HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-041/042
~-.
-.
. .
~ ~-gg:~rzJ.J
If-Jft
Extract of Minutes of Meeting
of City Council
City of Arden Hills
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Held: August 21, 1979
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting
of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was
duly beld in the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 21st
day of August, 1979, at 7:30 o'clock p. m.
The following members were present: Mayor Crepeau and
Councilmen Hanson, Wingert, Crichton 1 and the following was
absent: Councilman Woodburn.
Also in attendance were: Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk
Administrator; Donald Christoffersen of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson,
City consult~ng Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and
Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City
Bond Consultant.
The City Clerk Administrator presented an affidavit showing
publication of notice of hearing on the proposed assessment for
Combined Improvements W-77-5 and W-78-2 in the New Brighton Bulletin
on August 2, 1979, which affidavit was examined, found satisfactory,
and ordered placed on file. The Clerk Administrator also
exhibited a Certificate of Mailing Notice of Hearing to all
affected property owners.
MAYOR CREPEAU: I will ask the city engineer, Mr. Don
Christoffersen, to briefly explain the improvements involved and
outline the area on the map.
. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The improvement serves the area outlined
in pink and shaded in blue. It consists of the construction of
watermain along the south side of Highway 96, past New Highway 10,
and on the north side of Highway 96 for a short ways, and again on
the south side and along the east side of the frontage road, down
14th street, across open field, back to Old Highway 10, northerly
.
.
. '.
2
on Old Highway 10, crossing new 10 and Snelling Avenue, a
connection being made between this point and that, plus an
extension through McClung Drive over to Hamline. It also
includes a small portion of watermain on 13th Street Northeast.
The assessments were based on a front footage basis and
also an area basis. If the property is fronting - I will use
this as an example - if it's fronting on a watermain,it was
assessed on a front foot basis on the front with a 200 foot
setback. That does not have an area assessment, and beyond
that there was an area assessment applied.
On a corner lot a front foot basis was applied, plus 15 feet
around the corner and 185 feet was not assessed, and then if
it continued, a front foot assessment would apply.
MAYOR CREPEAU: I now ask our fiscal consultant, Mr.
Peter Popovich, to briefly explain the financing~ as well as
the area assessment.
MR. POPOVICH: The total cost of these two combined improve-
ments totals $679,834. Based on a 100 percent assessment of
this cost against the benefited property within the' area would
mean that we would have to raise that amount of money, and the
question is then how much would be by front footage and how much
by acreage.
On a residential front footage it's $13.98 a front foot
and that will raise $299,599. commercial frontage is $20.97 a
front foot and that will raise $212,349.
The acreage assessment as computed as indicated by the engineer
is $559.30 an acre for residential property, and the commercial
acreage is $838.95 per acre, and the total of those two will
raise $155,000.
The balance of $8,280 is raised by 1 inch services of
$345 each, $1,227 by 6 inch services at $614 each and there are
two of those, and $2,130 on 8 inch services at $710 and there
are three of those.
When you add that up it will total the to tal cost.
Formulas such as acreage charges or front footage charges
are merely a means to arrive at equitably apportioning out the
total cost. If you were to eliminate the acreage, for example, it
would then mean that that total amount of $155,000 would have to
be spread by increasing the front footage cost or by some other
type formula such as a unit charge or what have you.
Over the years the cities have generally determined that if
there is a benefit because of location in the proximity of the
. ,
3
.
improvement that they should receive an acreage charge, and the
front footage, depending on the number of front feet you have,
would be the front footage charge in of itself. The. charges
for services are explanatory because there are different amounts
for different size services, and the difference between
residential and commercial is justified because of different
uses of the property, but as I said, the approach is to find
out what the total cost is. The cost has to be financed and
apportioned out as equitably as possible based on the benefits the
property has received for the improvement that's been put in.
It's proposed the assessments be spread over 20 years so
the first installment would be collected beginning with taxes
next year .and the first half of the installment would be due
on May 31 and the second in October of 1980. The carrying charge
would be at 8% on .the unpaid balance.
The Council has adopted in the past, a policy that if
people wish to prepay to save the interest charges they can pay
in full within 30 days after the assessment roll is adopted
and pay no interest, but you have also gone a bit further and
said you will accept 50 percent of the total assessment,
so if somebody has a $5,000 assessment and doesn't want to. pay
the full $5000, although they have the right to do it, they could
pay $2,500 and the other $2,500 would be spread over the 20
year period of time.
COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I'm assuming the figures you were
quoting were approximate ones - just for the record.
MR. POPOVICH: I left out some pennies.
