Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP June 27, 1989 ..~ CITY of ANDOVER Special City Council Meeting - June 27, 1989 7:30 P.M. Call to Order 1. Red Oaks/Kensington Storm Drainage 2. Oak Wilt/Disease Program 3. 4 . Adjournment -,-,.- tCA CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304· (612) 755-5100 .. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 27, 1989 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jim Elling on June 27, 1989; 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Orttel, Pe~rY , Councilmen absent: Knight Also present: TKDA Engineer, John Davidson; CIty Admlnistrator/ Engineer, James Schrantz; Jer.y Windschitl and Jack McKelvey AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Elling noted the information fo~ Item 2, Oak Wilt/Disease Program is not ready, recommending the item be deleted. He asked that Item 3 be added, Tax Increment Financing District. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Per~y, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. RED OAKS/KENSINGTON STORM DRAINAGE Mr. Schrantz stated Mr. Davidson met with Mr. Windschitl about the concerns over the storm drainage proJect in the Crosstown Boulevard/ South Coon Creek Drive/Kensington Estates area. He stated in all the years he's been with the City, he has never done an improvement project without some assessments except for the State Aid proJects. That policy was adopted In 1982. However, In most of the State Aid proJects, there has only been minor drainage done which was eligible for State Aid. Most projects Just let the drainage run off to the sides. Mr. Windschitl noted there are some changes on the map showing the drainage area In that almost all of the water east of Crosstown Boulevard drains to the east. Only approximately 300 feet from the street drains toward Crosstown. Mr. Davidson reviewed past events, noting drainage has always been a part of the platting process of Kensington Estates. Of all the alternatives available for storm drainage, the least costly proposal was done. Rather than require Kensington Estates to construct a pond for storm water, Mr. Windschltl obtained easements through the Slyzuk property to drain the southern portion of the plat. The storm sewer was eliminated from 141st to South Coon Creek Drive, and additional backup points at South Coon Creek Drive were put In. The storm sewer was actually reduced In area from the original plan when the pipe was taken out. ---- -. Special City Council Meeting June 27, 1989 - Minutes Page 2 (Red Oaks/Kensington Storm Drainage, Continued) Mr. Wlndschltl stated he negotiated with and paid for two outlets into the Slyzuk ditch. The City has a maintenance agreement on them. Mr. Davidson stated there was no storm drainage In the second phase of Kensington Estates as It surface drains out to South Coon Creek Drive. South Coon Creek DrIve was in the process of being done as an MSA road; and because It was only about $3,000 worth of storm drainage, they did not apply for MSA funding for that storm sewer. The overall t~lbutary area to the storm drainage basin was also lessened in the 3~d, 4th, and 5th Additions of Kensington Estates as a result of street grade changes. Mr. Davidson explained they met with the county regarding their contribution to the storm drainage costs, and he got the impression they are quite firm In not contributing any more than the $53,060 agreed to under the terms of the contract. He also reviewed Mr. Rodeberg's calculations of the cost of the storm sewer system if the county had done Crosstown Boulevard by itself. It comes to about $30,000 more than what the county is reimbursing under the cooperative agreement. The total cost of Just a county storm drainage system would be $83,090. Again, it was his opinion that the county Is firm on not contributing any more to the system than the $53,060. Mr. Davidson stated the method of payments always included assessing a portion of the storm sewer system. When that area was assessed, the storm sewer was left out because they were undecided. He also pointed out the proposals that were brought before the Council previously on possible scenarios for assessing those costs. Mayor EllIng noted the point Is whether Kensington Estates should be assessed for storm sewer costs for work that was done in conjunctIon with Crosstown Boulevard. There was increased capacIty In the storm sewer pipe because of the Kensington Estates development. Under the MSA policy, the City has not assessed for these costs. However, in this instance, the basin goes beyond the lots abutting the road. Mr. DavIdson pointed out othe~ Instances where storm sewer was assessed such as Round Lake Boulevard when Chapman's Addition was done, though the City picked up a portion of It because it was so expensive. When Northglen came in, Good Value Homes negotiated directly with the county to participate in the county storm sewer proJect, and the county oversized the pipe to accommodate Northglen and the remaining tributary area. Councilmember Orttel stated the difference is they were not State Aid proJects. Normally only a certain amount of storm drainage is put in wIth the road In State Aid projects. Here the system was specifIcally designed to handle the entire basin. Mr. Schrantz stated normally if it is