Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 03-30-1981 Minutes of Regular Council Meeting March 30, 1~8'J. .;' 2. How to best get complaints to RCWD? Harstad said that a letter is probably the best way to introduce the complaint; probably followed by personal appearance. 3. Apparent lack of communication between RCWD and the Village. It was explained that the method of emptying the low- lands in the area of County Rd. E2 was changed by RCWD, without notification to the city; this change put city sewer in danger of flooding; now RCWD is asking the city to pay for correcting the RCWD's changE\! plan. .. In discussion of RCWD's long range program to improve water quality, Council suggested that consideration be given to: 1. Changing the drainage into the lakes. 2. Controlling the level of the lakes; lowering the level in the fall to prevent flood damage in the spring; suggested a dam to raise or lower the level. Council asked if Round Lake is in the purview of RCWD's regulations; advised that the lake level is being lowered by the Dept. of Wild- life and Fisheries; noted that the aesthetics of this lake are important to the residents, the city and possibly to RCWD as well. Crichton thanked Manager Harstad for listening to Council's con- cerns, which Harstad said she would relay to the Board of Managers. County Road E. Improvement - NSP Agreement McNiesh reported that all the easements have not been received to date; therefore the NSP Agreement cannot be executed as worded. McNiesh suggested that Council may wish to consider re-wording the agreement to state that "Arden lIi1ls will acquire all ease- ments" . After discussion, Woodburn moved, seconded by Hollenhorst, that Council approve execution of the NSP agreement, as written, sub- ject to receiving all easements prior to April 1st; recognizing the fact that, without the easements, Council cannot sign the agreement. Motion carried (Woodburn, Holl'enhorst, Johnson, Crichton voting in favor of the motion; McAllister voting in opposition.) It was Council's intent to go ahead with the project, if it can. Bid Award - Water Tower Painting Christoffersen referred Council to Bid Tabulation of 6 bids received; noted that the apparent low bidder is Allied painting and Reno- vating at $17,300.00. Christoffersen recommended that Council defer awarding the bid, pending his investigation of the bidder's request to change the type of paint and method of application. Christoffersen advised that this request probably does not impact other bids received because the bid price will be the same for either of the alter- nates (as per specs or alternate proposed). - Award of Bid was deferred to the April 13th meeting. Christoffersen reported that painting of the stand pipe was not included in the specifications; advised that the stand pipe should be painted; change order may be needed to include painting the stand pipe. Payroll Hollenhorst moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council approve the Payroll as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. -2- " . . , ~lnutes of Regular Council Meeting March 30, 1981 Proposed Equipment Purchase - Parks Department Council was referred to Buckley's memo of 3-27-81 re proposed purchase of a Workmaster Infield Pro Attachment and Drag at $4,935 (Minn. Toro Inc.) ana a Turf Aerator Demo at $1,700 (R.L. Gould). After Discussion, McAllister moved, seconded by Ho11enhorst, that Council approve the purchase of the Workmaster and Drag in the amount of $4,935 from Minnesota Toro Inc. Motion carried unani- mous 1y. Council requested additional information relative to the proposed aerator purchase, pertaining to where and how it will be used and why it is considered necessary. Jr. Mustang Basketball Council was referred to Buckley's memo of 3-30-81. McAllister moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council approve the hiring of the additional individuals as listed in Buckley's memo. Motion carried unanimously. (It was Council's understanding that these additional people will replace those who will be out of town during the specified week of March 23rd through March 27th.) Northridge Emerald Inn Park Dedication McAllister referred Council to the memo relative to Emerald Inn Park Dedication negotiations. McAllister reported that Emerald Inn prefj!rs to make a "donation" to the city rather than a "dedication"; offers a $4,000 donation in satisfaction of its park dedication requirements for 2.79 acres, payable in four $1000.00 installments. After discussion, McAllister moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Council approve the $4000 donation, ~n lieu of and in sstisfaction of the park dedication for Northridge Emerald Inn; first install- ment to be payable prior to building occupancy and the other three payable within one year at quarterly intervals as designated in agreement. Motion carried unanimously. (McNiesh was requested to drsft appropriate agreement for execution by Northridge Emerald Inn.) Ad j ournmen t Johnson moved, seconded by 10:18 p.m. Motion csrried McAllister, that the meeting adjourn at unanim0usly. ~klnt/;f!!t:1~L ~ Charlotte McNiesh Clerk Administrator c:g~icG~ Mayor Notice of Meeting The next Regulsr Council Meeting will be held on Monday, April 13th at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall. $ , Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minne~ota . March 30, 1981 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, March 30, 1981, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Crichton and Councilmen Johnson, McAllister, woodburn and Hollenhorst; and the following were absent: None. Also present were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Adminis- trator; Donald Christoffersen, City Engineer; Donald Lamb; City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR CRICHTON: We will proceed with the public hearing for Improvement No. ST-81-2, the potential project to improve and update the storm drainage, which our engineer will tell us about when he gets to the floor. I now open that public hearing and I would like to ask the Clerk Administrator to verify that affidavits of publication and mailing are on file. CHARLOTTE McNIESH: I have a certificate indicating that the property owners were notified by mail, notices were deposited in the New Brighton post Office on March 17, and the notice of the hearing appeared in the New Brighton Bulletin on March 19 and March 26. MAYOR CRICHTON: Would our engineer, Mr. Christoffersen, briefly explain the improvement proposed. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Thank you Mayor. I'm not so sure this will be briefly explained, but I'll do my best. This is a storm sewer improvement that has been under study since, I . believe, the early 1970's. I think our file goes back - there were some extensive studies accomplished in 1974. The studies of 1974 gave us guidelines to foliow for construction of various storm sewer facilities in this area that I will point out to you. As you know, Ramsey County has constructed on Lexington Avenue and County Road F was constructed. I will attempt to explain the whole thing to you here very briefly. For orienta- tion on the drawing, County Road E is here at the south. We were just discussing Grey FOX Road, that's right here. Lexington . . Avenue is in this location. Can everybody see that alright? Lexington Avenue is in this location, 694 is through here, County Road F in this location. The purpose - the original reason to kick off a storm sewer study in this area was based on the fact that Ramsey County wanted to improve Lexington Avenue. There were no storm sewers in the area. There are some ditch systems along Lexington Avenue that would be filled in the event that Lexington Avenue were widened and improved. This is one of the reasons why it was initiated. In 1974, there were some plans - a plan was developed that we have been following to a certain extent to arrive where we are today. I will go through the existing drainage system now and then go to the proposed later. There is existing storm sewer on Fernwood which drains into a detention basin by the NSP substation and then,enters into another drainage system that goes easterly on County Road F and discharges into a drainage ditch that goes south along the Land O'Lakes property. This storm drainage system was recently constructed during the County Road F improvement. Along with this particular piece of storm sewer in this location from the westerly portion of County Road F to Fernwood, drainage was directed to a detention basin in this location, near Cardiac Pacemakers in the southeast quadrant of their property, to a detention basin. Carrying on in Arden Hills, the existing drainage now currently flows through an open ditch into another detention basin that has been kept by Land O'Lakes in their development and a drainage easement over this property has been obtained. Drainage from this location drains by open ditch into the existing low marsh in this area, which then drains down southeasterly into the highway ditch at this point. This also discharges into the highway ditch. They both meet at an existing culvert right here under Interstate 694 frontage road. Land O'Lakes, in their construction, developed the wes- terly portion of this pond. In fact, they excavated a pond and created additional ponding. This excavation and additional ponding was necessary for their overall drainage plan. In Shoreview - this by the way illustrates Shoreview - this