Mayor Crepeau announced that the meeting was open for the con-
sideration of objections, if any, to said proposed assessment.
All persons present were then given the opportunity to present
oral objections, and all written objections theretofore filed
with the City Clerk Administrator were presented and considered,
. and all such objections were tabulated as follows:
Written communications:
Edith Ervin, 4441 Highway 10: Protested the area assessment,
indicating that she felt residents should only be assessed when the
improvements are made where they live.
Dwight and Georgia Carlson, 4345 Highway 10: Also objected
to the area assessment.
4
Oral presentations were made by the following:
.
MR. JIM MILLER, 4482 North Snelling Avenue: Asked Mr.
Popovich to repeat the front foot and acreage assessment
amounts.
MR. JOHN GRUDNOSKE, 4439 Highway 10: Reviewed list of names
of persons present at previous hearings on February 6 and June 19.
Commented that he had his well repaired at a cost of $1,400
after the watermain on Highway 10 was voted down, and that Mr.
Ervin had also had his well repaired. Mr. Grudnoske further
said that he has 1.6 acres of land, with his house located in
the center of the property, and doesn't feel he should pay
the acreage charge since there will never be more than one
service required because the property can't be sub-divided.
Mr. Christoffersen repeated the city policy of charging
the first 200 feet of property depth from the street a front
foot assessment, and the balance of property an acreage assess-
ment.
Mr. Grudnoske said the only benefit to him is for one
service to his house and for that reason doesn't understand
why he should pay an acreage charge. pointed. out that he
realizes his.lot.is wider than his neighbors and he realizes
his frontage charge would be more theirs. Also said that he
could understand the area charge if he could build additional
houses behind his.
Councilmen Woodburn and Hanson agreed that if additional
houses cannot be built on the lot, the area assessment shoula
not be charged.
MR. LEE ROEBKE, 4355 Highway 10: Objected to the area
assessment. Said he should not be assessed unless he's able to
use the facility. He doesn't intend to connect to the water
and refuses to pay the assessment. Further said that the matter
of area assessments should have been brought up at previous
meetings.
Mayor crepeau pointed out that each water area in the city
has been assessed acreage as well as front footage.
. Councilman Hanson said that the water assessments were
discussed at the feasibility hearings.
MR. JIM WINIECKI, 4471 Highway 10: Said he did not recall
the area assessment being discussed at previous meetings, and
asked that the minutes from those meetings be checked.
Mr. Popovich read from the verbatim minutes of the meeting
of June 19, 1978 in which acreage charges were dissussed, and
it was explained that under the base plan the engineer would have
.
.
5
to place an area assessment at least on an area basis even
though no water would be provided in front of the houses.
He further explained that the burden of proof of no benefit is
on the property owner, which is the purpose of the assessment
hearing. Benefit is a judgemental matter and there is a basis
for an area assessment but determination must be made as to
whether the dollar charge is appropriate. .
MR. JOHN GRUDNOSKE, 4439 Highway 10: Asked if the
Northern States Power property would be assessed.. Councilman
Crichton replied that they are included in the assessment roll.
MR. ALLEN JOHNSON, 4529 Lakeshore Place: Asked why
residents had to use a certified plumber to hook up the water
when that isn't a requirement in other cities.
Mrs. McNiesh .said that a city ordinance requires it and
she believed the state required that all sewer and water
work be done under the supervision of a licensed plumber.
MR. LEE ROEBKE, 4355 Highway 10: Cited the case of a
man in the city who had built his own house with the help of
friends, where no licensed electricians or plumbers were used.
Councilman Crichton's remarks were inaudible.
MR. FRANK WINIECKE, 4175 Highway 10: Told of having his
sewer connected, and at the same time having extra copper tubing
put in which has been damaged by the water contractor, Houle.
Mr. Winiecke also said that Houle had pulled the apron off of
the culvert.
Mayor Crepeau assured Mr. Winiecke that the city engineer
would look into the matter.
MR. JOHN MC CLUNG, 4326 North Snelling Avenue: Has been
assessed for 4.26 acres of land, much of which, or all, is being
required by Rice Creek Watershed to beset aside for nutrimental
purposes. Asked if it's the Council's intent to assess that kind
of property that must be set aside for such a purpose.
Mr. Christoffersen said he was not aware that the property
was required by the watershed district.
MR. JIM WINIECKE, 4471 Highway 10: Asked if the pond on
his father's property (Frank Winiecke) was being assessed.
Mr. Christoffersen replied that six-tenths of an acre was
being assessed.
.
.
'.
