Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP January 10, 1990 .i'.','·~'·' ','·',',i CITY of ANDOVER " .L " " " ;i Special City Council Meeting , ~ January 10. 1990 7:30 P.M. Call to Order 1. Assessment Hearing/87-3B & 88-1 2. 3. Adjourn - ~ --. .- - ..' . ,'" ,". /~. CITY of ANDOVER .L 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 CITY COUNCIL ASSESSMEMT HEARINGS - JANUARY 10, 1990 MINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, Assessment Hearings by the Andover City Council were ca]]ed to order by Mayor Jim EIJing on Januar'Y 10. 1990. 7:30 p.m.. at at the Andover' City HaIJ. 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover. Minnesota. to consider the assessments for Projects 87-3B and 88-1. Councl]men present: Jacobson, Knight. Orttel. Perry Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, WIIJiam G. Hawkins: TKDA Engineers, John DavIdson. John Rodeber'g. and Rick Odland: City Administrator, James Schrantz: and interested residents AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Elling suggested the addition of Item 2, Landfill Siting Appointment, to the Agenda. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. ASSESSMENT HEARINGS/87-3B AND 88-1 Mr. Rodeberg reviewed the storm sewer costs for both projects. The total project cost is $186.055. After subtracing the county's share of $97.659.06 and $19.875.32 for the City's share. the total cost to be assessed is $68.520.62. That amounts to $1.340.13/acre for the 51.13 acres in the project. or $1.0308/square foot, which Mr. Rodeberg noted is less than the aVerage of the other developments In the City. Jerry Wlndschitl. 3640 152nd Lane. developer' of Kenslnoton Estates - addressed the issue of combining the two projects. He felt it is Inappropriate to combine the two projects since they wer'e bid separately and done in different years. By combining the two, the IP87-3B area ends up paying $4.892 worth of the cost of IP88-1. He presented a handout showing that the cost to IP87-3B using the engineer's figures should be $1.229.90/acre. not the $1.340.13/acre presented. Mr. Wlndschitl stated Andover has had a long history of assessing projects for their actual costs. and he didn't feel IP87-3B shou]d be supplementing IP88-1. which is the effect of combining the two. The people In IP87-3B have received zero benefit from IP88-1 and should not have to pay for part of that project. Mr'. Rodeberg saId It amounts to a dlffer'ence of about $50 per' lot. noting the CounciJ had asked that the two be combined and treated equa 1 I y. He also explained that the costs are higher for IP88-1 because it is a smaller area and there is a Jot of pipe. This change wouJd be a substantial Increase to that assessment. , -- ----.- - - Assessment Hearings January 10, 1990 - Minutes Page 2 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) Ken Nystrom. 2245 South Coon Creek Drive - stated those in Shady Knoll paid for their project, and how he Is being asked to pay in this project. He stated he has already paid on one side and doesn't want to pay again. Mayor E]ling believed the assessment in Shady Knol] was for lateral storm sewer down Thrush Street and South Coon Creek Drive: this is for the trunk storm sewer on the Crosstown Boulevard portion down to Coon Creek. Mr. Rodeberg explained onlY a portion of Shady Knoll is in this drainage basin and is being assessed now: the remainder of Shady Knol I doesn't pay because they drain west to the pond. Mr. Nvstrom - stated he was to]d the costs when they voted on the project for Shady KnoJ J. but now the City is asking for more money. It he had been asked about this cost to begin with, it probabJy wouldn't be a prob]em. One neighbor is being assessed for his whole acreage. yet about 60 percent of it goes in the other direction. He complained that he thought he had already paid all the assessments, feel ing he was mislead by the Counci 1 at the first hearing. Here It is 2 1/2 to 3 years later. the City wants more money, and he didn't even get to vote on this project, asking how many more times the City wil] come back for more money. Counc i I and the Engineers discussed what the prevIous storm sewer assessment for Shady Kno I 1 included. Councllmember Orttel suggested if substantia] grading and shaping was done to the pond on the west to hold the storm sewer for Shady KnoJJ. then the assessment was really for trunk storm sewer. Since that cost was assessed equalJy against all properties. he felt Mr, Nystrom's point that they have already paid for trunk is val id. Then those properties cannot be assessed again for trunk storm sewer. Mr. Rodeberg stated part of the costs were for pipe and part tor ponding, and ail storm sewer costs were assessed equally against the properties. Counc i I asked the Engineers to look into it again: because if those in Shady Knoll were assessed for pondlng, they cannot be assessed a storm sewer trunk charge now. Attorney Hawkins stated some correction would have to be made to the assessments for those lots. Mr. Rodeberg SUggested the area in this project should be credited for the ponding costs. No specific method of correction was agreed upon by the Counci 1. Frank Burdick. 