HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP January 11, 2000
/" '\ CITY of ANDOVER
'J 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
Special City Council Meeting - Tuesday, January 11,2000
Call to Order - 7:00 PM
Discussion Items
1. Hamilton Square Assessments
2. Multi-Family Housing
3. Discuss Development Grading Issues
4. Water Quality
5. Acquisition of Property West of Public Works
6. Other Business
:.J Adjournment
. "
0
CITY OF ANDOVER
~ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
~ yt
i DATE: Januarv 11. 2000
/
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item Scott Erickson, t
Engineering
ITEM NO.
1. Hamilton Square Assessments/97 -26A
At the December 7, 1999 City Council meeting the Council requested a special meeting to discuss the
Hamilton Square Drainage assessments, If the Council is interested in assisting the Hamiltons on this
issue the following may be an option to consider:
1. Defer the drainage assessment with interest for yrs or until the property is sold, which ever
happens first.. This would hopefully provide the Hamiltons with the time necessary to sell their
property and at the same time would not require any general fund $ to subsidize the project.
* The Hamiltons did petition for the extension of this pipe and the assessment is $8, 742.64
under the estimated cost.
,
J
-
./
J CITY OF ANDOVER
I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION \
I DATE: December 7. 1999
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item Scott Erickson.&<.
ITEM NO.
Engineering
Hold Public Hearing/Adopt Assessment RolI/
97 -26A/Hamilton Square
\ . \
REQUEST:
The City Council is requested to hold a public hearing at 7:00 PM for Project 97-26A, to adopt \
assessment roll. ,
\
The items Mr. Hamilton has indicated questions on are as follows: \
\,
1. Question: Mr. Hamilton had indicated that the project had previously paid $18,850 toward
stormwater assessments for the extension of the pond outlet pipe. Why should he pay more and did not
the $18,850 include engineering and overhead costs?
Answer: Mr. Hamilton is correct that the project previously paid $18,850 in estimated stormwater
assessments for the pond outlet pipe. This initial amount was based on previously estimated costs
'lssociated with a different outlet location then was finally decided upon. The Hamiltons re-petitioned
- for the improvement which was installed under this project (See Attached Petition). The final amount of
the improvement as constructed is $29,387.36. This is $8,742.64 less then what was estimated in the
feasibility report for this improvement.
The new feasibility report and the new project scope also adjusted the estimated cost of the expenses
associated with the project which include the engineering and overhead costs.
2. Question: The Engineering and City Costs associated with the project are to high?
Answer: The Engineering and City Costs are in-line with "typical" project costs. The expenses
portion of the project amounted to 35.09% of the project. This is a reasonable expense amount for this
project. Typically smaller projects will have a higher expenses as a % of the project cost. In
comparison with a larger or higher cost project the % of this projects expenses are not unusual. The
engineering cost of the project is the expenses the consulting engineer has incurred and charged the
project and is the developers cost to pay.
The city expenses include construction inspection and other associated time and expenses related to the
project. It should be noted that a large amount of city staff time has not been charged to the project. The
time spent on discussing and negotiating this issue has not been charged to either developer. The
developer only pays for the cost associated with the construction, inspection and administration of their
project.
I
These are the issues I am aware of that we have not been able to resolve to the Hamiltons satisfaction
regarding this project.
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - December 7, 1999
Page 3
/ (Consent Agenda, Continued)
Item 34 Approve,Resolution Establishing 2000 User Fees for the Use of Fields and
Hockey Rinks. (Resolution R245-99)
Item 35 Main Street (MN 242) Update
Item 36 Vacation of Easement/I 3 811 Palm Street NW /Continued (Resolution R246-99)
Item 37 Approve Purchase of Survey Level
Item 38 Approve Contract Renewal/Peach Associates
Item 39 Approve Purchase of Municipal Well Site/Lot 1, Block 2, Shadowbrook 5th
Addition
Item 40 Y2K Staffing/December 31, 1999
Motion by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
, November 9, 1999, Special Meeting: Correct as written.
I November 16, 1999, Regular Meeting: Page 8, 3rd paragraph, change "Charles ?" to "Charlotte
Loberg" and change all references to "he" in the paragraph to "she". 4th paragraph, correct
"Colburn" to "Sperl". Page 9, 3rd paragraph, correct resident speaking to "Don Skelly, 15131
Yellowpine". Page 11, second paragraph, change :'December 9" to "December 7".
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, approval with those corrections. Motion carried
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLV97-26A1HAMlLTON SQUARE
Mr. Erickson explained the assessment is for the extension of storm sewer on the property. Under
the original project for Hamilton Square when a portion of the storm sewer was constructed, an
additional $18,850 was collected as a part of the assessment for this storm sewer extension. When
the final location for the storm sewer extension was determined, the Hamilton's repetitioned for a
feasibility to look at costs. The final cost is $21,753.80 plus overhead. The total cost of$29,387.36
is about $8,700 less than the feasibility report. The overhead came in at 1.35, slightly more than
anticipated, but it is the actual cost of the project. Typically the percentage is higher on a smaller
project. Mr. Hamilton is being asked to pay only for the actual costs of the improvements. Mayor
McKelvey opened the public hearing.
" Ed Hamilton 6650 Highway 10. Ramsey - stated he and his wife are the owners of Lot 1, Block 2
I of Hamilton Square. They agreed to the additional $18,850 assessment. The costs came in at
$21,753.80, which is a cost overrun. They are willing to pay the cost overrun of$2,903.80, but it
doesn't make sense to have to pay $7,633.56 in City expenses for that short line when the City asked
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - December 7, 1999
Page 4
(Public Hearing: Adopt Assessment Roll/IP97-26A1Hamilton Square, Continued)
for it. The City asked for the Post Office and the City asked for the clinic. They cooperated and
became developers. He felt they are getting gouged. They had no control over the location of the
pond and did not request that it be moved. He also alleged there is no way there was $3,100 worth
of engineering services for the pipe plus another $3,000 for inspections. This does not encourage
commercial development in the City.
