed in the 1980-3 project plus area" frontage benefit, and connection charges for water services in Districts 1 and into Disctrict 2. The water assessment for the Northglen 5th and Woodland Terrace Additions is being assessed in 1985 for collection in 1986 along with the sanitary sewer and street projects. Mr. Davidson explained the area rate is $845/acre based on net acreage; the frontage rate is $17.55 per front foot; and the connection charge is $900/unit based on 2.5 units per acre. Discussion was on the Leslie Bever and Roger Nutt properties. Assessment Hearings October 7, 1985 - Minutes Page 3 (Area.' ~ and Connection Charges, Water Districts 1 & 2, Continued) Mr. Bever, 2380 Bunker Lake Boulevard - stated his property has 208 feet of frontage on the road, and he does not want to hook up to municipal water. He would like to split the property if possible. Mr. Nutt, 2410 Bunker Lake Boulevard - stated he has 160 feet of frontage and would prefer to have municlpal water. It was further determined that Mr. Bever's property can be subdivided in the future and that the subdividable portion of the lot should be the only portion of his property to be assessed. It was further pointed out that Mr. Nutt's house is in the center of his property, making it not possible to subdivide it at this time. This item was discussed again later in the meeting. Mr. M. R. Olson, 12589 Hanson Boulevard - asked if the assessment can be taken off for Mr. Bever since he doesn't want the water, can the same be done for him? He said he doesn't want water. Mayor Windschitl explained the assessment policy does not force someone who already has a functioning well to hook up to municipal water. But all open, undeveloped property is being assessed. Mr. Olson - asked what is considered aunit on which the connection charge is based. Änd what is a connection charge. Mr. Davidson stated it is based on 2.5 units per acre, which is normal residential density. Because this is commercial property, should it be developed at a higher density, the additional connection charges would be collected at the time of development. He also explained the connection charge was established in 1980 to pay for the oversizing of the watermains and production facilities. Those costs were divided between area and connection charges. At thaLtime, so the assessment would not impose a hardship on the open spaces and to allow time for development to occur before being forced into an assessment, the connection charges were not assessed. The City has now reached the point where the water system is being expanded into these areas and the undeveloped properties are now being assessed the connection charges to affect the financing program of the system. Mr. Olson - asked why doesn't the water line go only as far as the sewer line. No one has petitioned for utilities past that point. Council noted the petition from Mr. Menkveld to service property just north of his, which is one of the reasons the project was ordered. They also noted the petition for utilities farther east in the vicinity of Bunker Lake and Hanson Boulevards. Mr. Olson - stated Mr. Menkveld no longer owns the property in question, that it was sold at a public auction several weeks ago. He stated nobody in that area wants it and sanitary sewer isn't coming with it. Why is it being done? Council reviewed the petitions and hearings held last spring on the water extension project, that Mr. Menkveld was the fee owner of the property at that time, and that the Council reacted to the petitions received. It was also noted the Council is providing a three-year time frame in which the property can be developed prior to the payment of the assessments. Clearly the sewer line will be run at the same time and will be dealt with separately. Mr. Olson - then presented a letter of appeal to the City Clerk. Robert Manns, Attorney representin~ George Adolfson - stated the feasibility report shown at the public hearing in May lndicated Mr. Adolfson would be assessed on two parcels, one for 8.2 acres assessed $23,000 and one of 15 acres assessed $51,000. Then Mr. Adolfson received notice of this hearing, ahd the assessment shows $270,000 instead of the $74,000. In talking to the City Engineer this afternoon, he under- stands that difference is that Mr. Adolfson is now being assessed for another 190 units on property previously assessed on an area wide assessment. He asked what property that involves. The Engineers pointed out the two tracks north of the residential properties. ~- Assessment Hearings October 7, 1985 - Minutes Page 4 (Area, and Connection Charges, Water Districts 1 & 2, Continued) Mr. Manns - stated Mr. Adolfson's home, as well as a home for his son, are located on that tract; and they are not separated out from this assessment. There is a business being run in the Round Barn, which Mr. Adolfson spent considerable amounts of money to upgrade to be suitable for that type of business. He wasn't sure how that is being handled in the assessment process. He didn't see the 2.5 units per acre being used in the connection charge assessment as correlating with some of the other units included in this particular project. He noted Mr. McLaughlin has been assigned one unit; and he has 1.8 acres, which doesn't work out to 2.5 units/acre. He stated if the development is to a higher density, there will be additional connection