2253 South Coon Creek Drive - In pacing his lot, there are only about 25 steps' worth of his Jot that drains Into this trunk line. The majority of his water goes to the back of his lot and ponds. Yet he is being assessed $825. Mr. Rodeberg noted the boundary was taken from the topography maps. He agreed to view the Jot and determine what area actua] Jy contributes to this project. -- - . Assessment Hearings January 10, 1990 - Minutes Page 3 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) Mr. Burdick - pointed out he purchased his house just one year ago, and the contract stated no further assessments wouJd be levied against them. Discussion returned to Mr. Windschitl's suggestions that the two projects be separated. There was some concern about increasing the assessments on the southern projects. espec I a I I y when they were originally told the assessment would not be more than $100. But I twas aJso feJt that the one project should not have to subsidize the cost of another. Attorney Hawkins then noted the Statutes do alJow the CIty to combine projects: however, his interpretation of a recent court case is the combining of two projects done In different years is legal 1 y questJ onab 1 e. He advised separating the two projects and treating each one indivlduaJ Iy. Counc i J agreed. Mayor Elling also suggested discussing only IP87-3B at this time to get it resolved. Counc i J also agreed to use the calculations presented by Mr. Windschitl for IP87-3B. Mr. Schrantz explained that there were other costs In that area that could have been charged as storm sewer costs, such as the grade change on Crosstown Boulevard and the retaining wall. but were not included as trunk storm sewer costs. So these costs are lower than what they cou]d have been. Mayor EIJing reviewed the background of the retaining wall to the residents, noting the county and City do not agree on who should pay for It. Mr. Windschl t I - thought the Issue on the retaining wall was resolved, as the county indicated at a meeting with the Council that the grading would have been done that way regardless of what took pJace in that area. The alternative to the retaining waIl wou I d have been for the county to acquire two to three houses. Mr. Wi ndsch it J went on to ask the Council to decide who has the primary responsibility along Crosstown Boulevard. He said historically it has been the governmental bodies. City or County, who has the primary responsibility along MSA roads. In this instance. he said that responslblity is being shifted to the residents. Mr. Windschltl referred to costs for the project that were calculated had the city had the primary responsibiJity for the road. The costs of the storm sewer. per TKDA's letter of June 28, 1989. would be $83.000 for the county to just service their right of way. Adding engineers and administrative costs increases it by $10.775. for a total ot $93.685 dlrect]y attrlbutabJe to the right of way of the county road. WI th the total project cost of $114,044. Jess the county's share and the MSA funds for South Coon Creek Drive. there ._- - . Assessment Hearings January 10. 1990 - Minutes Page 4 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) would only be $16.500 that would need to be assessed. Yet almost $65,000 Is proposed to be assessed to the same group of residents. He again stated the Counci] needs to ]ook at why the residents are being made to take the primary responsibiJity for the road. Mr. Rodeberg felt if the county had paid for its own system. Kensington Estates wouJd have had to construct Its own storm sewer system with more storm sewer lines that would be much deeper. He stated the storm sewer costs for this area are less than the average of any other development. Basically. the residents are being assessed on]y 35 percent of the actual costs of the project; the governmental units a~e paYing two-thirds of the cost of the proJect. Mr. Schrantz stated the feasibility reports discussed the trunk storm sewer. though the exact costs were not In that report. Also, the county has said they would have let the water sit at the corner of South Coon Creek Drive and Crosstown Boulevard rather than putting In the trunk line If Kensington Estates was not developing at that same time. Attorney Hawkins explained the City signed a development contract with Kensington Estates to serve the development with storm sewer and that the Ci ty wi II assess for It. To date no trunk storm sewer assessments have been levied against any property in Kensington Estates. There were three deve]opment contracts signed for Kensington Estates dated July 11, 1987. another In July, 1987, and in July, 1988. Mr. Windschlt] - didn't agree that the trunk storm sewer was included in the feasibility report. asking which one Mr. Schrantz was referring to. Mr. Rodeberg stated the storm sewer was decided after Kensington Estates 1st was approved. There was a separate feasibility document on IP87-3B that showed the benefitted area. The Mayor noted it was mentioned in the feasibility report for Kensington 3rd. but no exact amount was mentioned. Mr. WindschitJ - stated In the past there were a number of projects that were not assessed. pointing out a project closed on June 20. 