found storm sewer costs are not eligible for MSA funds, they change the storm sewer design to meet their standards. Special City Council Meeting June 27, 1989 - Minutes Page 3 (Red Oaks/Kensington Storm Drainage, Continued) Councilmember Orttel didn't think anyone was aware that the overslzing was for areas such as Shady Knoll, The Oaks, etc., or that there was a potential for assessment. Mr. Schrantz stated they were part of the original proJect, feeling storm sewer costs have been talked about from the beginning. They are part of the orIginal feasIbility report. Mr. Davidson said the drainage area was decided at the time of the public hearing. Mayor Elling also didn't think anyone was aware of potential storm sewer assessments for Shady Knoll. Those parcels have alreadY received a huge assessment, questionIng how much they can legally be assessed. Mr. Wlndschlt1 stated if the Council is talking about the draInage area, there are 22 parcels other than himself -- 6 in Shady Knoll, 7 In Woodrldge Acres, 8 in The Oaks, and 4 on Crosstown. He doubted If any of the other parcels had any idea that they would be getting another assessment. But If there Is an assessment, he felt everyone should be treated equally, not just assess the developer. Councilmember Orttel thought the lots in Shady Knoll were assessed on a unit basis, which means they have already paid for some storm sewer. He questioned whether it is legal to go back and assess them again. Mr. Windschitl stated the Council chose to waive the assessments for storm sewer on Crosstown Boulevard between 140th and 139th. That was a total cost of $29,000. Had it been assessed, it would have been $1,700 per lot, but the City absorbed that. In this northern portion of the proJect, the total cost was $116,630. It has been determined that if the county had done the proJect on its own, the cost would have been $76,936, times a multlpler if 22 percent, for a total of $94,862 attributable to the county MSA road. That $94,862 has nothing to do with the residents in the area. The difference between the total cost and the amount attributable to the county Is $21,868, which is the amount that can actually be attributed to the overslzlng of the pipe. If the Counc II chooses to assess that, it Is less money than what was forgiven between 139th and 140th. Discussion was then on the t~ibutary area, with Mr. Wlndschltl argu I ng the oversizing was done for all of the tributary area, not Just the plat. Mr. Davidson explained the overslzlng was designed to accommodate the entire district as residential development, so it didn't matter whether the development occurred at the same time or at some time In the future. If there Is going to be an assessment, he stated a public hearing would have to be held Just like any other improvmeent. Mr. Wlndschitl stated theLe aLe no dLalnage easements In KensIngton Estates. There are three positive outlets for the plat in existence now. It drains to Crosstown because of the catch basins. Special City Council Meeting June 27, 1989 - Minutes Page 4 (Red Oaks/Kensington Storm Drainage, Continued) Mayor Elling was concerned about treating all developers alike, and any other developer would have had to provide ponding or arrange for other drainage in the plat. Discussion returned to the cost of the storm drainage project and Mr. Windschltl's argument that if the drainage area is to be assessed anything, it should only be the $21,868 figure. Mr. Windschitl stated the figure of $53,060 that the county has agreed to pay doesn't relate to anything. The overa II contract was $1.2 million, and how those numbers are backed out is Irrelevant. Mr. Davidson agreed that the $21,868 figure Is what It would have cost the City If I t had bought into the storm sewer system after the fact. Counc II noted if they agreed to an assessment of $21,868 fOr this project, the City would have to pick up approximately $71,000 for storm drainage along Crosstown Boulevard -- $29,000 from the southern portion between 140th and 139th which has already been waived and about $42,000 for the area north of 140th. Mr. Davidson stated the storm sewer costs were included in the bond, so the Council could consider part of the storm sewer as part of the renovation costs. Councilmember Jacobson didn't think the people should be penalized by what the contract with the county says, referring to the 8 percent adminIstrative costs they pay versus the 22 percent actual costs. There was further dIscussion on the project itself. Councilmember Orttel stated because Crosstown Boulevard was lowered so much, there are areas north of South Coon Creek Drive that drain to It that didn't before. He questioned if any construction of the system was actually done to drain The Oaks. Their drainage went over land before, and It st III does, questioning how thIs proJect improves those lots. Councilmember Jacobson then felt It would be equitable to waIve $41,800 on this northern portion of project Just as the $29,000 was not assessed on the southern portion. He felt that would be consistent with what has been done in the past. The remaining $21,868 amounts to about $1,000 an acre, or 2.5 cents per square foot. Councilmember Orttel noted the City has no policy relating to county roads. It Is clear some improvements were made beyond what