Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAH September 17, 1987 CITY of ANDOVER ASSESSMENT HEARINGS SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 AGENDA l. Call to Order 2. Project 87-3jWater Trunk, Source, Storage & Sanitary Sewer Trunk 3. Project 86-16jRed Oaks Pond Storm Drainage 4. Project 86-17jCrosstown Boulevard Water 5. Project 86-19jDehn's Pond 6. Project 87-20jMisc. Water Connections 7. Project 86-26jSuperamerica Watermain 8. 9. Adjournment ~-"'- , ' - -<'"..., IrA" CITY of ANDOVER \ I' 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304· (612) 755-5100 ."/ 't,... ~'~~J'-:;9{'" ASSESSMENT HEARINGS - SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 MINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, Assessment Hearings were cal led to order by Acting Mayor Ken Orttel on September 17, 1987, 7:30 p.m.. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover-, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Apel, Ell ing, Knight Absent: Mayor Windschitl did not participate in the firsts three Assessment Hearings, IP87-3. 86-16, and 86-17; however, he chaired the meeting for the remaining three Assessment Hearings. IP 86-19, 18-20. and 86-26) Also present: TKDA Engineers John Davidson and John Rodeberg; City C1erk, Vicki Volk; City Administrator. James Schrantz; and others PROJECT 87-3/WATER TRUNK. SOURCE. STORAGE & SANITARY SEWER TRUNK Mr. Davidson explained the assessments are the area benefits for sewer and water. This relates to the depth and oversizing of the sanitary sewer trunk to serve the entire urban service district and the trunk, we! Is. pumphouses, and storage tanks for the water system. The amounts are assessed on a fixed per-acre charge which is adjusted annua I I Y . Me. Davidson also explained the ability to pay the entire assessment wi thout interest within 30 days or to allow it to go on the tax rol1 and paid in equal payments over a 15-year period at 7.35 percent inter-est. Property owners also have the right to payoff the ba1ance of the assessment at any time but with one year's Interest. Me. Rodeberg then reviewed maps indicating the location of the sewer and water trunk lines and the benefitting areas. He also explained the trunk area charges for sanitary sewer of $831 per acre and watermain of $885 per acre. The projects included in this hearing are IP 85-8B, 86-3, 87-3A, 87-3B. 87-3C, . 87-10, and 87-11 wi th total projects costs amounting to approximately $3.6 million. The tota1 of the area assessments through this hearing are approximately $1.5 mi II ion. The deficit wil 1 be made up under future area assessments. The hearing was then opened to pub1ic testimony. FrancIs WInQert - asked why an acreage charge is being levied when the frontage benefit and number of hookups are the critical element. He is assessed for 2 acres of benefit, but he questioned what the acreage charges have to do with benefits. He didn't think that seemed logical. Assessment Hearings September lì, 1987 - MInutes Page 2 (Project 87-3, Con t i nued) Acting Mayor Orttel explained this assessment relates only to the trunk which is to serve the entire urban ser-vice area. That cost is based on the size of the lot, which is felt to be the fairest way to assess those costs. Further discussion noted Mr. Wingert wi 11 also receive a front-footage charge and a connection charge when he hooks up to the system. That pays for the actua1 service to his pr-operty. t·1r. Winoert - sti II fe It i t relates back to the usage and not how much land one owns. He didn't feel he gets any more benfit on his tHO acres than others do for either larger or sma! ler parcels. Acting Mayor Ortte I then read a letter of objection to the assessment from RIchard C. Erickson, 14610 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Me. Rodeberg stated t1r. Erickson was not assessed for the area in the flood p]ain, only for that which is now In the Kensington Estates plat. It was generally fe] t that is a question of whether Mr. Erickson or the Kensington Estates plat should be charged the assessment. Mr-. LJù Ii ¡ U:';UJ I ,).~~C'c..;u Lü r."L;:.;edLc;Ì1 Llta L further to be sure the assessment is accurate. Acting Mayor Orttel then read a letter of obj ec ti on to the assessment from John Peterson, Good Value Homes, for assessments to the Hidden Creek East Addition because they are unable to develop a substantial part of the land due to a pollution problem. Me. Davidson stated the pollutIon prob]em has not been addressed yet. Mr. Rodeberg r-eviewed the status of the MPCA's progress to date. He didn't fee] there would be a repor-t from the MPCA on this item unti 1 after the certification date for the assessments. They believe only a portion of the Hidden Creek East Addition will be unbui Idable, but the exact amount is not yet known. Counc i I agreed to defer the assessment to Hidden Creek unti I mor-e information is known on the pollution issue, and to delete those parcels from the assessment roll. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by El ling, that we defer assessing on Hidden Creek East to Good Value Homes until such time as the MPCA wi]] furnish us HI th infor-mation as to what portion of that land is usab]e or uncontaminated. Motion carried on a 4-Yes vote. MOTION by El]ing, Seconded by Ape], introducing a Resolution adopting the assessment r01 ] for the improvement of watermain, sour-ce and stor-age. and sanitary sewer trunk for Project No. 87-3 for certification as presented, noting the two objections, one from RIchard C. ErIckson as previously read into the minutes and the deferment from the assessment roll at this time of Good Value Homes un t i I MPCA has determined what is the assessable or developable portion of that parce 1 . (See Resolution R187-87) Motion carried on a 4-¥es vote. Assessment Hearings September 17, 1987 - Minutes Page 3 PROJECT 86-16/RED OAKS POND STORM DRAINAGE Mr. Rodeberg reviewed a map outlining the Red Oaks ponds storm drainage project and a map of the assessment area. The project is being assessed at 2.2 cents per square foot. Approximately 80 percent of the actual construction costs are being assessed at this time. The remainder wi I I be picked up by trunk charges and assessments to other properties in the area. One resident questioned why I t is necessary to drain those ponds. t1e. Rodeberg expla]ned the project wi]] not drain the ponds but wI] I provide an outlet in an emergency and in high-water periods. The elevations of the ponds were set by the DNR because they are protected wetlands. The elevation of the east pond ls 882; the west pond Is 876.5. Another gentleman from Xavis Street stated he measured the water level to the top of the drain. If the water did come up that high, i t wou 1 d be about 35 feet into his yard. He questioned why he is required by pay an assessment for something that doesn't work. Me. Rodeberg explained the drain provides an outlet so it won't get any higher, repeating the elevations were set by the m'R. It is not expected the out]et would be used under norma] circumstances, on]y as an emergency out 1 et. Me. Davidson reported on the intent to acquire right of way through that area for the extention of Verdin to Crosstown. That wi I] allow the City to maintain the water ]evel on the other side of that roadway. It is not intended to be a duck pond, but it wi 11 faci] i tate other wild]ife. There was then a brief discussion with residents present on the proposed Verdin extension to Crosstown as to its need and what the proposa] consists of. Acting Mayor Orttel then read a Jetter into the record from Gi lbert ~1enkveld. the Menkveld Company, Box 447, Anoka, ~1J nnesota, objecting to the proposed assessment on Project 86-16. The engineers indicated the wetlands on Mr. Menkve]d's property Here not included in the assessment. They also noted it is expected the Interna] storm water system in his plat would out]et to this system and the lots in that p]at wi II have paid the same as everyone e]se in the area for area benefit. Mr. Rodeberg also ciarifled the northern half of the 40 abu t ti ng the 1 andf III was not assessed at this time because I t is not known Hhat wIll happen to that property. !10TION by Ell ing, Seconded by Ape], a Reso]ution adopting the assessment roll for the Improvement of storm drainage for Improvement Project 86-16 for certification as presented. (See Resolution R188-87) MotIon carried on a 4-Yes vote. Counc i I recessed at 8: 15: reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Assessment Hearings September 17, 1987 - Minutes Page 4 PROJECT 86-17/CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD WATER Mr. Schrantz explained the project was petitioned for by residents iiving along Crosstown Boulevard to connect to municipal water. It is a 5-year assessment as requested by the petitioners. At the request of a resident, t1r . Schrantz also explained the policy for payment of the assessments. NOTION by Apel, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution adopting the assessment ro] I for the improvement of watermain, trunk source and storage and lateral for Crosstown Boulevard (86-17) for certification. (See Reso]ution R189-87) Motion carried on a 4-Yes