Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP March 15, 1990 .~ CITY of ANDOVER Special City Council Work Session March IS, 1990 7:00 P.M. Call to Order 1. Assessment Manual 2. 3. Adjourn --.- ----~ ,---- "__h ..,.~."'"' j ..'. i.'. CITY of ANDOVER ~\\ ~..~i 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 15, 1990 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Mike Knight on March 15, 1990: 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Jacobson, Orttel, Perry Councilmember absent: EI ling Also present: City Administrator/Engineer. James Schrantz FUNDS TO UPDATE FIRE STATION PLANS Acting Mayor Knight explained the Public Safety Committee met and has requested the Council authorize an expenditure of $2,000 to update the plans for the proposed fire stations. He thought the funds would come from the bond issue if one Is passed. If one is not passed, he didn't know where the funds would come from, though it is not in the Fire Department's budget. CounciJmember Jacobson thought the funds should come from the Fire Department budget If no bond Issue Is passed by the residents. CounclJmember OrtteJ tended to think that since the bond Issue wouJd be to Increase fire protection for the entire City, possibJy the funds for this update should come from the General Fund and not the Fire Department's budget which tends to be more for operational expenses. It was agreed to put the Item on Tuesday's Agenda, March 20, to allow time for the Staff to determine the source of funding. ASSESSMENT MANUAL Council discussed a change in the MSA polley on Pages 13 and 14 to assess some portion of the project. Mr. Schrantz expJalned the problems that have occured along county roads have been when the City has wanted the road put in ahead of the county's schedule. He didn't foresee that happening again, though the county's policy still remains that the City pays one-half of the curb and gutter costs along any county road that is improved. That means a potential cost to the City when the county improves Hanson Boulevard, Crosstown Boulevard, and possibJy Round Lake Boulevard. But when the county improves a rural section of county road, there is no cost to the City unless the City requests some realignment. Council then fe1t that eliminates the county road concern. There was aJso some sentiment that those lots along county roads should not have to pay for any improvement because they already have a blacktop road, plus the improvement means the problem of increased traffic. -- --~ .-- ~ Special Ci ty Counci I Meeting Minutes - March 15. 1990 Page 2 (Assessment Manual, Continued) It was agreed to delete the sentence on the top of Page 14, "Lots on County Roads $1000/unit plus right-of-way acquisition." Mr. Schrantz stated in the Municipal State Aid Street projects. there açe some costs that are not reimbursed by MSA funds such as the cost of acquisition of right of way, filing fees, attorney's costs. negotiating time, and some engineering fees. The present policy is to assess only for right-of-way costs if It has to be acquired: otherwise there is no assessment. After some discussion, the Counc i I agreed to leave the right-of-way policy for MSA streets as is, but al I unreimbuçsable costs would be assessed to the benefitting lots. An estimate of those costs should be known and told to the residents at the time of the pubjic hearings. The sentence on top of Page 14 should be changed to: "Lots on MSA streets in the residential area wi I 1 be assessed for all unreimbursable costs." Page 13, bottom paragraph, the heading should be "Municipal State Aid and County State Aid Roads". The bottom paragraph should read "The City will assess unreimbursable costs incurred by the City." The fourth paragraph. Page 14, the last line, should be changed to: "...access to the county highway or municipal state aid roadway." There were no other changes to Page 14. Council discussed the paragraph on funding deferred assessments on Page 15, the concern being where the money wouJd come from to establ ish the fund. Mr. Schrantz explained when he proposed the policy, he was thinking of using the Interest on the $400,000 the City received when some of the improvement bonds were paid off. Counci I noted the decision has alçeady been made to put those funds In a permanent improvement revolving fund for assessable projects and cap I tal Improvements. Potential deferment situations were discussed such as Senior Citizen deferments, green acres, ag preserve, very large parcels In an otherwise residential area, or where there are laçge parcels along a road which is used to enter a residential area as was the case in the RusselJ/Stack Addition. Councilmember Knight thought there should be some method of alJowing deferrals. noting It Is done In virtually every other City. Councilmember Oçttel noted that In the past deferrals have not been necessary because if a majority are not In favor, the project just is not done. The Russell/Stack Addition was a unique situation where the çesidents helped pay for the agricultural property on the entrance road. -,- .-- - Special Ci ty Counci I Meeting Minutes - March 15. 1990 Page 3 (Assessment Manual, Continued) Various methods of funding deferrals were mentioned, though no agreement was reached. Mr. Schrantz noted the City of Coon Rapids charges more for administrative costs on Its projects, explaining the procedure they use to determine that amount. The Counc i I asked Mr. Schrantz to prepare a written comparison of how Coon Rapids and Andover determine their administrative costs on proJects. The Counci I agreed to delete all items on Page 15, aSking that either the Finance Department or Engineers check with surrounding cities to see how they fund their deferred assessments. Item II. TRUNK STORM DRAINAGE IN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA - It was agreed to change the first paragraph to: "The trunk storm drainage cost will be assessed on a gross area based on actual cost of the project." DeJete the next four lines referencing residential and commerciaJ/industrlal gross acreage costs and the ENR index. Retain the sentence "The benefitting properties wi J J pay for 100 percent of their Jateral storm sewer pJus the trunk area charge." The Counc I I generally felt the trunk storm drainage assessments should not be an equal rate for all projects, but should be based on the actual costs for each project. Item IV. REGIONAL AND LOCAL PONDS - Mr. Schrantz explained that the third paragraph refers to City-owned regional-type ponds, not those of the Coon Creek Watershed. It was agreed to change the first sente~ce to "Trunk ponds will be paid for by trunk storm drainage assessments." Item VI. MAINTENANCE PROJECT STREET OVERLAY PROJECT - Council discussed the proposed policy to assess for street overlays. There was some concern that the residents would obJect to being assessed again once the original assessment is compJeted. Also, the residents have always been toJd that they will not be assessed again durIng the length of the assessment for their street. It was pointed out that if the City was negligent In its inspections, the residents should not have to pay for that mistake. However, It was a]so noted that overlaying is a very large expense that the City cannot afford to budget for. There was also some discussion on the 1 i ab II I t y on the part of the developer or contractor for those streets that do not meet the City's standard for base or blacktop depths. Mr. Schrantz stated the Staff is looking into that I iabi J i ty. He also noted that a blacktopped street shou I d last at least 20 years. Councllmember Orttel felt if It has to be assessed, it should be done like any other project In the City -- it is done when the residents ask for It and there is a majority in favor. Councllmember Jacobson felt I f the City was at fault in accepting substandard st~eets, the City has an obligation to fix it wi thout cost to the residents. ,-- - Special City Council Meeting Minutes - March 15, 1990 Page 4 (Assessment Manual, Continued) Counc I I asked Mr. Schrantz to find out what policy other cities use for overlaying streets. No decision was made on this Item. It em V I I . SEALCOAT - There was no consensus to assess sealcoatlng projects. No further action was taken at this time. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry. to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, =~.~a~~~ Recording Secretary -. - .-- --