6
MR. JOHN LAWYER, 1484 West Highway 96: Is being assessed
for 431 feet of frontage and five and a half acres for a
total assessment of $9,267.02. Because of the size of the
assessment he doesn't think the property will increase in value.
Further said that there's a large slough in the back of the
property covering 1.62 acres, but since houses could not be
built up to the water he calculated that there were 2.64 acres
unsuitable for building. Also said that a second house couldn't
be built at the front of the property without degrading the
value of the house already there. Further, privacy would be
lost as well as energy since some of the trees that.serve as a
windbreak would have to be destroyed. Suggested that the
front footage should be cut to 50%. He felt that $2,832.64
should be.subtracted from his assessment. He further suggested
to the council that the petitioners for the improvement were
land developers who will realize large sums of money from
the development of the area. He feels that the city has not
struck a correct balance between who benefits by the improvement
and how much they benefit, and who pays and how much they pay and
that what has been done is not an equitable distribution.
Mr. Lawyer also indicated that he has no intention of developing
his land. .
~myor Crepeau asked Mr. Christoffersen how much of the
Lawyer property was deleted for wetland. Mr. Christoffersen
replied that none was deleted because the city' has a drainage
plan and the low spot in Mr. Lawyer's property was not included
in a ponding area. He was assessed for a total of 5.64 acres
and 431 feet. .
MR. LEE ROEBKE, 43"55 Highway 10: Said it doesn't seem
reasonable that a man who owns five acres of land has to spend
$10,000 for the purpose of flushing the toilet or getting a drink
of water.
Councilman Crichton noted that the assessments are based
on what could happen to property in the future, and not what
exists now.
MR. ALLEN JOHNSON, 4529 Lakeshore Place: Commented on the
condition of the road after the installation of the water.
Mr. Christoffersen indicated that the contractor has not
finished Lakeshore Place.
MR. GLENN BEGGIN, 4519 Lakeshore Place: Said he had heard
that all that's needed on Lakeshore Place is the sealcoat.
MR. Christoffersen replied that he hasn't made a final
inspection of the project and if surfacing is required, it will
be done.
.
.
7
Asked how many
35% of theproperty
MR. GLENN BEGGIN, 4519 Lakeshore Place:
petitioners there were, and whether they were
owners, or represented 35% of the property.
Mr. popovich noted that it isn't the number of people that
count under the law, but rather the amount of affected property.
It's 35% of the affected property - not 35% of the number of
individuals. He also said that he and the engineer had checked
the petition and it did exceed 35~ of the affected property.
At this time the Clerk Administrator re-checked the petition,
and Mayor Crepeau announced that it was 46% of the property
owners who asked for the improvement.
MR. JOHN GRUDNOSKE, 4439 Highway 10: Said that if a water
main is extended on Highway 10 at some future time, the entire
front footage assessment will be on only one side of Highway 10
since there are no properties to assess across the street. Since
they're being asked to pay an acreage assessment now, who will help
them pay the cost when they get service to their property.
Councilman Woodburn explained that acreage charges are
necessary to pay for trunk mains of an appropriate size to
serve the area.
MR. JIM WINIECKE, 4471 Highway 10: Asked if someone could
explain what the cost would be to the people living on Old
Highway 10 when they get water service.
The consensus of the Council members was that it will be
expensive for. the comparatively small segment of watermain,
which can only be assessed to benefit ted properties. It was
pointed out that this fact was brought out at the feasibility
hearing for the improvement.
MR. GLENN BEGGIN, 4519 Lakeshore Place: Asked amount of his
assessment.. He was referred to the assessment roll, and.it
was explained that this assessment represents a full front footage
and he would not be assessed for water again.
MR. LEONARD GRUDNOSKE, 4445 Highway 10: Asked if assessment
policy for this improvement is different from previous water
improvements in the city. Councilman Crichton explained that
previously $7.50 a front foot was charged for residential
property and $11.00 a front foot for commercial, plus a certain
percentage of the costs exceeding this amount, which brought
the assessment to very close to the method presently used.
MR. JIM WINIECKI, 4471 Highway 10: Asked if the assessment
amounts shown in the assessment roll are final, or if they could
be revised upward. Mr. Popovich replied that if an error should
be found or any parcels of property omitted, a supplemental
assessment hearing would have to be held to amend the assessments
upward.
8
.
MR. LEE ROEBKE, 4355 Highway 10: Said he has the distinct
impression that the decision has already been made. Asked if
the 200 feet setback for property on Highway 10 goes all the way
to the lake or if the property owners are charged for the property
in excess of 200 feet.