vote. PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT REQUEST/HAWK RIDGE PARK Park and Recreation Department Chairman Marc McMul Jen explained they had set aside $24,000 in park dedication funds to grade and seed Hawk Ridge park. He reviewed the proposed sketch for the improvement of the park as prepared by Mr. Haas, noting the suggestion of uti]izing the picnic shelter as a warming house in the winter. The two bids received were $14,600 from North Pine Aggregate and $15,432.30 from Burt Kraab]e for level ing the playing fields. The recommendation from the Park Board is to approve the low bid so it can be completed yet this fall. MOTIOn by E] J ing, Seconded by Apel, that we authorize the Park Board to hire North Pine Aggregate for the completion of Hawk Ridge park. DISCUSSION: Councilman Knight questioned whether any decision for improving this park should be made until after Schoo] District 15 decides Hhere it wi 11 site the new elementary school. That decision is expected after the October 27 bond ejection. Counc i ] discussed some of the options the school district is considering for sites and the effect on the Hawk Ridge park i f the propecty just to the north of the park is chosen for that site. Councilmen Apel and El ling WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. Because it \-las felt the bids ace so favorable, Chairman McMu] len Has asked to contact the biddecs to see i f they would hold the bid unti] November or as late thIs year as possible. PROJECT 86-19/DEHN'S POND Mayor Windschitl cal led the assessment hearing for Project 86-19 to order at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Rodeberg reviewed the map out I ining the drainage project and the map of benefitting areas. The rate was 1.5 cents per square foot for the area above the 100-year flood. The Assessment Hearings September 17, 1987 - Minutes Page 5 <Project 86-19/Dehn's Pond, Continued) total assessment is approximately $67,000, but the total of the project cost is approximately $186,000. The City's share of approximately $120,000 wi]] be picked up by previous assessments from the surrounding area. Also, Good Value Homes wil I be constructing a portion of the project as part of their costs. Rosella Sonstebv - stated she is appealing a] 1 of her assessments, claiming her ] and is being used as a swamp for all of these areas, yet she is being assessed. She also showed a map of Shirley's Estates "h i ch she felt shows the water doesn't even run south. Me. Rodeberg explained the assessments for Shirley's Estates are for the front 45 feet of the lots, which is from the house pad toward the street. He thought that same map was used to determine the drainage for Shirley's Estates. t1s. Sonstebv - disputed that even that much water ran south, as she fe]t none of the water from those lots contributed to the drainage of this project. Mr. Rodeberg stated legal I y the portion of the lot has to be 1 1/2 feet higher than the street, so that portion of the lot would drain toward the street. The purpose was only to assess that portion of the lot which drains toward the street. t1s. Sonstebv - again claimed no lot slopes toward the street, yet each Jot is being assessed $210 for drainage, which she fe]t is ridiculous. She also explained the grading done in that area so the water all drains to the back. Mayor Windschitl asked that the engineers make an on-site inspection to determine the drainage of those lots in Shirley's Estates. Ms. Sonstebv - then read the letter written to the Counci I expJaining her reasons for opposing the assessment on her other Jand. She feJ t the Johnson and Dehn Addition are al I draining to her land and her ]and has become a drainage area. She stated she had ponds and ditches on her property to take care of excess water; but then, she claimed, the drainage was diverted from Good Value Home's developments and from across Round Lake Boulevard. She didn't feel she shou J d be assessed for any of this because of all the drainage from the various areas draining onto her land. Ms. Sonsteby stated she had made accommodations with ponds and ditches to take care of her own drainage. Counci lman El ling asked Ms. Sonsteby about the written objection from Shirley McDonald. Ms. Sonstebv - stated that is her daughter, who gave her permission to Hrite and sign a letter of objection to the assessment on Lot 1 , Block 1 , in Shirley's Estates Assessment Hearings September 17. 