Mr. Erickson stated there were numerous discussions regarding those ponds and possible locations
for piped outlets. This is the location that was chosen, and these are the costs associated with the
extension of that pipe. Councilmember Orttel recalled the City Attorney was asked to mediate the
situation and a settlement was reached. The issue is the Hamilton's were originally assessed $18,850
for the extension of the storm sewer pipe. That additional 300+ feet of pipe actually cost over
$21,000 plus a 1.35 percent factor, which means it is about 50 percent higher. He understands where
the developer is coming from. Councilmember Jacobson noted the changes in the location of the
pipe were a result of something outside the plat.
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to close the public hearing, Motion carried unanimously.
7:45 p,m.
, Councilmember Jacobson felt there were many problems from outside the plat which Mr. Hamilton
J had no control over. Because of that, he felt only half the amount should be assessed.
Councilmember Orttel felt there is a problem, but the a funding source would need to be identified
to cover the remaining half. Mr. Fursman stated it would have to come out of the General Fund.
Mr. Erickson stated the Hamiltons did petition for this storm sewer extension. The costs were given
to them at that time. If there was a problem with the costs, they should have gone through the
process then to contest them. The options were to pipe the storm sewer or pond it on site. They
chose to pipe it out to have more usable, developable property. In response to a question from the
Council, Attorney Hawkins stated it is not possible to charge the developer to the north for half of
this cost. The Council also asked about the size of the second ponding area that would have been
needed if the pipe was not constructed. Mr. Erickson didn't have that figure available, so the
Council tabled the item to allow it to be researched. (Discussion continued later in the meeting; see
Page 6 of these Minutes.)
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL/IP98-32/3512 142NDA VENUE NW
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
7:52 p.m. There was no public testimony.
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, the Resolution as presented. (Resolution R24 7 -99
adopting the assessment roll forwatermain for IP98-32 - 3512 142nd Avenue NW) Motion carried
unanimously.
I
I
I
I Regular Andover City Council Meeting
/ Minutes - December 7, 1999
/ Page 6
(Rezoning/Preliminary PlatlWoodland Estates 2nd AdditionIWoodland Development, Continued)
looping the water system so'there are no dead ends. Mr. Carlberg stated a statement can be made
in the preliminary plat, plus it is in the resolution. It is shown in detail on the grading plan. Mr.
Westlund stated the water system has been reviewed by City Staff and by TKDA. As far as he
knows, it will be a looped service.
Councilmember Orttel wondered if there will be a problem with the streets on the Ag Preserve
property. Mr. Carlberg stated no because there is no assessment. Mr. Westlund stated he will add
those items talked about this evening to the preliminary plat.
Motion by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, the resolution approving the preliminary plat as presented.
(Resolution R248-99) Motion carried unanimously.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT/AREA J.D. SIGN AND ACCEPT PETITION/ORDER FEASIBILITY
REPORT/IP99-35/WOODLAND ESTATES 2ND ADDITION/WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, in the affirmative Items 5 and 6 on the Agenda.
(Resolution R249-99 approving Special Use Permit/Area J.D. Sign and Resolution R250-99
accepting Petition/Ordering Feasibility ReportlIP99-35/W00dland Estates 2nd Addition) Motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL/IP97-26A1HAMILTON SQUARE,
CONTINUED
Mr. Erickson reported the ponding area that was eliminated in Hamilton Square with the installation
of the storm sewer pipe was 1.4 to 1.5 acres. Councilmember Orttel stated that was all contemplated
when the Hamiltons were assessed the addition $18,850 the first time.
Motion by Jacobson the resolution as presented. Motion dies for lack of a Second.
Councilmember Orttel said something doesn't seem right, and it goes back to the initial plat. He was
not sure of the answer, but this was the first large commercial plat ih the City that was done by an
individual. The costs on these assessments are massive. The other projects, for the most part, have
been done at the City's expense through TIF; but this isn't eligible for TIP. The City is actually a
competitor, which puts the Hamiltons in a bad situation. He didn't know how to remedy it, but it
is a larger issue than just the assessments. If a portion of the costs are forgiven, there is then the
/ concern of taking that money from the General Fund. Councilmember Knight agreed that is the
quandary and wanted to see some accommodations made. Mr. Erickson stated if the assessment roll
is not adopted this evening, it will not be placed on the tax rolls next year. It will also mean
additional construction interest to the project
\ ,
, '.
" Regular Andover City Council A-Jeeting
I A-Jinutes - December 7, 1999
Page 7
(Public Hearing: Adopt Assessment Roll/IP97-26A/Hamilton Square, Continued) .
"
\
After :further discussion, the Council agreed the broader item needs to be discussed in greater detail, " ,
suggesting it be placed on an agenda for a special meeting in January, 2000. They would also look
at the additional construction interest at that time since the delay is being caused by the City.
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to table this to a work session in January. Motion carried
unanimously.
REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT/SHADOWBROOK 6TH ADDITION/BUNKER, LLC
Mike Quigley, Bunker, LLC, asked for preliminary plat approval of Shadowbrook 6th Addition,
which is the last piece of the property. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as
well as the overall sketch plan for that area. They are also requesting a rezoning from R-l to R-4,
Single Family Urban. The plat consists of35 single family lots. This is a change from the original
sketch plan that showed this area as having townhomes. The Staffhas reviewed the proposal and all
items have been addressed. All permits are in place. The Park and Recreation Commission
I revie\ved the plat last week.
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, the Ordinance amendment presented on the rezoning.
(Amending Ordinance No.8, Section 6.03, to rezone approximately 29.4 acres from R-l to R-4 in
Section 25) Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Carlberg noted the variance on the plat from Ordinance 10, Section 9.03(G) of250 feet for both
l4lst Avenue NW and Cottonwood Street NW/142nd Avenue NW which are 750 feet in length.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval with conditions. The fourth
condition in the Resolution should be removed. The developer has adjusted the plat to meet the
three-foot separation, so a geotechnical engineering report is no longer needed.
Mr. Quigley stated the l42nd Avenue cul-de-sac will be curbed and used for parking area for the
townhome development on that side. It will not be a through street. Councilmember Jacobson was
concerned with the circulation of water, especially in the 141 st cul-de-sac. Mr. Erickson stated the
water will have to circulate. They may have to provide a loop in the street itself. Typically that is
indicated in the construction plans, not the preliminary plat.