charges to meet that, but will there will beæreduction if the development is less than 2.5 units/acre? Council replied there would not be. But they agreed the two houses should be excluded out of the assessment if they choose not to connection to municipal water. A connection charge and the equivalent of a city lot area charge should be taken out for each house. The Round Barn operation is presently not operating under the ordinances of the City, and the City has been lookin:g at what might reasonably be done for that operation. But it is something that needs to be resolved fairly soon. But if the property becomes commercially zoned, then the assessment would be higher than what is being proposed. Mr. ~1anns - understood that. The basic problem they have is arbitrarily assessing a connection charge on undeveloped, unplatted property when it is not known what the development will be. He said it will force development of an area that may not be ready for it. Council stated that is why the assessments are being deferred until 1987 and 1988. And on this particular property, the connection charges have actually been deferred since 1980 when the project was originally done. The water line is available to Mr. Adolfson, with the schedule construction of the trunk next spring. Mr. Manns - asked how large of an area will the 12-inch mains and water tower" going to serve. The Engineers noted the area served will be all of Districts 1 and 2, and reviewed the overall water service district to ultimately be three water towers and eight wells. And everyone who is served by the system will be paying for the system at the same rate. Mr. Manns - stated the City is building a facility to fulfill the needs that exist today but is also assessing and providing water to an area thatldoesn't need it. But other existing residential areas that need it are not being assessed. Council explained the facility is not sized for the existing residential areas at this time because of the City's position to not force municipal water on those who already have a legitimate water supplyffwomtheir private wells. However, should a residentiãl area wish to be served with municipal water, they would pay for the system at the same rate as the undeveloped being assessed now, which will pay for the additional storage and wells that will be needed to include them. Mr. Manns - questioned whether the economics of the situation can be shown there is a beneflt to this property relative to the assessment being assigned. On that basis, he served notice to the Clerk of Mr. Adolfson's objection to the assessments. Jerry Herber, Meadowcreek Baptist Church, 2937 Bunker Lake Boulevard - stated in 15 years they have had seven bUllding programs in their church and Chrlstian school and are continuing to expand the property. The arbitrary assessments of $49,OOO and $23,000 based on 2.5 units/acre for a church is an unfair way to determine the charges. Mr. Davidson stated for the assessment of both Crooked Lake School and Meadowcreek Baptist Church and school, the area is assessed the full area benefit; and the connection charges are based on the SAC units for the sanitary sewer at the time they connected. He stated he would have to check furthter whether the water connection also includes those SAC units added since the time of connection to the sewer. ~ Assessment Hearings October 7, 1985 - Minutes Page 5 (Aarea and Connection Charges, Water Districts 1 & 2, Continued) Mr. Davidson also thought the church has acquired some property from Mr. Adolfson, though they do not have a record of that transfer. Therefore, the assessment roll may reflect some assessment to Mr. Adolfson as fee owner of the property that may actually be owned by the church. Mr. Herber - stated there is a current contract for deed with Mr. Adòlfson that will be payable this year. Mr. Davidson stated the City should be given that in writing to effect the transfer of those assessments. Mr. Herber - asked how the $9,000 in assessments was arrived at. Mr. Davidson stated the area charge for the church, PIN 33 32 24 23 0004 was based on 3.98 acres with 400 feet of frontage and 26 connection charges based on SAC charges. The larger parcel, 33 32 24 23 0004 was based on 37.8 acres and 377.3 feet of frontage with no connection charges because it is assumed to be used for school purposes, not for development. It was noted that should the church ever develop the open property in any way, connection charges would be collected at the time of development. Jack Kuss, School District #11 - stated when the sanitary sewer was put in, their enrollment was much grëater at Crooked Lake than it is today. Are the connection charges based on the previous enrollment or that of today? Mr. Davidson stated they used the SAC charges at the time of connection; but if Mr. Kuss documented to the City that the enrollment is much less, that would be considered. John Peterson, Good Value Homes - asked if their assessment will increase with the change to Meadowcreek Baptist School. Council noted there was no change made to that assessment. The policy has remained not to assess connection charges to the property used for school purposes, but to assign connection charges to such schools;' on the basis of SAC charges. Mr. Peterson - asked about the construction schedule for the municipal water. Mr. Davldson stated the proposal is to