is all Shoreview on this side of Lexington Avenue, and again, the drainage area - I forgot to mention that it's outlined by this dotted line - so you can see where the drainage is all coming from. Shoreview has constructed a detention basin in th~s location, a minor storm sewer here which drains southerly into a storm sewer system that was constructed by Deluxe Check. They occupy this whole portion and this is an internal drainage system. It in turn drains under Lexington Avenue through a culvert into this detention basin. Shoreview also has a storm sewer constructed on this street and along Gramsie Road that. discharges into a ditch that drains down in this direction. All of the flow north of the freeway, north of Interstate 694, currently ultimately drains to this point on the west side of Lexington Avenue at this point. This drainage comes through a culvert/ditch system and enters a ditch on the west side of Lexington Avenue at this point. A portion of Shoreview north of my pointer, up in this area, drains into this detention basin which also drains this way. South of here drains through, on the Shoreview side, drains through the intersection to a pipe/ 2 . . ditch/culvert system and ultimately ends up at this point. So you can see that all of this area ultimately drains to here. MR. POPOVICH: could you describe sense. Don, when you say "he;r-en or "this point", it? Later on in the record it won't make any MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Okay. To a point on the west side of Lexington Avenue, just north of Red FOX Road. Sorry about that. Drainage is then conducted along the west side of Lexington Avenue through an open ditch/culvert system to Grey FOX Road where it continues westerly to a 42 inch culvert on Grey Fox Road into an open ditch, through some culvert systems and in an open ditch system to State Trunk Highway 51, under State Trunk High- way 51 into Bethel Ditch. Shoreview has a storm sewer along Island Lake Road from this point, from about mid-point on the drawing as you see it to Lexington Avenue. Ramsey County, in the past few years, has constructed storm sewer along Lexington Avenue between the Soo Line Railroad and Grey Fox Road in this loca tion-. The proposed plan consists of utilizing detention basins, B-1, A-2, A-l, A-3, B-2 and D-l. The plan as proposed is to construct an outlet structure on B-1, under County Road F construction. There is an existing pipe that was constructed for an outletting of B-1 so that County Road F would not have to be open cut in the event the storm sewer system came through. It is proposed then to connect to that southerly end of that outlet to B-1, construct a storm sewer south to detention basin B-2, which would end up in detention basin B-2, and then ulti- mately go through an outlet structure at B-2 into another storm sewer system. On the easterly portion of the Land O'Lakes site, it is proposed to connect with the existing system on County Road F, construct a storm sewer southerly to detention basin A-3. This is a necessity because the existing pipe was planned for storm sewers and the ditch line is actually about mid-point of the pipe flow line. It is also planned to propose the pur- chase from Land O'Lakes of the westerly portion of the detention basin that they constructed, lower the easterly portion of this basin to allow for the appropriate storm water storage in the detention basin and construct the outlet pipe from the southerly end of detention basin A-3 to Interstate 694. As an aside, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is also interested in this problem because they are experiencing some flooding. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has agreed, if Shoreview purchases an easement within this area, . has agreed to construct, operate and maintain detention basin D-l and construct a storm sewer from Lexington Avenue along the north side of the interstate freeway to a point south of deten- tion basin B-2 and then construct a crossing into detention basin C-l. They plan to enlarge this detention basin. To do this type of construction, all of the drainage, as I explained before, in Arden Hills, all of the drainage north of Gramsie Road will drain, as indicated before, to detention basin A-3 and B-2, picked up in the Minnesota Department of Highways storm sewer and discharged into detention basin C-l. Flow.from 3 . detention basin C-l will be restricted to an amount which only equals the amount that can be accepted by the existing 24 inch culvert under Red Fox Road. In other words, this plan is reducing all of the flows from the industxial properties and commercial properties in this area to the amount that exists today. This greatly decreases the need for any larger size storm sewer pipe on the south end of Lexington Avenue. The proposed plan by Arden Hills also includes . MAN FROM AUDIENCE: Pardon me, you said the south end. Are you talking about Lexington south of 694? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. Arden Hills also proposes to construct a storm sewer beginning just north of Red Fox Road, south of the interstate freeway on the west side, along the west side of Lexington Avenue down to Grey Fox Road, thus replacing the large open ditch that's in that location, add an additional storm sewer on Grey Fox Road, the capacity of the existing 42 inch is not of a sufficient size to carry the drainage, and also continue that drainage all the way along Grey Fox Road on the north side to its westerly end and then north along the east side of the frontage road and crossing that into Bethel Ditch. There are no plans, other than detention basin C-l, there are no specific plans for detention basins that we have shown on the north side. It is anticipated that all the undeveloped properties in Arden Hills and Shoreview and the main undeveloped properties in Arden Hills - the Tri-State Land Company, a portion owned by, I believe, Mr. Reiling, and the GOuld property in this area - these are the only three major areas left to be developed in Arden Hills. In each one of those cases the only requirements to developing that land would be to follow the Rice Creek Water- shed District's requirement for taking care of your own water and not water from other sources. Shoreview is expected to follow the same procedure south of the freeway. I believe that concludes my portion of the presentation. MAYOR CRICHTON: Following the procedure we have, Mr. Popovich, would you explain the financing. . MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the council, the total cost of this combined project, the published cost is $1,533,782, which includes capitalized interest and all the other costs. The Arden Hills' share is estimated to be $945,527.00. Ramsey County's share, $83,831, and Shoreview, $504,424. That's exclusive of Ramsey County's proportion of actual - whatever they do on Lexington themselves. It's what they would con- . tribute towards this project. It contemplates a joint powers agreement between Shoreview, Ramsey County and Arden Hills to facilitate putting in this joint operation. Obviously, our recommendation is that, assuming the matter went ahead, the City would issue its financing and Shoreview would be paying the City as you went along in some fashion that's presently being nego- tiated with Shoreview, so that when the project was all done, the funds from both communities would be utilized to pay for the project. There are 248 approximate acres believes to be bene- fitted by the improvement. 4 . . MAYOR CRICHTON: Excuse me. That's 248 acres in Arden Hills? MR. POPOVICH: Just Arden Hills. We're only talking about Arden Hills' portion now, the $945,527.00:, because it would be up to Shoreview to justify, and they will be holding a public hearing just as we are for their $504,424.00. Assuming that the project were 100% assessed, the estimated assessment rate would then be $3,940.00 per acre. While the City has not yet deter- mined the years of assessment, I would make the same recommenda- tion for purposes of tonight's hearing that they do it on the basis of not to exceed 15 years and the same comments I made in connection with the other improvement would apply here as to approximate interest rates, carrying charges on unpaid assess- ments, as well as the right to prepay. Those comments would be applicable here as well. MAYOR CRICHTON: Mrs. McNiesh, do we have any written objec- tions to this one? CHARLOTTE McNIESH: I have another letter which is identical to the one I just read on the Grey Fox Road improvement from Roger B. Brostrom, R. L. Gould. MAYOR CRICHTON: It's identical to the one we heard earlier. Then I'd like to open the floor to any comments or questions that we may have from the audience, questions of either the engineer or the bond consultant or the Councilor any comments on the proposed project. MR. PAUL MILTON, 3673 North Hamline: I want to ask - is everything inside that line going to be assessed for the sewer? The dotted line you've got over there. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, on this wall is the green area that was for purposes of the notice. Everybody within the green area got a notice. The improvement part is more jagged. Obviously that is the area to be drained. It is those benefitted people who would be assessed. Now, if somebody is between the jagged portion and where it's straight here, obviously at the time of the assessment hearing they would then be eliminated and not get an assessment, if they're 'outside of the actual improvement as benefitted from construction. But for purposes of the notice, we always include a larger area because you can always decrease it but you can't increase an area once you've published the description. That's the reason (inaudible) . MAYOR CRICHTON: So the land within the dotted line on the transparency is what the engineer has indicated is drained by this area and is proposed as being included in the assessment. At the assessment hearing we will know for sure. It's the land within this that's proposed by the engineer. MR. PAUL MILTON: Well, the dotted line is inaccurate because our property - my neighbors and me - our property isn't 5 . , . . . drained that way. It goes into a ditch that already exists and goes into the ditch that runs into Valentine Lake. We have a ponding area behind. So about one-third of our water is drained off and gets picked up by the Highway.Department's ditch that goes into Bethel Ditch. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Sir, for clarification, is this your location here? This drainage is as he said, and goes into the highway drainage system and is conducted by a culvert to the Bethel Ditch. This portion right here is contemplated - we may use a portion of this system but not reinstall any drainage system down in front of your property. MR. PAUL MILTON: Are we going to get a nbtice then, at assessment time? MAYOR CRICHTON: Yes, you will be notified. MR. PAUL MILTON: Because water, we've got it already. MAYOR CRICHTON: The land that currently is drained in total that ends up in Bethel Ditch and Lake Valentine is what has been delineated here as the total picture rather than taking each piece, a little bit (inaudible) the line indicates where the ultimate drainage is. Are there any further questions or objections or congratulations? MR. WAYNE SERKLAND for Tri-State Land Company: Having heard Mr. Christoffersen's presentation with regard to the project and the drainage and how it's going to be accomplished, I didn't really understand or hear why - what the impetus, the need or the reason for the project is. Could you address that question first for me? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The need for the project is to tie in all of the loose ends we have now in the south portion, south of Interstate 694 along Lexington Avenue. Ramsey County is proposing to widen that portion of Lexington, which will fill in the ditch. This would cause a conduit to have to be constructed from south of 694 on the west side of Lexington down to Grey Fox Road. The elevation of that conduit is 'lower than the existing ditch line by two or three or four feet. I don't recall exactly what it is. It is actually lower than the existing conduit on Grey Fox Road. Therefore we have to chase that pipe out into the open - we reach an opening where we can hit actual ditch bottom somewhere around the westerly portion of the Tri-State property. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: By that, might I understand that it's actually the road change that is being made by Ramsey County which is making the existing levels of the existing ditch system inadequate? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It will eliminate them completely, that's correct. 6 . . . , MAYOR CRICHTON: Dr. Woodburn (inaudible) on that subject before we finish. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen, has there been any flooding or ponding during any heavy rains that are inade- quately taken care of? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes sir. On various occasions, particularly in 1978, the ditch along the west side of Lexington Avenue was flooded because primarily of the restriction of the 42 inch pipe, the freeway was flooded. That's where the prime source was. There was also flooding at the intersection of County Road F and Lexington Avenue in that location. The County, by the way, plans to construct catch basins in this area. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: Those immediate local problems could have been solved by a change in culvert sizing in the areas draining those particular - you said it's a 42 inch culvert, I assume . . . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It's a 42 inch storm sewer when it reaches Grey Fox Road. That storm sewer was constructed in 1960. The design criteria when that was constructed, I have not been able to locate that. This was, if I'm not mistaken, my records indicate it was constructed bv the Minnesota Department of Transportation when they were constructing the freeway system. MAYOR CRICHTON: Before we go on, just let me make sure I understand, Mr. Christoffersen. There was an implication in your statement that if the County was not going to upgrade Lexington Avenue and fill in that ditch then we wouldn't need to do anything. Is that what you meant to imply? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I suppose that you wouldn't have to do anything. I think the important thing is that if Lexington Avenue is to be upgraded, the storm sewer is necessary. Storm sewer is necessary anyway. MAYOR CRICHTON: Perhaps Dr. Woodburn can . . COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: I have another question (inaudible). We go back from 1970 on this first project. The first indica- tion that something needed to be done here, would need to be done, was in 1970. So to carry this on, there has been, as . you say, some flooding. There has been some flooding as it is. That is one of the reasons for upgrading the system. And then, as Mr. Christoffersen said, as we get further development, I would assume that it is inevitable that there will be a certain increase in run-off during heavy periods of rain, despite the best efforts to pond this. Since we have had flooding before, what would this increased run-off and development have to do with the present state of adequacy or inadequacy of the storm system? 7 . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It would gradually cause it to be less and less adequate. It's inadequate right now. I might say more and more inadequate. The conditions would tend to be worse as development occurs. Bear in mind thai this system was con- structed under rural circumstances. Now the area has become urbanized. Each property, as it develops, creates more run-off. The development of a certain property on its own may not be the straw that broke the camel's back, but the combination of all of them is what causes the problem, and you'll see more and more flooding if (inaudible) isn't completed. . MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: How much of this is in the Rice Creek Watershed area? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The whole area. MR. WAYNE. SERKLAND: Doesn't the Rice Creek watershed District itself have certain rules and regulations that would prohibit development of any of this property without accomo- dating its drainage in such a way that it would not - before any parcel could be developed - to have ponding areas sufficient to contain its drainage so that there will be no increase? , MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: For your information, the Rice Creek Watershed District has been kept up to date on this particular plan. They do enforce regulations that require no more drainage leaving the property than what currently exists today. This plan takes into account their requirements. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: Their requirement, in fact, would put an end to what you have just projected as the increased inadequacy, would it not? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's for all new building, not for the buildings that have occurred in the past. This is an attempt to provide a total overall ponding in areas where we can provide it, particularly north of the freeway. There are areas where it could be provided and have been provided. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: But this particular project would not relieve an undeveloped area of the rules and regulations of the Rice Creek Watershed District, would it? . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: In your particular case, the way I understand it, Mr. (inaudible) from your office - was the fact that there is a pond on your property, the Tri-State property, that the Rice Creek Watershed has been protecting for the whole drainage area. Not necessarily just for yours. It would be understood, and I hope they would understand, that should this improvement proceed, then the only amount of ponding that would be required on your property would be that to take care of your property and not the rest of the run-off of the other property. 8 MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: TO the extent that they wouldn't understand that and wouldn't see the reason that you see, we might receive no benefit. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This has been stated in our plan to the Rice Creek Watershed for their approval. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: Have they approved it? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Not yet. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: Is this project itself pending before the Rice Creek Watershed District for approval? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: This project needs their authority before it can proceed? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: I might just comment - one thing that has come to my attention in the past year with regard to the Rice Creek Watershed District, if there has been flooding in this area, they in fact built a dam in the culvert, or the open ditch that runs in front of the Tri-State Land Company's property in order to restrict the flow of water coming through that ditch to whatever criteria thev have - there was a dam constructed. What its purpose was,-I'm confused as to. But it certainly did not aid some drainage (inaudible). MAYOR CRICHTON: Mr. Christoffersen, would you comment on that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The purpose, I believe - I can't speak for them - but I believe the purpose was to detain small amounts of run-off to utilize the marshy area for water quality. Not necessarily to dam it up, the whole back water for hydraulic (inaudible). I might add that my last observation of the site, the dam is no longer functioning because it's washed away. . MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: That does not necessarily mean that it would not be re-established. I simply point out that if there were a dam, for whatever purpose it is constructed, serves the same purpose. It stops the flow of water and Rice Creek had created that dam. With regard to a drainage project such as . this involving land owners such as our property - the Tri-State Land Company property - there will be no benefit to any undevel- oped property from the storm sewer project when you cannot obtain a benefit by relieving your existing, or utilizing some of your existing low and marshy land for development. This project would appear to me to be for the benefit of accepting the drainage or making a system that can accept the drainage of parcels that were developed before the advent of the Rice Creek Watershed District. With their rules and regulations, we are 9 prohibited from developing in such a way that we decrease the flow of water beyond that ., (Changed Tape) . MAYOR CRICHTON: That is correct, A;l of the properties are subject to the Rice Creek watershed District's quality con- trol. What is being proposed here is an attempt to get the (inaudible) flow of water in this district under control so that you and others are not flooded. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: It's possible that one can also argue that of all the people benefitted, you are benefitted more than anyone because these are all pieces of property figured at equal c.a. factors. If that c.a. factor is correct on developed and undeveloped property, then this project is, needed as it stands. At least we can argue that, but it could be needed (inaudible) 15% c.a. factor. If that is more than will actually occur, then we have to cut down on the undeveloped property. We would have to enlarge that ponding (inaudible) so of all the people who could lose land by this are those that are undeveloped. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: We will lose land or you gain land by regulations of the Watershed District which will control the size of that pond, as I understand the system of regulation. The way we could benefit would be if the project would relieve us from those regulations which, I understand, it will not. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It would relieve you to the extent that you would not have to provide ponding for the entire drainage area, only to the extent of your land. It would also benefit as far as the Tri-State property. There is a large open ditch along the north side of Grey Fox Road. If placed on a conduit, that ditch could then be filled. You would gain additional property. Granted, it may not be used for building, per se, but for landscaping, access to your property, whatever. The size of the pond, if the Rice Creek Watershed adopts the plan, Arden Hills' plan, the size of your pond would be greatly reduced over what they would expect you to provide today. I'm not certain exactly what they expect you to provide, but my understanding is that they expect you to provide that low area, which they consider the widening of the ditch, for ponding, for everything. If they approve the plan, then you would only have to provide sufficient ponding just for your property, which would greatly reduce the amount of water, or the amount of area necessary for ponding. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: We are going through something that I guess is imponderable - what the Rice Creek Watershed District would or would not do with our property. It's probably not (inaudible). I would just simply like to sum up that the posi- tion of Tri-State Land Company is that we are well able to, through ponding, handle the storm water problems that will be created by development on that property in such a way that we will discharge, even considering the natural flows of water that are now being accelerated by adjacent developments, that we will be able to discharge a flow of water that is no greater 10 than what fore, the property. now exists in the natural state storm sewer project itself will We object to the project. of the property. There- be of no benefit to our MAYOR CRICHTON: It will be duly noted. Are there further ~ comments or questions from the audience? MR. COLESTOCK: Mr. Mayor, I think one of the things that has not been discussed here is the necessity, as far as the County is concerned, and probably the State will become involved too, is the widening and paving of Lexington from Grey Fox Road to Highway 694 and probably beyond. I don't know what the plans are for that. It's obvious that since they have already put in the storm sewer and paved from County Road E down to Grey Fox Road. . . MAYOR CRICHTON: That's correct. The County has plans for doing it and that is not our purview tonight. MR. COLESTOCK: I understand that they are not. However, I think that one of the things to be considered is that that paving is something that, and widening of the road and conse- quent extension of that storm sewer, is something that's going to be necessary if the plans of the City of Arden Hills and the City of Shoreview are going to come to a logical conclusion. Because, as Mr. Christoffersen pointed out, if I understand this correctly, the area north of 694 is going to have its natural drainage redirected. We're not talking now about that drainage ditch coming down Lexington Avenue, but rather we're talking about ponding areas and ditches being constructed north of the highway and coming across to the northwest there. MAYOR CRICHTON: Parts of Shoreview's drainage will still come under 694. MR. COLESTOCK: Right. So I think that one of the things that has to be looked at here is that the widening of Lexington Avenue, the construction of the storm water sewer, is not to the benefit of the property owners. It's to the benefit of the County and the State. I think it should be viewed that way as far as the cost of this project is concerned. . with tion MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: that same context - to this project been If I might ask one question in line has Ramsey County, has their obliga- set by any agreement? . MAYOR CRICHTON; There is no signed agreement as such, but the distribution of costs among Shoreview, Arden Hills, the County and the State has been estimated and the County has indi- cated a willingness to pay their share. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: And that has already been reduced from the amount that has been calculated in the engineer's estimates? MAYOR CRICHTON: Yes. Are there any further comments or questions? 11 . MR. CLIFF LUND, Roberts properties: We own approximately 30 acres of land in the North Lexington Park Industrial area. Basically, our feeling is that although upgrading of Lexington Avenue is probably something that is nec~ssary, we do not feel that we can justify the cost of assessments that will be tacked onto our property for the storm sewer assessment and we do not see a need for extension of Grey FOX Road due to the fact that there is no longer a cross-over on Snelling Avenue, which a few years ago made it possible for someone coming from the north to get into the project without going up to Lexington Avenue. In general, I have a letter here that I would like to submit to the Council. Basically it's our feeling that we just cannot go along with what you are proposing without seeing more benefit. MAYOR CRICHTON: from the president of proposed project.. Let the record show that we have a letter Roberts Construction objecting to the MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: Now might be the time - I've been sketching my letter here (inaudible). MAYOR CRICHTON: Company. (Inaudible) further comments? A handwritten letter from Tri-State Land this is part of the record. Do I hear MR. GEORGE REILING, 661 Heinel Drive, Roseville: I don't have a letter but I suppose I should object. We own that land westerly of the hotel - about 30 acres. We have been assessed already on Grey Fox Road. We have a storm sewer running both west and east to the open ditch on one side. I'm wondering, if it is contemplated, if we should be assessed because they are closing up the ditch, putting a pipe in it. Is that contem- plated? MAYOR CRICHTON: At the moment, the proposal is covering all of the land that is affected by the drainage one way or the other. The actual assessments will be determined at the assessment hearing. MR. GEORGE REILING: So what you're saying is don't com- plain now, Mr. Reiling, wait until you see the assessment. MAYOR CRICHTON: I'm sure the Council is interested in knowing (inaudible). MR. GEORGE REILING: What I'm saying is that if there is an assessment, then I will object. . MAYOR CRICHTON: There will be an assessment hearing that will determine the amount and the proportion in that location. If the project goes ahead an~7ay there will be an assessment hearing. Hearing no further comments then I will close the public hearing and ask the Council if they have questions or comments or how they would like to proceed. 