Councilmember Jacobson raised a concern with those areas marked as vehicle access areas for
maintenance. He wondered if there is some way to mark those areas so people purchasing those lots
know about the easements. Can there be some physical marking of those areas and/or some
emphasis on them in the marketing documents?
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
\ RES. NO.
"
)
MOTION by Councilmember to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
SANITARY SEWER FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT 97-26A. HAMIL TON SQUARE FOR CERTIFICATION.
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and
heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of _
SANITARY SEWER
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ANDOVER,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof, is
hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and
each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in
the amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period
of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in
',anuary, 2000 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of
(he adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the
entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2000. To each subsequent
installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments,
3. The owners, of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the
assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest
accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the
entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any
time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid,
with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment
must be made before October 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next
succeeding year.
MOTION seconded be Councilmember and adopted by the City Council at a
reqular meeting this 7th day of December , 19 --ill! , with Councilmember
voting in favor of the resolution, and Councilmember
voting against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J. E. McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
g: datal staff/rhondaal agendalreso lutionsl orig inaV assmro 11 12/2/99
.J c:;:.;a 9<..=' c:3 9t':t'! 66. 8C .LX
,... ~
A ..lOVER SPECIAL ASSESSM}.~. r
PROJECT ~A~fE: Hamilton Sauare PROJECT NO.: 97-26A
,
-fEASIBILIIT STUDY: DATE May 25. 1999 Construction Amount: $ 29.000.00
CONTRACT AWARD: DATE June 7.1999 ConstrUCtion Amount: $ 22.707.80
(AS CHANGE ORDER TO CHESTERTON
COMMONS 21'.1) ADDITION)
FINAL CONTRACT COST: Final Construction Amount: $ 21.753.80
Engineering S 3.154.30 (See Table A)
Aerial Mapping (1 % of street) $ 0.00
Drainage Plan (0.3% of street/storm) $ 65.26
Administration (3%) $ 652.61
Assessing (1%) Invoice S 217.54
Bonding (0.5%) $ 108.77
Legal & Easement $ 0,00
Advertising $ 0.00
City Expenses (includes full-time inspection) $ 3.000.00
Testing: S 0.00
S 0.00
Other: $ 0.00
Construction Interest (6,0%)
617/99 to 1017199 = 4 months S 435.08
\
,lOT AL EXPENSES: (% of Final Contract Cost = 35.0907) +$ 7.633.56
TOTAL PROJECT COST: = $ 29.387.36
Trunk Source and StDral!e:
Watermain: Connection Charge S 0.00 (0.00 Units @ S 0.00)
Area Charge S 0,00 *(0.00 Acres @ $ 0.00)
Lateral Charge $ 0.00 (0.00 LF @S 0.00)
Sanitary
Sewer: Connection Charge S 0.00 (0.00 Units @ $ 0.00)
Area Charge S 0.00 .(0.00 Acres @ $ 0.00)
Lateral Charge S 0.00 (0.00 LF @$ 0.00)
Storm Sewer: Area Charge $ 0.00 (0.00 Acres @ $ 0.00)
.Watennain and sanitary sewer connection charges to be collected when building permits are obtained, and are
not part of this assessment.
TOTAL TRUNK SOURCE AND STORAGE + $ 0.00
Previously assessed Hamilton Square Share: 514,500.00 x 1.3 for extension
of storm sewer to east side of Hanson Blvd. N.W. - $ 18.850.00
"ubtotal - S 18.850.00
, aT AL TO BE ASSESSED $ 10.537.36
Current Assessment per Lot:
$10,537.36
Feasibility Study: Date Mav 25.1999 Amount $ 19.280.001l0t
r, Ii "1 ~n n T 'n II C~~V Utl~~1 ~cra~~~ro lOT ,.,;.. i ~ ~ e r "f'l1 ., ,^
<:2':=Stld z~sa SL.:> 7}g ~ ~
.----
-
-
, - ,
STOR.:."I SE\\fER ."
" .~ .
-~
A. Final Construction Cost $ 21,753.80
B. Expenses (35.0907%) + $ 7,633.56
C. Subtotal- Storm Sewer $ 29,387.36
D. Minus Hamilton Square share: including
expenses ($14,500.00 x 1.3) for future
Storm sewer extension - $ 18.850.00
E. Total- Storm Sewer $ 10.537.36
F. Assessable $10,537.36/lot S 10.537.36/lot
Table A
Hamilton Square Sbare of
Storm Sewer Extension
'Extension of storm sewer north from manhole STM-14 (stub Y) to east of Hanson Boulevard N.W.
/
I Item I
No. Description Quantity Unit Price Amount
I A- IS" RCP Class 5 Storm Sewer 834 $ 18.20 $15,178.80 I
, ,
j B. IS" RC Flared End Section w/TG 1 $ 505.00 I $ 505.00
C. 4' Dia. Storm Sewer Manhole 4 $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00
D. Silt Fence . 50 $ 1.90 $ 95.00
E. Handplaced Riprap 15 $ 56.00 $ 840,00
F. Connect to Existing Storm Sewer 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00
G. Seeding (Mix No, 900) and Mulch 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 50.00
H. Wood Fiber Blanket 25 $ 1.40 $ 35.00
TOTAL $21,753.80
HA.rvm. TON SQUARE SHARE - 100% TOTAL $21,753.80
"-
,
:. .~ -.
/ . - - - -
.
/
/
/
\, E
o:l
::J
C1
CI)
-
0
E
..
::r:
..
p..
U
~
0
ex:
c..
0'\
0'\ ex:
-- r:Gl
.... ~
--
0
0'\ .... r:Gl
0'\ tI.l
-- \0 \0
0'\ ~ ..... M
~ 4,j r...: r--
M M
- .... 0 Ion Ion
=
~ ~ E-< C) 0
-<: - tI.l .... ....
",,\0 E-< 1:1
;Sf';' -<: ..,
..
;>~ ~ ..