Mr. Christoffersen said he doesn't believe any of those
properties exten~ beyond 200 feet.
Councilman Woodburn stated that the decisions have not
been made yet and he predicted that some changes would be made
in the assessment roll.
MR. LEE ROEBKE, 4355 Highway 10: Asked the cost if water
were run at this time. Mr, Christoffersen estimated at least
10% to 15% increase this year for the short stub, which was
$100,000 one and a half years ago.
MR. JOHN GRUDNOSKE, 4439 Highway 10. Said he was opposed
to the water improvement.
There being no further questions or comments, Mayor Crepeau
closed the hearing at 9:20 o'clock p. m. .
After a Council discussion of the views presented by the
property owners, Councilman Hanson introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-41 (1)
RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS FOR
COMBINED IMPROVEMENTS W-77-5 andW-78-2
BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Arden
HillS, Minnesota, as follows:
.
1. The proposed assessments for Combined Improvements W-77-5
and W-78-2 should be and are hereby amended by reducing the
McClung assessment of Outlot A acreage required by Rice Creek
Watershed District for ponding, as follows:
Change Made
Original Revised
Parcel Number
25 49000 010 03
$ 3,391.50
$ 3,246.08
2. It is hereby found and determined by this Council that
the foregoing amendment is just and equitable to said proposed
assessment, and necessary to a fair assessment for payment of the
cost of said improvement.
-.
~.
9
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded by Councilman Wingert, and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All; and
the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Hanson then introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-41 (2)
RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS FOR
COMBINED IMPROVEMENTS 1'1-77-5 and W-78-2
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden
Hills, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The proposed assessments for Combined Improvement W-77-5
and W-78-2 should be and are hereby amended by reduaing the
area charges to $419.48 per residential acre, and to $629.22 per
commercial acre, with the 25% reduction of $39,000 to be paid
by general taxes, as follows:
Parcel Number
Change Made
Original Revised
25 01600 240 53
25 01600 250 53
25 01600 020 54
25 01600 040 54
25 01600 050 54
25 01600 070 54
25 01600 030 55
25 01600 050 55
25 01600 060 55
25 01600 080 55
$ 6,359.32
33.56
425.07
12,947.63
3,146.10
6,843.11
151.01
156.61
162.20
156.61
$ 4,769.49
25.17
318.80
12,195.36
3,111.14
6,408.25
113.26
117.45
121.65
117.45
'.
10
. Change Made
Parcel Nwnber Original Revised
25 01600 090 55 $ 5,984.58 $ 4,488.44
25 01600 100 55 206.94 155.21
25 01600 120 55 173.39 130.04
25 01600 010 56 2,944.75 2,208.56
25 01600 020 56 805.40 604.05
25 02100 010 01 12,104.42 11,908.66
25 02100 020 01 39,115.11 37,149.15
25 02100 040 06 268.47 201. 35
25 02100 040 07 917.26 687.95
25 02100 060 27 12,371.49 11,855.53
25 02100 150 27 10,226.92 10,218.53
25 02100 030 35 10,709.32 9,788.57
25 02100 030 36 20,969.80 19,371. 59
25 02100 020 38 18,910.16 17,643.33
25 02100 030 38 15,866.04 14,674.72
25 02100 020 51 4,418.20 4,015.50
25 02100 040 52 21,175.35 20,810.40
25 02100 050 52 9,954.26 7,806.52
25 02100 060 52 3,255.16 2,965.72
. 25 02100 070 52 40,077.02 39,395.37
25 02100 030 75 15,352.97 14,975.44
25 02100 010 76 6,359.32 5,923.06
25 02100 060 80 27,375.26 26,141. 99
25 02100 020 81 5,590.27 5,398.71
11
Change Made
. Parcel Number Original Revised
25 02100 040 81 $15,573.89 $15,298.44
25 02100 050 81 3,501.26 3,325.07
25 02100 011 83 35,757.50 34,787.10
25 02200 020 27 2,615.79 2,572.44
25 02200 040 27 2,554.26 2,526.30
25 02200 060 27 2,615.79 2,572.44
25 02200 080 27 2,270.79 2,227.44
25 02200 100 27 2,313.76 2,276.01
25 02200 120 27 9,526.02 8,737.40
25 02200 130 27 25,714.12 23,183.26
25 02200 020 28 2,259.23 2,187.91
25 02200 020 29 2,143.17 2,095.63
25 02200 030 29 4,200.02 4,097.95
25 02200 060 30 12,752.19 10,927.45
25 02200 080 30 13,820.47 12,462.75
25 02200 020 54 29,720.30 26,368.66
25 17000 100 01 2,617.56 2,609.17
25 17000 110 01 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 17000 120 01 1,539.49 1,484.96
25 17000 121 01 1,531.10 1,478.67
. 25 17000 130 01 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 17000 140 01 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 17000 150 01 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 17000 160 01 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 17000 170 01 3,003.48 2,898.61
12
. Change Made
Parcel Number Original Revised
25 17000 180 01 $ 3,003;48 $ 2,898.61
25 17000 190 01 12,545.87 12,162.04
25 17000 220 02 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 17000 230 02 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 17000 240 02 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 17000 250 02 3,003.48 2,898.61
25 20000 010 01 296.43 222.32
25 20000 020 01 268.47 201. 35
25 20000 030 01 268.47 201. 35
25 44000 031 01 28,549.11 26,361.5?