construct the watermain along Bunker Lake Boulevard to the Olson property. It does not include the industrial area to the south. Mr. Peterson - understood that their industrial land was not going to be assessed. But they have 60 acres of industrial property, and 20 acres of it is included in Parcel 6000 which is being assessed on the rolls. He asked that the entire 60 acres, not just the 40, of the industrial property be excluded from the rolls at this time. Council stated the map before them, which includes the 20 acres of industrial property, has always been the one used and t~e·one'onwhich the decisions have been based. They didn't think it was the intentitoexclude the 20 acres in question from this assessment. This item was discussed later in the meeting. Mr. Peterson - stated they received a notice for a parcel of land that they do not own. Mr. Davidson acknowledged theerror, stating Parcel 33 32 34 42 0003 is owned by Mr. Go 11 i er. There is a home on the parcel, which fronts on Bunker Lake Boulevard. Most of the property is considered flood plain. It is not in the roll at this point because he was not notified by mistake. But the assessment policy would preclude him from having an assessment. The land, if divided, would be landlocked at this point. He felt it could be kept out of the rolls to be consistent with the City's policy. Scott White, with George Adolfson - asked about the two assessments -- the area charge and the connectlon charges. The Engineers explained the difference noting the 1987 and 1988 collection dates to give property owners time to develop prior to when the the assessments are due. Mr. Olson - understood construction in District 2 will not be done until next spring. Mr. Davldson stated that is correct. - ~ ~ Assessment Hearings October 7, 1985 - Minutes Page 6 (Area and Connection Charges, Water District 1 & 2, Continued) Mr. Olson - stated he has landlocked land also, Parcel 5430, just as the other parcel previously mentioned. Discussion noted the assessment is based on residential development, not commercial; so it would be adjusted upward as the property develops. Also, about 1~ acres which are conisdered wetland have been taken out for assessment purposes. Mr. Davidson noted an error in calculation, as Mr. Olson should be assessed for 6.2 acres. Council noted a portion of the land has been filled. Mr. Olson - stated he filled 100x100 feet. Council determined Roger Nutt's property would be assessed an area, frontage, and connection charge per his desire to connect to municipal water. It was further determined that the Bever property was subdividable, that the portion of the parcel with the house would not be assessed; but the other parcel would be assessed an area, frontage, and connection charge. The 8dolfson property would have the area and connection charges excluded against the two houses and a reduction of 160 feet of frontage. Council also agreed to leave the 20 acres of industrial property of Good Value Homes on the roll based on the map which included that area when ordering the proj ect. The Engineers noted the interest prior to certification to the county is part of the calculation used in the spreading of the roll and will acrue from the date of adoption. But the roll will not be taken to the county until 1986 and 1987 for collection in 1987 and 1988 respectfully. Also, it was pointed out the City is only deferring the payment of the assessments, not the assessment itself. Council recessed at this time to allow the Engineers time to calculate the changes agreed to this evening. 9:23; reconvened at 9:48 p.m. BUDGET MEETING MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we schedule a final budget hearing for October 22. Motion carried unanimously. AREA AND CONNECTION CHARGES, WATER DISTRICT 1 & 2, CONTINUED Mayor Windschitl read a letter for the record from Mrs. Fred Sonterre of her objection to the assessment. Mr. Davidson noted the changes in the roll. The Bever property, PIN 34 32 24 32 00001, the front footage assessment would be 104.4 feet instead of 208.8 feet. Secondly, PIN 34 32 24 32 0002, the area should be 6.5 acres instead of 7.5, and the connection charge would be 16 instead of 18. The Nutt property assessment would remain the same -- an area assessment and one connection charge. On the Adolfson property, PIN 32 32 24 14 0003 frontage would be reduced to 857 instead of 1082 and 97 connection charges instead of 98; and PIN 33 32 24 23 0001, frontage would be 162.7 in lieu of 302.7 feet, with connection charges changed from 37 to 36. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we amend the assessment roll for the Water Areas 1 and 2 as proposed of Bever, Olson, and Adolfson and that those same properties be modified as proposed by the City Engineer for water connection charges. ~lotion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to direct the City Clerk and City Attorney to JOlntly draft a Resolution for each of the assessment areas for water and connection charges to be available when we need it. Motion carried unanimously. (These assessment rolls were adopted on Tuesday, October 8, 1985) -~ 'Assement HearillÌgs October 7, 1985 - Minutes Page 7 PROJECT IP85-7, NORTHGLEN 5TH ADDITION MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution adopting the Assessment Roll for the improvement of watermain, sanitary sewer, streets, and