1987 - Minutes Page 6 (Project 86-19/Dehn's Pond, Continued) Mayor Windschit1 noted the letter of objection on the assessment procedure from John Bai1ey. Mr. Bai ]ev - understood the project was to keep the level of Round Lake I eve I. feel ing such a project should be paid for by the entire Ci ty. Mayor Windschitl explained the project, noti ng its intent to control the elevation of the water in that area by outletting i t through a pipe in the City of Anoka, and is not an attempt to control Round Lake. The water level was set by the DNR, and there wi 1 1 be water permanently standing in the area. He also noted the policy of assessing only benefitting properties. ~1r . Davidson also noted the project was to contro] the existing wetland, not for acquisition of ponding area, and he reviewed the events leading to the ordering of the project. Ms. Sonstebv - reviewed her position of water being diverted from across Round Lake Boulevard and the condemnation by the County of 24 acres from her in mitigation for 4.1 acres of wetland for the Co. 116 roadway. She stated the intent is to put a birm around the pond being acquired and hold the water at 867 feet, which is 1.5 feet above Round Lake and which she cou]dn't understand. But on top of a II that, she Is being assessed for drainage when she already has ditches on her property to take care of her storm water. Pius she felt over 100 acres of her land Is being pol luted with drainage water and the pipe isn't ] ow enough to drain her land to where it used to be. Mayor Windschitl noted the height was set by the DNR Ms. Sonstebv - realized that, but wi th all the diverted drainage, her land is being used as a reservoir for all the other land around. She didn't think the water wi II ever go out the pipe to Anoka un]ess there is a 100-year storm. The DNR didn't look at what it used to be; they looked at how it is today. She stated she didn't feel she shou 1 d be assessed for anything because her land takes care of her stocm water. Mr. Schrantz noted the letter from the County Auditor regarding the parce] that appears to be tax forfeit. lL i", LuL 1 , JJJüc.;k ~, ill Johnson's Oakmount Terrace. Counc i 1 questioned why it wasn't on the list received ear]ier this year and asked that that be checked further. MOT I O1J by Kn i gh t , Seconded by E]ling, a ResolutIon adopting the assessmen t ro I I for the improvement of storm drainage for Dehn's Pond (IP 1Jo. 86-19) for certification. (See Resolution R190-87) Mot i on carried on a 5-Yes vote. Counci I then discussed the storm water agreement with the City of Anoka, noting the September 15, 1987, letter from Michael J. Scott, Assistant Anoka City Attorney. That letter agreed to inc1ude al1 Assessment Hearings September 17, 1987 - Minutes Page 7 (Project 86-19/Dehn's Pond, Continued) areas of the drainage area in the Storm Drainage Agreement except area number 9. Mayor Windschitl stated at the meeting with Anoka city representatives, it was clear]y understood that al] areas would be included. It was determined that area 9 is generally the Chapman's Addition, the Lurtheran Church, the business area between Chapman's and Bunker Lake Boulevard, and Woodland Terrace area, which is basically fully deve]oped. Plus Lary Carlson paid the City of Anoka directly to be al lowed to drain to the Chutich pond and ultimately through the Anoka system. And the drainage pipe for that area has been in the ground for about 11 years. Discussion was how to resolve the situation. It was agreed Mr. Schrantz shou]d discuss this with the City of Anoka one more time, explaining the area is fully developed and that drainage from that area wi] 1 be no di fferen t than what it has been. PROJECT 87-20/MISCELLANEOUS WATER CONNECTIONS Mayor Windschit] cal led the assessment hearing for Project 87-20 to order at 9:40 p.m. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by El ling, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Improvement of watermaln, trunk source and storage and lateral, also, sanitary sewer, trunk, and Jateral for miscel ]aneous water connections (IP NO. 87-20) (See Resolution RI91-87) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Present (Orttel) vote. Counc i I recessed at 9:43; reconvened at 10:05 p.m. PROJECT 86-26/SUPERAMERICA WATERMAIN Counc i 1 noted the written objection from Local Oi I Company of Anoka, Inc. , protesting the proposed assessment charges. MOTION by Ortte], Seconded by Knight, a Resolution adopting the assessmen t ro II for the improvement of watermain, trunk, source and storage and ]ateral for Super America watermain (IP NO. 86-26) for certification. (See Resolution RI92-87) Motion carried on a 5-Yes vote. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Apel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m.