1989, with aJmost $29,000 worth of costs that there has been no attempt made to collect. He felt there Is some inconsistency In assessing some costs and not assessing others. Councilmember Jacobson explained the costs for University Avenue were not assessed per the City's policy of not charging for right of way if al I of it is donated. It was a joint project with Ham Lake. and Ham Lake's policy is not the same as Andover's. The costs Incurred were in Ham Lake. Mr. Schrantz stated the City wi I I make appl ication for relmburwsement of those funds through the MSA. Mr. Windschltl - stili argued about $30.000 will be picked up by the General Fund or MSA Fund. He noted with research he would be able to find othe~ projects where the costs were not assessed back to the benefitted properties. pointing out unassessed costs for Prairie Road, Nightengale. and others. He asked the Council to look at this project in I ight of what the pol icy was two years ago. -"--. . Assessment Hearings January 10. 1990 - Minutes Page 5 (Assessment Hearlngs/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) After discussing Mr. Windschitl's point further, Counc i I again noted that the County is paying for almost $100,000 of this project. and the City is also picking up $68.000. The residents In this project are only being assessed for about 35 percent of the costs. Mr. Rodeberg also felt that the rate is very reasonable. comparing It with the substantia1 ly higher rates for the other developments recently done In the City. Mr. Windschitl - stated there were some unique features of the 1st Addition that a1 lowed the storm sewer. He had his own outlets which he purchased privately. Those costs are not .etlected In the total storm sewer costs. He felt the comparison with other developments Is only valid when the tota I costs are included. He asked the Council to treat a] 1 of them the same. The City has had a long-standing policy of not assessing projects of this kind. It the county had not done it this way, they stl 1 I would have had the expense of acquiring drainage easements. which is on high, developable property. He didn't feel the county could do what they said they wouJd have done. However, It the county had ponded instead of putting in the trunk storm sewer line. Kensington Estates would have either put in on-site ponding or drained to Coon Creek through the plat. Mr. Windschitl didn't feel the costs would have been substantially different because they would have done the grading differently with regard to the common borrow. Larrv Baker. 14400 Raven Street - purchased the first lot in Kensington Estates 1st on December 2. and their closing agreement says that the sel ]er will pay aJ I assessments pending or otherwise recorded. He asked since the contact was signed on July 11. whY wasn't the seller assessed these costs. Attorney Hawkins stated the contract signed on July 11 with Mr. Windschitl says the City wi I] put In the utilities and assess the costs of it. When Mr. Baker signed the contract, this wasn't a levied or pending project. This project was going on In 1987 through 1988. Everyone at the City and Mr. Wlndschitl knew about it, and they knew that that drainage area may be assessed. It was not a levied assessment because the project was not completed until sometime after that time. When the Counci I orders a project, then it becomes pending. Mr. Baker - asked when It became an assessment. Attorney Hawkins noted it becomes a levied assessment If the Counc II adopts it this evening. Now it is a pending assessment, which is what the financial agencies use to determine at what point to eScrow for assessments. It became a pending assessment at the last meeting held in November, 1989. Mr. Baker - asked if i t is legal to start a project. then finance it without adopting the assessment. Mr. Hawkins stated yes. --- -. - Assessment Hearings January 10. 