would have been required for the street, having the impression they were made for the development, not for the existing homes. In the past, the City has never assessed existing residents for development improvements -- they never go outside the development to assess. He felt that was Justification for only assessing that portion of Kensington Estates in the storm drainage basin. He also argued the policy is not to assess for MSA streets, which must be applIed equally. Special City Council Meeting June 27, 1989 - Minutes Page 5 (Red Oaks/Kensington Storm Drainage, Continued) Councilmembe~ Jacobson stated if the $21,868 was equated to a square- foot cost and the 150-foot setback from Crosstown Boulevard was removed from consideration along with all existing homes, the cost to the developer for the oversizing of the pipe, or the buying Into the storm sewer system, for Kensington Estates would only be around $16,000 to $18,000. Mr. Windschltl expressed frustration that the Council is talking about exempting everyone In the draInage area except his plat, stating the entIre drainage district uses that pipe. The Council argued that would be consIstent with what has been done In the past, that existIng development outside the new platted area is not assessed for sto~m drainage resulting f~om the new development, and that all developers be treated the same. Mr. Davidson noted if they had applied for State Aid participation, it would have only been for that little piece on South Coon Creek Drive; and Mr. Windschitl would have paid for the oversizlng to drain to Coon Creek. Further discussion was on the procedure to assess the project since the public hearing had been wlaved by the developer, some thinkIng the 429 procedure must be initiated to do so. It was agreed to ask the City Attorney to give an opinion as to the City's intent and on the procedure. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, that the Andover Council submit the following to legal counsel for his official comments as to its legality: that the CouncIl is considering assessIng the trunk storm water within the area on the attached map, basically known as Red Oaks/Kensington Estates Storm Drainage area; and the Council is considerIng taking the cost of the project, whIch Is $116,730, and deducting from that the amount the county will pay of $53,000, leaving a total of $63,730; of that $63.730, the Council is considering forgiving $41,868 and assessing $21,868 to the property owners within the borders on the attached map. CouncIl also is considerIng not assessing the parcels which had homes constructed on them at the time that the project was initiated, considering that to be consistent with CouncIl policy back in 1988 which exempted abutting property owners In the area to the south of thIs project on Crosstown Boulevard. Ask legal counsel, because of the project, whether we need to hold a public hearing to do that. Motion carried unanimously. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Mayor Elling revIewed the June 26 memorandum from John Davidson on a proposal to use TIF funds In the commercial area between Jay Street and Hanson Boulevard. A proposal was the TIF funds would be used for one-half of the frontage road and to construct Commercial Boulevard. Another option would be to defer connectIon charges untIl development OCCUrs. Special City Council Meeting June 27, 1989 - Minutes Page 6 <Tax Increment Financing District, ContInued) Mayor Elling also asked for authorization to have Burke & Hawkins review, analyze, and update the Tax Increment Financing District funding at a cost not to exceed $1,500. When the TIF DistrIct was originally set up, many assumptions were made on where and when development would be. Now It needs to be analyzed on what has taken place wIth assumptions now made on that information. FInally, the Mayor asked for the CouncIl's opinIon to authorIze TKDA to come back with a revised proposal on assessments for the area In question using TIF funds for the roads and deferring the connection charges. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Orttel, to authorize Burke & Hawkins up to $1,500 for evaluating and updating the TIF Fund. DISCUSSION: Councllmember Orttel was not in agreement with the proposed TIF concept at first glance, suggesting the Economic Development Committee be asked to gIve a recommendation on how the TIF funds should be used in this area. Councilmembers Jacobson and Perry also were not willing to make a decision on the proposed use of TIF funds for the proJect, wanting to wait until the updating of the fund is completed by Burke & Hawkins. Bill Hawkins, City Attorney, arrived and briefly explained why the financing for the TIF District needs to be updated and how it would be done. Using accurate data. they will be able to determine expected income minus commitments already made for the use of the funds. He thought it would be completed within three to four weeks. Motion carried unanimously. Council agreed to place the item on a Council agenda as soon as the update is completed. MOTION by Jacobson to adJourn. Motion carried unanimously. MeetIng adJourned at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully submItted, i~ -~ l ' "~: "- . . \\~\J\t.~ L.-_ Iv\.. ~¿( l., Ma~~lla A. Peach Recording Secretary