storm drainage for Northglen 5th Addition (IP85-7) as prepared. (See Resolution R123-85) Motion carried unanimously. PROJECT IP84-12, HOWARD-TEMPLE ADDITION Council briefly discussed the feasibility report versus assessed costs with Mr. Howard on this project. Mr. Davidson reviewed the process followed in trying to get this job done, the rebidding process that took place, etc. The connection charges were added to the assessed project, although they were not added in the feasibility report. For assessment purposes, they assigned the three single-family lots each one unit and the four twin units three-fourths of a unit each. Mr. Howard - stated they were originally going to base the assessment on seven equal un its . Plus they are now adding the connection charges. Council was particularly uncomfortable with the increase in engineering, legal and administrative costs, as it is about 40 percent of the project costs. Mr. Davidson stated a concrete spillway and curb and gutter to the county road was added from the time of the feasibility report. And the delay, the fact thattit is a small project, redefining of the grades, and the rebidding of the project all added to the engineering costs. This item was talked about again later in the meeting. PROJECT IP85-5, WOODLAND TERRACE Mr. Davidson summarized the costs of the project, the development cost of $722,372 assessed against 76 single units, 54 multiple units, and 10 commercial units, for a unit cost of $5,160 for sanitary sewer, watermain, streets, storm sewers less the City's share for oversizing, the Anoka storm sewer assessment, and water connection charges. Mayor Windschitl asked why the assessment was sent out for $728,857. Mr. Schrantz explained the City's share was taken out of there, which reduces the actual assessment to $722,372. Curt Adams - explained they previously agreed with the City of Anoka for a storm drainage assessment of $32,000. It is their feeling that that covers their fair share of the storm sewer issue, asking that the additional $30,000 , placed on their assessment for storm sewer be reduced. He also explained the plat that was approved had two overlays, one for simgle family units and one for multiples. Mr. Carlson doesn't know which way he is going to develop that property at the moment. He felt it is unfair to assess for the higher number if in fact they decide to develop to a lower density. Mr. Adams asked that they be assessed for single family units at this time; and if in the future they decide to go with multiple housing, the additional connection charges can be assessed at that time. Sylvia Britton - explained the multiple areas have not yet been platted, that,they are shown as outlo'ts'on the final plat. She stated Mr. Carlson is fairly certain they will be developing townhouses, but he is very unsure about developing condominiums. Mr. Davidson stated the water and sewer lines were through the outlots in such a way that they could be developed as either multiples or single family units. Mr. Adams - stated there would be a difference of 22 units if the oulots were platted for slngle family versus condominiums. When those outlots are developed, Mr. Carlson would have to come in with another plat under one of those two proposals. - Assessment Hearings October 7, 1985 - Minutes Page 8 (IP85-5, Woodland Terrace, Continued) Mr. Davidson stated not knowing how Outlot A was going to be developed, it is being assessed on the basis that it would be 75 percent served, which is what the existing pipe would cover. There would be some more cost later to make all the lots serviceable. Any change to the number of units now would only affect the connection charges and would affect the distribution of costs. Ms. Britton - agreed with a redistribution of costs to have a higher assessment on the single family lots now rather than placing the burden on the multiples. The Engineers noted the only assessment against the outlots is utilities and streets in front of the outlots. When the internal portion of those lots is platted, it will be done as a separate project. Discussion was then on the storm sewer assessment. Mr. Adams - stated the storm sewer assessment was based on fair-share costs compared to Chapman's and other plats. But they have documented their costs have exceeded all other similiar developments, so they don't feel it is a fair share of the costs. Mr. Schrantz stated the assessment shown includes what is to be paid to the City of Anoka plus what was determined to be Andover's share to flow into the Chutich pond drainage system. Councilman Orttel noted the letter received from the developer argues they bought cfms into the pipe, not acreage; and that they are not exceed that cfm. And any assessment has been offset by the value of the land they have given to stop the flow.:l The land given was actually buildable and is more valuable to them as developable property. Councilman Orttel felt those were valid arguments for not assessing as much for Andover's portion of the assessment. Mr. Davidson stated in making the calculations for Andover's shar~of the storm sewer assessment, they recalculated the costs as if this property were included in the original project, dealing with the total volume, not the rate of flow. He agreed the variable in this case is the value of the land being donated for ponding in this project. Councilman Orttel summarized