1990 - Minutes Page 6 (Assessment HearIngs/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) Mr. Baker - questioned the flow of the water. He stated his lot drains to the west, asking If the drainage area was determined before or after the landscaping took place. Mr. Rodeberg stated the grades were taken off the grading plan supplied by the developer. Council directed the Engineers to Jook at Mr. Baker's lot to determine what portion should be included In this drainage area. Mr. Baker - asked if it is right to do what has been done. that Is to come back and assess a project that was done two to three years ago after the area has developed. Mayor Elling noted I t has been done In the past, though It Is not the best way to do It. This plat was done in phases. which made it d I ff I cu Jt to know all the costs up front. plus there Were long negotiations with the county. Mr. Baker - asked if there was a trunk Jlne there before the project that was pul led out and replaced. Mr. Davidson stated no. He also reviewed some history of the project. noting the area was open spaces at the time this project was started. They looked at various alternatives for sanitary sewer and the trunk storm sewer. Normal I y this would only affect the development i tsel f; however. in this case the drainage area overlapped into some of the developed areas who were aJso petitioning for sanitary sewer and streets. He outlined the steps followed In getting sanitary and storm sewer Into that area as wel] as negotiating with the county for the road improvements along Crosstown Boulevard. The efforts were to best serve the City at the least cost. Mr. Baker - aSked the purpose of the drainage system. Mr. Davidson explained the City is obligated to assure everyone that they wi I I not be Inundated by a one-percent probable storm. In lieu of ponding in Kensington Estates. the storm sewer was placed in the roadway so there will be a positive runoff during the 100-year even t. All of these things took a long time. and that is why the storm sewer assessments were not levied at the time the lots were sold. Rick Linnqren. 2127 142nd Avenue - asked If the Counc i J tabled the 429 procedure when the development was put in. Mayor EI]lng noted if the developer signed an agreement waiving the 429 procedure, the assessment would be levied without a public hearing. Mr. Llnnqren - stated they moved in on September 15 and received a letter about an assessment two weeks later. He asked why wasn't the 429 done one or two years before. Attorney Hawkins explained the 429 procedure was not done prior to now: however, the potential assessment has always been known. Mr. Linnqren - said the money comes from either the property owners or from the developer. The longer the City walts. the more people that move into the area. So the burden is shifted to the new residents. This has been known about for two years, and now they end up having to pay for it. -- -.- -. - Assessment Hearings January 10, 1990 - Minutes Page 7 (Assessment Hearlngs/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) Karen Arnold. 14385 Raven NW - asked when Project 87-3B was completed. Mr. Rodeberg estimated mid-summer to late 1988. Ms. Arnold - asked the Council how Jong they felt It Is proper to drag on negotiations like this. Under the circumstances, she wondered I f there wi J I be another assessment two to four years from now for something else. She is getting the Impression that as residents. they really do not know whether there wll I be more assessments or not. She stated she never ran across an organization that appears to be so ill prepared to answer questions. and she is concerned about her future as a homeowner and how many times she will have to come up with money for another assessment. Mayor Elling agreed this Is not a normal proj ect. There are no other projects in this area. Ms. Arnold - didn't want to be surprised with any other costs, noting a previous statement of possiblly having other costs Included and of sharing costs costs equally with another project. She wanted the City to say that it wi II not ever come back with additional costs to be assessed. Mr. Schrantz stated his statement was only meant to note that there were other expenses that could have been associated wi th this project but were not included. Mayor Elling didn't think the Counc i ] was talking about adding anything else to this area. Ms. Arnold - stated as residents of Andover, they are not getting a feeling of comfort here. She doesn't get the impression the Counc i I knows what it is doing. Mr. Schrantz noted some of the Councllmembers were not on the Counc i I at the time this project was done. Mr. Davidson thought it was an unfair statement to say the Counc i I Is not concerned. Ms. Arnold - stated at the last meeting everyone expressed ourtage over what happened. yet the Counc II voted to go ahead with the assessments anyway. Mr. Davdison defended the Council's action, saying this has not been an easy process, and they are not assessing any more than what they feel they are obligated to assess. Plus it does benefit the property. Ms. Arnold - stated she is