='
O==: Z U
Q t 0
'\ ~ -
/ ~ Eo<
t.. ~ ;;)
0 0 ..J t::l
ex: 0 t-
;;.. Po. tIJ ~
E-<> ~
-f-< t-
U_ -
U .. 5
:z:
t:::l t::l
~ ....J
r:Gl co t-
> < ~
0 tI.l
tIJ
ex: t::l 0
Cl.o tIJ ~
~ tIJ \0
<: ......
- t'
......
V\
~
0:: ~I
~ ~
~ Z
:::l
0 0
t) :?1
... <
co: 0
::l
tIJ t:.J ....
tIJ N
'\ - l"l C tIJ Co
, 0 t:.J M .,
.= tI:l u
's ~ ~
o:l < ...
- ....J ....
-
< -
z ~ Q t- o: ,
..
- -< 8 c
c.. co ;0
~ ..
'J TO",. 1
. . q1-3-bT\
/ .
/
o.
f EDWARD AND LORA HAMILTON
6615 Hiehway 10 N. w.
Ilsunc;:ey, Minnesota 55303
(612) 421-3245
April 29. 1999
City Engineer
CITY OF ANDOVER
1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W.
Andover. MiImcsota 55304-
RE: JT.......nton Sqmuoe
Dear City Engineer:
Edward and Lon Hamilton, 6615 Highway 10 N. W.. Ramsey, !vfmn....nta 55303, owners of the property
herein descnbcd, do hereby petition for improvem= comi!ting of construction of a Storm sewer outlet
over, across aDd through the publicly dedicated easement located within the plat Chesterton Commons 4d1
\ Addition. Anoka County. Minnesota. This improvement will benefit property owned by the undersi~ed
I legally descn'bed as follows:
e Lot 1, Block 2, Hamilton Square, Anoka County, Minnesota.
A portion of the cost of this intended improvement has been prepaid to the City in connection with the
origin2l plat Hamilton Square. The balance of the eost of the improvement we request be assessed against
said Lot 1. Block 2. Hamilton Square.
We speci.lically waive our right to a public hearing and request that a feasibility report for the
improvemem be prepared as soon as possible. We have enclosed a check In the amount or $1,000.00 as
requirt;d for the fea.5ibility report expensC3. Althoogh we have enc1c>>cd this check, and request that our
petition be processed, it is our position th.2.1: we h:l.ve previously paid for the feasibility report 2pplieable
to this panicuIar improvement and thC1'Cfore. we request that the fee for expenses be waived and the
enclosed checlc returned. If this decision cannot be made at staff level, we specifically request that council
consideration of our request for a feasibility report be accompanied by our specific request for waiver of
the fee.
Sincerely,
,
~ttd}l~,.J~.
\,0 ~\
'Io(~a. !/,/~-
/ Lora Hamilton
e lWdloaJ.12.t.._oClty...,.
CITY OF ANDOVER
(~I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
\
) ~ ~ DATE: January 11. 2000
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item
Dave Carlberg,
Planning
ITEM NO.
2. Multi-Family Housing
This item will be presented to the City Council at the meeting,
," \
)
,
)
W CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
~~ ~t
\
,
, DATE: Januarv 11 , 2000
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item Scott Erickson,~L
Engineering .
ITEM NO.
3. Discuss Development Grading Issues
The City Council is requested to discuss various drainage issues relating to new subdivision
development. The items to discuss are; 1. Backyard Drainage Standards; 2, Backyard Drainage
Problems.
Backvard Draina~e Standards
Q: Should more useable backyard be provided on new urban lots?
The current development standards require the front 100 ft. of a new urban lot to be buildable from a
'\ soils standpoint. This typically results in a 12-15 ft, backyard area depending on the size of the home
) being built. The remaining 30 ft, of backyard is often encumbered with ponding and/or drainage swales
and easements, On numerous occasions the availability of even a 12 ft. useable backyard is lacking,
The reduction of even a 12-15 ft, backyard has resulted for numerous reasons some of which are;
variances were granted reducing the 100 ft. requirement, the original design did not provide enough
space for a backyard or the final grading was not entirely per plan.
Options:
1. Maintain the current 100 ft, requirement. Do not allow variances and provide more critical review of
this requirement during plan review and final grading operations. Also, do not allow easements to be
placed in these areas.
2, Change the buildable (useable) lot depth requirement from 100 ft. to 120 - 130 ft. to provide
additional useable backyard area, Do not allow easements to be placed in these areas,
3. Require larger lots. Current lot minimums area 80 ft, x 130 ft.
4, Other?
Backvard Draina~e Problems
Quite often development plans are submitted by developers with rearyard drainage swales. The
, '\ swales are often constructed to allow for walkout lots to be constructed and also create a area for
/ drainage and ponding to occur, These situations are by far one of the most difficult areas to deal with
regarding drainage. The rear yard swales are subject to inadvertent modification during numerous
phases of the development process, Changes to the swales alignment can happen:
1, If the original development grading is not properly completed,
2. After development grading is complete erosion can fill drainage swales.
, 3. During home construction quite often the builder needs a place to store the dirt from the foundation
, resulting in the rear yard drainage swales being filled in,
4, Once the homeowner moves in they often landscape their yards bringing in topsoil and sod, They
typically do not realize or understand the importance of the drainage swale and will cause blockages
with minor grade adjustments.
Possible Solution:
1, Require developer to provide a final grade in a rearyard swale areas which will include topsoil and
sod, Have the developer fence these areas off with silt fence prior to builders taking over the lots,
2. Have the developer set final grade hubs and submit elevations for confirmation,
3, Have the developer final grade, topsoil and silt fence all ponding areas prior to lots being sold and
builders working on the lots.
Current practices require the developer's engineer to certify that all of the development grading is
completed in accordance with the approved grading plan, The additional items noted above should
result in fewer problems for the end recipient of the lot, the resident homeowner,
I
CITY OF ANDOVER
~Wt REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
,
: ~ y
, DATE: January 11. 2000
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item Scott ~rick~on~l
Englneermg .
ITEM NO.
4. Water Quality
The City Council is requested to discuss water quality issues.