12 . COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: I would like to ask the engineer to indicate a little bit of how the 36 inch of the north/south (in- audible) 36 inches in diameter, relates to the industrial area to the west. Obviously that water would have to go somewhere after it leaves the settling basins and holding ponds. The 36 inch, I believe, as previously indicated, it's going to take more .than just that little bit (inaudible). MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The 36, the 30 inch ahd 36 along Lexington is proposed to begin to take storm water right at the very beginning. It will drain, tracing a line, it begins approximately mid-point of Red Fox Road, northerly along the north ramps of the interstate to the easterly portion of the drainage boundary. In part, it will drain down to Island Lake Road and then at this intersection with Grey Fox Road and then run diagonally, you might say back up to the point of beginning. That's the general area the 36 inch is proposed to drain. It would also conduct drainage after a major storm has occurred. It will also conduct drainage from the area of Shoreview, gener- ally south of Gramsie Road and east of the north-south road. I don't know the name of that particular street, but east of there to the drainage boundary. So that's where the existing drainage will corne from to this pipe along here. It will be introduced into the storm sewer system as it runs southerly to Grey Fox Road. MAYOR CRICHTON: Mr. Christoffersen, today, as I under- stand it, all of the drainage north of 694 crosses 694 in a southerly direction near Lexington Avenue and ends up in that ditch on Lexington Avenue. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. MAYOR CRICHTON: This proposal would divert all of the Arden Hills area north of 694 and most of the Shoreview area north of 694 westerly through that other pond and more directly into Bethel Ditch or the Bethel property. So you are consider- ably reducing the amount of water going down Lexington Avenue, south of 694. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. MAYOR CRICHTON: That reduction, as I understand it, is still not enough to enable Grey Fox Road's current sewer, storm sewer, to take what is left. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. Assuming ultimate' . development. MAYOR CRICHTON: When you say all of the development, there won't be any more water coming (inaudible). MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Assuming the development, as proposed - with the outside detention basins and considering the areas as they have been developed. 13 MAYOR CRICHTON: Assuming no development or development under those conditions. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Right. . MAYOR CRICHTON: We have so much going down there now that it won't handle it. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. And the reason it appears it's handling it is because of the tremendous amount of ponding in that ditch and also currently pending in the freeway, flooding the intersections at times. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: and 50 year floods. This design criteria? We were aware of the' 100 year floods 36 inch now, as proposed, what is the MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It's based on a five year frequency storm. A type of storm that could be expected to happen once every five years, although that's not a promise. It could happen twice in one year. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Are we getting any pressure from the State to do this after it flooded badly in 1978 - because they're concerned over their freeway? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Obviously the State is concerned. The State requested some alterations to the plan as proposed in 1974. This plan reflects those alterations. The plan in 1974 con- sidered - was very similar in nature to this. The State has proposed what I described - that they were going to construct - primarily to protect their freeway from a 50 year storm. They are planning to pay for this. As a result of that, what they are doing causes us - it enables the design of this storm sewer to be a smaller size than what was proposed originally. So what the State is proposing is of benefit. There were some problems with their picking up their fair share. I believe that they are at this time and by doing what they propose to do, I be- lieve, in my opinion, it reduces the overall cost to Shoreview and Arden Hills and Ramsey County. MAYOR CRICHTON: Any further questions? . COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: In a very preliminary manner we have previously reviewed that combined 42 and the 48. I am aware of the road coming down from the north, Grey Fox Road, and goes into that 42. Then the additional 48, I guess I am still having a little bit of a problem of just how much of that 48 is neces- sary, recognizing that you have that 30/36 coming in from the south. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The 48 is necessary because the 42 does not have the capacity to carry the projected flows, beginning at the point of Grey Fox and Lexington. If it is pro- posed, under this plan, to utilize the 48 and the 42 inch (inaudible). In other words, in a five year frequency storm, 14 . both of the storm sewers would be operating. In evidence of that, if the 48 were not constructed, it would probably require a 60 inch to be constructed over to Lexington Avenue on Grey Fox Road. We have attempted to reduce the cost by using the existing 42 inch. So the volumes of flows that are projected at Grey Fox Road and Lexington have been taken into account. Those flows (inaudible) . COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Can these ponding areas that we speak of (inaudible) can they assist in controlling the flow into the existing 42, such that we can control it at the source end and not have to put a 48 in? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Are you speaking of the undeveloped area south of the freeway? The design has taken into account that all of the undeveloped areas will only produce a run-off equivalent to what exists today. So as they develop, you can expect - if they were developed without ponding - you could expect larger amounts of flow to occur. Thus larger storm sewer if there was not ponding there. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: What would be your option to this 36 inch if Ramsey County said we're going ahead now and we're going to widen the road, we have to have someplace to put the water. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I don't know if there is any option at. this time. We have considered several different drainage plans. We have even considered plans that had not even been presented to the Council. In our initial investigation - we have investi- gated taking pipe down Red FOX Road, trying to find other routing for storm sewer. Really the most practical routing is the way we have it shown. The most economical. MAYOR CRICHTON: Is there storm sewer existing now on Red Fox Road? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Just at the two ends. MR. GEORGE REILING: You're aware that the State intends to dig out their (inaudible) between the highway and the approaches? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, sir. That's part of the plan. . MR. GEORGE REILING: That didn't come forward - to tell the people that that's going to hold a great deal of ponding water. In addition to that, they intend to buy two or three. acres from us on the north side. If that is going to occur, I fail to see why those pipes aren't large enough on this side. Especially after the diversion from.the north end. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Mr. Reiling, we have been working in conjunction with the State on this and this plan takes into account everything that they're planning. As a matter of fact, about a week ago I had the State verify my computations on hydraulics and I was advised that they fit very well. As a 15 . . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It will begin approximately a 30 inch and go to a 36. It depends on where water is introduced from Shoreview. We show a 36. But ultimately, depending on how the County proposes inlets, the 36 on the lower end may end up to be a 42 or 48. It depends on the water. This all takes into account all of the drainage that the County is undertaking and what the State has planned to do. MR. GEORGE REILING: What size is the pipe going down Grey Fox Road? ~ ~ r t I ! I ; , , , t t matter of fact, the hydraulics engineer from the State indicated to me it is a well designed plan. . MR. GEORGE REILING: If you're goin~ to close the ditch and put a pipe in on the west side of Lexingtbn Avenue, what size is that pipe going to be? The ditch that's open now, if it's closed. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Grey Fox Road is 42 inch and the 48 inch is parallel. We intend to use both of those together until the existing 42 runs out. Then we'll make a connection with a large manhole and it will flow into a 60 inch. From that point on it will be a 72 inch. MR. GEORGE REILING: That 72 and 60 isn't installed.. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No, sir. That is part of the plan. After discussion, Councilman ~oodburn moved that the Council table consideration of Improvement No. ST-81-2. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hollenhorst. Motion carried unanimously. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) . I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey county, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said city held on the date therein indicated with the original of said minutes on file in my office and that said extract is a full, true and correct transcript of said minutes, insofar as they relate to the proposed construction of Improvement No. ST-81-2 under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this of April, 1981. day (SEAL) City Clerk Administrator 16 . . , Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minne~ota March 30, 1981 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, March 30, 1981, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Crichton and Councilmen Johnson, McAllister, Woodburn and Hollenhorst; and the following were absent: None. Also present were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Adminis- trator; Donald Christoffersen, City Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. popovich, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR CRICHTON: We will proceed into the public hearing on Improvement No. P-81-l, Grey Fox Road, involving Resolution No. 81-22. This public hearing involves the possibility of the City improving and joining the sections of Grey Fox Road and the industrial area off of Lexington Avenue, improving them up to the M.S.A. standards. Would the Clerk Administrator verify that affidavits of publication and mailing are on file. CHARLOTTE McNIESH: Yes, the certificate of mailing indi- cates that the notices were deposited in the New Brighton Post Office on March 17 and the notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on March 19 and March 26. MAYOR CRICHTON: Thank you. Would our engineer, Mr. Christoffersen, briefly explain the improvement. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Members of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Grey FOX Road is, as the Mayor said, a municipal state aid street. If I could call your attention to this drawing, County Road E is in this location, State Trunk Highway 51 is here, Snelling Avenue, Lexington Avenue is over in this location. The M.S.A. road designation for Grey Fox Road in- cludes Grey Fox Road from Lexington Avenue at this point to its junction with Snelling Avenue up at this point. In other words, this is all a portion of the designated M.S.A. street. Arden Hills has placed Grey Fox Road as a number one priority in the M.S.A. system. It is proposed to construct Grey Fox Road from . . ,- this point, which is just south, this is a frontage road, from this point which is just before it turns to the north, clear over to Lexington Avenue. Currently Grey Fox Road is a 32 foot wide street extending to this portion, it has ~urb and gutter and it was designed as a nine ton load. On this side it's a 32 foot wide street, it does not have curb and gutter, and it has a nine ton structural load. As proposed, there are two alternatives. One is to con- struct a road 36 feet wide, a typical section as shown in this, 36 feet wide between curb and gutter, or 46 feet wide. So this would be, instead of 36 it would be 46. There are two proposals. Construct concrete curb and gutter up to the standard M.S.A. requirements. As mentioned, Grey Fox Road does not extend com- pletely through so it would require the construction, or to build practically from scratch, this segment of road between Dunlap and the western portion, the easterly portion of the western part of Grey Fox Road. There are existing utilities to consider in this potential construction. This illustrates the sanitary sewer wi thin the vicinity.. As you'll notice, it goes up near where the railroad spur line was located and also, another segment goes easterly on Grey Fox Road, it terminates at this point. There is no sanitary sewer in this location for Grey Fox Road. We have investigated this to determine whether or not there would be a sewer extended on the westerly portion. It cannot physically be constructed because the elevation of this sewer is higher than the road at this one location. Therefore, there are two potential properties that may need sanitary sewer on this westerly portion, one being the segment here which is owned by Tri-State Land Company, I believe, and the other one is an open space in this area, next to the (inaudible) trucking terminal I believe. Sewer service in this area will have to be from this direction over to the sewer and can be achieved because it's higher ground, it's much higher than the road it- self, so additional sewers would have to be constructed UP in this area somewhere. Down in this area, the sewer to serve this piece of land if it was ever developed would have to be sewered back to this manhole. By the way, there is another portion of property in this location, it has had some activity in the past, it's behind the Gould property. There have been questions of how they will get sanitary sewer in that location. This is in a very flat grade and is very shallow. It was proposed under this proposed street improvement to construct a stub off to the property line for future extension back to this property. There is another potential that the property owner may wish to consider in the' development of this, and that's to connect to an existing sani- tary sewer in Shoreview. This would take action by the Shore- view Council and the Arden Hills Council if that was to occur. So there are two potentials on that. That is the only sanitary sewer proposed on this particular improvement. Existing water facilities are shown, watermain running again up to Grey Fox Road, westerly in this direction all the way 2 . . . along the south side and to the north, I mean easterly and to the north, and then from this point westerly. There are sufficient water facilities in Grey FOX Road so no further mainline con- struction will be necessary. It may be ~ecessary, however, to install a stub, a 12 inch stub to the north to serve potential development on this property. Even though there is a stub in this location, it may be necessary to make another stub. MAN FROM AUDIENCE: Will you repeat the description of the water on Grey Fox Road running easterly to Lexington. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Grey Fox Road (inaudible) from under- neath the spur line over to Lexington Avenue. MAN FROM AUDIENCE: What is the necessity for that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It's already in, sir. The only thing that we're proposing under this is a small stub to serve the property in this location. The reason I'm showing it is to show what potential development (inaudible). MAN FROM AUDIENCE: I was just a little confused because we have an eight inch service coming in. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. The estimated traffic on the easterly portion of the road at Lexington Avenue is 3500, this is on ultimate development, 3500 average daily traffic. The central portion, in the spur line, is 1500, and in the westerly portion it's 700. 700 at this location, 1500 at this location, and 3500 at this location. It is our recommendation to the Council that the roadway be constructed 36 feet in width rather than the proposed 46 feet. If it was constructed 36 feet in width, there would be restricted parking on one side. The side most logical to restrict parking would be on the south side, primarily because of the existing driveways and site dis- tances at the spur line railroad tracks and also for turning movements at Lexington Avenue. I believe that concludes my portion of the presentation. MAYOR CRICHTON: I would like to ask now that our bond consultant, Mr. Popovich, briefly explain the financing that will be involved. . MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, we pub- lished a total cost of $543,900.00 on the project, assuming a 46 foot wide street. If the alternate is determined to be 36 feet, the total cost would be $482,900.00. There are 4,400 . feet of frontage. If the property is assessed at 100% for the improvement, the 46 foot street improvement would be $124.00 per front foot and if the 36 foot street improvement it would be $110.00 per foot. At this particular point in time, as you know, the Council has not determined what the length of the assessments would be, whether it would 10 years, 15 years or 20 years. My recommendation, for purposes of tonight's meeting, would be that we consider at least, and no more than 15 years. 3 . . ." That's because of money market conditions and the high interest rate. In order to achieve an interest rate on our bond issue, the necessary financing, you have to be within that 15 year period. Even in the 15 year period interest rates on our bonds in today's market, assuming they are the:same several months from now when we go into the market, would be at least 8%. If you run it on longer than that, then obviously interest rates are going up and I have seen some up at 20 years that are now at 9% or more. There is not much demand in long term bonds now and so the emphasis these last few months, in fact for the greater part of this last year, has been for 15 years or less. So at least for tonight's meeting that would be my recommendation, that at the time of the bond issue, conditions being the same, that we would have a 15 year amortization for the assessments. Assuming that the project is completed this year, so that an assessment hearing could be held this fall, the first assessments would then appear along with the 1982 tax collections. If it wasn't done this year and we have to have the assessments in 1982, for collection in 1983, then the first one could start in 1983, for 15 years beyond that point. Under the new law that was enacted by the last legislative session, the interest rate on assessments, for those who deter- mine to let their assessments go along with their real estate taxes, that interest rate can be that amount provided by the Local Improvement Code or 1% more than what. we receive on'our bonds. That, of course, is a determination that the Council would make prior to the assessment hearing because then the project would be done and the financing would be accomplished. The 1% override, assuming 8%, would then be a 9% carrying charge, using that as the example, on the unpaid balance of any assess- ments that were not prepaid in full. Under our procedure here, we have a second hearing, tonight is the feasibility hearing as to the project itself, whether to go with 46 feet or 36 feet or even abandon it for that matter, but then we have a second hearing where they actually come in and challenge a particular assessment. Then assuming that that period has gone by, there is a 30 day period to pay in full without any interest penalty and then the assessments are spread with real estate taxes and then people can prepay thereafter by paying interest to the end of the year in which they make the payment. Assuming an assess- ment hearing in 1981, in October let's say, they would have 30 days during the month of October that there would be no interest penalty. It is then certified to the County and from that point on they would have to pay interest to the end of 1982. If they decide to let it go until 1982 or 1983 and pay it in 1984, they would then pay interest to the end of 1984 and save the remaining 12 years under a IS-year assessment. Of course, the choice is the individual's. As I pointed out, this is projected at 100% assessments. Obviously at the time of the assessment hearing, if the Council determines that any portion of this should be picked up by general taxes or some other source, that's a determination you make then, not tonight. So the worst possible picture has been given tonight. We don't have to make that anticipatory decision, 4 . whether it be 100% or something less, until the time of the assessment hearing. Under the new law, and it was also enacted last legislative session, people, in order to have their objec- tions considered, must either appear in person at the Council meeting, as some of them are here tonignt, or they must file a written petition, or written statement that would be on record. If none are filed, then obviously they have waived their right to object. That's part of the new law that was just passed here in the last legislative session. other than that, I will be avail- able to answer any questions. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Your Honor, I must apologize. I left out a couple of portions of my presentation. (Changed Tape) One portion is the drainage improvement to drain Grey Fox Road. As you know, we have catch basins that are indicated and that's within the scope of this improvement. However, the improvement following this one that will be heard, ST-81-2, a storm drainage improvement, which is proposed to run from the east end of Grey Fox Road to the west end, that will be held separately this evening. The details of that will be described later. So this road, the only portion of drainage included are the catch basins and leads. Another portion that I believe is important is that this particular segment of road, it is proposed to salvage the majority of the road and only widen to the north. Because of a potential storm sewer conflict, it is proposed to take out the curb and gutter on the north and widen to the north appropriately, thus saving as much of the old bituminous and curb and gutter on the south side as possible. There will be some replacement of curb and gutter on the south side, only in those areas where necessary. After it is widened and curb and gutter installed on the north side and a proposed overlay for this portion of the street only. MAYOR CRICHTON: One quick question, to be sure the Council understands you. The catch basins - if the Council chooses not to proceed with this improvement, are those catch basins essential to the drainage project that comes up in the next public hearing? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: to be some inlets in that the road is improved it's Not necessarily. There obviously have area and there are quite a few, and if necessary to have those. MAYOR CRICHTON: I would like at this time to open the meeting to comments or questions from the audience. .Prior to doing that I would like to ask the Clerk if there are any written questions, objections or comments. . CHARLOTTE McNIESH: Yes, we received one this evening. "Dear Mayor and Council: This letter constitutes the notice required by M.S.A. section 429.061,Subd. 1, that R. L. Gould and Company objects to all proposed assessments against any real estate owned by R. L. Gould and Company at, near or adja- cent to 3711 North Lexington Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, in the City of Arden Hills, which assessments are the subject of a Council hearing this 30th day of March, 1981. We believe, but 5 . . are not sure, that the project numbers are P-81-2 or ST-81-2 and P-81-1. However, it is our intention to object to all assess- ments. The objections of R. L. C~uld and Company at this stage of investigation, and based on the minimal facts presently available to us, include but are not limited to the following: (1) the assessments exceed the special benefits and market value added to the property; (2) the City has not followed the proce- dural requirements of Minn. Stat. Sec. 429.01,. et seq.; (3) the problems and improvements for which the assessment is proposed are of general benefit to the community and must be funded by general revenues; (4) the assessment formula used by the City is arbitrary and unreasonable; (5) the special assessments constitute a taking of property without compensation in violation .of the State and United States constitutions and 42 U.S.C. See; 1983. We reserve the right to make other objections as investigation may warrant, including the objection that the assessment is not uniform upon the same class of property. We request that the Council continue the hearing to a date at least two weeks from the date of this hearing so that our legal counsel may meet with City staff and may have the time to examine the total assessment and present our position in a more detailed manner to the City Council." Signed "Roger B. Brostrom, Executive vice president, R. L. Gould & Company". MAYOR CRICHTON: Thank you. We have a good start from that. I'd like to open up the floor to arty other questions or comments from any land owners or any interested parties. I'd like to ask that you, before speaking, give your name and address for the record. The floor is open. Any comments? MR. COLESTOCK, representing Hunter Sales property: I apologize for not having had a letter in stating our position on the property, but I have been out of town and I find that I . MAYOR CRICHTON: No need for that. This is the time for questions. MR. COLESTOCK: However, I think that the Gould letter, which I was not aware of, set the thing out exceedingly well. It brings up points which came to my mind as the engineer had outlined the proposed road, widening, and additional road. One of the things, of course, in particular that I would query is the fact that the roads that exist in the industrial park today are quite adequate for the industrial park. And, while I can understand the desire on the part of the City of Arden Hills, to want the road to go through, to continue to the highway as an advantageous way of emptying traffic and handling traffic, that, I might point out, is not the problem of the industrial park. It certainly is one in which. a lot of traffic is going to be added to the traffic load that exists there now that serves the park in no way whatsoever. I also think that, in view of the fact that the proposed extension of the road serves the City itself, we should certainly look upon the spread of the costs of this project over the entire Village. I see that as a very justifiable approach to the situation as far as 6 . . , . financing. NOvl, while Mr. Popovich was talking, I did a little quick arithmetic here and we have a 435 foot frontage which, assuming that, and only for the widening of the road, assuming they go'for the narrower road, we would be looking at roughly $80,000 in cash outlay as our part of the assessment. And, if I took Mr. Popovich's 9% or 1% over the bonding rate for the 15 years, averaged at 4 1/2% for 15 years would be 67 1/2% to add to that bill. So now we have $47,850 of direct assessment, $32,000 interest. I see no justification for that