not against the benefit. She Is upset wi th the fact that the City, with a clear conscience. can come back two to three years after the fact and charged her for it. She didn't even I ive here unti I last December. Mayor EI ling noted this is not a popuJar project but it was his feeling that the assessment is the faIr way to do it. Mr. Schrantz again noted the developer knew from the beginning that this assessment was probable. Ms. Arnold - stated when she asked her bullde~ If the~e would be assessments in the future, she was told no. And when she contacted City Hall, no mention was made of an assessment. Yet one week after she moved Into the house she received a special assessment notice. u__. _ Assessment Hearings January 10, 1990 - Minutes Page 8 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1. Conti nued) Mr. Davidson expJained the assessments are Jegal Iy placed against the land because theoretically the land Is improved In value. She is not being personally assessed. He thought perhaps her grievance is not against the City but against the developer that mislead her. Ms. Arnold - argued the grievance is against the Counc II because they are coming back two years after the project is completed. She questioned how long they can. In good conscience, hold off in having a hearing and assessing a project. CounciJmember Knight stated she is hoJdlng the CounclJ responsibJe for what her builder told her, and the Counc II Is not responsible for what the builder says. Ted Fvstrom. 14298 Raven Street - built his home and moved in in March. He used to live in Red Oaks where he had assessments. When he moved here. he wanted it made clear that all assessments were paid. After Jiving there onlY four months. he received an assessment notice of over $500 for this project. When he moved. that amount should have been escrowed, stating it is not fair that they should have to pay this when he wasn't even I i v i ng there In 1987. He stated a lot of people feeJ the same way he does. Mayor Elling again brieflY reviewed why it is being assessed now rather than in 1988 when it was finished. Greoory Anderson. 14031 Crosstown - stated when the project was completed, the southern portion of Crosstown had aJready started: so there was an overlap between the two contracts. He felt both projects should be the same. AJso, when the southern project was being done, everyone received a letter that the majority of the assessment was on City property and that the property owners along that piece of Crosstown between 139th and 140th wouJd be assessed no more than $100. Mayor EI ling noted that project wil] be handled separately. Steven Nash. Babcock & Loecher fIrm. Attorney representino Carol and Jerry Windschitl - believed a number of parcels being assessed are not benefitted to the fu I J extent of that assessment, but noted the Counc i 1 has addressed that and agreed to have the Engineers review It again. Secondly. the costs of the two projects has been addressed, wi th the Counc i I agreeing to those calculations presented by Mr. Windschitl. Mr. Nash noted historically the City of Andover has not assessed for improvements along MSA roads. It the Counc i I is going to change that policy. he asked if that is a conscious decision and wilJ that be applied from now on. And wi J I the Counc i I Jook at past project and assess them as well. He noted he has discussed this with Mr. Hawkins, and they disagree. Mr. Nash continued that his interpretation of the State Statute requires a notifIcation of a specIal assessment. a teasIbl)lty report of the Improvement and an estimated dollar amount, and a publ ic hearing prior to the awarding of the contract to allow people to --- . Assessment Hearings January 10. 1990 - Minutes Page 9 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) discuss whether or not that project should go ahead. He has not been able to find where the Council talked about the feasibility report or held a public hearing prior to the project: everything was done after the fact. He stated he would like to see that Information. Counc i I directed Staff to provide Mr. Nash with that documentation. Mr. Nash was led to believe the project was not adequately discussed. Inc]udlng the policy Issue and how It affects the residents. Even now he hasn't heard that there is a unanimous agreement as to what the pol icy is or what it has been. That has a direct impact on what happens in this project. And by doing it that way, the Counc i 1 Is misleading the Peop]e because they make assumptions based on what has happened in the past. Mr. Nash said he heard the developer should have known about these costs: but, he asked. how long must a developer walt to have a special assessment imposed on him? When peopJe move in. how are they supposed to know there are other assessments? They come to the City Hall and have an assessment