The agenda is as follows:
1. Iron & Manganese Removal/Chlorine Residuals
A. Current Practices & Results
, , B. Options to Improve Water Quality
/ 1. Remote Chlorine Injection (for Shadowbrook area)
2. Addition of Ammonia at Wellheads
3, Central Water Treatment
4, Water Treatment at Wellhead
2. Status of Timing of Radium Mandates
3, Possible Future Treatment Mandates from MDH
4. Status of current Copper & Lead testing.
,
Memorandum
DATE: January 11, 2000
TO: Brian Kraabel, Water Utility Supervisor
FROM: Scott Erickson, City Engineer
RE: Well Field Development
As you are aware the development of the cities well field has occurred around the city halVpublic works
area, The abundant water source in this area (Ironton/Galesville Acquifer) makes this an economical
source of water for the city. We currently have 6 operational wells with well #7 to be "on-line" this
summer (2000). Of the seven (7) wells four (4) are located in the area of City Hall. The location of these
four (4) wells were established to allow for the potential of a future regional water treatment plant in this
general area, Per the cities comprehensive water plan it is anticipated that a future fifth well would be
added to this well field to meet future demands and to also connect to a future treatment plant, With the
response received from the residents survey regarding a regional water treatment facility (1999 water
quality survey) it appears that the funding of a regional treatment plant is not palatable today but should
remain as a option for future consideration,
With the centralized well concept and water treatment not being performed there will be a buildup of iron
and manganese in the city water mains. The use of polyphosphates and the flushing currently performed
\ will help but will not eliminate the complaints, We discussed the concept of installing a municipal well in
the Shadowbrook area to help alleviate some of the problems both with water quality and with chlorine
residuals in this area, A test well was previously drilled in this area which indicated a abundance of a
"drift acquifer" in this area. It was anticipated that a 2000 gallon per minute well may be able to be
achieved, This would be equivalent to drilling two I 000 gallon per minute wells in the irontonlGalesville
acquifer. The down side was that a high level of manganese exists in the water which would necessitate a
wellhead treatment system be constructed at this location, A preliminary cost analysis of two wells versus
one with water treatment is as follows:
Two Well Ootion
1. Drill 2 Wells 2 X $120,000 = $ 240,000
2. Construct 2 Well Houses 2 X $500,000 = $1,000,000
3, Land Purchase 2X$ 40,000=$ 80,000
TOTAL $1,240,000
One Well wffreatment Ootion
1. Drill I Drift Well and Const.
Treatment Plant TOTAL $2,250,000
By providing wellhead treatment at this location we would be able to treat 90 - 100% of the water during
the winter months (Oct - May). During the summer months (June - Sept.) we would be treating 20 - 50%
of the water pumped. The wellhead treatment at this location would improve the overall quality of water
produced by the Andover system, The downside would be as the percent of treated water fluctuates a
change in the "taste" of the water would probably result.
/' Er
,
Iron and Manganese Removal
Iron and manganese removal is the most common type of municipal water treatment in
Minnesota. Iron and manganese occur naturally in water, especially groundwater. Neither of the
elements causes adverse heath effects; they are, in fact, essential to the human diet. However,
water containing excessive amounts of iron and manganese can stain clothes, discolor plumbing
fixtures, and sometimes add a "rusty" taste and look to the water.
Iron and manganese in water also promote the growth of iron bacteria, a group of organisms that
obtains its energy for growth from the chemical reaction that occurs when iron and manganese
mix with dissolved oxygen. These bacteria form thick slime growths on the walls of the piping
system and on well screens. Such slimes are rust-colored from the iron and black-colored from
the manganese. Variations in flow can cause these slime growths to come loose, resulting in
dirty water in the system.
The growth of iron bacteria can be controlled by cWorination. However, when water containing
iron is cWorinated, the iron is converted from the ferrous state to the ferric state--in other words,
rust--and manganese is converted into black manganese dioxide. These materials form a coating
\ on the inside of the water main and, when they break loose, a customer will sometimes complain
I of "dirty" water.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A) secondary standards (aesthetic, not health related) for iron
in drinking water is 0.3 parts per million (ppm); for manganese it is 0.05 ppm. If the water
contains more than 0.02 ppm of manganese, the operator should implement an effective hydrant-
flushing program in order to avoid customer complaints.
OCCURRENCE OF IRON AND MANGANESE
Iron and manganese react with dissolved oxygen to form insoluble compounds. Therefore, they
are usually not found in waters that contain high amounts of dissolved oxygen. Surface water
generally does not contain large amounts of iron or manganese.
Iron and manganese are found frequently in water systems that obtain their water from wells and
springs. Iron bacteria will use even small amounts of iron present in the ferrous state, oxidize
it, then use the energy. The manganous ion is used in a similar fashion by other bacteria to form
organics, which contribute to the iron bacteria slime in the well arid/or water system.
Iron bacteria are found everywhere. They are found in any area where their food source of iron
is available. The presence of one bacterium is all that is needed to start an infestation in a well
or a distribution system.
i
"-
Iron and Manganese 213
, 0f
(
CONTROL OF IRON AND MANGANESE
Methods to control iron and manganese in the distribution systems include arranging for alternate
water sources, adding phosphate to the water to keep them in solution and oxidizing and
removing by filtration.
AL TERNA TE SOURCES
In some situations, abandoning a well and drilling a new one into an aquifer with lower iron
concentration may be cost-effective. It may also be possible to blend the water from the well
with the high iron concentration with water from another source that contains less iron.
PHOSPHATE TREATMENT
Sometimes a polyphosphate is added at the source to mask the effects of high iron concentrations
in the distribution system. This is effective in cases in which the water contains up to 0.3 ppm
of iron and less than 0.1 ppm of manganese. The phosphate delays the precipitation of oxidized
manganese and iron, thereby greatly reducing the layer of scale that forms on the pipe. The
effect is called sequestration. The iron or manganese ion is surrounded by a chain of phosphate
molecules and is not allowed to precipitate in the water.
/ Pyrophosphate, tripolyphosphate, and metaphosphate may all be effective as iron and manganese (
sequestering agents. The most effective one, however, seems to be sodium phosphate in low
concentrations. The proper dose and type of phosphate should be selected only after bench-scale
testing is performed by a qualified technician or consultant.