the developer's argument is they are paying to the City of Anoka, and Andover is also assessing about $47,000. They feel the land donated for ponding is worth that much, so why should they be paying it again. They are saying they handled the drainage on site and should be given credit for that Also, extra assessments are being paid to go around those ponds, which adds to the costs of the development, arguing that land is worth more than bare land. Mr. Adams - stated the land could have become buildable lots if they had not been tied to a restricted flow. Mr. Davidson explained the land value of the pond was calculated at $2,700/acre based on what was used for park purposes. The developer thinks it is worth more than that, and that is what the developer is contesting. After further discussion on the storm sewer assessment, a majority felt it was fair to base the value of the pond property to what was used for park dedication purposes. They did not feel two different land values could be used in each case. The Engineers then recommended the units be reduced to 107, which reduces the water connection charge to $96,300. The total development cost is then reduced to $692,672, which amounts to a cost/unit of $6,473. The unit reduction reflects taking out the units in Out lots A,and B. Counci I agreed. So did Mr. Adams and Ms. Britton. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution adopting the Assessment Roll for the improvement of watermain, satniary sewer, streets, and storm drainage, for Woodland Terrace (IP85-5) for certification. (See Resolution RI24-85) DISCUSSION: Councilman Orttel stated he doesn't agree with the $40,000 because the lots would have development costs of approximately $7,000. He felt there was a disparity there because of the assessment into the property. Each lot has a little larger assessment -~ ~ Assessment Hearings October 7, 1985 - Minutes Page g (IP85-5, Woodland Terrace, Continued) because those ponds in the development had to be worked around. He also argued that they should be allowed to flow into the pond because the rate of flow remains the same and the share for increased volume is being paid to Anoka. Those costs are over and above the purchase price. But he felt the motion should be voted on and possibly the issue raised again. Councilman Knight stated he wasn't happy with the situation and agreed to the certification with the understanding that this be discussed again. Councilman Lachinski felt the Council should either vote on this and make the decision or come up with another solution, noting the roll must be certified by October 10. He didn't have a good reason or justification for lowering the storm drainage assessment at this time. He felt there may be a reason to look at this again if it can be proved this development is paying considerably more for storm drainage than the other developments draining into this system. Mayor Windschitl didn't think it was proper to allow this development to drain into the ponds created in another project for free. He felt this development had to pay its share, which the assessment attempts to do. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Windschitl; NO-Orttel Motion carried. (Councilman Knight left the meeting at this time. 11:20 p.m.) IP84-12/HOWARD-TEMPLE ADDITION, CONTINUED Mayor Windschitl was concerned that at this late date the Council is first being informed of the inordinately high engineering, legal and administrative costs. Mr. Davidson stated the engineering costs, about $10,000 in this project, were higher than estimated in the feasibility report because the project was rebid, because of the many inspections that had to be made on the project, because of some problems with the contractor, and because it is a smaller project that could not be tied into any other. Councilman Lachinski thought that even though the engineer is high, the overall cost per unit looks reasonable. Further discussion noted there is only 270 feet of street, that there was a lot of high water in the project, that the assessment can be divided among the seven lots for amount of $6,612 each, and that the sewer connection charges can also be taken off the assessment roll and collected at the time the building permits are pulled. Mr. Howard - stated it would be preferable to charge the seven lots equally and to take the connection charge off the roll. Mr. Davidson stated the assessment per lot would then be $6,065. Discussion continued on just what happened to run up such a large engineering bill and ways to prevent it in the future, though it was felt at this point there is nothing that can be done in this project. TKDA was asked to provide a breakdown of where the engineering costs were incurred on this project. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, to adopt a Resolution adopting the Assessment Roll for the improvement of sanitary sewer, street, and storm drainage for Howard- Temple Addition (IP84-12) for certification. (See Resolution R125-85) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Knight) vote. Due to the late hour, it was agreed to table those. items on the Special Meeting Agenda. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1- Absent (Knight) vote. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. \'\~,spectfu,lIY submitted, ~ ) Il~~_~ ~\ {~ Marcella A. Peach - Recording Secretary ~ ~ ---