search done. and they are lead to believe everything Is taken care of. He asked how are they supposed to protect themselves and how would they have known how much to aJlow for storm sewer assessments. Mr. Nash stated the development agreement talks about storm sewers but only those wi thin the plat, not In the City. He said clearly a good portion of the trunk sewer has to do with the county and nothing to do wi th this plat. He stated he has not read a feasibility report that Is reliable: aJ I seemed to have different numbers. He read two of the development contracts and they do not mention waiving the public hearings but speak about special assessments pursuant to Statute 429. Attorney Hawkins advised there was a waiver on a part of the Kensington Estates pJat. Mr. Nash stated the point is how Jong does the deve]oper have to wal t to find out what a Counci I is going to do. Just because there Is a development contract, does the developer have to wait five or ten years after the fact, asking at what point will the developer know those final costs so he can a]Jocate them. In this instance the deve]opment contract also required the developer to notify the City when there are sales for protection that the special assessments were paid. Notification was given to the City: the City knew about those sales. It there was going to be further special assessments, the City shou I d have informed eveyone. Including the developer. at that time. Mr. Nash also felt this action of the Counc II wi II also affect future developments, how people look at future developments, and the uncertainty of the prospective buyer in Andover of whether or not there wi I 1 be a future assessment. That goes beyond whether this is legal]y cor~ect but Is the policy tor people dealing with the Ci ty of Andover. He felt everything is happening backwards, that It Is too late to decide whether or not it is feasible or that there Is a different way of doing it. ----- . Assessment Hearings January 10, 1990 - Minutes Page 10 (Assessment Hearlngs/87-3B and 88-1. Continued) Mayor EI ling expJalned the polley has always been that everybody pays their fair share In a project. The Counc II normally doesn't operate with this kind of time frame, acknowledging the timing is not good: however, there were extenuating circumstances In this project. Councllmember Perry stated the Council has been assured that every other development has paid for the costs of the storm sewer runoff for their development. This is the only one where where the storm sewer installation and the development coincided with an MSA road improvement. Mr. Nash though t the extenuating circumstances Is what is causing the trouble and making It unfair. He guessed In other developments the costs were known prior to the sale of lots so everybody knew up front about those assessments. Mr. Rodeberg stated a rate for sanitary sewer was given, so Mr. Wlndschitl knew about them ahead of time. Mr. Schrantz stated the February 3, 1987. report discussed this particular project. Mr. Nash asked to see that report along with when the public hearing was held with proper notice. He felt this is unfair and not va] id, and that the figures indicate that the developer's fair share would be slgnlflcant]y less than what the City is talking about. He again noted his concern on the issue of how can people protect themselves against this happening again. In futher discussion, Counc I I again emphasized the developer knew about these costs. that Mr. Windschltl was Mayor at the time the development contracts were signed and the storm sewers were mentioned, that TKDA worked with the developer looking at several di fferent options to determine the most economical way to do it. Mr. Nash stated he saw Minutes that indicated the Council disagreed on the policy of whether these types of things should be assessed, and he didn't see any Minutes that Indicated that was resolved. He got the impression If the county had paid more, no one would be here today. The Counc II disagreed. feeling there would still have been an assessment. Mr. Nash stated the position of the developer Is legally the speciaJ assessment Is not vaJid. It Is an al I or nothing situation: and If it Is not valid as is their opinion, then the assessment Is zero. They don't have the option of going in between zero and the amount set by the City. Jack McKelvey. 15327 Nlohtenoale - Is not invoJved in this project but has attended almost every meeting of the Counc I I meeti ng in the last two years and wanted the new residents to know what took place wi th this project. He reviewed the process of bringing of sewer up to Andover School and how it was decided to come up Crosstown Boulevard. At the time he expressed his opinion was It didn't seem right to bring the sewer line up Crosstown Boulevard and across to Hanson Boulevard. Assessment HearIngs January 10. 