FEEDING PHOSPHATE SOLUTIONS
Polyphosphate feed points should be
separated from the chlorine injection lIater SUDDly
point by as much distance as
possible. The polyphosphate feed
point should also be ahead of the
chlorine injection point. If
polyphosphate 1S fed after the
chlorine, there is a possibility that the
iron and manganese will be oxidized
by the chlorine before the
sequestering action can take place
causing iron and manganese
precipitates to be pumped out into - -
Solution Tank ..-
j the distribution system. . . .
l
Iron and Manganese 214
( pi(
\.
The feed equipment used for phosphate addition is similar to the equipment used to feed fluoride.
It consists of a storage tank, solution tank, feed pump, and controller to pace the equipment. The
storage tank and the solution tank must contain at least 10 ppm of free chlorine residual to
prevent bacterial growth in the phosphate solution; polyphosphate is an excellent food source for
bacteria.
Solutions of polyphosphates can also be made up from powder in a saturator similar to the one
that is used in making up solutions of dry-fluoride compounds. See the chapter on Fluoridation
for a description of the feed pump and saturator systems.
Phosphate solutions containing more than one-half pound of phosphate per gallon (60 ppm) may
be very viscous. It is important that any solution be fed within 48 hours of its production.
Polyphosphates tend to break down into orthophosphate, which is much less effective in
preventing manganese deposits.
The amount of phosphates required to sequester iron and manganese varies, but in Minnesota the
amount generally has to be approximately two parts actual phosphate (as product) for one part
of iron and manganese to accomplish the desired result. It is important to remember that a
'\ chlorine residual must be maintained throughout the distribution system to control bacterial
J groWth. This residual should be greater than 0.2 ppm at the most distant part of the system.
If the total detention time in the distribution system exceeds 72 hours, the phosphates may break
down and release the iron and manganese in the outer portions of the system. It is important for
the operators to know if the detention time will be exceeded and that the iron or manganese
problem may not be resolved with polyphosphate treatment.
REMOVAL BY ION EXCHANGE
Ion exchange by a home softener may also remove iron and manganese. If the water has not
been exposed to oxygen, the resins in the softener will remove the iron and manganese ions from
the water. If the water treated contains any dissolved oxygen, the resin can be fouled with iron
and manganese deposits. The resin can be cleaned, but the process is expensive and the capacity
of this resin is reduced with each cleaning. This method is not recommended for municipal
treatment.
IRON REMOVAL FOR MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS
Removing iron and manganese from drinking water instead of trying to sequester it is
recommended if the water contains over 0.3 ppm of iron and over 0.05 ppm of manganese.
There are many methods for removing iron and manganese. They can be removed during
\ softening with lime, but most commonly, iron and manganese removal is done by filtration after
oxidation with different agents. A discussion follows on the processes of oxidation with air,
t' potassium permanganate, and chlorine, followed by filtration.
\.
Iron and Manganese 215
:0f (
OXIDATION USING AERATION
Iron is easily oxidized by atmospheric oxygen. Aeration provides the dissolved oxygen needed
to convert the iron and manganese from their ferrous and manganous forms to their insoluble
oxidized ferric and manganic forms. It takes 0.14 ppm of dissolved oxygen to oxidize 1 ppm
of iron; it takes 0.27 ppm of dissolved oxygen to oxidize 1 ppm of manganese.
Operation of the aeration process requires careful control of the flow through the process. If the
flow becomes too great, not enough air is applied to oxidize the iron and manganese. If the flow
is too small and the aeration is not cut back. the water can become saturated with dissolved
oxygen and, consequently, become corrosive to the distribution system. Corrosive water may
lead to increased lead and copper levels at customers' taps.
There are many ways to provide the aeration. Either the water being treated is dispersed into the
air or else air is bubbled into the water. Other aeration methods include cascade trays, cone
aerators, and porous air stones. These are discussed and pictures are provided in the chapter on
Aeration.
During aeration, slime growths may be created on the aeration equipment. If these growths are
not controlled, they could produce taste and odor problems in the water. The growth of slime can
) be contr0lled by the addition of cW6rine at the head of the treatment plant. The process should
be inspected regularly to catch .the problems in their early development. (
A reaction basin can be provided after the aeration to allow the oxidation to proceed to
completion. The detention time is commonly provided by a head on the filters rather than by
providing a separate tank. The detention time before filtration should be at least 20 minutes,
more if possible. The pH of the water influences how much time is needed for the reaction to
be complete.
If the reaction basin is separate from the filters, the basin must, on a regular schedule, be cleaned
and monitored for sludge accumulation.
After the oxidation of the iron and manganese is completed, the water must be filtered to remove
the precipitated material. The filters used are generally of pressure type and will be discussed in
the Filtration chapter.
The oxidation of iron and manganese with air is by far the most cost-effective method since there
is no chemical cost; however, there are disadvantages. If there are high levels of manganese, the
oxidation process can be slowed and the reaction tank has to be quite large. In addition, small
changes in the water quality may affect the pH of the water and the oxidation rate may slow to
a point where the plant capacity for iron and manganese removal is reduced.
\
/
l
Iron and Manganese 216
/ 0f
r
" OXIDATION WITH CHLORINE
Iron and manganese in water can be oxidized by chlorine, converting them to ferric hydroxide
and manganese dioxide. The flocculated material can then be removed by filtration. The higher
the amount of chlorine fed, the more rapid the reaction. Some plants have been designed for an
initial chlorine residual of 5 to IO ppm. After filtration, the chlorine is removed by the addition
of sodium bisulfide, sulfur dioxide, or sodium bisulfide.
When using this process on a water containing high organic color, the likelihood of generating
disinfection by-products is greatly increased,
When dechlorinating, the operator must be careful that the chemical used for dechlorination is
not overdosed, This could result in inadequate disinfection in the system since any chemical left
in the water could also remove the necessary chlorine in the distribution lines.
OXIDATION WITH PERMANGANATE
The use of potassium permanganate for the oxidization of iron or manganese is common in
Minnesota. Potassium permanganate oxidizes iron and manganese into their insoluble states.