25 44000 060 02 313.21 234.91
25 44000 070 02 212.54 159.40
25 44000 080 02 223.72 167.79
25 44000 100 02 257.28 192.96
25 44000 110 02 453.04 339.78
25 44000 090 02 268.47 201. 35
25 50000 010 02 3,238.39 2,428.79
25 50000 094 03 1,504.53 1,128.40
25 50000 083 04 1,661.14 1,245.86
. 25 50000 201 04 598.46 448.84
25 50000 211 04 206.94 155.21
25 50000 221 04 206.94 155.21
25 50000 231 04 206.94 155.21
25 50000 241 04 218.13 163.60
25 50000 251 04 346.77 260.08
13
. Change Made
Parcel Number Original Revised
25 50000 011 05 $ 385.92 $ 289.44
25 50000 021 05 201.35 151.01
25 50000 031 05 206.94 155.21
25 50000 041 05 408..29 306.22
25 50000 052 05 464.22 348.17
25 92260 010 01 285.25 213.93
25 92260 010 02 637.61 478.21
25 92260 010 03 419.48 314.61
25 92260 010 04 425.07 318.80
25 92260 010 05 380.33 285.25
25 92260 010 06 620.83 465.62
2. It is hereby found and determined by this Council that
the foregoing amendment is just and equitable to said proposed
assessment, and necessary to a fair assessment for payment of the
cost of said improvement.
. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded by Councilman crichton, and'upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: A117 and
the following voted against the same: None 7 whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Hanson then introduced. the following reso1u-
. tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-42
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING
ASSESSMENTS AS AMENDED FOR
COMBINED IMPROVEMENTS W-77-5 AND W-78-2
.
.
. '
14
BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Arden
Hills, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The amount proper and necessary to be special1y.assessed
at this time for Combined Improvements W-77-5 and W-78~2, against
every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby
has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits; without
regard to cash valuation, in accordance with:the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been
duly mailed and published, as required by law, thatthis.Council
would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if
any, and said proposed assessment has at all times since its
filing been open for public inspection, and an opportunity has
been given to all. interested persons to present. their objec-
tions, if any, to such proposed assessments. . .
2. This council, having heard and considered all objec-
tions so presented, and being fully advised in the premises,
finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumer-
ated in the proposed assessment as amended was and is specially
benefitted by the construction of said improvement'.in not less
than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description
of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respectively, and
such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the
respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein.
3. The proposed assessments as amended are hereby adopted
and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said
lots, pieces and parcels of land, respectively, and the assess-
ment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of
8% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to
time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon
such parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such
assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal insta11~
ments extending over a period of twenty (20) years, the first
of said installments, together with interest on the entire
assessment from the date thereof to December 31, 1980, to be
payable with general taxes for the year 1979, collectible in
1980, and one of each of the remaining installments, together
with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid insta11-
ments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive
year thereafter until the entire assessment. is paid.
4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County
Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed
hereby may. at any time pay the whoJ,.e or at least 50% of such
assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City
Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is
made within 30 days after the date of this resolution.
.
.
15
5. The City Clerk Administrator shall, as soon as may be,
prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate
of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on
.each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon
the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall
thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by
law.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded by Councilman Crichton, and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Al17 and
the following voted against the same: None 7 whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
.
.
16
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
City Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey
County, Minnesota, .do hereby certify that. I have carefully com-
pared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 21st
day of August, 1979, with the original thereof on file in my
office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript
therefrom insofar as the same relates to Combined Improvements
W-77-5 and W-78-2.
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this' rf:!fJ::i:: day
of September, 1979.
ae~~t!JJ(p~
. City Clerk Administrator
(SEAL)