1990 - Minutes Page 11 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1. Continued) Mr. McKelvey noted there was only one property owner that benefitted, stating he then campaigned against the mayor because he thought the mayor should not be a mayor and land developer running the project through the City that mayor may not benefit his own property. The whole thing makes him angry. It started out with the rebuiJdlng of Crosstown BouJevard before they wanted to do it, so the City went ahead wi th it. He asked why, stating most of the residents didn't know why. It's up in the air whether the county would have paid more i f the road was done in their time schedule. He though t it took this long because i t took a change on the Counc i J to get any coordination with the county. Mr. McKelvey stated If it were him, he would be taking legal recourse against the developer. He thought there were times in the past where this could have been settled. stating it is not this Council's fault that It was not settJed earlier. Mr. Wlndschitl - asked for the record that the Engineers explain why the sewer line went up Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Rodeberg explained the line on Bunker Lake Boulevard was never proposed to go north of Coon Creek. Mr. Davidson stated when the bids were taken for the sewer Jine down Bunker Lake Boulevard to serve the HIJls of Bunker Lake. they were twice the amount of the engineer's estimate. At that point the Counc i I asked to reconsider the project and look at other less expensive alternatives. The alternative a10ng the creek came up as the least cost of the five separate alternatives that were studied in conslderable detail during the hearings. Mr. WindschitJ - stated in any of the proceedings that deait with the plat. everyone knows that he did not participate as a member of the Counc i I nor in any of the voting. often times sitting in the audience. Rosella Sonstebv - stated Mr. Windschitl was Mayor for 20 years: and If anybody should know there are assessments. he should know. She feJ t this was put on the back burner. stating it is lucky the City got a new mayor. Ms. Sonsteby also noted Kensington Estates backs up to the I andf ill site, and read a statement regarding disclosures required by realtors when property is sold. She was concerned that if any suit is brought against the City because of hazardous waste. it wi J J be her tax dollars paying for it. which she is opposed to. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, to close the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Counc i I then discussed the project. Councilmember Orttel asked if the trunk storm sewer line was oversized to accommodate the Kensington Estaes plat, thinking the surrounding properties were not Included unti I after the project was completed. He noted he wouJd not have allowed the project to proceed without a public hearing if he had though t there was a chance of existing residents being assessed on this type of project. To his knowledge, this Is the first time the public hearing has not been he1d until after the project was done. --- .- Assessment Hearings January 10, 1990 - Minutes Page 12 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) Mr. Davidson explained the specific tributary area wasn't actuaJ]y defined until after the sanitary sewer and water contracts were awarded because the storm sewer was redesigned to reduce costs. The final storm sewer design was finalized in July or August, 1987, with the system constructed for the tributary area, In this case the difference was even though the report was brought to the Counc iI, there were a Jot of unknowns. especially about how the financing would be handJed: and no specific action was taken. Councilmember Orttel thought the City should proceed under whatever force there Is In the exIsting development agreement for Kensington Estates. stating he did not believe any of the existing residents should be involved in this in any fashion. He didn't think there was any precedent for the residents to be involved. but there is precedence for having the developer pay his fair share for the development property. There Is no reason for those residents who live along the road whose front yards happen to drain into the road, as I t has done for the past 40 or 50 years, to pay an assessment at this time for something that appears to have been generated primarily for the county and secondarily for the development property In the area. He stated that the City has never gone outside the confines of a plat before to make an assessment for storm sewers. Counci Jmember Knight stated he had the same reservations, not knowing what benefit there is for the existing residents because the proJect didn't change anything for them. Attorney Hawkins stated the assessment has to be uniform and equaJ across a II