The dose must be great enough to oxidize all of the manganese, but not too great as this will
I produce a pink color in the water in the distribution system. Observing water being treated will
\, indicate if any adjustments of the feeders are needed. Use of permanganate is more effective at
oxidizing manganese than aeration or chlorination.
PRESSURE SYSTEMS
In Pressure Systems, potassium specially treated medium has the
permanganate application is normally ability to act as a buffer in the treatment
followed by greensand filtration. These scheme. It has oxidation potential and
processes are commonly used to treat also has the ability to take up excess
well waters containing iron, man- permanganate.
ganese and hydrogen sulfide. The The result is a system that is easy
\ manganese-treated greensand sys- to control and extremely effective in
tem employs a continuous feed of removing iron, manganese and hydro-
l KMn04 prior to the pressure filter, The gen sulfide.
Iron and Manganese 217
~ (
When oxidizing with permanganate, the operation of the filters becomes important since the
reaction also continues to take place in the filter media. The normally-used filter media will
remove iron and manganese if the combined concentration is below I ppm. Higher
concentrations require different type of filter materials and different methods of operation.
Potassium permanganate treatment is often done by the use of manganese greensand, a granular
material that is charged with potassium permanganate after the backwashing process. This
method allows the oxidation process to be completed in the filter itself. After the filter is
backwashed, it will be allowed to regenerate for a period of time with a high level of
permanganate before it is put back into operation.
A common modification of the manganese greensand process is the adding of permanganate on
a continuous basis. The permanganate is fed at the head of the filter so that the greensand is
continuously recharged. The permanganate addition has to be carefully controlled; if the
chemical is overfed, the effluent from the filter turns pink.
GRAVITY SYSTEMS
'I
J
(
OPERA TION OF IRON AND MANGANESE FILTERS
Filtration to remove the insoluable iron and manganese material is used as the final step in iron
and manganese treatment. Gravity and pressure filters (see Filtration chapter) are both used, with
pressure filters being the more popular.
. The operator should frequently determine whether all the iron in the water entering the filter has
been converted to the ferric or insoluble state. The operator collects a water sample, passes it
through a filter paper, and runs an iron test on the clean, filtered water, the filtrate. If no iron
is present, it has all been oxidized to the ferric state and it should be removed in the filtration
process. If iron is found in the filtrate, oxidation has not been complete. Some of the iron will
then pass through the filter and end up in the treated water. In this case, the operator should
consider adjustments in the oxidation process.
Most iron removal filters are designed so that the filters are backwashed based on headloss
/ through the filter. If iron breakthrough is a problem, the filters will have to be backwashed more
frequently. Accurate records will reveal when breakthrough is expected so that the operator can <-
backwash before it is likely to occur.
Iron and Manganese 218
CITY OF ANDOVER
~Wt REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
/
~ Y DATE: January 11. 2000
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item Scott Erickso4
Engineering
ITEM NO.
5'~ Acquisition of Property West of Public Works
On April 13, 1999, the Andover Public Works Department held a special meeting with the City Council
to discuss the future land needs for their operations, This information has been included for the
Council's review (see attached information). From that discussion the Council authorized staff to
proceed with contacting the adjacent property owners regarding the possible purchase of their
property. We have been in contact with Mr. Larold Thompson who owns approximately 2,28 acres
adjacent to the Public Works Facility and also Mr. Ken Slyzek who owns a larger tract of land at this
location, Mr. Thompson is interested in possibly selling his property, With the Council's previous
authorization, an independent appraiser will be retained to help in the determination of the value of his
property. In order to provide for future expansion possibilities and the potential for a future water
, , treatment facility, it was indicated that approximately 15 acres would be needed (3 acres for possible
) water plant, 5 acres for salt storage, 7 acres for departmental storage). With the rapid development in
the area and the skyrocketing price of raw land it is important to prepare for the future needs of the
residents,
The Council had previously asked for additional information pertaining to the following questions:
Q: Should a satellite site be found for the expansion of the Public Works Facility?
A: The ability to keep the public works facility in a central location provides for more efficient use of
current and future facilitates, The flexibility to adjust facility needs as situations or needs change
over time are possible with centrally located operations, As an example MnDot has recently gone
through a process to centralize its facilities as they were previously spread out at a number of
remote locations, A centralized facility also provides for better communication; efficient access of
resources such as the city mechanics, use of locker areas, lunch rooms, and meeting rooms;
access to city hall; et...
Q. Could existing property currently used for parks be used for future expansion of the Public Works
Facility?
A: Yes. This would be a decision of the Council. Some of the issues would be as follows:
1. The current park facility layout provides for a centralized system which allows for
efficient use of the parks by both the users of the parks and the maintenance staff.
2. If the park facilities were relocated, the relocation costs would essentially include
" property costs and park development costs, In addition the previous investment in
/
the existing parks would be lost.
3. As the population density is greatest south of this park complex the relocation of the
facilities further north may reduce the convenience of access both by vehicle and
pedestrian use of the new trail systems.
If the Council would like any further analysis or information regarding this issue we would be glad to
provide that to you. If this proposal seems acceptable to the Council we would work closely with the
; City Finance Director, Mr. Jim Dickinson, to provide some financing options for your review.
, ,
/
'.
/
;~
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: Tuesday, Ap~il 13, 1999
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
NO. 3 FOR AGENDA
Frank Stone - Public Works
ITEM Superintendent BY:
NO. Need of Additional Property for Public
Works Division
Discuss need of additional property for Public Works Division as follows:
, \ . Three acres for water treatment plant and ground storage
) . Five acres for salt storage building (information included in packet)
. Seven acres for departmental storage areas
(Partial information included in packet, remainder available at meeting)
, MOTION: SECOND:
/
FILE: G:\WORDlCOUNCIL\4-lJmlg,doc
. -- -- - - -- -
t. :-":~.'<';- ::
=NTEH @
'C.22
, en /------...-...-
--.-
): - ..... ~ ,.,-, ,
~) , .
-: , ,
__I . I ~L)
. - , (
/.(4 0 ---...., ,
, I
.z " . 1__-
" .. /
.., .. -..._- ,
.'
~:
J: c
II ~ c:c >
'0
!a::
.
". .~ .,
c: ,
", ~
~, -
, ..
:z ,
.., ::>
)~e ~4 (,!)
..:,,-V (I) "
...: ;~ "! -f'~Nlr/ J'. 5~y.zd~
.. L . 00
)" '"
: :~- '..~ .e!l.A1 -. 0-
,
~ .
. ,~ It)
-,:.
t~ "
-.~ : G f/C;ly;, C,Qs- ,T' A"'7/"v~"
..'" '
.....~ . I
~::~
,';
, .
:: z
" :(1#)
1.#
. .
...: I-
~: U) A1"',#''''~ /''AI!'' ",. . "'" A'I..I' 'f~";
.... .- .~- ~... E.u~ ~ .........,
~~... /. .M #~Hfl..... .' ""', H' ;2CfO
~;l')
):~~
).; <( (1) (~) (8) ,,) f+) (J) -
:, C> 0
:;:-z ",)
.(2- - ri1
..~I- 1.1S'..c. l'fl
... ,: ::r: ,2-
}~
"j ;z . A:1J~
"',
t" . .....
", ---------------
i .
,
- ,
~, :
\ .
, -..
\
'\ . /
.
,
/ Special Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - April 13. 1999
Page 2
(Discuss Items to be Purchasedfrom 1999B Equipment Certificate, Continued)
Chief Winkel stated the fire engine and utility vehicles will replace other units. The pickup has to
go back to the DNR. The $25,000 for the officer utility vehicles should be the complete package.
Councilmember Jacobson suggested all of the equipment be the same color except the fire trucks.
He didn't care what color as long as they are uniform. Staff members stated it can be difficult to get
different colors on low bids. It can also get costly to get them painted a specific color. Also, now
the departments have different colors. Councilmember Knight suggested dealing with stock colors
so it doesn't cost more.
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, the proposed equipment budget as presented at a total
cost of $1, I 05,000 subject to the sale of the certificate and subject to the new vehicles, with the
exception of the Fire Department, be painted a uniform color. DISCUSSION: Ms. McGann stated
as bids are received for these units, the item will be placed on the non-discussion portion of the
agenda for approval unless the bids vary significantly from the estimate, Councilmember Knight
asked about purchasing economy vehicles. Mr. Fursman explained the Building Department will
\ be ordering a blazer for the fourth building inspector, which is needed for the work of that
J Department. Mr. Wallace is doing a cost comparison analysis on the cost of vehicles over the long
run. Motion carried unanimously.
REVIEW ADDITIONAL INFORil'IA TION FOR CONCESSION CONTRACT
Ms. McGann stated she met with Corey Coons, C & H Distributing. He brought in the records of
their daily sales, and she is comfortable with what he is providing. She felt communication will be
better in the future. The City is putting together a list of what can and cannot be done in the building
because of the safety and health codes. An inspections check list will also be developed to be used
at the end of the season. That list will be forwarded to Mr. Coons. The contract with C & H
Distributing was approved contingent upon her working out the details on the reports. There will
be some word changes to the contract which will be brought back to the Council for approval.
In discussing the end of the season. Ms. McGann stated the contract can be ended October 15 as long
as there is no tournament behind that point. If there is, the contract can be extended for another 30
days. The contract states the building will be cleaned up within 15 days of the end of the season.
The Council generally agreed.
NEED OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
}
Mr. Stone asked the Council to consider the need for additional property for Public Works. That
would include three acres for a water treatment plant and ground storage, five acres for a salt storage
building, and seven acres for departmental storage areas. He has talked with Mr. Slyzuk, owner of
the property immediately west of the Public Works areas. Mr. Slyzuk indicated he would be (Need
~- / Special Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - April 13, 1999
Page 3
of Additional Property for Public Works Division, Continued)
doing something in the next three years and that he would give the City first chance to that property.
The decision must be made whether a water treatment plant will be built. Also, the City is currently
getting its salt through the county, but there is an administrative charge for it. To purchase salt on
its own, the city would need to construct a salt storage building. Ham Lake put up a pole building
for $30,000 for salt storage; however, a pole building would not be allowed in Andover. Oak Grove
put up a similar building with cedar for $80,000..
The Council discussed the proposals, costs, the problems with the existing system of getting salt for
the roads and with the quality of the municipal water plus other options. There was some sentiment
on the part of the Council that the best location for the needs of Public Works would be the Slyzuk
property because of its location. In addition, possibly more park facilities and/or office buildings
would be an appropriate use of the remaining property. It was noted, however, that the cost may be
too much; plus there is the question of where the funds would come from to pay for it. It was
suggested that Mr. Slyzuk may be willing to give the City an option on the property. Possibly there
will be funds from land sales in the commercial areas in three to four years to pay for this land. It
'\ was also suggested that those areas of parkland that are not being used or are unusable be sold.
'. _J
For now, the Council was fairly interested in the Slyzuk property and felt there may be options
available for the resources to purchase it in the next few years.
EVALUA TE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT FUTURE EXPANSION
Public Works Utilities Department personnel Brian Kraabel, Scott Protovinski demonstrated the
current split water pressure system and the drawbacks and obstacles they face with the system. A
proposal is to replace the tower on the west end of town with a million-gallon tower to equalize the
pressure between that tower and the one at City Hall. It is estimated to cost about $1,500,000. It
would also be helpful to loop the water system along South Coon Creek Drive. The City of Eden
Prairie along with their school district has built a water treatment plant with educational facilities.
They would like to educate the people about \vater and the system, and this would be a good method
to do so. They would like to talk with the school district about a similar proposal as was done in
Eden Prairie. The cost for a water treatment plant to treat about 7 million gallons a day is estimated
to be between $7 and $10 million.
The Council reviewed the proposal, costs, and the operations of the system. Possibly consideration
should also be given to having the ability to provide water service to the w'estem-most subdivisions
, such as Dostaler Haine and Meadowwood. They wanted to know rough costs for the water
- , treatment plant with an educational facility before discussing it with the residents.
Councilmember Orttel stated he has been receiving calls regarding the build-up of siltation in some
of the City's storm water drainage ponds. There is an obligation on the part of the city to maintain
those ponds and to prevent them from flooding. To his knowledge, the City does not have a program