whatsoever. It does nothing for us, it serves no purpose as far as we're con- cerned, it does not add to the value of the property, and I object. ~.YOR CRICHTON: Are there any further comments? MR. WAYNE BERKLAND, Attorney for Tri-state Land Company: Tri-State Land Company is an owner of some property in this area. I must apologize first because I was here late and didn't hear the entire presentation but as I pieced it together, at least the end, am I correct in assuming that these projected assess- ments are against the property adjoining the entire length of this proposed and existing roadway in equal amounts? MAYOR CRICHTON: Yes, as suggested by the engineer. MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: And that the City is proposing to assess 100% of this road construction against those particular properties? MAYOR CRICHTON: The decision is 100% assessment against the properties. That's what the discussion was about - whether it should be 100% or. . . MR. WAYNE BERKLAND: First of all, that leads Tri-State Land Company to two particular objections to the project. First, we have an existing road that services the Tri-State Land Com- pany property in this industrial development. Obviously an additional width of the road or an extension of the road is of no direct immediate benefit in giving access to Tri-State Land Company to the property. The other problem, and that compounds the unfairness of assessments. Of course, somebody who has no access from a road may get the same proposed assessment. The other thing that I consider, again coming very late (inaudible). I should backtrack. Is there a petition to the Council "that has initiated this project? MAYOR CRICHTON: No. Perhaps if anyone wishes to correct me, our City's comprehensive plan has indicated that this road would be built to go through. This .has come up now because it appears there is some discuss.ion of storm drainage which may very well impact this particular road and this might be the right time to do this road too. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: To correct or amplify something else, this is not a proposal to - this is not an assessment hearing. 7 . . Ther'e is no proposal now to assess you any number of dollars or in any certain way. You are incorrect in making the assumption that this will cost you this much. (Inaudible). . MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: I am aware of the fact that this is a project area and we're looking at a project. I am also aware of the fact that if the project occurs it's going to cost a substan- tial sum of money. with that worst case we differ tremendously. With the better cases, our differences may dwiridle. But the fact remains again, if this is coming out of a comprehensive plan, it only seems to indicate to me that this is a project that affects many more people in the City of Arden Hills than the people in this industrial park area. Had it affected only that portion of people, I'm sure you would have been here acting on a petition from those affected people in the industrial park area or in the immediate area that needed road access. The fact that no such petition has been presented to this Council and the fact that this is part of a planning project or part of a comprehensive plan study indicates to me that there are some significant City- wide reasons for constructing the road.' I'm not familiar with any of the projects. All I can say is that to the extent there are City-wide interests involved, it seems to me only fair that the City bear the cost of the project to the extent that this project is proposed to be 100% against a few property owners that happen to be unlucky enough to own property immediately adjacent to this link-up stretch in the City road system. I just want to say that Tri-State Land Company would have to lodge the strongest protest that it can. In fact, with that concept, we'd have no real choice, I don't think, but to try to fight the project it- self because of the extremely large nature of the assessments that would be levied against Tri-state Land Company. MAYOR CRICHTON: That's the key point to discuss tonight, the value of the project itself, regardless of how it might or might not be assessed. Are there anv further comments from the audience on this particular project?~ MR. ORRIN EIDSMOE, President of R. L. Gould & Company: The reasons that we did not, we were a little inquirious of the (inaudible) objection to each one of the proposals was that we had two letters, one of them was p-8l~1 and one of them was ST-81-2, anyway, the real estate one here had some different, we had three different ones here. I want to be sure that I make it plain that we object to all of them. MAYOR CRICHTON: We appreciate your interest and attendance. Are there any further questions or comments from the audience? Then with that I will close this particular public hearing for Improvement P-8l-l and ask the Council if they would like to proceed with any discussion or questions on the project. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: I think we have done a lot of studying on this and it's been with us quite a while, so there are very few questions that we can answer that have come up new - one perhaps has - it was alluded, Mr. Popovich, that the procedural 8 . . necessities had not been followed in this proceeding. Can you clarify that? MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members,of:the Council, as the Gould letter was read, being a lawyer myself, I gathered that it was the boiler-plate type of language. You make allegations. Obviously the Council, in considering the letter, must consider the points they have raised. But remember, all it is is an alle- gation rather than a statement of fact that must be provable later. As to the procedural item, we followed the same procedure here that we have in our other issues. The Council has had a resolution, it's had a preliminary report, the report has come back, they set the hearing, there's been published notice, there's been actual notice, there's been mailed notice, the people are here. Due process, from a procedural point of view, has been followed so far as I have been able to ascertain as our office has had the interchange with the City staff. So I don't see that as a problem at all. It's an allegation without any speci- ficity given as to where we failed. I don't believe we have failed and it would have to be proven that our office or the City staff was wrong somewhere and that we slipped up. One other com- ment while I'm on my feet - as you know, while there was no peti- tion, as such, the fact of the matter is, the law does not require a petition. The purpose of a petition, of course, is to initiate a project that comes that route, but the CounciL, on its own initiative, can initiate something for public discussion. It doesn't mean it's going to go through, but it has the same effect. The difference, however, then when there's a petition, as the Council knows - maybe all the people here don't - if a petition comes in you only need three votes out of five. But when the Council initiates it you need four out of five. I'm sure, Wayne, if you review the law, you know the Local Improve- ment Code provides for that. The other aspect on which I thought there would be more of a discussion - obviously we gave the worst picture, 100%. Under the law, in order to sell bonds without a vote of the people, we have to assess at least 20%. But the Council has the discretion, looking at the benefits, and obviously that's something that we determine in actuality against each parcel prior to the assessment hearing. These are just estimates at this particular point in time. Somewhere between the 20% and the 100%, you might have a different variety'. All the people might get up and say, we'd go for it if it were 20% assessed, the Council on the other hand would say 80% is too much to put on general taxes for the City as a whole. On the other hand, (inaudible) we go for 75%, you pick up 25%, that's a matter for Council determination. Now, whether that goes to feasibility or not, it really goes to the assessment propriety and whether or not the benefit is there. Obviously we assess property based on benefits. We're assuming, for purposes of tonight's meeting, that all of the property will be assessed to the extent of 100% of the improvement. That, of course, is where, rather than just making an allegation that there is no benefit, they would show where there are no benefits. MAYOR CRICHTON: Do we have any further comments or ques- tions from the Council? 9 . . . , COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Since this particular project has such a close relationship to the project that's forthcoming in the next hearing, I guess I would prefer that no specific action be taken until we have also heard that beca~se of its direct rela- tionship. Councilman Johnson tion of Improvement No. Councilman Hollenhorst. moved that the Council table considera- P-Bl-l. The motion was seconded by Motion carried unanimously. STATE OF MINNESOTA } } 55 COUNTY OF RAMSEY } I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date therein indicated with the original of said minutes on file in my office and that said extract is a full, true and correct transcript of said minutes, insofar as they relate to the proposed construction of Improvement No. P-Bl-l under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this of April, 19B1. day City Clerk Admlnistrator (SEAL) 10