properties. He felt the Counc i J is opening itself up to legal question if some parcels are Included and others are not. The theory Is now they have a better drainage system, which theoretically increases the market value. If a developer chooses to pay al I the costs for storm sewer. which is what is normally done because they want to continue the development, there would be no charge to the abutting properties. But if the City wouJd make a deveJoper put in an oversized pipe that wiJI serve someone outside the area and it Is a substantial cost. the developer would ask that they not pay for that entire cost because it benefits others as wel I . He didn't think there has ever been a substantia] project that benefits other large areas outside of a plat. CounclJmember Jacobson asked the Attorney if the time frame being followed by the Counc i ] , that is holding the hearings after-the- fact, Is legaI according to Statute 429. Attorney Hawkins stated the City entered into a development agreement and contractually obligated itself to instaJ I the storm sewer. stating those costs would be assessed. Those costs weren't assessed right after the project because the exact costs weren't known: however, the developer was cognizant of the project and wanted It. He thought the CIty proceeded according to the policy with developers. except it took longer to assess it because of internal problems with the City and the county. Assessment Hearings January 10, 1990 - Minutes Page 13 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) Concerning the existing homeowners. Mr. Hawkins explained normally a hearing is held and residents are given an opportunity to express their opinion. But because there is a developer and adjacent property owners. the City is relying on the provision of Statute 429.051, which he read. noting It Is an after-the-project provision in the Statute. Even though I t is a procedure not done by the Council before. it was his opinion that the procedure of the Counc i I is legaJ and valid. CounclJmember Orttel stated he understood the legaJ i ty issue. but was speaking to the poJlcles of the City which are not required by Jaw such as majority rules. Councilmember Knight understood the teellngs of those residents who bought in Kensington Estates. He guessed If the costs had been assessed prior to their buying their homes. the costs would have been passed on in the cost of the home. -1-- - predicted if the residents In Shady Knoll knew of this cost prior to the project, there wouJd not have been a majority in favor. He was not Informed that there would be another assessment at the time he found out the amount of the assessment for streets and sanitary sewer. He asked how he can be assessed again when he paid in another project. Mayor Elling noted that issue wi I J be checked into further. Because of the changes agreed to this evening by the Council, it was agreed the prepared resolution needs to be changed. MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Perry. that we request the Staff and Engineers to prepare a new Resolution for 87-3B aJone: and request Engineers to Jook at the properties discussed tonight as to some question as to the area benefit to those particular areas: and the di fference in the cost of about $50 per lot based on Jerry (WlndschitJ's) numbers: and come back to the first meeting of February of the City Council wi th the amended resolution and the amended amounts of the assessments. DISCUSSION: It was noted that the hearing for IP88-1 will be placed on the Agenda of January 16. Council also advised any resident who has questions on the topography to cal J C it y Ha I I so the Engineers can review their Jots. Counc i I aJso agreed If, after the Engineer's review, some of the areas are found to be outside of the drainage area, they wiJI be abated and the assessment rate wi II not change for the remaining area since it was felt the changes wi II be insignificant. Mayor EI ling asked that al I existing lots be checked to be sure they are not being doubled assessed for storm sewer. Ron Britz. 14386 Raven Street - thought Councilmembers Ortte] and Knight weren't convinced the homeowners should pay for any of this: however. the motIon sounds ] Ike they will. Counc 11 noted that discussion was about those homeowners who were there prior to the development: but the Attorney is saying it is legaJ to Include them. Assessment Hearings January 10, 1990 - Minutes Page 14 (Assessment Hearings/87-3B and 88-1, Continued) Motion carried unanimously. Counc II recessed at 10: 18: reconvened at 10:21 p.m. Because of the ¡ate hour. It was agreed to adjourn at this time and to table Item 2. Landf i I I Siting Appointment. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by OetteJ, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ~~4~~ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary